Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-05-1988 NAH MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON THE 5TH DAY OF JANUARY 1988 THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:02 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Secretary Grindstaff. ROLL CALL: ~ PRESENT: Commissioners: Brown, Mellinger, Kelley, Brinley and Washburn ABSENT: Commissioners: None Also present were Community Development Planner Libiez, Assistant Planner Magee Wilkins. Director Miller, Senior and Associate Planner MINUTE ACTION Motion by Commissioner Brown to approve minutes of December 15, 1987, as submitted, second by Commissioner Mellinger. Approved 4-0 (Commissioner Brinley abstaining) PUBLIC COMMENTS Chairman Washburn asked the Secretary if there were any request to address the Commission. The Secretary answered in the negative. There being no requests to address the Commission, Chairman Washburn closed the PUBLIC COMMENTS section. PUBLIC HEARINGS ,... 1. Conditional Use Permit 87-17 - Industrial Concepts I (Bob Fight) - Assistant Planner Magee presented request to allow a sandwich shop in a Commercial Manufacturing Zoning District pursuant to Section 17.54.030 Item "D" of the Zoning Code. Located on the southwest corner of Chaney and Minthorn, 551 Chaney Street Unit "A" of Building 7 within the Chaney Street Center. Chairman Washburn opened the public hearing at 7:06 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of Conditional Use Permit 87-17. Mr. Steve Brown, representing Industrial Concepts I, stated that they agree with staff recommendation, and would answer any questions the Commission may have. - Chairman Washburn asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak in favor of Conditional Use Permit 87-17. Receiving no response, Chairman Washburn asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Receiving no response, Chairman Washburn asked if anyone wished to speak on the matter. Receiving no response, Chairman Washburn closed the public hearing at 7:07 p.m. Commissioner Brown asked why seating is being provided if it is all take out food, referring to condition number 6. Assistant Planner Magee stated that this was an option given in case Mr. Fight decided to install tables later, and believes that the maximum capacity established by the Fire Marshal would be 20. Commissioner Brown asked if under the Conditional Use Permit if we were not stating take out food only, and the applicant would have to reapply for a sit-down restaurant. Assistant Planner Magee stated that the Conditional Use Permit is to allow a food service use within the Commercial Manufacturing District. Minutes of Planning Commission January 5, 1988 Page 2 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 87-17 - INDUSTRIAL CONCEPTS ~ (BOB FIGHT) CONTINUED Discussion at the table ensued on restaurants with table seating as opposed to take out only and if there would be any difference in parking requirements; parking requirements for restaurants, customer service and kitchen area, being defined in the Zoning Code. - commissioner Brown stated that this is something that the Commis- sion may wish to address at a study session; differentiate between restaurants that only have take out food and ones that have seating where people would remain on the premises. commissioner Brown recommended that condition number 6 be deleted, or have it state take out food only, since this was the applipcant's request. It can be brought back under an amend- ment or additional application if the seating is to change. Commissioner Mellinger commented stated that there should not be premises after 6:00 p.m. Commissioner Brinley asked if the restaurant would be opened on weekends. on the hours of operation and any customer service on the Mr. Fight stated that they would not be open on Sunday, but possibly on Saturday depending upon the demand. Chairman Washburn stated that if the area is partly to service the people that are there, such as the school district, and they are walking to the site they are not creating a parking problem, if they choose to sit down at a few tables inside. __ Chairman Washburn called Mr. Fight to the podium to address interior seating, condition number 6. Mr. Fight referred to the floor plan and stated that his hope was to eventually put in some seats, 12 or 14 seats, but first wants to go out and deliver to the people right there in the area, Warm Springs Industrial Park. A lengthy discussion at the table ensued on interior seating; possible parking problems and parking demand; proposal meeting the parking requirements even if it were a sit-down restaurant with 20 seats; County Fire Department approval; reviewing proposal after six months to see if there is a need for seating and if there is a parking problem; amending the application for a restaurant, take out food and in house eating. Mr. Fight stated that he would not put in any tables, but would like to have a 7 foot x 8 foot counter with seven (7) stools, and would amend the application and come back for review later on if additional seating was necessary. Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to adopt Negative Declaration 87-39 and approve Conditional Use Permit 87-17 based on the Findings and the 6 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff -- Report with the following amendments: Condition No.6: "Interior seating shall not exceed ten (10) stools." "Hours of operation shall be between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m." Condition No.7: Second by Commissioner Brown. Approved 5-0 Minutes of Planning Commission January 5, 1988 Page 3 - 2. Amendment 88-1 City of Lake Elsinore - Associate Planner Wilkins presented a request to amend Section 17.38.090 of the Lake Elsinore Municipal for "Non-Residential Development Standards" related to Gasoline Dispensing Establishments, which would apply City-wide. Chairman Washburn opened the pUblic hearing at 7:35 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of Amendment 88-1. Receiving no response, Chairman Washburn asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Receiving no response, Chairman Washburn asked if anyone wished to speak on the matter. Receiving no response, Chairman Washburn closed the pUblic hearing at 7:36 p.m. Commissioner Mellinger commented on Item setbacks for pumps, stating that his concern be sufficient circulation for the dual semi this has been taken into consideration. "B", reduction of would be that there trucks, and asked if Associate Planner Wilkins answered in the affirmative. Commissioner Mellinger commented on alcoholic beverages, Item "M", understands that we cannot ban this anymore, but there is a sunset after two (2) years on the standards that they have to meet, State Law minimum standards, and suggested that under that we reflect the standards in AB 937, permanently. Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to recommend to City Council adoption of Negative Declaration 88-1 and approval of an ordinance based upon the Findings listed in the Staff Report, with one change to Item "M" to reflect the minimum standards of r- State Law on a permanent basis, second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved 5-0 BUSINESS ITEMS 1. Negative Declaration 87-21 for Residential Project 87-4 - Curtis/ Elsinore Ranch Company - Associate Planner Wilkins presented to the Planning Commission for review and recommendation for adoption of Negative Declaration 87-21 for Residential Project 87-4 involving the construction of fifty-two (52) single-family residential units on a 9.67 acre portion of the "Town of Lucerne" subdivision. An 11.73 acre (gross) site located between Broadway Street and st. Clair Avenue on the east side of California Street, south of Robb Road. Chairman Washburn asked if the applicant had received the Condi- tions of Approval, Exhibit #6. Mr. Larry Buxton, representing the applicant, answered affirmative, stating that he would like to respond to a the conditions. in the few of - Community Development Director Miller stated the conditions that are attached as an exhibit are actually conditions of Minor Design Review, attached for informational purposes, which is delegated to staff, typically such items would not come to the Planning Commission. The reason this item is before the Commission is because of the action required upon a Negative Declaration which requires public comment and hearing, so what we are asking you to review is the Negative Declaration and the environmental impacts. Chairman Washburn asked Mr. Buxton if there were any new condi- tions included that he would like to address, at this time. Mr. Buxton stated that he would like to indicate that the Hydrology Study that has been referred to is the document Minutes of Planning Commission January 5, 1988 Page 4 NEGATIVE DECLARATION 87-21 FOR RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 87-4 - CURTIS/ ELSINORE RANCH CONTINUED provided separately from Thielmann Associates. This Hydrology ~tudy indicates that there was a new HEC-2 flood evaluation run 1n the project area. The reason for this additional hydrology evaluation was that the Premier/citation Homes projects are no longer going to be releasing water at the same point that would have impacted this tract. __ Mr. Buxton requested the following verbiage be added to condition number 9: "and as reflected on the plot plan, Exhibit #2". Mr. Buxton requested that the last sentence in condition number 15 be deleted. Mr. Buxton stated that in addition to a condition relating to condition number 15, we received a letter dated October 13, 1987, from Mr. Milo Keith, stated in the letter it says "I also indicated that the City would through its Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance District abilities collect annual fees from the tracts to assist in maintaining the temporary earth drainage facility". We would like reference to the maintenance within this condition to be that we could do it through a Lighting and Maintenance District as provided by this letter that we received from Mr. Keith. commissioner Mellinger asked if the Lighting and Landscaping fee would be collected from the fifty-two units only and what benefit would other tracts receive from this? Mr. Buxton stated that there are several parcels, about 150, below this project that would receive some degree of protection ~ from this berm. Community Development Director Miller more than willing to sit down with concerns on these conditions and solutions. stated that staff would be the applicant to discuss work out mutually agreeable commissioner Mellinger commented on the conditions stating that if the applicant does not agree to the conditions then we are looking at an Environmental Impact Report. Mr. Buxton stated that maybe a time frame could be added, say that if there was not an Assessment District in place within twelve (12) months that it might be a consideration to put in permanent irrigation system, because there is a construction period involved with the tract itself. commissioner Mellinger asked when initiated and who would put it in. the homes sold in three months, gone. Mr. Buxton responded twelve (12) months from commencement of construction on the site and the developer could post a bond. this time period would be Concern would be if all of everyone in and the developer .... Mr. Buxton requested that the words "or model" be deleted from condition number 18, and referred to letter dated July 22, 1987, from the City to Great American First savings Bank. Community Development Director Miller stated that the intention of this condition was that the infrastructure should be extended to serve whatever lots were being requested for release. Mr. Buxton stated that the letter of October 13, 1987, referred to concerning condition number 15 would also be applicable here, Minutes of Planning Commission January 5, 1988 Page 5 NEGATIVE DECLARATION 87-21 FOR RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 87-4 - CURTIS/ ELSINORE RANCH CONTINUED - and requested the following facility, condition number 49: Landscaping District". verbiage added "annexation to after the word a Lighting and Community Development Director Miller stated that the letter of October 13, 1987, was drafted at a time when a different facility was being proposed, and the city Engineer has indicated to Planning Staff that he would not support the use of the Landscaping . and Lighting Assessment District to maintain the present facility being considered as Alternative "B", and at this point in time appears to be the most likely facility. Commissioner Mellinger stated that his only question is if a Lighting and Landscaping Maintenance District can maintain a flood control facility, is it even legal--would like clarifica- tion. Secondly, is this Landscaping and Lighting District a sure thing, is it established and in effect? Mr. Buxton asked if the words "if found to be legal by the City Attorney" could be inserted. Community Development Director Miller stated that the City Engineer has recommended for alternative drainage the facility designated as "B", in the Staff Report. When that letter was written it was written in the context of a different drainage facility being proposed. The City Engineer does not believe that the drainage facility currently under discussion would be ~ appropriate to be included with such a mechanism. Chairman Washburn asked if we went with a Negative Declaration on this and we indicated to the City Engineer on deciding which plan to take, "A" or "B", he is going to determine which of these items really apply and should be applicable to the project, isn't that correct. If we go ahead and allow the Engineer, as indicated in the Staff Report, to determine Plan "A" or "B" which will provide the necessary flood proofing protection that is needed for a Negative Declaration for the Planning Department, then a lot of these things will be at the determination of the City Engineer. Community Development Director Miller responded in the affirma- tive, stating he is suggesting that the condition that states that it shall be maintained through a Lighting and Landscaping District may not be appropriate to one of those alternatives. Mr. Buxton suggested that the condition say that it could be maintained, which would leave us an option if it is found to be legal and acceptable. Commissioner Mellinger suggested the following verbiage be added to condition number 49: "maintenance to the satisfaction of the - City Engineer". Discussion at the table ensued on condition number 15 and number 49, pertaining to the maintenance of the berm and permanent facilities; major landowners in this area being lined up to participate in the Flood Control Assessment District. Mr. Buxton stated that they would like to have an option of implementing an alternative financing mechanism, be it a Lighting and Landscaping Maintenance District, Assessment District, Improvement District, or a Community Facilities District. Mr. Buxton commented on condition number 53, pertaining to the contribution of 8% of the design and construction cost of the Minutes of Planning Commission January 5, 1988 Page 6 NEGATIVE DECLARATION 87-21 FOR RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 87-4 - CURTIS/ ELSINORE RANCH CONTINUED signal, Lakeshore Drive and Machado, and requested consideration that perhaps this amount should be less than 8%, maybe more in the neighborhood of 4.4%. Mr. Buxton commented on condition number 55, pertaining to the 60-foot dedication on all perimeter streets, st. Clair,__ California and Broadway. The problem that we have with this is that we do not own the land. We provided grant deeds, Riverside County Document No. 280589, providing a full 60-foot wide right-of-way access for the existing half width streets within the Torn Ranch area, and requested that the word "dedication" be replaced with the word "right-of-way". Commissioner Mellinger stated that the Subdivision Map Act says that if there is an off-site dedication and you can't work it out within 120 days, the City will have to initiate condemnation procedures and you would have to pay for the property. Chairman Washburn commented on the applicant's reduction of the 8%, condition number 53. Asked how calculated, and if the 8% were deleted and the words inserted would this cause a problem? request for the 8% was "fair share" Associate Planner Wilkins stated that the 8% was determined by the Engineering Staff, and this should probably be addressed to the Engineering Department. Commissioner Brinley asked if this was a standard fee charged to all developers. Associate Planner Wilkins stated that this fee was being charged specifically for this area. ..... Commissioner Brown asked what point in time would this 8% have to be paid, and when would the cost be estab1ished--now as of today's date, or when the 1st building permit is pulled or, when the 52nd building permit is pulled. Associate Planner Wilkins stated that the Engineering Department will be the ones to work with the design and go through for the construction of that. Commissioner Brown stated that he would like to see some type of language in direct relationship to the impact of the tract, and what that cost would be as of today's date, or at the time of first building permit, or something where it is tied down. Mr. Buxton stated that perhaps condition number 2 satifies this requirement, which stated that all project conditions of approval are to be met prior to Building Division issuance of a Certifi- cate of Occupancy and release of utilities. Chairman Washburn stated that he see no problem with adding language, just wonders if the Engineering Department has already established policy on how they handle this, and we do not know -- what that pOlicy is. Discussion at the table ensued on what department collects fees and when these fees are collected. Commissioner Mellinger asked if the 8% was earmarked for the signal at Lakeshore and Machado. Senior Planner Libiez stated that Engineering staff was that this 8% discussion received from the was their best computation, ~ ,.-- Minutes of Planning Commission January 5, 1988 Page 7 NEGATIVE DECLARATION 87-21 FOR RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 87-4 - CURTIS/ ELSINORE RANCH CONTINUED and it would be earmarked to solve the signalization problem at Machado and Lakeshore only. Commissioner Mellinger asked if the other 92% would come from future development in the area. Community Development Director stated that all of the fees are earmarked for particular signals. The fees go into a special fund designated for traffic signals and the funding of the other percentage would come from either other development or the City'S General Fund, or other funding sources that might be identified. Considerable discussion at the table ensued on condition number 53, pertaining to the 8% being earmarked for signalization of Lakeshore and Machado only, and the fee collected not going into a City-wide Traffic Signalization General Fund: this being a direct mitigation for that intersection which should include consideration of a development agreement to implement said mitigation for the impact as identified on Page 3 of the Addendum to the Staff Report, referring to the Traffic Study which noted impaction at the completion of the fifty-two units. Commissioners Mellinger and Brown suggested that a mechanism be in place to provide the remaining 92% so that the signal can be installed when the warrant is reached. Chairman Washburn indicated that it was addressed on Page 3 of the Environmental Assessment Form, #13.1., requirement for a pro-rata contribution toward this project's share of signalization and intersection improvements for Lakeshore and Machado: signalization of that intersection, would have to be a joint effort between the City and County since three corners of the intersection are under County jurisdiction. At this time, 8:44 p.m. the Planning Commission recessed. At this time, 8:55 p.m. the Planning Commission reconvened. Discussion at the table ensued on signalization of the Machado/ Lakeshore Drive intersection: fees collected for this signaliza- tion to be earmarked for this intersection only. Commissioner Brown stated that he would like to see the 8% tied to a figure which is directly in relationship to the 52 house impact on this intersection, or an explanation of the 8%. If it is actually going to be tied to the design and construction of the signal, the cost and design should be established now. Chairman Washburn commented on condition number 16, pertaining to the front yard landscaping not related to slopes shall be the responsibility of the homeowner, stating that he would be opposed to this, on previous applications the Commission denied such -- requests. Discussion at the table ensued on retaining condition number 16, if the developer were to change, or should the developer change his mind, this would be a back-up; enforcement of this condition under CC & R's: landscaping not being tied to Certificate of Occupancy due to maintenance problems, but irrigation to be installed prior to Certificate of Occupancy. Motion by Commissioner Brown to adopt Negative Declaration 87-21 for Residential Project 87-4, based upon the Findings and the 55 Conditions of Approval (Minor Design Review) listed in the Staff Report Addendum, amending the following conditions: Minutes of Planning Commission January 5, 1988 Page 8 NEGATIVE DECLARATION 87-21 FOR RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 87-4 - CURTIS/ ELSINORE RANCH CONTINUED Condition No.9: Condition No. 15: Condition No. 18: Condition No. 49: "Related lot line adjustments and lot mergers shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act and to all the requirements of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code (L.E.M.C.), Title 16, unless modified by the Conditions of_ Approval, and reflected in the plot plan, Fine Grading Plan, Exhibit No.2. "All slopes on or off-site created by grading operations to support development of this tract shall be planted with erosion control vegetation as approved by the Planning Division and the City's Landscape Architect. All permanent slopes, three-foot (3') or greater shall be landscaped with a combination of trees, shrubs and ground cover and shall have a permanent irrrigation system installed. This shall include berms, banks or slopes created as part of the required interim flood control facility. The slopes would have to be maintained on a permanent basis if the interim facility is to last longer than one (1) year after the date of certificate of Occupancy of the 40th home. Financing for maintenance and permanent facilities may be implemented through alternative mechanisms, Assessment District, Improvement District, Community __ Facilities District, with possible City participation and cooperation with the applicant in forming said District." "Applicant shall construct all infra- structure and circulation systems necessary to serve individual lots prior to the issuance of Certificate of Occupancy for individual lots, or any release for individual or model homes. Sufficient off street parking shall be provided to serve any model complex established." "Developer shall maintain interim flood control channel and protection facility until such time as West Area Master Plan Facilities or permanent facilities constructed to satisfaction of City Engineer are in place, or other long term funding mechanisms as approved by the City. The interim flood control channel shall be maintained on a permanent basis if the interim facility is expected to last any longer than one (1) year after -- the date of Certificate of Occupancy of the 40th home." Second by Commissioner Brinley. Commissioner Mellinger asked for discussion. Discussion at the table ensued on the City's need to address the signalization issue; Drainage Study, pertaining to protection of downstream, off-site, properties; no increased flows on down- Minutes of Planning Commission January 5, 1988 Page 9 NEGATIVE DECLARATION 87-21 FOR RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 87-4 = CURTIS/ ELSINORE RANCH CONTINUED stream properties without an acceptance letter, and the City Engineer's determination that downstream property owners, to the ~ south, will not be impacted by the diversion and this being a specific finding of the City Engineer in approving these interim facilities, and if this finding cannot be made then it should come back. There being no further discussion at the table, Chairman Washburn called for the question. Approved 5-0 2. Resolution 88-1 - City of Lake Elsinore - Assistant Planner Magee presented a request to establish an elevation limitation on fence location within the Lakeshore Overlay District. The Lakeshore Drive right-of-way southwesterly to the State Park ownership boundary or elevation 1240' MSL and from Main Street northwester- ly to Iowa Street, a distance of approximately 3.45 miles. Chairman Washburn asked if there was any input received from the public. Assistant Planner Magee responded in the negative. Chairman Washburn asked how existing fences would be handled? Assistant Planner Magee stated that this would only affect new ~ fences. Commissioner Brown stated that he would like to have the following verbiage added: "at no time will the fence be lower than 1251, but at no time will be closer than five feet of the high water mark, at time of installation". Motion by Commissioner Brown to recommend adopt Resolution No. 88-1 amending Section One to read: 1. Fences within the Lakeshore Overlay District may not extend below the 1251 foot contour elevation above sea level, and at no time any closer than five horizontal feet from the high water mark at the time of installation. Second by Commissioner Mellinger. Approved 5-0 RESOLUTION NO. 88-1 ..... A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING A STANDARD DISTANCE THAT FENCES MAY EXTEND TOWARD THE LAKE WITHIN THE LAKESHORE OVERLAY DISTRICT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS Nothing to report. PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Commissioner Kelley: Nothing to report. Minutes of Planning commission January 5, 1988 Page 10 PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS CONTINUED commissioner Brinley: Asked Senior Planner Libiez if he had heard anything about the mountain of dirt accumulating at Townsend and Heald. Senior Planner Libiez stated that this item is still before the Building Department, and they have indicated that they will monitor this, but we will review this again with the Building Official. __ commissioner Brown: I talked with Assistant Planner Magee and asked that he look into an issue at the Swap Meet. There are a lot of little covers that go up out there on a regular basis. One went up just the other day that has to be at least 1600 square feet, and no structural safety to it at all. commissioner Brinley: Commented on the underpass at Railroad Canyon Road and Central Avenue stating that these areas are becoming our local stop and park and creating traffic hazards. Asked if this parking is allowed, and if we are going to provide a lot for these people to park and carpool to work? Community Development Director Miller stated that the Commission's concerns have been relayed to the Engineering Department and the Sheriff's Department, and they both have indicated that they will be reviewing the situation and taking appropriate action, but we will review it with them again. commissioner Mellinger: - Nothing to report. Commissioner Brown stated that he would like to request that Council seriously consider placing stop signs at the on/off ramps of the freeway at Railroad Canyon Road. Chairman Washburn: Chairman Washburn stated that there has been requests from citizens for a stop sign at Second and Dexter. There being no further adjourned at 9:41 p.m. Chairman Washburn. Approved 5-0 business the Lake Elsinore Planning Commission Motion by Commissioner Kelley, second by proved, N0}~ - ;z:tfA:mitted' Linda Grindstaff~ Planning Commission Secretary MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON THE 19TH DAY OF JANUARY 1988 THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:01 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Senior Planner Libiez. ROLL CALL: -- PRESENT: Commissioners: Brown, Mellinger, Brinley, Kelley and Washburn ABSENT: Commissioners: None Also present were Community Development Director Miller, Senior Planner Libiez, Assistant Planners Magee and Last. MINUTE ACTION Motion by Commissioner Brown to approve minutes of January 5, 1988, with corrections on Page 8 and 9, second by Chairman Washburn with an additional correction on Page 10, as follows: -- Page 8, Condition #15: "All slopes on or off site created by grading operations to support development of this tract shall be planted with erosion control vegetation as approved by the Planning Division and the City'S Landscape Architect. All permanent slopes, three-foot (3') or greater shall be landscaped with a combination of trees, shrubs and ground cover and shall have a permanent irrigation system installed. This shall include berms, banks or slopes created as part of the required interim flood control facility. The slopes would have to be maintained on a permanent basis if the interim facility is to last longer than one (1) year after the date of Certificate of Occupancy of the 40th home. Financing for maintenance and permanent facilities may be implemented through alternative mechanisms, Assessment District, Improvement District, Community Facilities District, with possible City participation and cooperation with the applicant in forming said District." Condition #49: "Developer shall maintain interim flood control channel and protection facility until such time as West Area Master Plan Facilities or permanent facilities constructed to satisfaction of City Engineer are in place, or other long term funding mechanisms as approved by the City. The interim flood control channel shall be maintained on a permanent basis if the interim facility is expected to last any loner than one (1) year after the date of Certificate of Occupancy of the 40th home." -- Page 9: Resolution No. 88-1 - Item 1 should read: Fences within the Lakeshore Overlay District may not extend below the 1251 foot contour elevation above sea level, and at not time any closer than five horizontal feet from high water mark at the time of installation. Page 10: The word "signal" should be changed to "stop sign", under Chairman Washburn's comments. Minutes of Planning commission January 19, 1988 Page 2 MINUTE ACTION CONTINUED Chairman Washburn asked if the Commission concurred with the corrections. The Commission concurred with the corrections as stated. Chairman Washburn called for the question. Approved 5-0 PUBLIC COMMENTS __ Chairman Washburn asked the Secretary if there were any request to address the Commission. The Secretary answered in the negative. There being no requests to address the Commission, Chairman Washburn closed the PUBLIC COMMENTS section. PUBLIC HEARINGS It was the consensus of the Commission to consider Public Hearing #1 and Business Item #1 concurrently. 1. Conditional Use Permit 87-6 and Commercial Project 87-3 - William S. Buck - Assistant Planner Last presented applicant's request for continuance, in order to work out access solutions to the subject site. Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to Permit 87-6 and Commercial Project 87-3 noted that this will be the last Commissioner Kelley. Approved 5-0 continue Conditional Use to March 1, 1988, with it continuance, second by 2. Zone Change 87-10 - Camelot Property Counselors, Inc. - Assistant Planner Last presented proposal to change the zoning from Neigh- borhood Commercial (C-1) to General Commercial (C-2), on 20 plus/minus acres located at the northeast corner of Mission Trail and Malaga Road with a portion abutting Casino Drive (Vista Del Lago). -- Chairman Washburn opened the public hearing at 7:08 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of Zone Change 87-10. Mr. Leonard O'Byrne, President of Camelot Property Counselors, spoke in favor of the proposal. Mr. Ron Ferrier, 32206 Lakeview Terrace, stated that he was in favor of the Zone Change. Chairman Washburn asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak in favor of Zone Chanqe 87-10. Receiving no response, Chairman Washburn asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Receiving no response, Chairman Washburn asked if anyone wished to speak on the matter. Receiving no response, Chairman Washburn closed the public hearing at 7:09 p.m. Commissioner Kelley and Commissioner Brinley stated that the Zone Change is compatible with the General Plan and in favor of the proposal. Chairman Washburn asked staff if the Commission approves the Zone Change, and if for some reason during the hearing on the General Plan we change it, should we not condition the Zone Change to the approval of the General Plan or would this be a dead issue? Community Development Director Miller informed Chairman Washburn that you could not condition Zone Changes or General Plan Amendments. If you would, in reviewing the General Plan, make a change later then it would supersede this. -- Minutes of Planning Commission January 19, 1988 Page 3 ZONE CHANGE 87-10 = CAMELOT PROPERTY COUNSELORS. INC. CONTINUED commissioner Mellinger stated that he agrees that the Commission would then have to do a Zone Change to be consistent with the General Plan. - commissioner Mellinger asked why we would not expand this when we have these inconsistencies come up, it seems to be General Commercial further north. Community Development Director Miller stated that we are in the process of updating the General Plan, and the purpose of doing that was also to do the zoning and get the two in conformance. commissioner Brown stated that he shares the same concerns as Chairman Washburn, and has nothing additional. Motion by Commissioner Brinley to recommend to City Council adoption of Negative Declaration No. 87-38 and approval of Zone Change 87-10 based upon the Findings listed in the Staff Report, second by Commissioner Kelley. Approved 5-0 BUSINESS ITEMS 1. Commercial Project 87-3 Public Hearing #1. William S. Buck - Considered with 2. Industrial Project 86-2 Amendment #1 - O.T. Equities - Senior Planner Libiez stated that this is a request to amend Design Review of Industrial Project 86-2 to revise floor plans and locations for six (6) buildings on separate lots. However, in review of the submittals there are some necessary changes to that project plan, and in order to accommodate those and have sufficient time staff is recommending continuance of this item, until such time as we can reschedule and readvertise. - A brief discussion was held at the table on the number of continuances this proposal has received. Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to continue Industrial Project 86-2 Amendment #1, with it noted that this will be the last continuance, second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved 4-0 (Chairman Washburn abstaining) 3. Commercial Project 87-13 - Camelot Property Counselors, Inc. _ Assistant Planner Last presented proposal to construct an approximately 156,893 square foot shopping center in three (3) phases, on 20 plus/minus acres located at the northeast corner of Mission Trail and Malaga Road with a portion abutting Casino Drive (Vista Del Lago). - Assistant Planner Last requested that conditions 25 and 69 be amended as follows: Condition #25: "Drainage from the garden center shall not flow directly into the storm drain system, this shall be to the satisfaction of the Chief Building Official and the City Engineer." Condition #69: "Install a catch basin and street improvements on Malaga Road prior to completion of the first building at Phase II." Minutes of Planning Commission January 19, 1988 Page 4 COMMERCIAL PROJECT 87-13 - CAMELOT PROPERTY COUNSELORS. INC. CONTINUED Chairman Washburn asked Mr. O'Byrne if there were any items that he would like to address before discussion at the table. Mr. O'Byrne stated that the Staff Report, as it stands, is a matter of professional work and worked out with our professionals, and we do not have any exceptions to it. .... Mr. O'Byrne stated tonight: that the following people are with him Mr. Paul Wehmeier, Real Estate Representative for K-Mart, from Troy Michigan. Mr. Scott Mommer of Lars Andersen & Associates, the engineer who does most of K-Mart matters in this area. Mr. Steve Ruth of Musil, Perkowitz, Ruth, Inc., Architectural Firm. Mr. Poole, Traffic Engineer. Mr. Tweed, from Pavilion Properties. Mr. Wehmeier gave a brief summary on the efforts of K-Mart to better serve the citizens of Southern Riverside County. Commissioner Kelley commented on the south elevation, stating that it is rather stark. In visualizing that from Casino Drive, believes that it would be much better served with some trees, and __ asked for height and distance of the trees from the building. Discussion at the table ensued on height and distance of trees to . be planted; visibility of the south elevation, and rendering not illustrating the trees on the south elevation. Mr. Steve Ruth, of Musil, Perkowitz, Ruth, Inc., addressed Commissioner Kelley's concern on the south elevation, stating there is a grade differential that does not show up on the plan, it is about 20 feet difference between the adjacent Casino property and the south side of the K-Mart building. The trees along the property line will actually be elevated up to provide quite a bit of a buffer there. Discussion at the table ensued on the type and height of these trees when planted along the property line. Mr. Ruth stated that they would work with staff if there are certain trees the Commission would prefer to see planted. Chairman Washburn asked if there was consideration for foot traffic from the casino/Hotel facility to the site, and stated he thinks that there is a need for foot traffic crossing, i.e. steps. Assistant Planner Last stated that this was not addressed in the Traffic Study. Chairman Washburn commented on the site plan, stating that there is another ingress/egress close to Malaga Road, about 150 feet away. Asked if we are possibly getting too close to that intersection for an ingress/egress. senior Planner Libiez answered in the negative, stating that the Engineering Department has reviewed this and in combination with -- Minutes of Planning commission January 19, 1988 Page 5 COMMERCIAL PROJECT 87-13 - CAMELOT PROPERTY COUNSELORS. INC. CONTINUED the eventual signalization of that corner and the provision of the medians will help to channel and contain the flows of traffic ~ in that area. Chairman Washburn stated that when we have two projects side by side, one completed like the stater Brothers Shopping Center and a new project going in adjacent to it, was there discussion on the possibility an access--reciprocal easement between these two projects. Mr. Scott Mommer stated that he believed the between the two centers to be an excellent provide for this. On our grading plan proposed parking lot between pad "c" and "0" access through there. Chairman Washburn asked how staff felt about this idea? reciprocal easement idea and we can the grades of that will permit that Community Development Director Miller stated that this certainly was a good idea as long as the grades would allow for it, that would be the critical factor. - Chairman Washburn asked if the landscaping along Mission Trail would be bermed, mounded type or basically flat with vegetation. Assistant Planner Last stated that there is a 2:1 slope right at that point, so there may be a 4 to 5 foot slope before you get to the parking lot, which would be landscaped with erosion control material, trees and shrubs. Chairman Washburn stated that one point that could be included on the landscaping plan is where you have the rafters, 24" beam rafters on the sides of the buildings, two trees are shown along with lower vegetation, is it possible to have some climbing vines included, which would help enhance the building. Chairman Washburn stated of the roof and the roof would be screened well of visibility. Assistant Planner Last stated that with the slopes involved at that point, especially from Casino, there is approximately a 20 foot grade differential so staff has recommended, at least when you are going to be adjacent to the site, all roof mounted equipment will be located six inches (6") below the parapet and will be painted of a similar color as the roof so that it will blend in. that he has a concern on the visibility mounted equipment itself, asking if it enough so that you would not have a lot Commissioner Kelley asked Chairman Washburn if he noticed from Casino looking onto the T & S Development the roof top equipment - was visible, but it did blend in with the roof. Chairman Washburn referred to Page 10 of the Traffic Study requesting clarification on the last paragraph. Senior Planner Libiez stated that what they are pointing out is that there is extreme difficulty at that area, getting directly in a straight shot to Casino, and it may necessitate joint agreements with adjoining property owners where there is better transitional grades to enter with a joint driveway system, they have been exploring this and will continue to explore this with property owners in the area. They may have to transition as well to the Casino site itself and that is still a possibility with mutual driveway agreements, so they could go two different directions out of there rather than directly to Casino. Minutes of Planning Commission January 19, 1988 Page 6 COMMERCIAL PROJECT 87-13 - CAMELOT PROPERTY COUNSELORS. INC. CONTINUED Chairman Washburn referred to a set of plan which made reference to the retaining wall being the same as the footings, and asked if this was a common practice. Community Development Director Miller answered tive. in the affirma- .... Commissioner Mellinger commented on condition number 35, pertain- ing to brick pavers or decorative paving, and stated that he wants to make sure that Bomanite is not utilized. commissioner Mellinger commented on condition number 40, pertain- ing to the roof mounted equipment, stating that his concern is the visibility from the freeway and asked if this was taken into consideration. If not, does not thinks it is a big problem; we could have line of sight studies from the freeway, or estimate it, or even after the roof equipment is installed maybe have individual parapets blended in. If something of this matter were done, this can be implied in condition number 40, or maybe we should just indicate in condition number 40, that some sort of screening measures to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director shall be taken into account to freeway visibility. Commissioner Mellinger commented on condition number 68, pertain- ing to the requirement of a median, and asked if this is to be landscaped or what type of median we are looking at? Senior Planner Libiez stated that it will be a raised median, combination of concrete and landscape, and the final design will .... be subject to the approval of the City Engineer. Commissioner Mellinger commented on condition number ing to the $50,000 deposit and the statement "if another source, deposit will be refunded", and asked a sunset on this. 75, pertain- funded from if there was Community Development Director Miller stated that the intent of this condition is, if at the time of construction we were able to obtain other funding; for instance we have been trying to obtain funding from the either the State or Federal Funds for assistance with that bridge. If we were able to obtain funding from that source then other contributions would be substantially reduced, so we would be looking in terms of at the time of construction of the bridge. Commissioner Mellinger recommended that the words "at time of construction" be added to condition number 75. Chairman Washburn asked what the timing was on this, after the Certificate of Occupancy is given, or prior to Phase II, what will this be tied to? Community Development Director responded that typically we would look at the time of issuance of building permits. .... Commissioner Mellinger stated that his concern in the long run, looking at the Traffic Report, Page 3, the utilization of the Town Center 5% projection to the year 1989 was used, and when I see something like this I am a little concerned that this Traffic Study will be utilized for future use. The only thing that I have concern with would probably be the percentages of drop in trips and diverted trips. I think that those are valid concepts. However, I think in this particular instance looking on Table 3, 58% drop in trips, I think that we should probably take into Minutes of Planning Commission January 19, 1988 Page 7 COMMERCIAL PROJECT 87-13 - CAMELOT PROPERTY COUNSELORS. INC. CONTINUED account the fact that K-Mart will probably attract far more than 6% new trips. - Mr. Ruth commented on condition screening, stating that the K-Mart conditioning units allover the start throwing additional screens up any more beautiful than painting the number 40, pertaining to the building has a series of air roof, and I think that if we there it is not going be be unit out itself. commissioner Mellinger stated that perhaps this could be worked out with staff. Thinks that the concept would be one additional screen all the way across, presumes that there will be a parapet between there and the freeway and maybe one set back a ways, which will then soften it and everything else will blend in with the roof. A brief discussion at the table ensued on screening of roof mounted equipment; reserve the right, maybe agree as phases go on, that if it does look like a problem after it is in we can address it at that point. Commissioner Mellinger commented on the reciprocal easement with Stater Brothers stating that he believed that an agreement would have to be. worked out with them, so would suggest that if they can not get it that we do not force the issue. Commissioner Brown stated that he had a procedural question for -- Chairman Washburn on condition number 38, this is in reference to bringing back the Final Landscaping Plan for approval by the City's Landscape Architect and Community Development Director. There has been a lot of discussion at this table in the past about bringing it before the Planning Commission, yet that does not seem to be what Council wants to see, but it is okay for it to go back to the Community Development Director. My problem with it having to go clear back to the applicant and then going back through us again, I think if we maintain what we had before where it would come back to the Planning Commission for review of the landscape design. We are approving the project in concept, we want it to proceed to Council, but we do want the final say so. I need to know what we need to do with this, because can't understand how we can send it to Council with the Community Development Director looking at it, but we can't look at it. Chairman Washburn suggested changing the words "or his designee" to "Planning Commission". -- Community Development Director Miller stated that in discussing this with Planning Commission and City Council at Joint Study Sessions last Fall, we suggested that perhaps by providing additional information the Planning Commission and City Council could address their concerns. Then, essentially, the working drawings of the landscaping plan would have staking and irrigation details and would be subject to technical review, just as we do with grading plans and building plans. We have tried to present a plan that is much more detailed, specifying actual plant materials and their number and location. We can change this format again if that is the direction of the Commission. As Commissioner Brown has indicated perhaps we ought to, if Planning Commission still feels that insufficient information is being provided, look at that again, so that we can do that as a consistent policy to satisfy your concerns. Commissioner Brown stated that aesthetics as opposed to technical want to see additional items on not want to send the whole project the concerns are more with questions on landscaping. I the landscaping plan, but I do back for additional trees. Minutes of Planning Commission January 19, 1988 Page 8 COMMERCIAL PROJECT 87-13 - CAMELOT PROPERTY COUNSELORS. INC. CONTINUED Commissioner Brown referred to the site plan and requested that the parking areas in front of Building "A" be numbered, from left to right, along the top of those parking bands, bands 1 through 9 and along the bottom the same bands give them the numbers 10 through 17. What I have become really disenchanted with is the small parking planter caps, for lack of a better word for them. __ Usually, they look good for about the first three weeks and then everyone has beat them down, the plants dead and the sprinklers are broken off and sometimes the specimen trees in them live, but rarely are they of any adequate size to produce any shade or aesthetic value. What I would like to suggest is possibly a concepts where on the rows where the center median planters are closest to the end that those caps be eliminated, and that square footage be dedicated to the front of the building for additional landscaping of specimen trees outside the canopy line. Rough calculations, I think that we could get approximately 1,900 square feet. of additional landscaping outside the canopy area in front of the store and that could be in mounded specimen trees, that type of planting, and that would be eliminating planters 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, 14 and 16. Also, you have the excess of three parking spaces in Phase I, eliminate those three parking spaces, dedicate those areas to landscaping and the combined total of the additional seven spaces of parking for combined totals of Phases I and II be dedicated to plantings in front of Building "G" and "F". Chairman Washburn asked Commissioner cation and requested that he use illustrate what he was talking about. Commissioner Brown referred to the rendering posted to explain his recommendation to eliminate the caps and provide additional landscaping. Brown for further clarifi- the rendering posted to -- A lengthy discussion at the table ensued on the elimination of the parking planter caps to provide for additional landscaping, and traffic circulation concerns. Chairman Washburn stated that he believes the idea has merit. Community Development Director Miller stated that a general pur- pose for having the end cap planters is to control access points along the drive aisles, so that people are not entering at irregular points. This is a primary function of the end caps, and landscaping those end caps to soften the appearance. Staff might suggest, if we are understanding your concern correctly, that rather than eliminate the end caps add additional planting areas in the areas referred to. Commissioner Brown stated that he was not asking the applicant to give up--he is very close on his square footage to parking space ratio. I do not want him to give up building area. I am just saying to transfer the square footage in those caps. Now you can put a curb along that edge and prevent ingress/egress and with traffic stops you can prevent ingress/egress. If you want to maintain the curb radius around the end that is fine, but take the footage that is dedicated within those caps for planting and put it where the plants are going to be used and seen. Mr. Ruth stated that K-Mart has a very active program for maintenance of their centers. -- Commissioner Brown stated that it could be in two-foot elevated planters. Minutes of Planning Commission January 19, 1988 Page 9 COMMERCIAL PROJECT 87-13 - CAMELOT PROPERTY COUNSELORS. INC. CONTINUED commissioner Brinley asked about lighting, stating that the rendering does not show the parking lot lighting, or the number -- of light fixtures to be provided. Assistant Planner stated that a parking lot lighting plan was submitted with the first submittal, but the revisions did not include that and we did not include that part in the plans that were submitted to the Commission. Discussion at the table ensued on the type of lighting standards proposed, including the number and height of fixtures proposed. Commissioner Brinley asked for the location of the employee parking lot and asked if this area will be well lit. Discussion at the table ensued on the location of the employee parking lot, and if there will be wall units to the building itself. Chairman Washburn questioned Finding number 4, pertaining to General-Manufacturing and asked staff if this should be corrected to state General Commercial. Community Development Director Miller responded in the affirma- tive. -- Chairman Washburn questioned condition number 21, pertaining to interim erosion control measures to be taken 30 days after rough grading, why we are waiting 30 days to put measures in place? Assistant Planner Last responded that Uniform Building Code that they have installed 30 days after rough grading. Chairman Washburn commented on the, ANALYSIS, second paragraph of the Staff Report, pertaining to the smooth face concrete block and the recommendation that splitface concrete block be utilized on the front elevation of K-Mart to provide textured and enhanced entrance. Asked if they are still requesting to go with the smooth face on the sides, and is the smoothface colored? this is a standard in the erosion control measures Assistant Planner Last responded that this would be smooth face with the same color as the entire building. Chairman Washburn stated that on the side facing the Dunes, thinks that should probably be the same type of block as in the front, which would be the splitface block, not to concerned with the rear. -- Commissioner Brinley commented on signalization, asking when K-Mart opens if the signal will be working. Community Development Director Miller stated that the traffic signal is required to be operational prior to Albertson's opening which is scheduled for less than two weeks away. Chairman Washburn commented on Phase I, stating that we will be putting up the K-Mart, paving, landscaping and so on, and asked if the pads will be grass seeded or sod. Senior Planner Libiez stated that the pads would hydroseeded. Chairman Washburn asked if full grading would be done for Phase I, Phase II and Phase III, or grading Phase I first and leaving the buildings in place that are on the Malaga side. Minutes of Planning Commission January 19, 1988 Page 10 COMMERCIAL PROJECT 87-13 - CAMELOT PROPERTY COUNSELORS. INC. CONTINUED Senior Planner Libiez stated that he believes the perspective, right now, is to do the rough grading for both Phase I and Phase II, and the final grading would be done for II as they get ready to develop. commissioner Brinley asked and Phase II. for the time element between Phase I - Mr. O'Byrne stated that they intend to follow as closely as they can to Phase I. Perhaps you are aware that K-Mart is moving with dispatch in this. Mr. Ron Ferrier stated that he is for the project, but his main concern is Casino Drive and traffic control. Also, heard tonight the possibility of a new entrance at Phase III, joining up with Casino. Mr. Ferrier also stated route and it is a very traffic coming around Malaga. that Lakeview Terrace is mainly a bus bad intersection, concerned with the the hard corner at Lakeview Terrace and Discussion at the table ensued on the concerns raised by Mr. Ferrier; possible installation of a stop sign; location of the LETS bus stop, and applicant to work with staff and the City Engineer on traffic concerns there to see if a stop sign could be installed. There being no further discussion at the table, Chairman Washburn called for a motion. _ Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to recommend to City Council adoption of Negative Declaration No. 87-38 based on the Findings, and amending Finding number 4, approval of Commercial Project 87-13 based on the 76 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report with the following amendments: Finding No.4: Condition #25: Condition #32: Condition #35: "Conditions and safeguards pursuant to Section 17.82.070, including guarantees and evidence of compliance with conditions have been incorporated into the approval of the property in accordance with the Objectives of Chapter 17.82.060 and the General Commercial Zoning District." "Drainage from the garden center shall not flow directly into the storm drain system, this shall be to the satisfaction of the Chief Building Official and the City Engineer." The parking stalls provided to the rear of K-Mart shall contain at least 50% standard size parking stalls. These stalls should be designated for employee parking, and - commitment for security lighting in the employee parking lot shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Community Develop- ment Director." "Brick pavers or decorative paving other than Bomanite shall be incorporated at the drive aisle for pedestrian crossing at the entrance of the K-Mart to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director." Minutes of Planning Commission January 19, 1988 Page 11 COMMERCIAL PROJECT 87-13 - CAMELOT PROPERTY COUNSELORS. INC. CONTINUED Condition #38.h.4: "On the south elevation replace the slower growing trees, such as Crepe Myrtle, with faster growing trees such as Canary Island Pine." - Condition #38.j: Condition #39: Condition #40: Condition #69: - Condition #75: Condition #77: Condition #78: "Climbing vines or small planters with small accent trees to be provided on the south elevation underneath the trellis." "Splitface block shall be used at the front elevation of K-Mart and as the pillar element of the garden center, also the south elevation as depicted on the exhibit." "All roof mounted equipment shall be at least six-inches (6") lower than the parapet wall or top of equipment well and shall be painted to match the buildings. Freeway visibility of roof top equipment will be addressed to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. Evidence of compliance shall be included in building plans." "Install a improvements completion of II." catch basin and street on Malaga Road prior to the first building at Phase "Contribute $50,000 deposit toward widening of San Jacinto River Bridge at Lakeshore Drive, if bridge is funded from another source at time of building permit issuance, deposit will be refunded." "There shall be some sort of provision for pedestrian access from the Casino/Hotel to the project site. "If reciprocal access can be obtained from the Stater Brother Shopping Center then that shall be provided, but if not it can be waived by the Community Development Director." Second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved 5-0 -- At this time, 8:15 p.m., the Planning Commission recessed. At this time, 8:26 p.m., the Planning Commission reconvened. 4. Commercial Project 87-6 REVISED Del Taco, Inc. - Assistant Planner Magee presented proposal to construct a 1,872 square foot fast food restaurant with .a drive-thru window, located on the east side of Lakeshore Drive approximately 245 feet north of Riverside Drive. Chairman Washburn asked if the applicant was present and if there were any concerns with the Conditions of Approval. Minutes of Planning commission January 19, 1988 Page 12 COMMERCIAL PROJECT 87-6 REVISED = DEL TACO. INC. CONTINUED Mr. Stan Westfall, Vice President of Design and Construction for Del Taco, stated that they find the conditions agreeable and have no objections to them and willing to abide by them. Commissioner Brown stated that he did the site plan posted on the board in accordance with what I thought we came up the last time this came to the table. I went back and read the notes again and the minutes of that meeting and what I put on the wall I think reflects that idea. The new site plan just does not make it. Other than that I do like the new renderings of the building. Commissioner Brown stated that he did not like to cobalt blue the other muted colors are great, and asked if the cobalt blue was not the same color as Del Taco's logo. Chairman Washburn asked Commissioner Brown if he agreed with the maritime look. .... Commissioner Brown answered in the affirmative. A lengthy discussion at the table ensued on the color of the awning material; site plan prepared by Commission Brown compared to the site plan prepared by the applicant and this plan not reflecting the changes that were requested. Chairman Washburn asked if the applicant was at the parking space limit or if there were additional spaces. Assistant Planner Magee responded that the applicant currently is at the limit, but could adjust the floor plan to limit the amount of parking. .... Discussion at the table ensued on the site plan revised by Commissioner Brown and the one prepared by the applicant pertaining to number of parking spaces, reducing landscape areas to ten-feet, reducing the square footage of the building or reducing the seating capacity. Chairman Washburn stated that on the trellis area he would like to see some climbing vines there to provide an arbor effect. Chairman Washburn stated that he concurs with Commissioner Brown's idea. Would prefer not to have parking in the front. It does not bother me to reduce a parking space or two to get what we need so that we do not have the parking in the front, or cutting the seating area or clipping that corner. Commissioner Brinley stated that she concurs with Commissioner Brown, does not like the parking in front. Would like to see something else and referenced the Jack in the Box restaurant as an example. commissioner Kelley stated that he to likes Commissioner Brown's idea and asked if this was feasible and if it could be worked out. .... Commissioner Brown asked Mr. Westfall if you were to move that building three-feet toward the main entrance, bottom of the site plan, and you were able to put a pop-out on for the delivery of the food to the drive-thru as opposed to having the full length of the building, would that bring the radius of that corner in, or will this interfere with the circulation plan. Mr. Westfall stated that there is room on the site to do this, however, there are two parking spaces on that side that would have to be watched for clearance. Minutes of Planning Commission January 19, 1988 Page 13 COMMERCIAL PROJECT 87-6 REVISED = DEL TACO. INC. CONTINUED commissioner Brown asked Mr. Westfall how much additional space he would need to create that radius he was concerned about. -- Mr. Westfall utilized the site plan prepared by Commissioner Brown to illustrate the radius problem he has. Discussion at the table ensued on moving the building; landscap- ing in the rear; how much seating would be lost if the floor plan were reduced; minimum seating for Del Taco; number of layouts applicant and staff has worked on. ..... Chairman Washburn moved that we try to adopt Commissioner Brown's plan with the inclusion of extra landscaping of the lattice, and if the plan can not be worked out with staff that it be brought back to the Commission, second by Commissioner Brinley. Commissioner Mellinger asked for discussion. Discussion at the table ensued on the direction for staff and their attempt to work out a solution; not to have parking in the front and if necessary reduce the building. Mr. Westfall asked if the motion passes and we bring it back and for some reason staff and I are not able to work it out, it would come back before the Commission. If we are able to work it out to satisfact~on of staff and Del Taco what would then be the disposition of the project, would it come back before the Planning Commission or go on to city Council? Commissioner Brown stated that he has no problem if there are no legal issues, if every effort is made and it can be proven to staff that it can not work, has no problem with the proposal going straight on to council. Commissioner Mellinger asked if this could not be concluded at this point. Assistant Planner Magee stated that with the current building size and the square footage dedicated to customer service area, I do not believe that we can readjust as Commissioner Brown has illustrated on the board. However, if it is the Commission's desire to gain that look, I believe that it may necessitate a reduction in the square footage at least the customer service area and maybe the entire building. Commissioner Brown stated that if Del Taco does not wish to reduce the building, if that is what it comes to, don't they go to City Council with an appeal. Chairman Washburn stated that Commissioner Brown's comment earlier to go straight to City Council if it is not practical to do the changes. My concern would be if they look at the parking, -- landscaping and the Code and do not want to reduce the size of the building, it is not feasible, therefore it goes to Council. I would like to see them try and make it work with your concept, and would incorporate this in my motion. commissioner Mellinger asked if Chairman Washburn was recommend- ing not approval, but continuance. Chairman Washburn stated that actually this is a conditional approval. Commissioner Mellinger asked Council. what condition sends it on to Minutes of Planning Commission January 19, 1988 Page 14 COMMERCIAL PROJECT 87-6 REVISED = DEL TACO. INC. CONTINUED Chairman Washburn responded that the condition that would send it on to Council would be the redesign of the building with no parking in front. Chairman Washburn stated that it is either this or bring it back before the Commission. Commissioners Brinley and Brown stated that they would like to have the project come back before the Commission. Chairman Washburn rescinded his motion and Commissioner Brinley rescinded her second. .... Motion by Chairman Washburn be continued to the meeting redesign of the project coming by Commissioner Brinley. Approved 5-0 that Commercial Project 87-6 Revised of February 16, 1988, with the back before the Commission, second 5. Sign Program Amendment - Industrial Project 86-3 - Art Nelson _ Assistant Planner Last presented a request to amend a previously approved sign program for the Chaney Street Center, located on the southwest corner of Minthorn Street and Chaney Street. There being no discussion at the table, Chairman Washburn called for a motion. Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to Program for Industrial Project 86-3 Condition of Approval listed in Commissioner Brinley. Approved 5-0 approve Amendment to the Sign based on the Findings and the the Staff Report, second by .... 6. Finding of General Plan Conformance for: Street Abandonment 87-4 Brookstone Development - Assistant Planner Magee presented request for abandonment of a 60-foot wide segment of Allen Street north of Dexter Avenue. Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to recommend to City Council approval of Street Abandonment 87-4 based upon the Findings and 2 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report, second by Commissioner Brown. Approved 5-0 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS Community Development Director Miller stated that he had nothing to report. PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Commissioner Brown: .... Riverside County and several other Counties are now requiring building elevations, site plans, and landscaping plans for Zone Changes. I think that having a site plan and a project concept plan is great. It gives you an opportunity to kind of put things together on a larger perspective, rather than lot by lot or acreage by acreage. If it is legal, I would like to see at least a project concept come through for Zone Changes and an inventory of how we are expanding or creating new areas of commercial, an overall picture Minutes of Planning Commission January 19, 1988 Page 15 PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS CONTINUED with each Zone Change as opposed to just block by block, so that we know cumulative affect. ~ ~ Commissioner Mellinqer: Commented on Commissioner Brown's request for project concept plans on Zone Changes, stating that it may be legal to request it and even approve the site plan. But once the Zone Change is done, I do not see what prevents the developer from taking a site plan out of their drawer and getting it approved, putting it back in the drawer and coming back with" whatever they want. I think that the environmental requirement is just for worse case basis, unless you had something tying it, some sort of planned unit approval overlay or something that is required. At the last meeting we discussed certain infrastructure needs and the need for the City to start looking at existing development in conjunction with new development to insure that when new development comes in we have adequate infrastructure improvements, so that there is no lapse. Thinks that the General Plan will address the Goals and Objectives to insure that. I think that we really need to take a serious look at that for new development. To be more specific, I had raised concerns about the West End Fire Station, and the response was that we do perhaps have the funds to construct it, but have difficulty in manning it. I would suggest that we look into a Mello Roos Facility District for that because that does allow for construction and it does allow for manning of police and fire services. Believes that the City should get together with developers in that area, and it should be advertised and wide spread, since the West End there would be a certain benefit for anyone from Riverside on north and west. I think that it is time that we start looking into this. If it is a large enough area the cost can be estimated well enough, and I do not believe that it would be that big of an cost factor. If need be maybe we should have another session with City Council to look at this. Community Development Director Miller stated that staff is actively exploring the possibilities of various methods of financing. Some of our conversations have indicated that a Mello Roos would not be the appropriate vehicle to provide on-going funding of operations. Community Development Director Miller stated the for funding of paYment of salaries for services through a Community Service District rather than Facilities District. State has provided of fire stations through a Community ~ Commissioner Mellinger stated that if we looked at a Mello Roos or a District that gave a fairly good estimate of what the individual costs would be, thinks that there would be a little different approach, and not oppossed by the community. Community Development Director Miller stated that he believes that we did provide some information along with the measure that went out, and we are continuing to explore various possibilities. In fact, last Friday we met with several developers who in total are looking at developing significant acreage in the west end and did discuss various types of assessment districts to meet some of the infrastructure and service demands in that area. Chairman Washburn stated that he believes that we are talking about two different things, and Mello Roos can be used to finance some the pUblic needs, such as the fire station. Chairman Washburn asked if any staff members attended any of the Minutes of Planning Commission January 19, 1988 Page 16 PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS CONTINUED Mello Roos Financing Seminars. Community Development Director Miller stated that a member of the Engineering Department attended a conference last Friday. We have a staff member from the Planning Department attending a conference this month that will be looking at impact fees. __ commissioner Kellev: Thanked staff for their diligent efforts. Commissioner Brinley: Nothing to report. Chairman Washburn: Chairman Washburn stated that he appreciates staff's input and the Commissioners involvement in sorting out some of the concerns that they have on these projects. There being no further business, the Commission adjourned at 9:16 p.m. Motion by second by Commissioner Mellinger. Approved 5-0 Lake Elsinore Commissioner Planning Brinley, -- ~;~~~~ Chai~n ;p:Ul~ted' L~nda Grindstaff ~ Planning Commission Secretary - MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON THE 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 1988 THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:00 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Commissioner Brown. ROLL CALL: ~ PRESENT: Commissioners: Brown, Mellinger, Brinley, Kelley and Washburn ABSENT: commissioners: None Also present were community Development Director Miller, Senior Planners Bolland and Libiez, and Associate Planner Wilkins. MINUTE ACTION Motion by Commissioner Brown to approve minutes of January 19, 1988, as submitted, second by Commissioner Mellinger. Chairman Washburn asked for discussion, stating that on Page 11, Condition Number 77, should be amended to read: Condition No. 77: "There shall be some sort of provision for pedestrian access from the Casino/Hotel to the project site." commissioner Brown amended his motion to approve minutes of January 19, 1988, with the above correction, second by Commissioner Mellinger. Approved 5-0 PUBLIC COMMENTS -- Chairman Washburn asked the Secretary if there were any request to address the Commission. The Secretary answered in the negative. There being no requests to address the Commission, Chairman Washburn closed the PUBLIC COMMENTS section. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Specific Plan 87-1 - Brian Weiss c/o Jordan Architects - Senior Planner Bolland presented request for approval of a Specific Plan for a professional office development. Approximately eight (8) acres located on the north side of Lakeshore Drive between Center Street and Avenue 7 (approximately 600 feet east of the inter- section of Lakeshore Drive and Avenue 6). Chairman Washburn opened the public hearing at 7:12 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of Specific Plan 87-1. Mr. Brian Weiss stated for the record, he has property owners, adjacent to the area, who are in proposal. a list of 47 favor of the Mr. Weiss stated that with him tonight is Mr. Bruce Jordan, -- architect for the project, and there are two issues we would like to discuss. Mr. Jordan questioned the conditions pertaining to the cul-de-sac proposal, stating that they have had fairly lengthy discussions with Riverside County Fire Department regarding the hammerhead turnaround and they have assured us that the proposal, as we had originally defined in the text, was an adequate safeguard for the public safety at that point. Mr. Jordan stated that he has prepared an illustration to show the impacts on the project with resorting to the modified cul-de-sac, and submitted said illustration to the Commission for their review. Minutes of Planning Commission February 2, 1988 Page 2 SPECIFIC PLAN 87-1 = BRIAN WEISS C/O JORDAN ARCHITECTS Mr. Jordan questioned the condition pertaining to the landscape buffer, stating we are of the contention that 15 gallon trees at 12 foot on center is inadequate area there to fully develop a landscape screen along that rear setback. We have the landscape architect, Mr. John Swandel, here tonight to deal with this. Chairman Washburn asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak__ in favor of Specific Plan 87-1. Receiving no response, Chairman Washburn asked if there was anyone wishing to speak in opposition. Receiving no response Chairman Washburn asked if there was anyone wishing to speak on the matter. Receiving no response, Chairman Washburn closed the public hearing at 7:15 p.m. Commissioner Brown commented on the rear landscape buffer asking if 75% of the trees would be 15 gallon and 25% would be 24" box, and if we see any advantage of clumping those trees, knowing the configuration of the site, or it is felt best to do them on 12 foot centers. Senior Planner Bolland responded that he believes the intent of that standard was to require a minimum standard and then at such time as the actual architectural design is submitted, as part of the commercial project, staff would review that project and its landscaping against the standards in the Specific Plan and require at least 12 foot on center trees. In terms of massing or clumping that would probably best be dealt with at the time architecture of the building is known. Commissioner Mellinger commented on the landscape buffer asking what the problem was with 8 foot on center, and how 8 foot on center would be less of a screen? .... Mr. Swandel, landscape architect for the project, stated that for optimum growth rate of trees that 8 foot on center is too close, you restrict the growth rate of the trees. Discussion at the table ensued on the landscape buffer and how this growth rate is restricted; type of trees to be utilized; what the problem would be with only 25% being 24" box type trees. Commissioner Mellinger suggested that the 24" box trees be limited to the corners of the buildings. commissioner Mellinger asked staff if anything has been received from the Fire Department in regards to the cul-de-sac. Senior Planner Bolland stated that the Specific Plan document was circulated to the Fire Department for their review. Their comments were very general and did not speak to this particular issue. However, the City Engineering Department has submitted a memorandum, included in your packets, and several points are given, that I would like to read into the record, why a cul-de-sac is superior over a hammerhead: 1) Dawes Street shall dead-end with an off-set cul-de-sac and not a hammerhead for the following reasons: __ a) Amount of land for off-set cul-de-sac and hammerhead are relatively the same. b) Street sweeping for off-set cul-de-sac is much more efficient. c) With a hammerhead, the street may be used as a parking lot or vehicle storage. Minutes of Planning Commission February 2, 1988 Page 3 SPECIFIC PLAN 87-1 = BRIAN WEISS C/O JORDAN ARCHITECTS d) Off-set cul-de-sac makes a driver more aware of street ending rather than abrupt end with a hammerhead. -- e) Cul-de-sac can be used as small detention basin to assist site drainage with drainage outlets under the sidewalk. f) Emergency access can still be achieved by constructing 4" curb face at emergency driveway, or as noted in the Staff Report the need for or possibly including in an emergency break away gate, similar to the one at the end of the hammerhead at the edge of the cul-de-sac. commissioner Mellinger stated that he concurs with the street sweeping and the vehicle storage; this is typically a problem when there is a hammerhead. commissioner Brinley asked for the closures, stating that she would enclosures will be located. location of the trash en- like to see where these Mr. Jordan stated that this is a Specific Plan and we do not have a specific site plan for approval. This is an illustrative site plan of what could be approved under the guidance of the Specific Plan. -- commissioner Brinley commented on the streets in the back, refer- ence to no parking, and asked if these should not be posted. Community Development Director Miller stated that this would be a condition of the specific site approval; posting or painting of the curbs. commissioner Brinley stated that she preferred the cul-de-sac for the street sweeping and emergency vehicles. commissioner Kelley stated that he would like to stress the importance of the rear elevation screening, and stated that he agrees with commissioner Mellinger's comment on the 24" box trees in select locations. Commissioner Kelley stated that he thinks that the project has come a long way, staff has done a good job on it. The increased landscaping it is not quite what we asked for, but it is a happy medium. The infrastructure that is going to be implemented will be a tremendous asset. Chairman Washburn stated that he concurs with the City Engineer in reference to the turnaround, thinks that a cul-de-sac is more -- advantageous, better than a hammerhead. Chairman Washburn commented on the phasing portion with the infra- structure, my one concern, and I brought this up with David Bolland today, would be the engineer has requested that the infra- structure on Phase V be completed at the same time as Phase IV. My concern would be if we have the improvements go on Phase V and if they decided not to do any project on Phase V it would just sort of remain fallow for a period of time, at which time it may or may not have a project on it. Chairman Washburn asked the Commission if we would want to see, as we did at Dexter and Highway 74, some landscaping on-site until such time as a project was to go in on that pad. Minutes of Planning Commission February 2, 1988 Page 4 SPECIFIC PLAN 87-1 = BRIAN WEISS C/O JORDAN ARCHITECTS Discussion at the table ensued on Chairman Washburn's request for landscaping; providing planters, hydroseed and maintenance of the pad. Chairman Washburn asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission on any of the items. Mr. Jordan stated that the only issue that they would like to rebut is the issue on the cul-de-sac. There are only a few houses on that street, and as a person would be pulling down to enter their residence they would be pulling into their driveways, and presumably be backing out of their driveways to go back out and enter onto Lakeshore Drive. By implementation of a dead-end street there the turnaround situation can be resolved very easily. Again, the Fire Department has assured us that this is an acceptable solution to them. - Discussion at the table ensued on the cul-de-sac issue pertaining to street sweeping; problem of a hammerhead street being used for a parking lot and vehicle storage. Commissioner Mellinger stated that if letter from the County Fire Department would be better than a cul-de-sac cul-de-sac is better then would prefer the applicant could get a stating that a hammerhead then he would concur. If a to have the cul-de-sac. Commissioner Brinley commented on the safety factor, stating that with a cul-de-sac people are more aware to slow down when they see the end of the street than they are with a hammerhead. Discussion at the table ensued on the the additional traffic generated on this street and the cul-de-sac being a safety factor; whether or not the street was posted; full width or half width street improvements. - Senior Planner Bolland stated that he would like to bring to the Commission's attention Exhibit "K" and Exhibit "0", in the Specific Plan, comparing it to the illustration prepared and passed out by Mr. Jordan this evening, concerning the difference between the hammerhead and the cul-de-sac. Mr. Jordan stated that Exhibit "0" is a generalized document where the setack, distance between buildings and landscaping treatment between buildings is dealt with in the text of the plan. This is a generalized document to show that we are intending that the ends of the streets, such as Avenue 1, Pepper, Avenue 6, Irwin and so on are view sheds. Commissioner Mellinger asked if this is a view shed and you put a building in front how does that protect the view shed? Mr. Jordan stated that what he was saying is that Exhibit "0" is not the appropriatevJ1Qcument to review this issue. The text of the Specific Plan q~als with the more concrete issues of distance between buildings and setbacks. Commissioner Mellinq~r suggested that Mr. Jordan take a look at the Government Code {t,at says Specific Plans will include text, diagrams and etc. that layout the actual zoning requirements for this project, and if they are inconsistent maybe it should come back. - Mr. Jordan stated tpat they were not saying that they were inconsistent. What we are saying is the specifics of it are much more definitive in the text than they are on this document. Minutes of Planning Commission February 2, 1988 Page 5 SPECIFIC PLAN 87-1 = BRIAN WEISS C/O JORDAN ARCHITECTS commissioner Mellinger asked why they would put a diagram in that would not reflect the text. -- Mr. Jordan stated that it does. Discussion at the table ensued on the Specific Plan text and the diagrams not being consistent with the text. Motion by adoption Plan 87-1 listed in commissioner Mellinger to recommend to City of Negative Declaration 87-15 and approval of based on the Findings and the 2 Conditions of the Staff Report with the following amendment: Council Specific Approval Condition No. 2.d. "Part l3(b) page 6 - change paragraph to read as follows: - "Rear buffer landscaping: continuous visual landscape screen a minimum of ten (10) feet in depth shall be maintained adjacent to all rear property lines which abut the alley, residential properties, or Dawes Street. At minimum, said buffer shall contain one (1), fifteen (15) gallon non-deciduous tree for each twelve (12) lineal feet of boundary length and sufficient deciduous trees and foundation shrubs to provide a screen. 24" box or larger trees shall be located at each corner of the project, inclusive of corners interior. No structure or use, including parking, drive aisles or trash enclosures, shall encroach within this area. Drainage devices as shown on Exhibit "K" are permitted, but shall be designed to in- corporate full landscaping as provided for above." Commissioner Kelley stated that he would second the motion with an addition of hydroseeding Phase v. commissioner Mellinger amended his motion to include hydroseeding of Phase V. There being no further discussion, Chairman Washburn called for the question. Approved 5-0 -- 2. Tentative Tract Map 22912 Premier Homes - Associate Planner Wilkins presented proposal to subdivide 51.93 acres into 187 residential lots for development with single-family homes, located along the west side of Terra Cotta at the terminus of Lincoln Street, south of the future alignment of Washington Street. Associate Planner Wilkins referred to the Memorandum dated February 2, requesting amendment to the Engineering Department Conditions of Approval, and attached written correspondence from surrounding property owners. Chairman Washburn asked Associate Planner Wilkins Conditions of Approval that deal with drainage and that the audience is aware of those conditions. to read the traffic, so Associate Planner Wilkins read the conditions that pertain to drainage and traffic. Community Development Director Miller stated the City has been Minutes of Planning Commission February 2, 1988 Page 6 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 22912 = PREMIER HOMES CONTINUED extremely concerned about the drainage in this area, and been diligently working to resolve some of those issues. and the County have jointly developed a Master Plan of for the West Elsinore Area, which is entitled the West Master Plan of Drainage. we have The City Drainage Elsinore Community Development Director Miller stated that as part of the West Elsinore Master Plan of Drainage it is proposed that__ eventually a storm drain facility come around both sides of the Junior High School and extend southerly to Washington Street, which is along the northern boundary of this tract and then generally along Zieglinde to Machado and then down Joy Street all the way to the lake. This information is contained in the memorandum under INFORMATIONAL ITEM for the Commission. Community Development Director Miller stated that the other drain- age facility that would generally contribute to controlling drainage in this area would be the McVickers Canyon Channel, which would start with a debris basin in the upper reaches of McVicker Canyon, where the current aggregate resource recovery operations are going on, and then have a channel extending through this area, possibly along the general alignment of Lincoln to connect with the existing Leach/McVicker Canyon that exists from Machado Street down to the lake. Community Development Director Miller stated that as part of the West Elsinore Drainage Plan a major improvement would be proposed to the Machado Street crossing. Community Development Director Miller stated that the concept that the City, County and a number of developers, the City and County, have been working toward is a mechanism that would allow the installation of these facilities to protect existing and proposed development areas. general in both financing __ drainage in these Community Development Director Miller stated that it is our intent in the revised condition number 60, indicating that prior to recordation of the Tract Map the West Elsinore Master Plan of Drainage shall be designed and approved by the Council and a construction schedule implemented. It is our intent and hope that would be actually in place prior to any development in this area; this requires the cooperation of a substantial number of property owners. If for some reason that were unable to be accomplished in a timely fashion, beyond the control of this particular development, condition number 61 has been suggested, which would require this developer to install facilities to protect this development and to intercept any drainage that would threaten this development and consequently any downstream development and transport that water to an existing approved facility, and those methods would be consistent with permanent facilities required by the West Elsinore Master Plan of Drainage. Chairman Washburn opened the public hearing at 7:54 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of Tentative Tract Map 22912. Mr. Bruce D'Eliscu, Vice President of Premier Homes, stated that __ they had quite a challenge in finding resolutions to many of the constraints to the property. Mr. D'Eliscu stated that we have a drainage problem in this area right now. I think that is evident from the audience here tonight, this is on~ of their biggest concerns. We have no intention of building ~ project or getting involved with a project that is going to cause downstream damage to property owners or upstream. What we are proposing, and the workshop has been scheduled for Thursday night, is to form an assessment district; we feel that is one of the only ways that it can be funded. Minutes of Planning Commission February 2, 1988 Page 7 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 22912 - PREMIER HOMES CONTINUED Mr. D'E1iscu stated that aside from the engineering or physical constraints of the site, thinks that the other concern that many people have is what is going to be built next to their home, and -- utilized the tract map posted to describe how they reduced the number of lots from 245 to 187. Mr. D'E1iscu requested and received permission to show slides of the proposed product. Mr. D'E1iscu stated that Mr. Tom Tice, Engineer for the project was present, and they have a couple of clarifications on several of the conditions which they would like to discuss. Chairman Wasburn informed Mr. D'E1iscu that he would be brought back to the podium later to address his concerns on the conditions. Chairman Washburn asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor of Tentative Tract Map 22912. Mr. Howie Torn, 506 West Graham, stated that he and his family own the property northerly of this project. I have met with Premier Homes and the other land owners in the area and we are very supportive of the concept of bringing flood control to that area. We have had conversation with Premier's Engineer about providing some additional right-of-way to allow them to build Terra Cotta through to st. Clair. We are in favor of the proposal. ..... Chairman Washburn asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor of Tentative Tract Map 22912. Receiving no response, Chairman Washburn asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. The Secretary stated prior to opening the floor to the public, written correspondence was included in your packet from the following persons, stating concern on flood control matters, and requesting that an environmental study be done: Mr. & Mrs. Troy Roberts, 15049 Le Gaye Street; Mr. & Mrs. David Smith, 15043 Le Gaye Street Community Development Director Miller stated for the record, would like to point out, there were several additional letters received, since the preparation of the Staff Report, that were included in the materials distributed this evening. Those include one letter in support of the project and several letters that have expressed opposition to the project. Chairman Washburn asked for those in the audience who wished to speak in opposition to Tentative Tract Map 22912. Mr. Mike Priske, 15015 Le Gaye Street, stated that what they are concerned about is the flood control mitigation that is going to be done on this project. The previous tract map had a very large -- receptor channel on the easterly portion of the project that was roughly 30 foot wide and 8 foot deep. The first map had a lot of engineering on it, a lot of information, a lot of things that people could understand what they were looking at and then they submit a plan reduced in scale and erase all of the information; give it to you to approve without showing any flood control mitigation on it whatsoever. without having this on the plan at this time, you can not fully understand the size that these lots will ultimately become. Up by Shirley Lane and Zieg1inde that corner must be redesigned according to your Staff Report. That corner changes, the back east corner changes and all of a sudden the project takes on a whole different look. Mr. Priske then commented on the following issues: Minutes of Planning Commission February 2, 1988 Page 8 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 22912 - PREMIER HOMES CONTINUED The applicant has not fully addressed the City's ordinance for lot sizes; they are at 26% of what it should be, it is suppose to be 75%, and the only way it changes is if they give just cause why they can not do it. The project is obviously big enough; it is spacious enough to make the lots the proper size; If they were to bring the plan back, show it as it truly will transpire with all of the flood control mitigation on it, and the redesign of Shirley and Washington; - You are taking that water down Zieglinde which has no curb and gutter, it is asphalt curb and gutter, it is going to erode just like Terra Cotta, and nobody has brought this up; Traffic going down Zieglinde or out to Terra Cotta. Zieglinde does not have sidewalks, there is no place for kids to ride bikes other than on that street and it is only 40 foot wide, and they are proposing to make this a main access. They are also saying they are giving 4% on signalization, by the time you get around to signalizing this people will have lived with this problem for a number of years; The tracts and Junior High School that has been put in with temporary drainage facilities; I have a letter from the previous Community Development Director stating that Terra Cotta would go by Le Gaye Street. It will be a curb with a blockade to keep people from going down a dirt road, it is now designed for an intersection. I got a letter from the City saying, I got this before I bought the property, that you would not do this; - The new General Plan calling for half acre lots in this area. The minimum lot size that adjoins this property is a half acre; With the amount of mitigation that is to be done on this project with the scale of it, the scale is very large that you could not fully understand nor could you honestly approve a project without knowing all of the facts, and this is what they are aSking you to do. Chairman Washburn asked opposition. if anyone else wished to speak in The following persons spoke in opposition stating concern on drainage/flood control; traffic circulation; lot sizes; using an outdated Environmental Impact Report; impact on the school system. Mr. Albert Wilsey, 15015 Lincoln street; Ms. Sue Scholtz, lives on Terra Cotta north of the project; Ms. Pam Johnson, lives on Zieglinde Drive; Mr. Cornan Johnson, 31946 st. Pierre; _ Mr. Robert Brewer, 31870 st. Pierre; At this time, 8:35 p.m., the Commission recessed. At this time, 8:47 p.m., the Commission reconvened. Chairman Washburn resummed the public hearing on Tentative Tract Map 22912, with people speaking in opposition, as follows: Mr. Don Haskens, 31Q96 st. Pierre; Ms. Haskens, 31996 st. Pierre; Minutes of Planning Commission February 2, 1988 Page 9 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 22912 - PREMIER HOMES CONTINUED ~ Mr. Ray Jones, 25205 Hayes Avenue, Murrieta; owns property adjacent to the proposal, and requested for the record that he have the same consideration given to Premier Homes; Mr. vito Addagna, 9532-1/2 Cedar Street, Bellflower, owns property on Le Gaye; Ms. Pam Eriser, 15042 zieglinde Street; Chairman Washburn asked if anyone else wished to speak in opposition. Receiving no response, Chairman Washburn closed the public hearing at 9:01 p.m. Chairman Washburn asked Community Development Director Miller if he had any comments prior to bringing it to the table for discussion. Community Development Director Miller stated that perhaps he could add some clarification to some of the issues that have been raised. In defense of the school district they are well aware of the problems and the City has attempted to render some assistance to the school district, but they are working on the solutions. There is a site tentatively identified as the withrow site, which the school district is already in the process of acquisition and they would anticipate construction next year. The school district is also in the process of acquiring a site in the general vicinity of the Junior High School. ~ Community Development Director Miller commented on Mr. Jones' re- quest for additional information about the property adjacent to the west of this site. Last year in 1987, the State did adopt legislation identifying significant regional aggregate resource areas throughout the entire state. The City of Lake Elsinore has two such areas within its corporate limits, and one of these is in the McVickers Canyon fan. The area that was identified by the State as part of a potentially significant regional resource does impact the western portions of this tract, and as identified in the environmental documentation there is discussion of that. Due in large part to the encroachment of the school site, withrow school site, just southwesterly of this tract, within the area the State has also identified for aggregate resource. Community Development Director Miller stated that because of the encroachment of these urban types of development or potential developments we are suggesting, in our General Plan update, that the aggregate resource area be identified as part of the City's General Plan, which would generally be bounded by Lincoln Street, on the south, and the extension of Michigan Avenue or the western boundary of the Torn property, which is generally in line with Robb Road. Mr. Jones' property would probably wind up with the same designation as the Premier property currently under discussion. ~ Community Development Director Miller informed the public of upcoming General Plan Workshops and stated that input encouraged. We are in the process of having workshops on proposed General Plan that will identify these issues as well the issue of what is an appropriate density for this area. the is our as Community Development Director Miller stated that adopted as part of their General Plan general development of multi-purpose trails. the City guidelines has for Commissioner Kelley commented on the West End Fire Station stating this the first time he has seen it in a condition, and asked how this is going to work; the money goes where? Minutes of Planning Commission February 2, 1988 Page 10 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 22912 - PREMIER HOMES CONTINUED Community Development Director Miller stated that we have had a number of discussions with the County Fire Department regarding fire service needs. As part of that effort, the County has identified where they would ultimately see fire stations within the City to meet the various demands. Generally, the Fire Department has identified the need for a fire station to serve the needs of the city and County areas in the general vicinity of.... Lincoln and Machado. We have had discussion with a developer adjacent to this site about the potential of looking to some type of acquisition of a site within that project area, that might serve as a fire station site. We are working with the Engineering Department, City Manager and the City Attorney to implement a plan that would provide for funding of some of the service and the facilities necessary to provide the services. commissioner Kelley stated that the Railroad Canyon School will be opening up this year and that is alleviating quite a bit of pressure from the Grand Avenue side. Commissioner Kelley commented on the lot size buffer, asking how this was used from R-R to R-l on the perimeter of this develop- ment? Community Development Director Miller stated that as indicated in the plan they have proposed larger lots. Generally, in the 15-20,000 square foot range with intermediate lots in between those and the smaller lots in an effort to provide a transition between the zoning and lot sizes you find on the south and eastern parts of the tract perimeter to the existing subdivision. Commissioner Kelley commented on the front yard landscaping and a .... deed restriction placed in CC & Rls for installation of this land- scaping; thought we discussed having the builder go ahead and landscape the front yards, at least with grass and irrigation. Community Development Director Miller stated that condition that we have typically been applying to developments. this is the single-family Commissioner Kelley stated that he would like to have added as a condition that front yard landscaping, minimum of grass and sprinklers, to be provided by the developer. Commissioner Kelley commented on the flood control assessment district and asked if it was possible to make it a stipulation that if that does not come into being that the tract is not built. Community Development Director Miller stated that staff has concerns that the formation of a benefit assessment district is beyond the control of the developer and the City, in total. It requires the cooperation of property owners to implement. This is clearly our desire and we have made every effort to work in that direction in cooperation with this developer and a number of other property owners in this area, and our preferred solution is the revised condition number 61. .... Commissioner Kelley stated that he noticed the Certificate of Occupancy. Community DevelopmeQ~ Oirector Miller stated that he should clarify that the conpition requires that those improvements be in place prior to any Certificate of Occupancy. Commissioner Brown cp~ented on condition number 3, asking if this was realistic to provide for every condition of approval prior to recordation. Minutes of Planning Commission February 2, 1988 Page 11 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 22912 = PREMIER HOMES CONTINUED Community Development Director Miller stated that the intent of that condition is that the condition shall be satisfied and that would require a variety of mechanisms to do that, either improve- -- ment plans are approved and signed; items are bonded; various other mechanisms to assure that the conditions will be complied with prior to any building. commissioner Brown stated that like verbiage added to the CC & driveway" . on condition number 14, he would Rls "parking on street or in commissioner Brown commented on condition number 18, pertaining to off-site grading; any banks or berms created that we are going to permanently landscape with irrigation system installed, and asked who is going to own those, who is going to pay the water bill or is this going to be through the Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance District, who is going to maintain these? commissioner Brown commented on some of the concerns raised by County residents, and stated that we can not, legally, take into consideration your problem. I understand your concerns, I have empathy for you, but your drainage problem is being mitigated by City money and mitigated by a person building within the City of which you return no tax dollars. The applicant is going to build in the City and build drainage facilities that will partially solve your problem. It has to address his problem one-hundred percent, whatever he creates he must mitigate 100 percent. -- commissioner Brown stated that he would probably not pass on this subdivision tonight because of the same concerns as brought up by Mr. Priske, and I am doing this for City residents. Commissioner Mellinger stated that the biggest concern he has, and its a concern that I have stated over and over for four years now, and that is environmental protection in the entire valley. There is an obligation for the environmental protection of all of the people in the State of California, I do not care what City or County they are in, and that is the reason I have concern about traffic and drainage for this project; so therefore I do feel there is more than a moral obligation we have an actual requirement. Staff has done an Initial Study and indicated mitigation and has concluded or proposed to us that all of these impacts will be mitigated to a level of insignificance. I do not concur, and the reason that I do not concur is because the mitigation measures are to nebulous. I also do not concur based on the West End Fire Station, and I definitely do not concur based on the need for traffic signalization. Commissioner Mellinger stated that we can create assessment districts, create mechanisms and create all kinds of things, but impacts are not mitigated unless the mitigation measures are in place when the development is built. Therefore, my feeling is -- that the Negative Declaration is inappropriate. The mitigation measures are based upon conditions that really do not insure that all of these mitigation measures are in place. Commissioner Mellinger commented on condition number 61, stating that he sees provide permanent drainage facilities and also interim drainage facilities. What are permanent and interim if they have to be put in at the same time? Community Development Director Miller stated that the concern here, and it has been expressed by several people in the audience regarding this project, is that there are improvements that would be necessary to handle the drainage that results from this tract. In addition to that there is a very significant amount of drainage Minutes of Planning Commission February 2, 1988 Page 12 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 22912 - PREMIER HOMES CONTINUED that impacts this property that flow to it from off-site; so the intent of the condition, as addressed there, was that the developer shall install permanent facilities to handle all of the drainage that would result from his tract. In addition to that any interim facilities that would be required to handle drainage that is impacting his site would also have to be installed. However, the intent and desire is to install all of those__ improvements via an assessment district in which then the kinds of problems that the residents in the audience have spoken about would be largely protected from not only the new development but from the existing development. Discussion at the table ensued on revised condition number 61, pertaining to permanent/interim drainage facilities to protect the tract and downstream property owners. Commissioner Mellinger stated that with the drainage he has a problem with Certificate of Occupancy, because the buildings are built and the impervious structures are there; thinks that this should be at an earlier stage. Community Development Director Miller stated that with many sub- division many of these improvements go on concurrently. Commissioner Mellinger stated that when the site is cleared and graded that you have a drainage impact at that point; thinks that there should be some sort of assurance that there will be protection in the interim, and this should be addressed in the conditions. Commissioner Mellinger commented on the West End Fire Station, __ stating that it is his contention, at this point, without another building ever being built in Lake Elsinore, if there is no West End Fire Station fully equipped and in place, we are now at a significant impact that can not be mitigated, that no Certificate of Occupancy be issued, referencing condition number 29. Commissioner Mellinger suggested that a condition be added requir- ing sprinklers be installed in each and every house. Commissioner Mellinger commented on condition number 44, pertain- ing to applicant paying a share of the Lakeshore/Machado signal, stating that the last two traffic studies indicated a signal needed at this point. Therefore, I have no problem, this may be a fair share. I still believe that no Certificate of Occupancy or release of utilities shall be issued until the traffic signal at Lakeshore and Machado is installed and operational. Discussion at the table ensued on signalization of the Lakeshore and Machado intersection; if it is reasonable to require a developer in the City to bear the full burden of providing a facility, be it a traffic signal or fire station, that serves not only City residents but County residents; the West End Fire Station should be in, no matter what mechanism, the traffic signal should be in and drainage facilities should be permanent at least around this tract. __ Commissioner Mellinger commented on condition number 8, pertaining to drainage easements being provided to maintain drainage facilities, and asked who would maintain these facilities? Community Development Director Miller stated that the property owners would be responsible for maintaining these facilities. Commissioner Mellinger stated that he still has a problem with Minutes of Planning Commission February 2, 1988 Page 13 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 22912 - PREMIER HOMES CONTINUED condition number 8, does not believe individual property owners should have to maintain a drainage facility that will ultimately, if they do not maintain it, impact all kinds of people, not only -- the people in the tract but everyone downstream. Commissioner Mellinger stated that he concurs landscaping; the parking and storage of boats. care if it is in the driveway or not as long the sidewalk. with the front yard I do not really as it doesn't cross commissioner Mellinger commented on condition number 27, pertaining to the redesign of Lots 67 through 72, stating that he finds this hard to measure, and thinks that this should be defined clearly as to what type of ratio you want. commissioner Mellinger commented on condition number 28, pertain- ing to the decorative block wall and landscaped area along the rear boundary, basically, along the Lincoln alignment, asking who maintains this landscaping? Community Development Director Miller stated that with any back up wall situation it has been the recent policy of the City to incorporate those within a Lighting and Landscaping District. There has already been a Lighting and Landscaping District formed for this area and it would require annexation of this property to that district. ..... commissioner Mellinger asked if Terra Cotta where it would replace Shirley would be, both sides, full street constructed. Community Development Director Miller answered in the affirmative. Commissioner Mellinger stated that he had a problem Traffic Study indicating only 30 percent of the traffic to head to Orange County for work. Again, this is just in general because we get these reports consistently not their studies to the actual situation. with the is going a comment applying Commissioner Mellinger stated that he failed to see this in any of the conditions, and asked where are the additional stop signs, if any, in the tract or will this be handled with the conditions that were placed on the curtis tract. Discussion at the table ensued on the location of stop signs for this tract; if a stop sign is proposed for Terra Cotta and st. Clair and if not then one should be. Commissioner Mellinger commented on the aggregate resource asking if there were any restrictions by the State. Community Development Director Miller stated that this legislation was just passed last year. The actual legislation requires all ..... jurisdictions within the State to incorporate as part of their General Plan reference to these aggregate resource recovery areas that have been identified. Commissioner Mellinger stated that he believes that these are the conditions related to the environmental impact, and this is where he has the problem. If this is going to go through, I think that some of those conditions should be revised and suggested that the facilities be in before the people go in. Commissioner Mellinger stated that he believed that this area should have larger lots throughout. Commissioner Brinley asked association. if there would be a homeowners Minutes of Planning Commission February 2, 1988 Page 14 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 22912 ~ PREMIER HOMES CONTINUED Community Development Director Miller stated that a homeowners association is not proposed for this development. Commissioner Brinley stated that the West End Fire Station has been addressed, which I am in total favor of and it should have been done a long time ago. But we have not addressed pOlice protection for this area, nor did I see a park addressed. .... Commissioner Brinley stated that one of her major concerns is the drainage and there are aspects of this that we can not talk about legally. We can not speak for the County and you are residents of the County. Yes, you are in our Sphere of Influence and we do have an impact on you and we have a general concern here. I am in concurrence with Commissioner Mellinger that I could not approved this tonight without a new Environmental Impact Report. commissioner Brinley asked Associate the original map submitted, or did we in scale, so that it did not show shown. Planner Wilkins if this was ask that it be made smaller everything that needed to be Associate Planner Wilkins stated did request that it meet our required that all tentative tract a hundred feet to an inch or less. that one letter that we sent out submittal requirements, which maps be submitted of a scale of Commissioner Brinley stated that she agrees with the concerns brought up by the residents, and would also like to see the same interests and concerns taken to the County. Commissioner Mellinger commented on condition number 44, pertain- ing to the design and construction of traffic signal locations, stating that he believes that the Lakeshore, Robb Road and Grand Avenue area will certainly require a signal, in the near future, and any development in this area should be required to pay some sort of share for that. .... commissioner Mellinger stated that he would like to reiterate why he is opposed to the project, stating that at this point, the environmental is inadequate. When a Negative Declaration is being proposed the developer has to agree to every single condition that will mitigate every single impact. If those are not in the design of the project or agreed to, and they can not be negotiated at any hearing then you can not issue a Negative Declaration. I do not see that in concrete here; therefore, I feel an Environmental Impact Report is necessary. Motion by Commissioner Mellinger that we find that the proposed Negative Declaration inadequate and that an Environmental Impact Report, subject to the California Environmental Quality Act which focuses on significant impacts only, be prepared with the findings that the mitigation measures do not seem to address the impacts fully, second by Commissioner Brinley. Commissioner Kelley asked for discussion. .... Discussion at the table ensued on when the applicant could bring the proposal back fo~ review; flood control measures not becoming a reality without the development; whether or not another motion should be made in case Council believes that the Negative Declaration is adequate, and whether or not this proposal would go forward to City Council for their consideration of the Negative Declaration, and clarification of a Focused Environmental Impact Report. There being no further discuss at the table, Chairman Washburn Minutes of Planning Commission Fc;bruary 2, 1988 Page 15 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 22912 - PREMIER HOMES CONTINUED called for the question. Approved 4-0 (Chairman Washburn abstaining) - At this time, 10:10 p.m., the Commission recessed. At this time, 10:23 p.m., the Commission reconvened. - 3. Zone Code Amendment 88-2 - City of Lake Elsinore - Senior Planner Bolland presented proposal to amend the Parking code, Chapter 17.66, to clarify and revise certain parking standards relating to entertainment uses, size of residential parking spaces, duplexes, drive aisles, vehicle storage, and parking lot lighting. This proposal would affect property City-wide. Chairman Washburn opened the public hearing at 10:26 p.m., asking for those wishing to speak in favor of Zone Code Amendment 88-2. Mr. George Alongi, 150 East Lakeshore, requested that the garage parking requirement be returned to the original requirement of 20 x 20 or larger, and that property owners be allowed to park their vehicles on adjacent property they own. A brief discussion was held on the location of appliances in the garage; property owners being allowed to park their cars on adjacent undeveloped property, and how to determine if a car is being stored or if it has been abandoned on vacant property, placing a minimum of the number of vehicles that could be parked on the property and said vehicles having current registration, license and being operational. Chairman Washburn asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak in favor of Zone Code Amendment 88-2. Receiving no response, Chairman Washburn asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Receiving no response, Chairman Washburn asked if anyone wished to speak on the matter. Receiving no response, Chairman Washburn closed the public hearing at 10:37 p.m. commissioner Mellinger suggested the following amendments: section l7.66.020.E: section l7.66.020.G: Delete the word "permanent" Add the words "public right-of-way" commissioner Mellinger suggested that another section that states "no detached boats, detached trailers or recreational vehicles shall be allowed to park out in the If this is elsewhere in the Code then okay, but if not should be added. be added detached street." then it - Chairman Washburn stated that he agrees with Mr. Alongi. The owner of the adjacent lot has a right to park his vehicle, provided the vehicle is operational and has current license, and the maximum number of vehicles to be parked would be three. commissioner Mellinger stated that registered to whomever owns the lot. the vehicle has to be Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to recommend approval of Zone Code Amendment 88-2 with the second by Commissioner Brinley. to City Council above amendments, community Development Director Miller stated that due to certain difficulties of some of the issues that the Commission has raised, particularly with reference to the streets and with enforcement of the vacant property situation, would suggest that we review this with the City Attorney and come back with precise language. Minutes of Planning Commission February 2, 1988 Page 16 ZONE CODE AMENDMENT 88-2 - CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE CONTINUED Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to continue Zone Code Amendment 88-2, with review by the City Attorney and precise language provided on the above mentioned items, second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved 5-0 - Commissioner Brown requested that Business Item #1 be considered prior to PUBLIC HEARING #4, and that the INFORMATIONAL ITEM be deferred to a special meeting or our next meeting. It was the consensus of the Commission to consider BUSINESS ITEM #1 _ prior to PUBLIC HEARING #4. BUSINESS ITEMS 1. Park Plans - Friedman Homes - Associate Planner Pine presented for approval the final concept design of parks and trails for Tracts 20472 REVISED, 20704 and 20705 of the Canyon Creek Specific Plan Area. six (6) small parks ranging in size from 0.33 acres to 2.5, eight (8) acres total, north and east of the intersection of I-15 and Railroad Canyon Road. Associate Planner Pine requested the following amendments to the Conditions of Approval: Condition No. 3.j: "The fitness trail between Park #2 and #3, Tract 20704, shall be asphalt paved. A swing-gate type barrier shall be installed at the point of intersection between the fitness trail and the decomposed-granite continuance of the E.V.M.W.D. access road. Fitness trail stations shall be Parcourse Fitness Cluster 4-Phase Workout, with phase modules spaces at 100 to 150 yard intervals." - Condition No. 3.1: "In Park #1, Tract 20705, all sloped areas shall be planted with indigenous creeping ground cover species. Sun screens over picnic tables shall be architecturally compatible with service buildings, subject to the approval of the Community Develop- ment Director." Condition No.6: "In lieu of the park designed CP-6 (designated "14" and part of passive parks on the Park Phasing Plan in the approved Specific Plan) which is designated at the rear of apartments along the freeway and intended to serve principally the apartment area, the developer shall incorporate two (2) acres of open space in addition to the normal requirements within the apartment site which shall be developed to reduce- potential demand for park space. Chairman Washburn asked if the applicant would like to make a few comments. Mr. Martin Dowd, rep~esenting Friedman Homes, stated that if the Commission has any questions about the parks, in particular, he or Mr. Chris Herman pr Mr. Larry Buxton, would be happy to address them. Otherwise, wopld just like to solicit your support and approval of the parks as proposed. Minutes of Planning commission February 2, 1988 Page 17 PARK PLANS - FRIEDMAN HOMES CONTINUED Chairman Washburn asked Mr. recommendation. Dowd if they concurred with staff -- Mr. Dowd stated that they do accept the revised conditions. Chairman Washburn asked matter. Receiving no discussion at the table. if anyone else wished to speak on the response, Chairman Washburn asked for A brief discussion was held on parking on site for the project. Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to approve the Park Plans for Canyon Creek Specific Plan, Tracts 20472 REVISED, 20704 and 20705, as submitted, based on the Findings listed in the Staff Report and subject to the 6 Conditions of Approval as revised, second by Com- missioner Brinley. Approved 5-0 PUBLIC HEARINGS 4. General Plan Land Use and Circulation Elements and Zoning - Senior Contract Planner Manee presented a tentative schedule for the public hearing process on the General Plan Revisions. Discussion was held on why the meetings were being intermixed; whether or not action was needed to adopt the schedule or if it is just for public information. ..... INFORMATIONAL 1. West Elsinore Plan of Drainage - Community Development Director Miller stated that the city Council has scheduled a special meeting, Thursday, February 4, 1988, to discuss this. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS Community Development Director Miller stated further to add. that he has nothing PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS commissioner Mellinqer: Requested that the City look into and perhaps request that the Terra Cotta Junior High School have somebody patrol the area, where the guard rail is located, before and after school. -- Commissioner Kellev: will be absent at the next meeting. commissioner Brown: Nothing to report. Commissioner Brinley: Nothing to report. Minutes of Planning Commission February 2, 1988 Page 18 PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS CONTINUED Chairman Washburn: Nothing to report. There being no further business, the Lake Elsinore Planning adjourned at 10:55 p.m. Motion by Chairman Washburn, Commissioner Brinley. Approved 5-0 ~~proved, rJJw~W f;, \r- Gary ashburn, Ch 'rm n Respectful~ted. endstaff ~ Planning Commission Secretary Commission _ second by ~ - - MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 1988 THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:00 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Secretary Grindstaff. ROLL CALL: -- PRESENT: Commissioners: Brinley, Brown, Mellinger and Washburn ABSENT: commissioners: Kelley Also present were Community Development Director Miller, Senior Planners Bolland and Libiez, and Associate Planner Wilkins. MINUTE ACTION Motion by Commissioner Brown to approve minutes of February 2, 1988, as submitted, second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved 4-0 PUBLIC COMMENTS Chairman Washburn asked the Secretary if there were any request to address the commission. The Secretary answered in the negative. There being no requests to address the Commission, Chairman Washburn closed the PUBLIC COMMENTS section. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Zone Code Amendment 88-2 City of Lake Elsinore - Senior Planner Bolland presented proposal to amend the Parking Code, Chapter 17.66, to clarify and revise certain parking standards -- relating to entertainment uses, size of residential parking spaces, duplexes, drive aisles, vehicle storage, and parking lot lighting. Chairman Washburn opened the pUblic hearing at 7:05 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of Zone Code Amendment 88-2. Receiving no response, Chairman Washburn asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Receiving no response, Chairman Wash- burn asked if anyone wished to speak on the matter. Receiving no response, Chairman Washburn closed the pUblic hearing at 7:06 p.m. Chairman Washburn reiterated his concern, as brought up at the last meeting, that a property owner has the right to improve the lot and park his vehicle on said lot. Commissioner Brinley stated that she concurs; the home owner should have the right to park a vehicle on their property, and they should improve the lot and provide for maintenance and drainage. Chairman Washburn asked if the proposed Section l7.66.020.G, would allow the owner, if he did own the adjacent lot, to comply with that section and cause it to be developed, to some degree, -- and then park his vehicles on it? Community Development Director Miller stated this is what suggested in the proposed wording in the Staff Report. Planning Commission wished to go in that direction we suggest various restrictions that would generally require to improve the parking area. Again, this is an area in the Planning Commission may wish to give staff direction. we If would them which Commissioner Mellinger stated that we have some fairly large lots in the city, and on those larger lots people tend to park recreational vehicles and so on. Asked how you tell the difference between their back yards and a merged lot, or a side yard and a merged lot? Minutes of Planning Commission February 16, 1988 Page 2 ZONE CODE AMENDMENT 88-2 - CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE CONTINUED Community Development Director Miller referred to Section 17.66. 020.G, and Section l7.66.090.B, giving clarification and intent. Chairman Washburn stated that he still believes that the property owner has certain rights, but there can be measures to protect visual impacts and concerns for maintenance. Discussion at the table ensued on the photographs presented as examples and whether or not ownership of the adjacent lots were confirmed, and whether or not paving of driveways was required on dirt roads. -- Commissioner Brown stated that he would like to see, regardless of the recommendation, that the owner would have to make some kind of improvements to provide for drainage and surface control of weeds and taking materials back into the roadway, be it mud or whatever. If in fact, the person does not have ownership that he has some indication from the property owner, filed with the City, that he has permission to make those improvements. commissioner Brown commented briefly on the screening of recreational vehicles, stating that his concern would be that recreational vehicles do not encroach within the setback of a normally developed lot, regardless of whether it has a house on it or not. Discussion at the table ensued on the number of vehicles to be parked on the property and what is considered operable; no vehicles encroaching into the setbacks of what would be required of a structure whether it be on an improved or unimproved lot; whether or not it must be adjacent to an existing structure; vehicles being registered to the occupant of said address, and interpretation of proposed l7.66.020.G, pertaining to require- ment of lot merger. -- Commissioner Mellinger suggested that the word "permanent" be deleted from Section 17.66.020.E. Commissioner Mellinger requested a response from Ron KirChner, Public Service Director, pertaining to the prohibition of on-street parking of towed vehicles and detached recreational vehicles, referencing memorandum included in the packet. commissioner Brown commented on Section 17.66.090 not addressing setback requirements and asked if this was addressed elsewhere. Community Development Director Miller stated that setbacks were not addressed in either section. Commissioner Brown suggested that something be added to the end of this section that would reflect that none of the improvements are to be within the street right-of-way, regardless of what the existing improvements are or existing setbacks. Senior Planner Bolland referred to Section 17.66.140.B., which addresses parking requirements within the required front yard __ setback. Commissioner Brown commented on the side and rear distances, aSking if it was sufficiently addressed in other codes. Community Development Director Miller answered in the stating there is not a requirement other than the one as part of this amendment for recreational vehicles. not a requirement that parking be set back from the line. negative, proposed There is property Minutes of Planning Commission February 16, 1988 Page 3 ZONE CODE AMENDMENT 88-2 - CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE CONTINUED Motion by Chairman Washburn to recommend approval Zone Code Amendment with the following changes: - l7.66.020.G "No vehicle, boat, or trailer shall be parked or stored on any vacant or undeveloped property in any district, with the exception that no more than three (3) non-commercial motor vehicles which are operable, currently licensed and registered to the property occupant may be parked on undeveloped lots in the R-l (single- family) zoning district abutting a developed residential lot held by the same owner. The portions of the undeveloped lot which are used for parking shall be surfaced in compliance with l7.66.090.B. prior to use for parking." l7.66.020.E "When a garage is specifically required, or provided to meet required parking, entry doors shall be maintained in an operable condition at all times, and no structural alteration or obstruction shall be permitted within the required parking area which would reduce the number of required parking spaces. Use of garages shall be limited to vehicular and general storage purposes only and shall not conflict with any applicable building, housing, or fire codes." - Second by Commissioner Brinley. Commissioner Mellinger asked Chairman Washburn if this motion included the setback. Chairman Washburn answered in the negative. There being no further discussion, Chairman Washburn called for the question. Approved 3-1 Commissioner Mellinger voting no BUSINESS ITEMS 1. Commercial Project 87-6 REVISED Del Taco, Inc. - Chairman Washburn stated that the applicant has requested a continuance. A brief discussion was held at the table on the number of continuances this proposal has received. Motion by Commissioner Brown to continue Commercial Project 87-6 REVISED to the meeting of March 1, 1988, second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved 4-0 - 2. sign Program for Commercial Project 87-5 - Brookstone Develop- ment, Inc. - Associate Planner Wilkins presented for approval the Master Sign Program for Commercial Project 87-5 in accordance with item number 6 of the Conditions of Approval. The site is a 1.06 acre lot located on the northerly side of Allen Street, east side of Dexter. Chairman Washburn asked if the applicant's representative would like to comment. Mr. Steve Brown, representing Brookstone Development, stated that they are in agreement with staff recommendation. Minutes of Planning Commission February 16, 1988 Page 4 SIGN PROGRAM FOR COMMERCIAL PROJECT 87-5 - BROOKS TONE DEVELOPMENT CONTINUED Discussion at the table was held on transitional landscaping being provided at the base of the sign. Motion by Commissioner Brown to Commercial Project 87-5 based on Conditions of Approval listed in Chairman Washburn with the inclusion along the base of the sign. approve Sign Program for the findings and the 8 the Staff Report, second by of transitional landscaping - Commissioner Brown commented on hand painted windows signs, and asked Community Development Director Miller if condition number 4 addresses this issue. Community Development Director Miller stated that there are several requirements; first of all, you could have temporary signs in the windows that would be restricted to certain time frames, not exceeding thirty days. You could have permanent signs in a window as long as it did not exceed twenty-five percent of the windown area, and the total sign area would have to be counted as part of the sign area permitted for the frontage. Discussion at the table ensued on window signage, and if such signage would have to conform to the Master Signage Program Color Scheme. Chairman Washburn stated that with his second, he had requested that transitional landscaping be included, and asked if this was something that should have been done on the project as a whole. Commissioner Mellinger stated that it should have been. Chairman Washburn amended his second to delete the inclusion of transitional landscaping. - commissioner Brown concurred with Chairman Washburn's amended second. There being no further discussion, Chairman Washburn called for the question. Approved: 4-0 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS Community Development Director Miller stated that he had nothing to report. PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Commissioner Brinley: Nothing to report. Commissioner Brown: - Nothing to report. Commissioner Mellinqer: Commented on the Spyglass Initial Study and Notice of Preparation, presumes the applicant did talk with staff before filing this application, and stated that we are doing a Notice of Preparation even though it is not close to the General Plan, or is this a request for more than a Specific Plan, a General Plan Amendment. Minutes of Planning Commission February 16, 1988 Page 5 PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS CONTINUED Community Development Director Miller stated that we are still under discussion with the applicant as to the exact scope of the project. They have indicated an intent to file a General Plan Amendment and a -- Specific Plan, and the first stage would require an environmental review. commissioner Mellinger commented on parking at the Swap Meet, stating that this weekend the parking problem there was just astounding. Another problem is parking along the street was filled up far earlier than the parking lot itself. I think that the reason that they are doing this is because there are now three (3) entrances and they are not manned half of the time. Chairman Washburn asked if the Commission did not request that Code Enforcement go out on weekends and cite violators. Community Development Director Miller stated that Code Enforcement did go out and cite a number of people, and we contacted the owner who indicated that those entrances would be closed and they were closed for a while. Apparently, these entrances are being re-opened again, so we will follow up with the owner. -- commissioner Mellinger stated that he could see this as perhaps overflow, if anything, I think across the street there should not be any parking whatsoever. I presume Cal Trans has control over that. If the City desired no parking across the street on Saturday and Sunday would that require Cal Trans approval, or would it be something that the city could do? Community Development Director Miller stated that if it were in the public right-of-way it would require Cal Trans approval. However, I suspect, from past conversations, that the parking on the other side of Collier is on private property. Chairman Washburn stated that he does know that they have been contacting property owners trying to get permission for parking for overflow. commissioner Brown stated that under our new Parking Ordinance, language adopted, all of those vehicles will be citable because it is an unimproved area, asking if this is not correct. Community Development Director Miller answered in the affirmative. Commissioner Mellinger commented on the three-way stop at Riverside and Collier, and asked why isn't this a four-way stop? Community Development Director Miller stated that we have previously brought Planning Commission's concern in this regard to the attention of the Engineering Department. Apparently, they feel that traffic flows are better with the existing situations. commissioner Mellinger requested a report on this, stating that he would like to see their logic. Chairman Washburn: Commented on the Park/Abrams project and the temporary monument sign, stating that he was led to believe that this is a temporary monument sign and someday they will put a real sign there. Senior Planner Bolland stated that this was a leasing sign. Discussion ensued on whether or not a monument sign was to go in, the sign being a plaza identification sign and not a lease sign. Minutes of Planning Commission February 16, 1988 Page 6 PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS CONTINUED Chairman Washburn suggested that staff look at the Conditions of Approval for the Park/Abrams project and see if this is in fact the monument sign identifying the center. Community Development Director Miller stated that this was not intended to be the monument sign. If it does not have the lease information on it then it would not be in compliance with the Code, and staff will follow-up on that. - Chairman Washburn commented on the General Plan Advisory Committee, stating that they have met once already. Asked if they are coming back with their concerns and input at the next meeting, to try and alleviate some of the public interests and concern on the new General Plan, is this correct. Community Development Director Miller stated to encourage as much public comment and information as possible we are having a series of meetings, as presented at the last Planning Commission meeting, so there is going to be some concurrent hearings going on with the Planning Commission, General Plan Advisory Committee, as well as some general pUblic workshops. Chairman Washburn asked for the time the General Plan Workshops are going to be held, and if this would be advertised. Community Development Director Miller stated that we would intend to have the workshop during the day and evening, and that it would be advertised in the local paper. Chairman Washburn informed the public of the hearings scheduled on the new General Plan and that copies of the General Plan-Land Use/Circulation and Zoning Proposal and Maps may be obtained from Express Blueprinting, 113 North Main Street, Lake Elsinore. - Commissioner Kellev: Absent There being no further business, the Lake Elsinore Planning Commis- sion adjourned at 7:58 p.m. Motion by Commissioner Brinley, second by Chairman Washburn. Approved: 4-0 ,~pprov~d , ~'~ )L /. t2?frJJP----- ry shburn, Ch i n - Respectfully ~<U Linda Grindstaff Planning Commission Secretary "' ~ MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON THE 1ST DAY OF MARCH 1988 THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:00 P. M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Commissioner Kelley. ROLL CALL: -- PRESENT: Commissioners: Brinley, Brown, Mellinger, Kelley and Washburn ABSENT: None Also present were Community Development Director Miller, Senior Planner Libiez, and Assistant Planner Last. MINUTE ACTION Motion by Commissioner Brown to approve minutes of February 16, 1988, as submitted, second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved 4-0 (Commissioner Kelley abstained) PUBLIC COMMENTS There being no requests to address the Commission, Chairman Washburn closed the.PUBLIC COMMENTS section. PUBLIC HEARINGS - Chairman Washburn stated that now was the time for the Public Hearings and that Conditional Use Permit 87-6 is the first item to be taken up. Community Development Director Miller commented that Conditional Use Permit 87-6 and an item under BUSINESS ITEMS, Commercial Project 87-3, are both from the same applicant and on the same subject matter, and suggested that the Commission might wish to consider both matters at this time. It was the consensus of the Commission to hear Conditional Use Permit 87-6 and Commercial project 87-3 concurrently. 1. Conditional Use Permit 87-6 and Commercial Project 87-3 - William S. Buck - Assistant Planner Last presented a request to allow for the conversion of a 600 square foot single- family residence to a commercial office building and to allow expansion of the existing residential structure to a 3,664 square foot 2 or 3 tenant commercial office building, on a .18 acre site located on the west side of Riverside Drive. Chairman Washburn opened the public hearing at 7:06 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of Conditional Use Permit 87-6 and Commercial Project 87-3. - Mr. William S. Buck, representing the owners, Everett Manfredi and Don Summers, commented that he feels this is a fine project and will be an asset to the City - he designed the building to conform to the existing old mansions visible from this property. As far as the ingress and egress problem, until such time as the property across the street and the ultimate right-of-way is achieved, he feels they can live with the "no left turn" into the property. They made an attempt to buy the property behind it but met with no success. Mr. Buck further stated that they agree with all the listed Conditions but have some questions on a couple of things - their project will be all electric and will have no gas to the building; all of the parcel numbers on the property have not been listed and should show in addition to 378-264-025, Minutes of Planning Commission March I, 1988 Page 2 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 87-6 AND COMMERCIAL PROJECT 87-3 - WILLIAM ~ BUCK - CONTINUED parcels 378-264-024 and -015 as well; and on Condition.#18 of Commercial Project 87-3 he feels the requirement that a licensed landscape architect prepare and sign the revised landscape plan is unnecessary since he feels he is qualified to do that, but, if necessary, just signed by a landscape __ architect if required to do that. He has done all the landscaping on his buildings that he has built in the community and the landscaping is growing and the buildings are beautiful. Mr. Buck then stated he would be in the audience and was available to answer any further questions that might come up. Chairman Washburn asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor. Receiving no reply, Chairman Washburn asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Receiving no response, Chairman Washburn asked if anyone wished to speak on the matter. Receiving no response, Chairman Washburn closed the pUblic hearing at 7:09 p.m. Discussion commenced at the table with the question on how they would present left hand turns into the project and would there be a double-double yellow line. Assistant Planner Last replied that staff, particularly Engineering, recommended a double-double yellow painted median that would make it illegal to make a left hand turn into this site. Discussion returned to the table with the question as to __ whether the driveway entrance would be at the present driveway and was informed that it would be a little further north, a little higher on the curve. A concern on roof mounted equipment was expressed and Mr. Buck replied that none was planned for the building. Commissioner Kelley responded that he would like the wording "There shall be no roof mounted equipment" added to Condition #21 of Commercial Project 87-3. Staff was asked why applicant wouldn't be able to hook up to the sewer. Assistant Planner Last replied that the line in front of the site is a forced main and you can't tap into that because it would work in reverse and throw it back into the house. Staff was further questioned as to how long it would be before they could hook up to sewer and if they would now be on septic. Assistant Planner Last answered that it would depend on development of the property to the south. Should development occur, there is a condition requiring this project to hook up to the sewer if it is within 200 feet of the site, so it is a few years down the line. Discussion continued on traffic and traffic safety; antiquated intersection of Lash, Shrier and Riverside; the traffic report stating that since visibility is adequate there is no safety problem, then why do we continue to have a problem there because of poor visibility; staff was asked if there was a plan by Cal Trans to abandon that curvature configuration entirely. Community Development Director Miller replied that they were not aware of that. .... Minutes of Planning Commission March 1, 1988 Page 3 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 87-6 AND COMMERCIAL PROJECT 87-3 - WILLIAM ~ BUCK - CONTINUED ~ Staff was them asked if applicant has contacted Cal Trans as was stated in the report and if they had received a copy of the response from them. Assistant Planner Last responded in the affirmative and that since this project has been in place, staff, in addition to the applicant, has contacted Cal Trans several times and their basic response has been that they feel that there is a sight distance problem, which was addressed in the traffic study, and what they provided as an alternative was that either the ultimate widening of Lash would improve the situation there and then also providing for the curb returns, which would be the full street improvements, would help act as turn pockets for traffic coming in and out to provide some additional safety there. Condition #46 of Commercial Project 87-3 prohibits left turns into the site. Additional concerns were expressed on the traffic study's findings that there was adequate sight distance visibility to make left turns out of the site but not adequate visibility to make left turns into the site; feeling that visibility would not be adequate for either. ~ Community Development Director Miller commented, for clarification, that the sight distance from the vehicle exiting the site would be adequate in terms of the standards that Cal Trans sets for site distance, so that the vehicle sitting at the driveway preparing to make a left turn would have adequate sight distance in both directions to observe vehicles approaching. However, a vehicle making a left turn from the north bound lane of Riverside Drive would not have adequate sight distance to see vehicles coming south bound on Riverside Drive. According to the information presented from the Traffic Engineer and reviewed by the Engineering Department and Cal Trans, they concurred with the Traffic Engineer's conclusions that there is adequate sight distance according to Cal Trans standards for a vehicle sitting in the driveway to observe vehicles from both directions. ~ Discussion continued on the sewer line in Riverside Drive and it being a forced main up to the apex of the hill, which is Lash, and gravity down the hill and why couldn't the project hook to the main at the top of the hill; also asked if this area wasn't in the area that had been under a moratorium on building due to poor percolation and failed septic systems. Community Development Director Miller replied that the site sits below the apex of the hill and the sewage would have to be taken up hill to get to where the gravity flow line is or dig a very deep trench through the top of the hill to get down to a point where you could connect to the gravity line. He further stated that the moratorium area was in a lower area on the other side of the hill, in the residential section, where the high water table combined with poor soil conditions, make percolation very difficult. This side of the hill does not have the same high water table but before the change over to a commercial enterprise this would have to be approved by the County Health Department for adequate percolation and hook up of the system. Discussion returned to the table with comments on the traffic study and its indication that a portion of the embankment would have to be removed but that an alternative, from the City's standpoint, would be a double striped line median to Minutes of Planning Commission March 1, 1988 Page 4 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 87-6 AND COMMERCIAL PROJECT 87-3 - WILLIAM ~ BUCK - CONTINUED prevent the left hand turns. Staff was asked if Cal Trans approved of this double striped median line; doubts whether the double striped line would be adequate since there are "no left turn" signs with double yellow lines allover the City but unfortunately they don't work. __ Assistant Planner Last replied that he had not received nor seen a response from Cal Trans on the double striped line but that ultimately this street, based on the General Plan, is supposed to have a median in it. The Engineering Department did require that they do a double striped median. Condition #8 of Conditional Use Permit 87-6 does require approval by the Engineering Department and Cal Trans of the traffic safety mitigation measures identified by Herman Kimmel Associates in their report dated 1-29-88. Discussion resumed at the table with the direction that the wording "or the double-double stripe as indicated by staff shall be implemented" be added to Condition #8 after the date "1-19-88." The applicant was called to the podium and asked if he concurred with staff's conditions on the landscaping. Mr. Buck answered in the affirmative except for the architect and requested that he be allowed to do the architectural landscaping plans himself. Staff was asked if the state had any regulations regarding __ what plans could be done by whom as far as landscape plans were concerned. Community Development Director Miller responded in the negative but stated..that they were working on a set of landscape guidelines with the City's landscape architect consultant. It is the recommendation within those guidelines that they hope to present to the Commission in the near future that the langscape plans for all buildings that would normally fall into the non-exempt category for structures also be designed by a landscape architect for the landscape plan and that was the reason for the condition. Discussion returned to the table with the comment that once that is in place th~re wouldn't be a problem with it but feel that if the applicarl~ complies with the condition, would have no problem with him doing the landscape plans; concern expressed on when sewer hook up might take place and informed by staff that the H~alth Department requires hook up when a line is within.~Oo feet; traffic circulation discussed and questioned staff ~n~~he 35-foot driveway and informed that Ca1 Trans recommena~?- this width; asked if the driveway could be moved further ngf.th to make it a little safer although there is the retardation lane to enter there plus the curb return. - . ,:tt~~,.,. . . Commun1ty Develop~ent D1rector M1ller stated that Cond1t10n #47 of Commercial Ptpject 87-3 calls for 20-foot curb returns so that means YOll"have a 20-foot radius on that curb return and when you plot~bat in on the existing angles there, feels they W~ll find ~lr.ris quite angled in the direct~on they are suggest1ng, but staff could take another look at 1t and check it out with Engine~ring. Minutes of Planning Commission March 1, 1988 Page 5 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 87-6 AND COMMERCIAL PROJECT 87-3 - WILLIAM ~ BUCK - CONTINUED - Discussion continued with a question to staff that if Cal Trans approves the double lines, could the reflective dots be added so as to further identify that there is no left turn crossing permitted and staff responded that that could be added. Mr. Buck asked if it could be put in the record that when Riverside Drive is widened to the ultimate right-of-way, they could turn left into the property and the response from the table was that it would be subject to Cal Trans approval and once the hill is removed they could apply again and the approval could be modified. Motion by Commissioner Brown to approve Conditional Use Permit 87-6 based on the Findings and the nine (9) Conditions of Approval as listed in the Staff Report and to recommend to City Council approval of Commercial Project 87-3 based on the Findings and the forty-nine (49) Conditions of Approval as listed in the Staff Report and adoption of Negative Declaration 87-13, second by Commissioner Mellinger with Condition #8 of Conditional Use Permit 87-6 amended to read as follows: Condition #8: "Subject to the approval of the City Engineer and Cal Trans, the traffic safety mitigation measures identified by Herman Kimmel Associates in this report dated 1-29-88, or the double-double stripe as indicated by staff with reflective Botts dots in the median, shall be implemented." - and the first paragraph of Condition #18 and Condition #21 of Commercial Project 87-3 amended to read as follows: Condition #18: "A revised landscape plan shall be brought back to Planning Commission for approval and include landscape and irrigation specifications to be approved by the City Landscape Architect. The revised plans should include the following:" Condition #21: "All shall shall There exterior downspouts and roof equipment be painted to match the building, and be channeled under the sidewalks. shall be no roof mounted equipment." - Commissioner Brown amended his motion to include Commissioner Mellinger's amendments. Approved 5-0 2. Zone Code Amendment 88-3 - City of Lake Elsinore - Senior Planner Libiez presented proposal to amend the Zoning Code, Chapter 17.32 - "Mobile Home Community District", of the Lake Elsinore Municipal COde, amending fencing standards and site development standards related to awnings, carports and patio covers. Chairman Washburn opened the public hearing at 7:45 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of Zone Code Amendment 88-3. Receiving no response, Chairman Washburn asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Receiving no Minutes of Planning Commission March 1, 1988 Page 6 ZONE CODE AMENDMENT 88-3 - CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE response, Chairman Washburn asked if anyone wished to speak on the matter. Receiving no response, Chairman Washburn closed the public hearing at 7:46 p.m. Chairman Washburn asked staff how the test was finally eroded to the point that they wanted these changes. __ Senior Planner Libiez replied that a number of applications came in where people tried to build wooden added structures or attempted to put roofing on it that was more compatible with the types of composition roofing, for instance, and they got structures that were fairly high and rather incongruous in terms of design of the actual coach or low profiling of the coach. In many cases it was impossible to meet the exact roof pitch of the coach that was set because to do so would run the extended roof almost out to the property line and would preclude the passing of some vehicles underneath it in some cases. It did create a hardship in terms of cost values to some property owners, which isn't consistent with trying to do affordability in housing of that type. Community Development Director Miller commented that where this really came from was in terms of one of the discussions City Council had had regarding several of the development standards. City Council had identified this as an area where they had received input from the community and determined that the way the existing Code read, it might be more appropriate to'take another look at it and go more in the direction that staff has outlined for the Commission this evening. __ Chairman Washburn opened the public hearing at 7:45 p.m., aSking if anyone wished to speak in favor of Zone Amendment 88-3. Receiving nos reply, Chairman Washburn asked if anyone wished to speak ih opposition. Receiving no response, Chairman Washburn asked if anyone wished to speak on the matter. Receiving no response, Chairman Washburn closed the public hearing at 7:46 p.m. Commissioner Mellinger asked why the 6 foot 6 inches for the fences instead of 6-foot. Senior Planner Libiez replied that usually when you build a block wall, if you do use solid block or slumpstone, because of the size of the block and the mortar and usually you put a top cap on it, it works out to about 6 foot 6 inches. You get a finished product that way. Commissioner Mellip$~r asked what the maximum is for fences in the R-l Zone an,~ Community Development Director Miller responded that the maximum allowed was eight-foot. Commissioner Mellihi~r said the only other thing he wished,to comment on was.. the word "encourage" or words meanJ.ng "encourage" used ih.the ordinance. He does not feel it is - appropriate - tB!tt. the word should be "shall." If we want something then the.'f1ord should be "shall" in an ordinance. In the residenti~~ guidelines then "encourage" or words to that effect could be used. Commissioner 17.32.080.C - materials. Mellinger Materials further Permitted commented that under asked about acrylic Community jici'- Developml!nt Director Miller replied that this Minutes of Planning Commission March 1, 1988 Page 7 ZONE CODE AMENDMENT 88-3 - CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE - change is a direct reflection of the comments at the Council table. There is presently one area zoned for Mobile Home community District within the City and approximately half of it was developed several years ago. The remaining half of it has been slowly in the process of developing. The comments that have been received, he feels, indicate that the earlier part of the development did extensively use chain link and Council felt that where chain link was combined with landscaping it would appear to be appropriate within the context of the type of housing that was provided here. So they specifically indicated that chain link, although not normally acceptable, could be permitted at this location in conjunction with landscaping. Commissioner Mellinger asked if, with acrylic chain link, we would still require landscaping and Community Development Director Miller responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Brown referred to Item M.2 and asked for history on it. Community Development Director Miller answered that the Mobile Home Community District was adopted with very few changes from the previous Code and he believes this is one of the hold-overs from that Code. - Chairman Washburn interjected that this Chapter in the previous Code was written in the 1960's. Commissioner Kelley stated not to forget about the Mobile Home ordinance over all. commissioner Brinley asked if a hedge wasn't a little outdated for fencing. Community Development Director responded reflection of what has happened in the first development. Chairman Washburn stated that they are really only talking about one location currently and that is a very old location and it is probably a combination of what exists and hedges were used and do exist there. that this half of is a this Motion by Commissioner Brown to recommend adoption of Negative Declaration 88-5 and Code Amendment 88-3 subject to the Findings Staff Report, second by Commissioner Kelley. Approved 5-0 to City Council approval of Zone listed in the - 3. General Plan - Land Use and Circulation Elements and Zoning - City of Lake Elsinore - Community Development Director stated that Planning Commissioners had previously received the two maps that are on the wall - one representing the proposed Land Use designations and the other representing the proposed Circulation designations for the General Plan, and the summary that accompanied them. They have previously had discussions on pOlicies and Objectives. As we work more into these, there are some General Plan designations that are outlined within the summary associated with the Land Use designations and they are completing additional work on the Circulation Element. They wanted to provide the Planning Commission an opportunity for some additional and early input as they are working through this with the community and advisory committees so that any comments from the Commission Minutes of Planning Commission March 1, 1988 Page 8 GENERAL PLAN - LAND USE AND CIRCULATION ELEMENTS - CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE - CONTINUED can be incorporated or they can get additional information prior to getting into the hearings. City Council has reviewed the schedule staff presented to Planning Commission several meetings ago and Council __ suggested that because of the task involved and the fact that a couple of the members of the City Council are going to be outgoing and not continuing, that this be taken up by the new Council. therefore, we have delayed the hearing schedule somewhat and anticipate that this will be coming up to hearing probably in May. Chairman Washburn opened the public hearing at 7:54 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of the General Plan Land Use and Circulation Elements and Zoning. Chairman Washburn commented that since there were no questions from the audience in attendance, he would like to make a point to the audience who is listening to this meeting that they are talking about some changes and that early input is very important to have because if you wait to the last minute it may be too late. Please come down to City Hall, take a look at the maps, or you can pick up the Circulation and new General Plan Zoning Maps at Express Blueprint, which is on Main Street next to the barber shop, for a nominal cost. You can look at the properties you own or control or look to see how the community would be planned out by the consultant and bring your comments to City Hall. -- Chairman Washburn closed the public hearing at 7:56 p.m. Commissioner Mellinger suggested that just for convenience sake, they point out some of the changes from the existing General Plan not here, but in the future, maybe a description, including the Circulation Element. In going through the maps, he found it a little difficult to pick out where the changes are. Chairman Washburn s~ggested maybe a drop map showing dropping out only the changes that are occurring. Community Develop~~nt Director Miller stated they would . .,' ~, certa~nly see ~f tp~y could do that. Just as a comment, he said the major r$a~on they undertook this effort was because they all realized tbat there was a significant amount of inconsistency between the zoning and the General Plan. This is an effort to amend the General Plan Land Use Element and also change the zoning at the same time so that they will be consistent. As th~t've worked through this process ther ha~e discovered that nearly seventy percent (70%) of the c~ty ~n terms of area had i#consistent designations between zoning and General Plan Land Use. Commissioner Brinley asked how many historical sites have been noted alread~. She has had some calls that the City is not putting some of the historical sites on the maps. Assistant Planner Last replied that there are twelve sites on the map. Commissioner Brinley asked if the Ambassador Hotel was one of the 12 historical $ites on the map. Community Development Director Miller replied that it was not .... Minutes of Planning Commission March 1, 1988 Page 9 GENERAL PLAN - LAND USE AND CIRCULATION ELEMENTS - CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE - CONTINUED - but felt the reason was that although it has been there a long time its structure has changed rather dramatically over the years. Commissioner Mellinger commented that traditionally alot of historical structures, at least those that go in the National Register, are those that retain their architectural character. However, over the past number of years, the emphasis has not been on whether the building has retained its architectural character but the actual historical significance in terms of cities, such as not so much the appearance of the building but whether someone of historical significance lived there or something of such significance took place there and may be considered an historical resource. It may be found especially in this valley since it has a well documented history. Discussion ensued on possible sites to consider, such as Summerville home, church on Heald and poe Street, water tower site, etc.; need for policy and ordinance, and looking into CDBG funds to do a historical survey because they are available now. - Community Development Director Miller commented that the City had conducted a historical survey of structures with CDBG funds approximately six or seven years ago and the standard state historical survey forms were utilized and it is a fairly comprehensive survey of sites within the City but in terms of identifying the existing physical character. It was not done in the terms of historical significance that Commissioners Mellinger and Brinley and Chairman Washburn referred to. - Community Development Director Miller added that what is being suggested by the Commission tonight would be a significant departure from the current methodology that has been employed and asked the Commission if they wished to develop something along these lines or whether this is something for future projects and just how extensively do they want to undertake the type of historical designations and preservations that might be suggested by this approach. They would need quite a bit of additional input, particularly from people familiar with the history of the City. Chairman Washburn answered that they did want the new approach also utilized and requested anyone from the public that if they know anybody or have lived here and know any historical significant sites, to please let the City be aware of that, plus the Planning Division. Commissioner Mellinger remarked that it should be a General Plan goal and included in the revised General Plan and, secondly, they should Ultimately develop an ordinance addressing both the ones in the survey now and the ones to be added from the new approach. CDBG funds could be used in the future. BUSINES ITEMS 1. Commercial Project 87-3 - William S. Buck - Considered and approved with Conditional Use Permit 87-6. 2. Commercial project 87-6 REVISED - Del Taco, Inc. - Chairman Washburn stated that staff has requested a continuance of Minutes of Planning Commission March 1, 1988 Page 10 COMMERCIAL PROJECT 87-6 REVISED - DEL TACO. INC. this matter to March 15, 1988, and Chairman Washburn so moved, second by Commissioner Kelley. A brief discussion was held at the table on the number of continuances this proposal has received and applicant's filing of a Variance for a parking variance which staff feels __ should be considered at the same time as the Commercial Project and the need for additional time to permit advertising and public notice requirements related to the Variance. Approved 5-0 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS Community Development Director Miller stated he wanted to comment in response to one of Commissioner Kelley's earlier remarks regarding the Mobile Home Park Ordinance. As the Commission is well aware, they have approached a mobile home park ordinance on several occasions in the past. The County of Riverside has been extensively involved in drafting a mobile home park ordinance and it was actually adopted by the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors, however, subsequent to the first reading of the ordinance by the County Board of Supervisors there were a number of legal questions raised with respect to the State mobile home park regulations and they referred it back to their attorney for review. This review has been underway for quite a number of months and most qf the issues that have been raised and those that have been raised in part by the State would affect any efforts that we would have regarding a mobile home ordinance. We __ have been awaiting the determination as to what extent the State may preempt the field of mobile home park regulations. At such time as the State issues a clear directive and the issues surrounding Riverside County's mobile home park ordinance are resolved, we will certainly bring forward a ordinance to the Planning Commission and the Council for review. Community Development Director Miller further stated that over the past month and a half they have conducted a complete inspection of all mobile home parks in the City and given quite a number of correction notices to tenants and owners of those parks and are working with them to see that all corrections are made in compliance with all existing ordinances and State regulations are complied with. PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Commissioner Brown: Nothing to report. Commissioner Me11inqer: Commissioner Mellinger stated he understood the Planned unit Development (PUD) ordinance was still being worked on. Another thing that they were looking at, since they had an ordinance to look at today, the R-1 accessory uses that they discussed at a study session with Counpil and then further discussed here at the table - still waiting for that. Secondly, a report from the Engineering Department regarding a 3-way stop at Collier and Riverside, still have that concern. It was indicated at the last meeting that that was the best situation for traffic flow right now. He wholeheartedly disagrees. If you are going to have a 3-way stop, it should be just the opposite. Right turns are a .... ~ ~ ~ Minutes of Planning Commission March 1, 1988 Page 11 PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS - CONTINUED lot easier than left turns. There would be no one crossing. He would still like to see that report or claim. In that same matter, he would have the same concern about a couple of reports he had made approximately two years ago. One, a 3-way stop under City and County jurisdictions at Machado and Grand; he requests another letter be sent to the County requesting that it be reconsidered as it is a dangerous situation; and second, a ditch, also in City-County jurisdictions, that was dug, by County or not, at Machado and Lakeshore, a serious accident happened there the other day when a car went into the ditch. Also a school crossing walk goes right into this ditch. He then requested report on status for an ordinance to prohibit the parking of detached trailers, RV's and boats. Commissioner Mellinger then stated he wished to make a general comment relating to a General Plan revision on the newspaper planning around the lake on the concept plans he has only seen in the newspaper, regarding floodplain development, downtown development, and redevelopment plans, none of which have gone before the Planning Commission. The plans are exciting and he agrees with that and thinks that in the long run they will help the City, however, he feels there should be a little more due process, so to speak. He has concerns on environmental review on such plans, has strong concerns and is completely opposed to large residential development in the floodplain and thinks it is environmentally unsound, almost a fraudulent type situation because they have received almost no information. It is all going in the newspaper. His overall concern is that with any development in the City, especially around the lake, we have to have some sort of concern for our cumulative impacts upon the City and the valley. Need proper mechanism to make sure that traffic circulation, drainage, the police protection and fire protection keep up with the growth - so far it hasn't. Commissioner Kelley: Nothing to report. Commissioner Brinley: Nothing to report. Chairman Washburn: Chairman Washburn stated he has three things: 1. He is concerned about the safety of the people who are crossing Lakeshore Drive at the new neighborhood commercial center, where Circle K and Domino's Pizza are located. Seems reasonable that there should be a crossing there with striping. 2. Some time ago he had requested that the Engineering Department look at a 3-way stop at Dexter and 2nd and would like to know if they have looked at it and if there has been a response. It is a school bus stop and cars just go zooming around that curve at 2nd and Dexter. 3. Adding to what Commissioner Mellinger said, it is the responsibility of the Council and the Planning Commission to look at how we grow and how we do it in a proper fashion to provide the services and protection for the community as it grows here without screwing up a good thing. If we don't do it, citizens will do it and other communities have found that citizens usually when they put it in place don't do it very Minutes of Planning Commission March 1, 1988 Page 12 PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS - CONTINUED well because they go about it through a ballot box initiative which doesn't work effectively for implementation. Chairman Washburn stated he attended a conference in Indian Wells and it had nothing to do with anything else but that and the speakers all said the same thing that government officials should do what is necessary so that the citizens do not need __ to go to a ballot initiative. There being no further business, the Lake Elsinore Planning Commission adjourned at 8:20 p.m. Motion by Commissioner Brinley, second by Commissioner Kelley. Approved: 5-0 {::~;b~ c~~an Respectfully submitted, ~~~~- Ruth Edwards Acting Planning commission Secretary - - MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON THE 15TH DAY OF MARCH 1988 THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:00 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Commissioner Brinley. ROLL CALL: -- PRESENT: Commissioners: Kelley, Brinley, Brown, Mellinger and Washburn ABSENT: Commissioners: None Also present were Community Development Director Miller, Senior Planner Libiez and Assistant Planner Magee. MINUTE ACTION Motion by Commissioner Brinley to approve minutes of March 1, 1988, as submitted, second by Commissioner Kelley. Approved 5-0 PUBLIC COMMENTS Chairman Washburn asked the Secretary if there were any request to address the Commission. The Secretary answered in the negative. There being no requests to address the Commission, Chairman Washburn closed the PUBLIC COMMENTS section. PUBLIC HEARINGS -- 1. Conditional Use Permit 88-2 - American Legion - Senior Planner Libiez presented a proposal to convert existing vacant optometrist office to allow American Legion functions including meetings, and private bar open 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. seven days per week, located at 158 North Main Street. Chairman Washburn opened the if anyone wished to speak in 88-2. public hearing at 7:06 p.m. ,asking favor of Conditional Use Permit Mr. Dick Batson, Commander of American Legion Post 200, stated that they have a concern with several of the conditions placed on the proposal. Chairman Washburn informed Mr. Batson that he would be called back to the pOdium to address his concerns at the close of the pUblic hearing. -- Chairman Washburn asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor of Conditional Use Permit 88-2. Receiving no response, Chairman Washburn asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Receiving no response, Chairman Washburn asked if anyone wished to speak on the matter. Receiving no response, Chairman Washburn closed the public hearing at 7:10 p.m. Chairman Washburn called Mr. Batson back to the podium. Mr. Batson stated that there will not be much major remodeling done, referring to condition number 4. We have already started taking down the partitions that Dr. Blower had for his examining rooms, these were non-bearing walls. When we move in, the office that will be put in is a free-bearing wall and if we need a permit for this I would like to know. It is my understanding that for a free-bearing wall you do not have to have a permit. Mr. Batson asked if they have to build a barrier to enclose the dumpster, condition number 6. Chairman Washburn asked for staff's opinion/direction. Minutes of Planning Commission March 15, 1988 Page 2 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 88-2 = AMERICAN LEGION CONTINUED Senior Planner Libiez responded in the affirmative, stating that it would be a standard trash enclosure for commercial locations. Mr. Batson stated that behind the building there is a set of steps and would like to know what the requirements are for redoing the steps, referring to condition number 8. Senior Planner Libiez stated that the stairs needed to be replaced or repaired, basically this was the reason for this condition. ..... Mr. Batson commented on condition number 12, pertaining to installation of grease trap or interceptors or provide written waiver for installation requirements, stating that they will not have a kitchen at this location. Chairman Washburn stated that the provision here, as it stands, is that you would probably be able to get a written waiver on that. The key here, I know why staff included this, is in case you decided at some point to do that then you would have to comply with the regulations. Mr. Batson commented on condition number 14, pertaining to providing paved, striped and properly landscaped parking spaces and driveway sufficient to serve the use, stating that they are leasing the building not the lot. Commissioner Brinley commented on the parking lot asking staff if the City pays any kind of rent toward the parking lot; if the City uses the facility to park any of their vehicles, and whether or not it is posted as a public parking lot. __ Community Development Director Miller stated that there had previously been an agreement between Mr. De Pasquale and the DBA (Downtown Business Association) for the use of that parking facility. That agreement has been terminated and the City does not participate in any funding or pay Mr. De Pasquale for the use of that facility. . There is no public parking indicated there at this time, and the signs that had originally been there were removed when the agreement between the DBA and Mr. De Pasquale was terminated. Commissioner Brinley stated that her view on the parking lot, the fact that you are going to be open until 9:00 p.m., people will be coming out into the dark and for their own protection the parking lot should be paved and have lighting. Commissioner Brinley asked Mr. Batson how long is interim? Mr. Batson stated that it could be anywhere from eight (8) to twelve (12) months. Commissioner Brinley stated that she would like to see the parking lot and trash enclosure requirements met. Commissioner Brinley asked staff if the building would be re- __ inspected by the building inspector once all of the improvements have been made. Senior Planner Libiez responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Kelley stated that Commissioner Brinley covered all of his concerns. Commissioner Brown stated that one of the concerns that you have when you go to move a business is moving in a new area, the new Minutes of Planning Commission March 15, 1988 Page 3 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 88-2 - AMERICAN LEGION CONTINUED ----- facility may not meet your needs as far as parking. I do not think that it is fair to allow a business to move into an existing facility and not make the improvements someone right next door would have to do. I believe in the parking requirements. commissioner Brown stated that he would like to see a condition added that the Conditional Use Permit is good for one (1) year only and subject to review every six (6) months, so that we can see if this is an interim situation or not. commissioner Brown stated that in the past the American Legion has had many social events, and I see the occupancy is limited to thirty (30) people, asked what is going to happen to your events in the future? commissioner Brown stated that he is concerned with the size of the building, the facility's ingress/egress, parking and adequate lighting for the parking area and handicap access to the restrooms. Commissioner Mellinger stated that he has the same concerns. Commissioner Mellinger commented on the occupancy load, thirty (30) persons maximum, and asked if there would be more than this. ----- Commissioner Mellinger stated that he has the same concern on interim, stating that if it is one (1) year then we could put a maximum of one (1) year. commissioner Mellinger commented on condition number 14, and stated that the following case has a finding that he agrees with "all developments to have required parking per the Zoning Ordinance", and asked for the number of spaces that would be required. Community Development Director Miller stated that since fully dimensioned plans have not been submitted we have not determined the maximum occupancy under the Building Code. Chairman Washburn asked if notification to property owners within a three-hundred foot radius was sent out, and if any input was received. Community Development Director Miller responded that notices were mailed and no comments received. Chairman Washburn stated that he the trash enclosure, some type screened, as this will also attend the Legion's meeting, so a dual purpose. has no problem with working out of receptacle that could be be an entry for the people that it would seem like it will serve Chairman Washburn stated that he concurs with Commissioner Brinley that there has to be some type of lighting provided, what is there is probably not adequate to provide safety for those that enter the facilities. Chairman Washburn stated that he would like to see condition number 14 in place, but concurs with commissioner Brown on this condition. Chairman Washburn stated that he agrees with Commissioner Mellinger on meeting code requirements. Commissioner Brown stated that one concern is the fact that the Minutes of Planning Commission March 15, 1988 Page 4 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 88-2 = AMERICAN LEGION CONTINUED American Legion has had many social events in past and you do not want to have them at this facility; how this would be prevented? Mr. Batson stated that the social functions that they do have usually go out in their bulletin, a monthly calendar and everything is listed. The only way we have the functions is we advertise them through our membership. Discussion at the table ensued on whether or not the American Legion was planning on any social events for this next year, and the occupancy load. - commissioner Mellinger asked if there was a provision in the code that would allow condition number 14 to be waived. Community Development Director Miller stated that the code does require provision of parking when there is a change of use for a facility. In the past the Planning Commission or City Council has allowed interim uses with conditions that something be allowed for an interim period. Mr. Batson stated that the Legion has lights, which are on timers, and we would be taking these with us. Discussion at the table ensued on lighting of the site; whether or not vapor lighting meets City Standards. Commissioner Brown stated that there is concern at the table about not putting in inadequate facilities, and suggested perhaps a dust free surface; traffic stops along Main Street to prevent any car from going out onto the sidewalk area; adequate lighting; remove any debris and provide a weed free and clean surface, maybe oiled DG or lightly oiled DG to prevent dust that way we have an interim facility that is not terribly expensive. - Commissioner Mellinger suggested looking into a code amendment for these interim facilities. Motion by Commissioner Brown to approve Conditional Use Permit 88-2 based on the Findings and subject to the 16 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report, with the following amendments: Condition No. la: "This Conditional Use Permit is good for one (1) year from date of commencement of occupancy and subject to review every six (6) months." Condition No.6: "Trash enclosure shall be constructed per City Standards as approved by the Community Development Director. Interim screening for trash enclosure shall be provided, but does not need to be to full trash enclosure standards." Condition No.14: "Applicant shall provide interim parking facilities consisting of a dust free surface; parking stops on the Main Street side; adequate lighting and removal of all debris and maintenance of weeds and debris." - Second by Commissioner Kelley. Commissioner Mellinger asked for discussion, stating that he thinks that there should be a transmittal to City Council that Minutes of Planning Commission March 15, 1988 Page 5 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 88-2 - AMERICAN LEGION CONTINUED there be a code amendment based on past precedence for interim parking facilities. I believe that we should have the authority to do this based upon the Conditional Use Permit process on an -- interim basis, but it should be in the code somewhere. There being no further discussion at the table, Chairman Washburn called for the question. Approved: 4-1 Commissioner Mellinger voting no It was the consensus of the Commission to hear Variance 88-3 and Commercial Project 87-6 REVISED concurrently. 2. Variance 88-3 and Commercial Project 87-6 REVISED - Del Inc. - Assistant Planner Magee presented proposal to vary the required parking standards to allow a three (3) reduction, and to construct a 1,872 square foot fast restaurant, located on the east side of Lakeshore approximately 245 feet north of Riverside Drive. Chairman Washburn opened the public hearing at 7:42 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor. Taco, from space food Drive Mr. Westfall, representing Del Taco, stated that they were requested by the Commission at a previous meeting to redesign the site plan to provide parking in the rear. In doing so, the parking came out short of the City requirement and I wanted to leave open the option of being able to discuss that site plan. -- Chairman Washburn asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor of Variance 88-3. Receiving no response, Chairman Washburn asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Receiving no response, Chairman Washburn asked if anyone wished to speak on the matter. Receiving no response, Chairman Washburn closed the public hearing at 7:44 p.m. commissioner Kelley informed Mr. Westfall that he appreciates his efforts, thinks that he had tried very hard to work with staff. commissioner Kelley asked would be if you were to building? Mr. Westfall stated that in reading through the staff report and looking at the square footages we would have to reduce either the public dining or kitchen area. If we reduce the square footage of the kitchen area we would not have the necessary storage room required by the County Health Department. If we reduce the dining room area requirement what we run into is a severe cutback of our seating. We feel that we would not be able to handle the customers at the lunch and dinner hour, and it would make the project unfeasible, due to lack of seating. Mr. Westfall what ramifications there reduce the square footage of the -- commissioner Kelley stated that since we are considering both of these items together that he would go along with staff's recom- mendation on option 3. Commissioner Brinley stated that she has problems with the pro- posal and does not understand why the building can not be reduced. . Mr. Westfall responded that there are two areas in which we are talking. In the kitchen area we have certain clearances that we have to maintain around equipment, our kitchen is very small and tight in order to be efficient. The only room that I have that I could reduce any square footage, and not effect the actual food preparation, is the storage area and the County has require- Minutes of Planning Commission March 15, 1988 Page 6 VARIANCE 88-3 ~ COMMERCIAL PROJECT 87-6 REVISED - DEL TACO CONTINUED ments on certain amounts of storage area, and it would also force us to receive daily deliveries. Discussion at the table ensued on County requirements for storage areas; applicant's willingness, at previous meeting, to reduce seating capacity, if necessary, and provide parking in the rear. Commissioner Brinley stated that at this time she would go with staff's recommendation to deny the variance. .... Commissioner Brown stated that he wants to see the parking at the rear of the building, and understands the applicant's concern to have adequate space to serve his customers. One of my concerns, back from the beginning of the project, was that the site was inadequate to house the project to begin with, and we have tried to make it work the way we want to see it and the applicant has tried to make it work the way he wants it. I hope that our aesthetics will out and the business will go in anyway. Commissioner Brown stated that he would not vote for the variance and will stick with the revised site plan, so I would go with option 2. Commissioner Mellinger stated that he would also recommend denial of the variance. For one thing, I still contend, as in staff's findings listed in the variance that our General Plan does not allow parking variances. Commissioner Mellinger stated that the only concern that he has about parking in the front, at this time, would be the conflict of the drive-thru with parking spaces. I noticed that staff .... recommended option 3, asked staff if there was any concern about the conflict of the drive-thru with the parking spaces. Assistant Planner Magee stated that this was discussed at length, however, it was felt that there was adequate turnaround room, and believes there is a 24 foot wide drive aisle there. Commissioner Mellinger stated that his only concern is people driving out of the drive-thru area and other people backing up, it might be a problem. Other than that, I do not have a whole lot of problem with the parking in front with the increased landscaping. I would go along with more trees in the landscaped area adjacent to the parking area in addition to the street trees, and I would go for a couple of small trees in the planter areas, referring to the site plan posted. Commissioner Mellinger stated that his only concern was the conflict with circulation, as long as staff has no concern, would recommend denial of the variance and go with option 3, with further upgrade in landscaping. Community Development Director Miller stated that as Assistant Planner Magee indicated this was discussed at length with the applicant. Generally, the drive-thru situation was viewed fairly similar to a normal driveway situation. __ Commissioner Brown asked if it was possible to change the drive-thru exit to the street, or are the tolerances too close to the other entrance. Community Development Director Miller responded that from a circulation standpoint we try as much as possible to reduce the number of ingress/egress points along major arterials. Although, it makes on-site circulation better by having the maximum number of driveways it significantly diminishes the carrying capacity of Minutes of Planning Commission March 15, 1988 Page 7 VARIANCE 88-3 ~ COMMERCIAL PROJECT 87-6 REVISED - DEL TACO CONTINUED streets to have increased driveways. -- commissioner Brown suggested directly to the street and twelve feet (12') closer to scaping and put the three (3) that the exit driveway be taken out move the building, approximately the street, and have that all land- parking spaces behind the building. commissioner Brown stated that he would like to see the plan come back with all of the parking spaces in the back. Commissioner Mellinger stated that he would have to agree with staff on the ingress/egress. commissioner Kelley stated that he would like to reiterate that he agrees with Commissioner Mellinger on option 3. Chairman Washburn asked staff if the northwest and fronts Lakeshore Drive is 22613 or is this a separate site; submitted for this parcel. Assistant Planner Magee referred to Exhibit B, and stated that the parcel in question is not a part of the tentative map, and that no plans or input has been submitted. parcel immediately to the part of Tentative Map have there been any plans Chairman Washburn stated that he concurs with staff on the variance request. - Discussion at the table ensued on concern for the berm and what the height would be, and the type of vegetation to be utilized; planting and spacing of vegetation for the berm. Chairman Washburn stated that if we go with the design shown, which is the parking up front and the larger landscaping, would there also be a crossing brick pattern or textured pattern exiting the site? Assistant Planner Magee responded in the affirmative, stating that there would be a ten-foot (10') brick pavement treatment, which is covered in the Conditions of Approval. Chairman Washburn asked if there would be a requirement for signage; stop, slow or a mild speed bump, when coming around the corner of the building exiting the site. Mr. Westfall stated that they have no objection to putting up a stop sign or posting a "caution watch for cars" sign, or however staff would like it worked out. ~- Chairman Washburn stated that the direction of option 3 with paving treatment and signage. Motion by Chairman Washburn findings listed in the staff Mellinger. Approved 5-0 Motion by Chairman Wasburn to recommend that City Council reaffim Negative Declaration 87-23, approve Commercial Project 87-6 REVISED, option 3, based on the findings and the 41 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report and the following amendments: reluctantly he would move toward increased landscaping, textured to deny Variance 88-3 based on the Report, second by Commissioner Condition No. 42: "Increased landscaping shall be provided adjacent to Lakeshore Drive, subject to the approval of the Community Development Minutes of Planning Commission March 15, 1988 Page 8 VARIANCE 88-3 k COMMERCIAL PROJECT 87-6 REVISED - DEL TACO CONTINUED Director." Condition No. 43: "A stop sign or caution sign at the end of the drive-thru shall be installed, said sign shall be located within a landscaped area and shall not exceed four-feet (4') in height, subject to the approval of the Community Development Director." - Second by Commissioner Mellinger. Approved 3-2 (Commissioners Brown and Brinley voting no) At this time, 8:07 p.m. the Commission recessed. At this time, 8:15 p.m. the Commission reconvened. BUSINESS ITEMS 1. Commercial Project 87-6 REVISED - Del Taco, Inc. - Considered and approved with Variance 88-3. 2. Commercial Project 88-2 - Jess Rodriguez - Community Development Director Miller presented a request to construct a 480 square foot addition to an existing 480 square foot office building, located at 16645 Lakeshore Drive. Chairman Washburn asked the applicant there were any comments they would conditions. or his representative if like to make on the Mr. Phil Williams, contractor for the project, stated that they feel they have met all of staff's requirements and would like to _ see the project go through. Commissioner Mellinger asked Mr. Williams if they agree with condition number 4, deletion of parking space number one and this being landscaped. Mr. Williams stated that this would be fine as long as they meet the parking requirements. Discussion at the table ensued on the north elevation and the indication that some sort of architectural treatment be provided; providing a color stripe to match the mansard roof; providing window and door treatment on the front elevation, and screening of air conditioning equipment. Motion by Commissioner Brinley based on the findings and Approval listed in the Staff Brown. Approved 5-0 to approve Commercial Project 88-2 subject to the 15 Conditions of Report, second by Commissioner INFORMATIONAL 1. Update and Revision of the General Plan Land Use and Circulation Element - Contract with Alan Manee Community Development Director Miller informed the Commission that our contract with Alan Manee for revisions to the General Plan has ended. - The process has taken longer than we had anticipated, and in meeting with some of the General Plan Advisory Committee and comments from Council it is going to take a little longer. Staff will continue working on the General Plan Land Use Element, and we would anticipate bringing this to Planning Commission for formal hearings in June. We hope to have workshop sessions with the Planning Commission in May for your preliminary input. Minutes of Planning Commission March 15, 1988 Page 9 INFORMATIONAL ITEMS CONTINUED ~ 2. Reinvestment in Lake Elsinore Program - Community Development Director Miller stated that the Commission has been provided information on the Reinvestment in Lake Elsinore Program that was presented to the Redevelopment Agency on February 23, 1988. This packet describes the planning and negotiating agreements that the Redevelopment Agency has approved for seven (7) Project Areas within the downtown area and around the lake. At this time, these are planning agreements that would provide for refinement of conceptual plans, and at such time those are done they would go through the normal review process, which would include public hearing before Planning Commission and City Council. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS Community Development Director Miller stated that we have given the Commission a copy of the Engineering Department response to the traffic and safety concerns that were expressed at the previous meeting. Chairman Washburn stated now that staff is handling the continuation of the Land Use and Circulation Elements feels that it should not be slowed down. If anything, the more input from the Advisory Committee the better off you are and the sooner the workshops start with the citizens the better off the community is. Community Development Director Miller stated that in working with the General Plan Advisory Committee it appears that we will have several -- more meetings with .them and continue to meet with the public. The workshop sessions and formats are going to take longer than originally anticipated, so we are not suggesting that they be fewer in fact there will probably be more. Chairman Washburn stated that his suggestion was not to have a large gap in between. Commissioner Brinley asked if notices will be sent out in advance. Community Development Director answered in the affirmative. Chairman Washburn asked party to assist in the General Plan, stating assistance. if staff would be taking on another temporary preparation of updating and revising the that he is in favor if staff needs that PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Commissioner Kelley: Commented on the maintenance of storm drains, asking if the County of Riverside was responsible for this maintenance. -- Community Development Director Miller stated that he believes that all of the existing storm drains within the City are the responsibility of the Riverside County Flood Control District. Commissioner Kelley stated that there is a concrete storm drain behind Amberwood Court and trees are growing inside of it; the fence that comes down is also loose and this could be a safety hazard. Asked if staff could relay this to the County Flood Control District. Community Development Director stated Commissioner Kelley could give staff direct that to their attention. that after the meeting perhaps the precise location and we Minutes of Planning Commission March 15, 1988 Page 10 PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS CONTINUED commissioner Brinley: Commented on the large problem with skateboarders in shopping center parking lots, Brookstone Landing and Stater Brothers, stating that cars are being damaged and this is also creating a safety hazard for customers and the skateboarders themselves, and asked what type of solutions could be provided to eliminate this problem before someone __ is really hurt. Chairman Washburn asked if this had not been brought up to Council's attention recently. Community Development Director Miller stated that this was brought before the City c~uncil at their last meeting and, it was indicated at that point 1n time, generally it is the responsibility of the private property owners to take action. It was indicated by Council that if the private property owners wished to take action to enforce regulations within their property then there are mechanisms that other jurisdictions use to allow the granting of public easement to the City and consequent enforcement of regulations by local police agencies. Commissioner Brown: Would like a review, at the next meeting, of the landscaping requirements for the commercial project at Railroad Canyon and Grape. I would like staff to quickly peruse this, I do not believe it meets what we required. I would like to see no further occupancy permits issued to any business in that center. Assistant Planner Magee stated that the occupancy of the entire __ center was not released until the landscaping was put in according to plan, that included landscaping across the back. Commissioner Brown stated that if staff has already reviewed these plans then he would like to see it come back to the table, because there are several people here at this table that believe we approved one thing and several items are not there, including transitional landscaping around the sign. commissioner Brown stated that one thing that may cause concern in the future and it may not, I am sure it is because of the newness to the area, but Sizzler has taken up about all of the available parking spaces for half of that shopping center. Perhaps, in the future, on our shared parking ordinance agreement we may need to address this. Commissioner Brown stated that he has had several positive responses from Council and Commission, but nothing seems to be happening, I would like to know about the status of stop signs at Railroad Canyon and the freeway off-ramps. Commissioner Mellinqer: Commissioner Mellinger stated that he concurs with the stop signs at Railroad Canyon Road and the freeway off-ramp, and that stop signs should also be placed at Central and the freeway off-ramp, it is just as bad. .... Commissioner Mellinger stated that he was happy to see the response from Engineering Department and would like a status report in one (1) month, two meetings from now, to see what the progress is on each of these items. Thanked staff for the information regarding the Redevelopment Agency concepts. Minutes of Planning Commission March 15, 1988 Page 11 PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS CONTINUED Requested a schedule on the General Plan action, obviously there will be some massive General Plan and Zone Code changes required. - Chairman Washburn: Thanked the Engineering Department for their response on the traffic and safety concerns. I would like to point out to the public that any concern on the new General Plan Map, which is available at Express Blueprinting, can be directed to Nelson Miller or David Bolland. My feeling is that the more input the community has on that the better off the community is. There being no further business, the Lake Elsinore Commission adjourned at 8:34 p.m. Motion by Commissioner second by Commissioner Kelley. Approved 5-0 Planning Brinley, - Respectfully, ~ Linda Grindstaff Planning Commission Secretary - - - - MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON THE 5TH DAY OF APRIL 1988 THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:00 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Commissioner Brown. ROLL CALL: -- PRESENT: Commissioners: Kelley, Brinley, Brown, Mellinger and Washburn ABSENT: commissioners: None Also present were Community Development Director Planner Libiez, Assistant Planners Magee and Last, Planner Wilkins. Miller, Senior and Associate MINUTE ACTION Motion by Commissioner Brown to approve minutes of March 15,1988, as submitted, second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved 5-0 PUBLIC COMMENTS Chairman Washburn asked the Secretary if there were any request to address the Commission. The Secretary answered in the negative. There being no requests to address the Commission, Chairman Washburn closed the PUBLIC COMMENTS section. PUBLIC HEARINGS - 1. Tentative Parcel Map 23307 Shores ide Investors/Park Abrams Development Company - Assistant Planner Magee presented a request to subdivide an existing 1.08 acre commercial site into two (2) parcels containing 0.72 and 0.37 acres respectively, located on the northeast corner of Lakeshore Drive and Riverside Drive. Chairman Washburn opened the public hearing at 7:03 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of Tentative Parcel Map 23307. Mr. Doug Weston, Park Abrams Development, spoke in favor of the parcel map and requested clarification on condition number 6, 11, 12, and 13. - Chairman Washburn informed Mr. Weston that he would be called back to the podium at the close of the public hearing to discuss the conditions in question. Chairman Washburn asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak in favor of Tentative Parcel Map 23307. Receiving no response, Chairman Washburn asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Receiving no response, Chairman Washburn asked if anyone wished to speak on the matter. Receiving no response, Chairman Washburn closed the public hearing at 7:05 p.m. Chairman Washburn called Mr. Weston back to the podium. Mr. Weston stated that they have complied with the majority of the conditions, we thought, going through the process before. Specifically, condition number 6, 11, and 12, paYment of fees, we would like an outline of what fees are being talked about; have we paid those; is this a standard condition or whatever. Mr. Weston then requested clarification on condition number 13, pertaining to obtaining agreement for on-site drainage. Assistant Planner Magee stated that he believes that Mr. Weston is correct with reference to condition number 6, would have to Minutes of Planning commission April 5, 1988 Page 2 TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 23307 - SHORESIDE INVESTORS/PARK ABRAMS DEVELOP- MENT COMPANY CONTINUED check with the Engineering Department, but believes since we have finaled the project all of the Capital Improvement fees would have been paid. In reference to condition number 11 and 13, I cannot comment; condition number 12, is a new condition it was not attached to the original Conditions of Approval, and it is something that the Engineering Department felt was necessary. A brief discussion at the table ensued on paYment of fees; continuing the proposal to allow the applicant to get with staff and resolve the issues and bring it back to the Commission, or conditioning the proposal so that it is not redundant if the fees have been paid. Motion by Commissioner Brinley to continue Tentative Parcel Map 23307 to the meeting of April 19, 1988, second by Commissioner Kelley. Approved 5-0 -- 2. Tentative Parcel Map 23381 - Camelot Property Counselors, Inc. - Assistant Planner Last presented a request to subdivide three (3) existing parcels (12.49, 4.03 and 1.17 acres respectively) into six (6) parcels, located on the northeast corner of Mission Trail and Malaga Road with a portion abutting Casino Drive. Chairman Washburn opened the public hearing at 7:11 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of Tentative Parcel Map 23381. Mr. Leonard O'Byrne, Camelot Property Counselors, Inc., spoke in favor of the proposal. __ Chairman Washburn asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak in favor of Tentative Parcel Map 23381. Receiving no response, Chairman Washburn asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Receiving no response, Chairman Washburn asked if anyone wished to speak on the matter. Receiving no response, Chairman Washburn closed the public hearing at 7:14 p.m. Commissioner Brown commented on condition number 76, of the original Conditions of Approval, pertaining to recordation of irrevocable reciprocal parking, circulation and landscape maintenance easement. Asked if it would be appropriate to record this on the face of each map, stating that he would like to see it recorded on each individual parcel not by separate instrument but right on the map. Mr. O'Byrne stated that this would be recorded as an instrument identifying each parcel. Commissioner Mellinger stated that they could refer to the instrument on the map, as a note on the map. Commissioner Brown stated that as long as it is recorded or referred to on the map he has no problem. Chairman Washburn stated that he had the same question as raised by commissioner Brown. -- Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to recommend to City Council approval of Tentative Parcel Map 23381 based on the Findings and subject to the 3 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report, second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved 5-0 r;~'''''c",,'it.-,':'Y:: Minutes of Planning Commission April 5, 1988 Page 3 BUSINESS ITEMS 1. Commercial Project 87-7 & Conditional Use Permit 87-10 Devenplus Corporation Associate Planner Wilkins presented revised site plan, rear building elevations and landscaping plans for a 60-unit, 11,044 square foot, motel complex and a 9,500 -- square foot 8-unit commercial center, located on the northerly side of Casino Drive (Vista Del Lago) 180 feet west of Railroad Canyon Road. Commissioner Mellinger asked if there was going to be an alterna- tive to the blue awnings. Associate Planner Wilkins responded that this has been omitted by staff, since it was not included with the Master Signage Program. We are recommending that they come back for Commission review for the Master Signage Program. Motion by Commissioner Brinley to approve the revised plans for Commercial Project 87-7 and Conditional Use Permit 87-10 based on the Findings and the 5 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report, second by Commissioner Mellinger. Approved 5-0 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS - Community Development Director Miller stated that as you all know, we have a City election next Tuesday, April 12th. Our Municipal Code calls for installation of the new City Council within the week of the election and consequently the installation of the new City Council has been scheduled for April 19, 1988, at 7:00 p.m., which coincides with the Planning Commission Meeting. There will be a brief reception, outside of the Chamber, after the installation of the new Council. The Planning Commission meeting is scheduled to start at approximately 7:30 p.m. on April 19, 1988. Also, we are continuing to work on the General Plan Land Use Element. The next meeting of the General Plan Advisory Committee is scheduled for April 20, 1988, and we will be discussing future meetings and workshops with the Committee at that time. We have discussed with the Committee reviewing the City on a sector by sector basis and anticipate that we will probably have at least 5 to 6 additional meetings with the Committee. As we progress through this we will be bringing more information back to the Planning Commission. PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Commissioner Kellev: Urged everyone to vote on April 12, 1988. - Commissioner Brinlev: Nothing to report. Commissioner Mellinger: Asked what can be done about the graffiti showing up allover the parkway walls. Community Development Director Miller responded there are a number of ways to approach that, and we will review this with the Public Works Department and see if we can take some measures in that regard. Minutes of Planning Commission April 5, 1988 Page 4 PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS CONTINUED commissioner Brown: Nothing to report. Chairman Washburn: Nothing to report. There being no further business, the Commission adjourned at 7:21 p.m. Motion by second by Commissioner Mellinger. Approved 5-0 Lake Elsinore Commissioner pproved, 11J1bMr- Washburn, rman ~~tfullY ~/tt/ ~ Linda Grindstaff ~ Planning Commission Secretary - Planning Brinley, - - MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON THE 19TH DAY OF APRIL 1988 Commissioner Mellinger, Vice Chairman, conducted the meeting being as Chairman Washburn was elected to City Council on April 12, 1988. THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:37 P.M. - PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Commissioner Brinley. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Commissioners: Kelley, Brinley, Brown, and Mellinger ABSENT: Commissioners: None Also present were Community Development Director Miller and Senior Planner Libiez. MINUTE ACTION Motion by Commissioner Brown to approve minutes of April 5,1988, as submitted, second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved 4-0 PUBLIC COMMENTS Vice Chairman Mellinger asked the Secretary if there were any request to address the Commission. The Secretary answered in the negative. There being no requests to address the Commission, Vice Chairman Mellinger closed the PUBLIC COMMENTS section. - PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Tentative Parcel Map 23307 Shores ide Investors/Park Abrams Development Company - A request to subdivide an existing 1.08 acre commercial site into two parcels containing 0.72 and 0.37 acres respectively, located on the northeast corner of Lakeshore Drive and Riverside Drive. Community Development Director Miller presented the applicant's request to withdraw said application. Motion by Commissioner Brinley to accept the withdrawal from Park/Abrams, second by Commissioner Brown. Approved 4-0 2. Tentative Parcel Map 23411 - Aware Development - A request to divide one existing parcel into eleven parcels varying in size from 20,000 square feet to 29,100 square feet, located on the northwest corner of Dexter Avenue and Second Street. Vice Chairman Mellinger stated that the applicant has requested that this item be continued to the meeting of May 17, 1988, and asked if there was anyone in the audience wishing to speak on the matter. Receiving no response, Vice Chairman Mellinger asked for a motion to continue said project. Motion by commissioner Brown 23411 to the meeting of May 17, Brinley. Approved 4-0 to continue Tentative Parcel Map 1988, second by commissioner 3. Tentative Parcel Map 23037 - Larmor Development - Senior Planner Libiez presented a proposal to subdivide ten acres into six parcels for future development of an industrial/commercial manufacturing business center, located at the southeast corner of Central Street and Collier Avenue. Minutes of Planning Commission April 19, 1988 Page 2 TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 23037 - LARMOR DEVELOPMENT CONTINUED senior Planner Libiez stated that the Senior civil Engineer has requested that condition number 11 be amended to read as follows: Condition No. 11: "The recordation of the final map shall include establishment of an 86 foot right-of-way for Collier Avenue, a 76 foot right-of-way for Central Street __ and incorporation of vacated excess right-of-way abutting all parcels along Collier Avenue frontage." Vice Chairman Mellinger opened the public hearing at 7:41 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of Tentative Parcel Map 23037. Mr. Fred Crowe, of Butterfield Surveys, stated that they are in agreement with the conditions. Mr. Walt JOhnson, 'representing Larmor Development, stated that they are in agreement with staff findings; feels that this would be a good project as far as the recommendations that have been made, and would answer any questions that arise. Vice Chairman Mellinger asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak in favor of Tentative Parcel Map 23037. Mr. George Alongi, 150 East Lakeshore Drive, stated that he was not for or against the proposal, and asked if this project, the circulation, was based on the old General Plan, the new General Plan or any part of it. Senior Planner Libiez stated that the circulation and the right-of-ways that have been agreed to and being assessed against the map are negotiated with the developer over a period of time, and will be prescribed when the new General Plan is presented to the Planning Commission and City Council for future adoption. At this point the developers have agreed those right-of-ways in recognition of the need for proper circulation in that area. Mr. Alongi asked Senior Planner Libiez if this was then based on the new General Plan, is that what you are saying. -- Community Development Director Miller stated right-of-ways are consistent with the existing well as the new General Plan. that the General proposed Plan as A brief discussion ensued on circulation alignments. Vice Chairman Mellinger asked if anyone else wished to speak for or against or on tne matter in general. Receiving no response, Vice Chairman Mellinger closed the public hearing at 7:46 p.m. vice Chairman Mellinger stated that before discussion at the table he has a question for staff, asked if these street alignments were not approved on an earlier project. - Senior Planner Libiez stated that conditions of part of the original industrial project do point out the need for those alignments and did indicate that the future circulation element would consider these widths of highways that are being dedicated to the City. Motion by Commissioner Brown to recommend to City Council approval of Tentative Parcel Map 23037 based on the Findings and subject to the 11 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Minutes of Planning Commission April 19, 1988 Page 3 TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 23037 - LARMOR DEVELOPMENT CONTINUED - Report and amending condition number 11, to read as follows: Condition No. 11: "The recordation of the final map shall include establishment of an 86 foot right-of-way for Collier Avenue, a 76 foot right-of-way for Central street and incorporation of vacated excess right-of-way abutting all parcels along Collier Avenue frontage." Second by Commissioner Kelley. Approved 4-0 BUSINESS ITEMS None INFORMATIONAL 1. Engineering Department Status Update on Planning Commission Traffic Concerns - Community Development Director Miller stated that most of the items covered in the update require interaction with other agencies outside the city. Although, we have been pursuing those actions we do not have a lot of new information to report. We have, as pointed out in the memorandum, engaged the services of a tra~fic engineer who will be consulting to the City to address more specifically some of these issues that the Planning Commission had requested information on. Community Development Director Miller stated that several of the items have been presented to Cal Trans and the County for resolution and input. We were advised, yesterday, that the County Traffic Committee has approved the installation of a four-way stop at Grand and Machado, and it will probably be done within the next month. Community Development Director Miller stated that the Commission will be kept informed as additional responses are received. Vice Chairman Mellinger stated that he appreciates the effort and would like to have another update prepared for the meeting of May 17th. PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Commissioner Kel1ev: - Commented on item number 7 of the Traffic and Safety Concerns, asking when this is expected to be operational. Community Development Director Miller stated that Ca1 Trans has working with the adjacent property owner to implement that park ride facility, and some of the negotiations have taken longer originally anticipated. We hope that within the next 60 days will be finalized and proceed to construction. been and than this Commissioner Brinlev: Commented on stating that are to be are posting. item number 7 of the Traffic and Safety Concerns, her concern is with the posting, and asked what areas posted and if you have any idea, at this time, what they Minutes of Planning commission April 19, 1988 Page 4 PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS CONTINUED Community Development Director Miller stated that we do not have the precise information from Cal Trans, at this time. Commented on trucks being prohibited, all the way around, because when they are parked they block visibility coming off of the freeway. Community Development Director Miller stated that one of the things __ that we have requested Cal Trans consideration of is prohibition of all parking in that area with the installation of the park and ride. commissioner Brown: Commented on stating that appreciated. item number 8 any continued of the Traffic and Safety Concerns, effort on that problem would be Community Development Director Miller stated that we are in discussion with Cal Trans about this particular problem. vice Chairman Mellinqer: As brought up at the last meeting, would like to see if something can be done about the graffiti showing up allover the parkway walls. Community Development Director Miller stated that we contract for maintenance of that area, which I believe this week, and we anticipate the contractor will be week taking corrective action. have signed a takes effect out there this Commented on the cut slopes of the Buster Alles tract, understands there is some Minor Design Review and discussion with staff, I do not __ know how the other Commissioners feels, but I think that they should take another shot at hydroseeding that with maybe a more native mix. community Development Director stated that Commissioner Washburn has stepped up to Council, now Councilman Washburn. Perhaps Planning commission would wish to consider what you would like to do since we will have two other Commissioners who's term will be expiring in June. I anticipate that it may be a meeting or two before a new Commissioner is appointed. Asked if the Commission would wish to elect a new Chairman or whether you would wish to have Commissioner Mellinger chair the meetings for the remainder of the term, until the end of June. Perhaps Commission would wish to consider this and give direction as to your desires at the next meeting. Motion by Commissioner Kelley to have Commissioner the meetings for the remainder of the term, until the second by commissione~ Brinley. Approved 4-0 Mellinger chair end of June, There being no further business, the Lake Elsinore Commission adjourned at 7:53 p.m. Motion by Commissioner second by Commissioner Kelley. Approved 4-0 Planning Brinley, -- A'JJI ,II ' {~~dY Me[f1!r.~ Chairman ~u~tted. L~nda Grindstaff ~ Planning commission Secretary MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON THE 3RD DAY OF MAY 1988 THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:01 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Commissioner Kelley. ROLL CALL: - PRESENT: Commissioners: Kelley, Brinley, Brown, and Mellinger ABSENT: Commissioners: None Also present were Community Development Director Miller, Senior Planner Libiez and Associate Planners Last and Magee. MINUTE ACTION Motion by Commissioner Brown to approve minutes of April 19,1988, as submitted, second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved 4-0 PUBLIC COMMENTS Chairman Mellinger asked the Secretary if there were any request to address the Commission. The Secretary answered in the negative. There being no requests to address the Commission, Chairman Mellinger closed the PUBLIC COMMENTS section. ELECTION OF VICE CHAIRMAN Chairman Mellinger opened nominations for Vice Chairman. - Commissioner Brinley nominated Commissioner Brown as Vice Chairman, of the Planning Commission, second by Commissioner Kelley. There being no further nominations, Commissioner Brown was elected Vice Chairman by a unanimous vote. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Variance 88-4 Frank Ayres & Son Construction Company Associate Planner Last presented proposal for a variance to allow a ten-foot (10') setback adjacent to Interstate 15 in lieu of the required twenty-foot (20') setback. A 2.10 acre site located on the north side of Collier Avenue between Chaney and Third Street. Chairman Mellinger opened the public hearing at 7:06 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of Variance 88-4 Mr. Bruce Ayres, representing the applicant, stated that he concurs with the Staff Report and Conditions of Approval, and presented photographs that depict the site. Mr. Ayres stated that they are not asking for more building, we are taking the driveway that is in between the two buildings and making it wider. It would be difficult for us to keep it land- scaped back there and keep it maintained. -- Chairman Mellinger asked Mr. Ayres if they proposed the landscap- ing behind there, referring to the posted rendering. Mr. Ayres answered in the negative. Chairman Mellinger asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor of Variance 88-4. Receiving no response, Chairman Mellinger asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Receiving no response Chairman Mellinger asked if anyone wished to speak on the matter. Receiving no response, Chairman Mellinger closed the public hearing at 7:08 p.m. Commissioner Brown asked if the drainage channel was on the Minutes of Planning Commission May 3, 1988 Page 2 VARIANCE 88-4 - FRANK AYRES ~ SON CONSTRUCTION COMPANY CONTINUED applicant's property line, easement over the property for drainage, and who maintains this. Mr. Ayres responded that they maintain this. Commissioner Brown stated that with the building being immedi- ately on the drainage channel there is no way to get in there and __ maintain it. commissioner Brown asked if the freeway right-of-way ends at the chain link fence, and the actual property line is at the fence. Mr. Ayres answered in the affirmative. Commissioner Brown asked about fire protection at the rear of the building; the length of the existing building, and for the Fire Department recommendations. Community Development Director Miller stated that this appears on the site plan and as referenced in the staff report, discussion of the actual site plan, we are recommending that the site plan be continued and brought back to the Planning Commission. One of the concerns was fire protection and the Fire Department has made some recommendations in that regard, sprinkling the building or providing additional access. Associate Planner Last stated that the Fire Department is possibly seeking a second access, which we would most likely recommend, an emergency access to the most northerly end of the property going to Collier. They did not express any concern with the rear of the building. The second alternative was sprinkling the buildings. .... commissioner Brown asked Community Development Director Miller if the Commission requested a Code Amendment instead of a Variance what are we talking time wise? Community Development Director Miller stated that the earliest that we could bring back a code amendment, because of the requirements for advertising, would be a month from now to the Planning commission and then it would take another five to six weeks to go to City Council for first and second reading. commissioner Brown traditional and they later on. I would the code amendment. stated that this commission has been very do not like variances, it runs into problems really like to see this come back as part of commissioner Brinley stated that she agrees with commissioner Brown, would rather see a code amendment. commissioner Brinley asked what staff was referring to on the architectural treatment, condition number 4, Associate Planner Last responded either building material variations, texture changes or possibly paint elements in the -- rear elevations. Basically, this was left open for the applicant to propose something. commissioner Brinley stated that she had a concern on drainage, but this has already been addressed. Commissioner Kelley stated that he does not have anything over and above what has already been stated. Chairman Mellinger stated that, obviously, the site plan that is Minutes of Planning Commission May 3, 1988 Page 3 VARIANCE 88-4 = FRANK AYRES ~ SON CONSTRUCTION COMPANY CONTINUED - being proposed here reflects the current 'ordinance and not the request. If we did allow a code amendment, in this particular instance, due to location there seems to be no need for the setback because of the berm, however, it seems to be rather unique to this property, and if we had that code amendment through the rest we would end up with the same situation. If we have that ten-foot drainage there is no chance for landscaping whatsoever, and in my mind this blank wall is not very attractive, there should be some landscaping out there. If it were a code amendment, I would suggest either a minimum ten-foot landscaping or that it could not be approved without at least an easement from Cal Trans for landscaping. A brief discussion at the table ensued on the block wall and landscaping; location of actual property line and the ten-foot raised berm adjacent to the freeway. Chairman Mellinger stated that even though he does not like to put a condition of approval on another building if you, the applicant, are willing to do that, in writing, I do not have a problem with that either to paint or stripe that as it is rather blank looking. Chairman Mellinger stated that where the berm is, he does not have a problem with the building going back to the property line, and that would still require a variance for that. Chairman Mellinger asked about the visibility of the building -- from the back of the site. Associate Planner Last stated that about three-quarters of the building would be visible, even with the berm there. Chairman Mellinger stated that he would go along with the setback where the berm obscures the view of the building. Mr. Ayres stated that he would prefer to landscape the whole thing and not fuss around with the redesign, maybe we could go easy on the groundcover and just plant trees. Chairman Mellinger stated that the type of landscaping proposed is not a high maintenance type, and that maybe you would be more interested in low maintenance trees and maybe a few shrubs, I do not think that groundcover is all that necessary, this can be addressed when it comes back. Chairman Mellinger asked if there were any further comments. -- commissioner Kelley asked if the landscaping would be part of the Design Review rather than the Variance. Chairman Mellinger answered in the affirmative. Community Development Director Miller stated that Planning Commission has talked about the possibility of landscaping on the Cal Trans right-of-way. If the Planning Commission were inclined to grant the variance, you could add a condition that the applicant obtain an easement and provide landscaping on the Cal Trans right-of-way. Motion by Commissioner Kelley to approve Variance 88-4 based on the Findings and subject to the 4 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report and adding condition number 5, which will read, as follows: Condition No.5: "Applicant shall obtain an easement from Minutes of Planning Commission May 3, 1988 Page 4 VARIANCE 88-4 - FRANK AYRES ~ SON CONSTRUCTION COMPANY CONTINUED Cal Trans for landscaping, and provide landscaping in the right-of-way, which shall also be subject to the approval of the Community Development Director." Associate Planner Last asked if the Commission would like to have the applicant obtain the easement from Cal Trans prior to __ issuance of Building Permits or certificate of Occupancy. Chairman Mellinger responded prior to Certificate of Occupancy. community Development Director Miller suggested that the Commission word the condition in a sense that the applicant may use the reduced setback if an easement is obtained for landscaping in lieu of the setback that would otherwise be required by code. Commissioner Kelley amended his motion to include the amendment to condition number 5, which will read as follows. Condition No.5: "The applicant may use the reduced setback if an easement is obtained from Cal Trans for landscaping in lieu of the setback that would otherwise be required by code. Land- scaping in the right-of-way shall also be subject to the approval of the Community Development Director." Second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved 4-0 - Chairman Mellinger stated that this includes the direction for the code amendment. 2. Zone Change 88-1 In-N-Out Burger - Associate Planner Magee presented a proposal to change the present zoning designation from R-I (HPD): (Single-Family Residential - Hillside Planned District) to C-2 (General Commercial), in order to allow the development of a fast food restaurant and to bring the zoning into conformance with the General Plan, on 0.88 acres on the southwest corner of Grape Street and Railroad Canyon Road. Chairman Mellinger opened the public hearing at 7:28 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of Zone Change 88-1. Mr. Rich Boyd, representing the applicant, stated that he would answer any questions. Chairman Mellinger asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor of Zone Change 88-1. Receiving no response, Chairman Mellinger asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Receiving no response, Chairman Mellinger asked if anyone wished to speak on the matter. Receiving no response, Chairman Mellinger closed the public hearing at 7:20 p.m. - There being no discussion at the table, Chairman Mellinger called for a motion. Motion by Commissioner Brinley to recommend to City Council adoption of Negative Declaration No. 88-9 and approval of Zone Change 88-1 based on the Findings listed in the Staff Report, second by Commissioner Kelley. Approved 4-0 Minutes of Planning Commission May 3, 1988 Page 5 Chairman Mellinger stated that before we go to the next public hearing item since the variance was approved, asked if the Commission has a problem with continuing Industrial Project 88-1, BUSINESS ITEM NUMBER 1. -- BUSINESS ITEMS 1. Industrial Project 88-1 - Frank Ayres & Son Construction Company - A request to allow a 29,734 square foot multi-tenant industrial complex on 2.3 acres. The site is located on the north side of Collier Avenue between Chaney street and Third street. Motion by Commissioner Brown to continue Industrial Project 88-1 to June 7, 1988, second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved 4-0 PUBLIC HEARINGS CONTINUED IT WAS THE CONSENSUS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO CONSIDER PUBLIC HEARING NUMBER 3 AND BUSINESS ITEM NUMBER 2 CONCURRENTLY. Conditional Use Permit 88-4 and Commercial Project 88-5 - Leo A. Laure/Rich Boyd - Associate Planner Magee presented proposal for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a drive-thru aisle and an outside dining area in conjunction with the construction of a 2,671 square foot fast food restaurant, on 0.88 acres located on the southwest corner of Grape Street and Railroad Canyon Road. -- Associate Planner Magee requested that condition number 5 be added to Conditional Use Permit 88-4 and condition number lIon Commercial Project 88-5 be amended to read, as follows: Condition No.5: "Applicant shall provide a ten-foot (10') wide landscape buffer between the south property line and the drive-thru aisle." Condition No. 11: "All planting areas shall have permanent and automatic sprinkler systems with 100 percent watering coverage. These areas shall be separated from paved areas with a six-inch (6") high concrete curb. Planting within fifteen-feet (15') of the point of intersection shall be no higher than thirty-six inches (36"). The Landscape Plan shall incorporate additional vertical landscape elements against blank wall expanses, especially against the trash enclosure and on Elevations "A" and "0"." Chairman Mellinger opened the public hearing at 7:32 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of Conditional Use Permit 88-4 and Commercial Project 88-5. Mr. Rich Boyd, representing the applicant, stated that they do -- not have a problem with the median in the street on Grape Street, because we feel that we really need that access, right turn only on the first driveway. Mr. Boyd questioned condition number 3 on Commercial Project 88-5, pertaining to the brick band wrapping around the entire building and being of a contrasting color. Associate Planner Magee stated that what staff was looking for, if I can direct your attention to the patio area, there is a brick treatment across the three-foot high wall, and what we were looking at was extending that treatment, that color and theme across the length of the building. Minutes of Planning Commission May 3, 1988 Page 6 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 88-4 AND COMMERCIAL PROJECT 88-5 - IN-N-OUT BURGER CONTINUED Mr. Boyd asked if this was to be in that particular type of stone, block, or paint. Associate Planner Magee stated that paint would be acceptable, what we were looking for was a contrasting color, and we were leaving it open for the applicant to decide which would be best. __ Discussion ensued on condition number 3, pertaining to the contrasting color. Chairman Mellinger asked Community Development Director Miller if he could point out, using the site plan, where the landscaping would be along that elevation, and asked if it would be where the Evergreen Pear Trees are located. Community Development Director Miller referred to the site plan posted and pointed out the location of the landscaping. Chairman Mellinger stated that this is a planter area so wouldn't the landscaping trees and tall shrubs do the same thing? community Development Director Miller stated that if you look at the landscaping plan you will note, as indicated those are Evergreen Pear, you probably will have a tree that is first of all deciduous and secondly that will form a canopy, probably five to six feet off the ground. We have suggested in the conditions that additional vertical landscape elements be added to that elevation. Mr. Boyd commented on the added condition number 5, to __ Conditional Use Permit 88-4, stating that they do not have a problem with this. But, right now we have thirty-nine parking stalls and we are only required to have thirty, utilizing the rendering posted, stated that they may have to delete a parking space to continue the finger so that we have enough width for the landscaping. Chairman Mellinger stated that they would have to meet the minimum requirements for parking. Associate Planner Magee stated that with the outside dining area they are at the minimum parking requirements. Chairman Mellinger asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak in favor of Conditional Use Permit 88-4 and Commercial Project 88-5. Receiving no response, Chairman Mellinger asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Receiving no response, Chairman Mellinger asked if anyone wished to speak on the matter. Receiving no response, Chairman Mellinger closed the public hearing at 7:40 p.m. Commissioner Brown stated that he likes the idea of having the contrasting color around the entire building. Commissioner Brinley stated that she likes the idea of having the __ contrasting color around the entire building. Commissioner Kelley stated that the contrasting color does not matter, he could go either way. Happy that the applicant has decided to go with the median, thinks that this will be an enhancement, and with the addition of condition number 5, providing the ten-foot landscape buffer for the drive-up. Chairman Mellinger recommended that the Ficus Nitida be replaced with some other cross tolerance variety. Minutes of Planning Commission May 3, 1988 Page 7 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 88-4 AND COMMERCIAL PROJECT 88-5 - IN-N-OUT BURGER CONTINUED ,..... Chairman Mellinger commented on the landscape plan, the Evergreen Pears, shows 15 and 24 is this a fifty-fifty mix. Mr. Leo Laure, architect for the project, stated that they submitted a preliminary landscaping plan for the proposal which pretty much spelled out the type of plants and shrubbery that is being used on the site. Chairman Mellinger asked Mr. Laure if he had a problem with replacing the Ficus, and the Evergreen Pear, it says 15 gallon 24 inch box, is this half and half? Mr. Laure responded that he has no problem with replacing the Ficus Nitida, and it would be an upgrade on the 15 gallon 24 inch box Evergreen Pear trees. - Motion by Chairman Mellinger to adopt Negative Declaration No. 88-9 and approve Conditional Use Permit 88-4 based on the Findings and subject to the 4 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report with the addition of condition number 5; recommend to City Council adoption of Negative Declaration No. 88-9 and approval of Commercial Project 88-5 based on the Findings and subject to the 40 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report and the following amendments: Condition No.5: "Applicant shall provide a ten-foot (10') wide landscape buffer between the south property line and the drive-thru aisle." Condition No. 11: "All planting areas shall have permanent and automatic sprinkler systems with 100 percent watering coverage. These areas shall be separated from paved areas with a six-inch (6") high concrete curb. Planting within fifteen-feet (15') of the point of intersection shall be no higher than thirty-six inches (36"). The Landscape Plan shall incorporate additional vertical landscape elements against blank wall expanses, especially against the trash enclosure and on Elevations "A" and "D"." Condition No. 36: "Southerly driveway on Grape Street is to be deleted unless condition number 37 is met. Delete condition as applicant has agreed to design and install landscape median on Grape Street." - Condition No. 41: "The Ficus Nitida shall be replaced with some other cross tolerance variety. The Evergreen Pears, illustrated on the land- scape plan as 15 gallon and 24 inch box shall be a fifty-fifty mix." Second by Commissioner Kelley. Approved 4-0 IT WAS THE CONSENSUS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO CONSIDER PUBLIC HEARING NUMBER 4 AND BUSINESS ITEM NUMBER 3 CONCURRENTLY. Conditional Use Permit 88-3 and Commercial Project 88-4 - George Smyrniotis - Associate Planner Magee presented proposal for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a drive-thru aisle in conjunction with the construction of a 2,157 square foot fast food ~ Minutes of Planning Commission May 3, 1988 Page 8 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 88-3 AND COMMERCIAL PROJECT 88-4 - GEORGE SMYRNIOTIS CONTINUED restaurant 0.50 acre site located on the east side of Lakeshore , . . . Drive approximately 161 feet north of R1vers1de Dr1ve. Associate Planner Magee requested that condition number 14 on Commercial Project 88-4 be amended to read, as follows: Condition No. 14: "All planting areas shall have permanent and automatic sprinkler systems with 100 percent watering coverage. These areas shall be separated from paved areas with a six-inch (6") high concrete curb. Planting within fifteen-feet (15') of the point of intersection shall be no higher than thirty-six inches (36")." Chairman Mellinger commented on the mention of no outdoor seat- ing, so it is not part of the application, and asked if there was outdoor seating indicated. Associate Planner Magee responded that there is no outdoor seat- ing. However, if they were to apply for or add more in the future the current parking code would not allow that as they do not have enough parking. ... Commissioner Kelley asked how the stacking was formulated? Associate Planner Magee stated that the code requires an eight (8) car stacking to be measured at twenty-foot (20') lengths, so we are designating each vehicle taking up twenty-feet (20'). .... Commissioner Kelley asked if this was the minimum. Associate Planner Magee responded in the affirmative. Chairman Mellinger opened the public hearing at 7:48 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of Conditional Use Permit 88-3 and Commercial Project 88-4. Mr. Lloyd Roybal, representing the applicant, commented on condi- tion number 22.a, pertaining to the cornice around the fascia board of the building itself and the color, stating that they have no objection to changing the color, and have no problem with the cornice to match the top portion of the building. Mr. Roybal commented on condition number 22.b, pertaining to the wood post plant-ons in exchange for the angular bulkhead type configuration on the side of the building, stating that they have no problem with putting a turned post, perhaps painted white, and will work with staff to make this architectural change. Mr. Roybal stated that they have no problem with condition number 22.c, pertaining to the window treatments, stating that they have no problem with bordering those, perhaps we can come up with a nice design with staff as well to accommodate that. .... Mr. Roybal commented on berming the side property the Chevron Station, we do not have a problem with and as far as the size of trees and specifying 15 that we could probably work out that situation. Chairman Mellinger asked staff if they were requesting that the side property line between the Chevron Station be bermed. line adjoining that either, gallon I think Associate Planner Magee responded in the negative, staff is requesting the berm at the front, the Lakeshore Drive elevation. Minutes of Planning Commission May 3, 1988 Page 9 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 88-3 AND COMMERCIAL PROJECT 88-4 - GEORGE SMYRNIOTIS CONTINUED ~ Mr. Roybal stated that they have a five-foot mound at the corner, where it projects from the ingress/egress area, you will see where we have put a forty-foot (40') setback for our landscape area in that street frontage and that was in order to accommodate the amount of traffic that perhaps could stack up coming off of Lakeshore Drive. We have incorporated a five-foot (5') berm there, however, if it is necessary to bring that down to three- foot (3'), according to the code, then that would be no problem. Associate Planner Magee stated that on the property line between the Chevron Station and this project there is proposed to be a block wall. Commissioner Brinley asked how high this block wall would be? Associate Planner Magee stated that he believes that the block wall would be four-feet-eight-inches (4' 8"), and that would be a decorative slumpstone wall with a brick cap across the top, as recommended in the conditions. Chairman Mellinger commented on the landscaping, stating that if they were using citrus trees there might be a frost problem. ~ Mr. Roybal responded that the owner is aware of the fact that we have put citrus trees, as a matter of fact, it was Mr. Smyrniotis's suggestion as he does not like to see any of the land go to waste, and so producing a citrus tree here probably could help his business as well. I'm sure in an interest to get the maximum productivity of his particular piece of land here if there was a tree that perhaps was destroyed by frost he would see to it that it would get replaced immediately. Chairman Mellinger stated that the initial size of all the trees was not mentioned. ~ Mr. Roybal stated that being the building designer he was not real familiar with the landscaping plan. Associate Planner Magee stated that staff is recommending that the landscaping plan come back. We could address this now if the Commission wanted to make some recommendations as to the size or type, and add the recommendations to the conditions of approval, so that before issuance of building permits we have an approved landscape plan that simulates what the Commission wants. Community Development Director Miller stated that the minimum size that we specify for all trees is 15 gallon. Chairman Mellinger stated that on the front area at least we did have a landscape plan for the adjoining property, and I am just wondering if it should be somewhat similar. We had certain types of trees and this is so close to it that you would think that the same type of trees might look a little nicer. Mr. Roybal stated that, you might notice, on the landscape plan we had suggested a number of trees that are taken from the suggested Street Tree List. However, we would like to conform to the neighboring property, I understand that Del Taco will be neighboring us. Chairman Mellinger stated that as he recalls they extended Crepe Myrtles down from the Stater Brother's project, just for the berm area. Mr. Roybal stated that they would have no problem with that. Minutes of Planning Commission May 3, 1988 Page 10 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 88-3 AND COMMERCIAL PROJECT 88-4 - GEORGE SMYRNIOTIS CONTINUED A brief discussion at the table ensued on whether or not the landscaping plan should come back to the commission. Chairman Mellinger asked if the boxes would contain citrus trees. community Development Director Miller referred to Exhibit "0", __ stating that staff is suggesting that a lot of the concrete area be removed from this and it be devoted to landscaping, with that change would suggest that those box trees be removed and actually planted in the landscaping. Would further suggest that a citrus tree is an inappropriate choice of tree for these types of areas because of its frost sensitivity, growth pattern and size. Mr. Roybal stated that Mr. Smyrniotis received a letter dealing with the signage and trash enclosure location, and asked if there was anything that we should discuss about this now. Associate Planner Magee referred to Exhibit "0", stating that staff has suggested relocation of the trash enclosure. Its present location would be in the furthest corner of the site directly opposite the drive-thru aisle, staff suggests that this be relocated to the other side of the drive-aisle, this is covered in the conditions of approval. You would also be able to add some landscape buffers and still not loose a parking space. Commissioner Brinley asked how the trash enclosures were being enclosed. Associate Planner Magee responded that the trash enclosures would be of a slumpstone block treatment, and it would also provide for pedestrian access from the sidewalk area in the back of the building. In front of the trash enclosure, where the disposal company would pick-up, would be a metal door and it would be painted to match the slumpstone. - Mr. Roybal stated that their prime concern with the location of the trash container is that for a food service facility, even though it would be handy location for the employees right off the back of the building, we feel that the placement of this particular trash bin too close to the building would actually detract from the desirability of the establishment itself. Adding to that, the Chevron station also has a trash bin in the same general area, I think that we are only 10-20 feet apart from them. We felt that this would be the best location for the trash bin. Associate Planner Magee stated that the trash bin at the Chevron Station was partially shielded by the 4' 8" block wall, and by relocating the trash enclosure, as shown in Exhibit "0", we would be able to add a landscape buffer to soften the effect and basically give a better presentation. Whereas, the applicant has proposed no landscape buffer and would not be able to furnish one in that area due to the size requirements. Mr. Roybal stated that he probably would not have a problem with __ this, but would like to discuss it with the applicant and work with staff. Mr. Roybal stated that the signage was another issue on the side of the building into the roofline itself. Community Development Director Miller stated that Mr. Roy~al was referring to condition number 23, pertaining to cut-outs 1n the roof to be eliminated so that the roof planes are continuous. Minutes of Planning Commission May 3, 1988 Page 11 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 88-3 AND COMMERCIAL PROJECT 88-4 - GEORGE SMYRNIOTIS CONTINUED ~ Associate Planner Magee stated that staff's intent was to continue the roof line, and signage could be addressed at another time. We did not feel that size, that area, and the deletion of that roof plane was necessary. Chairman Mellinger stated that he presumes that there is a pole sign/monument sign available. Community Development Director Miller stated that the frontage of lot would permit a monument sign. Also, we would suggest that signage be more appropriately located on the wall expanses similar to the In-N-Out proposal, and Del Taco proposed a sign on the wall rather than in the roof plane. Mr. Roybal stated that in as much as the code recommends a varying roof line, and a roof line that has various levels this would have been a nice architectural feature. Chairman Mellinger asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak in favor of Conditional Use Permit 88-3 and Commercial Project 88-4. Receiving no response, Chairman Mellinger asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Receiving no response, Chairman Mellinger asked if anyone wished to speak on the matter. Receiving no response, Chairman Mellinger closed the public hearing at 8:04 p.m. ~ Commissioner Kelley stated that he would like to commend staff, thinks that they have adequately covered just about every concern. with the signs I agree with staff, I think that the roof line is adequately broken up with the smoke stack and the flag. Commissioner Brinley stated that she agrees with everything that staff has listed here, and likes the roof the way it insets and the signs sets out. Commissioner Brown asked if the insets would fit in with our design criteria, would their signage fit in that area, are they allowed to have much. Associate Planner Magee stated that condition number 11, would require that a Master Signage Program be developed for the center. Commissioner Brown stated that he agrees, but would the total signage, that they would be allowed to have, fill up those areas or would those areas be greater than signage? Associate Planner Magee stated that he believes it would be in excess. -- Commissioner Brown stated that along with Commissioner Brinley he likes the insets. Likes the concept where you do not have a sign sticking up above the roof. Community Development Director Miller stated that the code would not allow a sign to project above the roof plane. What we would suggest and it would probably be more appropriate, more appeal- ing, to put the sign on the wall, such as you see on the In-N-Out proposal and similar to Del Taco. A brief discussion at the table ensued on insets in the roof and signage for the proposal. Mr. Roybal stated that they do have not have a concept for the Minutes of Planning Commission May 3, 1988 Page 12 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 88-3 AND COMMERCIAL PROJECT 88-4 - GEORGE SMYRNIOTIS CONTINUED signage itself, only provided a space for the course, comply with the code requirements signage space required or allowed, but we are use the entire area. sign. for not We would, of the amount of intending to Chairman Mellinger stated that just looking at the signs, thinks __ that it detracts from the roof. On the Master Sign Program would suggest that you come back with individual channelized letters, stating that with this style it would work better. Asked Mr. Roybal if they had intended on a canned sign or individual channelized letters, similar to Park Abrams. Mr. Roybal stated that they wanted to try and stay with the Park Abrams theme. However, this is something that we still have to work out with the applicant. Motion by Commissioner Kelley to adopt Negative Declaration No. 88-8 and approve Conditional Use Permit 88-3 based on the Findings and subject to the 3 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report, second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved 4-0 Motion by Commissioner Kelley to recommend to adoption of Negative Declaration No. 88-8 and approve Project 88-4 based on the Findings and SUbject Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report following amendments: City Council Commercial to the 44 with the Condition No. 13: "Completely revised Landscape and Irrigation Plans prepared by a Landscape Architect shall be submitted which will address the revisions as illustrated in Exhibit "D" and described in the staff report; said plans shall be subject to the review and approval of the Community Development Director or his designee, and shall incorporate the following: a) Compatible and appropriate landscape materials, extending Crepe Myrtle along the parkway planting area, and deleting all fruit trees. - b) Mounding and shrubs to provide screening of drive-through lane. c) Additional vertical elements against blank wall and trash enclosures." landscape expanses Condition No. 14: "All planting areas shall have permanent and automatic sprinkler systems with 100 percent watering coverage. These areas shall be separated from paved areas with a six-inch (6") high concrete curb. Planting - within fifteen-feet (15') of the point of intersection shall be no higher than thirty-six inches (36")." Second by commissioner Brinley. Approved 4-0 5. Conditional Use Permit 86-7 T & S Development - Associate Planner Last presented request for a six month (6) extension of Minutes of Planning Commission May 3, 1988 Page 13 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 86-7 - ~ k Q DEVELOPMENT CONTINUED Conditional Use Permit 86-7 for the temporary leasing signs, located on the west side of Mission Trail between Campbell and Sylvester Street. ~ Associate Planner Last stated that Mr. John Curts, of T & S Development, had a conflict and could not attend tonight's meeting, and wished to comment that he prefers to have the two signs for the six months; feels that would be adequate for the center as far as their leasing program. Chairman Mellinger opened the public hearing at 8:14 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of Conditional Use Permit 86-7. Receiving no response, Chairman Mellinger asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Receiving no response, Chairman Mellinger asked if anyone wished to speak on the matter. Receiving no response, Chairman Mellinger closed the public hearing at 8:14 p.m. Commissioner Brown stated that he would like to see this revert to one sign. ~ Commissioner Brown stated that the Conditional Use Permit is good for one year, irrespective of when the permit is taken out, correct. So these signs are already way past their Conditional Use Permit time and they should have applied for an extension five months ago. We have a conflict between when it is approved and when it is permitted. Community Development Director Miller stated that there was quite a bit of discussion at the time this was originally approved, and we believed that it was the intent of the Planning Commission to allow the applicant to have his signs up for one year. In terms of how long that extends it really is at the discretion of the City, in this case the Planning Commission, in granting the approval as to whether they are allowed the use for one year or they have a year to exercise the Conditional Use Permit. The code would normally specify that you have a year to exercise a Conditional Use Permit. But, once it commences operation, in most cases, a Conditional Use Permit is granted without a time limitation. Commissioner Brinley stated that she agrees, it should only be six months, and they only need one sign as it appears that their buildings are over half occupied. Commissioner Kelley stated that he concurs with staff findings. Chairman Mellinger stated that as he recalls the Conditional Use Permit was from the date of the approval. ~ Associate Planner Last stated that this was an error by staff, typically leasing signs are issued for one year period. Chairman Mellinger stated that our discussion here is that it is going to be one year from when we approve the Conditional Use Permit. Chairman Mellinger suggested that condition number 1 be amended to state that the effective date of expiration, shall be October 14, 1988, no extensions. Motion by Chairman Mellinger to approve the six (6) month extension of Conditional Use Permit 86-7 for one (1) sign, with condition number 1 amended to read, as follows: Condition No.1: "Granting of this extension for Conditional Minutes of Planning Commission May 3, 1988 Page 14 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 86-7 - ~ i ~ DEVELOPMENT CONTINUED Use Permit 86-7 month period. expiration, shall extensions. shall The be be for a six (6) effective date of October 14, 1988, no Second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved 4-0 ~ BUSINESS ITEMS 1. Industrial Project 88-1 - Frank Ayres & Son Construction Company - Considered and acted on after PUBLIC HEARING NUMBER 2. 2. Commercial Project 88-5 - Leo A. Laure/Rich Boyd - Considered and approved with PUBLIC HEARING NUMBER 3. 3. Commercial Project 88-4 George Smyrniotis - Considered and approved with PUBLIC HEARING NUMBER 4. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS Community Development Director Miller stated that he had nothing to report. PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS commissioner Brown: Requested that the new Council look at the off ramps at Railroad Canyon and the freeway, especially in light of the project that we approved tonight, does not think that the signal at Grape Street will really address that issue. Thinks that the signal at Grape Street will compound that problem, and asked if we have any recent traffic studies or information on those intersections. .... Community Development Director Miller stated that the city and County are jointly involved in an effort to plan and fund improvements to Railroad Canyon Road, Newport Road corridor extending from I-15 to I-215. Part of those studies and discussions, particularly in the City's standpoint, are improvements at the interchange at Railroad Canyon Road and I-15. We are currently engaged in a study for the entire length of Railroad Canyon Road from the freeway to the City Limits with an engineering firm, and part of our discussions include consideration of traffic signal control at the interchange and the funding of those. Commissioner Brinley: Asked for the status on the Arco sign, at the old Arco station. Senior Planner Libiez stated that we have taken steps to ask them to remove it again, and we are going to cite them. They are in the process and have presented to us a new freeway sign that would be __ behind the area where Bob's Big Boy and Sizzler is now on a special easement. Community Development Director Miller stated that we had previously initiated legal action against Arco. They have obtained permits to demolish that and had previously indicated to us that they intended to do that. We have not followed through on that commitment and as Mr. Libiez indicates, once again we are about to initiate legal proceedings against them to have the sign removed. Minutes of Planning Commission May 3, 1988 Page 15 PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS CONTINUED Commissioner Brinley stated that she feels that the City has been more than patient with them, this was discussed last summer. I think it is time that the sign come down. - Commissioner Brinley commented on the landscaping at Shopper's Square, in the front of the businesses, everything there is dying or dead. We make them put in landscaping but we do not enforce mainte- nance. Commissioner Kellev: Nothing to report. Chairman Mellinqer: Commented on the landscaping through out the City, stating that we have had a bad year, a bad winter with the frost, and thinks that the danger has past. Thinks there are many developments that have suffered some damage and thinks it is about time they received a notice to replace those damaged trees. Asked for the status on the Adams sign, billboards. Community Development Director Miller stated we are continuing with the civil suit against Adams to effect removal of those signs. We are also pursuing criminal action against them, and there is a trial scheduled for criminal court, I believe, the first of next month for a number of violations that have been issued to them. - Chairman Mellinger stated that he would like to thank everyone involved for the three-way stop at Collier and Riverside. Chairman Mellinger commented on the Premier/Citation tract, stating that he called in a concern about the drainage and street situation out there. There is a curb preventing any water going into the storm drains, which leads to no where any way, the water is running out into the middle of the street, and the pot holes are extremely large. At this point, I would just as soon hold up any permits, in fact, I would red tag that entire tract until that is resolved. I would like to see the street fixed before they proceed with any other activity on that site. Chairman Mellinger requested that staff review the Truss Company, between I-IS near Collier and Riverside, for compliance of conditions of approval. They promised that they would screen everything with landscaping and walls; in effect, what they have done is truss advertising with a three tiered truss sign. There being no further adjourned at 8:29 p.m. Commissioner Kelley. Approved 4-0 business the Lake Elsinore Planning Commission Motion by Commissioner Brinley, second by - Approved, /lJ./?~ Randy Mellinger Chairman ;;:::~tted' Linda Grindstaff ~ Planning Commission Secretary - - - MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON THE 17TH DAY OF MAY 1988 THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:00 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Senior Planner Libiez. ROLL CALL: - PRESENT: Commissioners: Kelley, Brinley, Brown, and Mellinger ABSENT: Commissioners: None Also present were Community Development Director Miller, Senior Planner Libiez and Associate Planners Last, Magee and wilkins. MINUTE ACTION Motion by Commissioner Brown to approve minutes of May 3,1988, as submitted, second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved 4-0 INTRODUCTION Community Development Director Miller introduced Paul Merrett the City's new Assistant Planner. PUBLIC COMMENTS Chairman Mellinger asked the Secretary if there were any request to address the Commission. The Secretary answered in the negative. There being no requests to address the Commission, Chairman Mellinger closed the PUBLIC COMMENTS section. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Tentative Parcel Map 23411 - Aware Development - A request to divide one (1) existing parcel into several smaller lots with a minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet, 6.25 acres located on the northwest corner of Dexter Avenue and Second Street. Chairman Mellinger stated that we have a request to continue this item, and asked if anyone wished to speak on the matter. Receiving no response Chairman Mellinger asked for a motion to continue Tentative Parcel Map 23411. Commissioner Brown commented on the applicant's request continuance to June 7, 1988, and staff's request for indefinite continuance, asking if this is because we believe we can not address the issues in that amount of time. for an that Community Development Director Miller stated that this is part of it; we have indicated to the applicant that we needed responses to some of the concerns within a certain time frame and those have not been received. Motion by Commissioner Brown to continue Tentative Parcel Map 23411 indefinitely, second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved 4-0 2. Zone Code Amendment 88-5 Industrial Concepts I - Associate Planner Last presented a request to amend the text of the C-M (Commercial-Manufacturing) Zoning District to allow churches as conditional uses, subject to obtaining a Conditional Use Permit. If approved, this would apply city-wide. Chairman Mellinger opened the public hearing at 7:05 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of Zone Code Amendment 88-5. Mr. Steve Brown, representing Industrial Concepts, stated that Minutes of Planning Commission May 17, 1988 Page 2 ZONE CODE AMENDMENT 88-5 - INDUSTRIAL CONCEPTS ~ CONTINUED they were in favor of the zone code amendment to allow speific- ally the use of the Lutheran Church. We think that the Chaney Street Center is an excellent site for this. Some of the objections that staff ~aised in the sta~f report conc7rning odors, noise and issues 11ke that I do not th1nk are appl1cable in this case. Mr. Brown stated that some of the uses, within the C-M Zoning District, might be a little too strict, and maybe there should be some changes made to the zoning code to allow more of this type of use in the center. ~ Chairman Mellinger asked if anyone at the table had specific questions for Mr. Brown. Chairman Mellinger stated that you were talking about conflict of parking and hours of operation; and asked Mr. Brown if he would be willing to place deed restrictions on the rest of the center to make sure that there would be no conflict in the hours of operation. In other words, the other uses could not operate while the church was in session, because this would be the obvious conflict. Mr. Brown responded that they could certainly explore this, and he would have to discuss this issue with Mr. Art Nelson. commissioner Kelley asked Mr. Brown, in your opinion, what are the problems with the Commercial-Manufacturing Zones, are they hard to rent? Mr. Brown stated that initially we looked at the Commercial- __ Manufacturing Zone as a zone that was similar in nature to the County's MCS Zone. The County's MCS Zone is much more expansive in terms of uses that are allowed. We have not been very successful in leasing that center. commissioner Kelley asked what he would attribute that to. Mr. Brown stated that he would attribute that partially to strict requirements on what users are in there. commissioner Brinley asked Mr. Brown if they did not foresee some of these possibilities when they were presenting/planning the project before it was built. Mr. Brown asked which possibilities. Commissioner Brinley stated you would not be able to rent them; there is no visibility. Mr. Brown stated that visibility is not the key. Commissioner Brinley asked Mr. Brown how long the center has been open? Mr. Brown responded since September, 1987. .... commissioner Brinley commented on the center only being open for approximately eight (8) months, and whether or not it had been given sufficient time for commercial-manufacturing users, before renting it out to other uses. Commissioner Brinley commented the center being built for commercial-manufacturing uses which would generate tax revenues for the city and churches being non-profit, no tax revenues. Minutes of Planning Commission May 17, 1988 Page 3 ZONE CODE AMENDMENT 88-5 - INDUSTRIAL CONCEPTS I CONTINUED Commissioner Brown commented on the County's MCS Zoning, stating the type of building that was put up in the MCS Zone, for industrial uses, and later allowed for other types of uses has caused nothing but conflicts in traffic patterns and conflicts between tenants, especially because of ingress/egress problems. Commissioner Brown stated that he has no problem with the zone code amendment as long as the building was built for offices and industrial architectural blends. But what you have now is a building that was set up for manufacturing and now you want to make it into something else. Commissioner Brown suggested a zone change amendment to change the new building. Phase two, to be a blended use; half offices and the rest manufacturing. Chairman Mellinger asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak on Zone Code Amendment 88-5. Don Butenshon, Senior Pastor, Shepherd of Life Lutheran Church, stated that this is a temporary request. We will probably be signing a lease, if we are granted this, with Art Nelson that would reflect about eighteen (18) months. We would hope, if granted, that the City would take a look at our Conditional Use Permit after one (1) year to see, if by chance, we have been a nuisance. If by chance, we have kept anyone out in that commercial center that otherwise would not have a space. Chairman Mellinger asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor of this item. Receiving no response, Chairman Mellinger asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Receiving no response, Chairman Mellinger closed the public hearing at 7:22 p.m. Chairman Mellinger asked for discussion at the table. Commissioner Brinley stated that when Warm Springs was brought before the Planning Commission, it was brought as a commercial- manufacturing project. I feel that if we start allowing churches and other other things in there we are going to loose what the project was meant for, and I do not feel that eight (8) months is sufficient time to give it a chance. Commissioner Kelley stated that he feels a Conditional Use Permit, in this instance, would be beneficial to the community and to the church, and on a temporary basis would be in agreement. The problem is, as our community grows, we have to have a place for the churches to grow with us--we have to address this. If this is denied, I would like to see a joint study session to determine where they can locate, and maybe help them. Chairman Mellinger stated that he was in support of the request, however, not ready to recommend approval at this time. My -- concerns were expressed when there was a request for a zone code amendment for industrial uses for churches, I am completely opposed to that because of the safety factor. Chairman Mellinger stated that he does not think that it should just be added to the list as a conditional use permit. There is certain criteria that should be worked into the ordinance itself, similar to what we do in the animal veterinary clinics, and recommended the following criteria: to be brought back before the Planning Commission for review after one (1) year; there should be a minimum distance of the actual church facility from the M-l or M-2 Zone; there should be a maximum number of years (3 or 4 years) without any extensions; hours of operation, the property owner should agree to deed restrictions on the remainder Minutes of Planning Commission May 17, 1988 Page 4 ZONE CODE AMENDMENT 88-5 - INDUSTRIAL CONCEPTS I CONTINUED of the complex to insure that there is no conflicts, and the deed restriction should make sure that there is adequate parking; compatibility; there should be a minimum distance between the number of Conditional Use Permits that are approved, to avoid a certain proliferation. Chairman Mellinger stated that he believes that the comments on __ the economic impact are valid in the long run. However, if we do adopt this zone code amendment, the vacancy rate should be looked at, not only within the C-M Zone, but also within other commercial zones. Chairman Mellinger stated that he would strongly recommend that the Commission continue this item, so staff can look at these and perhaps draft up an ordinance with these criteria and any other that you may want to add. Motion by Commissioner Brown to continue Zone Code Amendment 88-5 to study, since it is not a Conditional Use Permit request, second by Commissioner Kelley. Chairman Mellinger asked if the Commission wished to continue Zone Code Amendment 88-5 to a certain date, therefore we would not have to renotice it. commissioner Brown stated that it would depend on whether or not we could get a joint study session with City Council. Chairman Mellinger suggested that Zone Code Amendment 88-5 be continued for two meetings. Community Development Director Miller stated that he would point out for the Commission's benefit that the applicant has already filed for a Conditional Use Permit, with the expectation that there would be a favorable action by the Planning Commission and City Council. .... Discussion at the table ensued on recourse the applicant has if the application were denied tonight; if staff would be comfortable with the recommendation with some of the criteria that was mentioned. commissioner Brown withdrew his motion and Commissioner Kelley withdrew his second. Motion by Chairman Mellinger to continue Zone Code Amendment 88-5 to June 7, 1988, with the criteria mentioned, second by Commis- sioner Brown. Approved 4-0 3. Conditional Use Permit 84-5 REVISED - Lake Elsinore Chamber of Commerce - Associate Planner Last presented the applicant's request for Planning Commission review of Conditional Use Permit 84-5 REVISED, bi-weekly rodeo events, 9.05 acres located on Franklin Street. -- Chairman Mellinger asked if anyone wished to speak in favor of Conditional Use Permit 84-5 REVISED. Mr. Dave vik stated that he runs the rodeo grounds for the Chamber of Commerce. We have always had a problem with the caretaker's quarters not being allowed. with all of the equipment and things that we have at the rodeo grounds it is just about an impossibility to leave that stuff alone. We have had several break-ins, minor losses 300-500 dollars. We have had a Minutes of Planning Commission May 17, 1988 Page 5 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 84-5 REVISED - LAKE ELSINORE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE CONTINUED ~ man up there in a, self-contained, travel trailer and he goes to work everyday and comes home at night, it is temporary facility. Chairman Mellinger stated that the previous minutes indicated that the travel trailer could not be inhabited, is your request to have someone live in the trailer. Mr. Vik stated that it is a small travel trailer that people will hook-up to their car and move around or pull on the highway that they do stay in. Chairman Mellinger stated that in the previous minutes Mr. Starkey indicated that no one could actually live in that trailer it was similar to a construction RV almost. Mr. vik stated that this was the other trailer that we have a temporary moratorium on until June and then it will go, leave the premises. Chairman Mellinger asked Mr. vik for the length of their request. Mr. Vik stated that their lease expires in July, 1989, so after that it would have to be somewhere else and we will go through the same procedure. Crime is a problem in the area as it is kind of remote. ..... Commissioner Brinley asked Mr. Vik when the thefts occurred if they were more in the evening or daylight hours, and what time they leave the grounds. Mr. vik responded that most of them have been in the daylight hours. When the horse shows are there we will leave at 4 or 5 in the evening. During the week, the guy goes to work in the morning and comes back home around 4 or 5. There is really no way of putting our finger on it, because it might be 2 or 3 days before some of us go back up there and discover what has happened. Commissioner Brinley stated that as she understands it, you are requesting 24 hours around the clock, seven days a week, for a caretaker/security guard to live in. Mr. Vik answered in the affirmative. Chairman Mellinger asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor of Conditional Use Permit 849-5 REVISED. Receiving no response, Chairman Mellinger asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Receiving no response, Chairman Mellinger closed the public hearing at 7:39 p.m. Commissioner Kelley asked Mr. vik if all of the discrepancies listed by staff have been resolved. Mr. vik answered in the affirmative. Commissioner Brinley asked staff what they were talking about when they referred to uncontrolled dogs. Chairman Mellinger stated that he presumes the dogs were loose. Community Development Director Miller stated that we do have a leash law in the City, and apparently the person who was living in the travel trailer had two dogs that were not pinned or kept on a leash, just roamed the premises. Mr. vik stated that the premises are entirely fenced, I do not Minutes of Planning Commission May 17, 1988 Page 6 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 84-5 REVISED - LAKE ELSINORE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE CONTINUED think that they were outside of the fence, but they could have gotten out one day or something. Chairman Mellinger stated that it is important, if there are dogs on the premises that they do remain fenced. Commissioner Brown commented on condition number 8, stating that the minutes reflect that the conditional use permit will expire one year from the date of approval; nothing about annual review, is this where the conflict exists. The conditions as retyped added annual review whereas the condition in the minutes of the original approval did not discuss annual review. Chairman Mellinger stated that he believes that condition number 2 would takes care of this. .... Community Development Director Miller stated the original condi- tion had indicated annual review. I think the actual discussion, at the time of the hearing, was to change it from three years to one year. commissioner Brown asked if staff would have any problem with extending it to July of 1989, with a one year review. I know that they asked for six months, is this because of the violations in the past. community Development Director Miller answered in the affirma- tive. Chairman Mellinger asked staff to expand on the caretaker's .... quarters, and asked if there is a problem with the Health Depart- ment to keep that there. Community Development Director Miller stated that there was quite a bit of discussion at the time this was originally presented. Part of the concern, expressed previously by City Council, was the long term use of travel trailers for caretaker's units. When we adopted the new Title 17 there was considerable discussion about this. If caretaker units were proposed they should be incorporated as part of the design of the project and should be something that was of a permanent basis. The policy direction was to get away from temporary sorts of structures being used, such as travel trailers. In addition, the utilities at the site are rather lacking; that is one of the big problems the Chamber has struggled with the entire time they have been there. There is inadequate water and there is no sewage disposal. Community Development Director Miller stated that as Mr. vik has indicated the travel trailer they have moved on the site is self contained. However, it still needs to be dumped, this was also one of the concerns. The site was not really developed for accommodations and as the Chamber has indicated their lease expires in July, 1989, and they hope to find a new site and they did not want to go to the expense of installing a septic system for the site. .... Chairman Mellinger stated that he presumes that the portable sanitary facility is pumped, and asked about the facilities in the trailer and how this is disposed. Mr. vik stated that the portable sanitary facility is pumped weekly. We have two 1,000 gallon holding tanks for grey water and those are pumped whenever required. The sanitary facility is used by the caretaker and people attending the horse shows. The trailer has a small holding tank underneath that can be unscrewed and removed and dumped into our grey water holding tanks. Minutes of Planning commission May 17, 1988 Page 7 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 84-5 REVISED - LAKE ELSINORE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE CONTINUED - Chairman Mellinger stated that if we are only going to July, 1989, he has no problem provided that the caretaker's quarters be hooked up to the holding tank. Commissioner Brown asked Mr. vik how fast they could have those improvements done on the trailer, adequate hook-up to water and sewage disposal. Mr. vik responded that they could have the improvements done in a week. Motion by Chairman Mellinger to approve Conditional Use Permit 84-5 REVISED with the finding that the previous Negative Declaration is adequate with the 2 conditions of approval, referencing condition number 3 of Exhibit II, that the caretaker's quarters will be allowed provided that proper and adequate hook-ups be completed within ten (10) days of today, for sanitary disposal, second by Commissioner Brown. Approved 4-0 IT WAS THE CONSENSUS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO CONSIDER PUBLIC HEARING NUMBER 4 AND BUSINESS ITEM NUMBER 2 CONCURRENTLY. - Conditional Use Permit 88-5 and Commercial Project 88-6 - Mobil oil Corporation - Associate Planner Wilkins presented a request for a Conditional Use Permit for a self serve gasoline station with a 924 square foot retail sales facility, mini-mart, and a 576 square foot mini car wash, located on 1.14 acres, on the east side of Dexter along the south side of Central Avenue (Highway 74) . Chairman Mellinger opened the public hearing at 7:54 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of Conditional Use Permit 88-5 and Commercial Project 88-6. Mr. Ken Huepper, representing Mobil Oil, stated that he would like to address condition number 4 of the Conditional Use Permit, which states that the hours of operation of the car wash shall be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. to ensure noise control in the area. What we would respectfully request is that this condition be eliminated, and condition number 3 be extended to allow hours of operation of the car wash so long as required sound level of the City were adhered to and mitigation efforts were performed to satisfy the Commission. Chairman Mellinger asked staff if the 65 dba would also apply after 10:00 p.m. Mr. Huepper stated that the requirement after 10:00 p.m. is 60 dba. - Mr. Huepper stated that they are surrounded by commercial uses there and this is the reason that they would like to be able to serve commuter traffic early in the morning, prior to 7:00 a.m., and not have restrictions on the hours of operation of the car wash. Chairman Mellinger asked if anyone else wished to speak on Conditional Use Permit 88-5 and Commercial Project 88-6. Mr. Ed Buderack, David Jay Flood Architects-consultant architects for Mobil Oil, requested clarification on condition number 4 of Commercial project 88-6, pertaining to the redesign of the trash enclosure. Minutes of Planning Commission May 17, 1988 Page 8 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 88-5 AND COMMERCIAL PROJECT 88-6 - MOBIL OIL CONTINUED Associate Planner Wilkins stated that as noted in the submitted plans there is a combined storage area and trash enclosure, but there is no pedestrian access provided, which we currently require in commercial settings. Generally, when you have the trash enclosure doors open to provide pedestrian access the doors are left open and you have an unsightly condition being seen by __ the public. Chairman Mellinger stated then basically you are saying that there should be a screened gate on the trash enclosure. Associate Planner Wilkins stated that there should be an opened entry way for pedestrians that is screened. Mr. Buderack commented on condition number 12 and condition number 22, of Commercial Project 88-6, pertaining to doors and accent trim. In terms of discussing these items, I would like to break it down into two things: one, the trim on the building and second, the canopy columns themselves. The reason we go with a dark trim is to try and unify the whole appearance. If we do go with a lighter trim what happens is that it tends to get dirty around the doors jams and provides an unsightly appearance. Secondly, it tends to break up the window; for example, the car wash doors or the division between the windows on the mobil mart and the painted window panel below. Whereas, with the trim being a dark color it tends to unify the appearance. In terms of the canopy columns we are going with a white canopy column for several reasons: ease of visibility, and cleanliness. Chairman Mellinger asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor of Conditional Use Permit 88-6 and Commercial Project 88-6. Receiving no response, Chairman Mellinger asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Receiving no response, Chairman Mellinger asked if anyone wished to speak on the matter. Receiving no response, Chairman Mellinger closed the public hearing at 8:02 p.m. -- Commissioner Kelley asked staff how they feel about the white compared to the muted white, can not visualize this. Associate Planner Wilkins responded the white currently proposed, on the materials board, is a very bright white, and staff feels that it should be harmonious and complementary with the cream color buildings of the commercial center adjacent to it. commissioner Brinley stated that her concerns are the noise levels and hours of operation. Asked if there were any homes located around there and if so their distance from this proposal. Associate Planner Wilkins stated that it will eventually be surrounded by commercial uses, and there are some mobile units adjacent, on the other side of Dexter, but it is not known if they are inhabited, at this time. Commissioner Brinley asked if the applicant is requesting to open -- the business at 5:00 or 6:00 a.m., and how late in the evenings. Associate Planner Wilkins responded that he believes that the applicant will be suggesting a 24 hour operation. commissioner Brinley stated that she has a concern with the noise level, of the car wash, on the existing homes in the area. At this point, does not like the idea of the car wash being open for 24 hours. Minutes of Planning commission May 17, 1988 Page 9 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 88-5 AND COMMERCIAL PROJECT 88-6 = MOBIL OIL CONTINUED ..... Mr. Huepper stated that the distance between the actual entrance to the car wash and our property line on Dexter is approximately 80 foot, so in addition to that you would have the width of Dexter, which I believe is 60-foot. commissioner Brinley asked with that distance would the noise levels effect the residents. Mr. Huepper responded in the negative, stating that their analysis, which would be submitted to staff, will show that the noise level as it would approach the homes across the street would be at a level that would be be below the required levels. We would also take action to show what the ambient noise level is currently from the existing traffic along Highway 74. Mr. Huepper stated that their main concern was to be able to adequately serve the commuting hours, and we would be amenable to some hours 6:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. or 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m., but 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. we feel is a bit restrictive. Commissioner Kelley asked Mr. Huepper what he would estimate the decibel level to be at the street? ---' Chairman Mellinger stated that he believed that we would need a noise study for that, obviously it is going to have to be rather extensive, day and night. Commissioner Brinley asked if the residents received notification of the proposal. Community Development Director Miller stated that notices were sent to the property owners within a 300 foot radius. Commissioner Brinley asked for the location of the dry-off area. Associate Planner Wilkins responded that staff anticipated this need and suggested that Mobil oil provide three (3) dry-off parking stalls at the exit of the car wash adjacent to the access road onto Allen Street. Mr. Huepper stated that the operation of the car wash--there are approximately 15 washes per hour and the cycle is about two and one half minutes there is a blower cycle which is the maximum noise level, which needs to be addressed and will be addressed, so the need for people to dry off their cars should not occur. ~ commissioner Brinley asked how long the blower cycle last, once a car has started through the car wash. Mr. Huepper responded approximately a minute and a half. Commissioner Brown commented on Mr. Huepper statement that with the blower people should not have to dry off their vehicles, stating that he has just done some extensive studies on car washes, and it takes an average of an 80-foot tunnel with a 20-foot drop just to get it to an acceptable level where three men can dry it off in 15 seconds. Mr. Huepper stated that they do not anticipate people stopping as they exit the car wash to dry off their vehicle. The blower, we feel, will take care of a majority of it and as it relates to people stopping and blocking traffic this situation we do not envision. Minutes of Planning Commission May 17, 1988 Page 10 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 88-5 AND COMMERCIAL PROJECT 88-6 - MOBIL OIL CONTINUED Commissioner Brown asked if deionized water would be used. Mr. Huepper stated that he would have to get back on that, as he is not certain. commissioner Brown asked for the location of the restrooms. .... Associate Planner Wilkins stated that the applicant has indicated on the floor plans that there will be pUblic facilities in the mini mart, we have also required that they meet handicap require- ments. Commissioner Brown asked if the mini-mart would be open 24 hours, it will not be a lock situation at night. Mr. Huepper responded in the affirmative. commissioner Brown referred to conditions 5, 12, and 22, of Commercial Project 88-6, recommending that these be amended to read something of design texture, roof line, surround, and materials shall all be consistent with the project next door, which would mean a design change of not only the mini-mart, but the car wash to reflect the surrounds. I am not sure that you can put the surrounds on that type of canopy, it would add additional breaks in that canopy roof. It would change the color of the tile to be consistent with the project next door. I would also like to see a planter on the apron portion of the mini mart, possibly a 24 inch raised box planter all the way across it. Commissioner Brown asked for the location of the air conditioning and heating equipment. Community Development Director Miller, referred to the site plan included in the packet, stating that there is an indication of an enclosure for the air conditioning and heating equipment behind the building in the planter area. .... commissioner Brown stated that on Conditional Use Permit 88-5, he would like to add a condition that the Conditional Use Permit will expire after one year unless building permits are issued. Commissioner Brown asked staff if on the original approval of the project next door did we not ask, irrespective of whether a project came in or not on this property, that this area be hydroseeded and made presentable before release of utilities. If building permits are not pulled for this project within 30 days, I would request that those conditions be enforced. Commissioner Brown asked how the table feels about amending the conditions, as far as having it harmonious with the building next door. I do not see any purpose in making it something different. Commissioner Brinley stated that this area is city, and will receive a lot of traffic flow. Commissioner Brown that the other project is would like to see it continued in the same way. a window to our I agree with very nice and I .... commissioner Brown commented on condition number 16, of Com- mercial Project 88-6, pertaining to the possibility of coming in with a food establishment. Associate Planner Wilkins stated that this condition was suggest- ed in order to encourage and insure that any food preparation on-site would be in accordance with Health Department standards, as some mini-marts prepare food on-site. Minutes of Planning Commission May 17, 1988 Page 11 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 88-5 AND COMMERCIAL PROJECT 88-6 - MOBIL OIL CONTINUED - Commissioner Brown asked if this could create a need for additional parking spaces. Mr. Huepper stated there will be no on-site food preparation. Commissioner Brown suggested verbiage "there shall be no food preparation allowed on-site; no fixtures, plumbing or anything to reflect it. commissioner Brown asked if air and water facilities would be provided, and their location. Community Development Director Miller stated that air and water facilities will be provided adjacent to the car wash and the parking stalls. Commissioner Brown suggested that where ever the air and water facilities are located that there be adequate ingress/egress. Chairman Mellinger stated that we need a noise study. We have noise attenuation sufficient to meet the City's maximum 65 dba, presumes 60 night time. Suggested that residential standards be met if the mobile homes are occupied. Therefore, condition number 3, of Conditional Use Permit 88-5, should provide noise attenuation based on a study from a certified acoustical engineer, and suggested that this study be done both day and night. - Chairman Mellinger commented on the commercial project, stating there appears to be a need for vertical landscaping around the mini-mart, and this could be added to the landscaping condition. Chairman Mellinger stated that the trees illustrated in the rendering do not match the trees illustrated on the landscaping plan. Therefore, I would like to see that the number of 24 inch box trees be the same number as in the rendering, instead of two there would be four along Central and three along Dexter. Motion by and approve subject to Report, with Commissioner Brown to adopt Negative Declaration 88-9 Conditional Use Permit 88-5 based on the Findings and the 7 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff the following amendments: Condition No.1: "Conditional Use Permit 88-5 shall become effective upon the approval of Commercial Project 88-6. This Conditional Use Permit will lapse and become void unless Building Permits are issued within one (1) year of the date of approval." Condition No.3: "The developer shall provide noise attenu- ation based on a study, to be done both day and night, from a certified acoustical engineer sufficient to meet the City's maximum 65 dba daytime (7:00 a.m. - 10:00 p.m.) noise standard for the General Commerical District." - Condition No.4: "The hours of operation of the car wash shall be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. to insure noise control in the area. DELETED. Second by Commissioner Kelley. Approved 4-0 Minutes of Planning Commission May 17, 1988 Page 12 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 88-5 AND COMMERCIAL PROJECT 88-6 - MOBIL OIL CONTINUED Motion by Chairman Mellinger to recommend adoption of Negative Declaration No. 88-9 Commercial Project 88-6, based on the Findings 31 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff following amendments: Condition No.9: Condition No. 16: Condition No. 22: to City Council and approval of and subject to the Report, with the - "The submitted landscape and irrigation plans shall receive final approval from the City's Landscape Architect, and shall incorporate some variety in shrubs around the perimeter of the site in addition to the rapholepsis, placing shrubs in the small planter between the canopy and the drive aisle, and incorporating large screen shrubs along the back of the car wash. Any additional requirements deemed necessary by the City Landscape Architect shall be fully incorporated within the final plans prior to issuance of Building Permits. Vertical landscaping around the mini-mart shall be provided. The number of trees, 24 inch box size, shall be in- stalled along the streets as reflected in the rendering. A box planter, possibly 24 inch raised box, shall be provided all the way across the entry portion of the mini-mart. "No food preparation shall be allowed on site." - "The project shall be consistent with the adjacent development, in regards to design, texture and color, roof line, roof surrounds and material." Second by Commissioner Brown. Commissioner Kelley asked for discussion. Commissioner Kelley asked Commissioner concerns were addressed with the amendment 22. Brown if all to condition of his number Commissioner Brown answered in the affirmative. There being no further discussion, Chairman Mellinger called for the question. Approved 4-0 At this time, 8:26 p.m., the Planning commission recessed. At this time, 8:40 p.m., the Planning Commission reconvened. IT WAS THE CONSENSUS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO CONSIDER PUBLIC __ HEARING NUMBER 5 AND BUSINESS ITEM NUMBER 1 CONCURRENTLY. Conditional Use Permit 88-7 and Industrial Project 86-3 Amendment Number 1 - Industrial Concepts I Associate Planner Magee presented a request to allow the Riverside County Department of Social Services to occupy a 25,353 square foot industrial build- ing within the Warm Springs Business Park, located on the south- west corner of Minthorn Street and Chaney Street. Chairman Mellinger opened the public hearing at 8:43 p.m., asking Minutes of Planning Commission May 17, 1988 Page 13 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 88-7 AND INDUSTRIAL PROJECT 86-3 AMENDMENT NUMBER ~ CONTINUED if anyone wished to speak in favor of Conditional Use Permit 88-7 and Industrial Project 86-3 Amendment Number 1. - Mr. steve Brown, representing Industrial Concepts, stated that he has a concern on condition number 4 of the Conditional Use Permit, pertaining to the six-foot high solid masonry wall across the property line. I discussed this with staff this afternoon, and believe that staff is in concurrence. I would suggest that we modify that condition to provide a wall along Lot 10 of Parcel Map 21297, which is the only open area between Phase I and Phase II. Chairman Mellinger asked Associate Planner Magee if there was a problem with this. Associate Planner Magee responded in the negative. -- Mr. Brown stated that he has a number of concerns on the Conditions of Approval for Industrial project 86-3 Amendment Number 1, and then presented a floor plan illustration prepared by their architect this afternoon. This particular concern deals with condition number 20, which basically deals with the entry way. Staff has recommended that we modify the entry way, recess the building fifteen-feet (15'). Staff was not aware of the floor plan, that we have been spending a better part of four months on. What I had my architect prepare this afternoon, which you have in front of you, is he has modified this and come in ten-feet, which is not the fifteen-feet that staff originally requested, but I think it is a compromise. What we are trying to do is preserve a lobby area that has to be a certain size so that we can facilitate all of the people coming in and out of this facility. Mr. Brown commented on condition number 22, pertaining to the rear elevations. Referring to the exhibit posted, stated that wherever yellow is illustrated glass store front is proposed. What staff would like is for us to insert this five-feet, what this does is it takes away from the corridor and interview space, and we do not see any purpose in doing this. Mr. Brown commented on condition number 24, pertaining to the twenty-five percent compact parking spaces. We are providing 163 parking spaces for the facility, because this is what the County has requested. Asked why they are being required to stay within the twenty-five percent ratio if we have already exceeded the parking requirement by such a great number of spaces. Associate Planner Magee referred to Exhibit "G", Section l7.66.040.A.4, which is an excerpt from the Zoning Code, and stated that they have fifty-two percent (52%) of Phase II as compact spaces. Staff's opinion is that this does not meet the -- intent of the Code. Commissioner Brown asked Mr. Brown how many full size spaces they are required to have. Mr. Brown responded that they are required to have seventy-five (75) full size spaces, and we have almost one-hundred (100). Associate Planner Magee stated that he believes that seventy- nine (79) full spaces and eighty-four (84) compact spaces are provided. Community Development Director Miller stated that another concern was the concentration of compact spaces, as presented in the Minutes of Planning Commission May 17, 1988 Page 14 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 88-7 AND INDUSTRIAL PROJECT 86-3 AMENDMENT NUMBER ~ CONTINUED proposed site plan all of the parking spaces to the rear of the building, which presumably would be for employee parking, are compact spaces. We feel that an appropriate number of compact spaces would be fewer than presented, and further the location and concentration of compact spaces is poorly located. commissioner Brown stated that the Department of Social Services is requesting one-hundred seventy percent (170%) of what we require, and asked if a letter was issued in regard to this. - Mr. Brown responded in the affirmative, and stated this was included in their lease agreement. Commissioner Brown asked Mr. Brown if the Department of Social Services had provided specifications, ratio, of compact spaces or just parking spaces. Mr. Brown answered in the negative. Mr. Brown stated that he agrees with Community Development Director Miller that the compact spaces should be intregrated in a better manner. Mr. Brown commented on condition number 28, stating that Exhibit "E" illustrates how staff has come up with the revised parking layout, as it is adjacent to buildings 5 and 4. utilizing the posted plan, Mr. Brown explained how they propose to screen the loading areas from the proposed office parking area. Chairman Mellinger asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak in favor of Conditional Use Permit 88-7 and Industrial Project 86-3 Amendment Number 1. Receiving no response, Chairman Mellinger asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Receiv- ing no response, Chairman Mellinger closed the public hearing at 9:00 p.m. - Chairman Mellinger asked if staff would like to comment on some of the points raised. Associate Planner Magee stated that the site plan that Mr. Brown is referring to, flipping the planter area, staff felt a need for additional parking for those users in the existing building. without counting those spaces with our flip-flop and reducing the number of compact spaces, staff came up with an overall net loss in parking of nine (9) parking spaces. Mr. Brown indicated to me that those spaces even if flopped, as staff has recommended, passes they would still count those for the County offices, therefore, I believe you come up with a net loss of three (3) or four (4) spaces. Associate Planner Magee stated that as far as the rear elevations it's a shame that staff did not have an opportunity to review the floor plan. In an effort to facilitate the County's building we accepted the application without a floor plan. This floor plan was shown to staff this afternoon, and I have discussed with Mr. __ Brown various ways to get around the store front issue. Staff's intent in that, was to replicate an office all the way around. Staff did not feel that the elevations presented on the school district office were in accordance with an office use. The latter item, the front area creating the fifteen-foot recessed area for the main entrance, will have to be left up to the Commission. Commissioner Brown asked Mr. Brown for the length of their lease with the County Department of Social Services. Minutes of Planning Commission May 17, 1988 Page 15 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 88-7 AND INDUSTRIAL PROJECT 86-3 AMENDMENT NUMBER 1 CONTINUED ~ Mr. Brown stated that their lease was for ten years, and there are two options to extend one year, each option. commissioner Brinley requested clarification on condition number 10, of Industrial Project 86-3 Amendment Number 1, pertaining to food service uses. Associate Planner Magee stated that with the lack of a floor plan staff wanted to catch everything possible, and the feeling there was that perhaps there would be a cafeteria area, that not only the employees but also the general public could use. Realizing that there is a lack of food service in that area and with the additional concentration of approximately 100 more employees, plus the customers, there was a potential for a food service use, restaurant or cafeteria, that could actually draw more traffic in, and staff wanted to make sure that all parking issues were met. commissioner Brinley asked Mr. Brown if there will be a cafeteria and if this is illustrated on any of the floor plans. Mr. Brown stated that there will be no food uses other than the normal canteens, machines with cokes and candy bars. ~ Commissioner Brinley commented on the lobby area, stating that you are in an industrial area and you are going to be bringing people in who are going to have children running around. I would like to see some type of play area put in for these children. Commissioner Brinley asked Mr. Brown how many people are serviced by the Department of Social Services on a daily basis, or if he had an estimate on the number of people that will be coming in and out of the facility. Mr. Brown stated that he could not recall; certainly more than fifty and probably less than a hundred. Commissioner Brinley asked staff if the applicant was building over the property line. Associate Planner Magee stated this is correct, but in discussion with Mr. Brown this afternoon he indicated that a lot merger would not be a problem, and this is addressed in the conditions of approval. Commissioner Kelley asked what would be the best way to direct the employees to the rear, for parking. ..... Mr. Brown stated that he believed that that area could be designated. In fact, that is what we have done. I think that there are some rear entrances to the building for the employees. Commissioner Kelley asked if this could be addressed in the conditions. Chairman Mellinger stated that only if it could be enforced, and asked how this would be enforced. Community Development Director Miller stated that the Conditional Use Permit provides you the ability to enforce on-going conditions. Although, there are certain practical difficulties associated with that. Community Development Director Miller stated that he believes Minutes of Planning Commission May 17, 1988 Page 16 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 88-7 AND INDUSTRIAL PROJECT 86-3 AMENDMENT NUMBER 1 CONTINUED that Commissioner Kelley's intent is to get the employees to park in the rear and not the front. Mr. Brown stated that this is also the intent of the department heads. They have talked about having the employee parking and entrance in the rear and reserving the parking up front, and I __ think that there would be a lot of cooperation in that area. Chairman Mellinger stated that in regards to the play area--this indicates yard, what is that? Mr. Brown stated that the County has nine to ten vehicles that they need to park in a storage area, a secured area. That yard area is for that. Chairman Mellinger asked if the vehicles are there during the day. Mr. Brown responded in the negative. Chairman Mellinger stated that this could conceivably be the play area for the children. Mr. Brown stated that the Department of Social Services has requested an area where their employees could go outside and relax and have it landscaped, and we have shown this area on the plot plan. Mr. Brown stated that he was looking for a way to satisfy Commis- sioner Brinley'S concern about the children, and try and keep the project alive. The Department of Social Services will not take interview or lawn space and make into a children's play area; as they do not view this as a problem. Commissioner Brinley stated the problem that we view is the fact that you are in a center that is suppose to be mainly catering to industrial and manufacturing. Mr. Brown stated that this area is totally away from all of the industrial users and it has it's own separate entrances. -- Commissioner Brinley stated that she believed that a representative from the County should be present this evening, so that we can tell them our concerns. Chairman Mellinger stated that perhaps we could outdoor area somewhere within that yard area for a play area. Chairman Mellinger stated that as far as the twenty-five percent (25%) of total number of parking. It says maximum of twenty-five percent (25%) of the total number of parking spaces. I think for your purpose there is one word, "required", that applies to get the excess. The way I read it--the way it reads, it is twenty-five percent (25%) of all the spaces, so in my mind unless -- there is a code amendment that it the way it goes. require an children's Motion by Commissioner Kelley to adopt Negative Declaration No. 88-11 and approve Conditional Use Permit 88-7 based on the Findings and the 4 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report, with the following amendments: Condition No.4: "Applicant shall install a six-foot (6') high solid masonry wall along Lot 10 of Parcel Map 21297, to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director." Minutes of Planning Commission May 17, 1988 Page 17 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 88-7 AND INDUSTRIAL PROJECT 86-3 AMENDMENT NUMBER 1 CONTINUED Condition No.5: "Employee parking shall be directed to the rear." - Second by Commissioner Brown. Approved 4-0 Motion by commissioner Brinley to recommend to City Council adoption of Negative Declaration No. 88-11 and approval of Industrial Project 86-3 Amendment Number 1 based on the Findings and subject to the 44 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report, with the following amendments: Condition No. 20: "In order to be more consistent with typical office development standards the proposed client entry shall be recessed a minimum of ten-feet (10') and provided with enhanced architectural and landscape treatments, which may include canopy and landscape entry statement extending to the drive aisle." Condition No. 22: "A complete set of rear elevations shall be submitted with building plans and shall exhibit similar treatments as to those illustrated in Exhibit "F", subject to the approval of the Community Development Director." - Condition No. 45: "Provide a children's play satisfaction of the Community Director." area to the Development Second by Commissioner Brown. Approved 4-0 INFORMATIONAL 1. Engineering Department Update Planning Concerns - Chairman Mellinger asked if there from staff. Commission were any Traffic comments Community Development Director Miller responded in the negative. - Commissioner Brown commented on the proposal and the finding, discussing warrants for the off-ramps for Railroad Canyon Road. Asked if warrants are not only an issue for signals. Community Development Director Miller stated that warrants address a variety of different issues including stops signs, traffic signals and other traffic control measures. Commissioner Brown stated that he warrants a traffic signal now, but it signs. does not certainly believe that it warrants stop COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS Community Development Director Miller stated that he had nothing to report. Minutes of Planning Commission May 17, 1988 Page 18 PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Commissioner Kellev: Nothing to report. Commissioner Brinlev: Nothing to report. commissioner Brown: - Nothing to report. Chairman Mellinqer: Received a memorandum concerning the cut slopes on the Buster/Alles tract indicating that the re-vegetation is occurring and that there is not a substantial need, or at least there is no erosion problems. My intent there was that there is probably still a visual impact. I do not think that the re-vegetation is adequate, therefore I believe that another hydroseed is necessary. I am submitting a letter, which I will request to be copied and distributed to the Council, Commission and department heads. The letter references a few problems in the Green Ridge tract area; stockpiling, dust, visual impacts, erosion and drainage. I am requesting that the stockpiling permit, which was approved without the knowledge of the Community Development Director, be withdrawn and no further permits issued on that tract until that has been returned to it's natural state, or graded consistent with the SUbdivision. In that immediate area, I have also had the same concern about a dangerous situation on Robb Road, concerning the run-off from model homes. I would suggest that all building activities be halted on the site until the run-off is diverted into the orange grove, and that street repaired to a safe condition. ...., An interim flood control channel has been graded to allow Curtis Development to develop homes on small lots. This channel is to be constructed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Therefore, I do insist that the City Engineer require full fencing, to prevent ATV, and landscaped with a drought resistant material. There being no further business, the Lake Elsinore Planning Commis- sion adjourned at 9:24 p.m. Motion by Commissioner Brinley, second by Commissioner Kelley. Approved 4-0 Approved, ~-!!Lfn5' Chairman ~:Ul . Linda Grindstaff Planning Commission Secretary - MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON THE 7TH DAY OF JUNE 1988 THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:00 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Commissioner Brinley. ROLL CALL: - PRESENT: Commissioners: Brinley, Brown, and Mellinger ABSENT: Commissioners: Kelley Also present were Community Development Director Miller, Senior Planner Libiez and Associate Planner Last. MINUTE ACTION Motion by Commissioner Brown to approve minutes of May 17,1988, as submitted, second by commissioner Brinley. Approved 3-0 PUBLIC COMMENTS Chairman Mellinger asked the Secretary if there were any request to address the Commission. The Secretary answered in the negative. There being no requests to address the Commission, Chairman Mellinger closed the PUBLIC COMMENTS section. PUBLIC HEARINGS - 1. Zone Code Amendment 88-5 Industrial Concepts I - Associate Planner Last presented proposal to amend the text of the C-M (Commercial-Manufacturing) Zoning District to allow churches as conditional uses, sUbject to obtaining a Conditional Use Permit. If approved, this would apply city-wide. Chairman Mellinger opened the public hearing at 7:03 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of Zone Code Amendment 88-5. - Mr. Steve Brown, representing Industrial Concepts I, commented on alternative number 1, grant deed restrictions on operational hours for other C-M users. We have the School District which occupies 67 spaces; next door, we have the County Department of Social Services building which has 140-150 spaces. We feel that if we put restrictions on the grant deed that, basically, says users can't go down occasionally and work in the evening and on weekends this is going to discourage a lot of users from going into the center. We do not think that there will be a parking problem. The church has agreed not to have any services during the daytime hours, and we feel that the grant deed restriction would pose a real problem. Chairman Mellinger asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor of Zone Code Amendment 88-5. Receiving no response, Chairman Mellinger asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Receiving no response, Chairman Mellinger closed the public hearing at 7:07 p.m. Commissioner Brown stated he had no further comments other than previously stated. commissioner Brinley commented on alternative number 1, stating that she would like to see it remain as it is. Asked if she was correct in assuming that they are going to get the Conditional Use Permit for three-years, with annual review. Chairman Mellinger responded reviewed annually but for a maximum of three-years, as recommended. Commissioner Brinley stated that if we allow the tenants to come Minutes of Planning Commission June 7, 1988 Page 2 ZONE CODE AMENDMENT 88-5 - INDUSTRIAL CONCEPTS I CONTINUED in and work on Sunday, work with some of these chemicals, we could have a problem. Commissioner Brinley stated that her concerns remain as previous- ly stated, the center was built for commercial-manufacturing uses. The zoning and General Plan designates this for commercial-manufacturing uses and would like to see it remain __ that way. Chairman Mellinger stated that on alternative number I, if we added verbiage "as determined by the Community Development Director" there should not be a conflict. The deed restriction would still be there and if there were substantial violation of that the Community Development Director could make that determination and refer it to the City Attorney, and this could be more specifically addressed at the Conditional Use Permit stage depending upon the individual situations. Chairman Mellinger stated that as far as the comments on light manufacturing uses rema1n1ng as one of the principal uses intended for the C-M Zoning District, this is all well and good, however, it does specifically say that light manufacturing uses which are compatible with the commercial uses that are permitted. I would have a problem if a light manufacturing use went in that had some of these hazardous chemicals being stored. I would contend that they would not be compatible with the commercial uses permitted by the C-M Zone. Chairman Mellinger stated that with the all of criteria it can be a valid temporary use under a Conditional Use Permit, and the Conditional Use Permit would allow more specific restrictions __ depending on each location. Motion by Chairman Mellinger to recommend adoption of Negative Declaration No. 88-10 and approval of the request based on the Findings of approval identified in the Staff Report and the testimony heard tonight, and recommend approval of the Code Amendment with the criteria as amended on Exhibit III, as follows: 1. "Provide Grant Deed restrictions on the operational hours of other C-M users so it does not interfere with the church operations, as determined by the Com- munity Development Director." Motion failed for lack of a second. Motion by Commissioner Brinley to deny Zone Code Amendment 88-5, second by Commissioner Brown. Approved 2-1 (Chairman Mellinger voting no) IT WAS THE CONSENSUS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO CONSIDER PUBLIC HEARING NUMBER 2 AND 4 CONCURRENTLY. General Plan Amendment 88-2 and Zone Change 88-3 - Century American Corporation - Senior Planner Libiez presented proposal to amend the General Plan from Public/Semi Public to High Density Residential (12-24 du/ac), and to rezone such property from R-l HPD (Single-Family Residential Hillside Planned District) to R-3 (High Density Residential). A 7.41 acre parcel located between I-IS and Casino Drive (Vista Del Lago) at the intersection of Franklin Street. - Chairman Mellinger asked for the designation of the property immediately between the commercial and the subject property to Minutes of Planning Commission June 7, 1988 Page 3 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 88-2 AND ZONE CHANGE 88-3 - CENTURY AMERICAN CONTINUED the southeast, basically between Casino and I-15. - senior Planner Libiez responded that it is commercial. Chairman Mellinger opened the public hearing at 7:19 p.m., aSking if anyone wished to speak in favor of General Plan Amendment 88-2 and Zone Change 88-3. Mr. Roger Hobbs, representing Century American, gave a brief report on the history/building operation of Century American. Chairman Mellinger asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor of General Plan Amendment 88-2 and Zone Change 88-3. Receiving no response, Chairman Mellinger asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Receiving no response, Chairman Mellinger asked if anyone wished to speak on the matter. Receiving no response, Chairman Mellinger closed the public hearing at 7:23 p.m. commissioner Brown stated that he has concern about drainage off the site, referring to the Initial Environmental Assessment, item 3.b,c, and g. Concerned about the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) regulations, and asked if there is an updated map and we just do not have it, or has it not been updated. - senior Planner Libiez stated that in speaking with Mr. Keith, Special Project Engineer, that work was done when the freeway went in and the Wash "D" area was significantly altered, so that it drains along the eastern face of the I-15 corridor. That map has not yet been corrected by FEMA, and I believe that they are trying to get all of the associated changes on that side of the city as well as the Lake Management changes together to submit, then that change would be made by FEMA. Commissioner Brown stated that he assumes that all of that area will drain into the riverbed. Asked what provisions, or discussions, are being made for armoring that in the future. - Community Development Director Miller stated that the City has been working with the Army Corp of Engineers and consultants for the Federal Emergency Management Agency to do a complete new topo and hydrology and revise the entire floodplain designations along the San Jacinto River, from the Lake up to the City Limits. Another issue of that would be looking at the types of improve- ments that would be appropriate. commissioner Brown stated that with the topography and sharp angles, at some point in time, that is going to have to be armored. Would like to see Engineering, at least, look at possibly a benefit assessment district or something of that nature to mitigate that area. Commissioner Brown asked if their hydrology report would have to reflect only this property's impact or the cumulative impact. Community Development Director Miller stated that they would have to study the hydrology of the entire drainage area affected, so this would address cumulative impacts. commissioner Brinley stated that Commissioner Brown covered her concerns on the FEMA maps. commissioner Brinley commented on the trees and asked for their height, in terms of future development. Senior Planner Libiez stated that the recommendation is for Minutes of Planning Commission June 7, 1988 Page 4 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 88-2 AND ZONE CHANGE 88-3 - CENTURY AMERICAN CONTINUED twenty percent (20%) or more to be twenty-four inch (24") box trees. Chairman Mellinger stated that since it is commercial along Vista De Lago to the southeast, this is a logical pattern. Chairman Mellinger stated that he concurs with Commissioners Brown and Brinley on the environmental concerns. Thinks that the subsequent environmental review should be fairly detailed on its mitigation measures, in terms of mitigation for run-off, cumulative impacts, and also the air quality that was identified. Thinks that on a cumulative basis mitigation other than bicycle racks might be considered, perhaps park-n-ride. Not that this project would have to build a park-n-ride, but perhaps some consideration for a fund/fee to ultimately build one once all of the projects are built. ...- Chairman Mellinger stated that as far as the aesthetics, it says low profile buildings, thinks that you are going to have to look very closely at the grading as well as the landscaping involved. Motion by Chairman Mellinger to recommend to City Council adoption of Negative Declaration No. 88-15, with direction for specific evaluation of the project on subsequent environmental review, second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved 3-0 Motion by Commissioner Brown to recommend to City Council approval of General Plan Amendment 88-2 based on the Findings listed in the Staff Report, and adoption of Resolution No. 88-2, ...- entitled as follows: RESOLUTION NO. 88-2 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 88-2 TO CHANGE THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE 1982 GENERAL PLAN CHANGING THE DESIGNATION OF A EIGHT (8) ACRE PARCEL FROM PUBLIC/SEMI PUBLIC TO HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL Second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved 3-0 Motion by Commissioner Brown to recommend to City Council approval of Zone Change 88-3, based on the Findings listed in the Staff Report, second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved 3-0 Commissioner Brown suggested that when this project comes before the Commission that we have rather extensive cross sections of the property, all directions. Chairman Mellinger suggested that evaluation of access to the project be included. .... 3. General Plan Amendment 88-3 - George Alongi - Community Develop- ment Director Miller presented proposal to amend the General Plan Circulation Element extending the Modified Secondary (80' right- of-way) designation on Chaney Street from Pottery Street north- easterly to Flint/Davis Street intersection, changing the desig- nation from Major (100' right-of-way) and changing the desig- nation on Strickland Avenue from Collector (76' right-of- way) to a 60 foot right-of-way. Minutes of Planning Commission June 7, 1988 Page 5 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 88-3 - GEORGE ALONGI CONTINUED Chairman Mellinger opened the public hearing at 7:35 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of General Plan Amendment 88-3. ..... Mr. Alan Manee, representing the applicant, stated that the type of considerations stated in the report are basically the considerations that we feel make this proposal worthy. Given the physical setting of the two streets; the amount of development that is already in place; the likelihood for consideration of reduction of right-of-way just because of the cost of obtaining, for example, significant additional rights-of-way that one could achieve perhaps the same results on a restricted or reduced right-of-way and either eliminate parking, sidewalks or the number of lanes. The main issue, for us, is that the reductions themselves are not seen as a specific solution for a specific project that has no application to the community or to the rest of the road right-of-way. But is, in fact, a direction that perhaps the city was already going in, and the merit of the reduction is that there will be a way of obtaining the kinds of traffic flows and not burden the city with excessive costs to obtain rights-of-way for numerous house sites that are already built at a lesser right-of-way than even what is proposed right now. ~ Chairman Mellinger asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor of General Plan Amendment 88-3. Receiving no response, Chairman Mellinger asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Receiving no response, Chairman Mellinger asked if anyone wished to speak on the matter. Receiving no response, Chairman Mellinger closed the public hearing at 7:38 p.m. commissioner Brinley asked if strickland would be paved and have a median. Community Development Director Miller stated that Strickland, under the Code designation, is a Collector and could potentially have a median, but most likely would not. Pavement or improve- ment of strickland would come either as a City project or as part of proposed development. commissioner Brown asked if strickland would be used as an alternate to Lakeshore Drive, under-the new considerations for circulation. Community certainly a probably a Collector. Development Director Miller stated that this is potential consideration. I think one that was part of the original designation of Strickland, as a ~ commissioner Brown stated that you are going to have to obtain right-of-way. It is certainly going to be more expensive for the City to obtain additional right-of-way on Lakeshore Drive to make that an Arterial. Whereas, strickland you could, in the present status and in the future, because of less desirability of the property because it is not lake front property. This would be an excellent alternative to Lakeshore Drive, and eliminate all traffic from continuing down Chaney street to Lakeshore Drive. commissioner Brown stated that there have been several residences built in the last couple of years, and asked what right-of-way they dedicated. Community Development Director Miller stated that he believes that there has only been one residence that has made the full improvements to Strickland, which was a house built by Mr. Alongi, and it did provide dedication to the 38 foot right-of- way. Minutes of Planning Commission June 7, 1988 Page 6 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 88-3 = GEORGE ALONGI CONTINUED Chairman Mellinger stated that he had the same concerns as Com- missioner Brown, but thinks that with the residential development between Lakeshore along Chaney that pretty much eliminates the reality of an Arterial. Chairman Mellinger stated that perhaps there is a need to retain the right-of-way along strickland for the industrial to the __ northeast. However, the constraints of the outflow channel would certainly eliminate any need--if the outflow channel were not there, I would have a problem with this. Chairman Mellinger stated that the something that should be mentioned. As no parking alternative is the best elimination or turn pockets. Motion by Commissioner Brinley to recommend to City Council adoption of Negative Declaration No. 88-16, approval of General Plan Amendment 88-3, based on the Findings listed in the Staff Report, and adoption of Resolution No. 88-3, entitled as follows: no parking alternative is Mr. Manee indicated, the as opposed to sidewalk RESOLUTION NO. 88-3 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 88-3, RELATING TO A CHANGE IN DESIGNATION FOR CHANEY STREET BETWEEN POTTERY AND FLINT STREETS FROM MAJOR TO MODIFIED SECONDARY AND CHANGING THE DESIGNATION OF STRICKLAND FROM COLLECTOR TO A SIXTY FOOT (60') RIGHT-OF-WAY. -- Second by Commissioner Brown. Approved 3-0 4. ZONE CHANGE 88-3 - CENTURY AMERICAN CORPORATION - CONSIDERED WITH PUBLIC HEARING NUMBER 2. 5. Amendment presented Municipal Maps. 88-6 City of Lake Elsinore - Senior Planner Libiez proposal to amend Title 16 of the Lake Elsinore Code adding Chapter 16.25 related to Vesting Tentative Commissioner Brinley asked if they would have a longer time in which to record the map with this new vesting procedure. Senior Planner Libiez stated not necessarily. Basically, the law today, a final map has to be approved within two years and subsequently recorded within that two year period. However, you are allowed a maximum of three extensions not to exceed one year each, which would grant you a period of up to five years for that map. The Vesting Map also has the same period of time in which to go through extensions and to be recorded. The difference is, once recorded, the developmental rights are placed with the map. Chairman Mellinger opened the pUblic hearing at 7:53 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of Amendment 88-6. Receiving no response, Chairman Mellinger asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Receiving no response, Chairman Mellinger asked if anyone wished to speak on the matter. Receiving no response, Chairman Mellinger closed the pUblic hearing at 7:53 p.m. Commissioner Brown asked about tying the Vested Map to additional development agreements. .... Minutes of Planning Commission June 7, 1988 Page 7 AMENDMENT 88-6 = CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE CONTINUED - Senior Planner tion of approval, be entered into. without a map. Libiez stated that you could require as a condi- of a vesting map, that a development agreement The development agreement could also be struck commissioner Brinley asked how the fees are going to be decided; if there will be a set fee or if they are going to vary. Commissioner Brown stated that, traditionally, what happens is that the entity attempts to project costs over x-amount of years, and given the protection to the developer they will take a fee in lieu of those projected increases. Community Development Director Miller stated that there are two types of fees associated with maps. First, there is the processing fee, processing the application through Planning commission and City Council. After the tentative map is approved, there is a processing fee for plan checking the map through Engineering. The other type of fee, that Commissioner Brown is eluding to, is a fee associated with the development or improvement of the subdivision. - Chairman Mellinger stated that he thinks that the items that have to be submitted are appropriate, and there should be some sort of citation as to who determines the adequacy of the items under 16.25.060.b., thinks this should be the Community Development Director and the City Engineer. Chairman Mellinger commented on Section l6.25.060.b.12, asking if grading standards would be under the Municipal Code or the Zoning Ordinance. Community Development Director Miller stated that grading is under the Municipal Code, contained within the building title. Chairman Mellinger commented on Section 16.25.090.b.1, thinks the word "immediate" should be deleted. Community Development Director Miller stated that some of the commonly used terminology, if you wanted to insert that, is "to the neighborhood and community". Chairman Mellinger recommended that this verbiage "to the neighborhood and community" be added to Section 16.25.090.b.1. Motion by Chairman Mellinger to recommend to City approval of Amendment 88-6 based on the Findings listed Staff Report, and with the above mentioned amendments proposed ordinance, second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved 3-0 Council in the to the - At this time, 8:00 p.m., the Planning Commission recessed. At this time, 8:07 p.m., the Planning commission reconvened. BUSINESS ITEMS 1. Industrial Project 88-1 - Frank Ayres & Son Construction Company - Associate Planner Last presented proposal to construct two industrial buildings totaling 27,213 square feet, located on a 2.10 acre site on the north side of Collier Avenue between Chaney and Third Street. Chairman Mellinger asked if the paint band is going around the rear. Minutes of Planning Commission June 7, 1988 Page 8 INDUSTRIAL PROJECT 88-1 - FRANK AYRES i SON CONSTRUCTION COMPANY CONTINUED Associate Planner Last responded in the affirmative. Chairman Mellinger asked if the applicant was present and if he had any concerns. Mr. Bruce Ayres, commented on condition number 23, asking if the __ parcel merger would hold up the process for building permits, since you can not have openings on the property line Chairman Mellinger stated that the parcel merger is a very simple process. Mr. Ayres questioned condition number 38, pertaining to street improvements, stating that street improvements are already in, and asked if they had to resubmit street improvement plans. Chairman Mellinger stated that this would be up to the City Engineer. Mr. Ayres questioned condition number 39, pertaining to the three-foot dedication along Collier Avenue. Associate Planner Last stated that this three-foot dedication was based on the 86-foot right-of-way proposal from the proposed General Plan. Motion by Commissioner Brinley to recommend to City Council adoption of Negative Declaration No. 88-7 and approval of Industrial Project 88-1 based on the Findings and subject to the 40 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report, second by __ Chairman Mellinger. Approved 3-0 2. Landscape Guidelines - City of Lake Elsinore - Associate Planner Last presented for review and recommend approval to City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore Guidelines. Commissioner Brinley commented briefly on the city promoting and encouraging the use of Xeriscape; landscaping being an asset and not a liability. In other words, making it affordable and feasible for these people to maintain, and stated that staff did an excellent jOb. Commissioner Brown stated that he wanted to thank staff for all of their work, really appreciates it. Chairman Mellinger stated that we are encouraging the preservation of existing trees. Also, if existing trees are to be removed that some sort of compensation proposal by the applicant be made. This should be one of the goals, perhaps it could be added as one of the informational items. Community Development Director Miller asked Chairman Mellinger if he was referring to replacement, when you say compensation. Chairman Mellinger answered in the affirmative, either a number of trees or a specimen tree. -- Chairman Mellinger made the following suggestions: Page 10. 5.n: The landscape plan plant sYmbols shall reflect the scale of plant material utilized. I think that this should probably be at three-years. Minutes of Planning Commission June 7, 1988 Page 9 LANDSCAPE GUIDELINES - CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE CONTINUED Page 11.2.c: screening unslightly elements, such as trans- formers or equipment is excellent. I think that to off-set wall masses and other permitted out- door uses screening permitted outdoor uses should also be considered. ~ Page 17: Parking Lots: Where it talks about landscape strips, it should be exclusive of the overhang from the cars, most of the plans are drawn with two-foot overhangs. One (1) fifteen (15) gallon tree for every ten (10) parking spaces may be a little low, and asked if there was any basis for the one per ten. Community Development Director Miller stated that this reflects the current code requirement. Page 17.10.c: Chairman Mellinger stated that in some cities it is one per four, and maybe this can be looked into at some future date. Chairman Mellinger resumed his suggestions: ----- Page 18.11.b: We are talking about 100% coverage in one year or sooner. The problem with this is the hydroseed- ing being done, and if the developer sells out there is just the homeowner left. I am wondering if we shouldn't, maybe it doesn't belong in the Landscape Guidelines, but perhaps it could be put into the grading ordinance, grading guidelines, that we get some sort of surety deposit to insure the landscaping performs, instead of just being done. If the hydroseeding does not work there should be some sort of deposit, then if it does work then we can refund the money and if it doesn't work then we can use the money. Commissioner Brown asked if we were not bonding for landscaping improvements. Community Development Director Miller stated that, typically, this has not been the case, at this point in time. Commissioner Brown stated that this would be an easy way to address the issue, bond for it. Chairman Mellinger resumed his suggestions: Page 20: The first two trees listed should be eliminated. The Indian Laurel is really the most frost tender, and the Carrotwoods are a dangerous tree after reaching maturity. In my mind, Carrotwood trees only belong in non-pedestrian areas. ----- Chairman Mellinger asked if the Commission had any problems with the suggested changes. The Commissioners at the table stated that they did not have any problem with the suggested changes. Motion by Chairman Mellinger to recommend to City Council approval of the Landscape Guidelines with the above mentioned suggestions, and to adopt Resolution No. 88-4, entitled as follows: RESOLUTION NO. 88-4 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING ADOPTION Minutes of Planning Commission June 7, 1988 Page 10 LANDSCAPE GUIDELINES - CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE CONTINUED OF THE LANDSCAPE GUIDELINES Second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved 3-0 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS Nothing to report. .... PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Commissioner Brown: Once again, I would like to request that we have a study session with City Council on various issues, concerns of the new Council especially. Community Development Director Miller stated that this was discussed with Council earlier this evening, this was one priority identified. Council has acknowledged Planning Commission's desire to have a study session and is looking at scheduling one in the near future. But probably waiting until July, when there will be at least one new Planning Commissioner seated. commissioner Brinley: Noticed that the Arco sign has been removed. Asked when it was removed, and if there was a problem. Senior Planner just them being convince their exact date, but Ordinances for week. Libiez stated that there was not a problem, it was convinced that they could get scheduled, and they did scheduling people to remove it. I don't remember the we did go out and verify that they did meet all City the removal, and they did get a final sign-off last .... Community Development Director Miller stated that as Commissioner Brinley is aware we have been pursuing this matter for over a year. Two citations were issued, and the second citation finally motivated them to take action to remove the sign. Commissioner Brinley asked if the citations were still standing or if they have been cleared up. Community Development Director Miller stated that we have recommended to the court that those citations be dismissed. Chairman Mellinqer: Nothing to report. There being no further business, the Lake Elsinore Commission adjourned at 8:24 p.m. Motion by Commissioner second by Commissioner Brown. Planning Brinley, mG.'.!: Randy Mell~~ Chairman .... Respectfully submitted, Linda Grindstaff Planning Commission Secretary MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON THE 21ST DAY OF JUNE 1988 THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:00 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Commissioner Kelley. ROLL CALL: - PRESENT: Commissioners: Kelley, Brinley, Brown and Mellinger ABSENT: commissioners: None Also present were Senior Planner Libiez and Associate Planner Magee. MINUTE ACTION Motion by Commissioner Brown to approve minutes of June 7, 1988, as submitted, second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved 3-0 Commissioner Kelley abstaining PUBLIC COMMENTS Mr. Robert Boxer, 942 churches being allowed to zoning Districts. Barbara Way, Lake Elsinore, commented on located within Commercial Manufacturing PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Zone Change 88-2 - Neil M. Cleveland - Associate Planner Magee presented a request to change the zoning from RRO and SPO (former County designation) to C-2 (General Commercial). 21.71 acres, bounded by Central, Dexter and Camber Avenue, west of Crane Street. - Chairman Mellinger opened the public hearing at 7:08 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of Zone Change 88-2. Mr. Neil Cleveland stated that he concurs with staff recommen- dation, and would answer any questions. Chairman Mellinger stated, for the record, that he met with Mr. Cleveland, at an earlier stage, and discussed this proposal. Chairman Mellinger asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak in favor of Zone Change 88-2. Receiving no response, Chairman Mellinger asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Receiving no response, Chairman Mellinger asked if anyone wished to speak on the matter. Receiving no response, Chairman Mellinger closed the public hearing at 7:09 p.m. Commissioner Kelley stated that he is glad that they came back with a site plan, conceptual plan. commissioner Brinley stated that she has no problem with the proposal, at this point. commissioner Brown stated that he has no problem with the pro- posal. Chairman Mellinger stated that he does not have a concern with the zone change, it is more than appropriate. The Environ- mental Assessment probably should have looked at some intensive types of commercial uses, however, in discussion with the applicant, I did indicate that there would be a need for traffic improvements, signalization and so on. Motion by Commissioner Kelley to recommend to City Council adoption of Negative Declaration No. 88-12 and approval of Zone Change 88-2 based on the Findings listed in the Staff Report, second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved 4-0 Minutes of Planning Commission June 21, 1988 Page 2 BUSINESS ITEMS 1. Industrial Project 86-2 Amendment #1 - O. T. Equities - Associate Planner Magee presented a request to amend Design Review approval of Industrial Project 86-2 to revise building locations of six (6) buildings totaling 22,291 square feet. 1.51 acres, located on the east side of Birch Street, south of Minthorn Street in the Warm Springs Business Park. Mr. Jim Thompson, applicant, stated that first of all the entire __ property has been broken up through a tentative map that creates individual ownership of each of these properties served by easement access, and the easement also flows through the adjacent property to the north. One of the problems that we have with sliding gates between these properties is these properties are legally individual properties and not for the benefit of the public, and these storage yard areas are for the benefit of a particular building. I can see some future policing problems. Mr. Thompson commented on staff's recommendation for striping all the way around the buildings. The reason that stripes are not shown is that these two buildings, referring to the rendering posted, abut each other and suggested that where a building abuts an adjacent building it is not necessary or feasible to have striping, but where the buildings are in plain view striping will be provided. Mr. Thompson commented on the fire sprinkler requirement, condi- tion number 6 and number 33, requesting that these conditions be changed to say "if required by the County Fire Department". Chairman Mellinger asked staff if these conditions came from the County Fire Department or if these were added by staff. -- Associate Planner Magee stated that this particular project was not circulated to the County Fire Department because it was an amendment. These are similar conditions to those on the last amendment to an industrial project reviewed by the Commission, so staff incorporated the same conditions. Mr. Thompson stated that it was his understanding that a building less than 3,500 square feet of warehouse area is not required to have a sprinkler system. I would say that buildings number 1, 2, 5 and 6 would probably be required to have sprinkler systems and buildings 3 and 4, which are only 3,200 square feet total, would not. If it is required I will put it in. Commissioner Mellinger commented on the sliding asking if the parking lot is full how do you turn there an area to do this, or do you have to back out? gate issue, around, is Associate Planner Magee stated that staff's proposal was to have gates all the around, just like the industrial project directly across the street, so that you could maintain through access. Chairman Mellinger stated that otherwise you would l_ose a park- ing space for a turn around space, which might result in l.osing floor area. You would have to meet the minimum parking require- ments, I do not know if this is the minimum or not, but there should be a turn around area, if those gates are to be closed. - Mr. Thompson stated that he believes they have met the legal requirements of parking, on the exterior of the fence. Chairman Mellinger suggested the elimination of a parking space and striped it for no parking and have it for turn around space. Associate Planner Magee stated that he believes that on buildings 1, 2, 5, and 6 the applicant is right at the limit. ,------------ Minutes of Planning Commission June 21, 1988 Page 3 INDUSTRIAL PROJECT 86-2 AMENDMENT il ~ O.T. EOUITIES CONTINUED Mr. Thompson commented on condition number 24, pertaining to the requirement of a grease trap, and stated that he does not know what this means. - commissioner Brown explained the intent of grease traps, and informed Mr. Thompson that specifications for grease traps could be obtained from the Engineering Department. Commissioner Brinley stated that she agrees with staff on the sliding gate issue. commissioner Brinley commented on condition number 10, pertaining to food service uses to be permitted in this building must meet required parking, and asked Mr. Thompson if there were any plans to have a restaurant use located within the complex. - Mr. Thompson responded in the negative. commissioner Brinley stated that if this should come back for such a use, could we put in the conditions that it would be take out only, no seating. senior Planner Libiez stated that he believed that the Commission would want to review the particular application at the time it is proposed. Commissioner Kelley asked if the landscaping plan, which was part part of Industrial Project 86-2, would carryover to Amendment Number 1. Associate Planner Magee stated that the landscape plan for Industrial Project 86-2 was reviewed by the City's Landscape Architect and approved as submitted. The applicant has prepared a separate landscape plan for Phase II, Amendment Number 1. Chairman Mellinger asked if the storage areas were visible from Birch street or any other street. Associate Planner Magee responded in the negative. commissioner Mellinger asked if staff was just requiring redwood or cedar slats in the chain link. senior Planner Libiez responded in the affirmative. Chairman Mellinger commented on condition number 23, suggesting that the word "may" be changed to "shall". Commissioner Brown suggested verbiage "where fencing is required" be added to the second sentence of condition number 23. - Motion by Commissioner Brown to recommend to City Council approval of Amendment Number 1 of Industrial Project 86-2 based on the Findings and the 40 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report with the following amendments: Condition No. 20: "A revised set of rear elevations shall be submitted for all six (6) buildings, exhibiting the same recessed striping treatments introduced on the front and side elevations, subject to the approval of the Community Development Director. Any buildings that immedi- ately abut existing buildings will not have to have recessed striping treat- ment." Minutes of Planning Commission June 21, 1988 Page 4 INDUSTRIAL PROJECT 86-2 AMENDMENT il = O.T. EQUITIES CONTINUED Condition No. 23: Delete first sentence, which reads: "Walls and fences may be erected to create individual storage areas." Condition No. 33: If required by the County Fire Department, install a complete fire sprinkler system in all buildings __ requiring a fire flow of 1500 GPM or greater The post indicator valve and fire department connection shall be located to the front, within 50 feet of a hydrant, and a minimum of 15 feet from the building(s). A statement that the building(s) will be automatically fire sprinklered must be included on the title page of the building plans. Second by Chairman Mellinger with amending condition number 23, that redwood or cedar slats shall be placed within the chain link fence as required by ordinance. Commissioner Brown amended Mellinger's amendment. his motion to include Chairman Condition No. 23: "Where fencing is to be provided, red- wood or cedar slats to be placed within chain link; however, sliding gates shall be installed and remain open during business hours to assure adequate circulation, subject to the __ approval of the Community Development Director. Approved 4-0 IT WAS THE CONSENSUS OF THE COMMISSION TO CONSIDER BUSINESS ITEM 2 AND 3 CONCURRENTLY. Residential Project 88-1 and Street Abandonment 88-1 - Greg Block - A request to construct a 42 unit apartment complex consisting of six (6) separate buildings, and abandon a 40 foot segment of Walnut Street. 2.5 acres on two lots located on Walnut Street approximately 650 feet west of Riverside Drive. Motion by Commissioner Brown to continue Residential Project 88-1 and Street Abandonment 88-1 to the meeting of July 19, 1988, second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved 4-0 4. Appeal of Conditions - 1301 Heald Avenue - George Alongi - Senior Planner Libiez presented Mr. Alongi's request to appeal condition number 16 of Minor Design Review, for the construction of a six- foot (6') high wood fence. - Mr. Alongi presented to the Commission background information on the above referenced proposal, and stated that the most important thing is the time element; not so much what the code reads or what the requirements are today. But, what the requirements were at the time the original request for both buildings were requested. Mr. Alongi referred to the first page of the Conditions of Minutes of Planning Commission June 21, 1988 Page 5 APPEAL OF CONDITIONS - 1301 HEALD AVENUE = GEORGE ALONGI CONTINUED - Approval for the residence at 1301 Heald, item one states that Design Review approval will lapse and be void unless building permits are issued within one year, this was in 1988. However, the Conditions of Approval were placed in September of 1984, if the Commission will read that total page, all of the conditions, they will find that no where is there mention of a time limit. Mr. Alongi stated that the encroachment permit and the alley improvements were done at the same time for both houses. The fire hydrant for 1301 was moved at the time 1303 was being built; so in essence, what I am saying is that vested rights was clearly indicated by the improvements being done on that project. Mr. Alongi stated that the alley is very dangerous because there is a pole right in the middle, and the alley is only half improved, which we did. There is no two way traffic on this alley, traffic coming and going have to use the same side. If we construct a solid fence along Mohr Street and down the alley, even recess the fence into the alley, that alley and street is completely blocked from that garage, and it also blocks the view of the house next door. Discussion ensued on the pole located in the alley, whether or not it was located within a public right-of-way or on private property, and who improved the property adjacent to the pole. Mr. Alongi stated that he was not against the solid fencing, what I do not like and think that the City should get involved in is looking at a project. Because, infill lots, every lot on an infill has its own problems, especially, when you are talking about solid fencing; so what is happening here is that this man backing out of his driveway, a 55 foot driveway, has no chance to see anyone coming down the alley from either direction. Mr. Alongi stated that his whole case is, there was no time limit on the first go around, and on the second go around there should not be a time limit either. Chairman Mellinger stated that if there were a time limit then it would require a variance or code amendment. Mr. Alongi responded not really, because we did not have a fence ordinance at that time. Chairman Mellinger stated that if there were a time limit it lapses, and thinks that further research is need before we make a decision. - Senior Planner Libiez stated that the building permit was not exercised in a timely manner. The indication is even if the zoning code, at that particular time, did not incorporate a one year limitation on the conditions of approval of the project; in essence, vested rights had not started because the building permit had not been secured and issued to the property and substantial work begun. Mr. Alongi stated that the delay, to build the house at 1303, was because of the design of Mohr and Heald, not because of Mr. Perardi's negligence. When Mr. Perardi came in six months later we had already gone before the Planning Commission and City Council on that street. When we came back the second time, in May, to submit the first house again we could not build the second house until the street was designed and the building pad designed to take a house on the corner. commissioner Kelley stated that he does not agree with Mr. Alongi Minutes of Planning Commission June 21, 1988 Page 6 APPEAL OF CONDITIONS - 1301 HEALD AVENUE - GEORGE ALONGI CONTINUED on the danger of a wooden fence on the corner. My only question would be the time frame. Commissioner Brinley stated that her concern is with the time frame, and asked if there were not any records where Mr. Perardi requested extensions. Senior Planner Libiez responded in the negative. .... Commissioner Brown asked if, several years ago, a permit was pulled for the house, 1301 Heald. Senior Planner Libiez responded in the negative. Commissioner Brown stated that on vested right protected by extensions of building permits, you vested rights until you have poured the slab. Senior Planner Libiez responded that you do not have rights until you have made substantial progress into the itself. you are not do not have vested project Commissioner Brown stated that he has not seen anything from 1984, where there is a time limit built into any code or ordinances, and stated that condition number 6 requires that the applicant meet all applicable city codes; asked if there was anything in that 1984 time frame, any code, that address this. Senior Planner Libiez stated that there is a time frame in the old code for handling Design Review in terms of when decisions have to be made, not for how long decisions are effective. Commissioner Brown stated that if there is real concern, whether or not we are talking, about vested rights we would have to either defer, deny, or continue to a future date. .... Chairman Mellinger stated that he was still under the impression that there was a time limit for Design Review approvals. Chairman Mellinger stated that he believes that the infill area needs an overlay. Commissioner Brown commented on the safety issue, stating that the setback on the side yard of a corner lot gives you the extra setback for fences and structures, within an adequate area, so that you can see the ingress/egress from a pUblic street. commissioner Brown commented feet from the alley, stating length of one car, 17-22 visibility. on the length of the driveway, 55 that you could recess the fence the feet, and have more than adequate Motion by Commissioner Kelley to deny the appeal, second by Com- missioner Brown. Approved 4-0 5. Appeal of Environmental Impact Report Requirement, Tentative Tract 22904 - Greg Block - .... Chairman Mellinger stated that the recommendation is to accept the applicant's request for withdrawal of appeal, presumes that staff will proceed with the Environmental Impact Report, or has the project been withdrawn? Senior Planner Libiez stated that staff is working with the Minutes of Planning Commission June 21, 1988 Page 7 APPEAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REQUIREMENT. TENTATIVE TRACT 22904 - GREG BLOCK CONTINUED applicant additional and they believe information which that they can present us with may clear up some of the matters. - Chairman Mellinger asked how long this application has been in, stating that you only have 30 days to make that decision. Senior Planner Libiez that we are revising things, they have come in with a revised map already, and it is not a formal application at this point. Motion by Commissioner Brinley to accept withdrawal of appeal of requirement to prepare Environmental Impact Report, second by Commissioner Kelley. Approved 4-0 6. Freeway Sign Review - Commercial Project 86-1 and Commercial Pro- ject 85-2 - Howard palmer/Atlantic Richfield Senior Planner Libiez presented for review a, 45 foot high by 150 square foot, freeway identification sign to serve an existing Arco service center and a proposed restaurant, to be located within a 5 foot wide easement area abutting Interstate 15 along a portion of the southeasterly property line of the "Shoppers Square" center, located at Railroad Canyon Road and Casino Drive (Vista Del Lago). - Chairman Mellinger asked if each parcel would be allowed to have a freeway sign, referring to the parcelization of the center. Senior Planner Libiez stated that potentially any parcel that has the requisite amount of frontage on the freeway--yes. Chairman Mellinger stated that he has one question, what is an integrated development? We should not be approving parcel maps for integrated developments, otherwise we are allowing more freeway signs. Because in our ordinance it says for integrated development you get one sign. Chairman Mellinger stated his impression was that when this originally came through, this was an integrated center, and the variance that Sizzler came through with was for height and, at that time, I was opposed to that. At that time, I had indicated my concern about the number of signs that could be placed upon the freeway. In the code, section 17.94.180.I.3., states that you can have a freeway identification sign for integrated developments of five or more units with at least 150 feet of freeway frontage. Again, my concern is that you could have a number of signs along the freeway. Senior Planner Libiez commented on section 17.94.180.I.3., stat- ing that the definition of this is, individual businesses and integrated developments of five or more units. If an individual business has a parcel with at least 150 feet of freeway frontage they can qualify for that. Chairman Mellinger stated that the reason he would not agree with the interpretation, is because we intentionally wrote in Section 17.94.180.G, businesses not located in integrated developments of five or more units. In my mind, this was intended to go for the center; for centers along the freeway so that there would not be a number of signs. .l"'t Chairman Melli?ger stated that if this is the interpretation of the code then can understand~ supporting the sign. However, my concern is that the applicant, at the time and it is still the same applicant, indicated that there would not be a sign there, Minutes of Planning Commission June 21, 1988 Page 8 FREEWAY SIGN REVIEW = COMMERCIAL PROJECT 86-1 AND COMMERCIAL PRO- JECT 85-2 - HOWARD PALMER/ATLANTIC RICHFIELD CONTINUED and my interpretation of the code is that it is for the center. A brief discussion at the table ensued on the number of signs that could be erected along this freeway frontage, reference to the number of remaining parcels to the end of Casino Drive. Mr. Ken Lanz, representing Atlantic Richfield, stated that his understanding of the situation from the beginning is that Mr. Palmer received approval for two signs, one for our site and one for the Bob's Big Boy site. Chairman Mellinger informed Mr. Lanz that the site plan, sub- mitted for the center, did not include signs. The site plan did show a sign and when the Sizzler sign came up I expressed those concerns and, it was indicated at the time of hearing, the actual variance request was for the height of the Sizzler sign. Mr. Lanz stated that if the Commission is talking about dis- approving the total package, our sign and the Marriott (Allies) sign, then we would like the opportunity to continue this and do further research. ..., Chairman Mellinger stated that if staff would like to research the records, minutes and interpret the code, and address this in the staff report, a continuance would be in order. Chairman Mellinger stated that he would like to see the logic as to how the two signs were approved, years ago. As a matter of fact, I would like to see that in relation to the last case we had, I do not see where it is up, nor is it vested. __ Motion by Chairman Mellinger to continue Freeway Sign Review for Commercial Project 86-1 and Commercial Project 85-2, with direction to staff to come back with research--if these signs were actually approved by City Council, if so this will be taken into consideration by the Commission, and also an analysis of what vested rights there are for the sign under the old approval, second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved 4-0 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S COMMENT Nothing to report. PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Commissioner Kellev: Thanked Chairman Mellinger for his many years on the Commission. Commented on the church issue, stating that he would like to see a study session or a solution where we can try and work with them. .... Commented on the trash accumulating within the Town Center, in front of Builder's Emporium. I think that we need more trash containers and have them at closer intervals. Commissioner Brinlev: Stated that she has enjoyed working with Chairman Mellinger. Minutes of Planning Commission June 21, 1988 Page 9 PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS CONTINUED Commissioner Brown: - Appreciates all of Chairman Mellinger'S time and effort. Responded to Commissioner Kelley's comment on the church issue, stat- ing that he to would like to work this out. I spent a couple of hours with one of the Directors of Planning for Riverside County. We discussed this very issue, and my impression of what is happening in other areas where the County is allowing mixed uses, unrelated uses, within this type of zoning is not working. The County is working to redraft their ordinance, not allowing it anYmore because it just does not work. They were even discussing something that we have discussed at this table, where in that zoning you would build a building to allow the mixed zoning. Noticed that there is a sign at Dexter and Central Avenue about that property being for lease, and asked if the car wash was not coming back, or have they not reapplied. Associate Planner Magee responded that they have indicated to staff that they will submit building plans within the next week or two. - commissioner Brown stated that he believes that there were conditions of approval placed on that shopping center, before Certificate of Occupancy is issued or within 30 days of the meeting which the car wash applied, that the area be landscaped. I noticed that the sign is full of tenants and it appears there is a great deal of activity, are they occupying those buildings and open for business? Associate Planner Magee stated that they are not, and that last week staff was requested to make a final inspection and a deficiency list was issued. One of the items on the deficiency list was that the landscaping on the vacant pad shall be installed as per Commission's request. Chairman Mellinqer: I think that Council is trying to arrange a study session, and staff may want to put that on the agenda, as far as the temporary church situation. There being no further business, the Lake Elsinore Planning Commis- sion adjourned at 8:29 p.m. Motion by Commissioner Brinley, second by Commissioner Kelley. Approved 4-0 - i/:i!/J ~4 Randy Mellinger, Chairman Respectfully submitted, Linda Grindstaff Planning Commission Secretary - - - MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON THE 5TH DAY OF JULY 1988 THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:00 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Commissioner Kelley. INTRODUCTIONS -- Community Development Director Miller introduced Pamela Brinley, Bill Saathoff and Al Wilsey as the new Planning Commissioners for the City of Lake Elsinore. Vice Chairman Brown welcomed the new Planning Commissioners. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Commissioners: Kelley, Brinley, Saathoff, Wilsey and Brown. ABSENT: Commissioners: None Also present were Community Development Director Miller, Senior Planner Libiez and Associate Planner Magee. ELECTION OF OFFICERS Vice Chairman Brown opened nominations for Chairman. Commissioner Brinley nominated Vice Chairman Brown for Chairman, of the Planning Commission, second by commissioner Wilsey. There being no further nominations, vice Chairman Brown was elected Chairman by a unanimous vote. -- Chairman Brown opened nominations for Vice Chairman. commissioner Kelley nominated Commissioner Saathoff for Vice Chair- man, of the Planning Commission, second by Commissioner Brinley. There being no further nominations, Commissioner Saathoff was elected Vice Chairman by a unanimous vote. MINUTE ACTION Motion by Commissioner Kelley to approve minutes of June 21, 1988, as submitted, second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved 3-0 Commissioners Saathoff and Wilsey abstaining PUBLIC COMMENTS Mr. Kevin Hogan, 358 Avenue 6, Lake Elsinore, commented on the Rail- road Canyon School site, stating that he is the only property owner on Avenue 6 on the side of the school. Since they started the project, about a year and a half ago, I have been incurring damage due to water run-off. In addition, to what the school has done, the City is redoing Mill Street and they have placed a culvert across the street; the problem with this is that it is in alignment with the center of my house. - Chairman Brown stated that we have very little control on what schools do on their property, it is state property, and asked what legal recourse we have on off-site drainage. Community Development Director Miller stated that in response to Chairman Brown's question and to Mr. Hogan's comments. The school does have to comply with state building codes; however, rather than the city being responsible for that the school works through the State Architect Office. The State is responsible for reviewing their plans, issuing their permits and doing their inspections. In terms of the off-site improvements, the School District is undertaking those improvements to Mill street to provide access to their school. Again, the School District is the responsible agency for both the Minutes of Planning Commission July 5, 1988 Page 2 PUBLIC COMMENTS CONTINUED on-site construction of the school and the off-site road improvements. Certainly, as they do work in the roadway they do work more closely with the City, and I would encourage Mr. Hogan to contact our Engineering Department, and we can render assistance. Chairman Brown asked Mr. Hogan to leave his name, address and tele- phone number, where he can be reached during the day, stating that __ Community Development Director Miller will call and direct you to the correct individuals in our City that can at least tell you the situation. There being no further requests to address the Commission, Chairman Brown closed the PUBLIC COMMENTS section. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Tentative Parcel Map 23411 Aware Development - Associate Planner Magee presented a request to divide one (1) existing parcel into ten (10) parcels varying in size from 20,000 square feet to 29,398 square feet. 6.25 acres, located on the northwest corner of Dexter Avenue and Second Street. Chairman Brown opened the public hearing at 7:11 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of Tentative Parcel Map 23411. Mr. Grant Beckland, representing Aware Development, the drainage issue, stating that we attempted existing drainage patterns with what we have tentative map. There is a culvert and the street that location where our street is proposed. direction of the City, we can take it down to the and put it in the street. Mr. Beckland then commented on the septic tanks, stating that the proposal is 20,000 square foot minimum sized lots, and the expense to run sewer to initially start the project is rather large. I would like to ask that consideration be given to allowing septic tanks on these lots. commented on to maintain done on our does dip in If it is the intersection -- Chairman Brown asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak in favor of Tentative Parcel Map 23411. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown asked if anyone wished to speak on the matter. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown closed the public hearing at 7:14 p.m. Commissioner Kelley stated that he is in agreement with staff recommendation. Also, feels that sewer service in that area is appropriate, because of all the problems that we have with septic systems. Commissioner Saathoff stated that he was in agreement with staff recommendation. commissioner Wilsey stated that he was in agreement with staff recommendation. __ commissioner Brinley stated that she was in agreement with staff recommendation, and commented on Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District comments, asking for the GPM (Gallons Per Minute). Associate Planner Magee stated that this was left open, referring to Exhibit "I" in the Staff Report, and it would also require some Fire Department input as well. Commissioner Brinley asked if they wanted to reduce their GPM Minutes of Planning Commission July 5, 1988 Page 3 TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 23411 = AWARE DEVELOPMENT CONTINUED couldn't they use different construction; instead of framing use stucco, masonry and tile. - community Development Director Miller stated that as Associate Planner Magee has indicated the Fire Department is really the most critical entity in looking at water pressures and flows, because of the high demand they would place on the water system. They do have certain minimums, and they do make certain adjust- ments for that depending upon the type of construction and whether the building has fire sprinklers or not. However, there usually is a certain minimum, typically 1,500 gallons per minute in place for fire flows. Chairman Brown stated that he was in total agreement for sewer. Chairman Brown stated that he would like to go over the drainage issue, asking if this drains through the facility that goes under the freeway and then ultimately across Collier. Associate Planner Magee stated that this drains through the Wasson Canyon underpass and down the Temescal Wash. Motion by Commissioner Brinley to recommend to City Council adoption of Negative Declaration No. 88-6 and approval of Tenta- tive Parcel Map 23411 based on the Findings and subject to the 28 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report, second by Commissioner Kelley. Approved 5-0 - BUSINESS ITEMS 1. Freeway Sign Project 85-2 stated that continued to Review, Commercial Project 86-1 and Commercial - Howard Palmer/Atlantic Richfield - Chairman Brown the applicant has requested that this item be the meeting of July 19, 1988. 2. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to continue Freeway Sign Review for Commercial Project 86-1 and Commercial Project 85-2 to the meeting of July 19, 1988, second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved 5-0 Sign Program for Commercial Project 87-2 Harold Walker - Associate Planner Magee presented for approval the Master Sign Program for Commercial Project 87-2 in accordance with Design Review Condition Number 9. The project site is 0.96 acres, located on the south side of Campbell Street approximately 230 feet west of Mission Trail. - Mr. Harold Walker stated that he has a problem with staff recom- mendation in regards to the Big "0" sign and logo stating, that if he understand staff, the eighteen inch (18") upper case letters staff recommended would be acceptable for the tires and the big in the Big "0". However, we requested a twenty-four inch (24") "0", so the only difference between what we want and staff would be the two (2) twenty-four inch (24") "0". We are very empathic about that because it preserves the integrity of the Big "0" logo. Mr. Walker stated that he has a problem with staff recommenda- tion on the six inch (6") letters for signs over the bay doors. The bay doors are thirteen-feet (13') high and twenty-two feet (22') wide, and the six inch (6") letters would be fourteen feet (14') high, and in some cases 200 feet from the street. I think it would be barely visible and also completely out of proportion to the building. I think what you would be doing is eliminating any signs over the bay doors. Minutes of Planning Commission July 5, 1988 Page 4 SIGN PROGRAM FOR COMMERCIAL PROJECT 87-2 ~ HAROLD WALKER CONTINUED Mr. Walker stated that the last thing that they would request is black trim in lieu of the redwood color staff recommended. commissioner Kelley commented on the Big "0", stating the twenty-four inches (24") would only add three inches (3") on the bottom and top, this really does not bother me. The six inch (6") lettering over the doors is appropriate, thinks this can be seen from a fair distance. Also, likes staff's recommendation for the redwood. - commissioner Saathoff stated that he assumes that the redwood has to do with Design Review and adheres to the color scheme. Associate Planner Magee stated that the reason staff chose redwood is on two previous projects, Railroad Canyon Plaza and Central Plaza, both projects exhibit red tile roofs with white stucco and have the same can sign lettering as this project is proposing. Both utilize redwood sign cans and both projects turned out fairly nice, that is why staff decided to recommended this particular color. Commissioner Saathoff stated that it is an automotive center and cars are going to be coming into the parking lot and thinks the six inch (6") lettering would be adequate; has no problem with allowing the Big "0" to go twenty-four inches (24"). commissioner Wilsey stated that in regards to the Big "0", the twenty-four inch (24"), assumes this conforms to their national advertising campaign, asking Mr. Beckland if this was correct. Mr. Beckland responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Wilsey stated that he does not have much of a problem with the ten inch (10") letters that the applicant has requested. There is a large facade area, referring to the rendering posted, and with the style of the facade the six inch (6") lettering might look a little dwarfed in that area, whereas the ten-inch (10") lettering might look a little better. -- Commissioner Brinley stated that she has no problem with allowing the Big "0" to go twenty-four inches (24"), and likes the six- inch (6") lettering. Asked why a center sign was not proposed for the center. Associate Planner Magee stated that the current Code would not permit a center identification sign in this area. The Code allows for center identification signs when you have five (5) or more units. This project was conditioned to have no more than four (4) units. Staff has had several meetings with Mr. Walker and suggested that perhaps a Code Amendment might be appropriate in this matter. However, Mr. Walker has yet to apply for such an amendment. Chairman Brown stated that he would like to see this come back as a Code Amendment. The configuration of the center really lends itself better to a center sign, with the logos included, and -- small identification signs on the buildings. I think that was the purpose of trying to eliminate the large logos in the facade area. We wanted them to be addressed with architectural enhance- ments not letter enhancements. Motion by Commissioner Brinley to approve the Sign Program for Commercial Project 87-2 subject to the Findings and the Condi- tion of Approval listed in the Staff Report, second by Commis- sioner Kelley with the addition of the twenty-four inch (24") "0". Minutes of Planning commission July 5, 1988 Page 5 SIGN PROGRAM FOR COMMERCIAL PROJECT 87-2 - HAROLD WALKER CONTINUED - commissioner Brinley amended her motion to include Commissioner Kelley's amendment: I.e. "The section of the plan which allows the use of established logos shall be amended to include: Any logos shall be required to meet all the standards contained within this criteria, including maximum sign area. Except for the Big "0", which shall be allowed to have a twenty-four inch (24") "0"." Approved 4-1 (Chairman Brown opposed) 3. Commercial Project 87-5 Brookstone Investors Associate Planner Magee presented applicant's request for waiver of a Condition of Approval, condition number 18, for Commercial Project 87-5. 2.19 acres located on the southeast corner of Central Avenue and Dexter Avenue. Mr. Steve Brown, representing Brookstone Investors, stated that they feel that Mobil oil will be submitting their construction documents within the next two to three weeks. I believe that we will be under construction, on that site, within two months. It seems to be a waste of money to go out and hydro seed and install the irrigation, before it turns green we would be out there ripping it out. As all Commissioners were in agreement with staff recommendation, - Chairman Brown asked for a motion. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to grant a delay in implementa- tion of condition number 18 of the Conditions of Approval for Commercial Project 87-5, subject to the three (3) Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report, second by Commissioner Kelley. Approved 5-0 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS Introduced Planning Staff for the benefit of the new Planning Commis- sioners. The City Council has appointed a subcommittee to review Title 17. Councilman Starkey and Councilman Buck represent the Council and Chairman Brown represents the Commission. Asked if there was another volunteer from the Planning Commission to serve on this committee. We are meeting Thursday mornings at 8:00 a.m. Commissioner Kelley stated that if the time were changed he would volunteer. - PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Commissioner Wilsey: Nothing to report. commissioner Saathoff: Pleased to see that the Planning Department is getting some Planners. Commissioner Brinley: Nothing to report. Minutes of Planning Commission July 5, 1988 Page 6 PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS CONTINUED commissioner Kelley Glad to have a full Commission. Chairman Brown: Thanked everyone in the City, residents and especially City Staff, __ for a very pleasant and safe weekend. There being no further business, the Commission adjourned at 7:39 p.m. Motion second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved 5-0 Lake Elsinore by Commissioner Approved, If Jeff Bro~! Chairman '7 . R~~!.i~tfUl~ SUb._~~:t...ed, 0T,tdd/ ~ Linda Grindstaff Planning Commission Secretary Planning Kelley, - -- MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON THE 19TH DAY OF JULY 1988 THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:00 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Commissioner Wilsey. ROLL CALL: -- PRESENT: Commissioners: Kelley, Brinley, Saathoff, Wilsey and Brown. ABSENT: commissioners: None Also present were Community Development Director Miller, Senior Planner Libiez and Associate Planner Last. MINUTE ACTION Motion by Commissioner Brinley to approve minutes of July 5,1988, as submitted, second by Commissioner Wilsey. Approved 5-0 PUBLIC COMMENTS Mr. Kevin Hogan, Railroad Canyon informed that give him points 358 Avenue 6, Lake Elsinore, commented on School site stating that two weeks ago he a staff member would contact him and if nothing of contact. I have not been contacted by staff. the was else Mr. Hogan reiterated his concerns about the Railroad Canyon School site and the damage he has incurred due to water run-off. Mr. Hogan stated that if need be he would request that this be placed -- on the agenda for the next meeting. Chairman Brown asked staff if anyone attempted to contact Mr. Hogan. Community Development Director Miller stated that Mr. Hogan's name address and telephone number was given to the Director of Public Services and he had indicated that he would contact Mr. Hogan, however, I do not know the results. Chairman Brown stated that he would appreciate an attempt to rein- force this with Engineering, and would like a brief scenario of the current project, drainage easements, that might exist, and proposed drainage plan for the school site. Commissioner Brinley asked Mr. Hogan about the memorandum stating that his house should never have been built where it was, and if he had any proof of this, documentation. Mr. Hogan responded in the negative. Commissioner Brinley requested that staff research this; see if there was a stipulation that this house should not have been built. Community Development Director Miller stated that he would look into this, but we are certainly not aware of anything at this time. There being no further requests to address the Commission, Chairman Brown closed the PUBLIC COMMENTS section. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Zone Change 88-5 - Leonard F. Davidson (Lee E. Ennen) - Associate Planner Last presented a request to change the zoning from R-3 (High Density Residential) to C-P (Commercial Park) in order to bring the zoning into conformance with the General Plan Land Use designation of Tourist Commercial. .33 acres, located on the south side of Joy Street approximately 150 feet from Riverside Drive. Minutes of Planning Commission July 19, 1988 Page 2 ZONE CHANGE 88-5 - LEONARD ~ DAVIDSON (LEE ~ ENNEN) CONTINUED Chairman Brown opened the public hearing at 7:10 p.m., aSking if anyone wished to speak in favor of Zone Change 88-5. Mr. Leonard F. Davidson, representing the property owner, spoke in favor of the proposal. Chairman Brown asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor of Zone Change 88-5. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown asked if anyone wished to speak on the matter. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown closed the public hearing at 7:11 p.m. - There being no discussion at the table, Chairman Brown called for a motion. Motion by Commissioner Brinley to recommend to City Council adoption of Negative Declaration No. 88-20 and approval of Zone Change 88-5 based on the Findings listed in the Staff Report, second by Commissioner Saathoff. Approved 5-0 2. Zone Change 88-6 Leonard F. Davidson ((R. David Bulen) - Associate Planner Last presented a request to change the zoning from R-3 (High Density Residential) to C-P (Commercial Park) in order to bring the zoning into conformance with the General Plan Land Use designation of Tourist Commercial. .34 acres, located on the east side of Illinois Street approximately 106 feet south of Lakeshore Drive. Chairman Brown opened the public hearing at 7:12 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of Zone Change 88-6. Mr. Leonard F. Davidson, representing the property owner, spoke in favor of the proposal. - Chairman Brown asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor of Zone Change 88-6. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown asked if anyone wished to speak on the matter. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown closed the public hearing at 7:13 p.m. There being no discussion at the table, Chairman Brown called for a motion. Motion by Commissioner Brinley to recommend to City Council adoption of Negative Declaration No. 88-23 and approval of Zone Change 88-6 based on the Findings listed in the Staff Report, second by Commissioner Kelley. Approved 5-0 BUSINESS ITEMS It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to consider BUSINESS ITEM 1 AND 2 concurrently. Residential Project 88-1 and Street Abandonment 88-1 - Greg Block Senior Planner Libiez presented applicant's request for continuance of these items to the meeting of August 2, 1988. - Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to 88-1 and Street Abandonment 88-1 to 1988, second by Commissioner Kelley. Approved 5-0 continue Residential Project the meeting of August 2, Minutes of Planning Commission July 19, 1988 Page 3 - 3. Freeway Sign Review, Commercial Project 86-1 and Commercial Pro- ject 85-2 - Howard Palmer/Atlantic Richfield - Senior Planner Libiez presented for review freeway identification sign, 45 feet high 150 square feet of total display area to serve an existing Arco' service center and a proposed restaurant. within a 5-foot easement area abutting Interstate 15 along a portion of the southeasterly property line of the "Shoppers Square" Center generally located at Railroad Canyon Road and Casino Drive (Vista Del Lago). Mr. Howard Palmer, owner of Shoppers Square, 295 Railroad Canyon Road, Lake Elsinore, gave a brief background report on the signs requested for the center. Mr. Palmer commented on condition number 8, requesting that the verbiage "said sign shall be in lieu of any additional freeway signage for uses and parcels" not be included. The approved site plan showed a position for Goodyear as a monument sign. At the time we got the approval, I think the signs were only 15-20 feet high, and we told Goodyear that they could put in a monument sign rather than a freeway orientation sign of 45-feet. Mr. Palmer stated that he has with him two representatives from Arco that would answer any technical questions the Commission may have. Chairman Brown asked for discussion at the table. - commissioner Saathoff stated that he has concern with 45-foot high signs, and feels there is some vagueness in Title 17 in reference to freeway signage and the number of signs permitted. commissioner Saathoff stated that he request at this time, as far as I can under the new Title 17 regulations. feels that Mr. Palmer's determine, is acceptable Commissioner Saathoff commented on Mr. Palmer's request to elimi- nate the verbiage from condition number 8, stating that Mr. Palmer indicated that there might be a monument sign requested by Goodyear and that, in fact, was in the original request. Asked staff if this monument sign could conceivably fall under the freeway signage criteria and, rather than a monument sign, Goodyear could go to Mr. Palmer and say we want a 45-foot sign, is that possible? Senior Planner Libiez stated that they have the ability to do that as the frontage on the freeway ramp system that they do have, however, the intent of the condition is to preclude any more freeway oriented signs. - commissioner Saathoff stated that he just wanted to make this clear that there would be no freeway signage, and probably would not have a problem with the monument sign. commissioner Wilsey stated that generally he would concur with Commissioner Saathoff. Would be concerned with the large freeway signage, the monument signage is acceptable. Commissioner Kelley stated that he thinks that Commissioner Saathoff stated it quite well, and since we do have an existing commitment for the sign I am willing to go along with this. However, would like Title 17 changed somehow, so that we do not have a lot of these come in front of us. Commissioner Brinley stated that she concurs with Commissioner Saathoff, does not like 45-foot high signs, nor a row of signs going down the freeway. I do not have a problem with the monument sign. If we are going to use this as a precedence, we Minutes of Planning Commission July 19, 1988 Page 4 FREEWAY SIGN REVIEW. COMMERCIAL PROJECT 86-1 k COMMERCIAL PROJECT 85-2 = HOWARD PALMER/ATLANTIC RICHFIELD should set it to allow only one sign and the rest would be monument signs, so that we do not end up with a row of freeway signs. Chairman Brown questioned condition number 5, pertaining to the verbiage "abutting grade". - A brief discussion was held at the table on condition number 5, with Commissioner Saathoff suggesting that the word "abutting" be changed to "existing". There being no further discussion at the table, Chairman Brown called for a motion. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to approve the Freeway Sign Review for Commercial Project 86-1 and Commercial Project 85-2 based on the Findings and the 12 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report, condition number 8 to stand as recommended by staff, and condition number 5 amended to read, as follows: Condition No.5: "The total height of the combined sign shall not exceed 45 feet (45') as measured from existing grade to top of upper most sign or sign column." Second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved 5-0 4. Commercial Project 88-10 - Winston Tire - Associate Planner Last presented a proposal to construct a 20,800 square foot commercial building a part of Phase II of the Winston Plaza. 1.57 acres, located between Casino Drive (Vista Del Lago) and Mission Trail approximately 1,000 feet east of Railroad Canyon Road. Mr. Jack Hunter, representing winston Tire, stated that he had a concern on condition number 21, pertaining to the wrought iron fencing along Casino Drive behind the project, and requested that they be allowed to install chain link fencing for continuity. - Mr. Hunter requested clarification on the following conditions: Conditions 49, contribute pro-rata share for design and construction of median on Mission Trail, asked if this was done by posting a bond or when the work is done do we pay our share? Senior Planner Libiez informed Mr. Hunter that they would have to design in cooperation with the City Engineer and Traffic Safety Engineer the median with turn pockets; do some of the design and pay the cost, at the time it goes in you would be required to pay your fair share. That might be able to be bonded as part of the street improvement package at the time of construction of the center. __ Condition number 50, contribute pro-rata share to City Master Entryway Signage Program, share to be determined by the City Engineer, asked if there is a dollar amount--what figure are we looking at? Senior Planner Libiez responded that as soon as the City Engineer determines it we will be able to give you that figure. We do not anticipate that it will be a very significant amount, but this is one of the fees that the City has been working with as part of Minutes of Planning Commission July 19, 1988 Page 5 COMMERCIAL PROJECT 88-10 = WINSTON TIRE CONTINUED ~ that Entry Master Program to decipher the final fee level, of course, the more people who participate the lesser the amount. Commissioner Saathoff stated that he has been fighting this verbiage for years, referring to condition number 50, and cannot accept the fact that we are asking people to grant an open check. I feel that we need to put some sort of limit on this--there has to be a cap. Condition number 51, contribute $5,000 deposit toward widening of San Jacinto River Bridge at Lakeshore Drive, if funded from another source deposit will be refunded. What other source--is this something that might happen or can we just say that this $5,000 is going toward that? Associate Planner Last responded that he believes the other source refers to either Federal or state funding, or the potential of a developer developing that immediate vicinity. Senior Planner Libiez stated that the bridge is on public property and, at the ~resent time, it is my understanding that the City Engineer 1S exploring some grants for the bridge replacement right now and, of course, if other kinds of things and special grants can be obtained then these types of fees would not have to be levied against all of the development, or at least it could be significantly reduced, and I believe that is what they are working on. Mr. Hunter stated that assuming we have paid the $5,000 and built the building and you get funds from the Federal, would we, years down the road, get that money back or would that be kept by the private party to develop the property? Senior Planner Libiez stated that the way the condition reads, once the building permit is issued the fee is retained. Commissioner Saathoff stated that he is still concerned with conditions 49, 50 and 51. I am assuming that there have been other major developers that the same verbiage has been acceptable, deposit of $5,000 for widening of the bridge, without any time limit for the return of the deposit. Asked if condition number 50 is new, or is something that has been in existence. ~ Senior Planner Libiez stated that the condition has been reapplied. It was a program originally passed some time ago and fell by the wayside and then was reimplemented last year because it is an effective way to--at major intersections like Highway 74, 15 and Railroad Canyon the major entries, promote the city. Commissioner Saathoff asked if condition number 50, is also against other developers. the median along Mission Trail, something that has been levied ~ Senior Planner Libiez responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Saathoff commented on condition number 21, pertain- ing to fencing, and the applicant's comment that there is a chain link fence behind Firestone and asked if this fence is 4' high. Mr. Hunter responded that the chain link fence behind Firestone is approximately 3'-3". Commissioner Saathoff stated then we are requesting a 4' black wrought iron fence to connect with a 3' chain link fence, and stated that the 3' chain link fence is really not that great for safety. Minutes of Planning Commission July 19, 1988 Page 6 COMMERCIAL PROJECT 88-10 = WINSTON TIRE CONTINUED Senior Planner Libiez stated that the standard in the Building Code is usually 42 inch guardrail. Commissioner Brinley asked staff why wrought iron was being requested, compared to the chain link that is already there. Associate Planner Last stated that wrought iron was requested for aesthetic purposes. Community Development Director Miller stated that chain link has been discussed on a number of occasions and this is one of the areas that has previously been brought to the attention of staff by Council. The chain link at the Firestone Center was one area where they did not consider it to be as desirable as what they hoped for in the standards in the community. Commissioner Brinley asked staff when you are stating that you want to collect fees/deposits why an explanation can not be put in the conditions, referring to conditions 49 and 50, as this would save a lot of time for the applicant, staff and the Commission. -... Commissioner Wilsey stated he was in agreement with establishing a cap, setting a dollar amount, for conditions 49 and 50. Commissioner Wilsey commented on condition number 21, pertaining to the black wrought iron fencing, and asked if there were any other specifications for this fence. Associate Planner Last stated that, as conditioned, this will be addressed at the time of Building Department Plan Check, and the Building Department will insure that it meets all health and safety requirements applicable to fencing. A brief discussion at the table ensued on adding verbiage "meet health and safety codes for fencing" to condition number 21; guidelines (standards) for safety fencing and types and quality of materials for fencing. .... Commissioner Wilsey commented on condition number 23, pertaining to alternative retaining wall system, stating that it appears that there will be a rather sharp and abrupt drop from the walkway back down to the backside of the building, is this correct? Mr. Hunter responded that the off-set from the sidewalk to the building is about 14 feet, and we have a 2:1 slope, so it is about 7-8 feet from the sidewalk down to the slope--this is all fill. Chairman Brown stated that he was in agreement with establishing a cap for conditions 49 and 50. Would like to see something out of the Engineering Department setting a cap, a not to exceed amount. Chairman Brown stated that he would like the table to entertain -... amending condition number 51 to: "Contribute $5,000 deposit earmarked for the widening of the San Jacinto River Bridge only at Lakeshore Drive, and if funded from another source within five (5) years deposit will be refunded". A brief discussion was held at the table on amending condition number 51, as recommended by Chairman Brown; the $5,000 deposit, whether or not the applicant can post a $5,000 bond or if this is to be a cash deposit. Minutes of Planning Commission July 19, 1988 Page 7 COMMERCIAL PROJECT 88-10 = WINSTON TIRE CONTINUED - Motion by Commissioner Kelley adoption of Negative Declaration Commercial Project 88-10 based Conditions of Approval listed in following amendment: Condition No. 51: "contribute $5,000 deposit toward the widening of the San Jacinto River Bridge at Lakeshore Drive, if funded from another source within five (5) years deposit will be refunded". to recommend to city Council No. 88-19 and approval of on the Findings and the 52 the Staff Report, with the Second by Commissioner Brinley. Commissioner Saathoff asked verbiage, as stated earlier San Jacinto River Bridge condition number 51. for discussion, inquiring if the by Chairman Brown, "earmarked for the only" should not be included in Commissioner Brinley withdrew her second. commissioner Kelley amended his motion to amend condition number 51, as follows: Condition No. 51: "contribute the widening Bridge only from another deposit will $5,000 deposit earmarked for of the San Jacinto River at Lakeshore Drive, if funded source within five (5) years be refunded". - Second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved 5-0 5. Sign Program Local Neon Company (Winston Tire) - Associate Planner Last presented for approval the Master Sign Program, which includes a center identification sign for the winston Plaza. 2.85 acres located between Mission Trail and vista Del Lago (Casino Drive) approximately 900 feet east of Railroad Canyon Road. Mr. John McKinney, representing Local Neon, commented on the monument/pole sign and stated that they have no objection to reducing it to 24 feet to fit in with the new development, Phase II. commissioner Kelley stated that he prefers a monument sign rather than the large center sign, as the buildings are all visible from the street. - Commissioner Brinley stated that she was in agreement with Com- missioner Kelley, would prefer to see a monument sign. Commissioner Brinley asked for the number of signs the center could have, referring to the Master Sign Program. Associate Planner Last stated that in past negotiations with staff the applicant has agreed that one center identification sign would be all the signage they would be requesting. Chairman Brown stated that since we are doing on site agreements, not conditions, would it be appropriate to record those agree- ments as deed restrictions? Community Development Director Miller responded that in the past we have applied a condition that would require that the Conditions of Approval be recorded on the property, to give Minutes of Planning Commission July 19, 1988 Page 8 SIGN PROGRAM = LOCAL NEON (WINSTON TIRE) CONTINUED notice to future owners. If it is the desire of the Commission, you could add a condition requesting that these conditions be recorded on the property to serve notice to any future property owners. Commissioner Brinley stated that she would like to see that added as a condition. - Mr. MCKinney stated that he has a problem with the proposed condition, and asked about a time limit being included in case the building were torn down and the property sold in the future. Senior Planner Libiez responded that we c~uld suggest that the condition read "the center identification sJ.gn be provided as submitted upon the existing plans so long as the owner of the Winston Tire Center stays as one and two exist, within the City of Lake Elsinore". That restricts it only to this development, if you tear it down obviously that sign is gone. Motion by the Winston Conditions addition of Commissioner Saathoff to approve the Sign Program for Tire center, based on the Findings and the 3 of Approval listed in the Staff Report, and with the condition number 4 and 5, which will read: Condition No.4: "The center identification sign shall be the only sign permitted within the center." "Conditions of Approval shall be recorded on the property to serve notice to any future property owners, that this approval is for Winston Tire only". - Condition No.5: Second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved 4-1 (Commissioner Kelley opposed) COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS Community Development Director Miller informed the City Council has scheduled Tuesday, August 30, 1988, for a Joint Study Session. Commission that at 5:00 p.m., PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Commissioner Wilsey Asked to be kept abreast of the situation with Mr. Hogan and the Railroad Canyon School site. Commissioner Kelley Nothing to report. Commissioner Brinley Would like to see staff do what we can to assist Mr. Hogan, point him _ in the right direction or at least help him get the correct information. I would like to be kept abreast of this situation, and also have staff check into the memorandum stating that his house should never have been built where it was. Commissioner Brinley asked if it was possible for staff to contact the school district, or the people building the school, and find out what can be done to resolve this matter. Community Development Director Miller stated that we would certainly follow through on that. Minutes of Planning Commission July 19, 1988 Page 9 PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS CONTINUED commissioner Saathoff Informed the Commission that he would not be at the next meeting, -- August 2, 1988. Would like to spend some time on signage, however, I feel, from some of the comments made by other Commissioners, that they at least concur in the philosophy that we would not like to see a lot of freeway signs. If it is agreeable with the Commission, I would like to sit down with staff, at some future time, and look over the sign ordinance. Chairman Brown Asked Mr. Hogan if he could get with him after the meeting and get a telephone number where he can be reached, as he would like to contact him, to keep abreast of the situation. Community Development Director Miller asked Commissioner Saathoff if he would like to get with staff individually or were you interested in scheduling a study session. Would also like to point out that we have a committee, formed of two Councilmembers and Chairman Brown, reviewing Title 17, and signage is one of the areas that we have identified for further review. commissioner Brinley stated that she would session and go over what they would like to become. like to see the have a study sign program -- commissioner Saathoff stated that at first he was going to see someone individually, because of specific questions and needing clarification before going any further; with your comments that we do have a committee working Title 17 and signage is one of the items identified, and they are aware of some of the inconsistencies, I do not feel that it is necessary to ask for another study session on signage. Community Development Director Miller suggested that a study session for signage be tagged on the next short agenda, and the Commission can discuss it or if not it can be deferred to another agenda. Chairman Brown stated that he would like the Commission to list their concerns on signage, so that he can take them to the committee meeting with him. There being no further business, the Lake Elsinore Planning Commis- sion adjourned at 8:13 p.m. Motion by Commissioner Brinley, second by Commissioner Saathoff. Approved 5-0 -- Approved, Resp~ctf~mitted' .. ~Grindstaf~ Planning Commission Secretary - - - MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON THE 2ND DAY OF AUGUST 1988 THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:00 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Commissioner Kelley. ROLL CALL: - PRESENT: Commissioners: Kelley, Brinley, Saathoff, Wilsey and Brown. ABSENT: commissioners: None Also present were Community Development Director Miller, Senior Planner Libiez and Associate Planner Magee. MINUTE ACTION commissioner Saathoff requested the word "intend" on page 3, paragraph 9, third line, be corrected to read "intent". with no further corrections, motion by Commissioner Brinley to approve minutes of July 19, 1988, as corrected, second by Commissioner Saathoff. Approved 5-0 PUBLIC COMMENTS Mr. Ken Paulson, 226 East Franklin Street, Lake Elsinore, commented that he and his wife, Diane, are the owner/applicants of the project to be discussed later in the meeting as Item 3 under Business Items on the current agenda and he wished to state that they are in favor of it. - Chairman Brown informed Mr. Paulson that he would have an opportunity to speak at that time if he wished but he would not be denied to continue speaking at this time. Mr. Paulson stated he would speak when his project came up. - Mr. Kevin Hogan, 358 Avenue 6, Lake Elsinore, thanked Commissioner Wilsey, Commissioner Brinley and Chairman Brown for wanting to know what is going on and keeping involved with the drainage problem at the Railroad Canyon School site. The School Board has said once again that they are going to fix the damage but they said that a year and a half ago so that remains to be seen. As far as the street, he is aware they did go out and look at the street. Ray O'Donnell of the Engineering Department and Ken Sears came out last Tuesday and looked at it and said they would take it back to their director but what concerns him is that they were saying it is a natural flow of water. Water may have had a path through there but due to berms that were placed along the road, presumably by the City since it is a City street, water never reached the south side of Mills Street. It was diverted onto the street. The dirt used to have to be removed after heavy storms and put back in place because it would flow out into the street. What they did was take an area about 80 feet wide where water would flow and they reduced it to a 2-foot culvert that opens up on the south side of the street pointing right at his house. Mr. O'Neil told him that the theory behind it was that the water was going to flow to the cement culvert bordering the rear of his property. He could accept that except for the fact that water does not flow up hill and that culvert is up hill. What concerns him the most is that the contractor from Rosetti Construction, handling the jOb, addressed the problem with the State engineer and he told him why don't they route this conduit up to the new culvert they had just built instead of facing it right at Mr. Hogan's house. A day later, the engineer came back and said that no they were going to do it this way. They have taken 80-foot and squeezed it into 2-foot. There has been no damage caused yet but he doesn't wish to wait until it Minutes of Planning Commission August 2, 1988 Page 2 PUBLIC COMMENTS - CONTINUED does occur. Mr. Hogan further commented that he has been told that the director is aware of this problem but he doesn't know if he will do anything about it, but hopes so. He then further stated that he had been told the City has no control over what the school does. Mr. Hogan then read aloud certain sections of the Zoning Code. Chairman Brown informed Mr. Hogan that they share his concerns, __ know he has a problem and are attempting to address it. Chair- man Brown asked him to summarize his concerns. Mr. Hogan said, in summary, that the concern is not only for his property. The School Board has done this time and time again and even if it is not possible under the existing Codes, they should be doing something to prevent it - lobbying up at the legislature, combining efforts with other cities that are inflicted with these problems caused by the school districts. Something needs to be done. They can't just sit there and say there is nothing they can do. That is not what this country was founded on. They have to fight back some way and some how. Chairman Brown asked staff to get a package together for them on this situation. The property that is immediately at the opening of the culvert, does anyone know if the school has purchased that or is it privately owned? Community Development Director Miller replied that he believes it is private property. Mr. Hogan did appear at the Council meeting last week and this information has been transmitted to the Engineering Department for their review and response to Mr. Hogan and City Council specifically asked both the City Attorney and the City Engineer to respond to Mr. Hogan's concerns and __ also to prepare a report for City Council as well. As soon as they receive that material, they will transmit it to the Planning Commission. Chairman Brown further stated that they would also appreciate, in the immediate vicinity, the blue line maps from any Flood Control maps staff may have that might possibly address that culvert that is definitely on the upstream side. Community Development Director Miller responded that they would certainly relay that. There being no further requests to address the Commission, Chairman Brown closed the PUBLIC COMMENTS section. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Zone Code Amendment 88-7 - City of Lake Elsinore - Senior Planner Libiez presented proposal for textual amendment to Chapter 17.44 C-l (Neighborhood Commercial) Zone, and Chapter 17.48, C-2 (General Commercial) Zone, Lake Elsinore Municipal Code, adding certain uses, churches, hotels, and motels, to these zones. Chairman Brown opened the publi~ hearing at 7:13 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak 1n favor of Zone Code Amendment 88-7. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Receiving no reply, Chairman Brown asked if anyone wished to speak on the matter. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown closed the public hearing at 7:14 p.m. Commissioner Kelley commented that he has no problem with it and would be in favor of this move. It addresses a major problem they have had for a year or two. .... Minutes of Planning Commission August 2, 1988 Page 3 ZONE CODE AMENDMENT 88-7 - CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE - CONTINUED - commissioner Saathoff stated he had no objections to the Amendment but he felt the review of the Conditional Use Permit should be changed to semi-annual from annual and the burden of the presentation for the review should be placed on the applicant. Also, asked staff what the procedure and time lapse on non-compliance with conditions of a Conditional Use Permit. Senior Planner Libiez replied that non-compliance with a Conditional Use Permit can be treated similar as any other violation of the Municipal Code. Staff would notify the offender of the violation of the condition and request compliance. If compliance is not granted within a reasonable period of time and the time for the "reasonable period of time" would depend upon the nature of the non-compliance, a simple matter might take 10 days to resolve, but a major engineering problem might take 3 to 4 weeks, then they would proceed with prosecution system. One way is to request a hearing before the Planning Commission to revoke the Conditional Use Permit. -- commissioner Wilsey stated he is in favor of the Amendment and feels annual reviews are sufficient. He questioned why the maximum length of time of 3 years for the Conditional Use Permit, as originally recommended for the C-M Zone, was changed to two years. Community Development Director Miller replied that the City Council felt that two years was sufficient time for this type of temporary use. Commissioner Brinley stated her concerns have always been the uses permitted in the various zones and asked what current uses were permitted in the C-l Zone. Community Development Director Miller read the list of permitted uses from Chapter 17.44 of the Zoning Code. Commissioner Brinley commented that she would be in favor of semi-annual reviews because things do change and with a church situation you have a growing parish and things like that. Commissioner Brinley asked how many churches could go in the Center. If the church goes in, then tomorrow how many more churches could apply for a Conditional Use Permit and go in the same area. The City would be setting a precedent that as many churches as wanted to could come in and take a Conditional Use Permit and go into the same center. Community Development Director Miller responded that under this Amendment, in the C-l and C-2 Zones, it would be on a case-by-case review basis. There would not be a restriction on the number stated in the ordinance. Any number could apply but they would be subject to a Conditional Use Permit and approval by the Planning Commission. commissioner Saathoff commented that parking requirements would make tremendous restrictions on the number of churches that could be permitted and would be the greatest limiting factor. commissioner Brinley asked about deed restrictions regarding hours of operation on other businesses for operation on Sundays. Community Development Director Miller replied that for C-l and C-2 there are no specific restrictions suggested for Minutes of Planning Commission August 2, 1988 Page 4 ZONE CODE AMENDMENT 88-7 - CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE - CONTNUED those zones. Those would each be subject to the Conditional Use Permit review process. In terms of the C-M Zone, because of the additional concerns about the potential conflicts with manufacturing uses, the additional restrictions were recommended. In terms of the operational hours, there was some lengthy discussion at the City Council meeting regarding the practicality of having a condition of the Use Permit applying restrictions upon other users. But __ upon the suggestion of the City Attorney, that was changed to place the restrictions upon the operations of the use being applied for. Commissioner Brinley commented that in other words in the C-l and C-2 Zones, it would be "business as usual;" the church could move there and the other businesses could open and run their business at the same time. Community Development Director Miller answered that the restrictions would be on the church and not the other users. Chairman Brown stated his concern is that one of the reasons the City promotes neighborhood commercial is to service the local neighborhoods and also to generate and promote revenue for the City. He understands the churches problems in having areas to use for their services, but the City is very careful in what they change in zone to promote business and now they are going to promote, and this is not a shot at churches, for a non-tax revenue generating situation. Feels that is a very poor situation. Chairman Brown's concept is that if it is that important and the community believes in it enough, then they should develop part of the C-M Zone as industrial parks that would be called church parks. __ Chairman Brown further stated he didn't believe in changing zones, building neighborhood shopping centers and commercial and then filling them up with churches. Doesn't believe it is compatible or good for the City; doesn't think in the long run it will work out with traffic and circulation; and feels there will be conflicts in uses. Knows that it is happening now in the County. Motion by Commissioner Kelley to recommend to City adoption of Negative Declaration 88-25 and approval Code Amendment 88-7 subject to the Findings listed Staff Report, second by Commissioner Wilsey. Approved 3-2 Commissioner Brinley and Chairman Brown Council of Zone in the opposed 2. Conditional Use Permit 88-6 Industrial Concepts I- Community Development Director Miller presented request to allow the Lutheran Church to occupy 2,775 square feet of a commercial- manufacturing building, located at 565 Chaney Street, in the Chaney Street Center. Chairman Brown opened the public hearing at 7:28 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of Conditional Use Permit 88-7. Mr. Steve Brown, representing Industrial Concepts I, stated they were in total agreement with staff recommendations and conditions but that he had a question on Condition #6. He isn't sure how they would implement that. What he would recommend they do and what he thought was discussed at the City Council meeting was conditioning the lease so that the church has operational hours and he thought that was what the City Attorney said. He needs clarification on that condition. -- Mr. Steve Twig, 30920 Plumas, representing the Lutheran Church, stated he was there to answer any questions the Minutes of Planning Commission August 2, 1988 Page 5 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 88-6 - INDUSTRIAL CONCEPTS X - CONTINUED Commission might have, specifically regarding the church operations. Chairman Brown asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown asked if anyone wished to speak on the matter. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown closed the public hearing at 7:30 p.m. Discussion was brought to the table. Commissioner Kelley commented that his views are the same as when it first came up. He is in favor of it on a temporary basis. Commissioner Brinley stated her views are still the same and feels they are going to have a problem and it will prove it out in time. Commissioner Brinley asked about Condition #6 and asked what term should be applied in place of "record a grant deed." Community Development Director Miller replied that Mr. Brown was correct in indicating that "lease restriction" would be appropriate within this situation. The wording should be changed from "record a grant deed restriction" to "include a lease restriction". Commissioner Brinley asked about the operational hours at this point. Community Development Director Miller replied that the hours for Sunday, during the week, and evenings are as outlined within the Environmental Assessment on the next to last page. commissioner Brinley asked what were the uses in the C-M Zone. community Development Director Miller responded that the purpose of the C-M District is to provide opportunities for industrial and commercial activities that combine characteristics of commercial uses that require large display and storage areas and then read the list of uses from Chapter 17.54 of the Zoning Code. commissioner Brinley then asked if those uses were what this center was created for up to this point and, after receiving an affirmative reply, commented that these are what her concerns are because they are going to have future business going in there and her concerns stand as she has stated before. commissioner Saathoff stated since this is a Conditional Use Permit for a specific entity, the Lutheran Church, and not for any other entities, there are a couple changes he would like to see made in the conditions. Since the church will be constructing other facilities which will be ready in about 18 months, would like the Conditional Use Permit to expire 18 months from the date of approval and would like verbiage included in Condition #2 that evidence of timely progress be submitted to the City and, for example, could put deadlines that perhaps by February 1, permits be pulled, August 1, building commenced - something like that. The only reason he is in favor of this, is that he would like to help the church out but he definitely wants to see evidence that they, in fact, are doing everything they possibly can to construct the church and it will be ready in an 18-month period of time. Minutes of Planning Commission August 2, 1988 Page 6 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 88-6 - INDUSTRIAL CONCEPTS I - CONTINUED Commissioner Saathoff further stated that he thinks Condition #5 will be very difficult to monitor and would place a burden on both the City and the applicant. He would prefer amending Condition #5 with verbiage stating,"The operational hours will be acceptable as requested in the Environmental Assessment. Any other special events or activities shall be permitted during evening hours only, commencing after 6:00 p.m., and the Police Department shall __ be notified of any events or activities other than those listed in the Environmental Assessment... Commissioner Saathoff commented that his reason for having the Police Department notified is because normally in a manufacturing and retail area, the normal hours are generally set, there is a pattern , and when patrol people view these areas, if there is something going on outside the normal activity hours, then it alerts them. Commissioner Wilsey commented that he is very much in favor of this. Believes this community is in a difficult situation. We are an old community but a growing one and must address the concerns with all the new people moving into this area. We are floundering in the area of churches. On a short term basis such as this Conditional Use Permit, he sees no problems. Chairman Brown stated he would like to make a couple of comments and ask a few questions. Asked Commissioner Saathoff, since he is concerned with the Conditional Use Permit for 18 months, if he didn't believe that Condition #2 really addresses that for this one year and if they are progressing at that time it will be extended, or would he rather wait 18 months to find out that they are progressing. __ Commissioner Saathoff replied that the verbiage he would like to see in there is that they be allowed 18 months and that on a timely basis they show evidence, for example, semi-annually by pulling permits or evidence that construction has started. He wants to see something visible during that period of 18 months. He didn't feel Condition #2 said that. Community Development Director Miller offered the information that at the City Council meeting, the City Attorney made several comments regarding this and the same idea that Commissioner Saathoff is addressing was discussed at the Council table and the City Attorney opined that we really need to address our conditions to the use and so outside conditions, i.e., whether they are progressing or building or not, are not entirely germaine to the Conditional Use at hand. The question is whether they are permitted on a temporary basis or not and, if they are permitted, the Planning Commission and the City Council, being that it was appropriate to permit them for a certain period of time, then must consider that as the issue rather than whether they were making progress or not. If the intent of the Commission and Council is to limit it to a certain amount of time, that is entirely appropriate and the period of time would be whatever they decide upon, but as to whether they were making progress is really outside the purview of the particular use being considered and the City Attorney did not recommend we place conditions such as that. If the Commission has a particular concern for a particular time frame, that is certainly germaine to the issue. -- Commissioner Saathoff said he would withdraw his comments on Condition #2 and agree with the expiration within one year as stated in the Condition. Minutes of Planning Commission August 2, 1988 Page 7 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 88-6 - INDUSTRIAL CONCEPTS I - CONTINUED ~ Chairman Brown stated that his question is to the table and understands their concern with this particular church and the temporary use and so forth, but what will happen when the next one comes in next month and they don't have the money to build a sanctuary but hope to in a year; this time don't have any plans; don't have any money to do it, but they'd sure like to start a church in the C-M Zone. Chairman Brown asked what would be the difference then, if any. commissioner Brinley remarked how can you say yes to one and no to another - that is her concern and what they are doing in this instance is setting a precedent. In other words they are saying it is o.k. to come into the C-M Zone on a temporary basis with a Conditional Use Permit for one year. As Chairman Brown said, if they don't have the money to build at the end of the year, then we just give them the boot. ~ Chairman Brown interjected that according to community Development Director Miller's earlier explanation of the City Attorney's opinion, they cannot use the fact that they mayor may not be building within a year. They just want it on a temporary use and it is not conditioned upon whether they would be demonstrating any other ability or desire to move on to another appropriate area, if he is interpreting that correctly. Community Development Director Miller commented that the relationship of the discussion was that they had originally suggested three years as the maximum to be allowed and that to be on a temporary basis without any extension. The comment at the Council table in talking about the ordinance change was that they would like to see that more restricted to a shorter time frame, in this instance 2 years, and they also wanted to see the annual review so that we could insure that there were not problems being created and, in essence, to review that this was remaining a temporary use. The intent of Condition #2 presented within this Conditional Use Permit was that the Conditional Use Permit would expire within one year and that would be all that was permitted unless the Planning Commission granted an extension and, basically what City Council was indicating was that that extension would be contingent, in their mind, upon progress towards relocating. So, yes, we will give you one additional year however, understand that at the end of that time we think it is appropriate to leave. That's the sense of the extension and it would really be contingent upon the demonstrated progress that they are really keeping this to a short time frame. In this case, staff is suggesting two years and that is consistent with what the church has indicated that they hope to be in their new facility within that time frame. ~ Chairman Brown stated that once again his question is that what the table wants to see is a one to two year use for various churches within the C-M Zone, because that is what it will be. At the extension, it will be up to opinion whether they are demonstrating any process towards moving on to another facility. Commissioner Kelley remarked that speaking for himself, he says absolutely - that is appropriate. commissioner Saathoff asked to direct a question to staff on Condition #5 Asked if they caught the verbiage that he indicated earlier and do they feel that it is apropos and do Minutes of Planning Commission August 2, 1988 Page 8 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 88-6 - INDUSTRIAL CONCEPTS I - CONTINUED they feel comfortable with it. If staff prefers the language already in Condition #5, he would go along with it. Community Development Director Miller replied that it would depend upon the Commission's desire there are sort of mixed direction regarding this from previous discussion. Certainly in this particular situation, feels his comments are workable. Immediately adjacent to the church site is __ where the DPSS building is going and which has a considerable amount of parking and they do operate basically Monday through Friday from 8:00 am. to 5:00 p.m. so, in this case, special events wouldn't represent any problems on evenings or weekends. Motion by Commissioner Wilsey to adopt Negative Declaration 88-10 and approve Conditional Use Permit 88-6 based on the Findings and the thirteen (13) Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report with the following amendment to Condition #6. Second by Commissioner Kelley for discussion. Kelley asked if they wished Condition #5 to be recommended by Commissioner Saathoff. Commissioner amended as Upon an affirmative response, Chairman Brown asked Commissioner Wilsey if he wished to amend his motion to include the amendment to Condition #5. Commissioner Wilsey amended his motion to include the amendment to Condition #5 as follows: Condition No.5: The operational hours will be acceptable as requested in the Environmental Assessment. Any other special events or activities shall be permitted during evening hours only, commencing after 6:00 p.m., and the Police Department shall be notified of any events or activities other than those listed in the Environmental Assessment. .... Condition No.6: Applicant shall include a lease restriction on the church that limits the hours of operation to the activities listed in the Environmental Assessment. Maker of the second, Commissioner Kelley, amended his motion in concurrence. Approved 3-2 Commissioner Brinley and Chairman Brown opposed BUSINESS ITEMS 1. Residential Project 88-1 - Greg Block (Continued from July 19, 1988) and 2 . Street Abandonment 88-1 - Greg Block (Continued from July 19, 1988) Chairman Brown asked Associate Planner Magee if he had any further information. -- Associate Planner Magee responded in the negative but at the present the applicant has indicated a desire to continue with the project, however, logistical problems between his engineer and his architect have rendered him unable to get us a complete application. Therefore, staff has recommended these two items be continued indefinitely so that at such a Minutes of Planning Commission August 2, 1988 Page 9 RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 88-1 AND STREET ABANDONMENT 88-1 - GREG BLOCK - CONTINUED time that a complete application is obtained, staff can readvertise for a public hearing. ~ Motion by Commissioner Brinley Project 88-1 and Street Abandonment second by Commissioner Wilsey. Approved 5-0 3. Residential Project 88-2 Kendall and Diane Paulson - Associate Planner Magee presented proposal to construct a 10-unit apartment complex on 0.48 acres, located at the northwest corner of Franklin Street and Chestnut Street. to continue Residential 88-1 indefinitely, Chairman Brown asked Mr. Ken Paulson if he wished to speak again on this issue. Mr. Ken Paulson, 226 Franklin Street, Lake Elsinore, stated his home is adjacent to this project. They are going to create a very beautiful environment for people living at this complex. This is the older part of town with other rental properties and properties that are quite run down and feels that with their project, it will influence others to improve their properties. Mr. Paulson then referred to the conditions and asked that the Engineering Department Conditions be explained to him in more detail. He then asked for approval of his project. Discussion was brought to the table and Commissioner Kelley commented that he feels this project will be a tremendous enhancement to this neighborhood and is excited to see something like this go in there. Commissioner Kelley then asked staff if Mr. Paulson could get an appointment with the Engineering Department to receive the explanations he requires. Community Development Director Miller replied that they would want Mr. Paulson to come in and discuss this with them and they could very easily arrange an appointment for him with the Engineering Department. commissioner Kelley then questioned the property although the City Engineer feels work there, he can't visualize it. drainage on the it is going to commissioner Brinley asked if Franklin was being widened for this project. Associate Planner Magee responded in the affirmative and stated one of the conditions requires the applicants to dedicate an additional five feet. The General Plan designates Franklin as a local street and with the additional five-foot dedication it will be a 30-foot half-width and it does allow room for adequate parking on the street, however, this project has allowed for ample parking on-site. Community Development Director Miller interjected that right now Franklin is the street that provides access up to the Rodeo grounds, but the General Plan does call for ultimately making that connection up by the Rodeo grounds to Pottery Street since the vertical changes in grade and curve when you go up Franklin Street is rather severe. They ultimately foresee that where Franklin Street comes down from the Rodeo grounds would connect to Pottery and that would alleviate a lot of the current traffic along this portion of Franklin. That will be several years in the future, but ultimately. Minutes of Planning Commission August 2, 1988 Page 10 RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 88-2 - KENDALL AND DIANE PAULSON - CONTINUED Commissioner Brinley asked what staff's concerns were on the landscaping. Associate Planner Magee replied that one of the main concerns of staff was the inconsistency between the grading plan and the landscape plan. The grading plan shows 2:1 slopes within the public right-of-way which is not consistent with current City policy. It is also not __ recommended to plant IS-gallon size trees in a 2:1 slope - they just don't grow. Staff would like to see that reworked. Also, on the north and west sides of the property, the applicant has designed the project so that there will be slopes onto those adjacent properties. They have obtained letters of acceptance, however, staff would like to see those slopes landscaped as well and that was not included on the landscape plan. Commissioner Brinley asked Mr. Paulson if they planned on working toward a better landscape plan. Mr. Paulson replied that they do and have already initiated that action. Commissioner Saathoff stated he thinks the project is delightful and the only comment he has is on the badminton-type facility shown and if the applicant decides not to put that in there, that would not hinder getting an occupancy permit. His feeling is that generally those types of facilities are very seldom used and they look good when they first go in and the maintenance on them is even more difficult than a lawn. Commissioner Saathoff personally would rather see a lawn area in there. __ Commissioner Wilsey commented that he is excited to see a project like this coming to that area of our community. His only concern with it is with regards to the drainage off of it and the engineer's report on it and would like a little more input from the engineer on this particular project in regards to drainage on all four sides of this lot. Other than that he thinks it is great. Chairman Brown asked Commissioner Wilsey if he wished to see the additional information before it is approved. Commissioner Wilsey replied in the affirmative. Chairman Brown asked Mr. Paulson if he would like to respond to this concern. Mr. Paulson replied that he would like his daughter, Diane Paulson, to address the Commission. Ms. Paulson responded that she is the one who designed this project and as far as the drainage is concerned, they have complied with what the Planning Division has asked them to do. The majority of drainage is coming out to Franklin Street and in so doing that they are going to install a 6" to 8" drainage pipe along the west side of the building as it comes down to the low spot of Franklin Street. A very small amount of the drainage will be going out to Chestnut and having to be dealt with which is a natural flow down into a cul-de-sac where there is also two lots now before the trailer park. They have been assured by their engineers as well as the City's Engineering Department that this will be satisfactory so she is curious as to what other information the Commission might need. Commissioner Wilsey responded that when he walked the -- Minutes of Planning Commission August 2, 1988 Page 11 RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 88-2 - KENDALL AND DIANE PAULSON - CONTINUED - property he noticed a lot of drop off towards the back and his concern was with the properties in the rear of the project and towards the trailer park and that area. Ms. Paulson answered that that was why they have asked them for the majority of the drainage to come to Franklin Street and the property will be graded as such so that the slope is towards Franklin. As it stands now there is quite a hill and they will be knocking that down which is going to create a little bit of slope along the corner which will diminish to nothing as it proceeds down the streets on both Chestnut and Franklin. Ms. Paulson further stated that the slopes going onto their neighbors property, they are actually going to have an abundance of dirt and those slopes will not be significant as they are going to smooth it very gently and gradually onto the neighbors property. They are in need of the dirt if they choose to develop as well, so that shouldn't be a conflict. Associate Planner Magee commented that on the grading plan, the applicants' engineer has indicated that approximately 700 cubic yards of dirt will be removed from the site and then Associate Planner Magee demonstrated the drainage pattern on the displayed rendering. - Chairman Brown stated he is very much in favor of the project and the only thing he would like to see is Condition #21, in total, come back to the Commission. Chairman Brown further asked at what level of maturity are we asking that the landscape plans be prepared - 3 months? 6 months? 1 year? - or do we have a standard for that. Associate Planner Magee replied that the way the submittal guidelines read currently, all plans must just be consistent and do not give a maturity deadline. Chairman Brown asked Associate Planner Magee at what rate of maturity he would like for the landscape plans to display. - Ms. Paulson interjected that Mr. Magee was not aware of this yet but that they have engaged the very capable Donald Fink, who is the supervisor for Stauffer's Landscape, to assist them in their project and he has assured them that their project can be very successful and he has many additions and no deletions at this point. They don't feel the landscaping should be lessened at all - they want it to be lush and that is their intent. It is their understanding from the Planning Division, and they hope that the Commission will feel the same, that as long as they submit their landscape plan at the permit stage satisfactorily complying with both their conditions and the conditions of Mr. Kobata, the project should be approved at this point. Chairman Brown responded that he had no problem with the project proceeding but he just wanted to add that the Commission be allowed to comment on the landscape plan. This can be accomplished by changing the last paragraph of Condition #21 by adding the verbiage, "and the Planning Commission", between the words "Community Development Director" and "and the City's Landscape Architect." Chairman Brown then asked staff if this would come back as a formal agenda item. Community Development Director Miller replied that it would be brought back to the Commission as a Business Item and Minutes of Planning Commission August 2, 1988 Page 12 RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 88-2 - KENDALL AND DIANE PAULSON - CONTINUED would normally have those plans approved prior to issuance of building permits. Motion by Commissioner Brinley to recommend to City Council adoption of Negative Declaration 88-18 and approval of Residential Project 88-2 based on the Findings and the forty-seven (47) Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report, second by Commissioner Kelley. __ Commissioner Saathoff asked Commissioner Brinley if she would like to amend her motion to include Chairman Brown's amendment to the last paragraph of Condition #21. Commissioner Brinley amended her motion to include the amendment to the last paragraph of Condition #21 which will read as follows: Condition No. 21, Last Paragraph: "The revised Landscape and Irrigation Plan shall be submitted with the building plans and shall be approved by the Community Development Director and Planning Commission and the City's Landscape Architect prior to the issuance of building permits." Maker of the second, Commissioner Kelley, amended his motion in concurrence. Approved 5-0 INFORMATIONAL -- 1. Response to Traffic Safety Concerns Community Development Director Miller stated this information is provided for the Commission in response to several concerns the Commission previously expressed. Chairman Brown asked if this is an interim report or in total. He knows there are alot of other issues. Community Development Director Miller replied that what they have here is that the City has employed a Traffic Engineer as a consultant. Some of the issues which were specifically related to traffic engineering, the consultant has addressed. Other of those issues the City staff is pursuing related to coordination with Cal Trans, such as stop signs, no parking restrictions, etc., and they are making progress in that direction. Chairman Brown asked Road at the freeway off forthcoming. about ramps stop signs on Railroad Canyon and if something else is Community Development Director Miller responded that one of the major reasons they entered into a contract with this consultant was to study a number of traffic engineering problems - the stop signs at Railroad Canyon Road off ramps are part of a larger study in which the consultant is preparing a study that would encompass generally all of the roadways from San Jacinto River east along Mission Trail to Malaga, all the way down in front of the T & S Center, along Casino Drive from San Jacinto River to Malaga, and from Railroad Canyon Road from Mission Trail up to Grape Street. It is a much larger study and will probably be 60 to 90 days before that study is completed. -- Minutes of Planning Commission August 2, 1988 Page 13 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS - Community Development Director Miller stated he wanted to remind the Commission of the League of California cities Conference in October in San Diego and asked if any of the Commissioners were interested in attending. Commissioner Brinley has expressed an interest and if anyone else is interested, please advise as they would like to get the reservations in fairly early to guarantee the reservations. The brochure is in the office and the secretaries have copies if anyone cares to stop by the office to look it over. PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS commissioner Kelley: commissioner Kelley commented that he liked Chairman Brown's suggestion of a church park and he personally urges the churches in the community to get together and maybe try to form such a district or church park. Commissioner Brinlev: Nothing to report. commissioner Wilsey: -. commissioner Wilsey remarked that he was looking forward to more projects like Residential Project 88-2 coming into the inner City area. commissioner Saathoff: Nothing to report. Chairman Brown: Nothing to report. There being no further business, the Lake Elsinore Planning commission adjourned at 8:11 p.m. Motion by Commissioner Brinley, second by Commissioner Wilsey. Approved 5-0 / Jeff B wn Chairman ---- APprov~ Respectfully submitted, ~~~ Ruth Edwards Acting Planning Commission Secretary - - - MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON THE 16TH DAY OF AUGUST 1988 THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:00 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Commissioner Kelley. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Commissioners: Kelley, Brinley, Saathoff, Wilsey and - Chairman Brown ABSENT: commissioners: None Also present were Community Development Director Miller, Senior Planner Libiez, Associate Planner Magee and Assistant Planner Merrett. MINUTE ACTION Motion by Commissioner Brinley to approve minutes of August 2, 1988, as submitted, second by Commissioner Wilsey. Approved 5-0 PUBLIC COMMENTS - Mr. Kevin Hogan, 358 Avenue 6, Lake Elsinore, reiterated his concern about the Railroad Canyon School site and requested some response to his concerns from the Engineering Department, City Attorney or someone from the City. He has received nothing so far although he understands the City Attorney has mailed a response but it hasn't had time to be delivered. He intends to keep coming back and bringing up this same issue until he is told exactly what to do and who to contact to try and have the drainage problem at this site resolved. Chairman Brown told him that they sympathize with his cause and problem and he is welcome to return and speak at any meeting but that there isn't anything further that the Planning Commission can do for him. There being no further requests to address the Commission, Chairman closed the PUBLIC COMMENTS section. PUBLIC HEARINGS It was the unanimous consensus of the Planning commission to consider PUBLIC HEARING Items #1, #2, and #3 and BUSINESS ITEM #2 concurrently under PUBLIC HEARINGS. Associate Planner Magee presented the following proposals as listed. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: 1. General Plan Amendment 88-4 Brookstone Development- Proposal to amend the General Plan Land Use Element from Tourist Commercial to General Commercial on 7.98 acres on the north side of Casino Drive approximately 600 feet west of Malaga Road. - 2. Zone Change 88-4 Brookstone Development - Proposal to rezone 7.98 acres, located on the north side of Casino Drive approximately 600 feet west of Malaga Road, from C-l (Neighborhood Commercial) to C-2 (General Commercial) Zoning District. 3. Tentative Parcel Map 23710 Brookstone Development Proposal to divide three (3) existing parcels into seven (7) parcels ranging in size from 21,672 square feet to 107,558 square feet, located in a Neighborhood Commercial Zoning District on the north side of Casino Drive approximately 600 feet west of Malaga Road. Minutes of Planning Commission August 16, 1988 Page 2 PUBLIC HEARINGS - CONTINUED BUSINESS ITEMS: 1. Commercial Project 88-9 - Brookstone Development - Proposal to construct a 32,250 square foot commercial building as Phase 1 of a four (4) phase retail shopping center located on 4.83 acres on the east side of Casino Drive approximately 800 feet south of Railroad Canyon Road, abutting existing __ center known as "Shopper's Square". Phases 2, 3, and 4 will consist of three (3) restaurants on three (3) independent lots. 2. Street Abandonment 88-2 - Brookstone Development - Request to abandon a 1,200 square foot portion of Casino Drive approximately 1,600 feet west of Malaga Road. The area proposed for abandonment is a headwall for an inlet channel which is designed to direct surface water from the site under Casino Drive and onto vacant property. The applicant is proposing to direct all on-site drainage onto Casino Drive and ultimately into a storm drain. Chairman Brown opened the public hearing at 7:18 p.m. and announced that this segment of PUBLIC HEARINGS would be for General Plan Amendment 88-4, Zone Change 88-4, and Tentative Parcel Map 23710, and then they would move to Business Item #2, Abandonment 88-2. Chairman Brown then asked if anyone wished to speak in favor of these items. Steve Brown, representing Brookstone Development, stated they were in general agreement with all of staff's recommendations but that there are a few specific Conditions of Approval they would like some changes on. First, on __ Tentative Parcel Map 23710, their objective is to get going with the project as soon as possible. He has spoken to staff and feels they would agree that once they have an approved grading plan, staff would not object to them starting. Several of the conditions have to do with getting plans approved and encroachment permits issued prior to commencement of grading and prior to the Map's recording and that is what he would like to have amended, if possible. These conditions are: Condition #4: Would like to change verbiage from "prior to recordation of a final map," to "prior to Certificate of Occupancy and release of utilities", because they plan on plugging the culvert, and the Engineering Department has agreed that that is an acceptable way to do it. Condition #8: In third line would like the words "any improvements" changed to "street improvements." This conditions deals with the curb cuts and feels staff is concerned that the City Traffic Engineer, as well as the traffic study, analyze the curb cuts but it is not their intent to hold them up on the sewer and water plans or the grading plan and, therefore, thinks this word change should be made. -- Condition #9: Has a general question for staff on how they were suggesting they handle improvement plans there since Malaga is a street that is half in the City and half in the County. Also asked what the intent of this condition is as far as the actual improvements their engineer must come up with since is states they are going to participate along with the City and other property owners. Is this something they have to work out "down the road" would like explanation on that. Minutes of Planning Commission August 16, 1988 Page 3 - TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 23710 - BROOKS TONE DEVELOPMENT - CONTINUED Condition #15: Deals again with the timing of the improvements and he would like to eliminate the wording "prior to issuance of grading permit and recordation of final map." Would like the wording changed. They want to get their grading operation going and they will not have their final map recorded and, therefore, by eliminating that verbiage, they can accomplish what they want. Condition #16: Would like to change the verbiage "before issuance of grading permit and recordation of final map" to "before issuance of certificate of Occupancy and release of utilities." Condition #17: In the past, they have always been able to post a "set aside letter" in lieu of a bond. It has been an acceptable standard that the city Attorney has endorsed and they would like to be able to continue using that form. Would like Condition #17 to read, "Post required bonds or other acceptable security that the City Attorney agrees with." - Mr. Brown further stated that another big item to them, in terms of budgeting and cash flow forecasting, are Conditions #26 and #27 which deal with the payment of bridge fees and traffic fees. They are in full agreement that they should pay their fair share of these fees but what he would like to have specified in the conditions is that they pay those fees at the building or development stage prior to pulling their building permits. It helps them in their cash flow and planning to be able to pay this cost when they pull their constructions loans for their buildings. Mr. Brown then stated that was all he had on the Parcel Map but again, alot of these same conditions are on Commercial Project 88-9 Conditions of Approval and he would like to review those. Mr. Brown then commented on them as follows: - Condition #15" Feels their color scheme is quite compatible with existing project and would like to maintain it. Condition #16: This deals with another sensitive item as far as they are concerned because it has to do with what they can build on the project. They have a very specific, spelled-out, recorded agreement, CC & R's and reciprocal maintenance agreement with Mr. Palmer for Shopper's Square Phase I. City staff has a copy of it an it specifically spells out in that agreement that Shopper's Square, Phase I and Phase II, will share reciprocal parking, maintenance, and landscaping and all the other things that everyone wants in these centers. However, in the same agreement, it specifically spells out that Shopper's Square, Phase I, as far as any approvals go for parking requirements, stands on its own with the one exception for the 12 spaces, which staff is aware of, that they provide on Phase II for Chris' Kid's Club. There are no other parking spaces that Phase II will provide for Phase I. They are sharing reciprocal parking but as far as the actual approvals processes go for whatever they want to build, they have to support their own parking. They have provided ample evidence on the site plan on display that this parcel, A, B, C and D, had adequate parking and that is the issue at hand. He would like the Commission to reconsider Condition #16 as far as having an analysis that has to include the motel site, the car wash, and the existing Shopper's Square. If they could eliminate those three areas from this condition, then it would be acceptable to them. Minutes of Planning Commission August 16, 1988 Page 4 COMMERCIAL PROJECT 88-9 - BROOKS TONE DEVELOPMENT - CONTINUED Condition #20: Their engineer has advised them that if they keep the slope to a minimum of 4 percent, they will not be able to build this project. The current slope on Casino Drive is 5 to 5-1/2 percent and they find it very difficult to believe they can keep a minimum or average not to exceed 4 percent on a project when you have a street that is dropping an average of 5 to 5-1/2 percent. The Uniform Building Code, which they all work under, has certain standards which cover this and that should more than adequately cover any concerns that would deal with percentage slopes. They would like the elimination of the 4 percent on Condition #20. Condition #28: Asked for clarification as to whether it was supposed to be 10 feet or 10 inches - the individual stamps in the stamped patterns are sometimes 10 inches. Condition #32: Would like to keep the same color of the stucco and not have it be changed subject to the Community Development Director. Condition #39: On the 10-foot wide landscape planter adjacent to the freeway, they believe they have an unusual situation on this property. The Code spells out that they have a 10-foot setback from the property line which they will abide by, however, there is a slope bank that goes back to the freeway and there is drainage off of the freeway that they have to provide a V-gutter for at the very top of the slope bank. So, basically, they have a V-gutter adjacent to the property line, then they have a retaining wall going down to the level of the building area and then they have a planter with what is left over. What happens is that the 10 feet gets used up between an 18-inch V-gutter, the wall itself and the footing for the wall and the planter. The planter ends up being 5 to 6 feet. They feel they can provide a 5 to 6-foot planter on the freeway side of the rear of the building and, in addition to that, they are providing another landscaped area on the other side of the same driveway, so they actually have two (2) landscaped areas to accent the back of the building. Shopper's Square Phase I, in some cases, has planters down to 3 feet although it may have been approved under a different set of development guidelines. Therefore, it would not be inconsistent for their project to maintain a 5 to 6-foot landscape area. It would be a great benefit to them to work within a a 5 to 6-foot planter range versus the 10-foot. Condition #43: Deals again with the colors of the project. Condition #50: Again deals with the timing of the project. They feel if they could eliminate the verbiage, "prior to the issuance of grading permit and recordation of Final Map," they would be abiding by what the City wants. Chairman Brown asked if they'd mind if recordation of final map was left in and the grading issue taken out altogether. Mr. Brown asked if their final map would be conditioned on getting the encroachment permits approved. The problem with that is that they have some financing issues coming before them and what they would like to do is to be able to close on several of their parcels on which they are dealing with buyers, like the motel is a sale-out and the car wash is a sale-out, and in order to be able to close, they have to have legal title separated there. Again, they were just notified two (2) days ago that they must provide a traffic - - - Minutes of Planning commission August 16, 1988 Page 5 COMMERCIAL PROJECT 88-9 - BROOKS TONE DEVELOPMENT - CONTINUED - study to demonstrate that they have adequate curb cut areas which could take up to 6 to 8 weeks to complete. Basically, this will hold up any kind of improvement plans. Chairman Brown said they would discuss this further when it comes back to the table. Condition #52: Deals with the same bond requirement again. Would like to be able to put up letters of credit or set aside letters. Condition #64: Would like the verbiage, "or as acceptable to the Riverside County Fire Department" after the words "operating pressure." This gives the agency with control over this, the authority to make an adjustment - it may be more or it may be less and they feel it will be less. Mr. Brown said this concluded his concerns and advised that he was available to address any concerns they may have. Chairman Brown asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor of these projects. - Mr. Howard Palmer, 518 Dwyer Drive, Anaheim, owner of Shopper's Square, stated he was in favor of this development especially the reciprocal easement parking agreement that Mr. Steve Brown outlined earlier. They have a very fine, detailed arrangement between them and he feels it's a fair way to do it. One thing he does object to is the color of the proposed buildings they have. He then gave a history on the color scheme. Mr. Palmer further stated that he thought it would be better for the retailers if they had one impact on a 16 acre shopping center with the same roof line, same parking, same color. It's all identified as one building area and one building concept for the retail buyer/customers. He would like the Commission tQ approve that. Chairman Brown asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Receiving no reply, Chairman Brown asked if anyone wished to speak on the matters. - Mr. Kevin Hogan, 358 Avenue 6, Lake Elsinore, commented on the color scheme and thinks the design and color should be similar but different to give variety. As far as deferring the money for improvements, he thinks it shouldn't be done. It should have the highest priority over shopping centers. Chairman Brown asked if anyone else wished to speak on these matters. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown closed the public hearing at 7:43 p.m. Chairman Brown discussion. brought the matter to the table for Commissioner Kelley stated he would like to hear what staff has to say since there were so many comments and requested changes, but he would like to keep it as open discussion too. Associate Planner Magee commenced with Mr. Brown's comments on Condition #4 of the Tentative Parcel Map and Condition #3 of Street Abandonment 88-2 as follows: Minutes of Planning Commission August 16, 1988 Page 6 TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 23710 - BROOKS TONE DEVELOPMENT - CONTINUED Condition #4 requires Mr. Brown to meet all conditions of the street Abandonment and the last line of Condition #3 says, "subject to the satisfaction of the City Engineer," and, according to Mr. Brown, he is willing to do it to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, so staff wonders why that needs to be deleted. Commissioner Saathoff asked where Condition #3 was and was directed to Street Abandonment 88-2. Chairman Brown asked for a moment for them to read the condition through. Mr. Brown asked for permission to speak and Commissioner Saathoff yielded the floor. Mr. Brown stated that what he was specifically talking about here was that they would like to get out and start grading right now. However, the grading operation might take a month to two months before they are totally completed and, in effect, have totally complied with the abandonment. The Abandonment condition has to do with their grading operation because they intend plugging up the culvert and it will be effected when they complete their grading operation. They would like to record the Parcel Map prior to the completion of the grading operation and thus completion of the abandonment. This condition is saying they cannot have their map recorded until after the abandonment is completed. That is the issue here. Community Development Director Miller commented that he understands Mr. Brown's concerns about financing, however, from the City's standpoint, we do have the concern to insure that such conditions are complied with whether or not the rest of the project would proceed. At such time as the Parcel Map would record, if the abandonment were not complete then it would be involving properties that were not a part of the private ownership. In terms of the assurances of the abandonment, part of the reason that right-of-way exists is to provide for that drainage. That is sort of a general statement throughout. Generally, our Code does require that street improvement plans be completed and security be provided for all public improvements prior to the recordation of the map and this is to ensure that those improvements are completed prior to their sale to other parties who may have less of an ability to provide all those improvements to areas that are off their site. Community Development Director Miller further stated that staff would have no hesitation in working with Mr. Brown and Brookstone Development in a grading plan and have discussed that with him and they understand they would have the responsibility for any remedial action to comply with street improvement plans. They have acknowledged that responsibility and are willing to assume it. However, on many of these conditions, staff would have concerns that prior to recorda~ion of the Map, the improvement plans should be completed and security provided for those improvements. Chairman Brown remarked he feels that is consistent with what you see everYwhere else. He can understand them wanting to get in and grade early, but to record before improvement plans are completed and security posted is not realistic. - - - Minutes of Planning Commission August 16, 1988 Page 7 - TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 23710 - BROOKS TONE DEVELOPMENT - CONTINUED Mr. Brown responded that that was the way they did it on Parcel Map 21297 and it worked beautifully. In fact, the Subdivision Map Act provides for and allows on an industrial subdivision or commercial parcel map to provide for the flexibility of recording the map with no bonding whatsoever. Chairman Brown stated Mr. Brown was really pressing on the grading issue and asked if that was his real concern. Mr. Brown replied that his real concern is having to final the abandonment before the Map records. He can see it holding up a lot of things. He thinks the Engineering Department will be flexible enough and he feels comfortable now with the condition. Condition #8: community Development Director Miller remarked that Mr. Brown's request to replace the word "any" with the word "street" would be acceptable. Condition #9: Associate Planner Magee deferred to Senior Planner Libiez for a response on this condition. - Senior Planner Libiez explained that part of the problem they have along Casino Drive, in this neighborhood of the project area, is the change in elevations along the street which creates a site vision problem in the vertical. Also affects potentials in how we are going to deal with traffic mitigation measures in future and drainage in those areas. In looking at the opportunities that are available in the future to deal with that, they are very few. There are only three (3) pieces of property left that are undeveloped or potentially have larger redevelopment in that area. One is before them tonight, one is a piece of Cal Trans right-of- way which is vacant and abuts this property, and the other one is Pad #3 for the K-Mart site. What Engineering and Planning have been talking about here is that we need to find a way to resolve this problem in the street in the terms of grades and transitions and look at a more positive way to provide a safer turning radius at the intersection of Malaga, which is a very dangerous corner and presents some other problems. Since the bulk of the development along Casino will be complete when the center and the subsequent buildings proposed by this Parcel Map come to be, this is the opportune time to study that. Therefore, the condition is one that requests the applicant's engineer to help design and take care of those problems, particularly by vertical and horizontal alignments, and come up with solutions to make better transitions and to participate with the City in attempting to accomplish that goal. It is going to involve some work with the County staff as well on the County portion of the street. - Mr. Brown remarked he is more confused now than before. He thought they were only discussing the intersection of Malaga and casino Drive and now Mr. Libiez is talking about a sight problem on Casino Drive. If they are suggesting that they regrade Casino Drive as it exists in front of their center, he strongly objects to that. He doesn't think there is anything wrong with the street right now. If they are talking about Malaga and Casino Drive, that is another issue. He knows that has been an issue with the Council in the past. They are more than willing and want to correct that situation down there, and when and if the City deems it is appropriate to start the improvements, participate in the improvement cost, but no one has ever shown him on the map as to where the problem starts and where it ends. He needs to know how this affects his timing. Minutes of Planning Commission August 16, 1988 Page 8 TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 23710 - BROOKS TONE DEVELOPMENT - CONTINUED Community Development Director Miller commented, to clarify the issue, they are not suggesting that any existing improvements, where they have the ultimate width approved, be torn up. Rather at the intersection of Malaga and Casino and extending, there are some sight distance problems that are affecting both the vertical and horizontal alignments. In order to correct those, it may be necessary to make some transitions in both directions, so thinks the concerns they are talking about refer to generally near the intersection of Malaga and Casino and also then relate to the traffic study discussed in another condition in terms of driveway locations that may affect particularly sight distance and vertical alignments. They are not suggesting where there are existing improvements already installed as part of Phase I of Shopper's Square or the approved street plans for this project be removed or changed. Only down closer to Malaga where there is a hump in the street where certain driveway locations might be affected by vertical alignment. - Associate Planner Magee stated the remaining items are Conditions of Approval attached by the Engineering Department but one condition he can respond to is Condition #27. Condition #27: Refers to contribution of Public Safety fees and Resolution No. 83-61 requires that these fees be paid at time of building permit and it would be a pro rata fee. At the time Mr. Brown pulls the building permit for the one (1) building in question, he would pay a pro rata share of the $22,683 - not the whole $22,683. Mr. Brown asked about Condition #26 - the bridge fee. - Community Development Director Miller replied that, as Mr. Brown has indicated, the Engineering Department is cognizant of this concern and would generally agree that the monies could be paid at time of building permit, although there is some work to be done on how this is prorated over the various parcels involved, but they would concur that that could be stipulated at building permit stage. Chairman Brown stated that going back to Condition #15, believes it was changed from "issuance of grading permit and recordation of final map" to "utilities release." Community Development Director Miller responded that in that area, believes they could work with the applicant in terms of the issuance of the grading permit but would suggest those plans be approved and security provided for prior to the recordation of the Final Map. Mr. Brown remarked that the problem with that is that they are also talking about unknowns right now. They have street improvement plans into the City right now, but this new "glitch" with what they are going to do with Malaga throws a whole new light on it. They could debate what happens to _ Malaga and Casino for two, three, or four months down the road, talking about what kind of improvements are going to be put there. In the meantime he is hung out to dry because he can't get any of his plans financed any place because he can't record his Map. That's his big problem. He has his sewer/water plans in the water company, his street improvement plans in, and his grading plan in. He wants to go. They'll post bonds or give letters of credit, acceptable to the City Attorney, to have that Map recorded. He is not going to debate the issue tonight although he Minutes of Planning commission August 16, 1988 Page 9 TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 23710 - BROOKS TONE DEVELOPMENT - CONTINUED - doesn't agree with it. He would just like to record the Map and not have to worry about getting his encroachment permits and off-site street plans totally approved when they have a gray area such as what to do with Malaga in Condition #9. That could really hold them up. Community Development Director Miller commented that he agreed that their basic concern is provision of security for the improvements and those conditions could be modified with the wording changed to the effect that the street improve- ments would be subject to the approval of the City Engineer. They certainly don't want to hold up the applicant if there is a glitch because of the public improvements where the City is trying to resolve the problem, as long as the securities are provided and the improvement plans are in process to the satisfaction of the city Engineer. Chairman Brown asked if that irrespective of the approval. Community Development Director Miller replied this means acceptable security. They will have a pretty good idea from what the cost of the approvals are. Whether it is changed slightly or not is not going to significantly impact the cost of the improvements. So as long as those securities were provided, that is the principal concern of the city. meant posting bonds - Mr. Brown remarked that he would be agreeable to that. He'll leave it up to the Engineering Department as long as they'll work with him in that they have something down here that they can refer to that shows the intent of the Planning Commission and City Council. Chairman Brown commented there would be no substitution of securities because of the sale. Mr. Brown replied that they are obligated to do all site work on their sales, off-sites too - all utilities to the site, curb, gutters, streets, sidewalks. Mr. Brown remarked that the one last issue he wanted to mention is the wording that they will participate with the City. He would like a clarification as to whether they will be paying one-half, a third, or what, since they are going to be asked to bond for it, and then how are they going to be reimbursed. commissioner Brinley asked what is staff's intention on this. - Senior Planner Libiez replied that the intention is to resolve what they all know exists primarily at the intersection, just slightly back from the intersection on Casino. The reason the wording was agreed to by Engineering and Planning at this point to say "participate in" is because the need to contact the adjacent property owners other than Mr. Brown to also advise them of the situation and to get their concurrence and action. They would like to give Mr. Brown a definite amount to participate in but thinks the intent here is to assist in any way, shape, or form. If there are any public agency funds available through grants or other off-sets are available, they will want to use them where they can. Everybody would benefit, not just Mr. Brown, and so for him to bear the entire cost alone in the end would certainly not be fair when it is a pUblic improvement that serves the community as a whole, Minutes of Planning Commission August 16, 1988 Page 10 TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 23710 - BROOKS TONE DEVELOPMENT - CONTINUED including some of the County portion. It will have to be worked out because they don't know at this point the level of participation he would have to have in terms of actual dollars. The City would anticipate, however, since they are engineering a lot of the off-sites now for their center, that this would be a logical extension to employ the continued use of that engineering firm and to shoot the grades and such and assist the City in that aspect of it. ...- Commissioner Brinley asked how many participants they were talking about at this time besides Mr. Brown. Senior Planner Libiez replied at least two (2) and they are not sure how many on the County side of Malaga may be involved in that. At this time, there is no way they can actually base the percentage of the amount Mr. Brown would have to pay. Mr. Brown remarked that he is not looking for an exact amount. He just wanted a detailed explanation so it is in the minutes. He feels comfortable they will work together on that. Associate Planner Magee informed the table that they have addressed all of Mr. Brown's concerns and asked if he should go on to Commercial Project 88-9. Community Development Director Miller commented that while these items were still fresh in their minds, they might want to take action on the first few items and then move on to the Commercial Project. ...- There being no discussion at the table on General Plan Amendment 88-4, Chairman Brown called for the question. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to recommend to City Council adoption of Negative Declaration 88-17 and approval of General Plan Amendment 88-4 based on the Findings, second by Commissioner Wilsey. Approved 5-0 Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to adopt Resolution No. 88-5, entitled as follows: RESOLUTION NO. 88-5 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 88-4 TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE 1982 GENERAL PLAN CHANGING THE DESIGNATION OF A 7.98 ACRE PARCEL FROM TOURIST COMMERCIAL TO GENERAL COMMERCIAL. Second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved 5-0 There being no discussion at the table on Zone Change __ 88-4, Chairman Brown called for the questions. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to recommend to City Council adoption of Negative Declaration 88-17 and adoption of Zone Change 88-4 based on the Findings, second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved 5-0 There being no discussion at the table on Tentative Parcel Map 23710, Chairman Brown called for the question. Minutes of Planning Commission August 16, 1988 Page 11 TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 23710 - BROOKS TONE DEVELOPMENT - CONTINUED ~ Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to recommend to City Council adoption of Negative Declaration 88-17 and approval of Tentative Parcel Map 23710 based on the Findings and subject to the twenty-eight (28) Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report with the following amendments: ..... Condition #8: Access locations to the parcels shown upon the Tentative Parcel Map shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Traffic Safety Engineer prior to construction of street improvements abutting any parcel shown upon the Tentative Map; said approval shall be based upon a comprehensive engineered study of access locations along Casino Drive to be provided by the applicant's engineer or licensed surveyor and shall be accompanied by a traffic study which provides analysis of anticipated traffic generation by all existing or proposed businesses having access from Casino Drive between Railroad Canyon Road and Ma1aga Road. Condition #9: Applicant shall engineer and design the vertical, horizontal, and curve radii requirements necessary to correct the transition and intersection between Casino Drive and Ma1aga Road beyond the existing approved street plans; applicant shall agree to participate in a proportionate share with the city and other affected property owners in the construction of improvements to Casino Drive and Ma1aga Road, beyond the existing approved street plans, necessary to provide proper capacity, insure adequate traffic flows and improve safety. Condition #15: Work done under encroachment permit for off- site improvements shall be delineated on street improvements plans and shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineer and security provided for prior to recordation of the Final Map. Condition #16: Public Works Improvement plans and specifications shall be prepared by a civil engineer and include signing and striping plans and shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineer and security provided for prior to recordation of the Final Map. Condition #17: Post required bonds or other acceptable means of security for pUblic works improvements as established by the City Engineer. ~ Condition #26: Contribute $15,000 deposit, prorated on the same ratio as provided in Resolution No. 83- 61, toward widening of San Jacinto River Bridge at Lakeshore Drive at the time the building permit is pulled; if bridge is funded by another source, deposit will be refunded. Second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved 5-0 Minutes of Planning Commission August 16, 1988 Page 12 ABANDONMENT 88-2 - BROOKS TONE DEVELOPMENT - CONTINUED Chairman Brown stated the next item to consider is Abandonment 88-2. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to approve Abandonment 88-2 subject to the three (3) Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report, and to advise the City Council that the subject Abandonment is in conformance with the Goals and __ Objectives of the General Plan based on the Findings listed in the Staff Report, second by Commissioner Wilsey. Approved 5-0 At this time, 8:17 p.m., the Commission recessed. At this time, 8:24 p.m., the Commission reconvened. Chai.rman Brown resumed the PUBLIC HEARING portion of the meeting with completion of consideration of Business Item #1, Commercial Project 88-9 - Brookstone Development. Associate Planner Magee stated that he would take up Mr. Brown's items of concern in the order they were presented, as follows: Condition #15: The basis for this condition is to generate the same architectural theme in color and styles within not only Mr. Brown's project but also the adjoining project _ Mr. Palmer's project. The styles are quite similar but the contrasting colors are not and staff would like the two (2) centers to blend. The contrast between the colors of the two may actually negatively affect the appearance of one center or the other. Mr. Brown interjected that during the recess he had an opportunity to talk to Mr. Palmer and he was not aware that he was in disagreement with them on their color. He values Mr. Palmer's knowledge and experience in shopping center development and agrees he has a good point in that it should maintain the same color for retailer purposes. Therefore, he is in agreement with Mr. Palmer's recommendations. -- Condition #16: Requires applicant to prepare a parking study. Phase I required a Conditional Use Permit for 12 parking spaces on Phase II for Chris' Kids' Club so these spaces are dedicated for Phase I. On Phase I, the City basically painted itself into a corner as far as parking was concerned and staff feels they will do the same thing here unless they get a parking study. Mr. Brown commented that he agrees with Mr. Magee but he doesn't feet it should cover Phase I - just the 12 dedicated spaces for Phase I and the building that is being considered tonight. Each developer must stand on his own when he develops his site and his development will have to be tailored to fit the number of parking spaces he must provide. Commissioner Saathoff interjected that Condition #16 be -- changed to read "Proposed restaurant uses shall comply with the parking standards provided in Title 17." Each item that will be brought to them as a separate entity, whether by the same developer or not, will have to comply with the Parking Code. Community Development Director Miller commented that perhaps they could address Mr. Brown's concerns if they simply deleted the future car wash and motel areas. They just want to make sure the existing 12 dedicated spaces are not lost in the analysis. - - - Minutes of Planning Commission August 16, 1988 Page 13 COMMERCIAL PROJECT 88-9 - BROOKS TONE DEVELOPMENT - CONTINUED Chairman Brown asked if this requirement was brought about due to the concerns expressed over the Sizzler parking. Community Development Director Miller replied that that was a perfect example of what happens. Chairman Brown asked how they could address these concerns and still make it fit together logically. Community Development Director Miller responded that they would like to see, when another restaurant user comes in such as Pizza Hut, that the parking analysis be provided, such as is now displayed on the site plan, so there is an ongoing modification of the numbers presented on the site plan. Mr. Brown stated they are in total agreement in providlng that on that sheet and would be more than happy to assist Pizza Hut and the builder of Pad Band C but at that appropriate time with the existing uses and proposed uses. Community Development Director Miller remarked that perhaps they could modify that to satisfy the concerns by saying, "Shall provide a parking analysis for the existing parking agreement and the proposed center." That would include the 12 spaces and be isolated to just this center without mention of the motel and car wash areas. Mr. Brown said that is including the 12 spaces in incorporate that language address Buildings A, B, C, keep them ongoing. Condition #20: Refers in the last line to slope percentage within the parking lot and Mr. Brown states his engineer says that the slope is 5 to 5-1/2 percent. The reason staff inserted this condition is that in several areas within this development there are slopes in excess of 4 percent. One example of why we should not have slopes this excessive within a parking area is a parking garage. Trying to open your car without banging it into another car is a challenge. fine. They have no objection to their analysis and they could into the deal that says they will and D in a parking analysis and Mr. Brown said they want to abide by the Uniform Building Code. They aren't going to design anything where people dent their cars. What he is trying to do is eliminate a total redo of their whole plan. They have an unusual site, it goes up hill, and it has to be acknowledged in the development plan. Commissioner Saathoff asked what the Uniform Building Code called for. Community Development Director replied that the UBC doesn't actually specify except that in areas that would be handicapped accessible, that grades in those areas not exceed 8 percent. Perhaps in consideration of the unique aspects of this site, we could delete the 4 percent and work mutually together to keep the areas to a minimum slope. Mr. Brown he would be agreeable to that. Condition #28: That conditions does say 10 feet. Community Development Director stated that a "pattern area" might be better way to define that. Minutes of Planning Commission August 16, 1988 Page 14, COMMERCIAL PROJECT 88-9 - BROOKS TONE DEVELOPMENT - CONTINUED Condition #32: Refers to colors and materials and that has already been covered. Condition #39: Refers to the 10-foot wide landscape planter and that is a Code requirement and it was not in effect when Shopper's Square, Phase I, was put in. Currently, Mr. Brown's landscape plan shows 9 feet and it was staff's understanding that they would reduce the drive aisles to the rear by one (1) foot and add an additional foot of landscaping. Associate Planner Magee stated Engineering Conditions #50, #51, #52 and #62 were addressed under the Tentative Parcel Map and they could amend these conditions to have the same language as those previously amended in the Tentative Parcel Map. - Condition #64: Is a Riverside County Fire Department condition. These plans were circulated to the Fire Department and this is the condition they attached. Mr. Brown commented that what happens is that until you actually show themn a building plan they require the absolute worst. They are getting ready to do off-site improvements and prior to doing those off-site improvements, they are going back to the Riverside County Fire Department with a very specific plan for use on this project, including the car wash and the two-story motel to get exactly what they need in the way of GPM. Chairman Brown asked if all he addition of "or as approved by the Department" . wanted changed was the Riverside County Fire - Mr. Brown replied in the affirmative. Associate Planner Magee stated that concluded the changes requested by Mr. Brown. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to recommend to adoption of Negative Declaration 88-17 and Commercial Project 88-9 based on the Findings, to the 77 Conditions of Approval listed in the with the following amendments: Condition #16: Proposed restaurant uses shall comply with the parking standards provided in Title 17. Applicant shall provide a parking analysis for the existing Shopper's Square, Phase I agreement of 12 spaces. City Council approval of and subject Staff Report Condition #20: A final grading plan shall be submitted and shall be subject to the approval of the Chief Building Official. This plan shall clearly demonstrate the methods of retention and treatments for the I-15 property line, interior drive aisles and parking areas and _ transitional driveways between abutting properties and public right-of-way. The slope of the parking lot shall be in conformance with City Engineer requirements. Condition #28: All ingress/egress drives shall provide decorative pavers or stamped concrete, the pattern areas shall have a minimum dimension of ten feet (10') and shall be located within the property boundary. Minutes of Planning Commission August 16, 1988 Page 15 COMMERCIAL PROJECT 88-9 - BROOKS TONE DEVELOPMENT - CONTINUED ..... Condition #50: Work done under encroachment permit for off- site improvements shall be delineated on street improvements plans and shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineer and security provided for prior to recordation of the Final Map. Condition #51: Public Works Improvement plans and specifications shall be prepared by a civil engineer and include signing and striping plans and shall be subject to the approval of the city Engineer and security provided for prior to recordation of the Final Map. Condition #52: Post required bonds or other acceptable means of security for public works improvements as established by the City Engineer. Condition #64: Provide or show there exists a water system capable of delivering 3500 GPM for a 3 hour duration at 20 PSI residual operating pressure, or as acceptable by the Riverside County Fire Department, which must be available before any combustible material is placed on the jOb site. Second by Commissioner Kelley. ~ Discussion ensued on Condition #20 and a need for a percentage guideline. Chairman Brown stated he would put the handicapped accessibility slope of 8 percent as the ceiling. .---. Commissioner Saathoff amended his motion to include the 8 percent in Condition #20 which will read as follows: Condition #20: A final grading plan shall be submitted and shall be subject to the approval of the Chief Building Official. This plan shall clearly demonstrate the methods of retention and treatments for the I-15 property line, interior drive aisles and parking areas and transitional driveways between abutting properties and public right-of-way; no portion of the parking lot shall exceed 8 percent in slope in any plane. Commissioner Kelley amended the second. Commissioner Wilsey asked if they wished to amend Condition #61 to read the same as the condition in the Tentative Parcel Map. Commissioner Saathoff amended his motion to amend Condition #61 to read the same as Condition #26 on Tentative Parcel Map, which reads as follows: Condition #61: contribute $15,000 deposit, prorated on the same ratio as provided in Resolution No. 83- 61, toward widening of San Jacinto River Bridge at Lakeshore Drive at the time the building permit is pulled; if bridge is funded by another source, deposit will be refunded. Minutes of Planning Commission August 16, 1988 Page 16 COMMERCIAL PROJECT 88-9 - BROOKS TONE DEVELOPMENT - CONTINUED Commissioner Kelley amended his second. Mr. Brown asked for clarification on Condition #16. He thought it was staff's intent for them to provide an ongoing analysis of the existing center they are proposing and which they intend to do. Commissioner Saathoff amended his motion on Condition #16 to add "Report to reflect future uses in development," and which will read as follows: - Condition #16: Proposed restaurant uses shall comply with the parking standards provided in Title 17. Applicant shall provide a parking analysis for the existing Shopper's Square, Phase I agreement of 12 spaces and the report to reflect future uses in development. Commissioner Kelley amended his second. Approved 5-0 It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to consider PUBLIC HEARING Item #4 and BUSINESS ITEM #3 concurrently under PUBLIC HEARINGS. Assistant Planner Merrett presented the following proposals as follows: PUBLIC HEARING ITEM: 4. Conditional Use Permit 88-9 - Ervin Palmer - A request to expand an existing Recreational Vehicle Park from 169 spaces to 195 spaces on a 42.37 acre site between Riverside Drive (Highway 74) and the lake east of Grand Avenue and west of the State park. - BUSINESS ITEM: 3. Commercial Project 88-11 Ervin Palmer - A request to construct a 6,150 square foot pavilion building, a five-foot high slumpstone wall parallel to Riverside Drive which will incorporate two (2) entry signs, and a 600 square foot office/store structure on a 42.37 acre site, between Riverside Drive (Highway 74) and the lake east of Grand Avenue and west of the State park. Chairman Brown opened the public hearing at 9:02 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of Conditional Use Permit 88-9 or Commercial Project 88-11. Mr. Ervin Palmer, Elsinore West Marina, good idea. 4040 Via Opata, Palos Verdes, owner of stated he thinks his projects are a Chairman Brown asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor of these projects. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown __ asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Receiving no reply, Chairman Brown asked if anyone wished to speak on the matters. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown closed the public hearing at 9:04 p.m. Chairman Brown stated he would like it entered into the record as part of the public hearing that they have received correspondence from Margaret E. Clark, 15568 Grand Avenue, Lake Elsinore, stating that she wasn't against the campground but would like boundaries clearly defined for its guests, trash and toilet facilities available, noise from Minutes of Planning Commission August 16, 1988 Page 17 .... CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 88-9 = ERVIN PALMER = CONTINUED R. V. generators controlled, no wood gathering without permission from property owner and to be done in a safe manner, and enforcement of rules for campfires; and a letter from Mr. Ervin Palmer requesting an exemption to occupancy limits which will go to City Council. Discussion was brought to the table and Chairman Brown called on Commissioner Kelley for his comments. Commissioner Kelley asked, on Condition #14 of Commercial Project 88-11, if FEMA will stand behind the ordinance. Community Development Director Miller replied that the City has adopted an ordinance that follows the Model Ordinance developed by the Department of Water Resources of the State of California. Our ordinance has been reviewed and approved by the Department of Water Resources. FEMA has contracted with the Department of Water Resources to implement the Model Ordinance and see that jurisdictions within the State of California comply with the FEMA requirements. It has been reviewed and approved by the FEMA delegate. ~ commissioner Wilsey asked about occupancy limitation. Community Development Director Miller responded that the prior Conditional Use Permit did place limitation on occupancy of the park. As indicated by Mr. Merrett, the State Code made provisions that an applicant may request exemption of this and since it was subject to a prior Conditional Use Permit this would require action by the City Council to remove this. There are various findings that must be addressed in consideration of exemption of time frames which are set forth in the State Code. There are a number of issues relating to this, particularly impacts upon schools and public services. Because of the additional requirements this would entail from the FEMA requirements, since virtually the entire park would be subject to flooding under current lOO-year flood definition of 1267', and upon potential impacts upon public services, they would recommend that this condition be applied to the new spaces. There already is a condition applying to the previously approved spaces. Ultimately, this exemption request would require City council consideration. Staff just received it today and included it in the information provided to the Commission, so they would be aware of Mr. Palmer's request and intent. Commissioner Wilsey asked Mr. Palmer what his intention was. ~ Mr. Palmer responded that there has always been a difference of opinion between himself and the City on the length of stay. The State law has since changed and when he received the Staff Report he realized he had to do something promptly and that is why he filed the request for exemption of limitation. He commented further on the FEMA ordinance of 1987, it being published in the Federal Register at that point, protest from RV owners, mobile home owners and manufacturers and others, so FEMA backed away from it. They suspended that ordinance until September, 1989. You can call Mr. Mike RObinson, in Washington, who is head of FEMA, and will support his statements. Mr. Palmer said he would have copies made of this portion of the Federal Register and provide them to the City. Mr. Palmer remarked he had talked to Kevin Shear some time ago and Mr. Shear was aware the City's ordinance was not based on a correct federal code. Minutes of Planning Commission August 16, 1988 Page 18 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 88-9 = ERVIN PALMER = CONTINUED Mr. Palmer further stated that he would rather have the option, himself, to make the determination of the length of stay. That way he could control the type of people who used his park - sort of a "product mix". Commissioner Brinley planned on bringing mix." asked Mr. Palmer if he eventually in motorhomes as part of his "product - Mr. Palmer replied that he couldn't because it was against the law. Commissioner Brinley asked about people setting up homes out of their recreational vehicles and if they have children that attend the local schools Mr. Palmer recreational but they do do not allow replied that they have people who live in their vehicles on a full time basis and it is legal not have children. His Conditional Use Permits children. Commissioner Brinley asked him limitation wasn't a help to him he got in people he later wanted time limit be of help. if having the 180 days instead of a hindrance. If to get rid of, wouldn't the Mr. Palmer replied in the negative and said he would just use the normal eviction process. Commissioner Wilsey commented that he felt the people who used the R.V. parks brought alot of money to the City because they purchased what they needed to live day-to-day from merchants here in the City and he feels the l80-day limitation is unnecessary and would curtail revenue to businesses and the City. He is very familiar with the Snowbird syndrome and feels we would be driving away alot of people in the winter time. - Commissioner Saathoff stated he believes there is a requirement that for a certain number of spaces there are a certain number of restroom facilities required. Mr. Palmer remarked that requirement pertains only to parks that do not have a sewer outlet at each site. All of his sites do have sewer outlets. Commissioner Saathoff stated he did not see restroom facilities for the pavilion that he proposes to build. Mr. Palmer stated there are none in the pavilion but there are facilities adjacent. Commissioner Saathoff asked staff if that was adequate and complied with Code requirements and received an affirmative reply. Commissioner Saathoff stated he was very much in favor of the l80-day limitation. Unfortunately, in many of the R.V. parks in the City the length of stay is by the year and what we are providing is very, very, low income housing and in some cases, slum situations and, therefore, he is in favor of a time limitation. It would be his recommendation to the City that, if the Council does feel that they would like to give an exemption to the ruling for l80-days, that a certain area of the R.V. park should be set aside for longer than l80-day stays and that the site requirements be much more -- Minutes of Planning Commission August 16, 1988 Page 19 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 88-9 = ERVIN PALMER = CONTINUED ---- stringent as far as space is concerned, some skirting, buildings, etc. The parking facilities for some of spaces in the current park are very inadequate overcrowded. out the and commissioner Brinley stated she agreed with Commission Saathoff. Also, on Condition #3, believes the applicant should send the city quarterly reports of park occupancy. The City could send a notice out for the report and keep the incoming reports on file. Chairman Brown stated he would like to discuss a possible addition of 5 or 6 conditions to the Conditional Use Permit approval and listed them as follows: 5. All existing structures have building permit issued, brought to Code or be removed immediately. 6. Shall install side lot fencing in conformance with Fencing Code (property line fencing running down from Riverside Drive to reasonable distance to the lake), to prevent trespass both from tenants within this park and people from without. 7. Nonconforming uses and/or structures will be cause for revocation of this Conditional Use Permit. ..... 8. All vehicles within the park shall be currently licensed and operable, including recreation vehicles, self-propelled vehicles whether it be car or mobilehome. 9. Limitation of parking to two (2) vehicles per space or adequate, improved communal parking be provided. Chairman Brown stated that what is very distressing in situations like this is that they are not designed for alot of ingress or multiple tenant-type situations and what you see in this park is 1 to 4 vehicles parked at each space. There is not adequate space for those vehicles to prevent traffic congestion, or adequate parking in the area. This is why he would like to see a limitation of parking of vehicles. The State Park allow 3 vehicles per space and the rest have to park outside. ..... Chairman Brown commented that on the 180-day situation, he has feelings in both directions about it. He firmly believes if there is to be an extension of time, they should move to another park. When they stay over 6 months, you have what they have out there now. They have several trailers that have never been moved and probably couldn't be moved, alot of apparent structures attached to them, which have never been permitted or built to Code and they are obviously just a rental unit. If you are going to run a rental unit park, you need to put in the same improvements that everyone else must put in - pay the same fees. Would like to see a response from the school district on this. Chairman Brown stated a few years ago one of the small R.V. parks put more children into the schools than the first phase of Woodhaven did 31 children - and they paid no impact fees. Mr. Palmer interjected that he thinks State law preempts some of the items Chairman Brown listed. They installed a fence last Spring between his property and the Roadrunner on the one side and on the other side is the flood control channel and they have a fence put up which is entirely under Minutes of Planning Commission August 16, 1988 Page 20 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 88-9 = ERVIN PALMER = CONTINUED their control but it doesn't quite go to the lake. Chairman Brown responded that he doesn't feel he has asked for anything unreasonable, whether it is to City Code or State Code, as long as Mr. Palmer does it to Code, then there would no problem, although any future nonconforming uses or structures will be cause for revocation of the Conditional Use Permit. They are a safety hazard since they fill up the setback areas and are improperly constructed and attached. He informed Mr. Palmer that he would have to go in now and clean up what he has and then, in the future, through his own good business management, keep such uses out of his park and he would have no concern on revocation and the ability to do business. -... Mr. Palmer remarked that he understood - that constant battle with this, but it is against rules and when they notice it, they request it It is also against Title 25 which require 3 feet each site. they have a their park be removed. all around Chairman Brown asked for comments from the table and by unanimous consent the conditions remained as presented. Motion by Commissioner Kelley to adopt Negative Declaration 88-22 and approve Conditional Use Permit 88-9 based on the Findings and subject to the four (4) Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report and the following additional five (5) conditions: 5. All existing structures have building permit issued, __ brought to Code or be removed immediately. 6. Shall install side lot fencing in conformance with Fencing Code (property line fencing running down from Riverside Drive to reasonable distance to the lake), to prevent trespass both from tenants within this park and people from without. 7. Nonconforming uses and/or structures will be cause for revocation of this Conditional Use Permit. 8. All vehicles within the park shall be currently licensed and operable, including recreation vehicles, self-propelled vehicles whether it be car or mobilehome. 9. Limitation of parking to two (2) vehicles per space or adequate, improved communal parking be provided. Commissioner Brinley requested Condition #3 be amended to contaim the following verbiage, "The City will send out notification on a quarterly basis for a quarterly report." Commissioner Kelley included this change to Condition #3 in his motion. ... Second by Commissioner Brinley. Commissioner sa~~hoff remarked that the additional requirement on Condition #3 would place a very difficult burden on the City and would set a precedent. Feels the intent of having these records available is if the City or County note any reason that would require they investigate the park, then these records should be available to determine whether or not they are complying with the requirements placed upon them. Minutes of Planning Commission August 16, 1988 Page 21 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 8-9 = ERVIN PALMER = CONTINUED .... A short discussion ensued with consensus to leave Condition #3 as presently listed in the Staff Report. Commissioner Kelley amended his motion to leave Condition #3 as originally set forth in the Staff Report. commissioner Brinley amended her second. . Approved 5-0 Chairman Brown brought Commercial Project 88-11 to the table for discussion. commissioner Brinley questioned the roof of the pavilion and asked if it shouldn't be shingled or brought up to Code. Mr. Palmer said this roof is a sun shade. Commissioner Saathoff asked Mr. Palmer if he would like to speak on this matter. Mr. Palmer replied that he had a great deal of concern over some of the conditions as follows: Condition 7.e: He has engaged a landscape architect to draw up a beautiful attractive plan. On 7.d he doesn't want automatic sprinklers at each of the 26 sites spraying the site. ----- Community Development Director stated the intent is to supply an irrigation system for all the planted landscaping. It is not intended to water a pad for an R.V. Mr. Palmer stated, concerning Condition #14, he had talked with Mr. Ron Peace of the High School District and he told him he had no requirement for ongoing fees or developer fee as far as the school district goes. On Condition #15, he would like a 3-foot (3') wide planter along the entry/exit roads. Assistant Planner Merrett informed the table that on the plans submitted it showed a five-foot (5') planter but it is Mr. Palmer's intention, if not with this project, but some date, to widen both the entrance and exit roads so they will accommodate two (2) lanes in order to eliminate backup onto Riverside Drive on busy weekends. That would still leave a 3-foot (3') planter space which is adequate and acceptable to screen the walls and fences. Condition #16: Needs further definition - doesn't know what or how many are required. Mr. Palmer stated his major problem is the Engineering conditions. These fees and E.V.M.W.D.'s fee will cost him around $200,000 which is two-third's of the cost for his project. He would like some relief from some of the costs. He doesn't feel he should bear the full cost for new curb and gutter since he had put new curb and gutter in eleven years ago. The City and County have now changed their mind on the width of the street but he doesn't feel it is fair for him to tear up what he paid for once and pay the full fee again because of this change of minds. On Condition #27, they have a water well on the property and want to use the water for irrigation and is very reluctant to give it up to the City. He has talked to Engineering Minutes of Planning Commission August 16, 1988 Page 22 COMMERCIAL PROJECT 88-11 ~ ERVIN PALMER ~ CONTINUED about this and they advised him that they would speak to the City Attorney and get his opinion but he hasn't heard anything yet. On Condition #28, he object to this condition because no one on Riverside Drive has been asked to do it and it's unfair to ask him. t - Condition #32, he feels it is strange that he should put up the "No Parking" signs instead of Cal Trans. Condition #34, he doesn't know what he is going to do about their $63,000 requirement. He can't afford to pay them that amount of money to hook up water and sewer lines that are his and in and established and hooked up. Chairman Brown commented that even if the City eliminated Condition #24, Cal Trans still requires it under Condition #30. Commissioner Saathoff remarked that as he understands the condition they are asking him to dedicate the right-of-way at this time, not actually to place the improvements in today, but pay in-lieu fee. Perhaps instead of paying an in-lieu fee there could be some type of bonding. Community Development Director Miller stated he believed the Engineering staff sat down with Mr. Palmer and discussed this at some length and indicated a compromise solution of paying the in-lieu fee and that was a reduced fee. It wasn't $52,000 but around $18,000. In terms of whether to widen the street or not, this certainly has been a concern over the years. All are aware of the extreme amount of traffic on Riverside Drive and on weekends most of the traffic is generated by the R.V. parks in this area. Therefore, in order to alleviate some of these problems, Cal Trans, the City and the County cooperatively and jointly indicated that a wider street was recommended to address the traffic problems. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to recommend to City Council adoption of Negative Declaration 88-22 and approval of - Commercial Project 88-11 based on the Findings and to the thirty-four (34) Conditions of Approval first paragraph of Conditions #7 and Condition #15 as follows: subject with the amended Condition #7, First Paragraph: Revised Landscape and Irrigation Plans shall be prepared and submitted which will provide for the following revisions as a minimum; said plans shall be subject to the review and approval of the Communi ty Development Director and' the Planning Commission, and shall incorporate the following: A landscape buffer shall be placed along the slumpstone portions of the wall along Riverside Drive and in the three-foot (3') wide planter area along the entry/exit roads. - Condition #15: Second by Commissioner Kelley. Approved 5-0 Minutes of Planning Commission August 16, 1988 Page 23 BUSINESS ITEMS: 4. Residential Project 88-4 John Petersen/Lloyd Roybal - Assistant Planner Merrett presented request to construct a 5,962 square foot eight-unit addition to an existing six- -- unit rental apartment building on a 0.78 acre lot at 16420 Joy Street. Chairman Brown stated he would like it entered into the record of the meeting that they have received correspondence from T. Goveia, 535 Quail Drive, Lake Elsinore, requesting that this project be conditioned to be of high quality in construction and design. Chairman Brown asked if there was anyone representing the applicant, Mr. Petersen, here. Mr. Lloyd Roybal, 1506 West Graham, Lake Elsinore, stated he was representing Mr. Petersen, and they are in favor of the project. He met with Mr. Petersen this afternoon and he has a concern with Condition #17. - Assistant Planner Merrett remarked that when the plans were submitted it appeared there were gates on the ground floor patio areas, but the applicant has indicated those areas will be completely enclosed with no gates. Mr. Roybal commented that regarding Condition #18, they have engaged a landscape architect to submit a landscape plan for the entire project. Mr. Roybal said he had nothing further but he would be happy to answer any questions they might have. commissioner Kelley remarked that he thought Mr. Roybal has done a remarkable job on the new project but it is all a mute issue because the present condition of the present complex is a disaster and doesn't think it will be kept up or maintained. He feels the present complex should be brought up to compliance before he is allowed to go on. Commissioner Wilsey stated he feels the same as Commissioner Kelley. We should be very emphatic in our conditions on doing the upgraded design standards on the entire project. Mr. Roybal remarked that Mr. Petersen intends to use a majority of the materials stored on the site in his new construction as well as the renovation of the existing project. The large steel containers on the property are being sold and perhaps will be out of the way soon. Mr. Petersen will do whatever they desire to screen the materials from view. - commissioner Brinley stated she agrees with Commissioner Kelley. Chairman Brown commented that Condition #20 pretty much addresses this issue. He further stated he would like to add additional verbiage to Condition #20 - put a comma after the word "action" at the end of the Condition and add the verbiage, "and revocation of Residential project 88-4." In the first line of the first paragraph of Condition #18, he would like the verbiage, "for approval by the Planning commission" added between the words "submit" and "a". If the work is not done in a timely manner, you will not only have to abate the old structure but also remove all the new construction up to that point. Mr. Roybal remarked that he had no problem with the Minutes of Planning Commission August 16, 1988 Page 24 RESIDENTIAL CONTINUED PROJECT 88-4 JOHN PETERSEN/LLOYD ROYBAL additions to Conditions #18 and #20 and he understands the reasoning behind them. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to recommend to City Council adoption of Negative Declaration 88-21 and approve Residential Project 88-4 based on the Findings and subject to the thirty (30) Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report with the following amendments to Conditions #18 and #20: - Condition #18, First Paragraph: The applicant shall submit for approval by the Planning Commission a revised landscape and irrigation plan which shall incorporate the following: Condition #20: Owner or his authorized representative shall, within 30 days of the approval of the Design Review, in cooperation with the City Chief Building Official, develop a work schedule which comprehensively establishes task areas and completion dates in order to satisfy Nuisance Abatement pending against the site. Failure to satisfy the approved schedule shall be grounds for implementation of abatement action, and revocation of Residential Project 88-4. Second by Commissoner Wilsey. Approved 4-1 (Commissioner Kelley in opposition) - INFORMATIONAL 1. Joint City Council/Planning Commission study Session August 30, 1988, at 5:00 p.m., in City Council Chamber. Chairman Brown reminded everyone not to forget this Study Session. Community Development Director Miller commented that City Council has also scheduled a Study Session at 4:00 p.m. with the Special Projects Engineer to discuss assessment districts, particularly the assessment district out in the Chaney Street area. If any of the Commissioners are interested in that, they could arrive a little early and sit in on that Study Session. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS Nothing to report. PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Commissioner Wilsey: Commissioner Wilsey would like to have a study session sometime in the future on permanent housing in R.V. parks. Commissioner Saathoff: - Nothing to report. Commissioner Ke11ev: Nothing to report. Minutes of Planning Commission August 16, 1988 Page 25 PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS - CONTINUED commissioner Brin1ev: Nothing to report. - Chairman Brown: There being no further business, the Lake Elsinore Planning commission adjourned at 10:25 p.m. Motion by Commissioner Brinley, second by Commissioner Wilsey. App~d, '-"" \ Respectfully submitted: - ~w~ Acting Planning Commission secretary - - - - MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON THE 6TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 1988 THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:00 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Commissioner Brinley. ROLL CALL: -- PRESENT: Commissioners: Kelley, Brinley, Saathoff, and Chairman Brown ABSENT: commissioners: Wilsey Also present were Community Development Director Miller, Senior Planner Libiez, and Associate Planners Magee and Last. MINUTE ACTION Motion by Commissioner Brinley to approve minutes of August 16, 1988, as submitted, second by Commissioner Kelley. Approved 4-0 PUBLIC COMMENTS Chairman Brown asked the Secretary if there were any requests to address the Commission. The Secretary answered in the negative. There being no requests to address the Commission, Chairman Brown closed the PUBLIC COMMENTS section. PUBLIC HEARINGS -- 1. Zone Change 88-7 - Champion Development - Associate Planner Magee presented a request to change the zoning from R-l (Single-Family Residential) to C-2 (General Commercial) in order to bring the zoning into conformance with the General Plan Land Use designation of General Commercial. 0.73 acres, located on the southeast corner of Railroad Canyon Road and Grape Street. Chairman Brown opened the public hearing at 7:02 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of Zone Change 88-7. Mr. Greg Sponseller, representing Champion Development, spoke in favor of the proposal. Chairman Brown asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak in favor. Receiving no r7sponse, Chairman Brown asked if anyone wished to speak 1n opposition. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown asked if anyone wished to speak on the matter. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown closed the public hearing at 7:04 p.m. A brief discussion at the table was held on the request being logical and bringing the zoning into conformance with the General Plan. -- Motion by Commissioner Brinley to recommend to adoption of Negative Declaration No. 88-26 and Zone Change 88-7, based on the findings listed Report, second by Commissioner Kelley. Approved 4-0 City Council approval of in the Staff 2. Zone Change 88-8 Winston Elsinore LTD. Partnership- Associate Planner Last presented a request to change the zoning from Neighborhood Commercial (C-l) to General Com- mercial (C-2) in order to bring the zoning into conformance with the General Plan designation of General Commercial. 1.57 acres, located between Casino Drive (Vista Del Lago) and Mission Trail, approximately 1,000 feet east of Railroad Canyon Road. Minutes of Planning Commission september 6, 1988 Page 2 ZONE CHANGE 88-8 - WINSTON ELSINORE LTD. PARTNERSHIP CONTINUED Chairman Brown opened the p~blic hearing at 7:05 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak 1n favor of Zone Change 88-8. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown asked if anyone wished to speak on the matter. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown closed the public hearing at 7:06 p.m. __ A brief discussion at the table was held on the request bringing the zoning into conformance with the General Plan. Motion by Commissioner Brinley to recommend to City Council approval of Zone Change 88-8 based on the findings listed in the Staff Report, and re-affirm Negative Declaration No. 88-19, second by Commissioner Kelley. Approved 4-0 3. Tentative Tract Map 20296 REVISED - Hillcrest Development _ Associate Planner Last presented a request to revise a previously approved Tentative Tract Map for sixty-five (65) residential units that would reduce the total number of lots to fifty-seven (57) lots. 76.69 acres, located south of Grand Avenue and west of Ortega Highway. Chairman Brown opened the public hearing at 7:09 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of Tentative Tract Map 20296 REVISED. Mr. Paul Salata, representing Hillcrest Development, stated that the staff report is accurate, and would like to defer anything we have to say about our tract map; wait and see if __ there is any further testimony and we could answer questions at that time, and then we have some questions. Chairman Brown stated that he sees no problem with that and asked if there were any objections from the table. Receiving no objection from the table, Chairman Brown informed Mr. Salata that he would be called back to the podium. Chairman Brown asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor of Tentative Tract Map 20296 REVISED. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown asked if anyone wished to speak on the matter. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown called Mr. Salata back to the podium. Mr. Salata stated that the Staff Report indicates that we have an approved tentative map which is correct, but it was impossible to do based on proper planning, as set by the City's Ordinances and Codes, therefore, we went about revising it. We are at the point now, we believe we have mitigated all of the concerns and are ready to proceed. I would like to have Fred Crowe, our consultant, go through the items and, from a professional point of view, point out what we consider minor adjustments. - Mr. Fred Crowe, stated that they did not have a chance to meet with staff after receiving the conditions, and would like to request clarification and revision to the following conditions: Condition No. 13: Would like to change the verbiage "unless modified by the Fire Department" to "unless modified by the agency" . Condition No. 16: Having trouble interpreting the intent and Minutes of Planning Commission september 6, 1988 Page 3 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 20296 REVISED - HILLCREST DEVELOPMENT CONTINUED - where that easement should go, and asked staff to point out on the map where that easement should go. Community Development Director Miller stated that this is a hold over from the conditions of the original tract map. There is currently an easement for access along the western boundary of this property, from Ortega Highway up the hill, and the condition referred to providing an alternate easement from the end of the cul-de-sac, so that easement did not come out onto Ortega Highway. Mr. Crowe stated that he thinks that this is true, and asked if it was still the desire to turn that easement some place into the cul-de-sac area. - community Development Director Miller responded or delete it. Condition No. 16: Grading of a 20-foot wide easement so access is possible along the lot line. If we encounter a problem with the owner of the easement, we would like to clarify that the intent here is not to build a 20-foot road up that easement, southerly all the way along that easement to the south property line of this tract. I believe that it would, basically, be impossible to build over the total area, the terrain would not yield to that, it would look bad and be erosive. I do not believe that the easement is placed at a practical location. We would like to stay in a negotiating mode with the easement holder and for them to understand that we are not required to build a road up their easement. Community Development Director Miller stated that generally he would agree with Mr. Crowe's comments. Thinks that the desire of the applicant and staff would be to eliminate that easement, that may not be possible. I think originally this condition came from Cal Trans, they did not want an easement coming out onto Ortega Highway at that point. So perhaps we could just change the condition that the access easement from Ortega Highway southerly and along the east boundary of this tract shall be realigned or abandoned to avoid access onto Ortega Highway. Chairman Brown asked Community Development Director Miller if he wanted the easement abandoned entirely, which would prevent access to Ortega Highway. Community Development Director Miller responded that he believes this would be the preference of everyone. Chairman Brown suggested that the first sentence of condition number 16, be amended as follows: "The access easement from Ortega Highway southerly and along the east boundary of this property shall be abandoned". Community Development Director Miller stated that this may not be possible, it depends upon the cooperation of the easement holder. Commissioner Kelley suggested the following verbiage be added to the first sentence of condition number 16, "shall be realigned or abandoned". commissioner Saathoff suggested the following verbiage be added to the first sentence of condition number 16, "shall be abandoned or realigned along lot lines". Commissioner Brinley suggested the following verbiage be Minutes of Planning Commission September 6, 1988 Page 4 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 20296 REVISED = HILLCREST DEVELOPMENT CONTINUED added to the first sentence of condition number 16, "shall be abandoned or realigned to avoid access onto Ortega Highway". Mr. Crowe stated that he believes that the verbiage "shall be abandoned or realigned to avoid access onto Ortega Highway" would be fine, for condition number 16. Condition No. 18: There was some discussion, basically, the original subdivision was conditioned with this condition. I had heard some reservation by staff on whether or not the City wanted to accept the offer of dedication of Lot A, which is, basically, a lot of that open space area. Wonders if staff would prefer verbiage added to the condition "unless other arrangements are made with the developer". .... Chairman Brown stated that because of liability problems, especially with many cities not being able to get liability insurance; the taking of unusable open space for just ownership by the city is just an additional liability that we do not want. In discussion with staff, it was my understand- ing, that this project was designed around this open space and possibly you could have used it for development as opposed to open space, asking Mr. Crowe if this was true. Mr. Crowe stated that he thinks it was set aside because any development of it would scar the mountains. It was set aside not so much for use but for open space. Mr. Crowe stated that if they can have the condition something like that, unless other arrangements are made with the developer, that would leave room for the developer and .... the Community Development Director to meet on that and see if there is some option that would meet the needs and the City and developer. Community Development Director Miller stated that as indicated this was the original condition of the tract. In fact, staff had indicated, the city indicated, that there was not to be development above a certain elevation, as Mr. Crowe has indicated, to avoid scarring of hillsides and to preserve the scenic view around the lake, and until fairly recently that had been the City's position, this lot would be dedicated to the City. As you have indicated there has been some discussion as to whether that is the most desirable aspect, and I think that will probably we worked out in the next few months. We would certainly not have any objections to the wording if all of the arrangements are worked out. Ultimately, this is going to have receive approval from City Council prior to recordation of the final map. Chairman Brown stated that he would like verbiage added "if the property is not deeded to the City the City be given the right of ingress/egress to that property". Condition No. 21: Applicant shall provide solid block or wrought iron and pilaster walls six (6) foot minimum height on all sides and rear property lines. There is a condition in the fire letter for walls along the back property line, the line that adjoins Lot A. There is also a condition to meet all city codes, and we know that fencing will be required. We would like to have room for some ingenuity in the fencing of these parcels. I think that conditions 5, 13, 20 and 21 all give the City pretty good control over what kind of walls could be placed there. We would rather not have this as a condition of the map but evaluated at building permit stage. .... Minutes of Planning Commission september 6, 1988 Page 5 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 20296 REVISED = HILLCREST DEVELOPMENT CONTINUED - Chairman Brown asked if Associate Planner Last would like to respond. Associate Planner Last stated that as far as the solid block walls on the side and rear property lines this is a standard condition for all residential tracts, either solid block or wood fencing. Because of the hill terrain and fire hazards staff decided to go with something that was less of a fire hazard, the block wall would accomplish that. Mr. Crowe stated that there are other walls that might accomplish the same thing, rather than the block. Associate Planner Last responded that he believes staff was more concerned with the wood fencing up in that area. So brick or other material would satisfy staff. Chairman Brown asked, Associate Planner Last, when you are talking about all sides if you are also talking about fencing between houses. Associate Planner Last responded in the affirmative. - Chairman Brown stated that he wanted to clarify this, you are saying that all fencing within the project would have to be block regardless of the exposure to fire hazard. Associate Planner Last responded in the affirmative. Condition No. 24: Submit a letter of verification to the City Engineering Department, from the applicable water district, stating water and sewer arrangements have been made for this project prior to recordation of map. I think that it leaves something to be desired in what are arrangements and what arrangements have been made. So far, on all the projects we have been using a "will-serve letter" as those arrangements, and asked if "will-serve" letter could be added to the end of the condition in parentheses. Condition No. 25: Would like condition number 25 to read the same as condition number 13, pertaining to fire protection, adding verbiage "unless modified by the agency". - Condition No. 33: Comply with the requirements of Riverside County Flood Control Reports, dated July 24, 1985 and June 6, 1986. I believe that we are beyond those reports now, in the project, and I believe that they fit in with the map before revised. I would like to omit this condition, but leave condition number 34, which states to submit hydrology and hydraulic studies, necessary master planning, detailed plans and profiles approved by the Flood Control District, and provide drainage easements as required by the City Engineer. I would like to leave this condition in as I believe that it accomplishes everything in condition number 33, but accomplishes it with the latest map. Condition No. 39: This has to do with dedication of right- of-way and improvements along Ortega Highway. We know that improvements along State Highways have, for quite a while, been a standard requirement on most maps. We would like to have something in the minutes that we objected to this condition, because we have no access to Ortega Highway and we think that it is for the use of the general public. We, basically, disagree with the policy of private development building general use highways. Minutes of Planning Commission September 6, 1988 Page 6 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 20296 REVISED = HILLCREST DEVELOPMENT CONTINUED Condition No. 41: Approval from Cal Trans would be necessary for access to Ortega Highway for the 30-foot ingress and egress easement prior to recordation of the map. I see no objection to leaving the condition in. But, just want to clarify that there is no intent of going out onto the State Highway. Chairman Brown stated that this would refer back to condition number 16. - Condition No. 48: The letter from Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District and their condition. We would like to add the same verbiage "unless modified by the agency". We believe that we have some solutions to some of the loop water lines and some other conditions that are there that are better than putting those improvements in ortega Highway. We would like to leave the door open to work those conditions out with the water district. Mr. Paul Salata stated that this clearly represents what the ownership believes is fair and reasonable in this matter. Chairman Brown asked if there speak on Tentative Tract Map 20296 response, Chairman Brown closed p.m. Commissioner Kelley stated that he would like staff to address condition number 39. was anyone else wishing to REVISED. Receiving no the public hearing at 7:32 Community Development Director Miller stated that in terms of __ condition number 39, this is a State Highway, but it is also a major arterial on our circulation plan. In terms of the question that Mr. Crowe and Mr. Salata addressed it is a matter of philosophy. It is a long standing policy of this jurisdiction, and every other jurisdiction, to require improvements to any abutting highways or streets to a tract. Commissioner Kelley stated that he has no objection to the "will-serve letter" on condition number 24. Commissioner Kelley stated that on condition number 18, the verbiage "unless other arrangements are made with the developer" sounds reasonable. Commissioner Kelley stated that he would like staff to address condition number 33 and how it relates to condition number 34. Community Development ly it does. Believes to some particular drainage that crosses Director Miller responded that general- the intent there was to make reference comments in those letters regarding the the Ortega Highway. Commissioner Kelley stated that it would not hurt to leave it. - Community Development Engineering's intent was certain things, and we concern by adding verbiage Control District". Director Miller stated that perhaps to draw particular attention to could also satisfy the applicant's "unless modified by the Flood Commissioner Saathoff stated that those letters were refer- ring to the original tract map with more lots, and would agree with the addition of verbiage "unless modified by the Minutes of Planning Commission september 6, 1988 Page 7 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 20296 REVISED - HILLCREST DEVELOPMENT CONTINUED - Flood Control District". Commissioner Kelley stated that all of the conditions where Mr. Crowe has requested verbiage "unless modified by the agency" is fine. Commissioner Saathoff stated that he has a question on condi- tion number 39, understands the City's philosophy; wonders if we could not use some other verbiage other than "construct". Because it is very probable that he (applicant) would not be allowed to construct anything in there any way, would he? Is Cal Trans going to allow him to? Community Development Director Miller Trans has indicated to us that they want required to be constructed. responded that Cal those improvements Commissioner Brinley commented on condition number 21, re- garding the block wall, stating she was in favor of the block wall. Because the letter from the Fire Department states that they are in a fire hazard area, and would like to see this condition remain as stated. - commissioner Brinley commented on condition number 17, re- garding the final map showing all fault lines with a prominent note, as well as areas subject to flood hazards. Would like fire hazard areas added to this condition, since the Fire Department has stated that it is in a fire hazard area. commissioner Saathoff responded to the comments made on condition number 21, stating rather than leaving the solid block in there, since we would like the applicant to have the opportunity to do brick or something else, I would prefer to have some verbiage "applicant shall provide fire proof type fencing". Chairman Brown commented on condition number 21, and asked staff if it was really necessary to do side yard fencing in block to prevent fire problems, especially several hundred feet away from any natural terrain. I can agree with block, wrought iron, pilaster walls on all street facing and perimeter walls. But, I do not really agree with having to have block walls on the interior lots, on side yards. commissioner Brinley asked Chairman Brown what he would suggest. - Chairman Brown stated that an alternative fencing in between houses can be used. Chances of fire spreading down fence lines in between lots are remote, and if the applicant was to use wrought iron fencing that is not ignitible, but it certainly does not stop fires. I think that fencing on side yards, which would run down the length of the house to the rear property lines could be wood, and I would have no problem with that at all. Chairman Brown asked if they make a treated fence, a class rated wood fence. Mr. Crowe that would different some type responded that he doubted if they make anything be fire proof. However, there have been several alternatives discussed--concrete walls that have of facing or tile, there are so many options. Mr. Crowe stated that another thing that was required in Minutes of Planning Commission September 6, 1988 Page 8 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 20296 REVISED - HILLCREST DEVELOPMENT CONTINUED these conditions, that is not in the Fire Department conditions, but discussed earlier was some type of fire retardant planting adjacent to this area. Chairman Brown stated that they would have to do that on most of the area because of the slope. Discussion at the table ensued on fencing of perimeter areas and interior lots, and the type of materials available. Community Development Director Miller stated that generally this area of fencing has been under discussion. In addition, the idea of what are appropriate measures for the protection of structures adjacent to wild land brush areas is an area that is evolving rapidly with California Division of Forestry and the County Fire Department. Perhaps, one method to approach this is to defer the final design of fencing to the building review stage and subsume the fencing category under the requirement for fire protection plan. - Community Development Director Miller recommended that condi- tion number 21, be amended to read: "Fencing shall be addressed as part of the fire protection plan to have final approval at building permit stage". Mr. Buron Murray requested to address the Commission on fencing, stating that at one time he had an interest in a concrete block retaining wall. In the higher retaining walls what we found acceptable, as far as aesthetics, is to take rebar and extend it up, to whatever distance you want, then use any hardware cloth, about 3 or 4 inches, with your _ plastic or heavy paper and you gunite that to the shape and contour that you want for your fence. Chairman Brown stated that unless the table objects, he would like to defer this one item to address the concerns that we have. First of all, primary fire concerns, but in lieu of discussion the other night, also the street scape. Defer this item to possibly addressing the fire concern of a non- combustible wall; the possibility of side yard fencing being of wood or some other material, perimeter walls not necessarily being block but any non-combustible material. Commissioner Saathoff asked about adding "applicant shall provide non-combustible area and interior fencing to meet all ordinances, subject to the review of the ment Director". a statement such as: fencing on perimeter other city codes and Community Develop- Chairman Brown responded that the only problem with that, I do not know if we can, but I think that the concept is to start immediately with the block wall on interior lots; on interior lots I do not mean corner lots within the tract but interior in between, lot to lot side yard fencing, if it is exposed to any street that it be block. Chairman Brown stated that he would defer to the table. - Commissioner Brinley stated that she would like to see the item deferred, so that it can be studied closer. Chairman Brown stated that he has proposed change to conditions 24, 25 condition number 33, the items that 33 irrespective of the change would condition number 34. no problem with the and 48. However, on would remain in condition still be addressed in Minutes of Planning Commission September 6, 1988 Page 9 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 20296 REVISED = HILLCREST DEVELOPMENT CONTINUED Chairman Brown commented on condition number 39, if Cal Trans is insisting that these improvements be made then they have you. I did not take your comments negatively, but I think that we have the right to, and demand the right to, decide what Cal Trans does within our community, even though it is a State Highway it affects us directly. I agree, if you could work out the situation you might be willing to pay in lieu fees instead of doing those improvements. But I think that Cal Trans has the first say so in this and we would support them if they require it. Chairman Brown stated that he believes that condition number 41 refers to condition number 16. - commissioner Saathoff commented on asking if this condition could not be covered under condition number 13. condition number 25, eliminated as it is Associate Planner Last stated that staff has no objection with deleting one of the conditions. Motion by Commissioner Kelley to recommend to City Council adoption of Negative Declaration No. 88-31 and approval of Tentative Tract Map 20296 REVISED, based on the Findings and subject to the 48 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report with the following amendments: - Condition No. 13: Condition No. 16: Condition No. 17: Condition No. 18: Condition No. 21: - Condition No. 24: Stands as presented in the Staff Report. "The existing access easement from Ortega Highway southerly and along the east boundary of this proposed tract shall be abandoned or realigned to avoid access onto ortega Highway." "Final Map shall show all geological fault lines with a prominent note, as well as areas subject to flood hazard and fire hazard." "Applicant will offer Lot "A" to the City for open space purposes, unless other arrangements are made with the City. If the property is not deeded to the City the City be given the right of ingress/egress to that property" . "Perimeter fencing shall consist of non-combustible material. All fencing shall be a minimum of six-foot (6') high with the materials to be addressed as part of the fire protection plan and have final approval at building permit stage." "Submit a letter of verification (will-serve letter) to the City Engineering Department, from the applicable water district, stating that water and sewer arrangements have been made for this project prior to recordation of map". Minutes of Planning Commission September 6, 1988 Page 10 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 20296 REVISED ~ HILLCREST DEVELOPMENT CONTINUED Condition No. 25: Condition No. 33: Condition No. 34: Condition No. 39: Condition No. 41: Condition No. 48: Provide fire protection facilities as required in writing by Riverside County Fire protection. DELETED Stands as presented in the Staff Report. "Submit Hydrology and Hydraulic Studies, necessary master planning and detailed plans and profiles of the proposed flood control facilities to Riverside County Flood Control District and to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to final map recordation, unless modified by the agency. Provide drainage easements as required by the City Engineer." - Stands as presented in the Staff Report. Stands as presented in the Staff Report. "Comply with the requirements of the Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District letter dated August 23, 1988, that are applicable to Tract 20296 REVISED (see Exhibit V), unless modified by Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District." - Second by Commissioner Brinley. Commissioner Saathoff asked for discussion on condition number 21, assumes the verbiage is what Chairman Brown recommended, non-combustible perimeter block on lots next to the street and then the interior lots meet the current codes and requirements. Commissioner Kelley answered in the affirmative. Chairman Brown recommended that the word "block" be deleted. Commissioner Kelley asked if the maker of the second was in agreement. Commissioner Brinley answered in the affirmative. There being no further discussion, Chairman Brown called for the question. Approved 4-0 At this time, 7:54 p.m., the Commission recessed. At this time, 8:01 p.m., the Commission reconvened. - IT WAS THE CONSENSUS OF THE COMMISSION TO CONSIDER PUBLIC HEARING NUMBER 4 AND BUSINESS ITEM NUMBER 1 CONCURRENTLY. 4. Conditional Use permit 88-10 and Commercial Project 88-12 _ Fugate Enterprises - Associate Planner Magee presented a request to allow a drive-thru aisle in conjunction with the construction of a 2,768 square foot fast food restaurant, 0.80 acres, located on the east side of Casino Drive approximately 800 feet south of Railroad Canyon Road. Minutes of Planning Commission September 6, 1988 Page 11 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 88-10 AND COMMERICAL PROJECT 88-12 - FUGATE ENTERPRISES CONTINUED ~ Chairman Brown opened the public hearing at 8:06 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of Conditional Use Permit 88-10. Mr. Steve Brown, representing Brookstone Development, stated they are the master developer for Shopper's Square Phase II, and we are in favor of this proposal. Mr. stein, representing Fugate Enterprises, presented photo- graph illustrating the skylight issue, condition number 19 of Commercial Project 88-12, stating that they have utilized a glass front to modernize most of our units, and we do try to maintain the integrity of what is shown in the photograph with the glass front, and do represent that as being very similar to what I saw this evening at the Sizzler, directly adjacent to the site. I feel that our suggestion to utilize a skylight deviates from that, but felt that it would work better with the clay tile and the architecture that was exhibited to us by Mr. Brown, and utilizing the rendering posted, showed where the skylight would be located. Chairman Brown stated that the photograph of the store is fine, except we have a shopping center here that we are trying to remain consistent with. .---. Community Development Director Miller stated that if the Planning Commission feels that they would like to include this element, we would suggest the skylight as presented, rather than the continuous skylight and wall treatment, would be more appropriate to this building at this location. Chairman Brown asked Mr. Stein if the there would be a vaulted ceiling in the dining room area. Mr. Stein responded in the affirmative. Chairman Brown asked if it would be less of an impact to have an opening with the skylight recessed out of the line of sight. .---. Mr. stein stated that he would be in agreement with that architecturally. The only thing that I would want to insure is, the fact, that we can design something that would drain properly. I have no problem with concealing or making those glass elements at a lower level, but I do not know how you would do that and adequately drain. This may be a question that I pose to our architect. Mr. stein stated that he would like to get an indication, this evening, as to what he needs to do relative to a glass front or a skylight treatment to that building. Chairman Brown stated that this would be brought back to the table for further discussion. Mr. Stein commented on condition Project 88-12, which relates to building, stating that he is recommendation. number 20, of Commercial the color scheme of the in full agreement with the Mr. Stein commented on condition number 21, of Commercial Project 88-12, which deals with the arch treatment to the windows. Circulated another photograph depicting the typical modern Pizza Hut with square windows on the side, stating all Minutes of Planning Commission September 6, 1988 Page 12 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 88-10 AND COMMERICAL PROJECT 88-12 - FUGATE ENTERPRISES CONTINUED we have done is try to utilize and maintain some of the elements of a Pizza Hut restaurant, in this particular architectural design. If we need to consider something more relative to the windows on the sides, I certainly would listen to recommendations. My preference would be to try an maintain the windows as they are shown on the drawing. __ Commissioner Kelley asked Mr. Stein what his objection was to the arch way window. Mr. Stein responded that he does not know if he really has an objection, besides the fact that it deviates from some element that has a Pizza Hut look, which we are trying to maintain. The arch windows have not been used anywhere else in a Pizza Hut restaurant. If I were to make that change, to this drawing, I would have to go back to corporate Pizza Hut and get their blessing, because this building deviates more dramatically than any other Pizza Hut, and those windows could be an issue. If there were a way to bring those columns in and soften that more with the structure of the wall rather that the structure of the window; this is my thought to try and soften that element, but not change the window, again I would turn to you for some recommendations. Mr. Stein commented on condition number 3, of Conditional Use Permit 88-10, which relates to the canopy and the recommen- dation made to extend that canopy to 14 feet by 30 feet. Presented photograph of one of Pizza Hut's drive up window, stating the element of the drive up is identical to what was designed for this unit. __ Commissioner Kelley asked Mr. Stein restaurants they have with a drive up they are successful. Mr. Stein responded that they have four (4) existing units with drive up windows and they are successful. how many window, and Pizza asked Hut if Commissioner Brinley asked Mr. Stein if they have any kind of canopy over them. Mr. Stein responded that it is exactly like the photograph. Mr. stein stated that he is not opposed to the idea of some- thing, but does not know why they need to do a 14 foot canopy. Discussion at the canopy; the drive rendering posted, being a policy that table ensued on the requirement of the through elevation, referring to the being relatively stark, and the canopy the Commission has established. Chairman Brown asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak in favor of Conditional Use Permit 88-10. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown asked if anyone wished to speak on the matter. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown closed the public hearing at 8:30 p.m. ~ Commissioner Saathoff asked Associate Planner Magee where the 14 foot by 30 foot canopy would start? Associate Planner Magee utilizing the rendering illustrated where the canopy would start. posted Minutes of Planning Commission September 6, 1988 Page 13 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 88-10 AND COMMERICAL PROJECT 88-12 - FUGATE ENTERPRISES CONTINUED commissioner Kelley stated that he was in agreement with the way staff presented it. ..... commissioner Brinley stated that with staff, likes the canopy and continuity continued. Chairman Brown stated that the only difference that he would like to see, and it was required on another project, is to have the canopy repeated on the other side of the building, on the entrance. she was in total agreement would like to see the ..... Chairman Brown stated that he would like to see Mr. stein work out the skylight situation. I can understand why you want them, but the Commission does not want to see them on the top of the building. Also, the architecture and color scheme should be consistent with the commercial project abutting this project. Chairman Brown stated that he believes that the arch effect could be added outside of the windows independent of those on all sides. Believes that there is enough room by, possibly, extending the overhang or the actual windows themselves. Associate Planner Magee stated that he believes that this could be accomplished, and in order to provide the applicant more light he could perhaps lower the window ledge and actually get more light into the restaurant, as this seems to be a major concern. Associate Planner Magee asked if the Commission would like to see the skylights on the front elevation or on one of the side elevations, as simulated in the Sizzler restaurant. I believe that Mr. Stein wishes to put it on the front, and staff feels that this would be very inconsistent with what is out there right now. Chairman Brown stated that his thoughts on it was to disguised those skylights within the architecture; if it is impossible, the applicant can bring it back. If it is some- thing that everyone can't agree on then we will have to deal with it, at that point in time. My feeling is that we would like to make available the natural light, but not interfere with the architecture. ..... Associate Planner Magee asked if we subject to the approval of the Director, and if we can not resolve back to the Commission as an appeal. Chairman Brown responded that this was his opinion. could put that in as Community Development that then it would come Mr. stein stated that he believes that it is critical for the location of the skylights to be on the front, because that is where the dining area is in the restaurant. Commissioner Kelley asked Chairman Brown how large of a canopy he wanted in the front? Chairman Brown stated the area that has flat supports would have to to be safe. that he envisioned something covering work, does not know how far the be recessed back from the curbing edge Associate Planner Magee, utilizing the rendering posted, Minutes of Planning Commission September 6, 1988 Page 14 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 88-10 AND COMMERICAL PROJECT 88-12 - FUGATE ENTERPRISES CONTINUED stated that we could within six inches come all the way out of the flat area. actually bring it all the way up to of the sidewalk area. The canopy would in front of the sidewalk and shade all Commissioner Saathoff stated that he could not visualize the __ canopy on the front, with this projection out seven feet. Mr. Stein stated that the projection was six feet. Discussion at the table ensued on the dimension of canopy. Commissioner Saathoff stated that he does not object to the skylights, thinks that architecturally any other treatment with this design would not be proper. Definitely in favor of the window treatment and the arches. I agree with the canopy over the rear, but do not agree with the canopy over the front. Commissioner Brinley stated that if the applicant is going to do some type of skylight or decorative window treatment, would like to have it kept with the same theme that the Sizzler used, and on the side of the building. Motion by Commissioner Kelley to recommend adoption of Negative Declaration No. 88-24 and approval of Conditional Use Permit 88-10 based on the Findings and subject to the 4 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report, second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved 4-0 __ Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to recommend to City Council adoption of Negative Declaration No. 88-24 and approval of Commercial Project 88-12 based on the Findings and subject to the 46 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report with the deletion of condition number 19. Motion failed for lack of second. Motion by Chairman Brown to recommend to City Council adoption of Negative Declaration No. 88-24 and approval of Commercial Project 88-12 based on the Findings and subject to the 46 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report with the following amendments: Condition No. 19: "Skylights and street elevations shall be architecturally hidden, if possi- ble, with the design subject to the approval of the Community Development Director." Condition No. 21: "The front door and windows shall include arch and border treatments consistent with the center theme as illustrated in Exhibit "L". - Second by Commissioner Saathoff. Mr. Stein stated that he has a question that relates back to the balancing the canopy on the other side of the building. Chairman Brown stated that this was not included motion so it is not there. The front canopy was not the back canopy is there as illustrated. in the added, Minutes of Planning Commission September 6, 1988 Page 15 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 88-10 AND COMMERICAL PROJECT 88-12 - FUGATE ENTERPRISES CONTINUED ..... There being no further discussion at the table, Chairman Brown called for the question. Approved 4-0 BUSINESS ITEMS 1. Commercial project 88-12 - Fugate Enterprises - Considered and acted upon with PUBLIC HEARING NUMBER 4. 2. sign Program for Commercial Project 88-5 - In-N-Out Burger - Associate Planner Magee presented for review and approval the Master Sign Program for Commercial Project 88-5 in accordance with Design Review Condition Number 12, located on the southwest corner of Grape Street and Railroad Canyon Road. Associate Planner Magee stated the Staff Report indicates that the applicant has proposed two (2) double faced directional signs, when in fact the applicant has requested three (3) signs. Staff is in agreement with this request and recommends approval of the Sign Program with three (3) double faced directional signs. Mr. WorleYmeyer, representing williams Sign Company, stated that they were in full accordance with staff recommendation, and would answer any questions. ..... There being no discussion at the table, Chairman Brown called for a motion. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to approve Sign Program for Commercial Project 88-5 based on the Findings and subject to the 3 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report, with the only change being in the project description that three (3) directional signs be included, second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved 4-0 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS Nothing to report. PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Commissioner Kellev: Nothing to report. commissioner Saathoff: ..... Nothing to report. Commissioner Brinlev: There are tires being stacked up along the side of the building closest to the inflow channel, at the Lucky Tire on Graham Avenue, and I thought that the tires were to be enclosed. There is a lot on Chaney, on the corner of Strickland, where the weeds are very high. We are getting more and more questions about the conditions that come from the Engineering Department. I honestly believe to answer these questions, and to give the applicant full Minutes of Planning Commission september 6, 1988 Page 16 PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS CONTINUED satisfaction, someone should be here, at our meetings, represent- ing the Engineering Department. Chairman Brown: Thanked the other Commissioners; it has been very obvious that they are spending more and more time looking at these projects, not that they weren't before, but they are spending a great deal of time looking at the details. Would like to thank City Council for the best study session that I have ever attended. - We spend a lot of time discussing irrigation, planting and land~caping of large projects. One thing that the County requ1res, and I think that it is a long time overdue for us, is to require all landscape areas be bonded, not only for faithful performance of the work but labor and material. Because several of the recent projects promised that they were going to do so much on the landscaping and they just let it die. I think that they should not only be required to put in the improvements, but bond for maintenance for one year. If they don't they would loose their labor/material bonds and the City would go back and re-plant them. On renderings in the future, I do not want to see any more renderings, and I know that members of the Commission do not want to see renderings, that do not represent the project in every detail. I want to see all planting at either the time of planting or no more six month maturity, instead of what it is going to look like in 35 years. Also, I want the surrounding _ areas to be un-highlighted and only the project highlighted in the rendering. The rendering must reflect the project in color and architecture, and the planting details must represent what is on the landscaping plan at planting time or six months maturity or less. There being no further business, the Lake Elsinore Planning Commission adjourned at 8:53 p.m. Motion by Commissioner Brinley, second by Commissioner Kelley. Approved 4-0 RespectfullY~Ubmitted, ~;U~ Linda Grindstaff ~ Planning Commission Secretary - MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON THE 20TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 1988 THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:01 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Community Development Director Miller. - ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Commissioners: Kelley, Brinley, Saathoff, Wilsey and Brown ABSENT: Commissioners: None Also present were Community Development Director Miller, Senior Planner Libiez, and Associate Planners Magee and Last. MINUTE ACTION Motion by Commissioner Brinley to approve minutes of September 6, 1988, as submitted, second by Commissioner Kelley. Approved 4-0 Commissioner Wilsey abstaining PUBLIC COMMENTS Chairman Brown asked the Secretary if there were any requests to address the Commission. The Secretary answered in the negative. There being no requests to address the Commission, Chairman Brown closed the PUBLIC COMMENTS section. PUBLIC HEARINGS - 1. Tentative Parcel Map 23400 - Gary & Audrey Adele Easley - Senior Planner Libiez presented proposal to divide one (1) existing parcel into three (3) lots varying in size from .5 acre to .7 acre, 1.17 acres, located on the northeast corner of Gunnerson Avenue and Turnbull Avenue. Chairman Brown opened the public hearing at 7:04 p.m. asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of Tentative Parcel Map 23400. Mr. Gary Easley, applicant, spoke in favor of the proposal. Chairman Brown asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak in favor. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown asked if anyone wished to speak on the matter. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown closed the pUblic hearing at 7:06 p.m. A brief discussion was held at the table on whether or not information on the percolation test for this site had been received. Motion by Commissioner Brinley to recommend to City Council adoption of Negative Declaration No. 88-27 and approval of Tentative Parcel Map 23400 based on the Findings and subject to the 18 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report, second by Commissioner Wilsey. Approved 5-0 IT WAS THE CONSENSUS OF THE COMMISSION TO CONSIDER PUBLIC HEARING NUMBER 2 AND BUSINESS ITEM NUMBER 1 CONCURRENTLY. 2. Conditional Use Permit 88-11 and Commercial Project 88-14 - The J Company/Joel Burnstine Associate Planner Magee presented proposal to allow a gas station, mini-mart and a full service carwash to be constructed on 1.01 acres, located on the east side of Casino Drive approximately 1,500 feet south of Railroad Canyon Road. Minutes of Planning Commission September 20, 1988 Page 2 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 88-11 AND COMMERCIAL PROJECT 88-14 - THE ~ COMPANY/JOEL BURNSTINE CONTINUED Associate Planner Magee requested that conditions 32 and 34 of Commercial Project 88-14 be amended as follows: Condition No. 32: "The applicant may use TEX-COTE rather than stucco, however, the texture will be subject to the approval of the Community Development Director. If the TEX-COTE treatment does not meet the satisfaction of the Community Development Director the applicant shall apply stucco to the building, prior to the release of utilities and Certificate of Occupancy." Condition No. 34: "The office windows on the south elevation shall be recessed twelve inches (12"), evidence of this shall be contained in building plans." Chairman Brown opened the public hearing at 7:10 p.m. asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of Conditional Use Permit 88-11. Mr. Steve Brown, representing Brookstone Development, stated that they are the master developer for Shopper's Square Phase II, and we are in favor of this proposal. Chairman Brown asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor of Conditional Use Permit 88-11. Mr. Joel Burnstine, representing The J Company, commented on the following conditions: Amended Condition No. 32, we have agreed because we are quite confident in our ability to use TEX-COTE; we are quite confident that it is a better product for our particular use, because carwashes expose the building to constant moisture and TEX-COTE holds up better. We have provided a sample of TEX-COTE to the Planning Department, and our agreement with the Planning Department is that we would apply TEX-COTE to the building to satisfy them using our sample as the standard. The Planning Department has agreed that this representative sample would be an acceptable texture. We would like to see some wording added, into the amendment of condition number 32, that relates to the sample we have provided and that that sample will be the standard that we will have to meet. Condition NO.2, relating to the re-eva1uation of the Condi- tional Use Permit for a period of every two years. We are concerned -- in a carwash the particular issue is noise attenuation. We will build to today's standards, but as today's standards change, if they change, then we would want to know that we would be held to today's standards. Condition No.3, providing a site specific noise attenuation study for both day and night operation. We are not going to develop the project so that it will operate at night, therefore, we do not want to be held to night time operation standards. Mr. Burnstine stated that he would answer any questions the Commission may have. - - - Minutes of Planning Commission September 20, 1988 Page 3 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 88-11 AND COMMERCIAL PROJECT 88-14 - THE ~ COMPANY/JOEL BURNSTINE CONTINUED ~ Chairman Brown asked if anyone else wished to of Conditional Use Permit 88-11. Receiving Chairman Brown asked if anyone wished to speak Receiving no response, Chairman Brown asked if to speak on the matter. Ms. Earline DuFault, 31750 Machado Street, stated that at one time they approached the City about putting a carwash on Lakeshore Drive. At that point in time, they said that the traffic that the carwash would constitute would be too heavy for the area, at Lakeshore Drive. My concern is how you can put it among retail commercial buildings with all of the traffic going in and out without it being a problem to the other businesses in the area. Across the street, I understand, the City turned down a gentlemen that wanted to put a carwash there, he was turned down because of the noise factor. Again, I wonder how a carwash could go in this particular area without it being a noise factor for the other businesses around it or the traffic going to and from, in and out. speak in favor no response, in opposition. anyone wished Chairman Brown asked if anyone else wished to speak on the matter. Mr. Mike Sullivan, 22285 Lemon Street, asked what kind of impact this is going to have on the sewer system, due to the volume and consumption of water that would be involved with this project. Chairman Brown asked if anyone else wished to speak on the matter. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown closed the public hearing at 7:18 p.m. commissioner Brinley commented on the water system, asking about its affect if we should have situation. reclamation a drought Mr. Burnstine stated the system they are proposing to install will recycle upwards to 85% of the water that we use. We are building for a drought situation, if we did not have a re-claim system the project would be too expensive to build. ~ Commissioner Brinley stated that her concern is the noise factor, blower for the carwash. Asked what noise abatement would be used for the other machinery? Mr. Burnstine stated that the loudest noise producer is the blower. There are sound attenuation packages that the manufacturer provides that will allow us to meet, if not exceed, the noise attenuation standards established by the City. One of the conditions for use is that we meet those standards. As far as noise attenuation for other portions of the carwash operation the building and equipment room is designed with insulation in the walls, as necessary. So you won't hear the operation of any pump from the outside of the building. Commissioner Brinley asked Mr. Burnstine about the noise impact on surrounding businesses. Mr. Burnstine responded they anticipate that the noise from the carwash will be at background level or below. We have provided a noise study that shows the decibel level at specific distances, and we are primarily concerned with one end. Minutes of Planning Commission September 20, 1988 Page 4 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 88-11 AND COMMERCIAL PROJECT 88-14 - THE ~ COMPANY/JOEL BURNSTINE CONTINUED Commissioner Brinley asked Mr. Burnstine after the TEX-COTE is done and for some reason it does not work, will the stucco go over that without any problem? Mr. Burnstine responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Brinley asked about the hours of operation. -- Mr. Burnstine responded that they would be open seven days a week, 7:00 a.m. to dark or 6:00 depending on the time of year. Commissioner Kelley commented on the traffic concern, stating that this has been properly mitigated within the plaza. The whole circulation pattern in that area is adequate at this time. Commissioner Kelley recommended that condition number 6, be added to Conditional Use Permit 88-11, which will read: "daylight hours only 7:00 a.m. to dark". Commissioner Kelley stated that he had no deleting the words "night time" from condition Conditional Use Permit 88-11. objection to number 3 of commissioner Wilsey asked if the noise study provided by the applicant is adequate. Associate Planner Magee responded in the negative. That study is an excerpt from another building that The J Company __ did, and the condition requires that they do a site specific study, which would mean build the building and then test it. Commissioner Wilsey asked if the landscaping proposed by the applicant will be enough to be a noise inhibitor for the sur- rounding location. Associate Planner Magee stated that not only will they have a five-foot (5') landscape buffer on the one side, they will have a five-foot (5') wall and another five-feet (5') of landscaping on the other side, so staff feels that this will be adequate attenuation. Chairman Brown commented on Mr. Burnstine's concern on condi- tion number 2 of Conditional Use Permit 88-11, stating that he would not be held accountable for new conditions that might come up in the next two years, just the conditions of approval of this project at the time of acceptance. Mr. Burnstine asked for clarification on the hours of operation. As the demand grows, it is possible, we may want to be open 24 hours for gasoline and market operations. Commissioner Kelley stated that he was referring to the car- wash itself being operated from 7:00 a.m. to dark. Motion by Commissioner Kelley to adopt Negative Declaration 88-28 and approve Conditional Use Permit 88-11 based on the Findings and subject to the Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report, with the following amendments: - Condition No.3: "The developer shall incorporate noise mitigation measures in the design of the carwash as Minutes of Planning Commission September 20, 1988 Page 5 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 88-11 AND COMMERCIAL PROJECT 88-14 - THE ~ COMPANY/JOEL BURNSTINE CONTINUED - recommended by a certified acoustical engineer prior to occupancy. The developer shall provide a site specific noise attenuation study for day oper- ation to demonstrate compliance with City Standards. The study shall be conducted by a certi- fied acoustical engineer." Condition No.6: "Hours of operation for the carwash shall be daylight hours only, 7:00 a.m. to dark." Second by Commissioner Saathoff. Approved 5-0 Chairman Brown asked for discussion on Commercial Project 88-14. commissioner Brinley stated her concerns are as previously stated. Mr. Burnstine stated that he was only concerned about the question regarding the TEX-COTE sample, that this become the standard. - Chairman Brown informed Mr. Burnstine that this would be addressed under this proposal. Commissioner Saathoff asked Mr. Burnstine to describe the TEX-COTE application; asked if this was to be applied over metal, as the sample provided, and if the metal was treated. Mr. Burnstine answered in the affirmative. commissioner Saathoff stated that he has a problem with the TEX-COTE, not so much with the appearance because I believe that you can accomplish that. I am concerned about this being applied on etched metal, as it does tend to peel. If this is not satisfactory to the Planning Department, and you had to apply a stucco coat over that, I am concerned with the adhering of two coats. Mr. Burnstine stated that, first of all, we won't have raw edges, all of the edges will be finished, and then gave a description on the application of TEX-COTE. - Commissioner Wilsey commented on the applicant's request to utilize the TEX-COTE sample as the standard they have to meet, and asked Community Development Director Miller for his opinion on this. Community Development Director Miller stated indicated to the applicant that a finish would be sufficient to meet our concerns. that staff had like the sample Commissioner Saathoff asked Community Development Director Miller if he thought it would be necessary to add a statement to amended condition number 32, "at the direction of the Community Development Director the TEX-COTE might have to be removed". Do you think this is a necessity or not, to apply the stucco, or are you satisfied that the stucco can be applied over the TEX-COTE. Minutes of Planning Commission september 20, 1988 Page 6 COMMERCIAL PROJECT 88-14 = THE ~ COMPANY/JOEL BURNSTINE CONTINUED Community Development Director Miller responded provided ade- quate preparation of the surface is given, yes. Commissioner Kelley asked about the approximate life span of TEX-COTE. Chairman Brown responded that they advertise 30 years. Chairman Brown asked Mr. Burnstine about the dry-off area, what type of paving will be provided, what type of material? -- Mr. Burnstine responded that they have not determined this, but will probably callout concrete. Chairman Brown stated that he would like to callout concrete. Chairman Brown asked auto rental business, example and Exhibit business. Mr. Burnstine if he intended to run an a little later, referring to photograph "J" which illustrates an auto rental Mr. Burnstine responded in the negative. Chairman Brown asked Mr. Burnstine about the enclosures for the tunnel, for night time, what are they going to be--how is the tunnel going to be secured? Mr. Burnstine responded pull down doors or roll down gates. Chairman Brown asked Associate Planner Magee if this was included with the application submission. __ Associate Planner Magee responded in the negative, stating that this had not been discussed and he was not aware of it. Chairman Brown recommended that a tunnel enclosure consis- tent with the building architecture and color be added as condition number 46. Chairman Brown inquired about the ingress/egress for gas only purchases. Mr. Burnstine stated that the common driveway, the west end driveway, is designed specifically for egress only. Chairman Brown commented on amended condition number 34, recessing the office windows twelve inches, asked Associate Planner Magee if this will be consistent with what we want to see in the architecture. Associate Planner Magee responded that staff still does not feel that it will be consistent. But in order to minimize their impact, the architect indicated that they could recess them twelve inches. Our goal was to reduce the impact and still give the applicant what he wanted. Chairman Brown commented on the landscaping plan, stating that he was not satisfied with it, feels that the landscaping looks pretty sparse. Asked if everyone was satisfied with the landscaping plan, or if there were any comments from the table. - Commissioner Brinley stated that she thinks the landscaping looks sparse, there is a lot of cement. Minutes of Planning Commission september 20, 1988 Page 7 COMMERCIAL PROJECT 88-14 = THE ~ COMPANY/JOEL BURNSTINE CONTINUED Chairman Brown stated that he would like to see the landscap- ing plan revised and brought back. - Chairman Brown stated that his concerns are: across the front of the building; the area between the gas pumps and the street, both areas face Casino Drive. What I am looking for is something in the area of what we have requested before on this type of long building; elevated planters or something of that nature along the building, rather than just ground level. Also, extensive mounding, as much as possible, in the distance provided in the areas between Casino Drive and the gas pumps. Discussion at the table ensued on location of landscaping for the project, utilizing the renderings posted. Chairman Brown asked for the location of the disposal equi- ment for the re-claim system. Mr. Burnstine responded that the staggered pit located in the front ground. disposal of the equipment is a building under- Chairman Brown recommended the addition of the following conditions: - Condition No. 45: "Concrete paving shall be pro- vided for the dry-off area." Condition No. 46: "Impervious enclosures consis- tent with the color, architec- ture and style of the building, for both ends of the tunnel, shall be provided." Mr. Burnstine asked that this condition be defined. Chairman Brown responded roll type doors, nothing that you can put your hand through. Chairman Brown asked for and received the consensus of the Commission in regards to the addition of condition number 47, which reads as follows: Condition No. 47: - "The landscaping area between the gas pumps and Casino Drive shall have multi elevation, and the planters along the front, which would be the south elevation, be elevated to a height of two-feet (2'). Commissioner Kelley suggested that Chairman Brown put his recommended additions in the form of a motion. Chairman Brown stated that he will make that in the form of a motion; recommend to City Council adoption of Negative Declaration 88-28 and approval of Commercial Project 88-14 based on the Findings and sUbject to the 50 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report with the amendment to condition number 32 and 34, as stated in the memorandum, and with the addition of conditions 45, 46 and 47 as stated above. Commissioner Brinley asked for clarification on condition 46, type of enclosure to be provided. Minutes of Planning Commission september 20, 1988 Page 8 COMMERCIAL PROJECT 88-14 - THE ~ COMPANY/JOEL BURNSTINE CONTINUED Chairman Brown stated that he did not hear any major objec- tions, at the table, to the type proposed by the applicant. Commissioner Kelley asked if staff had a recommendation on the type of enclosure. Commissioner Saathoff stated that as the Chairman suggested __ it is only going to be down at night, after dark, it is not going to be seen. Commissioner Wilsey stated that what he had in mind was roll down doors, like you see in industrial units. Commissioner Brinley and Chairman Brown stated this is what they would like to see, and the color be consistent with the building. Mr. Burnstine stated that his problem with this is it is at night, it is not something that we are going to see. Chairman Brown stated that he would amend his motion to the consensus of the table, see through or non see through doors. Commissioners Kelley, Brinley, and Wilsey stated non see through doors. Second by Commissioner Wilsey. Approved 5-0 At this time, 8:00 p.m., the Commission recessed. At this time, 8:10 p.m., the Commission reconvened. -- 3. Amendment 88-8 City of Lake Elsinore - Community Development Director Miller presented proposal to amend Section 17.82.100 of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code regarding Minor Design Review to designate the Planning Commission rather than the Community Development Director as the reviewing authority for additions to commercial and industrial structures, new single-family detached dwellings and duplexes, which would apply city-wide. Chairman Brown opened the public hearing at 8:15 p.m. asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of Amendment 88-8. Receiv- ing no response, Chairman Brown asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown asked if anyone wished to speak on the matter. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown closed the public hearing at 8:15 p.m. There being no discussion at the table, Chairman Brown called for a motion. Motion by Commissioner Brinley to recommend to adoption of Negative Declaration No. 88-33 and Amendment 88-8, as specified in Exhibit "A", Findings listed in the Staff Report, second by Kelley. Approved 5-0 City Council approval of based on the Commissioner -- BUSINESS ITEMS 1. Commercial Project 88-14 The J Company/Joel Burnstine _ Considered and acted upon with PUBLIC HEARING NUMBER 2. Minutes of Planning Commission September 20, 1988 Page 9 2. Industrial Project 88-2 - Brookstone Development - Associate Planner Magee presented proposal to construct a 11,860 square foot building, 0.69 acres, located on the south side of Birch Street approximately 770 feet west of Minthorn Street. Commissioner Wilsey commented on the landscaping and asked if -- it was up to what we wanted to see. Chairman Brown stated that he believes that it is representa- tive of the site plan and that we also have a landscaping plan. Associate Planner Magee stated that the colored site plan is fairly representative of the landscaping plan. The only difference would be the deletion of one parking space in the front and that would add extra area for landscaping. The applicant has continued the street tree pattern of using Magnolia trees, that is going to be consistent along Third and Birch. commissioner Brinley asked if staff's concerns on the height of the building have been resolved. Associate Planner Magee responded in the affirmative. commissioner Brinley asked if staff's concerns on the loading area and trash enclosure have been resolved. Associate Planner Magee stated that the loading area was not discussed. ~ Mr. Brown, representing Brookstone Development, stated that he and Associate Planner Magee did discuss the elevations of the building, but not sure what we agreed on. Associate Planner Magee stated that the pad elevation of the existing building and this proposed building are to be the same, as indicated in both the approved grading plan and the grading plan for this project. However, the already constructed project is at a height of 19' 6", whereas, this project was proposed at 20'0". It was our"agreement that we would reduce it enough so that it would be even. Commissioner Brinley stated that she has a real concern about the uses that go in there and what you, the applicant, would like to see go in there. Asked Mr. Brown about the uses that are being proposed for this building, are we talking light manufacturing, something that will have a tax base for us here in the City. Mr. Brown responded that they have a tenant, but most likely There is a possibility that it anything that is allowed in the desire to help build up the tax are not sure, as they do not warehousing of some sort. could be light manufacturing, M-1 Zone. It would be our base. Motion by Commissioner Brinley to recommend to City Council adoption of Negative Declaration No. 88-29 and approval of Industrial Project 88-2 based on the Findings and subject to the 34 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report, second by Commissioner Kelley. Approved 5-0 3. Street Abandonment 88-3 - Cleveland Investment Company, Inc. - Chairman Brown stated that we have a memorandum from the Engineering Department requesting that this item be continued, due to additional information coming from Riverside County involving projects they are approving along Dexter Avenue. Minutes of Planning Commission September 20, 1988 Page 10 STREET ABANDONMENT 88-3 - CLEVELAND INVESTMENT COMPANY. INC. CONTINUED A brief discussion was held at the table on whether or not this project should be continued to a specific date. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to continue Street ment 88-3 to the meeting of October 4, 1988, second missioner Wilsey. Approved 5-0 Abandon- by Com- .... INFORMATIONAL 1. Fire Hazard Reduction - Associate Planner Last gave a brief introduction and presented a slide show on Fire Resistant Environments. Discussion was held on roof vents; development of foothills around the City; fire resistant vegetation; areas abutting National Forests and whether or not there is anything that can be done to abate the old growth within a certain distance of development; fire resistant fencing; addressing fire issues, as contained in the memorandum dated March 30, 1988, in the General Plan. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS Community Development Director Miller reminded the Planning Commission that this Saturday, September 24, at 9:00 a.m., we have a Joint Study Session with City Council to discuss the Cottonwood Hills Specific Plan. This week we will be circulating __ some additional information regarding the Specific Plan. You will also be receiving copies of the Fiscal Impact Report and Annexation Report. Cottonwood Hills, Specific Plan, is a major project--2,000 acres, 4,000 homes. The documents on that will be going to pUblic hearing in the next couple of months. Alberhill Ranch, we have circulated to you the Notice of Prepara- tion of an Environmental Impact Report. Again, a project of similar scope, approximately 1,800 acres about 3,600 homes proposed. We will probably be in the same situation, as we are now, receiving documents and going to hearings next Spring and Summer. If you have any questions or concerns, please transmit them to staff. PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Commissioner Wilsey: Multi Purpose Trails--I attended a public meeting, about ten days ago, put on by Premier Homes. During the course of that meeting it was mentioned, by the individual representing them, that they were aware of the multi purpose trail system that would go through their area, but they did not have much criteria from the City, with regards to what we really expected of them. I would like to suggest that staff contact the City of Yorba Linda and get some of their specific criteria. I would also hope that our City Council, in the very near future, would consider establish- ing another trail committee, and get it going in some of the other areas. We need to have a committee going so that we can tie all of this in, address future needs: bicycle trails, hiking trails and that sort of trail system throughout the community. .... Minutes of Planning Commission September 20, 1988 Page 11 PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS CONTINUED ..... commissioner Kelley: Asked if the Multi Purpose Trail was not part of the General Plan and if it could be adopted into the General Plan. Community Development Director Miller answered in the affirmative, and stated that we currently have a Bicycle Trail System as part of the General Plan. It is our intent to address Multi Purpose Trails as part of the General Plan revision that we would be presenting to the General Plan Advisory Committee. commissioner Brinlev: The shopping center on Dexter and Central, concerning Mobil oil. I believe that we gave them until October 1 to either have something or start hydroseeding. What is the status? Associate Planner Magee responded that the Commission allowed Brookstone Development a three month extension on their agreement to hydroseed the vacant pad in front of the Dexter street center, which would be reserved for Mobil oil. Mobil oil has submitted for building plan check, they are back for corrections and staff is waiting for those plans to be re-submitted. The way the condition read, the project was to have commenced construction or the planting material was to be in by October 1. Commissioner Brinley stated we gave them the three month extension that they wanted, we were more than flexible. If they do not have it, I would like to see hydroseeding take place October 1, at 8:00 a.m. Asked if staff had heard from Mobil oil. ..... Associate Planner Magee responded that he has heard oil and they have every intention of expediting the it would satisfy the Commission's concerns, perhaps, send a reminder letter to Brookstone Development. from Mobil process. If staff could Commissioner Brinley asked how the table felt about this. It was the consensus of the Commission that staff send a reminder letter to Brookstone Development. On the corner of Townsend and Sumner, there is construction of a new home, what I really want to know is why the homes surrounding it, such as on Townsend, have curb and gutter and the homes on Matich, 218 and 220 Matich, have no curb, gutters or sidewalks, and they have been there for over three years. Community Development Director Miller stated that without looking at the specific projects he could not answer this directly. But the city did go through a period of time which it was not requiring installation of street improvements. This issue was addressed, about three years ago, discontinuing the practice of allowing homes to go in without street improvements, except in situations where it was deemed impractical by the City Engineer and Community Development Director. Commissioner Brinley stated that she would like to have this looked into. commissioner Saathoff: In reference to landscaping, this has been brought of the past meetings, asked staff if they wanted criteria. Do you want something more specific than the Landscape Guidelines? up at several more direct what is in Minutes of Planning Commission September 20, 1988 Page 12 PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS CONTINUED Community Development Director Miller stated that staff is aware of Planning Commission and City Council concerns regarding landscaping. The Landscape Guidelines generally do not address themselves to some of these issues, but provides more specifics towards installation and general guidelines toward landscape design. Chairman Brown: ..... If we were to enact something that I discussed last week, we could eliminate all of this discussion, bond for those improvements. We could go back to those developments in six months or a year and if their ground level vegetation is gone take their bond money and re-plant it for them. I think that this would be an incentive for them to maintain the landscaping. If they post a faithful performance, material and labor bond at the time landscaping is installed they get their faithful performance bond released, but the material and labor bond stays in force for one year. Commissioner Wilsey asked if this was something that could be discussed at a Joint Study Session. Commissioner Saathoff stated that we could make a recommendation. Chairman Brown suggested that a recommendation be made directly to City Council. Commissioner Saathoff stated that we can request that this be shown as a condition, and when it goes to City Council they can accept or reject it. Commissioner Kelley and Commissioner Wilsey stated that they were in favor of adding it as a condition. ...- Discussion at the table ensued on bonding for landscape improve- ments; maintenance of landscaping and whether it was covered elsewhere in the code, and code enforcement problems. There being no further business, the Lake Elsinore Planning Commission adjourned at 9:13 p.m. Motion by Commissioner Brinley, second by Commissioner Kelley. Approved 5-0 ~ APprove~,~ Jeff B~: ~ Chairman ..... Respectfully ~nd:taff Planning Commission Secretary MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON THE 4TH DAY OF OCTOBER 1988 THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:00 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Commissioner wilsey. ROLL CALL: -- PRESENT: Commissioners: Kelley, Brinley, Saathoff, Wilsey and Brown ABSENT: commissioners: None Also present were Senior Planner Libiez and Associate Planner Magee. MINUTE ACTION Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to approve minutes of September 20, 1988, as submitted, second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved 5-0 PUBLIC COMMENTS Chairman Brown asked the Secretary if there were any requests to address the Commission. The Secretary answered in the negative. There being no requests to address the Commission, Chairman Brown closed the PUBLIC COMMENTS section. PUBLIC HEARINGS NONE BUSINESS ITEMS 1. Street Abandonment 88-3 Cleveland Investment Company - Senior Planner Libiez presented request for abandonment of excess right-of-way on Dexter Place and Allen Street. Determination that abandonment would conform to the General Plan. Dexter Place - an 80 foot wide by 600 foot long street, abutting Cal Trans I-15 right-of-way, lying between Central Avenue and Crane Street northerly of I-15. Mr. Neil Cleveland, Cleveland Investment Company, stated that he concurs with staff, and just wanted to make one clarifi- cation that the five (5) conditions would be a part of the processing of the parcel map. Chairman Brown asked if Senior Planner Libiez would like to respond. Senior Planner Libiez stated that Mr. Cleveland's understand- ing is correct, that is the intent of the way the conditions have been levied and agreed to by the City Engineer. A brief discussion was held at the table on the area in question, part of it being concrete at the present time. - Motion by Commissioner Brinley to recommend to City Council approval of Abandonment 88-3, based on the Findings and subject to the 5 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report, second by Commissioner Kelley. Approved 5-0 2. Monument Sign Black Sea Cafe (Zizi Carasimu) - Senior Planner Libiez presented a request to construct an internally illuminated monument sign t~ serve an existing restaurant. 24 plus/minus foot located 1n planter between Lakeshore access drive and Fraser Street at the northwesterly corner of the intersection of Fraser Drive and Lakeshore Drive. Minutes of Planning Commission October 4, 1988 Page 2 MONUMENT SIGN = BLACK SEA CAFE (ZIZI CARASIMU) CONTINUED Mr. Zizi Carasimu stated that his concern is with the changeable letters and the name of the restaurant on the monumental sign, condition number 2. Commissioner Wilsey stated that he does not agree with the change of letters, feels it is not appropriate in that type of signage. - Commissioner Wilsey stated that there are a couple of signs on the building, one fronting Lakeshore and one fronting Fraser, and they all say the same thing. I do not know how it would pertain to him, this is a suggestion, but would it be possible to allow him the opportunity to change some of the wording on those other signs? Commissioner Saathoff stated that he has to agree with the Sign Ordinance. It would be my suggestion, perhaps, to change the word "cafe" to "restaurant" on the two existing signs. Commissioner Saathoff stated that you also have opportunity, under the temporary sign portion of the Ordinance, to advertise by inside window banners. the Sign Mr. Carasimu stated that he does not have windows which would allow banners to be placed inside for promotional purposes, and you have to have a permit for banner signs and they can only be up for a certain length of time. Senior Planner Libiez stated that as long as he does not exceed the maximum permitted square footage of signs on the __ building it way be possible that we could work out some place on the building area, or adjacent to an entrance, where he could have a directory type sign. Commissioner Kelley stated one suggestion is to have the name of the restaurant and then maybe where the changeable letters go have permanent letters that say restaurant. Commissioner Brinley stated that she agrees with staff. It would not bother me if he wanted to put restaurant up on top, big letters, and Black Sea Cafe down below, but I do not like the interchangeable letters and I do not particularly care for the cocktails/dancing. Chairman Brown stated that he disagrees with the other Com- missioners about the cocktails/dancing, and the reason being other firms in town are allowed to list what they serve. I do not see any problem with having cocktails/dancing on the side, it is part of the service he offers as well as the restaurant. Chairman Brown asked staff if the applicant would have the ability to change the existing signs without much difficulty, or is this going to create additional problems? Senior Planner Libiez responded that as long as the signs did not fall into a non-conforming category, in terms of response to square footage, he has the right to change the face on signs. - Chairman Brown asked for and received consensus from the Com- mission with regard to applicant using the word "restaurant", in large letters, the name of the establishment where the changeable letter examples would be, and also addressing the issue with cocktails/dining/dancing as long as it meets the code. Minutes of Planning Commission October 4, 1988 Page 3 MONUMENT SIGN = BLACK SEA CAFE (ZIZI CARAS IMU l CONTINUED - commissioner Saathoff suggested that verbiage be added to condition number 2. Motion by Chairman Brown to approve monument sign for the Black Sea Cafe subject to the Findings and the 6 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report with the following amendment: Condition No.2: "Final sign plan submitted for build- ing permit shall contain the name of the business establishment, may also include the words dining/dancing and cocktails, changeable letters are not to be permitted; copy placed on sign faces shall be balanced." Second by Commissioner Saathoff. Approved 5-0 3. Landscaping Requirements for Future Mobil Oil site (Com- mercial Project 87-5) - Brookstone Development Associate Planner Magee presented a request for an extension of implementation of condition number 18 for Commercial Project 87-5. - Commissioner Brinley asked if Mobil oil was in this past week and submitted plans. Associate Planner Magee responded in the negative. commissioner Brinley stated that she would like to see added as a condition "this will be the last waiver or extension". commissioner Kelley stated that he was in favor of staff recommendation. commissioner Saathoff stated they have shown that they are doing everything possible to conform to the earlier request of October 1st, and I think that it is a very legitimate request. Commissioner Wilsey stated that he concurs with Commissioner Saathoff. Chairman Brown asked when they received utility release. Associate Planner Magee asked if Chairman Brown was referring to Central Plaza. Chairman Brown responded in the affirmative. - Associate Planner Magee responded the second or third week in July, perhaps Mr. Brown would know the exact date. Mr. Brown stated that it was August 15th. Chairman Brown asked if it were true that those items were to be completed prior to release of utilities. Associate Planner Magee responded in the affirmative, that is what brought this matter to the table July 5th. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to approve extension of implementation of condition number 18 for Commercial Project 87-5, subject to the singular Condition of Approval listed in the Staff Report, second by Commissioner Kelley. Approved 4-1 Chairman Brown opposed Minutes of Planning Commission October 4, 1988 Page 4 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS Nothing to report. PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Commissioner Wilsey: Nothing to report. Commissioner Saathoff: - Nothing to report. Commissioner Kelley: Nothing to report Commissioner Brinlev: Asked if staff has received an update/status report from Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District as far as the problem on Chaney Street. Senior Planner Libiez responded that we have passed on the complaint and Engineering is working with them as well. Chairman Brown: Big "0" Tires--Iandscaping is all dead, and I believe with the Conditional Use Permit we did not want to see tires stacked outside for advertising purposes, they are allover the place. _ Also, there is about a two-foot wide and fifteen-foot long, nature created, V-ditch in the parking lot. I would appreciate it if someone would look at those items. There being no further business, the Lake mission adjourned at 7:35 p.m. Motion by second by Commissioner Wilsey. Approved 5-0 Elsinore Planning Com- Commissioner Brinley, APpr~;;;'M~ Jeff d[() Chairman Respectfully ~~ Linda Grindstaff Planning Commission Secretary - MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON THE 18TH DAY OF OCTOBER 1988 THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:00 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Commissioner Kelley. ROLL CALL: -- PRESENT: Commissioners: Kelley, Wilsey and Brown ABSENT: Commissioners: Brinley and Saathoff Also present were community Development Director Miller, Senior Planner Libiez, Associate Planners Last and Magee. MINUTE ACTION Motion by Commissioner Kelley to approve minutes of October 4, 1988, as submitted, second by Commissioner Wilsey. Approved 3-0 PUBLIC COMMENTS Chairman Brown asked the Secretary if there were any requests to address the Commission. The Secretary answered in the negative. There being no requests to address the Commission, Chairman Brown closed the PUBLIC COMMENTS section. PUBLIC HEARINGS NONE BUSINESS ITEMS - 1. Commercial Project 88-15 - George Tha1as - Associate Planner Last presented a proposal to construct a two-story 2,500 square foot commercial office structure on .19 acres located on the northwest corner of Lakeshore Drive and Illinois Street. Chairman Brown asked if anyone would like' to speak on Com- mercial Project 88-15. Mr. Adrian Cardoza and Mr. George Tha1as spoke in favor of the project. commissioner Wilsey asked staff to define p1ant-ons. - Associate Planner Last gave a brief definition of p1ant-ons. Commissioner Kelley stated that he was in complete agreement with staff; thinks that the west elevation needs quite a bit of improvement and also landscaping improvements. Believes that the project will be an asset to this area. Chairman Brown suggested that the following be added as condition number 22.j: All landscaping to be bonded 120%, Faithful Performance Bond, and released at completion of installation of landscape requirement approval/acceptance, and bond 100% for material and labor for one year. Motion by Commissioner Kelley to recommend to City Council adoption of Negative Declaration No. 88-32 and approval of Commercial Project 88-15 based on the Findings and subject to the 53 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report and the addition of condition number 22.j., which will read as follows: Condition No. 22.j: "All landscaping to be bonded 120%, Faithful Performance Bond, and Minutes of Planning Commission October 18, 1988 Page 2 COMMERCIAL PROJECT 88-15 - GEORGE THALAS CONTINUED released at completion of of landscape requirement ceptance, and bond 100% and labor for one year. installation approval/ac- for material Second by Commissioner Wilsey. Approved 3-0 - 2. Industrial Project 88-3 - Brookstone Development - Associate Planner Magee presented a proposal to construct a 17,320 square foot industrial building, 1.01, acres located on the south side of Third Street approximately 350 feet west of Minthorn Street. Chairman Brown asked if anyone would like to speak on Industrial Project 88-3. Mr. Steve Brown, representing Brookstone Development, stated that they were in complete agreement with all of the condi- tions of approval with the exception of condition number 20. The architect has designed this project to incorporate the columns, cylinder columns, instead of square as staff would like to see. We do have the square treatment at the top and we think the project looks very nice that way. We designed it that way specifically to get away from the total column element that we have on the Birch Street Industrial Complex. We think by adding a variety of types of columns out there versus just columns or squares that it adds to the overall area. Therefore, we would request that we maintain this element of the design. __ Associate Planner Magee, utilizing the rendering posted, stated that the applicant has created a strong entry statement with a lot of right angle lines, and bringing those lines down you come into column rounded treatments that do not appear anywhere else in the design. Exhibit "0", in- cluded in your packet, is a flat reduction of an elevation which seems to indicate to the eye that both the caps and columns are square at right angles and they appear to replicate the overall style of the building. Staff's feeling was in order to keep with the architectural style the building by it's height and mass project at right angles and that should be followed up in the columns elements as well. Commissioner Wilsey stated that he has no problem with the columns as depicted, and asked about the architecture of buildings in the surrounding area. Mr. Steve Brown stated that the project next door, the Birch Street Industrial Complex, has round columns. The Chaney Street Project has square columns. The other project that we have proposed, which the Planning Commission approved, on Birch Street has square columns. Commissioner Wilsey suggested that condition number 20 be -- deleted. Commissioner Kelley stated that he was in complete agreement with Mr. Brown. Likes the way that would break it up; thinks that it still conforms with the buildings in the industrial area. Chairman Brown stated that he had no problem with the pro- posal as submitted. Minutes of Planning Commission October 18, 1988 Page 3 INDUSTRIAL PROJECT 88-3 = BROOKS TONE DEVELOPMENT CONTINUED - Motion by Commissioner Wilsey to recommend to City Council adoption of Negative Declaration 88-34 and approval of Industrial Project 88-3 based on the Findings and subject to the 31 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report with the deletion of condition number 20, second by Commissioner Kelley. Approved 3-0 3 . sign Program for Commercial Project 87-13 - ration - Associate Planner Last presented the Program for the K Mart shopping center, located east corner of Mission Trail and Malaga Road. K Mart Corpo- Master Sign at the north- Chairman Brown asked the Sign Program. if anyone would like to speak on Mr. Leonard O'Byrne, representing K Mart Camelot Properties, stated that he was in staff. Corporation and agreement with Commissioner Wilsey commented on the asked if on previous projects we did twelve inch high letters. height of letters and not address this at Associate Planner Last responded that this was for lower case letters. All upper case letters would have been eighteen inch. - commissioner Kelley stated that he was in complete agreement with staff recommendation, and believes that the monument and pylon signage for Phase II should be reviewed with the Design Review proposal for Phase II. Chairman Brown recommended that the words "transitional land- scaping" be added to condition number 2.b. Motion by Commissioner Kelley to approve the Sign Commercial Project 87-13, subject to the Findings Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff amending condition number 2.b., as follows: Condition No. 2.b.: "Transitional landscaping, shrubs at the base of the sign" Program for and the 4 Report and Second by Commissioner Wilsey. Approved 3-0 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS "..- Community Development Director Miller commented on the opening of the K Mart shopping center, which we anticipate will be open in time for Christmas shopping at Thanksgiving. PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS commissioner Wilsey: Nothing to report. Commissioner Kelley: Nothing to report. Minutes of Planning Commission October 18, 1988 Page 4 PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS CONTINUED Chairman Brown: Asked for an update on the General Plan Circulation Element, starting with Avenue 6. - There being no further business, the Commission adjourned at 7:26 p.m. Motion second by Commissioner Kelley. Approved 3-0 Lake Elsinore Planning by Commissioner Wilsey, Jef Cha ;c:fU1A:;}d' Linda Grindstaff Planning Commission Secretary - - MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON THE 1ST DAY OF NOVEMBER 1988 THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:00 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Commissioner Brinley. ROLL CALL: -- PRESENT: Commissioners: Kelley, Brinley, Saathoff, Wilsey and Brown ABSENT: Commissioners: None Also present were Community Development Director Miller and Associate Planner Magee. MINUTE ACTION Motion by Commissioner Wilsey to approve minutes of October 18, 1988, as submitted, second by Commissioner Kelley. Approved 3-0 Commissioners Brinley and Saathoff abstaining PUBLIC COMMENTS Chairman Brown asked the Secretary if there were any requests to address the Commission. The Secretary answered in the negative. There being no requests to address the Commission, Chairman Brown closed the PUBLIC COMMENTS section. PUBLIC HEARINGS IT WAS THE CONSENSUS OF THE COMMISSION TO CONSIDER PUBLIC HEARING 1 AND 2 CONCURRENTLY. - 1. Variance 88-5 Champion Development - Associate Planner Magee presented a request to vary from a required landscape setback to allow parking within five-feet of the property line. 0.70 acres located on the southwest corner of Railroad Canyon Road and Grape Street. 2. Variance 88-6 Champion Development - Associate Planner Magee presented a request to vary from a required side yard setback to allow an office building 5 feet 6 inches from the property line. 0.70 acres located on the southwest corner of Railroad Canyon Road and Grape Street. -- Chairman Brown opened the public hearing at 7:05 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of Variance 88-5. Mr. Greg Sponseller, representing Champion Development, stated that he has gone over the conditions with staff and agrees to them. Chairman Brown asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak in favor of Variance 88-5. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown asked if anyone wished to speak on the matter. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown closed the public hearing at 7:07 p.m. Chairman Brown asked for discussion at the table. Commissioners Saathoff, Wilsey, and Brinley stated that they had no problem with the requested variance. commissioner Kelley stated that with the twenty-foot (20') Cal Trans easement believes it will be an enhancement and in complete agreement with it. Motion by commissioner Wilsey to grant Variances 88-5 and 88-6 subject to the Findings and Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report. Minutes of Planning Commission November I, 1988 Page 2 VARIANCE 88-5 AND VARIANCE 88-6- CHAMPION DEVELOPMENT CONTINUED Chairman Brown stated that we would have to have a separate public hearing on Variance 88-6 and wait until the end of the pUblic hearing for a motion. Commissioner Wilsey amended his motion to approve Variance 88-5 only, subject to the Findings and the 4 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report, second by Commissioner __ Brinley. Approved 5-0 Chairman Brown opened the pUblic hearing at 7:08 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of Variance 88-6. Mr. Greg Sponseller, representing Champion Development, stated that he has gone over the conditions with staff and agrees to them. Chairman Brown asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak in favor of Variance 88-6. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown asked if anyone wished to speak on the matter. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown closed the public hearing at 7:09 p.m. Chairman Brown asked for discussion at the table. There being no discussion at the table, Chairman Brown called for a motion. Motion by Commissioner Wilsey to approve Variance 88-6, subject to the Findings and the 5 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report, second by Commissioner Kelley. Approved 5-0 .... BUSINESS ITEM 1. Commercial Project 88-13 - Champion Development - Associate Planner Magee presented a request to construct an 11,973 square foot commercial office building. 0.70 acres located on the southwest corner of Railroad Canyon Road and Grape Street. Associate Planner Magee requested that condition number 14 be amended to read as follows: Condition No. 14: "Brick pavers or textured pavement treatment shall be laid in bank design across the driveway approaches within a ten-foot (10') area adjacent to the property line." Mr. Greg Sponseller, representing Champion Development, com- mented on condition number 6, pertaining to the landscape plan, stating that he was aware that there was some deficiencies in that design, was not happy with it, and it probably should have not been submitted. I wanted to go with a stronger Mediterranean Palm Tree type theme and a heavier use of mounding. Mr. Sponseller commented on condition number 20, pertaining to site parking, stating they have discussed different ways of moving some of the uses around and referred to the exhibit staff prepared stating that he sees no problem with that. I can change the site plan to fit that design. -- Minutes of Planning Commission November 1, 1988 Page 3 COMMERCIAL PROJECT 88-13 = CHAMPION DEVELOPMENT CONTINUED ~ Mr. Sponseller commented on condition number 21, pertaining to the building elevations being revised to continue the tile roof around all four corners of the building and continue the lateral stucco elements. There are a lot of elements that accent that Mission theme and I believe the building while it maintains the integrity of that theme it has a progressive look to it and I think that is important. I would urge the Commission to approve this specific design, as submitted. Chairman Brown asked for discussion at the table. Commissioner Wilsey requested staff to respond to Mr. Spon- seller's comment on condition number 21. ~ Associate Planner Magee stated that staff has had a very positive relationship with Mr. Sponseller. I believe that this project started back in January, of this year, and has gone through many changes. Mr. Sponseller adopted the City's theme for that area, which is Spanish. We came to a point where we no longer agreed and staff made the recommendation that you see in front of you. Our main goal was to limit the vertical elements, and we felt that the decision needed to be made at the Planning Commission/City Council level. Commissioner Kelley stated that he was in complete agreement with staff having the ability/right to make changes in a proposed design. However, in this case, agrees with Mr. Sponseller that the glass visually anchors the building into the landscaping, and thinks it does a good job of visually distracting from the subterranean parking. Commissioner Brinley, referring to the rendering, asked if the glass was going to provide a skylight effect, can you see through the glass? Mr. Sponseller responded in the negative, and stated that you have that reflective bronze look to it, which would be the same glass as running horizontal through the building units. Commissioner Brinley asked for the number of parking spaces that will be provided for the subterranean parking area. Associate Planner Magee responded that 17 spaces have been provided. Commissioner Brinley asked if the subterranean parking area would have lighting. Mr. Sponseller responded that it would be well lit and ventilated. Commissioner Brinley asked if the building would be secured ~ in the evening. Mr. Sponseller stated that he has discussed this with staff. My thought was that the underground parking, at that limited space, offers a controlled environment for people to park their vehicles, like the tenants, and patrons would park on the upper parking lot. This could be closed off with an iron fence in a way that would be attractive. Discussion at the table ensued on fencing of the subterranean parking area and this being left to the discretion of the applicant. Minutes of Planning commission November 1, 1988 Page 4 COMMERCIAL PROJECT 88-13 = CHAMPION DEVELOPMENT CONTINUED commissioner Saathoff stated that he would like to amend condition number 6, and have the landscaping plan come back before the Planning commission. Commissioner Saathoff stated that he would go along with the applicant on the architecture of the building, as far as the rendering and plans are concerned. __ Chairman Brown commented on the mix clay tile roof, referring to the perspective, and asked Mr. Sponseller if that is going to be what we have on the color board. Mr. Sponseller responded that the mix is probably not as dominant as the rendering shows. Chairman Brown stated that he would like to see that mix as opposed to a mono-colored roof. Chairman Brown commented on the parapet projections, asking Mr. Sponseller if they were going to be per the perspective or per the elevations, as we have conflicting drawings. Mr. Sponseller, referred to the rendering posted, stating that is a projection behind--it is the only way it will show on a flat perspective. Chairman Brown stated that he would like to amend condition number 6 to include the landscape bondage language. Chairman Brown commented briefly on the applicant's rendering and the Commission's request that renderings and drawings __ reflect six month growth or at time of planting. Mr. Sponseller responded that he plans to bring in some mature Palm Trees, referring to the Palm Trees shown on the rendering. Chairman Brown stated that this is fine, whatever you are going to bring in at the time of planting or six month maturity show that on the revised landscape plan. Commissioner Wilsey suggested that the landscape bondage language be added as condition number 24.a, and work on this language so that we can have it as a standard condition. Discussion at the table ensued on the landscape bondage language and where it should be added in the Conditions of Approval, and roofing materials--monotone or mixed colored. commissioner Saathoff stated that with the the bronze glass and the architecture that he would prefer to see a roof that is not a mixed color. Motion by Chairman Brown to recommend that City Council re- affirm Negative Declaration 88-26 and approve Commercial Project 88-13, based on the Findings and the 42 Conditions of -- Approval listed in the Staff Report with the following amendments: Condition No.6: "A revised Landscape Plan shall be submitted to the Planning Commission. All renderings shall conform to the plans reflecting growth at the time of planting or six month maturity only, and all landscape improvements to be Minutes of Planning Commission November I, 1988 Page 5 COMMERCIAL PROJECT 88-13 - CHAMPION DEVELOPMENT CONTINUED - bonded 120%, Faithful Performance Bond, and released at completion of installation of landscape requirement approval/acceptance, and bond 100% for material and labor for one year." Condition No. 21: "Brick pavers or textured pavement treatment shall be laid in bank design across the driveway approaches within a ten-foot (10') area adjacent to the property line." "The proposed building elevations shall be revised to continue the tile roof around all four corners of the building and continue lateral stucco elements, as illustrated in Exhibit "0". DELETED. Condition No. 14: Second by Commissioner Saathoff. Approved 5-0 At this time, 7:36 p.m., the Planning Commissions recessed. At this time, 7:42 p.m., the Planning Commission reconvened. INFORMATIONAL - Homestead Land Development Corporation gave a brief presentation of Tuscany Hills covering design/architectural theme; design guidelines; landscape concept; recreation center; advertising; signage, and marketing study. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS Community Development Director Miller stated that Homestead Land Development Corporation will be making the same presentation to City Council in the near future. PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS commissioner Wilsey: Asked about the landscaping verbiage which is to be added as a standard condition. Community Development Director Miller stated that this will be added as a standard condition to all future projects. - There is a duplex project on Lincoln street near RObin, under construction earlier this year, did they have anything such as this bonding mechanism in place? Community Development Director Miller responded in the negative. commissioner Saathoff: Nothing to report. Commissioner Kelley: Nothing to report. Minutes of Planning Commission November 1, 1988 Page 6 PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS CONTINUED Commissioner Brinlev: Attended the League of California cities Conference, October 15 through October 19, it was a great experience and something that I would recommend for all of you next year. Chairman Brown: - The project at Dexter and Highway 74 has now become the local park-and-ride. There is an average of 14 to 20 cars a day on that dirt parking lot. There being no further business, the Commission adjourned at 8:33 p.m. Motion second by Commissioner Kelley. Approved 5-0 Lake Elsinore Planning by Commissioner Wilsey, Jef Cha - ;z:tfUA:itted. Linda Grindstaff~ Planning Commission Secretary - MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON THE 15TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 1988 THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:00 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Associate Planner Magee ROLL CALL: ~ PRESENT: Commissioners: Kelley, Brinley, Saathoff, wilsey and Brown ABSENT: commissioners: None Also present were Community Development Director Miller and Associate Planner Magee. MINUTE ACTION Motion by Commissioner Brinley to approve minutes of November 1, 1988, as submitted, second by Commissioner Kelley Approved 5-0 PUBLIC COMMENTS Chairman Brown asked the Secretary if there were any requests to address the Commission. The Secretary answered in the negative. There being no requests to address the Commission, Chairman Brown closed the PUBLIC COMMENTS section. PUBLIC HEARINGS ~ 1. Tentative Parcel Map 23910 - Homestead Land Development Corp. Chairman Brown asked to be excused due to possible conflict of interest and turned the gavel over to Vice Chairman Saathoff. Community Development Director Miller presented a proposal to divide eleven (11) existing lots into fifteen (15) parcels varying in size from 40 acres to 133 acres. 972.22 acres, approximately one-half mile north of Railroad Canyon Road and south of Greenwald Avenue. Community Development Director Miller requested that condi- tion number 11 and 12 be added, which will read as follows: Condition No. 11: "Development of any parcel of Parcel Map 23910 shall agree to join an assessment district to improve Railroad Canyon Road from I-15 to the City Limits or partici- pate in a pro-rata share for the cost of the ultimate improvements of the road." Condition No. 12: "Developer shall cooperate with the Riverside County Parks Department to secure a trails system as outlined by the Riverside County Parks Department Master Plan of Trails or a mutually acceptable alternative." - Community Development Director Miller stated that a memorandum from The Planning Associates (firm assisting the City with this project) has suggested three conditions of approval in lieu of the conditions of approval listed in the report. Vice Chairman Saathoff opened the pUblic hearing at 7:11 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of Tentative Parcel Map 23910. Minutes of Planning Commission November 15, 1988 Page 2 TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 23910 - HOMESTEAD LAND DEVELOPMENT CORP. CONTINUED Mr. Hardy Strozier, of The Planning Associates, gave clarifi- cation on the conditions of approval that his firm has suggested for this project and the conditions of approval as recommended by staff, referencing Tentative Tract Map 17413 and Tentative Parcel Map 23910. Mr. Chris Taylor, Homestead Land Development Corp., spoke in favor of the tentative parcel map and stated that this parcel map only creates financing parcels and is intended strictly to assist us in implementing the project. Vice Chairman Saathoff asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor of the project or to make a statement. Receiving no response, Vice Chairman Saathoff asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition or to make a statement. -- Ms. Lynn Vollmer, 23914 Outriver Drive, Canyon Lake, commented on the multi purpose trail system, and stated she was not in favor nor opposed to the project. Vice Chairman Saathoff asked if anyone else wished to speak on the matter. Receiving no response, Vice Chairman Saathoff closed the public hearing at 7:29 p.m. Commissioner Kelley commented on the letter from Hunsaker and Associates and the conditions of approval for the project; asked if we have been working with the County in reference to Fish and wildlife service, and suggested that the proposal be continued and have staff work with the applicant to resolve the issues of concerns. __ Commissioner Brinley stated that her concern would be with the Stephens' kangaroo rat, and whether this would be incorporated into the revised conditions; whether or not the multi purpose trail system should be incorporated at this time, or is it already on the tentative tract map, and continuing the proposal and have staff work with the applicant to resolve the issues of concern. Commissioner Wilsey gave a purpose trail system and condition number 12, came work with the County in systems. brief explanation on the multi how this requested condition, about. Recommended that the City developing multi purpose trail Vice Chairman Saathoff commented on the conditions for this map already being conditions on Tentative Tract Map 17413, and if we could then indicate that these conditions would relate to a tentative map for the northern portion of the parcel. Discussion ensued at the table on whether or not there was an assessment district for improvements on Railroad Canyon Road under Tentative Tract Map 17413; amending condition number 12 by adding the word "multi", and timeframe for proposal if continued. - Motion by Commissioner Brinley to continue Tentative Parcel Map 23910 to December 6, 1988, second by Commissioner Wilsey. Approved 4-0 (Commissioner Brown abstaining) AT THIS TIME, VICE CHAIRMAN SAATHOFF TURNED THE GAVEL OVER TO CHAIRMAN BROWN. AT THIS TIME, 7:55 P.M. THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECESSED. AT THIS TIME, 8:04 P.M. THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECONVENED. Minutes of Planning Commission November 15, 1988 Page 3 BUSINESS ITEMS 1. commercial Project 88-16 Milton Polsky and M & S General Contractors - Associate Planner Magee presented a proposal to construct an 11,010 square foot commercial project consisting -- of two (2) buildings and a 55 unit two-story motel. 2.13 acres on the east side of Casino Drive approximately 400 feet north of Ma1aga Road. Chairman Brown asked if the applicant was present and if he would like to comment. Mr. Milton Polsky stated that basically they were in agreement with all of the conditions, except for condition number 23, pertaining to a minimum of fifty percent (50%) of all trees shall be twenty-four inch box, and requested that this be reduced to twenty percent (20%). Mr. Steve Faulk, architect for the project, commented condition number 23, and stated that he concurs with Polsky that twenty percent (20%) would be more in keeping the project at the other end of the shopping center. on Mr. with -- Discussion ensued at the table on condition number 23, per- taining to the number of trees and the project at the end of the shopping center and the number of trees they planted. Commissioner Saathoff asked about the retaining wall height. Associate Planner Magee stated that the retaining wall varies in height from 5-1/2 feet to 7 feet. Commissioner Saathoff commented on condition number 33, asking if this condition was not covered in the last sentence of condition number 23. Associate Planner Magee responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Saathoff asked if the landscaping plan would be coming back only because of the change in the trees. Associate Planner Magee responded that would come back for administrative review Planning Commission unless so conditioned. Chairman Brown commented on condition number 27, and asked Mr. Polsky if this would be phasing construction or if he intended to build everything out immediately. the landscape only, not to plan the -- Mr. Polsky responded that he intended to build everything immediately. Chairman Brown stated that if something happens and the project were to be ~uilt in phases he would like to add verbiage to condi~ion number 27, if building permits are not pulled for the enti~e project within 30 days after commence- . -. '!j . ment of grad1ng, graded pads w111 be landscaped or all water run-off will be maintained on site. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to recommend to City Council adoption of Negatiye Declaration No. 88-36 and approval of commerical Project 88-16 based on the Findings and subject to the 47 conditionsr;f Approval listed in the Staff Report with the following amendments: Condition No. 23: "Applicant Landscape providing shall and 100% submit a Final Irrigation Plan watering coverage Minutes of Planning Commission November 15, 1988 Page 4 COMMERCIAL PROJECT 88-16 CONTRACTORS CONTINUED MILTON POLSKY AND M k ~ GENERAL which includes plants with seasonal color, as illustrated in rendering. A minimum of twenty percent (20%) of all trees shall be twenty-four-inch (24") box and eighty percent (80%) shall be fifteen gallon, and the two __ compact spaces at the south of the project shall be deleted and landscaped, as illustrated in Exhibit "C" Condition No. 27: "At the time of grading operations, the construction and landscape superintendent(s) shall meet with City staff to review conditions and discuss inspection and final building release procedures. If building permits are not pulled for the entire project within 30 days after commencement of grading, graded pads will be landscaped or all water run-off will be maintained on site. Condition No. 33: "The two south end deleted illustrated (2) compact spaces at the of the project shall be and landscaped, as in Exhibit "C". DELETE Second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved 5-0 - INFORMATIONAL A presentation on appearance and design of small lot development was made by Pardee Construction Company. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS Community Development Director Miller informed the Commission that at the November 22, 1988 City Council Meeting it will be announced that Planning Commission and City Council meetings will be held at the Elementary School District Board Room at 545 Chaney Street, this will become effective the first meeting in December. PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Commissioner Kellev: Nothing to report. Commissioner Brinley: Nothing to report. Commissioner Saathoff: - Suggested that any comments the Commissioners wish to make be made through the chair. Asked for the status of the General Plan. .~ Community Development Director Miller stated that we have entered into a contract with Phillips Brandt Reddick, a major planning Minutes of Planning Commission November 15, 1988 Page 5 PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS CONTINUED consulting firm, and they are in their data acquisition stage of putting things together in order to develop the analysis and recommendation. We anticipate that we will have information to -- present to an advisory committee shortly after the first of the year, after going through the advisory committee and public work shops, and bring it to public hearing next summer. I am not clear why it is necessary or what the philosophy is in putting conditions on a parcel map. community Development Director Miller stated that there are a number of reasons you would put conditions on a parcel map, mainly conditions relating to infrastructure improvements. commissioner Wilsey: Commented on the unsafe condition of Lake Street, stating that Lake Street was to be opened again today. I believe that they are now working within the City Limits and asked for the status. Community Development Director Miller responded that this is a County project, but we will work with the Engineering Department to follow up on this with the County and see if we can get an answer. Chairman Brown -- Nothing to report. There being no further business, the Lake Commission adjourned at 9:04 p.m. Motion Saathoff, second by Commissioner Kelley. Approved 5-0 Elsinore Planning by Commissioner Jeff Chai Resp~ctfu~mitted' ~~rindstaff~ Planning Commission Secretary -- - .... - MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON THE 6TH DAY OF DECEMBER 1988 THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:02 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Associate Planner Last ROLL CALL: __ PRESENT: Commissioners: Kelley, Brinley, Saathoff, Wilsey and Brown ABSENT: commissioners: None Also present were Community Development Director Miller, City Planner Thornhill and Associate Planners Last and Magee. MINUTE ACTION Motion by Commissioner Brinley to approve minutes of November 15, 1988, as submitted, second by Commissioner Kelley. Approved 5-0 PUBLIC COMMENTS Chairman Brown asked the Secretary if there were any requests to address the Commission. The Secretary answered in the negative. There being no requests to address the Commission, Chairman Brown closed the PUBLIC COMMENTS section. PUBLIC HEARINGS Chairman Brown asked for and received the consensus of the table to combine PUBLIC HEARING #3 and #6 moving said items to the end of the PUBLIC HEARINGS, and considering BUSINESS ITEM #1 con- currently since they are all related projects. - 1. Tentative Parcel Map 23910 - Homestead Land Development Corp. (Continued from November 15, 1988) Community Development Director Miller presented a proposal to divide eleven (11) existing lots into fifteen (15) parcels varying in size from 40 acres to 133 acres. 972.22 acres, approximately one-half mile north of Railroad Canyon Road and south of Greenwald Avenue. Community Development Director Miller requested that condition number 6 be revised as follows: Condition No.6: "An easement for a connecting road to the south boundary of the Parcel Map 23910 through to the northern boundary off-site to Greenwald shall be reserved prior to or concurrent with the recordation of the Parcel Map." - Chairman Brown opened the public hearing at 7:07 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of Tentative Parcel Map 23910. Mr. Chris Taylor, Homestead Land Development, spoke in favor of Tentative Parcel Map 23910, and stated that he would answer any questions. Chairman Brown asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor. Mr. Gene Nazarek, Acting as Special Counselor for the City of Lake Elsinore, stated that they support the recommendation of staff, and will answer any questions. Chairman Brown asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor. Minutes of Planning Commission December 6, 1988 Page 2 TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 23910 = HOMESTEAD LAND DEVELOPMENT CORP. CONTINUED Receiving no response, Chairman Brown asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Ms. Lynn Vollmer, 23914 Outriver Drive, Canyon Lake, stated that she was not opposed nor in favor of the development and then commented on the multi purpose trail system. Chairman Brown asked if anyone else wished to speak in oppo- sition or on the matter. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown closed the public hearing at 7:15 p.m. ...- Commissioner Kelley stated that he would like to see the trail system linked up with the County. As far as a solution to the trail system, I do not see where we can go back and condition this particular development. Commissioner Wilsey stated that he agrees with Commissioner Kelley with regard to the trail system. It is something that we have do and we have to focus on to protect this type of viability for our future constituents, however, it is not appropriate on this, but I would urge staff to continue working diligently on this and hopefully will come up with a solution. Commissioner Brinley commented on the maintenance and upkeep of the trail systems and stated the cost factor should not be totally the burden of the City, if it is going to be a joint effort between the County and City. Commissioner Brinley commented on the Stephens' kangaroo rat issue. .... Community Development Director Miller responded that any development where there are Stephens' kangaroo rat requires clearance from the u.S. Fish & wildlife Service. Staff has been attending technical advisory committee meetings for the past six months, and we have had discussions with developers about ways that those problems can be mitigated. Commissioner Saathoff commented on Ms. Vollmer's concerns on trails, stating that at such time a parcel map is divided up into small lots it then becomes a tentative tract map. Generally, that is the time that the City would ask the developer to dedicate some land to an all purpose trail. Once the land is dedicated the City and County would come up with a specific plan. There will have to be standards for separating this area by some sort of fencing or something. There will have to be insurance and all types of mitigation measures before that multi purpose trail is ready to be used. Chairman Brown commented on the County's ordinance on the Stephens' kangaroo rat and stated that this should not be used as a guideline. Chairman Brown commented on sees it more appropriate regional park. the trail system stating that he for multi purpose trails in a ... Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to recommend to City Council that the Environmental Impact Report and Addendums previously certified for Canyon Lake Hills and Tentative Tract Map 17413 Revision #4 be reaffirmed and approval of Tentative Parcel Map 23910 based on the Findings and subject to the 7 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report with the following amendment: Minutes of Planning Commission December 6, 1988 Page 3 TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 23910 = HOMESTEAD LAND DEVELOPMENT CORP. CONTINUED -- Condition No.6: "An easement for a connecting road to the south boundary of the Parcel Map 23910 through to the northern boundary off-site to Greenwald shall be reserved prior to or concurrent with the recordation of the Parcel Map." Second by commissioner Brinley. Approved 5-0 2. General Plan Amendment 88-5 and Zone Change 88-9 - MBC Constructors. Ltd. - Community Development Director Miller stated that the applicant has withdrawn these applications. Motion by Commissioner Plan Amendment 88-5 Commissioner wilsey. Approved 5-0 Brinley to accept withdrawal of General and Zone Change 88-9, second by 3. General Plan Amendment 88-6 and Zone Change 88-10 - MOVED TO END OF PUBLIC HEARINGS. 4. General Plan Amendment 88-9 and Zone Change 88-13 - Dura Construction - Associate Planner Last presented a proposal to amend the General Plan Land Use designation of Limited -- Industrial and Floodway to Limited Industrial and Commercial Manufacturing and change the zoning from Limited Manufacturing (M-1) to Commercial Manufacturing (C-M). A ten acre site located south of Collier Avenue between Third and Crane Streets. Chairman Brown opened the public hearing at 7:25 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of General Plan Amendment 88-9 and Zone Change 88-13. Mr. Dennis Sparr, President of Dura Construction, stated that he would answer any questions. Chairman Brown asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor of General Plan Amendment 88-9 and Zone Change 88-13. Receiv- ing no response, Chairman Brown asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown asked if anyone wished to speak on the matter. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown closed the public hearing at 7:27 p.m. There being no discussion at the table, Chairman Brown called for a motion. - Motion by Commissioner Kelley to recommend to City Council adoption of Negative Declaration No. 88-40 and approval of General Plan Amendment 88-9 based on the Findings listed in the Staff Report, and adoption of Resolution No. 88-8, entitled as follows: RESOLUTION NO. 88-8 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 88-9 TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE 1982 GENERAL PLAN CHANGING THE DESIGNATION OF 10 ACRES FROM LIMITED INDUSTRIAL AND FLOODWAY TO LIMITED INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL MANU- FACTURING Minutes of Planning Commission December 6, 1988 Page 4 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 88-9 AND ZONE CHANGE 88-13 - DURA CONSTRUCTION CONTINUED Second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved 5-0 Motion by Commissioner Kelley to recommend to City Council approval of Zone Change 88-13, based on the Findings listed in the Staff Report, second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved 5-0 ... 5. General Plan Amendment 88-10 and Zone Change 88-14 - A & A Investments - Associate Planner Magee presented a proposal to amend the General Plan from Low Density Residential to High Density Residential and to rezone the property from R-2 (Medium Density Residential) to R-3 (High Density Resi- dential). 0.19 acres on the northwest corner of Sumner Avenue and Langstaff Street. Chairman Brown opened the pUblic hearing at 7:29 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of General Plan Amendment 88-10 and Zone Change 88-14. Mr. Alan Manee, representing A & A Investments, spoke in favor of the proposal and gave a brief description of the surrounding area. Chairman Brown asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor of General Plan Amendment 88-10 and Zone Change 88-14. Receiv- ing no response, Chairman Brown asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown asked if anyone wished to speak on the matter. Receiving no __ response, Chairman Brown closed the public hearing at 7:30 p.m. There being no discussion at the table, Chairman Brown called for a motion. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to recommend to City Council adoption of Negative Declaration No. 88-42 and approval of General Plan Amendment 88-10 based on the Findings listed in the Staff Report, and adoption of Resolution No. 88-9, entitled as follows: RESOLUTION NO. 88-9 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 88-10 TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE 1982 GENERAL PLAN CHANGING THE DESIGNATION OF A 0.19 ACRE PARCEL FROM LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL Second by Commissioner Kelley. Approved 5-0 .... Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to recommend to City Council approval of Zone Change 88-14, based on the Findings listed in the Staff Report, second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved 5-0 AT THIS TIME, 7:33 P.M., THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECESSED. AT THIS TIME, 7:45 P.M., THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECONVENED Minutes of Planning Commission December 6, 1988 Page 5 3. General Plan Amendment 88-6 and Zone Change 88-10 - Pacific Scene - Associate Planner Last presented a proposal to amend the General Plan designation of Very Low Density Residential and Floodplain to Low Density Residential and a rezone of said property from County R-R to city R-1 (Single-Family Resi- __ dential). 44.34 acres located approximately 2,550 feet west of Robb Road between Mountain and Running Deer Road. Chairman Brown opened the public hearing at 7:48 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of General Plan Amendment 88-6 and Zone Change 88-10. Mr. Jay Summers, representing Pacific Scene, spoke in favor of the proposal, and gave a brief background report on the proposals. Chairman Brown asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor of General Plan Amendment 88-6 and Zone Change 88-10. Receiv- ing no response, Chairman Brown asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown asked if anyone wished to speak on the matter. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown closed the public hearing at 7:50 p.m. There being no discussion at the table, Chairman Brown called for a motion. ~ Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to recommend to City Council adoption of Negative Declaration No. 88-37 and approval of General Plan Amendment 88-6 based on the Findings listed in the Staff Report, and adoption of Resolution No. 88-7, entitled as follows: RESOLUTION NO. 88-7 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 88-6 TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE 1982 GENERAL PLAN CHANGING THE DESIGNATION OF 35.74 ACRES FROM VERY LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND FLOODPLAIN TO LOW DENSITY RESI- DENTIAL AND DESIGNATING ADDITIONAL FLOODPLAIN AREA ON A PORTION OF THE REMAINING 8.6 ACRES Second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved 5-0 Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to recommend to City Council adoption of Zone Change 88-10 based on the Findings listed in the Staff Report, second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved 5-0 .---. 6. Vesting Tentative Tract Map 24010 - Pacific Scene - Associate Planner Last presented a proposal to subdivide two (2) parcels into 117 lots (lIS residential lots). 44.34 acres located approximately 2,500 feet west of Robb Road between Mountain Street and Running Deer Road. Chairman Brown opened the public hearing at 7:53 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 24010. Mr. Jay Summers, representing Pacific Scene, commented on the site plan, referring to the colored site plan posted, high- lighting topography; streetscape; existing haul road and the Rice Canyon flood channel; letter to the Commission from the property owner adjacent to the west, which would be at the top Minutes of Planning Commission December 6, 1988 Page 6 VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 24010 - PACIFIC SCENE CONTINUED of the plain, expressing concerns on future access and development. Mr. Summers stated that they are in concurrence with all of the conditions except for a couple which he would like to make possible modification or clarification. Chairman Brown informed Mr. Summers that he would be brought back to the podium at the end of the public hearing to address the conditions in question. Chairman Brown asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 24010. Mr. Jack Dilemme, Parkwest Companies, agent for Mr. Bill Bishop owner of property directly west of proposed Tentative Tract Map 24010, stated that they were in favor of the proposed development, however, the only problem is with the access that we are being given. Mr. Bishop is considering future development of his property and we feel this severely limits his access. We would like to see a secondary access somewhere. Mr. Bishop, owner of the property to the west, commented on the existing access to his property and the continuation of Mountain Street as a secondary access. Discussion ensued on access point locations to Mr. Bishop's property; if there was a dedicated recorded easement given for access; purchase of easement for access. Chairman Brown asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 24010. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown asked if anyone wished to speak on the matter. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown closed the public hearing at 8:17 p.m. Commissioner Kelley yielded the floor to Mr. Summers. Mr. Summers commented on the access issue and stated that there are no habitable residences on Mr. Bishop's property. Mr. Bishop's property has frontage along our entire west boundary, including the 40 feet proposed for paved access. Discussion ensued on the access issue, the amount of frontage along the west boundary for access to Mr. Bishop's property; having an easement that would sunset at a specific date. Mr. Summers stated that the current offer is that access to Mr. Bishop's property would be provided both for present and future development through the GO-foot easement for Mountain street and the two (2) lanes of paved access to the northwest corner of our property, which is also the northeast boundary of his property where he has a 40-foot connection point. Recognizing that his present use and access would be restricted by that we have agreed to give him permission to cross our property on the existing dirt road and tie in with this paved road until such time that City Council approved further development of this property. Mr. Summers commented on condition 9, pertaining to front yard setbacks. We are aware that the City may be considering a change in the setback requirements for the R-l standards. We would like to, if possible, add wording to this condition that if the City adopts reduced setback standards for front yards - - - Minutes of Planning Commission December 6, 1988 Page 7 VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 24010 = PACIFIC SCENE CONTINUED we would like the ability to utilize those new standards in order to create a more usable rear yard. ~ Mr. Summers commented on condition number 17, relating to fencing, stating that his personal preference is for 5-foot fencing in private yards rather than 6-foot. But if 6-foot is the city-wide existing condition then we are certainly willing to comply with that; maybe we could build in some flexibility for staff review. Additionally, we would like to use wrought iron fencing where appropriate on view lots, again subject to staff's review and discretion. commissioner Kelley asked Mr. Summers if he likes the 5-foot fencing in general or in all instances. Mr. Summers stated that certainly on this tract we have a special condition of the masonry sound wall, which does need to be 6-foot on top of a 2-foot berm. Normally, in our developments we provide a very attractive 5-foot cedar fencing that has a trim board at the top and bottom. Basically, it is just my personal preference, the 5-foot seems to not create as much of a wall impression. ~ commissioner Kelley stated that he was pleased that we were finally getting under way with the West End Fire Assessment District. Also, pleased with the fact that you are going to have Xeriscape on one of the models. At the time that this is completed, I would urge the City to have residents have a look at that, because water conservation is going to be critical in the future. commissioner Kelley stated that he would like to see the Robb Road and Mountain Street improvements, and something done with the entrance to the Premier Homes. I know that this does not pertain to this development, but in the future, if it is possible, somehow have a special lane so that the cars can slow down to get in there. Community Development Director Miller responded that Premier development was conditioned to fully improve Robb between Mountain and the Junior High School District. reason that has not been done is that we are still trying obtain an easement, or right-of-way, so that a storm drain be installed south of Lakeshore Drive. the Road The to can commissioner Kelley commented on the concern on the library services, believes it was in the Environmental Impact Report. The County made special note of the impact to the library system. I would appreciate staff looking into some type of library mitigation fee. ~ commissioner Wilsey asked for clarification number 9, pertaining to Mr. Summers' request, residential development standards. on condition amending the community Development Director Miller responded that the de- velopment community has gotten legislation through the State Legislature that provides for vesting tentative maps that allows them to lock in the development standards at the point of approval. We have been in discussions about changing our development standards, so it is interesting to note that the developer wants the benefit of those changes that would be in his favor. However, given that aside, I would say that we are looking at changes in the development standards that would suggest a reduction in the front yard setback for garages that Minutes of Planning Commission December 6, 1988 Page 8 VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 24010 - PACIFIC SCENE CONTINUED enter directly from the street and allowing wrought iron fences or providing additional alternatives for development, particularly in hillside areas. I think that the wording of those conditions would allow such if this were not a vesting map. Commissioner Wilsey commented on condition number 17, per- taining to Mr. Summers' request on fencing, stating that his preference is masonry, but agrees with the wrought iron concept on view lots. - Commissioner Brinley commented on condition number 47, per- taining to drainage, asking where the detention basins are to be located. Community Development Director Miller stated that the Engi- neering Department had expressed concern about the drainage if it were directed along Running Deer Road, and we do not yet have the advantage of reviewing working drawings. I believe the applicant had intended to direct drainage along Wheatstone Drive. Commissioner Brinley commented on the fencing, personal opinion is ma~onry, but on view lots wrought iron, 3 and 3 combination 1S fine (3 block and 3 iron). Glad to see the West End Fire Assessment District coming in. Commissioner Saathoff commented on condition number 13, per- taining to the CC & R's, asking if there is going to be any type of Owners Association involved, or who is going to monitor the CC & R's? -- Mr. Summers responded that there would be a committee in place for architectural control, and as the members move out of the area they would designate a replacement. Chairman Brown stated that the would like to add condition number 12.f., which would read: Condition 12.f.: "All landscape improvements to be bonded 120%, Faithful Performance Bond, and released at completion of installation of landscape requirement approval/ac- ceptance, and bond 100% for material and labor for one year." Chairman Brown commented on condition number 28, pertaining to traffic sight easement and traffic control, what has Engineering proposed for this intersection? Community Development Director Miller responded tract has proposed to dedicate Mountain Street as street. that this a public Chairman Brown responded that the haul road is not, what protection for the cross traffic will be provided? __ Community Development Director Miller stated that this is one of the items of concern and was discussed at considerable length with the developer. The development of those lots on the other side of Rice Canyon, that is one of the reasons along with the sewage disposal and some other issues that lead to the deletion of those lots. They will be providing a sight distance at that intersection and they have had some discussions with ERM indicating that they would agree to traffic control at that intersection. However, staff would Minutes of Planning Commission December 6, 1988 Page 9 VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 24010 - PACIFIC SCENE CONTINUED share some of the same concerns that you have, and feels that the responsibility of getting across that intersection will rest mainly with the people crossing on Mountain Street. - Chairman Brown number 28 come Council with certificate of stated that he back before the resolution of Occupancy. would like to see condition Planning Commission and City both bodies before the first Chairman Brown asked for clarification on condition number 16 and 17, stating it is the most complicated fencing description that he has ever seen. In the past, we have tried to deal with a real simple concept--any lot that is on a corner which has public street frontage would have masonry walls. Lot to lot side yards could be wood or rear lot line lot to lot could be wood. Perimeter walls would be block. Associate Planner Last commented on condition number 16, stating we do have a requirement in the Zoning Code that no solid fence may be higher than three-feet (3') within the front yard setback of twenty-feet (20'). Chairman Brown referred to the words "exterior side yards" in condition number 16. - Associate Planner Last stated that the condition should have stated front yard setback according to the code. Chairman Brown stated that this would clarify it, but we do want to see masonry walls. Community Development Director Miller stated be an addition, all walls along streets i.e., on corner lots shall be masonry. that this should side yard walls Chairman Brown stated that where you can see the fencing from the street, the rear property lines lot to lot, the side yard lines lot to lot can be wood, and returns can be wood. If we can have that language included in condition number 16, to delineate only the front yard setback as being the three-foot wall and the side yard is the normal height. Chairman Brown commented on condition number 17, pertaining to fencing or masonry walls, asking if the code states that wrought iron can be five-feet in height and block six-feet. Community reference specifies the front Development Director Miller stated that the there is to the front yard setback and the code that a five-foot wrought iron fence may be used in yard setback. - Chairman Brown asked if we were going to add the new language in condition number 17, to delineate that this is absolutely for the front yard and separates the side yard from the setback. Community Development Director Miller asked if Chairman Brown wished to amend condition number 17, to allow a combination of wrought iron and masonry walls on view lots. Chairman Brown stated that he wants to say block walls on side yards viewable to the street, wood fences on lot to lot on rear and side yards, 3 and 3 combination (3 foot wrought iron and 3 foot masonry) anywhere on view lots. Minutes of Planning Commission December 6, 1988 Page 10 VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 24010 ~ PACIFIC SCENE CONTINUED Commissioner Saathoff suggested either a combination or all wrought iron. Community Development Director Miller stated that there is a substantial difference whether you would allow wrought iron or whether you wanted knee wall, you should be clear about this. Commissioner Saathoff suggested the addition of a specifi- cation that on view lots the applicant could put in wrought iron or a combination of masonry and wrought iron. Discussion at the table ensued on fencing for view lots. - Commissioner Saathoff stated that he would like to address the issue of the request from Mr. Bishop. I personally feel that the applicant has mitigated any problems about landlocking any property that happens to be behind him, and feels that what he has offered as a solution to the property owners behind him is adequate. I just want to go on record as saying that. Motion by Commissioner Brinley to recommend to City Council adoption of Negative Declaration 88-37 and approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 24010 based on the Findings and subject to the 50 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report with the following amendments: Condition 12.f.: "All landscape improvements to be bonded 120%, Faithful Performance Bond, and released at completion of installation of landscape requirement approval/ac- ceptance, and bond 100% for material and __ labor for one year." Condition 16: Condition 17: Condition 28: "Fences located in any front yard shall not exceed three-feet (3') in height, in the required setback area as required by current Zoning Code with the exception of wrought iron fences which may be five feet (5') in height. Chain link fences shall be prohibited." "Decorative block walls shall be required for side yards which have street frontage. A six-foot (6') high solid wood fence or masonry wall shall be constructed along the side and rear property lines. Applicant shall submit a typical fencing plan, showing the height and material, and the fence locations indicated on a grading plan and be approved by the Community Development Director prior to the release of the first certificate of Occupancy." "A traffic sight easement shall be pro- vided across lots 24, 25, and 26 and proper safety signage at the Mountain Street and haul road intersection shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to recordation of the final map, and shall be brought back before the Planning Com- mission and City Council with resolution of both bodies before the first Certifi- cate of Occupancy." - Minutes of Planning commission December 6, 1988 Page 11 VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 24010 = PACIFIC SCENE CONTINUED Second by Commissioner Wilsey. Approved 5-0 ~ BUSINESS ITEM 1. Annexation No. 45 - Pacific Scene - Associate Planner Last presented a request to annex County unincorporated land into the City of Lake Elsinore for future residential develop- ment. 44.34 acres located approximately 2,500 feet west of Robb Road between Mountain Street and Running Deer Road. There being no discussion at the table, Chairman Brown called for a motion. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to recommend to City Council approval of Annexation No. 45 based on the Findings listed in the Staff Report, second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved 5-0 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS Community Development Director Miller introduced Gary Thornhill as the City's new City Planner. PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS ~ commissioner Saathoff: Will not be present at the meeting on December 20, 1988. commissioner Wilsey: We have had a lot of comments lately coming before us with regards to the small lots, and I am going to recommend to staff that we get together a list of some of these projects where we could go out, as a group or individually, and check these projects out and get a little better knowledge of these small lot programs. Chairman Brown stated that this was an excellent idea and maybe we could do a Saturday tour, an adjourned study session. Community Development Director Miller stated that he believes this would be very beneficial for Planning commission to look not only at small lot sizes, but also we have been talking about looking at some of the commercial developments, and suggested a Saturday in January. ..... commissioner Brinlev: Nothing to report. commissioner Kellev: Nothing to report. Chairman Brown: Thanked the Lake Elsinore School District for the use of their facility. Minutes of Planning Commission December 6, 1988 Page 12 There being no further business, the Lake Commission adjourned at 8:55 p.m. Motion Saathoff, second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved 5-0 Approved, Elsinore Planning by Commissioner Jeff Brow~! " ChairmaP" ~tf~mitted' Linda Grindstaf~ Planning Commission Secretary -- - - MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON THE 20TH DAY OF DECEMBER 1988 THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:05 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Associate Planner Last ROLL CALL: - PRESENT: commissioners: Kelley, Brinley, Wilsey and Brown ABSENT: commissioners: Saathoff Also present were Community Development Director Miller, City Planner Thornhill and Associate Planners Last and Magee. MINUTE ACTION Motion by Commissioner Brinley to approve minutes of December 6, 1988, as submitted, second by Commissioner Wilsey. Approved 4-0 PUBLIC COMMENTS Mr. Bill Gray, 1115 17th Street, Hermosa Beach, California, requested to speak on the approximate implementation date for changes to Title 17 which effect hillside development. Chairman Brown asked Mr. Gray if he would like to speak on the item when it comes up for public hearing. - Mr. Gray answered in the affirmative. Mr. Kevin Jeffries, 17666 Grand Avenue, Lake Elsinore, California, commented on the new Minor Design Review procedures pertaining to single-family submittal requirements and the hardship this is creating: increased time delays, from 3 weeks to 4 to 6 weeks; increase in fees, from $75.00 to $130.00; increase in number of plans to be submitted, and the requirement of a materials board. PUBLIC HEARINGS Chairman Brown asked for and received the consensus of the table to move PUBLIC HEARING #2 to the end of the PUBLIC HEARINGS. 1. Zone Code Amendment 88-9 - Brookstone Development - Associate Planner Magee presented a request to amend Section 17.54.020 of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code pertaining to permitted uses in the Commercial-Manufacturing Zoning District to allow office uses within that district, which would apply city-wide. Chairman Brown opened the public hearing at 7:16 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of Zone Code Amendment 88-9. - Mr. Steve Brown, representing Brookstone Development, stated that he would like to point out that it was not their intent to request carte blanche all office for dental, attorneys, accounts, as well as engineers specifically which is what we came to you for to be allowed in the Commercial Manufacturing Zone, I do not think that it is appropriate. We are request- ing engineering firms and similar types of businesses, I distinguish between that and all offices. We strongly believe that engineering type of firms, soils engineering firms, blueprint planning companies, architects--peop1e that work in the building trade do belong in light industrial parks. Mr. Brown gave a list of businesses that rent space in the Chaney Street Center, and stated that in his opinion these are uses that would be compatible with an engineering firm. Planning Commission Minutes December 20, 1988 Page 2 ZONE CODE AMENDMENT 88-9 - BROOKS TONE DEVELOPMENT CONTINUED Mr. Brown stated that they cannot see coming before the Planning Commission for a Conditional Use Permit every time they have a civil engineer or someone that would like to located there and that is why we did not request that this be tied to a Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Brown stated that he analysis submitted to staff parking requirements. Chairman Brown asked if anyone wished to speak in favor of Zone Code Amendment 88-9. stands corrected on the parking and that they would meet the ..., Mr. Bob Lindar, representing the Keith Companies of which Butterfield Engineering & Survey is a division, stated that he has experienced a tremendous problem in finding enough space; we require around 5,000 square feet for our staff right now. There is no existing offices in the city that can accommodate us with the parking requirements other than retail centers which we really do not want to be a part of. We came across Brookstone's Chaney Street Center which can be adapted readily to our use, and we feel that it is a prime location. Chairman Brown asked if anyone wished to speak in favor of Zone Code Amendment 88-9. Mr. Fred Crowe, Butterfield Engineering & Surveys, commented on the ordinance and allowable uses that are similar to their use. Chairman Brown asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor of Zone Code Amendment 88-9. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Receiv- ing no response, Chairman Brown asked if anyone wished to speak on the matter. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown closed the pUblic hearing at 7:26 p.m. ..., Commissioner Kelley asked staff to address concerns of the applicant. Associate Planner Magee stated that if Bob's Lunch Box is indeed closed that it should have been deleted from the parking study submitted. Associate Planner Magee stated that as far as Mr. Crowe's comments on uses within the C-M, we have an exhibit, included in your packets, for uses within the MS-C Zone for the County and the C-M Zone in the City. The letter from Mr. Brown indicates that they should be the same. Staff's feeling is that they clearly are not, and that the zoning in the County clearly allows for a broader range and does not meet the intent of the City's C-M Zoning. Commissioner Kelley asked how staff would address the fact that we allow soils engineering firms in the C-M Zone. Community Development Director Miller stated that typically __ soils engineering firms have the same licensing as civil engineering firms, however, soils engineering firms typically involve testing on site. A lot of times soils engineering firms have a laboratory as part of their operation, in which they do analysis, and that was the reason that soils engineer- ing firms were included in that zone. Community Development Director Miller stated that there are some things that are similar, however, when you are going to Planning Commission Minutes December 20, 1988 Page 3 ZONE CODE AMENDMENT 88-9 = BROOKS TONE DEVELOPMENT CONTINUED ...-- an engineering office or architect's office you are dealing with a pure office use. Community Development Director Miller stated that we have a limited amount of industrial land which has not developed largely because of physical constraints. However, we do have a large amount of commercial land, and while it is correct that we do not have any office space currently for lease that would satisfy their needs we do have a lot of areas that could potentially be built. Commissioner Kelley stated that he was in agreement with staff recommendation. Believes that our inventory of commercial- manufacturing is limited and feels that we have to preserve it. commissioner Wilsey stated that he does not agree with changing the Commercial-Manufacturing Code, however, we have a well established and respected firm that is experiencing growth in our community, as well as the community itself, and we are not able to provide them with the type of facilities to expand, so what do they do? Do we afford them the opportunity to stay a part of our community and work with them? I am in favor of working with the applicant and determining a way to meet their requirements and also meet our requirements. ---- commissioner Wilsey commented on Section l7.54.020.U., soils engineering firms and testing firms, stating he feels these items corresponds with what they (Butterfield Engineering & Surveys) are doing. There is enough latitude under this section to work with this particular applicant. commissioner Brinley stated that she was changing the code, for the reasons expressed. change this zone it would be a blanket correct. In other words, the zone is changed that any developer can come in and they could whoever, as far as commercial office space. not in favor of If we were to change city-wide, and that means, build and rent to Associated Planner Magee responded in the affirmative. commissioner Brinley stated this is why Permit is important, if you are going to put think that the Planning Commission, responsibility of the Planning Commission, to are designated and the right things are going a Conditional Use something in I and it is the make sure things in. commissioner Brinley asked Mr. zoned when purchased. Brown what the property was ---' Mr. Brown responded that the property was zoned M-l. Commissioner Brinley stated that you then had it rezoned. Mr. Brown stated that the property was changed to C-M in 1986, and that was when the C-M Zoning Code first came into effect. Commissioner Brinley asked Mr. Brown when he had the property rezoned if this was not the original concept for this area, to be totally commercial-manufacturing. Mr. Brown responded that when the code was first formulated it was a bit of a mystery of what that zone include and there was discussion surrounding it. being would commissioner Brinley asked Mr. Brown if he was happy with the C-M Zoning. - Planning Commission Minutes December 20, 1988 Page 4 ZONE CODE AMENDMENT 88-9 - BROOKS TONE DEVELOPMENT CONTINUED Mr. Brown responded in the negative, and stated that he feels that it is very restrictive. Commissioner Brinley stated that in the past there has not been a problem with, Brookstone Development, getting a Conditional Use Permit for various uses. Mr. Brown responded that if you have civil engineers listed then you do not have to get a Conditional Use Permit, if it is listed as an acceptable use, why would you differentiate amongst different civil engineering firms. - Commissioner Brinley you would, but sees no Use Permit, so that within the center. responded that she did not believe that problem with asking for a Conditional everyone is aware of what is happening Commissioner Brinley asked if there was not a zone code amend- ment to allow the use for the building in which we are now meeting. Associate Planner Magee responded that there was a zone code amendment to allow the school district to located within this building and a subsequent Conditional Use Permit. The County Department of Social Service under an amendment which allowed for this use and a subsequent Conditional Use Permit. Commissioner Brinley stated that a Conditional Use also granted for Bob's Lunch Box, Lutheran Automotive repair. Permit Church, was and Associate Planner Magee responded in the affirmative. - Commissioner Brinley commented on the County's MS-C Zoning, asking if this were not a pretty broad base, could you explain some of the things that they do allow in that zoning. Associate Planner Magee responded that the MS-C Zoning runs the full gambit from allowing paper mills to meat and poultry manufacturing, canning and they even have an agriculture section. Whereas the City's C-M District does not address any of those. Although, there are several similarities which have been brought up there are also a lot of differences. Commissioner Brinley stated that she has no problem with working with Mr. Crowe and his establishment, who has been here a long time, or working with them on a Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Brown stated that at this point we were denied the right to come in and ask for a Conditional Use Permit under the existing zone. We were told that it was not an acceptable use and therefore that was not an option for us. If it is in fact an option, in the interest of time, because we have been on this for three months, I would hope that the Commission would examine all of the staff findings. I have done the parking analysis and everything is in front of you this evening to __ possibly make a decision, even on a Conditional Use Permit, and if this is an issue I would like the Planning Commission to address this tonight, if they could. Commissioner Brinley stated that the issue is the changing of the zone itself. Chairman Brown commented on the intent of the uses allowed in the County's M-SC Zoning, and agrees with the County's intent, but the problem is that they have allowed uses that have Planning commission Minutes December 20, 1988 Page 5 ZONE CODE AMENDMENT 88-9 = BROOKS TONE DEVELOPMENT CONTINUED totally smacked the intent. Chairman Brown stated that what has happened with each of your particular cases is promote no growth, not including adding new jobs for the community, we have merely relocated the two largest employers in the community into cheaper rental space. Mr. Brown stated that it is not cheaper rental space and would like to point that out. Chairman Brown commented on Mr. Lindar's comment that there are no office spaces currently under construction or active in the community, and suggested that this is possibly a concern of commercial builders as we are allowing commercial uses to locate in manufacturing districts. Chairman Brown stated that it was not up to this body to adjust the intent of the code nor to address the vacancy factor of this park. Commissioner Wilsey stated that he would strongly urge staff to work with the applicant, under Section l7.544.020.U. There being no further discussion, Chairman Brown called for a motion. Motion by Commissioner Brinley to deny Zone Code Amendment 88-9, based on the Findings listed in the Staff Report, second by Commissioner Kelley. Approved 4-0 Zone Code Amendment 88-10 - city of Lake Elsinore - Moved to the end of PUBLIC HEARINGS. - 2. Tentative Parcel Map 22385 Dura Construction - Associate Planner Last presented a request to subdivide a single-lot into four (4) parcels. A ten acre site located south of Collier Avenue between Third Street and Crane Street. 3 . Associate Planner Last requested the following amendments: Condition No. 17: Condition No. 18: - Condition No. 24: Condition No. 27: Condition No. 28: "Provide 30 foot dedication for Third Street and improvements as part of Phase 3 and 4." "Provide 30 foot dedication on Crane Street and improve Crane Street and curve return with transition to existing Collier Avenue improvements to provide two (2) travel lanes and parking as part of the first phase of map on Crane Street." "Developer shall provide ingress and egress easements for parcel 4 to access Crane street. Width to be approved by the City Engineer." "Ingress and egress to Collier Avenue shall be limited to one driveway with right turn ingress and egress only for the entire project frontage subject to the approval of the City Engineer to be determined at development." "Developer shall enter into a sub- Planning Commission Minutes December 20, 1988 Page 6 TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 22385 = DURA CONSTRUCTION CONTINUED Condition No. 33: division agreement with the City for construction of public work off-site improvements and submit bonds established by the City Engineer per phased map." "An environmental constraints map shall be filed with the City Engineer showing floodplain areas." "Prior to recordation of any phase all perimeter dedications and flood control easements shall be dedicated or provided." ....." Condition No. 38: Chairman Brown opened the public hearing at 7:49 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of Tentative Parcel Map 22385. Mr. Fred Crowe, Butterfield Engineering/Keith Companies, stated that they met with some of staff this afternoon as we had concern with the conditions as earlier written; basically, made some recommendations and staff agreed with those and they added an addendum to the conditions. Condition number 38 is the only one that we have not discussed, this was discussed briefly with the City Engineer, and I thought that we had worked out a situation on the first phase. Mr. Crowe stated that this is a four phase parcel map, four separate parcel maps over the one tentative map. Parcel 3 will be the first phase, it is on Crane Street. The reason that we __ want to build in that area is that it adjoins the Larmor project just across Crane Street, where we have the floodplain situation. Mr. Crowe stated that when the Outflow Channel is built--County Flood Control is working on the design of the Third Street Channel, the Wasson Creek Channel and the El Toro Channel to try and build those at the same time they build the Outflow Channel, which they hope to begin the first of October. There were too many questions to answer on what to do in that floodplain, until it got down to the working drawings and the construction of the Outflow Channel, once that is build the floodplain will be confined to that channel. So we had purposely intended not to the dedications for the flood channel at this time, but do it before we recorded maps that adjoin the channel, and we would prefer not to have condition number 38. Chairman Brown asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor of Tentative Parcel Map 22385. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown asked if anyone wished to speak on the matter. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown closed the public hearing at 7:53 p.m. A lengthy discussion was held at 38, pertaining to dedications and parcels 2 and 4 and whether available. the table on condition number improvements; approvals for or not this option would be - There being no further discussion at the table, Chairman Brown called for a motion. Motion by Commissioner Brinley to recommend to City Council adoption of Negative Declaration Number 88-40 and approval of Tentative Parcel Map 22385 based on the Findings and subject to Planning Commission Minutes December 20, 1988 Page 7 TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 22385 = DURA CONSTRUCTION CONTINUED the 37 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report and with the following amendments: Condition No. 17: Condition No. 18: Condition No. 24: Condition No. 27: Condition No. 28: - Condition No. 33: Condition No. 38: "Provide 30 foot dedication for Third Street and improvements as part of Phase 3 and 4." "Provide 30 foot dedication on Crane Street and improve Crane Street and curve return with transition to existing Collier Avenue improvements to provide two (2) travel lanes and parking as part of the first phase of map on Crane Street." "Developer shall provide ingress and egress easements for parcel 4 to access Crane Street. width to be approved by the City Engineer." "Ingress and egress to Collier Avenue shall be limited to one driveway with right turn ingress and egress only for the entire project frontage subject to the approval of the City Engineer to be determined at development." "Developer shall enter into a sub- division agreement with the City for construction of public work off-site improvements and submit bonds established by the City Engineer per phased map." "An environmental constraints map shall be filed with the City Engineer showing floodplain areas." "Prior to recordation of any phase all perimeter dedications and flood control easements shall be dedicated or provided." Second by Commissioner Kelley with discussion. Discussion at the table ensued on whether or not a separate instrument was appropriate/inappropriate for condition number 38. There being no further discussion, Chairman Brown called for the question. Approved 4-0 - AT THIS TIME, 8:10 P.M., THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECESSED. AT THIS TIME, 8:20 P.M., THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECONVENED. Chairman Brown asked for and received the consensus of the table to consider BUSINESS ITEMS 1 AND 2 prior to PUBLIC HEARING NUMBER 3. BUSINESS ITEMS 1. Street Abandonment 88-4 - Dura Construction - Associate Planner Last presented a request to abandon a 35' x 600' portion of Collier Avenue between Third and Crane Street. Mr. Crowe, Butterfield Engineering, gave clarification on the Planning Commission Minutes December 20, 1988 Page 8 STREET ABANDONMENT 88-4 = DURA CONSTRUCTION CONTINUED disposition of the property to be abandoned. There being no discussion at the table, Chairman Brown called for a motion. Motion by Commissioner Brinley to advise City Council that Street Abandonment 88-4 is in conformance with the Goals and Objectives of the General Plan based upon the Findings and the 1 Condition of Approval listed in the Staff Report, second by Commissioner Kelley. Approved 4-0 --- 2. Extension of Time for Conditional Use Permit 87-8 - Del Taco _ Associate Planner Magee presented a request for an extension of time for Conditional Use Permit 87-8 to allow a drive-thru aisle in conjunction with a fast food restaurant, located on the east side of Lakeshore Drive approximately 245 feet north of Riverside Drive. There being no discussion at the table, Chairman Brown called for a motion. Motion by Commissioner Kelley to approve Extension of Time for Conditional Use Permit 87-8 subject to the 3 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report, second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved 4-0 PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. Zone Code Amendment 88-10 - City of Lake Elsinore - Community __ Development Director Miller presented a request to amend the Zoning Code amending standards relating to fences, walls, and landscaping in residential districts; allow for keeping of farm animals; provide special standards for hillside development; make various technical corrections; change minimum lot sizes and permitted densities and setbacks in the R-3 District; change lighting, landscaping and landscape setback and outside storage requirements in non-residential districts, which would apply city-wide. Chairman Brown opened the if anyone wished to speak 88-10. public hearing at 8:27 p.m., asking in favor of Zone Code Amendment Mr. Bill Gray, 1115 17th Street, Hermosa Beach, California, stated that he owns property on Lakeview Street between Cowell and Manning. My concern is that we have a variance in the process, which I believe is scheduled for January 3. In discussion with staff I was advised that this evening you would be considering changes in hillside areas for front yard setbacks and changes in the rear yard setback for a level rear yard. Basically, I came down to find out what was going to be discussed. Mr. Gray presented a map illustrating his property and showing __ the actual deeded right-of-way and where the graded road is located. If we comply with the present requirements of Title 17 and other requirements, a 10-foot deeding of the front yard to the City for slope easement, we end up having to put the footprint of the house down the hill some 35 feet from the road, and since it is on a down sloping lot we have some rear problems with the slope and the retaining of it and having a flat backyard. Community Development Director Miller stated that when we Planning Commission Minutes December 20, 1988 Page 9 ZONE CODE AMENDMENT 88-10 - CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE CONTINUED ----- addressed the changes in the zoning Code, the R-1 District was primarily intended for flatter areas and we talked about a separate zone for hillside areas, for various reasons that has not come about. What we are suggesting in the changes, in addressing these hillside areas, which have been zoned R-1, that where there are lots of more than 25 percent slope that the setback be reduced to 10 feet for both garage and structure as long as they provide two paved open parking spaces outside of the public right-of-way. Community Development Director Miller stated that if you look at the map Mr. Gray has provided you will see that he does in fact meet that requirement and his lot does slope considerably in excess of 25 percent, so this section would address his concerns in that regard, from the existing right-of-way. The Engineering Department has been working on the right-of-way concerns in the Country Club Heights area and that is a matter of separate action. Mr. Gray asked if this would be discussed this evening. Chairman Brown responded in the negative. Chairman Brown stated that he would like to go on with the pUblic hearing and as we get into specific items we can address your concerns. ~ Chairman Brown asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor of Zone Code Amendment 88-10. Mr. Kevin Jeffries, 17666 Grand Avenue, Lake Elsinore, stated that the amendments are great, at least for our project on the lake side of Grand Avenue near the Ortega Highway. Mr. Jeffries commented on Section 17.14.080.C, regarding the eight foot wall and the specific approval of the Planning Commission. By what means does that approval get granted is it through a specific application, additional fees, granted in a single-family minor design review if that wall is incorporated in that project, or is this a separate submittal? Mr. Jeffries commented on section 17.14.130 (D).5, regarding alternative fencing requirements, thinks the Commission should consider waiving or alternating the fence requirements for corner lots. Mr. Jeffries commented on section 17.23.090, regarding the fifty percent lot coverage, feels that this will be a benefit. ~ Chairman Brown asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor of Zone Code Amendment 88-10. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Receiving no response, Chairman Brown closed the public hearing at 8:37 p.m. Commissioner Kelley commented as follows: Page 2, Section 17.14.060 how do assure that the land- scaping will be maintained in good condition? Page 2, Section 17.14.1320(D).4. - vinyl coated chain link fencing, we do not allow this now, do we? Page 2, Section 17.23.030.A.2 - do you need a Conditional Use Permit to keep a horse on a half acre? Planning Commission Minutes December 20, 1988 Page 10 ZONE CODE AMENDMENT 88-10 = CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE CONTINUED Page 5, Section 17.28.060.3 - what is the typical dwelling unit to lot size in apartments? Community Development Director Miller responded to Commissioner Kelley's comments, respectively, as follows: There are already several indications of this in our -J ordinance, but it gives us a clearer statement to conduct enforcement actions, if necessary, where there is a real problem. There has been concern about chain link fencing, as expressed in the committee discussions particularly in the hillside areas. It was felt that if there is a desire for fencing it should be open fencing of some type, and preserve views. In the affirmative, stating that this would be added to the Conditional Use Permit in an R-l Zone. If you were in a R-A Zone, which we have on the books, but currently do not have applied anywhere then it would be permitted as an accessory. Most codes express density in terms of dwelling units, and 24 dwelling units per acre or 20 dwelling units per acre is a very common density in many mUlti-family zones. Commissioner Wilsey commented as follows: Page 2, Section 17.14.130 (D).l- with regard to new sub- divisions--Iots less than 12,000 square feet to provide privacy screening, walls are not required on lots 12,000 square feet or larger. I would like further discussion on __ this. Page 2, Section 17.14.130(D).2 - infill lots with regard to adjacent fencing. We might add verbiage where we are assured that the adjacent fencing would meet standards. Page 2, Section 17.14.130(0).4 that the wrought iron fencing would pertain to and go right back up to item 1 in new SUbdivisions in regards to fencing alternatives for view lots. Page 3, Section 17.23.080 - why are we reducing the setback for direct garage entry from 22 feet to 20 feet. I would like further discussion. Page 4, Section 17.23.090 maximum lot coverage of all structures in the R-l District shall be fifty percent, I assume that we will continue that primarily to infill, is this correct or R-l as a whole? Page 4, Section 17.24.100 - except as otherwise provided for accessory structures, the maximum building height in the R-2 District shall be 30 feet, etc. The original read 32 feet, why the reduction? -- Page 5, 17.28.070 - Assume that this should have been eighty (80) and not eight (8). Page 5, 17.28.100 - building height, noticed that this has been reduced to 30 feet from 35. Community Development Director Miller responded to Commissioner Wilsey'S comments, respectively, as follows: That would apply to the R-l District as a whole. In regard to building height the original read 30 feet. Planning Commission Minutes December 20, 1988 Page 11 ZONE CODE AMENDMENT 88-10 - CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE CONTINUED commissioner Brinley commented as follows: Page 8, Chapter 17.66 - Parking - In the C-M, M-1 and M-2 Districts - glad to see the changing of outdoor storage area from accessory to a conditional use. Page 7, In All Commercial and Manufacturing Districts - would like further discussion on the replacement of subsection at the end of each section on permitted uses. Chairman Brown called Mr. Gray back to the podium, and asked him about his development, and commented on the actual position of Lakeview Avenue, being 35 feet from the road, and if he understood that the existing graded road has no relationship to where his property lies. Mr. Gray responded in the affirmative. Chairman Brown asked Mr. Gray to give a brief explanation on his experience in merging those lots. Mr. Gray stated that the lots have not yet been merged, nor has an application been submitted to the City for a lot merger. r-- Chairman Brown asked Mr. Gray to address his concerns on the rear yard requirements. Mr. Gray stated that in the existing ordinance, Section 17.23.080, it states that the front yard setback is 20 feet or 22 feet for a garage, but my concern is with the rear yard where it says the rear yard shall be 20 feet. Item 3 states that finished slopes in excess of 5 percent shall not be permitted within 15 feet of the main dwelling unit. This means that we have to build something like a 20 foot high retaining wall on this lot to comply. Mr. Gray stated that he has a problem of understanding the 10 foot slope easement requirement and was informed that this would be discussed tonight. Community Development Director Miller stated Engineering Department has been working on is foot easement, so that slopes could go necessary, and this easement would not affect Chairman Brown commented as follows: that what suggesting a into that area the setbacks. the 10 as Page 2, Section 17.14.080.C - how was this done? If it was submitted separately would it then go through the normal process? Community Development Director Miller responded that under the changing policy that has recently been approved by City Council, virtually all new construction will come before Planning Commission for approval. Therefore, we would anticipate that any walls such as this, as long as they were presented at the time of development would be approved by Planning Commission. If it were submitted separately then we would probably be looking at Minor Design Review. Discussion at the table ensued on the above mentioned sections with the fOllowing suggestions: Section l7.l4.130(D).1 - Instead of saying that walls are not required say that walls may be waived, or delete verbiage "of lots less than 12,000 square feet to provide Planning Commission Minutes December 20, 1988 Page 12 ZONE CODE AMENDMENT 88-10 - CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE CONTINUED privacy and screening" and incorporate verbiage for large lots into subsection 0.5, of this section. Section 17.14.130(0).2 - add verbiage "existing old fencing to meet standards". In developments of less than four a 6' wooden fence is acceptable for lot line to lot line and for rear lot lines, and all developments with street view lots ~ shall have masonry walls. Section 17.14.130(0).4 delete fencing, and the city to provide "view" or delete the word. vinyl coated definition of chain link the word Section 17.14.130(0).5 - the Planning Commission may approve alternative materials or waive fencing requirements, especially in hillside areas or for large lots. Commissioner Brinley commented on the verbiage "A list of these uses shall be maintained in the Planning Department for future reference, listed under In All Commercial and Manufacturing Districts, 1.S, page 7 - asking when someone comes in for a conditional use permit if you will automatically list the things that are in there now and keep it with the file. Community Development Director Miller responded that there is a list of permitted uses in the code and those are the only uses permitted. Under conditional uses there is a list of uses that are permitted and then this statement "if the Planning Commission finds by resolution there may be other uses", listing uses is a very difficult situation. Community Development Director Miller stated that what most jurisdictions do and we would suggest, that this be changed and allow: under permitted uses, other uses that are determined to be in accord with the purpose of this chapter, and have characteristics similar to those use listed in the permitted use section, be allowed to be approved by the Community Development Director. This allows for new uses that come on line that have not even been conceived yet. But if they are similar to permitted uses they could be approved, and then retain the section about conditional uses. ...., Commissioner Wilsey commented as follows: Section 17.38.040 Lighting Standards - the new lighting standard is more ambiguous than the old lighting standard with regard to low sodium. Community Development Director Miller responded that this reflects discussion that City Council had some time ago in which they indicated that they were not comfortable with requiring that on all new development. Commissioner Kelley stated that he remembers this, and would personally like to re-instigate that to see if something could be done. We do have a few new members on City Council and not __ sure where they stand. Community Development Director Miller stated that this may be something that would be the subject of a study session. Chairman Brown suggested that Southern California Edison and Palomar Observatory be contacted and a presentation made on low sodium, and get all of the issues out on the table and resolved one way or another. Planning Commission Minutes December 20, 1988 Page 13 ZONE CODE AMENDMENT 88-10 - CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE CONTINUED ~ Motion by Chairman Brown to continue Zone Code Amendment 88-10 to the meeting of January 3, 1989 for re-write, second by Com- missioner Brinley. Approved 4-0 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS Community Development Director Miller stated that the Planning Commission had discussed the possibility of a field trip, in early January, to view small lots and requested that a date be scheduled. Community Development Director Miller stated Saathoff indicated to him that any Saturday satisfactory with him~ that Commissioner in January would be A brief discussion was held on what date to schedule for this field trip. The Planning Commission scheduled January 7, 1989, for the field trip. Chairman Brown requested that the Commissioners be sent notifi- cation on the time and place and appropriate attire. PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS ~ Commissioner wilsev Nothing to report. commissioner Kellev Appreciated the article on Protecting Industry from Yuppies and Other Invaders. Asked if City Council scheduled a study session. Community Development Director Miller stated that City Council scheduled a study session for January 7, and discussed scheduling a time at that study session for another study session. commissioner Brinlev Asked about the work being done by the Country Club Heights Committee and if this would be coming before the Commission soon or will this be tabled until after a study session with City Council? Community Development Director Miller stated that we have included recommendations in this to address many of the problems that have been brought up by the Country Club Heights Committee. However, Councilman Buck has continued to meet with various people in the Country Club Heights and indicated that he was going to be bring recommendations forward to City Council in the near future. Asked about the General Plan status. Community Development Development Director stated that we have suggested to City Council that they consider an expanded committee, for which we are currently advertising for interested persons. We anticipate meeting with the committee to consider the documents that are being generated by the consultant in early February. Wished staff, Council and everyone a happy holiday season. Planning Commission Minutes December 20, 1988 Page 14 PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS CONTINUED Chairman Brown Wished everyone a happy holiday. Commissioner Saathoff Absent There being no further business, the Lake Elsinore Commission adjourned at 9:32 p.m. Motion by Commissioner second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved 4-0 ~ " Approved, . Jeff Br Chairman ~UllY~f'm~tted. Linda Grindstaff Planning Commission Secretary ..... Planning Wilsey, .-- .......