Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-06-1987 NAH MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY 1987 THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:00 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Commissioner Callahan. - ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Commissioners: Brown, Mellinger, Callahan, Kelley and Washburn ABSENT: None Also present were Community Development Director Miller, Senior Planners Bolland and Manee, and Planners Last, Magee and Spencer. MINUTE ACTION Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to approve minutes of December 16, 1986, as submitted, second by Commissioner Callahan. Approved 5-0 Chairman Washburn announced that prior to beginning the Public Hear- ings, he was moving Item 3, Conditional Use Permit 86-8, to the end of the Public Hearing items, to be taken up as the last item on the Public Hearing segment of the agenda. PUBLIC HEARINGS - 1. Amendment 86-3 - City of Lake Elsinore - Community Development Director Miller presented proposal to amend Section 17.23.060 regarding lot area in the R-I (Single-Family Residential) Dis- trict, to require a transition of lot sizes when abutting pro- perty is in a lower density zoning district or adjacent to an existing developed parcel of larger size. He further stated this proposal is an outgrowth of discussion at a Study Session last month. Chairman Washburn opened the public hearing at 7:05 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of Amendment 86-03. Receiv- ing no reply, Chairman Washburn asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Receiving no response, Chairman Washburn asked if anyone else in the audience wished to express their feelings on this matter. Receiving no response, Chairman Washburn closed the pUblic hearing at 7:06 p.m. Discussion commenced at the table. Commission Mellinger stated he agreed with the new verbiage with one minor exception: dis- cussion of impacts in the Staff Report indicates that the larger transitional lots would be counterbalanced by ~ore 6,000 square foot minimum size lots elsewhere in the tract. That is really ~ function of the review. There could be overall impacts from a SUbdivision itself and that would be subject to future General Plan pOlicies. In order to clarify that, under the pro- posed "(A) Interior lots," the verbiage "a minimum of" should be added after "shall be" and before "7,260 square feet." - Commissioner Brown asked what direction or instruction is an applicant given from staff under the "Exception" section of this proposed amendment. Community Development Director Miller replied that they would have to look at the surrounding lots. For example, in one part of the City, there are half acre lots but the frontage along the street is quite narrow - the lots may only be 70 or 65-foot wide but are half acre lots and quite deep. Therefore, if a new SUbdivision were being placed across the street from such a sub- division, 65-foot wide lots might be appropriate. On the other hand, looking at another area of town, where there are 100-foot wide lots then staff would be looking for something that would be more reflective of that. Not necessarily a half acre in size Minutes of Planning Commission January 6, 1987 Page 2 AMENDMENT 86-3 - CITY OF ~ ELSINORE - CONTINUED but so that the appearance from the adjoining property would be similar to the existing development. Further, where there are lots abutting horse property area, which area requires all corrals or pens for the keeping of animals be a minimum of 50 feet from any residences, these abutting lots would be required to provide larger setbacks. Thus it will be necessary to look at the surrounding property, decide what are the distinguishing characteristics of those lots and ask that the subdivider or applicant, who is proposing a new subdivision, take that into consideration and try to present something where there would be compatibility between those two lots - it might be a deeper lot to provide greater setback, a wider lot or a larger lot, and how it is shaped could have an impact. It will have to be looked at on a case-by-case basis. - commissioner Kelley stated he liked the flexibility of this pro- posal and to minimize the disparity between the densities would be of great benefit to the community. Chairman Washburn stated he feels it adds a certain amount of flexibility working with staff and the applicant and is what is needed. He feels the intent of it is to provide some need for buffer, especially at the west end. They can go much further with it with other work on the General Plan. Motion by Commissioner Callahan to recommend to City Council approval of Amendment 86-3; second by Commissioner Mellinger with discussion, to recommend to City Council adoption of Nega- tive Declaration 86-6, amending "Discussion of Impacts," #11, fourth line, instead of "would be counterbalanced" with "may be counterbalanced;" also adding the verbiage "a minimum of" be- .- tween the words "be" and "7260" in subsection (A) Interior lots of Section 17.23.060, so it will read as follows: "Section 17.23.060 LOT AREA. The minimum lot area for any new lot created in the R-l District shall be as follows: "A. Interior lots: 6,000 square feet, however, the average lot size for any subdivi- sion shall be a minimum of 7,260 square feet. "B. Corner lots: 7,700 square feet. "C. Exception: Whenever a lot is adjacent to a lower density zoning district or to an existing developed parcel with a larger lot size than re- quired in the R-l District, a transition or buffer shall be provided between the adjacent property and a new subdivision, which may include, but is not limited to, lot size, lot width, lot depth, increased setbacks, or slopes. The purpose of this tran- sition shall be to minimize the disparity between different densi- ties of development. The adequacy of this transition shall be sub- ject to the review and approval of the Planning Commission and City Council on a case-by-case basis." Commissioner Callahan amended his motion to include the amend- ments by Commissioner Mellinger. Approved 5-0 - ,t~ ,t~~t~.I!P.~ Minutes of Planning Commission January 6, 1987 Page 3 - 2. Amendment 86-4 - City of Lake Elsinore - Senior Planner Manee presented proposal to amend Chapter 17.98, currently titled "Special Events," regarding the temporary use of property for assemblies, attractions, performances, rallies, and similar activities held no more than seven (7) consecutive days per event and no more than twice a year to an ordinance section titled "Temporary Outdoor Activity Permit," which refocuses the intent of this section by addressing both short and long term temporary uses that can reasonably be anticipated of private property that may have adverse impacts on adjacent properties and/or City services. Senior Planner Manee called the Commission's attention to a correction to be made at the bottom of page two, under "Scor- ing Received," by adding the verbiage "City Council" between the words "no" and "discretionary" in items #1, #2, and #3. Chairman Washburn opened the public hearing at 7:15 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of Amendment 86-4. Mr. David Vik, 1st Vice Chairman of Rodeo Sports Entertainment Center Committee, Lake Elsinore Valley Chamber of Commerce, asked if this ordinance would apply to the Frontier's Day cele- bration which is operating under a Conditional Use Permit at this time. - Community Development Director responded that Frontier's Day would be subject to the Conditional Use Permit Only but that the Rodeo would be subject to this amended ordinance now under consideration. Mr. Vik commented on or expressed concerns on the following: Scoring system and fees involved; Section 17.98.010 - Advertising. on excluding Corona and Norco. points or what? Senior Planner Manee stated there is a direct relationship be- tween the amount and area that is advertised and the possible participants that would be attracted to an area. This enables staff and applicant to evaluate the approximate number of people who may participate and be able to put things in perspective. Asked what the premise was Is it for calculating more Mr. vik questioned c), d), and e) of 17.98.010 and stated they would be at odds with closing down at 11:30 p.m. because the Rodeo normally doesn't close until about 1-1:30 a.m. He feels 1:00 a.m. would be more realistic for them. - Senior Planner Manee commented that on large events, with special needs, the City Council would be the decision-making body. Any exceptions to this ordinance have to be dealt with by the City Council and not a subordinate body, such as the Com- munity Development Director or City Manager. Mr. Vik then asked the meaning of 17.98.010 (h) Performance Deposit. Senior Planner Manee answered that larger activities put a stress on public services if they operate in a less than optimum manner, i.e,. leaving trash, etc. Performance deposits, for the most part, go up very slowly and are very nominal except in most extreme cases. This deposit is a cash up-front amount of money in the event there would be an inability or unwillingness to cooperate in the clean-up of an area. Mr. Vik asked if the fee were refundable and Mr. Manee replied Minutes of Planning Commission January 6, 1987 Page 4 AMENDMENT 86-4 - CITY OF ~ ELSINORE - CONTINUED - Commissioner Mellinger asked and received clarification on 17.98.010(1) Temporary Outdoor Activity. Commissioner Mellinger then commented on 17.98.040 Submittal Time, by stating that the minimum four weeks is fine but with a ten-day appeal period and the assumption that the applicant appeals on the tenth day, there is no guarantee the appeal will go to the Council the next day and, thereby, the four-week submittal time period is used up. Asked why there couldn't be a five-day appeal period. Community Development Director Miller responded that if the applicant's submittal contains all the required information, the four week time period is sufficient, due to the explicit information required on the application and work sheets which enables staff to begin processing immediately. Should applicant wish to appeal a condition or a denial, he then has time to do so within that four week period. It is applicant's responsibili- ty to submit the appeal for Council action in a timely manner. The four-week submittal time period was chosen for the pro- tection of the applicant so that staff cannot drag its feet. The ten-day appeal period is also for the protection of the applicant so allow them to come in with very little time left. -- "'''1"!'~~1''~' Minutes of Planning Commission January 6, 1987 Page 5 AMENDMENT 86-4 - CITY Ql ~ ELSINORE - CONTINUED - Commissioner Mellinger asked if the appeals would be "noticed" and was informed they would not. He then stated he felt a 5- day appeal period should be sufficient. Commissioner Mellinger, in Section l7.98.080(f) Number of Par- ticipants, asked how the number of participants is determined or proved. What happens if we find they have greatly exceeded the numbers they stated? Under "Enforcement" we can void a permit for non-compliance. Would we put a stop to an activity? Community Development Director Miller replied that we have what looks like a complex evaluating system, but isn't, and it was designed to assess how much potential impact it might have. For example, if you are advertising throughout Riverside County, that is going to have a certain weight because the potential to ha~e a large number of participants is much greater. All the evaluation categories provide an assessment of the potential to attract large numbers of people, particularly from the outside area who might have a greater impact upon roadways and other City services. The number of participants is only one way of evaluating the event. Commissioner Mellinger stated his feeling is that the regional advertising is used to determine the number of participants, and then the number of points assigned is sort of a double "whammy." They are assigned points for number of participants and also for advertising. I'd think you'd just adjust up the number of participants, instead of assigning three for local and 10 for regional advertising and 10 for number of partici- pants. Commissioner Mellinger asked if more points would be added if advertising showed more participants than stated and was ans- wered in the affirmative, but was also informed that an evalu- ation can be made by the City from the seating capacity of an activity. - Commissioner Mellinger then enquired if the application asked if the activity would generate noise or glare on the surround- ing area. - Senior Planner Manee responded in the negative, but stated that it does indirectly through questions regarding dancing, enter- ment, etc., regarding its potential for generating noise. The Noise Ordinance, adopted as part of the Zoning Code, would apply to any type of activity within the City. Commissioner Mellinger stated that l7.98.080(g) Exception - Pri- vate Use Rule - the verbiage should be that the exception be granted by the Community Development Director or it will always be a matter of dispute. Commissioner Mellinger then asked what was meant in l7.98.080(h) (ii) by the verbiage "located solelY on improved private proper- ty. " Senior Planner Manee responded that this verbiage distinguishes between those people who have a totallY vacant lot and staff did not want them included in this ordinance. staff felt they would be more of a police matter. They would be on their own property but it would be totally void of any improvements and this ordinance would not apply. If they were doing something that was perhaps disturbing the peace then that would be taken care of by a police authority. Commissioner Mellinger stated he wished the above information on totally vacant lots emphasized in case it pops up a few years from now. Minutes of Planning Commission January 6, 1987 Page 6 AMENDMENT 86-4 - CITY OF ~ ELSINORE - CONTINUED On off-street parking, Commissioner Mellinger asked if we would allow them to use a field for off-street parking for 500 to 600 parking spaces and was informed that this would come up under conditions that may be imposed through the approval process. Under Section 17.98.092, Commissioner Mellinger asked if we were using County standards for trash containers and was in- -- formed that we were in part but there is some flexibility. It is basically in part the same as theirs but there would be other requirements if the material they were disposing of was just food by-products. They basically wanted to give applicant some idea of what their requirements would be, but they aren't as strict or as explicit as the County would be but meet County standards. commissioner Mellinger asked if the Sign-off Sheet, Exhibit A, is something applicant takes around to have signed off or if it was something staff was going to use, and shouldn't Police and Fire be included. senior Planner Manee replied that it was something the appli- cant took around and that Police and Fire could be added - that there were blank spaces to add other agencies if needed. commissioner Mellinger questioned the vergiage "Attorney of the Owner" under the Affidavit on page 4 of the application and was informed it is the set form the City uses. In Section 17.98.090, Commissioner Mellinger questioned the number of traffic control personnel to be provided and commented on none being required for up to 1500 people in 24 hours. -- Senior Planner Manee stated that is within a twenty-four hour period and not simultaneous with a one-hour period with 1500 people showing up. He pointed out that we also have the option to say the applicant will have to go to the City Council and Commissioner Mellinger recommended that that be added to the ordinance. commissioner Mellinger then asked what was regulating parades these days. Community Development Director Miller responded that City staff, out of the City Manager's office, is in the process of amending Title 10. Parades, since they are really different from land use regulations, which are regulated through the Zoning Code, are being addressed through Title 10 which relates to traffic safety. commissioner Brown asked if the Fourth of July fireworks cele- bration would be regulated under this ordinance or under parades, and was informed it would fall under this ordinance and would probably go before City Council. Commissioner Brown enquired if we were to have a City-wide event such as a 10-K bicycle race, would it come under this ordinance or the parade. Community Development Director Miller responded that in this ordinance they are really trying to address land use issues, which means regulation of uses of property. When you get into streets, they have a different standing than property. There- fore, depending on how is was organized, for instance, if it were organized for the event to start at City Park and run along public streets, then, quite possibly, it would be more appropriately addressed under the regulations under traffic and -- ~;~~~;\af'~"~f ; ..' < ': ',j ~ ",,' '.' Minutes of Planning Commission January 6, 1987 Page 7 AMENDMENT 86-4 - CITY OF ~ ELSINORE - CONTINUED - safety. If it were conducted entirely on private property, say the lake bottom, then it would probably more appropriately fall under the regulations set forth in this ordinance. Commissioner Brown asked if they were allowed any distinction between profit and non-profit organizations. Senior Planner Manee replied that they had considered it but did not think it was appropriate. That if someone wishes to make that distinction, then the City Council would be the responsible body. Commissioner Kelley stated that basically he is pleased with the wording of the ordinance, that it is very fair to the people applying and that the fees, he believes, are extraordinarily low. In,regard to the fees, he doesn't feel it will ever be a prob- lem, whether it be profit or non-profit. Commissioner Callahan stated this ordinance is to further en- hance the image if the City of Lake Elsinore. In the past, quite often activities were put on illegally. They will not be able to do this anymore. He wants to see people come here, enjoy themselves and then go home as safe and happy as they were when they go here. They are not trying to pick on any certain type of organization. If an organization is a non- profit as opposed to a profit type, doesn't see why they should be excluded from providing the proper sanitation facilities, or trash receptacles, proper parking, etc., which are normally con- sistent with special events. If they have to do this and put a drain on City personnel, then they should pay, whether profit or non-profit, instead of making all citizens of the City pay, which happens when monies from the General Fund must be used to cover expenses incurred by the City when the applicant doesn't pay his full fees and furnish all required items. He feels when organizations don't pay their full fees for staff time and personnel, they are causing a forced donation by all citizens of the City. Commissioner Callahan stated he under- stands the fees being charged are about half what it really costs the City and asked Community Development Director Miller if that were true. - Community Development Director replied that the fees referred to here reflect the fees for processing. Services provided by the City is subject of a study the City is in the process of conducting and it may be that services rendered by the City out- side the processing would be an additional cost. That has been reflected in the recent past by the Sheriff's Department in charges for Sheriff's deputies. - Chairman Washburn stated that, in his mind, this ordinance is not ready to go to Council. He feels Commissioner Mellinger had a great many good points. The points system is a fair and equitable one but the problem he sees is that it is too wordy, not easy for the applicant to work with. He feels input from other sources, such as the Rodeo, Chamber of Commerce, Rotary Club, other clubs, is necessary. He also adheres to the theory of keeping things simple. This ordinance is not short enough, direct enough to the point, too confusing and feels it should go back for rework before it even comes back before this table. It is neither clear nor easy enough for an applicant to take the application and quickly and smoothly fill it out and bring it back. It talks about one thing and then another and jumps around and back and forth. The affidavit is not what they are familiar with and Exhibit A is not clear on the applicant's responsibility on portions of the form. He requested staff get input from the Chamber of Commerce and other organizations Minutes of Planning Commission January 6, 1987 Page 8 AMENDMENT 86-4 - CITY Ql ~ ELSINORE - CONTINUED and that Commission continue this item. He remarked that he would put that in a form of a motion if he could get a second. Commissioner Brown seconded the motion for purposes of dis- cussion. Commissioner Brown asked if they really needed to get all that __ complicated. He feels the application is complicated and asked if they needed to give all those scorings or are they just do- ing that for consolidation and ease of handling in the office. Community Development Director Miller responded that they were doing it for consolidation. The application, as staff viewed it, is basically set up to provide either "yes"-"no" answers. Although it may look rather imposing, if you go down and read it, it is simply a matter of checking "yes" or "no," filling out number of anticipated participants, and the scoring is simply provided there so that we have it consolidated for ease of processing. It is intended that most of the time someone will be able to stand at the counter, go over the application with the applicant, and hopefully have them on their way with- in fifteen minutes or less. When it can't be handled that quiCkly, that is when Exhibit A comes into play and the appli- cant will be instructed on getting the sign-offs from the various agencies, which will be indicated for them. Staff feels the application is more a checklist format. Community Development Director Miller further commented that the ordinance itself, while complicated to read through, is intended as an ordinance to provide for interpretations and reference. It would not be their intention to normally give the ordinance to the applicant. The applicant would be given pages 1 through 3 of the application to complete and will be helped at the counter if they need it. If required, they will be given Exhibit A and instructions for sign-offs. -- Discussion continued on having maybe the public try filling out application, as well as various organizations in town without receiving help or instruction from staff to get a feel as to how understandable it is; leaving the scoring on the page or taking it off; applicant receiving pages 4 and 5 after fil- ling out pages 1 through 3 of application; applicant filling out affidavit at top of page 4; Deposits and Fees on page 4 should have "For Official Use Only" written as heading; on\ page 5 "For Official Use Only" heading should also be used for Items 1 through 6; Community Development Director Miller commented that the appli- cation is not a part of the ordinance and was provided as an exhibit and can be amended at any time, but if the Commission is uncomfortable with the ordinance, then staff needs specific directions. Chairman Washburn stated he would submit his concerns to staff. Chairman Washburn commented that the motion on the floor is to continue with some changes and have some examples run through with some special events that have been done in the past to see how well it works out and then bring it back at the next meet- ing on January 20, 1987. Approved 5-0 -- 4. Zone Change 86-20 - Brookstone Investors (Arthur H. Nelson) _ Planner Last presented proposal to rezone approximately 4.59 acres of land from C-P (Commercial Park) to C-2 (General Com- mercial), located on the northwest intersection of Riverside ~~~~!;.' "':' Minutes of Planninq Commission January 6, 1987 Page 9 ZONE CHANGE 86-20 - BROOKS TONE INVESTORS (ARTHUR ~ NELSON) CONTINUED Drive and Lincoln Street. - Chairman Washburn opened the public hearing at 8:44 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of Zone Change 86-20. Mr. Art Nelson, 31682 Riverside Drive, Lake Elsinore, owner of property, stated he was there to answer any questions that they might have. Chairman Washburn asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor of Zone Change 86-20. Receiving no response, Chairman Washburn asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Receiving no reply, Chairman Washburn closed the public hearing at 8:45 p.m. Commissioner Mellinger asked if there were other C-P areas that have to be cleaned up still under that General Commercial and are they coming in or is the City going to do something. Community Development Director Miller replied that there were other C-P areas to be cleaned up and it is an area that is one of the Planning Division's major projects for this year. How- ever, it will probably be towards the later part of the year before it will be brought before the Commission because they are going to try and bring it as a package. Motion by commissioner Brown to recommend to City Council adop- tion of Negative Declaration 86-62 and approval of Zone Change 86-20, second by Commissioner Callahan. Approved 5-0 5. Zone Change 86-21 - Arthur H. Nelson - Planner Spencer presented proposal to rezone 1.99 acres from C-P (Commercial Park) to C-2 (General commercial) Zoning District, located on the west side of Riverside Drive between Joy Street and Lincoln Street. Chairman Washburn opened the public hearing at 8:47 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of Zone Change 86-21. Mr. Art Nelson, 31682 Riverside Drive, Lake Elsinore, applicant, was present to answer any questions. Chairman Washburn asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor of Zone Change 86-21. Receiving no response, Chairman Washburn asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Receiving no reply, Chairman Washburn closed the public hearing at 8:48 p.m. Motion by commissioner Mellinger to recommend to City Council adoption of Negative Declaration 86-63 and approval of Zone Change 86-21- Approved 5-0 - 3. Conditional Use Permit 86-8 - Dr. Bradley Grant - Senior Planner Bolland presented request for determination by the Planning Com- mission if an emergency medicine/sports medicine clinic is an appropriate use in the C-P (Commercial Park) Zone. Chairman Washburn opened the public hearing at 8:52 p.m and asked if anyone wished to speak in favor of Conditional Use Permit 86-8. Dr. Bradley Grant, 17037 Lakeshore Drive, Lake Elsinore, stated he was the owner of the property in question as well as the Medical Director and founder of the clinic, and at the request of the community, they have expanded their hours to evenings as well as Saturdays and Sundays. They have approximately 10,000 patients of which about 5,000 of those are from tourists themselves. Because of this increase in local patients as well as tourist Minutes of Planning Commission January 6, 1987 Page 10 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 86-8 - DR. BRADLEY GRANT - CONTINUED patients, they need to remodel the existing facility to add an additional floor and they are acquiring an adjacent lot to handle the necessary parking. They also are proposing to up- grade the aesthetic appearance of the entire medical facility. . In order to meet the medical needs of this area and the tour- ists, he requested that his request for remodel and expansion be approved. Chairman Washburn asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor of Conditional Use Permit 86-8. .... Mr. Dick Murphy, 29362 Swan Street, Lake Elsinore, stated that he was the original builder of the medical center that is there now. The building in the back was never completed for reasons beyond their control at that time. At the time the building was constructed it did comply with the zoning. Basically, since it was in compliance at one time, it should be now. It is a sports related medical center at this time and feels it is very appro- priate, with tourists coming to town, to have a facility of this type near. 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 closed the public hearing at 8:58 p.m. Discussion commenced at the table with Commissioner Mellinger commenting that in light of the location at the lake, it should remain Tourist Commercial. It's C-P Zoning is to implement Tourist Commercial and it does include a lot of recreational uses. Feels a nearby emergency clinic is more than appropriate and the request by applicant is very appropriate for the uses involved. .... commissioner Callahan stated he agreed with staff that a zone change should be required and would be more appropriate. Commissioner Kelley also stated a zone change should be re- quired as well as a General Plan Amendment since this use is clearly not permitted in its present zoning. Chairman Washburn stated that he concurred with Commissioner Mellinger for two particular reasons; Under many sections of the Zoning Code we have permitted uses and even though we don't have a full list of permitted uses, there are uses that fall in between that do fit and they, as the Planning Commis- sion, are allowed under the Zoning Ordinance to resolve such a question. Chairman Washburn read the following from the Code: "Other uses that the Planning Commission finds by resolution to be in accord with the purpose of this Chapter and having characteristics similar to those uses listed in this Section. A list of all uses added by the Planning Commission shall be maintained in the Planning Department for future reference." ~ He feels that it is tourist-recreational and Dr. Grant is oper- ational during hours of recreational activity. He sees that the City is underway to rezone a number of these areas that have tourist commercial categories and this particular area will pro- bably be an area that will be rezoned. Chairman Washburn fur- ther stated he would allow the use as a Planning Commission approved use that fits in the category. Commissioner Brown asked Dr. Grant what kind of State licensing \'i \t ~~~!.5!i~ '!Jl ~ Minutes of Planning commission January 6, 1987 Page 11 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 86-8 - DR. BRADLEY GRANT - CONTINUED or regulations are needed for emergency medicine services. - Dr. Grant replied there are different degrees of emergency medi- cal facilities - everything from ambulatory to fully intensive care. Obviously, they don't present themselves as fully inten- sive care - there is a hospital for that. What they will do is handle all the ambulatory care for stabalization and transfer. They can handle more the general problems that ensue from acci- dents on the lake or automobile, motorcycle or bike accidents. They are already licensed for this type of care and treatment. Basically, with regard to the licensing; there is no specific licensing necessary for a facility to operate as an urgent care facility, providing that the staff are fully qualified with the State. commissioner Brown asked who determines where an injured per- son is taken. Dr. Grant responded that severely injured persons would be taken directly to a hospital, but less serious injuries or accidents would probably be taken to the closest medical facility. Commissioner Mellinger asked if the terminology would be "urgent care" rather than "emergency medicine." - Dr. Grant replied that "urgent care" would be more appropriate. Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to adopt Negative Declaration 86-58 and approve applicant's request and change "emergency medicine" to "urgent care facility" for purposes of the list of permitted uses, second by Chairman Washburn with one comment. Chairman Washburn asked if that would also then be included in the list of uses that are permitted within the C-P Zone. Commissioner Mellinger stated that would be the intent. He asked staff that with this request, wouldn't it have to be under the permitted uses and then couldn't go under the CUP. Community Development Director Miller replied that the request before them would be established under subsection W of Section 17.52.020 Permitted Uses. To require a CUP, would be a Code amendment. ' Approved 4-1 (Commissioner Callahan voting No) Community Development Director Miller stated that for clarifi- cation, Subsection W does require adoption of a resolution by the Planning Commission, which after adoption will implement this use and it would thereafter be retained on the list of per- mitted uses in the C-P Zone. with concurrence of the Planning Commission, Community Devel- opment Director Miller read the following resolution: RESOLUTION NO. 87-2 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING "URGENT CARE FACILITY" AS A PERMITTED USE IN THE C-P (COMMERCIAL PARK) ZONING DISTRICT. WHEREAS, section 17.52.020.W of the Lake Elsinore Muni- cipal Code provides that the Planning commission may designate per- mitted uses in the C-P (Commercial Park) Zone that are not already listed; and .. Minutes of Planning Commission January 6, 1987 Page 12 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 86-8 - DR. BRADLEY GRANT - CONTINUED WHEREAS, the use of an "urgent care facility" may provide services to tourists in accordance with the purposes of the Commercial Park Zone; NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning commission does hereby resolve that an urgent Care Facility shall henceforth be listed as a permitted use in the Commercial Park Zoning District. -- Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to adopt Resolution No. 87-2, second by Chairman Washburn. Approved 4-1 (Commissioner Callahan voting No) BUSINESS ITEMS 1. Lake Elsinore Redevelopment Project - City of Lake Elsinore - Lake Elsinore Redevelopment Project, Selection of Project Area Boundaries and adoption of the Preliminary Plan. Commissioner Callahan stated he had just purchased some land within this area and since he might be in conflict of interest he will abstain from participation and voting at this time until he can get an opinion from the city Attorney. Community Development Director Miller commented that since Mr. Dick Hill was already at the podium he would like to introduce him as one of the principal members of the firm of Municipal Services Inc. (MSI) , who have prepared the Preliminary Plan and assisted the City in preparation of the various materials. Com- munity Development Director Miller turned the floor over to Mr. Hill to introduce the project and answer any questions. Mr. Dick Hill pointed out on the map on display the Project Area boundaries which are primarily the area at the east end of the lake, the small parcel recently annexed further east of there, the area just east of downtown and the large area which includes the Heights, the Avenues and along the lake front. The size of the map and the way it is prepared is required by the Board of Equalization. If this Project Area is approved and submitted to the Redevelopment Agency and they in turn authorize transmittal of this map and legal description, that in essence will be the first step toward the plan adoption process. The area as de- scribed is the same area as the survey boundaries which were previously adopted. - The Preliminary Plan, which is a very general document and actually the map and legal description are incorporated into the Preliminary Plan, establish and satisfy legal requirements and serve again as the initiating process leading to the Draft Rede- velopment Plan and the accompanying documents. It also initi- ates the environmental process with regard to the Environmental Impact Report on the Redevelopment Plan itself. This is pro- bably not a Preliminary Plan they are accustomed to seeing, which is more oriented toward development. This is much more general and reall} foes not circumvent but rather includes zon- ing and General Plan requirements which the City has already established. ~ In addition, the Planning commission will have an opportunity, if this project Area and Preliminary Plan go forward, to review the Redevelopment Plan and Project Area as well as the Draft Environmental Impact Report and, in accordance with law and prior to the public hearing, they can amend the boundaries and can recommend "for" or "against" the Redevelopment Plan in the Project Area. This is a lengthy process which involves the Planning Commission, Redevelopment Agency, City Council, taxing agencies, including Riverside County, the citizens who live and ., ".....~~....oIt... ,". ;~ :if~' ~:) r~ ~'.' Jr.1 {j';. ,:}\ Minutes of Planning commission January 6, 1987 Page 13 LAKE ELSINORE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT - SELECTION OF PROJECT AREA BOUNDARIES AND CONSIDERATION OF PRELIMINARY ~ - CONTINUED - work in the Project Area as it is proposed, culminating in a public hearing scheduled for July, at which time public input will be received. The Project Area boundaries were selected primarily as areas which have blighting indications and which initially satisfy the legal requirement to be termed as 80 percent urbanized. Urban- ized does not necessarily mean that it has a structure on the parcel, but rather has a very specific definition which MSI along with the City Attorney will ultimately make a determina- tion and recommendation that in fact all of these areas do truly reach the definition of urbanized. - The primary blighting issues in the east end of the lake and the Heights and Avenues area has to do with the subdivision or lack of subdivision which hasn't been able to promote development. The line that extends down the lake which defines the northwest- erly boundary of Parcel 1 is approximately where it is anticipa- ted to establish a dike area allowing for development within Parcell. Parcel 2, which was recently annexed into the City, lacks public improvements. Parcel 4 primarily has poor and in- adequate public improvement facilities. MSI will prepare a document which will establish blighting conditions much more thoroughly in response to legal requirements and as part of the public hearing process on the Redevelopment Plan. Mr. Hill commented that if there were any questions, he would be happy to answer them. Chairman Washburn asked if Parcel 1 would include the levee if it were put into place and received an affirmative answer. commissioner Mellinger asked at what point would they receive the definition for urbanization. Mr. Hill replied that the definition is in the law. What they want to do is establish these areas and investigate them further. The problem with the definition of urbanized is the fact that there has been no litigation to further define precisely what urbanized means. As examples, if there has previously been development, that qualifies as urbanized. If it satisfies cer- tain definitions of blight, it does not have to satisfy the definition of urbanized. MSI will go through each area and attempt to show that it is urbanized or that it satisfies the definition of blight. Both are very nebulous, have been rarely tested and where they have been tested, those definitions gen- erally have stood up to legal scrutiny. The actual findings will be made at the actual Plan and not at the Preliminary Plan. - Chairman Washburn asked if the matters before them tonight are adopted, how long before the next document is brought forward and would it be the Draft Environmental Impact Report? Mr. Hill replied the Preliminary Plan, map and legal descrip- tion, which are incorporated in the Preliminary Plan, will go to the Redevelopment Agency next Tuesday, their next meet- ing. At that time, if it is approved, MSI will work with the City Clerk to transmit the legal description and map to all the taxing entities (state Board of Equalization, County Treasurer and Tax Collector). At that point, MSI will start the fiscal review process which has been designed to allow for specific input, a report called the Preliminary Report which outlines in some detail what is being proposed with regard to specific Minutes of Planning Commission January 6, 1987 Page 14 LAKE ELSINORE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT - SELECTION OF PROJECT AREA BOUNDARIES AND CONSIDERATION OF PRELIMINARY PLAN - CONTINUED projects. Then they hold a public hearing. The formal pub- lic hearing hasn't accomplished very much but the individual negotiations with the taxing agencies have. The next opportun- ity the commission will have, assuming everything flows through smoothly and there is no reason to come back and recommend any changes in the project Area itself, will be at the end of May, -- at which time the Draft Redevelopment Plan, the Project Area and the Draft Environmental Impact Report will all be presented to the Commission well ahead of the public hearing. They recommend the Commission hold a public hearing on'the Draft Environmental Report to allow for additional public input prior to the formal public hearing on the Plan. Further, MSI will have had discus- sions with all the taxing agencies and they will probably have held one if not two public meetings with those persons who own property in the project area, so they will be much further along in the process. Chairman Washburn asked if there has ever been a situation where a community has actually had a lake as part of the project area. Mr. Hill responded that the reason why the lake was not incor- porated previously was based on MSI's recommendation because the lake has been owned by the State and they did not want to bring the State into the planning process. Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to adopt Resolution No. 87-1, second by commissioner Kelley. Approved 3-0 (Commissioners Callahan and Brown abstaining) .... COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S REPORT Nothing to report. PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS commissioner Kelley: Nothing to report. commissioner Callahan: Stated that at the last meeting he had talked about Mr. Renee Rich's property where there was a considerable amount of building materials, a trailer and some other stuff stored on a lot on Lakeshore Drive. He went by there today and noticed that a good bit has been removed, but the trailer is still there and he has constructed a fence on the east border of his property, between it and the house coming east, which is the eye sore of the world. The property owner of the adja- cent property is pretty irate. The fence is constructed out of any piece of lumber, plywood, paneling or whatever, in all different colors and sizes and descriptions. He would like staff to have Mr. Rich demolish this latest addition to his property. Community Development Director Miller commented that staff is aware -- of the construction Commissioner Callahan is referring to and has been continuing in the department's lengthy efforts to obtain com- pliance from Mr. Rich and has not yet initiated legal proceedings, however, that may be near. commissioner Brown: Nothing to report. Minutes of Planning Commission January 6, 1987 Page 15 PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS - CONTINUED Commissioner Mellinqer: - Nothing to report. Chairman Washburn: He commented he only had a couple of questions. The staff was work- ing on some base maps and things of that sort - would it be possible to jot down the projects the Planning Department is undergoing cur- rently so the Commission is aware of every project? He doesn't think they have a current list and isn't sure if they really know all the projects. He stated his other question is that he is sure that somebody has informed Code Enforcement that there is an abandoned vehicle on Chaney. Street between Heald and Lakeshore Drive. It has been there for about a week. - Chairman Washburn stated they needed to set a Study Session for Gen- eral Plan Policies. It was the concensus of the Commission to set Wednesday, January 21, 1987, from 6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m., as the date for the Study Session for General Plan Policies. Chairman Washburn asked if there were any other topics they wanted to cover that night. Community Development Director Miller commented that they had talked briefly about low pressure sodium lighting and the Engineering Department has received some quite extensive information from South- ern California Edison and they anticipate asking the City Council to set a Joint Study Session on that topic with the Planning Commission in the relatively near future. He will advise the Commission as soon as City Council sets a date. There being no further business, the Lake Elsinore Planning Commis- sion adjourned at 9:30 p.m. Motion by Commissioner Mellinger, second by Commissioner Callahan. Approved, - M~J11 !C0}zJ~ Gary ashburn, Chati an \.... Respectfully submitted, ~tJ~ Ruth Edwards Acting Planning commission Secretary - ..., ....., MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY 1987 THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:03 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Senior Planner Bolland. - ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Commissioners: Mellinger, Callahan, Kelley and Washburn. ABSENT: commissioner Brown Also present were community Development Director Miller, Senior Planner Bolland, Planners Magee, Last and Spencer. MINUTE ACTION commissioner Mellinger stated that he only has one question, when we say approved 3-2 and there are two abstentions, does that really mean 3-0, referring to Page 14, 4th paragraph. Community Development Director Miller stated that it would probably be better to reflect it at 3-0 with two abstentions, for clarity. Motion by Commissioner Callahan to approve minutes of January 6, 1987, second by Commissioner Kelley. Commissioner Mellinger asked if the motion was to approve the minutes with the correction on Page 14. commissioner Callahan stated that his motion included the amendment __ to Page 14. There being no further discussion, Chairman Washburn called for the question. Approved 4-0 PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Amendment 86-4 - City of Lake Elsinore - Community Development Director Miller stated that this has been discussed at some length, at the last meeting, with regard to revisions of the existing Special Event Ordinance. In reviewing the input and in taking Commission's direction in terms of obtaining additional input from some of the community organizations, we felt that more time was needed to make the revisions and review those with the community organizations, so we have requested a continuance to February 3, 1987. Chairman Washburn opened the public hearing at 7:06 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of Amendment 86-4. Receiving no response, Chairman Washburn asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Receiving no response, Chairman Washburn closed the public hearing at 7:07 p.m. __ Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to continue Amendment 86-4 to February 3, 1987, second by Commissioner Callahan. Approved 4-0 2. Zone Change 86-19 - David J. Huarte - Planner Magee presented proposal to change the present zoning designation from C-P (Commercial Park) to C-2 (General Commercial), to bring the zoning into conformance with the General Plan Land Use Design- ation of General commercial, for 21.56 acres between Lakeshore Drive and Walnut Drive, and approximately 150 feet northwesterly from the centerline of Fraser Drive. Chairman Washburn opened the public hearing at 7:08 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of Zone Change 86-19. Minutes of Planning commission January 20, 1987 Page 2 ZONE CHANGE 86-19 - DAVID ~ HUARTE CONTINUED Receiving no response, Chairman Washburn asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Receiving no response, Chairman Washburn closed the pUblic hearing at 7:09 p.m. Commissioner Mellinger stated that he has no problem with the Zone Change, as a matter of fact it is necessary for compli- ance with the General Plan. However, it is a change of zone from C-P to C-2, which allows for a wider range of uses. - Commissioner Mellinger stated that the applicant's preparation of the supplemental information to the check list is a bit sloppy. The instructions clearly state, as required by state law, before the check list it states "cite sources for the information provided and for all questions checked yes or maybe responses shall be prepared addressing why the project will not negatively impact the environment". Commissioner Mellinger stated that the applicant did address some of the impacts. The problem is they really do not indicate how come, even though we are being less restrictive with C-2 zoning. How come the level of the impact is actually insignifi- cant. To be specific, light and glare to say that "the future development of this property will result in lighting and possible glare emitting from the site." This of course, should be anticipated for properties designated for General Commercial as completely unacceptable. Commissioner Mellinger stated that what he is saying here is that, while this does not appear to be an issue the supplemental information should be cleaned up a little bit. We should keep a close eye on that--rather than just having a statement of impact but why is it not significant, and if it is potentially signifi- cant what are the mitigation measures. In this instance, it is all basically the location and code requirements. Chairman Washburn asked if the owners of the smaller parcels (Parcels 10 and 11), were involved in the application or if they were aware of the zone change. - Planner Magee stated that the owners of Parcels 10 and 11 were not part of the initial application. The applicant surrounded them and made it kind of an island, staff's view was not to create spot zoning. In other words, leaving them to C-P rather than C-2, and that both owners and occupants were notified. Chairman Washburn asked if the owners responded. Planner Magee stated that he believed that Mr. Rodriguez responded, however, nothing has been received from King Video- cable. Chairman Washburn Rodriguez. asked what was the response from Mr. Planner Magee stated that the response was not actually from Mr. Rodriguez. The response was just a positive one, he believed to _ be from Mrs. ROdriguez. Chairman Washburn stated that his only comment would be that if this is approved and passed on to City Council for approval that they also be informed of the decision. They mayor may not agree, I just want the public to be aware especially when we are doing this on the benefit of the area rather than per their request. ! Minutes of Planning Commission January 20, 1987 Page 3 ZONE CHANGE 86-19 - DAVID ~ HUARTE CONTINUED ~ Chairman Washburn stated that he concurs with Commissioner Mellinger'S comment on the Environmental Assessment, and that he is not certain that when they do file the initial environ- mental assessment form--do we just take it in at that time as part of the package, or do we often contact them and indicate that it is insufficient. Planner Magee stated that in this particular instance the first Environmental Assessment was insufficient. staff indicated it's insufficiencies, sent it back to the applicant and subsequently we have the document in front of you. There were two changes done by staff, one as pointed out by Commissioner Mellinger. Community Development Director Miller stated that again staff has taken note of Commissioner Mellinger'S and Chairman Wash- burn's concerns and we will strive to improve this area. commissioner Callahan stated that he believes that this sort of business should have been taken care of in house instead of bringing it to the table. If anybody has a problem with a staff Report, rather than bringing it to the table, would very strongly suggest going in and talking to staff. ..... commissioner Mellinger stated that he has one final comment, in the absence of the City Attorney. It is the requirement of California Environmental Quality Act, state of California, that advisory agencies, which we are an advisory Commission, will have to consider the Negative Declaration prior to making a decision on the discretionary action. Therefore, it is our responsibility to review this supplemental information at a public hearing, prior to making that discretionary action. That is why it would be brought up at this time. commissioner Mellinger stated that on this particular one, he did not think that there were any significant impacts involved, and does not think that an Environmental Impact Report is required at all. What I am really saying is that we have to determine whether or not the supplemental information is adequate. As the supplemental information is the most important information, because it has to determine the level of signifi- cance or mitigation measure. Chairman Washburn responded briefly to the points made by both Commissioners stating that the issues should not be belabored. If there are overriding concerns we do not want to waste the pUblic'S or the table's time in hashing it out. It should be done with staff's comments or continued. ..... Motion by commissioner Kelley to recommend to adoption of Negative Declaration Number 86-61 and Zone Change 86-19 based on the findings listed Report, second by Commissioner Callahan. Approved 4-0 City Council approval of in the Staff BUSINESS ITEMS 1. Commercial Project 86-14 REVISED - Renee E. Rich - Community Development Director Miller stated that this proposal was originally reviewed by Planning Commission on October 7, 1986, at which time the project was denied. It was subsequently appealed to City Council. At the City Council hearing on November 12, 1986, City Council directed the application be returned to Planning commission for reconsideration and allow the applicant another opportunity to present his case. Minutes of Planning Commission January 20, 1987 Page 4 COMMERCIAL PROJECT 86-14 REVISED - RENEE ~ RICH CONTINUED Community Development Director Miller stated that subsequent to that action, the applicant made several revisions to his plan. Staff has looked at a number of revisions submitted over the last couple of months. This project is presented to Planning Commission for reconsideration. However, as indicated in the Staff Report, staff still has substantial concerns regarding the design of the project, including site design problems, landscaping, drainage, architecture, aesthetic appearance, and also the concerns regarding the use in reference to General Plan policies. Particularly, in reference to Neighborhood Commercial land use and the purposes of such designations. Feeling that the extreme small size of the lot, being less than 6,000 square feet in size, is not conducive to a motel operation and is not consistent with a Neighborhood Commercial General Plan Designation. .... Chairman Washburn asked if the applicant was present and if he would like to comment on the proposal. Requesting that he limit his comments to the request in front of the Commission, and informed him that he would be called back to the podium for specific questions later on. Mr. Rich, applicant, stated that he received the City's analysis and there are several things which should be cleared up. Mr. Rich asked if he should go down the list now. Chairman Washburn requested that he make a few choice comments in support of the project, and stated that he would be brought back to the podium later for specific questions. Mr. Rich stated that he thinks that this is a resort area __ oriented project. It is very small, it means that you can keep a tight control on this project. The project gives me as the owner pleasure, also as the owner the pleasure to live there and to do my boat activities, I am a sailor. That is the reason that I am hanging onto this project so definitely hard. Mr. Rich stated that the project itself meets code requirements of the time when it was submitted. Mr. Rich then stated that you are I have gone through to put on possible, and would appreciate it in a positive way. all aware of the hardship that this lot anything that is if the Commission looked at it Chairman Washburn asked if there was anyone else in the audi- ence wishing to speak on this topic, if so to please come forward. Mr. Bill Wolcher, 1508 Heald Avenue, stated from a residential point of view, that a motel is not consistent to the area despite the zoning, and would not create a desirable combina- tion of businesses for the area (motel and liquor store). The proposal to build right on the property severely limits fire access, causing concern to the families in the area. It would also be the only two-story structure in the vicinity. There is concern with possible traffic hazards (departures and arrivals) ; blocking of view; devaluation of property, and there is also special sewer considerations. .... Mr. Tony Tebble, 1506 Heald Avenue, commented on the drawings stating that they look very nice, but they have no working principal. Mr. Tebble then referred to the rendering on the board stating that Sonny's Liquor has a parking lot that is only Minutes of Planning Commission January 20, 1987 Page 5 COMMERCIAL PROJECT 86-14 REVISED - RENEE ~ RICH CONTINUED ~ about twenty feet and the parking lot shown is about one- hundred feet; the dwelling next door is showing about the same amount of setback and that dwelling is only fifteen feet from the street line itself. Mr. Tebble stated that he also concurs with the comments made by Mr. Wolcher. Chairman Washburn asked speak in opposition, or in applicant. Receiving no discussion at the table. if there was anyone else wishing to favor of the proposal other than the response, Chairman Washburn asked for commissioner Kelley stated that he believes that all of the points have been well covered, and basically in complete agree- ment with staff findings. Commissioner Callahan stated that he agrees with staff and Commissioner Kelley. Believes the lot is just too small. As a matter of fact, the lot doesn't even meet what we would consider minimum lot size for a single-family residence under today's standards. To put in a motel on a lot this small, is not a viable type business along with facts that it does not conform to what the General Plan is intending for this area. ~ Commissioner Mellinger stated that he agrees; all of our consi- derations have to be consistent with the General Plan. It may be appropriate on a larger lot within this zone only under the old code, but it is clear that it doesn't meet it. Moreover, there are obvious Fire Department and parking requirement concerns, which can not be overlooked. commissioner Mellinger commented on the site plan stating that he is somewhat confused, and asked what l3P means on the site plan, asking staff to clarify. Community Development Director Miller stated that he thought that was intended to be a "B", indicating bicycle facility. commissioner Mellinger stated that it does not meet the parking requirements, General Plan requirements, and that he agrees with Commissioner Callahan that it is just to small of a lot for a motel, under any code. Chairman Washburn yielded the floor to the applicant. Mr. Rich stated that he has straightened this out with the Fire Department and has a written statement here that they approve the way it is proposed. Mr. Rich then stated that the secondary stairway is there; there will be an exit door between the second and first unit which will allow adequate space for any emergency. ~ Chairman Washburn asked Mr. Rich if he had this in writing, and if he would submit it to the table. Chairman Washburn then commented that the Fire Department had indicated that it was not acceptable. Mr. Rich presented said letter to the table for the Commission to' review, stating that he was at the Fire Department this morning and just received the letter today. Mr. Rich stated that Mr. ROdriguez, of ROdriguez Disposal, likewise said that this is okay. Mr. Rich stated that as to the parking, the parking meets the requirements. I do not know why I have to exceed--the whole parking lot is designed--I have two parking spaces more than I really need. There are three units, there are three parking Minutes of Planning Commission January 20, 1987 Page 6 COMMERCIAL PROJECT 86-14 REVISED - RENEE ~ RICH CONTINUED spaces. There is one owner unit required which I have. There are two units more which I have done for the basement, which actually does not need a parking space, because this is only for my personal storage. There are six parking units and they have correct, to code, measurements behind them. So there is no question about it it meets the code of that time. This is the reason that I do not understand why everyone wants to say that it is too small. If it meets the code it could not be too small, otherwise the code would be not realistic. - Mr. Rich commented on the greenery, stating that the planting exceeds the three percent required by the code. Mr. Rich stated that the only thing that he could not meet, is the handicap space (referring to the plan on the board for explanation), this strip would have to be eliminated this little bit here on the wall. Pertaining to the overhang, we talked about the greenery in respect to the neighbors, there is clearly shown a wall, a block wall, and three foot strips are on either side which makes into a very becoming project. It is green, trees are planted, it has an appeal. Mr. Rich commented briefly on the architecture, stating that there are tan panel doors; tile on the roof; there are fire walls, and that it does not have to be redesigned because there is already a fire wall. The back does not need a parapet wall, and the Building Code says that it is exempt because each floor is under a 1,000 square feet. The whole building on top only has 1,780 square feet total. The basement, lets not talk about, its under ground and it does not take space up. The building is only 20 feet wide and only 45 feet long, so I can not see that _ someone says that it is too big. Because it meets require- ments. Since it meets the requirements it can't be too big--it can not be both. Mr. Rich commented on the painted design stating that he was making an effort to make it as pleasant for the neighbors as possible, so he did a design on the rear of the building. Mr. Rich stated that this is neatly designed and applied many times in new cities--like the city of Orange, and presented photo- graphs for the Commission to review. Chairman Washburn stated that he believed that Mr. Rich was down to the grading and landscaping. Mr. Rich stated that he thought that he had already covered this. The grading, there really is not any grading and that the landscaping exceeds three percent. Mr. Rich stated that it is not an in and out motel. It is more of a "pensione" where people will be staying for 5 to 10 days. That is the reason why a kitchenette is there, it is camper size, and you can not convert it into an apartment as it is too small to convert. Mr. Rich requested that the Commission consider all of these facts, and that this is to code. - Chairman Washburn responded to the people who addressed concerns on the proposal, stating that everyone has certain rights to develop their property, within guidelines. The frontage on Lakeshore is zoned C-1, this application was submitted under the old Title 17 not the current Title 17, and that it would not work under the new Title 17. Minutes of Planning Commission January 20, 1987 Page 7 COMMERCIAL PROJECT 86-14 REVISED - RENEE ~ RICH CONTINUED - Chairman Washburn stated that his comments are basically that there are still some areas of concerns or problems that would have to be corrected. Staff has well noted those in the response. You (the applicant) have submitted new information, which at this moment we may not digest or move in a direction to say approved or not approved based on the items that were just presented. Chairman Washburn stated that his concern was not so much the use. The biggest concern is the last issue addressed. The problem that we have had in the past wher.e sometimes you have a conversion of a small unit into a space that is rented out. The other concerns, I think could be corrected or mitigated but you are not quite-there yet, in my mind. Chairman Washburn stated that staff has made some good comments and that they should be considered by the applicant. - Chairman Washburn stated, that in his mind, it is not incon- ceivable, the idea of a "pensione" or small complex, if it were to be adhered to with the residents, and only small units below could be possible, but it is not quite there yet. Mr. Rich asked Chairman Washburn if he could point out to him why it is not there. Chairman Washburn stated that staff has done an excellent job in pointing it out and in working with you on this project. commissioner Callahan asked Mr. Rich if he has had the property surveyed, and if he knows what the elevation is--for instance the street elevation. Mr. Rich stated that he could not comment on this at this time as he does not have the grading plan with him. Commissioner Callahan responded that he brought this to his attention, and to the best of his knowledge the street in front is approximately 1270. Doubts if there is more than a one or possibly two foot grade from the front of your property rise to the rear. If you put a basement in, the basement is going to be below 1265. - commissioner Callahan stated that if you have any area, like a basement, that is displacing water which is going to level out under ground it will lift the building. I discussed this with you before and recommended that you look into this particular problem. Because, I do not think that a basement is something that you would want to put in that close to the water, and given the known possibility even with Lake Management that the water could feasibly rise to 1265, under a 100 year flood condition. Mr. Rich stated that since the basement is only seven feet high it is still above the 1265; that he has talked with an architect about this, and was informed that even if it rises a foot or two higher you would not get any water in the basement. Because the basement will also be water proofed on the bottom. commissioner Callahan stated that he made this statement predicated on the high hopes that the Lake Management Plan will in fact become a reality. Commissioner Callahan commented on the prediction of a 100 year flood and the flood water received in 1980 being only a small percentage (about 25 percent) of a 100 year flood; elevation of Minutes of Planning commission January 20, 1987 Page 8 COMMERCIAL PROJECT 86-14 REVISED - RENEE ~ RICH CONTINUED property that can be built on and the building of a basement not being viable. Chairman Washburn commented on the conversion of the units to a~artments or other utilization; setback requirements, refer- r1ng to the commercial zoning which allows building adjacent to the lot lines, which is believed to be an unspoken concern the neighbors have. Chairman Washburn stated that, in his mind, the applicant should take staff's recommendation, and suggested that the basement be eliminated. .... Commissioner Washburn briefly commented on the basement issue; the amount of time the applicant has been working on this proposal, and the amount of time that staff has spent working with the applicant. commissioner Mellinger stated that the concerns expressed are valid, and basically we have to determine whether or not this meets code. Staff has indicated that it does not and I can see where the sizes of the parking spaces do not meet code. The overhang in the landscape area that is required--you can not have both. Mr. Rich stated that it does meet code and asked who said that it can not hang over? Commissioner Mellinger stated that the Planning Commission directs that it can not hang over. .... Commissioner Mellinger stated that if you want the overhang, you can have the overhang but it has to be the three foot required. Commissioner Mellinger commented on the landscape setback stating that the required landscape setback has to be free and clear of overhang. If there is overhang into a landscape area i~ is going to ruin the irrigation system and the landscaping. Commissioner Mellinger then space, stating that it does up area, and that this required. Commissioner Mellinger suggested that Mr. Rich provide something that is properly dimensioned; showing the back up area, and the three-foot overhang (free and clear). commented on the handicapped parking not appear to have the proper back is probably part of the revision Commissioner Mellinger then asked staff about the design wanting to know if this was just a painted on design, and what design was to be painted on the building. Chairman Washburn asked if he was correct in stating that the bell was the design to be painted. Mr. Rich stated that it was recessed and painted to make it a little more attractive. .... commissioner Mellinger stated that the major concerns are the proposal does not meet the parking standards, and the grading being a major concern because it is next to a lake that floods. commissioner Mellinger stated that, however, on the other hand there are issues of views, setbacks and height limitations under the old ordinance, believes that the height and setbacks do meet code requirements. Minutes of Planning Commission January 20, 1987 Page 9 COMMERCIAL PROJECT 86-14 REVISED - RENEE ~ RICH CONTINUED community Development Director Miller stated that revised plan presented would be within the minimum requirements as set by the code. ..... Commissioner Mellinger stated that this is something that should considered by the neighbors, and the views is something that we have not addressed yet in our General Plan. Commissioner Mellinger stated that his biggest concerns would be the drainage, the elevations, and the overhang in the landscaped area. Mr. Rich commented on the parking requirements stating that the code requires 144 square feet divided by 9 is 16, and 25 behind that 16 which is exactly what it is. Mr. Rich stated that there is no violation there and wants to make that clear. Chairman Washburn stated that Mr. Rich's comment on the parking requirements will be included for the records. Chairman Washburn stated that if there was no further discussion the chair would entertain a motion. ..... Motion by Commissioner Callahan to deny Commercial Project 86-14 REVISED, second by Commissioner Mellinger with the findings as presented in the Staff Report. Approved 3-1 (Chairman Washburn voting no) 2. Single-Family Residence 1303 West Heald Avenue - Appeal of Conditions of Approval - Ron Perardi - Planner Bolland presented the applicant's request to appeal conditions 1, 11, 12 and 16 of the September 18, 1984 approval as they apply to improvement to Mohr Street and the alley be removed due to financial diffi- culties. Chairman Washburn asked if the applicant or representative for the applicant was in the audience, and if he would like to comment- on the request. Receiving no response, Chairman Wash- burn asked if the applicant was aware of tonight's meeting and if he had indicated whether or not he would be in attendance. Planner Bolland stated that he had spoken with Mr. Perardi this morning and it was implied that he would be here. Chairman Washburn asked for discussion at the table. commissioner Mellinger referred to the minutes where Mr. Perardi stated that he had no problem with the conditions, and now that it is time to build he does. Commissioner Mellinger then commented on the current cost control system study and stated this is probably the root of some of our problems by waiving these conditions. Therefore, thinks that it should be denied. ..... commissioner Callahan stated that he agrees with Commissioner Mellinger. Since he has already proceeded with enough work that creates a potential drainage problem, he cannot find any justification to grant the request. commissioner Kelley stated that the City is in dire need of streets, curbs, gutters, and alley way access, and agrees with staff findings. Chairman Washburn stated that basically he concurs with all of the Commissioners. The only comment would be that the applicant built the single-family residence on the interior lot. If he had not indicated that he would do concurrent construction and Minutes of Planning Commission January 20, 1987 Page 10 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE 1303 WEST HEALD - APPEAL OF CONDITIONS - RON PERARDI CONTINUED would have come forward and constructed the interior lot, he could have completed that and then proceeded on to the corner lot. But with the indication in the minutes that he had no problem with proceeding with the two lots and did go ahead with the grading, I would concur with staff recommendation. Motion by Commissioner Callahan to deny applicant's Appeal of Conditions 1, 11, 12 and 16 on Single-Family Residence at 1303 West Heald with the findings listed in the Staff Report, second by Commissioner Kelley. Approved 4-0 .... INFORMATIONAL ITEMS 1. Report Cost Control System for the City of Lake Elsinore prepared by Management Services Institute. Chairman Washburn stated that this document, to highlight it, was submitted basically to show where the city is loosing money, making money and the possibility of not providing subsequent. services for fees rendered. Community Development Director Miller stated that the consultant will be presenting a full review of this report at a City Council Study Session, Thursday night, January 22, 1987 at 6:30 p.m. This volume identifies cost centers within the city, and makes certain recommendations. A second volume will be forthcoming and would go into specific implementation measures. Chairman Washburn stated for the pUblic's edification, these __ study sessions are open to the public, anyone can attend but can not interact. Chairman Washburn stated City Council about a year review. that ago, this document was requested by and is available for public Community Development Director available in the Assistant City perusal. Miller stated that copies are Manager's Office for public 2. Study Session January 21, 1987 (6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m.) to discuss General Plan Policy. Chairman Washburn stated that again the public is invited to attend the study session to hear the comments made on General Plan Policies. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S REPORT Community Development Director Miller stated that he had nothing to report. PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS -- Commissioner Kelley: Nothing to report. Commissioner Callahan: Nothing to report. Minutes of Planning Commission January 20, 1987 Page 11 PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS CONTINUED commissioner Mellinqer: commissioner Mellinger stated that his understanding of the new -- Brown Act, after having attended a study session. Any time we have a meeting it not only has to be posted 72 hours in advance, there has to be an agenda and you cannot discuss anything other that what is on the agenda. Secondly, the public has to have a time period in which to speak. Not necessarily at the time the issues are being discussed, but I believe there is supposed to be time period where they can speak, whether it be before or after. For example, on a business item, there is no requirement for them to speak on a business item but during oral communications they can speak. Chairman Washburn: Asked if there was any response as to why the abandoned automobile on Chaney Street and Lakeshore Drive was still there, this was brought up at the last meeting. Community Development Director has been working on this (it has vehicles there is a process followed when the vehicle is on to 60-90 days to obtain removal Miller stated that Code Enforcement been cited). In terms of abandoned mandated by state law that must be private property, and it can take up of the vehicle. -- Chairman Washburn commented on a problem that keeps reoccurring and it is probably most current or prevalent on the east side of Main street. Where we have a lot of older residences, and too many people in one dwelling unit. The case brought to my attention is about 16 families residing in one residence, on Lookout Street. I will get the exact address and give it to staff. Chairman Washburn stated that anyone whether it be traffic, trees that need living in a house, you can come complaint form and you will receive a taken. having a complaint or concern trimming or too many people to City Hall and fill out a response back on the action There being no further business, Commission adjourned at 8:05 p.m. second by commissioner Mellinger. Approved 4-0 the Lake Elsinore Planning Motion by Commissioner Callahan, ~proved' G2flW~~ c~~htan -- Respectfully rbmi t.t. ed, ~/~ Linda Grindstaff~ Planning commission Secretary - - - MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON THE 3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 1987 THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:01 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Commissioner Kelley. _ ROLL CALL: PRESENT: commissioners: Brown, Mellinger, Callahan, Kelley and Washburn. ABSENT: None Also present were Community Development Director Miller, Senior Planners Bolland and Manee, Planners Last, Magee, and Spencer. MINUTE ACTION - Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to approve minutes of January 20, 1987, as submitted, second by Commissioner Callahan. Approved 5-0 Commissioner Callahan stated that he would like to make a motion that the PUBLIC COMMENTS section be moved from the end of the Agenda to this point of the meeting or immediately after ROLL CALL and keep it there. Chairman Washburn stated that just to follow-up on that so the public is aware. There were some changes in reference to the Brown Act that deals with how the public interacts with the private sector, which is the applicant or anybody that wants to speak on the matter. We are now required to have a PUBLIC COMMENT period. Forms are available, at the podium, for people who would like to speak. These forms should be completed and turned in to the Secretary prior to the commencement of the meeting. Anyone wishing to speak, this evening, should complete one of these forms and turn it in to the Secretary who will in turn pass it to the Chair. Chairman Washburn stated that we could move the PUBLIC COMMENT section forward under MINUTE ACTION, and asked how the other Commissioners felt about this. Commissioner Mellinger stated that for clarification this does not have anything to do with the PUBLIC HEARINGS, and that the pUblic still has an opportunity to speak. commissioner Callahan stated that it is just matter of where we have it on our Agenda. A brief discussion was held on the reasoning behind the PUBLIC COMMENT section being placed at the end of the Agenda. Second by Commissioner Mellinger. - Chairman Washburn asked if there was any further discussion. There being no further discussion, Chairman Washburn asked for all of those in favor of relocating PUBLIC COMMENTS after MINUTE ACTION to indicate by saying aye. Approved 5-0 PUBLIC COMMENTS: Chairman Washburn asked the Secretary if there were any applica- tions to speak. The Secretary answered in the negative. Minutes of Planning commission February 3, 1987 Page 2 PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Amendment 86-4 city of Lake Elsinore - To amend Chapter 17.98 of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code regarding Special Events. This has been requested for continuance to March 3, 1987. Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to continue Amendment 86-4 to March 3, 1987, second by Commissioner Callahan. Approved 5-0 __ Commissioner Callahan asked staff if public input, at this point, about Ordinance. we have received any the Special Event Community Development Director Miller negative, stating that we have not received the first public hearing. answered in the any input since 2. Zone Change 86-23 munity Development Section 17.54.030 subsection "T", to - Industrial Concepts I (Art Nelson) - Com- Director Miller presented proposal to amend of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code adding read as follows: "T. Governmental and public utility facilities, provided they comply with standards ap- propriate to the use, including parking." Chairman Washburn opened asking if anyone wished to 86-23. the speak public hearing at 7:10 p.m., in favor of Zone Change Mr. Steve Brown, representing the developer, stated that he __ prepared a booklet with a cover letter, and believes that every Commissioner received a copy. The basis of that was to acquaint the Commission with some of the reasoning we went through in trying to determine whether this would be a good use for this area, the School District locating in the C-M Zone. Mr. Brown stated that they looked at the Land Use Ordinances of the cities of Escondido, San Juan Capistrano and the County of Riverside. In particular, the zonings within those ordinances which dealt with Commercial Manufacturing (if there was such a category), and in some cases M-1 which has the same type of uses that our C-M Zoning has. Of the three communities studied none had any type of minimum square foot- age requirement for the Headquarters/Administrative type of facilities that would be located within that zone. Mr. Brown stated that it was their belief that although there was some reasoning with limited amounts of industrial space within the City that it basically is a condition that should be eliminated, and stated that they have applied for an ap- plication to amend it to 15,000 square feet. Mr. Brown stated that they have spent a considerable amount of time studying exactly what goes on in the School District Headquarters, monitoring traffic (as staff has done), and monitoring parking requirements. We are building this project to hold, and we have no interest at all in putting the type of tenant in that would be bad for the area or for the project. -- Mr. Brown stated that if there are any questions, he would be happy to answer them. Minutes of Planning Commission February 3, 1987 Page 3 ZONE CHANGE 86-23 = INDUSTRIAL CONCEPTS I (ART NELSON) CONTINUED - Chairman Washburn asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak in favor of Zone Change 86-23. 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 7:15 p.m. Commissioner Kelley commented on the benefit of consolidating the Elementary School functions into one facility, stating that this would be a benefit not only to the community but to the School District, and that he is in agreement with staff findings. Commissioner Brown asked staff to comment on why we decided on a 30,000 square foot minimum. Community Development Director Miller responded that this was a figure that seemed to be a threshold level for the types of facilities envisioned, it might be a little less or a little more. Although, most of the facilities we envisioned were substantially larger. Motion by Commissioner Callahan to recommend to City Council adoption of Negative Declaration 87-5 and approval of Zone Change 86-23 based on the findings listed in the Staff Report, second by Commissioner Kelley. Approved 4-0 (Washburn abstaining) - 3. Conditional Use Permit 86-10 - Industrial Concepts I - Com- munity Development Director Miller stated that as indicated in the discussion on the preceding item. It would be for the location of the Elementary School District offices in the proposed business park. As set forth in the recommendations that we made on the Zone Change, we indicated that any pro- posed use should meet the standards appropriate to that use, including parking. In reviewing the proposed use of the facility and looking at the existing parking utilization at the present School District Offices, and extrapolating that forward based on the amount of square footage and also com- pairing that to standards that would generally be applied to office and warehouse space in the Code. It would appear that some additional parking would be appropriate for this facility. Community Development Director Miller stated that Planning Commission action is final on Conditional Permits, unless appealed to City Council. It would be appropriate to take action upon this item after Council actually granted approval for that type of use. since Use most has - Community Development Director Miller stated that in order for Planning Commission to fully review the proposal with the parking, staff has recommended that this item be continued until March 17, 1987. This would provide sufficient time for City Council to act on the Zone Change, and allow the ap- plicant time to present a plan which would show the addi- tional parking, that would appear to be indicated. Chairman Washburn opened the public hearing at 7:20 p.m. asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of Conditional Use Permit 86-10. Minutes of Planning Commission February 3, 1987 Page 4 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 86-10 - INDUSTRIAL CONCEPTS I CONTINUED Mr. Steve Brown, representing the applicant, stated that he has prepared a presentation for this evening, and presented a handout of the proposed parking plan to each Commissioner. Chairman Washburn informed Mr. Brown that input section. Requesting that he make a favor, and stated that he would be brought later for further comments. this is the public few comments in back to the podium .... Mr. Brown stated that approximately six weeks ago staff was approached with the concept of having the School District occupy the premises. We were fully aware, at that time, that there would be a parking problem. Mr. Brown then stated that he owns twenty acres to the south of this property line (re- ferring to the plan on the board), and it was suggested, at that time, that this would be one alternative toward satis- fying the parking requirements. Mr. Brown commented on the Staff Report, received today, with the recommendation to put this on hold for another six weeks stating that a continuance tonight on this item would basi- cally eliminate the School District's ability to move during the summer. Mr. Brown asked the Planning Commission to consider two things: 1) Approve the Conditional Use Permit, tonight, subject to the City Council passing the Zoning Amendment, which would allow it to be in effect. .... 2) With the condition that staff would have worked out with the developer an adequate parking plan. Chairman Washburn asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak in favor of the project. Receiving no response, Chair- man Washburn asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Receiving no response, Chairman Washburn asked if anyone would like to speak on the matter. Receiving no response, Chairman Washburn closed the public hearing at 7:25 p.m. Commissioner Mellinger asked staff if there were any other anticipated conditions that would be placed on such a Condi- tional Use Permit. Community Development Director Miller responded that since what is involved is a proposed change of the use of the facility and as we have indicated in the previous item. It should be developed in accordance with standards appropriate to that use. We would envisioned that there would probably be some modifications to the exterior of the building, which at some point should also be addressed. Other than that, I am not sure since staff has not really reviewed the proposed parking plan, presented this evening. Commissioner Kelley stated that this is a dilemma--does not know the fundamentals of how we would go about approving this without any conditions. Commissioner Callahan stated that as he understands it--the Commission has the final decision on Conditional Use Permits, but in this instance it is predicated upon acceptance of the Zone Change by City Council, asking staff if this is correct. ..- Minutes of Planning Commission February 3, 1987 Page 5 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 86-10 - INDUSTRIAL CONCEPTS I CONTINUED Community Development affirmative. Director Miller answered in the ..... Commissioner Callahan asked when the Zone Change would go before City Council. Community Development Director Miller stated that the Zone Change Application would go before City Council in three weeks, and it requires a second reading. Subsequent to the second reading, it is simply a matter of time for the ordi- nance to take affect. The March 17th meeting would be the first meeting after the second reading of the ordinance, if it took place in the normal time frame without any continu- ances. ..... community Development Director Miller stated that it is pos- sible, as the applicant has requested, to approve the Condi- tional Use Permit conditioned upon the later approval of the Zone Change request. Also if the Commission so desires, a condition could be imposed that the applicant submit a parking plan to be reviewed by staff. Community Development Director Miller stated that in looking quickly at this plan. Four of the parking space are provided in what is designated as loading area. There would most likely be some modification to the building; also there is some question as to whether the School District would be taking the entire portion of building 6 and 7, which would represent more space that was presented in the application request. There would be some things left to be worked out, but Planning Commission has the authority to delegate that to staff. Commissioner Callahan relinquished the floor to Mr. Brown. Mr. Brown stated that there certainly is a loading zone in back of the building, as we have shown in those four spaces. However, the current plan is for the administrative offices of the School District to occupy one hundred percent of that building. We would do away with the loading zone and the roll up doors that would be in back of the building. We would propose that part of those areas would be designated for windows and store front type of operation to make them more in fitting with what would be an administrative building. We view those as minor and something that we could work out with staff. Chairman Washburn stated for clarification--building 6 and 7 would be the entirety, the School District would use both buildings and not a portion. ..... Mr. Brown answered in the affirmative, and stated that they have given them a space plan on the interior of those build- ings where all of their offices have been laid out. Basical- ly we would be building out the improvements of the buildings subject to their stipulations, and their warehouse would be in building 9. commissioner Callahan asked Community Development Director Miller if he felt this would create any type of burden on staff should the Commission follow the applicant's suggestion and approve it conditioned upon City Council's acceptance of the Zone Change, and being able to work out adequate parking or whatever changes with staff. Minutes of Planning Commission February 3, 1987 Page 6 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 86-10 = INDUSTRIAL CONCEPTS ~ CONTINUED Community Development Director Miller responded that this is certainly something that staff could handle. It is just a matter of whether Planning Commission is comfortable with delegating that or whether you would rather see the revised plans. Community Development Director Miller stated that he would -- like to point out that the ANALYSIS portion of the Staff Report was based on the information provided. The expansion of the School District offices into the entire area of build- ings 6 and 7 would represent an additional 1,350 square feet. Based upon parking standards in the Code that would generate additional parking demand (about 5 or 6 parking spaces). Commissioner Callahan asked Community Development Director Miller what amount of time we would save for the applicant in pursuing that avenue. Community Development Director Miller responded that as the applicant has indicated, it is their belief that Council will approve this amendment and viewing this as a formality they could go ahead and proceed with their plans. However, this is not assured until City Council action has occurred. As I indicated, the second reading of the ordinance would typically come on March loth, before City Council. There would be a difference of a week before it was an assured thing. Commissioner Brown asked for a point of clarification. On Zone Change 86-23, adding section "T", under what criteria does this fit the standards of the Zone Change we just did-- under what criteria could we adopt this or allow its use. -- Community Development Director Miller responded that this would be a governmental agency. The Conditional Use Permit would have to be conditioned upon approval of Zone Change 86-23 by City Council. Commissioner Brown asked if he was correct in stating, that section "T" does not change the minimum criteria of 30,000 square feet. Community Development Director Miller responded that for general administrative headquarters and offices. But it would create a separate category which would allow governmental and public agencies of any size, subject to a Conditional Use Permit. commissioner Mellinger stated that he is still confused on the timing, and thought he heard the applicant say that he needs the approval for lending, asking if this is correct. Commissioner Mellinger stated that he does not see how any approval could take effect until after the Code amendment goes through. Mr. Brown stated that we are going from what would be the loth of March to the third week of May, which is two months. However, our approval of the loan is based upon a signed lease with the School District. The School District will not act on this issue until the City Council has passed the amendment, which allows this to takes place and the Planning Commission has approved the Conditional Use Permit. -- Minutes of Planning Commission February 3, 1987 Page 7 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 86-10 - INDUSTRIAL CONCEPTS I CONTINUED - commissioner Mellinger commented on the time frame for the proposal and stated that Planning commission action on Condi- tional Use Permits, is final unless appealed to City Council. Any action on the Conditional Use Permit would be final on March 17th, which was the intent of the continuance. Mr. Brown commented on the time frame they are working with, stating that the School District has only twelve weeks to move their facilities (June, July and August) . Mr. Brown then requested that the Commission give opportunity to work with staff, stating that if they put a program together that is adequate, then it is to be approved anyway. them the can not not going Discussion ensued on the time frame involved; staff determi- nation of conditions that would be applicable to said Condi- tional Use Permit; continuing Conditional Use Permit for two weeks, to allow time for staff to review the parking plan; date the Zone Change application would go before City Council and the date the ordinance would become final, and continuing Conditional Use Permit for four weeks, to allow adequate time for staff to review and prepare a report. Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to continue Conditional Use Permit 86-10 to March 3, 1987, second by Commissioner Cal- lahan. Approved 4-0 (Chairman Washburn abstaining) BUSINESS ITEMS 1. Commercial Project 85-1 REVISED - Brookstone Investors (Art Nelson) - Planner Last presented proposal to add 2,103 square feet to an approved 3, 900 square foot commercial building at the commercial center of Brookstone Landing, located on the northwest intersection of Lincoln Street and Riverside Drive. Chairman Washburn asked if the applicant or the applicant's representative would like to comment. Mr. Steve Brown, representing the applicant, stated that this was a straight forward proposal and that they agree with staff recommendation. Chairman Washburn asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak on the matter. Receiving no response, Chairman Washburn asked for discussion at the table. Chairman Washburn made a brief comment on the parking, stating that the parking would have been the biggest concern. - Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to approve Commercial Project 85-1 REVISED subject to the findings and 8 conditions listed in the staff Report, second by Chairman Washburn. Approved 5-0 2. Sign Plan for Commercial Project 86-9 - Art Nelson - Planner Spencer presented request to approve the Uniform Sign Program (complying with condition number 19, of the original condi- tions of approval), for the commercial center at 16331 Lake- shore Drive. Minutes of Planning Commission February 3, 1987 Page 8 SIGN PLAN FOR COMMERCIAL PROJECT 86-9 - ART NELSON CONTINUED Planner Spencer stated that the conditions of approval for the Sign Plan have been amended to include condition number 7, as stipulated in the memorandum dated February 3, 1987. Chairman Washburn asked if there was anyone wishing to speak on this matter. ... Mr. Steve Brown, representing the applicant, stated that they have no problem with any of the items as recommended. Chairman Washburn asked if there was anyone else wishing to address this issue. Receiving no response, Chairman Washburn asked for discussion at the table. A brief discussion was held on the description of "can" signs. Motion by Commissioner Mell~nger to approve Sign Plan for Com- mercial Project 86-9 subject to the findings and conditions listed in the Staff Report, second by Commissioner Brown. Approved 5-0 3. Sign Plan for Commercial Project 86-2 - Jack Malki - Planner Spencer presented request to approve the Uniform Sign Program (complying with condition number 4, of the original conditions of approval), for the commercial center at 31724 Mission Trail. Planner Spencer stated that staff is recommending that the Commission approve the individual tenant identification signs and continue the center identification and directional signs for further discussion. ... Planner Spencer stated that the conditions of approval for the Sign Plan (individual tenant identification signs) have been amended to include condition number 6, as stipulated in the memorandum dated February 3, 1987. Commissioner Mellinger asked if we approve a portion of the sign does that imply that we are approving the supporting structure. In other words, the square footage and location are a concern since it appears to be fairly close to an entrance and could create a sight distance problem. Planner Spencer stated that staff is only recommending approval of the business identification signs. Commissioner Mellinger asked if the approval of that would be as presented, including the supporting structure. Planner Spencer responded in the affirmative, stating in- ternally illuminated, and as recommended in the Staff Report which is 18 inches high and 67 percent maximum coverage of the store frontage. Commissioner Mellinger asked if we were still waiting for the color scheme. ... Planner Spencer responded that earthtone colors will be utilized. Chairman Washburn asked for clarification on the one center identification sign, wanting to know if all the panels, as the applicant proposed, would be lit or if staff was requesting that they not be lit. Minutes of Planning Commission February 3, 1987 Page 9 SIGN PLAN FOR COMMERCIAL PROJECT 86-2 - JACK MALKI CONTINUED Planner Spencer responded that it would be a double face sign internally lit, and that this was for the directional sign where it says "enter". - Chairman Washburn stated that he would like to see the wood engraved with the lights pointing down to it, rather than the back lit signs (externally lit only). Community Development Director Miller stated that the Design Review process is for the Commission, as representatives of the community, to express aesthetic considerations that are deemed important. If you have concerns about the appearance or the bulk of the sign, staff would appreciate direction so that we can work with the applicant. Chairman Washburn stated that his feeling was that it was a little high and bulky. The ten back-lit signs seem to be a little large in appearance and it would tend to blend them together, therefore he would like to see the whole thing continued. commissioner Mellinger stated that considering this is going to be called the Firestone Plaza and the colors are red and white, he thinks that the coloring, especially on the center identification sign, the letters and background should be the same for all of the tenants. - A lengthy discussion ensued on applicant's rendering, pertain- ing to the signs being externally/internally lit; background, color scheme and height of the signs (center and individual identification signs); condition number 4, pertaining to the color scheme for the individual tenant signs; color scheme for the center sign needing to be consistent with the color of Firestone; style of lettering used for the signs and the need for lettering to be consistent. Motion by Chairman mercial Project 86-2; reduce the bulk and Plaza, to go along with Washburn to continue Sign Plan with the recommendation to have similar style lettering the Firestone. for Com- try and with the Motion died for lack of a second. commissioner Mellinger asked what the maximum sign area would be for the center with the frontage that they have. Planner Spencer responded that it was over a hundred for both. Chairman Washburn asked if the applicant or the applicant's representative was present. - Ms. Sherry Groth, of Ability Sign Company, representing the applicant, stated that she can understand the Commission's personal choices (likes, dislikes) with the center signs, and this is a matter of opinion. However, the individual letters on the building is our principal concern. Ms. Groth stated that the applicant has tenants that want to move into those buildings. The center identification signs, if you want to continue and rework this that is fine, but the individual combination neon, plastic and internally illumina- ted letters, we would appreciate an approval for these individual letters. Minutes of Planning Commission February 3, 1987 Page 10 SIGN PLAN FOR COMMERCIAL PROJECT 86-2 - JACK MALKI CONTINUED Commissioner Mellinger asked Ms. Groth if anyone had a color preference (brown, yellow, white). Ms. Groth stated that it was just to keep it in an earthtone color scheme. Motion by Chairman Washburn to approve the individual identi- __ fication signs for Commercial Project 86-2, Sign Plan, and continue the center identification sign, second by Commis- sioner Mellinger. commissioner Callahan stated that with the condition that the individual signs--agrees with Commissioner Mellinger that they should be all one color. Whatever color they decide on, if it is a combination of red and white, then the entire center should utilize the same theme. Chairman Washburn amended his motion to entire center shall utilize the same color white, second by Commissioner Mellinger. Approved 5-0 include that the scheme, red and 4. Review Proposed General Plan Policies - Community Development Director Miller stated that Senior Planner Manee would be addressing the Commission on this. However, he would like to remind the Commission that City Council has scheduled a Joint City Council/Planning Commission Study Session to discuss General Plan Policies for Thursday, February 5th. Community Development Director Miller stated that if the Com- mission so desires Senior Planner Manee could make a brief presentation or we could simply answer questions or make additions. .- Chairman Washburn asked the other Commimssioners how they would like to handle this matter. commissioner Mellinger stated that his preference would be to discuss this at the Joint Study Session, as he thinks there will be some changes made at that time. Chairman Washburn stated that he concurs with Commissioner Mellinger. community Development Director Miller stated that he would like to point out, that the pOlicies are general statements and would be fOllowed-up with objectives and then criteria for implementation. Chairman Washburn recommended that this item be taken as an Informational Item, at this point, and discuss it further at the Joint Study Session. It was the consensus of the Commission to discuss this matter at the Joint study Session to be held February 5th. .- INFORMATIONAL ITEMS 1. Planning Commission Policy to Implement new Brown Act Pro- visions - Community Development Director stated that the Commission has received a summary of the recently enacted revisions to the Brown Act, but that the Commission already complies with most of the changes. Minutes of Planning Commission . February 3, 1987 Page 11 PLANNING COMMISSION POLICY TO IMPLEMENT NEW BROWN ACT PROVISIONS CONTINUED ..... commissioner Mellinger stated that the only question he has is, if someone comes up with an item for PUBLIC COMMENT and it is not on the Agenda what can we do--just listen to them? Chairman Washburn responded that there are three ways that Council handles this: 1) take no action; 2) defer it automatically to staff; 3) agendize it for the next meeting Community Development Director Miller informed the Commission of the response received from City Attorney to take input only and agendize it for a future meeting if it is an item not on the Agenda. Discussion ensued on whether or not the applicant or public needs to complete A Request to Speak form; BUSINESS ITEM, whether or not the public should address their comments while the Business Item is at the table or during PUBLIC COMMENTS. 2. Joint City Council/Planning Commission Study Session, February 5, 1987, at 7:00 p.m. to discuss Low Pressure Lighting and General Plan Policies. ..... 3. City Council Study Session, February 19, 1987, at 6:30 p.m. to continue review of Cost Control Study prepared by Doug Ayres of Management Services Institute. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS None PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS commissioner Brown: None Commissioner Mellinger: None Commissioner Kellev: ..... The temporary patches on Main street, I guess they are putting in storm drains, asked staff if there is a better material that can be used. Community Development Director Miller stated that he would relay his question to the Engineering Department. Commissioner Callahan: None Chairman Washburn: Commissioner Washburn stated that he and Commissioner Kelley have submitted a request to attend the League of California cities Conference in March, and asked if the other Commissioners were aware of this Conference. Minutes of Planning commission February 3, 1987 Page 12 There being no further business, the Lake Elsinore Planning Com- mission adjourned at 8:16 p.m. Motion by Commissioner Mellinger, second by Commissioner Callahan. Approved 5-0 - (j)0~ Respectfully ~ Linda Grindstaff Planning Commission Secretary - --- MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 1987 THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:02 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Commissioner Callahan. ROLL CALL: ~ PRESENT: commissioners: Brown, Mellinger, callahan, Kelley and Washburn. ABSENT: None Also present were Community Development Director Miller, Senior Planners Bolland and Manee, Planners Last, Magee, and Spencer. MINUTE ACTION Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to approve minutes of February 3, 1987, as submitted, second by Commissioner Callahan. Approved 5-0 PUBLIC COMMENTS Ms. Patti Miner, of Palmer Development, asked for a thirty day continuance on the Arco sign issue, until Arco and Palmer Develop- ment come to some sort of understanding between themselves. Mr. Bill Starkey, President of the Lake Elsinore Valley Chamber of Commerce, commented briefly on the photographs of the rodeo grounds on the board, stating they have put a new roof on the trailer as the ceiling was completely destroyed because of leaks. The pile of trash that you see outside the office trailer is the -- remains of the ceiling and we have a work party coming in Saturday to replace the ceiling. We are in the process right now of clean- ing up the rodeo grounds and those pictures may look a little ominous from an inexperienced eye as to what we are doing up there. Mr. Starkey stated that what they are asking for is a couple of nights a week for team roping, barrel racing, and as indicated in the paperwork there will be approximately 25-50 people there. Mr. Starkey stated that one of the issues that is being addressed, on the negative side, is having a watchman at the rodeo grounds. This is something that has become necessary as we have been broken into a couple of times and quite a bit of merchandise has been taken. Mr. .Starkey stated that this is something that is very important to the Chamber, and feels that it is going to be good for the Chamber and the community. PUBLIC HEARINGS ..... 1. Conditional Use Permit 84-5 REVISED - Lake Elsinore Chamber of Commerce - Planner Last presented proposal to extend and amend Conditional Use Permit 84-5 as follows: 1) to extend Conditional Use Permit 84-5 for an additional three years; 2) to provide for bi-weekly equestrian events; 3) a request for an on site security person and trailer. The 9.05 acres site is located on Franklin Street. Chairman Washburn opened the public hearing at 7:09 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of Conditional Use Permit 84-5 REVISED. The following persons spoke in favor: Mr. Gene Lepper, with the Chamber for a number of years Mr. Daniel Stone, Chairman of the Chamber Sportsman Committee Minutes of Planning Commission February 17, 1987 Page 2 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 84-5 REVISED - LAKE ELSINORE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE CONTINUED Mr. Dick O'Neil, Vice President, Chamber of Commerce Mr. Jim Rhodes, Director, Chamber of Commerce Chairman Washburn asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak in favor of this request. The Secretary stated that written communication was received (included in your packets) from Mr. & Mrs. Leroy E. Grunder stating that they are in favor of the proposal. - 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 7:11 p.m. Commissioner Kelley stated that he likes the idea of having the equestrian events, and thinks that would be a benefit to the community. Commissioner Kelley commented on the overnight stipulation (condition number 4, regarding keeping of animals), wanting to know if in the past, during the rodeo, they had not kept animals there overnight. Community Development Director Miller answered in the affirma- tive, stating this has been addressed through the Special Events process. The existing Conditional Use Permit specifies that any gathering of over 500 people shall be subject to separate approval with a minimum 60 day advance notice to the _ City: so during Frontier Days, in May, that event is addressed through a separate process. This is for the weekly events that Mr. Starkey has briefly described in terms of a smaller number of participants, indicated 20-25 people, but having it on a weekly basis. We have experienced some concerns about the keeping of animals at this facility from residents in the area, and did not feel that on a continuing basis the keeping of animals at the facilities was appropriate. commissioner Callahan asked Mr. bi-weekly events if they anticipate overnight or for any length of time. Mr. Starkey answered in the negative, stating that he knows that this has happened in the past and that this was one of the drawbacks. The cattle would be brought in in the after- noon or evening, the event held and the cattle moved out that evening. The only exception would be if the truck were to breakdown or some unforeseen situation that we could not control the animals may have to be there overnight, but the plans are to have them in and out the same evening and brought back in for the next event. Starkey if the keeping during the of cattle Commissioner Callahan asked Mr. Starkey about the request for a night watchman, wanting to know if they were asking for someone to live on the premises. ...., Mr. Starkey responded that right now the person could stay there in travel trailer of his own. The trailer has a holding tank and it is pumped weekly along with the chemical sanitary facilities. commissioner Callahan stated that he finds it hard to under- stand the need for another trailer to be moved in when there already exists trailers and office facilities. If you have a Minutes of Planning commission February 17, 1987 Page 3 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 84-5 REVISED - LAKE ELSINORE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE CONTINUED - night watchman all he is there for is security. Mr. Starkey stated that they were informed that no one could live in the office trailer, it was prohibitive for someone to stay there overnight, and with him bringing a travel trailer on the'premises, locked inside the gates, it is permissible at this time, but no one could actually live in that travel trailer. Discussion ensued on the request for a night watchman and travel trailer on the site. commissioner Mellinger commented on the Negative Declaration, asking if this amendment as well as the extension. previously adopted also applies to the Community Development Director Miller stated that we did not feel that the proposed level of activities was any greater than previously addressed by the Environmental Assessment, and the recommendation did not include provisions for caretaker's quarters. Commissioner Mellinger asked if staff was stating that if a caretaker's quarters was considered it may then require further environmental review. - community Development Director Miller responded that as indi- cated, one of the concerns was the disposal of wastewater and septic/sewage disposal. This might entail a different level of assessment and does not know if this would create a significant environmental impact. Commissioner Mellinger commented on Finding #4, wanting to know if this was referring to the bi-weekly equestrian events. Community Development Director Miller responded that currently the Chamber has been operating a twice a month event. I am not sure if that has been year around or not, perhaps the Chamber can clarify that, but generally, as indicated, they are interested in greater utilization of the facility to make up some of the funding shortage they have experienced. There is a demand for this type of facility, and they proposed going to a weekly type of event that could be held on Saturday and Sunday. commissioner Mellinger stated that he was unaware that the original Conditional Use Permit allowed for activities twice a month. - Community Development Director Miller stated that there was some confusion about that, but thinks that was the intent of the previous Conditional Use Permit to include twice monthly events. commissioner Mellinger commented on condition number 9, "meet all applicable conditions of the original approvals" stating that this would apply to the bi-weekly events, and recommended that the following verbiage be added "as determined by the Community Development Director". Commissioner Mellinger commented on the maximum number people at the bi-weekly events and asked if there would bi-weekly event that could exceed that number, if so like to see some type of limitation. of 50 be a would Minutes of Planning Commission February 17, 1987 Page 4 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 84-5 REVISED - LAKE ELSINORE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE CONTINUED Mr. Starkey stated that might be a possibility, but they do not foresee that at this time. commissioner Mellinger stated that for the twice a week events we should put a maximum of 75 persons, and if there is an irregularity, more than 75 people showing up, then we might have something to say about it, but if it happened just once or twice obviously there is not much that you can do about that. - Commissioner Mellinger commented on the hours of operation, stating if limitations were added as a condition of approval would 6:00-7:00 p.m. be reasonable or if limitations of 7:00 p.m. during winter months and 11:00 p.m. during summer months would be reasonable. Mr. Starkey stated that he felt that there would be some leeway there, and believes these hours would be applicable. Commissioner Brown requested clarification on conditions 10, 11, 12, and 14. Discussion was held on condition number 14, pertaining to whether or not the trailers have current registration; condi- tion 12, pertaining to permanent restroom facilities and exactly what is meant by this, and permanent restroom facilities being required by the Uniform Building Code; condition number 11, pertaining to handicap facilities being provided; condition number 10, pertaining to safety of food establishments and whether or not this would have to be upgraded. - commissioner Brown stated that his concern is when the origi- nal Conditional Use Permit was issued, it was for an annual event to assist the Chamber, because of some past problems they have had with their site. Additional uses were added to assist them but now it is becoming a bi-weekly situation. I think that if any other business or organization came to us and wanted to operate on a regular basis we would make them go ahead with the full improvements of the property and that is where my problem lies. Chairman Washburn commented on condition to the handicap facilities, stating that permanent facility and not to temporary if there was such a thing as a portable for the handicap. number 11, pertaining this was tied to a facilities, and asked sanitary facilities Community Development Director Miller answered in the affirma- tive. Chairman Washburn commented briefly on the hours of operation and referred to Commissioner Mellinger's comment regarding changing the hours of operation, stating that we may want to give more latitude if we go in that direction due to the -- problems they could incur, not starting on time and the possibility of having to retrieve unruly cattle. Chairman Washburn stated that he thinks the operation as a whole is a good community facility. Thinks that it is still a temporary situation and if it were a permanent situation then we could ask for more permanent facilities. Imagines that it is the intent of the Chamber to locate the permanent facilities on the lake bottom once the lake management problem has been solved. We might want to consider adding a condition that if they are not relocated within a certain time frame then they should go ahead and put in permanent facilities. Minutes of Planning Commission February 17, 1987 Page 5 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 84-5 REVISED - LAKE ELSINORE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE CONTINUED Chairman Washburn suggested that condition number 4, pertain- ing to the keeping of animals, be rephrased to include "except with consent from the Community Development Director". - Chairman Washburn asked if the Chamber sponsored each of the bi-weekly events or if equestrian groups are allowed to come in and utilize the facilities and then they are responsible for certain conditions. Mr. Starkey responded that the Chamber is the sponsor. Chairman Washburn asked Mr. Starkey if it is the Chamber's position that they still need to have a night watchman on the premises. Mr. Starkey answered in the affirmative. Chairman Washburn asked Mr. Starkey if there were any other conditions of concern? Mr. Starkey responded in the negative. - Discussion ensued on the extension of time requested, and the lease expiring next year and they (the Chamber) are not sure if the lease will be renewed; condition number 12, pertaining to permanent restroom facilities being a Uniform Building Code requirement and whether or not this could be waived; whether or not the County Health Department would have a concern over this type of regular use and if they would not require rest- room facilities; providing permanent facilities after one year if the lease is renewed. commissioner Brown stated that he would like to see condition number 8, pertaining to expiration of Conditional Use Permit changed to one year; condition number 12, pertaining to the restroom facilities deferred in such a manner that they could use temporary facilities, which would include handicap to coincide with that one year period, and if their lease is renewed they would have to go to permanent facilities. Chairman Washburn asked Commissioner Brown if he would like to put that in the form of a motion. Motion by Commissioner Brown to approve Conditional Use Permit 84-5 REVISED subject to the findings and the 14 conditions listed in the Staff Report amending condition number 8 and condition number 12 as follows, and to deny the move-on of a caretaker's unit, second by Chairman Washburn. Condition No.8: "Conditional Use Permit will expire one (1) year from the date of ap- proval." - Condition No. 12: "Permanent restroom facilities to be deferred in such a manner that the use of temporary facilities will be allowed, which would include handicap and coincide with the one year period. If the lease is renewed then permanent facilities would be required." Chairman Washburn asked Commissioner Brown if this included deletion of condition number 3. Commissioner Brown answered in the negative. Minutes of Planning Commission February 17, 1987 Page 6 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 84-5 REVISED - LAKE ELSINORE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE CONTINUED commissioner Mellinger asked for discussion, stating that he feels that condition number 9 should be amended by adding the following verbiage "as determined by the Community Development Director;" and requested the addition of condition number 15 and 16, which would read as follows: condition number 15, "that all events shall be sponsored exclusively by the Chamber of Commerce so that we have a guarantee that it is going to ran properly"; condition number 16, "that all equestrian events, as approved by the amendment, there shall be a maximum of 75 persons and the hours of operation shall not extend past 7:00 p.m. in the winter months and 11:00 p.m. in the summer months." - Discussion ensued on addition of condition number 16, and what would be required of the Chamber if this was added as a condi- tion; condition number 16 being added for enforcement purposes; extending the hours of operation during the winter months to 8:00 p.m. Commissioner Brown amended his motion to include the amendment to condition number 9, and adding condition number 15 and 16 which will read as follows: Condition No.9: Condition No. 15: Condition No. 16: "Meet all applicable conditions of the original approval in reference to the bi-weekly equestrian events as deter- mined by the Community Development Director." "That all events shall be sponsored exclusively by the Chamber of Commerce. - "That all equestrian events, as ap- proved by the amendment, shall be limited to a maximum of 75 persons and the hours of operation shall not extend past 8:00 p.m. in the winter months and 11:00 p.m. in the summer months." Commissioner Callahan asked Mr. Starkey if he understood everything that was done here tonight. Mr. Starkey answered in the affirmative. Commissioner Mellinger asked for further discussion, stating that he believes that Finding #4 should be deleted and replaced with: "that the proposed amendment is similar to the use as approved under Conditional Use Permit 84-5 and does not substantially alter the existing legal non-conforming status." Chairman Washburn asked if the maker of the motion would consider including this amendment. Commissioner Brown amended his motion to include the deletion of Finding #4 and replacing it with the fOllowing: __ Finding No.4: "That the proposed amendment is similar to the use as approved under Conditional Use Permit 84-5 and does not substantially alter the existing legal non-conforming status." Chairman Washburn, maker of the second, agreed with the amend- ments to the motion. Approved 5-0 ." Minutes of Planning Commission February 17, 1987 Page 7 2. Amendment 87-1 City of Lake Elsinore - Community Develop- ment Director Miller presented proposal to amend Chapter 17.05 of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code regarding the relationship of permitted uses, conditional uses, and standards in the base district and the Lakeshore overlay District. - Chairman Washburn opened the public hearing at 7:47 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of Amendment 87-1. 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 7:48 p.m. commissioner Callahan stated that he was on the committee when this ordinance was drafted and then gave a brief background report on the establishment of the base district. Motion by recommend approval missioner commissioner adoption of of Amendment Mellinger. Callahan to adopt the findings and Negative Declaration No. 87-4 and 87-1 to City Council, second by Com- - commissioner Callahan commented on Section 17.05.100.B re- quirement of a topographical map of the project site and adjacent terrain located within 150 feet of the project boundaries, and requested the following words "where applicable or where feasible" be added. Commissioner Mellinger stated that he thinks that a topo map exists where you would not have to do a survey. Commissioner Callahan stated that the topo maps that we have available today are from 1962. Commissioner Callahan suggested that this be changed to a topo map of the project site shall be provided if required by the Community Development Director. Commissioner Callahan stated that 150 feet is a long way and those lots are all 50 foot widths, and we have 100 foot now in the Lakeshore Overlay. If you were going to put in a business you would have to have at least two lots, you have to have a 100 foot frontage and then to say that you would have to go three lots from either direction, it seems to me like an unreasonable requirement, and in some cases not possible. - Commissioner Mellinger suggested a minimum of 50 foot, and if it is necessary you could go further. Community Development Director Miller stated that currently the standards that we apply, for most submittals, is a topo map to identify terrain within 25 feet of the project boundaries, and all drainage channels, drainage courses and street improvements within a 100 feet to be identified as part of a grading plan. Commissioner Callahan stated that he would amended his motion to apply the same standards in this case as we do for other developments, as specified by Community Development Director Miller. commissioner Mellinger, maker of the second, agreed with the amendment to the motion. Approved 5-0 Minutes of Planning Commission February 17, 1987 Page 8 BUSINESS ITEMS 1. Commercial Project 87-1 - Atlantic Richfield Company (Markham and Associates) - Chairman Washburn stated that this is a request for approval of a 150 square foot, 45 foot high freeway-oriented pole sign, located at Railroad Canyon Road at I-15 southbound entrance ramp. Staff is requesting that this be continued. Motion by Commissioner Brown to continue Commercial Project 87-1, second by Commissioner Callahan. - A brief discussion was held on whether or not this proposal should be continued to a specific date. Community Development Director Miller responded that since there are negotiations involved between the property owner and Arco staff is requesting that this item be continued and reschedule after the appropriate agreements are obtained. There being no further discussion, Chairman Washburn called for the question. Approved 5-0 2. Draft Final of the General Plan - Land Use Policies - Contract Senior Planner Manee presented an overview of the General Plan Land Use Policies highlighting briefly the intent of these Policies. Considerable discussion was held at table regarding Policy #7, pertaining to the 10 net acres and density allowed under the current Code; Policy #1, deleting the word "increased"; Policy #3, adding the verbiage "as determined by the City Council"; Policy #5, defining standards for middle/upper income residential. - Motion by Commissioner Callahan to recommend to City Council adoption of the Draft Final of the General Plan Land Use POlicies, second by Commissioner Mellinger with the deletion of the word "increased" in Policy #1. Chairman Washburn asked if the maker of the motion would consider including this amendment. Commissioner Callahan amended his motion to include the deletion of the word "increased" from Policy #1. There being no further discussion, Chairman Washburn called for the question. Approved 5-0 3. Preliminary Draft of General Plan - Land Use Objectives _ Contract Senior Planner Manee presented an overview of the General Plan Land Use Objectives highlighting briefly the intent of each Objectives, and requested that Objective #7 be removed. _ Chairman Washburn stated that before this is brought to the table for discussion, he would like to point out, that there has been discussion, past Planning Commission and study sessions, about working with the State Park in reference to lake noise, limiting boat access to the lake during certain hours. Considerable discussion was held on the existing Ordinance; controlling access to the lake, and Objective pertaining to the 15 year Grandfathering and this Noise #10, being \ Minutes of Planning Commission February 17, 1987 Page 9 GENERAL PLAN - LAND USE OBJECTIVES CONTINUED - changed to 10 years; objective #2, pertaining to verbiage "worthy of preservation" and who would deem something worthy of preservation, if it would be more appropriate to change this to "current uses which are consistent with the goals of the General Plan"; Objective #3, pertaining to verbiage "deemed appropriate for Specific Plan requirements" and who would deem this appropriate; having a threshold for Specific Plans and Environmental Impact Reports; adding an Objective that further addresses the buffers between residential and non-residential uses; Objective #8, alluding to the growth potential and cumulative impacts; adding a new density category of up to 2 units per acre; adding a grading Objective and criteria addressing slope heights, inclinations, containment of grading on the project site; Objective #8, tying in the growth objective with the revised Circulation Element; down zoning and limitations placed on non-conforming uses once the zoning is changed, reference to single-family residences; providing additional information on view shed; whether or not we should retain the concept on community areas as stipulated in the General Plan; single-family residences being a permitted use in the R-2 or R-3 Zones provided they comply with the standards of the R-l Zone, so they would not be non-conforming. - 4. Petition to Abandon Maiden Lane and Churchill Street in the County, adjacent to the Lake Elsinore City Limits - community Development Director Miller stated that this regards a petition that is presently being considered by the County for abandonment of two streets in the County are that are adjacent to the City Limits. The proposal is to abandon the ends of those two streets as they approach the State Recreation Area. The State Recreation Area boundaries are coterminous with the City Limits in this area. Community Development Director Miller stated that Commissioner Callahan had requested that this item be placed on the Agenda for Commission discussion and consideration. Chairman Washburn asked if we officially received anything from the County on this. Community Development Director Miller stated that generally the County does refer any Planning items to the City that are within our Sphere of Influence. However, I do not believe that we received anything regarding this abandonment. Commissioner Callahan gave background report on this matter, and stated that he would like to attend the County meeting to be held on February 18, as a representative of the Com- mission and address the Commission's concerns on this matter. - Motion by Commissioner Callahan that we as a body inform the County Planning Commission that we object to the proposed vacation of these two streets for the following reasons: 1) that they abut the City Limits; 2) the Planning Commission supports the Lake Management Plan; 3) the Planning Commission supports the State Park General Plan, and that I be allowed to go to that meeting in my official capacity as Vice Chairman and express that objection, second by Commissioner Brown. Approved 5-0 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS Community Development Director Miller stated for informational Minutes of Planning Commission February 17, 1987 Page 10 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS CONTINUED purposes, he would like to point out that City Council has scheduled a study session on the Cost Control Analysis prepared by MSI for Thursday night, February 19, 1987. Community Development Director Miller stated that the Commission has received communication from Mr. Renee Rich appealing. the denial decision of the Planning Commission. This appeal is scheduled before City Council on February 24, 1987. - PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Commissioner Kellev: Thanked Contract Senior Planner Manee for all of his work. Commissioner Kelley commented on the removal of the trailer at Butterfield Savings (Four Corners Area), stating that he is concerned about the debris that could be left behind. There seems to be a lot of rubble now, and not sure that it will be removed. commissioner Callahan: Responded to Commissioner Kelley's comment stating that we have a vehicle to control this, the Weed Abatement Ordinance also covers rubbish and such. Commissioner Callahan stated that as soon as we could get this on the Agenda, he would like to bring up the non-conforming structure portion of Title 17. Again, I would like to express my personal feeling of being very protective of single-family residences, and I think that there is a catch "22" in there that might hurt some people that we don't intent to hurt. - Chairman Washburn stated that we would look at this in more depth when Contract Senior Planner brings forward the proposed changes, rather than bring is forward now as a special item. Commissioner Callahan stated that he was not in any rush. Commissioner Mellinqer: Commented on the Arco sign suggesting that in the Staff Report under discussion or in the presentation that there be a very clear and distinct explanation as to how it effects the variance that was approved for the Sizzler sign. I would like to see a clear distinction on how an intergraded center is being interpreted under the existing code and how it effects that sign. Commissioner Brown: Asked if the Park Abrams project is on line, are they going ahead with it? Community Development Director Miller responded that they have every intent of proceeding with the project, and the plans are in plan check. Commissioner Brown asked if they signage that is on the corner (for tracts and so forth). Community Development Director Miller stated that he was not sure. - have approval for all of the all of the various housing Commissioner Brown stated that he would like to have someone look at the signage on this corner and also on the corner of Collier and Riverside Drive. .... ..... -- Minutes of Planning commission February 17, 1987 Page 11 PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS CONTINUED Chairman Washburn: The Auto Sales at Riley and Graham, I was informed that they might be doing some other activities besides auto sales, such as auto repair and painting. I have heard from a user in Peddler's Village, they are concerned that there are wholesalers going out there and doing wholesaling without a business permit. Code Enforcement has been very diligent with getting the small users out there to actually have Business Licenses and their concern is that wholesalers are going out there without Business Licenses. There is a lot of concrete debris still left behind from the construction of the flood control on Main Street (drainage). I find big concrete blocks located in front of the Methodist Church on Main Street, and there is a big hole in front of 123 South Main that has collapsed and the last rain has made it larger, it is nearly a sink hole in size. There is a League of California cities Conference coming up next month. Commissioner Kelley and myself have requested the possibility of funds being provided to attend this meeting. I would like to have Community Development Director Miller look into the possibility of a budget transfer--there were funds available in the Educational Section for staff that might be appropriate to use. If funds are available requested this item put on the Consent Calendar for City Council action. Community Development Director Miller stated that he would follow up on this. Commissioner Callahan: Asked staff to take a look at the Conditional Use Permit for Kay's Barn, it is a campground on Riverside Drive, which also appears to be trailer sales and auto sales. Commissioner Callahan requested that a report be brought back on this matter. commissioner Mellinaer: Over the past several months I have been reading some very interesting articles concerning the Airport and the City's role in the realignment of the runway. The questions that I have, since I have read some statements in the articles and it has. been stated more than once or twice, there is an apparent request for the City to waive the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for realignment of one runway. When did we get into the business of aligning runways, are we considered the lead agency for runway alignments. How does that statement keep reappearing in articles that the City could waive an EIR for something that the State would be approving--would be the lead agency. I don't see how you could waive an EIR in the first place. Community Development Director Miller responded that there has been considerable discussion about this very issue, particularly with Cal Trans Aeronautics. Their position, generally, is that any application to them for such items as realignment of runways must first have local approval, and so in conversation with their staff they indicate they have never prepared or been the lead agency in preparing an Environmental Impact Report or in fact other Environmental Assessments. In essence, they require local approval prior to application to them or they require the local approval as part of their application. This has to be obtained first so the City would appear to be the lead agency in looking at an Environmental Assessment for an item such as a runway realignment. There has been paper work submitted in reference to Minutes of Planning Commission February 17, 1987 Page 12 PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS CONTINUED this, but at this time much of the supporting paperwork has not been submitted. Commissioner Mellinger stated that he finds that tantamount for the City's requirement that an Environmental Assessment for the location of a freeway, but does not see the real difference. Commissioner Mellinger stated that he is not familiar with this County or even if there is one, and asked if there is a Airport Land Use Commission here? - Community Development Director Miller responded that there is a Airport Land Use Commission within the County, and it is a fairly new Commission. Their efforts have been concentrated on the major facilities in the County, that also happen to be publicly owned. In terms of determining their priorities in developing the required land use plans Skylark Airport here in Lake Elsinore is near the bottom of their priorities. Commissioner Mellinger then asked if it would be appropriate for the City to make such a request--that the priority be increased. Community Development Director Miller responded that generally it is the Commission's responsibility to approve those land use plans and the responsibility of local agencies to see to their preparation. Commissioner Mellinger stated that since it is a controversial issue, making the Riverside paper almost every other week, and considering that there is land in the area around there that an Airport Land Use Plan would be more than appropriate at this time. It is my suggestion that the City at least make a request that an Airport Land Use Plan be developed or at least that it be developed in the near future. - Community Development indicated the Airport responsibility of the Land Use Commission. Director Miller responded that as he Land Use Plan would be largely the local agency and reviewed by the Airport Commissioner Mellinger asked Community Development Director Miller if he was saying that we could prepare a Land Use Plan that they would approve. Community Development Director answered in the affirmative. commissioner Mellinger stated that it is his suggestion that such a Land Use Plan be developed as soon as possible. There being no further business, Commission adjourned at 9:07 p.m. second by Commissioner Callahan. Approved 5-0 the Lake Elsinore Planning Motion by Chairman Washburn, ~llY L nda" Grindstaff. Pla Commission Secretar ~proved. Ga OJ\t'hJ,~~hD- Ch~an - MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON THE 3RD DAY OF MARCH 1987 THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:00 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Chairman Washburn. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: commissioners: Brown, Mellinger, Callahan, Kelley and Washburn. - ABSENT: None Also present were Community Development Director Miller, Senior Planner Bolland, Assistant Planners Last, Magee, and Spencer. MINUTE ACTION Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to approve minutes of February 17, 1987, as submitted, second by Commissioner Callahan with the comment that he would like to thank staff for the very profes- sional and speedy action taken in relation to the Conditional Use Permit for Kay's Barn and that he was by there today and noticed the vehicle and trailers for sale have been removed. He further stated that he was hoping, but maybe he could request that later, for a more in-depth look at the Conditional Use Permit. Chairman Washburn commented that, if he would like, they could bring that up later under Planning Commissioner's Comments. - commissioner because part but he would Approved 5-0 Callahan responded that he only brought it up now of the minutes contained his request on this matter, be happy to do that. PUBLIC COMMENTS None PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Amendment 86-4 City of Lake Elsinore (Continued from February 3, 1987) - To amend Chapter 17.98 of the Lake Elsi- nore Municipal Code regarding Special Events and recommended for continuance until after draft has been prepared and dis- cussed. - Motion by Commissioner Brown for continuance of Amendment 86-4, second by Commissioner Callahan. Approved 5-0 2. Conditional Use Permit 86-10 Industrial Concepts I (Art Nelson) (Continued from February 3, 1987) - Assistant Planner Spencer presented proposal to allow the Lake Elsinore School District to occupy 18,000 to 20,000 square feet of space in the Commercial Manufacturing Zone in the Chaney Street Center in the Warm Springs Business Park, located on the southwest corner of Chaney Street and Minthorn Street. Chairman Washburn opened the public hearing at 7:06 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of Conditional Use Permit 86-10. Steve Brown, representing the applicant, stated that they agree with everything that staff has recommended on this particular issue and look forward hopefully to having all the Planning Commissioners agree, and that he was available to answer any questions that might arise. Chairman Washburn favor. Receiving asked if anyone else wished to speak in no response, Chairman Washburn asked if Minutes of Planning Commission March 3, 1987 Page 2 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 86-10 - INDUSTRIAL CONCEPTS I (ART NELSON)- CONTINUED anyone wished to speak in opposition. Receiving no response, Chairman Washburn asked if anyone wished to speak on the matter. Receiving no reply, Chairman Washburn closed the public hearing at 7:08 p.m. Discussion commenced at the table on Condition #2, that the 67 parking spaces be clearly marked for School District use and approved by the Community Development Director; use being appropriate and being in full support. - Motion Permit tions Brown. by Commissioner Callahan to approve Conditional Use 86-10, subject to the findings and the two (2) Condi- listed in the Staff Report, second by Commissioner Commissioner Mellinger recommended amending adding the verbiage, "Such spaces shall be exclusive School District use as approved Development Director." Condition #2 by clearly marked for by the Community Commissioner Callahan amended his motion to include the addi- tion to Condition #2, to read as follows: "2. The School District administrative offices and warehouse space shall be guaranteed a minimum of 67 spaces accessible to buildings 6 and 8 and in no way shall these spaces be altered or deleted that will lower the available number of parking stalls. Such spaces shall be clearly marked for exclusive School District use as approved by the Community Development Director." - Commissioner Brown, maker of the second, concurred with the amended motion. Approved 4-0 (Chairman Washburn abstained) 3. Zone Change 86-22 Brookstone Investors (Art Nelson) - Chairman Washburn opened asking if anyone wished to 86-22. the public hearing at 7:10 p.m., speak in favor of Zone Change Steve Brown, representing the developer, stated he had one comment on staff's Mitigation Measure #5 which reads, "Extend fifteen-inch (15") sewer to the farthest project boundary. One (1) six-inch (6") sewer lateral connection to main only." He requested the Planning Commission amend this item to read, "Extend fifteen-inch sewer to farthest project boundary or as otherwise approved by Elsinore Valley Municipal Water Dis- trict (EVMWD)." Mr. Brown commented that they have had discussions with EVMWD and it is not clear at this point whether it will be fifteen- inch, whether there will be any sewer requirement past their project since there is not a whole lot of developable property past that point. Traditionally, in the past, they do govern that sort of thing and he would like the flexibility to be able to work with that agency to work out the solution for that problem. Mr. Brown further stated that they agree with the balance of the staff's recommendations. - Chairman this item Washburn commented that he had "jumped the gun" on by opening the public hearing before having the Minutes of Planning Commission March 3, 1987 Page 3 - ZONE CHANGE 86-22 - BROOKS TONE INVESTORS (ART NELSON) - CONTINUED staff give its report, but that he would continue with the public hearing and have staff give its report before closing the hearing. Chairman Washburn asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor of Zone Change 86-22. Receiving no response, Chairman Washburn asked if anyone wished to speak in opposi- tion. Receiving no reply, Chairman Washburn asked staff to present their report and if anyone else after that wishes to come forward he will certainly allow them to. Assistant Planner Magee presented request to rezone 1.54 acres located on the northeast corner of Railroad Canyon Road and Grape Street from C-P (commercial Park) to C-2 (General Com- mercial) in order to bring the zoning into conformance with the General Plan. Chairman Washburn asked if there were any further comments from those in favor and receiving no response, asked if there were any comments from those in the audience in opposition to this request. Receiving no reply, Chairman Washburn closed the public hearing at 7:14 p.m. Discussion commenced at the table with request to staff to comment on Mitigation Measure #5. Assistant Planner Magee stated that when they circulate a pro- ject to the various agencies responsible, they respond back with their recommendations and this was a direct recommenda- tion from EVMWD that applicant provide sewer to the farthest part of the site and that it be a 15-inch diameter. Community Development Director Miller commented that also, if they look at Condition #47 on the related Commercial Project 86-16 REVISED, there is a more general statement that would satisfy the concerns of the applicant as well as addressing the concerns of EVMWD. Perhaps the Commission would feel more comfortable with identifying the mitigation measure as described there since the Negative Declaration really was to apply to both projects, the Zone Change and the Commercial Project. - Discussion returned to the table on need for increased size of bridge across the San Jacinto River and understanding that fees were to be imposed on businesses going in in this area, as a Capital Improvement type fee, to increase the size of this bridge. Questioned staff if this were true or is it built into some other type fee structure. Community Development Director Miller replied that this has been discussed at various times in the past, however, the cost of replacing that bridge has not been fully determined nor has any kind of assessment been determined for various parcels. Although that is something that has been discussed in rela- tionship to various other projects, the recent approvals of other projects in this vicinity have not carried such a con- dition. commissioner Callahan commented on Mitigation Measure #5 and the understanding that the Sewer District is presently developing a Master Plan for this whole area and being willing to accept whatever their recommendations are and if they wish to change from the 1S-inch sewer line, he would go along with it. Commissioner Brown asked about Mitigation Measure #3 and if it shouldn't have been placed on the project and not the Zone '; Minutes of Planning Commission March 3, 1987 Page 4 ZONE CHANGE 86-22 - BROOKS TONE INVESTORS (ART NELSON) - CONTINUED Change - if the commercial project wouldn't the zone change proposal project application, for instance, egress points changed? Community Development Director Miller replied that generally, the Negative Declaration, in this case, addresses both pro- jects, and in the terms of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a project could be any action the legisla- tive body takes, either Planning Commission or City Council Therefore, the Negative Declaration, in this case, has addressed not only the impacts of the Zone Change but also more specifically the impacts of the commercial project and, thus, you are looking at a Negative Declaration that addresses both. It is possible to separate and do a Negative Declara- tion for each action, but given the limited scope of the Zone Change since it is a change in compliance with the General Plan, they felt that a Negative Declaration to address both of these projects was appropriate and consequently there is some overlap in the Mitigation Measures. proposal should change, be fighting the commercial if the stop signs and - Commissioner Mellinger stated that, on that point, CEQA requires not only review of the "worst case" basis with the Zone Change but also any project proposed, so has no problem with the Negative Declaration for both projects, but he does have a concern with Mitigation Measure #S since, if they do approve the Zone Change with this Mitigation Measure, what they are saying is that any commercial project consistent with the zoning would have to have at least a lS-inch sewer, yet the condition of approval forthcoming will not be so clear cut. Asked if that was a direct comment from EVMWD. Were they hasty, or what? There is a massive project that has been approved surrounding this development so there certainly is other development in the future in that area. - Community Development Director Miller responded that as Mr. Steve Brown, representative for the applicant, has indicated, there has been ongoing conversations between the applicant and the Water District regarding the extension of the sewer and the applicant has also had several discussions with staff regarding this. So most appropriately, as he has indicated, it would probably be better to identify the more general con- dition written in terms of the commercial project which they feel adequately represents the position of the Water District. In terms of the adjacent Canyon Creek Project, which is the residential project proposed for the other side of the San Jacinto River, it will basically take access from a bridge that would extend from the end of Grape Street and what they are looking at is the possibility of that sewer potentially extended along Grape Street to serve the project. To the farthest project boundary along Railroad Canyon Road, as the applicant has indicated, further projects further up stream along Railroad Canyon may well tie into the sewer treatment plant in Railroad Canyon rather than feeding into the main sewer line that goes down to the central facilities. Therefore, it may not be necessary to extend it all the way up to the end of the project on Railroad Canyon as a IS-inch line. - Commissioner Mellinger commented that streets have been torn up three and four time to have separate sewer and water lines. Feels the condition be, to a point, where it will satisfy any potential development up stream. Since they do anticipate development, feels they need a fairly specific condition from EVMWD. Minutes of Planning commission March 3, 1987 Page 5 ZONE CHANGE 86-22 - BROOKS TONE INVESTORS (ART NELSON) - CONTINUED .---. commissioner Brown stated he believes the sewer treatment plant in the Canyon Lake area is for the exclusive use of the Canyon Lake residents. It was built with their funds and no- one else can use it. Also Tract 20472 is directly up the road from this with the only access down Railroad Canyon Road for sewer. It can't do back across the creek. Chairman Washburn commented that basically he sees it as mutually exclusive. Item #5 and Condition #47 have different generalities. We basically request that it be sewered, but asked staff if it isn't the responsibility of the Elsi- nore Valley Municipal Water District to state the size of the line and to insure future service for up stream and received an affirmative reponse. Chairman Washburn further asked that if the Zone Change takes place and the commercial project does not go forward wouldn't these conditions, which are tied to Commercial Project 86-16 REVISED, be dead but there would still be the Zone Change. He then asked if that statement was correct. Community Development Director Miller responded that these mitigation measures would apply to any future development of the property. ..... Chairman Washburn stated he had concerns with this because they are talking about a particular type of project and, if the project did not go into place, and three years down the line, the Zone Change is still there - he is not opposed to the Zone Change, per se - these conditions have to be tied to this project and if the project dies then these conditions are mute and the new person who comes in with a project would then be looking at new mitigation measures for the project because the Zone Change would still be in place. Community Development Director Miller replied that that is certainly possible. If there were significantly different environmental impacts associated with a different project, they would look at a new Environmental Assessment. Chairman Washburn replied that the point he is trying to make is that he sees the mitigation measures for that project tied to the Zone Change and once it goes into place, the Zone Change is there. He advised staff to be aware and not apply these mitigation measures in the event of a new project on this site. Motion by Commissioner Callahan to recommend to the City Council adoption of Negative Declaration 86-64 and approval of Zone Change 86-22 based on the findings listed in the Staff Report, second by Commissioner Brown. Approved 5-0 ~ BUSINESS ITEMS 1. Commercial Project 86-16 REVISED - Brookstone Investors (Art Nelson) - Assistant Planner Magee presented proposal to construct a 14,657 square foot commercial center to be located at the northeast corner of Railroad Canyon Road and Grape Street. The center will consist of three (3) separate buildings. The first building will be 9,560 square feet, the second 2,997 square feet, and the third will be 2,100 square feet. Chairman Washburn asked if the applicant or representative of the applicant was in the audience and would like to address the Planning Commission on this item. Minutes of Planning Commission March 3, 1987 Page 6 COMMERCIAL PROJECT 86-16 REVISED NELSON) - CONTINUED BROOKS TONE INVESTORS (ART Mr. Steve Brown, representative for the developer, stated that since December, when they first submitted this project to the Planning Division for their review, they have gone through probably no less than fifteen (15) different site plans trying to get this particular project to a point where it made sense to build, including incorporating part of the adjacent proper- ty, which they do not own, into the site plan, and eliminating the fast food pad area which is on the corner. They currently have a plan that will be submitted to staff by Friday which will eliminate the fast food portion of this project and eliminate the drive-through. In effect, providing a much better parking layout for the site and having a better entrance to the City by not having another fast food there. They feel everyone agrees that if it were an office-type of facility, it would be a better project, from an architectural standpoint as well. They are currently talking to Overland Bank about having that be their main facility for Lake Elsi- nore, although they don't have signed agreements yet. Mr. Brown further stated that they have made significant progress with all the requirements that staff has imposed in terms of flood requirements. They have done their Hydrology Study. There was one done in 1984 that addressed the current state of the San Jacinto River after the freeway was built. It showed, in fact, that the River had been excavated and did alter the 100- Year Flood Line by a half a foot, and that was done by one of the four leading hydrologist in Orange County who is very well recognized by the Riverside County Flood Control. The Study is back in Washington, D. C., and currently being reviewed by the FEMA people, who have assured him that they will send him a letter within a week authorizing their approval. Which just goes to show that if you know who to talk to, it doesn't take forever. He had originally been told that this process took about one year and, if that had been true, their project would have been dead. Feels they are making excellent progress in that area. He met with the City Engineering Department today and they have reviewed the Hydrology Study and agree with its findings and, therefore, no other hydrology information should be required. Mr. Brown continued with mention that the new site plan, which shows elimination of the fast food, does alter the parking, however, generally speaking it does provide more parking for the types of uses that they will have. They do feel they will have some food uses in Buildings A and B and that is one of the reasons they changed their plan; to give them some flexi- bility with the leasing effort. They do have some concern about the entrance on Grape Street, which has been moved, per staff's recommendations, towards the back of the property. He wants to go back to staff with the revised plan and discuss maybe moving that entrance again since they feel the same parking layout is not the problem that it is today with the fast food. Other than that, he stated that they agree with all of staff's findings and look forward to breaking ground on this sometime this Spring. Chairman Washburn asked Mr. Brown if he were asking for a continuance. Mr. Brown responded in the negative and stated that they would like the project approved tonight in the layout that the Plan- ning Division has laid out. It is set up to go through a separate Design Review based on their recommendations for that fast food pad area so they would like the Commission to approve the Building A and B layout the way it is. .... .... .... Minutes of Planning Commission March 3, 1987 Page 7 ..... COMMERCIAL PROJECT 86-16 REVISED NELSON) - CONTINUED Chairman Washburn asked if there was anyone else in the audi- ence who would like to make a comment in favor or opposition. Hearing no reply, Chairman Washburn brought the matter to the table. BROOKS TONE INVESTORS (ART commissioner Brown asked that the Community Development Direc- tor pay particular emphasis to Condition #21 because of the Specific Plan behind that project. Would like to see some- thing that is very harmonious with the improvements that are supposed to take place in San Jacinto River and the adjacent property. Commissioner Brown then asked what the distance is between the proposed Grape Street entrance and the beginning of the Grape Street bridge. Mr. Brown replied that it is approximately 150 feet. commissioner Brown commented that the back of the building is then right adjacent to the wash. There is very little, or no buffer there at all. ~ Community Development Director Miller responded that the bridge would start to rise off of Grape Street and then called upon Mr. Brown to provide additional information because he did indicate that he had looked at some alternate site plan- ning that incorporated some of that additional property and believes that at the Grape Street end of the project there was an additional 80 to 100 feet prior to the embankment. Mr. Brown said that was correct. The 100-Year flood line that is shown on the current Flood Insurance Rate Maps shows the beginning of the flood plain is about 75 feet past their property line. Basically that is the line that you can't build below, as everybody knows. Essentially, that line was altered by a half a foot in terms of elevation, which didn't dramatically bring that line any closer to their property. Towards the other end of the property, it comes within 25 or 30 feet of the property. But generally speaking, there is a fairly significant buffer there between the back of their property line and where that flood line starts. ----- commissioner Brown asked if he would anticipate any armoring of the channel at all in that narrow 25 foot area and Mr. Brown replied in the negative and that they would be putting in a retaining wall in the back of their property to elimi- nate any need for anything back there. Commissioner Brown further stated that since this will drain directly into the lake from a commercial project, he would like some consideration to gtease traps due to grease from cars since this will be a high traffic area. This is a con- cern of Fish and Game also. Commissioner Brown then commented on Item b in the Mitigation Measures from the Traffic Study, they recommended that Rail- road Canyon exit be only right turn but he didn't see that in Conditions of Approval - perhaps he just missed it. If it is not in there, he would appreciate the addition of that. commissioner Mellinger commented that he believes there is a median that would prevent that. commissioner Brown stated the Traffic Study addresses the median and also the right turn only and it wouldn't hurt to have it in the conditions. Minutes of Planning Commission March 3, 1987 Page 8 COMMERCIAL PROJECT 86-16 REVISED NELSON) - CONTINUED BROOKS TONE INVESTORS (ART Commissioner Mellinger commented that his presumption is that the Engineering Condition requiring a median would, indeed, prevent any left turns and asked if that was correct. Mr. Brown responded that the Traffic Study recommends a left hand turn pocket into the site as you are coming from the freeway. At the same time, it does recommend that if you are leaving the project on the Railroad Canyon exit that you only be able to turn right. They will have a right turn only sign at that portion of the property. .... Commissioner Mellinger stated he feels all Mitigation Measures listed in the Traffic Study should be incorporated and added to Condition #45. He agrees with staff's concern about the rear elevation and is impressed with the rendering screening along that north side with landscaping. Asked what we are looking for if the Community Development Director is going to approve something along the back of the building for enhance- ment. Community Development Director Miller replied that actually that is something they anticipate working out with the Project Architect. There are a number of possibilities, as they have indicated a combination of landscape and architectural treatment. Some of the areas have a wider landscape area due to the arc of the rear property line, and in other areas the potential landscape area is quite narrow. Perhaps looking at a combination where there is sufficient room to get some ver- tical landscaping and in areas where there is very little room, using some type of architectural treatment to break up that rear facade, such as columes, or bands, or plantons of some type. .... Commissioner Mellinger then commented that the preliminary landscaping plan doesn't seem to coincide very well with the the site plan nor with the rendering. He believes that since this will be quite a visible project, he would like to see a combination of the features of the rendering and the site plan incorporated into the landscaping. Chairman Washburn questioned Condition #48 requ~r~ng payment of equitable share of cost for future traffic signalization at the intersection of Grape Street and Railroad Canyon road. He stated that at one time, they had the City Engineer put to- gether a formula for fees to be paid by applicants for traffic signalization participation in that area and asked if staff was aware of that. Community Development Director Miller responded that there are existing Resolutions that address the installation of traffic signals at Railroad Canyon Road and Mission Trail which is already installed, Railroad Canyon Road/Casino Drive, which is planned, and one of those Resolutions does affect this proper- ty and is identified in the Engineering Department conditions. The Grape Street signal he does not believe has been previous- __ ly identified or had a study completed on it. Chairman Washburn commented that as he recalls he thought there was a formula set up for that general area and as you moved further and further away from that major intersection, taking into consideration the other intersection, it stated the amount the share cost would be. What he is concerned about is when anyone is going to do a project, we don't know what the cost is going to be. It says equitable share and that could be anywhere from $20.00 to $25,000 or greater. He Minutes of Planning Commission March 3, 1987 Page 9 COMMERCIAL PROJECT 86-16 REVISED NELSON) - CONTINUED feels if we had such a resolution in place, it would be easier to attach a dollar figure rather than say equitable share. BROOKS TONE INVESTORS (ART ..... Community Development Director Miller stated they are not aware of one that is in place and there has not been suffi- cient time to complete one since it would involve consider- able assessment of the impacts of the future potential of traffic coming across the San Jacinto River at Grape Street as well as the upstream project along Railroad Canyon Road. It is a much more complex sort of assessment than might be the case on others. ..... The Chair recognized Mr. Brown. Mr. Steve Brown stated he was concerned about this particular questions also and called his Traffic Engineer to see what his recommendations would be. His Traffic Engineer said there would be no problem because the completed Traffic Study addresses future growth in the area. In fact, it was his recommendation that a traffic signal be required at that intersection at some point down the road. He is aware of all of the approvals that have taken place for Canyon Creek/Canyon Lake people that will be moving into that area and he devel- oped two (2) Traffic Analysis Graphs that are part of the Traffic Study; Figure 8, which shows the project's current impact, showing approximately 1,000 car a day; Figure 11 shows the same site and same area with all the projected growth at a point when the signal would be required - somewhere around 11,000 cars a day. Therefore, their impact would be about nine percent (9%) based on their Traffic Engineer's analysis. He is writing a letter to the Planning Division now which outlines this analysis as well as what he feels it would cost for a traffic signal at that intersection - around $100,000. Therefore, their portion would be $9,000. He reviewed this with the Engineering Department today and they agree with the analysis, the amount, and the Traffic Study. They don't feel they have a problem, but if there is a resolution already passed that addresses how much money they would pay, then they they would look at that too. He just doesn't want to get bogged down with another delay and that is why he was con- cerned and addressed it with their Traffic Engineer who seems to have a pretty good solution. Chairman Washburn stated they certainly could site this as part of Condition #48 in reference to equitable share. Commissioner Mellinger commented that he might have a little trouble with the percentages because he is sure that the total amount of traffic generation from properties isn't confined to just that specific area. For example, how are you going to assess people who live in Canyon Lake. His question is what is the size, who will be assessed the equitable shares, how far do they go, who gets assessed what. Normally, if you are going to have an assessment like that, you are going to have to base it on an area. If you don't go far enough, then the last ten percent is never paid and the signal never goes in. Mr. Steve Brown stated that he believes his Traffic Engineer's assessment deals with the projects that have yet to be built within the immediate vicinity impact area, which basically is Canyon Creek Hills. His report indicated a great deal of growth in the Canyon Creek Hills area and cites the number of units approved and, based on those units and the units that have yet to have recorded maps on, which the City certainly has control over, that growth would generate the need for the Minutes of Planning Commission March 3, 1987 Page 10 COMMERCIAL PROJECT 86-16 REVISED NELSON) - CONTINUED BROOKS TONE INVESTORS (ART signal. Therefore, there was a very definite area that would reguire this signal. Commissioner Mellinger commented that just to make sure, would the percentage of volume that Mr. Brown is talking about be a percentage of an entire 100 percent assessment. For instance, if their share is $9,000 dollars and is collected as the Specific Plan is developed and it only comes up to 80 percent, where does the rest of the money come from. He feels Condi- tion #48 is probably adequate to get a signal but feels it requires a definite area. Mr. Brown stated he could have his Traffic Engineer incorpor- ate into his letter of report the area he gives as being the assessment area and in that way there wouldn't be any question for the future projects that come down the road as to who should be paying for that. Chairman Washburn said they could include the reference that this Study be attached to Condition #48 so that everyone is clear on the matter. Community Development Director Miller remarked that as appli- cant has identified and shown in the Traffic Study, the principal impact for a signal at Grape Street and Railroad Canyon Road is going to be the cross traffic on Grape Street. We know there is a lot of traffic on Railroad Canyon Road and that it will continue to grow, but absent cross traffic, there would not be the need for a signal. There is only a very narrow strip behind this property which is developable so any other traffic is going to come from across the River on a bridge. The Canyon Creek Specific Plan did address improvements to Grape Street and potential signalization of this intersection, so looking at Figure 11 and a potential traffic of 11,000 on Grape Street entering from the west and this project generating 1,000, then the nine percent appears to be accurate for this project. He further stated that a specific resolution to guarantee the kinds of things that Com- missioner Mellinger and Chairman Washburn have discussed has not yet been adopted. Motion by Commission Mellinger to recommend to City Council adoption of Negative Declaration 86-64 and approval of Commer- cial Project 86-16 REVISED based on the findings, subject to the forty-nine (49) conditions listed in the Staff Report, amending and adding the following conditions to read as follows: Condition #19: "Applicant shall submit a Final Landscape and Irrigation Plan subject to the approval of the Planning Commission, incorporating features of the submitted site plan and rendering." Condition #45: "Railroad Canyon Road is classified by the General Plan as an arterial corridor with 100 foot right-of-way, 86 foot roadway and 22 foot median. Median shall include a 100 foot left turn lane. All Mitigation Measures of the submitted Traffic study be incorporated into the project." Condition #47: "Applicant shall extend farthest project boundary 6-inch lateral connection the sewer to the with one (1) to the main. - - - Minutes of Planning Commission March 3, 1987 Page 11 COMMERCIAL PROJECT 86-16 REVISED NELSON) - CONTINUED BROOKS TONE INVESTORS (ART - Grease interceptors and sample boxes shall be required for all food service related uses, subject to the approval of Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District (EVMWD). The size of the main shall be determined by EVMWD." Second by Chairman Washburn. commissioner Callahan asked about Commissioner Brown's request for grease traps for run off. commissioner Mellinger amended his motion to add Condition #50 to read as follows: Condition #50: "Grease traps to be incorporated into the parking area." 2 . Chairman Washburn amended his second to include Condition #50. Approved 5-0 Commercial Project 86-7 Amendment No. 2 - T & S Development - Senior Planner Bolland presented proposal to amend Commercial Project 86-7 approval to include Design Review of Building "G" and also incorporating minor architectural and site plan revi- sions to Phases I and II. - Chairman Washburn asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak in favor of or add anything on this particular item. Mr. John Curts, with T & S Development, 5225 Canyon Crest Drive, Riverside, stated he had reviewed the Staff Report and conditions and essentially has no problem with them. Chairman Washburn asked if anyone else had any comments to make on this project. Receiving no response, Chairman Washburn brought the discussion to the table. - Short discussion was held on the color on the doors and was informed it is a sort of T & S trademark which has been very successful in other developments, such as their Canyon Crest project; questioned the reason for the reduction in brick. Mr. Curts responded that if they would notice on the elevation they have a substantial brick column for each of the towers at each end of the building and for the trellis gazebo in the center. Originally, the architect had specified the same brick column throughout the center. It's a very massive brick and they felt it was becoming too dominant a material considering the remainder of the design of the center and wanted to use as a focus, and call attention to, the design gems in the center - the trellises, and also for the major tenants which are sUbstantially larger structures, then using the slightly lighter weight wooden columns as a counter point to that, they think gives a lot more design interest. Discussion continued on the trees to be used for landscaping and their size. Mr. Curts stated the trees on their approved landscape plan range from 15-gallon to 54-inch box. A substantial number of the trees are in the 24-inch box category. The rendering of the rear of Building G is pretty accurate for installation and the majority of them will be 24-inch box. Minutes of Planning Commission March 3, 1987 Page 12 COMMERCIAL PROJECT 86-7 AMENDMENT NO. ~ - T ~ ~ DEVELOPMENT _ CONTINUED Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to recommend to City Council design approval of Building "G" and approval of: a) site plan revisions as shown on Exhibit "A" and b) use of wood columns in place of brick as indicated by Condition #5, subject to the seven (7) conditions as listed in staff Report, amending Condition #3 to read as follows: - Condition #3: "A retaining wall shall be provided adjacent to Building "G" to provide for a partial screen of the rear elevation of the building and for a landscape screen between the re- taining wall and pUblic sidewalk, subject to the approval of the Community Development Director." Second by Commissioner Callahan. Approved 5-0 3. Commercial Project 85-2 Amendment No.2 - BMW Management, Inc. c/o R. J. Christoff & Associates Senior Planner Bolland presented proposal for design approval of the free-standing Sizzler Restaurant within the Shopper's Square commercial center (Building #2) located on the north side of Casino Drive, approximately 1,000 feet east of Railroad Canyon Road. Chairman Washburn asked if the applicant or the applicant's representative was in the audience and would like to comment on this item. R. J. Christoff, designer of project, 174 South Orange Street, Orange, California, stated he had received the report and con- ditions and had the following concerns with Condition #4: - Condition li: a) On wing walls one wing wall hides one major support beam and in order to make the building more balanced and more aesthetic, more wing walls were added. If they eliminate the wing walls, they feel they will have struc- tural problems. This is a new prototype for Sizzler, the same as the one they built in Banning. b) On the windows - They feel they have deviated as much as they can from this particular standard prototype build- ing and he likes the highlights around the entire window and is not conflicting with the center - not much. c) On the trellis columns - he doesn't have a problem with this. It's just a matter of detail. d) Column elements - They are back again deviating from the standard and becoming to look more and more like the center. Sizzler has to maintain its image and this looks more and more Spanish. - e) Fascia board - They want the fascia boards to cover the gutters. f) Positioning of building - They feel the lS-foot setback is really adequate as far as the landscaping, berming, and so forth goes. They have done it in a lot less and made it very attractive. g) Trash enclosure They have it set up so that a door separates the trash area from the delivery area and the Minutes of Planning Commission March 3, 1987 Page 13 ----- COMMERCIAL PROJECT 85-2 AMENDMENT NO. ~ - BMW MANAGEMENT, INC., C/O ~ ~ CHRISTOFF ~ ASSOCIATES - CONTINUED delivery area from the outside environment. He feels if they move their trash area they will lose security and will also have to relocate their delivery door, which they feel will create a problem in the back room. He feels they will have to move things around and change their floor plan and it works so well and efficiently. The overhead roll-up door - That is out. It should have been taken off the drawing but wasn't. That is a mistake on their part. h) Mr. Christoff stated the items they were having the most trouble with were the wing walls; raising the arches because they have an interior feature of a soffit that runs around the perimeter of the building that is at 8 foot and they don't want the window to butt up against it; and the setback. Chairman Washburn asked if anyone else wished to speak on this item. Mr. Gary Meyers, BMW Management, one of the owners, 28403 Felix Valdez, Temecula, commented that he is the one who has been going back and forth to Sizzler headquarters getting the plans approved and he just wanted to back up what Mr. Christoff has just said. Chairman Washburn asked if anyone else had any comments they wished to make on this project. Mr. Fred Crowe, Butterfield Surveys, 620 West Graham Street, Lake Elsinore, stated he had received a couple of letters and one phone conversation from Howard Palmer with his concerns over moving the building. When the plans were developed earlier for the shopping center, the ordinances were different and the new Title 17 has changed things. At that time it was zero setback and they had it at 15 feet but now it requires 20 feet. He believes the visibility driving around the back of the 'building, the wider drives that are there now, and the area between the building and curbs, it will look much better if could be left where it is now, although he doesn't know the solution to the problem. Mr. Palmer asked him to make an attempt to persuade the Commission to leave the building where it is. Chairman Washburn asked if there was anyone else in the audi- ence who would like to address this project. Receiving no reply, Chairman Washburn brought the matter to the table. ..... Discussion commenced with question to past Commissioners re- garding architectural continuity; alot of effort going into it and someone comes in with something and wants to completely change one part of it around; architectural continuity stem- ming from the General Plan; breaking away from Spanish to Marine environment for one entire project; making subtle changes; if going to make changes to architectural continuity why do it in the first place; concern with l5-foot setback and requiring a variance to even consider or approve it; if l5-foot setback approved, would need to see plan of land- scaping and berming to offset that with visually prominent type landscaping in front; current rendering only shows sod and a few shrubs; asked staff if aware of structural problems if wing wall removed. community Development Director Miller replied in the negative and stated that since they have not seen any structural plans Minutes of Planning Commission March 3, 1987 Page 14 COMMERCIAL PROJECT 85-2 AMENDMENT NO. ~ - BMW MANAGEMENT, INC., C/O ~ ~ CHRISTOFF ~ ASSOCIATES - CONTINUED they were not able to make any judgments in terms of struc- tural factors. They have looked at other buildings, such as the Sizzler recently built in Temecula and you see a substan- tial departure, in fact no relationship to "prototype" build- ing. Maybe that has changed in the last year or two since that was built, but in that instance you see the building in Temecula that is very reflective of the design of the rest of the shopping center. We have done a number of things as shown in the Grape Street project that was considered tonight as shown in the T & S project that was considered tonight, and in looking at this project, the architect for Mr. Palmer has spent a lot of time trying to insure an architectural compati- bility with Econo-Lube, Goodyear, both of whom have rather standard type buildings, yet they have buildings to reflect this architectural design as has the Arco building. There has been considerable effort expended to insure architectural continuity in the center. - Discussion returned to the table removing the wing walls and if it integrity, how would we feel about it be looking at to solve that problem? Community Development Director Miller responded that without looking at the structural plans he is not sure what the architect is alluding to, but they have faced that on a number of other issues and there usually are alternatives that provide the same structural integrity to the building without the necessity of using a particular architectural element. An example is the Park/Abrams building at Four Corners which was recently approved and there was a similar concern about some relocation of some of the items that were approved by Planning Commission and City Council. The architect had indicated that they were critical to the architectural design of the building. In fact upon further consideration, the architect found that the substitution of a steel girder instead of a glue-laminated beam solved all the problems. with the question about affected the structural then and what would we - Discussion continued at the table with the question to staff as to whether, during their preliminary negotiations with Sizzler, they had informed the applicant of the new zoning setback requirement and possibility of a variance being necessary. Senior Planner Bolland responded that at the original pre- development conference held with the applicant, they were informed that their 12-1/2 foot planned setback and architec- tural design did not meet the current Code or General Plan and they were very clearly identified as issues and it was very definitely understood that these would be concerns that staff would have and that they would recommend adjustments to the building and to the architecture to meet our current Codes and to blend with the center. It was decided, by the applicant, to go ahead and pursue this particular project due to time constraints and the desire to use a prototype building that _ they had just built in Banning. Discussion returned to the table with question asked as to the meaning of "average" setback and was informed that this verbi- age is used for 20-foot setback and is designed to allow for flexibility within the use of the setback so that it can intrude to a minimum of 15 feet at certain points but counterbalanced by a large mass at 25 feet at other points to average 20 feet; possibility of a variance; maintaining architectural integrity; image of City more important than trying to maintain identity for one particular type of Minutes of Planning Commission March 3, 1987 Page 15 ---- COMMERCIAL PROJECT 85-2 AMENDMENT NO. ~ - BMW MANAGEMENT. INC.. C/O ~ ~ CHRISTOFF k ASSOCIATES - CONTINUED operation; fascia boards causing stains on building; applicant being aware of overall architectural design of shopping center but their architect not connected with architect for the shop- ping center; and all projects in center conforming with design criteria of center. Motion by Commission Callahan to recommend to City Council design approval of Commercial Project 85-2 Amendment No. 2 based on the findings and subject to the six (6) conditions as listed in the Staff Report; second by Commissioner Brown. Commissioner Mellinger recommended adding the verbiage, "Frontage landscaping to be upgraded to incorporate 24-inch box trees similar to other approvals" to Condition #5 as sub- section (e). commissioner Callahan amended his motion to include the addi- tion to Condition #5 to read as follows: Condition #5: "e) Frontage landscaping to be upgraded to incorporate 24-inch box trees similar to other approvals." Maker of the second agreed with the amendment to the motion. Approved 5-0 At this time, 8:45 p.m., Chairman Washburn called for a five minute recess. Upon return of the Commissioners to the table, Chairman Washburn reconvened the meeting at 8:55 p.m. INFORMATIONAL 1. Public Works Complaints Community Development Director Miller brought to their atten- tion the pad, which was included in their agenda packet, that has been developed by the Public Works Department to make easy reference to complaints. It is generally designed for City field crews but is being shared with the Planning Commission- ers because of their concerns in this area. In the future, if they notice problems in the field, they can fill one of these forms out and turn it into the Public Works Department or the Planning Division. This is an in-house form. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS None PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS ----- Commissioner Kelley: stated he wished to thank the applicant, who was on the agenda earlier in the evening, for submitting the Traffic Study, and thinks it will be of great help in the future. Also he thanked staff for their response to Park/Abrams although it doesn't seem to have done much good - the cease and desist order is there and hopefully something will be done from that. Commissioner Brown: Stated he also wanted to thank staff for their effort with Park/ Abrams. He then reported that he had noticed some missing signs at Collier and Riverside Drive. Minutes of Planning Commission March 3, 1987 Page 16 PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS - CONTINUED Commissioner Mellinqer: Asked what was going to be done with the trailers from the Park/ Abrams project site - they have been relocated to the other side of the Chevron station. Community Development Director responded that they are going to be relocated outside the City somewhere. .... Chairman Washburn: Asked the Community Development Director to check with the Engi- neering Department on the equitable share formula he brought up earlier in the meeting. Maybe they could expand that formula basis. It seems appropriate so they could give a dollar amount to the applicants as they come forward with developments. It mayor may not be explicable to expand, but he would like him to look into it. Commissioner Callahan: Commissioner Callahan spoke on the following items he requested to be placed on this agenda: 1. Paving unpaved streets in the city. Asked staff if we presently have an ongoing program which identifies all the unpaved streets in the city. Do we have a program which identifies a funding tool? How are we going to fund them? Do we have a priority street list as to which streets would be paved first? Should this be incorporated as part of the new General Plan. Community Development Director Miller replied in the negative except for arterial streets and further stated that typically they look for improvement of the streets at time of develop- ments. There is an on-going program for maintenance of existing streets. The paving of unpaved streets is in the purvue of the Public Services Division of the Engineering Department. Chairman Washburn asked wasn't the Redevelopment Agency allo- cating a certain amount of money each year for resurfacing certain street? .... Community Development Director replied that there is a program for that and it is principally devoted to maintenance of existing paved street. Commissioner Callahan commented that he asked Doug Ayres, the consultant doing the City's Cost Benefit Study, what funding tools are available to pave unpaved streets. Mr. Ayres replied that at the present time is was developer improvement fees or a benefit assessment of the people who are already there and also suggested the City look at a utility franchise tax. Would like this made one of the goals in the General .... Plan. Community Development Director Miller stated the City's News- letter, which comes out quarterly, lists the streets that are to be resurfaced. 2. Solution to FEMA Property. Commissioner Callahan along Lakeshore Drive stated that there are 18 to 20 lots deeded to City by FEMA after the 1980 Minutes of Planning commission March 3, 1987 Page 17 ~ PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS - CONTINUED flood. He believes FEMA will allow the City to do a one-for- one trade - trade a FEMA lot for another lot next to one that the City owns and eventually acquire enough lots together to make a City park and/Qr recreation area. He suggested forming a committee comprised possibly of a couple member of the Plan- ning commission, a couple member of the City Council and a couple members of the staff to agressively seek a solution to effectively utilize the FEMA city-owned property. Community Development Director Miller stated that the City staff has identified all the City-owned FEMA property and did, in fact, verify with the Federal Emergency Management Agency that a trade of property such as Commissioner Callahan has suggested is feasible. Commissioner Brown commented the goal is consolidation of FEMA property. The committee's responsibility is to come up with the methodology and then we can simply state to Council that we have a goal with the possibility for the public betterment by consolidating the FEMA property and we would like to form a standing committee to address the methodology and how to do it. Chairman Washburn stated he would be happy to appoint Commis- sioners Brown and Callahan to do it. Commissioners Brown and Callahan accepted the appointment. Chairman Washburn then asked them to inform the Planning Division when they want to put it on the agenda and they'll talk about what they bring back at the meeting. ~ 3. Update on the Abandonment of Maiden Lane and Churchill. Commissioner Callahan reported that there was a County Plan- ning commission meeting on February 18th during which this item was to be considered and because of the high amount of negative input they received, they continued this matter for six weeks. The Chairman of the Commission stated he didn't think vacating the streets was the proper solution and was sending it back to staff for further study and to work with all the concerned agencies and people. Commissioner Callahan further stated that he had attended a meeting last Thursday with other representatives from the various County agencies and the unanimous decision was that boat launching must cease from those streets due to hazardous conditions and nonconforming use. The County Road Department will deed their interest to some local entity and they have formally made that offer to deed that to the City of Lake Elsinore. Commissioner Callahan asked staff to pursue this and inform City Council. Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District and the Park and Recreation Department are also interested in taking over these streets. Commissioner Callahan stated he would like to suggest a Study Session on substandard lot sizes for an ordinance to set guidelines. Chairman Washburn commented that they could set a study Session but there should be a few more items besides just the one - it might be a good time to discuss the FEMA matter and maybe the General Plan. Communi~y Development Director Miller stated it would probably be best to agendize the study Session and take formal action to set it as part of the agenda. Chairman Washburn directed that it be placed on the next agenda. Minutes of Planning Commission March 3, 1987 Page 18 PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS - CONTINUED Commissioner Callahan complimented Planning staff for the professional and speedy action to resolve the points of violation at Kay's Barn. He then asked staff to make a report back on the status of all of the conditions of the Conditional Use Permit for Kay's Barn. There being no further business, the Lake Elsinore Planning Commission adjourned at 9:32 p.m. Motion by Commissioner Brown, second by Chairman Washburn~ Approved 5-0 - Approved, ~ Uk,7zJr- G~WaShburn c~~rman -- Respectfully submitted, ~ t'~..~. Ruth Edwards, Acting Planning Commission Secretary - MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH 1987 THE MEE~ING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:00 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Planning Commission Secretary Grindstaff. - ROLL CALL: PRESENT: commissioners: Brown, Mellinger, Kelley and Washburn. ABSENT: None Also present were Planners Bolland and Spencer. community Development Director Miller, Senior Manee, Assistant Planners Last, Magee, and MINUTE ACTION Motion by Commissioner Brown to approve minutes of March 3, 1987, as submitted, second by Commissioner Mellinger. Approved 4-0 PUBLIC COMMENTS NONE PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. General Plan Amendment 87-1 and Zone Change 87-1 - Robert Wong Community Development Director Miller stated that this is a pro- posal to amend the General Plan Land Use designation from Limited Industrial, Floodplain and Floodway Fringe to Commercial Manufacturing and to change the zoning from M-l (Limited Manufacturing to C-M (Commercial Manufacturing) on 47.2 acres, located at the southwesterly corner of Collier Avenue and, Riverside Drive. Staff has identified a number of concerns with- respect to this project, in environmental areas and in terms of the potential impacts upon the commercial areas in this part of the City. These concerns were brought to the attention of the applicant and he has requested a continuance to the next meeting so that he could explore alternatives. Therefore, staff has recommended continuance of this item to the next meeting. Chairman Washburn opened the public hearing at 7:06 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of General Plan Amendment 87-1. Receiving no response, Chairman Washburn asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Receiving no response, Chairman Washburn closed the public hearing at 7:07 p.m. Discussion was held on status of the initial study; the General Plan Amendment itself resulting in a mandatory finding of significance, therefore, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) would be required; further points of involvement include the future improvement of Highway 74, and the failure of the request to comply with the standards of the commercial manufacturing designation; proposed commercial discount retail and service -- business and what type of uses are proposed, if are they consistent with commercial manufacturing; environmental issues and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirement that the worst case scenario be looked at; denying the request and have applicant come back with something more suitable both environmentally and from a land use designation; whether or not the continuance would require a re-notice to be done; location of Least Bell's Vireo nesting areas (habitat); nothing ever adopted by the City, County or State on the realignment of Highway 74~ Motion by Commissioner Brown to 87-1 to the meeting of April Washburn. Approved 3-1 continue General Plan Amendment 7, 1987, second by Chairman Commissioner Mellinger voting no Minutes of Planning Commission March 17, 1987 Page 2 2. Zone Change 87-1 - Robert Wong - A proposal to rezone 47.2 acres from M-l (Limited Manufacturing) to C-M (Commercial Manufactur- ing), located at the southwesterly corner of Collier Avenue and Riverside Drive, and being processed concurrently with General Plan Amendment 87-1. Staff has requested that this item be continued to the meeting of April 7, 1987. Chairman Washburn opened the public hearing at 7:16 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of Zone Change 87-1. Receiving no response, Chairman Washburn asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Receiving no response, Chairman Washburn closed the pUblic hearing at 7:17 p.m. .... There being no discussion at the table, Chairman Washburn asked for a motion. Motion by Commissioner Brown to continue Zone Change 87-1 to the meeting of April 7, 1987, second by Chairman Washburn. Approved 3-1 Commissioner Mellinger voting no 3. General Plan Amendment 87-2 - Jeff Juhasz, Nick Nash Jr., George Jenkins - Planner Spencer presented proposal to amend the General Plan Land Use designation from Medium Density Resi- dential to High Density Residential for three parcels totaling .42 acres, one parcel is located on Quail Drive and two parcels are located on Nashland Avenue. Chairman Washburn opened the public hearing at 7:20 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of General Plan Amendment 87-2. Receiving no response, Chairman Washburn asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Receiving no response, Chairman Washburn closed the public hearing at 7:21 p.m. .... A brief discussion was held on land use patterns, zoning and this General Plan Amendment being a clean up measure; zoning of adjacent lots 9 and 10. Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to recommend to City Council adoption of Negative Declaration No. 87-2, and approval of General Plan Amendment 87-2, subject to the findings listed in the Staff Report, and adopt Resolution No. 87-4, second by Commissioner Brown. Approved 4-0 RESOLUTION NO. 87-4 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 87-2 4. General Plan Amendment 87-3 - City of Lake Elsinore - Senior Planner Bolland presented proposal to amend the Land Use Map Circulation designations to designate Railroad Canyon Road South as an arterial road, extending southwest to the City Limits. Approximately 110 feet x 12,500 feet (about 32 acres and 2.4 miles) located south of Mission Trail along present Railroad Canyon Road right-of-way thence southwesterly to Stoneman Street right-of-way to southwest City Limits. .... Chairman Washburn opened the public hearing stating that we have received three requests to item. at 7:26 p.m., speak on this The Chair recognized Mr. Emerson W. Brigham. Mr. Brigham stated that he was the developer of that section now named Railroad Canyon Road South, and would like to bring up some history as it is valid toward what is going on here. Minutes of Planning Commission March 17, 1987 Page 3 - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 87-3 = CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE CONTINUED Mr. Brigham stated that in 1979, City Council approved a project for this property that Haagen Development is now working on, a project which was remarkably similar with some additions. They approved a 400,000 square foot subregional mall, some apartments and a large recreational complex on 760 odd acres that Mr. Peter Lehr owns. The City reviewed the street plans for Railroad Canyon Road South and deemed them acceptable to service this entire project with some additional roads to Mission Trail. We then went ahead, based on what the City agreed to, and made the full improvements with a 60 foot curb-to-curb right-of-way, which works out to about a 72 foot wide street with full street improvements based on what the City said they wanted and would accept. Mr. Brigham stated that if you widen it now not sure what you are gaining, other than some aesthetic, because that 60 foot curb-to-curb right-of-way gives 4 traffic lanes plus a turning lane, which is exactly what you get either in a 100 foot street, like Mission Trail, or what you get with a 110 foot arterial. If you take that--what it boils down to is 19 feet additional on each side and that would be a hardship on those of us who did what the City requested us to do; acted in good faith, put up the money, put in those street improvements. Mr. Brigham stated that he would like to present to the Commission a map that would point something else out. Commissioner Kelley asked if the 60 foot right-of-way curb-to- curb is that between Burger King and Mountain View Small Animal Hospital. Mr. Brigham stated that the right-of-way is currently 60 feet- with a request for 6 feet of dedication for sidewalk. Mr. Brigham stated that if you look at the handout, just submitted, the two areas marked in red are existing uses which run up to Railroad Canyon Road South. Burger King is on the right and Mountain View Small Animal Hospital is on the left. If they had to dedicate space it would severely interrupt their business activities. If you say they are existing uses and we will leave them and make everybody else dedicate the additional 19 feet, over what they would have to dedicate, what we would have there is a bottleneck that would never change because there would still be 4 traffic lanes and a turning lane on that street, just what is coming across from Canyon Lake. There would never be any funds from the City to condemn that land and put in the wider street because it would not provide any benefit because of the existing 4 lanes of traffic, so what we would have is a bottleneck that would never be resolved, yet we would have to dedicate this other land that would never, essentially, be used. I think that this is an issue of fairness, if nothing else. - The Chair recognized Mr. Buron Murray. Mr. Murray stated that with all of the people coming in that the City needs a good arterial road across the lake bottom. The Chair recognized Ms. Anne Thomas. Ms. Anne Thomas of Best, Best and Krieger, representing Hill Masonry Incorporated, stated that Mr. Hill's property is a little more impacted than anyone else, because if he has to make the dedication that is required on the two pieces of property he won't have any land left. Minutes of Planning Commission March 17, 1987 Page 4 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 87-3 = CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE CONTINUED Ms. Thomas stated that she is here to raise two objections in general to the proposed General Plan Amendment. The first is, that it appears the environmental document is inconsistent with state law, believes that you are required to prepared a tiered environmental impact report. The second is, that the project itself is very poor planning with respect to the fact that the General Plan Amendment is inconsistent with state law. The environmental assessment indicates that there is substantial evidence to support a fair argument that there will be signifi- cance adverse impacts, and as you know the law requires that when there are such that the balance tilt in favor of the impact report. Your proposal is to put a major arterial route across a floodplain, subject to liquefaction underlain by four faults, one of which is the Alquist Priolo zone, in order to connect up the Ortega Highway with Interstate 15. You have obviously without looking at the other impacts--you realize that there have to be significant adverse impacts to put such a major road with such a significant impact on your circulation element and not prepare a more adequate environmental analysis, and yet that is not there. Ms. Thomas stated that Mr. Brigham has told us that this will severely impact existing uses, this is true. There is no analysis of that in the environmental assessment, at all. There is a suggestion for each potential problem that is raised that at some later date, some site specific time, probably you will take a look at some of those problems. However, that is not what the law requires. What the law requires is that when you have these general impacts which will be any where in the flood- plain that you do your California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) analysis as early in the planning process as feasible. Ms. Thomas stated that if you don't analyze your problems now, by this I mean an environmental impact report, and not by a negative declaration which is not supported by substantial evidence, then you will find when you are actually ready to build this project that it may not be feasible any where within the general area. You may find that you will not get Federal funding because you may have not looked at whether or not you have a critical aquifer problem for example. It may be that in a liquefaction prone area the Federal government is not willing to put money at all. These are problems that perhaps you can resolve, but you can not resolve them until you know them and you can not know them until you do an environmen~al impact of the study. All of these issues are revealed in your environ- mental assessment and yet I see that maybe and no are checked in the area where they are being discussed instead of yes. Thinks that is an error, it is capricious and arbitrary. Thinks that staff perhaps feels that if you wait until there is something more specific then you comply with the law. If you don't do it at the General Plan Amendment stage but if you take it further beyond that you're in legal compliance. For the last ten year CEQA cases have indicated that that is not the case you must do your planning at the General Plan Amendment stage when you can. This does not do that and for that reason I think it is a matter of law, it is inconsistent with state law. Ms. Thomas stated that the second matter that she would like to bring to the attention of the Commission is that there are some obvious effects of this that are totally unanalyzed. There is no mention of the Orange County traffic coming over Highway 74: thinks that you need to look at this major impact. When you are looking at a major element change in the circulation element, I don't think that you can just do a negative declaration at this stage. There is no mention of the fact that you will irrevocably commit prime agricultural soil, and believes you are .... .... .... Minutes of Planning Commission March 17, 1987 Page 5 - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 87-3 = CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE CONTINUED aware that that requires an analysis. The effect of the new levee alignment is not at all discussed and yet we have a new proposal that perhaps this time it is going to go. It needs more study and it needs an adequate study. It is premature at this point to consider whether you need a major arterial road, some arterial road or no road. You need to do some alternatives and I think because of that the appropriate environmental docu- ment here would be a tiered environmental impact report where you look at the broad. phases now as you get to your site specific issues you can look at them. So for this reason I don't think that you should go ahead with approval or dis- approval tonight until you do have an environmental analysis that is adequate. Ms. Thomas stated that the proposal itself does not appear to be good planning, and I say that, aware of the fact that you feel that it will connect up these roads. But you have an issue of running a road across an area that is flood prone, earthquake prone, and liquefaction prone yet turning it into a major road going across recreational areas opening them up to noise, light and congestion. It seems to me that that is inconsistent with the notion of an open flood plain. You would suddenly put in a road and you would sever the two areas of the flood plain. As a result I think that this needs much more work, and since it will impact Mr. Hill's property, extremely adversely. It appears to me that you should not begin widening this road until after the existing uses are taken care of, but preferably until after an adequate environmental study has been prepared. Chairman Washburn asked if there was anyone else in the audience that would like to address this item, if so please come forward to the podium. .' Dr. Jessop, Mountain View Small Animal Hospital, commented on the history and location of Mountain View Small Animal Hospital. Dr. Jessop then stated that he did not want to stand in the way of progress, in this area as far as commercial development, but anything further than this would be a sacrifice beyond what is called for. Chairman Washburn asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak on this item. Receiving no response, Chairman Washburn closed the public hearing at 7:44 p.m. Commissioner Mellinger stated that despite the testimony received tonight, he would have entered into the records some of the CEQA concerns. The General Plan Amendment certainly does require the earliest assessment of the environmental impacts. The site specific assessment can be at least predicted on a worst case basis. Believes that it has already been explained quite well. Not so sure on same arguments, but believes that -- there are some habitat arguments and so on that would be of concern. Just the fact that it is stated in the Staff Report that further comprehensive evaluation of the impacts on a site specific alignment would be required would certainly be a fair argument that adequate environmental documentation is required even at conceptual alignment. That the environmental impacts would have to be assessed adequately, whether it be by a negative declaration if they can come up with mitigation measures that would be acceptable, or by environmental impact report. Commissioner Mellinger then asked for clarification on the date the original proposal for the area was approved, and whether or not a time limit was in effect. Minutes of Planning Comm~ssion March 17, 1987 Page 6 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 87-3 ~ CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE CONTINUED Community Development Director Miller stated that he was not familiar with the development that Mr. Brigham has discussed. The previous and present Zoning Code both stipulate that Design Review approval extend for one year and would consequently expire. Any thing that had been approved at that time in terms of actual design approval would consequently have expired. Mr. Brigham stated that it was not his point to project was still in approval, obviously it isn't. simply that the city Council, City Engineer and Head had deemed that 60 foot wide curb-to-curb acceptable to handle this development which identical with the current proposed development. Mr. Brigham then stated that he had one question and asked what elevation this road would be built at. say that this My point was City Planning right-of-way is virtually .... Community Development Director Miller responded that the lowest elevation that the roadway would cross would be 1246. Whether that would be elevated or not would depend on whether this was to be set as a roadway that would never be flooded or whether it would be subject to flooding in the event of a 100 year flood. Commissioner Mellinger stated his feeling is that an adequate environmental document be prepared at this time, and that he sees the intent of the proposed alignment. Requested that the next Staff Report include an explanation concerning the potential condemnation issues that have been discussed with such right-of-way, perhaps the City Attorney could add something to the Staff Report. Commissioner Kelley stated that today in the paper new levee plan and asked how this would affect the proposal of the road. It appears as though the new go in front of Rome Hill with the road abutting it. be a problem? Community Development Director Miller responded that in reference to the new levee plan identified, staff was not aware of it until after the preparation of the environmental assess- ment. The information that we have subsequently received from Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District (EVMWD) would indicate the furthest extent of the lake would still be westerly of the current alignment of Stoneman. they have a conceptual levee would Would this .... Commissioner Kelley commented on number 4.a.b. and S.a.b. of the environmental assessment, asking if the California Environ- mental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that you have to have all of the environmental concerns laid out prior to proposing a right-of-way. Community Development Director Miller stated that Stoneman is an existing street or at least an existing dedicated right-of-way, and that there is a dirt track that follows that alignment. In looking at most of the length of the proposal we are talking about looking at a wider alignment that currently exists not a .... totally new alignment. Commissioner Kelley stated that as he understands it the dirt road precedes to the highest elevation there in the flood plain and from the top of that if you look over to Rome Hill that would be the road, is this correct? Community Development Director Miller responded that the proposed alignment, referring to the map exhibited, is represented by the dash lines. The present dedicated right-of-way for Stoneman extends straight out from the present Minutes of Planning commission March 17, 1987 Page 7 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 87-3 = CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE CONTINUED roadway, extending from Grand Avenue, so where the straight line breaks is generally where the alignment of Stoneman ends. ~ Chairman Washburn asked how far the easement of Stoneman precedes out into the lake bottom and if it is a easement of record that goes all of the way out and then curves over? Community Development Director Miller responded that where the curve begins is the end, referring to the map exhibited. Chairman Washburn stated that he had a question possibly Mr. Brigham. For the record, what is curb-to-curb in front of Mountain View Small Animal Burger King? Community Development Director Miller stated that perhaps Mr. Brigham is more familiar, but the curb-to-curb is 60 feet plus or minus. for staff or the current Hospital and Mr. Brigham stated that the right-of-way is equal to 60 feet as well as the curb-to-curb distance. The projects that have been approved, such as Burger King, have dedicated an additional 6 feet for sidewalks, so the actual effective right-of- way is 72 feet. Chairman Washburn stated that with all of the changes we have been looking at from potential conceptual maps with the water district, and the concerns that have been stated by the speakers tonight that he is not prepared, at this point, to make a recommendation to City Council. Believes that this is something that requires further study, public input or alternative plans in which to satisfy potential link-up to Stoneman and to satisfy- any potential development that we may be looking at. Chairman Washburn commented on the General Plan Ordinance requiring Planning Commission involvement, and on this one there was no Commission involvement until we received it in our packets. For this fact alone I wou~d probably have suggested a continuance. . Motion by Commissioner Mellinger that an Environmental Impact Report be prepared for this proposal. Chairman Washburn stated for cl~rification, if we were to move approval of an Environmental Impact Study we are basically holding or tabling this until that study is brought forth. Second by Commissioner Brown. Approved 4-0 At this time, 7:55 p.m., Chairman Washburn called for a five minute recess. ..... Upon the return of the Commissioners to the table, Chairman Washburn reconvened the meeting at 8:08 p.m. Chairman Washburn stated that before we get into the Business Items that we have had a request from Mr. Pat Callahan to address the Commission. Chairman Washburn stated that he would agendize this as item number 1 under Informational. BUSINESS ITEMS 1. General Plan Land Use Objectives - Contract Senior Planner Manee presented the Second Draft of the General Plan Land Use Objectives and commented that the purpose of these Objectives is to follow Policies and are more specific in nature. Minutes of Planning Commission March 17, 1987 Page 8 GENERAL PLAN LAND USE OBJECTIVES CONTINUED Contract Senior Planner Manee informed the Commission of the changes made during the interim between the first and second draft, and stated that the new objectives include discussion and input from the Commission and City Council. Contract Senior Planner Manee stated that at this point, he would like to discuss any amendments the Commission would like to make, and then have a recommendation from the Commission that this item be scheduled before City Council on March 24th. If they in turn, after review, comment and amendment, find it adequate then we could set it for public hearing. Discussion was held on #12, pertaining to lake viewshed; #14, pertaining to hill top development; #5, pertaining to bus loading lanes, where feasible and what this would do to the required landscape setback; #6, pertaining to undergrounding of all utilities; adding objective to include the consolidation of small lots whether through redevelopment activities or incentives which would allow reduced setbacks, greater densities to encourage recycling in some of our areas where small lots exist, perhaps an overlay zone or an area plan within infill areas; adding objective that deals with our parkway areas, landscaping and maintenance; #16, pertaining to grading, and perhaps a more extensive grading ordinance should be developed to address the aesthetics of grading; #10, pertaining to signage and the 15 year Grandfathering clause; #6 should include any exceptions and how they might be solved; the need to include the future buildout or holding capacity of the valley which ties in closely to #5 on circulation. Discussion ensued on the type of recommendation staff was looking for from the Commission; continuing this item to a study session; forwarding objectives to City Council for their review, with additional objectives forthcoming. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to forward the General Plan Land Use Objectives to City Council for their review with the additional comments provided. 2. Set Study Session to discuss standards for substandard resi- dential lots. Chairman Washburn stated, at the study session, he and Commis- sioner Kelley will present information that was received from the League of California Cities Conference. Chairman Washburn asked the Commissioners if there were any other topics they would like to discuss at the study session, stating that we need to agendize them now, according to the Brown Act. .... .... Commissioner Mellinger recommended that General Plan Issues be added to the Study Session Agenda. The Planning Commission scheduled Tuesday, March 31, 1987, at __ 6:00 p.m. for said Study Session. INFORMATIONAL ~ Chairman Washburn stated that we have a request from Mr. Pat Callahan to address the Commission. Mr. Callahan stated that he wanted to discuss with the Commis- sion and make it very clear to the public that his recent resignation had no reflection on this body or staff. Minutes of Planning Commission March 17, 1987 Page 9 - Mr. Callahan stated that he felt it was his responsibility to inform the Commission that it is most likely that he had a conflict of interest when he spoke on the Lakeshore Overlay, and that he is not sure of the legal ramifications. Mr. Callahan stated that he believes it his responsibility to inform the Commission that legal notices were not sent out through the mail, on the Lakeshore OVerlay, which is normally consistent with pUblic hearings. Thinks that it should be brought back before the Planning Commission or at least City Council with proper public notices being mailed out, so that everybody even absentee property owners will have the opportunity to know that this is going on. Mr. Callahan commented on the three options available for advertising and stated that in this particular case, all that was done was a public notice was published in the paper. Mr. Callahan stated that from a legal standpoint the law was met, but from an ethnic and moral standpoint it could use some improvement. Mr. Callahan asked that the Commission discuss the non- conforming structure ordinance that we have on the books, at the study session that was just scheduled. Mr. Callahan complimented the Commissioners on the job that they are doing and encouraged them to stay. Mr. Callahan then gave an explanation on his resignation. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS Community Development Director Miller informed the Commission that. staff is presently preparing a Draft Recreational Mobile Home Park Ordinance, which may be completed by the March 31st Study Session. The Commission may wish to add this to the Study Session Agenda, so that we can solicit input on areas that you feel need to be addressed. It was the consensus of the Planning commission to add the Draft Recreational Mobile Home Park Ordinance to the March 31st Study Session Agenda. PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Commissioner Kellev: Thanked Pat Callahan for his time spent on the Planning Commission and for his dedication. Stated that he was looking forward to presenting the information received from the League of California Cities Conference. Chairman Washburn: Thanked Pat Callahan for his time spent on the Planning Commission. Stated that he and Commissioner' Kelley attended the League of California cities Conference and it was v~ry informative. There were approximately 900 Planning Commissioners in attendance. The sessions were very good and dealt with counter negotiations with staff members and applicants; hazardous waste; traffic circulation problems, and future buildout problems. Chairman Washburn stated that they have a large packet of information and a summation of their notes, which will be presented at the Study Session. Also, we have tapes on each session which will be made available. Minutes of Planning Commission March 17, 1987 Page 10 PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS CONTINUED Chairman Washburn commented on the large freeway signs that were put up without City approval, these are being looked into now. If any citizen has noticed these signs, it is not the City that has granted approval for them, and I would like you to know that. If we do, at some point, ask for your support in changing or removing these signs, I will be the first to ask for citizen support. Commissioner Mellinqer: - Thanked Pat Callahan for his time spent on the Commission. stated that he was looking forward to receiving the information that Chairman Washburn and Commissioner Kelley brought back with them from the League of California cities Conference. Asked for the status on low pressure sodium lighting, stating this was a big issue at the last study session as to the direction we were heading. community Development Director Miller responded that he believes the general direction that staff perceived is that we need to bring back ordinances that further address this, and the possibility of amending this requirement, so as not to be so stringent in requiring low pressure sodium lighting for all on-site lighting. Commissioner Mellinger stated his feeling is that there can be some options, and that he did not perceive any clear direction given at the study session. Community Development Director Miller stated that we need to look at various options and outline those within the Zoning Code, and then apply those as appropriate. commissioner Mellinger stated it is his feeling that Dr. Brucato of Mount Palomar Observatory be contacted when this is brought back to the Commission, for public hearing. - Community, Development Director Miller responded that several people have expressed an interest, both from the lighting industry and Dr. Brucato representing Mount Palomar Observatory. Commissioner Brown: Thanked Pat Callahan for his time spent on the Commission, stating that they have had several conversations this week and will hold him to his word, even though he is not sitting at this table. He still shares some of the concerns that we have and he has promised that he will come back quite often to share his views with us. Commissioner Brown stated that when it comes to the lake issue and the property surrounding the lake that Mr. Callahan has spent a great deal of time and effort informing himself and working on this project and that he deserves to be heard. There being no further business, the Commission adjourned at 8:50 p.m. Motion second by Commissioner Kelley. Approved 4-0 Lake Elsinore Planning by Commissioner Brown, - ~U%~itted. L1nda Grind~ Planning Commission Secretary '!~liJ~b MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON THE 7TH DAY OF APRIL 1987 THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:00 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Senior Planner Bolland. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Commissioners: Brown, Mellinger, Kelley and Washburn. - ABSENT: None Also present were Community Development Director Miller, Senior Planner Bolland, Assistant Planners Last and Magee. MINUTE ACTION Motion by Commissioner Brown to approve minutes of March 17, 1987, as submitted, second by Commissioner Mellinger. Approved 4-0 PUBLIC COMMENT To be taken up after the Community Development Director's Comment portion. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1 & 2. General Plan Amendment 87-1 & Zone Change 87-1 - Robert Wong _ Senior Planner Bolland presented proposal to amend the General Plan Land Use designation from Limited Industrial to Commercial Manufacturing and change the zoning from M-l (Limited Manufacturing) to C-M (Commercial Manufacturing) on 15 acres located at the southwesterly corner of Collier Avenue and Riverside Drive. - Chairman Washburn opened the public hearing asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of Amendment 87-1 and Zone Change 87-1. at 7:11 p.m., General Plan Mr. Robert Wong, applicant, gave a report on the history of the property involved and stated that they have specialized in commercial and industrial development for the past twenty five years. Mr. Wong commented on the requested designation of Commercial Manufacturing covering the characteristics of uses; uses should be on a secondary or primary street for visibility, and appearance and quality of projects. Mr. Wong commented on the reduction in acreage; the improve- ments that would be provided such as street improvements, sewer, water, street lights; and the benefits to the City and community. Chairman Washburn asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak in favor of this item. Receiving no response, Chairman Washburn asked if there was anyone wishing to speak in opposition. Receiving no response, Chairman Washburn closed the public hearing at 7:24 p.m. Commissioner Kelley asked Mr. Wong what he had in mind for the the major retail? Mr. Wong stated that when we say retail--I tried to explain the concept of industrial/commercial retail in contrast to residential types of retail. We are trying to bring people that are warehouse retail oriented, more for services such as Home Club, Costco, and Builders Square. Commissioner Kelley stated this was leap-frogging over which are well defined. that his major concern was that our existing commercial zones, Minutes of Planning Commission April 7, 1987 Page 2 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 87-1 AND ZONE CHANGE 87-1 - ROBERT WONG CONTINUED commissioner Brown stated that he was concerned about the traffic, but the mitigation measures would be appropriate when it comes back for project review. Commissioner Brown stated that his main concern is, if this project as proposed is approved, it wou~d bring, Riverside Drive and Collier Avenue to 83 percent of ~ts capac~ty. Commissioner Brown stated that he would like more elaboration on number 3.c.i. of the Environmental Assessment, encroachment into the Temescal Wash. - senior Planner Bolland stated that the extremely southerly corner of the site, as you will note in Exhibit "1" of the Staff Report, the General Plan Map shows an area l4B, which is the Floodway Fringe. This is an area which is subject to inundation that is above the base flood level and with certain mitigation measures can be developed. There is a possibility of either avoiding it entirely and using it for parking facilities, it is a minor portion of the site. Therefore, it is conceivable that a design could be done for the project in the site planning stage which would avoid the site entirely, or it is possible to do a borrow fill situation similar to a policy we have in the lake floodplain, where a certain amount of fill is counter balanced by a certain amount of borrow else where. These are all possible mitigation measures at the project site design review stage. Commissioner Brown asked if we currently have enough information on the alignment of what is proposed there, and so forth, so that we could really design something off this project that would be coterminus with that. - senior Planner Bolland responded that there is a similar project, the industrial project that Art Nelson developed along Chaney, where the same thing has occurred. At the southerly end of that project there are parking lot areas that are in the Floodway Fringe, and there are no impacts to that other than having to more cars if there is a one hundred event. Community Development Director Miller pointed out to Commis- sioner Brown Exhibit "C" of the Negative . Declaration, which more carefully delineates the Floodway Fringe area. This in conjunction with other information that goes along with this map defines the precise elevations that would be impacted, and the various elevations that could be developed. Chairman Washburn stated that there are methods of flood proofing that FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) does allow for within the one hundred year flood area as long as it is something that they can condone, and it does not impact their concerns for flooding. Commissioner Mellinger stated that he agrees that there are -- FEMA mitigations and the possible mitigation measures of the fill/borrow system and the parking are typical. However, as opposed to the project to the southeast and opposed to most typical floodplain areas, this is a habitat area. As a matter of fact, it is a habitat area identified for the Least Bell's Vireo. This has been brought up a number of times and for clarification what this means is, there are 300 Least Bell's Vireo in the United States; two hundred of them are in San Diego County and the remaining 100 are somewhere else. That means that there are a few of them in this area, possibly. ~ 1, Minutes of Planning Commission April 7, 1987 Page 3 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 87-1 AND ZONE CHANGE 87-1 - ROBERT WONG CONTINUED - commissioner Mellinger stated that he has a distinct problem when they are trying to protect automobiles or buildings from flood areas. Parking areas would increase run-off into a habitat area, and of course, on the fill/borrow system you would have to do your borrowing well outside of the habitat area. My preference would be not to allow maximum building size and to create more of a buffer area along the drainage basin, to do two things: one, prevent flooding possibilities; and two, protect the habitat of that area, especially when we are involved with an endangered species. commissioner Mellinger commented on the request to change the designation from Limited Industrial to Commercial Manufactur- ing, and asked if there was not a portion that would be designated Floodplain, that this project site encompasses. senior Planner Bolland responded that the General Plan Designation of 14A, which is Floodplain is coterminus with the FEMA designation of Floodway, referencing Exhibit "C", the white area, of the Environmental Assessment, stating that the project does not encroach into this white area, which is the Floodway. The General Plan designation, the area that the project does encroach into is 14B, which is the Floodway Fringe in the FEMA nomenclature, the shaded area on Exhibit "C". commissioner Mellinger commented on Finding number 3, pertaining to the balance of land use in the planning area, stating that we have had two rather significant changes, looking at the General Plan Exhibit, from Limited Industrial to Commercial Manufacturing this is the third. After the first one and especially during the second one, I had concerns as to what is this balance and what the rational is for the balance. commissioner Mellinger commented on the future alignment of Highway 74 stating that he foresees a tremendous logical number of requests from Limited Industrial or Industrial to Commercial Manufacturing, probably along the balance of this site toward Highway 74, once it is realigned. Commissioner Mellinger stated that considering the fact that the basis for Commercial Manufacturing is to have frontage on a major road. If we are going to leap-frog and it appears to be doing so, the rest of Collier is wide open for such changes. Does not see what the rational is for the balance, wondering what the need is for commercial manufacturing when it appears that we are now exceeding commercial manufacturing in acreage. commissioner Mellinger commented on the possibility of commercial competition leap-frogging, and asked what is the basis for the balance; why would we expand more commercial area when we have so much vacant area, in the Four Corners Area, is there a rational for that or are we just looking at the merits of this particular location. Community Development Director Miller stated that as Mr. Wong indicated, his direction in looking at this property is for the type of commercial park or commercial business center consistent with the commercial manufacturing, and seeing that those uses may not conflict with general retail in that they are uses that are directed more toward service of industry, and uses that might not be typically found in a small shopping center. Minutes of Planning Commission April 7, 1987 Page 4 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 87-1 AND ZONE CHANGE 87-1 - ROBERT WONG CONTINUED Community Development Director Miller stated that Mr. Wong has significantly scaled back his request from the previous request where he was asking for 47 acres to be rezoned. Part of that reduction has been to pull it back out of the area of floodway that does contain the habitat area, or potential habitat area, for the Least Bell's Vireo. Generally, all of the area that is included in the present request is grassland and is not encroaching into the willow wetland which would serve as habitat for the Least Bell's Vireo. - Commissioner Mellinger stated that he has a concern about the initial impact from the immediate parking area onto the habitat itself. For example, there is tremendous run-off from parking areas how would this be addressed on the habitat, which is right at that location. Commissioner Mellinger commented on the commercial manufactur- ing uses, stating that the uses as mentioned by the applicant would be allowed uses under the M-l Zoning, and does not understand the need for the Zone Change. Commissioner Mellinger commented on the argument that Commercial Manufacturing should provide a superior appearance and this wording is also stated in the M-l. Also, the re- alignment of Highway 74, asking if it would not be logical that all the area between this and the realignment of Highway 74 would thus be more appropriate to be Commercial Manufacturing since that would be the major road. This seems to be off set from that area, it seems that with the realign- ment that this would probably be more appropriate for an industrial use. Because they won't have the traffic once the realignment is in, was this taken into consideration. - Community Development Director Miller responded that there were a variety of issues discussed and some of those were discussed in the previous staff Report. The intent in terms of types of uses can probably be best addressed by Mr. Wong, as he is in a better position to answer those in terms of the balance of uses. This is a concern that has been expressed by the Commission, as Commissioner Mellinger has pointed out, and we have been working on trying to assemble an inventory and develop policy and criteria to evaluate our General Plan. Community Development Director Miller stated that in terms of the General Plan designation, as you look at the general area, there appears to be increasing areas of commercial manufactur- ing. However, you should also recognize that those areas that are designated l4A and l4B are considered appropriate General Plan designations for manufacturing zoning. In fact, almost all of those areas designated l4A and 14B on the map are designated for manufacturing zoning. The actual zoning implementation of the General Plan does provide for quite a bit more manufacturing in that area than is apparent from looking at the General Plan. Commissioner Mellinger stated that he does understand that with l4A and l4B, but there is where the environmental concerns would come in especially on the habitat. It will be very difficult to ignore the habitat area, but it is going to be very difficult to avoid wiping it out, if we do want to grow economically in that area. It is going to be, and I will state right now, that it appears to be quite a significant habitat area both locally and regionally and that is the type of thing that we can not ignore in that area. Environmental constraints are here, we certainly ignored them in the past and I hope that we do not continue to do that. - Minutes of Planning Commission April 7, 1987 Page 5 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 87-1 AND ZONE CHANGE 87-1 - ROBERT WONG CONTINUED - commissioner Mellinger commented on the traffic mitigation measures, pertaining to City implementation of the re- alignment of Riverside Drive and implementation of the consultant's-recommendation for Riverside Drive and Collier. Asked if this implies that those would have to be in place prior to any development on the site, since those are the mitigation measures listed, or are we implying that if a development comes up are we waiting for an Environmental Impact Report, or are these mitigation measures put in there to avoid an Environmental Impact Report. Community Development Director Miller responded that in terms of the consultant's recommendation for Riverside Drive and Collier this comes from a consultant study performed by BSI Engineering for the City about a year and a half ago. There were certain measures that were recommended for implementation including some restriping, delineation, changing of the stop signs and perhaps a right turn lane at Riverside and Collier. We anticipate these mitigation measures will probably be implemented by the City in the near future, and certainly would be implemented as a result of any development of the project area. Commissioner Mellinger asked if it would be a requirement of any development on this site to implement these, since they are not that major. Community Development affirmative. Director Miller answered in the commissioner Mellinger commented on the Environmental Assessment pertaining to impacts identified as potentially significant and proposed mitigation measures for traffic, number 2.c. and d., stating that on "c", for the intersection improvements would presume that those would be conditions of approval, just wants to make sure that is the case. Community Development Director Miller stated that for clarity perhaps it would be better to delete the word "City". senior Planner Bolland stated that "b" and "c" are somewhat the same mitigation measure although "b" focuses on the street widening, . specifically the improvements to the street, and "c" focuses specifically on the intersection, but all of those improvements would have to be done at the same time. Commissioner Mellinger stated sure that that was a matter of General Plan Amendment. that he just wanted to make record, description of the - Chairman Washburn stated that he did not believe that it would be this applicant or the project's responsibility to implement the realignment of Riverside Drive. Commissioner Mellinger stated that Chairman Washburn is correct, and that he was concentrating on "c", more concerned with the intersection. Chairman Washburn stated he believes the response that we are seeing from a lot of projects is from the changes to Title 17, the uses defined more clearly. Believes that more developers are seeing those uses as more vital, or the market for them is clearly here more so than the straight "M" Zone. Minutes of Planning Commission April 7, 1987 Page 6 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 87-1 AND ZONE CHANGE 87-1 - ROBERT WONG CONTINUED Chairman Washburn commented on the Least Bell's Vireo, stating that this is a concern, but does not know if it has been well mapped out. Thinks that it is something that can be easily identified, but does not believe that it treads into this site but it could come very close. This is still a question that would have to be looked at. - Chairman Washburn commented on the land use pattern that Commissioner Mellinger brought out in the balance theory. This, of course, is an old land use planning idea, and believes that there are other theories or ideas to respond to that. Thinks that we are getting these pattern changes because we have changed Title 17. Chairman Washburn stated that he sees this as generating the process of providing a "C-M" corridor along a major thoroughfare. Sees the extension if Highway 74 is extended to provide an extra service capability, which will probably request more "C-M" or possibly even "C" into a certain portion, depends on how soon that road goes in and the quality of the road. Chairman Washburn commented on the Business License process, and this processing being a mechanism to maintain a clear definition of uses and their location. Discussion ensued on smaller users, whether they be "C-M" or "M-l" uses throughout an industrial area; competition between users, and the possibility of ending up with run down industrial areas. _ Motion by Commissioner Brown to recommend to City Council adoption of Negative Declaration No. 87-1, approval of General Plan Amendment 87-1 and Zone Change 87-1 and adoption of Resolution No. 87-3, subject to the Findings listed in the Staff Report, second by Commissioner Kelley. Approved 4-0 RESOLUTION NO. 87-3 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 87-1 3. Conditional stated that located in and we have 1987. Use Permit 87-3 - Howard Palmer - Chairman Washburn this is a request to allow a day care facility to be Building 5 of the Shopper's Square Shopping Center, a request for continuance to the meeting of April 21, Motion by Commissioner Brown to continue Conditional Use Permit 87-3 to the meeting of April 21, 1987, second by Commissioner Kelley. Approved 4-0 - BUSINESS ITEMS NONE INFORMATIONAL NONE Minutes of Planning Commission April 7, 1987 Page 7 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS .---. Community Development Director Miller informed the Commission of the following items coming up on the April 14, 1987 City Council Agenda, which may be of interest. 1. There is a public hearing on the amendment to the Flood Hazard Areas, which is Chapter 15.64 of the Municipal Code. 2. There will be city Council discussion on the Special Event Ordinance. 3. There will be a public hearing on Weed Abatement. commissioner Kelley asked if the discussion on the Special Event Ordinance would be at a study session? community Development Director Miller responded in the negative, stating that this would be a Business Item, as City Council had requested some specific discussion regarding this item. PUBLIC COMMENT Mr. Pat Callahan, 1402 West having any rule or law stating floodplain, and stated that flooQway in such a manner that a foot. Lakeshore Drive, commented on FEMA not that you cannot bring fill into the FEMA says that you cannot alter the it would raise the level of the flood Mr. Callahan asked for the present posture on the Lakeshore Overlay Ordinance, stating that he has pointed out certain errors. Chairman Washburn asked if staff would like to respond. Community Development Director Miller stated that Mr. Callahan has made a number of written and verbal requests to the Planning Department, which we are examining and attempting to prepare a response directly to him. PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Commissioner Brown: Asked what the Swap Meet operates under, if it is under a Conditional Use Permit, and what restrictions they operate under? Community Development Director Miller responded that there is no existing Conditional Use Permit for the Swap Meet. Commissioner Brown stated that his concern is on Collier Avenue, which has become an extreme safety problem with traffic and parking. Parking is taking place on private property and in many cases they are blocking Collier Avenue. There is no ingress/egress for any -- emergency vehicles. They have plenty of parking on the other side, and what has created this problem is that they have opened an additional entrance on Collier Avenue, in fact, they have opened several entrances there. If they could be requested to close that entrance or provide adequate safe parking in designated areas, thinks that this would help everyone. Chairman Washburn suggested that staff be directed to put up no parking signs along Collier Avenue. Commissioner Brown stated that he does not think that this is the City's responsibility that it is the responsibility of the tenant. They are the ones that are responsible, if we mandate that they put up no parking signs, I would suggest that they pay for them. If they can provide off-street parking adequate for their use and cross- walks and so forth, I do not see any problem with that. Minutes of Planning Commission April 7, 1987 Page 8 PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS CONTINUED commissioner Mellinqer: Commented on the Swap Meet, stating that he agrees it has gotten out of hand. The Swap Meet has gotten a little more popular in recent years, especially in the last year or so. It certainly seems that they have expanded far beyond their non-conforming use, since they do not have a Conditional Use Permit. I think that it would probably take Council action to put no parking signs along the area. They just can not be required to put them up, but that might be a consideration at least on Saturday and Sunday to have no parking along that area. Commissioner Brown stated that the simple solution would be to close those two entrances. Because once you do not have the entrance there is no reason to park there. .... commissioner Mellinger stated that there are often no spaces in the regular parking lot, and his concern is the children running out between cars. It is constantly happening and one of these days some one is going to get hit by a car. People are turning every which way because they do not know which way to go. Perhaps not only no parking signs but more directional signs. If they have a need for additional parking perhaps they should obtain it at an off-site location, improve a vacant lot and direct parking, whether it be on a temporary basis or whatever. Commissioner Kelley: On Robb Road, the new housing tract behind Tee Pee Ranch, the ingress and egress, probably just not familiar with how it has been laid out, are they going to have traffic exiting any where out the back. .... commissioner Kelley stated that this was an extremely dangerous situation, pulling in and out of there, and that it should be widen with a turning lane. commissioner Brown asked if they were required to put in a deceleration lane there were they enter? Community Development Director Miller stated that he does not recall the exact geometry of the intersection there, and believes that they installed the improvements that were required by the Tract Map. commissioner Kelley stated that he believes that a deceleration lane would be of a great benefit there. Community Development Director Miller responded that it is quite possible, at this point in time, that if that were required the City would have to expend the funds to do it. Commissioner Mellinqer: In our Municipal Code we have a section about low flying aircraft, stating that is is a violation of the Municipal Code for the violation of FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) regulations. What I would like to know is exactly how we go about complaining about __ this to FAA. Commissioner Mellinger stated that there is no way to report them any more because they do- not have to put their numbers on the wings. Wondering if we can look into this and give a call to FAA, to see what we can do and if there is any thing that we can do at all, since it is a City Municipal Ordinance that they are violating. Community Development Director Miller responded that this has been discussed with FAA on a number of occasions. It has been very difficult because of the various jurisdictions that are involved in determining who has responsibility to enforce those regulations and Minutes of Planning Commission April 7, 1987 Page 9 PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS CONTINUED how they would be enforced. As Commissioner Mellinger has indicated identifying the aircraft is the major problem. - Chairman Washburn: Ask for the status on the illegal signs along Interstate 15. Asked to have Code Enforcement look into the refrigerators and freezers that are outside behind John's Service Center, stating that this could be a problem for safety. Community Development Director Miller asked if Chairman Washburn was referring to the billboards, erected by Adams Advertising. Chairman"Washburn answered in the affirmative. Community Development Director Miller stated that, at this point in time, this has been turned over to the City Attorney's Office for action. Chairman Washburn asked that when the City Attorney does respond to the City Council on the matter, that the Planning Commission also receive a copy of the response. There being no further business, the Lake Elsinore Planning Commission, adjourned at 8:25 p.m. Motion by Commissioner Mellinger, second by Commissioner Kelley. Approved 4-0 Iproved' ~~gL~~ RespeotfullYIl~m. itted. .'.. ~~7' Linda Grindstaff @ Planning commissio Secretary - - - - MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON THE 21ST DAY OF APRIL 1987 THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:02 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Community Development Director Miller. - INTRODUCTION Mrs. Pamela Brinley was introduced as the new Planning Commissioner, filling the seat vacated by Mr. Pat Callahan. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: commissioners: Mellinger, Brinley, Kelley and Washburn. ABSENT: commissioner Brown Also present were community Development Director Miller, Senior Planner Bolland, Assistant Planners Last and Magee. MINUTE ACTION Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to approve minutes of April 7, 1987, as submitted, second by Commissioner Kelley. Approved 3-0 Commissioner Brinley abstaining PUBLIC COMMENT NONE PUBLIC HEARINGS - 1. Conditional Use Permit 87-3 - Howard Palmer - Assistant Planner Last presented proposal to allow for a day care facility with an outdoor play area for small children, 2,450 square feet located in a portion of Building #5 of the Shopper's Square commercial center. The project is on the north side of Casino Drive approximately 1,000 feet east of Railroad Canyon Road. Chairman Washburn opened the public hearing at 7:05 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of Conditional Use Permit 87-3. Mr. John Grist, architect for the project, stated that he was here mainly to answer any questions that may come up, and that he does not have any problem with the staff recommendation. Mr. Grist commented on the eight foot (8') high wall versus the- six foot (6') high wall, stating that it will cut down on some noise, but it will tend to make the children feels more like they are in a prison. We have no serious problem with the height just wanted to make that comment. Mr. Grist commented on attaChing the play yard to the building where the child care center is, again there is no problem with it, but feels that the exiting from the adjacent buildings does -- not work as well as it might, if the passageway went through continuously. Chairman Washburn asked if there was anyone else wiShing to speak in favor of Conditional Use Permit 87-3. Receiving no. response, Chairman Washburn asked if there was anyone wishing to speak in opposition. Receiving no response, Chairman Washburn closed the public hearing at 7:10 p.m. Community Development Director Miller stated that in reference to Mr. Grist's comment regarding the exiting, we have had subsequent conservations with the Building Department in regards to his concerns, and the Building Department has expressed similar Minutes of Planning Commission April 21, 1987 Page 2 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 87-3 = HOWARD PALMER CONTINUED concerns. It may be, as Mr. Last has indicated, in terms of connecting the wall may create certain exiting requirements. It may be that the wall is not actually connected, but there would be a controlled access in that area. This would have to be worked out with the applicant and the Building Department to secure proper exiting from the building. Commissioner Kelley stated that the eight foot (8') high wall is a good comprise between the originally proposed six foot (6') and the maximum recommended ten foot (10'), and stated that as we all know, the freeway traffic moves at a good 70 miles per hour and this would probably increase the level of noise. Commissioner Mellinger stated that regarding the eight foot (8') wall that he agrees that this would give a prison effect. There- fore, suggest that there be some landscaping added on the interior of the wall to avoid that so called prison effect. - Commissioner Mellinger commented on the maximum number of children, stating that we are not conditioning anything as far as the maximum number of children. Therefore, suggest that we add that the maximum shall be forty (40). The only concern is, what was the intent for the maximum number, being 40, with the letter from the applicant, is this with the maximum number of children that would be permanently enrolled or enrolled for a long term periOd, how would this account for the drop in students, and what the maximum number would be? Community Development Director Miller responded that the maximum number allowed in the facility would actually be set by the Day Care Licensing Board, which is administered through the County. _ The applicant has indicated that based upon the square footage, the maximum that they would be allowed would be forty (40) under the current standards. Commissioner Mellinger stated that the only problem that he has with that is, ABC Regulations and other State Agencies, may set a maximum, but their enforcement capabilities are extremely limited, and suggested that a condition be added "that the maximum number of students be based upon the State Regulations". Community Development Director Miller stated that in that regard you may wish to amend it to include all of the limitations placed by the Day Car.e Licensing Board. Commissioner Mellinger stated that he agrees that all State Child Care Center Regulations, Division 12, should be followed at all times. However, one of the regulations is, that the outdoors have a shaded area within it, and asked what type of shaded area they are going to use and if they were going to utilize landscaping or perhaps a cover. Mr. Grist responded that this has not entered into any of their discussions"and either of those suggestions are possible. Commissioner Mellinger stated that the added condition that the Conditional Use Permit shall be subject to the Child Care Regulations should cover that. Commissioner Brinley stated that her only concern was the block wall, of eight feet (8'), and would like to see some type of . landscaping provided. Chairman Washburn stated that he had the same comments to provide - .' Minutes of Planning Commission April 21, 1987 Page 3 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 87-3 - HOWARD PALMER CONTINUED play area shade, reference Child Care Centers Division #12, and concurs with Commissioner Mellinger. Chairman Washburn commented on the Environmental Assessment number 3.b., pertaining to installation of turf for the play area in place of the AC parking surface, and asked if this was still consistent with their plans, footprint showed no vegetation. -- Assistant Planner Last responded that this was agreement. a verbal Chairman Washburn stated that the noise a~atement study indicated that the wall should be solid, and the plans showed grading toward the freeway. Assistant Planner Last responded that those plans were submitted prior to the completion of the noise study. Community Development Director Miller stated number 4, addresses that for noise attenuation shall be a solid wall. that condition purposes this Commissioner Mellinger commented on condition number 4, pertain- ing to the design and material of the wall, asking if this handles the controlled exits that were discussed. Community Development Director Miller responded in the affirma- tive. - Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to adopt Negative Declaration 87-6 and approve Conditional Use Permit 87-3 with the findings and the 5 conditions listed in the Staff Report, amending condi- tion number 4, and adding condition number 6, to read as follows: Condition No.4: Condition No.6: - "In order to provide noise attenuation a decorative block wall a minimum of eight feet in height shall be provided around three sides of the play yard. This wall shall be a solid block wall with no openings, except a solid gate on the southeast side and openings along the southwest side as necessary to meet existing requirements. Design and materials of this wall shall be s~ject to the approval of the Community Development Director. Landscaping shall be installed along the interior of the wall, subject to the approval of the Community Development Director." "The Conditional subject to all Regulations." Use Permit applicable shall be State Chairman Washburn suggested that the Child Care Center, Division 12 be referenced. commissioner Mellinger amended his motion to included Chairman Washburn's suggestion to reference to Child Care Center, Division 12 in condition number 6. Condition No.6: "The Conditional Use Permit subject to all applicable Regulations, reference Child Center, Division 12." shall be State Care Second by Chairman Washburn. Approved 4-0 Minutes of Planning Commission April 21, 1987 Page 4 2. Conditional Use Permit 87-4 Duane D. Cline, M.D. - Senior Planner Bolland presented proposal to allow the development and use of an off-site parking lot to facilitate an addition to the Elsinore Medical Clinic; eight (8) parking stalls for a facility of approximately 4,500 square feet in size on a portion of a 32,234 square foot site on the southeast corner of Sulphur and spring Streets. Chairman Washburn opened the public hearing at 7:23 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of Conditional Use Permit 87-4. .... Mr. Fred Crowe, of Butterfield Surveys, Inc. representing Dr. Cline, commented on option number 2, utilizing the drawing on the board showed where the existing building is located, and where the proposed parking and the proposed building would be located. Mr. Crowe stated that they feel that option number 2 would be the best for Dr. Cline. The planning that needs to take place to develop the site is going to take some time and effort to put together, and we think that if the parking lot were installed now there is a good chance of conflict with the future building. Mr. Crowe requested that option number 2 be placed in the final conditions, for condition number 3 and 4. Chairman Washburn asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak in favor of Conditional Use Permit 87-4. Receiving no response, Chairman Washburn asked if there was anyone wishing to speak in opposition. Receiving no response Chairman Washburn closed the public hearing at 7:26 p.m. Commissioner Mellinger asked if the new building would be on the entire parcel, why couldn't the new parking lot be situated such that the new building could be constructed where there would not be any disruption? Dr. Cline stated that at this point in time, he does not know exactly where the building is going to be placed on the parcel. Commissioner Mellinger stated that it appears that the lot is of such size where a new building could be placed on the lot and the eight (8) parking spaces still not be touched. .... Mr. Crowe stated that the discussion was intended to show that until the total site is planned, grades for the parking lot; and planning of the circulation for traffic , all of these things really should be done in conjunction with the building. Commissioner Mellinger stated that there is a considerable need for parking as the center exists now. People who use the center typically use the municipal parking lot, because there is very little on street parking available right now for the center. Commissioner Kelley stated that he feels that the Conditional Use Permit as presented by staff is adequate, and a good solution to an on-going problem. .... Commissioner Brinley asked for clarification on the posting of the dual signature Certificate of Deposit, in the amount of $10,000.00, wanting to know what happens at the ends of the two year period. Community Development Director Miller responded that basically this is a mechanism to assure that at the end of that period the parking improvements would be installed. If for some reason it did not happen the City would have the authority to utilize that money to construct the improvements. ,it.,! ." Minutes of Planning Commission April 21, 1987 Page 5 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 87-4 DUANE Ih. CLINE. M.D. CONTINUED - Chairman Washburn stated that he is confused, is the property still in escrow or has it been purchased, and if purchased has it closed escrow? Dr. Cline stated that the property has been purchased but has not closed escrow, as there is a problem with an easement on the Title, which we are working with the Water District to resolve. Chairman Washburn asked if the facilities were provided across the street, if the applicant would be required to provide strip- ing for crosswalks, asking if this was discussed. -- Senior Planner Bolland responded that there is reference made in the Staff Report to the traffic safety issue, and due to the very low volume of traffic, Sulphur Street does, staff's position was that as is, without a crosswalk, this would be a relatively safe access for pedestrians to cross the street to the facility. Chairman Washburn stated that his concerns is if the parking is allowed on a temporary basis and the escrow is a long convoluted escrow, and the development of the addition takes places and the escrow falls out or something goes wrong, there could be a problem with not having facilitated eight (8) parking spaces in exchange for the addition on the building. Commissioner Mellinger asked if the easement would not be required prior to issuance of building permits, condition number 2, so that would solve that. This will be recorded on those parcels. Therefore, even if Dr. Cline were to sell the old building it would not make any difference, he could not prevent the people from the old building from parking on his new lot when built per condition number 2, is this correct? community Development Director Miller responded that was the intend of condition number 2. - Chairman Washburn stated that he had a question for item #2, if we were to go in that direction, with signature bond being provided, the last sentence "In ways the parking facility shall be constructed to standards of the City Parking Ordinance 17.66", what mean? staff, in the dual all other meet the does this Senior Planner Bolland responded that there was an error in the Staff Report. The paragraph prior to that states that this wording was to be substituted for condition number 3. It should actually be substituted for condition number 4 only. So condition number 4 is Alternative #1, which staff supports, and that is full compliance with the Parking Code as it stands. The alternative wording here is intended to substitute for that Minutes of Planning Commission April 21, 1987 Page 6 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 87-4 DUANE ~ CLINE. M.D. CONTINUED wording and it would allow for the waiving of surfacing, curbing and landscaping improvements. However, that last clause does require that all other provisions of Title 17, Parking Code, be complied with, such as the sizing of spaces; the back-up area. Discussion ensued on the easement and encumbrance for the recordation of the conditions for eight (8) parking stalls, if eight (8) would cover the actual existing facility and what the requirement would be for the existing facility if it were built today; appears that the addition exceeds ten percent of the existing facility and isn't that our limitation for bringing something up to Code; if additional storage or additions would be allowed for any buildings downtown that does not have parking; eight parking spaces being insufficient, and additional parking spaces needed. Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to approve Conditional Use Permit 87-4 with the findings and the 4 conditions listed in the Staff Report, and to replace condition number 4 with Alternative #2, as suggested by staff, second by Commissioner Kelley. Approved 4-0 - 3. Variance 87-1 BMW Management, Inc. c/o R.J. Christoff & Associates - Community Development Director Miller presented proposal to vary from the front yard building setback standard of 20 feet to allow a building at an average setback of approxi- mately 16 feet from the front property line with the entry canopy element protruding into this setback nearly to the property line, 4.12 acre parcel of a 16 acre site located on the north side of Casino Drive, approximately 1,000 feet east of Railroad Canyon Road. - Chairman Washburn opened the public hearing at 7:50 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of Variance 87-1. Mr. Gary Meyers, one of stated that everYthing was questions the Commission them. the principles of the Sizzler project, well stated, and if there are any may have he would be happy to answer Chairman Washburn asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak in favor of Variance 87-1. -_. Mr. John Grist, architect for the project, stated that the conceptual approval anticipated that the Sizzler would be as it is now located and it is very crucial to the circulation plan for the entire center that it be approved at that place. Chairman Washburn asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak in favor of Variance ,87-1. Receiving no response, Chairman Washburn asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Receiving no response, Chairman Washburn closed the public hearing at 7:52 p.m. Commissioner Kelley legitimate request and recommendation. stated that in agreement he feels that this is with staff findings a and - Commissioner Brinley stated that she was also in agreement with staff findings and recommendation. Commissioner Mellinger stated that the question he has, since we are in this endless transition between ordinances. If the Bob's Big Boy and the future building would also need a variance, because it seems that they have fairly similar setbacks. Minutes of Planning Commission April 21, 1987 Page 7 VARIANCE 87-1 - BMW MANAGEMENT C/O R.J. CHRISTOFF ASSOCIATES CONTINUED -- Community Development Director Miller stated that as pointed out, we do have this problem with transition. What has happened the plans that were actually submitted came in several months after the passage of the new ordinance. Those plans. had been in preparation for some time. We have had several meetings with Mr. Palmer, owner of the center, and Mr. Grist, architect for the center, and believe that they are well aware of the change in the rules. At this point in time, we are not aware that any plans are in preparation for the other two pads. Commissioner Mellinger stated that he presumes that Bob's Big Boy would have the same standards to meet. commissioner Mellinger asked Community Development Director Miller how many other applications, that he is aware of, that we are going to have to face to rid ourselves of the so called transition, and stated that if this is just a transitional matter, he has no problem with it. Community Development Director responded that he does not believe that there are to many others situations where this would occur, and stated that this is one of the few shopping centers that was approved under the old Code requirements without consideration of the new Code requirements. commissioner Mellinger commented on condition number 2, pertain- ing to the additional landscaping to offset the reduced setback, and upgraded landscaping along the rear of the building, thinks that we could refer to condition number 5 of the original condi- tions of approval, Commercial Project 85-2, and asked if we were just looking for upgraded landscaping. Community Development Director Miller responded that we were referring to Planning Commission discussion particularly about some mounding in that front setback, and also in looking at the rear area where previously we had discussed the trash enclosure being relocated. The change of that will create a fairly narrow area there and we are looking at special treatments to provide a landscape buffer. Mr. Grist stated that he could not speak for Bob's, although he has had meetings with them and will be the coordinating architect when their project comes in. They will have their own architect similar to the situation with Sizzler, but can address the future building, which is for my client Mr. Palmer. Mr. Grist stated that they are assuming that they would have to ask for the same variance, because when the conceptual site plan was approved that building was designated that size and shape. In fact, the parking count and everything that we have done has assumed that building is in that area. If you look at the -- parking layout you will see that we can not just move that building back. It means that we would have to restrict the size of the building. Chairman Washburn stated that with some of the upgrading that we have been looking at, and with the fact that usually variances are done in reference to the topography; size and shape of the site, and since this project was approved and pads were put in, would interpret that as topography was in placed, under the old Title 17. Motion by Chairman Washburn to approve Variance 87-1 with the findings and the 3 conditions listed in the Staff Report, second by Commissioner Brinley. Minutes of Planning Commission April 21, 1987 Page 8 VARIANCE 87-1 - BMW MANAGEMENT C/O R.J. CHRISTOFF ASSOCIATES CONTINUED Chairman Washburn asked if there was any further discussion. commissioner Mellinger stated that he has no problem with the transition, just hopes that the same upgraded type of landscaping will be submitted as part of the approval for those variances. There being no further discussion, Chairman Washburn called for the question. Approved 4-0 - 4. Variance 87-2 - Doris A. Klock - Assistant Planner Last presented proposal to vary from the required front yard setback to allow a garage at nineteen feet (19') from the property line, 4,200 square foot site located on the south side of Flint Street between Langstaff and Poe Street. Chairman Washburn opened the public hearing at 8:02 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of Variance 87-2. Mrs. Klock gave a brief background report on the project site and the reason for the variance. Chairman Washburn asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak in favor of Variance 87-2. Receiving no response, Chairman Washburn asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Receiving no response, Chairman Washburn closed the public hearing at 8:04 p.m. Commissioner Mellinger stated that this is a classic case for a variance, and then asked how any street trees are required. - Assistant Planner Last responded that one street trees is required for every thirty feet (30') of frontage. Therefore, two trees would be required. commissioner Mellinger though it is a classic require an additional stated that case for a street tree. the only variance, trade off, even would probably Commissioner Kelley stated that he agrees with the applicant that this does look to be the most feasible, and also agrees with the staff findings. Commissioner Brinley stated that she also agrees with the applicant and with staff. Chairman Washburn stated that in view of the site location and because of the Infill Program, which did not do very well on its own in the eastern part of town. That he is certainly in support of self sponsored Infill Programs, and this is a classic example of that. Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to approve Variance 87-2 with the findings and the 2 conditions listed in the Staff Report, and adding condition number 3, which will read as follows: - Condition No.3: "Three (3) street trees shall be installed along the frontage, as approved by the Community Development Director." Second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved 4-0 Minutes of Planning Commission April 21, 1987 Page 11 COMMERCIAL PROJECT 86-7 AMENDMENT 1! = I k ~ DEVELOPMENT CONTINUED commissioner Kelley stated that he was in agreement with the staff findings and recommendation. - commissioner agreement with interested in going in. Commissioner Mellinger stated that he believes that staff's concerns are probably in line with what we want. Brinley stated that, at this time, she is in the staff. findings and recommendation, but is the landscaping and appearance of the projects Chairman Washburn stated between T & S Development, the point where we recommendation. If not we that he feels that the cooperation individual applicants, and staff is to feel very comfortable with their could bring it back here to the table. commissioner Mellinger stated that the only thing that he would add is the same change in condition number 6, "the roof equipment shall be painted and maintained to blend with the roof"; and adding a condition that "the roof tile colors shall be consistent with the center". Mr. Curts asked to make one or two brief comments. We are very pleased to bring Albertson's to Lake Elsinore, and I believe that it will be your largest market for a number miles in each direction, they are a quality tenant. They have purchased their own parcel within this center, and we will work with them to bring their landscaping plans up to the community standards that we are very familiar. with. I think that we can soften that somewhat harsh front elevation to the satisfaction of everyone. Also, I am fully aware of and understand the reasoning for painting the roof top equipment to eliminate the high contrast, often times, between the equipment and the roof top colors. Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to adopt previous Negative Declaration 86-22 and approval of Commercial Project 86-7 Amendment #4, with the findings and 6 conditions listed in the Staff Report, amending condition number 6, and adding condition number 7, which will read as follows: Condition No.6: "The roof equipment shall be painted and maintained to blend with the roof." Condition No.7: "The roof tile color shall be consistent with the center." Second by Commissioner Kelley. Approved 4-0 3. Commercial Project 86-16 REVISED and Amendment #1 - Brookstone Investors (Art Nelson) Assistant Planner Magee pres~nted -- proposal to construct a 16,657 square foot neighborhood commercial center on 1.54 acres, located at the northeast corner of Railroad Canyon Road and Grape street. Assistant Planner Magee stated that the applicant has submitted a revised set of elevations for Buildings "A" and "B". Staff feels that these enhancements are adequate and improves the rear elevation substantially. Staff feels the median, which is required along Railroad Canyon Road, needs to be slightly redesigned to prevent left turn egress from the eastern most exit, and this redesign shall be approved by the Engineering Department. Assistant Planner Magee stated that the Traffic study indicated Minutes of Planning Commission April 21, 1987 Page 12 COMMERCIAL PROJECT 86-16 REVISED AND AMENDMENT il - BROOKS TONE INVESTORS CONTINUED that a traffic signal is not warranted at this time, at the corner of Grape Street and Railroad Canyon Road. However, the Engineering Department has requested that the applicant pay a fair and equitable share to provide for future signalization. Chairman Washburn asked if the applicant or the applicant's representative would like to make any comments. Mr. Brown commented on condition number 42, extending sewer to the farthest point (project boundary), as I indicated last time, at the Planning Commission hearing, this was going to be a problem and it is a problem. Mr. Brown stated that they have submitted sewer plans to the Water District, and it is impossible for us to extend those sewer plans to the furthest project boundary. Based on the fact that Railroad Canyon towards Canyon Lake starts to go down hill at the point toward the northeast end of the property, and we would be in a situation where we would not have adequate cover. ..... Mr. Brown requested that condition number 42, be amended to reflect Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District's approved plans versus to the end of the boundary. Chairman Washburn asked if anyone else wished to address this project. Receiving no response, Chairman Washburn asked for discussion at the table. commissioner Kelley asked staff if the request on condition number 42, would be something that we could live with. .... Community Development Director Miller stated that as Mr. Brown has indicated the up stream projects will probably be served by a separate sewer line, and the sewer would probably not be extended much beyond this alignmenbr. It would involve a different construction and probably be directed to the existing sewer plant in Railroad Canyon. If we amended condition number 42, to reflect the requirements of Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District then that could be worked out with the District. commissioner Mellinger asked what facilities the residential developments would be using. Community Development Director Miller responded that there is a tract in the bend at Railroad Canyon, further up stream and the plans for that project would be to pump that sewage to the sewage treatment plant on the other side of the river. commissioner Mellinger asked if this treatment plan has the capacity for that, and if we are sure that is the case, because he has heard just the opposite. Community Development Director Miller stated that the developer has indicated, that they have already submitted their plans for the residential project to the Water District, and they have been -- talking with them about this. Additional treatment at the plant up stream may require some modification, and this is something that is being looked at in conjunction with several developments that are taking place in the canyon. Commissioner Mellinger stated that he has concern that the same thing will happen, as on Lakeshore, every four months the street will be tore up for one reason or another. My understanding was that the tract up stream was not going to use that facility. Maybe you can get an answer on that. Minutes of Planning Commission April 21, 1987 Page 13 COMMERCIAL PROJECT 86-16 REVISED AND AMENDMENT 1l - BROOKS TONE INVESTORS CONTINUED .- Mr. Brown stated that they did consider Canyon Hills and Heritage'S old project up there. Butterfield Surveys has done some studies relating to how that area would sewer and several alternatives surfaced. Both of which would come down off the hills and head toward the San Jacinto River, rather than cross the San Jacinto River on the proposed bridge, it would go down the flow line of the river, which is a down hill slope, and hit Casino Drive and go into the outlet that is already at the Carl's Jr. manhole. There is a ten inch stub out there which was put there with the purpose in mind that the. sewer would go up Casino Drive and thereby be able to handle those proposed developments. That is why Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District is looking at our proposal, in the light that they are looking at it. They are not contemplating having those projects sewer to Canyon Lake, which they very well might, but they are looking at it as though it will come down and follow the San Jacinto River, which is a less expensive method of disposing of that sewer. Chairman Washburn commented on the extent of Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District's Sewer Plans with Art Nelson, and asked what would be the furthest point the sewer would come, if it would be Grape Street or midway. Mr. Brown responded that he believes that they will probably bring it up midway between the two drives on Railroad Canyon Road. Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to adopt Negative Declaration No. 86-64, and approve Commercial Project 86-16 REVISED and Amendment #1, with the findings and the 46 conditions listed in the Staff Report, amending condition number 18 and condition number 42, to read as follows: Condition No. 18: "All roof mounted equipment shall be at least 6 inches lower than the parapet wall or top of equipment well and shall be painted and maintained to blend with the roof. Evidence of compliance with this condition shall be included in building plans." Condition No. 42: "Applicant shall extend the sewer with one (1) 6 inch lateral connection to the main. Grease interceptors and sample boxes shall be required for all food service related uses, subject to the approval of Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District (EVMWD). The size of the main shall be determined by EVMWD. - Second by Commissioner Kelley. Chairman Washburn asked staff if bike lane striping was included as a condition. Assistant Planner Magee responded in the negative. Chairman Washburn asked if the maker of the motion would amend his motion to include striping for Class II Bicycle Lane. Commissioner Mellinger amended his motion to include condition number 47, which will read as follows: Minutes of Planning commission April 21, 1987 Page 14 COMMERCIAL PROJECT 86-16 REVISED AND AMENDMENT !l - BROOKS TONE INVESTORS CONTINUED Condition No. 47: "Applicant shall provide striping for Class II Bicycle Lane." commissioner Kelley maker of the second was in agreement wit~the amendment. Approved 4-0 - 4. Tentative Tract Map 20139 REVISION - The Grayson Companies - Senior Planner Bolland presented a revision to approved Tentative Tract Map 20139 to divide 28.6 gross acres into sixty-three (63) residential lots and one (1) 12.1 acre commercial lot, located on the south side of Grand Avenue between Macy street and Ortega Highway. senior Planner Bolland stated that the revisions are proposed in order to improve residential lot orientation, reduce the amount of perimeter grading and retaining walls required, and to reduce the amount of street infrastructure required to service the tract. Chairman Washburn asked if the applicant was present and if he would like to address the Commission on this item. Mr. Bob Gray, President of Grayson agrees with what staff has recommended. taken a subdivision that was approved a made it a lot more marketable by redesign Companies, stated that he Thinks that they have couple of years ago and of the lots. Mr. Gray stated that the partnership is in the process of redesigning a storm drain, where we are going to be draining approximately 900 acres. The cost on that drain has gone from three hundred thousand dollars, since we purchased the property, to somewhere between seven and eight hundred thousand dollars. That is why we have come to the City to make this request in regards to possibly getting some relief on the fees. The one that I am concerned about, and the one that we were hoping for was some relief on the Park and Recreation Fees. - commissioner Mellinger commented on the request for waiver of Park Fees informing Mr. Gray that the Commission can not waive fees, this would have to be done by City Council. We could __recommend it but I would be obverse to doing SOl as I do not see what the justification is. There is substantial open space dedications, but those are not public park lands. Discussion ensued on the applicant's request for a waiver on Park Fees; open space dedication for the tract, and the storm drainage channel. Commissioner Mellinger commented on the responsibility for land- scaping being placed on the homeowner, wanting to know if the intent of this also included irrigation not being placed in the front yard, and if there was an earlier condition that front yard landscaping shall be provided. __ Community Development Director Miller responded that there was a prior condition to that effect. We would basically agree with the applicant that the move up market or the market that aims more to the moderate price homeowner would probably provide an up graded landscaping plan from what might be provided from an overall developer. The applicant has indicated that CC & R's would be recorded indicating that front yard landscaping should be installed within six months of purchase. Minutes of Planning Commission April 21, 1987 Page 15 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 20139 REVISION = THE GRAYSON COMPANIES CONTINUED ~ Discussion ensued on landscaping and irrigation requirements for the proposal: landscaping requirements being included in the CC & R's for the tract: maintenance of required street trees: amending condition number 44, to include front yard irrigation: issue being the heavy cost of doing the flood control measures, and sending a recommendation to City Council asking them to try and work out something that makes it more feasible to proceed with the project, and condition number 41, regarding front yard landscaping not being left up to the individual homeowner. Motion by Commissioner proval of Tentative Tract conditions listed in the 41 to read as follows: Kelley to recommend to City Council ap- Map 20139 subject to findings and 46 Staff Report, amending condition number Condition No. 41: "Front yard landscaping and irrigation shall be installed." Second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved 4-0 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS Community Development Director Assistant Planner Last recently Xeriscaping, and a presentation be scheduled, as an informational Miller informed the Commission that attended a two day seminar on before the Planning Commission will item, in the future. ..... PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Chairman Washburn: The gap between the parking lot and the new sidewalk, on Main Street, is about six inches (6"). I am sure that the Engineering Department has walked over it many times and has seen it. It needs to be filled with some AC. Which alleys have been identified or slated for improvement? Community Development Director Miller responded that this has been changed many times and believes that the present plan is to improve all of the alleys originally identified in the project. Commented on the cooperation between staff and the applicants in regards to agreement with conditions placed on projects. commissioner Mellinqer: For clarity believe that and include the same and sake and to affirm the way the Commission operates, I we should strike the term BUSINESS ITEMS from the Agenda everything under PUBLIC HEARINGS. Everything is noticed we treat it the same. ..... Chairman Washburn asked Community Development Director Miller what impact he thought that would have. Community Development Director Miller responded that in terms of noticing we do attempt to notice all items the same, which would include legal notice in the paper, mailing of the notice to property owners within a 300 foot radius, and posting. There are some different standards for those items that are required to be PUBLIC HEARINGS and those items that are not required to be PUBLIC HEARINGS. We generally adhere to the same notice requirement for all items, but on some of the BUSINESS ITEMS we do not always follow the same guidelines. Minutes of Planning commission April 21, 1987 Page 16 PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS CONTINUED Community Development Director Miller stated that as Commissioner Mellinger indicates we have recommended that all items on the Planning Commission Agenda be treated as a public hearing, and we would encourage and concur with Commissioner Mellinger's comments. Chairman Washburn stated that he sees this as a policy change and would like to have input from City Council and the City Manager. This could be agendized for a study session, or we could ask Community Development Director Miller to bring it to their attention. .... Chairman Washburn stated that he would like to have this looked at further and maybe at the next meeting, with a full body, consider what action should be taken. commissioner Mellinger stated that he will be attending the State Association of Environmental Professional Conference this weekend, in San Diego, and will be reporting on that in the near future. commissioner Mellinger commented on the tract across from Greenridge between Greenridge and Torn Ranch, in the sidewalk there is a clean out for the septic systems, which sticks up eight inches (8") in the middle of the sidewalk. Community Development Director Miller asked Commissioner Mellinger if he could give a specific address? Commissioner Mellinger stated that it was located at the northeast corner of saint Clair and Ralph, somewhere in that area. commissioner Kellev: Welcomed Commissioner Brinley. .... Asked if we are forgetting the PUBLIC COMMENT segment. Chairman Washburn responded that we have had no requests to speak and that anyone wishing to speak during the PUBLIC COMMENT segment should complete a request to speak form and turn it in to the Secretary, who in turn will pass it to the Chair, and they will be heard. However, if there is someone in the audience that wishes to speak on the item they may do so. Commissioner Brinlev: Nothing to report. Commissioner Mellinger asked for the status of the church on Lake- shore Drive. Community Development Director Miller responded that Pastor Peter Sirolli approached staff about the location of a church, the potential site is the former H & R Block on Lakeshore Drive. Although, churches are not identified as a permitted use in commercial zones. Upon reviewing the situation we indicated to Mr. Sirolli that under the provisions of the Code the Planning Commission may find that it is similar to other uses and we suggested that he __ process a Conditional Use Permit. Chairman Washburn stated that there is a procedural item that we need to take care of. If everyone concurs, I suggest that the election of a new Vice Chairman be placed on the next Agenda. It was the consensus of the Commission to place the election of a new Vice Chairman on the next Agenda. Minutes of Planning Commission April 21, 1987 Page 17 There being no further business, the Lake Elsinore Planning commission adjourned at 9:24 p.m. Motion by Commissioner Mellinger, second by Commissioner Kelley. Approved 4-0 - Approved, ~ \0iO~ Ga~~hbUrn ch~i~ Respectfully submitted, Linda Grindstaff Planning Commission Secretary ~ - - - MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON THE 5TH DAY OF MAY 1987 THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:00 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Commissioner Brinley. ROLL CALL: - PRESENT: commissioners: Brown, Mellinger, Brinley, Kelley and Washburn ABSENT: None Also present were Community Development Director Miller, Senior Planner Bolland and Manee, Assistant Planner Last. MINUTE ACTION Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to approve minutes of April 21, 1987, as submitted, second by Commissioner Brown. Approved 5-0 PUBLIC COMMENT Mr. Mark Carsey commented on street widths in the R-1 Zone, owns a lot at the corner of Pottery and Granite, and requested that the street width be changed or amended, from Main Street up, to keep it at 60 feet or even leave it at 40 feet. Mr. Howard E. Hurd between Jack in the Box and suggested that a across that safety zone. Jr. commented on the need for a safety zone and the Family Restaurant on Riverside Drive, safety guard be hired to escort the children - ELECTION OF VICE CHAIRMAN Motion by Commissioner Brown to open nominations for Vice Chairman, second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved 5-0 commissioner Brown nominated commissioner Mellinger for Vice Chair- man, second by Chairman Washburn. Chairman Washburn asked if there were any further nominations from the floor. Receiving no response, Chairman Washburn asked for a motion to close the nominations. Motion by Commissioner Brinley to close nominations for Vice Chair- man, second by Commissioner Kelley. Approved 5-0 PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Amendment 87-3 City of Lake Elsinore - Community Development Director Miller presented proposal to amend Section 17.23.080 of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code regarding setbacks in the R-1 (Single-Family Residential) District. Chairman Washburn opened the public hearing at 7:14 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of Amendment 87-3. Mr. Mark Carsey stated that he was in favor of the amendment, and if it is not changed it would render their lot useless due to the way the it is situated, cornered on Pottery and Granite. Chairman Washburn asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak in favor. Receiving no response, Chairman Washburn asked if Minutes of Planning Commission May 5, 1987 Page 2 AMENDMENT 87-3 - CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE CONTINUED there was anyone wishing to speak in opposition. Receiving no response, Chairman Washburn closed the public hearing at 7:15 p.m. A brief discussion was held on whether or not fireplaces and ground air conditioning units would be allowed within the setbacks, and this being a clean up measure. -- Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to adopt Negative Declaration 87-12, and approval of Amendment 87-3 as proposed, Exhibit 1, second by Commissioner Brown. Approved 5-0 BUSINESS ITEMS 1. Draft Criteria for the General Plan - Land Use Policies and Objectives - Senior Planner Manee presented the Draft Criteria which is the application method by which all recommended General Plan and Zoning designations will be determined. Senior Planner Manee pointed out the following modifications to be made before sending this on to City Council for action. Polygon Analysis # 8 - delete the words "site or study" Polygon Analysis #10 - change the word "of" to "or" Special Use Codes - Add "MN, Marina" Table Two - Add "Parking" column Table Three (Page 2, second paragraph from the bottom) under Code Information - delete the words "subject to" and insert the words "Interface with" Table Three (Page 3, second paragraph from the bottom) under Code Information - change the last "s" to "e" Table Four - under Code Information - change the word "problematical" to "problematic" Table Four (second and third page) - delete the words "if conflict" from all columns Table Five - Add 14, PQ, General Plan-public/Quasi-public Table six - Add words "Further ordinance standards" - under Interpret to Mean - Chairman Washburn asked if staff would be able to pullout a map and a matrix that identifies a parcel and say whether or not it is consistent with the General Plan and these are the parameters, for anyone wishing to inquire about constraints or opportunities for development on a parcel of land. Senior Planner Manee answered in the affirmative. Chairman Washburn asked if there was anyone wishing to speak on this matter. Receiving no response, Chairman Washburn asked for discussion at the table. Discussion was held on Goals, Objectives and Criteria, that is being drafted in text, if they would be part of the public-- hearing or if they are just being adopted, and if the intention for these is to be part of the General Plan; number of polygons and how they will be practically applied throughout the planning area; if window survey work would be done once the map is completed; whether or not there would be a separate overlay-- overlays on top of the parcel map that the Engineering Department is working on; Designated Open Space being something that the General Plan designates and not necessarily a land use; changing Minutes of Planning Commission May 5, 1987 Page 3 DRAFT CRITERIA FOR THE GENERAL PLAN - LAND USE POLICIES AND OBJECTIVES CONTINUED ~ Recreation to Recreation/Parks or having a different category for Parks; adding classification with office as a land use and/or also include transportation and utilities as a land use; work shops being provided for the public and commission; clarification on Criteria One-Land Use category pertaining to physical setting and appearance; whether or not a quasi inventory could be drawn from this of the different zones that we have. Motion by Chairman Washburn to approve the methodology as presented with the comments stated at the table and further discussion with staff on some of the land use classifications to be worked out before being presented to Council. Senior Planner Manee stated that he would like there will be additional information added. that comes up and you feel it important we can times before we finalize it. to point out that If there is something modify it numerous Motion by Chairman Washburn to approve the methodology, second by Commissioner Kelley. Chairman Washburn asked if there was any further discussion. ~ commissioner Brown asked if we are going change it between now and the time it goes before Council if it will come back before the Commission, if it is why are we approving it? Why wouldn't we just have a consensus that we are satisfied with the document up to this point in time, and would like to see it go to Council. commissioner Brown stated that he does not see a problem with the consensus, that we approve of the concept. Chairman Washburn rescinded his motion. Motion by Commissioner Brown for a consensus, second by Commis- sioner Kelley. Approved 5-0 INFORMATIONAL 1. Xeriscaping - Assistant Planner Last presented a brief report on Xeriscaping, which is a water conservation concept, highlight- ing the variety of material and teChniques that can be used, and the benefits derived from owner installed landscaping versus developer installed landscaping. Discussion was held on nurseries in the area not carrying the plants suggested; if it is feasible to prepare a package and present to developers, and if there is some type of low cost where they could put this type of landscaping in the front yards; encouraging developers to use this type of landscaping in their model homes; if anything more than street trees are currently being required on individual lots in tracts; landscaping plans for large tracts being brought before the Commission; joint effort between the City and the water district to make this information available to the public. 2. Ordinance No. 806 - An interim ordinance placing a moratorium on new development approvals on properties in the Southeast Flood- plain Planning Area. Community Development Director Miller informed the Commission that the potential imposition of a moratorium on new development Minutes of Planning Commission May 5, 1987 Page 4 ORDINANCE NO. 806 CONTINUED approvals in the area generally designated the Southeast Floodplain Planning Area is scheduled before the City Council on May 12th. Notice of this has been published in the local newspaper and all property owners in the area impacted by the proposed moratorium have been notified by mail. Discussion was held on whether or not this would be done in house.... by staff or if it would be done by contract study; time periOd for interim ordinance, and whether or not this would come back before the Commission or go directly to Council. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS Community Development Director Miller introduced the two new Planners Mr. Martin Wilkins and Mr. Chris Pine. Community Development Director Miller stated that we have contacted the owners and operators of the Swap Meet and discussed the problems, which were brought up at past meetings, and they have indicated that they would take efforts to limit the number of entrances along Collier Avenue. We have also been in contact with Cal Trans regard- ing the posting of both sides of the street along that area with no parking signs. We are also contacting some of the property owners in that area regarding some of the parking problems that were referenced. PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Commissioner Brown: Stated that the only question he had was about the Swap Meet and that has been answered. .... Commissioner Mellinqer: Commented on the Swap Meet problem, upon observation of that point, on Saturday morning there were more cars parked along the street than in the parking lot, by almost two to one. It was very early in the morning, so it is not because there is an overflow from the parking lot it is because they are not using the parking lot. Attend the Association of Environmental Professionals Conference, and unless there is a study session scheduled in the future, I will report on a couple of items that are pertinent to our area. I have alot of written material that will be reproduced and distributed. I will make sure that it gets on an agenda in case there is no study session. Commissioner Kellev: No comments. Commissioner Brinlev: There is a hole in the street at the corner of Townsend and Sumner, under the stop sign, that either the Gas Company or General Telephone dug and only placed a board over it. .... Commissioner Brinley was given a complaint form to complete and turn in for processing. Minutes of Planning Commission May 5, 1987 Page 5 PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS CONTINUED Chairman Washburn: - Informed the Commission that there will be Economic Development Council Meeting on Thursday, Sahara Dunes. a Riverside County May 14th at the There being no further business, the Lake Elsinore Planning Commission adjourned at 8:22 p.m. Motion by Commissioner Mellinger, second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved 5-0 troved. Ga~a~~ Ch~r~an ;?:f:Z=d. Linda Grindstaffc7~ Planning Commission Secretary - - - - MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON THE 19TH DAY OF MAY 1987 THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:02 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Commissioner Brown. ROLL CALL: - PRESENT: commissioners: Brown, Mellinger, Kelley and Washburn ABSENT: Commissioner Brinley due to illness. Also present were Community Development Director Miller, Senior Planner Bolland, and Assistant Planner Magee MINUTE ACTION Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to approve minutes of May 5, 1987, as submitted, second by Commissioner Brown. Approved 4-0 PUBLIC COMMENT NONE PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Amendment 86-4 - City of Lake Elsinore -Community Development Director Miller presented proposal to amend Section 17.98, currently titled "Special Events," to an ordinance section titled "Temporary Outdoor Activities" which refocuses the intent of this regulation of short and long term temporary outdoor uses on private property. Chairman Washburn opened the public hearing at 7:07 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of Amendment 86-4. Receiving no reply, Chairman Washburn asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Receiving no response, Chairman Washburn asked if there was anyone wishing to speak on this matter. - Delores Mayhall, 130 Lucerne Street, Lake Elsinore, stated she was there as an individual and not a representative of any organization. Mrs. Mayhall then questioned the four day limitation and asked it if pertained to the Frontier Days events and commented on the $250 fee and asked if it is per day and per event. Community Development Director replied that the fee that Mrs. Mayhall referred to is a business license fee and not connected with this ordinance which addresses the permit process for the land use. The business license fee and the Business Improvement District fee are separate issues and are not addressed as part of Title 17. Community Development Director Miller further stated that Major and Minor Outdoor Activity Permits, which would pertain to the Frontier Days events, are granted for a period of five (5) days and that only Activity Permits are granted for four (4) days. Bill Starkey, 960 Amber Lane, Lake Elsinore, and President of the Lake Elsinore Valley Chamber of Commerce, spoke along the same vein as Mrs. Mayhall and commented that his major concern was for the Chamber of Commerce and that the business license fees would be charged back to them by the operators of the events and that would cut into their profit and he didn't feel it was .fair to them and the purpose and reason for putting on the Frontier Days events. Mr. Starkey then asked if meetings or gatherings like the Chamber Mixer would need a permit. Minutes of Planning Commission May 19, 1987 Page 2 AMENDMENT 87-4 - CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE - CONTINUED Community Development Director Miller replied in the nega- tive and further clarified that the purpose of this Chapter is to control outdoor activities that occur on vacant pro- perty. Chairman Washburn asked if anyone else wished to speak on this matter and rece1v1ng no response, Chairman Washburn closed the public hearing at 7:15 p. m. - Discussion commenced at the table on the requirement water flush-type water closets for food concessions, operations and the use of employees not be waived, as tained in Section l7.98.070.F.3 and asked staff how could be enforced on vacant land. that food con- this Community Development Director Miller responded that this is a valid point but, as he had stated, generally these are ex- cerpts from existing Code sections relating to outdoor fes- tivals and perhaps Planning Commission would prefer that last sentence be deleted which would also require some mOdifica- tion to the following item, Section l7.98.070.G regarding Food Concessions. Discussion continued on their past discussions in that they wanted all facilities of that nature to be accessible to the handicapped and not finding it" so stated; the basis of the ratios for the flush-type water closets being Uniform Plumb- ing Code requirements and how they could be met since these activities will be mainly on vacant lots or parking lots; that the sanitation facilities be to the satisfaction of the County Health Department being adequate; ratios set up to _ establish a standard but all of the standards could be deleted and requirement be made subject to satisfaction of County Health Department and do away with subsections 1, 2 and 3; ratio being set if Health department does not set one; having facilities subject to County Health Department and State Health and Safety Codes. Discussion continued with the question to staff as to who makes the determination as to how many people are supposed to be expected at an event. Community Development Director Miller answered that generally they ask the applicant to provide the information on the application on the expected number of people, but the City Council would approve Major Event Activities which would be more than 500; otherwise it would be the City Manager or his designee and it would be the responsibility of that person if the number given seemed to be a reasonable expectation. Discussion returned to the table with comment that Activity Permits would occur mainly on vacant lots but couldn't they also occur on parking lots. Community Development Director Miller replied that they could also occur on parking lots. Activity Permits are to control __ temporary outdoor activities that occur on private property that would not be otherwise permitted or regulated by this Title. An Activity Permit is something they would envision to be for information basically so they could circulate it to the affected agencies to ensure that adequate fire lanes and things like that would be maintained, but it would be basically an over-the-counter type of permit. If the appli- cant demonstrated compliance with all the conditions, the time limit prior to issuance of the permit would be very short. Minutes of Planning Commission May 19, 1987 Page 3 AMENDMENT 87-4 - CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE - CONTINUED ----- Discussion continued on fees and question as to whether this ordinance had anything to do with fees or whether City Council established them through the Municipal Code. ----- community Development Director Miller responded that general- ly under the recently adopted ordinance that Council looked at in association with the Cost Control System that was pre- pared by Management Services Institute, the fees are set by executive order to reflect the cost of the services provided to the extent that Council determined on a policy basis whether they should be 100 percent recovered, 50 percent recovered, or some other percentage. There is a precise formula that was adopted just within the last month on how that was to be accomplished and they are in the process of developing those now. Discussion then covered the hearings section and that property owners as listed on the Tax Assessor's Rolls should be added since it would be consistent with all other 300-foot radius noticing; asked if, under Parking Areas, #2, the park- ing spaces required to be provided would be for the total number of persons attending or for the peak time and received the answer that it would be for the peak time; for clarifica- tion purposes, asked if, under Hours of Operation, the clos- ing time was for the public to leave but that the operators could remain later to clean up and make ready for the next day and was answered in the affirmative; asked if emergency medical treatment facilities on the premises was determined by the designee and received an affirmative reply; on trash and refuse receptacles, doesn't want to see the number ex- panded from what had already been established, thereby cutting down on the profit of the non-profit organizations; asked if the Rotary Club Barbeque would be an Activity Per- mit or a Minor Outdoor Activity Permit because at anyone time there are only 100 people at tops. Community Development Director Miller replied that again they are looking at the number of people at anyone time, so if there are less than 150 people, it would be an Activity Permit, and further explained that they are very definitely trying to limit the scope of what this ordinance would be applied to. It is very definitely intended to regular out- door activities taking place on private property. It is not intended to regulate events taking place within a building or on pUblic property or for parades since there are other systems in place or in the process of being adopted to handle these events. Discussion continued with comment that it is necessary that this ordinance be given to the Chamber of Commerce and a few other organizations so they will have time to review it prior to its being agendized for or approved by the City Council. Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to adopt the findings as contained in the Staff Report, and recommend to City Council adoption of Negative Declaration 87-66 and approval of Amend- ment 86-4 as presented, with the following changes: section 17.98.050 - To add verbiage consistent with our other hearing items concerning Tax Assessor's Rolls. section 17.98.070.F.1, ~ ~ - Replace all three items with following verbiage: Minutes of Planning Commission May 19, 1987 Page 4 AMENDMENT 87-4 - CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE - CONTINUED "Adequate sanitation facilities shall be provided as determined by the County Health Officer based upon state and local health laws." second by Commissioner Kelley. Commissioner Brown recommended the verbiage, "Provide facili- ties for the handicapped" be added to "F." - Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Approved 4-0 Mellinger amended his Brown's recommendation, Kelley. motion to include with concurrence by 2. Zone Change 87-3 - Harold Walker - Assistant Planner Magee presented request to rezone 0.96 acres on the south side of Campbell street approximately 230 feet west of Mission Trail from C-P (Commercial Park) to C-2 (General Commercial) in order to bring the zoning into conformance with the General Plan. Chairman Washburn opened the public hearing at 7:40 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of Zone Change 87-3. Harold stated would up. Walker, 1539 Buena Vista, San Clemente, applicant, since he was the owner he was naturally in favor and be available to answer any questions that might come Chairman Washburn asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor. Receiving no reply, Chairman Washburn asked if any- one wished to speak in opposition. Receiving no response, Chairman Washburn asked if anyone wished to speak on the matter. Receiving no reply, Chairman Washburn closed the public hearing at 7:41 p.m. - Discussion commenced with the qll.estion that since these zone changes are so common, if a request is received, is there any problem with expanding these throughout the General Plan designation when they have the C-P designation to make for consistency instead of doing four or five at a time. Community Development Director Miller replied that there are a number of issues to be looked at and one of those is to look at those areas to determine if in fact the General Plan designation does seem to be the appropriate designation, especially where there are physical constraints, as well as the necessity for notification of all property owners. This particular property is included in the moratorium on the Southeast Floodplain Planning Area. District that City Council approved on their last agenda, however, Council instructed that processing continue on this Zone Change and at the end of the 45-day moratorium period they would make a decision as to whether to exempt this property from the moratorium. - Motion by Commissioner Kelley to recommend to City Council adoption of Negative Declaration 87-14 and approval of Zone Change 87-3, based on the findings as contained in the Staff Report, second by Commissioner Brown. Approved 4-0 BUSINESS ITEMS 1. Commercial Project 87-2 - Harold Walker - Assistant Planner Minutes of Planning Commission May 19, 1987 Page 5 - COMMERCIAL PROJECT 87-2 - HAROLD WALKER - CONTINUED Magee presented proposal to construct a 13,500 square foot automotive center consisting of two (2) buildings on approxi- mately 0.96 acres located on the south side of Campbell street approximately 230 feet west of Mission Trail. Chairman Washburn asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on Commercial project 87-2. Mr. Harold Walker, applicant, 1539 Buena Vista, San Clemente, stated he had four (4) items he wished to discuss, 1) multi- use problem - if more than four (4) tenants, they would have to do substantial redesign of the building, but he hopes that in that event entrance doors in some of the bays with store fronts would be sufficient, although they had stated from the beginning that they wanted at least six (6) units and the wording "extensive redesign" is worrisome; (2) regarding the setback for Building B, if the jog in front of the building is taken into consideration, the building setback would aver- age twenty-foot (20'). Chairman Washburn asked for staff's interpretation of Mr. Walker's 20-foot setback. Assistant Planner Magee replied that it wasn't the intent of the Code to apply the averaging method on two separate buildings. Mr. Walker responded that that was not what he had done. The jog is on Building B and is being used for Building B's set- back averaging. Community Development Director Miller commented that the canopy on Building B extends over the parking places so that the canopy is nearly even with the face of the building. Therefore, the impression of the building mass is that it. is much closer and even though there is a jog set further back, the canopy extends over that area. Mr. Walker continued speaking with mention of 3) parking re- alignment in front of Building A, and agreed that the flow was awkward, and they allowed for a wider entrance aisle. They feel from a user's point of view, it is more effective that way and makes it easier to get in front of the building; 4) on the items (Conditions #33 and #34) regarding his im- provement of the sewer and water on Campbell Street, he would like those changed so they meet whatever the Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District requires. Chairman Washburn asked if anyone else wished to speak on this matter. Receiving no reply, Chairman Washburn brought the discussion to the table. - Discussion commenced with expressions of concern on the out- side elevations of the buildings; landscaping; Condition #29 requiring posting to prohibit overnight parking of vehicles on on-site parking facilities; agreement with staff's parking redesign primarily because the strip, as proposed there, has parking overhang; landscaping plan should probably add another variety of tree, there are now only two, and planter could use another tree; agreement with staff's exhibit for exterior elevations; if intent is for six tenants, then plans would not meet the Uniform Building Code since for auto repair there must be two exits, side or rear and front. community Development Director Miller stated that their con- Minutes of Planning Commission May 19, 1987 Page 6 COMMERCIAL PROJECT 87-2 - HAROLD WALKER - CONTINUED cerns were more in terms of pedestrian flow and access to those and if Mr. Walker's intent is to subdivide this project into six units, a complete redesign of the project should be done to provide a different pedestrian flow, separate pedes- trian entries, number of service bays would probably have to be reduced in order to provide separate access in the front and rear of the building, all those sort of things more appropriate toward a commercial type of use rather than per- haps what some people look at as an industrial type of tenancy. Discussion returned to the table with comments on storage and applicant supplying several storage areas within the center; mailboxes and Postal Service requiring new mailboxes at this commercial site; asking if sewer line will require pumping and informed by Mr. Walker that Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District stated it will gravity feed because the sewer line in Mission Trail is 22 feet deep; center trees be moved up some how to be in conjunction with the facade of the building; the U-shaped planters, looking at the site plan, could be integrated into the facade of the front of the building and somehow have a continuous facade of the two; have some landscaping in between the buildings instead of the stark parking lot with the two grass medians; present landscaping runs parallel front to back but want something similar to what is in the planter in the back brought to the front so it would be in line with the elevation of the build- ings so the parking lot wouldn't be seen from the street; have an enhancement in the front portion that splits the two entrances; could be accomplished by moving landscaped finger in the middle of the parking forward adjacent to the handicap parking spaces thus eliminate looking back into the project and seeing the open bays and cars; amending Exhibit E to show this. Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to recommend to City Council adoption of Negative Declaration 87-14 and approval of Commercial Project 87-2, subject to the findings contained in the Staff Report and the fifty-three (53) conditions as con- tained in the Staff Report with Condition #19 amended to in- clude a greater variety of trees in the project with Exhibit E amended as worked out at the table, second by Commissioner Brown. Approved 4-0 2. Sign Plan - Commercial Project 86-10 REVISED - Park/Abrams/ Erwin Signs - Chairman Washburn stated there was a request from the applicant to continue consideration of their Sign Program. Community Development Director Miller stated that in order to allow the applicant adequate time to respond, staff has recommended continuance ,of this matter to the June 16, 1987, meeting. Motion by Commissioner Brown to continue the Sign Plan _ Commercial Project 86-10 REVISED to the meeting of June 16, 1987, second by Commissioner Mellinger. Approved 4-0 3. Lot Line Adjustment 87-2 - Industrial Concepts I - Appeal of Community Development Director Decision - Industrial Concepts Senior Planner Bolland presented proposal to reconfigure the existing five (5) lots of Industrial project 86-3, reduc- ing the number of lots to four (4) and changing their sizes ...- .... .... Minutes of Planning Commission May 19, 1987 Page 7 LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT 87-2 - INDUSTRIAL CONCEPTS I - APPEAL OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR DECISION - CONTINUED - and orientations significantly, on 6.07 acres located on the southwest corner of Chaney and Minthorn Streets. Staff reviewed the application and concluded that this proposal was not a minor lot line adjustment, but properly requires the filing of a Parcel Map to create the new lots. The applicant is appealing this community Development Director decision to the Planning Commission. Chairman Washburn stated he had requests from Mr. Steve Brown and Mr. Fred Crowe to address this topic and called upon Mr. Brown to speak. Mr. Steve Brown, 35721 Beach Road, Capistrano Beach, repre- senting the developer, listed the steps they had taken in their application for subject Lot Line Adjustment upon approval from Milo Keith, City Engineer. He further stated that he does not agree with staff's report at all for the necessity for a parcel map and feels the Subdivision Map Act permits his type of lot line adjustment. He then asked Mr. Fred Crowe to address the specific reasons. Chairman Washburn called upon Mr. Fred Crowe to speak. - Mr. Fred Crowe, Butterfield Surveys, 620 West Graham Avenue, Lake Elsinore, presented a short history of the Subdivision Map Act and read an excerpt from the 1986 State law pertain- to Lot Line Adjustments and gave his interpretation of the intent of the law and mentioned that Riverside County is allowing lot line adjustments in conjunction with lot mergers on projects similar to the one under consideration tonight and they had adopted a lot line adjustment ordinance that morning. He believes Lot Line Adjustment 87-2 is a proper request as applied for and will lessen impacts and needs for other utilities and infrastructure since all utilities and infrastructure are in. He further stated that the City may have the desire to later initiate a lot line adjustment ordinance but he feels it should .have input from the private sector before it is done. Discussion commenced at the table with a question to staff as to whether they had informed the applicant what procedure to follow in order to comply with the condition to adjust the existing five lots such that none of the approved buildings would be bisected by a lot line. Senior Planner Bolland replied that they had not because at that time they weren't sure how many lots would be involved and also the interest in how they would configure the owner- ship had not been fully determined. - Discussion continued with the question as to where is the problem when the number of lots is decreased and not in- creased. Senior Planner Bolland explained that with this particular project with the small number of lots and the infrastructure there, whether or not there are impacts to that reduction is questionable. Discussion returned to the table and staff was questioned as to whether this could be handled just as a lot line adjustment and one lot merger. Senior Planner Bolland replied that he had been advised by Minutes of Planning Commission May 19, 1987 Page 8 LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT 87-2 - INDUSTRIAL CONCEPTS X - APPEAL OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR DECISION - CONTINUED the County Surveyor's office that they were considering that technique on a small project and he had specifically if they would require a parcel map for a ject of this type and was told they may not, but actually allow for parcel merger. Community Development Director Miller commented further on the City Attorney's, City Engineer's, County's and staff's opinion as to the legislative intent of the Subdivision Map Act as it pertains to lot line adjustments which is that lot line adjustments would be used to address minor adjustments to lot lines. using asked pro- would .... Commissioner Brown asked Mr. Crowe, in his experience, how many times has he done a project where he starts with five and ends up with four parcels without doing a parcel merger. Mr. Crowe replied that this one for the City and the one he just did with the County are the first ones he has encountered which also require a lot merger. Previous to these, he has done twenty to thirty lot line adjustments a year for the last ten years with different local agencies. Discussion continued with the statements that one of the problems would be in the ordinance; normally the lot line adjustment ordinance would have limitations on the number of lots involved and wouldn't allow lot mergers; whether there are any impacts involved in this project; City Attorney recommending use of the parcel map and concurring with __ staff's position; Exhibit G was written prior to the latest addition to the Subdivision Map Act; asked staff if the City Attorney had responded in writing with his concurrence with staff's position. Community Development Director Miller answered that the City Attorney had been out of town for several weeks and due to the time constraints in bringing.this to the table, he had not been able to respond in writing although this matter had been discussed with him and he had indicated his concurrence after reviewing it. Discussion continued with the question as to what would be the consequence if this application were approved would they be setting a precedent? Community Development Director Miller replied that that was a difficult question to answer. It would depend upon the findings that had been made regarding that. As indicated, ideally, they would have additional legislation either at the state level or ordinances at the local level to clarify this issue. They have discussed for over a year the need to re-write the City's existing Subdivision Ordinance and this is something they would address as part of the re-write. Discussion returned to the table with comments concerning lot line adjustments and the amount of interpretation left to the local agency and left to the opinion of the Engineering Department as well as the Planning Department; opinion that City Attorney's response in regard to a past case concerning three substandard lots and creating one standard and one substandard lot may not be applicable to this particular case; would prefer City Attorney's written opinion on this particular case; City should have more specific lot line adjustment ordinance; having no concerns with this particular .... Minutes of Planning Commission May 19, 1987 Page 9 LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT 87-2 - INDUSTRIAL CONCEPTS I - APPEAL OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR DECISION - CONTINUED ~ case if lot line adjustment approved or if parcel map required; if City Attorney gives his approval for a lot line adjustment, would have no concerns but the City Attorney should verify that in writing. Motion by Commissioner Brown to approve Lot Line Adjustment 87-2 on concurrence with the City Attorney's written opinion that it is legal and proper and request that this letter from the City Attorney come to Chairman Washburn before it is given to the applicant so he knows all the issues are addressed in it and that it is specifically addressing this project and this issue, second Commissioner Mellinger. Approved 4-0 Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to agree with staff's intent to initiate action to further clarify the lot line adjustment scope and what can and cannot be merged, second by Chairman Washburn. Approved 4-0 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS ..... Community Development Director Miller commented that he would like to bring to the Commission's attention that the City Council has scheduled a Special Meeting for tomorrow evening, Wednesday, May 20th, at 7:00 p.m., to review a report from the Corps of Engineer's regarding the proposed project for the Outflow Channel in the event any of the Commissioners would care to attend. PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Commissioner Kellev: No comments. Commissioner Brown: Asked staff to look at what is going on at the car wash off of Riverside Drive. It is businesses problems and concerns over there. the garage causing a behind lot of commissioner Brown further stated that knowing the concerns the community and the City has with the illegal signs off the free- way, he would like to really thank the local developers who support that person by placing advertising there and hopes the City Council will take that into consideration next time those developers have a project before them. commissioner Mellinqer: No comments. Chairman Washburn: Stated he has three things: 1) The laundry on Main Street near the North Main Area, you will often find cars parked in the front of the building, parallel with the road, off the sidewalk but between the building and the sidewalk where the telephone is. Chairman Washburn stated the owner/operator should be notified that that is not a parking place and he doesn't feel that was a parking slot when they approved that project. It looks rather tacky when you drive past there and people are on the phone or whatever and would like to see some kind of barriers or notifi- cation that that is not a parking slot; 2) There is an automo- Minutes of Planning Commission May 19, 1987 Page 10 PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS - CONTINUED bile that is missing four wheels, has a lot of broken glass and debris around it on Nashland Street. If you drive down Nashland Street, it looks like a war zone sometimes. Would like staff to see to having it removed; and 3)" There is a car off of Lake- shore Drive sitting half in and half out of the water. The owner of the property on which the car is sitting should be notified so the car may be removed. - Assistant Planner Magee informed the Commission that Enforcement had been notified of the car off of Lakeshore and they have notified the property owner and abatement ceedings are taking place. Mr. Buron Murray mentioned that cars parked on Grand Avenue in the evening and overnight are being stripped and the people who own the cars can not afford this vandalism. Code Drive pro- Community Development Director Miller informed Mr. Murray that this area of Grand Avenue is in the County. There being no further business, the Lake Elsinore Planning Commission adjourned at 8:51 p.m. Motion by Commissioner Mellinger, second by Commissioner Kelley. Approved 4-0 - Approved, o ~7L--- GI~ Washburn, c~rman ;Z;f:;~ Ruth Edwards, Acting Planning Commission Secretary - MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON THE 2ND DAY OF JUNE 1987 THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:05 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Commissioner Kelley ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Commissioners: Brown, Mellinger, Brinley, Kelley, and Washburn - ABSENT: None Also present were Community Development Director Miller, and Senior Planner Bolland. MINUTE ACTION Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to approve minutes of May 19, 1987, as submitted, second by Commissioner Brown. Approved 4-0 (Commissioner Brinley abstained) . PUBLIC COMMENT Mr. John H. Curtis, 2006 Carson, stated that he had contacted the City Hall nine different times since the first of the year and has followed through on each requirement placed on him in an attempt to open a business at 524 North Spring, but to this date he has been unsuccessful in obtaining his permit because he gets referred to different people each time and, in his opinion, each one contradicts the other and he feels like he is going around in a circle. He wants to know what he needs to do to obtain his permit and just who he should talk to. - Community Development Director Miller commented that he would be very happy to talk to Mr. Curtis tomorrow morning and go over staff's concerns with him regarding his permits. However, at the time his business permit was issued, they made it very clear and it was even indicated right on his business license that there would be no spray painting permitted on site. Mr. curtis responded that he doesn't want to spray paint, he wants to put in a paint booth. Mr. Randall Harwood, associate of Mr. Curtis, 20288 Palomar, Lake Elsinore, commented on the steps they have taken in order to be able to put in the paint booth but are seeing different persons each time and receiving contradictory directions. Chairman Washburn recommended they submit everything they have in writing to the Planning Commission with a copy to the Community Development Director, Mr. Nelson Miller, and meet with him, and the Commission will fOllow-up on the matter and work with the system to solve the problem. Mr. Curtis and Mr. Harwood agreed to do as suggested. - PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Conditional Use Permit 87-5 - Industrial Waste Engineering (Timothy Blackburn) - Senior Planner Bolland presented pro- posal to allow a hazardous waste terminal with outdoor truck storage, maintenance, administration and occasional short term storage of toxic materials. Chairman Washburn opened the public hearing at 7:16 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of Conditional Use Permit 87-5. Mr. Timothy Blackburn, applicant, also owner of Rightway Minutes of Planning Commission June 2, 1987 Page 2 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 87-5 - INDUSTRIAL WASTE ENGINEERING (TIMOTHY BLACKBURN) - CONTINUED Septic Pumping, 3681,Mari Drive, Lake Elsinore, stated their main concern was not to get a storage facility license, they just want to operate the parking and maintenance of the vehicles. They understand that the City has some legitimate concerns. Their request does have proposals for containment areas, but if they did have an emergency, they have all the necessary equipment on-site to clean up spills. If overnight storage is a concern, they are willing to put in a contain- ment area. Mr. Blackburn further stated that if there were any questions, he would be happy to answer them. .... Chairman Washburn asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor. Mr. Randall Harwood, 20288 Palomar, Lake Elsinore, commended Mr. Blackburn on his way of operating his business and stated he was in favor of Conditional Use Permit 87-5. 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, Chair- man Washburn asked if anyone wished to speak on the matter. With no reply forthcoming, Chairman Washburn closed the public hearing at 7:24 p.m. Considerable discussion commenced at the table with questions directed to the applicant as to why they need to store waste overnight and what is degree of hazard for type of waste they pick up, store, transport? .... Mr. Blackburn replied that if they clear up a spill late in the evening or night, they must keep it overnight to allow waste disposal site to evaluate waste and determine where and how it will go on the disposal site. Liquid waste is getting to be a thing of the past for the common generator. The E.P.A. and the State are making people make a liquid waste into a solid and recycle everything they can so there isn't a lot of bulk liquids transported anymore; he, personally, uses drums or solids and takes it to the dump site. They deal with many types of waste but do not deal with radio active or explosive wastes because they do not want to. They do deal with PCB's but the law does not allow them to store PCB's anywhere but at a PCB landfill. They have all their local, state and federal permits for handling hazardous waste Discussion returned to the table with the question addressed to staff that since most of their recommendations and con- cerns have to do with hazardous materials, if this business were maintained as it was before, mainly sewage disposal, would they still have all the same concerns or would they disappear. Senior Planner Bolland responded that a number of the concerns that are evident in this particular project would __ also be in effect for Rightway Septic Pumping. Rightway predates some of the current zoning standards, particularly exterior storage, landscaping, fencing, and the actual handling of septic wastes could be considered enough of a noxious or nuisance related use that it might also require a Conditional Use Permit depending on the conditions of the proposal. Rightway has established itself as a pre-existing non-conforming use in that zone since it was there before Minutes of Planning Commission June 2, 1987 Page 3 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 87-5 - INDUSTRIAL WASTE ENGINEERING (TIMOTHY BLACKBURN) - CONTINUED ~ the current Zoning Code was adopted, but Industrial Waste Engineering is a fairly new business and it is not merely the matter of a DBA. Community Development Director Miller commented that Indus- trial Waste Engineering is a fairly new business and it is not merely the matter of a DBA and represents a different user, different license and they have substantially differ- ent licensing requirements and could also be viewed as an intensification of a use that might be considered non-con- forming and there are fairly stringent regulations on expan- sion or intensification of non-conforming uses. Discussion returned to the table with concerns on the close- ness of the site to the Temescal Wash and their ability to contain even a small spill; the site fenced only with chain link fencing; close proximity to residential; children playing in channel and near this site; do their specialists to clean up spills have degrees or certification or what kind of training; posting a guard if truck with toxic material is held overnight; in event of heavy rain, how would the con- tainment area work; better area more suitable for this type of business, such as M-2 (General Manufacturing District), where it could be better environmentally controlled; asked applicant whether his drivers, when they pick up a load, have vouchers on board that identifies the toxic material or chemicals and was informed by Mr. Blackburn that they carry and E.P.A. Tracking System that is called a "Hazardous Waste Manifest" which lists information on disposal site waste is going to, complete outline of the description of the waste, information on firm sending out waste, and information on the firm picking up waste and special instructions on how to handle the waste; asked applicant if he notifies the Fire Department or the City when he stores waste overnight as to what it is and where it is, although no ordinance presently requires it, and received a negative answer; concern with intensity of use and possibility of handling and storing hazardous wastes for a period of time doesn't fall within the redevelopment plan of the outflow channel and what is going in within that area, therefore, on a planning issue, it doesn't fall within the evolving planning mode of what should be going in within th~t location; need for improve- ments and upgrading of area; no problem with actual opera- tion and maintaining of trucks but the temporary storage of toxins is a problem; asked applicant how he would feel about amending his application by eliminating the storage of any toxic materials. Mr. Blackburn replied that if that was the bottom line, then they would agree. They are in full cooperation on upgrading -- their facility with whatever plan the City might want within their capabilities. They want to fence their facility with block wall, put in clarifiers for truck washing, put in containment for any loads that would be stored on site and maybe a considerat~on which he would be agreeable to would be to allow them to store small amounts of solid waste but no liquid waste at the present time. The applicant was asked if it would be feasible for him to develop an off-site storage facility. Mr. Blackburn replied that they were in the process of that Minutes of Planning Commission June 2, 1987 Page 4 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 87-5 - INDUSTRIAL WASTE ENGINEERING (TIMOTHY BLACKBURN) - CONTINUED now and are working with some people in the Fontana area who have the permits to store for more than the 96-hour period. In two or three years they hope to have their own facility in another area. Mr. Blackburn was asked if his drivers were certified and he replied that they were not. They just have a truck driver's license. The Department of Motor Vehicles is putting in a Hazardous Materials Waste Transporter classification and it was sup- posed to go into effect last year with the renewal of the Class I driver's license of a man who was going to transport hazardous waste and it got postponed but eventually it will be implemented. .... Discussion continued at the table on belief that the contain- ment site and storage should be in a more environmentally sensitive location even if it is in Lake Elsinore; concern with closeness to residences; applicant asked how he keeps up with all the new legislation on hazardous waste. Mr. Blackburn replied that they receive weekly updates of federal and state E.P.A. regulations. Chairman Washburn permitted Mr. Murray to address the table. Mr. Buron Murray, 18975 Palomar Street, Lake Elsinore, asked if it wouldn't be safer to have the 10,000 gallon storage truck drive down into the containment area for overnight storage. Discussion returned to the table with the response to Mr. Murray that if it were in another location they would require an environmental review and another analysis and it would be designed to handle any spill; they don't want any spill in Lake Elsinore. .... Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to deny without prejudice Conditional Use Permit 87-5, meaning that applicant can come come back with a modified application, perhaps eliminating storage, and that an adequate environmental review be done in case the application does return, second by Chairman Washburn. Commissioner Kelley asked if there was any way to landscaping and upgrading of present facilities informed that if the application came back it could then. Approved 5-0 initiate and was be done Chairman Washburn reiterated that the motion was denial with- out prejudice which means the applicant can come back with the application to upgrade for the intensification for the septic truck storage but not for toxic waste storage, trans- portation by truck is permissible. Chairman Washburn asked if staff had any comment. .... Community Development Director Miller stated that for clari- fication, and as he had indicated, if this business were to locate as a new use today, it would probably be indicated that M-2 is a more appropriate zone, but in any case there are a number of requirements regarding screening with block walls, paving of the entire site, control of parking lot run- off, street dedications, and improvements for trucks using local streets. These are the sort of items they would Minutes of Planning Commission June 2, 1987 Page 5 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 87-5 - INDUSTRIAL WASTE ENGINEERING (TIMOTHY BLACKBURN) - CONTINUED generally indicate for a new user coming in, but on the subject item, some of their concern is the intensification of an existing use that would generally be considered non-conforming at this location. Community Development Director Miller then asked if it is Commission's intent, if this use were to be reconsi- dered, absent the storage of any toxic materials, that the site would be upgraded to current standards and was in- formed that was their intent. BUSINESS ITEMS 1. Draft Environmental Impact Report (E.I.R.) for Rancho Laguna Project Area III Community Development Director Miller introduced Mr. David Schey of Benchmark Consulting, repre- senting the consultant who prepared the E.I.R., and stated Mr. Schey was available to answer and to respond to any questions the Commission might have. Mr. Schey informed the Commission that the E.I.R. was done relative to the Redevelopment Plan. In essence, city staff's report does indicate the issues they have identified as potentially having significant environmental effects. The main issues do relate more toward the accelerated implementa- tion of the General Plan. The specific mitigation measures are, in most cases, to be undertaken when specific projects are done. He feels staff's recommendations and report is I very thorough, but he would be happy to answer any questions anyone has. Chairman Washburn stated that if anyone in the audience has any questions, they certainly may present them. Discussion commenced at the table with recommendation that any mitigation measures that use the words "encourage" or "consider" be changed to "require" or "incorporate;" any mitigation measures, especially for any new construction, should include timing; priority for rehabilitation efforts because it makes a commitment from the environmental stand- point; rehabilitation being more of a beneficial mitigation measure than new construction; effects on existing infra- structure and benefit assessment districts and possibility of benefit assessment districts causing problems to those already on sewer system; should be clearly stated in the E.I.R. that the facilities, infrastructure and so on, and the financing measures be approved concurrent with or prior to any new construction; some of the traffic tables, since not too many analyses done, did not have completed traffic counts for certain roads and should be so stated that they be done; extreme difficulty in mitigating fire and police concerns; traffic and number of unimproved roads; need for public improvements to keep pace with growth; and need for Redevel- opment Agency to set aside percentage of funds for infra- structure and increased police and fire protection. Mr. Schey responded that the Commissioners are all pointing out issues that are incumbent upon redevelopment agencies. Some agencies get so caught up in stimulating new development that they forget the things that don't really generate incre- ment, such as streets and roads. This Plan really has some potential along those lines in that the actual development of that infrastructura1 backbone system will tend to spur devel- opment because the City does have deficiencies in sewer, water, roads, etc., particularly in the housing areas and Minutes of Planning Commission June 2, 1987 Page 6 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (E.I.R.) FOR RANCHO LAGUNA PROJECT AREA III - CONTINUED they have the ability to start dovetailing these issues. For the most part, the E.I.R. is general in nature. It almost has to be because it is very difficult to identify specific impacts of specific projects. The Redevelopment Agency is required, as they propose specific projects, to do proper environmental review and if it requires a full E.I.R. then it will be addressing cumulative impacts as a result of traffic, need of public improvements, and so on. The approval of this Redevelopment Plan leaves them another shot at each individual project so that they can access the impacts of that particular project. .... Discussion continued with recommendation that wherever further environmental review is mentioned - maybe it should be summarized under one section - so that when projects do arise they are alerted to that fact and it doesn't get overlooked. Mr. Schey remarked that could be easily empha- sized. Chairman Washburn asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment. Ms. Karen Lewis, 800 Park Way, Lake Elsinore, asked if she could get a copy of the report and was informed there was a copy in the Planning Division and the City Clerk's office for review. Ms. Lewis then asked why a portion of land was not in Parcel I and was informed that it was because it was previously included in Redevelopment Project Area I. Chairman Washburn asked if anyone else wished to comment and rece1v1ng no response, Chairman Washburn brought the discus- sion back to the table. .... Chairman Washburn pointed out the blighted area on the map. By unanimous consent, the comments and recommendations on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for Rancho Laguna Redevelopment Project Area III by the Planning Commission are to be forwarded to the City Council and Redevelopment Agency. 2. Conformance of the Redevelopment Plan for Rancho Laguna Project Area III to the General Plan - Community Develop- ment birector Miller introduced Mr. Roy Evans, representa- tive from the City's consultant, Municipal Services, Inc. (M.S.I.), who worked on the preparation of the Redevelop- ment Plan, and who is available to make a presentation and answer any questions. Mr. Roy Evans stated that redevelopment is a financing mecha- nism and does not in any way, shape or form really address itself to specific land uses. What it does is provide an opportunity for the local agency, and in this case the Rede- velopment Agency Board of Directors, to recapture certain monies that are currently being paid by the taxpayers that __ are going to taxing entities the County, the school districts, the cemetery districts, various water districts _ and through negotiated agreement with those agencies monies would be retained by the Redevelopment Agency for financing or leverage in use of financing with other sources of funding to develop some projects which will implement the General Plan document and can encourage additional development, either industrial, commercial, or residential development within the City of Lake Elsinore most specifically within the project area boundaries. There are a Minutes of Planning Commission June 2, 1987 Page 7 CONFORMANCE OF THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR RANCHO LAGUNA PROJECT AREA III TO THE GENERAL PLAN - CONTINUED ---- - wide variety of potential projects that could be developed over the life of the project which is a forty (40) year life. It is difficult to make an exact projection of any kind of amount of monies that can be financed. That is why the financing discussion in the staff report on the E.I.R, the Preliminary Report and the Redevelopment Plan is generalized in nature. It does not specifically address fees because the Redevelopment Agency does not have the power to levy any additional fees as such, but does address the possibility of combining increment monies, which the Agency has, with other sources of money such as assessment districts, Block Grant monies and, if Congress revitalizes the Urban Development Action Grant Program, combining with those monies. They are presenting to the Commission tonight an overview of a document that provides a funding mechanism for implementation of the City'S General Plan. Should the General Plan be amended further at a later date, that automatically amends the Redevelopment Plan and does not take a separate action. Mr. Evans further defined the definition of "blighted" area and stated that it does not mean a run down or slum area but state law refers to one (1) of thirteen (13) conditions, such as inadequate infrastructure, a social situation that arises such as a crime problem, inadequacies in housing stock, inad- equacies in various service programs such as police or fire facilities, inadequate rolling stock, and so on, as defini- tion for "blight." Chairman Washburn asked if it is possible to lend Agency and private funds in a joint venture and Mr. Evans responded that it was through a variety of agreements and depending on specific incidences. commissioner Brown asked on the housing stratas that are helped through Redevelopment, if you have a median income deficiency of housing, how does that help? Mr. Evans replied that median income is just the middle point. Moderate income housing as defined by State law is up to 120 percent of median income. So you can use Redevelop- ment Agency funds to finance or to assist in acquisition of property, in installation of infrastructure, in some instances towards reduced interest rates on mortgage loans or to leverage it for mortgage revenue bond issues to provide revenue to assist home owners in acquiring property, to assist in development of multiple-family units which would be moderate income units. - Discussion continued with the question as to whether this could include HUD for low income. Mr. Evans responded that it could be done but it would be a policy determination of the Agency Board of Directors. For low income housing it is up to 80 percent of medium income and for very low income housing it is up to 60 percent of medium income. Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to adopt Resolution No. 87-6 finding that the Proposed Redevelopment Plan for Rancho Laguna Project Area III conforms to the General Plan, second Commissioner Brown. Approved 5-0 Minutes of Planning commission June 2, 1987 Page 8 CONFORMANCE OF THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR RANCHO LAGUNA PROJECT AREA III TO THE GENERAL PLAN - CONTINUED RESOLUTION NO. 87-6 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED REDEVEL- OPMENT PLAN FOR THE LAKE ELSINORE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT CONFORMS TO THE GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE AND TRANSMITTING ITS REPORT AND RECOM- MENDATION TO THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY CITY COUNCIL - INFORMATIONAL 1. Report on AEP (Association of Environmental Professionals) Conference - Commissioner Mellinger - Commissioner Mellinger asked if everyone had received the packet, with background material attached, that he had provided on the subject conference he had attended a little over a month ago, and received an affirmative answer. Commissioner Mellinger then stated that the workshops he attended were the ones he had listed in the packet and each one of them had a certain amount of appropriateness to the City's system. Commissioner Mellinger then gave a brief overview on each item listed as follows: Implementing CEQA at the Local Level Valuation of Disclosure of Hazardous Wastes Political and Environmental Tradeoffs and Decision-making Process Environmental Law and Growth Management (table topic) Managing Urban Waterways Chairman Washburn asked if, on the California Department of Water Resources grant application, the maximum grant amount was $20,000. - commissioner but they are $10,000 and $200. Mellinger replied trying to up it. there have even that the maximum is $20,000 The typical grant is for been grants for as little as Chairman Washburn asked if the Army Corps of Engineers built their project and we had a stream running through it, would an application be applicable to it? Could they interphase a project within a project? Commissioner Mellinger replied this could be done not only in lieu but in conjunction with other projects. The Department of Water Resources will work right along with you. commissioner Mellinger commented their most successful to date. appropriate and up-to-date and well spent. that this conference was It was very good, very he feels his time was very - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS Community Development Director Miller commented that wanted to point out for the Commission's and the public's that the Redevelopment Plan and E.I.R. and various other of the Redevelopment Project Area III will be considered City Council/Redevelopment Agency on June 23rd. he just benefit aspects by the Minutes of Planning commission June 2, 1987 Page 9 PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS commissioner Kellev: - No comments Commissioner Brinlev: No comment Commissioner Brown: No comment Commissioner Mellinqer: No comment Chairman Washburn: Chairman Washburn remarked that whoever cleaned up the lot at Peck and Main Streets, he appreciates it. The lot had a lot of 01'"' iron pipes and hazardous items lying around waiting for some ki ~o get hurt on. commissioner Brinley commented that a week ago she saw an old refrigerator against the wall behind the old Arco station located off of Casino Drive near Railroad Canyon Road. A complaint form was given to Commissioner Brinley. There being no further business, the Lake Elsinore Planning commission adjourned at 8:50 p.m. Motion by Commissioner Brown, second by Commissioner Mellinger. Approved 5-0 Approved, - @:Ja~~0~ Chairman -..... Respectfully submitted, ;(ld ~ Ruth Edwards, Acting Planning Commission Secretary - -- - MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE 1987 THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:00 P.M. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Commissioners: Mellinger, Brinley, Kelley and Washburn ABSENT: Commissioners: Brown Also present were community Development Director Miller, Senior Planner Bolland and Assistant Planner Magee. MINUTE ACTION Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to approve minutes of June 2, 1987, as submitted, second by Commissioner Kelley. Approved 4-0 PUBLIC COMMENTS Mr. Kevin Campion, 6501 Greenleaf Avenue, Whittier, stated that he owns a parcel south of this development (Tentative Tract Map 17413) it is a CUl-de-sac, indicated as cul-de-sac AB, and it is suppose to have an extended easement to enter into my parcel. My questions is how is that easement going to be developed. Is it going to be graded and improved by the developer or is it not, and who is going to put in the street lights and pay the association fees on this. Chairman Washburn asked Mr. Campion to identify his parcel on the map exhibited. Mr. Campion identified the extended easement and his forty acre parcel for the Commission. Chairman Washburn stated that the issues brought up by Mr. Campion would be addressed later. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Tentative Tract Map 17413 Revision #4 - Canyon Lake Hills, A Joint Venture - c/o Millet and Associates Senior Planner Bolland presented proposal to amend Tentative Tract Map 17413 Revised #3 to increase lot sizes and introduce several cul-de- sacs; 568 acres in the south half of Canyon Lake Hills Specific Plan area, approximately one half mile north of Railroad Canyon Road and one half mile west of Canyon Lake. Chairman Washburn opened the pUblic hearing at 7:09 asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of Tentative Map 17413 Revision #4. Receiving no response, Chairman burn asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. p.m. , Tract Wash- Mr. Grant M. Olewiler, representing the Canyon Lake Property C.m6:l:6 AS':;vciu.~":"0i.j., Q;"o.;"ciJ t:ilat t.:iLey cue concerned wIth the impacts this development would have on their community as well as upon the City of Lake Elsinore. Mr. Olewiler had the following concerns and comments: Tentative Tract Map 17413 Revision #4 proposes to utilize one of our private streets for emergency. access. It proposes a fifty-foot wide access easement, between Lots 665 and 666, improved like a street from one of the internal street to the tract boundary at the prolongation of Appaloosa Court. It would abut two private lots over which a sixty-foot Minutes of Planning Commission June 16, 1987 Page 2 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 17413 REVISION Ii - CANYON LAKE HILLS C/O MILLET AND ASSOCIATES CONTINUED easement exists. The offered dedication of this easement has never been accepted by Riverside County. Canyon Lake Property Owners Association is strongly opposed to any planned access, whether it be permanent or temporary to any property within the limits of Canyon Lake, and requested that the access easement be deleted from the Tentative Tract Map 17413 Revision #4. - Would like to recommend that the subdivider be required to construct a six-foot high masonry wall along the easterly property line of the tract. Such wall will aid in retaining soil eroding from the fill slopes proposed. Commented on the four large storm drains discharging an unknown quantity of water, what would appear to be high velocities, and indicated on the map. They will discharge into existing natural channels at the tract boundary. Not only will these drains have high velocities but they will discharge storm water and pollutants into Railroad Canyon Reservoir, a source of domestic water for Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District. Would like to recommend that the developer be required to construct impact energy disapators within the tract, at the end of each drainage system, and that the pollutants be trapped and removed prior to discharging onto adjacent property. Commented on the grading being accomplished during the dry season and that slopes be protected from erosion. Temporary anti-erosion devices should be required to be installed so as to prevent mud inundation to off-site property. - If access will be provided to the development via Railroad Canyon Road the developer should be required to contribute to the cost of upgrading Railroad Canyon Road from I-15 easterly, and participate in the benefit assessment district being created by Riverside County in connection with the Audie Murphy Ranch development. Commented on the density, referring to the notice, stating that there are to be 857 single-family residential lots whereas Tentative Tract Map 17413 Revision #3 contained 942 lots. Are these 85 lots to be added sometime in the future or is the total development to be reduced by these 85 lots? Commented on the impact the development will have on the school system. Although there is a school site provided there is no assurance that a school will be ready to receive students when the tract is occupied. Therefore, the development of the school site should be one of the highest priorities in the development of the first phase. - Commented on the Environmental Impact Report referring to the habitat of the Stephen's Kangaroo Rat, and several other animals including the Least Bell's Vireo, and stated that additional studies should be Minutes of Planning Commission June 16, 1987 Page 3 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 17413 REVISION ii - CANYON LAKE HILLS C/O MILLET AND ASSOCIATES CONTINUED - made as to whether or not the area is a habitat of the Least Bell's Vireo and if so what mitigation measures are necessary. Chairman Washburn asked Mr. Olewiler if these written comments have been submitted to City Staff. Mr. Olewiler stated that he had just compiled the comments today and would submit a copy to City Staff. Chairman Washburn asked if there was anyone else in the audience that wished to speak in opposition. Receiving no response, Chairman Washburn asked if there was anyone present wishing to speak on the matter. Community Development Director applicant is in the audience with a and the engineer who prepared the are prepared to address some of the presentation. Mr. Noel TWYman, one of the owners of Canyon Lake Hills, stated that he believes that most of the items brought up by Mr. Olewiler have been addressed and taken care of. There may be one or two, such as the construction of six-foot block wall along the easterly boundary, that has not come to my attention. Miller stated that the number of his consultants plan. Believes that they concerns and to make a Mr. TWYman requested a copy of Mr. Olewiler's written complaints/request and a chance to evaluate it, see what its impact is and a chance to report back on any appropriate forum to the Planning Commission. Mr. TWYman stated that their land planner and engineer is in the audience and if the Commission has any questions they would be glad to respond. - Chairman Washburn asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak on the subject. Receiving no response, Chairman Wash- burn closed the pUblic hearing at 7:22 p.m. Commissioner Kelley stated that he believes that the impacts have been properly mitigated. The only one unsure of right now is the run-off into Canyon Lake and would like staff to address this. Asked if Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District has commented on this and if it was in the Environ- mental Impact Report? Senior Planner Bolland responded that this particular impact was identified in both the Environmental Impact Report and the Environmental Impact Statement, and we have received comments from Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District on this particula:i..- ;;,: 6\; i~ivi-l wllil..l.1 J..it:i L.eJ.. a. L~u l:.J.l~ i.~taql.i.iJ:.'ements to abide by the resolution previously adopted concerning sewage disposal. However, there was no direct comment about water quality in Canyon Lake by Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District. commissioner Kelley asked what could be done to off-set the run-off into Canyon Lake. Community Development Director Miller stated we have discussed this with the applicant and there were conditions of the previous tract, and we picked up those same conditions on this revision that requires those drainage issues be addressed. It Minutes of Planning Commission June 16, 1987 Page 4 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 17413 REVISION !i - CANYON LAKE HILLS C/O MILLET AND ASSOCIATES CONTINUED is my understanding from the applicant that they have been in negotiations with the adjoining property owners for those drainage channels, wherever they come out, and perhaps the applicant would like to have his engineer address this. Mr. Daljit S. Marwah, engineer for the applicant, stated that __ in regards to the storm drain problems he has worked with the previous City Engineers and confirmed all of the requirements for energy disapators, for proper outlets and the plans are ready to be approved on this project. We are working with the owners of the downstream property to get the easements for the outflow. Commissioner Kelley asked what measures would be made to compensate for herbicides, pesticides and etcetera running off the lawns? Mr. Marwah stated that right now they were not proposing any measures for clean up of the outflow, which is a normal process. Mr. Marwah stated that they will work with staff, the Engineering Department and whatever they require we will do. Commissioner Kelley asked if Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District had addressed this and if it was a concern of theirs. Community Development Director stated that he does not believe that Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District specifically addressed water quality issues, in regards to Canyon Lake. However, amended condition number 13 requires that the __ applicant shall provide adequate drainage facilities and said improvements shall comply with the provisions of Section 6.8 of the Subdivision Ordinance, Resolution 83-31, and the recom- mendation of Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District as required by the City Engineer, to specifically address concentrated drainage directed off-site and impacts which may require easements, debris basins, filtration traps, velocity reducers and other similar measures. Commissioner Kelley stated that he believes that the other major issues such as school impacts are monumental and have been met or will be, and likes the idea that there is land set aside for a fire station. commissioner Brinley stated that she was concerned with drainage and where all of the pesticides are going to go, and asked if the reclamation will be able to handle all of the homes that will be going in and on sewer. Community Development Director Miller stated that this has been discussed with the applicant and they have been in negotiations with Elsinore Valley Municipal Hat.:::&.. D.i.bi:.:t:L\..~, and there has been discussion about the upgrading of the existing plant. .. ! -- Commissioner Brinley inquired about the habitat of the Stephen's Kangaroo Rat wanting to know if the talk about trapping them was feasible, and asked if the proposed corridor would be of sufficient size for their preservation. Senior Planner Bolland responded that these were all questions that had been addressed at various levels in the earlier docu- mentation, all the way to the present, with State Fish and Game, U.S. Fish and wildlife Service, the developer of the project and City Staff. Minutes of Planning Commission June 16, 1987 Page 5 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 17413 REVISION i! - CANYON LAKE HILLS C/O MILLET AND ASSOCIATES CONTINUED ..... commissioner Mellinger recommended that we prepare an Addendum as opposed to a Supplemental Report. There are certain impacts that have arisen such as the Least Bell's Vireo issue. This could probably be covered in an Addendum to the Environ- mental Impact Report which does not have to be circulated, since the mitigation measures would be similar. The primary mitigation measure would be the 1603 permit from Fish and Game and perhaps if there are wetlands anywhere there would be 404 permits. Commissioner Mellinger commented on the impacts on the school and police protection, referring to changes since the original approval. Asking if we received comments back from the School District regarding the revision. If not believes this should also be added as an Addendum and those mitigation measures incorporated. Commissioner Mellinger had the following concern with some of the conditions as they relate to the mitigation measures (listed as safeguards): Street dedication being listed on all of the conditions, basically condition 1 through 7. ..... Maintenance of all the streets by a homeowner's associ- ation how this is going to work. Are they dedicating it, to the public, and then going to be maintaining it through a homeowner's association, or are they going to be private streets. In regards to condition number 27, landscaping and lighting being maintained by a Landscaping and Lighting District or Homeowner's Association, prefers that this just be a Homeowner's Association. senior Planner Bolland responded that the initial project had a gated community with private streets and maintenance by a homeowners association, and believes that the project, as approved in 1983, included dedication of pUblic streets. Discussion ensued on street dedication and the maintenance of streets, with reference to condition number 24 and 27. commissioner Mellinger stated that condition number 34, should probably be amended to include the Least Bell's Vireo and any other species that may come up during the development of this project. .---. commissioner Mellinger commented on condition number 50, per- taining to the grading operations, which is probably related to the CC & R's in condition number 24, asking if the Commission would be reviewing a landscaping plan for the 81v~~s. ~llcLc lb d ~dbh line along the slopes (referring to the map) presumes that this is for a landscape easement, noticed that the property lines run through this. Is this going to be an easement or is this going to be common lots that will be maintained. Community Development Director Miller indication was that the intent was to have there with a landscape easement, and those would be reviewed by the City. stated that the individual lots landscape plans commissioner Mellinger suggested that note be taken on the CC & R's that no one be able to build a fence. Usually when Minutes of Planning Commission June 16, 1987 Page 6 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 17413 REVISION ii - CANYON LAKE HILLS C/O MILLET AND ASSOCIATES CONTINUED someone has a lot line they like to build a fence all the way down, and with so many lots certainly someone will have that idea. Commissioner Mellinger commented on condition number 65, incorporation of all project mitigation measures identified as __ safeguards in the Environmental Impact Statement shall be incorporated into project design and development, stating that the safeguards that seem to be inadequate are the ones that say "encourage" or "provide further testing". Commissioner Mellinger made the following comments and recom- mendations to the Impact and Mitigation Summary: Page VII-5: Page VII-5: Page VII-6: Page VII-6: Page VII-6: Page VII-6: Page VII-6: Page VII-7: Recommended deletion of "Encouraging the use of bus and dial a ride and bicycles for local trips. Requested clarification on the statement to "Reduce traffic volumes by carpooling, vanpooling throughout the development of contact service for new home buyers". Commented on the potential increase in urban crime, stating this is one of the concerns he will have on police protection. Recommended that we solicit and incorporate comments, in the Addendum, from the Sheriff's Department regarding this and what other mitigations could be done. -- Recommended deletion of "increased local recreation area, reduce levels of use of existing nearby parks", and indicate that recreation uses are provided on the project itself. Commented on "increased Use of library facilities", wanting to know if this is by a fee or ordinance. Commented on encourage use of public transportation, assumes that this is the three bus stops. Commented on "Existing unmet demand for housing in the Lake Elsinore area" and that HUD (Housing Urban Development), the department will carry out add~ t~c,..a::" !ll~:":Ac:t. cil.il::>vl:pi..lcii studies to assure any unsold housing inventory in the housing price range in Lake Elsinore competitive housing market will not be unduly exacerbated by this proposal. Wanting to know what happens if they make a finding that you are unduly exacerbating the market, does anybody know. -- Commented on Negative fiscal impact on both school districts. Recommended that we solicit and incorporate Minutes of Planning Commission June 16, 1987 Page 7 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 17413 REVISION ii - CANYON LAKE HILLS C/O MILLET AND ASSOCIATES CONTINUED comments in the Addendum from the School Districts. - Community Development Director Miller responded to Commis- sioner Mellinger's comment on the increased use of library facilities, stating that at the time this was initially pro- cessed there was some consideration of the establishment of a city library system. Mr. TWYman responded to Commissioner Mellinger's comment on the unmet demand for housing, stating that presently they are not planning a HUD project. This is a carryover from a previous owner who went through and virtually had HOD approval, but then was unable to go ahead. Chairman Washburn commented on the number of reV1S10ns on this proposal, stating that he to has a lot of questions and believes that there are not enough answers to the questions or to the comments made by Canyon Lake Association. Thinks that the project needs some revision and that the Supplement might be necessary. We are seeing things that do not apply anymore, referring to the Environmental Consequences Summarized. - commissioner Mellinger stated that he thinks that the impacts are minor enough that an Addendum would be sufficient, as opposed to a Supplemental Report. Chairman Washburn stated that he does not believe, at this point, that it is prepared enough to really go forward and pass it on to Council. Thinks that it needs more work and input. There are a lot of questions--there was no comment in the document about the interface with Canyon Creek, or if there has been any discussion with Canyon Creek on the easements or road locations with their project. Commissioner Mellinger stated that one consideration is, staff preparing an Addendum addressing all of those issues and then presenting it to City Council before they make their decision. Mr. Twyman stated that in regards to the Canyon Creek project they have had extensive discussion with Friedman Homes, and signed a Memorandum of Understanding to cooperate and work out sharing of costs through an assessment district which one of us would implement, which ever one goes first. - Discussion ensued on the time frame for the Addendum; continu- ing the proposal to allow sufficient time to answer the questions brought up and for input/responses from the School District and Sheriff's Department; review of documents on the previous revisions, and time frame for continuance. :L'1U'-~UH :iJi CI.J!IUll~::>::>~UW::l. i;I~il.iH\~~r Lo t.:ont..inue Tentative Tract Map 17413 Revision #4 for four (4) weeks to review the Addendum, with clarification as commented here tonight. Discussion ensued on the continuance of proposal. commissioner Mellinger amended his motion to continue Tenta- tive Tract Map 17413 Revision #4 to the meeting of July 7, 1987, second by Commissioner Kelley. Approved 4-0 Minutes of Planning Commission June 16, 1987 Page 8 BUSINESS ITEMS 1. Sign Plan for Commercial Project 86-10 REVISED - Park/Abrams- Assistant Planner Magee presented the applicant's request for continuance to July 7, 1987. Discussion was held on the number of continuances this pro- posal has received; applicant being informed that this is the last continuance and proposal will be considered by the Com- mission on July 7th. - Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to continue Sign Plan for Commercial Project 86-10 Revised to the meeting of July 7, 1987, second by Commissioner Kelley. Approved 4-0 2. Final Landscape Plan for Commercial Project 86-16 REVISED AMENDMENT #1 - Brookstone Investors - Assistant Planner Magee presented for review the Final Landscape Plan for said proposal in accordance with Design Review Condition #19. The project is located at the northeast corner of Railroad Canyon Road and Grape Street. Assistant Planner Magee stated that the concerns raised by the Commission at their March 3, meeting was that the landscape plan did not reflect either the rendering or the site plan and that the Final Landscape Plan should combine features from both. Assistant Planner Magee stated that staff feels that the amount of foundation planting and the trees planted across Building "A", as proposed by the applicant, are sufficient. However, would request that Building "B" be required to have _ additional landscaping, either by gaining a landscape easement across that area or by slightly rotating Building "B" to allow for extra space. Mr. Steve Brown, representing Brookstone Investors, stated the reason the 5 gallon containers were chosen over the 15 gallon containers was that they followed their landscape architect's recommendation, and was assured that the 5 gallon trees would be the size of 15 gallon trees within a year, and that it would be a much heartier plant. Mr. Brown commented on condition number 5, pertaining to the rotation of the building, stating that he objects to this as the project is under construction. The pad has been graded, the trenching begun and the steel work has been laid. What we would be willing to do is go ahead and landscape the back of that building, as it is shown in the illustration. There is some area on our property, although it is very slight, and I do not think our adjoining property owner is going to object to that at all. However, it would be very difficult for us to get a landscape easement, as he has been a very difficult property owner to work with. Mr. Brown asked that the Commission take exception to condi- tion number 5, does not believe that they will be able to entertain an easement, and thinks that it is unreasonable at this point to ask that the building be rotated. - Discussion at the table was held on distance from the back of Building "B" to the property line, and staff recommendations for the rotation of the building. Commissioner Mellinger stated that whether there is an easement or required and if there is an easement worked out later. on condition number 5, not, landscaping should be problem this could be Minutes of Planning Commission June 16, 1987 Page 9 FINAL LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR COMMERCIAL PROJECT 86-16 REVISED AMENDMENT 11 = BROOKS TONE INVESTORS CONTINUED - Commissioner Mellinger commented on the 5 gallon trees and stated that there should be a few 15 gallon trees planted along the rear for immediate impact. Recommended that we take the 5 gallon and add some 15 gallon Eucalyptus Trees subject to the approval of the Community Development Director. Discussion at the table ensued on drainage/grading and inspec- tions received, and definition of a quick coupler. Chairman Washburn stated that it would be tough to shift the building especially if building permits and grading is already in place. Recommended that condition number 5 be omitted. Chairman Washburn stated that he concurs with Commissioner Mellinger's mix idea on the landscaping in the rear and to go ahead and put it in, if he can do it. Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to approve the Final Land- scape Plan for Commercial Project 86-16 Revised Amendment #1, amending condition number 1; deleting condition number 5 and adding new condition number 5, to read as follows: Condition No.1: Eucalyptus citriodora Building "All may be 5 except that four (4) gallon. Condition No.5: Four (4) 5 gallon Eucalyptus Trees shall be planted behind Building IIBII. trees behind gallon in size shall be 15 - Second by Commissioner Kelley. Approved 4-0 3. Sign Review for Commercial Project 86-5 - E.S.T. Enterprises (Burger King) - Community Development Director Miller pre- sented applicant's request to modify the previously approved free-standing identification sign, located at the south- easterly corner of Mission Trail and Railroad Canyon Road. Community Development Director Miller stated that Burger King has presented two alternative designs for which they are requesting consideration. The previously approved sign is shown as Exhibit 1 and the alternative designs are shown as Exhibits 4 and 5 in your packets. Also photographs of the previously approved sign and alternative designs are posted on the board. - Chairman Washburn asked if the applicant was in the audience and if he would like to address the Commission. Mr. Paul Folger, of Urban Design Associates repr7senting E.S.T. Enterprises, stated that Burger King is propos1ng the middle sign, referring to the photographs posted, and that the top sign was submitted first which is probably the cause for the confusion. The top sign is another alternative in case you do not like the middle one. Mr. Folger then gave a background report on the proposal high- lighting areas of the old and new Sign Ordinance pertaining to requirement of architectural compatibility; size and location; maintenance, service and aesthetics of the sign. Minutes of Planning Commission June 16, 1987 Page 10 SIGN REVIEW FOR COMMERCIAL PROJECT 86-5 - E.S.T. ENTERPRISES CONTINUED Discussion at the table was held on heat sensitivity of kevlar material; service and maintenance of sign; architectural compatibility with the building being a requirement of the previous Sign Ordinance; if tile would be placed across the top or surrounding the top pillars; aesthetic quality of the signs exhibited, referring to photographs posted on board. __ Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to approve the middle photo- graph posted on board, Exhibit 4A, as the sign for Commercial Project 86-5, with the addition of the address as required by the ordinance, second by Chairman Washburn. Approved 3-1 Commissioner Kelley voting no COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS Community Development Director Miller stated that he would like to point out to the Commission and the pUblic that the hearing on the Redevelopment Project Area III and the Environmental Impact Report for that project is scheduled for the City Council meeting of June 23,1987. PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS: commissioner Kellev: The sprinklers at the new Builders Emporium, unfortunately, are not doing the job. I do not know if there is anything that we can do about that, but I am sure that they do not want the grass to die. __ Yankee Dollar is stacking cars over the fence, occasionally four high. Chairman Washburn suggested that when staff checks Yankee Dollar that they also check all the other existing wrecking yards for infractions. commissioner Kelley stated, in light of that, there are other wrecking yards visible from the State Highway and the Freeway. Commissioner Brinlev: Nothing to report. Commissioner Mellinqer: Commented on the landscaping requirement, referring to Commis- sioner Kelley's comment on Builders Emporium, stating that as he reads it here, the ordinance states that it has to be maintained, so there is something that can be done. Commented on the th!:ee vf[~o::.":"~ti o::.uJ..iy":"vlo::.iuu 6iyns allowe:d. vil vacant lots and wanted to know if people are actually coming in and getting permits and bonding for the removal. Sees some tracts with more than three signs throughout the City. Asked how many permits are being issued or if they just putting them up. Community Development Director Miller responded that there are some permits that are being issued. As you well know, this is a continuing problem and in the past had not been enforced. We have been making an effort to get the various tracts into compliance. One issue is that we regulate signs within the City and a number of the developments have signs not only within the City but within the County. So with some of the County islands it may appear that there are more than three off-site signs. ....., Minutes of Planning Commission June 16, 1987 Page 11 PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS CONTINUED commissioner Brinlev: - Thanked staff for the prompt handling of the complaint on the refrigerator brought up at the last meeting. Chairman Washburn: Asked if staff was able to find out who installed the portable collapsible sign which is visible off of 1-15 between Main Street and Railroad Canyon Road. Assistant Planner Magee stated that staff has found out who the responsible party is and has given a time limit for the removal of that sign. It was brought to my attention that striping for a Class II Bicycle Lane has not been provided at the T & S Development site. Asked staff to follow up on this, believes that was one of the conditions of approval. commissioner Mellinger commented on the requirement of bicycle lanes and stated that the previous Director was working on adoption of an ordinance to implement this provision in the Circulation Element, and asked Community Development Director Miller if he thought this was necessary. - Community Development Director Miller responded that we have been involved in a number of efforts to try and coordinate a City Bikeway Plan with the County. In discussion with the Engineering Department there are some areas of the City where Class II Bike Lanes may not be appropriate, due to constrained physical locations. Chairman Washburn stated that City Council may schedule a joint study session at their next meeting, and asked for any items the Commissioners would like to have jointly discussed, so that an Agenda from this board can be submitted to the City Clerk. There being no further business, the Lake Elsinore Planning Com- mission adjourned at 8:40 p.m. Motion by Commissioner Mellinger, second by Commissioner Kelley. Approved 4-0 ~fProved YJJfm lJe~J~ Ga Washburn Ch . man Respectful1y/ubmitted q{;rdcu ~~ Linda Grindstaff ?//I Planning Commission Secretary - - - MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON THE 7TH DAY OF JULY 1987 THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:00 P.M. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Commissioners: Brown, Mellinger, Brinley, Kelley and Washburn - ABSENT: commissioners: None Also present were Community Development Director Miller, Senior Planner Bolland, Assistant Planner Magee and Associate Planners pine and Wilkins. MINUTE ACTION Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to approve minutes of June 16, 1987, 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. PUBLIC HEARINGS - 1. Tentative Tract Map 17413 Revision #4 - Canyon Lake Hills, A Joint Venture - c/o Millet and Associates Senior Planner Bolland stated that the proposal is to amend Tentative Tract Map 17413 Revised #3 to increase lot sizes and introduce several cul-de-sacs; 568 acres in the south half of Canyon Lake Hills Specific Plan Area, approximately one half mile north of Railroad Canyon Road and one half mile west of Canyon Lake, and that this item was continued from the meeting of June 16, 1987, to provide for an Addendum to the Environmental documentation, solicit additional interagency comments, and address public and Commission concerns. Senior Planner Bolland gave a summation on Access Roads; Internal Streets; Storm Drainage; Grading; Fire Protection; Sewer; Police; Schools, and the preparation of an Addendum for the Environmental Impact Report/Statement. Senior Planner Bolland requested that condition number 65 be amended to read: - Condition No. 65: "All mitigation measures, listed within the Addendum, shall be incorporated into project design and development." Commissioner Mellinger commented on the requested amendment to condition number 65, wanting to know if Senior Planner Bolland was referring to the Addendum prepared by staff. Senior Planner Bolland responded that he was referring to the Addendum of June 1987, and that this could be so worded in the condition: Condition No. 65: "All mitigation measures, listed within the Addendum of June 1987, shall be incorporated into project design and development." Chairman Washburn opened the public hearing at 7:13 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of Tentative Tract Map 17413 Revision #4. Minutes of Planning Commission July 7, 1987 Page 2 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 17413 REVISION 1! - CANYON LAKE HILLS C/O MILLET AND ASSOCIATES CONTINUED Mr. Noel Twyman, one of the owners of Canyon Lake Hills, stated they have reviewed the Addendum and the Conditions of Approval and agree with them except for one or two minor comments, and would like to have their engineer address this. Also, since the last meeting we have retained Engineering Science Corporation to perform a study in engineering design __ as required to put to bed the problem of the storm drain run-off. We recognize the conditions that have been previously outlined in the Environmental Impact Statement and we also recognize the conditions as stated by staff. Chairman Washburn requested that Mr. Twyman and his engineer comment on the proposal and then after the close of the public hearing they would be called back to the podium for specific concerns. Chairman Washburn asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak in favor of Tentative Tract Map 17413 Revision #4. 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 subject. Mr. Grant 01ewiler, representing the Canyon Lake Property Owners Association, stated that he has reviewed the recommendation and is in agreement with all except Appaloosa Court. We do not want an emergency access to Canyon Lake and we do not want any use of our private streets. Chairman Washburn asked if anyone else wished to speak on the __ matter. Receiving no response, Chairman Washburn closed the public hearing at 7:16 p.m. Commissioner Brown made the following comments and recom- mendations to the conditions of approval: condition number 44, as part of the zone change process would like to see the R-l and the OS Zones specifically designated; condition number 24, would like to see the words "assessment district" deleted and mandate that we have a homeowners association, including the documents to convey title of those open spaces to that homeowners association; condition number 35.d, asked if it is appropriate to maintain that (the open space and habitat areas) through a deed restriction if there is a homeowners association, requesting a response from staff, and stated that he see no problem with maintaining the easement in favor of the city, even though it is under private ownership. Community Development Director Miller stated that open space easements have been utilized to protect open space areas. Commissioner Brown commented on condition number 59, stating that he very much agrees with the parkway concept, the only concern is with the sidewalk. Commissioner Mellinger commented pertaining to the zone change and be zoned to PD (Planned District) R-l and Open Space or is it R-1 Development) Overlay. Community Development Director Miller responded that at the time this was originally approved it was R-l with a PUD Overlay, which would provide for clustered housing and preservation of open space areas. on condition number 44, asked if that was going to zoning overall as opposed to with a PUD (Planned Unit -- Minutes of Planning Commission July 7, 1987 Page 3 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 17413 REVISION 1! - CANYON LAKE HILLS C/O MILLET AND ASSOCIATES CONTINUED Discussion at the table ensued on zoning of the project site. - Commissioner Mellinger stated that on condition number 24, he is in agreement with the deleting the words "assessment district". commissioner Mellinger stated that on condition number 35.d., believes that this just gives the city a mechanism in case the homeowners association decides not to maintain the area. commissioner Brinley commented on the easements to the private access roads and asked if the city would be maintaining these. Senior Planner Bolland responded that the current proposal, by the applicant, is for the City to be dedicated the central spine road which is called "A" Street and then two other streets, "VV" Street which is a cul-de-sac street and goes out towards the Railroad Canyon Dam area to the east and "D" Street which goes to the west from the school site, and those streets would be city maintained and would be public streets. Chairman Washburn commented on the proposal by the developer to have a thoroughfare through the extension from the first phase, or wherever the first phase ends. Does not see phasing on the map and thinks that this is something that should be there. Asked if the phasing plan would come back before the Commission. Senior Planner Bolland stated that there is a condition that requires a phasing plan to be filed as part of the grading plan. Chairman Washburn asked if the road through Phase I into Phase II, all the way into Greenwald, was subject to improvements prior to completion of Phase I. Senior Planner Bolland responded in the affirmative. Chairman Washburn asked if we assume that the pass through road is open to the public would that mean, to some extent, that the interior roads could be blocked and gated as private interior streets through a homeowner's association. Senior Planner Bolland responded that the applicant is propos- ing to retain the right to consider the option of security gates within the interior of the project with the exception of the main through street and the street that goes to the west and the street that goes to the east. - Chairman Washburn stated that his concern is, if that were to take place they could block the open space, but yet there would be an easement for the public dedications. Chairman Washburn commented on the street (Appaloosa Court) that connects with Railroad Canyon Road, asking if this wasn't a partial requirement earlier on for circulation and fire access. Assumes that through the comments made by the gentleman representing the POA (Canyon Lake Property Owners Association) that they are in opposition to this. Senior Planner Bolland responded that from the earliest parts of this project, as best as can be determine from the records, the County Fire Department has responded that that access was something that they recommended in the design, and that particular access has not changed its location or position from the previously approved Revision #3. Minutes of Planning Commission July 7, 1987 Page 4 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 17413 REVISION i! - CANYON LAKE HILLS C/O MILLET AND ASSOCIATES CONTINUED Chairman Washburn stated that the concerns he is hearing from the citizens of Canyon Lake Hills, via Mr. Olewiler, is that it isn't so much the road for circulation, it is the potential drainage run-off into the lake via the street, or is it both? Mr. Olewiler responded that their concern is both items __ mentioned by the Chairman, and that their streets are private streets and they wish to maintain them as such. Chairman Washburn commented on condition number 50, pertaining to erosion control measures and asked if the plan, thus far, would call for massive grading of the entire site or would it just be for Phase I. On the landscaping, the last time it came through we had a condition that indicated the coverage of material. Discussion at the table ensued on condition number 50, pertaining to grading on-site and off-site; condition number 62, addressing slopes; type of improvements for Appaloosa and who would make that determination; the existing easement and whether or not it was recorded; condition number 44, pertaining to the zone change process and this condition being retained from the previous conditions of approval and said zone change was processed concurrently with the tract map, therefore this condition could be deleted. At this time, Chairman called Mr. Noel Twyman to the podium to address his concerns. Mr. Twyman stated that they had little concern, but thought __ that the Commission may wish to hear some of their thoughts on some of the subjects brought up. Mr. Twyman introduced Mr. Joe Reichenberger, of Engineering Science Corporation. Mr. Reichenberger stated that he has reviewed some of the concerns of staff and the property owners of Canyon Lake, and is sure that they will be able to develop a plan that will be in conformance with the conditions and address the concerns raised. Mr. Twyman introduced Mr. Roy June, attorney for the project. Mr. June commented briefly on the access easements, stating that they hope that the City would not object to a temporary restriction on those until they can meet with the people and get whatever right-of-way, slope easements and off-site drainage facilities that they may need. Discussion at the table ensued on temporary easements and off- site improvements and when they would be required. Mr. Twyman introduced Mr. Daljit Marwah, engineer for the project. .... Mr. Marwah stated that on the Appaloosa Court problem that they have no intention of diverting any water into existing Appaloosa Court. All of the drainage within our project will be handled by our own internal system. Mr. Marwah commented on condition number 39.a., relocate lot Lot 943 to the northeast most corner of Lot 944, stating that these two numbers are from the old tentative map and the new Lot numbers are 858 and 859. This is not the concern, the Minutes of Planning Commission July 7, 1987 Page 5 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 17413 REVISION !i - CANYON LAKE HILLS C/O MILLET AND ASSOCIATES CONTINUED ~ concern is to keep the fire station site where it is rather than relocating it, unless staff had some reason for that and I would be willing to work with them on this. Senior Planner Bolland responded that this was a condition of approval that was retained exactly as it was written from the previous map. Chairman Washburn asked if the applicant had a problem with this condition. Mr. Marwah stated that they do not have a problem with that, but is sure that the school district has a problem with a fire station in that corner. The engineers for the school district have already designed their grading plan, improvement plan, access and school building, and they have a street along the most northerly tract boundary. ..... Mr. Marwah commented on amended condition number 1, the temporary access road from the northerly boundary of this project to Greenwald, stating that they are proposing a 24-foot temporary asphalt road with no asphalt curbs on the side and requested that they be allowed not to build the asphalt curb on the temporary road to Greenwald. Mr. Marwah commented on condition number 7, pertaining to sidewalks, stating that they had requested a five foot side- walk instead of the six-foot sidewalk and was allowed a five- foot sidewalk, and requested that the Commission reconsider the width of the sidewalks from six-foot to five-foot. Commissioner Mellinger asked if this request is throughout. Mr. Marwah answered in the affirmative, stating that they have already designed the project with the sidewalks on the east side. Discussion ensued on the location of sidewalks, referring to the map exhibited. Mr. Marwah requested that on condition number 7.d.3., that they be allowed to build a standard section for single loaded streets with Crown Line in the center rather than a Tilt Section. Chairman Washburn commented on condition number 1.b., pertain- ing to the applicant's request that the asphalt curb be deleted, and asked if this was not included to reduce the potential for rapid erosion of the street section. ~ Community Development Director Miller stated that most of the points that the engineer has raised are addressing conditions that were brought forward from the previous approvals and, many of the points are valid, not sure that staff would strongly disagree with most of the items brought up. Believes that they could be addressed as we work through the final improvement plans. Perhaps the Commission could modify the items Mr. Marwah discussed to include verbiage "to be worked out with the city Engineer". Community Development Director Miller stated that amended condition number 1.d., states that this access road shall be constructed with Phase IV, this should read Phase I. Mr. TwYman informed the Commission of his conversation with Minutes of Planning Commission July 7, 1987 Page 6 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 17413 REVISION ii - CANYON LAKE HILLS C/O MILLET AND ASSOCIATES CONTINUED Captain Gray of the Riverside County Fire Department regarding the fire access road. Discussion at the table ensued on the fire access road and written confirmation from the Fire Department to be submitted in regards to deleting the fire access road from the map. ~ Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to recommend to City Council that the certified Environmental Impact Report of 1979 apply to this project with the Addendum of the Environmental Impact Statement of 1982 and the Addendum of June 1987 to be considered as adequate for this project, and to recommend approval of Tentative Tract Map 17413 Revision #4 based upon the findings and the Conditions of Approval recommended in the Staff Report with the following changes: Condition No. l.b: "From tract boundary to Greenwald Avenue asphalt curb to be con- structed on both sides. To be deleted, unless required by the City Engineer." Condition No. l.d: "This access road shall be con- structed with Phase I as required by City Engineer and completed prior to Certificate of Occupancy." Condition No. 7.a.4: "Construct 5 foot sidewalk on west side only, unless 6 foot sidewalk is required by the City Engineer." Conditions No.7.b.5: "Construct 5 foot sidewalk on one side only, unless 6 foot sidewalk is required by the City Engineer. Where residences front both sides of "vv" Street, sidewalks shall be provided on both sides." - Condition No. 7.c.4: "Provide 5 foot sidewalk on both sides, unless 6 foot sidewalk is required by the City Engineer." Condition No. 7.d.4: "Construct 5 foot sidewalk on one side only, unless 6 foot sidewalk is required by the City Engineer, to be located on the same side as ingress and egress to homes abutt- ing these streets." Condition No.7.a.4: "Construct 5 foot sidewalk on east side only, within the southerly tentative tract boundary to Street "D", unless a 6 foot sidewalk is required by the City Engineer." - Condition No. 7.d.3: "Construct the roadway to the satisfaction of the City Engineer." Condition No. 13: "The developer shall provide ade- quate drainage facilities. Said improvements shall comply with the provisions of Section 6.8 of the Subdivision Ordinance, Resolution 83-31 and the recommendation of Minutes of Planning Commission July 7, 1987 Page 7 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 17413 REVISION i! - CANYON LAKE HILLS C/O MILLET AND ASSOCIATES CONTINUED - Condition No. 24: Condition No. 39: Condition No. 39.a: Condition No. 44: Condition No. 65: - Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District as required by the city Engineer to specifically address concentrated drainage and urban pollutants directed off-site and impacts which may require easements, debris basins, filtration traps, velocity reducers and other similar measures. The adequacy and design of these measures shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer, Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District, the Regional Water Quality Control Board and the State Health Department." "The developer shall establish a homeowners association to manage and impose taxes or fees to maintain all slope or common areas, open space, private drain- age facilities, firebreaks, habitat areas, private recreation- al facilities and grounds, private streets and any other common amenities. This association shall be established subject to current State laws and be subject to the approval of the City Attorney and Community Development Director who shall review all CC & R's and rules for their adequacy and completeness." "Deed to city one (1) acre graded fire station site on Lot 858 with public improvements provided." "Relocate Lot 943 to the northeast most corner of Lot 944 (school site)" DELETED. "The zone change will be approved concurrently with the approval of the Tract Map 17413 and PUD 83-1." DELETED. "All project mitigation measures, listed within the Addendum of June 1987, shall be incorporated into project design and development." Chairman Washburn asked about the sidewalks on "D" Street. commissioner Mellinger stated that he made reference to condi- tion number 7.a.4. for Street "A", basically from the southerly boundary to Street "D". I don' believe that would then would apply to Street "D", and asked which side that would be. Commissioner Brown stated that would be the north-south side. Commissioner Mellinger amended his motion to include the Minutes of Planning Commission July 7, 1987 Page 8 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 17413 REVISION 1! = CANYON LAKE HILLS C/O MILLET AND ASSOCIATES CONTINUED amendment to condition number 7.a.4, which will read as follows: Condition No. 7.a.4: "Street "D" - Construct sidewalk to the satisfaction of the City Engineer." - Commissioner Kelley asked if condition number 35.d. pertaining to the homeowners association was going to be changed. Commissioner Mellinger responded that condition number 35.d. would remain the same, the change was made in condition number 24, and that condition number 35 is just for protection. Second by Commissioner Brown with comments. Commissioner Brown stated that on condition number 24, he would like in addition to the deletion of the words "assessment district" that the City Attorney shall review all CC & R's, homeowners association documents and all documents to convey title to the homeowners association. Commissioner Mellinger amended his motion to include the amendment to condition number 24, which will read as follows: Condition No. 24: "The developer shall establish a homeowners association to manage and impose taxes or fees to maintain all slope or common areas, open space, private drain- age facilities, firebreaks, habitat areas, private recreation- al facilities and grounds, private streets and any other common amenities. This association shall be established subject to current State laws and be subject to the approval of the City Attorney and Community Development Director who shall review all CC & R's and rules for their adequacy and completeness. The City Attorney shall review all CC & R's, homeowners association documents and all documents to convey title to the homeowners association." - commissioner Brown commented on condition number 59, regard- ing the two-foot parkway widths, stating that he wants the parkways, but not a straight two-foot parkway. Commissioner Mellinger recommended that all sidewalks shall be separated from curbs with parkway which shall be subject to the approval of the Community Development Director. Commissioner Brown agreed with Commissioner Mellinger's recom- mendation. - Commissioner Mellinger amended his motion to include the amendment to condition number 59, which will read as follows: Condition No. 59: "All sidewalks shall be separated from curb with parkway which shall be subject to the approval of the Community Development Director." Minutes of Planning Commission July 7, 1987 Page 9 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 17413 REVISION !i - CANYON LAKE HILLS C/O MILLET AND ASSOCIATES CONTINUED - Commissioner Brown, maker of the second, stated that he was in agreement with the motion as amended. Approved 5-0 At this time, 8:12 p.m., the Planning Commission recessed for a break. At this time, 8:18 p.m., the Planning Commission reconvened. 2. Tentative Parcel Map 22613 - Bainbridge Investments, Inc. - Associate Planner pine presented proposal to reconfigure three (3) existing parcels into three (3) new parcels of one-half (0.5), one-half (0.5), and five-and-four-tenths (5.4) net acres, located on the northwest corner of Lakeshore Drive and Riverside Drive. Chairman Washburn opened the public hearing at 8:20 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of Tentative Parcel Map 22613. Receiving no response, Chairman Washburn asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Receiving no response, Chairman Washburn closed the public hearing at 8:21 p.m. Discussion at the table was held on whether or not a public notice was prepared for this proposal; if parcel number 3 of Exhibit "c" was the proposed site for a fast food restaurant or if it was the adjacent parcel, and if the configuration of the lot would meet their demands; if the easement between parcel 2 and 3 would provide reciprocal rights into parcel one as well. Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to recommend to City Council adoption of Negative Declaration No. 87-18 and approval of Tentative Parcel Map 22613, based on the findings and the 14 Conditions of Approval recommended in the Staff Report, second by Commissioner Brown. Approved 5-0 3. Zone Change 87-4 - Rodney G. Pence - Assistant Planner Magee presented proposal to change the present zoning designation from R-3 (High Density Residential) to R-2 (Medium Density Residential), on 0.75 acres on the north side of Lincoln Street approximately 103 feet west of Robin Drive. Chairman Washburn opened the public hearing at 8:25 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of Zone Change 87-4 - Mr. Rodney Pence, applicant, spoke in favor of the proposal. Chairman Washburn asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor of Zone Change 87-4. Receiving no response, Chairman Washburn asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Receiving no response, Chairman Washburn closed the public hearing at 8:26 p.m. A brief discussion was held at the table on the proposal and its conformance with the General Plan. Motion by Commissioner Brown to recommend to City Council adoption of Negative Declaration No. 87-16 and approval of Zone Change 87-4, based on the findings listed in the Staff Report, second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved 5-0 Minutes of Planning commission July 7, 1987 Page 10 BUSINESS ITEMS 1. Sign Plan for Commercial Project 86-10 REVISED - Park/Abrams c/o Erwin Signs Assistant Planner Magee presented for approval the Master Sign Program for Commercial Project 86-10 Revised in accordance with Design Review Condition #17. The project location is the northeast corner of Lakeshore Drive and Riverside Drive. Chairman Washburn asked if the applicant was in the audience __ and would like to address Commission. Ms. Sandy Quilty, representing Park/Abrams, gave a report on the proposal highlighting the theme, type of lettering and color scheme to be utilized, and the Sign criteria Agreement. Ms. Quilty then requested clarification on condition number l.f., stating that she believes this relates to the store front signs, but is uncertain. Community Development Director Miller responded that the intent was to refer to the store front signs. Ms. Quilty stated that they would like to request that the Commission give strong consideration to allowing 7-Eleven and Chief Auto Parts to use their three colors on the monument signs. Ms. Quilty commented on condition number 3, pertaining to the redesign of the sign to allow for more separation between the tenant signs, stating they have three full cabinets, the dividers between the tenant signs will be blue, feels that this should provide the dividing line between the tenant signs so that they would not appear to run together. __ Commissioner Mellinger stated that the center is on a relatively small lot and the buildings are right up against the street and quite visible. One of the key factor would be the scale of the sign compared with the rest of the buildings. My feeling is that it should just be a monument sign with normal maximums. I would be opposed to any sign of that height. commissioner Mellinger stated that in regards to the colors, the colors on the Four Corners Plaza would probably only be two, and concern would be the colors on the store fronts. commissioner Brown commented on the confusion between staff and the applicant, if that is what it is, on the colors. Assistant Planner Magee asked Commissioner Brown if he was referring to the colors on the center identification sign. Commissioner Brown stated that he was referring to both signs. Assistant Planner Magee responded that on Page 3 of the Sign Criteria, item A.3. refers to colors, four colors are listed and they have a column titled accent colors. However, the term accent colors is not defined any where throughout the criteria and it was staff's feeling that all six colors could be utilized. -- commissioner Brown commented on condition number 1, pertaining to a revised sign program being submitted prior to issuance of building permits, wanting to know what building permits. Assistant Planner Magee responded that this could read sign permits, as it is a process of the Building Department to require building permits. Minutes of Planning Commission July 7, 1987 Page 11 SIGN PLAN FOR COMMERCIAL PROJECT 86-10 REVISED - PARK/ABRAMS CONTINUED Discussion at the table ensued on condition number 1, and the original condition number 17, pertaining to the sign program. commissioner Kelley stated that he was in complete agreement with Commissioner Mellinger on the center identification sign. commissioner Brinley asked about banners (referring to grand opening banners) wanting to know what would be the temporary use and time limit of such a permit. Community Development Director Miller responded that per the Sign Code, grand opening banners are limited to 31 days. Commissioner Brinley stated that she concurs with the other Commissioners, there is not enough separation and believes that it would look better as a monument sign. Chairman Washburn commented on condition number 1.b., pertaining to upper and lower case letters, stating that he would like to include or make clarification that the letters are not to be mixed, and asked if that was the intent of the condition to have either all upper case or all lower case. Assistant Planner Magee answered in the negative stating that the intent of the condition was to allow flexibility. Chairman Washburn commented on the height of the sign, ~tating that the benefit of the higher sign is not realized, ~n any case, because when you are traveling along Lakeshore Drive you do not see the sign, and the same thing occurs coming over Riverside Drive down the hill. It seems to be an overkill on the height of the sign, and feels that this detracts rather than enhances the corner. Suggested that all copy be removed from the identification sign and the sign reduced to something like the monument sign, 4 feet in height, indicating Four Corners Plaza with some landscaping or maybe some lights to highlight it in the evening. Chairman Washburn made a brief commented on the color to be used by 7-Eleven and Chief Auto Parts, red only as indicated by the applicant's representative, asking if that was for the colors over the top of the stores themselves. Assistant Planner Magee stated that he believes that this is correct, and maybe Ms. Quilty could answer this. Ms. Quilty answered in the affirmative. ~ Commissioner Mellinger asked what would be the maximum height of a monument sign, and the height of a monument sign adjacent to a driveway. Community Development Director Miller responded that the maximum height of a monument sign permitted under the code would be 6 feet and it would have to be located in such a manner that it would not interfere with sight distance. Chairman Washburn commented on the number of monument signs for the site, stating that he see two monument signs plus the center identification sign. Assistant Planner Magee responded that a monument sign will be located next to Wisconsin and Lakeshore and the center identification sign would be located on the corner of Lake- shore and Riverside. The monument sign on Riverside Drive was deleted. Minutes of Planning Commission July 7, 1987 Page 12 SIGN PLAN FOR COMMERCIAL PROJECT 86-10 REVISED - PARK/ABRAMS CONTINUED Motion by Chairman Washburn to approve Sign Plan for Com- mercial Project 86-10 Revised, based on the findings and the 3 Conditions of Approval recommended in the Staff Report and amending condition number 3, as follows: Condition No.3: "The center identification sign shall be reduced in height, removing copy, 7-Eleven, Chief Auto Parts, Subway, and so on, not to exceed six feet in height, but to clearly pro- vide for visibility at the intersection. External lighting only may be permitted and the sign copy shall read Four Corners Plaza." - Second by Commissioner Mellinger. Approved 5-0 2. Residential Project 87-3 - Rodney G. Pence - Magee presented proposal to construct four units total) on 0.75 acres on the north side approximately 103 feet west of Robin Drive. Chairman Washburn asked if the applicant was in the audience and would like to address Commission. Assistant Planner (4) duplexes (8 of Lincoln Street Mr. Rodney Pence stated that he would answer any questions __ that the Commission may have. Commissioner Brown asked if it would be possible to flip one of the buildings, making it a left entry rather than a right entry to get away from the row house effect. Mr. Pence stated that the reason that they are staggered is so one living room does not look into another. commissioner Brown asked if there would be any privacy fencing. Mr. Pence stated that there will not be any privacy fencing in the front. There will be a fence giving each unit a private back yard. Discussion at the table whether or not automatic provided. ensued garage on staggered setbacks, and door openers would be Chairman Washburn asked if there would be any fencing along the west side adjacent to the existing home. If not suggested that some type of fencing be provided to screen that house from this duplex. ..., Chairman Washburn asked if the pads have been engineered and whether or not the plan shows if the existing trees are to be maintained or removed. Mr. Pence stated that there is one existing tree on site, in the middle of the lot. Commissioner Kelley asked if the air conditioning units would be mounted on the roof, referring to condition number 14. Minutes of Planning Commission July 7, 1987 Page 13 RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 87-3 = RODNEY ~ PENCE CONTINUED - Mr. Pence responded in the negative. Commissioner Kelley recommended that the words "roof mounted" be deleted from condition number 14. Chairman Washburn commented that for clarification this operation, per City Ordinance. Discussion at the table ensued on staggered setbacks; whether or not the garage door treatments and the additional landscap- ing would diminish the row house effect; fencing; tile roofing and the lack of eaves, with reference to tile roofs during inclement weather discoloring the walls of the building. on condition number 8, stating also pertains to hours of Motion by Commissioner Brown to recommend to City Council adoption of Negative Declaration 87-16 and approval of Residential project 87-3, based on the findings and the 30 Conditions of Approval recommended in the Staff Report, amending condition number 14, to read as follows: Condition No. 14: "All ground support air condi- tioning units, gas meters, electrical boxes or other electrical or mechanical equip- ment incidental to development shall be screened so that they are not visible from neighboring properties or public streets." - Second by Commissioner Kelley. Approved 5-0 3. Commercial Project 87-4 Duane D. Cline, M.D. - Associate Planner Wilkins presented a proposal to construct a 718 square foot addition to an existing 3,500 square foot medical office facility, located at 119 West Sulphur Street. Chairman Washburn asked if the applicant was in the audience and would like to address Commission. Dr. Cline questioned condition number 4, the parking facili- ties, to the rear of the office site, to be revised to provide a trash enclosure. Discussion at the table was held on condition number 4, pertaining to parking facilities being revised to provide for a trash enclosure, and condition number 6, deleting the words "roof mounted". Motion by Commissioner Kelley to recommend to City Council approval of Commercial Project 87-4 based on the findings and 7 Conditions of Approval recommended in the Staff Report, second by commissioner Brinley. Approved 5-0 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS Community Development Director Miller informed the Commission and the general public that City Council continued their public hearing on the Redevelopment Project Area III to, Thursday, July 9, 1987, at 7:00 p.m., at the Community Center. It is my understanding, that one of our consultants is going to provide Minutes of Planning commission July 7, 1987 Page 14 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS CONTINUED some introductory remarks, explaining some of the benefits of Redevelopment Project Areas. Community Development Director Miller announced the City-County Planning Commissioners Association Summer Conference to be held July 16, 1987, at 6:00 p.m., and requested that any Commissioner wishing to attend inform the Secretary so that reservations can be made. __ PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Commissioner Kelley: Nothing to report. Commissioner Brinley: Nothing to report. Commissioner Brown: Nothing to report. Commissioner Mellinqer: Asked Community Development Director Miller if the notes from the previous study Session were retained and if there is a way to summarize some of the comments made so that the other Planning Commissioners, who were not there and perhaps even City Council, are aware of what was discussed. Community Development Director Miller stated that the comments were summarized in a weekly Status Report that goes to City Council and will provide a copy to the Commission. Commissioner Brinley asked if the Commission was going to be having a another study session soon. -- Chairman Washburn stated that a study session has not been scheduled. Chairman Washburn: Would like to see the Planning Staff work a little closer with the Riverside County Planning Department. In the past we had special meetings with County Planners, that handle this district, and our Planners so there would be a greater coordination on projects, and I would like to see this continue. It was brought to my attention and anyone driving down Mission Trail will probably notice that we are getting blighted conditions past Malaga on Mission Trail, which is in the County. I would like to request that the Planning Director prepare a letter, for my signature, on the concern over the accumulation of trash and debris on the County side, also identify any other areas of con- cern and request that this be cleaned up. -- Chairman Washburn stated that he has received a request from Mr. Howard Hurd, Jr. and Mr. Frank C. RObie, Jr. to address the Planning Commission. Chairman Washburn asked if Mr. Hurd was present and wished to address the Commission. Chairman Washburn was informed that Mr. Hurd had left the meeting. Minutes of Planning Commission July 7, 1987 Page 15 Chairman Washburn asked if Mr. Robie was present. Mr. Robie commented on the following: - The Senior Center having a poor quality/quantity of food available for senior citizens and the requirement of a donation at the Nutrition Center. Drunks, junkies, narcotic sellers/users congregating at the bus stops and parks, and the problem with drunks and junkies congregating around our senior complex on Kellogg Street and frightening the citizens. Thinks that the City should look very seriously at stronger law enforcement for this town. Chairman Washburn stated that he will submit this to Mr. Nelson Miller, Community Development Director and concurs with his last statement. There being no further business, the Lake commission adjourned at 9:21 p.m. Motion Mellinger, second by Commissioner Kelley, Approved 5-0 Elsinore Planning by Commissioner ~~proved, 'fJ~Wc~~ Gar ashburn, Ch' an ~f~mitted' Linda Grindstaf~ Planning Commission Secretary - - - MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON THE 21ST DAY OF JULY 1987 THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:02 P.M. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Commissioners: Brown, Mellinger, Brinley, Kelley and Washburn - ABSENT: Commissioners: None Also present were Community Development Director Miller, Assistant Planner Magee and Associate Planner Wilkins. MINUTE ACTION Motion by Commissioner Brown to approve minutes of July 7, 1987, 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. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Zone Change 87-5 - Brookstone Investors - Associate Planner Wilkins presented proposal to change the zoning from RRO (formerly a County designation) to C-2 (General Commercial), 2.19 acres, on the southeast corner of the intersection of Dexter Street and Central Avenue. Chairman Washburn opened the public hearing at 7:05 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of Zone Change 87-5. Mr. Steve Brown, representing the developer, spoke in favor of the proposal. Chairman Washburn asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor of Zone Change 87-5. Receiving no response, Chairman Washburn asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Receiving no response, Chairman Washburn closed the public hearing at 7:06 p.m. Discussion at the table was held on the zone change and the location being appropriate for General Commercial~ proposal being consistent with the pOlicies of the General Plan~ whether or not the area on the north side of the freeway has been addressed~ whether or not an indication of the character of that area and that intersection have been given. Motion by Commissioner Brown to recommend to City Council adoption of Negative Declaration 87-19 and approval of Zone Change 87-5, based on the findings listed in the Staff Report, second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved 5-0 - BUSINESS ITEMS 1. Commercial Project 87-5 - Brookstone Investors - Associate Planner Wilkins presented proposal to construct a 11,935 square foot commercial center. The center consists of a single, multi-unit, structure to be located on a 1.06 acre portion of a 2.19 acre site, on the northerly side of Allen Street and the east of Dexter. Commissioner Mellinger asked if the applicant would do a parcel map to merge the lot lines and then do a lot split, and if this would be prior to development, stating that the Minutes of Planning Commission July 21, 1987 Page 2 COMMERCIAL PROJECT 87-5 - BROOKS TONE INVESTORS CONTINUED obvious mechanism would be a parcel map, which takes a maximum of 50 days. Mr. Brown stated that he had a question in regards to that condition (condition number 16) and stated the property has a series of lot lines going through it, there is 6 or 8 parcels right now. What we would like to do is merge all of the parcels with the exception of one lot line that runs generally down the middle of the two parcels. I think that by going through the parcel merger and leaving one lot line that is approximately 190 feet in from Dexter Street and then going through a lot line adjustment we can accomplish what we would like to, which is basically having two separate parcels rather than eight. Discussion at the table ensued on lot merger/lot line adjust- ment procedure. ..., Chairman Washburn asked Mr. Brown if he had any concerns with the conditions of approval. Mr. Brown responded that he was in agreement with everything, but would like an opportunity to sit down with staff and review the landscape plan as there was indication in the Staff Report that there were some areas concern. Commissioner Kelley asked for clarification on the additional architectural treatments or plant-ons, referencing condition number 26 and Exhibit 5. Asked for an approximation on the linear footage of the roof line, stating that he would like to see something done with the roof line, maybe it could be ..., broken up somewhat, and subject to the approval of the Community Development Director. Discussion at the table ensued on condition number 26 with reference to Exhibit 5, and linear footage of the roof line. Commissioner Kelley commented on the traffic report, stating that a stop sign was suggested at Central and Dexter for out bound traffic and asked if this has been considered? Community Development Director Miller responded that condition number 35, references that all recommendations contained with- in the report of the traffic engineer including limitations on right turn ingress/egress on Central shall be implemented. Commissioner Brinley asked Mr. Brown what the plans were for Allen Street. Mr. Brown responded that it has been proposed that Allen Street be vacated, ,and that they will maintain Allen Street as a 45 foot private drive. Discussion at the table ensued on what was meant by a private road and who would be responsible for maintaining the road. ..., Commissioner Brinley stated that what concerns her most about this project and its location is the location of Highway 74. Asked if she wa~ correct in assuming that they are going to widen the road, and if there would be a turning lane into this project? Community Development Director Miller responded that this pro- ject would be required to widen portions of Central Avenue, in front of its project area. However, given the configuration of the rest of the street not sure how much additional turning Minutes of Planning Commission July 21, 1987 Page 3 COMMERCIAL PROJECT 87-5 - BROOKS TONE INVESTORS CONTINUED ..... lane could be accommodated within the existing right-of-way. Understanding that much of the turning movements would actually be accomplished from Central on to Dexter before actually reaching the site, so that may be limited. As discussed in the traffic engineers report it is suggested that ingress/egress from the driveway on Central would probably be, certainly egress, limited to right turns only. Commissioner Brinley commented on condition number 6, pertain- ing to the Master Signage Program for the center, and recommended that prior to submitting plans and coming before the Commission that the applicant be advised of the Commission's position regarding signage. Chairman Washburn commented briefly center and stated that it has has harmonious with the intersection or the City is trying to project, referring to on the signage for the been designed to be quality image that the the rendering. Chairman Washburn asked about the vacation of Allen Street, stating that he does not understand the wisdom in this, because it provides for an access to a greater depth of the property. A lengthy discussion ensued on the proposed vacation of Allen Street and relocation of the trash enclosures. ..... Chairman Washburn recommended that any conditions of approval that read subject to the approval of Community Development Director be amended to read subject to the approval of the Planning Commission. Chairman Washburn commented on the the stark nature of the back side of the building, as you are coming down Central, and the need for additional treatment. Asked about the overhang surrounding the building and whether or not this covers the entire sidewalk. Chairman Washburn asked staff about the brick work, cover stick-ons or extra coverage along the base of the building made reference to in the staff report, asking if this was just for the one side or if your thoughts were for continuation of it along the north side. Associate Planner Wilkins stated that the conditions are developed so that additional treatment or landscaping could be used to the rear. ----- Commissioner Kelley asked Mr. Brown how complicated it would be to break up the visual plane? Mr. Brown stated that he would have to meet with his architect and discuss that. Mr. Brown asked if the Commission could approve the proposal tonight and forward it on to City Council subject to reviewing the landscape plan and plant-ons at a later date. Commissioner Brown stated that he would like to see condition number 5, 25, and 26 come back before the Commission and some definite resolution on condition 25. Commissioner Brown stated that he was in complete agreement with the break in roof elevation. Also, the architectural plant-ons and the rear of the building if they can not be wrapped around then there will have to be some pretty Minutes of Planning Commission July 21, 1987 Page 4 COMMERCIAL PROJECT 87-5 = BROOKS TONE INVESTORS CONTINUED extensive landscaping treatment to make up for it. Also, as we have asked for in the past, I would like to see grease traps installed on all exits. Commissioner Brown questioned the lot line mergers and the eventual two lot lines, stating since we are looking at renderings that include the gas station, but in fact, this project does not include that. I would like to know exactly where the lot line is in relationship to this project. Is it down the center of that Central Avenue driveway, and does that mean that we have only one 30 foot driveway entering this project? So if, in fact, the gas station is not built there is one 30 foot driveway period. - Associate Planner Wilkins responded that the lot line would be against the planter area as noted on the rendering, and that Exhibit 4 shows the approximate location of lot line. Discussion at the table ensued on the number of entrances to be provided and when the entrances would be built; off-site improvements referring to condition number 14; condition number 23, referring to on-site improvements to be provided as indicated on the approved plot plan, and if the entire site would be developed as presented in Exhibit No.4. Commissioner Brown stated that on condition number 23, he would like to see all improvements indicated on Exhibit 4, excluding the driveway on Dexter but full improvement of the driveway area on Allen and Central; planters all the way around the site, and the temporary turf addressed in condition number 18, come back to the Commission. - Motion by Commissioner Brown to recommend to City Council adoption of Negative Declaration No. 87-19 and approval of Commercial Project 87-5 based on the findings and subject to the 35 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report, with conditions 4, 5, 18, 23, 25 and 26 coming back to the Commis- sion for review and approval, and with the following amend- ments: Condition No. 23: Condition No. 26: Condition No. 36: "All site improvements shall be con- structed as indicated on the approved plot plan and elevations or as modified by these Conditions of Approval or the Planning Commission through subsequent action. A modified site plan showing the access off of Allen and Central with the landscaping plan shall be brought back before the commission for review and approval." "Additional architectural treatments or plant-ons or treatments similar to those illustrated in Exhibit 5, or their equivalent shall be incorporated in the building plans, also include possible break in elevation of the roof, to be brought back before the Planning Commission for review and approval." - "Grease traps to be provided on all surface drainage exits." Second by Commissioner Kelley. Approved 5-0 Minutes of Planning Commission July 21, 1987 Page 5 At this time, 7:55 p.m., the Planning Commission recessed for a break. At this time, 8:06 p.m., the Planning Commission reconvened. - 2. Industrial Project 87-2 - Brookstone Investors Assistant Planner Magee presented proposal to construct a 18,786 square foot industrial center on 1.46 acres, located on the east side of Birch street, approximately 552 feet south of Minthorn street. Chairman Washburn asked Mr. Brown if he had any concerns with the conditions of approval. Mr. Brown stated that he had no problem with the conditions of approval, and would answer any questions. - Commissioner Brown commented on the microwave dish, asking about its location and what obstructs the microwave dish signals and whether or not the dish could be screened? Mr. Thomas, of King Videocable, stated that the microwave dish is 10 foot in diameter and it is the same dish that is located at their Lakeshore Drive location. The dish would be screened on the street sides and the freeway side. Commissioner Brinley asked how high the microwave dish would be raised off the top of the building, and if the satellite dishes would have to be placed on towers later on if the area surrounding them is developed? Mr. Thomas responded that the dish would sit right on top of the building and raised maybe a foot above the building. The satellite dishes face the sky, they are adjusted toward the sky, and would only have to be raised if a building were built right up against the face of them, but where they are sitting there will be no problem in the future. Chairman Washburn asked how security would be provided for the vehicles that will remain on site overnight. Mr. Thomas stated that a chain link fence will be and referred to the rendering posted to show the customer parking and location of overnight and vehicles. installed area of day use Chairman Washburn commented briefly on the location of the trash enclosure. Motion by Commissioner Brinley to recommend to City Council adoption of Negative Declaration 87-20 and approval of Industrial Project 87-2 subject to findings and the 37 Conditions of Approval listed in the staff Report, second by Commissioner Brown with discussion. Commissioner Brown asked if the maker of the motion would include the addition of grease traps to all surface drainage. Commissioner Brinley amended her motion to include condition number 38, which shall read: Condition No. 38: "Grease traps shall be provided on all surface drainage exits." There being no further discussion, Chairman Washburn called for the question. Approved 5-0 Minutes of Planning Commission July 21, 1987 Page 6 INFORMATIONAL Community Development Director Miller stated that the study session was listed as an informational item, as a reminder, and that the most appropriate thing to do is to finish all the business of the Planning commission Agenda and adjourn the meeting. The study session would commence at the close of the meeting. .... COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS Community Development Director Miller reported on the following items, which were discussed at previous meetings: The Public Works Department had a contract which was completed for trimming of 106 Palm Trees along Riverside Drive. The structure on Robertson Street, which was quite dilapidated, abatement proceedings were commenced and appealed by the owner. At the last Council meeting the Board of Appeals directed that abatement should proceed and the structure abated. PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Commissioner Kelley Nothing to report. commissioner Brinlev .... Nothing to report. commissioner Mellinqer Suggested that the grease trap issue be looked into as a Code Amendment. Community Development Director Miller responded that we have encountered a number of technical problems in regard to that. Believes that a couple of the engineers from various projects are going to be bringing some information forward to the Planning commission. They have been discussing this with the Engineering Department staff trying to determine exactly how that should be addressed. commissioner Brown Commissioner Brown stated that the only thing he has to say is that the Park/Abrams project really looks good. Chairman Washburn ..- Nothing to report. Minutes of Planning Commission July 21, 1987 Page 7 There being no further business, the Lake Commission adjourned at 8:20 p.m. Motion Mellinger, second by Commissioner Kelley. Approved 5-0 Elsinore Planning by Commissioner - @provw ~~ . Ga~-aShburn, Ch~Uan R~s~ctfull~~mitted. ce:~ Pund~ Linda Grindstaff(V Planning Commission Secretary - - - - MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON THE 4TH DAY OF AUGUST 1987 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, and Kelley ABSENT: Commissioners: Washburn Also present were Community Development Director Miller, Assistant Planners Magee and Last and Associate Planner Wilkins. Being as Chairman Washburn was absent Vice Chairman Mellinger conducted the meeting. MINUTE ACTION Motion by Commissioner Brown to approve minutes of July 21, 1987, as submitted, second by Commissioner Kelley. Approved 4-0 PUBLIC COMMENTS vice Chairman Mellinger asked the request to address the Commission. The negative. Secretary if there were any Secretary answered in the PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Variance 87-3 Donald & Diana Lovegren - Assistant Planner Magee presented proposal to vary from the required front yard setback to allow a garage at twelve feet (12') from the property line, located on the south side of Sunnyslope Avenue. vice Chairman Mellinger opened the public hearing at 7:02 p.m. asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of Variance 87-3. Mrs. Diana Lovegren spoke in favor of the proposal and stated that she would answer any questions. vice Chairman Mellinger asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor. Receiving no response, Vice Chairman Mellinger asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Receiving no response, Vice Chairman Mellinger asked if anyone wished to speak on the subject. Receiving no response, Vice Chairman Mellinger closed the public hearing at 7:03 p.m. Discussion at the table was held on the overall slope; what street improvements would be required, as far as curb, gutter and sidewalk; if there would be any type of restriction on parking in the driveway and whether or not this could be added as a condition; requirement for a garage door opener should be added as a condition. - Motion by Commissioner Brown to approve Variance 87-3 based on the findings and sUbject to the 2 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report, second by Commissioner Brinley. Vice Chairman Mellinger asked if the maker of the motion would include the addition of condition number 3, a garage door opener shall be installed prior to occupancy. Commissioner Brown amended his motion to include the addition of condition number 3, which shall read: . Condition No.3: "A garage door opener shall be installed prior to occupancy." Minutes of Planning Commission August 4, 1987 Page 2 VARIANCE 87-3 - DONALD AND DIANA LOVEGREN CONTINUED There being no further discussion, Vice Chairman Mellinger called for the question. Approved 4-0 2. Conditional Use Permit 87-9 - Art Nelson - Assistant Planner Last presented a request to allow a Lutheran Church to be located in a Neighborhood Commercial District. A second request __ is for approval to allow shared and off-street parking on Lakeshore Drive and Clement street. A 3,000 square foot space located in a portion of the Lakeshore Commercial Center. The proposal is located on the southwest intersection of Clement street and Lakeshore Drive. Vice Chairman Mellinger opened the public hearing at 7:10 p.m. asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of Conditional Use Permit 87-9. Mr. steve Brown, representing the applicant, spoke in favor of the proposal, and stated that they agree with all of the findings in the staff report. Mr. Brown stated that the parking situation which is the major issue here will not be a problem, and referred to the parking analysis that was done and included in the packet. Vice Chairman Mellinger asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor of Conditional Use Permit 87-9. Mr. steve Twigg, 30920 Plumice, Lake Elsinore, President of the Congregation, stated that he would answer any questions that the Commission may have regarding their use in a commercial area. __ Mr. Twigg commented on the current on-site parking at the Women's Club, where they are now holding their services, and stated from the studies and what he has seen the impact would be nearly what it is with the current situation. Vice Chairman Mellinger asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor of Conditional Use Permit 87-9. Receiving no response, Vice Chairman asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Mr. Forest Brothe expressed concern on the physical and mental environmental impact of a church in the area. Vice Chairman Mellinger informed Mr. Brothe that the Cali- fornia Environmental Quality Act requires an examination of all projects on their impacts on the physical environment, and the mental environment is covered under the National Environmental Policy Act, which is a Federal project. Mr. Brother stated that he does not feel that a commercial center is the proper place for a church. Vice Chairman Mellinger asked if anyone else wished to speak in opposition to Conditional Use Permit 87-9. Receiving no response, Vice Chairman Mellinger asked if anyone wished to speak on the subject. Receiving no response, Vice Chairman Mellinger closed the public hearing at 7:17 p.m. ..., Commissioner Brinley stated that she has a number of concerns. One is the parking, does not believe that there will be adequate parking there and allow for growth of the congregation. Commissioner Brinley commented on the parking along Lakeshore Minutes of Planning Commission August 4, 1987 Page 3 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 87-9 - ART NELSON CONTINUED and across the street, asking if there is a crosswalk provided, at this time. ..... Assistant Planner Last responded that in the approval there is a provision stating that there parking across the street from Lakeshore Drive and Clement Street. conditions of will be no no parking on commissioner Brinley stated that her other concern is that it is in a commercial area where you have Domino's and Circle K. They are obviously going to grow and get larger and they are going to have more customers traveling through the store. At this time, I just do not feel that you can take a church and put it right there. commissioner Brinley stated that Mr. Brothe was right when he spoke of serenity. There is also reverence in churches, and outside there you are going to have disturbances and you are going to be lacking some reverence which is going to cause a problem later on between yourselves and the other tenants. At this point, I can not see a church in a commercial center. You are either going to go totally commercial and keep it that way, or you are going to open up to all churches. If we start leasing out to churches in this commercial center then we are opening up to the new one that they are building on Central Avenue, because you have set a precedence. ..... vice Chairman Mellinger stated for clarification, since there are two recommendations, presumes that Commissioner Brinley has a general problem with the first recommendation. Commissioner Brinley responded in the affirmative. commissioner Brinley asked if handicap parking and emergency exits were provided on-site. vice Chairman Mellinger stated that, in general, the Building Code would require certain handicap access, and maybe staff can confirm. Assistant Planner Last has reviewed this project adequate emergency access. responded that the Building Department and has determined that there is commissioner Kelley stated that he does not feel that this Conditional Use Permit meets the findings in Section 17.74.060 (Findings) of Title 17, and that it does not meet with the land use principles of the General Plan, in particular, Section 3 of the General Plan, states that "it shall be well designed with off-street parking", does not think that this is possible in this center. This is my major concern, the parking. I do not believe that it is conducive to a commercial zone. ..... commissioner Brown stated that one of the problems that we have had in the past is conditions of approval that are both livable by the applicant and enforceable by the community, see items 2, 5, and 6 as unenforceable. commissioner Brown stated that he noticed that there is a problem with parking already. They are expecting an attendance of 85 people, seating for a 100, and that means little or no growth, and I know that most congregations are hoping for a lot of growth. If in fact, it does gain favor, I would like to see the one year approval remain with a six month review of items 2, 5 and 6. I would also like to see any change in any use in the Minutes of Planning Commission August 4, 1987 Page 4 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 87-9 - ART NELSON CONTINUED center, not only for this tenant, but any change in the center. vice Chairman Mellinger stated that when he first saw the notice for the proposal, in this particular location, he had some tremendous concerns, because of the nature of the center. Looking at the staff recommendation number 1, I have no problem with this. My feeling on the code amendment, therefore, would __ be in support of it. commissioner Mellinger stated that when you get down to the particular findings his feeling initially was certainly opposition, due to the parking. But when I saw the staff report and the request was involving on-street parking, I had further concerns. However, looking at the parking analysis and the conclusion and conditions, and the parking analysis does conclude that they will only be a couple of spaces short, I would presume with the conditions that would be on Lake- shore Drive, with that being given I think that there should be some other items addressed. vice Chairman Mellinger commented on the enforceability of conditions 2, 3, 5, 6, as brought up by Commissioner Brown. In my experience, the intent on conditions for Conditional Use Permits are to enforce them if they are needed. If indeed there was parking on Clement whether they be associated with the church or not, I think that would be some cause for revocation of the Conditional Use Permit. Thinks that condition 2, 3, 5 and 6 would be difficult for the City to enforce and to make sure that they are met, but what we would really be enforcing are negative effects if those conditions were not met. Therefore, if the church did enforce those conditions there __ would not be a problem, especially limiting only two cars on Lakeshore Drive alone, because there is no parking permitted on the other side of Lakeshore nor on Clement. vice Chairman Mellinger commented on the concern for Domino's and the County of Riverside, stating that if the owner of the property were willing to put deed restrictions on those two units, that they do not open prior to noon on Sunday, this would be adequate. The schedule of activities as listed would not have any conflicts. Vice Chairman Mellinger commented on the growth, stating that 85 members are listed, when I see a Conditional Use Permit and a proposal by an applicant and these are the numbers involved that is precisely what I expect to continue. If,in deed, there were any changes or growth, or we could verify any negative effects of growth whether through parking conflicts or night conflicts, I would again see that as cause for revocation or a requirement for an amendment to the Conditional Use Permit. However, I do find some severe restrictions on amending a Conditional Use Permit for growth at this particular location. Not only is the property owner rather restricted with a deed restriction condition, I also feel that the church would be somewhat restricted, because typically to be able to build your own church on your own site you are going to have to grow. -- Vice Chairman Mel~inger recommended that a deed restriction be added as a condition of approval. vice Chairman Mellinger stated that any amendments to the Conditional Use Permit, referring to condition number 8, shall be brought back to the Planning Commission well in advance of any amendments on the activity. Vice Chairman Mellinger recommended that a condition be added Minutes of Planning Commission August 4, 1987 Page 5 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 87-9 - ART NELSON CONTINUED ..... that would limit the numbers listed on zational activities and any increase brought back to the Planning Commission. Vice Chairman Mellinger stated that he was in agreement with the six month review to conditions 2, 3, 5 and 6, and would also like to have six month reports on the progress towards a permanent church location. If, in deed, there is no progress whatsoever I would have a very difficult time granting a new use permit. the attached organi- in those numbers to be vice Chairman Mellinger stated that he feels that no more than two vehicles associated with the church should be parked on Lakeshore. It is the only area that would really be in conjunction with numbers 2 and 3. commissioner Brinley asked Vice Chairman Mellinger when talking about deed restrictions, if he was referring to the new tenants coming in? ..... vice Chairman Mellinger responded that the way he was proposing it, it would be a deed restriction on those two units, currently occupied by Domino's and proposed to be occupied by the County of Riverside, and that would apply to any subsequent tenants. Discussion at the table ensued on the deed restriction and its effect upon the other tenants in the center; the site receiving approval for a commercial center; and hours of operation for the tenants within the center. Mr. Steve Brown stated that the tenants at the center right now, Domino's and the County, are in complete agreement with our proposal, and believes that it is a good suggestion to put a deed restriction on the property from the standpoint of the City. Discussion at the table ensued on whether or not churches were appropriate in semi-commercial neighborhood centers, parking and enforcement of conditions. vice Chairman Mellinger stated that if this were not a temporary proposal he would be opposed to it. Even if we do approve recommendation number 1, we may consider--conditional use permits, in the future, may want to state that in the intent, that unless it is a permanent facility owned by the church we should consider that as a temporary manner. commissioner Brinley asked if temporary was one year. vice Chairman Mellinger responded that temporary was what ever the situation warrants, thinks that you have to go on case by case basis. ..... Mr. Steve Brown stated that on the deed restriction for Domino's Pizza, he would not have a problem with the deed restriction. However, Domino's opens at 11:30 a.m., and the church ends their service at 11:00 a.m., and asked if they could stipulate 11:30 a.m., knows that they will have full cooperation. Discussion at the table ensued on the existing commercial center and its original approval being strictly for commercial use, and proposal being an interim use. Motion by Commissioner Kelley to deny recommendation number 1, second by Commissioner Brinley. There being no further discussion Vice Chairman Mellinger called Minutes of Planning Commission August 4, 1987 Page 6 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 87-9 for the question. AYES: Commissioners: NOES: Commissioners: - ART NELSON CONTINUED Kelley and Brinley Brown and Mellinger vice Chairman Mellinger asked if this proposal would go forward to City Council unless appealed. Community Development Director Miller responded that the Code provides that the Planning Commission may add uses to the list, so this would not go to Council it would be Planning Commission action, and absent a favorable action by the Commission on recommendation number 1, I do not believe that the Planning Commission could proceed on recommendation number 2. - Motion by Vice Chairman Mellinger, in the event this proposal is appealed to City Council, to recommend to City Council adoption of Negative Declaration No. 87-24, approval of Conditional Use Permit 87-9 based on the findings and subject to the 8 Condi- tions of Approval listed in the Staff Report with the following amendments: Condition No.1: Condition No.2: Condition No.3: Condition No.4: Condition No.8: Condition No.9: "The Conditional Use Permit shall expire in one (1) year from the date of approval unless extended by the Planning Commission or a new use permit is granted. A six (6) month review of conditions 2, 3, 5 and 6, as well as a status of the permanent church facility to be brought back before the Planning Commission". - "On-street parking on Clement Street and across the street on Lakeshore Drive (north side) shall be prohibited by persons associated with the church. To be reviewed in six (6) months by the Planning Commission." "On-street parking on Jessica or any other residential street by persons associated with the church shall be prohibited. To be reviewed in six (6) months by the Planning Commission." "Provide for a ml.nl.mum of seven (7) reserved parking spaces for the Circle K market that shall not be used by persons attending service. These spaces shall be located in front of Circle K so they may be conveniently utilized by potential users, and shall be clearly marked for Circle K use only during those hours (10:00 a.m. - 11:30 a.m.)." "Any special event or activity not on the activity list that has the potential to exceed available permitted parking on or adjacent to this site shall be subject to further Planning Commission review by an amendment to this Conditional Use Permit. Any amendments to the activity to be brought back to the Planning Commission before such activities are amended." ...... "A deed restriction shall be placed upon the property that the units currently occupied by Domino's Pizza and proposed to be occupied by the County of Riverside Minutes of Planning Commission August 4, 1987 Page 7 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 87-9 - ART NELSON CONTINUED - Condition No. 10: Condition No. 11: Condition No. 12: be closed prior to the hour of 11:30 a.m. on Sunday." "That meetings or activities shall not exceed the numbers listed on the organi- zational activity list. Any changes shall be brought back before the Planning Commission prior to the commencement of such changes." "No more than two (2) vehicles associated with the church shall be parked on Lake- shore Drive, per the parking analysis." "Any violation of these conditions shall be cause for revocation." commissioner Kelley stated that he would like to add verbiage mandatory termination, non-renewable, at one year. vice Chairman Mellinger stated that condition number 1 adequately covers this and prefers to leave condition number 1 as amended. commissioner Kelley asked if this could then be separated, thinks that a mandatory expiration is desirable. Vice Chairman Mellinger stated that his motion is on the condi- tions as proposed with the amendments. - Commissioner Brown asked if the maker of the motion would entertain as condition number 13, one renewal only which would put a two year cap on it. vice Chairman Mellinger stated that he would amend his motion to include Commissioner Brown's suggestion, amending condition number 1, as follows: Condition No.1: "The Conditional Use Permit shall expire in one (1) year from the date of approval, and a maximum of one (1) extension of one (1) year may be granted. A six (6) month review of conditions 2, 3, 5 and 6, as well as a status of the permanent church facility to be brought back before the Planning Commission." Second by Commissioner Brown. - There being no further for the question. AYES: Commissioners: NOES: Commissioners: discussion vice Chairman Mellinger called Mellinger and Brown Brinley and Kelley At this time, 7:52 p.m. the Planning Commission recessed for a break. At this time, 8:01 p.m., the Planning Commission reconvened. 3. Tentative Tract Map 22538 Robert G. Williams - Associate Planner Wilkins presented proposal to divide three (3) existing parcels of 1.86 acres; for R-l (Residential Use) into five (5) parcels, ranging in size from 10,454 to 24,393 square feet, located on the east side of Machado Street between Christina Minutes of Planning Commission August 4, 1987 Page 8 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 22538 - ROBERT ~ WILLIAMS CONTINUED Court and Marie Drive. Associate Planner Wilkins requested that condition number 7, be amended to read: Condition No.7: "The applicant shall provide service to all parcels to the satisfaction of Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District". - Vice Chairman Mellinger opened the public hearing at 8:03 p.m. asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of Tentative Tract Map 22538. Mr. Phillip Williams, representing Robert Williams, stated that the concerns that they had have already been handled by staff. Vice Chairman Mellinger asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor of Tentative Tract Map 22538. Receiving no response, Vice Chairman Mellinger asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Receiving no response, Vice Chairman asked if anyone wished to speak on the matter. Receiving no response, Vice Chairman Mellinger closed the public hearing at 8:04 p.m. commissioner Kelley stated that his only concern was with parcel 1, stating that it appears to be in compliance with the zoning, but it also appears to be inappropriate for the area with the surrounding parcels. Discussion at the table ensued on parcel 1 and the surrounding lot sizes and the existing tracts on either side. _ commissioner Brown asked could we or do we require that the entrances to those flag lots be improved. Associate Planner Wilkins stated that at the time of development this would be one of the mitigating factors and a condition of approval; however, at this time, staff is recommending improve- ment of Machado Street and dedication of 14 foot additional right-of-way. Vice Chairman Mellinger stated that for clarification, 25 foot flag lots are permissible in the R-l Zone. Vice Chairman Mellinger asked if there would be a joint access, and whether or not there was a condition that addressed this joint easement access. Associate Planner Wilkins responded that there would be a joint access between parcels 2 and 3. commissioner Brown asked how you can have two driveways and still maintain the trees because the trees are in the center the property. Vice Chairman Mellinger asked if there would be one driveway _ into both lots or if there would be two driveways around the trees, and what was the applicant's understanding of this? Mr. Williams stated that he believes that they would put in two approaches, but would have one center driveway to preserve the trees. If that becomes a conflict between the two property owners then the trees would have to be removed. Discussion at the table ensued on number of driveway approaches and curb cuts; reciprocal access agreement being recorded between parcels 2 and 3. Minutes of Planning Commission August 4, 1987 Page 9 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 22538 - ROBERT ~ WILLIAMS CONTINUED Commissioner Brown commented on reciprocal ingress/egress agree- ments with no permanent structures in the panhandles and recom- mended that this be added as a condition. - Motion by Commissioner Brown to adoption of Negative Declaration No. Tentative Tract Map 22538 based on Conditions of Approval listed in the following amendments: recommend to City Council 87-22 and approval of the findings and the 29 Staff Report, with the Condition No.7: "The applicant shall provide service to all parcels to the satisfaction of Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District". Condition No. 30: "No permanent structures shall be allowed in the panhandles". "A reciprocal ingress/egress and mainte- nance agreement shall be recorded on this Tentative Tract Map." Condition No. 31: Second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved 4-0 - 4. Amendment 87-5 - City of Lake Elsinore - Community Development Director Miller presented proposal to amend Section 17.98.080 regarding overnight camping and Section 17.98.090 regarding the sale or dispensing of alcoholic beverages in conjunction with Temporary Outdoor Activities. Vice Chairman Mellinger opened the public hearing at 8:14 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of Amendment 87-5. Receiving no response, Vice Chairman Mellinger asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Receiving no response Vice Chairman Mellinger asked if anyone wished to speak on the matter. Receiving no response Vice Chairman Mellinger closed the public hearing at 8:15 p.m. Commissioner Kelley stated that this could possibly streamline the permit process. Commissioner Brinley commented requirement and wanted to know if events only. on the Conditional Use Permit this would be for special Community Development Director Miller responded that this amendment would apply only to temporary outdoor activities. - Commissioner Brinley commented on the overnight camping wanting to know if this was referring to motorhomes and trailers or if this is being left open. Community Development Director Miller responded that it could be either one as long as they were fully self contained. Commissioner Brinley commented on fully self contained referring tanks to hold grey water and dumping, occupying a recreational vehicle. recreational vehicles being and capacity of the tanks and the number of persons Commissioner Brown commented on the verbiage "by specific ap- proval of the City Manager or his designee" wanting to know what has to be done to get approval (specific guidelines). Minutes of Planning Commission August 4, 1987 Page 10 AMENDMENT 87-5 = CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE CONTINUED Community Development Director Miller responded that there would be an application process that anyone would have to go through as part of the Temporary Outdoor Activity. This is not generally permitted, it would only be permitted in the context of an otherwise permitted Temporary Outdoor Activity and in conjunction with that activity, and then gave an example. Commissioner Brown suggested that under Section 17.98.080 and 090 the verbiage "and shall comply" be changed to "by complying with" . - Considerable discussion ensued on what it takes to get approval from the City Manager or his designee on the sale or dispensing of alcoholic beverages. Vice Chairman Mellinger recommended that the word "guidelines" be deleted from the ordinance. vice Chairman Mellinger recommended that a provision be added that clearly states that "violation of any the conditions of approval, ABC regulations, or City conditions shall be cause for immediate cessation of the Temporary Outdoor Activities determined by the City Manager or his designee or authorized enforcement personnel of the City of Lake Elsinore". Community Development Director Miller stated that there is a general stipulation to that effect under Section 17.98.140. Vice Chairman Mellinger stated that he assumes this would include ABC regulations. Community Development Director Miller responded in the affirma- tive. - Vice Chairman Mellinger stated that in each instance items 1 through 3 are going to be required. Thinks that further conditions should be able to be placed on the activity by the City Manager or his designee, depending upon the situation, and would not be opposed to stipulating that it is clear that the City Manager or designee shall placed further conditions on the Temporary Outdoor Activity, if necessary, to ensure protection of the health, safety and welfare of the community. Believes that this is stated elsewhere, but thinks that it should be clarified. Vice Chairman Mellinger stated that he was not sure if dust control was listed, but thinks that this should be added to the ordinance. Commissioner Brinley commented on the sale or dispensing of alcoholic beverages stating that instead of leaving it up to the recommendation of the Sheriff's Department that the City should set down specific guidelines that they would like to see followed and enforced by the Sheriff's Department, and would like to see this presented to the City Council. - Discussion ensued on how this could be applied to each and every application; what guidelines would be utilized when reviewing an application; why this type of application could not be approved over the counter; the applicant being able to appeal the decision and what body reviews said appeals. Vice Chairman Mellinger stated that if there are any sug- gestions on any other criteria that is not listed in the ordinance, thinks that the Commission should make that recommendation and it should be included in the motion. Minutes of Planning Commission August 4, 1987 Page 11 AMENDMENT 87-5 - CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE CONTINUED ~ commissioner Brinley commented on section 17.98.090.3, stating this is very general and should be tightened up. Motion by Commissioner Kelley to recommend to City Council adoption of the previous Negative Declaration and approval of Amendment 87-5 based on the findings listed in the Staff Report, second by Commissioner Brown. vice Chairman discussion. Mellinger asked if there was any further commissioner Brinley asked if the maker of the motion would amend Section 17.98.090.3, to read as follows: 3. All conditions and recommendations of the Sheriff's Department and Alcoholic Beverage Control and the City shall be complied with. The Sheriff's Department may require the provision of Sheriff's deputies at any event where alcoholic beverages are served. A minimum of one (1) off-duty deputy shall be required where more than 100 people are anticipated to attend unless specifically waived by the Sheriff's Department. commissioner Kelley amendment to Section sioner Brown, was in Approved 4-0 amended his motion 17.98.090.3, maker of agreement. to include the above the second, Commis- -- BUSINESS ITEMS NONE INFORMATIONAL Community Development Director Miller presented a report on Develop- ment Requirements, Environmental Impact Reports and Economic Impact of Development, which was an outcome of the June 29th Study Session. vice Chairman Mellinger recommended that a Physical Impact Analysis be presented as an informational item. commissioner Brinley asked if there would be a study session with City Council soon. Vice Chairman Mellinger responded in the negative, and stated that in the past study sessions were regularly scheduled. If this is the Commission's desire we could ask staff to transmit our desire to City Council to have regular joint study sessions, perhaps twice a year. It was the consensus of the Commission to have staff transmit this -- request to City Council. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS Community Development Director stated that he had nothing to report. PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Commissioner Brown: Received a copy of Mr. Will1iams' letter about Casino Drive and agrees with the issues brought up. Ask staff what conditions must we meet to change the name of a street.. Minutes of Planning Commission August 4, 1987 Page 12 PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS CONTINUED vice Chairman Mellinger stated that he thought it would be appropri- ate for staff to come back with written communication to the Commission addressing this. Commissioner Brinley: Nothing to report. .... Commissioner Kellev: Asked staff about the completion of the stop light at Four Corners wanting to know when this is scheduled, and stated that he has heard many positive comments on the stop light, the Park/Abrams project and landscaping at Four Corners. A lot of the residents are excited about that entrance into the city. Community Development Director Miller responded that he is unsure of the time frame that engineering has set. vice Chairman Mellinqer: Stated that he would absent at the next meeting (August 18). Asked about the status of General Plan Revisions. Community Development Director Miller stated that as previously indicated there is a flurry of activity in terms of identifying goals and objectives and there is a lot of work in applying those. __ Presently, we are in that process and we would anticipate public workshops to be conducted in September and October, and bringing it to Planning Commission in November for public hearing. If that proceeds expeditiously then taking it to City Council for adoption in December. vice Chairman Mellinger commented on the workshops stating that these are extremely valuable. One problem is getting the word out to the people, maybe in the newspaper. Feels that there should be some sort of poster or whatever posted in all of the grocery stores, laundromats and etc., and asked where these workshops would be held if there is a large turnout. Community Development Director Miller stated that we have tried to identify several locations throughout town and constantly tried to add to that list of people willing to post notices. To this point, turnout has been rather low but this is not unusual. When we get down to specifics, it is usually a large turnout, we expect a significant turnout and will try to make accommodations. Community Development Director Miller then stated that the intent of a workshop is to keep it to a manageable number of people and we will try to break it up either geographically, or by type, or depending upon what seems to be forthcoming and what will be controversial or potentially controversial we will try to identify -- it in that way to keep the workshops as manageable as possible. Vice Chairman Mellinger stated that it should be noted that there is nothing that will have a greater effect than the General Plan Revision on the City, and the citizens should know that this will have a tremendous impact on the entire valley and it is important for them to attend these workshops, and thinks that it is appropri- ate for the Commissioners to attend. Minutes of Planning Commission August 4, 1987 Page 13 - There being no further business, the Commission adjourned at 8:53 p.m. Motion by second by Vice Chairman Mellinger. Approved 4-0 Lake Elsinore Commissioner Approved, !n~:l$ Vice Chairman Respectfully submitted, cf1?,~Ad4ifr Linda Grindsta:t'r Planning commission Secretary - Planning Brinley, - - ....., MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON THE 18TH DAY OF AUGUST 1987 THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:00 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Commissioner Brown. ROLL CALL: - PRESENT: Commissioners: Brown, Brinley, Kelley and Washburn ABSENT: commissioners: Mellinger Also present were Community Development Director Miller, Assistant Planners Magee and Last and Associate Planner Wilkins. MINUTE ACTION Motion by Commissioner Brown to approve minutes of August 4, 1987, as submitted, second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved 3-0 Chairman Washburn abstaining PUBLIC COMMENTS Chairman Washburn asked address the Commission. the Secretary if there were any request to The Secretary answered in the negative. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Zone Change 87-6 - Gateway Commercial Partnership (Neil Cleve- land) - Associate Planner Wilkins presented proposal to change the zoning from RRO and SPO (former County designation) to C-2 (General Commercial) for 21.71 acres, bounded by Central, Dexter and Cambern Avenue, west of Crane Street. Chairman Washburn opened the public hearing at 7:05 p.m. asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of Zone Change 87-6. Mr. Neil Cleveland, general partner and owner of the property, stated that he concurs with staff recommendation. Chairman Washburn asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor of Zone Change 87-6. Mr. Everett Wood, 29421 Third Street, stated that he was not sure if he was in favor or opposition, and asked for clarification on the exact location. Associate Planner Wilkins presented Mr. map, which was included in the packet, the location. Wood with the location and briefly discussed - Chairman Washburn asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor of Zone Change 87-6. 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 Brown asked for the date of the annexation. community Development Director Miller referred to Exhibit #1, stating there is a LAFCO (Local Agency Formation Commission) Case Number for the amended annexation, which occurred in 1982. Chairman Washburn stated request, his is more of a our long range planner are looking to accomplish that he was not in opposition to the long term concern. Asked staff if has reviewed this in terms of what we in the General Plan changes. Minutes of Planning Commission August 18, 1987 Page 2 ZONE CHANGE 87-6 - GATEWAY COMMERCIAL PARTNERSHIP (NEIL CLEVELAND) CONTINUED Community Development Director Miller responded that this has been reviewed in context with future General Plan Amendments that are being considered, and as indicated in the Staff Report this is consistent with the General Plan designation. Chairman Washburn commented on the depth of commercial going down Cambern Street, finds some difficulty in going that deep with commercial, and that it may be more applicable, in the long term, to have the front portion C-2 and the back portion with a different type of zoning. .... Chairman Washburn asked what the intent, type of use, was for that property. Community Development Director Miller responded that staff has discussed with Mr. Cleveland and his partners the potential of the site, and they have inquired about some of the potential uses of the parcel that is further removed from Central Avenue. Commissioner Brinley stated that she concurs with Chairman Washburn on the depth of commercial, and then asked Mr. Cleve- land what type of use they had planned for the property. Mr. Cleveland stated that they have given this quite a bit of thought and hired two consultants to help with this. We are primarily in the overall planning stage, and at this time, I am not ready to say exactly what we have planned. Commissioner Brinley asked Mr. Cleveland if it would be feasi- ble for him to get together with Mr. Manee, Senior Contract .... Planner, and do some long range planning and then bring it back to the Commission. Mr. Cleveland answered in the affirmative. Commissioner Brinley commented on the residential that sur- rounds the property and stated that when you start putting commercial centers in with residential she would like to see what is planned. Commissioner Kelley stated that he concurs with Commissioners Washburn and Brinley, and would like to see some kind of plan for the property. Chairman Washburn stated that he does not have a problem with the zone change, in a since that a coherent plan is probably in the works, but would definitely like the input of Alan Manee, Senior Contract Planner, and would like more input from the applicant on what they are trying to accomplish. Motion by Chairman Washburn to continue Zone Change 87-6 for two (2) weeks, asking staff if this would be sufficient time for Mr. Manee, staff and the applicant to get together. Community Development Director Miller responded in the nega- tive. ..., Discussion at the table ensued on conformance between the General Plan and Zoning. Chairman Washburn amended his motion to continue Zone Change 87-6 for one (1) month and proposal is to be brought back with adequate input, second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved 4-0 Minutes of Planning Commission August 18, 1987 Page 3 ZONE CHANGE 87-6 - GATEWAY COMMERCIAL PARTNERSHIP (NEIL CLEVELAND) CONTINUED ..... Community Development Director Miller asked direction from the Planning Commission in terms desired. for additional of the input Chairman Washburn stated that he would like this proposal reviewed by the Senior Contract Planner, Alan Manee, and addi- tional input from the applicant on coherency of the plan in regards to the project that is under consideration now, which is the Mobil gas station concept and the commercial strip center, and how this would fit in with the rest of the project. If they were going to parcel it off in individual pieces how might they rearrange the whole 21 acres to make it more of a compatible commercial, C-2, project. 2. Conditional Use Permit 87-8 - Del Taco Properties - Assistant Planner Magee presented proposal 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 River- side Drive. Chairman Washburn opened the public hearing at 7:25 p.m. asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of Conditional Use Permit 87-8. ..... Mr. Michael Saberi, representing Del Taco, commented on condi- tion number 3, stating that the only objection they have to the canopy over the drive-thru would be the requirement of the Uniform Building Code to have a one hour fire wall within twenty feet of the property line. Since our drive-thru is only seven feet away from the property line this requires us to provide one hour construction which to us is not cost effective. Chairman Washburn asked if this was in reference to a fire wall and not external items. ~ Assistant Planner Magee responded that staff has had consul- tation with the Chief Building Official and he indicated that a canopy at that location would require a one hour rating and indicated that this could be met by 8 inch beams or 8 inch wood timbers being used to support the structure and 6 inch beams going across the top. Mr. Saberi responded that, in that case, they have no objection to providing the canopy over the drive-thru. Chairman Washburn asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor of Conditional Use Permit 87-8. Receiving no response, Chair- man 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 7:28 p.m. A brief discussion was held at the table on the site design and if it is not approved whether or not the Conditional Use Permit would be null and void or if it would be a permitted use. Motion by Commissioner Kelley to adopt Negative Declaration No. 87-23 and approval of Conditional Use Permit 87-8 based on the findings and subject to the 3 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report, second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved 4-0 Minutes of Planning Commission August 18, 1987 Page 4 3. Conditional Use Permit 87-10 - Sam Lee-Devenplus Corporation - Associate Planner Wilkins presented a request for Planning Commission determination if a 60-unit, two-story, multi-struc- ture hotel complex is an appropriate use in the C-2 (General Commercial) district under Section 17.48.020 Item "0" of the Zoning Code to be developed in conjunction with an eight (8) unit commercial center. 1.78 acres, on the northerly side of Casino Drive (Vista Del Lago) 180 feet west of Railroad Canyon Road. __ Chairman Washburn opened the pUblic hearing at 7:30 p.m. asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of Conditional Use Permit 87-10. Mr. Frank Montesinos, architect for the project and represent- ing Devenplus Corporation, stated that he agrees with staff recommendation, and will answer any questions the Commission may have. Chairman Washburn asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor of Conditional Use Permit 87-10. Receiving no response, Chair- man 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 7:31 p.m. Commissioner Kelley stated for this specific site he has no problem with the hotel and commercial uses, and asked staff if it was just for this site or would it be city-wide. Community Development Director Miller stated that the section cited provides for this to be a finding that this is a use that could be permitted in a C-2 zoning anywhere within the City. __ Chairman Washburn asked if this was subject to a Conditional Use Permit, and stated that his interpretation would be on a case by case basis. Community Development Director Miller responded in the affirma- tive. Chairman Washburn stated that he has no problem as long as language is included "C-2, Conditional Use Permit on a case by case or site specific", meaning that not every C-2 zone would be appropriate for a hotel or motel site. Motion by commissioner Brown to adopt Negative 87-25, and approve Conditional Use Permit 87-10 findings listed in the Staff Report, second Brinley. Approved 4-0 Declaration No. based on the by Commissioner 4. Conditional Use Permit 87-11 - Lytle Creek Partners - Assistant Planner Last presented proposal to allow two additional storage units to be constructed in conjunction with an existing mini- storage facility. A 2.48 acre site located on the southwest corner of Riverside Drive and EI Toro Road. -- Chairman Washburn opened the public hearing at 7:35 p.m. aSking if anyone wished to speak in favor of Conditional Use Permit 87-11. Mr. Bruce Jordan, representing the applicant, gave a brief background report on the proposal, and stated that he would answer any questions the Commission may have. Minutes of Planning Commission August 18, 1987 Page 5 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 87-11 = LYTLE CREEK PARTNERS CONTINUED ..... Chairman Washburn asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor of Conditional Use Permit 87-11. Receiving no response, Chair- man 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 Kelley stated that he was in agreement with staff recommendations. Believes that the Conditional Use Permit process would adequately protect us (the City) to have mini-storages in the M-2 Zoning. Thinks that the proposed addition to this unit will be a nice enhancement. commissioner Brinley stated that she has no problem with the overall plan, and asked if the open spot (referenced rendering on board) where the two new units are proposed, if this was not used in the past for storage of recreational vehicles and boats. Mr. Jordan stated that this is correct. Commissioner Brinley asked if if the applicant still plans to recreational vehicles and boats, place built for these. these were going to be enclosed; have storage facilities for or if there will be a separate Mr. Jordan stated that these two buildings are being built for conventional storage, and that there will be some spaces within -- that will be capable of storing recreational vehicles, but essentially we are eliminating the exterior storage of recre- ational vehicles from the facilities. Motion by Commissioner Brinley to approve Conditional Use Permit 87-11 based on the findings and the two Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report and adoption of Negative Declaration No. 87-26, second by Chairman Washburn. Commissioner Kelley asked if these should not be acted on as separate issues, being as there are two recommendations. commissioner Brinley rescinded her motion and maker of the second rescinding his second. Motion by Commissioner Brinley to approve Conditional Use Permit 87-11 resolving that mini-storage facilities should be listed as a use subject to a Conditional Use Permit in the General Manufacturing (M-2) Zoning District, second by Chairman Washburn. Approved 4-0 Motion by Commissioner Brinley to approve Conditional Use Permit 87-11 based on the findings and the two Conditions of -- Approval listed in the Staff Report and adoption of Negative Declaration No. 87-26, second by Chairman Washburn. Approved 4-0 BUSINESS ITEMS 1. Commercial Project 87-6 Del Taco Properties - Assistant Planner Magee presented proposal to construct a 1,872 square foot fast food restaurant. 0.50 acre site, located on the east side of Lakeshore Drive approximately 245 feet north of Riverside Drive. Minutes of Planning Commission August 18, 1987 Page 6 COMMERCIAL PROJECT 87-6 - DEL TACO PROPERTIES CONTINUED Chairman Washburn asked if the applicant had any questions on the Conditions of Approval. Mr. Michael Saberi, representing Del Taco Properties, stated that they do not have a problem with the request regarding the site plan, loading area and landscaping, and would make all of the adjustments that staff has requested. Mr. Saberi stated that he would like to inform staff that Del Taco is going through a remodeling program, and we have remodeled more than half of our units with the new color scheme, which is blue and cream. We feel that the new color scheme of blue and cream with a combination of orange tile and Spanish style would give it a nice Mediterranean look that would fit with the environment. .... Mr. Saberi requested that they be allowed to retain the blue canopies, stating that they have no objection to painting the top trim and the base trim the requested brown color. Also, we have no objection to painting the plant-on verticals the brown color, but we would like to retain the blue awnings and the cream fascia boards. Chairman Washburn asked if the logo was also changed to th~ blue color. Mr. Saberi answered in the affirmative and referenced the photographs illustrating the Del Taco in Rancho California, stating that all of the Del Taco restaurants will have the same look by January 1988. commissioner Brown commented on the site plan pertaining to the bulk of the landscaping being visible to the people in the drive-thru and the street having the minimum. .... Commissioner Brown commented on the building, stating that he views this as a cookie cutter Del Taco and does not want to see this at Four Corners. It is the same one that you see every place else and it is probably important to them for product recognition, but I think that we have taken a stance for certain areas in the City that regardless of product recognition we want something that blends with the area, and I do not think that this goes with the area at all. Commissioner Brown commented on the site plan stating that he would prefer to see the building broadened over what is pro- posed to give the facility additional width instead of all vertical height and possibly a combination of open type canopies, such as the drive-thru, in conjunction with the land- scaping and some how flip the unit so that the view you see from the drive-thru is the view that you see from the street. Perhaps move the entire unit toward the street and then have an ingress/engress in front of the restaurant with the balance of the parking in the rear. Commissioner Brinley stated that she agrees with Commissioner .... Brown and then asked for the location of the trash enclosure. Assistant Planner Magee referred to the rendering exhibited and pointed out the applicant's and staff's proposal for the location of the trash enclosure. Commissioner Brinley commented on the stark appearance from the street, and suggested that the building be moved closer to the street and have parking toward the rear. Minutes of Planning Commission August 18, 1987 Page 7 COMMERCIAL PROJECT 87-6 - DEL TACO PROPERTIES CONTINUED ~ commissioner Kelley stated that he concurs with the ideas brought up by the other Commissioners, but has a difficult time coming up with a solution. Chairman Washburn commented on the past General Plan recogniz- ing the area, community wise, for a Spanish concept and design; past deviations from this concept on different cases and the need for the applicant to know what concept the Commission is looking for, whether it be a Spanish or Cape Cod design. Discussion at the table ensued on the Spanish design theme and if it is going to be Spanish then it should be a traditional Spanish theme; nautical theme not being appropriate; location of the proposal and the surrounding structures having more of a traditional early California appearance; the new colors and design not mutually exclusive to Spanish integrity and could probably have some mixing of the blue with the more pure Spanish design; adding a condition that a Class II bicycle lane should be provided on Lakeshore Drive; length of the building and whether or not the roof needs to be broken up. ~ Motion by Commissioner Brown to continue Commercial Project 87-6, for redesign of the building and the site, which would include the bulk of the landscaping moved to the front with limited ingress and egress in the front; architectural enhance- ments to the roof; design enhancements to the building other than what is illustrated on the rendering; extension of the building on the southeast side to match the extension of the buIlding that would be on the drive-thru to give the building balance, an open overhang type situation with a canopy and have that blend in with the landscape. Chairman Washburn asked Commissioner Brown if his overall emphasis was for a Spanish design? Commissioner Brown responded that if we are going to go with Spanish then it should be traditional Spanish, unless the present design is going to be enhanced with some other Spanish style features. Second by Chairman Washburn. Approved 4-0 At this time, 8:00 p.m., the Planning Commission recessed for a break. At this time, 8:10 p.m., the Planning commission reconvened. 2. Commercial Project 87-7 Sam Lee - Devenplus Corporation - Associate Planner Wilkins presented proposal to construct a 11,044 square foot 60-unit hotel complex and a 9,500 square -- foot, 8-unit commercial center. Chairman Washburn asked if the applicant had any questions on the Conditions of Approval. Mr. Frank Montesinos, architect for the project and represent- ing Devenplus Corporation, stated that he agrees with staff recommendation, and will answer any questions the Commission may have. Commissioner Kelley stated that he is pleased with the overall design, and asked if we have a landscape architect on staff. Minutes of Planning Commission August 18, 1987 Page 8 COMMERCIAL PROJECT 87-7 SAM LEE = DEVENPLUS CORPORATION CONTINUED Community Development Director Miller informed Commissioner Kelley that the City does have a contract landscape architect. Commissioner Brinley stated that she thinks that the overall concept is attractive, but would like to see additional land- scaping to resolve the stark appearance of the building. Commissioner Brown commented on the site plan, referring to the exhibit, the area running from the front property line on the pool side of the property to the rear is that proposed for turf area with the trees in clusters. .... Associate Planner Wilkins responded that this is a conceptual landscape plan the architect has developed for the site, and staff's recommendation is that extensive upgrading of this plan occur. Commissioner Brown stated that he would like to see that entire area screened with landscaping, starting in the pool area and going to the rear property line, especially in the parking loti would also like to see more mature trees along Building #3, the commercial building, and more landscaping along the front of that elevation and extensive landscaping where it fronts on Casino. Commissioner Brown stated that on Building #1 he would like to see the roof line broken up, but does not know if the archi- tecture would provide for this, and then asked for the length of the building. Discussion at the table ensued on the length of the building __ and if the design of the two tower elements at the end of the building were sufficient to break up the roof line. Chairman Washburn stated that he concurs with Commissioner Brown on the upgraded landscaping. Chairman Washburn commented on the area that falls between the existing project and this project, the area that is not paved when you come along the back of the units, asked if this would this be barren ground or if these two projects would interface. Discussion at the table ensued on the the existing and proposed project, and would be future ingress/egress from existing project. Chairman Washburn recommended that a Class II bicycle lane be added as a condition of approval. land that falls between whether or not there this project to the Chairman Washburn asked if all of the property was out of the FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) flood level area. Associate Planner Wilkins responded that it has been determined by staff to be outside. Motion by Commissioner Kelley to adopt Negative Declaration 87-25 and approval of Commercial Project 87-7 based on the Findings and the 38 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report with the addition of condition number 39, which shall read: .... Condition No. 39: "A Class II bicycle lane shall be provided." Minutes of Planning Commission August 18, 1987 Page 9 COMMERCIAL PROJECT 87-7 SAM LEE = DEVENPLUS CORPORATION CONTINUED - Second by Commissioner Brown with discussion. Commissioner Brown recommended that the following Conditions be amended to read as follows: Condition No.4: "The applicant shall submit a revised landscaping and irrigation plan for review and approval by the Planning Commission, to include enhancement throughout the entire site, additional landscape treatment to diminish the impacts of large blank walls at the rear elevation of Building 2 & 3, which shall include foundation shrub planting and trees, also including shrubs to screen parking areas from the street, and provide planter boxes on the balconies of the motel plan as illustrated on the building elevations as shown in Exhibit 3." Condition No.8: - "All exterior on-site lighting shall be shielded and directed on-site so as not to create glare onto neighboring property and streets or allow illumi- nation above the horizontal plane of the fixture. The light fixture pro- posed is to match the architecture of the building." Commissioner Brinley asked that condition number 9 be brought back to the Planning Commission for review of the roof mounted equipment. commissioner Brown stated that if it is all screened within the proposed architecture of the building and as you can not see it then it is screened, and he has no problem with that. Commissioner Kelley stated that he would amend his motion to include Commissioner Brown's recommendations. There being no further discussion Chairman Washburn called for the question. Approved 4-0 3. Commercial Project 87-8 Lytle Creek Partners - Assistant Planner Last presented proposal to construct two (2) mini- storage units, one is to be constructed on the property where there is currently RV and boat storage. A 2.48 acre site located on the southwest corner of Riverside Drive and El Toro Road. - Assistant Planner Last stated to clarify a point Commissioner Brinley brought up earlier about RV storage, condition #17 will prohibit RV and boat storage on the site, if this proposal is approved. Chairman Washburn asked if the applicant had any questions on the Conditions of Approval. Mr. Bruce Jordan, architect for the project, stated that generally speaking they concur with the findings and staff recommendation, but would like some clarification and would like to modify one condition. Minutes of Planning Commission August 18, 1987 Page 10 COMMERCIAL PROJECT 87-8 - LYTLE CREEK PARTNERS CONTINUED Mr. Jordan presented a revised site plan, and then commented on condition number 3, pertaining to the relocation of the trash enclosure, stating that they would propose that the trash enclosure be relocated to the location illustrated on the revised site plan. The main reason for this is as you enter, due to the configuration of the building, it is very unclear where you park your car, and then requested that the three __ parallel spaces be pulled down to the entry. Mr. Jordan commented on condition number 5, stating that they were proposing a six foot decorative block wall that totally encloses the site. Staff has suggested that on the south side of the property this be an eight foot high wall to screen the buildings from the intersection. I feel that an eight foot high wall is rather obtrusive and we will be intersecting a six foot high block wall at this location (referred to the revised site plan). Mr. Jordan commented on condition number 8, regarding partici- pation in mitigation of drainage impacts by paYment of drainage mitigation fee, stating that they would be willing to partici- pate on the acreage devoted to the new project. Mr. Jordan commented on condition number 11, pertaining to the sliding gate at the EI Toro Road entrance, stating that swing gates are existing and we would like to maintain these, as this gate is proposed strictly as an emergency exit and entry to the project and we are not proposing to have it open at any point. Mr. Jordan commented on condition number 18, pertaining to the street abandonment application being completed and recorded __ prior to the issuance of building permits, requesting that this be changed to prior to the issuance of Certificate of Occupancy. Mr. Jordan commented on condition number 22, pertaining to the construction of a water line in Riverside Drive to meet the maximum day plus fire flow demand at maximum velocity of 10 feet/second, stating that there has been discussion with the Fire Department and the preliminary indication is that they would like us to bring a water line down from EI Toro Road to service a fire hydrant in this location, referring to the site plan exhibited. In the event this is found inadequate we would certainly do what is necessary to comply, but the preliminary indication from the Fire Department is that we bring the fire line down and connect in EI Toro Road, therefore, I request that this be modified. Mr. Jordan stated that he would like to point out that the design of this new facility is predicated on the design of the old facility and we are matching the existing style. The owners are going to go through and repaint the entire facility from one end to the other so that it will be integrated, and they have also informed me that they would like to go with concrete drive aisle as opposed to the asphalt that was indicated. __ Chairman Washburn asked if they currently have concrete in the drive aisles. Mr. Jordan responded that there is some concrete and exposed gravel. Chairman Washburn asked that staff address Mr. Jordan's com- ments on conditions 3, 8, 11, and 18. Minutes of Planning Commission August 18, 1987 Page 11 COMMERCIAL PROJECT 87-8 - LYTLE CREEK PARTNERS CONTINUED ..... Assistant Planner Last stated that staff has not had time to review the applicant's revised site plan, but staff's reason for locating the trash enclosure at that point was to provide for immediate visibility of the trash enclosure, and the other concern was for adequate circulation for the trash trucks when picking up the refuse. Community Development Director Miller stated that, it should be pointed out, this is the current location of the trash enclosure on-site, and that parking has certainly been a problem at this location, as identified in previous use permits. Community Development Director Miller stated that in terms of condition number 8, it would be staff's recommendation that a per acre cost be applied to the entire site, since this does involve improvement to the entire area and they do contribute to the drainage conditions existing. Community Development Director Miller stated in regards condition number 18, this is an item that has been pending quite some time, and we feel that there needs to be urgency on the part of the applicant to get this resolved. to for some ..... commissioner Brown asked if the previous conditions of approval for this project have been met. Assistant Planner Last responded in the affirmative. A lengthy discussion at the table ensued on condition number 6, pertaining to the reasoning behind the eight-foot decorative block wall over the six-foot decorative block wall; Fire and Police Departments comments on the eight-foot block wall; whether or not wrought iron would be incorporated or if it was just for the Riverside Drive frontage; condition number 11, pertaining to the sliding gate and why the gate could not swing to the interior. Chairman Washburn stated that on condition number 18, he has no problem with changing this as long as the street abandonment was completed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Use or Occupancy. Commissioner Brown asked if there would be any utilities to the buildings. ~ Discussion at the table ensued on interior and exterior light- ing, the existence of a 50 watt wall pack on site to build a drive aisle and a condition being added that utilities will not be released until this is completed; condition number 22, pertaining to the water line in Riverside Drive and having this subject to the approval of Riverside County Fire Department. Chairman Washburn stated that on condition number 3, he agrees with the applicant's request for relocation of the trash en- closure. Discussion ensued on relocation of the trash enclosure; circu- lation pattern and the left hand radis turns for the trash trucks with confirmation to be provided from ROdriquez Disposal on the circulation pattern; condition number 17, pertaining to recreational vehicles, boats and outside storage being prohibited. Assistant Planner Last stated that in regards to the trash Minutes of Planning Commission August 18, 1987 Page 12 COMMERCIAL PROJECT 87-8 - LYTLE CREEK PARTNERS CONTINUED enclosure, we may want to provide some type of landscape buffer or clearly mark the parking stalls, so that cars are not parked right back into the trash enclosure gates. Chairman Washburn asked Planner Last which parking stalls he was referring to. Commissioner Brinley asked if you are going to have a trash enclosure at that location, referring to the site plan, wouldn't parking be a problem, and asked if it would not be better to have no parking in this area and put the enclosure in with some landscaping around it so that it is not an eyesore. - Discussion ensued on the location of the trash enclosure and parking. Motion by Commissioner Brown to approve Commercial Project 87-8 ~nd adoption of Negative Declaration 87-26 based on the Find- 1ngs and the 23 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report with the following amendments: Condition No.3: Condition No.6: Condition No.8: Condition No. 10: Condition No. 11: Condition No. 18: Condition No. 22: "Relocate the trash enclosure to the location illustrated on the revised site plan presented with adequate proof that the trash trucks will be able to make the three left hand radius turns." "Applicant shall construct a six-foot (6') high decorative block wall along the southern portion of the property." - "Prior to issuance of building permits developer shall enter into an agreement with the City to mitigate drainage impacts, which includes the total pro- perty, by payment of a drainage miti- gation fee. Whereas the City is in the process of developing a Master Plan of Drainage for this area, and the final plan has not yet been adopted by previously completed Master Plan of Drainage for the West End which indicates a fee of $4,000 per acre is in order, the developer shall deposit $4,000 per acre which may be partially returned if the indicated drainage fee is lower. "All parking stalls shall be striped with double lines two-feet (2') apart. The three (3) parking spaces will not be used for anything but transient type parking." "The entrance on El Toro Road shall be equipped with an inward opening, one piece, gate that will open to the out- side fence so as not to block either one of the ingress/egress aisle." - "A street abandonment application shall be completed and recorded prior to the issuance of Certificate of Occupancy and release of utilities." Applicant shall construct a water line Minutes of Planning Commission August 18, 1987 Page 13 COMMERCIAL PROJECT 87-8 - LYTLE CREEK PARTNERS CONTINUED - in Riverside Drive to meet the maximum day plus fire flow demand, at maximum velocity of 10 feet/second, to the satisfaction of the Riverside County Fire Department and Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District." Second by Commissioner Brinley. Community Development Director Miller asked for clarification on amended condition number 11, inward opening gates, does not believe that a one piece gate would be able to be opened at that location due to the narrowness of the adjacent driveway, which would only be about 15 feet in width. Chairman Washburn recommended swing gates to the interior. Commissioner Brown amended his motion to amend condition number 11, to read: Condition No. 11: "The entrance on El Toro Road shall be equipped with one swing interior gate to the outside fence, and if this is not feasible then an interior double swinging gate can be provided." - There being no further discussion at the, Chairman Washburn called for the question. Approved 4-0 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS Community Development Director Miller reported on the following items: The Conditional Use Permit for the temporary use of the commercial facility at Lakeshore and Clement by the Lutheran Church was appealed by the applicant and is scheduled before city Council on August 25. Tentative Tract Map 17413 for Canyon Lake Hills Development was reviewed by City Council and continued to September 17, at which time an update and revised Fiscal Analysis and additional environmental infor- mation is to be brought back. - City Council conduct additional conversation on Development Standards, along the lines that Planning Commission conducted at their study session of June 29, some of the items were physical impacts and screening of air conditioning units. The consensus of City Council was that all air conditioning units should be screened or mounted on the ground, and there should not be an exception for roof mounted equipment even in the infi11 areas. Council also requested review of the use of chainlink in single-family areas, and review of shopping center sign standards. Also regarding parkways, particularly in residential areas, whether there should be street trees adjacent to the curb or whether the sidewalk should be adjacent to the curb. Staff will be develop- ing additional information and reporting back to Council on these issues. Minutes of Planning Commission August 18, 1987 Page 14 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS CONTINUED Another discussion centered around the grease traps that Planning Commission has mentioned on several occasions. The Engineering Department has indicated that they would prepare a report to City Council regarding the feasibility of this, and this will be shared with the Commission when it becomes available. .... Chairman Washburn asked if swamp coolers fill areas, pertaining to air conditioners, already allowed for in Title 17. were allowed in the in- and if it was not Community Development Director Miller responded that there was discussion on this and that Title 17 indicates that all units shall be screened. Chairman Washburn stated that he watched the last City Council meeting and when they went into a study session it seemed to be difficult for the give and take of questions and answers. It is my opinion, and possibly a few Councilmembers, that study sessions as attached to the regular agenda can be difficult to get clear input, and if we have study sessions that are publicly announced we should provide for meeting times other than normal City Councilor Planning Commission. PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Commissioner Brown: Asked for direction from Council, thinks that we are all trying to __ go in the same direction, but was confused with the Canyon Lake Hills Development. Knows that the City is very concerned about economic impact by large tracts, and what the Planning Commission worked very strongly for was to eliminate any liability for the City for these open areas, especially the ones that the City derives no benefit from; i.e., vertical hillsides. Thought that we were going in the right direction with having those home- owners that provide us with those hillsides worry about the liability. Commissioner Brinlev: Nothing to report. Commissioner Kelley: Responded to Commissioner Brown's comment stating it was his under- standing that a Fiscal Impact Study on a development of size would encompass all City services and how it impacts each agency within the City. Community Development Director Miller stated that this was the scope of information that Council requested to be updated. -- Chairman Washburn: Asked if there was a response back on the letter sent to the owner of the laundromat on North Main Street, in reference to the users of the laundromat parking between the front doors of the building and the sidewalk. Assistant Planner Magee stated that a letter was sent to the owners of the laundromat, and in consultation with them they did install a Minutes of Planning Commission August 18, 1987 Page 15 PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS CONTINUED No Parking sign across the front of the building, subsequent to that the sign has been removed. If Planning Commission would like to give staff further direction on resolving this matter it would -- be appreciated. Chairman Washburn stated that further direction would be another letter strongly worded and, in my opinion, there should be a barrier erected so that physically the cars can not encroach upon that area and a sign that states No Parking or Loitering. Assistant Planner Magee stated that the owner of the facility is of no way being contrary to staff's recommendations. They have pursued action and cleaned up the site and it does look better than it has in the last six months, and I do not believe that the owners would be adverse to doing the improvements that the Commission would like to see. Would like to see some of the projects Contract Planner, or who is designated see how these interface or relate General Plan. be discussed with our Senior to look at future events, to to possible changes in the Community Development Director Miller responded that all appli- cations are reviewed within the context of the policies and objectives that have been adopted in the General Plan. Commissioner Brown: -- Would like to thank the owners of the Black Sea Cafe. We had a problem there with their parking and they came up with a creative solution that appears to be working. Would like an update on the garages behind the carwash on Riverside Drive, there is a parking problem there. Community Development Director Miller stated that a report would be prepared and presented to the Commission. There being no further business, the Lake Elsinore Planning Commis- sion adjourned at 9:07 p.m. Motion by Commissioner Brinley, second by Commissioner Brown. Approved 4-0 !Jvl to MU/J;-,__ ashburn an ~fu:r::;;ed' Linda Grindstaff ~ Planning Commission Secretary - - - MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON THE 1ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER 1987 THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:00 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Commissioner Brinley. ROLL CALL: -- PRESENT: Commissioners: Brown, Mellinger, Brinley, Kelley and Washburn ABSENT: None Also present were Community Development Director Miller, Assistant Planners Magee and Last. MINUTE ACTION Motion by Commissioner Brown to approve minutes of August 18, 1987, as submitted, second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved 4-0 Commissioner Mellinger abstaining PUBLIC COMMENTS Chairman Washburn asked address the Commission. the secretary if there were any request to The Secretary answered in the negative. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Conditional Use Permit 87-12 - A. O. & T. Industries - Jack D. Smith - Assistant Planner Magee presented proposal for a Condi- tional Use Permit to allow the conversion of a single-family residence into an office, located approximately 333 feet north of Lakeshore Drive on the east side of Wisconsin Street. -- Chairman Washburn opened the public hearing at 7:06 p.m. asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of Conditional Use Permit 87-12. Mr. Jack Smith spoke in favor of the proposal, stating that there is potential on that C-l property for a business that is basically in data processing, and the opportunity to create a very nice looking arrangement there. We have not complied with the architectural and the community design elements, but will attempt to conform to the general design regulations. The parking can be worked on as the situation there is not critical, very low traffic volume. -- Chairman Washburn asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor of Conditional Use Permit 87-12. Receiving no response, Chairman Washburn asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Receiv- ing 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 Brown asked Mr. Smith if the building is currently being used as a single-family residence, and if not the current use. Mr. Smith stated that the building is not currently being used as a single-family residence, and that accounting and data processing functions are going on in that building right now. Commissioner Brown asked staff if enough adequate parking spaces could be placed on this site if the garage was eliminated, and adequate circulation provided to those spaces by bringing the parking to the side and rear of the building. If the garage were removed, it may allow us to make the proper dedications and improvements, is this possible or has anyone looked at the adequate square footage back there. Minutes of Planning Commission September 1, 1987 Page 2 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 87-12 - A.O. k ~ INDUSTRIES C/O JACK ~ SMITH CONTINUED Assistant Planner Magee stated that if the garage were removed we would still have an inadequate drive aisle, it would be less than twenty feet (20'), which is a requirement of the current Zoning Code, and we would also need a five-foot (5') landscape buffer on the property line side as well as a five-foot (5') landscape buffer adjacent to the building. __ Discussion at the table ensued on the elimination of the garage; amount of footage needed for a two-way drive aisle, and the ten-foot (10') landscape buffer. Commissioner Mellinger stated that his concern is with the agree- ment with the church (Christian Science Church), the statement that this agreement can be canceled by either party with a 30 day written notice, there is nothing binding. Commissioner Mellinger stated there are several deficiencies and does not think that the present amount of traffic, for example, has anything to do with it, because ultimately that area will be developed. If it is committed now, unless it were a temporary use, there would still be a problem in the future. Agrees with staff there are to many points that do not meet the ordinance. Commissioner Brinley stated that she agrees with staff findings, and asked Mr. Smith the following questions: if he had a business located in Lake Elsinore prior to the existing location; location of the previous business; if he had a current business license and when he took out the business license if he was aware, of the fact, that he had to notify the Planning Department in regards to the location and apply for a new business license __ before moving into the building. Mr. Smith responded that he has been here for twenty-three years and that he had property on Grand Avenue which was inundated by the flood; the business was previously located in the Seers Plaza; that he was in the process of trying to reactivate his business license, and was not aware that he had to notify the Planning Department in regards to relocating the business. Discussion at the table ensued on the notification being listed on the business license with regards to the relocation of a business. Commissioner Brinley asked Mr. Smith if he had a sign on the property, and if he had a sign permit for said sign. Mr. Smith stated that he has a small sign on the property and that his sign permit is pending, approved but not issued. Mr. Smith stated that there was a math error, in that the build- ing office space is 935 square feet and the report states that it is 1,033 square feet. It is really 935 square feet and you have a 250 square feet per parking space requirement, that is five spaces not six. --- Assistant Planner Magee stated that staff took into consideration that the garage was not being used as a parking space and, in fact, on several instances that staff had been by the door was closed and staff was under the assumption that it was being used for storage or something else, but not as a parking area, so we figured that into the calculations. Commissioner Brinley stated that she agrees with Commissioner Mellinger on the agreement with the church and they can take away the two parking spaces at anytime with a 30 day notice. Minutes of Planning Commission September 1, 1987 Page 3 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 87-12 - A.O. ~ ~ INDUSTRIES C/O JACK ~ SMITH CONTINUED ~ Mr. smith stated that he spoke with the Church Committee and they related to him that in about four years they are going to buy property on Mission Trail, near Bundy Canyon. In fact, they have bought it and they are going to build a new church there because of the growth at Four Corners, that was the reason for the 30 day notice. commissioner Kelley stated that Four Corners is going to continue to grow as the commercial element is well established, and in complete agreement with staff findings. Mr. smith stated that directly across the street it is all going to be R-3 (High Density Residential). Assistant Planner Magee stated that the General Plan indicates that it be General Commercial and the current Zoning on the site, R-3, is not in agreement with the General Plan. Mr. smith commented on the width for Wisconsin Street, wanting to know when this is proposed to be widened to 60 feet, stating that since Southwest Corporation has not dedicated the additional ten feet, presumes that it will be many years into the future. Chairman Washburn stated that he was looking at a map that shows that dedication has been given on the west side of Wisconsin Street. ~ Chairman Washburn asked about the current use of the garage, if it was being used for warehouse/storage. Mr. smith stated that he has one wall with file cabinets on it, these do not have to be there they can be in another location. Chairman Washburn commented on the use of the church property for parking and asked Mr. smith if he had contacted any of the property owners around the neighborhood. Mr. Smith responded in the affirmative, report on the outcome of his meeting with owner. and then gave a brief an adjacent property ~ Chairman Washburn asked staff since the business has been in operation at this location since last August, if the request was denied what provision does the operator have to continue his use until which time he can relocate; is he allowed to continue to operate or take legal action and still operate at the site? Community Development Director Miller stated that we would ask him to relocate within a reasonable period of time, since the relocation was accomplished without benefit of the appropriate approvals. Typically, we would look for that relocation to occur within 60 days. Chairman Washburn stated that even, as Commissioner Brown pointed out, if parking is provided in the garage area it will still be tight. Chairman Washburn asked if staff received any written comments on the notification that went out to the property owners within the 300 foot radius. Assistant Planner Magee responded in the negative. Minutes of Planning Commission september 1, 1987 Page 4 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 87-12 - A.O. i ~ INDUSTRIES C/O JACK ~ SMITH CONTINUED Mr. smith stated that Mr. ROdriguez, who is a neighbor, is very happy about my arrangement there because I have cleaned it up so much, and made it very nice for him around his home and his renter next door. The next door person passed away and the property is in probate, and presently I am contemplating biding to probate court to purchase that property, pending on what __ happens here as it will have a direct impact on my thoughts. Commissioner Brinley asked Mr. smith what his plans were for this property. Mr. Smith responded that it has a large back yard in which to put cars on for parking, in addition to my back yard parking. Chairman Washburn stated that his feelings on the topic is that he concurs with the staff recommendation. My intent is not to chase away businesses, however, when we do have lack of recognition on of some of the title requirements or building requirements it is difficult to to grant such requests. However, my feeling is that the area--if you were to acquire or be able to provide parking and circulation that is needed, I could see the intent to do so. However, I would want to see improvements done on any future developments. In other words, you would have to put in curb, gutter and everything that is required along with the landscaping. Chairman Washburn stated that basically staff is requesting denial, and could see a denial, but could see it coming back if the applicant were able to acquire other properties in which then to submit a new Conditional Use Permit or project redesign, so I __ think if the Commission were to allow a little longer period of time, possibly an extension or work it into the conditions. If the applicant could solve the problems then that is fine, but if not then you would be faced with a relocation. Mr. Smith stated Community Design explanation of find the written that he has concern with interpreting the Element of the General Plan and asked for an design directives, and then asked where he could design directives. Assistant Planner Magee stated that he believes that Mr. Smith is referring to the Community Design Element. The section that is referred to in the Staff Report deals with the policy of the Community Design Element, which is in the text of the General Plan. If Mr. smith would like to stop by the office tomorrow I would be happy to show this to him and even supply him with a copy. Chairman Washburn asked staff if they had any discussion with Mr. smith on the possibility of acquiring other property around the neighborhood for compliance with Code requirements. Assistant Planner Magee responded in the negative. Commissioner Kelley asked what type of extension would be ap- propriate and what would be a reasonable amount of time, stating there seems to be too many unknowns. Commissioner Brinley stated that probate can go on for a year or more. -- Discussion at the table ensued on length of time it takes for property to clear probate and what is considered a reasonable amount of time for an extension; if an application is denied then Minutes of Planning Commission september 1, 1987 Page 5 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 87-12 = A.O. k ~ INDUSTRIES C/O JACK ~ SMITH CONTINUED it can not be resbumitted for one year unless substantial changes were made in the application. Commissioner Brown suggested that the proposal be denied without prejudice with a 90 day cap. Chairman Washburn stated that if the proposal is denied without prejudice with a 90 day cap, that at the end of the 90 days if nothing were done then it would be brought back before the Com- mission and we would basically deny it, and the applicant would have 60 days, or a certain period of time, in which to relocate. commissioner Brown stated that he thinks that it is possible to work something out on this property, stating that he comes up with 992 square feet, eliminating the garage, and that accounts for four (4) spaces, with not having the full ten feet of planting, five feet on either side. I do not want to second guess staff, but if we eliminate the garage I think that there is a possibility that we could get four adequate on-site parking spaces, and I would like to se it come back. If it does not work then it does not work, but I just do not want to go with a straight denial. ~ Chairman Washburn stated that he concurs with this attitude, but only if there were provisions for full improvements if they were able to work something out. Commissioner Brown stated that he has no problem with that and wants the full dedication, the improvements all the way across the front of the property, the removal of the garage, ingress and egress planted on one side, and four (4) adequate parking spaces. Community Development Director Miller stated that according to the site plan submitted by the applicant there would only be thirty feet to the rear of the property and it would only allow for three parking spaces, even if there were a drive along the side and three parking spaces at the rear. Commissioner Mellinger stated that maybe one parking space could be provided for in the front. Chairman Washburn stated that maybe you could have tandem parking all the way to the back. ~ Chairman Washburn asked Mr. smith for the number of employees he currently has working, or the maximum number of employees. Mr. smith responded that he has three employees. Motion by Commissioner Brown to deny without prejudice Condi- tional Use Permit 87-12 with a 60 or 90 day cap, second by Chairman Washburn with a 90 day cap. Commissioner Mellinger asked for discussion, is then to withhold any action, which would for 90 days and if nothing comes back proceedings would commence. aSking if the intent require relocation then the relocation Chairman Washburn stated this is why he asked if after this point the applicant would be granted an additional 60 day period for relocation. Community Development Director Miller asked if it was the intent of the Planning Commission to allow up to five (5) months for relocation. Minutes of Planning Commission september 1, 1987 Page 6 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 87-12 - A.O. ~ ~ INDUSTRIES C/O JACK ~ SMITH CONTINUED Chairman Washburn responded if it went that far, if he were not able to resubmit with substantial changes to meet the conditions. Commissioner Brinley asked if the conditions included that the applicant acquire the property next door. Commissioner Brown answered in the negative. .... Commissioner Brown stated that he was saying, as long as the applicant works it out to staff's satiSfaction; provides four (4) parking spaces and adequate improvements, he does not care what he does as long as it meets the ordinance. Commissioner Brinley commented on that as she understands it there is in that area, and if we do it tandem parking. Assistant Planner Magee stated that if he understands the motion on the table, the applicant is to submit a plan that would address and conform to all standards currently in the Municipal Code. the tandem parking, stating not to be any tandem parking this way then we are allowing Commissioner Brinley stated that plicant came back he would have parking, and provide a better backing out onto the street. Assistant Planner Magee stated in addition to the dedications, street improvements, landscaping, drive aisles and etc. .... in other words, to do away with handicap parking if the ap- the tandem area and no Commissioner Brown stated that what he was saying, is that it is possible with the loss of the garage. If the applicant can figure out how to get the parking spaces on there with the garage and a driveway then that would be fine. Commissioner Mellinger commented on redesign stating that he does not see days. the ~y length of time for the this would take 90 Chairman Washburn suggested a compromise of 60 days. Commissioner Brown amended his motion to deny without prejUdice Conditional Use Permit 87-12 with a 60 day cap, second by Chair- man Washburn. Approved 5-0 2. Tentative Parcel Map 22826 Brookstone Development, Inc. Assistant Planner Magee presented proposal to divide an existing parcel into two (2) parcels both of 0.73 acres in size. 1.46 acre lot located on the east side of Birch street, approximately 552 feet south of Minthorn Street. Chairman Washburn opened the public hearing at 7:40 p.m. asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of Tentative Parcel Map 22826. .... Mr. Steve Brown, reprijsenting Brookstone Development, stated that they concur with st~ft recommendation, and that it was their intent to have an itr~vocab1e easement between the properties for circulation purposes. Chairman Washburn asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor . , of Tentat1ve Parcel Map 22826. Receiving no response, Chairman Minutes of Planning Commission september 1, 1987 Page 7 TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 22826 - BROOKS TONE DEVELOPMENT CONTINUED .---. Washburn asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Receiv- ing no response, Chairman Washburn asked if anyone wished to speak on the matter. Receiving no response, Chairman Washburn closed the public hearing at 7:42 p.m. There being no discussion at the table, Chairman Washburn asked for a motion. Motion by Commissioner Brown to approve Tentative Parcel Map 22826 based on the Findings and subject to the 17 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report, second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved 4-0 Chairman Washburn abstaining BUSINESS ITEMS 1. Residential Project 84-9 Amendment No. 2 - Pacific Investment and Land Corporation - Assistant Planner Last presented a request to delete the conversion of the existing residence to a clubhouse and have it remain as a manager's office and residence. A 3.52 acre site located on the south side of Lincoln street, approxi- mately 850 feet west of Riverside Drive. Chairman Washburn asked if the applicant was in the audience and if there were any questions. Mr. Mike Brown, representing the applicant, stated that they had no questions. commissioner Kelley stated that he agrees with the staff findings and does not see anything wrong with the request. Commissioner Brinley asked about Mr. Koeneke's concerns on the project and the petition which was received back in 1985, refer- ring to the attached minutes. Commissioner Mellinger stated that he believes that Mr. Koeneke's concern was the potential of residents climbing over the fence onto his property, and headlight glare onto the adjacent pro- perty. Community Development Director Miller stated that he believed that Mr. Koeneke's concerns related to the type of project that was being proposed, where he has a single-family house on a large piece of property as was this project prior to its approval. The drive aisle at the front portion of it, I believe, would have the cars directed, as they turn down that drive aisle, towards his house and the glare from the headlights would shine directly toward his house on the adjacent property. .---. Commissioner Brinley asked staff if all of the previous condi- tions for this proposal had been met, referring to the previous commission's concern on the play area to be fenced in and made larger, and traffic signs to be installed. Assistant Planner Last responded that process of completing the buildings and conditions that have to be met. the applicant they still is in the have some commissioner Mellinger stated that he has no problem with the conversion, and addressing the concerns of Commissioner Brinley, the primary concern was the land use and once the zoning was explained it was clear that the use was permitted. We had concern about having a play area on the other side of a driveway. The other concern was primarily the turn in or entryway off Minutes of Planning Commission september I, 1987 Page 8 RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 84-9 AMENDMENT NO. 1 - PACIFIC INVESTMENT AND LAND CORPORATION CONTINUED LincOln, if you turn to the west that is where the headlights tend to shine onto the neighboring property, even though landscaping was to encompass the entire perimeter on the north and west sides. I believe that this should be looked at a little closer, and I think that this can be easily addressed in the review of the plans. __ Community Development Director Miller stated for clarification, believes that there was a condition in the prior approval, and a six-foot block wall has been constructed along that property. Commissioner Mellinger stated that the applicant requested a block wall intermixed with wrought iron and referred to condition number 8, listed in the minutes of January 15, 1985. Commissioner Mellinger stated that if there is a desire to go with a solid block wall that may be preferable, but thinks this would have to come back and believes this is something that staff could administratively approve, if it were requested. Commissioner Brown stated that he has no problem with the pro- posal in consideration of the upgraded facilities. Commissioner Brown commented on the letter from Mr. President of Pacific Investment and Land Corporation, in to the open space and recreational space calculations. Reeder, regards Discussion at the table ensued on the amount of usable and functional open space according to Title 17. Chairman Washburn commented on the children's playground area, applicant's proposal for an 800 square foot play area and staff's requirement for a 1,000-1200 square foot play area, asking if staff was confident that we could get the larger play area because of the conversion. -- Assistant Planner Last responded that there was adequate room on the front portion of the house, which would be the north section of the playground as shown on the exhibit. Motion by Commissioner Kelley to recommend to City Council approval of Residential Project 84-9 Amendment No.2, based on the Findings and subject to the 4 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report, second by Commissioner Mellinger. Approved 5-0 2. Sign Program for Industrial Project 86-3 - Industrial Concepts I - Art Nelson - Assistant Planner Last presented for approval the Sign Program for "Industrial Project 86-3 in accordance with section 17.94.180 "0" of the Zoning Code. A 6.08 acre site located on the southwest corner of Minthorn Street and Chaney Street. Chairman Washburn a~ked if the applicant was in the audience and -- if there were any questions. Mr. Steve Brown stated. that he did not recall suggesting the mixing of the lette~swith illuminated and non-illuminated, but does not intend to ~ix the letters. Chairman Washburn commented on the C-M Zone and the permitted uses, this being similar to the County's MSC Zoning, and there are certain areas and uses that could have a need for lighted signs. Minutes of Planning Commission september 1, 1987 Page 9 SIGN PROGRAM ~ INDUSTRIAL PROJECT 86-3 - INDUSTRIAL CONCEPTS ~ - ART NELSON CONTINUED - commissioner Mellinger commented on condition number l.b., per- taining to utilization of non-illuminated channel letters, and asked if there would be a reason not to have externally illumi- nated, stating that he would not have a problem with externally illuminated. Community Development Director Miller stated trying to achieve a uniform sign theme and internally illuminated. Recommended, for condition number l.b. be amended by "non-internally" or adding sentence "External permitted". Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to approve the Sign Program for Industrial Project 86-3 with the Findings and the Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report amending condition number l.b, to read as follows: that staff was was referring to clarification, that adding the word illumination may be l.b. "Each tenant shall utilize non-illuminated channel letters with a maximum height of eighteen inches (18") and a sign area that does not exceed one (1) square foot per one (1) lineal foot of tenant space. Ex- ternal illumination sign are acceptable." commissioner Mellinger stated that he would like to make a notation that this is a revision of the Sign Program as specifically presented, based upon past experience, that the Sign Program has been revised based upon City Standards, second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved 5-0 INFORMATIONAL Status Report Van's Laundromat and Lakeview Auto Service Community Development Director Miller stated that staff has nothing further to add beyond what was presented to the Commission in follow-up to previous discussions, and if there are any questions would be happy to respond. Chairman Washburn stated that on the item on North Main Street, Van's Laundromat, it looks like the applicant is trying to help solve the problem and asked if the applicant has responded to the letter sent on August 19. Community Development Director Miller stated received a response from the applicant. that staff has not - Chairman Washburn stated that a follow-up letter should probably be sent, and maybe we can get him to put in barriers. Chairman Washburn stated that he concurs with staff's problem on Code Enforcement with the automobiles at Lakeview Auto Service, stating that it is trashy and ugly and something that has grown beyond concept. I would like to see those problems solved, but it sounds like the owner of the business does not want cooperate. Community Development Director Miller stated that as indicated there has been a lack of cooperation and the business owner has been cited. If that does not result in clean up of the premises then he will continue to be cited. Minutes of Planning Commission September 1, 1987 Page 10 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS Community Development Director Miller stated that he had nothing to report. PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Commissioner Brown: .... Commissioner Brown asked if it was a Condition of Approval for the Firestone Center that there be no overnight parking of automobiles to be repaired, requesting that the Conditions of Approval be looked into. Community Development Director Miller responded that he believe that there was a specific condition to that effect project. did for not that Commissioner Brown asked what happened to the Builder's Emporium sign. Chairman Washburn stated that he knows that there was some vandalism and a hole in the sign. Commissioner Mellinqer: The Commission recently approve a commercial center that has separate parking in the rear. I have always spoken against that because I do not think that it is utilized, and if employees were required to park there I think that their vehicles would be subject to vandalism. The employees themselves would perhaps be subject to criminal activities, because it is not out in the open. I think that we should be looking .... at site plans that do not utilize parking in the rear, just utilize aisle areas. Case in point, Builder's Emporium it has become a storage lot in the back and on the sides. Community Development Director Miller stated that staff has been in contact with both the local and regional management of Builder's Emporium, as well as the shopping center owner, about some of outside storage that is occurring, and they are aware that the City expects this to cease. Commissioner Mellinger stated that he was aware of that and had no doubt that would happen. My concern is that I do not think that we should be approving those parking spaces, does not feel that they will ever be utilized even it they clear it, and secondly, the suggestion is that it be used as employee parking and I have some strong concerns on this. These should be used strictly for loading areas. Commissioner Kellev: Pleased to learn that the Sheriff's Department has added a Flex Team to the County and they will be working on illegal dumping. I would like to look into ways that we can assist them, maybe through public education and what the penalties are for dumping. Chairman Washburn asked if the City currently has a contract with Brother's Towing to remove abandoned vehicles, stating that he has seen a number of abandoned vehicles recently. Community Development Director Miller stated that there have been changes in our contract situation with abandoned vehicles. The Commission may be aware that abandoned vehicles is an increasing problem throughout the County and, in fact, throughout all of Southern California because of changes in the value of cars, and the difficulty that towing companies have in disposing of these vehicles. ... Minutes of Planning Commission september 1, 1987 Page 11 PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS CONTINUED - We are continuing to work with Code Enforcement on abatement of abandoned vehicles, but it is a severe problem that is growing because of the problem of disposing of these vehicles. Commissioner Mellinger stated that one factor that has come about, and it is probably nothing that we can avoid, the EPA (Environ- mental Protection Agency) now requires the separation of what is called "fluff", the upholstery and such, this costs more than what you can get for the scrap, about 50 percent more. Therefore, wrecking yards will no longer collect those vehicles and therefore the towing companies can not get anything out of them either, so it is going to be a problem, and stated that this may have to be ad- dressed as a land use matter. Commissioner Brinlev: On the Lakeview Auto Service issue, if we are looking at one then we should look at them all to insure that they are all in compliance with the Municipal Code. I know that there are others here that are stretching it a little bit and keeping cars out on the street. Chairman Washburn: Asked that the Community Development Director pass on to Public Works, but I am sure that they are already doing it, the restriping of all of the crosswalks before school is in session. - Community Development Director Miller responded that this has already been identified as a priority to be completed this week. There being no further business, the Lake Elsinore Planning Commis- sion adjourned at 8:10 p.m. Motion by Commissioner Brinley, second by Commissioner Mellinger. Approved 5-0 ~fprov1{ ~ jd~1jJ0Mv Gary. shburn Cha' n RespectfUll~~mitted. ~~ Linda Grindstaff Planning Commission Sepretary - - - -- MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON THE 15TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 1987 THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:00 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by secretary Grindstaff. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Commissioners: Brown, Mellinger, Brinley, Kelley and Washburn ABSENT: None Also present were Senior Planner Bolland, Assistant Planners Magee and Last. MINUTE ACTION commissioner Mellinger stated for clarification on Page 2, paragraph 4, the words "intent of the traffic" should be changed to "present amount of traffic". Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to approve minutes of September 1, 1987 with the above correction, second by Commissioner Kelley. Approved 5-0 PUBLIC COMMENTS Chairman Washburn stated that the requests from Ms. Mammie Moore and Ms. Sandra Quilty to comment on Conditional Use Permit 87-13 will be recognized during the Public Hearing segment on this item, and then asked if anyone else wished to address the Commission. Receiving no response, Chairman Washburn closed the PUBLIC COMMENT section. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Zone Change 87-6 - Gateway Commercial Partnership (Continued from August 18, 1987) - Senior Planner Bolland presented the appli- cant's request for withdrawal of this application. Commissioner Mellinger asked staff, if this proposal is co~ing back in a short time, what would the property be zoned to, S1nce we do not have a Planned Unit Development Ordinance (PUD) how do we tie a master plan to a zone change? Senior Planner Bolland stated that the intent, of the City, would be to zone the area consistent with the General Plan. Presumably, staff would propose C-2 zoning as part of our consistency program. Commissioner Mellinger stated that the C-2 zoning would allow any C-2 use irregardless of the type of plan, thinks that the concern would be if the PUD Ordinance is not in effect at that time. Feels, even though the area is small, it would be preferable for a Specific Plan and, therefore, may require a General Plan Amend- ment to a Specific Planning Area. - Motion by Commissioner Kelley to accept the withdrawal for Zone Change 87-6, second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved 5-0 2. Conditional Use Permit 87-13 - Park/Abrams - Assistant Planner Last presented proposal for shared parking on a portion of the Christian Science Church parking lot. A .43 acre site located on the east side of Riverside Drive adjacent to the Four Corners Plaza. Minutes of Planning Commission September 15, 1987 Page 2 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 87-13 ~ PARK/ABRAMS CONTINUED Chairman Washburn opened the pUblic hearing 7:06 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of Conditional Use Permit 87-13. Ms. Sandra Quilty, representing Park/Abrams, stated that their intent here was not to share parking. We leased parking from the church, therefore, we regard it as a piece of property containing sixteen (16) parking spaces to which we have right title and interest that supersedes that of the church for as long as we __ have that lease hold interest. Ms. Quilty stated that they had discussed with the church that on Sunday mornings they might need a couple of those parking spaces and we did not have a problem with that. It appears that having leased these sixteen (16) spaces to us has now left the church building in non-compliance as far as the parking requirements. Ms. Quilty stated that they have met with Mammie Moore, who is a member of the Christian Science Society, and discussed with her how this situation could be resolved, so that we have what we leased and they have enough parking to accommodate what is required of them by code. We looked at the availability of additional parking around their building and feel that we can add anywhere from 3 or 4 to 7 parking spaces. They on the other hand have reviewed their membership and attendance and have found that they would be able to remove a certain number of seats, and we are prepared to do the paving and whatever needs to be done for the church, so that they are back into compliance. They on the other hand are willing to reduce their seating, as I understand it, they have 50 fixed seats which requires 17 parking spaces and if they were to remove 11 seat, which they feel they could do very easily, they would then need 13 parking spaces, they have 9 right now, so we would need to add 4. __ Chairman Washburn recognized Ms. Mammie Moore. Ms. Mammie Moore, Clerk of the Christian Science Society, com- mented briefly on the number of seats in the church and stated they could easily remove 11 seats without causing any problem, due to the average number of people in attendance on Sunday being 33. Ms. Moore then stated that the restaurant would not have an effect upon them and they would not be opposed to their opening at 10:00 a.m. Chairman Washburn asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak in favor of Conditional Use Permit 87-13. Ms. Janet Wills, member of the Christian Science Society, stated that she was in favor of this request and that last Sunday the number of cars in their parking lot was 10, this is typical 10 or 12. Chairman Washburn asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak in favor of Conditional Use Permit 87-13. Ms. Ethel Phillips, President of the Board of the Christian science Society, stated that they are in favor, and feels that this will be a beautiful addition to the City. ... Chairman Washburn asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak in favor of Conditional Use Permit 87-13. Mr. Bob Lagalles, one of the co-owners of the Subway franchise, stated that 65 percent of all of Subway's business is noon time business, between the hours of 10:30 and 1:30, and concerned about being held to opening at noon on Sunday. Minutes of Planning Commission september 15, 1987 Page 3 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 87-13 = PARK/ABRAMS CONTINUED - Chairman Washburn asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak in favor of Conditional Use Permit 87-13. 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 7:16 p.m. Commissioner Brinley stated that she was concern with the hours of operation for the restaurant, and then asked Ms. Quilty for the location of the additional parking spaces she had referred to. Ms. Quilty stated that between the back end of the church and what would be our boundary line there is room in there for 3 or 4 compact parking spaces. Commissioner Brinley asked Ms. Quilty if they were willing to assume responsibility for landscaping, upgrading and maintenance. Ms. Quilty answered in the affirmative. commissioner Kelley stated landscaping, upgrading and condition. that the responsibility for the maintenance could be added as a - Commissioner Kelley stated employee parking. Ms. Quilty stated that it is in the lease that we have the right to designate employee parking, and this can be made available for staff review. that his only concern was with commissioner Kelley asked Ms. Quilty if this applied to all of the tenants or just Subway. Ms. Quilty responded that this applies to all tenants. Commissioner Brown stated that he was a little concerned with moving the employees off-site, but the center was designed with adequate parking for the square footage that was there. I feel that if we are going to intensify that use that intensified use should go off-site and the spaces within the center should be designated for the businesses there, and additional restaurant parking indicated off-site. commissioner Brown commented on condition number l.c., asking if this was for all restaurant users or tenants. Chairman Washburn stated that he believes that staff is making reference to restaurant users, if there would be another user to come in, anywhere in that center, they would be informed of the lease situation. - Commissioner Brown suggested that the word "user" be deleted and replaced with the word "tenant", in condition number l.c. Ms. Quilty stated in regards to condition number l.c., we have a first right refusal to purchase that piece as well as lease it, and instead of saying when the lease is terminated, which would happen if we purchased the property, if we could say if the park- ing is no longer available. Commissioner Mellinger stated that he tional Use Permit is for shared parking own the property the Conditional Use necessary. believes that the Condi- only, and if you actually Permit would no longer be Minutes of Planning Commission September 15, 1987 Page 4 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 87-13 = PARK/ABRAMS CONTINUED Commissioner Mellinger stated that since there is only a de- ficiency of 8 stalls why not just have the lease for 8 stalls and then you do not have to worry about adding spaces or removing seats and so on. Ms. Quilty stated that Mr. Abrams has regarded this as a good site for food type uses, and wants the flexibility to be able to put in one other food use. We couldn't do anything much smaller __ than the Subway, it would be something about the same size and since we need 8 additional parking spaces for Subway, our assumption is that we would need 8 additional spaces for another food use. Commissioner Mellinger stated that the Code Analysis indicates that only 4 spaces would be available in excess of retail standards, so therefore, another use, more intensive use, appears not to be available. Your solution for the additional parking spaces seems to be good, but my understanding is that compact spaces would not be allowed for church uses, and asked staff if this was correct. Senior Planner Bolland responded that compact spaces are permitted for all commercial type uses and we would interpret it to be a potential percentage. The difficulty of the site itself is limited in size and it may not be possible to design extra spaces on that site. Commissioner Mellinger stated that it should be clarified, if the Commission agrees, that the church use would be considered commercial and compact spaces would be available and the details would have to be worked out. Commissioner Mellinger commented on condition number l.b., pertaining to the church parking lot being designated as employee parking, stating that it is fine to designate it and to put up a sign, but the question is, if there is 16 empty spaces and there is parking problem in the center is that a code violation, a vio- lation of the church or the owner or the restaurant. -- Chairman Washburn stated that he believes it would be a violation of the lease agreement between the lessor and the lessee. Commissioner Mellinger stated that this would be a City concern. Commissioner Mellinger commented on the designation and utili- zation of employee/client parking and security for the parking loti who would be responsible for payment of utilities to keep the parking lot lit, and suggested that a condition be added requiring that the parking lot lights as well as the church lights remain lit while businesses are in operation. Commissioner Brown asked if this added condition would not create a problem, because now you are lighting the residential area behind the proposal, which we took so much care to not light with this project. Commissioner Mellinger stated that if there is so much concern about lighting a residential area then he would strongly recommend denial of this proposal, strongly believes that, after making points and observations, people do not use parking behind shopping centers. Discussion at the table ensued on the lighting requirement for the proposal. ~ Minutes of Planning Commission September 15, 1987 Page 5 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 87-13 = PARK/ABRAMS CONTINUED ..... commissioner Mellinger commented on the issue about closing before noon, stating that his only concern is what keeps the church from adding seats; what keeps the church from selling the property, asking what protection is provided. Mr. James Anderson, Attorney for Park/Abrams, stated that the lease agreement provides for first right of refusal by Park/Abrams. The front of the property is in a Cal Trans easement, if the street is widened it will take a substantial part of the building. Park/Abrams would then exercise their right and purchase the property from the church. The issue about the church adding seats, their statement indicates that they rarely need the number of seats existing. commissioner Mellinger stated that since it is a use not regulating the people, if seats were added would violation of the lease, a violation of the Conditional or City Ordinance and how would this be enforced? Mr. Anderson stated that if they add seats it would not be a vio- lation of the lease, it becomes a violation of City Code. and we are this be a Use Permit Discussion at the table ensued on what protection is provided for the parking; adding a review period of one year; if there is a parking problem who is responsible; shared parking arrangement can not be permitted unless adequate parking is provided for both uses. ~ commissioner Mellinger stated that for clarification, and it should be pointed out in the minutes, if there is first right of refusal then any new user would then have to comply with the shared parking agreement, and asked if this statement was correct. Senior Planner Bolland responded that the Conditional Use Permit goes with the land. The way the the proposal has been written, the issue of seating in the church was given, 50 seats. The recommendation for decreasing the number of seats would need to be built into the conditions of approval. Commissioner Mellinger stated that he believed that this could be arranged by saying that adequate parking shall be provided at all times on both Park/Abrams and the church site, and suggested that condition number 1.a., be replaced with: "adequate parking shall be provided, in compliance with the parking ordinance, for both uses at all times". commissioner Brown commented on the existing parking problem and what would happen in the future once tenants are established in the center. ----- Chairman Washburn commented on condition number 1, pertaining to the notarized affidavit, wanting to know if the tenant(s) or if the center is to provide this for the tenant, and the tenant(s) recognizing, through a notarized affidavit, that they must agree with these conditions prior to leasing a space, is this correct. Assistant Planner Last responded in the affirmative. Chairman Washburn commented on condition number 4, pertaining to applicant replacing the dead trees, aSking asking if the trees to be replaced were the ones between the center and the church. Assistant Planner Last informed the Commission of the location of the trees that need to be replaced. Minutes of Planning Commission September 15, 1987 Page 6 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 87-13 = PARK/ABRAMS CONTINUED Ms. Quilty commented on condition number I, pertaining to the notarized affidavit, stating maybe this would be better accomplished by a statement signed under a penalty of perjury. Chairman Washburn suggested that these conditions be attached to the lease and a copy of the lease submitted to the City. Chairman Washburn commented on the lighting and stated that the __ existing lighting there is fairly strong, does not think that there is a problem with additional lighting--could have ground lighting to provide less glare. Chairman Washburn stated that he was in agreement with Commis- sioner Mellinger's comments, basically making it the responsi- bility of both parties on the parking, and deleting condition number l.a. Commissioner Mellinger asked if we were saying that the notarized affidavit, reference in condition number I, should have the conditions included in the lease agreement between the center and the tenants. Chairman Washburn stated it could be that or other requested affidavits from staff, and asked the attorney, Mr. Anderson, how he would like to see this worded? Mr. Anderson suggested that the words " notarized affidavit" be changed to "independent verification". Commissioner Brown suggested that the word "user" be changed to "tenants" in condition number 1. c. -- commissioner Brown asked if the lease packet, was the final lease agreement written, and stated that in Article 5, included would also like this included Section 6.2. agreement, included in the or if it would be re- Section 6.1 if lighting is in the first paragraph of Commissioner Brown asked if we are going to increase the intensity of lighting that currently exists there now. Commissioner Mellinger stated that this was his intent and referred to condition number 4. Chairman Washburn stated that this may not be the case if the site has lights on the side, and asked if there were lights on the eastern side of the building. Assistant Planner Last stated that he believes that there is a street or parking lot light in that corner, and this light is non-operable. Commissioner Brown stated that in the past there was lengthy discussion about not shedding additional light on residential property and now we are intensifying it for an off-site parking lot. ...., Commissioner Mellinger stated that he has a problem with residential projects that are not in conformance with the General Plan. Chairman Washburn stated that if there is adequate lighting we do not need to include extra, and asked staff if it was felt that additional lighting was needed, or if sufficient lighting was present. Minutes of Planning Commission September 15, 1987 Page 7 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 87-13 = PARK/ABRAMS CONTINUED Assistant Planner Last stated that he feels that there will be sufficient lighting once the non-operable light is replaced. Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to approve Conditional Use Permit 87-13 based on the Findings and the 4 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report and the following amend- ments: - Condition No.1: - Condition No.5: Condition No.6: "Each tenant shall submit an independent verification of the following conditions. Copies shall be provided to the City of Lake Elsinore Planning and Finance Depart- ments prior to the issuance of a Business License. a) All restaurant uses shall not open before twelve noon (12:00 p.m.) on Sunday. DELETED. b) The church parking lot shall be designated and utilized as employee parking. c) All restaurant tenants shall be made aware, by the center owners, that in the event that the lease is terminated said use shall also terminate with the parking lease." "Parking lot lights in the church and the center shall remain illuminated as long as businesses are operating." "Adequate parking shall be provided for both the church and the center at all times while the Conditional Use Permit is in effect." Mr. Anderson asked if condition number 6 pertains to condition number 2. Commissioner Mellinger stated that he would like staff to comment first, as this may require a code amendment. Senior Planner Bolland stated that the code explicitly requires that only 50 percent reduction should occur, and suggested that condition number 6 be amended to define adequate as consistent with the parking code. commissioner Mellinger amended his motion to delete condition number 6 and amend condition number 2, to read as follows: Condition No.6: - Condition No.2: "Adequate parking shall be provided for both the church and the center at all times while the Conditional Use Permit is in effect." DELETED. "Adequate parking in conformance with the parking ordinance, Title 17, shall be provided at all times for both the church and the center while the Conditional Use Permit is in effect." Second by Chairman Washburn. Approved 5-0 Minutes of Planning Commission September 15, 1987 Page 8 BUSINESS ITEMS 1. Commercial Project 87-9 - Stater Brothers/Halferty - Assistant Planner Last presented proposal for Design Review approval to construct two (2) commercial buildings and a temporary parking lot on the remaining pad, and to incorporate a sign program for the two buildings. 2.6 acres located on the north side of Lakeshore Drive in the stater Brothers Shopping Center. Chairman Washburn asked if the applicant was in the audience and if there were any questions. - Mr. John Bartlett, of Halferty Development, stated that on the temporary parking they would like this approved as an option, and on the rear elevations of the buildings they will work with staff to enhance the appearance. commissioner Brown stated that his concern would be the east and north elevation, Lakeshore Drive and the back of the building facing Four Corners, asking if there would be any access doors along that side of the building. Mr. Bartlett stated that the elevation of the floor is approxi- mately 3 to 5 feet from the driveway, and we do not plan access doors unless a store greater than 1500 square feet goes into the middle, and the plan is not to put them in unless a particular tenant requirement insist upon it. Commissioner Brown commented on the location of dumpsters, and stated that he does not want to see any dumpsters in that area, and no provisions for dumpsters. Mr. Bartlett stated that the trash enclosures for that building are at the north end behind the building, and there are also trash enclosures in the lot in front of the building. Commissioner Brown stated that he would like to see the rendering come back to the Commission, something done with architectural wrap-around. Also, addition of larger trees, specimen trees possibly, instead of the smaller 15 gallon trees. - Chairman Washburn asked Commissioner Brown if he was referring to the wrap-around on the south elevation or all the way around the back. commissioner Brown stated that he would like to see the wrap- around on the east elevation, concern being Building "F". Commissioner Brown asked, on the Lakeshore end of Building "F", whether or not there is a planter at the end of the building and if so would like to see that wrap come clear across there. Mr. Bartlett stated there is a planter at that end of the Build- ing "F", and this was one of staff's recommendations. Commissioner Mellinger stated that he would like to see condition number 5 and condition number 7 come back to the Planning Commis- sion. _ Commissioner Mellinger stated that in the planter areas he would like to see some vertical landscaping added in the south elevation, instead of just shrubs. Commissioner Mellinger stated to be consistent with the artist rendering feels that the specimen trees should be incorporated into the landscaping plan, condition number 7. Minutes of Planning Commission September 15, 1987 Page 9 COMMERCIAL PROJECT 87-9 = STATER BROTHERS/HALFERTY CONTINUED commissioner Mellinger stated that he concurs with the wrap- around on the east elevation. - commissioner Mellinger asked if the proposed band would be a painted band. Mr. Bartlett answered in the affirmative. commissioner Mellinger stated that on the optional parking his concern would be the conflict with the layout, where there is a proposed stop sign. My feeling is, if that parking lot is put in, and even if it is developed in the future, it would be appropriate to move the curb cut over and make that a straight aisle. Mr. Bartlett stated that another solution would be to remove the parking spaces along the wall. The problem with moving the curb cut over is that you have no building area. Commissioner Mellinger stated that if this does come through as an optional parking lot that it should be a straight aisle, and would like to see this (condition number 6) come back before the Commission. Commissioner Mellinger suggested that the following be added as a condition "while any business is open, within the entire center, that all parking lot lights remain lit." - Commissioner Kelley stated that Commissioner Brown addressed his concerns, and with the architectural enhancements, replacement of trees would be happy to see this pad developed. commissioner Brinley stated that her concerns were in the land- scaping; the starkness of the back of the building and the park- ing. Commissioner Brinley commented suggested that the lighting stay the center closes, or have the hour, going off at 11:00 p.m. Discussion at the table ensued on lighting for the center, and the safety for clients and employees. on the lighting issue and on until the last business in lighting stay on until a certain Chairman Washburn asked if the concrete blocks, to be utilized on the east elevation, were standard cement blocks or colored blocks. Mr. Bartlett stated that the concrete blocks to be utilized were colored blocks, it will match the color of the Stater Brothers building. - Chairman Washburn stated that he concurs with Commissioner Brown on the wrap-around. Chairman Washburn stated that on the lighting issue he has mixed emotions about the lighting being on all night, thinks that it is appropriate for the center to have partial lights on at night. Discussion at the table ensued on the lighting issue with the recommendation that the lights be turned off one hour after the last business closes in the center. Chairman posed in provide the line Washburn asked staff why the trash enclosure was pro- the parking area across from Building "F", why not for a trash enclosure down the alley in back and out of of sight. Minutes of Planning Commission September 15, 1987 Page 10 COMMERCIAL PROJECT 87-9 = STATER BROTHERS/HALFERTY CONTINUED Assistant Planner Last stated that, at the time, the ordinance for trash enclosures required that enclosures be located within 150 feet of each tenant space and, at the initial preliminary stage, staff recommended that the trash enclosure with adequate screening be located somewhere so that it could serve the south elevation of Building "F". Chairman Washburn stated that he was opposed to having the trash enclosure at this location and would prefer to have it located in the rear of parcel 4 and have it all the way to the back, but out of the line of sight of the other building. Motion by Chairman Washburn to approve Commercial Project 87-9 based upon the Findings and the Recommendations and the 12 Condi- tions of Approval listed in the Staff Report and the following amendments: Condition No.5: Condition No.7: - "Prior to the issuance of building permits revised plans of the north and west elevation of Building "B" , and the south and east elevation of Building "F", to be brought back before the Commission with subsequent changes in the building design, reference the wrap-around." "A final landscape plan shall be submitted that includes irrigation and planting specifications and to be approved by the Planning Commission, and shall include additional landscaping on the eastern wall side and inclusion of specimen trees in the rear." - Condition No.8: "Trash enclosure shall be constructed to City standards. The trash enclosure that is located in the front, in parcel 4, and in front of Building "F" shall be relocated to the north rear portion of that parcel, but out of the line of sight from the rear of the buildings. Condition No. 13: "Lights in the center shall remain illuminated until one hour after the last business closes in the center. Second by Commissioner Mellinger with discussion. commissioner Mellinger stated that on condition number 6, he has no problem with making that optional, but if it does come back that the aisle not jog but be in alignment, whichever they work out whether it be eliminating those spaces or actually moving it, if that is a possibility. In other words, the aisle shall be straight instead of jogged and it shall be an option, and it shall come back to the Planning Commission. Chairman Washburn amended his motion to include Commissioner Mellinger's recommendation on condition number 6. _ Condition No.6: "Prior to the issuance of building permits a revised optional parking plan shall be submitted and approved by the Planning Commission. This revision shall include landscape planters with six inch (6") curbing where the striped no parking area is shown, a stop sign and painted stop line, and a twenty-four foot (24') drive Minutes of Planning Commission September 15, 1987 Page 11 COMMERCIAL PROJECT 87-9 - STATER BROTHERS/HALFERTY CONTINUED - aisle entrance. If the option parking plan is developed then a straight drive aisle shall be provided." There being no further discussion at the table, Chairman Washburn called for the question. Approved 5-0 Commissioner Kelley asked if the Sign Criteria had been omitted. Commissioner Mellinger stated that the proposal was approved with the staff recommendations and thought that conditions number 4, a. through d., address this. At this time, 8:06 p.m., the Planning commission recessed. At this time, 8:13 p.m., the Planning Commission reconvened. 2. Sign Program Commercial Project 86-16 Revised - Brookstone Development - Assistant Planner Magee presented the Master Sign Program for Commercial Project 86-16 Revised in accordance with Design Review Condition #9 for said commercial project, located at the northeast corner of Railroad Canyon Road and Grape Street. Assistant Planner Magee recommended that condition number 1 be amended to include the following: h) "Both freestanding signs shall utilize the same colors and materials as illustrated throughout the center." "The center identification sign shall reduced in height by five-feet (5') so the overall height of the sign shall exceed seventeen-feet (17')." Chairman Washburn asked if the applicant was in the audience and if there were any questions. i) be that not Mr. Steve Brown, representing Brookstone Development, stated that they were in agreement with staff recommendations, and it was our intent to have the signs match, carry the same colors. Mr. Brown twenty-two ducing it better. commented on the height of the sign, stating that the foot (22') was designed to code, and thinks that re- to seventeen-feet (17') might make it look a little Commissioner Brown stated that he agrees with staff recommenda- tion except for the height, seventeen-feet (17"). Commissioner Mellinger stated that he was in agreement with staff -- recommendation and then commented on the intent of the sign ordinance. Commissioner Mellinger stated that a concern that he has with any type of freestanding signs is that often they are quite obvious and out of scale. Recommended that condition number "i" be amended to include that the landscaping be upgraded with some vertical treatment so that the sign blends in well with the center. Commissioner Kelley stated that he was in agreement with staff recommendation and the amended conditions, and commented on the height of the sign stating that seventeen-feet (17') seems high Minutes of Planning Commission September 15, 1987 Page 12 SIGN PROGRAM - COMMERCIAL PROJECT 86-16 REVISED - BROOKS TONE DEVELOP- MENT CONTINUED and likes the idea of a monument type sign for the center identification. Commissioner Brinley stated that she agrees with staff recom- mendation and asked for the height of the building itself. Assistant Planner Magee stated that Building "C" would twenty-two feet (22') from the top of the roof to the grade. Chairman Washburn stated that he concurs with staff that the sign should be reduced, the question is to what size and how much landscaping. be - Discussion at the table ensued on what height the sign should be; the center sign includes the logo of major tenants; whether or not transitional landscaping should be provided or just vertical landscaping, and the suggestion that vertical landscaping with shrubs be provided. Motion by commissioner Brown to approve the Sign Program for Com- mercial Project 86-16 Revised based upon the Findings and amend- ing condition number 1, as follows: h) "Both freestanding signs shall utilize the same colors and materials as illustrated throughout the center." i) "The center identification sign shall reduced in height by five-feet (5') so the overall height of the sign shall exceed seventeen-feet (17')." j) "Transitional landscaping, vertical shrubs, for both the monument and the center identi- fication sign shall be provided. be that not - Second by Commissioner Mellinger. Approved 5-0 3. Sign Program - Commercial Project 86-7 Revised - T & S Develop- ment - Assistant Planner Last presented proposal to amend the Lake Elsinore Town Center's Sign Program to increase signage for tenants occupying 3,000 square feet or more. 18 acres, located on the west side of Mission Trail between Campbell and Sylvester Streets within the Lake Elsinore Town Center commercial project. Chairman Washburn asked if the applicant was in the audience and if there were any questions. Mr. John Curts, representing T & S Development, stated that they are keeping the signs within the sign code, allowing some flexibility in the size of the letters and how they would be applied and scaled onto the building. Motion by Chairman Washburn to approve the Sign Program for Commercial Project 86-7 Revised based upon the Findings and the Condition of Approval listed in the Staff Report, second by Commissioner Kelley. Approved 5-0 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS Senior Planner Bolland reported that at the City Council meeting on Minutes of Planning Commission September 15, 1987 Page 13 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS CONTINUED September 8, 1987, staff was directed to prepare a rep~rt for City council, in one month, which would basically reV1ew all of the planning options that the City would have for focusing on key intersections and more comprehensive planning of those intersections. This report will also be provided to the Planning Commission for review. -- PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS commissioner Brown: Thanked Assistant Planner Magee for his timely response to concerns brought up. The Arco sign at Railroad Canyon Road--was there an agreement made in the past, because of new signage, that they were allowed to maintain that off-site sign or is it a point of consternation. Senior Planner Bolland responded the latter. There was a continued item which has never been set for a particular agenda date and that was the item for relocation and the actual new construction of an Arco sign for the new Arco Building, which would be adjacent to the Goodyear building in the Palmer center. One of the concerns, when the item was continued, was the size of that signage and the freeway sign provisions in our sign code. This has gone back and is in negotiations between the developer of the center, Arco and the consultant that was hired by Arco to carry the project through. Staff has been in consultation with the consultant and apparently they are about ready to bring it back to the Commission. Staff sent a letter asking how they wanted to handle this particular item, and also advised them that the other sign, the previous sign, is technically in violation of the current City Code and would need to be abated. commissioner Brown stated that the sign is also lit at night, and we have been pretty strict with other businesses in that area, as far as their signs. They have operated for quite a while with it there and, in all fairness to other businesses around there, if it is not going to be removed right away it should be unplugged. Commissioner Brinlev: Concurs with Commissioner Brown. Nothing further to report. Commissioner Kellev: The u.S. Department of Interior has a "Keep America Beautiful" campaign and asked that this be looked into. Chairman Washburn suggested that Commissioner Kelley, if he has -- any information, get with staff. Commissioner Me11inaer: Commented on the Arco sign stating that if this is a stop gap measure then would like to see a stop order or what ever issued. Requested a report, in one month, on the status of the west fire station. This would also include looking into some of the conditions of approval for many of the developments at that end of town. I know that we do Code Enforcement based upon complaint, however, I Minutes of Planning Commission September 15, 1987 Page 14 PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS CONTINUED find that Lake Elsinore's residential zones are becoming truck yards. At Graham, between Circle K and the apartments, there is a hugh truck parked on a residential lot. I would like to point out that, per the ordinance, you cannot have such a commercial vehicle anywhere in the residential zones, these belong in industrial zones and the ordinance clearly states that this is prohibited. I think that this should be a pro-active Code Enforcement issue before it goes on too long. Requested a Study Session in late October to discuss the following: - 1. Status of the west end fire station; 2. Title 17, in regards to: parking lot lighting, parking behind commercial centers and residential accessory uses; 3. Adequate mitigation measures and I would like staff to look into this. I would like to see how projects that we are approving relate to Appendix"G" of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and how those significant impacts, that are clearly laid out in State law, apply not only to the direct impacts of the projects that we are approving, but the cumulative effects of the projects that we are approving. Requested specific reports on mitigation measures on traffic, air quality, schools, public services, geological hazards, and biological resources. To do this, I would ask staff to contact not only other jurisdictions, but the experts involved. Requested the City Engineer prepare impacts on existing street conditions, measures for traffic impacts. a report on how they assess addressing our mitigation -" I would also like to see a quantification of air quality impacts that probably will require consultation with other jurisdictions, perhaps the State, APCD and the Air Quality Resources Board. I have a problem when we are in an area most likely of non-attainment for the State Implementation Program, and I would like to have this verified whether this region is in attainment with the State Implementation Program for air quality, and if we are not I would like to understand how we can approve one building permit. Commented on the article in the Press Enterprise on Growth Initiative and how that is not the best way to do planning; two of the major concerns were air quality and traffic. My feeling is that the growth initiative can be avoided by proper planning and addressing the environmental concerns of the valley. Requested that staff report on the planning agency, which is comprised of the Planning Staff and Planning Commission, preparing an assessment on how this agency follows Government Code Section 65100 through 65106, one of those would be the review of the Capital Improvement Program. Commissioner Mellinger stated that perhaps October is a little ambitious, because I have asked staff to do quite a bit and this would have to be reviewed with the Community Development Director. I __ would ask staff to assess what I have requested, and if the Commission concurs perhaps arrange a date, late October, early November or December. Chairman Washburn stated that he has seen and worked with the Engineering Department and Council and there is a Capital Improvement Plan. I think that what you are saying is that the plan should intermesh with projects that are coming on line. At this point, I would prefer to see the study session scheduled for November. Minutes of Planning Commission September 15, 1987 Page 15 PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS CONTINUED Chairman Washburn asked if commissioner Mellinger was requesting a Joint study Session with city Councilor a Planning Commission study Session. -- commissioner Mellinger stated that he would like to discuss the items first, because some of ideas are technical and would like to have concurrence from the Commission and then discuss it with Council. Chairman Washburn: Asked if staff received a response back from the request on Van's Laundromat. Assistant Planner Magee stated that staff has sent two (2) notices since Planning Commission's reiterated concern about the parking. In the past, the owner has contacted the staff member rather quickly after receipt of the letter. Staff can only submit another letter, if that is the direction. Informed the Commission that he would not be present at the October 6, 1987 meeting, as he will be out of town. Informed the audience that the City will be celebrating their 100 Year Anniversary and the kick-off date is september 19, 1987. There being no further business, the Lake Elsinore Planning Commission adjourned at 8:50 p.m. Motion by Commissioner Mellinger, -- second by Commissioner Kelley. ~provYh W ~ h6 Ga~aShburn Chairman ~:tful ~rindst~ff Planning Commissi n secretary -- - - - MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON THE 6TH DAY OF OCTOBER 1987 THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:00 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Commissioner Brinley. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Commissioners: Brown, Mellinger and Brinley - ABSENT: commissioners: Kelley and Washburn Also present were Community Development Director Miller, Senior Planner Libiez, Assistant Planners Last and Magee, Associate Planners pine and Wilkins. Being as Chairman Washburn was absent Vice Chairman Mellinger conducted the meeting. INTRODUCTIONS community Development Director Miller introduced John L. Libiez the new Senior Planner for the City. MINUTE ACTION Motion by Commissioner Brown to approve minutes of September 15, 1987, as submitted, second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved 3-0 PUBLIC COMMENTS - vice Chairman Mellinger stated that the request from Mr. Robert G. Williams to comment on Conditional Use Permit 87-14 would be recognized during the Public Hearing segment on this item. vice Chairman Mellinger asked if anyone else wished to address the commission. Receiving no no response, Vice Chairman Mellinger closed the PUBLIC COMMENT section. PUBLIC HEARINGS It was the consensus of the Commission to hear Conditional Use Permit 87-14 and Commercial Project 87-10 concurrently. 1. Conditional Use Permit 87-14 and Commercial Project 87-10 - Tait and Associates - Assistant Planner Last presented a request to allow a car wash to locate in a General Commercial Zone, and a request for Design Review approval to construct a new mini-mart, a car wash and utility building, on a 6.2 acre site at the existing Chevron station located 165 feet west of the Mission Trail and Railroad Canyon Road intersection on the north side of Mission Trail. Community Development Director Miller requested that condition number 9, be amended as indicated in the memorandum of October 6th. - Vice Chairman Mellinger opened the public hearing at 7:07 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of Conditional Use Permit 87-14 and Commercial Project 87-10. Mr. Stan Iverson, representing Tait and Associates, stated that they agree with many of the conditions, but there are some specific concerns he would like to address. vice Chairman Mellinger informed Mr. Iverson that he would be called back to the podium at the end of the public hearing to address his concerns. Vice Chairman Mellinger asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor of this proposal. Receiving no response, Vice Chairman Minutes of Planning Commission October 6, 1987 Page 2 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 87-14 AND COMMERCIAL PROJECT 87-10 - TAIT ! ASSOCIATES CONTINUED Mellinger asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Mr. Robert G. Williams stated that he is the owner of the two- story structure next to the proposed car wash, and not opposed to the car wash. However, I am concerned with the noise factor. I do not believe, in the application other than the fact that __ they said that there would be no noise because there is no blower, they have not addressed the fact of how much noise, machinery noise, there will be, and if this proposal proceeds I would like to see a limit on the amount of noise that this machinery can make. Vice Chairman Mellinger asked if anyone else wished to speak in opposition. Receiving no response, Vice Chairman Mellinger asked if anyone wished to speak on the matter. Receiving no response, Vice Chairman Mellinger closed the public hearing at 7:12 p.m. Commissioner Brinley stated that a blower would not be permitted, and referred to condition number 5 for Conditional Use Permit 87-14. Vice Chairman Mellinger stated that condition that if there was going to be a blower or any would have to come back for ,further review, analysis would be required. number 5, states change then it and an acoustical Commissioner Brinley stated that her main concern is with traffic flow and circulation through the car wash, and asked how parking facilities are being initiated. __ Mr. Iverson referred to the colored rendering and stated that the vehicles would be entering from the southeast side of the car wash and going through proceeding north, which would direct them toward the back corner of the lot along side of the utility building and exist on Mission Trail. Commissioner Brinley asked if pUblic restroom were going to be provided. Mr. Iverson answered in the affirmative. Commissioner Brinley stated that another concern was drainage and asked how this was being handled. Mr. Iverson stated that there are two strip drains, shown on the site plan, the drainage will go into the strip drains and then be pumped underground out to the street. Commissioner Brinley commented on the operation of the car wash facility, referring to the noise level of the equipment, and asked if staff had visited one of these facilities to evaluate the noise level. Community Development Director Miller stated that he had visited several similar sites and, as indicated by Mr. Williams, with the blowers there is a fair amount of noise. However, Chapter 17.78 of the Zoning Code sets noise standards for all types of operations with which they would have to comply. Commissioner Brinley stated that the noise level would not then be known until the proposal is operational. Community Development Director Miller responded that the appli- cant would have to comply with the noise ordinance and if it ..- Minutes of Planning Commission October 6, 1987 Page 3 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 87-14 AND COMMERCIAL PROJECT 87-10 - TAIT i ASSOCIATES CONTINUED ~ exceeded those levels they would have to take steps to reduce it to an appropriate level. Vice Chairman Mellinger asked if it was the intention to require an acoustical analysis after the car wash is in. We could then determine if any additional mitigation measures would be required, blower or not. Perhaps an acoustical analysis could be prepared before the facility is operational, before it opens for business, and if additional measures have to be added that can be done. commissioner Brown stated that he has concern with the flow of traffic and asked for the number of cars this unit could wash in an hour. Mr. Iverson stated that he is not sure of the number, but an estimate is a minute and a half to two minutes per vehicle for the full cycle. Commissioner Brown asked what area would be designated for drying off the vehicles, since there would not be a blower. Mr. Iverson stated that as indicated in the Staff Report, there are two parking stalls on the northwest property line, up by the trash enclosure. ..--. commissioner Brown asked if there would be any vacuum equipment at this location or if there was any proposed. Mr. Iverson answered in the negative. commissioner Brown commented on the expansion of the mini-mart and having adequate landscaping around that area, stating that he would like to see at least a minimum of 60-70 percent coverage on all exterior walls, above ground planter on the mini-mart, anywhere it does not conflict with open doors. Mr. Iverson stated that this was brought up by the Planning Department and the critical thing there is that the canopy is existing, so we have a certain distance between the outer pump locks. Chevron's minimum clearance between a pump lock or any- thing is 20 feet. On the site plan between the edge of the building and on either side of the building the pump locks is 20 feet clearance, and if we add anything at all that would really block circulation. ..--. commissioner Brown asked if staff would have any concern if this 20 foot clearance was reduced to a width that would require one way traffic under the canopy and pump lock. Community Development Director Miller stated that staff has discussed this suggestion with the applicant and our concern for some landscape treatment around that portion of the site. As Mr. Iverson has indicated, in order, to retain the two way access to the pump islands, and looking at this as an existing business trying to work with them and maintaining their business operation, basically, they convinced us that this was a critical portion of their operation, and the recommendation to add the landscaping would require either a reconstruction of the site or a significant reduction in the amount of pump islands available. Discussion at the table ensued on whether or not two way access to the pumps was necessary. Commissioner Brown asked staff if we could or could not land- scape around the building. Minutes of Planning Commission October 6, 1987 Page 4 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 87-14 AND COMMERCIAL PROJECT 87-10 - TAIT k ASSOCIATES CONTINUED Assistant Planner Last stated that we may be able to request some landscape planters in between the pumps and the building in the center island, which may break-up that elevation. Community Development Director Miller stated that conditions of the Design Review is that additional be provided at the rear of the mini-mart area. Commissioner Brown stated that he feels that the landscaping plan is inadequate; concerned with the drying stalls, and does not feel that two drying stalls are adequate to handle this facility. one of the landscaping .... Vice Chairman Mellinger stated that he fails to see why a narrow planter area could not be provided on the sides of the elevation for the mini-mart. Commissioner Brown stated that what he was looking for was 2-3 foot planters above ground with landscaping. Vice Chairman Mellinger recommended that landscaping be provided along the rear and sides of the building up to where the doors are. Vice Chairman Mellinger recommended the addition of a new condition, which would read: "an acoustical analysis be approved by the Community Development Director prior to opening of business for the car wash and any mitigation measures that are necessary to bring it into compliance would be installed." Vice Chairman Mellinger asked if it was the intend of the applicant to utilize the method of spraying that prevents water spotting. Mr. Iverson stated that he could not answer this question. ... Discussion at the table ensued on the requirement of the two drying stalls; the possibility of an additional drying stall, and if it would create a problem if the drying stalls were angled. Vice Chairman Mellinger suggested that staff on the number of drying stalls to design of said stalls. Vice Chairman Mellinger commented on the gasoline and alcoholic beverages prohibition, referenced condition number 3 for Commercial Project 87-10, asking if there was an intent to try and get an off sale with the expansion. the applicant work with be provided and the Mr. Iverson responded in the negative. vice Chairman Mellinger asked Mr. Iverson if they were in agree- ment with condition number 3, of Commercial Project 87-10 . .... Mr. Iverson responded in the affirmative. vice Chairman Mellinger stated that for those that are not aware, as of January 1, 1988, you can no longer ban the concurrent sale of gasoline and alcoholic beverages, and I wanted to make sure that condition number 3, pertaining to the sale of gasoline and alcoholic beverages, was agreed to by the applicant. Discussion at the table ensued on the handicap parking stall, reference Exhibit 3, pertaining to design and accessibility, and Minutes of Planning Commission October 6, 1987 Page 5 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 87-14 AND COMMERCIAL PROJECT 87-10 = TAIT i ASSOCIATES CONTINUED - the need for drying areas along the westerly boundary. Vice Chairman Mellinger commented on condition number 11, for Commercial Project 87-10, asking staff if this condition would tie the applicant to this landscaping. Commissioner Brown stated that he would like to see condition number 11 and 13 for Commercial project 87-10 come back before the Commission. commissioner Brown recommended that condition number 13, for Commercial Project 87-10 be amended to read: Condition No. 13: "A final landscape plan shall be submitted that includes irrigation and planting specifications, and to be approved by the Planning Commission prior to the issuance of Building Permits." - Mr. Iverson requested that condition number 7 for Commercial Project 87-10 be waived, stating that if there is going to be a condition that we have landscaping, say a three foot planter, from our door back. If we have a three foot planter coming out the door is still going to be protected by that planter. Staff has requested that the doors swing inward, which is impossible with the Fire Code, or have the doors further recessed into the building. Commissioner Brinley asked staff how they had planned for the door to open, swing in as indicated by Mr. Iverson. Community Development Director Miller stated that as the applicant has indicated it would take a further recess of the doors or some other modification of the way the doors face. If Planning Commission adds an additional condition regarding landscaping along the sides of the building then as indicated the door would not swing into the drive aisle. Vice Chairman Mellinger stated that the condition could stay and the applicant still meet it. Vice Chairman Mellinger commented on the entrance door and providing one planter, so that you are not encroaching to far toward the pumps, but you might have a planter there then the door could open out to the width of that planter. The planter would not be anything more than perhaps a small box. Commissioner Brinley suggested that an automatic door be pro- vided. - Discussion at the table ensued on whether or not a planter from the door toward the front entrance would encroach upon the pumps, and landscaping for the front of the mini-mart structure. commissioner Brown commented on the rendering illustrating a different landscaping concept for the front of the car wash, and stated that he would like to see some transition in all of those large planters around the building and elevated planters in the front and possibly in the rear for the car wash structure. Motion by Conditional Conditions Categorical Vice Chairman Mellinger to recommend approval of Use Permit 87-14 based on the Findings and the 5 of Approval listed in the Staff Report, noting the Exemption, and adding condition number 6, which will Minutes of Planning Commission October 6, 1987 Page 6 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 87-14 AND COMMERCIAL PROJECT 87-10 - TAIT k ASSOCIATES CONTINUED read as follows: Condition No.6: "An acoustical analysis to insure compliance with City Noise Standards shall be submitted to the Community Development Director for review and approval prior to the opening of the car wash for business." - Second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved 3-0 Motion by Commissioner Brown to approve Commercial Project 87-10 based on the Findings and the 19 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report with the following amendments: Condition No.7: Condition No.9: Condition No. 11: Condition No. 13: "Entrance doors to the mini-mart shall not encroach into any drive aisle and to be incorporated into the landscape plans, condition number 13, and brought back to the Commission for approval." "All roof mounted equipment for the mini-mart shall be located below the mansard, painted to match the tile, and maintained in that condition." "Applicant shall submit a revised site plan with the recommended parking scheme to the Planning Commission for review and approval." - "The final landscape plan shall be submitted that includes irrigation and planting specifications and to be approved by the Planning Commission prior to the issuance of Building Permits." Second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved 3-0 At this time 7:48 p.m., the Planning Commission recessed for a break. At this time 7:55 p.m., the Planning Commission reconvened. It was the consensus of the Commission to hear Tentative Parcel Map 22914 and Industrial Project 87-5 concurrently. Tentative Parcel Map 22914 and Industrial Project 87-5 - Brook- stone Development Inc.- Assistant Planner Magee presented a request to divide six (6) existing lots into twelve (12) lots varying in size from 0.40 acres to 0.60 acres, and a request to construct an industrial center consisting of eleven (11) buildings, 6.07 acres on six (6) lots located between Third and Birch Streets, approximately 435 feet south of Minthorn Street. Assistant Planner Magee requested that conditions 13, 14 and 52 be amended per the memorandum of October 5th. 2. - vice Chairman Mellinger opened the public hearing at 7:58 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of Tentative Parcel Map 22914 and Industrial Project 87-5. Minutes of Planning Commission October 6, 1987 Page 7 TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 22914 AND INDUSTRIAL PROJECT 87-5 - BROOKS TONE DEVELOPMENT CONTINUED - Mr. Steve Brown, representing Brookstone Development, stated that they concur with staff recommendation, and that they had intended to have landscaping behind the center buildings, number 4 and 5, and asked if this had been eliminated from the conditions. Assistant Planner Magee stated that this had been eliminated from the conditions of approval. The mid buildings are proposed to be at a zero lot line and staff supports this. Vice Chairman Mellinger asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor of Tentative Parcel Map 22914 and Industrial Project 87-5. Receiving no response, Vice Chairman Mellinger asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Receiving no response Vice Chairman Mellinger asked if anyone wished to speak on the matter. Receiving no response Vice Chairman Mellinger closed the pUblic hearing at 8:00 p.m. Vice Chairman Mellinger stated that he would like an explanation for mitigation measure number 14-E, pertaining to the amount of traffic and maintenance of existing roads. Assistant Planner Magee stated that be believes that the intent there is that the full improvements on the entire Warm Springs site, which was Parcel Map 21297, have already been installed, streets, curbs and gutters, and dedicated to the city. Vice Chairman Mellinger stated that his major concern with the map and the project is the central lots not fronting on a street. They seem to have their only access to a street through a parking lot easement, reciprocal easement. My concern with this is, if each lot is sold off to different owners there is still a significant potential for conflict. I think that this could be a considerable enforcement problem or a problem between the property owners. Vice Chairman Mellinger commented on the Code Section pertaining to lot sizes, and the Code Section, which was discussed at study sessions, indicated that this be by Condominium or Planned Unit Development, which is real estate terminology and indicates common lot ownership. The compromise between the Commission and Council was to allow the smaller lot sizes only if it were a Condominium or a Planned Unit Development. Vice Chairman Mellinger stated that if this were approved it should be either a Planned Unit Development, postage stamp lots, with one common lot or a Condominium where the buildings would be air space, so that we can assure adequate maintenance of all of the easements and landscaping. - Vice Chairman Mellinger stated that he believes that the Subdivision Ordinance requires frontage on a public street, and the interior lots, where buildings 9, 10, 11, 4 and 5 are located, should have some sort of direct frontage on the street or the whole thing should be a Planned Unit Development or a Condominium. Mr. Brown stated that they have designed their development after the approved development on Birch Street, and was under the impression that it was alright to come in with a Planned Development of this type, and Condominiums are just not marketable. Mr. Brown stated that it would be difficult to have six lots in Minutes of Planning Commission October 6, 1987 Page 8 TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 22914 AND INDUSTRIAL PROJECT 87-5 - BROOKS TONE DEVELOPMENT CONTINUED the interior facing the pUblic streets and it would kill the project. It is important that we be able to have separate parcels, because without the ability to convey separate title versus air space it just does not work--first of all we could not get financing. Vice Chairman Mellinger responded that Planned Unit Development would allow fee title for the building and the ground under- neath. It is just that the parking areas would then be a common lot. .... Mr. Brown stated that with the parking areas, to be able to have yard space is a major marketing point. Vice Chairman Mellinger asked Mr. Brown when he was saying yard area if he was talking about outdoor storage. Mr. Brown answered in the affirmative. Vice Chairman Mellinger stated that he would not have a problem with that being considered within the yard space and "postage stamp" of the building and yard space being fee title postage stamp lots or Planned Unit Development and the remaining area being under common maintenance. Mr. Brown asked association. if this could not be done through an Vice Chairman Mellinger stated that this would be through an association, but what would be the common of the association? the case ownership .... Mr. Brown stated that it would present significant problems if we had one common lot that was owned versus having the parcel map with individual parcels. I am not saying that we cannot set up some type of mechanism to have it maintained by one common ownership, but I think that we will have a problem if we try to say that all of the parking in all of the areas is for anybody. I think that if a person comes in an buys a building he wants to know that those parking spaces belong to him and wants the ability to close it off and store his vehicles in there in the evening. Vice Chairman Mellinger stated that this is what he fears most. Mr. Brown stated that the common drives would not be closed off, the areas that would be closed off are the areas that would be set inside the property line away from the parking areas. Vice Chairman Mellinger stated that he feels that storage would have to be either in a storage area or inside a building, and the parking would be for employees and clientele only. Vice Chairman Mellinger stated that his main concern was common maintenance and enforcement of easements as opposed to an actual right for that ownership. Discussion at the table ensued on the intent of the Planned Unit Development Ordinance. Commissioner Brinley asked if there were CC & Rls for this unit and if there would be an association, and asked if there would be one common gardener to take care of the entire complex, and if the people coming into the complex would be aware of this up front. .... Minutes of Planning Commission October 6, 1987 Page 9 TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 22914 AND INDUSTRIAL PROJECT 87-5 - BROOKS TONE DEVELOPMENT CONTINUED Mr. Brown answered in the affirmative. - Discussion at the table ensued on an association for the common areas and the degree of common area; whether or not landscaping would be maintained by the individual property owner, or a gardener to maintain the entire complex; if the CC & R's would include maintenance for landscaping and for common areas, such as asphalt drives and streets. Community Development Director Miller stated that perhaps the Planning Commission could address a condition that there would be a owner's association to provide for maintenance of common areas which would have to be identified, and we could bring back a plan indicating the common areas to be maintained for Planning Commission approval. Mr. Brown asked if this could be incorporated into the landscap- ing plan, stating that this would allow the continuation of the process. Discussion at the table ensued on the areas of substantial land- scaping being the area of common maintenance and the areas to be maintained, referring to the rendering posted. - Community Development Director Miller stated that this could be addressed to the mutual satisfaction of the Commission and the applicant by a condition, which addresses the precise area to be designated along with the landscaping, and could be brought back to the Commission. Vice Chairman Mellinger suggested that perimeter fencing also be included, condition number 16 of Industrial project 87-5. Discussion at the table ensued on whether or not this proposal should be continued or action take. Community Development Director Miller stated that the Commission may wish to grant approval subject to the condition that the area of common maintenance would be generally those areas which were referred to on the rendering posted, and a precise plan could be prepared and brought back to the Commission for approval. Vice Chairman Mellinger suggested that the formation of an owner's association also be included. Discussion at the table ensued on when this proposal would go to Council, and Planning Commission having time to review the condition prior to the proposal going before Council. - Commissioner Brown commented on condition number Industrial Project 87-5, pertaining to the landscaping, that he would like to see the landscaping be of heights, and to come back with a new plan. Commissioner Brown stated that on condition number 16, of Industrial Project 87-5, he would like to see the words "chain link fence" deleted. 17, of stating varying Mr. Brown stated that there is a zero lot line on eight of the buildings, they are sitting right on the property line, so you would not have a block wall. Between the property lines of lots 1, 10, 9, 8, and 6, 5, 4 and 3 you could have a block wall. Commissioner Brinley asked for the proposal's proximity to the Temescal Wash and the Outflow Channel. Minutes of Planning Commission October 6, 1987 Page 10 TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 22914 AND INDUSTRIAL PROJECT 87-5 - BROOKS TONE DEVELOPMENT CONTINUED Mr. Brown stated that the Temescal Water Outflow Channel is 660 feet southwest. Commissioner Brinley asked for clarification on condition number 27, of Tentative Parcel Map 22914. Assistant Planner Magee stated that this is a standard condition attached by our Engineering Department, in order to assure conformance with the Federal Emergency Management Agency to guarantee that the building pad elevation is a minimum of one foot above the 100 year flood line, and indications from Mr. Brown and his plans show the lowest building pad being one foot above the flood line. - Commissioner Brinley asked for clarification on condition number 26, of Tentative Parcel Map 22914. Assistant Planner Magee stated that this is a drainage fee attached by the Engineering Department. Once again, this condition has been attached to other projects within the Warm Springs Industrial Park, and is mechanism by which the developer and the City Engineer have yet to work out. Discussion at the table ensued on condition number 26, pertain- ing to the drainage mitigation fee. Vice Chairman Mellinger commented on the run-off for the subject site, stating that there is always a concern in the valley about run-off whether it be into the Outflow Channel or into the lake, and asked how this is being dealt with being as it is an __ industrial site. Mr. Brown stated that there was a condition placed on the King Video Cable development for the installation of a grease trap at the curb cut. Vice Chairman Mellinger asked if the grease trap requirement was required on the original parcel map or if it would have to be added as a condition. Community Development Director Miller stated that we have yet to determine any mechanism that will allow the installation of a grease trap where there is not sufficient fall from the property into some sort of drainage structure. Commissioner Brown stated that he will not discuss this again if we can get a letter from the U.S. Department of Fish and Game stating that they have no problem with industrial parking lots draining into that environment. Motion by Commissioner Brinley to recommend to City Council the adoption of Negative Declaration No. 87-28 and approval of Tentative Parcel Map 22914 based upon the Findings and the 28 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report, second by Commissioner Brown. __ Vice Chairman Mellinger stated that he thought it would be appropriate to add condition number 29, which will read: Condition No. 29: "A property owner's association shall be formed in association with this map and, therefore, it will be record- ed on the final map." Minutes of Planning Commission October 6, 1987 Page 11 TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 22914 AND INDUSTRIAL PROJECT 87-5 - BROOKS TONE DEVELOPMENT CONTINUED commissioner Brinley amended her motion to include Vice Chairman Mellinger's recommendation that condition number 29 be added, second by Commissioner Brown. Approved 3-0 Motion by Commissioner Brown to recommend to City Council the adoption of Negative Declaration No. 87-28 and approval of Industrial Project 87-5 subject to the Findings and the 55 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report with the following amendments: - Condition No. 13: Condition No. 14: - Condition No. 16: Condition No. 17: Condition No. 48: - "Walls and fences may be erected to create individual storage areas. Where fencing is to be provided, 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." "The four (4) driveways shown abutting the side property lines adjacent to Buildings 1, 3, 6 and 8 of the project shall be deleted. Buildings 1, 3, 6 and 8 shall be relocated to provide for additional parking and landscap- ing. Additional square footage may be included in Buildings 1, 3, 6 and 8 only, subject to the approval of the Community Development Director and upon verification that all parking requirements are met. "A decorative block wall a minimum of six feet (6') in height shall be constructed along the perimeter, except for street frontages of the property. Colors and materials shall be subject to the approval of the community Development Director." "The landscaping, access and building frontages on Third and Birch Street shall be in varying levels, and shall be in substantial compliance with the submitted rendering except as modified herein." The developer shall cause to be recorded an irrevocable reciprocal easement for parking, and circulation; developer provides circulation and landscape maintenance agreements for all lots subject to the approval of the Director of Community Development. In addition, CC & R's and property owner's association to be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney and the Planning Commission setting the limits on the common areas, perimeter fencing and which enforce standards of building maintenance, participation in landscape maintenance, and allowing vehicle/material storage outside subject to the approval of the Minutes of Planning Commission October 6, 1987 Page 12 TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 22914 AND INDUSTRIAL PROJECT 87-5 = BROOKS TONE DEVELOPMENT CONTINUED Condition No. 52: Community Development Director." Developer shall insure that permits are obtained (if necessary) from the Army Corp of Engineers and the California Department of Fish and Game before wetland area is disturbed, in conjunction with this project. Delete. Letter on file from State Fish and Game shows condition already met." - Condition No. 56: "Grease Traps to be installed." Second by Commissioner Brinley. Vice Chairman Mellinger commented on the requirement for grease traps, stating there should be a condition for mitigation, either a grease trap or equivalent, to insure that no pollutants be carried off site, and requested that condition number 56 be amended to read: Condition No. 56: "Grease traps or equivalent to be installed." Commissioner Brown amended his motion to include Vice Chairman Mellinger's recommendation on condition number 56. There being no further discussion at the table, Vice Chairman Mellinger called for the question. Approved 3-0 - 3. Tentative Tract Map 20472 Revised - Friedman Homes - Associate Planner pine presented a request to revise previously approved Tentative Tract Map 20472 to allow reduction in number and re-configuration of lots, changes in parks and open space, road and street design, and other related changes. 100.3 gross acres to be subdivided into one hundred (100) residential lots, two (2) neighborhood parks of 1.6 acres, one (1) 3.8 acre commercial lot and a 47.7 acre open space reserve, straddling Railroad Canyon Road approximately 0.7 miles east of Interstate 15. Associate Planne+ pine requested that conditions 10 and 20 be amended and the addition of conditions 64, 65, 66, 67, 68 and 69 per memorandum dated October 6th. Vice Chairman Mellinger opened the public hearing at 8:40 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of Tentative Tract Map 20472 Revised. Mr. Martin Dowd, representing Friedman Homes, thanked staff for their assistance on the redesign of this map, and asked that Mr. Larry Buxton be permitted to give an overview of the Canyon Creek Specific Plan. Mr. Larry Buxton, Courton and Associates and the engineer for the proposal, gave a brief background report on the existing and revised proposal, highlighting areas of density, streets, grad- ing, park and trail systems, and the Temescal water lines. - -'--~~,"~:""r~,"~.~:' Minutes of Planning Commission October 6, 1987 Page 13 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 20472 REVISED ~ FRIEDMAN HOMES CONTINUED Mr. Martin Dowd gave a brief presentation on lot sizes, grading and park system for the revised proposal, referring to the map posted. - Mr. Dowd stated that 100, and as a result of owner behind us, it with the property owner property. Vice Chairman Mellinger asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor of Tentative Tract Map 20472 Revised. the lot number has gone from 143 down to negotiations, today, with the property has gone down to 99. We are negotiating to the south to provide access to his Mr. Buron Murray stated that he would like to make a point of information, that the developer and Planning Commission may not know, and that is that he heard that Temescal Water Department has been sold. Vice Chairman Mellinger asked if anyone else wished to speak on Tentative Tract Map 20472 Revised. Receiving no response, vice Chairman Mellinger closed the hearing at 8:57 p.m. Commissioner Brown asked how the drainage from the tract and San Jacinto was being handled, aSking if it was through easements through the lots and underground. Mr. Buxton stated that there will be drainage easements through the lots, believes that they are carried in a ditch and then there is some that would be underground and discharged into a rip-rap dissipator within the river bottom. We have had discus- sions with Warden pecsi of the Department of State Fish & Game regarding concern for discharge of water, and he expressed a desire to have the water controlled so that it would not provide any erosion coming down from the tract during the normal storm event, and that we adhere to Public Law 92500 Section 208, which deals with non-point discharges. Commissioner Brown asked if the hillside area, the straight up and down hill on the back side, would be all one lot along with the channel, stating that he is concerned with the ownership. Mr. Dowd stated that this hillside area, referring to the map posted, would be a letter lot, Lot "G", and all of this open space area would be dedicated to the City as part of the park system. Commissioner Brown asked what Warden pecsi of the Department of Fish and Game had to say about grease traps. Mr. Buxton responded that his discussion with Warden pecsi on grease traps was actually related to another project, but he gave the names of some projects that were diSCharging into the Santa Ana River and suggested that we contact them. commissioner Brown stated that he was not pleased with the street configuration on the south side of the property. Mr. Buxton stated that they had discussed with Captain Grey of the Riverside County Fire Department the configuration of this street, because it had previously been a concern. Captain Grey indicated, when we met with him, that he did not have a problem with the length of this particular street. commissioner Brown stated that on the east end of the cul-de-sac, up against the commercial, there is a deep ravine, would there be any way to put a crash type, non paved, emergency exit, Minutes of Planning Commission October 6, 1987 Page 14 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 20472 REVISED - FRIEDMAN HOMES CONTINUED without messing up the natural water course. Mr. Dowd stated that in discussion with Captain Grey on fire emergency access they (Fire Department) are very much against this because of the slope. Commissioner Brinley stated that her concern was on the drain- __ age, but it has been covered. Commissioner Brinley asked Vice Chairman Mellinger if he was sitting on the Commission in 1985 when this proposal was first approved, and if the major concerns from the past had been corrected. Vice Chairman Mellinger stated that there were numerous discussions about the Specific Plan and we tried to work out as many issues as were known at that time. I think that most of the concerns here have been addressed by the conditions of approval for this project. Commissioner Brinley asked if the parks dedicated and deeded back to the City, and City. were going to be maintained by the Vice Chairman Mellinger informed Commissioner Brinley that this was a requirement of condition number 4. Commissioner Brinley asked what fiscal would have on our Sheriff's Department, Schools. impact Fire this proposal Department and Vice Chairman Mellinger stated that he assessment districts, but wonders about determine adequate assessment. .... can understand the the methodology to Community Development Director Miller stated that Mr. Buxton and Mr. Dowd have had several discussions with the City Attorney and the City Engineer regarding some of the assessment districts, and the structure and methodology that would be utilized. We have discussed the landscaping/lighting assessment district to address maintenance along Railroad Canyon Road; there is an existing assessment district set up within the City which this project would be annexed to address those impacts. The impacts of some of the others are something that, at this point in time, the City has not established such an assessment district, and there are various questions, legality, methodology and financial, and how these would be structured, and we are continuing to work with the developer on this. Community Development Director Miller stated that a precise Fiscal Impact Report was not been prepared for this proposal. Commissioner Brinley asked if the proposal would be included in a sewer assessment district, and if this cost would be passed on to other users. -- Community Development Director Miller responded that the appli- cant has been pursuing this separately with Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District. All of the units in the project would be connected to sewer and this would all be installed as part of the development cost that the developer would bare. Commissioner Brinley asked instead of concrete. why we are considering rip-rap Mr. Buxton stated that the State Department of Fish & Game has Minutes of Planning Commission October 6, 1987 Page 15 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 20472 REVISED = FRIEDMAN HOMES CONTINUED requested that the rip-rap be provided for habitat area. - Vice Chairman Mellinger asked concept plan where Railroad adjacent to the parks. Mr. Buxton Canyon Road to point out on the would be running Mr. Dowd referred to limit of the green right-of-way. Vice Chairman Mellinger commented briefly on the formation of assessment districts. the concept plan, stating that the lower is contiguous to Railroad Canyon Road Vice Chairman Mellinger commented on condition number 69, pertaining to the applicant maintaining slopes for one year. Discussion at the table ensued on condition number 69, pertain- ing to applicant maintaining slope areas, and whether or not an assessment districts would be adequate. - Vice Chairman Mellinger commented on condition number 6, pertaining to buyers being informed in writing that they may be subject to flood inundation due to dam failure, stating that he was assured in the past that there would be no dam failure. Commissioner Brinley commented on condition number 5, pertaining to prospective buyers being informed that they will be part of an assessment district for open space, riparian areas, parks and trails maintenance. Discussion at the table ensued on condition number 5 and 6. Mr. Clyde Christensen asked to address the Commission on this item, stating that there was a category for those in favor and against, but not one to ask questions. Vice Chairman Mellinger re-opened the public hearing at 9:19 p.m., for anyone wishing to comment on Tentative Tract Map 20472 Revised. Mr. Clyde Christensen asked about the improvements for Railroad Canyon Road. Vice Chairman Mellinger stated ment district is being looked Road. that currently a benefit assess- into regarding Railroad Canyon - Vice Chairman Mellinger asked the proposal. Mr. Buron Murray asked after the developers in the area have completed their projects, after the homes are sold and the commercial build, as I understand proposition 13 when something is re-sold or newly built the property assessment jumps--much higher than the old form, what happens to this money and why do we need these assessment districts after the developer has moved out. if anyone else wished to speak on Mr. Dowd stated to answer Mr. Murray's question and to address commissioner Brinley question on fiscal impacts that when those property taxes on a per lot basis goes up, in part, that increased valuation goes to pay for the additional fire and police protection. State law, effective January 1, 1988, requires that we pay $1.50 a square foot on all new housing, so those mitigation fees go directly to the school district to mitigate their impact in addition to the various assessments. In addition to the various assessment district which go to fund Minutes of Planning Commission October 6, 1987 Page 16 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 20472 REVISED - FRIEDMAN HOMES CONTINUED site specific items, and in addition to that you have your individual property tax, which fund increases. We are also dedicating a fire station site on Tract 20704. Discussion at the table ensued on the location of the proposed fire station site. Vice Chairman Mellinger asked if anyone else wished to speak on the proposal. Receiving no response, Vice Chairman Mellinger closed the public hearing at 9:27 p.m. - Mr. Dowd requested that condition number 6, be amended to say: "that the project is within a dam inundation area". Mr. Down requested that condition number 19, be amended by adding the following verbiage, after the words settling ponds: "or other appropriate means as approved by landscape architect or the Community Development Director on the park plans." Mr. Dowd asked if condition number 38 and 52 are the same. Vice Chairman Mellinger stated that one condition deals with the San Jacinto Bridge and the other one has to do with storm drainage. Mr. Dowd stated that he would like to have a fee set for condition number 52, pertaining to the assessment district for the San Jacinto Bridge. Discussion at the table ensued on condition number 52 pertaining to the establishment of a fee for the assessment district for __ the San Jacinto Bridge; whether or not the assessment district was for the San Jacinto Bridge and the Casino Drive Bridge. Mr. Dowd requested that the word "grading permit" be changed to "building permit" in condition number 38. Vice Chairman Mellinger stated that he presumes that the potential impacts would be at grading stage, and asked staff to comment on the requested amendment to condition number 38. Community Development Director Miller stated revised condition addresses the provision of control measures within 30 days of completion and believes that it would be appropriate to number 38. that one of the interim drainage of rough grading, amend condition Mr. Dowd requested that in condition number 54 the word "con- sistent" be changed to "compatible". Commissioner Brown commented on condition number 52, wanting to know how this is going to affect the applicant if the City has not formed a benefit assessment district. Community Development Director Miller stated that it is the intent of the Engineering Department to establish a fee in lieu __ of the formation of the district. Commissioner Brown asked when this fee would be established. Community Development Director Miller stated that the Engineer- ing Department is in the process of establishing this fee. Commissioner Brown recommended that a sunset within 90 days, from this date, be placed on condition number 52. Minutes of Planning Commission October 6, 1987 Page 17 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 20472 REVISED = FRIEDMAN HOMES CONTINUED Discussion at the table ensued on condition number 52, pertain- ing to th7 establishment of a fee; g1v1ng the applicant the vehicle 1n which to meet the condition or dropping the condi- tion; the mitigation impact fee for the bridge needing City Council approval once established; whether or not proposed improvement have been designed for the bridge and the total cost figured; determining the area for the assessment district; if a sunset of 90 days is added then it should begin after Council action. - Vice Chairman Mellinger commented on condition number 21, pertaining to the special assessment district for fire and police, prior to recordation of the final map, and how this is to be determined. Discussion at the table ensued on condition number 52, pertain- ing to the formation of a benefit assessment district for the bridge or pay a mitigation impact fee as determined by the city Engineer and City Council, and a sunset of 60-90 days being more realistic. There being no further discussion at the table, Vice Chairman Mellinger called for a motion. Motion by Commissioner Brown to certify and adopt Addendum Number 2, Canyon Creek Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report, and approve Tentative Tract Map 20472 Revised, based on the Findings and subject to the 63 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report and with the following amendments: Condition No. 10: Condition No. 19: - Condition No. 20: Condition No. 38: "Landscaping and irrigation plans shall be submitted for the two (2) parks, all trails, open space uses and all slopes shall be subject to Planning Commission approval prior to issuance of Grading and Building Permits. All improvements related to the parks and trails shall be bonded for prior to issuance of Building Permits. The two (2) parks shall be constructed concurrently with the project phase in which they are located." "The drainage outlets from the development into the stream channel shall be protected from erosion by the construction of settling ponds, or other appropriate means as approved by landscape architect or the Community Development Director on the park plans, as to increase the amount of riparian habitat." "Revised Tract 20472 is amended to allow access to abutting property (A.P. # 363-190-012) and change the land use designation from "commercial" to "Residential (HPD)". "Join a benefit assessment district for mitigation of downstream storm drainage or pay downstream storm drainage run-off impact mitigation fee of $200.00 per lot and $1,500.00 per acre for commercial lots, prior to the issuance of building permits." Minutes of Planning Commission October 6, 1987 Page 18 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 20472 REVISED = FRIEDMAN HOMES CONTINUED Condition No 52: Condition No. 54: Condition No. 64: Condition No. 65: Condition No. 66: Condition No. 67: Condition No. 68: Condition No: 69: "Applicant shall join assessment district for San Jacinto Bridge at Lakeshore Drive or pay a mitigation fee as determined by the City Engineer, within 90 days of the final approval of tentative tract map." "Applicant shall provide services of a traffic engineer to approve the alignment of Railroad Canyon Road improvement plan for future Average Daily Trip generation and Design Speed. Tract improvement of Railroad Canyon Road shall be compatible with improvement of Railroad Canyon Road east and west of the tract, to be done under the assessment district for Railroad Canyon Road improvements." "Traffic and safety mitigation for Railroad Canyon Road shall be provided during tract grading and/or construction." - "A precise grading plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Chief Buil~i~g Official implementing all prov1s1ons of Chapter 70 of the Uniform Building Code and City Grading Ordinance. Interim erosion control measures shall be taken within thirty (30) days after rough grading, as approved by the Chief Building Official. No slopes of greater than 2:1 ratio shall be permitted." - "Lots 67 through 85 shall have reciprocal easements recorded in favor of all these lots for drainage and maintenance of drainage structures and slope drains." "Noise attenuation shall be provided at the rear of the pads for all lots abutting Railroad Canyon Road. An acoustical engineer shall submit a noise study detailing mitigation measures, subject to the approval of the Community Development Director or his designee. The noise mitigation shall include in part construction of acoustic barrier walls, at the rear of pads or lots prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the first unit." - "Prior to recordation of a final map developer shall annex the entire subdivision into the City wide lighting and landscaping maintenance district." "Simultaneous to recordation of the final map, whether by designation upon the final map or by separate instrument, developer shall provide a Minutes of Planning Commission October 6, 1987 Page 19 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 20472 REVISED = FRIEDMAN HOMES CONTINUED - slope easement in favor of the city of Lake Elsinore, for slopes abutting the Railroad Canyon Road right-of-way. (Lots 60-67 and 85-100 as shown on Tentative Tract Map 20472 dated August 27, 1987, developer shall install irrigation and shall plant said slopes, subject to the approval of the City Engineer and Community Development Director or his designee. Developer shall retain maintenance of these slopes for at least one year prior to final acceptance of the slope easement and landscape district... Second by Vice Chairman Mellinger. Approved 3-0 BUSINESS ITEMS 1. Commercial Project 87-10 - Tait & Associates - Considered and approved with Conditional Use Permit 87-14. 2. Industrial Project 87-5 - Brookstone Development - Considered and approved with Tentative Parcel Map 22914. 3. Commercial Project 87-5 (Landscaping/Elevation and Roof Line Revisions) - Brookstone Development - Associate Planner Wilkins presented for Planning Commission consideration the landscaping/elevation and roof line revisions for said commercial project, located on the northerly side of Allen Street east side of Dexter. commissioner Brinley commented on the revised roof elevation, stating that she prefers the revised elevation. commissioner Brinley commented on signalization and stop signs at Central, as referenced in the City Council Minutes of August 11th. Vice Chairman Mellinger asked staff to address the previous conditions of approval and how they address the concern of signalization and monumentation. Commissioner Brown asked if the Commission had not required perimeter landscaping on the other portion of the site, due to the lot line going down the driveway. - Associate Planner that he was going condition number addressed this. wilkins stated that the applicant indicated to hydroseed the entire area, and stated that 5 of the original conditions of approval commissioner Brown asked if there would be curb, gutter and sidewalk around the entire project and then hydroseed up to the sidewalk edge, stating that it was his intent to provide the landscape improvements shown in the rendering, not the paved area, but to have the entire site landscaped because of the shared drive access. Community Development Director Miller stated that the applicant had indicated that they plan to install full perimeter improve- ments, and as to the landscaping condition number 5 of the Minutes of Planning Commission October 6, 1987 Page 20 COMMERCIAL PROJECT 87-5 (LANDSCAPING/ELEVATION AND ROOF LINE REVISIONS) = BROOKS TONE DEVELOPMENT original conditions states that this will return to the Commis- sion for approval. Mr. Steve Brown stated that first of all improvements from the curb and gutter out toward the street would be installed, so Dexter and Central would be improved. However, from the back of __ the curb, within the property line, the only thing that would be done, at this point in time, is hydroseed. Commissioner Brown stated that it was his intent to end up with a driveway opening landscaped as illustrated on the rendering, irrespective of what happens to the Mobile station, because of the situation of the lot line and the driveway entrance off of Central; all frontages on Central should be improved per the rendering submitted, including the driveway approach on both sides. Mr. Brown asked if Commissioner Brown wanted them to landscape the front of Central Avenue in front of the proposed Mobil station site. commissioner Brown answered in the affirmative. Discussion at the table ensued on landscaping requirements for the project; location and alignment of curb, gutter and sidewalk, and the sidewalk ending past the radius of the curb at Dexter. Mr. Brown commented on the requirement of a median, as brought up by Coumcilman Dominguez at the August 11th meeting, and __ stated that Cal Trans will not allow a median at this location. Motion by Commissioner Brinley to recommend to City Council approval of the revisions for Commercial Project 87-5 based on the Findings and the 7 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report, second by Vice Chairman Mellinger. Approved 3-0 4. Sign Program for Industrial Project 86-2 - O.T. Equities - Vice Chairman Mellinger stated that staff has requested to have this item continued to the meeting of October 20, 1987. Motion by Vice Chairman Mellinger to continue the Sign Program for Industrial Project 86-2 to October 20, 1987, second by Commissioner Brown. Approved 3-0 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS community Development Director Miller stated that the Commission may want to defer action on this, since there are a couple of members absent, but at the last meeting the Commission indicated a desire to schedule a study session in November. __ Vice Chairman Mellinger stated that he would prefer to wait. PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Commissioner Brown: Would appreciate it if Council and Staff would look at putting stop signs at the on/off ramps at Railroad Canyon Road and the freeway. Minutes of Planning Commission October 6, 1987 Page 21 PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS CONTINUED vice Chairman Mellinger stated that he believes that Cal Trans plays a strong role in this. Commissioner Brinley: - Collier and Central, the little island in between, people have been parking in there on the weekends and also leaving cars for sale. Community Development Director Miller stated that this is a continuing enforcement problem and would bring it to the attention of the Code Enforcement. vice Chairman Mellinger: commissioner Brown brought up the Swap Meet parking in the past, and it was alleviated for a while, now they have opened an additional entrance and the traffic hazards on the weekend is greater than it ever was before, and it could be easily solved by not allowing any parking across the street. I think that the biggest concern is people crossing the street, and I think that they have expanded far beyond their non-conforming status. We should work with them and have someone out there doing something with the traffic. I do not with Cal Department semi-truck know what we can do about this, but perhaps we can check Trans, California Highway Patrol and the Sheriff's about the underpass at Central and Collier being used as parking areas, as well as residential areas. - Asked if it was legal to park detached trailers and detached boats on residential streets, wanting to know if there was an ordinance which prohibits this. Community Development Director Miller stated that Title 10 was just amended, which addresses streets and highways within the City, and this would have to be researched. vice Chairman Mellinger stated that the problem with large detached RV, especially fifth-wheels that cannot be moved, if there is a fire in the area it is very difficult to get around them. Secondly, not only is it an aesthetic problem it is a safety problem on residential streets. Community Development Director Miller stated that would be prohibited for any type of vehicle within specific locations could be identified then could investigate. long term parking the street, and if Code Enforcement There being no further business, the Lake Elsinore Commission adjourned at 10:08 p.m. Motion by Commissioner second by Vice Chairman Mellinger. Approved 3-0 Planning Brinley, - Respectfully, submitted, ~~ Linda Grindstaff Planning Commission Secretary itilG. 4, Randy Mellinger Vice Chairman - - -- MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON THE 20TH DAY OF OCTOBER 1987 THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:01 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Chairman Washburn. ROLL CALL: - PRESENT: Commissioners: Brown, Mellinger, Brinley, Kelley and Washburn ABSENT: None Also present were Community Development Director Miller, Assistant Planner Last and Associate Planner Wilkins. MINUTE ACTION Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to approve minutes of October 6, 1987, as submitted, second by Commissioner Brown. Approved 3-0 Chairman Washburn and Commissioner Kelley abstaining PUBLIC COMMENTS Chairman Washburn stated that the request from Ms. Sherry comment on Tentative Tract Map 22768 would be recognized Public Hearing segment on this item. Dobbins to during the Chairman Washburn asked Commission. Receiving no PUBLIC COMMENT section. if anyone response, else wished to Chairman Washburn address closed the the - PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Tentative Parcel Map 22827 - Brookstone Investors - Assistant Planner Last presented a request subdivide an existing 4.73 acre commercial site into two parcels containing .38 and 4.35 acres respectively, located on the northwest intersection of Lincoln Street and Riverside Drive. Chairman Washburn opened the public hearing at 7:05 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of Tentative Parcel Map 22827. Mr. Steve Brown, representing Brookstone Investors, commented on condition number 3, stating that, at this time, they do not have a tenant for that space; we have had several inquiries for a restaurant use. It was our thought that we would address the parking through a reciprocal parking agreement, and requested that the condition be modified to have a reciprocal parking agreement in lieu of enlarging the pad. Mr. Brown requested the following verbiage be added to condition number 7, "to the satisfaction of Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District". - Chairman Washburn asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor of Tentative Parcel Map 22827. Receiving no response, Chairman Washburn asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Receiv- ing no response, Chairman Washburn asked if anyone wished to speak on the matter. Receiving no response, Chairman Washburn closed the pUblic hearing at 7:08 p.m. Commissioner Brown asked if staff would have a problem with a reciprocal parking agreement being added in lieu of condition number 3, to adequately serve the building on Parcel 2. community Development Director Miller stated that as recommended in the condition, and as indicated in the Code, believes that it is preferable to have the parking on the parcel. Minutes of Planning Commission October 20, 1987 Page 2 TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 22827 - BROOKS TONE INVESTORS CONTINUED Commissioner Brown asked Mr. Brown if the configuration of Parcel 2 could be changed to include the additional parking spaces that would be required. Mr. Brown stated that they do not know who the tenant will be, at this point, so we are not in a position to specifically identify the amount of parking that will be needed. __ Commissioner Brown asked Community Development Director Miller if a deed restriction could be placed on Parcel 1 to designate parking spaces, on the deed, for Parcel 2 only. Community Development Director Miller stated that there are various legal concerns. Mr. Brown has indicated their full intent to have a reciprocal parking agreement, and in terms of granting an easement there are legal prohibitions on granting an easement unto yourself. It can be accomplished in the way that Mr. Brown has suggested, however, we believe that there is a greater potential for future problems. Commissioner Kelley stated that his only question was going to be on condition number 3. Commissioner Brinley commented on condition number 3, stating that if the applicant is not sure who the tenant is going to be then feels that staff was justified in including this condition. commissioner Mellinger commented on condition number 3, stating that he feels that an irrevocable parking and access agreement should be placed on Parcels 1 and 2. Also, the total requirement for all the uses combined on Parcels 1 and 2 shall not exceed the __ sum of the requirements for the various uses computed separately. Commissioner Mellinger stated that administration would be the biggest problem. Therefore, prior to any Business License or issuance of Certificate of Occupancy for any new use on either Parcell or 2, the applicant for the Certificate of Occupancy or Business License should submit the total number of uses in the entire center to the Planning Department prior to the issuance. Chairman Washburn asked Mr. Brown why was the configuration such that it only had about eight parking spaces in front, why not a little further toward the north on the side of the pad, referring to the exhibit included in the packet. Mr. Brown stated that he could not answer this. Discussion at the table ensued on the configuration of the pads; irrevocable reciprocal agreement, and how the number of parking spaces was determined. Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to Exemption and recommend to City Council Parcel Map 22827 based on the Findings Approval listed in the Staff Report amendments: recognize the Categorical approval of Tentative and the 11 Conditions of with the following ..., Condition No.2: "Applicant shall record by separate instrument or as a note upon the final map an irrevocable reciprocal parking and access easement between Parcel 1 and Parcel 2, as shown upon the Tentative Parcel Map." "The total requirement for all uses combined on Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 Condition No.3: Minutes of Planning Commission October 20, 1987 Page 3 TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 22827 - BROOKS TONE INVESTORS CONTINUED - shall not exceed the sum of the requirements for the various uses computed separately. Prior to the issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy or new Business License on either Parcell or Parcel 2, the applicant shall provide to the Planning Department a site plan with all of the uses listed in all spaces." Second by Commissioner Brinley. Commissioner Kelley asked about the modification to condition number 7, as requested by Mr. Brown. Commissioner Mellinger amended his motion to amend condition number 7, which will read as follows: Condition No.7: "Upgrade station(s) additional facilities Elsinore District." existing sewage lift to meet the project's demand on existing to the satisfaction of Valley Municipal Water commissioner Brinley, maker of the second was in agreement with the amendment. There being no further discussion, Chairman Washburn called for the question. Approved 5-0 - Associate Planner Wilkins requested that Variance 87-4 be considered prior to Tentative Tract Map 22768. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to hear Variance 87-4 prior to Tentative Tract Map 22768. 3. Variance 87-4 - Curtis/Elsinore Ranch Company - Associate Planner Wilkins presented a request to permit subdivision of 11.73 acres into 53 lots such that interior lots have a lot width of 48.39 feet rather than the required 60 feet, that corner lots have a lot width of 50 feet rather than the required 65 feet and, that the average interior lot size be 6,880 square feet rather than the required 7,260 square feet and that corner lots be provided an average lot area of 6,625 square feet rather than the required 7,700 square feet as required by sections 17.23.060 A & Band 17.23.070 A & B, of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code; located between Broadway Street and st. Clair Avenue on the east side of California Street, south of Robb Road. Chairman Washburn opened the public hearing at 7:28 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of Variance 87-4. Mr. Larry Buxton, of Courton & Associates, stated that they prepared the planning and engineering materials for this project. The proposed project was first undertaken based on an underlying sUbdivision, with some existing lots. To work with the City and determine what the appropriate configuration should be we concurred to file a variance request. The average lot width is approximately 50 feet, the purpose was to align the existing tract with the adjacent housing tract so that the lot configuration would be somewhat similar and to reflect as closely as possible the original underlying subdivision that had had been indicated to exist. Minutes of Planning Commission October 20, 1987 Page 4 VARIANCE 87-4 = CURTIS/ELSINORE RANCH COMPANY CONTINUED Chairman Washburn asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor for Variance 87-4. Receiving no response, Chairman Washburn asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Chairman Washburn asked Ms. Dobbins if she wished to comment on the Variance or if her comments were basically toward the tentative map. Ms. Dobbins stated that her comments were toward __ the tentative map. Chairman Washburn asked Receiving no response, hearing at 7:30 p.m. if anyone wished to speak on the matter. Chairman Washburn closed the public Commissioner Kelley stated that he was not convinced that the variance is necessary, does not see any reason why it should not be up to current codes with the setbacks and frontage. I can not visualize how the houses will sit on the lots and what the side yard setbacks will be, would like an explanation on this. Mr. Buxton stated that the exhibit, just placed on the board, indicates the plot plan which has been filed with the City, and represents the location of the units on the lots. There are four different units and the minimum setback of five-feet (5') is to be attained, I believe, in all except one or two instances. The front yard setback would be staggered, I believe, between four (4) and five (5) feet rather than a straight line. We would be maintaining a constant setback from the side yard through this proposal. Commissioner Kelley stated that he is deeply disturbed by the frontage, fifty-foot (50'), and the total square footage of the __ lots. Mr. Buxton stated that the total square footage of the lots is 6,800 square feet, and this was first contemplated as the result of the underlying subdivision that is thought to exist. Mr. Buxton stated that there was a record of survey that indicated an underlying SUbdivision with existing lots. The applicant obtained a letter from Orange Coast Title Company indicating that the underlying subdivision did exist and that they were in a position to insure those lots as existing lots. In addition, the surveyor that performed the ALTA Survey on the property, and other survey work for the applicant, indicated the existence of the lots and initially the City had concurred with that. The project was started and designed based on the underlying subdivision. After it was quite a way under way there was discussions with the City that indicated that it might be best if a tentative map were filed and a variance requested, so that all of these conditions could be met. The applicant felt that this would be an appropriate proposal, because it appeared that staff would support the variance request. Commissioner Kelley stated that he was aware of this, and would like a response from staff on how they view this. ... Community Development Director Miller stated that he does not quite understand the question. Chairman Washburn stated that he believes the questions is whether or not there was legal counsel input in reference to the map, the Lucerne TownShip, legality of selling off the parcels as they exist in the old township, and Orange Coast Title has indicated that they still consider it a platted map. Community Development Director Miller stated that Orange Coast Minutes of Planning Commission October 20, 1987 Page 5 VARIANCE 87-4 = CURTIS/ELSINORE RANCH COMPANY CONTINUED ..... Title has given us a letter that indicates this. Subsequent to that letter questions arose as a result of the financing. The bank was raising significant questions about it and as a result of the questions raised by the bank the vacation of the streets, which is one of the exhibits, was unearthed and presented to the City. The City Engineer and the City Attorney were both involved in considerable discussions regarding this, and as a result of that we made the recommendation that it would be more appropriate to process a new map, since it appeared to us that the vacation of the streets had resulted in a reversion of the property to acreage. However, as indicated due to the considerable amount of processing and the commitments that have been made, both by the applicant and the City, that in this particular case, on this particular tract, there were certain circumstances that would perhaps warrant the granting of a variance. Chairman Washburn stated that this was also with some modifi- cation to the existing Township of Lucerne. Community Development Director Miller responded in the affirma- tive and stated that all along they (the applicant) had proposed a modification to several of the lots. From the very beginning staff had suggested, for the lots that they wanted to re-configure, that a new subdivision was the appropriate mechanism. From the very beginning it had been anticipated that there would be a subdivision map of some type for a portion of it, and with the discovery of the vacation of all of the streets, we suggested that it would be most appropriate to process a subdivision map, in the first place, for a portion of the tract, to go ahead and incorporate the entire tract within a subdivision map and proceed in the fashion that you see before you tonight. Chairman township vacated existing Washburn asked how many lots were lost from the old to the new proposed map, and if the streets that were are now in direct or nearly direct alignment with the streets. Mr. Buxton stated that the streets that were vacated are proposed to be re-dedicated at the new wider widths, the previous streets did not meet the City's requirements. Chairman Washburn asked if they would be aligned with the other streets. Mr. Buxton stated that the streets would be aligned with the other streets. ..... Mr. Buxton stated that the number of lots that were lost, is a triCky question, because some of the original lots were twenty-five (25) feet in width. There was a consolidation of these twenty-five foot, approximate, lots into fifty-foot lots and the net loss of fifty-foot lots by the configuration is probably two lots, I believe, from this re-configuration. Mr. Buxton stated that one issue concerning the configuration of the lots is that we wanted to reflect as best we could the adjacent Kulberg Tract, and at the same time try to maintain the same density that originally had been proposed by this process. Chairman Washburn commented on the adjacent lot density, and asked if the one proposed is a lower density than the existing. Community Development Director Miller stated that this is correct. The adjacent lots, shown in exhibit 4, along Massachusetts Street and Ralph Road are a similar depth, but about fifty-five feet (55') in width rather than fifty-feet (50') Minutes of Planning Commission October 20, 1987 Page 6 VARIANCE 87-4 - CURTIS/ELSINORE RANCH COMPANY CONTINUED in width, resulting in about 700 feet of additional area in the existing lots as to what is proposed in this map. Commissioner Kelley asked staff if this variance would constitute a precedent for the other forty (40) acres. Community Development Director Miller stated that we would __ suggest that it is not. Since the relatively unique circumstances surrounding this had a lot to do with the processing and the commitments made based on an understanding, and I think that we all have a different understanding now. Commissioner Brown stated that the findings under the ordinance, the findings that we have to addressed in Section 17.76.060 B sections. his concern was just to support and I have done this. I think make to grant the variance are and C, and then read those Commissioner Brinley stated that she does aware of the letter of May 12, 1987, that time, staff did not know that the streets County of Riverside prior to 1917. Community Development Director Miller responded in the affirma- tive, stating that our initial conversations were predicated upon the fact that this was a subdivision that was existing. have concern with this, states that at that had been vacated by the Commissioner Brinley commented on the Supervisors Minutes received July 16, where this had been reverted back to acreage. In other words, it is no longer lots it has reverted back to acreage. __ Community Development Director Miller stated that the actual action was a vacation of the streets. It was the opinion of the City Engineer and the City Attorney that effectively reverted it to acreage. Commissioner Brinley asked if this has been reverted back to acreage couldn't the lots be re-proportioned to meet the Zoning Code; could they not instead of building 53 home put in 40, and have quality instead of quantity. Community Development Director Miller stated that if the land has reverted to acreage the land could be re-configured, or even an existing subdivision may be consolidated and re-configured. Chairman Washburn stated that the question is not quantity or quality at the moment, it is a question of variance under special circumstances. Commissioner Brinley stated that previously, four months ago, that the Commission required and reaffirmed that lots should not be substandard and should meet Code requirements. Commissioner Brinley further indicated that the project could be considered a special privilege, based on the circumstances identified by the applicant. In other words, we are going to allow the applicant to come in and build smaller than what is required. If we can go back to where it reverted back to acreage they could go in an actually put the lots in at the proposed zoning requirements. .... Mr. Buxton stated that the applicant does not agree that this has reverted back to acreage. We believe that there is an existing underlying tract. We agree that in 1917, some of the Minutes of Planning Commission October 20, 1987 Page 7 VARIANCE 87-4 - CURTIS/ELSINORE RANCH COMPANY CONTINUED streets were vacated, but according to our understanding of the codes todays it would require a record of survey to be filed to vacate the lots themselves. We have a point where we do not agree with staff and it is a very important point. The applicant maintains that there is an underlying subdivision, and we concurred with staff that it might be a cleaner way to do this project if we filed a tentative map. Initially, we were going to file a tentative map for eight lots, and we then determined that instead of filing one small map we would have to file two small maps, so to get to the point where we could have a project that reflected what this original underlying subdivision indicated we agreed to do a tentative map on the entire project area. Because it meant that we would be coming to you one time instead of perhaps with three separate projects for fifty-three lots. Commissioner Brinley asked Mr. Buxton why they would not prefer to meet the the zoning requirements, and instead of building 53 bring it down to 40-45, somewhere in there. Mr. Buxton stated that there are two situations, one has to do with the fact that the property has been purchased by the Curtis/Elsinore Ranch Company, and it is no longer held by the Torn Ranch owners. The property was presented as having existing underlying lots and during that sale the Title Company indicated that was in fact the case. Now, the escrow has closed on the property, and so the project proceeded to design a layout that would show these underlying lots as existing. All of the cost factors, the bank loans, and the other considerations, and the construction of off-site infrastructure were based on the 53 lot configuration. Mr. Buxton stated that when we get into the discussion of the tentative map you will find that there are a lot of conditions for this tract, which are expensive. One being an interim flood control devise; suggestions for additional studies; extension of a sewer line for several hundred feet through a tract which is now on septic systems, and other items like that, so there is a very large fronting expense associated. Commissioner Brinley asked if this would not be up to Curtis/Elsinore Ranch to investigate and find all of this out prior to purchasing the property. Mr. Buxton stated that this was done, and the Title Company was willing to insure the lots, this is the normal procedure. Chairman Washburn stated that the way he see it, the minutes of 1917, do not make reference to all the streets. Because there are some perimeter streets that still exist, is this not correct. ~ commissioner Brinley stated that the minutes state Robb Road and part of Ohio. Chairman Washburn stated that we still have two streets that exist. Now, under the old--if they had not gone back and found the minutes of 1917, corrected me if I am wrong, they have a right to go ahead and develop those lots as recorded, as a recorded map. They could go out there without our permission and they could develop on those small narrow lots. Chairman Washburn stated that in reading through the minutes, the application and the processing they, both the City and the applicant, had all of the assurance from the people that they should have assurance from that they were in their jurisdiction to go ahead with a recorded map. Minutes of Planning Commission October 20, 1987 Page 8 VARIANCE 87-4 - CURTIS/ELSINORE RANCH COMPANY CONTINUED Discussion at the table ensued recorded substandard tracts, and proceed with the proposal. on previously approved and applicant's justification to Commissioner Brinley stated that her concern is the lot con- figuration, and that with smaller lots the access is going to be smaller. ~ Chairman Washburn stated that the access would be the same as the adjoining tract. Commissioner Brinley asked about traffic control, stating that there are no stop signs. Chairman Washburn stated that there would be stop signs coming out of the tract. Commissioner Brinley commented briefly on the property having reverted back to acreage, according to documentation. Chairman Washburn stated that he does not agree, the way he reads it, it has not reverted back to full acreage. The lots were still in existence and some of the streets were vacated. Community Development Director Miller stated that the special circumstances that apply here is that the applicant did all of the things that you would normally expect to do in the purchase of land; obtained a preliminary title report and clearance from the Title Company that this did exist. The City also gave every indication--I myself, in consultation with the City Engineer who had met with the applicant prior to the purchase of the property, __ indicated that we believed that it was an existing sUbdivision. The other thing that Mr. Buxton has pointed out, which perhaps may affect your decision in terms of lot size, from the very beginning they have indicated that they have every intention of providing sewer service to the lot, which the City has indicated that they want for all new developments, in any case. As Mr. Buxton has indicated that does require an extension of sewer service through the existing tract, which is all on septic. Those adjoining lots, which are somewhat larger, are on septic where these new lots would all be sewered. Chairman Washburn stated that technically the new lots would be larger than the adjacent lots. Commissioner Brown asked Mr. Buxton if Orange Coast Title was still in a position, as of this date, to verify that it is all legally recorded. Mr. Buxton responded in the affirmative, stating that this was his understanding. Commissioner Brown commented briefly on Commissioner Brinley's concern on access, stating that the proposal is in conformance to the adjacent project, the roads come in to the same width and so forth, the lots are a little smaller but in basic configuration with the adjoining project. ... Commissioner Brown lot sizes, stating three-hundred and tract; 3 to 5 feet commented on Commissioner Brinley's concern on that the lots are slightly smaller in size, some square feet smaller than the adjacent smaller in overall width per frontage. Commissioner Brown stated that one of the things that concerns him, this happened in this community many times. I am not saying that this is a particular fault of anyone, because I do not Minutes of Planning Commission October 20, 1987 Page 9 VARIANCE 87-4 - CURTIS/ELSINORE RANCH COMPANY CONTINUED ~ it, it is a good tract. Commissioner Brown stated that the information that the City has and had, at the time, said that it is a legally recorded sUbdivision, therefore buildable. The applicant has attempted, because I have counted over and upwards of 70 lots from the original tract, they have with consultation with our staff and reduced that down to something that would be more palatable to the city, which they could have stayed with the 70 lots. commissioner Brinley asked if this would not be constituting a precedence, as asked by Commissioner Kelley. Chairman Washburn and negative. commissioner Brown responded in the Commissioner Brown commented on the mentioned of monetary concern by the engineer of record, stating that number one, under variance, I do not care about the monetary impact on the builder; number two, we can not allow a variance based on the financial impact. ~ Commissioner Brown stated that what he was saying is that the City and the developer both attempted to work this out, something came to light and they are still in dispute, and the people with the bucks say that they will guarantee that it is a tract. So, I think that it behooves us not to back up on something that we have done as a city, especially when it is guaranteed by an outside company that it is legal subdivision and we do not have a legal opinion that it is not. Commissioner Brinley asked if a legal opinion from the City Attorney had been received. Community Development Director Miller stated that the Attorney was consulted by the City Engineer and Planning and it was his opinion, basically, as presented it in the report, although we do not have that in writing. Commissioner Brown asked where this letter was that states this is not a legally recorded subdivision. We do not have it in writing that these lots can not be transferred as stands. City staff, staff Chairman Washburn commented on Commissioner Kelley and Commis- sioner Brinley'S concern about setting a precedence, stating that we should go back and look at the other ones that we have done. Lakeview Terrance is an example of that, we have taken an older map that was really substandard to our conditions and upgraded the map. Discussion at the table ensued on the lot sizes, negotiations the applicant has had with staff to upgrade the tract. Commissioner Mellinger asked Community Development Director Miller on a 25-foot wide lot with no access, because the City Attorney has said there is not reversion to acreage, how many building permits would you allow without access. Community Development Director Miller stated that without access we would not grant a building permit. Commissioner Mellinger stated that we would then have a problem, because the City Attorney has determined that the majority of these lots do not have access, therefore we have requried a new subdivision. Minutes of Planning Commission October 20, 1987 Page 10 VARIANCE 87-4 - CURTIS/ELSINORE RANCH COMPANY CONTINUED Commissioner Mellinger commented on finding number 3, regarding special circumstances, and read the purpose of a variance, Chapter 17.76.010, making the following comments: That obviously, the lots could be configured in an rectangular manner. In other words, the streets could still be retained and the lots can meet code. If the __ intent was to align with adjacent properties we would never see another lot bigger than what was approved prior to our new zoning ordinance, therefore, our zoning ordinance would be useless. That there is no requirement or goal intending that we have to align the lots. Secondly, these are still narrower than the lots adjacent, but the lots adjacent were approved under a previous ordinance. Finally, in no case shall cost to the applicant of strict or literal compliance with a regulation be the primary reason for granting of a variance. Obviously, the primary reason for the granting of this variance is the cost to the applicant, as Mr. Buxton had stated. Commissioner Mellinger stated that he sees no physical hardships on this site, it seems fairly flat. I see the alignment can be done, sees it completely self imposed. commissioner Mellinger stated that he contacted ten Title Insurance Companies; looked up three Real Estate Books; looked in the California Planning/Zoning Development Laws and the Sub- division Map Act, and not in one instance did I get an __ affirmative response that it is the Title Insurance responsibility to approve zoning or subdivison matters, you come to the city for that. Commissioner Mellinger commented on the lot configuration, stating that he did count the lots. However, as Community Development Director Miller stated on a 25-foot wide lot, I doubt if we would find an adequate building to fit. Looking at the lot mergers, I counted 48 lots at 50-feet wide, perhaps 49, so we are even increasing it above that. Finally, our SUbdivision Ordinance does not allow us to do a SUbdivision that does not meet the standards of our code, including lot size and lot width. Commissioner Mellinger stated that if we approve this my finding is that we do see nothing physical on the site, the only reason for the variance is the cost to the applicant. Commissioner Mellinger stated that he would take the word of the Community Development Director that the City Attorney said that it reverts to acreage, then this map is valid. If there is a belief that it has not reverted back to acreage then there should be no action on this, because there is not an appropriate mechanism. Commissioner Mellinger stated that he does not believe that the variance is legal, and the subdivision if it is below the width then we violate our own subdivision ordinance. -- Chairman Washburn stated that we have seen oil lots come in front of us, and we have allowed a few for development with access, under the old zoning code. Under Title 17 and the General Plan we do allow development of substandard lots that are in existence, asking if this was correct. Minutes of Planning Commission October 20, 1987 Page 11 VARIANCE 87-4 = CURTIS/ELSINORE RANCH COMPANY CONTINUED commissioner Mellinger responded this is correct, provided they have access. Discussion at the table ensued on development of substandard lots, and whether or not this was raw land. commissioner Mellinger stated that if the property has not reverted to acreage, would suggest that they take it to court and make that determination, let the City Attorney handle it, and then come back and see if they can develop. I personally, do not see the findings for the variance. Chairman Washburn asked if the City Attorney had confirmed that this is not a recorded and recognized map. Community Development Director Miller stated that we have not received a written opinion from the City Attorney. The City Engineer and myself have discussed this with the City Attorney at some length. Chairman Washburn asked for the City Attorney's verbal opinion. community Development Director Miller stated the opinion of the City Engineer and the City Attorney was that the vacation of the streets effectively reverted the property to acreage, since none of the lots would have legally dedicated access this would be required. Discussion ensued at the table on the lots adjacent streets; confirmation from the city Attorney stating a legal subdivision; whether or not this is subdivision. to perimeter that this is a recorded Chairman Washburn asked Commissioner Mellinger if there was an old subdivision that was recorded, and brought to you as a planner, and the options were: to allow that to be developed the way it was substandard to your code or to work with the applicant to make it larger lots, closer to code or within the code, you would opt for the latter wouldn't you. commissioner Mellinger stated that he would recommend a Planned Unit Development with buffers, open space and amenities, that you would not normally get with a substandard subdivision. Commissioner Mellinger stated that if they wanted to suggest a Planned unit Development Ordinance, and come back with that they would still have to have buffers and outstanding architecture for a Planned unit Development. I have no problem with this as long as it is available in the code, because that would allow lots of a smaller size. - Mr. Bob Curtis, applicant, stated that he was getting the feeling that some of the Commissioners are thinking that we tried to pull something here. We met with the City, Community Development Director Miller and the Engineering Department, and at that time we received back a letter for the lender stating that we could build on these lots. Mr. Curtis stated that at first we were going to do a couple of lot mergers, merging the 25-foot lots into 50-foot lots. Subsequently, we recorded the construction loan and the lender recorded the loan based on the title company stating that they were existing lots and also based on the letter from the City, stating that we could build on these lots, but they wanted us to do a lot merger on the lots that were 25-foot. When we entered into this we were looking at doing the whole 243 unit. Minutes of Planning Commission October 20, 1987 Page 12 VARIANCE 87-4 = CURTIS/ELSINORE RANCH COMPANY CONTINUED Mr. Curtis stated that the title company has issued a letter stating that these lots are existing and the City has concurred with that. I would request that the Commission allow us the variance on these 53 lots, and if the City so desires on the balance then we would do something different. Commissioner Brinley responded to Mr. Curtis' comments stating __ that what we are saying here is that it does not meet the zoning requirements, and without confirmation from the City Attorney, believes we would be setting a precedence. Mr. Buxton stated that he would like to add one final observation. This project is adjacent to a tract, which we have generally referred to as the Kulberg tract. This tract was, if I am not mistaken, in a similar circumstance a few years ago. At that time, they filed lot mergers on the project and we followed suit and initially prepared some 70 odd lot mergers which would have resulted in something very similar in the Kulberg tract. If it was done for the Kulberg tract, which incidentally is on septic system and does not have some of the requirements that this tract does, and you are now saying that it reverted to acreage on this tract, doesn't it follow that the Kulberg tract reverted to acreage. Do you have existing lots in the Kulberg tract now? Commissioner Mellinger stated that he agrees and thinks that the Kulberg tract is not the type of product that we are looking for at this point. As a matter of fact, we tailored our zoning ordinance to make sure that would not be the case. Chairman Washburn stated that what he was hearing from two sides __ was, basically, that it went back to acreage, and therefore, new maps or new lots should be held to Title 17. Commissioner Brinley and Commissioner Mellinger answered in the affirmative. Chairman Washburn stated that re-consideration or additional loss of 2-3 lots to conform to this was correct. if we were to send this back for work there would probably be a the 60-foot frontage, and asked if Mr. Buxton stated that he believes that they would loose about 8-12 lots. A similar evaluation on some adjacent property indicated that we would reduce by 17.25 percent, so I would assume that there would be a similar reduction. Community Development Director Miller stated that he should point out that this determination regarding the revision to acreage is something that the City Engineer and City Attorney concurred on, it is an interpretation, it is not clear cut. We did consult with the state Office of Planning and Research who have been involved with a number of antiquated subdivisions, and we did make an effort to talk to people regarding antiquated subdivisions to clarify this issue. It was their opinion, but it is not entirely clear, if that is in fact the case, where it has reverted to acreage extending the existing streets, st. Clair and Broadway, in line with the existing development is something that certainly would be desirable, so that you do not have off set streets. But if the rest of the property had reverted to acreage and the remaining streets, Nebraska and California, were not fixed in place then conceivably the subdivision could be re-configured to meet the code requirements with the loss of perhaps 3 lots. But to retain the street configuration, although those streets were vacated and are now being proposed to be re-dedicated, would probably result in a loss of about 12-15 lots. -- Minutes of Planning Commission October 20, 1987 Page 13 VARIANCE 87-4 ~ CURTIS/ELSINORE RANCH COMPANY CONTINUED ..... commissioner Mellinger stated that no one is loosing lots because there is no approval of 53 lots by anyone, and the key here is that the streets could still be kept in the exact same alignment and still meet the ordinance, just fewer lots. Commissioner Mellinger stated that he would recommend a Planned unit Development, we do not have that ordinance at this time. I would suggest that we consider such an ordinance and perhaps the applicant may want to provide some assistance with that. Perhaps the applicant may want to consider combining this tract with another tract, if there is a certain need for lots here, and come up with some sort of Planned Unit Development in that area. Chairman Washburn stated that he see two directions, one to continue this with a response from the City Attorney on the question of legality, recognizing that the map still exists, and it would be my opinion to have staff work with the applicant with the concept of the Planned unit Development, to see if this might work. Chairman Washburn stated that he needs an exact determination from the City Attorney, and have this included in the packet, as well as the avenues of a Planned Unit Development, so that we do not violate Title 17. commissioner Mellinger stated that if the City Attorney determined that the revision of acreage was not the case then there would be no need to come back, there would be no variance involved. Chairman Washburn stated that he believes that the findings listed in the staff report would allow the variance. commissioner Mellinger stated that he does not agree with the findings listed in the staff report. Discussion proposal is whether or pending the at the table ensued on legality of proposal; if going to be re-designed why not meet the zoning code; not the adjacent tract is valid; continuing proposal opinion of the City Attorney. Motion by Chairman Washburn to continue Variance 87-4, pending the opinion of the City Attorney, second by Commissioner Kelley. Chairman Washburn asked Community Development Director Miller what type of time limit he felt would be appropriate for the City Attorney's response on the questions at hand. Commissioner Brown asked Chairman Washburn if we were going to make this variance valid contingent upon the City Attorney's opinion, or are we going to bring it back, and what is the purpose of getting the attorney's opinion, if we are going to deny it for another purpose. If we have other problems lets deal with them tonight. Chairman Washburn stated that if we make the opinion of the City Attorney, if his case, it is still a map, then what we have go forward. a motion contingent upon opinion supports the approved tonight would Commissioner Mellinger asked why you would do that, because if there is no reversion to acreage they could build the tract. There would be no need to come back with a map and a variance. Discussion at the table ensued on the original submittal being handled as a lot merger and lot line adjustment and staff Minutes of Planning Commission October 20, 1987 Page 14 VARIANCE 87-4 ~ CURTIS/ELSINORE RANCH COMPANY CONTINUED suggesting otherwise; it being the opinion of the City Attorney and Planning staff that a lot line adjustment is not the appropriate mechanism to address this, and continuing the proposal awaiting the City Attorney's opinion. Commissioner Brown reiterated his statement to deal with the issues now or deny the variance. __ Chairman Washburn amended his motion to approve Variance 87-4 based upon the City Attorney's opinion, and the lots in question, for the variance, are recognized by the City Attorney. Discussion at the table ensued on the map not being able to proceed without the approval of the variance, and the variance not be able to go through without verification by the City Attorney; the City Attorney not needing to affirm the variance and the only thing, as indicated by our Code and State law, is that findings be made concerning the physical nature of the site; finding listed in the staff report supporting the variance; explanation of "experience practical difficulties and/or unnecessary physical hardships" from Section 17.76.010 and why special circumstances applicable to projects was included in this section; allowing development of substandard lots with a Planned Unit Development. Chairman Washburn withdrew his motion, Commissioner Kelley maker of the second withdrew his second. Motion by Chairman Washburn to approve Variance 87-4, based upon the discussion, analysis, recommendation and the findings that special circumstances are applicable, and with the City __ Attorney's opinion; if the City Attorney finds, in his opinion, that it is still, basically, existing lots then the variance is approved. Discussion ensued on the motion on the table; this being the same mechanism used in the past on a similar situation, and continuing the proposal waiting for the City Attorney's written opinion stating that yes this is a legally recorded subdivision or that it is not. Chairman Washburn amended his motion to approved Variance 87-4, if in the City Attorney's opinion this is a legally recorded subdivision. Community Development Director Miller stated that if the Commis- sion wants the City Attorney's written opinion that it would be more appropriate to return to the table with that. Chairman Washburn withdrew his motion. Motion by Chairman Washburn to approve Variance 87-4 based upon the findings listed in the staff report, and the adoption of Negative Declaration No. 87-21, second by Commissioner Brown. Vote: Ayes: Commissioners Brown and Washburn Noes: Commissioners Mellinger, Brinley and Kelley ... Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to deny Variance 87-4 based on the Zoning Ordinance, lack of findings that nothing related to the physical nature of the site exists regarding special circumstances and that approval of the variance is only based upon the cost borne by the developer in opposition to our ordinance, second by Commissioner Brinley. A brief discussion was held on whether or not an opinion from the City Attorney was needed. Minutes of Planning Commission October 20, 1987 Page 15 VARIANCE 87-4 = CURTIS/ELSINORE RANCH COMPANY CONTINUED There being the question. Vote: Ayes: Noes: no further discussion, Chairman Washburn called for commissioners Mellinger, Brinley and Kelley Commissioners Washburn and Brown Mr. Buxton asked for a point of clarification, when a project is denied by the Planning Commission can we go to City Council and appeal this action. Chairman Washburn informed Mr. Buxton that they have ten days in which to file an appeal of the decision rendered. 2. Tentative Tract Map 22768 Curtis/Elsinore Ranch - Chairman Washburn stated that this proposal is a mute point at this time. Commissioner Mellinger stated that if the appeal of the variance is upheld by City Council then the tract would come back to the Planning Commission. Motion by Chairman Washburn to continue Tentative Tract Map 22768, pending the appeal request to City Council on Variance 87-4, second by Commissioner Mellinger. Approved 5-0 At this time, 8:39 p.m. the Planning Commission recessed for a break. At this time, 8:51 p.m. the Planning commission reconvened. BUSINESS ITEMS 1. Sign Program for Industrial Project 86-2 O.T. Equities - Associate Planner Wilkins presented for approval the Sign Program for Industrial Project 86-2 in accordance with section 17.94.180 "0" of the Zoning Code. 1.51 acre site located on the east side of Birch Street in the Warm Springs Industrial Park, west of the intersection of Minthorn and Chaney Street. Chairman Washburn asked if there was anyone in the audience that would like to address this matter. A brief discussion was held at the table on allowing externally illuminated signs, Planned Sign Program number 4. Motion by Commissioner Brinley to Industrial Project 86-2/ based Conditions of Approval listed Commissioner Kelley. approve the Sign Program for upon the Findings and the in the Staff Report, second by commissioner Mellinger asked illuminated signs. if we would allow externally Commissioner Brinley amended illuminated signs. commissioner Kelley maker of the second was in agreement with the amendment to the motion. Approved 4-1 Chairman Washburn abstaining her motion to allow externally 2. Industrial Project 87-4 R.J. Christoff & Associates, Inc. - Assistant Planner Last presented a request to construct two (2) commercial-manufacturing buildings totaling 25,503 square feet on 1.70 acres located at the southeast corner of Collier Avenue and Third Street. Minutes of Planning Commission October 20, 1987 Page 16 INDUSTRIAL PROJECT 87-4 = R.J. CHRISTOFF i ASSOCIATES CONTINUED Chairman Washburn asked if the applicant was in the audience and if there were any questions. Mr. Hugh Mosbacher, owner of the property, stated that they wanted to mount the front of the property on Collier and Third Street. .... Mr. Mosbacher, referred to the rendering posted, and commented on the colors to be used for the individual units; providing two entrances to the property due to the terrain on Collier Avenue; landscaping, and condition number 20, pertaining to the sandblasted concrete or similar treatment requirement. Commissioner Mellinger asked if Mr. Mosbacher was referring to a setback or landscaping on the east side, as it is not even considered or being recommended. Community Development Director Miller referred to Exhibit II, stating that there was referenced to a landscape planter adjacent to the loading space, and also an extension of a landscape planter adjacent to the loading area that was recommended at the other end. We concur with Mr. Mosbacher, if it was the intent to provide a driveway to the adjacent property there to eliminate that landscaping for the driveway. commissioner Mellinger commented on condition number 17, pertain- ing to reciprocal access easement and asked if this would be needed for both sites, and then recommended that number 17 be amended to include verbiage Itthe north and south side of Building Bit. .... Commissioner Brown stated that on condition number l6.f., he would like to see the berms varied in height. Commissioner Brinley commented on that she feels that all roof enclosed. condition number 13, stating mounted equipment should be Mr. Moshbacker stated that one of their concerns was to raise the rear building because of the height along Collier. Basically, the second building is at a higher point to where you would not see anything on the roof and the lower one I feel that anything on the roof there should be covered. Commissioner Kelley stated that he was pleased with the design of the building and with staff recommendation. Chairman Washburn stated that he concurs with Commissioner Kelley. Commissioner Mellinger commented on condition number 13, asking if the roof mounted equipment would be screened from the freeway, and if the intent was to utilize individual facades. Discussion at the table ensued on condition number 13, pertaining to roof mounted equipment being visible from the freeway and Collier Avenue, and the type screening to be utilized. ... Motion by Commissioner Brown to recommend to City Council adoption of Negative Declaration 87-27 and approval of Industrial project 87-4 based on the Findings and the 44 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report, with the following amend- ments: Condition No. l6.f: "Provide for a raised berm, to be varied in height, between the Minutes of Planning Commission October 20, 1987 Page 17 INDUSTRIAL PROJECT 87-4 - R.J. CHRISTOFF i ASSOCIATES CONTINUED Collier Street and Third Street sidewalks of Building A." - Condition No. 17: "Applicant shall record an irrevocable reciprocal access easement with the property to the east of the site and on the north and south side of Building B". Second by Commissioner Mellinger. Approved: 5-0 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS Community Development Director Miller City Council has scheduled a meeting for and requested that the Commissioners Washburn any particular items they would informed the Commission that Thursday, October 29, 1987, coordinate through Chairman like to see on the agenda. PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS commissioner Kelley Nothing to report. commissioner Brinlev - Thanked Assistant Planner Magee for his assistance with the situation in regards to Mary's Sportswear. Commissioner Brown Nothing to report. Commissioner Mellinger Thanked Assistant Planner Magee and the rest of the staff for their assistance in clearing up some health and safety problems. Requested that the following items be placed on the agenda for October 29, 1987: 1. Minor additions to the Zoning Ordinance, dealing with parking, lighting of parking lots and certain residential accessory uses. 2. West side fire station. Chairman Washburn Requested the following items be placed on the agenda for October 29, - 1987: 1. Update of the General Plan 2. Antiquated Tract Maps 3. Circulation Element Community Development Director Miller stated that the Circulation Element will be included as part of the General Plan update. Community Development Director Miller stated that at the last meeting Planning Commission discussed the possibility of setting a study session to discuss some topics that had been raised earlier, and asked if the Planning commission wanted to schedule a separate study session to discuss those issues. Minutes of Planning Commission October 20, 1987 Page 18 PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS CONTINUED Commissioner Mellinger stated that he did not believe that they would be talking about all of the items raised, so thinks that there should be a study session in November, and suggested the 2 or 3 week in November on a Wednesday. It was the consensus of the Commission to schedule November 10, 1987, for a Planning Commission Study Session. - There being no further business, sion adjourned the meeting to the 1987. Motion by Commissioner Brinley. Approved 5-0 the Lake Elsinore Planning Commis- Joint Study Session on October 29, Mellinger, second by Commissioner tveJo0~ ~ Ga~'~J shburn Ch~n Res~ectf~mitted. ~rindstaff~ Planning Commission Secretary - - MINUTES JOINT MEETING CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE 130 SOUTH MAIN STREET LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA THURSDAY, OCTOBER 29, 1987 - 7:00 P.M. *************************************************************** 1. CALL TO ORDER The Joint Meeting of the City Council and Planning Commission was called to order by Mayor strigotte at 7:03 p.m. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Brinley. 3 . ROLL CALL PRESENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: DOMINGUEZ, MATSON, VERMILLION WINKLER, STRIGOTTE COMMISSIONERS: BRINLEY, BROWN, KELLEY, MELLINGER, WASHBURN ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE COMMISSIONERS: NONE Also present were: City Manager Molendyk, Assistant City Manager Gilbert, Community Development Director Miller, Public Services Director Kirchner, Senior Planner Libiez, Senior Planner Manee, Assistant Planner Last, Assistant Planner Magee, Associate Planner Wilkins and Deputy City Clerk Bryning. 4. BUSINESS ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION Planning Commission/City Council Review Process. Mr. Molendyk led the discussion by stating that the Planning Department is in the process of upgrading the plan checking process. Mr. Miller then presented the steps necessary to process Development Applications. The procedure applies to most applicants with the exception of single-family residential projects. The lead time from receipt of application, to the time that the City Council reviews the item, is approximately nine weeks. - Mr. Miller further explained that there is a different set of submittal requirements for Minor Design Review which encompasses single-family residential, detached dwellings, duplexes, and additions to commercial and industrial structures not exceeding 15% of the floor area of the structure and less than 2000 square feet. For that, the Planning Department requires three sets of prints and no color renderings. The review time is approximately two weeks. There was general discussion in regard to repeat reviews of Single-Family Residential. Page two Joint Meeting October 29, 1987 Mr. Miller stated that a planner is assigned to each project and follows that project to completion. This has been implemented to avoid repeat reviews. The Planning Department is working on fliers which will give guidelines for Minor Design Reviews, Variances, and Conditional Use Permits which would be for the small developer or single-family residential projects. Mr. Vermillion questioned the meaning of Financial Feasibility. Mr. Miller responded by explaining that certain projects which are proposed in concept, do not justify the necessary expenditure which have to be made to make the proposed project a reality. - There was general discussion in regard to the review process and suggestions were made to stream line the process and give a better overview of the final project to City Council. The suggestions were as follows: 1. Planning Commission wishes to do a complete review of the project and not leave the responsibility to the Community Development Director only. 2. The Council would like to see the project sent to the Council in the final stage. Not listing "SUbject to Planning Commission review or SUbject to Community Development Directors review". Planning Commission should do all reviews prior to the item being sent to Council. 3. Amend Title 17 to allow Planning Commission to Deny project without prejudice, until found complete by Planning Commission. Discussion of Minor Variances and More Flexible Desiqn Standards. - The items discussed were as follows: 1. Commercial set backs. developer wished to do landscaping that there to 10 feet. It was suggested that if the an exceptional jOb of be a variance from 20 feet 2. Parking spaces behind commercial centers. It was suggested that the parking be restricted to loading and room enough behind the loading zone for an isle way for passing cars. 3. Parking lot lighting standards. It was suggested that there be a uniform standard for parking lot lighting. There was general discussion regarding phasing. It was explained residential is required to show all the phases, but with commercial it is not possible to show all the phases due to the needs of the business which the space will be built for. Signage for commercial centers was also discussed. -- Mr. Miller addressed Minor Design Review items which are single-family detached houses, duplexes, commercial and industrial additions which are less than 15% of the floor area and not exceeding 2000 square feet which are subject to Minor Design Review, subject to Community Development Director approval. If an applicant wants to apply for a variance to those items, Mr. Miller suggested that Council might consider delegating the authority to approve or disapprove those variances, to I , I I \ ..... Page three Joint Meeting October 29, 1987 the Community Development Director, to make those decisions which would save time in processing and in fees to the applicant. Mr. Miller suggested incorporating, as part of the Design Review Process a provision that if Planning commission and City Council make a finding of excellence in design of architecture or landscaping the applicant could reduce the set back up to one half. Getting the excellence of design in lieu of set-back. There was general discussion in regard to the burden placed on City Council decision. The developer will then expect t.he reduction of set back. It was the general consensus to leave the variances as they are. THE CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION RECESSED AT 8:15 P.M. THE CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION RECONVENED AT 8:18 P.M. Update on General Plan Land Use and Circulation Element Revisions and Proposed Schedulinq. Mr. Manee gave a general overview of the General Plan/Zoning Designation Maps. Mr. Manee explained the graphs and maps presented an explanation regarding quadrants which represent over six hundred study items. He further explained that seventy percent of the City is in nonconformance and this project will address this and bring some consistency into the make up of the City, along with best use. Mr. Manee stated that the General Plan and Zoning Designation will be on one map to prevent confusion and bring consistency to the growth of the City. Mr. Manee stated that the General Circulation has been addressed with the general build up of the City. The focus will be on alignment and capacity of roadways. Mr. Manee suggested that he advertise for an Advisory Committee made up of the general public to receive in-put. Mr. Strigotte suggested that it might be better and more organized if each member of the City Council and Planning Commission appointed a person to sit the committee. He stated that the joint boards could appoint persons who would be responsible to the community and be committed to the project. Country Club Heights Area Mr. Matson stated that there has been considerable concern with the Country Club Heights Area. The existing right-of-ways need to be forty feet instead of sixty feet. Mr. Matson further stated that there are concerns with water lines and pressure as well as sewer. Mr. Strigotte stated that he had been contacted by several persons from the Country Club Heights area, who wish to participate on a citizens Advisory Committee. Page four Joint Meeting October 29, 1987 Mr. Matson stated that he hoped to start planning for formation of a Committee by November 10, 1987. It was concurred by the Joint Board that the items listed on the Agenda which were not addressed at this meeting will be addressed at a later time. MOVED BY STRIGOTTE, SECONDED BY MATSON TO ADJOURN THE JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION AT 9:09 P.M. ~~~ ---'~ LEONsT IGO ,MAYOR CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE - Respectfully submitted, -- -- , MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON THE 3RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 1987 THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:02 P.M. led by Community Development Director PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was Miller. ROLL CALL: - PRESENT: Commissioners: ABSENT: . Commissioners: Brown, Mellinger, Brinley, Kelley and Washburn None Also present were Community Development Director Miller, Senior Planner Bolland, Assistant Planners Last and Magee, Associate Planner Wilkins. MINUTE ACTION Chairman Washburn stated that on Page 10, 2nd paragraph, the word "composed" should be "imposed"; Page 15, Business Item number 1, the vote should be 4-1 Chairman Washburn abstaining. Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to approve minutes of October 20, 1987, with the above corrections, second by Commissioner Brown. 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. Zone Code Amendment 87-7 - Robert G. Williams - Senior Planner Bolland requested that this item be continued to a future date due to continued staff review of this proposal. A brief discussion was held at the table on whether or not a date should be specified, and if this item would be re-noticed. Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to continue Zone Code Amendment 87-7, and re-notice if it comes back to the Commission, second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved: 5-0 BUSINESS ITEMS 1. Conditional Use Permit 85-5: Extension of Time - American Legion- Associate Planner Wilkins presented applicant's request for extension of time for Conditional Use Permit 85-5 for the operation of a 6,500 square foot American Legion Hall facility within the C-l, Limited Commercial District, a 5.1 acre parcel located on the south side of Lakeshore Drive, approximately 300 feet east of Lucerne Street. commissioner Kelley commented on condition number 3, asking if this was on the new building. Associate Planner Wilkins responded in the affirmative. Chairman Washburn commented on condition number 2, stating that if the applicant does not receive issuance of a building permit, within one year, then the request would be null and void. Discussion at the table ensued on removing the words "substantial Minutes of Planning Commission November 3, 1987 Page 2 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 85-5: EXTENSION OF TIME - AMERICAN LEGION CONTINUED construction" from condition number 2, and the intent of condition number 2. Commissioner Mellinger recommended that condition number 2, be amended by adding the following verbiage "substantial construction as determined by the Planning Commission". Chairman Washburn recommended that condition number 2, be amended by adding the following verbiage "substantial construction as determined by the Community Development Director". Motion by Commissioner Brinley to approve Conditional Use Permit 85-5 Extension of Time, based on the Findings and Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report with the following amendment: - Condition No.2: "This extension of time shall not exceed one year from the date upon which granted. This extension of time and the Conditional Use Permit for which granted shall expire concurrently unless building permits for the project are issued and substantial construction as determined by the Com- munity Development occurs." Second by Commissioner Kelley. Approved: 5-0 2. Commercial Project 87-9 REVISED Stater Brothers/Halferty Development - Assistant Planner Last presented landscaping/ele- vation revisions, for the proposed commercial buildings on 2.66 acres located on the north side of Lakeshore Drive in the Stater Brothers Shopping Center. Chairman Washburn informed Mr. Bartlett of Halferty Development, that he would be called to the pOdium later to address the Commission on any questions or concerns. - Commissioner Mellinger commented on the parking, stating that there was a condition that addressed additional parking, and condition referred to by City Council. Community Development Director Miller stated in this particular instance, Council is concerned with having Planning Commission's complete recommendation before they consider an item. It was our intent that either an interim parking plan should be installed or that vacant pad should receive interim landscaping prior to release of occupancy for the other buildings. previous concern on (condition number 6) asked if the was the Commissioner Kelley asked if Exhibit number 3, temporary parking lot request, did not address this issue. Community Development Director Miller stated that Exhibit 3, was provided with the previous staff report, and believes that at the __ Planning Commission hearing the applicant indicated that they were not sure that they intended to go ahead and install the parking. We have indicated, through conditions of approval, that they should either install the parking or temporary landscaping for that vacant pad. Mr. John Bartlett commented on the parking, stating that the revised site plan is not on the board, but the landscaping plan indicates what we have submitted. I would request that the commission, if you pick one of the two alternatives other than Minutes of Planning Commission November 3, 1987 Page 3 COMMERCIAL PROJECT 87-9 - STATER BROTHERS/HALFERTY DEVELOPMENT CONTINUED what we have submitted that Alternative "A" would live with the long term plan of the c~nter much more easily than Alternative - "B" . Mr. Bartlett commented on condition number 9, pertaining to the grease interceptors, and requested that these be required only if there is a restaurant in the building in which that particular sewer serves. Mr. Bartlett commented on condition number 7, stating that it is their understanding that there is no sewage lift station in the center, based on the as built plans. Assistant Planner Last stated that these were standard conditions that Elsinore Valley Municipal Water (EVMWD) submitted and were received to late for inclusion in the previous staff report, and we can we can add the following verbiage "to the satisfaction of EVMWD." Chairman Washburn commented on the Alternative Plan asking if staff had a preference, Alternative "A" or Alternative "B"? Community Development Director Miller responded that staff recom- mended in the conditions of approval Alternative "B". Discussion at the table was held on Alternative "A" and Alternative "B"; the intent of condition number 3, pertaining to landscaping and irrigation installed on building pad "A" or temporary parking pad developed; whether or not the parking lot would be DG or paved, and whether or not a decision had been reached by the applicant on which way to go on that pad. Commissioner Mellinger asked Mr. Bartlett to explain why Alternative "B" be a problem. Mr. Bartlett stated that if you are on Lakeshore Drive coming into that driveway, the first parking space to the right the other side of it is where that pad comes. The pad area would be in the middle of the driveway, so that the landscape areas that we create on the other side of the driveway would have to be removed. Alternatively, with Plan "A", at such time, the pad is built the five foot landscaping strip that staff has requested would be able to remain and become part of the permanent edge of the center next to the three foot wall. Mr. Bartlett commented on Alternative "B" stating that this type of curved driveway corning into the center would create traffic accidents, this is also the truck ingress/egress. The large trailer trucks that service Stater Brothers must either come in or go out of this driveway, and a straight drive is preferable, these are the reasons we would prefer Alternative "A". - Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to recommend to City Council approval of the Landscaping/Elevation rev~s~ons for Commercial Project 87-9, as proposed by staff with the following amendments: Condition No.3: "Prior to the release of Certificate of Occupancy of Building "F" and "B" either landscaping and irrigation shall be installed on Building Pad "A" or a temporary parking lot shall be developed in substantial conformance with Exhibit I, Alternative "A" dated 10-28-87 (attached), subject to review and approval of Community Development Director." Minutes of Planning Commission November 3, 1987 Page 4 COMMERCIAL PROJECT 87-9 - STATER BROTHERS/HALFERTY DEVELOPMENT CONTINUED Condition No.7: "Upgrade existing sewage lift station(s), to the satisfaction of Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District to meet the project's additional demand on existing facilities." Condition No.9: - "A sewage grease interceptor and sample box is required for each building with grease interceptor/sample box details and plumbing plot plan to be approved by Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District, if applicable." Commissioner Brown asked if the proposal could be conditioned so that if a restaurant use came in at a later date it would be applicable, referring to condition number 9. Discussion at the table ensued on condition number 9, pertaining to the installation of grease interceptors, and deleting this condition. Commissioner Mellinger included in his motion the deletion of condition number 9. Condition No.9: DELTE. Commissioner Brown stated that he would like to see condition number 9 remain. Commissioner Mellinger included in his motion the amendment to __ condition number 9, which will read as follows: Condition No.9: If a restaurant or use requiring grease interceptor is proposed, but this would not be a condition prior to building permits for the expanded area, a sewage grease interceptor and sample box is required for each building with grease interceptor/sample box details and plumbing plot plan to be approved by Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District. Second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved 5-0 3. Commercial Project 87-10 Tait & Associates (Chevron) Assistant Planner Last presented site plan/landscaping revisions, 6.2 acre site at the existing Chevron station located 165 feet west of the Mission Trail and Railroad Canyon Road intersection on the north side of Mission Trail. Mr. Fruin, representing the applicant, gave a brief background report on the project and stated that they have found that blowers are not required on car washes, it is not needed to dry the vehicles. Secondly, it is always a noise concern in any community, and there all sorts of energy charges. Mr. Fruin gave an explanation of the de-ionized water system, rinse system, stating that their experience has shown this to be a successful system and they see no need to dry vehicles. Mr. Fruin stated that circulation is their largest concern and adding the additional parking spaces will inhibit the circulation. Staff has requested two parking stalls, different -- Minutes of Planning commission November 3, 1987 Page 5 COMMERCIAL PROJECT 87-10 = TAIT k ASSOCIATES (CHEVRON) CONTINUED that what we had proposed, one at the east end of the car wash. We have a lot of volume coming off of the freeway, off Railroad Canyon Road coming in the back, we have a conflict, we have -- vehicles going into the car wash and vehicles trying to get in and out of the station through that egress point. We are afraid that a parking stall in that location will inhibit that. The second proposed parking stall is on the east property line, and our curb cut on the property is adjacent to the landscaping and what that ends up doing is pushing those parking stalls down in towards the approach and we end up with a conflict with vehicles coming on and off the site. We would request the removal of the requirement for additional parking stalls. Mr. Fruin stated that landscaping was another concern come up with the revised landscaping plan, posted on We tried to add larger quantities of landscaping in we could that would not inhibit the circulation. and we have the board. areas where Mr. Fruin commented on the stucco and tex-coat treatment and stated that their buildings are prefabricated and brought to the site. -- Mr. Fruin commented on conditions 7 through 12, pertaining to sewer, stating that there is not a problem with the majority of the conditions. The item that concerns us is condition number 9, pertaining to design and construction of sewer line along the entire project frontage. I would like to request that this condition be removed from the project and have us work directly with Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District to iron out any differences with connection fees and pro rata share. commissioner Kelley stated that he would like to hear staff's concern on stucco versus text-coat. Community Development Director Miller stated that the big difference in tex-coat is it is really a different surface treatment (texture and appearance) than a stucco treatment, as shown in the elevations presented by the applicant. Basically, what you end with is panels that have been pre-bonded in the factory with lineation on the sides of the building. commissioner Kelley stated that he agrees with staff on the parking; can not not imagine that everyone that uses the car wash will not want to park and dry their car. commissioner Brinley commented on that parking requirements stating that even with the de-ionized treatment feels that people will want to dry their cars, and there will be a traffic problem if there are not enough stalls there to accommodate. Commissioner Brinley stated that she agrees with staff as far as the stucco versus tex-coat. -- commissioner Brown stated that he does not see any indication on the landscaping plan where it meets the condition of mounding. Mr. Fruin stated that this was indicated on the site plan. commissioner Brown stated that the applicant firmly believes that they will not require the parking and staff firmly believes that they do. One way to settle this issue on parking is perhaps we can require that the site have no parking anywhere and have it posted. If people do park there and dry their cars and we have a stacking problem then the use will be discontinued and the car wash closed. Minutes of Planning Commission November 3, 1987 Page 6 COMMERCIAL PROJECT 87-10 = TAIT k ASSOCIATES (CHEVRON) CONTINUED Commissioner Brown stated that he does believe that there will be people drying off their cars. Does not think that the stalls are adequate without the additional parking. In fact, if we can eliminate the stalls maybe we can put more landscaping. Perhaps, this is the way to address it, we can go with what the applicant wants to do and if we have a stacking problem on the site we will just eliminate the use altogether. __ Commissioner Brinley asked about the doors to be installed, will the doors swing in or slide open? Commissioner Brown asked Mr. Fruin if this had been addressed with slider doors or with doors that will open as illustrated on the landscaping plan. Chairman Washburn stated that the plans shows that they have closed the existing door and there are two opening doors. Mr. Fruin stated that the doors would swing out adjacent to the planter that is along the perimeter. Commissioner Mellinger stated that it shows 39 feet from staff's alternative to the curb, coming off of Vista Del Lago (Casino Drive), it appears to have a considerable amount of room. If there is any conflict it is probably the fact that there is 30 feet between the new expanded area. If there is a concern about staff's alternative, I guess we could reduce the floor area of the addition and then there would not be as much conflict. Perhaps move it back 4 or 5 feet, of the actual new floor area, and we would still have adequate parking. Commissioner Mellinger commented on the parking issue and asked if this was a requirement of the ordinance. .... Community Development Director Miller stated that the ordinance is not specific to a car wash. As indicated, a car wash is subject to a Conditional Use Permit, but there is not specific requirements to this. The Planning Commission indicated at their previous meeting a strong concern for additional spaces to be provided for the drying of vehicles, and therefore, staff recommended this design to provide those spaces immediately adjacent to the end of the car wash area. Commissioner Mellinger commented on the de-ionized water system stating that it does work, and feels that after a while people will not be stopping to dry off their vehicles. My preference would be to fill that in with landscaping. Commissioner Mellinger asked if the air and water, located in the back, was being eliminated. Mr. Fruin stated that if the air and water was eliminated it was an oversight, and then stated that it is illustrated on the site plan but not labeled. Commissioner Mellinger reiterated his preference for additional landscaping and eliminating the additional spaces. Community Development Director Miller stated that staff provided Exhibit 1 to show additional parking stalls as requested by the Planning Commission, but would have to concur with Commissioner Mellinger'S comments. Chairman Washburn asked if the stucco finish we are talking about was for the new building, which would be car wash and the addition to the existing structure, or are we talking about the -- Minutes of Planning Commission November 3, 1987 Page 7 COMMERCIAL PROJECT 87-10 = TAIT i ASSOCIATES (CHEVRON) CONTINUED completion of the full existing, which now would be incorporated with the new. -- community Development Director Miller stated that it was his understanding that all buildings on site would be new. Chairman Washburn asked Mr. Fruin if all of the buildings on site would be replaced. Mr. Fruin answered in the affirmative. Chairman Washburn stated that he was still not sure where the air and water would be located, and asked if it would be a conflict through the exiting of the car wash for the air and water to be located close to that exit point. Chairman Washburn asked what the hours of operation would be for the car wash, and if it would be self operated. Mr. Fruin stated that the car wash would be self operated. The hours of operation would be no later than 9:00 p.m. and no earlier than 8:00 a.m. -- Chairman Washburn stated that he concurs with staff's request for the additional parking, but like commissioner Mellinger would like to see a massive amount of landscaping. Chairman Washburn commented on staff's request that the trash enclosure be brought way forward and the applicant's request to move it way back. I would feel more comfortable, if there is going to be a conflict with ingress/egress for the air and water, if there is going to be congestion there, we could make adjustments for that. Community Development Director Miller stated that in discussion with the disposal company their concern was that the trash enclosure be in a situation where their trucks could go in as straight as possible. Either having it fairly far back, as the applicant has presented, or far enough forward, as in the staff exhibit, so that it would clear the pump islands. So if you try to put it in the middle, it is going to be more difficult for the trash trucks. Chairman Washburn stated that the air and water should be located where there would not be a possible conflict. Community Development Director Miller stated that air and water could be best located adjacent to the spaces. probably the two parking Chairman Washburn stated that he feels comfortable with pushing it forward. -- Chairman Washburn stated that he was curious about how loud this use would be, since there is commercial next door. Mr. Fruin stated that the normal operation of the brushes going around, from our data, is about 75 decibels. We have acoustical data that has been taken and we can make it available. commissioner Mellinger stated that an acoustical analysis was required, condition number 6. Community Development Director Miller stated that the difference between 60 decibels and 75 decibels is 150 percent noiser, each 10 decibels represents a doubling of noise. There is a fair Minutes of Planning Commission November 3, 1987 Page 8 COMMERCIAL PROJECT 87-10 = TAIT i ASSOCIATES (CHEVRON) CONTINUED amount of noise associated with this; however, as pointed out, there is a condition that they would be required to comply with City Noise Ordinances. Commercial zones do allow a fair amount of noise, particularly, for short periods, as long as they are of a short duration. Chairman Washburn stated that he would like to see the one __ incorporation of the adjustment of the air and water. Commissioner Mellinger as]ced if Chairman Washburn if he wanted the air and water moved forward. Chairman Washburn responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Mellinger stated that he would like to see the elimination of one or both of those spaces and extend the landscaping out where those spaces are and add canopy trees. Chairman Washburn asked if they were to eliminate one of the spaces would that be violating any ordinance for parking. Community Development Director Miller stated that as indicated, there is not a specific requirement for car wash parking, it is by Conditional Use Permit. If you look at the amount of building area on site, then I believe, as the applicant has indicated, there would be 4 or 5 parking spaces required. In any case, the number of parking spaces even with the reduction to only one space along that property line would exceed the minimum standards set by the Parking Code. Chairman Washburn commented on the planting area in front of the __ restrooms, and asked if the landscape would be grass or planter area. Community Development Director responded that the landscape plan indicates low shrubs. Commissioner Mellinger stated that we have restrooms doors there with shrubs in front of them, how do you get to them? Mr. Fruin stated that the problem with having access through the landscape area is that people end up parking there and walking across the landscape. Chairman Washburn stated that he could see upsizing the landscap- ing and removing one parking space. I would not say remove both, because people are going to want park and get their air and water. Mr. Fruin stated that if the choice is to eliminate one of the parking spaces, their preference would be to eliminate the parking space at the entrance to the car wash. Discussion at the table ensued on the elimination of a parking space and staff's int7nt for the additional parking space, the location of the a~r and water, and the landscaping plan illustrating low shrubs in front of the building. Motion by Commissioner Brown to recommend to City Council approval of Commercial Project 87-10 as revised based on the previous findings and conditions, additional conditions and modi- fications: -- Condition No. 13: "Hours of operation will be 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. only." Minutes of Planning Commission November 3, 1987 Page 9 COMMERCIAL PROJECT 87-10 - TAIT ~ ASSOCIATES (CHEVRON) CONTINUED ~ Condition No. 15: "Mounding indicated on the site plan shall also be indicated on the landscape plan. No parking for drying of vehicle signs shall be posted at the entrance of the car wash and on-site. Eliminate parking space #3 and provide additional landscaping and relocate air and water to this space." Condition No. 14: commissioner Brown stated that he would like to get off of his motion for a moment, stating that he prefers the site plan submitted by the applicant as far as the parking directly adjacent to the car wash. with my motion, you would end up with parking spaces 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. Commissioner Brown asked if everyone was clear on what he was saying about the no parking. commissioner Kelley asked for clarification. ----- commissioner Brown stated that we are getting into a situation here where we are agruing back and forth about who is going to dry and who is not going to dry. I am going to go with the applicant and say that nobody is going to dry. Staff has said that they have been to them and they are not going to dry. We are going to put up signs that say that they are not going to dry on site. We are not going to have adequate parking for it and we are going to post it. commissioner Mellinger stated that he has seen signage that states spotless rinse no drying necessary. commissioner Brinley suggested signage that states no drying of vehicles on site. Commissioner Kelley stated that there is still 6 or 7 stalls. Commissioner Brinley stated that you have the stalls, but you can not stop and dry your car. ----- commissioner Brown stated that those stalls were needed for the mini-mart use. We are going to have a minimum of 2-3 employees on this property and that is going to take up 2-3 of those parking spaces, we are down to 5 spaces now. We have already indicated, at the last meeting, that this car wash will do at least one car every two minutes. If we are not going to have parking spaces lets post it no parking. Commissioner Mellinger stated that if you post it no parking what are the spaces for? Chairman Washburn stated that what Commissioner Brown really means on the no parking is no hand drying of vehicles on site. commissioner Brown stated that he did not understand number 9, if there is a main out there why would they construct a sewer line, and asked if they were interceptor on their entire project and then hooking main, or are they going directly into the main. condition have to doing and into the commissioner Mellinger suggested that condition number 9 be amended to read "design and construct sewer line to the requirements of Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District". commissioner Brown continued his motion, amending the following Minutes of Planning Commission November 3, 1987 Page 10 COMMERCIAL PROJECT 87-10 - TAIT ~ ASSOCIATES (CHEVRON) CONTINUED conditions: Condition No.2: "Parking plan adjacent shall be installed per plan." to the car wash applicant's site Condition No.4: "Plans submitted for Building Department Plan Check shall demonstrate compliance to applicant's site plan, based on Planning Commission discussion and modifications." - Condition No.9: Design and construct sewer line adequate to serve the project to the Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District standards." Chairman Washburn asked if everyone was clear on the motion. We are removing one parking space, increasing the landscaping, and relocating the air and water. Chairman Washburn asked if there was any further discussion. Commissioner Mellinger stated that they should be required to use the de-ionized water. Commissioner Brown amended his motion to include number 16, which will read: condition Condition No. 16: "De-ionized water must be used". Second by Commissioner Brinley. _ Chairman Washburn asked if there was any further discussion. There being no further discussion Chairman Washburn called for the question. Approved 5-0 At this time, 8:15 p.m. the Planning Commission recessed for a break. At this time, 8:24 p.m. the Planning Commission reconvened. 4. Fence within the Lakeshore Overlay District - Patrick Callahan _ Assistant Planner Magee presented the applicant's request for approval of a chain link fence along approximately 50 feet of the northerly property line, and approximately 300 feet along the westerly property line and to locate a fence across Acacia Drive, on property located within the Lakeshore Overlay District on the south side of Lakeshore Drive. Chairman Washburn asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Patrick Callahan asked questions on exactly what not come before this body I did not just purchase a have done along Lakeshore the Commission if there has transpired. The reason and ask to put up the fence lot and fence it in, which Drive. were any that I did was because many others ...., Mr. Callahan stated that he has removed, at this point, some 570 feet of chain link fence which was on the lot contiguous to this one, and erected 350 feet to include the last lot purchased. Mr. Callahan stated that he has always felt that any type of wood fencing within the Lakeshore Area is not compatible, and presented photographs of his back yard during the 1980 flood, ..... ..... ..... Minutes of Planning Commission November 3, 1987 Page 11 FENCE WITHIN THE LAKE SHORE OVERLAY DISTRICT - PATRICK CALLAHAN CONTINUED which he stated illustrates an onslaught of and tons tons of wood. Any type of wood structure within the Lakeshore Area is going to float loose. Mr. Callahan stated that there is a paper street that runs parallel to Lakeshore Drive, known as Acacia Drive. This street has been largely ignored and abandoned. A very large portion of it was vacated many years ago, it is vacated from where it would run into Lakeshore Drive to this side of Stokes' building. When I purchased my property in 1979 there were five other homes between me and the Stokes' building plus several vacant lots and they were all fenced contiguous front to rear. There is no way this could ever be a street, and I can only guess as I have no proof of this, it was placed in there as a boundary line so that there could be a zone change. Mr. Callahan stated that where Acacia crosses his property it ranges in sea level between 1256 and 1258, and to make an application to vacate that 50 foot section along this piece of property of mine would really not cure the problem. The City should act and vacate it in its entirety and relieve themselves of the responsibility and start getting some tax base off of it. Another possible suggestion would be to relocate the lot lines and take the 40 feet, down next to the lake, which would in effect make the lake larger. Mr. Callahan stated that he had investigated staff's alternative of wrought iron, and based on the cost of this to replace the 350 feet it would run somewhere between 7 and 8 thousand dollars. Mr. Callahan stated that he hoped that this body would reconsider the use of any type of wooden fence going down into the lake. I think that it creates a health and safety hazard. Chairman Washburn asked Mr. Callahan if he felt that condition number 3 was not his responsibility, to request a vacation. Mr. Callahan stated that he was suggesting a better solution to this, rather than being piece meal. The City has already vacated a large portion, and there are nine different property owners, that I know of, who have claimed that section which is contiguous with their property by prescriptive easement. I can not come in and ask the City to vacate the whole thing. I would hope that the City would take a look at vacating it. Chairman Washburn asked Mr. Callahan if he felt that condition number 2 would be too costly to do. Mr. Callahan answered in the affirmative. commissioner Brinley asked Mr. Callahan if the reason he wanted to put up a chain link fence is because you are opposed to the wooden or wrought iron fencing, and if the lake should rise again it would cause the fencing to erode and wood would float and cause some type of harm, floating on down the lake to other property causing some type of damage. Mr. Callahan stated either this or floating out in the lake and some boater or skier hitting it. Commissioner Brown stated that he disagrees with Mr. Callahan and would rather have something down there that would be subject to wave action and break loose, so that it is not lying hidden six inches under water for several years. Feels that if you can pull out chain link posts you can certainly pullout a wooden posts. Minutes of Planning Commission November 3, 1987 Page 12 FENCE WITHIN THE LAKE SHORE OVERLAY DISTRICT - PATRICK CALLAHAN CONTINUED Commissioner Brown commented on the vacation of Acacia Drive, condition number 3, suggesting that it be changed to: "applicant shall cooperate with the city if the City decides to pursue it. Commissioner Brown stated that he fencing is very expensive. Commissioner Brown commented on the state Park Rail Fencing, as the pictures indicate, asking if we, in fact, allow the applicant or the owner to mesh that fence and, if the intention of the design was to allow additional security by meshing it or barbed wire. agrees that the wrought iron .... Chairman Washburn stated that he did not believe that this was ever brought up when we were dealing with fences and standards for the Lakeshore Overlay District. Commissioner Brown stated as an example, has wire security. that the State Park Rail Fencing, used in between the wood to provide for Chairman Washburn stated the section dealing with that states that it would be per the approval of the architectural theme determined by the Planning Commission, and we set up these types (eXhibits posted on the board). As a loose possibility of the interpretation the barbed wire could be a further restrictive item attached to the fence, so it is up to interpretation. Commissioner Brown stated that he could see the applicant putting up a fifty-four inch fence, he would probably like a six foot as __ opposed to a fifty-four inch, but if we did allow the mesh in between that would provide the security, and I think that would address the issues as far as aesthetics. I think that was the whole purpose of the fencing in the Overlay Area to have aesthetic fences that did not block off the view of the lake. Commissioner Brown stated that if the applicant did put up the State Park type fence and that was meshed in with four inch mesh then you would serve both purposes; provide the security that the applicant wants and the feasibility as far as the design and view of the lake. Chairman Washburn stated that was certainly one way to look at it. Commissioner Mellinger stated that, as before, when these were considered, concurred with the types of fencing along Lakeshore; every weekend there was an incredible amount of rubbish, and the fences were put up, most of which are chain link. My personal feeing is that once Lake Management is in these fences will probably be replaced by uses that will be permitted by the Lakeshore Overlay. If Lake Management does not get in and we have another flood, I would have concern about things that are concreted into the lake, believes that something concreted in would stay and be a distinct hazard. __ Commissioner Mellinger stated that the intent is to keep people from trespassing and throwing rubbish allover the place and that is why there are so many chain link fences along there. Since it is just relocating a fencing I do not have a problem, and the ordinance just states erecting it does not say anything about relocating. Commissioner Mellinger stated that wrought iron fencing could not be put up without footings. At least with chain link you can put Minutes of Planning Commission November 3, 1987 Page 13 FENCE WITHIN THE LAKE SHORE OVERLAY DISTRICT - PATRICK CALLAHAN CONTINUED the post up without footings. One alternative would be perhaps some pretty long wood posts, but I do not know if they would -- stand without footings. Commissioner Mellinger stated that his feeling is that there be no trash along the lakeshore until Lake Management goes in and no trespassing, and would go along with chain link. Commissioner Kelley stated that he agrees that the chain link is unsightly. However, with the current problems with the lake, I really do not see wrought iron as a viable solution, and I do not like the State Park Rail Fencing. commissioner Kelley stated that he does not know where to go from here other than to hope that Lake Management goes through and then the area begins to upgrade. Commissioner Brinley stated that she does not particularly care for the three selections available to the applicant. commissioner Brinley asked staff violations other than the fencing. if there were any other Assistant Planner Magee asked if Commissioner Brinley was referring to other violations of the Municipal Code, on-site. -- commissioner Brinley answered in the affirmative. Assistant Planner Magee stated that there were a few violations of the Municipal Code on-site. Chairman Washburn stated that it was his opinion that there should probably be no fences running out into the lake. I say this because if you do have wood fences and we do have flooding periOdS it erodes and the Objects float into homes and boats. If you have concrete chain link fences they are snags for boaters. Chairman Washburn stated that even though he concurred and went forward with allowing architectural fences to be in place by permit, and I say this with permit, for those that do have lots and want for some reason to fence it in to protect items that they have or to keep trespassers out, and we came up with these three designs. Chairman Washburn stated that the question came up on and depth of the fences out to the lake, and does not you should run a fence along the perimeter line all the lake, because it is going to vary. the length feel that the way to -- Chairman Washburn stated that he feels that there is a problem with the applicant or any applicant that does something without permit and then gets caught, and he is liable for the action either by the Courts or the City. Chairman Washburn stated that he feels that there should be compliance to the Code problems that exist there. On the type of fencing, if the applicant is going to put fencing in there if we were to include wrought iron and it is too costly then we would have to go back to the architectural plan that we have adopted and if that is not the case then we should continue this until we go back and revamp the architectural design and the applicant comes forward again. Community Development Director Miller stated that he was going to indicate the code actually requires Planning Commission approval ~ ~~ Minutes of Planning Commission November 3, 1987 Page 14 FENCE WITHIN THE LAKESHORE OVERLAY DISTRICT - PATRICK CALLAHAN CONTINUED of fencing. A year or two ago, staff suggested to Planning Commission that they might want to pre-adopt some pre-approved fencing, so if someone wished to put up fencing we would not have to come to the Planning Commission. Those of the Commissioners that were on the Commission may remember that there was considerable discussion, as Chairman Washburn has indicated, and __ one thing was that they did not want to see chain link fencing. This was the reason for staff recommendation to consider wrought iron as an alternative. Chairman Washburn stated that on condition number 3, he would agree with Commissioner Brown on his idea that there could be cooperation with the City, not just with this applicant but any applicant in that particular area, on a group vacation of Acacia Drive. Chairman Washburn stated that on the fencing type, feels whether it is this applicant or anybody else, that chain link fence in that area is not appropriate. Discussion at the table ensued on the applicant erecting the fence without permit and other code violations being taken care of, and the type of fencing available. Commissioner Mellinger stated that he prefers it the way it is now until Lake Management goes through. Commissioner Kelley stated that he believes that Code Enforcement and the Sheriff's Department has increased citing people for trespassing along the Lakeshore Overlay Area. __ ~>~~"",~'.'~ ".', ./~,:' ::. .,. :'.:',,' ;::"'-h- ".~.......,.~.",..,:~!..:, '.~. ~",' ,': ".'" Commissioner Brinley stated that basically it comes back to a fence being built without a permit. Chain link was put up and chain link is not one of the ones permitted to be put up, these are the three selections. Chairman Washburn stated that Brinley's comments on this. he concurs with Commissioner Commissioner Mellinger stated that if there was no Lake Management that he would agree one hundred percent. If there was nothing coming along that was going to encourage that area, that land to recycle. Considering the recreational history of this lake, recreational uses permitted by this Overlay Zone will be in there as fast as you can imagine and those fences will be history. Commissioner Brown suggested five and one-half foot rail fencing with mesh. Discussion at the table ensued on no fences being allowed; property owners' need for security; going back to the established fencing with a modification in height. Community Development Director Miller stated that there has been strong concerns in the past about the appearance of chain link fencing and, as indicated by Commissioners Brown and Mellinger, none of the approved fencing provides much security. A compromise position that the Commission may want to consider, that might be acceptable to Mr. Callahan, would be the consideration of vinyl coated chain link fencing. Discussion at the table ensued on vinyl coated chain link fencing and its similarity to chain link and the cost of same. ..- Minutes of Planning Commission November 3, 1987 Page 15 FENCE WITHIN THE LAKE SHORE OVERLAY DISTRICT = PATRICK CALLAHAN CONTINUED Motion by Commissioner Brown to deny the inclusion of wrought iron as an acceptable fencing within the Lakeshore Overlay District until further study, but would request that the State -- Park Rail fencing be allowed to go to 5-1/2 feet with security wire placed behind the fencing, attached to the fencing on the property owner's side, not on the outside, down to 4 inch mesh, second by Chairman Washburn. Commissioner Mellinger stated that he would be favorable to the vinyl coated chain link. Commissioner Kelley stated that he would like to bring up the aesthetics of a 5-1/2 foot fence similar to the State Park Rail fence and stated this is atrocious. commissioner Brown stated that we require six foot fences in back yards and we require them as a part of all tracts. Commissioner Kelley stated that a back yard is one thing, but this is along a scenic corridor. Chairman Washburn stated that there should not be any fences along a scenic corridor. -- commissioner Brown stated that he would agree if this was a solid fence or something, but this is open fencing. Chairman Washburn stated that part of the reasoning for this, and we do have a motion on the table, was some sense of security for those that did live fronting the lake and thoroughfare and the aesthetics. It is possible that the vinyl coated chain link might work. I am not ready to make that decision at the moment, and I would consider that with further study at a joint study session. Commissioner Brown stated that just because a person lives on the lake that they do not have to give up their right to any security. There being no further discussion, Chairman Washburn called for the question. Approved: 3-2 Commissioner Mellinger and Kelley voting no Chairman Washburn stated that the applicant has the direction from Planning Commission and hopes that he complies. Mr. Callahan stated that the was not sure that he understands the direction. -- Chairman Washburn stated that the direction he sensed from the motion was that chain linJc is unacceptable. You were cited for the chain link and it would have to be removed and replaced with the acceptable fencing. Commissioner Brown stated that his motion had nothing to do with chain link fencing. My motion had to do with allowing state Park Fencing at 5-1/2 feet with security wiring on the inside with 4 inch mesh and to deny the use of wrought iron, no where is there mention that chain link is not acceptable. community Development Director has addressed part of the issue acceptable types of fencing, request to the Commission and I specifically addressed. You request or condition it in some Miller stated that the Commission raised by staff, in terms of but Mr. Callahan has presented a do not believe that this has been should take action to deny his fashion to comply. ~ Minutes of Planning Commission November 3, 1987 Page 16 FENCE WITHIN THE LAKESHORE OVERLAY DISTRICT ~ PATRICK CALLAHAN CONTINUED Commissioner Brown asked Chairman Washburn where in the Overlay Zone Ordinance does it address that anything other that those three types of fencing is acceptable, and if it does not address that then the chain link is a mute point. Motion by Commissioner Brown to deny the applicant's request for chain link fencing, second by Commissioner Brinley. There being no further discussion at the table, Chairman Washburn called for the question. Approved: 5-0 .... Chairman Washburn asked Mr. Callahan if he was clear on the direction. Mr. Callahan stated that as he understands it, it was an unanimous vote to deny my request to leave the chain link fencing. Chairman Washburn stated that this is correct, and the appropriate fencing would be the earlier motion which was the wood fencing with the mesh. Commissioner Mellinger stated that the intent of his vote was that the vinyl coated suggestion was appropriate. Commissioner Brinley asked if this would not have to be done at a study session where we could discuss the types of fencing we would like to see put up there. Chairman Washburn answered in the affirmative. Commissioner Mellinger stated that this is something that we could vote on tonight, if we wanted to. Commissioner Brown stated that he thought that this would be more appropriately discussed at a study session. This was done by resolution to adopt the types of fencing and I think that if we are going to make major changes, add things or bring in new kinds of fencing then lets have a study session on the the type of fencing allowed under that resolution. .... Chairman Washburn suggested that this be added to the study session agenda, that will be discussed shortly. 5. Appeal of Community Development Director's decision - Steven Brown - Industrial Concepts I - Chairman Washburn stated that the Commission has received a request from the applicant to withdraw this appeal. Motion by Commissioner Brown to accept the applicant's request for withdrawal, second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved 5-0 INFORMATIONAL Chairman Washburn stated that there is a study session scheduled for November 18, 1987, at 7:00 p.m., and asked for items the Commissioners would like agendized. .... A brief discussion was held at the table on changing the time to 6:00 p.m. It was the consensus of the Commission to change the time of the study sesssion for November 18, 1987, to 6:00 p.m. ..... Minutes of Planning Commission November 3, 1987 Page 17 INFORMATIONAL ITEM CONTINUED Chairman Washburn stated that he assumes that the items that were not covered at the joint study session that pertain to planning could be discussed, and suggested that fencing/overlay Zone be an item. Chairman Washburn asked the Commissioners if there were any other items they would like on the agenda. Commissioner Kelley stated that he would like to go over the Mobile Home Park Ordinance, and asked for the status of this. community Development Director Miller requested that the Commission identify the issues they feel would be most critical. commissioner Mellinger stated that the items suggested were: 1. West end fire station report. 2. Review of the Capital Improvement Program as well as other Government Code requirements to Planning Agencies. 3. Lakeshore Overlay/Fencing COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR COMMENTS Community Development Director Miller stated that he had nothing to report. PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS ..... Commissioner Brown Thanked City Council for the Study Session; would appreciate it if they would find time in their busy schedule to have study sessions on a more regular basis and discuss issues that concern both of us and not have quite so many items on the agenda. commissioner Mellinqer Stated that he agrees and that we should go back to having the quarterly study sessions. Chairman Washburn stated that he would concur. Commissioner Kellev Asked if the Mobile Home Ordinance is awaiting General Plan revisions. Community Development Director Miller answered in the negative, stating that there are other priorities. ..... commissioner Kelley asked if there were any codes in existence now that would address some of the problems that we are faced with. Community Development Director Miller stated that the State has Mobile Home Park ordinances, which several years ago were largely eliminated and there is a draft ordinance that has been advanced by one of the RV Mobilehome Organizations. commissioner Brinley Nothing to report. ~ Minutes of Planning Commission November 3, 1987 Page 18 PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS CONTINUED Chairman Washburn Nothing to report. There being no further business, the Commission adjourned at 9:16 p.m. Motion by second by Commission Mellinger. Approved: 5-0 Lake Elsinore Commissioner Planning Brinley, - ~proved' Ga~~~~ Ch~r~n ~~SP1ctfull~U~mitted' ~tda/ ~~ iinda Grindstaff Planning Commiss Secretary -- - MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON THE 17TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 1987 THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:01 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Senior Planner Bolland. ROLL CALL: --. PRESENT: Commissioners: Brown, Mellinger, Brinley, Kelley and Washburn ABSENT: commissioners: None Also present were Community Development Director Miller, Senior Planners Libiez and Bolland, and Associate Planner Wilkins. MINUTE ACTION Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to Planning commission Minutes of October second by Commissioner Brinley Approved 5-0 Motion by Commissioner Brinley to approve Planning Commission Minutes of November 3, 1987, as submitted, second by Commissioner Mellinger. Approved 5-0 approve Joint city Council/ 29, 1987, as submitted, 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 - Jordan ArChitects, Inc. - Senior Planner Bolland presented request to continue this item to the meeting of December 1, 1987. Motion by Commissioner Brinley to continue Specific Plan 87-1 to the meeting of December 1, 1987, second by Commissioner Kelley. Approved 5-0 It was the consensus of the Commission to consider General Plan Amendment 87-4; Zone Change 87-9 (PUBLIC HEARING #2 and #3), and Industrial Project 87-6 (BUSINESS ITEM #3) concurrently. General Plan Amendment Project 87-6 Larmor presented applicant's meeting of December 1, 87-4; Zone Development request to 1987. Change 87-9 and Industrial Senior Planner Libiez continue these items to the - Motion by Commissioner Brown to continue General Plan Amendment 87-4; Zone Change 87-9 and Industrial Project 87-6 to the meet- ing of December 1, 1987. Approved 4-0 Chairman Washburn abstaining 4. Zone Change 87-8 winston Tire Company - Associate Planner wilkins presented proposal to change the zoning designation from C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial) to C-2 (General Commercial), 1.28 acres located between casino Drive (Vista Del Lago) and Mission Trail approximately 900 feet easterly of Railroad Canyon Road. Chairman Washburn opened the public hearing at 7:09 p.m., asking for those wiShing to speak in favor of Zone Change 87-8. Mr. Jack Hunter, representing Winston Tire Company, spoke in favor of the proposal. Minutes of Planning Commission November 17, 1987 Page 2 ZONE CHANGE 87-8 - WINSTON TIRE COMPANY CONTINUED Chairman Washburn asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak in favor of Zone Change 87-8, 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 subject. Receiving no response, Chairman Washburn closed the public hearing at 7:10 p.m. There being no discussion at the table, Chairman Washburn called for a motion. .... Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to recommend to City Council adoption of Negative Declaration No. 87-34 and approval of Zone Change 87-8 based upon the findings listed in the staff report, second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved 5-0 It was the consensus of the Commission to consider Conditional Use Permit 87-6 (PUBLIC HEARING #5), and Commercial Project 87-3 (BUSINESS ITEM #1) concurrently. 5. Conditional Use Permit 87-6 and William S. Buck - Chairman Washburn request for continuance of these December 15, 1987. Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to continue Conditional Use Permit 87-6 and Commercial Project 87-3 to the meeting of December 15, 1987, second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved 5-0 Commercial Project 87-3- stated that there is a items to the meeting of ~ 6. Conditional Use Permit 87-15 - Winston Tire Company - Associate Planner Wilkins presented proposal for an automobile service business pursuant to Section 17.48.030 Item E of the Zoning Code, 1.28 acres located between Casino Drive (Vista Del Lago) and Mission Trail approximately 900 feet easterly of Railroad Canyon Road. Chairman Washburn opened the public hearing at 7:13 p.m., asking for those wishing to speak in favor of Conditional Use Permit 87-15. Mr. Jack Hunter, representing winston Tire favor of the proposal, and stated that he questions the Commission might have. Chairman Washburn asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak in favor of Conditional Use Permit 87-15, 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 subject. Receiving no response, Chairman Washburn closed the public hearing at 7:14 p.m. Company, spoke in would answer any Commissioner Brown commented on condition to storage of tires or parts, and if this tire racks that might be movable and purposes, or is it our intention that there outside at any time. number 7, pertaining would also address used for advertising be no merchandise .... Associate Planner Wilkins stated that he believes that is the intent to maintain the aesthetic quality of the architecture of the building and to promote a clean area. Commissioner Brown stated that on condition number 9, he would like to see the lighting match the architecture of the building. Minutes of Planning Commission November 17, 1987 Page 3 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 87-15 - WINSTON TIRE COMPANY CONTINUED commissioner Mellinger stated that he would like condition number 3, amended to read: "all automotive repair and servicing shall occur completely within the enclosed structure". commissioner Mellinger asked if the designated storage facility was being screened with fencing or landscaping, referring to condition number 7. -- Associate Planner Wilkins stated that this is correct, it is adjacent to the trash enclosure on the landscaped area within the center of the parking lot commissioner Mellinger recommended the following added to condition number 7, "none of the parts or be visible from outside these areas". verbiage be tires shall Chairman Washburn asked if there would be any automotive engine repair done on site. Discussion at the table ensued on the type of work that would be performed on site; if the retail portion of the center would be leased out to other users and these users being aware of the conditions placed on the project. Motion by Commissioner Brinley to adopt Negative Declaration No. 87-34 and approve Conditional Use Permit 87-15 based on the findings and subject to the 10 Conditions of Approval listed in the staff report, second by Commissioner Mellinger with -- discussion. Condition No. commissioner Mellinger recommended the following amendments: Condition No.7: Condition No.9: 3 : "All automotive repairs shall occur completely enclosed structure." and servicing within the "All tires and parts shall be stored within the structure or within a designated storage facility. Such facility shall be clearly delineated on the final building plans. No tires or parts storage shall occur outside these areas nor shall be visible from outside the storage area." "Parking lot lighting shall be provided such that the lights shall be operational from dusk until two (2) hours after closing of the last tenant use. Building security lights shall be illuminated during all hours of darkness. Security lighting and parking lot lighting shall be oriented or hooded in such a manner as to preclude nuisance upon abutting properties or public right-of-ways. All such lighting shall be of a high efficiency low wattage variety providing reasonable energy conservation. Decorative light fixtures compatible with the architecture of the center shall be installed." Commissioner Brinley maker of the motion and Commissioner Mellinger maker of the second stated that they were in agreement Minutes of Planning Commission November 17, 1987 Page 4 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 87-15 - WINSTON TIRE COMPANY CONTINUED with the amendments. There being no further discussion, Chairman Washburn called for the question. Approved 5-0 BUSINESS ITEMS .... 1. Commercial Project 87-3 - William S. Buck - Considered with Public Hearing #5. 2. Commercial Project 87-12 Winston Tire Company - Associate Planner Wilkins presented proposal to construct a 14,200 square foot four-unit commercial center on 1.28 acres, located between Casino Drive (Vista Del Lago) and Mission Trail approximately 900 feet easterly of Railroad Canyon Road. Associate Planner Wilkins stated that he has spoken with the architect for this project and he (the architect) may request that the Commission consider the elimination of the Casino Drive access, and the squaring off for expansion of the existing winston Tire facility for approximately 360 square feet. Chairman Washburn asked if these changes had been brought to staff recently. Mr. Hunter, representing Winston Tire, stated that on the elimination of the drive, our soils engineer stated that the steepness back there would create a problem with the building __ being on one level. As far as rounding the building, the extra 360 square feet would not add to the Winston Tire Store itself, it would just square the building off. Commissioner Mellinger asked Mr. Hunter if he agreed with the conditions for enhancements proposed by staff. Mr. Hunter stated that staff has been been fair but tough, and we agree on the changes, except for the landscaping in the corner which might require us by building code to put in a door, it is very minor so there is no problem. Discussion at the table ensued on the elimination of the drive on Casino Drive; squaring off the building and if there would be a problem with landscaping that area; air conditioning units-- if they would be roof mounted; providing additional landscaping where the driveway to Casino Drive was proposed; relocating the storage facility (tire/trash enclosures); if there would be a need for access for pedestrian traffic; distance for loading zone; landscaping for the front elevation and height of mounting; impact on traffic circulation with the elimination of the rear dive; visibility of roof top if the parapet is to low; type of screening to be used for roof mounted equipment and roof mounted equipment to be placed out of sight and away from the center of the roof, and if the revised plans would be prepared prior to __ City Council review. Motion by Commissioner Brinley to recommend adoption of Negative Declaration No. 87-34 and approval of Commercial Project 87-12 based on the findings and sUbject to the 35 Conditions of Approval listed in the staff report, second by Commissioner Kelley. Chairman Washburn asked the maker of the motion and the second to consider including the following amendments: Minutes of Planning Commission November 17, 1987 Page 5 COMMERCIAL PROJECT 87-12 ~ WINSTON TIRE COMPANY CONTINUED Condition No. 36: "All roof mounted equipment shall be screened in a manner compatible with the architectural design of the building and located in such a manner that they are not visible from Casino Drive. Demonstration of compliance with this condition shall be included in the final building plans." "Eliminate the Casino Drive access and provide a portion of the driveway as a loading area and provide additional landscaping in the unused area. The loading area is to be designed to meet city Standards. Condition No.5: - commissioner Brinley maker of the motion and Commissioner Kelley maker of the second stated that they were in agreement with the amendments. Chairman Washburn commented on the applicant's request to square off the building for the expansion of the existing winston Tire facility, and asked for staff's feeling on this. Associate Planner Wilkins stated that there would have to be some type of adjustment for this. There being no further discussion, Chairman Washburn called for -- the questions. Approved 5-0 3. Industrial Project 87-6 - Larmor Development - Considered with Public Hearing #2 and #3. 4. Finding of General Plan Conformance for: a) Street Abandonment 86-5 - Robert L. Baker - Senior Planner Bolland presented request for the vacation of a 60-foot wide segment of Spring Street between Minthorn Street and Interstate 15 right-of-way. Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to recommend to City Council approval of Street Abandonment 86-5 based on the finding and the 3 Conditions of Approval listed in the staff report, second by Commissioner Kelley. Approved 5-0 b) Street Abandonment 86-6 - Lake Elsinore School District - Senior Planner Bolland presented request for vacation of a 30-foot wide paper street segment between Mill Street and Parkway and a 60-foot wide segment of Parkway between Avenue 9 and Avenue 7 at the Railroad Canyon Elementary School site. A brief discussion was held at the table on Exhibit II, pertaining to the extension of Parkway; traffic study submitted pertaining to off-site bus loading and unloading and the recommendation that a bus loading/unloading zone be provided on site. Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to recommend to City council approval of Street Abandonment 86-6 based on the finding and the 1 Condition of Approval listed in the staff report, second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved 5-0 Minutes of Planning Commission November 17, 1987 Page 6 FINDING OF GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE CONTINUED c) street Abandonment 87-2 - Alfred Anderson - Senior Planner Bolland presented request for vacation of a 10-foot wide (approximately) segment of EI Toro Road from Riverside Drive easterly approximately 312 feet. Motion by Commissioner Kelley to recommend to City Council approval of Street Abandonment 87-2 based on the finding and __ the 1 Condition of Approval listed in the staff report, second by Commissioner Mellinger. Approved 5-0 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S COMMENT Community Development Director Miller reminded the Planning Commis- sion of the Study Session scheduled for November 18, 1987, at 6:00 p.m. Community Development Director Miller stated that City Council has decided to form a Country Club Heights and a General Plan advisory committee, and they will probably be appointing members at the next City Council meeting. If there are any names the Commission would like to submit, as potential candidates, for these committees you may wish to make it known to the Mayor. PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Commissioner Kelley Asked about the status of 32556 Mission Trail. .... Chairman Washburn stated that he personally sent a letter, with staff's assistance, to the County complaining of the eyesore and the debris problem, and they followed up with another letter stating that they were looking into this. Community Development Director Miller stated that we did receive a letter back from County staff indicating that they were concerned about these problems, and that they were following up on these items. The County does have a staff member assigned to enforcement activities and they do keep working on these, sometimes they take a long time to resolve, and we will again pass this item on to County staff. Commissioner Brinley The driveway in between the Suds or Us and Kentucky Fried Chicken is supposed to be a fire lane, it is also posted, but there are cars parked there creating a traffic hazard, and Assistant Planner Magee is already working on this. Commissioner Brown Asked if the two large refuse containers at Four Corners is part of a City clean up project. .... Community Development Director Miller answered stated that Public Works and Code Enforcement where those trash containers came from. in the negative, and is following up on The Park Abrams shopping center at Four Corners--it was our intent to have the parking lot posted with signs stating no vehicle servicing allowed within the parking lot. There is one small sign posted in the bottom of the window at Chief's Auto Parts, but nothing in the parking lot, and people are servicing their vehicles in the parking lot. ~ Minutes of Planning Commission November 17, 1987 Page 7 PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS CONTINUED Chairman Washburn suggested that the owner of the center be made aware of the situation, servicing of vehicles in the center. commissioner Mellinqer Commented on the situation at the Park Abrams center stating that the conditions of approval may have required that and the signs may do this but if some one is out there working on their car there is no violation unless it is in the Municipal Code, and asked if the violation would not be on the property owner. community Development Director Miller responded in the affirmative, and stated that the Code Enforcement Officers probably could not cite unless there was a violation of the Municipal Code, and we will look into this and see if there is citation authority in that regard. Commissioner Brown stated that if there is nothing that we can do then we should not approve any more auto parts or auto repair shops, and suggested that this be discussed at a study session. Chairman Washburn stated that the Commission could direct staff to send a letter to the property owner. Commissioner Mellinger suggested looking into a Municipal Code Ordinance or a Zoning Code Ordinance, something where it could be citable, prohibiting the repair vehicles on public streets or com- mercial parking lots. ~ Community authority research Municipal Development Director Miller stated that to do this under our existing Nuisance this, and if necessary look at the Code Amendment. we may have Ordinance, will possibility of a commissioner Brinley commented on the traffic hazard at Four Corners, particularly at Four Corners Liquor. Commissioner Mellinger commented on the grading of receiving project approval, stating that the City not allowing this, this would also include stock residential zones, due to drainage problems and habitat problems during environmental review. community Development Director Miller stated that last July our Grading Ordinances were amended, and there are specific requirements that would require permits for any grading and erosion control measures. If there were any environmental issues that might come up, if it is not categorically exempt project, then that would also be required to be addressed. The Building Department is now responsible for the issuance of on-site grading permits. projects prior to should consider piling permits in avoiding future ~ commissioner Mellinger commented on flood control measures, stating that on some of the projects that we are approving we should have a fairly good idea about the timing of the improvements for these flood control facilities. Chairman Washburn Code Enforcement is doing a good job with abandoned vehicles. Requested that each of the Commissioners submit at least two names for the General Plan and Country Club Heights advisory committees, stating that he has four (4) names to submit to City council. Asked if there were any issues November 18, 1987, that should be on the Study Session Agenda for moved up or added to insure Minutes of Planning Commission November 17, 1987 Page 8 PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS CONTINUED discussion and then suggested that Item I (Goals, Objectives and Priorities) be moved up for discussion after Item F (Potential Addition to Zoning Code) . There being no further business, the Lake Elsinore Planning Commis- __ sion adjourned at 8:11 p.m. Motion by Commissioner Brinley, second by Commissioner Kelley. Approved 5-0 ~proved' G~.~:lf--- c~~an ~u~itted' Linda Grindstaff ~ Planning Commission Secretary -- -- MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON THE 1ST DAY OF DECEMBER 1987 THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:04 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Chairman Washburn. ROLL CALL: -- PRESENT: Commissioners: Mellinger, Brinley, Kelley and Washburn ABSENT: commissioners: Brown Also present were Planners Libiez and Planner Wilkins. Community Bolland, Development Director Miller, Senior Assistant Planner Magee, Associate MINUTE ACTION Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to approve minutes of November 17, 1987, 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. - It was the consensus of the Commission to move General Plan Amend- ment 87-4 and Zone Change 87-9 to the beginning of the PUBLIC HEARINGS portion of the agenda and also to take up BUSINESS ITEMS 1 & 2, Street Abandonment 87-3 and Industrial Project 87-6, respectively, in order to consider all of Larmor's proposals concurrently. PUBLIC HEARINGS Chairman Washburn asked to be excused from all of the Larmor proposals due to possible conflict of interest, and turned the gavel over to Vice Chairman Mellinger. 1. General Plan Amendment 87-4 Larmor Development - Senior Planner Libiez presented request to amend the General Plan from Limited Industrial to Commercial Manufacturing for a five (5) acre portion of a ten (10) acre parcel located on the south- easterly corner of Collier and Central. Vice Chairman Mellinger opened the public hearing at 7:08 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of General Plan Amend- ment 87-4. Mr. David Lang, Lang Lampert Architects, stated that this is a use that will be very conducive to the area, and he would answer any questions the Commission may have. Vice Chairman Mellinger asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak in favor of General Plan Amendment 87-4. Receiving no response, Vice Chairman Mellinger asked if there was anyone wishing to speak in opposition. Receiving no response, Vice Chairman Mellinger asked if there was anyone wishing to speak on the matter. Receiving no response Vice Chairman Mellinger closed the pUblic hearing at 7:11 p.m. commissioner Kelley stated great benefit to the City, jobs. that he believes that this will be a promotion of economic growth and Minutes of Planning Commission December 1, 1987 Page 2 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 87-4 ~ LARMOR DEVELOPMENT CONTINUED Commissioner Brinley stated that she the amenities provided, since it is community. would like to see all of an entryway into the Vice Chairman Mellinger stated that his concern on this type of General Plan Amendment, Industrial to Commercial ManUfacturing, would be the commitment of previously designated industrial land, which our General Plan indicates that we should be looking at large scale developments, and it even indicates that the Redevelopment Agency should be looking at consolidating lots for larger scale developments. Vice Chairman Mellinger stated that if it is our goal to create Commercial Manufacturing primarily along Collier, presumes that we would be looking at future General Plan Amendments along that entire side of the street. I would not have any opposition with that, however, for policy direction, intruding any further towards the Outflow Channel in the industrial zones off the major roads would not be appropriate. Motion by Commissioner Brinley to adopt Resolution No. 87-7, and recommend to City Council adoption of Negative Declaration No. 87-32 and approval of General Plan Amendment 87-4 based on the Findings listed in the Staff Report, second by Commissioner Kelley. Approved 3-0 (Chairman Washburn excused) RESOLUTION NO. 87-7 .... A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF .... GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 87-4 TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE 1982 GENERAL PLAN CHANGING THE DESIGNATION OF A FIVE (5) ACRE PARCEL FROM LIMITED INDUSTRIAL TO COMMERICAL MANUFACTURING 2. Zone Change 87-9 - Larmor Developmen~ - Senior Planner Libiez presented request to amend the zon1ng from M-l (Light Manufacturing) to C-M (Commercial Manufacturing) on a five (5) acre portion of a ten (10) acre parcel located on the south- easterly corner of Collier and Central. Vice Chairman Mellinger opened the pUblic hearing at 7:17 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of Zone Change 87-9. Receiving no response, Vice Chairman Mellinger asked if there was anyone wishing to speak in opposition. Receiving no response, Vice Chairman Mellinger asked if there was anyone wishing to speak on the matter. Receiving no response Vice Chairman Mellinger closed the public hearing at 7:18 p.m. Motion by Commissioner Brinley to recommend to City Council approval of Zone Change 87-9 and adoption of an ordinance to amend the zoning o from M-l (Light Manufacturing) to C-M (Commercial Manufactuting), based on the Findings listed in the Staff Report, second by Commissioner Kelley. Approved 3-0 (Chairman Washburn excused) Business Items #1 and 2 were taken up at this time. 1. Street Abandonment 87-3 - Larmor Development Senior Planner Libiez presented request to initiate vacation of excess right- Of-way on COllier.petermination that vacation would conform to the General Plan. An 18,000 square foot triangular parcel along the south side of Collier Avenue approximately 300 feet souther- ly of Central Avenue. .... - - Minutes of planning Commission December 1, 1987 Page 3 STREET ABANDONMENT 87-3 ~ LARMOR DEVELOPMENT CONTINUED 2. Motion by Commissioner Brinley to recommend that City Council declare and grant the requested vacation, subject to State Law and Local Ordinance, for that portion of right-of-way lying southerly of the centerline of Collier Avenue as shown on Exhibit 1, based on the Findings and the 3 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report, second by Commissioner Kelley. Approved 3-0 (Chairman Washburn excused) Industrial Project 87-6 - Larmor Development - Senior Planner Libiez presented proposal to construct a business/industrial park consisting of seven (7) buildings totaling 158,000 square feet. A ten (10) acre parcel located at the southeast corner of Collier and Central. Senior Planner Libiez requested that the following conditions be amended as follows: 1. The project shall be constructed in substantial conformance to submitted revised development plans date stamped November 16, 1987, except as modified by conditions herein; Exhibits "C", "0-1" and "0-2" dated November 30, 1987, depict site plan and elevation revisions to which future development shall substantially conform. Plans submitted for building permits shall demonstrate compliance to section 17.54.040 A and section 17.56.040 A of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code with regard to storage yard screening. outdoor storage shall not be permitted behind Buildings "0", "E" and/or "F". 15. Materials and colors depicted on the materials board shall be used unless modified by the Community Development Director. Elevations of Building "C" & "0" shall have extended enhancement areas as shown on Exhibit "0-1" and "0-2" dated November 30, 1987; color variations for individual buildings is encouraged provided such variations are reasonably consistent with proposed color pallet; the final color pallet shall be subject to review and approval of the Community Development Director or his designee. 47. Provide a dedication for 30-foot half width right-of-way on that street identified as "Future Street" upon the submitted development plans; a dedication or easement to insure construction of a 12-foot travel lane beyond centerline shall also be obtained prior to issuance of any grading or building permits. 49. Construction of curb, gutter, sidewalks and paving upon the street section approved by the City Engineer upon Collier, Central and "Future Street". Said improvement to include at least two lanes of travel on each street and medians on Collier as determined by the City Engineer; "Future Street" improvement shall include a 12-foot travel lane beyond the centerline of said street. sidewalks shall be not less than 5-feet in width abutting the proposed streets. Vice Chairman Mellinger stated that since this is a business item he would like to discuss it at the table and then have the applicant come to the podium to address his concerns. Commissioner Brinley commented on whether or not these were the original plans submitted, and the need for additional landscap- ing. Minutes of Planning Commission December 1, 1987 Page 4 INDUSTRIAL PROJECT 87-6 = LARMOR DEVELOPMENT CONTINUED Vice Chairman Mellinger commented on the upgraded landscaping, asking if this included not only the width of the planter area but also upgraded materials. Senior Planner Libiez answered in the affirmative and referred to condition number 20. Vice Chairman Mellinger commented on condition number 33, pertaining to the participation in signalization of Collier and Central, asking if there was a time line and how this was being formulated? .... Community Development Director Miller stated that as part of the revision of the Circulation Element, which we hope to bring before the Commission early next year along with revisions for the Land Use Element, we would include a recommendation upon signalized intersections that would be indicated by the traffic volumes on buildout of our arterial street system and a prioritization of those signals. Discussion at the table ensued on whether or not the public safety mitigations fees would go into a fund for an overall signal program on the priority list, or if they would be designated for this area, and when these fees are collected. Vice Chairman Mellinger commented on pertaining to the adoption of the Circulation Element Amendment, asking will they work the alignment? condition number pending General if this is not passed 55, Plan how Community Development Director Miller stated that in the case of __ Collier, what is being proposed is an expansion of the existing right-of-way. If for some reason the pending General Plan Circulation Element Amendment was not adopted then there would be additional landscape areas as part of the project. In the case of Central, the major problem that we have been discussing for some time is the future alignment of Central as it would relate to crossing the Outflow Channel. Vice Chairman Mellinger called Mr. Lang back to the podium. Mr. David Lang, Lang Lampert Architects, stated that they have been working extensively with staff and agree with staff recom- mendation. Mr. Lang stated to address Commissioner Brinley's comment on landscaping, this project definitely is going to be extensively landscaped. Discussion at the table ensued on the previous requirement that a rendering which illustrates the completed proposal be submitted for review, prior to passing the proposal on to city Council; the number of jobs this type of complex would create. Motion by Commissioner Kelley to recommend to City Council approval of Industrial Project 87-6 based on the Findings and the 57 Conditions of Approval amending conditions 1, 15, 47 and 49 as recommended by staff, second by Commissioner Brinley. Approved 3-0 (Chairman Washburn excused). Vice Chairman Mellinger turned the gavel back over to Chairman Washburn. .... At this time, 7:38 p.m., Commissioner Brinley asked and received permission to be excused from the meeting due to a death in the family. Minutes of Planning Commission December 1, 1987 Page 5 3. Specific Plan 87-1 - Brian Weiss c/o Jordan Architects - Senior Planner Bolland presented request for approval of 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 intersection of Lakeshore and Avenue 6). Chairman Washburn opened the public hearing at 7:46 p.m., asking for those wishing to speak in favor of Specific Plan 87-1. Mr. Brian Weiss, applicant and developer of the project, stated that they have worked closely with the Planning Department for approximately the last two years on this project and I think that we have come up with an attractive development that the community can be proud of. Mr. Weiss stated that originally there were 42 adjacent property owners urging approval of this project, it is now at 46 and still growing. Mr. Weiss stated that they are presently in escrow with all of the adjacent owners that reside in that area, and has obtained consent to integrate that into the Specific Plan, referring to Alternate site "A" and "B". If possible, if we come back in 3 or 4 weeks, we would like to have this written into the Plan. Mr. Weiss stated that they have done some surveys and feels that with this type of office space they could be providing 200-300 jobs in the complex itself. -. Mr. Bruce Jordan, architect for the project, gave a brief report on the proposal, highlighting the following items: how they arrived at the configuration for the project; illustrative site plan of what could be approved under the Specific Plan as presently written, and then commented on the conceptual site plan, circulation plan and conceptual rendering he had prepared for the proposal. Mr. Jordan stated that one of the major considerations in this plan was to protect the residential neighborhood to the north, and we have taken great pains to put in safeguards within the plan that would mandate residential scale type buildings, one story in height, and they would also function as an acoustical buffer from Lakeshore Drive. Mr. Jordan stated that recommendation that we Commission's feeling on. they have three concerns with staff would like to discuss and get the Chairman Washburn informed Mr. Jordan that he would be called back to the podium at the close of the public hearing to address his concerns. Chairman Washburn asked if there was anyone wishing to speak in favor of Specific Plan 87-1. Mr. st. Angelo, 3072 Le May, Hemet, street from the proposed project, proposal. owns property across the spoke in favor of the Chairman Washburn speak in favor of Chairman asked opposition. asked if there was anyone Specific Plan 87-1. Receiving if there was anyone wishing else wishing to no response, to speak in Mr. Robert Warren, 630 Lake Street, stated concern over the traffic hazard that would be created on Lakeshore Drive, and cutting off the view of the lake and reducing the value of homes. Minutes of Planning Commission December 1, 1987 Page 6 SPECIFIC PLAN 87-1 - BRIAN WEISS C/O JORDAN ARCHITECTS CONTINUED Chairman Washburn asked if there was anyone else 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 7:56 p.m. Commissioner Kelley commented on the Storm Drain Plan, page 5, __ 4th paragraph, asking if it was the applicant intention to have the run-off flow across Lakeshore Drive. Senior Planner Bolland stated that he does not believe that the water is intended to flow across Lakeshore Drive at any point, and that the Hydrology Study proposes an ultimate storm drain system that would conduct the water to San Jacinto River and also under Lakeshore Drive and down to the lake. Commissioner Kelley commented on the rear elevations, stating that the residents on Lake and Parkway will be affected, view obstructed and the rear elevation will be extremely important. Commissioner Kelley commented briefly on the list of residents, on Parkway, that had objections to the proposal in the past and there being no one present from this area tonight, and asked if notices were sent to these residents. Senior Planner Bolland responded that notices were sent to all property owners within a 300 foot radius and published in the newspaper. Commissioner Mellinger commented on access stating that drive- thru for banks should not be allowed and this should be added __ to the document. Commissioner Mellinger stated that hydrology would be an important factor, and asked for the location of the culvert in Lakeshore Drive, stating that the drainage toward San Jacinto seems to be adequate, but concerned with the drainage across Lakeshore. Senior Planner Bolland referred to the site plan posted and gave the location of the culvert under Lakeshore Drive. Commissioner Mellinger stated that there should be some commitment for left turn pockets into the project, especially coming from the west, and this should be addressed in the Specific Plan. Commissioner Mellinger asked how the reimbursement agreement for the pilot road would be done, stating that he knows that you can do reimbursement agreements for any other public improvement except roads. Senior Planner Bo11~nd responded that the mechanism is not addressed in the specific Plan. The main intent that staff has is that because Avenue,6 is being truncated by the project it would be essential" under first phase development of this project, that Avenue 7 be constructed all the way up to Parkway and Avenue 6. Commissioner Mellin~.k stated that the mechanism for reimburse- ment agreements for'itoads should be defined at the Specific Plan stage and suggeste...'.~i that the mechanism for this be clarified when the Specific P). comes back to the Commission, whether it would be an assessmen district or if the project would bear the costs. -- Minutes of Planning Commission December 1, 1987 Page 7 SPECIFIC PLAN 87-1 = BRIAN WEISS C/O JORDAN ARCHITECTS CONTINUED commissioner Mellinger stated that he agrees with staff on the frontages, especially along Dawes. Commissioner Mellinger stated that if the maximum landscape coverage is 85% and includes setbacks and paved areas we have 15% left over and the only thing that is excluded is pedestrian walkways, from the parking lot to the buildings, doubts if this will be 7% and feels that the 8% listed in the Specific Plan is low, referring to page 6 of the Specific Plan. commissioner Mellinger stated that he feels the verbiage should be stricken from the document, page 6 section "c": following #14 sub- "A reduction in coverage may be sought and approved during the Design Review process in recognition of exceptional quality in design." Commissioner Mellinger stated that he feels that there should not be any reduction in landscape at all, and would suggest that the landscaping be increased to 12-15%. Chairman Washburn asked if the Master Plan of Drainage prepared by RMG Engineering required Planning commission review and approval prior to Council action, or if this was already in the works. - Senior Planner Bolland stated that taking the Master Plan of Drainage adoption. Chairman Washburn stated that he concurs with Commissioners Kelley and Mellinger on their comments. the City Engineer would be directly to Council for Chairman Washburn commented on the design of the pseudo residential buildings, referring to the Specific Plan, page 2 #5 subsection 4, stating that he would not like to see it go totally in the direction where it looks like a residential area. Would like to see it retain some type of office professional/commercial design, and suggested that verbiage be added "residential scale/pseudo commercial features". Community Development Director Miller stated that the intent of that section is that the consistent with single-family residential compatible. Chairman Washburn suggested that materials that office professional could be added, referring to subsection "a", of the Specific Plan. that scale and he believes should be the design lean page toward 6, #15 Chairman Washburn referred to permitted uses listed on page 3, #9 subsection "c" of the Specific Plan, asking if there were any uses that could be conceived to have some sort of retail use that is office professional. Senior Planner Bolland stated that he did not believe so, however, this plan does provide for retail uses with conditional use permits. The plan was not meant to exclude retail sales it was meant to exclude high traffic volume generators. Chairman Washburn called Mr. Jordan back to the podium. Mr. Jordan presented a conceptual sketch hammer-head turnaround for Dawes Street, and hammer-head in lieu of the cul-de-sac. illustrating a requested the Minutes of Planning Commission December 1, 1987 Page 8 SPECIFIC PLAN 87-1 = BRIAN WEISS C/O JORDAN ARCHITECTS CONTINUED Mr. Jordan commented on staff's recommendation to eliminate the points of egress to the site, and stated that the site is over a half-mile long and feels that it is very critical to maintain those entry points. Mr. Jordan commented on the setback requirements for this project site and presented a conceptual sketch illustrating a __ ten foot minimum setback, which would allow for adequate landscaping, and proposed an average of twelve-foot thereby allowing a two-foot jog in the wall, as we feel that fifteen-feet is excessive, referring to page 6, subsection "b" of the Specific Plan. Mr. Jordan informed the Commission that there was an error in the Hydrology Report. The Hydrology Report states that there will be a ten-foot (10') wide drainage device, it is actually required to be four-foot (4") wide and two-foot-six-inches (2' 6") deep concrete V-gutter. We are proposing to put that immediately adjacent to the building thereby allowing a dense visual landscape screen to occur out between the street and the V-gutter, with shrubs to hide the V-gutter. Chairman Washburn asked staff for their op1n10n on the applicant's request for a hammer-head turnaround, and whether or not there has been any input from residents in the area regarding circulation. Community Development Director Miller stated that a number of the concerns we have addressed have been related to limitation of circulation onto Lakeshore Drive, and we identified early on that it would probably not be desirable to provide a direct __ dedicated access from Dawes Street to Lakeshore. Staff has not had an opportunity to assess the hammer-head turnaround, but would want to review this with the Engineering Department and could incorporate a final resolution of that issue when we return to Planning Commission if that is you desire. Chairman Washburn asked what comments the Engineering Department had on access points, referring to the applicant's request for more access points. Senior Planner Bolland stated that Contract Senior Planner Manee made a fairly strong stance, in looking at the overall circulation planning, which he is doing for the City as part of his contact, to reduce friction was a primary objective along this arterial street. As part of the Lake Management Planning on the south portion, adjacent to the site just across Lakeshore, there are some discussions about bringing major circulation routes up and potentially into the Lucerne Street area and so centralizing one access point at Lucerne street is something that staff does support. However, having three access points at close intervals as well as the two fixed access points, at High and Avenue 7, was seen as an excess of friction. Mr. Jordan stated for clarification that they are proposing only right turn in and right turn out on the addition of two access points, referred to the site plan posted for location. Commissioner Mellinger asked Mr. Jordan if they were proposing a median to insure no left hand turns into the project. Mr. Jordan responded either a median or painted stripes. Mr. Huilai, project traffic engineer, stated that he would like to give justificatio~ for the three proposed driveways fronting Lakeshore Drive. Orie of the primary reasons for the three -- Minutes of planning commission December 1, 1987 Page 9 SPECIFIC PLAN 87-1 - BRIAN WEISS C/O JORDAN ARCHITECTS CONTINUED ~ driveways is to allow quick access for emergency vehicles, this was my primary concern. Chairman Washburn stated that he felt it was staff's concern that there would be other ingress/egress activity taking place at these points. Chairman Washburn asked if staff, Planning/Engineering, had reviewed the. traffic impact study submitted. Senior Planner Bolland responded in the affirmative, and stated that basically the Engineering Department had no comment. Chairman Washburn suggested that the traffic impact study be returned to the Engineering Department for input, between now and the next meeting. Commissioner Mellinger stated that the biggest problem would be the number of curb-cuts and traffic volume problems in the future. commissioner Mellinger stated that between Avenue 7 and the central location (Lucerne) there may be room for an entrance, since most of the traffic would be coming from the freeway. But probably would not agree with an entry between High and the central access. ~ Mr. Jordan stated that they would be willing to accept two access points. Chairman Washburn commented on the access, stating that he be willing to allow the one access point further to the from Lucerne. Mainly, because the last phase is almost a alone project, but then they have High Street for access. would west stand Chairman Washburn stated that because of the distance and the type of traffic could see allowing one access point located where it makes sense, and if another access point is allowed, because of the length of the project, he would like the Engineering Department and Planning staff to work with the applicant on the deciding the best location for the access point. Mr. Jordan stated that in that case, they would be willing to work with the planning staff on that access point. Chairman Washburn asked if there were any comments on the applicant's request regarding setbacks and landscaping setbacks. Commissioner Mellinger commented briefly on the landscape improvements along Dawes stating that instead of 15 gallon trees at every 20 lineal feet you are looking at 8 feet on center; has no problem with the 8-feet and shrubs and the 10-feet. Chairman Washburn and commissioner Kelley stated that they concur with commissioner Mellinger. Chairman Washburn asked Mr. Jordan about the phasing plan. Mr. Jordan stated that they did not have time to include it in the first draft, but wanted to make the Commission aware that it is our intent to phase the project, and the final draft will discuss this. Commissioner Mellinger asked Mr. Jordan if this would include the infrastructure improvements for each phase. Minutes of Planning Commission December 1, 1987 Page 10 SPECIFIC PLAN 87-1 = BRIAN WEISS C/O JORDAN ARCHITECTS CONTINUED Mr. Jordan answered in the affirmative. Discussion at the table ensued on the issues expressed being integrated into the plan and brought back to the Commission in a final format. Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to continue Specific Plan 87-1 with the direction discussed at the table, second by Commis- sioner Kelley. Approved 3-0 .... At this time, 8:44 p.m., the Commission recessed. At this time, 8:50 p.m., the Commission reconvened. 4. Conditional Use Permit 87-16 - J & J Auto Repair (Industrial Concepts) - Assistant Planner Magee presented request to allow an auto repair in a Commercial Manufacturing Zoning District pursuant to Section 17.554.030.I of the Zoning Code, located at 561 Chaney Street Unit F & G of Building 5 within the Chaney Street Center, on the southwest corner of Chaney and Minthorn. Chairman Washburn opened the pUblic hearing at 8:52 p.m., asking for those wishing to speak in favor of Conditional Use Permit 87-16. Mr. Brown, representing Industrial Concepts, stated that they concur with staff recommendation and very concerned about the overall appearance of the center and sensitive to an automobile repair shop going into the center. Therefore, we have __ structured our lease agreement so that if there is any outdoor storage it is a breach of the lease agreement and we can evict the tenant. Chairman Washburn asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak in favor of Conditional Use Permit 87-16. Mr. Jody Shields and Mr. Jerry Polsten, owners of J & J Auto, stated that they would be doing mostly small repairs, trying to go more in to a diagnostic center. Chairman Washburn asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak in favor of Conditional Use Permit 87-16. 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 8:55 p.m. Chairman Washburn recommended ment, once it is consummated, Department for the file. that a copy of the lease agree- be submitted to the Planning Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to approve Conditional Use Permit 87-16 based upon the Finding and the 8 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report, second by Commissioner Kelley. Approved 3-0 5. Tentative Parcel Map 22930 Arthur H. Nelson - Associate Planner Wilkins presented a request to resubdivide an existing nine (9) parcel 2.19.acre site into two (2) parcels, located on the southeasterly corner of Dexter Street and Central Avenue. .... Chairman Washburn opened the public hearing at 9:00 p.m., asking Minutes of Planning Commission December 1, 1987 Page 11 TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 22930 - ARTHUR ~ NELSON CONTINUED for those wishing to speak in favor of Tentative Parcel Map 22930. Mr. Steve Brown, representing Mr. Arthur H. Nelson, stated that they concur with all of the conditions of approval except condition number 27, which deals with the vacation of Allen Street. Mr. Brown stated that the site has been graded and that they are under construction, and requested that this condition be changed to prior to issuance of certificate of Occupancy. Chairman Washburn asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak in favor of Tentative Parcel Map 22930. 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 9:01 p.m. A brief discussion was held at the table on amending condition number 27, deleting the words "any grading or building permits" and inserting the words "certificate of Occupancy". Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to recommend to City Council approval of Tentative Parcel Map 22930 based upon the Findings and the 27 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report, amending condition number 27, as follows: Condition No. 27: - "Vacation of Allen Street completed and recorded issuance of certificate of affecting that portion." Second by Commissioner Kelley. Approved 3-0 shall be prior to Occupancy BUSINESS ITEMS Street Abandonment 87-3 and Industrial Project 87-6 Development - Considered with Public Hearing #1 and 2. Larmor COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS Community Development Director Miller stated that the Commission has been provided a copy of the staff report that is going to City council, Special Meeting on Thursday, December 3, 1987, regarding the Canyon Lake Hills project, Tentative Tract Map 17413. PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS commissioner Kellev ,--. Thanked staff for their work on the Specific Plan Project, stating that was an extremely difficult problem to resolve. commissioner Mellinger Asked who has jurisdiction over the three way stop at Highway 74, Riverside and COllier, is it the State, County or City? Community Development Director Miller stated that it is a State Highway, so Cal Trans does have jurisdiction. Although, as Planning commission is aware, the City has made quite a number of improvements to various portions of the State Highway. However, we have had to obtain Cal Trans approval at each step. Minutes of Planning Commission December 1, 1987 Page 12 PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS CONTINUED Community Development Director Miller stated that he would relay Commissioner Mellinger's concern to the Engineering Department to take a look at the situation there and see what we can report back. Chairman Washburn stated that before Commissioner Brinley was excused she left a note to ask about the large mound of dirt on Townsend left by the builder of a single-family residence. __ Chairman Washburn Nothing to report. There being no further business, the Lake Elsinore Planning Commission adjourned at 9:05 p.m. Motion by Commissioner Mellinger, second by Commissioner Kelley. Approved 3-0 ~roved' . Ga~1!d,~~ Cha' an Respectful~ s~bmitted, ~ Z . j!/j .-;r- (.---f~d tZ_, 1'c7l:c/ ?dafW Linda Grindstafft7c1 Planning Commission Secretary .... -- MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON THE 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER 1987 THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:00 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Commissioner Kelley. ROLL CALL: __ PRESENT: Commissioners: Brown, Mellinger, Kelley and Washburn ABSENT: commissioners: Brinley Also present were Community Development Director Miller, Senior Planner Libiez, and Assistant Planner Magee. MINUTE ACTION Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to approve minutes of December 1, 1987, as submitted, second by Commissioner Kelley. Approved 3-0 (Commissioner Brown 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 87-6 William S. Buck - Community Development Director Miller stated that the applicant has -- requested that this item be continued to the meeting of January 19, 1988, in order to address the Traffic Engineer's recommendations and to work out alternatives with adjacent property owners and Cal Trans. Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to continue Conditional Use Permit 87-6 and related proposal Commercial Project 87-3 (Business Item #1) to the meeting of January 19, 1988, second by Commissioner Kelley. 2. Tentative Parcel Map 22914 Revised - Brookstone Develo~ment - Assistant Planner Magee presented proposal to divide S1X (6) existing lots into sixteen (16) lots varying in size from 0.28 acres to 0.68 acres. 6.07 acres located between Third Street and Birch Street, approximately 435 feet south of Minthorn Street. Chairman Washburn opened the public hearing at 7:05 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of Tentative Parcel Map 22914 Revised. Mr. Steve Brown, representing Brookstone Development, 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 Tentative Parcel Map 22914 Revised. Receiving no response, Chairman Washburn asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Receiving no response, Chairman Washburn closed the pUblic hearing at 7:06 p.m. There being no discussion at the table, Chairman Washburn called for a motion. Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to recommend to City Council approval of Tentative Parcel Map 22914 Revised based upon the Findings and the 30 Conditions of Approval listed in the Staff Report, second by Commissioner Kelley. Approved 4-0 Minutes of Planning Commission December 15, 1987 Page 2 BUSINESS ITEMS 1. Commercial Project 87-3 Public Hearing #1. William S. Buck - Considered with 2. Industrial Project 86-2 Amendment #1 - Development Director Miller stated concerns regarding on-site parking, access and screening of storage yards item be continued to the meeting of the applicant to develop modifications O. T. Equities - Community that staff has various loading and circulation, and requested that this January 19, 1988, to allow to address these concerns. - Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to continue Industrial Project 86-2 Amendment #1 to the meeting of January 19, 1988, second by Commissioner Kelley. Approved 3-0 (Chairman Washburn abstaining) 3. Resolution 87-8 - City of Lake Elsinore - Assistant Planner Magee presented a request to add 54" rail fencing with security wire to the approved architectural fence types for 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 northwesterly to Iowa Street, a distance of approxi- mately 3.45 miles. Chairman Washburn asked if there was anyone in the audience that wished to comment on this proposal. Receiving no response, Chairman Washburn asked for discussion at the table. Commissioner Brown commented on Exhibit "E" recommending that the wire be nailed to the inside and so reflected in the Exhibit, and __ security wire going up to the top rail, but two inches below the top of that rail. Commissioner Mellinger asked for the difference between the State Park and the Ranch Style fencing. Assistant Planner Magee informed Commissioner Mellinger of the difference between the two fence styles. Commissioner Kelley commented on the similarity of the State Park and Ranch Style fencing. Chairman Washburn commented on the depth of the fencing to the shoreline and how this is determined: the depth of fences not being established in the ordinance, and recommended this be discussed with City Council at a Joint study Session. Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to recommend approval of Resolution No. 87-8, based on the Findings listed in the Staff Report and adding the following verbiage "wire to be nailed to the inside and so reflected in the Exhibit; security wire going up to the top rail, but two inches below the top of that rail", second by Commissioner Brown. Approved 4-0 ...." RESOLUTION NO. 87-8 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE ARCHITECTURAL THEME FOR FENCES IN THE LAKESHORE OVERLAY DISTRICT Community Development Director Miller stated issue that has been previously discussed that this is an by the Planning ~ r-- Minutes of planning commission December 15, 1987 Page 3 . Although city council wished to commission and city Counc1l. of the planning commission. One wait and hear the recommendation, revious discussions, at b~th f the things that has o~curred 1~lP is whether this fenc1ng ~lanning commission ~nd C1tr cou~~~ ~treet frontage ~s opposed to should only be perm1tted ~ onglot lines. Also d1Scussed was extending it along the s1de ndards would apply to occupied whether or not different sta d asked if the commission has property versus vacant ~rope~~y, ~~stance the fence should be some direction regard1ng l'~ to discuss this item further extended, and if they would 1 e since it is on the Agenda. . t d on the fences along Lakeshore Commissioner Mel11nger commen e, lot lines where there are being.appropr~ate an~ atlhso oni:1dp~ObablY no need to have these on exist1ng res1dences, ere . vacant lots, but sees a need for secur1ty. Chairman Washburn stated that the distance to the lake is his concern. There could be an elevation stated such as l2~O, 1265 or the sill level of the proposed outflow. However, th1s could change depending upon the final decision on Lake Management. Chairman Washburn commented on vacant pro~erties a~d there being no real need for security. Would concur w1th Comm1ssioner Mel- linger, however, we have allowed it and we have allowed people to put up fences. Community Development Director Miller commented on the type of fencing installed, mostly chain link, and the installation of fencing taking place prior to the adoption of the previous resolution and referred to section two of the resolution pertaining'to fences located along Lakeshore Drive frontage. Commissioner Brown stated that for the purpose of security that it does not make much sense to allow someone to put up a fence just on Lakeshore and not use side lot lines. Also, believes that the property owners should have the ability to cross fence at a lower level and encircle their property. commissioner Brown commented on the City allowing the use of lake front property on weekends with the proper registration, and stated that they should have the ability to fence in vacant land. Commissioner Kelley stated that he likes the suggestion of limiting the fence down to the lake with the elevation, thinks that this would be a good solution. Chairman Washburn stated that he does not have a problem with cross fencing at the bottom, but thinks that 1265 or 1266 should be established until such time the lake is controlled. Chairman Washburn stated that he concurs with Commissioner Brown on the fencing of vacant lots. Discussion ensued on the number of camping permits issued; amending the resolution or forwarding the resolution on to City Council with direction on distance to the lake level on the fencing; technical knowledge of where the elevation should be, and resolution coming back to the Commission with illustration of impacts. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS Community Development Director Miller stated that Commission had concerns on grading. A copy of the adopted in May, has been provided and there highlights temporary erosion control measures. in the past the grading standards, is a section that -- Minutes of Planning Commission December 15, 1987 Page 4 PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Commissioner Kelley Nothing to report. Commissioner Mellinqer Before the meeting I asked C 't ~~tO~~t~~~~~a~~e~~i~l:~l~~ ~:~~~~:t~:r~~~~~:~if~~::~;~rsM~~~~~o~~~ look into this. If it isn't, it is myO~e:lf~= ~ha~n~h~:ew:~o~~~ngn~~ bthe allhowed to be park on the street detached for any amount of time ey s ould be attached to a vehicle. ' Community Development Director Miller stated that he would research this and report back. - Commissioner Brown Asked about the status of the Arco sign. Community Development Director Miller stated that we have had a number of discussions with Arco and their Attorneys and their Attorneys with our Attorney. However, last week they' came in and pulled permits and indicated that they do intend to take the sign down. Chairman Washburn Asked what has been happening with Van's Laundromat on Main street pertaining to the parking. Assistant Planner Magee stated that the last time staff was in contact with the owner of Van's Laundromat he indicated that he would indeed post the facility. He did post it once and the sign was removed. Staff advised him that there are several ways that he could eliminate the parking problem in front of the facility. However, there is no way for staff to enforce or force this business owner to restrict the parking in front of his site. If the Commission would like us to follow-up again staff will send another letter. Chairman Washburn requested that another letter be sent to the owner. Chairman Washburn stated that if there are any violations that the public would like to report there are complaint forms available in the Planning Department and City Clerk's Office. ..., There being no further business, the Lake Elsinore Planning Commission adjourned at 7:30 p.m. Motion by Commissioner Mellinger, second by Commissioner Kelley. Approved 4-0 +roved, ~ ~~f:,urn - R~~~ctfUI~ s~bmitted, ~4-.; ~,d~ Linda Grindstaff /# Planning Commission Secretary