The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About02-19-1985 NAHFor official record the City Clerk's Office saved audio cassettes for the following Planning Commission meetings: September 11, 1980 September 6, 1984 September 12, 1984 October 3, 1984 October 25, 1984 November 7, 1984 November 13, 1984 February 20, 1985 March 3, 1986 May 29, 1986 June 12, 1986 V rginia J.(Warn, "V Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Fa,bl�,It &wIlL, . . Rollo Lei MI NUTES 0 F LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH 1985 THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:30 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Commissioner Barnhart. ROLL CALL found Commissioner Saathoff, Commissioner Mellinger, Commissioner Washburn, Commissioner Barnhart and Chairman Dominguez. Also present were Community Development Director Corcoran, City Engineer Cu1p, Assistant Planner Coleman and Assistant Planner Miner. MI NUTE ACT! ON Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to approve minutes of February 19, 1985, as submitted, second by Commissioner Washburn. Approved 5-0 PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Conditional Use Permit 85-1 - Michael J. Maltby - Staff stated that a letter was received this afternoon requesting that Conditional Use Permit 85-1 be continued to the meeting of March 19, 1985. Chairman commented on the number of continuances for this proposal. - Chairman opened the public hearing at 7:34 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of Conditional Use Permit 85-1. Receiving no response, the Chairman asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Receiving no response, the Chair- man stated that before he closed the public hearing, we do have a petition (the same petition that was received by the Commission on February 19, 1985) in the packet. Chairman then closed the public hearing at 7:35 p.m. Chairman asked for discussion at the table. Discussion was held on applicant's original use permit and whether or not this was still valid; staff recommenda- tion of deny without prejudice as they believe some of the problems can be rectified, pertaining to lot size and the number of children at the facility, how staff feels these problems can be rectified; petition received--some of the people on the petition are not even in that area, and; extending the wall that encompasses the facility. Motion by Commissioner Washburn to continue Conditional Use Permit 85-1 to the meeting of March 19, 1985, second by Commissioner Saathoff with discussion. Commissioner Saathoff asked if the maker of the motion would consider, since this is the second request for continuance, if the continuance is granted then it is granted without the ability to request a third continuance. Discussion ensued on the number of continuances a proposal could receive. Commissioner Washburn amended his motion to continue Conditional Use Permit 85-1 to the meeting of March 19, 1985, with the stipulation that this is the final continuance on this item, and that the Commission will take action at the next meeting, second by Commissioner Saathoff. Approved 5-0 - 2. Specific Plan for Canyon Creek - Railroad Canyon, A Joint Venture _ Commissioner Washburn asked to be excused on this item and on Tentative Tract Map 20472 and Tentative Tract Map 20473. Staff presented the Canyon Creek Specific Plan; A residential Specific Plan for approximately 491 acres that would allow a maximum of 1,413 dwelling units along with commercial, public facilities and recreational uses. The San Jacinto River lies to the south and is adjacent to the property. Railroad Canyon Road is also south of the project site and the 1-15 Freeway bisects the site. Commissioner Saathoff stated that before the public hearing is opened, he would like to ask staff a question on finding number 4, wanting to know if there were additional items that they did not have. Staff stated that this is an additional item that the Commission does not have, and the the Development Agreement was changed to a Phasing Agreement, which will be required as part of the processing Minutes of Planning Commission March 5, 1985 Page 2 SPECIFIC PLAN FOR CANYON CREEK - RAILROAD CANYON, A JOINT VENTURE CONTINUED individual tract maps with relation to park improvements, fire site improve- ments, community facilities, Railroad Canyon Road improvements, and Lakeshore Drive-Mission Trail Bridge. Chairman opened the public hearing at 7:48 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of the Specific Plan for Canyon Creek. Mr. Lawrence Buxton of Courton & Associates, Land Planner and Engineer for the Canyon Creek Project, presented slide presentation with explanations on the Specific Plan for Canyon Creek. --- Chairman asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor. Mr. Robert G. Williams stated that he was in favor of the project, but has major concerns on the Mission Trail-Lakeshore Drive Bridge; fees established; and whether or not the Commission address an Environmental Impact Report, if they are required by law to approve or disapprove it. Chairman stated that they would call Mr. Williams back to the podium and address his concerns at the close of the public hearing. Chairman asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor. Receiving no response, the Chairman asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Receiving no re- sponse, the Chairman closed the public hearing at 8:54 p.m. Mr. Williams was called back to the podium. Mr. Williams stated that he has a concern on: fees for reconstruction of the Mission Trail-Lakeshore Drive Bridge, pertaining to the $2,000.00 maximum for commercial use; wanting to know if the Commission can make a recommendation to City Council to hire the Engineer (Courton & Associates) to come up with the Assessment District; the ordinance for the $150.00 per house fee--when and how long it would take to draw up; traffic count being done on Mission Trail and Railroad Canyon Road, ~ is this going to be taken into consideration for this bridge; are these maximum figures and cannot be changed even though an Assessment District found that those figures would be higher for commercial or residential properties; why set maximum figures now if we are going to hire an engineer, and we could possibly get a tentative figure that may be higher; order of development--there was some talk of phasing in the Specific Plan, is there a specific order made at this time; what is the solution to the Temesca1 Water Line, will there be a change in this anywhere; alignment of road with Franklin Street, and; why waive the Capital Improvement fees? A lengthy discussion was held on San Jacinto River Bridge, pertaining to the fees for reconstruction and boundary; assessing these fees at tract map sub- mitta1; time element for establishing the Assessment District, and; request for waiving Capital Improvement fees. Discussion ensued on the Assessment District; the possibility of changing the fee structure, as far as the maximum figures, for impact mitigation fees on the bridge; gap between low density and medium density--Phase 1 and Phase 3; access to the passive park areas in Phase 1 and Phase 3; soccer field pertaining to having adequate parking--having perpendicular parking into the field without infringing upon the soccer field would gain a10t of spaces; adding verbiage that applicant shall participate in Assessment District, and that the developer pro- vide the turn key Assessment District,and they shall agree to participate. Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to approve the Final Specific Plan for Canyon ..J Creek with the amendments, second by Commissioner Barnhart. Approved 4-0 Commissioner Washburn excused PLANNING DEPARTMENT FINDINGS: 1. The Draft Specific Plan is consistent with area development and will implement the General Plan. 2. The proposed density and open space are compatible with development of the area. 3. The Draft Specific Plan reflects the values, interests and needs of the Minutes of Planning Commission March 5, 1985 Pa ge 3 SPECIFIC PLAN Fo.R CANyo.N CREEK-RAILRo.AD CANyo.N, A Jo.INT VENTURE Co.NTINUED - City of Lake Elsinore with regard to shelter, commercial, public service and facilities and recreational support systems. 4. A Phasing Agreement will be required as part of the processing of individual tract maps with relation to park improvements, fire site and community facility improvements, Railroad Canyon Road improve- ments and Lakeshore Drive-Mission Trail Bridge. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT FINDINGS: 5. Bottom of Page 31, the last two lines: Exhibit 9 does not identify which are regional trails, bike lanes and pedestrian/bike trails. Also, there is nothing to indicate how these trails will be improved, nor is the wi dth spec i fi ed. 6. Page 34, line 10.: Where are noise attenuation walls proposed and what type and height are they? 7. Pay 34, line 34, first sentence in last paragraph: Landscaping is not effective in buffering or attenuating noise. 8. Page 39, first paragraph: The exhibits do not show the comprehensive hiking trail. 9.. Page 39, third paragraph: The community entry zone should probably in- clude a landscaped median with planting and automatic irrigation. - 10.. Page 39, last paragraph: Trees in parkway must be selected carefully to avoid future damage to public facilities by root systems. 11. Page 42, last paragraph: The trail system is not shown on the maps as interconnecting all area. Page 43, second sentence: Which ordinance is it which is referred to as Parkland Dedication o.rdinance? What are its significant requirements? 12. Page 43, lo.th sentence: Bridge must be four lane with bike lane and pedestrian crossings of width approved by the City. 13. Page 43, 6th line from bottom: The maps do not show proper street align- ments at Franklin Avenue for proper connection (See Attachment A). Street alignments in the area of Franklin and lot configuration must be revised. It is important to plan this connection early to provide a second access to the development for emergency vehicles. 14. Page 43, last paragraph: The specific plan should be more specific and assign widths to all streets. 15. Page 45, last paragraph and page 48, fifth paragraph: Signage program must include City entrance signs near Freeway 15 as approved by the City. - 16. Page 49, first paragraph: What is low sodium? Does it mean low mounted high pressure sodium or low pressure sodium lighting? Lights should be low pressure sodium for streets, parking, and passive parks, but metal halide for active sports recreation areas. 17. Page 49, second paragraph from bottom: Add, "and/or City Standards". 18. Page 49, last paragraph: Add, "And conform to City Grading Codes and o.rdi nances" . 19. Page 50., fifth paragraph: "Low profile standards for street lighting must be high enough to minimize vandalism and to provide area light". Will Edison provide and own these special lights? 20.. Page 51, fifth paragraph: Add, "and conform to City Grading o.rdinance". 21. Page 51, second paragraph from bottom: Drainage facil ities design shall be approved by City; and Flood Control District and developer and/or Minutes of Planning Commission March 5, 1985 Page 4 SPECIFIC PLAN FOR CANYON CREEK - RAILROAD CANYON, A JOINT VENTURE CONTINUED property owners shall own and maintain the facilities in perpetuity by homeowner association or maintenance district. 22. Page 53, Phasing: "Phasing shall provide that Railroad Canyon Road to its ultimate width be construc.ted from Freeway 15 to the eastern City Limits with Tracts 20472 and 20473". The last sentence under pasing should include, "assuring adequate drainage and a second access". 23. Between pages 60 and 63, street sections are inserted. Another section should be included as shown on the bottom of Attachment B. This 56- foot section should apply to the road going from Canyon Creek Drive to Franklin Avenue. Canyon Creek Drive must be 88-foot right-of-way to conform with previous approval for Canyon Lake Hills. The other major residential collectors should be a 60-40 street section. Casino Drive within this specific plan area is an 80-64 roadway. All of the streets should be identified and a proposed right-of-way roadway width shown for each. - Page 63, last paragraph: A statement should be included regarding on- going ownership and maintenance responsibilities in San Jacinto River. The City should receive an irrevocable offer of dedication, but under- lying ownership and maintenance should remain with the developer and/or future owners until the Mello-Roos, or other maintenance funding vehicle is established. Page 65, trees paragraph: Add, "Consideration must be given to long range size of tree and extent of root system to minimize damage to curb, sidewal k, street and util ities". 24. Page 67, paragraph lip, grading and drainage: "Grading to conform to City Grading Codes and Ordinances". Also, change first sentence of second paragraph under "E" as follows: "A drainage master plan and detailed plans, and provisions for on-going maintenance will be submitted and approved by the City Engineer". - 25. Page 67, last paragraph, Infrastructure: Sewer service to be to Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District Regional facilities. Cleanouts to be placed at property line for all sewer laterals. Sewer laterals from sewer main to property line to be property owner or Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District responsibility. The Gas Company is planning a new gas main in Railroad Canyon Road. This must be constructed prior to Railroad Canyon Road, and in addition, all other master-planned underground facilities. Water service for the westerly portion of the development, below Section 4, is in the City water service area and will be served by the City of Lake Elsinore. Two mains must be extended from the existing system to this pro- posed development: one from a crossing at Franklin Avenue and a second from a crossing at San Jacinto River. Water storage, pumping and appurtenances must be provided for serving a portion of the development from a higher pressure zone. Developer must provide a storage tank site. All cost of water system must be borne by the developer; City will consider a reimbursement district. Developer must provide a focused environmental study on traffic circulation and signalization. As a minimum, it is expected that at development, or in the future, signals are needed at the common access to Tracts 20472 and 20473; at the intersection of Railroad Canyon Road and Canyon Creek Road, and at Casino Drive and Railroad Canyon Road. Desilting basins may be required on some drainage channels in this develop- ment, including the major channel draining through Tract 20472. The bridge across San Jacinto River shall be a minimum of the width and length ap- p~oved for the Canyon Lake Hills. Canyon Creek Road roadway shall be the wldth approved for Canyon Lake Hills, or 64 feet. An alternate access shall be provided to Tracts 20472 and 20473 as approved by the City Engineer for alternate access for emergency vehicles. Developer is to pay public safety fees in compliance with Resolution 83-4. I - Minutes of Planning Commission Ma rc h 5, 1 985 Page 5 SPECIFIC PLAN FOR CANYON CREEK - RAILROAD CANYON, A JOINT VENTURE CONTINUED Developer shall pay traffic safety impact mitigation fees for Lakeshore Drive-Mission Trail Bridge of $150.00 per living unit and $2,000.00 per acre for commercial areas. -- Also, developer to provide Turn Key Assessment District for bridge re- placement. If Assessment District for bridge is successful, a portion of bridge replacement fees will be refunded. Page 68, under "G" - Community Facil ities: Add to end of first para- graph "Subject to specific approval by the City Council". Page 68, last paragraph under "H" - Maintenance - Change first sentence to read: "All common areas, buffer zones, flood control facilities, streets, parks, City owned utility facilities, easements, and trails". The second sentence shall read: "The CC & R's shall provide for the effective establishment, operation, management, use, repair and mainten- ance of all public streets, parks, storm drainage facilities, landscaping, right-of-way, graded slopes, common areas, open speace, City owned utilities, trails, and other public facilities dedicated to the City and reimbursement of City for any administrative costs which might be involved". The last sentence on page 69 shall read: "The developer and/or property owner shall be subject to alien in favor of the City to secure any such expense". APPLICANT SHALL PARTICIPATE IN ASSESSMENT DISTRICT,AND THAT THE DEVELOPER PROVIDE THE TURN KEY ASSESSMENT DISTRICT,AND THEY SHALL AGREE TO PARTICIPATE. -- 3. Tentative Tract Map 20472 - Railroad Canyon Road, A Joint Venture - Staff pre- sented proposal to subdivide 30.5f acres into 202 residential lots and 2 acres of commercial development, located east of 1-15 and north of Rail road Canyon Road, within the easterly region of Canyon Creek Specific Plan. Chairman opened the public hearing at 9:13 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of Tentative Tract Map 20472. Mr. Lawrence Buxton of Courton & Associates, Land Planner and Engineer for the Canyon Creek Project, stated that he was speaking on behalf of the proponents; and that they have reviewed the conditions imposed by staff and agrees with the conditions as presented, and concur with the recommendation of approval of this project. Chairman asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor. Receiving no response, the Chairman asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Receiving no re- sponse, the Chairman closed the public hearing at 9:13 p.m. Discussion was held on condition number 15, staff requested that this be changed to read: "Certification of Final Environmental Impact Report"; noise attenuation and interface with the City sewage treatment facility--provisions must be imple- mented to sufficiently buffer and protect the proposed residential unit. Mr. Corcoran stated that he believes that Mr. Buxton is working with Elsinore Valley MuniCipal Water District to provide some type of joint bUffering. Discussion ensued on access points to the passive parks to be clearly identified, and possible inclusion of pedestrian warning signal, and; condition number 47.b amended by adding verbiage "appl icant shall participate". Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to approve Tentative Tract Map 20472 with staff recommendations and amending condition number 47.b, by adding the following verbiage "Applicant shall pay as indicated and agree to participate in an assess- ment district", second by Commissioner Barnhart. Approved 4-0 Commi~sioner Washburn excused PLANNING DIVISION CONDITIONS: 1. Finding of no significant impact upon the environment. 2. Applicant shall submit building elevations to the Design Review Board for approval. Minutes of Planning Commission March 5, 1985 Page 6 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 20472 - RAILROAD CANYON, A JOINT VENTURE CONTINUED 3. Applicant shall provide monument City entryway sign along Railroad Canyon Road at the City Limit boundary point, to be approved by the Planning Division. 4. Applicant shall provide sound insulation for residential units along Railroad Canyon Road that includes the southerly side of this street, Lots 1 through 12, and 49 through 56, on the northerly side of the roadway, Lots 123 through 144. All design feature improvements to the units will be subject to Building Code requirements and the ap- proval of the Building Department. 5. Meet all City Codes and Ordinances. 6. Meet County Health Department requirements. -' 7. Meet County Surveyor requirements. 8. Meet County Fire Department requirements. 9. Agreement with the Lake Elsinore School District and the Elsinore Union High School District to off-set overcrowding. 10. Applicant is to enter into a development agreement with the City for dedication and full improvements for the following facilities: Fire Station, Park and Trail System, and Community Center. 11. Meet California Regional Water Quality Control Board requirements. 12. All signage must be under permit. 13. Trailers utilized during the construction phase of this project shall be approved by the Planning Division. 14. Applicant shall meet all requirements of Ordinance No. 572. -- 15. CERTIFICATION OF FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT. 16. Provide transit facilities (i .e., covered bus stops) within said project as deemed applicable by Chairman of Lake Elsinore Transit System. 17. Applicant shall record City Council/Redevelopment Agency CC & R's for the Tract prohibiting on-street storage of boats, motorhomes, trailers, and trucks over one-ton capacity, roof mounted microwave and satellite antennas. 18. Applicant is to provide permanent and automatic sprinkler irrigation system for all landscaped treatment areas. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS: 19. Dedicate for 100-foot wide Railroad Canyon Road at Tract 20472, and at entrance to Canyon Creek Drive. Improve Railroad Canyon Road 86-feet curb-to-curb, to City Standards, for a traffic load represented by a Traffic Index of 8.5. Dedicate for 88-foot wide Railroad Canyon Road from the boundary of Tract 20472 to Canyon Creek Drive. Improve Rail- Road Canyon Road 64-feet curb-to-curb, to City Standards. Pedestrian path to be constructed adjacent to San Jacinto River. Construct 22-foot wide median with trees and landscaping and/or other surface treatment as required by the City Engineer and Director of Community Development. Points of ingress and egress to be wi dened to accommodate 1 eft turn pockets. Construct street lighting as approved by the City Engineer. Bicycle path to be included in 8-foot paved shoulder with no parking on Railroad Canyon Road. .... Provide automatic irrigation for planting in median and park strip. Pro- vide park strip trees and planting as required by the City. Provide superelevation on Railroad Canyon Road as required by the City Engineer for the speed limit specified. The "W and "1" Street intersection with Railroad Canyon Road shall be eliminated. A single entrance four-way Minutes of Planning Commission March 5, 1985 Page 7 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 20472 - RAILROAD CANYON, A JOINT VENTURE CONTINUED - intersection for the developments on both sides of Railroad Canyon Road shall be provided. The exact location of the intersection shall be such as to provide optimum traffic visibility on all four legs. The proper locations shall be studied and recommended by a registered traffic engineer approved by the City. Railroad Canyon Road shall be raised and constructed for its full width to provide protection against floods as required by City Code, Section 16.48 interpreted by the City Engineer. The street may have to be raised to 100-year flood level. To accomplish this, construction of Railroad Canyon Road to its full width must be extended east of the subdivision boundary to the east City Limits, as required by the City Engineer. Railroad Canyon Road to the west of the development must be fully improved to the 1-15 inter- change. 20. Comply with written fire protection requirements of the County Fire Department, including fire flow, hydrant requirements and increased street radius at intersection of "A" and "B" Streets and construction of a cul-de-sac on "D" Street. 21. Provi de cul-de-sac termi na tion on Streets "H" and II I II . 22. Access to commercial lot located southerly of Railroad Canyon Road and to the Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District Sewage Treatment Plant shall be opposite for traffic safety. - 23. Provide drainage report from the Riverside County Flood Control District, and a hydraulic and hydrology study from developer's engineer. All drain- age requirements shall be to City Engineer's approval. The City Engineer shall judge as to interpretation and application of Flood Control District recommendations. Provide drainage releases and drainage easements as re- quired by the City Engineer. Provide all necessary culvert crossings of Railroad Canyon Road and improvements to Railroad Canyon Roadside drainage as required by the City Engineer. 24. Obtain approval, if required, from State Fish and Game. 25. Provide street trees for parkstrip as approved by the City Engineer and Director of Community Development for all streets. 26. Provide Tract phasing schedule for approval by the City. 27. Meet Regional Water Quality Control Board requirements, and provide sewer service to Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District Regional System. Pro- vide c1eanouts at property line. Sewer lateral maintenance from property line to main sewer in the street shall be the responsibility of Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District or homeowner. Comply to County Health Department requirements. 28. Bicycle Trail Class II with striping and street legend and signing will be allowed on Railroad Canyon Road. 29. Participate in City wide entry-signage program. 30. Street plans and specifications and grading plan to be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and will include signing and striping. As built street, grading, utility and drainage improvement plans are re- quired. 31. Interior streets shall be as shown on the Tentative Map, dated September 18,1984, and revised as follows: The 50-foot right-of-way with 5-foot public utility easements shall apply to Streets "A", "B", "C", "H", "E", and "1". The 45-foot right-of-way with 5-foot public utility easements sha 11 apply to Streets II F", "G" and cul-de-sacs. A 56-foot wide right-of-way with 44-foot curb-to-curb, six-foot Minutes of Planning Commission March 5, 1985 Page 8 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 20472 - RAILROAD CANYON, A JOINT VENTURE CONTINUED (6') sidewalks and 5-foot public utility easements shall be provided for the access roads from Railroad Canyon Road to liB II and liE II Streets. The structural section of all interior streets shall be de- signed for a traffic load represented by a traffic index of 6.5, except cul-de-sac streets for which a traffic index of 6.0 shall be used. - 32. Ornamental street lighting shall be provided as required by the City Engineer. 33. Sign agreement to cooperate in establishing a Lighting and Landscaping District. 34. Construct curb, gutter, sidewalk and paving on all proposed streets to the specifications required by the City Engineer. Public improvements to conform with City Code requirements and City approved Riverside County Standard Drawings and Specifications. 35. All grading must conform to City Ordinance No. 636 and the Uniform Building Code, Chapter 70. Erosion control planting and irrigation must be approved by the City Engineer. Street trees shall be type, size and placement as approved by the City Engineer. 36. Provide soils, geology and seismic report including street design recom- mendations. Provide final soils report showing compliance with prelimi~ nary and final grade certification. 37. Provide grading plan prepared by a registered Civil Engineer. All pro- perty lines shall be at the top of the construction slopes with the required Uni form Bui 1 di ng Code setback requi rements . - 38. Provide a will-serve letter guaranteeing water service from Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District. 39. Dedicate underground water rights to the City or its assignee. 40. Pay all applicable Capital Improvement Fund fees per Ordinance No. 572. 41. Provide evidence of will-serve letters for sewers from Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District. 42. Pay all Public Safety fees (police and fire) per Resolution No. 83-87. 43. Prior to Final Map recordation, a subdivision agreement shall be entered into with the developer(s), owner(s), and the City. 44. Final Map shall show the following items with a prominent note: a. All geologic fault 1 ines; b. 100-year and 500-year flood plain; 45. Provide Tract phasing plan for City Engineer's approval. Bond publ ic improvements for each phase, as approved by the City Engineer. 46. Record a Notice of 100-Year Flood Hazard and waiver of City liability. 47. A. Turn key assessment district must be formed by applicant and City approved assessment engineer for San Jacinto River Bridge replace- ment at Lakeshore Drive. - B. If Assessment District fails, developer shall pay up to $150.00/ residential unit and $2,000.00 per commercial acre, for bridge re- placement. APPLICANT SHALL PAY AS INDICATED AND AGREE TO PARTICIPATE IN AN ASSESSMENT DISTRICT. Minutes of Planning Commission March 5, 1985 Pa ge 9 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 20472 - RAILROAD CANYON, A JOINT VENTURE CONTINUED C. If Assessment District is successful, developer will be refunded all or a portion of the bridge replacement fees. -. 48. Obtain quitclaim of all easements and relocation of facilities which interfere with lot development in the opinion of City Engineer. 49. Finish floor elevation shall be 1.0 foot above the 100-year flood 1 eve 1 . 50. Protect this subdivision from possible erosion due to high velocity San Jacinto River flows by construction of concrete or grouted riprap 1 ining of River along a portion of the boundary of Tract 20472. The extend of this lining and type shall be as required by the City Engineer. 51. The developer and/or future owners shall bear all costs of public facili- ties. Major drainage facil ities shall be dedicated to the City and shall be public facilities. Developer shall provide a legal means or a legal vehicle to make all future maintenance of all public parks, trails and the lOa-year floodplain the responsibility of the developer and/or the future property owners. 100-year floodplain of the San Jacinto River and adjacent open space to be offered to City for dedication and to be accepted after Mello-Roos or other acceptable financing vehicle is in place. If there are administrative costs to the City in charging maintenance costs back to the developer and/or property owner, provision must be made for reimbursement of City costs. Parks are to be offered for dedication after construction and Mello-Roos or other acceptable financ- ing vehicle is in place. City must be indemnified and held harmless from -. damage from flooding and erOSlon. 4. Tentative Tract Map 20473 - Railroad Canyon, A Joint Venture - Staff presented proposal to subdivide to provide a commercial lot consisting of 12.7t acres within the Canyon Creek Specific Plan, located west of Interstate 15, north of Rai.lroad Canyon Road within the easterly region of Canyon Creek. Chairman opened the public hearing at 9:25 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of Tentative Tract Map 20473. Mr. Lawrence Buxton of Courton & Associates, Land Planner and Engineer for the Canyon Creek Project, stated that he was speaking on behalf of the proponents, and they have reviewed the conditions imposed by staff and agrees with the conditions as presented. Chairman asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor. Mr. Robert Williams stated that he has one question and that is, is there any form of grading plan developed (along what he calls the westerly side), as he owns the adjoining property and wants to know how the drainage and grading is to be done. -. Mr. Culp stated that he has not reviewed a grading plan for the proposal, but the project slopes to the San Jacinto River, referring to the Tentative Tract Map. Chairman asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor. Receiving no response, the Chairman asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Receiving no re- sponse, the Chairman closed the public hearing at 9:29 p.m. Discussion was held on condition number 27, pertaining to the Capital Improve- ment fees request for waiver; and amending condition number 1, to read: "Certi- fication of Environmental Impact Report". Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to approve Tentative Tract Map 20473 with staff recommendations amending condition number 1, to read: "Certification of Environ- mental Impact Report"; condition number 27, to recommend that these fees be waived in lieu of the construction of Railroad Canyon Road; condition number 36, delete the words "of approval", second by Commissioner Saathoff. Approved 4-0 Commissioner Washburn excused Minutes of Planning Commission March 5, 1985 Pa ge 10 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 20473 - RAILROAD CANYON, A JOINT VENTURE CONTINUED PLANNING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS: 1. CERTIFICATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT. 2. A finding of no significant impact upon the environment. 3. Applicant to provide agreement for reciprocal parking and access throughout project site. 4. Comply with all requirements of the Subdivision Map Act, City Codes and Ordi nances . - 5. Applicant shall submit building elevations to the Design Review Board for approval. 6. Meet County Health Department requirements. 7. Meet County Fire Department requirements for fire protection. 8. Meet California Regional Water Quality Control Board requirements. 9. All signage must be under permit. 10. Applicant shall meet all requirements of Ordinance No. 572. 11. Applicant is to provide permanent and automatic sprinkler irrigation system for all landscaped treatment areas. 12. Applicant is to submit plans indicating a secondary access point within the northwest area of the commercial lot, along Frontier Road, to be approved by Planning and Engineering Departments. 13. All proposed commercial uses and buildings that will be associated with this project will be subject to design layout use, and parking con- figurations/numbers considerations by Planning Division. All proposals in this regard will be required to receive appropriate review body ap- proval s. - ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS: 14. An 80-foot wide right-of-way exists for Casino Drive. Improve Casino Drive to centerline across total frontage of proposed development with transitions to existing pavement and bridge as required by the City Engineer. Design street structural section for traffic loads represented by a Traffic Index of 7.5. The center to curb width of Casino Drive shall be 32-feet. Construct concrete curb and gutter and 8-foot wide sidewalk. Some paving exists on Casino Drive. Tests must show that it conforms to City Standards. 15. Street plans and specifications to be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and will include signing and striping and bike lane. As built street, grading, utility and drainage improvement plans are re- quired. Public improvements to conform with City Code requirements and City approved Riverside County Standard Drawings and Specifications. 16. Install ornamental street lighting as approved by City Engineer. a) Cooperate with the City in forming a street lighting and landscaping maintenance district. - 17. All grading must conform to City Ordinance No. 636 and the Uniform Building Code, Chapter 70. 18. Provide Soils and Geology Report including street design recommendations. Provide final Soils Report showing compliance with preliminary report and finish grade certification. Provide grading plan prepared by a Civil Engi neer. 19. Comply with written requirements of Riverside County Flood Control District, and additional or alternative requirements of the City Engineer Minutes of Planning Commission Ma rc h 5, 1 985 Page 11 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 20473 - RAILROAD CANYON, A JOINT VENTURE CONTINUED - - 28. 29. 30. - 31. 32. 33. 34. and the City Code. The City Engineer shall judge as to interpretation and application of flood control recommendations. A storm drain with catch basin may be required in Casino Drive. Submit hydrology and hydraulic studies, necessary master planning and detailed plans and profiles of the proposed Flood Control facilities to Riverside County Flood Control District and to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to Final Map recordation. Provide drainage easements as required by the City Engineer. 20. Process a Lot Line Adjustment. 21. Final Map shall show the following items with a prominent note: a) All geologic fault lines; b) Areas subject to flood hazards. 22. Applicant shall submit a plan for landscaping and street trees, to be approved by City Engineer. 23. Meet written County Fire Department requirements. Meet County Health Department requirements. Connect sewer to Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District Regional Collection System. Install cleanout at pro- perty line. Applicant to acknowledge that Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District and owner must maintain sewer lateral from sewer main to property line. Meet Regional Water Quality Control Board require- me n ts . 24. Meet all conditions of Ordinance No. 572. 25. Dedicate underground water rights to the City of Lake Elsinore or its assignee. 26. Water service to be from the City of Lake Elsinore. Applicant must extend water mains to serve the Tract 20473. Two mains must be extended to provide reliable service, one northerly along Avenue 12 from the well site and a second main from the intersection of Mill Street and Avenue 9. The size shall be as required by the City Engineer to provide fire protection and conform to a master distribution system plan for serving other service areas. Developer can request a reimburse- ment agreement. 27. Pay all applicable Capital Improvement Fund fees per Ordinance No. 572. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDS THAT THESE FEES BE WAIVED IN LIEU OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF RAILROAD CANYON ROAD. Obtain will serve letter for sewer service from the Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District. Pay all Public Safety fees (police and fire) per Resolution No. 83-87. Consent to sign an agreement to pay Traffic Safety Impact Mitigation fee for reconstruction of the Lakeshore Drive/Mission Trail Bridge in the amount of $3,000 per acre. Consent to sign an agreement to pay downstream storm drainage impact mitigation fee of $1,500 per acre. Consent to sign an agreement to pay Traffic Safety Mitigation fee for traffic signalization of $25,000. Record a Notice of lOa-year Flood Hazard and waiver of City liability. The developer and/or future owners shall bear all costs of public facili- ties. All major drainage facilities shall be dedicated to the City and shall be public facilities. Developer shall provide a legal means or a legal vehicle to make all future maintenance of the 100-year floodplain the responsibility of the developer and/or the future property owners. Developer shall offer to dedicate to the City the lOa-year floodplain of Minutes of Planning Commission March 5, 1985 Pa ge 12 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 20473 - RAILROAD CANYON, A JOINT VENTURE CONTINUED the San Jacinto River to be accepted after Mello-Roos or other acceptable financing mechanism is in place. The City must be indemnified and held harmless from damage to property from flooding and erosion. 36. Comments and conditions ef-a~~~eYal of the Canyon Creek Specific Plan which impact or apply to this Tract 20473 shall attach to these condi- t ions. 37. Severe drainage swales pass through this property. Provide for inter- cepting and properly disposing of all storm drainage from upstream property and from Freeway 15 ri ght-o f-way as requi red by the City Engi neer. - Commissioner Washburn returned to the table. 5. Tentative Tract Map 19344 and Addendum to Draft Environmental Impact Report - Lakeside Estates/Ken Buchanan - Staff presented proposal to subdivide 75 acres into 310 single-family residential lots and to subdivide 5 acres for commercial land use, located westerly of the intersection of Union and Corydon Road. Staff stated that this proposal was forwarded to City Council on September 25, 1984. A motion was made and unanimously carried to send Tentative Tract Map 19344 back to the Community Development Director and Planning Commission for review of sewer system requirements, airport concerns and renegotiation of park requirements. Chairman opened the public hearing at 9:35 p.m., asking if anyone wished to spea kin favor 0 f Tenta ti ve Tract Map 19344. Mr. Lloyd Zola, representing the applicant, presented exhibits on FAA Flight Patterns and Aerial photo for runway 5-23, and proposed entry way. Mr. Zola stated that they have identified five issues, along with the project, that need discussion and they are: Park dedication, the relationship of the project to the airport, method of sewering; the development theme entry way being requested by staff, and the extension of Palomar Road. - Mr. Zola stated in terms with the park dedication, there are two basic principals that we need established on the record, and make sure that we have an agreement on these principals. Number one, that government cannot take private land for public purpose without compensation, and it is very clear that a private project that creates public needs must make provisions for those needs, those are the two basic principals we are dealing with. As we look at park standards, one of the problems that we face is, what is the City of Lake Elsinore's park standards? The City has a $150.00 fee, but also, in the General Plan there is a standard for the provision of neighborhood parks of 2.5 acres per 1,000 people. This project at 310 units, assuming 3-1/2 people per unit would be 1,050 people or about 2.7 acres of park needs created for this project. Mr. Zola informed the Commission that at tomorrow night's meeting of the Recreation and Park District there is a Resolution that will specify that these other tracts, that are owned by the developer, contribute not only to the dedication and improvement of this park, but also to the maintenance. Mr. Zola stated that the next issue has to deal with the airport, and the potential of reopening Skylark Airport was not the critical issue to this pro- ject. By the time the project got to Council, the reopening and recertification of one of the runways had occurred; the runway under permit is designated as run- way 5-23, and based on aerial photography, surveying and determining the magnetic bearings runs in the direction as per State Permit, and does not run onto or over the project site. Mr. Zola stated that he has with him Mr. Gerald Dallas who is a former administrator of the FAA here to speak about the runway fl ight patterns. -- Mr. Zola stated that there are two available criteria for residential development: one is the existence of a 65 decimal noise contour, which we can conclude that if the airport reopens, under the same operation that it had before, we would be looking at the same noise contour. The second criteria is height limitations, which are specified in Federal Aviation Regulations, Part 77. In looking at those figures none of the units on this site would be unacceptable as per the Federal Aviation Regulations and the height limitations contained therein. Mr. Zola stated that back in 1982 the City contracted for an airport feasibility Minutes of Planning Commission Ma rc h 5, 1 985 Page 13 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 19344 & ADDENDUM TO DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - LAKE- SIDE ESTATES/KEN BUCHANAN CONTINUED - study. In that study,it identified a recommended:airport zoning which was based on height limitations. According to that recommended airport zoning this tract would be acceptable, and including these nine lots which staff has requested be deleted from the tract. - Our third issue is the sewer issue,and the method of sewer is the responsi- bility of Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District. It is the City respon- sibility and legal obligation to determine that the project will be sewered, and that arrangements have been made with Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District. The proposed mound system information, which has been given to staff, has been approved by Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District; it has also been reviewed by the Regional Board and is an acceptable concept to them,conditioned on final engineering reports. Staff made the comment that there are poor soil conditions and high water table, the mound system was originally devised specifically for that kind of situation, and it is the appropriate subsurface disposal method for these conditions, and we have Mr. Clarence Magnusen here who can speak to the engineering details. The third comment, is that this is an interim system, and ever since the concept came about it was very clear that sewer would be installed in the tract when capacity became available and lines extended, the site would be connected to the Regional Plant. The fourth issue has to deal with the concept of an entry way (Mr. Zola refer- enced exhibit on entry way). Staff is asking that we drop two lots at Lake- side Drive entry and essentially dedicate this area to the City with a land- scaping statement. But the question is, is this and that kind of configura- tion a sensible way to go when the result is the loss of two lots; would say the same objective of what staff is trying to develop can be accomplished in what has already been proposed. - Final issue, is the extension of Palomar Street. The thing that is really critical about the extension of Palomar Street is, if this were on the pro- ject site, I don't think we would have much argument over it, but it was shown at the request of staff, shown as a future extension of Palomar Street. Palomar currently lines up north of the project site, so what is in staff's report requests, and it is listed as a condition, that applicant purchase this right-of-way and construct the street. Since this was not part of the original proposal, and is really not necessary for circulation throughout the tract, this should hot be a condition of approval as part of this tract. Mr. Zola stated that he would like to point out several conditions that they feel need to be revised. Mr. Zola then questioned condition number 5 and 6, which refer to park fees or to the payment of fees; stati ng that they woul d like to make it clear,that with their proposed dedication of 5 acres, improve- ment of 2.7 acres, that the City Park Fees do not apply in this case; condi- tion number 8, refers to street trees being 8 feet high, recommended this be changed to 15 gallon; condition number 24 and 25, refers to the provision of the park, we would like this condition deleted, and instea~ a request for a 5 acre dedication and either improvement of 2.7 acres, which corresponds to the needs created by this project or payment of fees as part of this project equal to that pro rata share of the 5 acre park; condition number 26, which request deletion of two lots for the entry theme, we would like this revised to call for entry monumentation and special landscaping in the area shown for that purpose on the tract map; condition number 27, requesting dedication of lots because of the airport, we would like to see that condition deleted; we would also like to see the deletion of condition number 35, which calls for the acquisition of off-site right-of-way and construction of Palomar; condition number 56, this may be a proper condition--calls for dedication of water rights to the City or who it assigns water rights to; this project will be serviced by Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District,and I would question as to whether it would then be proper to dedicate water rights to the City, assuming that the City is not going to be the water service agency; condition number 57, calls for Capital Improvement fees, again would like clarification as to whether or not that does include park fees, and deletion of the park fees if that does include them; condition number 65, calls for the developer to give pro rata share for fire fighting facil ities for a portion of the City, the question that I have, has that area been defined which we would be giving a pro rate share of the fire fighting facilities to, and are those the same fees as called for in condition number 59, which are public safety fees. Mr. Zola stated that with Minutes of Planning Commission Ma rch 5, 1 985 Page 14 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 19344 & ADDEDNUM TO DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - LAKE - SIDE ESTATES/KEN BUCHANAN CONTINUED all of that, if the Planning Commission has any questions, he would be happy to answer them. Chairman asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor. Mr. Gerald Dallas gave presentation and explanation on aircraft operation/flight patterns using the FAA Flight exhibit. Chairman asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor. Mr. Clarence Magnusen, a consulting engineer, addressed the soil conditions on site referencing the ANALYSIS section of staff1s report, and stated that staff may have reservations about the ability of a mound system system to adequately handle a development of this size, but the State Resources Control Board and Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District have none. Almost a year ago we went up to the State Resources Control Board and talked exclusively with them, at that time, they gave us a design manual that was prepared by their staff, it is the Guidelines for the Mound Sys tem. Chairman asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor. Receiving no response, the Chairman asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Mr. Robert G. Williams stated that basically he was in favor of the development, but would like to bring to your attention that we still have that same old bridge problem; would like to see, if approved, that we have the same fees imposed on them as imposed on previous tracts, and as far as the sewage goes, would like to speak as a licensed contractor who puts in septic tank and leach lines, and there is no way a mound system will work on that tract with that soil. Chairman asked if anyone else wished to speak in opposition. Receiving no re- sponse, the Chairman closed the public hearing at 10:10 p.m. A lengthy discussion was held on take off location for aircraft; elevation of the plane before making turn; landing, traffic and flight patterns; precise alignment of runways; feasibility study done for the airport in 1982, pertaining to the clear zone, which falls on the corner of the property; having an airport overlay that prohibits certain type of land uses and construction patterns to protect the public health, safety and welfare, conditioning phases and tie it to the overlay zone; alignment or extension of Palomar Road; sewer system connection- mound system being an intermediate process to solve the sewer problem; and time line for the sewer lines to be installed and connection to this system; letter from Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District approving the interim mound system, Staff stated that in the valley,we have experienced certain difficulties with the treatment of wastewater problems, even though some have been set and met minimal standards of other agencies they have failed. It is for this reasoning that staff wants go go on record as opposing the mound system, and would like to see the sewer system hook-up. Discussion ensued on park issue, pertaining to size, improvement and schedule; condition number 25, being replaced with verbiage lias proposed by applicant contingent to this or subject to review based on Recreation and Park District Resolution; condition number 27, if this is going to be deleted, it should probably be based upon the alignment of the runway as approved by Cal Trans, at the time of building permit issuance; condition number 28, notifying buyers that there is an airport close by should be recorded, so it will show up in the title insurance report; condition number 54.a., being deleted; the park site at the far end and its location in the Alquist Priola Special Study Area; condition number 18, pertaining to City wide entry-signage coming into the City; condition number 26, pertaining to entrance sign into development; and adding condition that if sewer capacity was available as determined by the water district that hook-up shall be as a condition of building permit. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to approve Tentative Tract Map 19344 and Addendum to Draft Environmental Imapct Report with staff recommendations amending condi- tion number 8, changing "8 foot high" to "15 gallon"; condition number 4, adding the following words "or front yard"; delete condition number 24; condition number 25, amended to read: "Requi re that the appl i cant dedi cate 5 acres at bui 1 di ng permit stage of Phase I, and improve the 2.7 acres at the completion of Phase II, or when building permits are pulled for Phase 11"; condition number 26, delete the lots 1 and 189 and the entry as proposed by the developer (a small monument); - -- i ..... Minutes of Planning Commission March 5, 1985 Page 15 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 19344 & ADDENDUM TO DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - LAKE- SIDE ESTATES/KEN BUCHANAN amend condition number 27, by adding the following verbiage "All phases must be reviewed prior to development to satisfy any hazard zone that may be created by the existing airport alignment of the runway"; amend condition number 28, by adding the following verbiage "to be recorded on each lot"; amend condition number 35, by adding the following verbiage "The City is to assist the developer in acquiring the right-of-way, if the City and the developer are able to obtain this particular right-of-way then the developer should at the development stage of other property be responsible for his half of Palomar Road, as provided in the Subdivision Map Act and to conform with same"; amend condition number 54, to read: "That the sewage and disposal system be as outlined in Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District's letter dated July 11, 1984"; and add condition which will read: "App1 icant to agree to joi n assessment di stri ct for the San Jaci nto Bri dge", second by Commi ss ioner Barnhart with discussion. Discussion ensued on sewer connection/capacity and interceptor line. There being no further discussion at the table, the Chairman asked for the vote. Approved 5-0 PLANNING DIVISION CONDITIONS: 1. Approval contingent upon certification by City Council of a Focused Environmental Impact Report. 2. Approval is contingent upon approval of annexation request by the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO). - 3. A finding of conformity to the adopted General Plan. 4. Applicant shall record CC & Rls for the Tract prohibiting on-street storage of boats, motorhomes, trailers, and trucks over one-ton capacity and roof mounted OR FRONT YARD microwave antennas. 5. Meet all City Codes and Ordinances. 6. Applicant shall meet all requirements of Ordinance No. 572. 7. Applicant shall enter into an agreement with the E1ementry and High School District to off-set overcrowding. 8. All trees planted along streetscape must be a minimum of 15 GALLONS. 9. Applicant shall submit to the Planning Division and Engineering Depart- ment a map showing all eight (8) phases of development. 10. Trailers utilized during the construction phase shall be approved by the Planning Division. 11. Applicant will utilize the highest Uniform Building Code values pertinent to seismic structural design, as per Senior Building Official and/or ICBO recommendations. 12. Applicant shall submit plans/specifications for six foot (61) decorative block wall along project perimeter to Planning/Engineering Departments for review, as per map item number 23. This item is subject to review and final approval by Design Review Board. 13. Meet County Fire Department requirements for fire protection. 14. Meet County Health Department requirements. 15. Meet Regional Water Quality Control Board requirements. 16. Applicant shall submit design elevations to the Design Review Board for approva 1 . Minutes of Planning Commission March 5, 1985 Page 16 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 19344 & ADDENDUM TO DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - LAKE- SIDE ESTATES/KEN BUCHANAN CONTINUED 17. Provide a Class II Bicycle Lane along project frontage on Corydon Road. 18. Participate in City wide entry-signage program. 19. All signage must be under permit. 20. All park and recreational facilities must be improved to standards and specifications of Park and Recreation District and/or City Council. 21. Provide transit facilities (i .e., covered bus stops) within said pro- ject as deemed applicable by Chairman of Lake Elsinore Transit System. 22. Participate in Landscaping and Lighting District. 23. All slopes must be planted with erosion control vegetation to be approved by Planning Division. 24. Att-~a~k-4ffi~~8veffieAts-SAatt-ee-4Astallee-ey-tAe-€8ffi~let48fl-ef-tAe-2lltA Aa~S~A~-YA~t~ DELETED. 25. REQUIRE THAT THE APPLICANT DEDICATE FIVE (5) ACRES AT BUILDING PERMIT STAGE OF PHASE I, AND IMPROVE THE 2.7 ACRES AT THE COMPLETION OF PHASE II, OR WHEN BUILDING PERMITS ARE PULLED FOR PHASE II. 26. THE ENTRY TO BE AS PROPOSED BY THE DEVELOPER (A SMALL MONUMENT). 27. Delete Lots 309-304, 194-192 and 181 for the creation of a buffer zone between the airport and development. ALL PHASES MUST BE REVIEWED PRIOR TO DEVELOPMENT TO SATISFY ANY HAZARD ZONE THAT MAY BE CREATED BY THE EXISTING AIRPORT ALIGNMENT OF THE RUNWAY. 28. Include a clause notifying buyers within the tract of the development's proximity to an airport, TO BE RECORDED ON EACH LOT. 29. Dedicate 20 additional feet of right-of-way along Corydon Road. 30. Construct asphalt paving to City Standards from centerline to lip of gutter on Corydon Road. Tests must be provided to show that existi ng paving is to the City Standards and will support the traffic load re- presented by the City Engineer's traffic index. Obtain Riverside County permits as required. 31. Construct curb, gutter and paving on all proposed streets to the specifications of the City Engineer. 32. Street plans and specifications to be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and will include signing and striping. As built street, grading, utility and drainage improvement plans are required. 33. Consent to sign an agreement to pay traffic safety mitigation fee for future traffic signalization in the amount of $225.00 per lot or pro- vide cash bond to guarantee construction of one signalized intersection upon demand by the City on Corydon Road at either Palomar Street or Grand Avenue. Provide services of a traffic engineer to study the need of a signalized intersection at Corydon Street and Palomar Street. 34. Install six foot (61) sidewalk adjacent to all curbs and gutters, except eight foot (8') width along the commercial frontage. 35. Construct curb, gutter, sidewalk and one-half street paving to 10 feet past centerline for the extension of Palomar to Corydon. City will assist developer in acquiring right-of-way by corresponding with the property owner. Developer must dedicate required right-of-way. THE CITY IS TO ASSIST THE DEVELOPER IN ACQUIRING THE RIGHT-OF-WAY, IF THE CITY AND THE DEVELOPER ARE ABLE TO OBTAIN THIS PARTICULAR RIGHT-OF-WAY, THEN THE DEVELOPER SHOULD AT THE DEVELOPMENT STAGE OF OTHER PROPERTY BE RESPONSIBLE FOR HIS HALF OF PALOMAR ROAD, AS PROVIDED IN THE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT AND TO CONFORM WITH SAME. - - - Minutes of Planning Commission March 5, 1985 Page 17 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 19344 & ADDENDUM TO DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - LAKE- SIDE ESTATES/KEN BUCHANAN CONTINUED 36. Public improvements to conform with City Code requirements and City approved Riverside County Standard drawings and specifications. -. 37. Centerline of Union Street must align with centerline of existing Union Street southeast of Corydon Street. 38. All local streets which are not terminated in cul-de-sacs shall have 60 foot right-of-way with 40 foot wide curb-to-curb roadway. Cul-de- sac streets to be 56 foot right-of-way, with a 36 foot curb-to-curb. roadway. 39. Provide Class II or equivalent bike lane on Corydon Road as approved by th.e City Engi neer. 4Q. Provide bus turnout and bus shelter on Corydon Road as approved by the City Engineer and by Lake Elsinore Transit System. 41. All grading must conform to City Ordinance 636 and the Uniform Building Code, Chapter 70. Erosion control planting and irrigation must be approved by the City Engineer. 42. Provide soils, geology and seismic report including street design recom- mendations. Provide final soils report showing compliance with pre- liminary and finish grade certification. 43. Street trees shall be provided; type, size and placement shall be approved by the City Engineer. - 44. Provide grading plan prepared by a registered Civil Engineer. All pro- perty lines shall be at the top of the construction slopes with the required Uniform Bui 1 di ng Code setback requi rements . 45. The northwesterly corner of this proposed Tract 19344 is below elevation 1270; the lowest corner being elevation 1261. Earth fill up to as high as 1276 is being proposed in this northwest corner of the tract to pro- vide recreation and public facilities. City Ordinance 603 states in Section 2.3-1(3): "Reviewall development permits to determine whether the proposed development adversely affects the. flood carrying capacity of the area of special flood hazard. For purposes of this ordinance, ladverse affects' means that the cumulative effect of the proposed development when combined with all other exist- ing and anticipated development will not increase the water surface elevation of base flood more than one foot at any point in the City of Lake Elsinore Flood Plain". Paved parking areas and other minor structures associated with recrea- tion facilities are proposed below elevation 1270. City Ordinance 711 states in section three: - "No person, firm or corporation shall construct any new non- residential structure within the City of Lake Elsinore with the foundation or basement lower than the elevation of 1270 mean sea level within the perimeter streets of Lake Elsinore consisting of Grand Avenue, Riverside Drive, Lakeshore Drive, Mission Trail, and Corydon Road. except as specifically permitted by the City Council on a case-by-case review". Planning Commission and the City Council must interpret the proposals shown on this Tentative Map with consideration of these ordinances re- requirements and make appropriate findings. 46. The hill or rise near the center of this site is proposed to be removed and involves a maximum cut of 59 to 60 feet. The Grading Ordinance No. 636 states in Section Two (A): "This ordinance shall provide for the preservation of the natural scenic character of the land, consistent with reasonabl e economic enjoyment of such property". Minutes of Planning Commission March 5t 1985 Page 18 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 19344 & ADDENDUM TO DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - LAKE- SIDE ESTATES/KEN BUCHANAN CONTINUED The Planning Commission and City Council must make a finding that this proposed land development is consistent with the Ordinance requirements and changing of the topography is necessarYt because of the unusual character of this site and necessary for the property owner to enjoy a substantial property right. 47. Install ornamental street lighting as approved by the City Engineer. 48. Comply with the requirements of Riverside County Flood Control report dated July 2t 1984t and additional or alternative requirements of the City Engineer and the City Code. The City Engineer shall judge as to interpretation and application of flood control recommendations. - 49. Submit hydrology and hydraulic studiest necessary master planning and detailed plans and profiles of the proposed Flood Control facilities to Riverside County Flood Control District and to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to Final Map recordation. Provide drainage easements as required by the City Engineer. 50. Construct box culvert(s) under Corydon Road and Union Street with inlet facility to the satisfaction of Riverside County Road Departmentt River- side County Flood Controlt and the City Engineer. 51. All major drainage facil ities in this Tract shall be constructed to Riverside County Flood Control District standards and agreement entered into with the District for constructiont ownership and maintenance. 52. Provide for a drainage ditch and/or a retaining wallt along the south- west boundary of this tract, of a decorative nature as approved by the City Engineer for added flood protection. The drainage channel along the southwest boundary of this Tract shall be provided with a 10-foot top width maintenance road. An irrevocable offer of dedication of an easement shall be given by developer for this drainage facility. City will not accept the easementt but will leave underlying ownership and maintenance responsibility with the individual home owner. ...., 53. Comply with the requirements of Elsinore Valley Municipal Water Districtt County Health Departmentt and California Regional Water Quality Control Roa rd for on-s ite sewage di sposa 1. Provide 1 etter from El s i nore Valley Municipal Water District as to an agreement as to the sewage disposal construction. 54. THAT THE SEWAGE AND DISPOSAL SYSTEM BE AS OUTLINED IN ELSINORE VALLEY MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT'S LETTER DATED JULY llt 1984. al Sewage collection system in this tract shall be constructed to connect to the regional sewer system. Install cleanouts behind the sidewalk on all sewer laterals as required by the City and/or Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District. Developer acknowledges that sewer lateral maintenance from the sewer main in the street to the property line is home- owner or Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District's re- sponsibility. No occupancy will be granted until sewer service is available from Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District regional sewerage collection and treatment system. 55. Provide a will serve letter guaranteeing water service from Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District. -- 56. Dedicate underground water rights and future water well site to the City or its assingee. 57. Pay all applicable Capital Improvement Fund fees per Ordinance No. 572. 58. Pay all sewer fees as required by Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District. 59. Pay all Public Safety Fees (police and fire) per Resolution No. 83-87. Minutes of Planning Commission March 5, 1985 Pa ge 1 9 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 19344 & ADDENDUM TO DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - LAKE- SIDE ESTATES/KEN BUCHANAN CONTINUED 60. Pay all School fees. - 61. Prior to Final Map recordation, a subdivision agreement shall be entered into with the deve1oper(s), owner(s), and the City. 62. Final Map shall show the following items with a prominent note: a) All geologic fault lines; b) 100-year and 500-year flood plain; c) Areas subject to flood hazards. 63. Provide Tract Phasing plan for City Engineer's approval. Bond public improvements for each phase, as approved by the City Engineer. 64. Record a notice of 100-year flood hazard and wai ver of City 1 iabil ity. 65. Applicant will contribute pro rata share toward fire fighting facilities serving the southeastern end of the City. Amount not to exceed $25,000. 65. APPLICANT TO AGREE TO JOIN ASSESSMENT DISTRICT FOR THE SAN JACINTO B.RI DGE. RUS I NESS ITEMS 1. Industrial Project 85-1 - Terry Shook - Staff stated that he believed that the applicant would like to address the Planning Commission on this item. Mr. Robert G. Williams stated that he was one of the owners of this Industrial Project, and requested that this item be continued to the next Planning Com- mission meeting,as they have some problems that they would like to work out with s ta ff . Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to continue Industrial Project 85-1 to the meeting of March 19, 1985, second by Commissioner Washburn. Approved 5-0 2. Lot Line Adjsutment 85-2 - Art Nelson - Staff presented proposal to adjust the mutual lot lines of lots 21 and 22, by moving the mutual property line 2.32 feet northwesterly, in Tract No. 18195, located on a knuckle at the end of White Oak Street. Motion by Commissioner Washburn to approve Lot Line Adjustment 85-2 with staff recommendations, second by Commissioner Barnhart. Approved 5-0 PLANNING DIVISION CONDITIONS: 1. City Engineer verification of legal description as accurate. 2. Issuance of a Certificate of Compliance. - ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS: 3. Provide legal description, map and closure calculations to be approved by the City Engineer. 4. Set new permanent lot corners and conform to the Land Surveyor's Act. 3. Lot Line Adjustment 85-3 - Art Nelson - Staff presented proposal to adjust the mutual lot lines of lots 31 and 32, by moving the mutual property line 4 feet to the northwest, in Tract No. 19357, located on the northerly side of Quail Drive approximately 1,000 feet off of Joy Street. Motion by Commissioner Washburn to approve Lot Line Adjustment 85-3 with staff recommendations, second by Commissioner Mellinger. Approved 5-0 Minutes of Planning Commission March 5, 1985 Page 20 LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT 85-3 - ART NELSON CONTINUED PLANNING DIVISION CONDITIONS: 1. City Engineer verification of legal description as accurate. 2. Issuance of a Certificate of Compliance. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS: 3. Provide legal descriptions, map and closure and calculations to be approved by the City Engineer. - 4. Set new permanent lot corners and conform to all requirements of the Land Surveyor's Act. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S REPORT Mr. Corcoran stated that on February 28th through March 2, 1985, Commissioner Wash- burn and I attended the Planning Commissioners Institute sponsored by the League of California Cities, in Santa Clara. I attended sessions that included small cities planning, improving city/county relations, computers in planning, legal issues and a number of other sessions. I made copies of pertinent law cases that might affect the Planning Commissioners in the routine decision process (a copy was given to each Com- missioner). Mr. Corcoran stated that the conference was very well attended and in- forma tive. Mr. Culp stated that he had nothing to report. PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Commissioner Saathoff - None - Commissioner Mellinger - The condition of Lakeshore Drive, at this point it is obviously a question,at my end of the City, is there anything else that is going to happen to that. It is rather a rough road with that line going in. Mr. Culp stated that the Public Works Inspector has informed him of the condition of Lakeshore Drive, he is at the point of issuing a project memo, and a project memo is serious~-it stated thou shall or put your construction bond in jeopardy. Commissioner Barnhart - None Commissioner Washburn - Will report at the next meeting about some indepth items that took place at the League of California Cities Conference, which were very in- forma ti ve. As a citizen of Elsinore, I feel that the trees on Machado should probably remain. Chairman Dominguez - None Motion by Comml'ssioner Barnhart to adjourn to Design Review Board, second by Com- missioner Mellinger. Approved 5-0 - MINUTES OF HELD ON THE MINUTE ACTION LAKE ELSINORE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD 5TH DAY OF MARCH 1985 - Motion by Commissioner Washburn to approve minutes of February 19, 1985, as sub- mitted, second by Commissioner Saathoff. Approved 5-0 BUSINESS ITEMS 1. Single-Family Addition - 1112 West Lakeshore Drive - Jack Allsup - Staff pre- sented proposal to construct approximately 3,668 square feet, two-story addition to an existing single-family structure with a 455 square foot garage. Also, exterior and interior modifications are being proposed as a part of this project. The proposed floor plan (addition) includes three bedrooms, five bathrooms, living room, kitchen, office and dining room. Exterior materials to be used include wood trim, stucco siding and composition shingles. Chairman asked if the applicant was in the audience, if he had received a copy of the conditions, and if there were any problems. Mr. Allsup answered in negative. Discussion was held on exactly what was being proposed as the addition, and what the exterior and interior modifications were. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to approve Single-Family Addition at 1112 West Lakeshore Drive with staff recommendations, second by Commissioner Mellinger with di scuss ion. - Discussion ensued on whether or not this project fell within the overlay zone. There being no further discussion, the Chairman asked for the vote. Approved 5-0 PLANNING DIVISION CONDITIONS: 1. All roof mounted or ground support equipment incidental to development shall be architecturally screened so that they are not visible from neighboring property or public streets. 2. aui1ding elevations shall be constructed as depicted on plans, any proposed changes will require resubmitta1 to the Design Review Board. 3. Grading plans to be approved by Engineering Department. 4. Applicant to plant trees outside of the public right-of-way, to be approved by Planning Division. - 5. Applicant to provide low-lying shrubbery landscaping statement along Lakeshore Drive in combination with providing street trees along the property frontage of the new development and the existing sing1e- family residence, to be approved by Planning Division. 6. Street trees to be a minimum of 15 gallon and planted a minimum of 3D-feet apart along entire property frontage of the new development and within selected locations of existing single-family structure so that e1evationa1 views and driveway approaches are not encroached upon, to be approved by Planning Division. 7. Applicant to install permanent sprinkler systems for all planting areas. 2. Industrial Project 85-1 - Terry Shook - Motion by Commissioner Barnhart to continue Industrial Project 85-1 to the meeting of March 19, 1985, second by Commissioner Mellinger. Approved 5-0 Minutes of Design Review Board March 5, 1985 Page 2 There being no further business, the Lake Elsinore Design Review Board adjourned at 11 :26 p.m. Motion by Commissioner Mellinger, second by Commissioner Saathoff. Approved 5-0 APproved'~ A~ 0 Fred Domi n uez ~ Chairman ~ Respectfully SUb~~d. ~~~~ Linda Gri nds ta ff Planning Commission Secretary .... - MINUTES OF HELD ON THE LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION 19TH DAY OF MARCH 1985 THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:30 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Commissioner Saathoff. - I ROLL CALL found Commissioner Saathoff, Commissioner Mellinger, Commissioner Washburn, Commissioner Barnhart and Chairman Dominguez. Also present were Community Development Director Corcoran, City Engineer Culp, Assistant Planner Coleman and Assistant Planner Miner. MI NUTE ACTION Motion by Commissioner Barnhart to approve minutes of March 5, 1985, as submitted, second by Commissioner Mellinger. Approved 5-0 PUBLI C HEARl NGS 1. Conditional Use Permit 85-1 - Michael J. Maltby - Staff presented proposal for a Conditional Use Permit to convert an existing single-family residence into a pre-school/day care center, located approximately 90 feet northwesterly of Riverside Drive and Richard Street. Staff stated that a letter was received, yesterday, from Cal Trans indicating that a left turn pocket should be installed on Riverside Drive at Richard Street. Chairman opened the public hearing at 7:35 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of Conditional Use Permit 85-1. - Mrs. Patricia Maltby spoke in favor of the project. Mr. Dick Murphy spoke in favor and gave background information on the project, and commented on the number of children to be at the facility. Mrs. Dorothy Maltby spoke in favor of the project. Chairman asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor. Receiving no response, the Chairman asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Mrs. Sam White spoke in opposition stating that her conCern was for the safety of the children; the facility having inadequate fencing to protect the children; facility being on a State Highway; and, insufficient land for the children to play. Mrs. White stated that she turned in another petition signed by all the neighbors and they are all against it. Chairman asked if anyone else wished to speak in opposition. Receiving no re- sponse, the Chairman called Mrs. Maltby back to the podium. Mrs. Maltby addressed the concerns as stated by Mrs. White. Mr. Ted White stated that the neighbors directly behind and all the way down Shrier have signed the petition not to have the school there. There being no one else wishing to speak, the Chairman closed the public hearing at 7:45 p.m. Discussion was held on use in the area; fence; concerns from neighbors being mainly traffic and dust control; having trench filled back in properly, and put back the way it was prior to the water line being hooked-up; letter from Cal Trans, pertaining to the widening of State Route 74 and a left turn pocket in- stalled; number of children to be at the facility; circulation, and the number of cars going in and out of the facility at peak times; number of employees at the facility; parking; City installing pre-school warning signs and set speed limit signs; condition number 38, pertaining to widening for left turn lane onto Richards Street being required at Phase I; condition number 35, whether or not the lot merger has been started; ingress/egress off of Richard Street; number of rooms in the facility; and, State requirements, pertaining to the number of Minutes of Planning Commission March 19, 1985 Page 2 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 85-1 - MICHAEL J. MALTBY CONTINUED children permitted as determined by the square footage of building, and the number of teachers. Motion by Commissioner Washburn to approve Conditional Use Permit 85-1 with staff recommendations, and amending condition number 10, by adding the follow- ing words lIand include play areall; amend condition number 14, by adding the following verbiage IIPerimeter walls, in the park area, shall contain wrought iron fencing, not to exceed six feet (61) in height. The wall area housing the play area, shall be constructed with fencing material up to six feet, and shall be of a fencing to retard children from climbing over the play area into Riverside Drive area, and that all surrounding perimeter cyclone fences, at the rear property, shall have redwood slats for screeningll; amend condition number 18, by adding the following verbiage liThe applicant shall provide a painted drive boundary and directional arrows. Also, that a stop. sign shall be erected at the exit point on Richard Streetll; amend condition number 19, by adding the following verbiage liThe plot plan should show that ellipsoid object for circula- tion shall be circular in its size, not ellipsoid in naturell; amend condition number 38, requiring incorporation of left turn lane at completion of Phase I. Commissioner Mellinger recommended that the gravel walkway be changed to a cemented walkway, and that warning signs be placed on Riverside Drive, in both directions with flashing lights, at the applicant1s expense, and as approved by Cal Trans. Discussion ensued on this being added as a condition. - Commissioner Washburn amended his motion to include as a condition the gravel walkway being changed to cement walkway, and adding condition, that lIif allowed and approved by Cal Trans,to erect Slow School Zone signs with flashers in both directionsll, second by Commissioner Mellinger. Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. Commissioner Saathoff recommended that a condition be added that all conditions should be met before occupancy. - Commissioner Washburn amended his motion to include as a condition IIAll condi- tions to be met before occupancyll. Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. There being no further discussion, the Chairman asked for the vote. Approved 5-0 PLANNING DIVISION CONDITIONS: 1. All access is to be taken off of Richard Street. The entrance on River- side Drive is to be gated with access restricted to service vehicles. 2. Approval shall be for a period of one (1) year. 3. All State and County requirements concerning open space, seating space and bathroom space for day care centers are to be met prior to occupancy. 4. The parking area is to be paved and striped. 5. All signs are to be approved by the Planning Division. 6. Issuance of a Negative Declaration. 7. Meet all County Health Department requirements. - 8. Meet all County Fire Department requirements. 9. Meet all City Codes and Ordinances. 10. Applicant shall submit landscaping/irrigation plan AND INCLUDE PLAY AREA. 11. All landscaping areas shall have permanent sprinkler and drip irrigation systems. 12. Eliminate the divider at the entrance on Richards Street. Minutes of Planning Commission March 19, 1985 Page 3 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 85-1 - MICHAEL J. MALTBY CONTINUED 13. Position parking stalls 4, 5, and 6 at 450 angles, and place a median (6" high curbs, landscaped) to the left of parking staff "D". 14. Erect a 6 foot high chain link fence across the center of the middle -- parcel. The front portion is to be used as a playground, and the rear portion is to be used for circulation. PERIMETER WALLS, IN THE PARK AREA, SHALL CONTAIN WROUGHT IRON FENCING, NOT TO EXCEED SIX FEET (6') IN HEIGHT. THE WALL AREA HOUSING THE PLAY AREA, SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED WITH FENCING MATERIAL UP TO SIX FEET, AND SHALL BE OF A FENCING TO RETARD CHILDREN FROM CLIMBING OVER THE PLAY AREA INTO RIVERSIDE DRIVE AREA, AND THAT ALL SURROUNDING PERIMETER CYCLONE FENCES, AT THE REAR PROPERTY, SHALL HAVE REDWOOD SLATS FOR SCREENING. 15. Place a median in the rear portion of the center lot to provide for a coherent circulation plan for people entering and leaving subject site. 16. Provide a minimum of ten (10) parking spaces. 17. The total number of children allowed within the current plot plan shall be 45. 18. Applicant shall provide A PAINTED DRIVE BOUNDARY AND directional arrows to control on-site circulation. A STOP SIGN SHALL BE ERECTED AT THE EXIT POINT ON RICHARDS STREET. -- 19. Applicant shall provide circulation, parking and retaining walls and dividers as indicated on the plot plan as revised by Planning. THE PLOT PLAN SHOULD SHOW THAT ELLIPSOID OBJECT FOR CIRCULATION SHALL BE CIRCULAR IN ITS SIZE, NOT ELLIPSOID IN NATURE. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS: 20. Engineering conditions are applicable if Building Permit or other permits are required from the Building Department. 21. Install curb and gutter 38-feet from centerl ine on Riverside Drive. 22. Construct paving to City and Cal Trans standards, from curb to center- line on Riverside Drive using a Traffic Index of 8.5. A 12-foot width of paving on northerly side of centerline exists and appears adequate but tests must show that paving exists to City Standards. 23. Construct 6-foot wide sidewalk on Riverside Drive. 24. Arrange with Southern California Edison Company to provide a street light luminaire on the power pole 60-feet easterly of this proposed site. 25. Work with the City to participate in a Lighting and Landscaping District. 26. Provide sewer service as required by the City of Lake Elsinore, Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District, the Regional Water Quality Control Board and the County Health Department. If a new sewer lateral is to be ex- tended into the site, or a new connection made to the existing lateral, a cleanout must be installed at the property line. 27. Provide a will serve letter for water service which includes a statement that the fire flow required by the County Fire Department is available to the fire hydrant. 28. Provide fire protection facilities as approved in writing by the County Fire Department. There are presently no fire hydrants near the applicant's property. 29. Obtain encroachment permit from Cal Trans for improvements on Riverside Drive. 30. Plans and specifications for all off-site improvements shall be prepared by applicant's Civil Engineer for approval by the City. Minutes of Planning Commission March 19, 1985 Page 4 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 85-1 - MICHAEL J. MALTBY CONTINUED 31. Plot Plan shall show how drainage shall be handled on the site and shall be approved by the City Engineer. 32. Pay Capital Improvement fees as required by Ordinance No. 572. 33. Pay Public Safety fees required by Resolution No. 83-87. ~. Dedicate underground water rights to the City or its assignee. ... 35. If this site is to be used with the two adjacent lots, a lot merger must be processed. 36. Construct paving on Richards Street as required by Special Permit 83-1. 37. There shall be no parking, loading or unloading on Riverside Drive. 38. Prior to completion of PHASE I, the applicant must widen paving on Riverside Drive to provide for a 12-foot wide left turn lane onto Richards Street. The length of the pavement widening shall be as required by the City Engineer and Ca1 Trans. A permit and plan ap- proval will be required from Ca1 Trans. 39. THE GRAVEL WALKWAY SHALL BE CHANGED TO CEMENT WALKWAY. 40. IF ALLOWED AND APPROVED BY CAL TRANS, TO ERECT SLOW SCHOOL ZONE SIGN WITH FLASHERS IN BOTH DIRECTIONS. 41. ALL CONDITIONS TO BE MET BEFORE OCCUPANCY. 2. Tentative Tract Map 19358 REVISED; Addendum to Draft Environmental Impact Report; and, Planned Unit Development 84-2 - John C. Heers - Staff presented proposal to subdivide 40 acres into 174 lots for single-family residential development, ... located southerly of Grand Avenue and Bonnie Lea Drive. Staff stated that Tentative Tract Map 19358 Revised and Addendum to the Draft Environmental Impact Report is a resubmitted project that incorporates City concerns addressing drainage, minimum lot size, waste water disposal, recrea- tional land uses, and coordination with adjacent property developments. Subject map is a 40 acre project to be developed with 174 lots for single-family dwellings and one, 13 acre hillside recreational open space region. The devel- oper has applied for a Planned Unit Development that will allow the proposed Overlay District to correct the underlying zoning, and to allow lessened street standards and 5,500 square foot lots. Staff also recommends that the project participate in the Mello Roos Act, if and when this comes on line. Chairman opened the public hearing at 8:14 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of the project. Mr. Jack Reeves of Boyle Engineering, representing the applicant, stated that this project was very similar to the one approved previously. Their concern is the cost impact, and being able to build the project. Mr. Reeves stated that in reviewing the conditions, he has a couple of questions. Chairman stated that at the close of the public hearing, they would call him back to the podium and address his concerns at that time. ... Chairman asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor of the project. Mr. Robert G. Williams spoke in favor of the project, and asked staff for clari- fication on the participation in the Mello Roos Act, and also stated that they should not forget the participation in the San Jacinto River Bridge. Chairman asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor. Receiving no response, the Chairman asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Minutes of Planning Commission March 19, 1985 Page 5 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 19358 REVISED; ADDENDUM TO DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT; AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT 84-2 - JOHN C. HEERS CONTINUED - Mr. Dick Barnsworth stated that he was not in favor nor opposition, just wanted to speak in general. Mr. Barnsworth then commented on the water and traffic problems on Grand Avenue. Chairman asked if anyone else wished to speak. Mr. Pendergast, engineer for the subdivision below this project, stated that they have two subdivisions being developed in that area, and noticed that staff is concerned with the drainage being concentrated in our direction, just want to go on record that this is a potential problem. I have noticed that it has to be solved to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, and we would like to be involved in this, so that it does not disrupt our approved plans. Chairman stated that maybe Mr. Pendergast should get with the applicant and staff to discuss this. Chairman asked if anyone else wished to speak. Receiving no response, the Chairman closed the public hearing at 8:24 p.m. Mr. Reeves was called back to the podium. Mr. Reeves stated that with the drainage, there is a dispute between Mr. Pendergast and myself, as to where the drainage really goes. I have had a conversation with Mr. Don Graywood and informed him that we are in full agreement with the letter that he wrote, referenced in the conditions, that we must put the water back in the manner in which it goes now, and convey it from either our project or another public street or pipe. A lengthy discussion was held on the widths of access into the park area, pav- ing of the 20 foot half-street roadway along the wall, and condition number 49, - perta i ni ng to the Ortega Channel. Commissioner Washburn addressed the Planned Unit Development application, re- garding the lot sizes, and wanting a good solid trade off with the park faci- lities surrounding the park; point on the park, would be changes in the plan which staff has recommended bringing back to the Commission, with the volley- ball court being brought down, the tot lot enlarged--Commissioner Washburn proposed that the two lots adjacent the access (Lot 53 and 54 be absorbed in the tot lot) and incorporated into the park, to provide driving access and park- ing facilities at the bottom of the lot with tot facilities in place. Discussion ensued on condition number 60, adding verbiage-"per General Plan Circulation Element"; and flood control mitigation measures being initiated within a ~imely manner (120 days). Mr. Reeves stated that they have a problem with loosing two more lots for any purpose whatsoever, as we expressed at City Council when they asked us to reduce the number of lots to increase the lot size. We explained to them that we have a heavy burden on this project, and if we are going to build it at all, to build that off-site flood control channel, that is going to cost us in excess of one million dollars, and I haven't heard the City or anybody else offer to help us do that, and it becomes a simple question of economics. If we are going to help the City solve a drainage problem, since the water comes out of the City, it is also a City problem. Mr. Reeves stated that they need a certain number of lots so that they can spread that cost to those lots, and pay for the facilities. Mr. Reeves stated that the conditions that they now have, which they didn't ex- pect, have an awful lot of additional costs which were not in the other condi- tions. Mr. Reeves then questioned the conditions on the sidewalks, condition number 18 and 34, stating that their preference would be to build them adjacent to the curb, as per Engineering Department's condition. Discussion ensued on where the sidewalks should be placed. Mr. Reeves questioned condition number 11, wanting it defined; where it is going to be, what it is going to look like, and what it is going to cost. Discussion ensued on this condition with the recommendation by Commission that a formula be establ i shed. Mr. Reeves questioned condition number 60, pertaining to the Lakeshore Drivel Missi~n Trail bridge replacement, wanting to know the dollar impact. Discussion Minutes of Planning Commission March 19, 1985 Pa ge 6 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 19358 REVISED; ADDENDUM TO DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT; AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT 84-2 - JOHN C. HEERS CONTINUED ensued on this condition with the recommendation by Commission that a formula be established. Mr. Reeves then commented on Engineering Department's comments on the Environ- mental Impact Report, pertaining to contributing pro-rata share ~r future signal at Grand Avenue and Ortega Highway, and the changing of verbiage on flood control channel. -' Discussion ensued on parking for the park site, parking facility being placed in Lot 175, and whether or not that would alleviate concerns on sight distance; condition number 25, pertaining to a 20 foot graded roadway half-street for Fire Department access to service facility. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to approve Tentative Tract Map 19358 REVISED; Addendum to Draft Environmental Impact Report; and Planned Unit Development 84-2 with staff recommendations and the following changes, amend condition number 11, to read: "Participate in City wide entry signage program, a cost of which is to be provided prior to the applicant1s appearance before City Council, and agreeable by the applicant"; delete condition number 25; amend condition number 60, second line, where it says Mission Trail Bridge add verbiage "per General Plan Circulation Element" also, in the second paragraph, add verbiage "This developer shall bond or provide a guarantee to the City that a fee of $150.00 per living unit be paid, they also agree to enter into an assessment district for the replacement of the bridge, and if the assessment district fails, then they are required to pay $150.00 maximum". Commissioner Washburn asked if the maker of the motion would like to include some changes with the park area? Lot 175, in transferring of the volleyball court from the top of the hill to the bottom of the hill, and the exclusion of Lot 54, to access available parking and so on. Commissioner Saathoff answered in the negative. - Commissioner Mellinger asked if the maker of the motion would like to address condition number 18, pertaining to the sidewalks. Commissioner Saathoff amended his motion to include the deletion of condition number 18, and the sidewalks are to be constructed as Engineering Department condition number 34, second by Commissioner Barnhart. Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. Commissioner Mellinger asked for discussion on condition number 25, deleting 20 foot graded roadway, and asked who recommended the graded roadway? Mr. Corcoran stated that the U.S. State Forestry Service recommended the roadway. Commissioner Mellinger then asked the applicant if they have any problem with the roadway. Mr. Reeves stated that if you try and put a road back there, 2 to 1 slope, it is going to be quite difficult to build. Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. There being no further discussion, the Chairman asked for the vote. Approved 4-1 Commi ss ione"r Washburn opposed PLANNING DIVISION CONDITIONS: 1. Applicant shall enter into an agreement with the Elementary and High School Districts to off-set overcrowding. 2. Applicant shall submit landscaping plan for street trees, trees are to be placed at 30-foot intervals and be approved by City Engineer. - 3. All trees planted along streetscape must be 15 gallon size. 4. Applicant shall submit to the Planning Division and Engineering Depart- ment a map showing all phases of development, if applicable. 5. Trailers utilized during the construction phase shall be approved by the Planning Division. Minutes of Planning Commission March 19, 1985 Pa ge 7 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 19358 REVISED; ADDENDUM TO DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT; AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT 84-2 - JOHN C. HEERS CONTINUED - 6. All building plans shall be reviewed by the City of Lake Elsinore Building Department and/or International Council of Building Officials (ICBO) for review and utilization of highest Uniform Building Code values pertaining to seismic structural design. 7. Meet County Fire Department requirements. 8. Meet County Health Department requirements. 9. Meet Regional Water Quality Control Board requirements. 10. Applicant shall submit design elevations and landscaping plan to the Design Review Board for approval. 11. Participate in City wide entry signage program, A COST OF WHICH IS TO BE PROVIDED PRIOR TO THE APPLICANT'S APPEARANCE BEFORE CITY COUNCIL, AND AGREEABLE BY THE APPLICANT. 12. All signage must be under permit. 13. Provide transit facilities (i.e., covered bus stops) within said pro- ject as deemed applicable by Chairman of Lake Elsinore Transit System. 14. Participate in Landscaping and Lighting District. 15. All slopes must be planted with erosion control vegetation, to be approved by Planning Division. -- 16. Approval for Tentative Tract Map 19358 REVISED is contingent upon approval of the Planned Unit Development Permit 84-2, and certification of the Focused Environmental Impact Report. 17. Submit Design Plans for a reverse frontage decorative block wall along Grand Avenue frontage, to be reviewed by Planning Division and sent to Design Review Board for review and approval. 18. ~f-a~~+~€aB+eT-aea~5t-fF9At-yaFe-5etBa€k-ta-~FaY~ee-f9F-al-ffieaAQeF4A~ s~eewa+k5-a+aA~-a++-~AteFAa+-5tFeet5~ DELETED. 19. Meet all conditions of Ordinance No. 572. 20. Applicant will contribute pro-rata share of maintaining fire fighting facilities to serve the southern end of City. Amount not to exceed $25,000.00. -- 21. CC & R's for the Tract shall prohibit on-site street storage of boats, motorhomes, trailers, roof mounted microwave receivers, and trucks over one-ton capacity. CC & R's and Homeowner's Management Association rules and regulations shall be submitted to the Planning Division to be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney. The CC & R's shall provide for the effective establishment, operation, management, use repair and maintenance of all streets, right-of-ways, graded slopes, common areas and open space. The CC & R's shall provide that if the property is not maintained in the condition required by the CC & R's, then the City after making due demand and giving reasonable notice, may enter the area and perform at the Homeowner Management Association's expense the neces- sary maintenance. The property shall be subject to a lien in favor of the City to secure any such expense not promptly reimbursed. 22. Submit design plans (building elevations) that incorporate Class "A" roofing material for all residential units proposed within project, to be reviewed by Planning Division and sent to Design Review Board for review and approval. 23. Applicant shall revise Recreation Conceptual Plan to reflect a relocation of tot lot to an internal area within the hillside development, to be approved by Planning Division. Minutes of Planning Commission March 19, 1985 Page 8 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 19358 REVISED; ADDENDUM TO DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT; AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT 84-2 - JOHN C. HEERS CONTINUED 24. Applicant is to provide a master lighting plan indicating low level lighting placed at appropriate intervals along the internal sidewalk design and along the fire break access roadway subject to approval by Planning Division. 25. A-tweRty-faat-t2Q!t-~~a8e8-~aa8waY-Aalf-st~eet_sAa~+8_~e-4ffi~+effieRte8-ta eKteR8-f~affi-tAe-twa-t2t-a~eas-4R84€ate8-aR_S~~5e€t_+eRtat4ve-+~a€t-Ma~ a5-ea5effieRts-ta-tAe-+~-a€~e-~e€~eat4aRa+-a~eR_5~a€e;_ta-~e-a~~~avee-ey P+aRR4R~-aR8-~R~4Ree~4R~-ge~a~tffieRt5~ DELETED. 26. A twenty-five foot (251) clear zone should be maintained between fire access roadway and Lot 175 (open space). Clear zone should remain an open area, free of combustional growth, dead vegetation, or other natural or unnatural materials that would promote fire hazards. 27. A twenty-foot (201) roadway easement widening be incorporated between Lots 35 and 36; and between Lots 53 and 54, subject to approval by Engineering and Planning Departments. ... ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS: 28. Dedicate street right-of-way along Grand Avenue to provide a 50-foot wide one-half street. The General Plan classifies Grand Avenue as a major traffic corridor, with a 100-foot right-of-way and a 76-foot roadway (curb-to-curb). 29. Construct curb and gutter 38-feet from centerline, paving to City Standards, and 6-foot sidewalk on Grand Avenue adjacent to curb. Some paving exists and must be replaced by City Standards unless tests sup- plied by applicant show that existing paving is to City Standards and will resist traffic loads represented by the City Engineer's traffic index of 8.0. -- 30. Construct l2-foot wide median in Grand Avenue of the length and extent approved by the City Engineer. Bond for future construction of re- mainder of median which cannot presently be constructed, because of existing width limitations. Provide median plantings and improvement required by the City with automatic irrigation system. Provide pave- ment resurfacing on the northeast side of Grand Avenue centerline and approach transitions for safety and paving widening "and improvement as required by the City Engineer for a safe median and left turn facility. 31. Provide a Grand Avenue centerline profile and calculation for safe vertical sight distance on Grand Avenue for the "c" Street connection into Grand Avenue. Provide a recommendation from a registered traffic engineer. 32. Extension of Quail Knoll Road to the northwest shall match existing right-of-way and roadway. 33. Streets "c" and "E" extend to the tract boundary at the west corner of this proposed development. The location of these street terminations at the tract boundary may require adjustment to satisfy development requirements of adjacent owner. This will be resolved during plan checking. A drainage release must be acquired from the owner at the northwest end of Street "E". __ 34. Construct sidewalks adjacent to curb on all streets with the width as shown on the tentative map. 35. Construct curb, gutter and paving on all proposed streets to the specifications of the City Engineer. Roadway (curb-to-curb) width shall be as shown on the tentative map. 36. Street plans and specifications to be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and will include signing and striping. As built street, grading, utility and drainage improvement plans are required. . Minutes of Planning Commission March 19, 1985 Page 9 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 19358 REVISED; ADDENDUM TO DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT; AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT 84-2 - JOHN C. HEERS CONTINUED -- 37. Consent to sign an agreement to pay Traffic Safety Mitigation fee for future traffic signalization in the amount of $225.00 per lot. 38. Public improvements to conform with City Code requirements and City approved Riverside County Standard Drawings and Specifications. 39. Install ornamental street lighting as approved by City Engineer. a) Cooperate with the City in forming a Street Lighting and Landscaping Maintenance District. 40. Provide Class II or equivalent bike lane on Grand Avenue as approved by the City Engineer. 41. Provide Grand Avenue street widening and street furniture for City Engineer approved transit facilities. 42. All grading must conform to City Ordinance No. 636 and the Uniform Building Code, Chapter 70. 43. Provide Soils and Geology Report including street design recommendations. Provide Final Soils Report showing compliance with preliminary report and finish grade certification. 44. Provide landscaping and irrigation plan to be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer, including irrigation for street trees. Street trees shall be of the type and spacing approved by the City Engineer. Trees shall be a minimum of 15 gallon size. -- 45. Provide grading plan prepared by a registered Civil Engineer. All pro- perty lines shall be at the top of construction slopes with the required Uniform Building Code setback requirements. 46. Comply with written requirements of Riverside County Flood Control District, and additional or alternative requirements of the City Engineer and the City Code. The City Engineer shall judge as to inter- pretation and application of flood control recommendations. See Flood Control letter dated 2-13-85. 47. Submit Hydrology and Hydraulic Studies, necessary master planning and detailed plans and profiles of the proposed Flood Control facilities to Riverside County Flood Control District and to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to Final Map recordation. Provide drain- age easements as required by the City Engineer. 48. Provisions must be made to collect and convey hillside storm water run- off through the lots southwesterly of Street "F". Drains and easements must be provided as required by the City Engineer. Irrevocable offers of dedication must be given to the City. The City will not accept the easements. The final map must show the drainage easements with a pro- minent note stating owner or homeowner association responsibility for maintenance. . 49. The storm drainge generated from the watershed area westerly of the open space hill area identified as Lot 175, shall be diverted to the master-planned Ortega Channel. This Ortega Channel shall be con- structed by this developer to receive this diverted flow. This developer shall construct this Ortega Channel to and across Ortega Highway, and thence along the planned alignment, across Grand Avenue to the existing Ortega Channel, which presently terminates northeasterly of Grand Avenue between Macy Street and Ortega Highway. The Ortega Channel shall be constructed to its master planned size and alignment with provision for receiving flow from all watershed areas which are tributary. The developer is expected to obtain right-of-way and financial participation from down- stream property owners. The developer must complete an agreement with the Riverside County Flood Control District for construction of this Ortega Channel to Flood Control standards for the ownership and maintenance of Minutes of Planning Commission March 19, 1985 Page 10 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 19358 REVISED; ADDENDUM TO DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT; AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT 84-2 - JOHN C. HEERS CONTINUED Riverside County Flood Control. The City of Lake Elsinore will consider providing a reimbursement agreement to developer to allow him to recover a portion of the cost of the Ortega Channel. Obtain necessary approvals and encroachment permits from Ca1 Trans. Pay fees to Flood Control for reviewing tentative map and final drainage plans and studies. - 50. Where "H" Street intersects "G" Street at the southeast corner of this tract, a drainage easement is shown. A drainage release must be obtained from the adjacent property owner in order to concentrate the drainage, or alternate drainage plan approved by the City Engineer. 51. Consent to sign an agreement to pay a Storm Drainage Impact Mitigation fee of $250.00 per lot to provide drainage facilities from Grand Avenue to the Lake. Storm drainage run-off from the site discharges southeast- erly to a low area in Grand Avenue near Butterfield School, and there is presently no drainage outlet from this low area to the Lake. At the northwest end of Street "E", obtain drainage release from adjacent owner or provide alternate method of drainage disposal. 52. Comply with the requirements of Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District, County Health Department, and California Regional Water Quality Control Board for on-site sewage disposal. Design on-site collection and disposal system so that connection can be made to the Regional Sewage System. Install c1eanouts at property line on all sewer laterals as required by the City and/or Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District. It must be acknowledged that maintenance of the sewer lateral from the sewer main to the property line is the re- sponsibility of the property owner or Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District. - 53. Provide a will serve letter guaranteeing water service from the serving agency. 54. Dedicate underground water rights to the City of Lake Elsinore or its assignee. 55. Meet all written requirements of Riverside County Fire Department for fi re protection. 56. Pay all applicable Capital Improvement Fund fees per Ordinance No. 572. 57. Pay all sewer fees per Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District's schedule. 58. Pay all Public Safety fees (police and fire) per Resolution No. 83-87. 59_. Pay a 11 School fees. 60. Consent to sign an agreement to pay a Traffic Safety Impact Mitigation fee for the Lakeshore Drive/Mission Trail bridge replacement PER GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION ELEMENT. The fee shall be based on benefit as deter- mined in connection with a proposal assessment proceeding to construct the bridge. This developer shall bond or provide a guarantee to the City that a fee of $150.00 per living unit BE PAID, THEY ALSO AGREE TO ENTER INTO AN ASSESSMENT DISTRICT FOR THE REPLACEMENT OF THE BRIDGE, AND IF THE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT FAILS, THEN THEY ARE REQUIRED TO PAY $150.00 MAXIMUM. - 61. Prior to Final Map recordation, a subdivision agreement shall be entered into with the deve1oper(s), owner(s), and the City. 62. Final Map shall show the following items with a prominent note: a} All geologic fault lines; Minutes of Planning Commission March 19, 1985 Page 11 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 19358 REVISED; ADDENDUM TO DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT; AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT 84-2 - JOHN C. HEERS CONTINUED 63. b) Areas subject to flood hazards. The CC & R's shall provide that the Homeowner's Association will operate and maintain all City-owned facilities in the street right-of-way, in- cluding storm drainage, parkways, street trees, median in Grand Avenue, and open space facil iti es. - The CC & R's shall provide that if the public improvements are not maintained in the condition required by the CC & R's, then the City after making due demand and giving reasonable notice, may enter the area and perform at the Homeowner Management Association's expense the necessary operation and maintenance. The property shall be sub- ject to a lien in favor of the City to secure any such expense not promptly reimbursed. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT COMMENTS ON FINAL FOCUSED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT: 1. On Page 4, last paragraph, and top of Page 5, shall be revised to read as follows: "With respect to hydrology, development of the site, without modifica- tion of the existing flood condition, will require some provision to convey the water of the storm run-off from the Area "B" discharge, which now passes directly across the project site, northwesterly across Ortega Highway, thence across Grand Avenue and into Lake Elsinore to the north. Protection of the site by construction of a levee along the west boundary in substantial conformance with the proposed 1973, or most current, Riverside County Ortega Channel Master Plan appears - to provide the most economical solution to the drainage problems of the overall area. This solution involves a collection levee or open channel facility to collect and direct flood flows into a master planned drainage channel which would begin at the southwest boundary of the proposed Tract 19358 and extend in a generally northwesterly and north- erly direction, crossing Ortega Highway and Grand Avenue, thence to the Lake. The proposed channel would be trapezoidal in section with a 6- foot wide bottom, a 3.5 foot depth and a one and one-hal f to one side slopes, or as otherwise approved by the City and the Flood Control District. Additional details are found within the body of this report and in Appendix B of the September 1984 Final Environmental Impact Report on the previously submitted 198-unit development." 2. Second from last paragraph on Page 5 shall read: "2. A left turn pocket and/or curbed median should be constructed or striped for westbound traffic on Grand Avenue desiring to turn left into the main project entrance." 3. Paragraph 8, on Page 6, shoul d be revised to read: "8. Contribute a pro-rata share or City specified share of the cost of the future signal at Grand Avenue and Ortega Highway. 8.a. Contribute a minimum of $150.00 per lot toward the construc- tion of Lakeshore Drive/Mission Trail Bridge." 4. Under mitigation measures on Page 16, the second and third measures should be revised to read: o A left turn pocket should be striped or median constructed for westbound traffic on Grand Avenue desiring to turn left into the main project entrance. o Construct all street internal to the project to full ultimate cross sections as adjacent development occurs. A phasing scheme and schedule of off-site construction shall be furnished to the City. Minutes of Planning Commission March 19, 1985 Page 12 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 19358 REVISED; ADDENDUM TO DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT; AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT 84-2 - JOHN C. HEERS CONTINUED 5. On Page 18, the tenth sentence from the bottom of the page should read: "This is alternative 2 noted above and involves a collection levee or channel as required by the City or the Flood Control District to collect and direct flood flows into a channel which would begin at the west side of the Ortega Highway and extend in a generally northerly direction, crossing under Grand Avenue about 270 feet west of the intersection and then proceeding in a northeasterly direction to the Lake.1I - 6. Also, on Page 18, Potential Impacts, item 2 should read: 112. Conformance with the Flood Control Master Plan of 1973 or most current edition." 7. Appendix A, Page 2, the last sentence shoul dread: o A left turn pocket should be striped and/or median con- structed for westbound traffic on Grand Avenue desiring to turn left into the main project entrance." 8. Appendix A, Page 3, add the following paragraph: o Contribute up to $150.00 per living unit for the re- construction and widening of the Lakeshore Drive/Mis- sion Trail Bridge. 9. Appendix A, Page 11, add a street section with 60-foot right-of-way, 36-foot roadway with sidewalk adjacent to curb. Show sidewalk on 66-44 foot section with sidewal k adjacent to curb. 10. Provide trans it facil ities turn out and street furniture. - B US I NESS ITEMS 1. Industrial Project 85-1 - Terry W. Shook - Staff presented proposal to construct a 11,280 square foot concrete block building to be used for light manufacturing and warehousing, located on the south side of Flint Street between Mohr Street and Silver Street. Staff stated that applicant is proposing to construct Phase I of a Three Phase Industrial Park, totaling 1.5 acres. The first phase will consist of one con- crete building on approximately 22,00 square feet, with the proposed structure located on the southeast corner of Flint Street and Mohr Street. Staff showed slides on the project area. Chairman asked if the applicant was in the audience, if he had received a copy of the conditions, and if there was any problem. Mr. Robert G. Williams, one of the owners of this Industrial Project, stated that condition number 2, if he,is correct, will be addressed through the CC & R's; and condition number 9, just wanted to make a statement that we are in the process of trying to acquire one more piece of property, so that we can start a vacating procedure. Mr. Corcoran stated that this project was also reviewed by the Community Develop- ment Committee, and one of the concerns was access to the rear of the parcel. We are hoping that once Walnut Street is vacated that access can be accommodated for emergency vehicles and police vehicles. Mr. Williams stated that this is correct, and they have also included, when they do their vacating of Walnut Street, that all of Walnut Street be attached to the back of this project so that we can pave it and use it for that purpose, rather than going fifty-fifty on each side of the street. - Mr. Williams stated that on condition number 10, instead of doing what is said in this condition, what we woul d 1 ike to do, is to improve Mohr Street from Flint to the southerly line of Lot 17, and then improve Flint Street all the way from Davis to the easterly line of the project site. When I speak of the pro- Minutes of Planning Commission Ma rc h 1 9, 1 985 Page 13 INDUSTRIAL PROJECT 85-1 - TERRY W. SHOOK CONTINUED - ject, I am speaking of the building that we are going to build now. We would improve Flint Street down to Lot 27 through 30, and I believe that we are taking in a portion of Lot 26; later on, in the conditions, we are going to be doing a lot merger so that it becomes one lot. Mr. Williams stated that he was asking the Commission to eliminate the paving on Walnut Street, and they will pave half of Flint Street all the way down to and including what is in front of our project site now. In addition, we would improve Mohr Street from Flint Street to the southerly line of Lot 17 (the centerline of Walnut Street)_ . Mr. Williams stated that on condition number 11, they would not be pulling their building permits until the water line that is under design, and sup- posedly going to be installed, is installed, so item number 11, we would be paying our share, which would be half of 220 foot, cost on Flint Street. The footage could change depending on how they put the water line in, but the water line would be there before we pull our building permits, so I would not want it to be a condition. Discussion was hel d on the improvement of Mohr Street to one-hal f of Wal nut Street, and the improvement of Walnut Street once vacated; whether or not a grading plan has been completed for this project; condition number 11, pertain- ing to installation of water line or providing a will-serve letter; condition number 3, pertaining to parking requirements being included in CC & R's, and changing this to having it recorded on deed; and, condition number 12, being changed to process lot merger or lot mergers as needed for Phase I. Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to approve Industrial Project 85-1 with staff recommendations and the following changes, amend condition number 3, by adding verbiage "That this provision be recorded on the property and eliminate the provision for CC & R1s"; amend condition number 10, to read: "Improve Flint Street from Davis to the east boundary of Phase I (Lot 26), Mohr Street to the centerline of Walnut Street, and eliminate Silver Street and Walnut Street un- til further phases"; amend condition number 12, by adding verbiage "Process lot merger as required by City Engineer", second by Commissioner Washburn. Approved 5-0 PLANNING DIVISION CONDITIONS: 1. Issuance of a Negative Declaration. 2. Applicant shall provide a centrally located loading/unloading area as required per Title 17, Section 66.060 B.8.b. 3. Applicant shall include ~A-€€-&-RlS a provision requiring that Title 17, Parking requirements be met when a change in occupancy occurs. Parking requirements shall be met before a Certificate of Occupancy is issued, THIS PROVISION BE RECORDED ON THE PROPERTY. 4. Uses within the proposed project shall be limited to light manu- facturi ng and warehousi ng. Any storage or use of noxious or hazardous chemicals shall require Planning Division review and approval prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy/Business License. 5. No outside storage shall be allowed. 6. Meet all City Codes and Ordinances. 7. Meet all County Fire Department requirements. 8. Meet all County Health Department requirements. 9. When Walnut Street is vacated, it shall be paved and used for fire access, circulation and/or parking. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS: 10. IMPROVE FLINT STREET FROM DAVIS TO THE EAST BOUNDARY OF PHASE I (LOT 26), MOHR STREET TO THE CENTERLINE OF WALNUT STREET, AND ELIMINATE SILVER STREET AND WALNUT STREET UNTIL FURTHER PHASES. Minutes of Planning Commission March 19, 1985 Page 14 INDUSTRIAL PROJECT 85-1 - TERRY W. SHOOK CONTINUED 11. Install water line extension with necessary appurtenances from Pottery Street and Davis Street and along Flint Street to Silver Street to provide domestic and fire flow as required by the City Engineer. Pro- vide waterline extensions along Flint Street and Walnut as required by the City. Provide fire hydrant and other fire protection measures as required in writing by the County Fire Department. This extension should be a joint project with the industrial development on the north- erly side of Flint Street. Pay water fees which are effective at date of building permit issuance. - 12. Process a lot merger AS REQUIRED BY CITY ENGINEER. 13. Street plans and specifications to be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and will include signing and striping. As built street, grading, utility and drainage improvement plans are required. Public improvements are to conform with City Code requirements and City ap- proved Riverside County Standard Drawings and Specifications. 14. Cooperate with the City in forming a street Lighting and Landscaping Maintenance District. 15. All grading must conform to City Ordinance 636, the Uniform Building Code, Chapter 70, if applicable. 16. Provide grading and drainage plan and Certificate of Survey prepared by a registered Civil Engineer for approval by the City Engineer. Grading and street construction beyond limits of project may be re- quired by the City Engineer for drainage. 17. Provide landscaping and irrigation plan to be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer, including street trees. 18. Comply with requirements of City of Lake Elsinore, Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District, the County Health Department and the River- side County Quality Control Board for sewer service. This could in- clude dry sewer and cleanouts at property line. Pay required fees. - 19. Dedicate subsurface water rights to the City of Lake Elsinore or its assignees. 20. Pay all applicable Capital Improvement fees per Ordinance No. 572 and Resolution 77-39, at building permit stage. 21. Pay Public Safety fees per Resolution 83-87. 2. Commercial Project 85-2 - Howard Palmer - Staff presented proposal to construct a shopping center consisting of eleven retail stores and two restaurants, located northeasterly of the intersection of Railroad Canyon Road and Casino Drive. Staff stated that the proposal, as submitted, envisions the grouping of eight (8) retail stores into one plaza, with the remaining five structures scattered through- out the site. Mr. Corcoran requested that condition number 12, be deleted; as suggested by the Riverside County Fire Department. Chairman asked if the applicant was in the audience, if he had received a copy of - the conditions, and if there was any problem. Mr. Fred Crowe of Butterfield Surveys, Inc, representing the applicant, stated that he has with him Mr. Howard Palmer, the applicant, and Mr. Bob Friedman, the architect for the project. Mr. Crowe stated that there were a couple of conditions that they had concern over. Mr. Crowe then questioned condition number 4, pertaining to signs to be approved prior to issuance of permits; condition number 10, pertaining to copy of City Council minutes, stating that they did not receive a copy of these minutes; condition number 16, pertaining to the access points between the service station and proposed restaurant; and, condition number Minutes of Planning Commission March 19, 1985 Page 15 COMMERCIAL PROJECT 85-1 - HOWARD PALMER CONTINUED 18, pertaining to participation in the Mission Trail Bridge replacement. Di scuss ion was hel d on condition number 4, addi ng the word "s i gn" before the word "permit"; condition number 16, pertaining to the access points and circulation into the project; and, condition number 18, pertaining to parti- cipation in the Mission Trail Bridge replacement. Discussion ensued on the number and width of access points into the project; and circulation in and out of project; and, providing a double striped turn- ing lane on Casino Drive. Motion by Commissioner Washburn to approve Commercial Project 85-2 with staff recommendations and the following changes, amend condition number 4, by adding the word "sign" before the word "permit"; delete condition number 12; amend condition number 16, by adding the following verbiage in the last sentence "shall be allowed and addressed when the project is submitted"; amend condition number 18, to read: "The applicant shall enter into an agreement for Traffic Safety Mitigation and/or participate in an assessment district, and if the assessment district fails, then the applicant will pay $3,000.00 per acre for the Lakeshore Drive/Mission Trail Bridge replacement"; and add a condition which will read: "On the plot plan, the exits on Railroad Canyon to be right hand turn exit only and posted, and the elimination of entrance adjacent to Big Boyls restaurant, and provide double striping from Railroad Canyon Road to the entrance of the property, so that cars can enter a median left turn lane (located easterly of Bob's Big Boy)", second by Commissioner Barnhart. Approved 5-0 PLANNING DIVISION CONDITIONS: - 1. All items depicted on Site Plan shall be provided as indicated, unless otherwise modified by Planning Commission/Design Review Board. 2. All utility services shall be located underground. 3. Staff recordation of CC & Rls as required by City Council/Redevelopment Agency. 4. All signs to be approved by Planning Division prior to issuance of SIGN permits. Signing for entire project to be coordinated. 5. Meet County Fire Department requirements for fire protection. 6. Meet County Health Department requi rements for wastewa ter di s posa 1 . 7. Meet Regional Water Quality Control Board requirements. 8. Proposal must meet all applicable City Codes and Ordinances. 9. Appl icant is to provi de an agreement to the City that project proposal will connect to the regional sewer system within a two (2) year period, or agree to participate in an area wide assessment district. - 10. All conditions of approval per September 11, 1984, shall prevail, (copy of City Council Minutes attached). 11. Only employee parking shall be allowed behind the retail shopping center. 12. App+~6aRt-t8-ffi8ve-tRe-~~TaQQ-s~ija~e-f98t-st~ij€tij~e-Ba€k-2Q-feet-aRe-p~8- v~ee-a-2Q-f99t-+aReS€ape8-Be~ffi-BetweeR-bas~Re-Q~~ve-aRe-tRe-pa~k~R~-a~ea 8~~e6t+Y-~R-f~eRt-9f-tRe-st~ij€t~~e-~R-~ijest~9R7 DELETED. 13. Finding of no significant impact. 14. Reduce the number of ingress/egress points on Casino Drive to five (5). 15. 1 in 30 spaces shall be designated handicapped parking. 16. The access point between the service station and proposed restaurant to the west shall be separated by continuing the existing median to Casino Minutes of Planning Commission Ma rc h 1 9, 1 985 Page 16 COMMERCIAL PROJECT 85-2 - HOWARD PALMER CONTINUED Drive. Access to the future service station shall be ALLOWED AND addressed when the project is submitted. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS: 17. All twenty-five (25) conditions of approval pursuant to Parcel Map 20268, Map Book 128/20-22 recorded March 1, 1985, and approved by the City Council on February 26, 1985, shall prevail for this Com- mercial Project. - 18. THE APPLICANT SHALL ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT FOR TRAFFIC SAFETY MITIGATION AND/OR PARTICIPATE IN AN ASSESSMENT DISTRICT, AND IF THE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT FAILS, THEN THE APPLICANT WILL PAY $3,000.00 PER ACRE FOR THE LAKESHORE DRIVE/MISSION TRAIL BRIDGE REPLACEMENT. 19. ON THE PLOT PLAN, THE EXITS ON RAILROAD CANYON TO BE RIGHT HAND TURN EXIT ONLY AND POSTED, AND THE ELIMINATION OF ENTRANCE ADJACENT TO BIG aOY.s RESTAURANT, AND PROVIDE DOUBLE STRIPING FROM RAILROAD CANYON ROAD TO THE ENTRANCE OF THE PROPERTY, SO THAT CARS CAN ENTER A MEDIAN LEFT TURN LANE (LOCATED EASTERLY OF BOB.S BIG BOY). 3. Annual Review of Conditional Use Permit 83-10 - Josephine Geloso/Barbara Battrell - Staff presented report on the first annual review of subject Condi- tional Use Permit, stating that subject Conditional Use Permit was approved by City Council on September 27, 1983, subject to specific conditions, that as of this date, have still not been met. Staff feels it is appropriate, at this time, to address and inact previous conditions of approval and new ones that are deemed to be applicable to the current status of this business operation. Mr. Corcoran stated that, at this time, he would like to add an additional condition: "That the applicant will meet all conditions prior to any operation." - Chairman asked if the applicant was in the audience, if they had received a copy of the conditions, and if there were any problems. Mrs. Barbara Battrell questioned condition number 5, and 6, stating if the additional right-of-way is granted, and we are to improve the street, are the street improvements to be sidewalks, curb and gutters? City Engineer Culp addressed these two conditions. Mrs. Battrell then questioned condition number 10, pertaining to construction of a decorative block wall, stating that if this was to be along the existing block wall, that would also be within the 20 feet. Mrs. Battre11 stated that they were concerned with constructing this block wall, because the cost is extremely prohibitive. Mrs. Battrell commented on condition number 18, stating that they would like issuance of this renewal, so that they can continue business while making the improvements. Chairman informed Mrs. Battrell of the added condition, to meet all conditions prior to operation. Mrs. Battre11 stated that she would like to do the same with this condition as stated on condition number 18. Discussion was held on postponing condition number 6, until the sewer line is in. City Engineer recommended that a bond be posted for these improvements. Discussion ensued on conditio~ number 18, regarding business license renewal; condition number 19, meeting conditions prior to operation; and allowing ap- plicant to continue business operation while doing the improvements, and a time limit established (120 days) for the improvements. - Discussion was held on condition number 13, with a recommendation that this condition be changed to: "Applicant to re-paint existing building, color sub- ject to Planning Division approval." A lengthy discussion was held on condition number 10, pertaining to the decora- tive block wall, and condition number 14, pertaining to landscaping along the Minutes of Planning Commission March 19, 1985 Page 17 ANNUAL REVIEW OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 83-10 - JOSEPHINE GELOSO/BARBARA BATTRELL CONTI NUED perimeter of the recommended wall design. Motion by Commissioner Washburn to approve Conditional Use Permit 83-10 with staff recommendations and amend condition number 6, by adding the following verbiage liThe improvements on Lakeshore Drive to be deferred until the instal- lation and placement of the sewer line on Lakeshore Drive, and the improvements to be bonded"; amend condition number 10, to read: liThe applicant is to con- struct a 42 inch decorative block wall integrated with landscaping, and gate configuration along Marian Street and Lakeshore Drive, subject to approval by Planning Division"; amend condition number 18, to read: "Applicant is to meet all conditions within 120 days of approval"; amend condition number 13, by adding verbiage "Color to be approved by Planning Division", second by Com- missioner Saathoff. Approved 5-0 PLANNING DIVISION CONDITIONS: 2. 3. 4. 5. - 6. 1. Applicant to remove debris from the site not normally associated with automobile repair. Applicant to provide two (2) parking spaces on site, along the Marian Street corridor, subject to the approval by Planning Division. Applicant to pay all Public Safety fees. Applicant to meet County of Riverside Fire Department recommendation. Applicant shall dedicate 20-feet of additional right-of-way for Lake- shore Drive in conformance with the General Plan. Applicant to install street improvements to the centerline on Lake- shore Drive to City Standards and Code requirements. THE IMPROVEMENTS ON LAKESHORE DRIVE TO BE DEFERRED UNTIL THE INSTALLATION AND PLACEMENT OF THE SEWER LINE ON LAKESHORE DRIVE, AND THE IMPROVEMENTS TO BE BONDED. 7. Plans for public improvements shall be prepared by applicant1s registered Civil Engineer. 8. Legal description for 20-foot dedication shall be prepared by applicant's Engineer and verified by City Engineer. Deed and Title Report shall be supplied to City Engineer. 9. Applicant to meet the City of Lake Elsinore, Riverside County Health Department and Regional Water Quality Control Board1s requirements for subsurface sewage disposal. 10. THE APPLICANT IS TO CONSTRUCT A 42 INCH DECORATIVE BLOCK WALL INTEGRATED WITH. LANDSCAPING, and gated configuration along Marian Street and Lake- shore Drive, subject to approval by Planning Division. 11. All trash receptacles shall be screened and approved by the Planning Division. . 12. All roof or ground support equipment incidental to the use shall be architecturally screened so that they are not visible from neighboring property or public streets. 13. Applicant is to re-paint existing building, COLOR TO BE APPROVED BY PLANNING DIVISION, and perform general rehabilitation, if applicable to the subject structure, as determined by the Building and Planning Division. 14. A landscaping and irrigation plan shall be incorporated along the peri- meter of the recommended wall design, to be approved by the Planning Division. 15. Dedicate subsurface water rights to the City of Lake Elsinore or its ass i gnees . Minutes of Planning Commission March 19, 1985 Page 18 ANNUAL REVIEW OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 83-10 - JOSEPHINE GELOSO/BARBARA BATTRELL CONTI NUE D 16. Cooperate with the City in participating in the formation of a Light- ing and Landscaping Maintenance District. 17. Pay all applicable Capital Improvement fees per Ordinance No. 572, if building permits or other permits are required. 18. APPLICANT IS TO MEET ALL CONDITIONS WITHIN 120 DAYS OF APPROVAL. - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S REPORT Mr. Corcoran stated, that at this time, he would like to report on the Development Review Committee that has been established. This Committee includes representatives from the Fire Department, Police Department, U.S. Forestry Service, Park and Recrea- tion, utility companies and school districts. It is a joint effort to try and re- view projects and attempt a pro active planning instead of a reactive one. We are hoping to review projects at an early enough stage, so that we can voice all concerns and bri ng the compl ete package before the Pl anni ng Commi ss ion a nd then Ci ty Council . I think that we have received some very good input, so far we have had two meetings and they have been very informative, and helpful in processing the projects. Mr. Culp stated that he has a public announcement to make, and that is that we are going to be paving Railroad Canyon Road, starting April 1, 1985. What we intend to do is close down Railroad Canyon Road for the week of April 1st, through April 5th., and opening it up at the end of the day. Mr. Culp stated that there will be a formal announcement that will come out over Channel 3, indicating other routes to take and more specific information, and that he has flyers going out to all emergency groups, the school districts and the water districts. Commissioner Saathoff asked if there will be any widening involved. Mr. Culp stated that the project will be surface improvements, delineation striping and signage. - PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Commissioner Saathoff - None Commissioner Mellinger - Lakeshore Drive is still a mess, what is the status of that now? Mr. Culp stated that the status is, that they have completed the construction of the sewer line, and the report that I have received, from my inspection team, is that it was to be paved the same day that Grand Avenue was paved, which was last Friday, and they have not performed that as of yet, so I will get you a further up- date. Commissioner Barnhart - None Commissioner Washburn - The parkway at the north side of the intersection of Riley and Graham, at the Used Car Sales Lot. I think that we should get the Weed Abate- ment people out there, and if he isn't going to do the job, then we do it. Commissioner Washburn gave each Commissioner a copy of his notes, taken at the League of California Cities Conference, covering Developer Session; High Tech Tour and Decisions dealing with land use. Chairman Dominguez - There is a Palm Tree on Peck Street, right in front of the Locker Plant, and at one time, it was hit by lightning, and the owner would like to know if it can be removed. Mr. Culp stated that he would take care of this. - Motion by Commissioner Washburn to adjourn to Design Review Board, second by Com- missioner Mellinger. Approved 5-0 MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD HELD ON THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH 1985 MI NUTE ACTION Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to approve minutes of March 5, 1985, as submitted, second by Commissioner Mellinger. Approved 5-0 --- B US I NESS ITEMS 1. Commercial Project 83-8 - Carl IS Jr. - Staff stated that the appl icant has submitted a letter requesting that this project be continued to the meeting of April 2,1985, for the -purpose of preparing a comprehensive landscaping plan for this proposed site. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to continue Commercial Project 83-8 to the meeting of April 2, 1985, second by Commissioner Washburn. Approved 3-0 Commissioners Barnhart and Mellinger absent from table. 2. Industrial Project 85-1 - Terry W. Shook - Staff presented proposal to construct a 11,280 square foot concrete block building to be used for light manufacturing and warehousing, located on the south side of Flint Street between Mohr Street and Silver Street. The proposed structure will be divided into six bays; four will have 1,800 square feet of floor area and the remaining two will have 2,040 square feet of floor area, with each bay having a wash room and office. Materials to be used include concrete block, aluminum, glass, brick, and a metal fascia. --- Chairman asked if the applicant was in the audience, if he had received a copy of the conditions, and if there was any problem. Mr. Robert Williams stated that the report mentions a metal fascia, and wanted to stated that it will not be a metal fascia, that it will be split face brick. Mr. Williams stated that he has a concern with the trees to be set outside of the public right of way, condition number 9; stating that he thinks that they could do a better job for the City, since there are no sidewalks, to have that in the right-of-way. We could get bigger trees and allow them to grow. Discussion was held on architectural design, and condition number 9, pertaining to the trees with a landscaping maintenance easement inclu~ed. Motion by Commissioner Barnhart to approve Industrial Project 85-1 with staff recommendations, second by Commissioner Washburn. Commissioner Mellinger asked for discussion on condition number 9, stating that all street trees should be a minimum of 30-feet apart, that way they can go in the right-of-way, and a landscape maintenance agreement be entered into with the City and an easement be recorded on that property as approved by the City Engi- neer, if they are in the right-of-way. Commissioner Washburn amended his second, Commissioner Barnhart stated that she would amend her motion to include the above mentioned verbiage in condition number 9_. - Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. There being no further discussion, the Chairman asked for the vote. Approved 5-0 PLANNING DIVISION CONDITIONS: 1. Applicant shall plant one (1) five (5) gallon tree for every ten (10) parking spaces. 2. Plantings within ten feet (101) of all ingress/egress points shall be no higher than 36 inches. 3. Signage for the entire project shall be coordinated and approved by Planning Division. Minutes of Design Review Board March 19, 1985 Page 2 INDUSTRIAL PROJECT 85-1 - TERRY W. SHOOK CONTINUED 4. Applicant shall submit a Lighting Plan showing radii and the speGific type of ornamental light to be used, to be approved by Planning Division. 5. Low level lighting shall be used at all entrances and exits. 6. All on-site lighting shall be shielded and directed so as not to create glare onto the neighboring streets. 7. All roof mounted or ground support equipment and trash areas are to be architecturally screened. - 8. Developer is to record appropriate CC & R's for: a) Assuring uniform maintenance of appearance of all structures. b} Maintenance of all landscaping areas. c) Coordinating all signage and lighting. 9. ALL STREET TREES SHOULD BE A MINIMUM OF 30-FEET APART, THAT WAY THEY CAN GO IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY, AND A LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT BE ENTERED INTO WITH THE CITY AND AN EASEMENT BE RECORDED ON THAT PRO- PERTY AS APPROVED BY THE CITY ENGINEER, IF THEY ARE IN THE RIGHT-OF- WAY. 10. A permanent automatic sprinkler and drip irrigation system shall be installed by applicant. 11. Applicant shall submit a Landscaping Plan, to be approved by Planning Division. 12. Perimeter striping shall be included as indicated on elevations. I - 13. Trash receptacles shall be located at rear of building in recessed corners, screened from views on Flint Street. 3. Commercial Project 85-2 - Howard Palmer - Staff presented proposal to construct a shopping center consisting of eleven retail stores ,and two restaurants, lo- cated northeasterly of the intersection of Railroad Canyon Road and Casino Drive. Applicant is proposing to construct the retail shopping center as the first phase of this project. The shopping center will consist of eight retail shops with the following breakdown in size: 5,400; 3,000; 4,800; 4,200; 3,000; 4,200; and, 8,000 square feet. The shopping center will incorporate a plaza into its general design theme, which will include a Spanish style arched courtyard as its focal point, with pedestrian walkways, landscaped planter boxes and benches located along the project's entire length. The entire project is of the Spanish architectural style with clay white roof and white stucco walls and arched sup- po rt co 1 umns . Chairman asked if the applicant was in the audience, if he had received a copy of the conditions, and if there was any problem. Mr. Howard Palmer stated that he had received a copy of the conditions and they are satisfactory. I - A brief discussion was held on the architectural design and landscaping plan coming back before the Design Review Board. Motion by Commissioner Washburn to approve Commercial Project 85-2 with staff recommendations, second by Commissioner Barnhart. Approved 5-0 PLANNING DIVISION CONDITIONS: 1. All roof mounted equipment, trash areas, and ground support equipment shall be effectively screened from public view and subject to approval Minutes of Design Review Board Ma rch 19, 1985 Page 3 COMMERCIAL PROJECT 85-2 - HOWARD PALMER CONTINUED by the Planning Division. 2. All planting areas shall have permanent and automatic sprinkler system. - 3. All planting areas shall be separated from paved areas with a six- inch (6") high concrete curb. 4. Landscaping plans shall be reviewed and approved by Design Review Board. 5. Applicant is to provide varying textures and color schemes for walk- ways located within the plaza. 6. Trash receptacles to be architecturally screened. 7. Lighting, bench and planters to be approved by Planning Division. There being no further business, the Lake Elsinore Design Review Board adjourned at 10:39 p.m. Motion by Commissioner Barnhart, second by Commissioner Mellinger. Approved 5-0 - Approy.ed, ./ ~ /,~ ~ p//2;/ :=-'___~ ~[~ ~+~~5--._._-~ Fred Domi ~z ~ Chairman Res~~ctfullYAtUb ,t~ed, ~~ ... .' - ~ inda Grindstaff ~ Planning Commission Secretary MINUTES OF HELD ON THE LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION 2ND DAY OF APRIL 1985 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Commissioner Washburn. ROLL CALL found Commissioner Saathoff, Commissioner Mellinger, Commissioner Washburn, Commissioner Barnhart and Chairman Dominguez. Also present were City Engineer Culp, Assistant Planner Coleman and Assistant Planner Miner. MINUTE ACTION Motion by Commissioner Washburn to approve minutes of March 19, 1985, as submitted, second by Commissioner Barnhart. Approved 5-0 PUBLIC HEARINGS NONE BUSINESS ITEMS 1. Single-Family Residence - 16806 Pierce Street - James Brundage - Staff presented proposal to construct a single-family residence, located 175 feet southeasterly of the intersection of McPherson Avenue and Pierce Street. Chairman asked if the applicant was in the audience. Being as the applicant was not present, the Chairman asked for discussion at the table. ..-a. A brief discussion was held on size of garage, and conditions number 10 and 11, pertaining to the deferment of these conditions. There being no further discussion at the table, the Chairman asked for a motion. Motion by Commissioner Barnhart to approve Single-Family Residence at 16806 Pierce Street with staff recommendations, second by Commissioner Mellinger. Approved 5-0 PLANNING DIVISION CONDITIONS: 1. All slopes shall be planted with erosion control vegetation, to be approved by the Planning Division. 2. Applicant is to install permanent sprinkler systems for all planting areas. 3. Applicant shall meet all setbacks. 4. Applicant is to meet all applicable City Codes and Ordinances. 5. Applicant is to meet all County Fire Department requirements for fire protection. 6. Applicant shall process a lot merger. 7. Meet all Riverside County Health Department requirements. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS: 8. Comply with all requirements of Ordinance No. 572. 9. No dedication required on Pierce Street. 10. Construct curb and gutter along the total property frontage to be located eighteen feet (18') from street centerline. Defer by standard lien agreement. 11. Construct asphalt paving from street centerline of Pierce Street to lip of gutter along total property frontage. Defer by standard lien agreement. Minutes of Planning Commission April 2, 1985 Page 2 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE - 16806 PIERCE STREET - JAMES BRUNDAGE CONTINUED 12. Street plans and specifications to be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and will include signing and striping. As built streets, grading, utility and drainage improvement plans are required. Defer by standard lien agreement. 13. Public improvements are to conform with City Code requirements and City approved Riverside County Standard Drawings and Specifications. 14. No street light is required for this project. - a) Cooperate with the City in forming a Lighting and Landscaping District. 15. All grading must conform to City Ordinance No. 636 and the Uniform Building Code, Chapter 70. 16. Provide Soils Report, including street design recommendations. Pro- vide Final Grade Certification of pad elevation per approved Grading Plan and Final Compaction Report to the City Engineer for approval. 17. Provide Grading Plan and Certificate of Survey which have been pre- pared by a registered Civil Engineer. All property lines shall be at the top of construction slopes and with the required Uniform Building Code setback requirements. 18. Meet the requirements of Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District, Riverside County Health Department and the Regional Water Quality Control Board for subsurface sewage disposal. 19. Provide will serve letter guaranteeing water availability from Elsinore _ Water District. 20. Dedicate underground water rights to the City of Lake Elsinore or its assignees. 21. Meet all requirements of Riverside County Fire Department for fire pro- tection, including hydrant installation and upsizing. There is an existing 4-inch stand pipe fire hydrant on the corner of Kalina Avenue and Ulmer Street. Applicant to install 'City standard fire hydrant at the intersection of Pierce Street and McPherson Avenue. 22. Pay all applicable Capital Improvement fees per Ordinance No. 572. 23. Pay all sewer fees per Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District's schedule, if ~equired. 24. Pay all School fees. 2. Single-Family Residence - 29356 Kalina Avenue - Daniel McDonald - Staff presented proposal to construct a single-family residence, located 200t feet northwesterly of the intersection of Kalina Avenue and Ulmer Street. Chairman asked if the applicant was in the audience. Being as the applicant was not present, the Chairman asked for discussion at the table. __ A brief discussion was held on condition number 1, pertaining to all slopes shall be planted with erosion control vegetation; including clarification that all slopes would include the rear. There being no further discussion at the table, the Chairman asked for a motion. Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to approve Single-Family Residence at 29356 Kalina Avenue with staff recommendations, second by Commissioner Washburn. Approved 5-0 Minutes of Planning Commission April 2, 1985 Page 3 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE - 29356 KALINA AVENUE - DANIEL MCDONALD CONTINUED PLANNING DIVISION CONDITIONS: - 1. All slopes shall be planted with erosion control vegetation, to be approved by the Planning Division. 2. Applicant is to install permanent sprinkler system for all planting areas. 3. Applicant shall meet all setbacks. 4. Applicant is to meet all applicable City Codes and Ordinances. 5. Applicant is to meet all County Fire Department requirements for fire protection. 6. Applicant to process a lot merger. 7. Meet all Riverside County Health Department requirements. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS: 8. Comply with all requirements of Ordinance No. 572. - 9. No dedication required on Kalina Avenue. 10. Construct curb and gutter along the total property frontage to be located eighteen feet (18') from street centerline. 11. Construct asphalt paving from street centerline of Kalina Avenue to lip of gutter along total property frontage to match existing paving, and feather to centerline. 12. Street plans and specifications to be prepared by a registered Civil . Engineer and will include signing and striping. As built streets, grading, utility and drainage improvement plans are required. 13. Public improvements are to conform with City Code requirements and City approved Riverside County Standard Drawings and Specifications. 14. No street light is required for this project. al Cooperate with the City in forming a Lighting and Landscaping District. 15. All grading must conform to City Ordinance No. 636 and the Uniform Building Code, Chapter 70. 16. Provide Soils Report, including street design recommendations. Pro- vide Final Grade Certification of pad elevation per approved Grading Plan and Final Compaction Report to the City Engineer for approval. 17. Provide Grading Plan and Certificate of Survey which have been pre- pared by a registered Civil Engineer. All property lines shall be at the top of construction slopes and with the required Uniform Building Code setback requirements. 18. Comply with the requirements of Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District, County of Riverside Health Department and Regional Water Quality Control Board on subsurface sewage disposal. 19. Provide will serve letter guaranteeing water availability from Elsinore Water District. 20. Dedicate underground water rights to the City of Lake Elsinore or its assignees. Minutes of Planning Commission April 2, 1985 Page 4 SINGLE -FAMILY RESIDENCE - 29356 KALINA AVENUE - DANIEL MCDONALD CONTINUED 21. Meet all requirements of Riverside County Fire Department for fire pro- tection, including hydrant installation and upsizing. There is an existing 4-inch stand pipe fire hydrant on the corner of Kalina Avenue and Ulmer Street that is required to be upgraded to County and City Standards. 22. Pay all applicable Capital Improvement fees per Ordinance No. 572. - 23. Pay all sewer fees per Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District's schedule, if required. 24. Pay all School fees. 3. Single-Family Residence - 213 Townsend Street - Archie Porter - Staff presented proposal to construct a single-family residence, located 180 feet southeasterly of the intersection of Sumner Avenue and Townsend Street. Chairman asked if the applicant was in the audience. Mr. Porter stated that he would like clarification on "D" and "N/DII. Definition was given. Mr. Porter stated that he had no problem with the conditions as presented. Chairman asked for discussion at the table. There being no discussion at the table, the Chairman asked for a motion. Motion by Commissioner Barnhart to approve Single-Family Residence at 213 Town- send Street with staff recommendations, second by Commissioner Saathoff. Approved 5-0 PLANNING DIVISION CONDITIONS: - l. Applicant is to i ns ta 11 permanent sprinkler sys tems for all planting areas. 2. Applicant s ha 11 meet all setbacks. 3. Applicant is to meet all applicable City Codes and Ordinances. 4. Applicant is to meet all County Fire Department requirements for fire protection. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS: 5. Install curb and gutter, driveway, and 6-foot wide sidewalk across the 60-foot frontage. Pave out to new gutter with six-inches (6") of base and two-inches (2") of A.C. pavement. 6. Meet all conditions of Ordinance 572. 7. Public improvements to conform with City Code requirement and City approved Riverside County Standard Drawings and Standard Specifications for Publ i c Works. 8. Cooperate with the City in forming a Street Lighting and Landscaping Maintenance District. i - 9. All grading must conform to City Ordinance 636 and the Uniform Building Code, Chapter 70. lQ. Provide grading plan prepared by a registered Civil Engineer. 11. Comply with the requirements of Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District, County of Riverside Health Department and the Regional Water Quality Control Board for sewage disposal. Provide cl eanout at property 1 i ne. Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District and property owner must acknow- Minutes of Planning Commission April 2, 1985 Pa ge 5 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE - 213 TOWNSEND STREET - ARCHIE PORTER CONTINUED - ledge that sewer lateral maintenance from property line to sewer main is the responsibility of the property owner and/or Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District. 12. Dedicate underground water rights to the City of Lake Elsinore or its assignees. 13. Meet all requirements of Riverside County Fire Department for fire pro- tection. Existing hydrant must deliver 500 gpm flow with 20 psi resi- dual pressure or substandard hydrant must be replaced. If hydrant must be replaced, participate in cost with existing development at Townsend and Sumner. 14. Pay all applicable Capital Improvement fees. Pay all applicable plan checking fees. Pay all School fees. 15. 16. 17. Pay all sewer fees per Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District's schedu1 e. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S REPORT Mr. Coleman stated that the Community Development Director had nothing to report. - Mr. Cu1p stated that first of all, he would like to apologize for the mis-information on Railroad Canyon Road. Council and staff has elected to hold off on the improve- ments on Railroad Canyon Road until they can negotiate with the developer. Would like to inform the Commission, as well as the public, that further notice will be given as to what the outcome will be on Railroad Canyon Road. PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS Commissioner Saathoff - None Commissioner Mellinger - There is a street light at the southeast corner of Harrison and Southshore, the cover has been knocked off halfway, and it is just hanging pre- cariously over anyone who would walk underneath. Mr. Cu1p took note of this. Mr. Culp asked Commissioner Mellinger if the other street light got repaired. Com- missioner Mellinger answered in the affirmative. Commissioner Washburn - Would like to commend the City or the owner of the property, at Riley and Graham, they cleaned off the property real quick. I would like to request the Engineering Department check with Cal Trans on their requirements and guidelines for installation of identifying signage on 1-15 for: food, gas and lodging--next exit. I understand that they do allow installation of these signs, it's a matter of someone paying for them. If the City could find out, possibly, we could talk to some other valley agencies, whomever they might be; the Chamber of Commerce, CDC, RDA to cooperate, jointly putting money into the kitty to pay for installation of these signs, because I think it would be an asset. Mr. Culp asked if Commissioner Washburn was suggesting that this be placed at all ramps? Commissioner Washburn stated primarily the off-ramps to Main Street and Rail- road Canyon Road. Commissioner Saathoff stated that you could get a nice sign, and eliminate some 60- foot signs on Railroad Canyon Road. Commissioner Washburn stated that you could get the logos (McDonald's, Carl's Jr., etc.) and put those up and take the 60-foot signs down. Minutes of Planning Commission April 2, 1985 Pa ge 6 PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION CONTINUED Commissioner Barnhart - Would like to commend the City crews and the City people, I had the privilege of being at the opening of the Little League at Swick Field, and that field looked fantastic, and I know that there was alot of labor put into that, and 11m sure that the boys and girls and the entire Little League will appreciate that. I received a complaint about the water fees, so I would like staff to privately come back and tell me why they were raised like 300 percent. Commissioner Saathoff stated that this was well covered at a City Council meeting. Chairman Dominguez - stated that Cal Trans has been contacted about the signs. What we have to do, the City has to request a survey and if the study is valid, then they will come and tell you where they are going to put the signs, but it all has to come from the City Engineer; a request to do the study, and they will pay for and install the signs. Mr. Culp stated that he would address a letter to Cal Trans. - Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to adjourn to Design Review Board, second by Com- missioner Washburn. Approved 5-0 - - MINUTES OF HELD ON THE MI NUTE ACTION LAKE ELSINORE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD 2ND APRIL 1985 DAY OF Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to approve minutes of March 19, 1985, as submitted, second by Commissioner Barnhart. Approved 5-0 - BUSINESS ITEMS 1. Single-Family Residence - 16806 Pierce Street - James Brundage - Staff presented proposal to construct a single-family residence, located 175 feet southeasterly of the intersection of McPherson Avenue and Pierce Street. The structure will consist of 1,376 square feet of dwelling area and an attached garage of 300 square feet. Materials to be used include: composition shingles, stucco siding and wood trim. Chairman asked if the applicant was in the audience. Being as the applicant was not present, the Chairman asked for discussion at the table. There being no discussion at the table, the Chairman asked for a motion. Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to approve Single-Family Residence at 16806 Pierce Street with staff recommendations, second by Commissioner Barnhart. Approved 5-0 PLANNING DIVISION CONDITIONS: 1. - 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. All roof mounted or ground support equipment incidental to development shall be architecturally screened so that they are not visible from neighboring property or publ ic streets. Building elevations shall be constructed as depicted on plans, any proposed changes will require resubmittal to the Design Review Board. Grading plans are to be approved by the Engineering Department. Applicant shall plant street trees outside the public right-of-way, to be approved by the Planning Division. Street trees shall be planted a minimum of 30-feet apart, and be a minimum of 15 gallon. All slopes shall be planted with erosion control vegetation, to be approved by Planning Division. Applicant is to install permanent sprinkler systems for all planting areas. Applicant is to construct a 450 square foot two (2) car garage. 2. Single-Family Residence - 29356 Kalina Avenue - Daniel McDonald - Staff presented proposal to construct a single-family residence, located 200t feet northwesterly of the intersection of Kalina Avenue and Ulmer Street. The structure will have approximately 2,040 square feet of dwelling area and an attached garage of approximately 615 square feet. Materials to be used include: stucco siding, wood trim, and Spanish tile roofing. Chairman asked for discussion at the table. A brief discussion was held on the roof. There being no further discussion, the Chairman asked for a motion. Motion by Commissioner Barnhart to approve Single-Family Residence at 29356 Kalina Avenue with staff recommendations, second by Commissioner Washburn. Approved 5-0 PLANNING DIVISION CONDITIONS: 1. All roof mounted or ground support equipment indicental to development Minutes of Design Review Board April 2, 1985 Pa ge 2 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE - 29356 KALINA AVENUE - DANIEL MCDONALD CONTINUED shall be architecturally screened so that they are not visible from neighboring property or public streets. 2. Building elevations shall be constructed as depicted on plans, any proposed changes will require resubmittal to the Design Review Board. 3. Grading plans are to be approved by the Engineering Department. - 4. Applicant shall plant street trees outside the public right-of-way, to be approved by the Planning Division. 5. Street trees shall be planted a minimum of 30-feet apart, and be a minimum of 15 gallon. 6. All slopes shall be planted with erosion control vegetation, to be approved by Planning Division. 7. Applicant is to install permanent sprinkler systems for all planting areas. 3. Single-Family Residence - 213 Townsend Street - Archie Porter - Staff presented proposal to construct a single-family residence, located 180 feet southeasterly of the intersection of Sumner Avenue and Townsend Street. The structure will have approximately 1,830 square feet of dwelling area and an attached garage of 750 square feet. Materials to be used include: stucco siding, and wood trim. Chairman asked for discussion at the table. A brief discussion was held on the roofing material, with a condition added that applicant shall utilize Class IIAII roofing material. There being no further discussion at the table, the Chairman asked for a motion. - Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to approve Single-Family Residence at 213 Town- send Street with staff recommendations, and adding condition number 7, which will read: IIApplicant shall utilize Class IIAn roofing materialsll, second by Commis- sioner Saathoff. Approved 5-0 PLANNING DIVISION CONDITIONS: 1. All roof mounted or ground support equipment incidental to development shall be architecturally screened so that they are not visible from neighboring property or public streets. 2. Building elevations shall be constructed as depicted on plans, any proposed changes will require resubmittal to the Design Review Board. 3. Grading plans are to be approved by the Engineering Department. 4. Applicant shall plant street trees outside the public right-of-way, to be approved by the Planning Division. 5. Street trees shall be planted a minimum of 30-feet apart, and be a minimum of 15 gallon. 6. Applicant is to install permanent sprinkler systems for all planting areas. - 7. APPLICANT IS TO UTILIZE CLASS IIAII ROOFING MATERIALS. There being no further business, the Lake Elsinore Design Review Board adjourned Minutes of Design Review Board April 2, 1985 Pa ge 3 at 7:49 p.m. Motion by Commissioner Barnhart, second by Commissioner Washburn. Approved 5-0 - Approved, ~4' ~~~~~ Fred Dominguez,- Cha i rman Respectfully sUb~ed: cfi!~ ~d~ ~ i nda Gri nds ta ff ?7 rtI Planning Commission Secretary - MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON THE 16TH DAY OF APRIL 1985 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Commissioner Saathoff. ROLL CALL found Commissioner Saathoff, Commissioner Mellinger, Commissioner Washburn, Commissioner Barnhart and Chairman Dominguez. - Also present were City Engineer Culp, Assistant Planner Coleman and Assistant Planner Miner. MI NUTE ACT! ON Motion by Commissioner Barnhart to approve minutes of April 2, 1985, as submitted, second by Commissioner Washburn. Approved 5-0 PUBLI C HEARINGS NONE BUS I NESS ITEMS 1. Residential Project 85-1 - David Rogers - Staff presented proposal to construct two (2) duplexes on a 13,500 square foot parcel, located approximately 150 feet southwesterly of the intersection of Heald Avenue and Graham Avenue. Chairman asked if the applicant was in the audience. Being as the applicant was not present, the Chairman asked for discussion at the table. - Discussion was held on condition number 20, pertaining to reciprocal parking; size of garage for project (one, one car garage and one, two car garage); having assigned parking per unit in the CC & R's; and, condition number 16, pertaining to the fire hydrant. Motion by Commissioner Washburn to approve Residential Project 85-1 with staff recommendations and amend condition number 16, by del eti ng the word "standard", amend condition number 20, by adding the following verbiage IIThat the assigned parking per unit to be established in CC & R's", second by Commissioner Mel- 1 i nger. Approved 5-0 PLANNING DIVISION CONDITIONS: 1. Applicant shall meet all setbacks. 2. Applicant is to meet all applicable City Codes and Ordinances. 3. Meet all Riverside County Health Department requirements. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS: STREETS 4. Meet all requirements of Ordinance 572. -. 5. No right-of-way dedication required on Heald Avenue. 6. Construct curb, gutter and sidewalk (to match existing) along total property frontage of Heald Avenue. Curbline at Heald Avenue shall be at 18-feet from street centerline. 7. Street plans and specifications to be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and will include signing and striping. As built street, grading, utility and drainage improvement plans are required. 8. Public improvements to conform with City Code requirements and City approved Riverside County Standard Drawing and Standard Specifications for Public Works. Minutes of Planning Commission April 16, 1985 Page 2 RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 85-1 - DAVID ROGERS CONTINUED 9. All street monumentation must be reset if disturbed during construction, and documentation submitted to the City Engineer to include centerline tie notes for approval and acceptance. GRADING 10. All grading must conform to City Ordinance 636 and the Uniform Building Code, Chapter 70. - 11. Provide Soils Report, including street design recommendations. Provide final grade certification of pad elevation per approved grading plan and a final compaction report to the City Engineer for approval. 12. Provide Grading Plan and Certificate of Survey prepared by a registered Civil Engineer. All property lines shall be at the top of construction slope with the required Uniform Building Code setback requirements. SEWER 13. A will serve letter from Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District, guar- anteeing sewer availability, has been received by the City Engineer1s offi ce. WATER 14. Dedicate subsurface water rights to the City of Lake Elsinore or its assignees. 15. Applicant shall pay one-half the depreciated cost of the water mains installed in 1963, across applicant1s frontage in the amount of $120 per lot. 16. Applicant shall install s:taflElaf'E1 fire hydrant at the northwesterly corner of Lot 20 (Assessor Parcel No. 373-041-007) as required by the Riverside County Fire Department and City Engineer. - FEES 17. Pay all applicable Capital Improvement fees per Ordinance No. 572. 18. Pay all sewer fees per Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District's fee schedule. 19. Pay all School fees. 20. Applicant shall, on each parcel, record within CC & R's provlslon for reciprocal parking, ASSIGNED PARKING PER UNIT, access and drainage agreement for all buildings located on subject property, subject to approval by Planning Division and Engineering Department. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S REPORT Mr. Coleman informed the Spring Conference, to be concentrate on Community Fri day, May 3rd. Commission of the upcoming City-County Planning Commissioners held May 9,1985, in Fontana, California. The program will Design aspects. Reservations must be made no later than - Mr. Culp reported on the following: Krouse Project at the corner of Scrivener and Graham - this development was approved by the Design Review Board on August 19, 1980. Grading Permit was issued on April 8, 1981. Grading for this particular project was certified as conforming to the approved plan on May 1, 1981. Also, there is a letter from the City Attorney proposing that a provision of the State Law could be used to force the owner to replace the sidewalk along Lakeshore. Mr. Krouse was contacted, at his office in Placentia, and indicated that the concrete sidewalk removed was very deteriorated, and in his opinion, the asphalt side- walk is an improvement over what existed. Mr. Krouse indicated that he still Minutes of Planning Commission April 16, 1985 Page 3 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S REPORT CONTINUED - intends to develop the property exactly as previously proposed, and he expects to arrange the financing in six months. Mr. Krouse has agreed to come to the Planning Commission meeting on May 7, 1985, and speak to the Commission and respond to any questions that the Commission may have. Mc Collum Project on Mohr Street and Lakeshore - applicant has not submitted plans and information in a timely manner. Apparently, a local firm has been authorized to prepare plans for street work, water line extension and sewer main revisions for Mr. Mc Collum's Project. The plans were submitted for plan checking, most of the plan checking fees paid on December 13,1984. It is expected that in two weeks staff will send the plans back for correction. Mr. Culp stated that some time has lapsed since any construction activity or any new plans have been made. Discussion was held on time limit for the project. Mr. Culp stated that the would have to contact Mr. Mc Collum and find out what time he was talking about. Mr. Culp asked that he be allowed to come back with this information. Mr. Culp stated that he has copies of the Soils Report with information relating to the percolation results for the Kulberg Tract, Kaufman and Broad Tract and Tracts 15020 and 19750. Mr. Culp asked that he be allowed to xerox this informa- tion and place it in each Commissioner's mail box. Mr. Culp stated that on Railroad Canyon Road, they have scheduled the resurfacing, striping delineation and signing for April 22nd through the 26th, the roadway will be closed from 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. to facilitate the construction. PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION - Commissioner Saathoff - Would like to ask the City Engineer, since Mr. Krouse is going to appear at the May meeting, that background information be included in the packet. Commissioner Mellinger - None Commissioner Washburn - Commented to the City Engineer, that it is nice to see the striping for the drainage on Graham and Main Street intersection, and the striping for the bi ke pa ths . Commissioner Barnhart - None Chairman Dominguez - Curb at the car wash (Spring and Graham), where they removed the sign that was obstructing the view, now it is a parking space, would like to have this painted red. Mr. Culp sta"ted that he would check into this. Briarwood Park - A tree has uprooted the sidewalk there and they would like to have it replaced, at the end of Sumner and Ellis. Mr. Culp stated that he would check into thi s. Commissioner Barnhart - Spring and Graham, noticed that they have put some rock in, are they going to finish that street, or are they going to wait until the geothermal lines are in? Mr. Culp stated that they are going to complete that street, however, we are going to wait on the geothermal line, as well as the regional sewage collection line. -- Motion by Commissioner Washburn to adjourn to Design Review Board, second by Commis~ sioner Barnhart. Approved 5-0 MINUTES OF HELD ON THE MINUTE ACTION LAKE ELSINORE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD 16TH DAY OF APRIL 1985 Motion by Commissioner Washburn to approve minutes of April 2, 1985, as submitted, second by Commissioner Barnhart. Approved 5-0 B US I NESS ITEMS 1. Residential Project 85-1 - David Rogers - Staff presented proposal to construct two (2) duplexes on a 13,500 square foot parcel, located approximately 150 feet southwesterly of the intersection of Heald Avenue and Graham Avenue. - Each unit will have 1,050 square feet of dwelling area and an attached garage of either 380 square feet or 220 square feet. Materials to be used include stucco siding, wood trim and asphalt shingles. Chairman asked for discussion at the table. A brief discussion was held on condition number 6, pertaining to applicant providing automatic sprinkler system for the project. Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to approve Residential Project 85-1 with staff recommendations, second by Commissioner Barnhart. Approved 5-0 PLANNING DIVISION CONDITIONS: 1. All roof mounted or ground support equipment incidental to development shall be architecturally screened so that they are not visible from neighboring property or public streets. Building elevations shall be constructed as depicted on plans, or modified by the Design Review Board, and proposed changes by the applicant will require resubmittal to the Design Review Board. 3. Grading plans are to be approved by the Engineering Department. 2. - 4. Applicant shall plant street trees outside the public right-of-way, to be approved by the Planning Division. 5. Street trees shall be planted a minimum of 30-feet apart, and be a minimum of 15 gallon. 6. Applicant is to landscape all open areas and provide a permanent sprinkler system for their upkeep. 2. Commercial Project 83-8 - Carl.s Jr. - Staff presented for review the Landscap- ing and Signage Plan for Carl's Jr., located northwesterly of the intersection of Railroad Canyon Road and Casino Drive. Chairman asked if the applicant was in the audience, if they had received a copy of the conditions. Mr. Robert Friedman, representing the applicant, stated that he had a couple of items. One, the monument sign in front; we wish to turn that 90 degrees. We feel that we would get more visibility from both streets if it were turned 90 degrees. Mr. Friedman then requested clarification on condition number 5, per- taining to sod treatment. - Discussion was held on the height of monument sign; effect on visibility with turning the sign; condition number 5, pertaining to sod treatment as an alterna- tive to groundcover, and adding verbiage "in place of seeding"; Landscaping Plan, pertaining to type of trees proposed, area along the freeway, from the edge of the off-ramp down to the edge of the property; and the apex of Casino and Rail- road Canyon Road. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to approve Commercial Project 83-8 Landscaping and Signage Plan with staff recommendations, and amend condition number 5, by eliminating lias an alternative to groundcover" and insert "in place of seeding", Minutes of Design Review Board April 16, 1985 Page 2 COMMERCIAL PROJECT 83-8 - CARL'S JR. LANDSCAPING AND SIGNAGE PLAN CONTINUED second by Commissioner Barnhart. Approved 5-0 PLANNING DIVISION CONDITIONS: 1. All planting areas shall be separated from paved areas with a six- inch (611) high concrete curb. 2. All items depicted on the Landscaping and Signage Plans shall be provided as indicated, unless otherwise modified by the Design Review Board's conditions. Any proposed changes must be resubmit- ted to the Design Review Board for approval. 3. All planting areas shall have permanent and automatic sprinkler sys tems . 4. Irrigation plans to be approved by Planning Division. 5. Applicant shall provide sod treatment as-aR-a~te~Rat~Ye-te-9~e~Rg- €eYe~ IN PLACE OF SEEDING in areas designated to receive such a vegetational application on the proposed Landscape Plan. 3. Residential Project 84-10 - Preston Barrett - Staff presented for review the Landscaping and Irrigation Plan for Residential Project 84-10, located on the southeast corner of Graham Avenue and Lewis Street. Chairman asked if the applicant was in the audience, if he had received a copy of the conditions, and if he had any concerns. - Mr. John Hall questioned condition number 2, pertaining to the sod treatment. Discussion was held on condition number 2, pertaining to the sod treatment; Landscaping Plan, defining grass areas and the type of trees to be used; and, timing and schedule for landscaping. Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to approve Residential Project 84-10 Landscap- ing/Irrigation Plan with staff recommendations, and deleting condition number 2, provided that landscaping be installed prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy, second by Commissioner Washburn. Approved 5-0 PLANNING DIVISION CONDITIONS: 1. All items depicted on the Landscaping/Irrigation Plan shall be provided as indicated unless otherwise modified by the Design Review Board's conditions. Any proposed changes must be resubmitted to the Design Re- view B.oard for approval. 2. Applicant shall provide sod treatment as an alternative to groundcover in areas designated to receive such vegetational application on the proposed Landscape Plan. DELETE, PROVIDED THAT LANDSCAPING BE INSTALLED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. 3. All planting areas shall be separated from paved areas with a six-inch (611) high concrete curb. 4. Commercial Project 84-2 - Commercial Lighting Service (Chevron) - Sign, Appeal of Decision - Staff presented request to erect a 48 square foot price sign on the freestanding pole located on Mission Trail. Chevron Station currently has six signs located on-site in addition to the two pole signs. The six signs include two IINow Openll signs, two price signs, and two signs advertising cigarette prices. Staff feels that the six moveable signs located on subject site are unsightly, and creates a traffic hazard. The number of moveable on-site signs should be reduced, and the use of uniform directional and price signs should be incorporated. Minutes of Design Review Board April 16, 1985 Page 3 COMMERCIAL PROJECT 84-2 - COMMERCIAL LIGHTING SERVICE (CHEVRON)- SIGN, APPEAL OF DECISION CONTINUED Chairman asked for discussion at the table. Discussion was held on elevation of signs from street level; number of signs allowed per square footage of structure per Municipal Code; visibility (ingress/egress) while in a vehicle; distance from ingress/egress; height of signs; portable signs being in the landscaping areas. Motion by Commissioner Barnhart to approve Commercial Project 84-2: Sign, with staff recommendations, second by Commissioner Mellinger. Approved 4-1 Commissioner Saathoff opposed - PLANNING DIVISION CONDITIONS: 1. Remove the two (2) moveable price signs, the two (2) cigarette price signs and the two (2) "Now Open II signs. 2. Place a directional sign (no higher than 36 inches) on the entrance off of Casino Drive. 3. Obtain permits prior to the erection. There being no further business, the Lake Elsinore Design Review Board adjourned at 8:25 p.m. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff, second by Commissioner Washburn. Approved 5-0 ~~b;:v- Chairman - Respectfully submitted, ~n~~ Planning Commission Secretary - MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON THE 7TH DAY OF MAY 1985 THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:30 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Commissioner Barnhart. ROLL CALL found Commissioner Saathoff, Commissioner Mellinger, Commissioner Washburn, Commissioner Barnhart and Chairman Dominguez. Also present were City Engineer Cu1p, Assistant Planner Coleman and Assistant Planner Miner. MI NUTE ACT! ON Motion by Commissioner Washburn to approve minutes of April 16, 1985, as submitted, second by Commissioner Barnhart. Approved 5-0 PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Tentative Parcel Map 20734 - W. R. Atkinson - Staff presented proposal to sub- divide 16.5:! acres into four parcels, located easterly of Lakeshore Drive, at the intersection of Pierce Street and Gray Road. Chairman opened the public hearing at 7:33 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of Tentative Parcel Map 20734. Receiving no response, the Chairman asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Receiving no response, the Chairman closed the public hearing at 7:34 p.m. - A lengthy discussion was held on condition number 7.a,b,c., pertaining to precise alignment for Terra Cotta Road; condition number 8, pertaining to cu1- de-sac width; condition number 9, pertaining to public improvements; condition number 12, pertaining to underground water rights; condition number 13, pertain- ing to water availability letter, and; continuing the public hearing to the next meeting. Motion by Commissioner Washburn to continue Tentative Parcel Map 20734 to the meeting of May 21, 1985, with special interest on the alignment on Terra Cotta Road, and the all weather road access to the parcel map, second by Commissioner Saathoff . Approved 5-0 2. Conditional Use Permit 85-3 - P.J. Fenton - Staff presented app1icant1s request to have the public hearing on Conditional Use Permit 85-3 continued to the meet- ing of May 21, 1985, for the purpose of revising the site plan. Motion by Commissioner Washburn to continue Conditional Use Permit 85-3 to the meeting of May 21, 1985, second by Commissioner Mellinger with request to see the site plan before the hearing. Approved 5-0 B US I NESS ITEMS - 1. Single-Family Residence 1021 Parkway - Alphonso Diaz - Staff presented proposal to construct a one-story single-family residence on a 7,500 square foot lot, located approximately 50 feet northeasterly of the intersection of Avenue 3 and Parkway. Chairman asked if the applicant was in the audience, if he had received a copy of the conditions, and if there were any questions. Mr. Diaz commented on condition number 11, pertaining to the fire hydrant in- stallation and requested reimbursement for the improvement from any other people building in the area around the adjacent lots to his property. Discussion was held on condition number 11, pertaining to the fire hydrant re- quirement, and the last sentence of condition number 6. Minutes of Planning Commission May 7, 1985 Page 2 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE - 1021 PARKWAY - ALPHONSO DIAZ CONTINUED Motion by Commissioner Barnhart to approve Single-Family Residence at 1021 Parkway with staff recommendations, second by Commissioner Saathoff with di scuss ion. Commissioner Saathoff asked if the maker of the motion would be willing to add to condition number 11, to recommend to City Council that staff pursue the feasibility of reimbursing the applicant cost, if applicable, for the upgrading of the fire hydrant. - Commissioner Barnhart amended her motion to include in condition number 11, to recommend to City Council that staff pursue the feasibility of reimbursing applicant cost, if applicable, for the upgrading of the fire hydrant, second by Commissioner Saathoff. Approved 5-0 PLANNING DIVISION CONDITIONS: 1. Applicant is to meet all applicable City Codes and Ordinances. 2. Applicant is to meet all Riverside County Health Department require- ments. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS: 3. Meet all requirements of Ordinance 572. 4. Install standard driveway approach and 6-~ot wide sidewalk across the total property frontage. Curb and gutter exists along the total property frontage. 5. Public improvements to conform with City Code requirements and City approved Riverside County Standard Drawings and Standard Specifications for Publ ic Works. I - 6. - Within the next twelve (12) months, the City of Lake Elsinore shall cause the property described hereinabove to be included within a district to be formed under the Lighting and Landscaping Act of 1972 (commencing with Section 22500 of the Streets and Highways Code) to pay for the annual cost of lighting, landscaping and parks which benefit the project, by the annual levy and collection of an assess- ment within the project area. Owners agree to waive any right of protest under the Lighting and Landscaping Act of 1972. 7. All grading must conform to City Ordinance 636 and the Uniform Building Code, Chapter 70. 8. Provide Grading Plan prepared by a registered Civil Engineer. Pro- vide Certificate of Survey for all property on subject lot. 9. Meet all requirements of Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District for sewage disposal. 10. Dedicate underground water rights to the City of Lake Elsinore or its ass i gnees . 11. Me.et all requirements of Riverside County Fire Department for fire protection. Applicant shall install standard fire hydrant at the ... intersection of Avenue 3 and Parkway as required by the City Engineer and the Riverside County Fire Department. RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL THAT STAFF PURSUE THE FEASIBILITY OF REIMBURSING THE APPLICANT COST, IF APPLICABLE, FOR THE UPGRADING OF THE FIRE HYDRANT. 12. Pay all applicable Capital Improvement fees. 13. Pay all applicable plan checking fees. 14. Pay all School fees. 15. Pay all sewer fees per Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District's schedule, if applicable. Minutes of Planning Commission May 7, 1985 Pa ge 3 2. Single-Family Residence 630 Lake Street - MFG Housing Corporation - Staff pre- sented proposal to construct a single-family residence on a 9,000 square foot lot, located 240 feet east of the intersection of Center and Lake Streets. Chairman asked if the applicant was in the audience, if he had received a copy of the conditions, and if there were any questions. The applicant questioned condition number 13, pertaining to the decorative street lighting; condition number 14, pertaining to fire hydrant installation, and on condition number 24, stated that the Temescal Water Line has already been established. Discussion was held on condition number 13, pertaining to the decorative street lighting; condition number 14, pertaining to the installation of fire hydrant, with the City providing the hydrant and applicant providing for the installation of the hydrant; condition number 6, pertaining to the processing of a parcel map, and; condition number 23, pertaining to processing a lot merger for Lots 11, 12 and portion of 13. Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to approve Single-Family Residence at 630 Lake Street with staff recommendations, deleting condition number 13, amend condition number 14, to read: "Install fire hydrant at Center and Lake Street if hydrant is provided by the City"; amend condition number 23, to read: "Pro- cess a lot merger for Lots 11,12 and a portion of 13, after the fulfillment of condition number 6", second by Commissioner Washburn with discussion. Commissioner Washburn stated that he thinks it only points out the necessity to solve some of the upgrading problems with hydrants and lighting. Thinks it is crucial that we try and solve the problem and get them at the Council ta b 1 e . There being no further discussion, the Chairman asked for the vote. Approved 5-0. PLANNING DIVISION CONDITIONS: 1. All items on Site Plan shall be provided as indicated on the Site Plan unless otherwise modified by the Planning Commission and/or Design Re- view Board. 2. Applicant is to meet all applicable City Codes and Ordinances. 3. Meet County Health Department requirements concerning wastewater dis- po sa 1 . 4. Applicant is to meet all conditions of approval prior to the issuance of Certifi ca te of Use or Occupancy. 5. Applicant is to meet all setbacks. 6. Appl icant is to process a Parcel Map for the purpose of creating a separate property ownership with the adjacent existing residence which is located on Lots 14 and 15 and portion of Lot 13, to be recorded prior to the development of adjacent properties. 7. If approved, the issuance of a building permit will be only applicable to the manufactured housing unit located at 630 Lake Street. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS: 8. A 50-foot right-of-way exists on Lake Street. No additional right-of- way is required. 9. Install curb and gutter 18-feet from street centerline on Lake Street. 10. Construct 6-foot sidewalk to City standards adjacent to curb on Lake Street to conform to existing sidewalk conditions along Lake Street. 11. Construct asphalt paving to City standards from centerline to curbline for anticipated traffic loads represented by Traffic Index of 6.0. There is existing paving on Lake Street adjacent to centerline. Test Minutes of Planning Commission May 7, 1985 Pa ge 4 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE 630 LAKE STREET - MFG HOUSING CORPORATION CONTINUED must be provided to show that existing paving is to City Standards. 12. Provide grading plan, Certificate of Survey, and Soils Report. sons Report to include data for street design. 13. tRstall-ae€e~at~ve-st~eet-l~~Rt. DELETED. 14. Install fire hydrant at Center and Lake Street, IF HYDRANT IS PRO- VIDED BY THE CITY. - 15. Plans and specifications for public improvements shall be prepared by applicant's Civil Engineer for approval by City Engineer. 16. Meet all requirements of Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District for sewage disposal. 17. Dedicate subsurface water rights to the City of Lake Elsinore. 18. There is an existing 4-inch domestic water line in Lake Street and service is from the City of Lake Elsinore, 19. Pay Capital Improvement fee as required by Ordinance No. 572. 20_. Pay Public Safety fees as required by Resolution No. 83-4. 21. Provision shall be made for drainage as approved by the City Engineer and City Attorney for accepting street drainage through or adjacent to this property to conform to existing drainage patterns. A require- ment to improve the alley is not proposed because this requirement was waived for previous developments. 22. Within the next twelve (12) months, the City of Lake Elsinore shall cause the property described hereinabove to be included within a district to be formed under the Lighting and Landscaping Act of 1972 (commencing with Section 22500 of the Streets and Highways Code) to pay for the annual cost of lighting, landscaping and parks which benefit the project, by the annual levy and collection of an assess- ment within the project area. Owners agree to waive any right of protest under the Lighting and Landscaping Act of 1972. 23. Process a lot merger for Lots 11, 12 AND A PORTION OF 13, AFTER THE FULFILLMENT OF CONDITION NUMBER 6. - 24. Expose and precisely locate the Temescal Water line prior to complet- ing the grading plan. 25. Provide an easement for drainage through applicant's property and construct a drainage facility to point of adequate disposal as ap- proved by the City Engi neer. Record an agreement i ndemni fyi ng and holding the City harmless from drainage impacts. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S REPORT Mr. Coleman stated that at this time, staff would like to bring before the Commission a request to change the Planning Commission meeting time from 7:30 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. ... to coincide with the City Council meeting time. Staff would appreciate your comments and a decision on this. It was the consensus of the Commission to change the Planning Commission meeting time from 7:30 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Commissioner Saathoff - None Commissioner Mellinger - Would like to see a change on our application forms where site plans are required, and have enough site plans required on the application Minutes of Planning Commission May 7, 1985 Page 5 PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION CONTINUED itself, so that each Commissioner and Counci1member can have a site plan before the hearing. I would like to request the same for Design Review Board. Commissioner Barnhart - Asked staff if the Land Use Map that went with the General Plan was available in a reduced size, or would there be any objections in having a reduced copy made that the Chamber could mail out to developers. Mr. Coleman stated that he would check into this and get back to her. Commissioner Washburn - None Chairman Dominguez - None Mr. Cu1p reported on the following items: 1. Interstate 15 signage for gas, food, lodging, updating City Limit signs with population and elevations on Highway 74 at Central and also at Ortega. 2. Status of Berk McCollom's project on Mohr Street. 3. Bill Krouse's project on Graham anD Scrivener. A brief discussion was held on Mr. McCollom's project with mention of Design Review Board expiration, and whether or not the applicant was aware of this. Mr. McCollom was present and stated that he was aware of the expiration. Discussion was held on Mr. Krouse's project regarding the asphalt sidewalk being accepted as temporary for a period of ninty days. Commissioner Saathoff recom- mended that this be placed on the next agenda as a business item for action. Commissioner Washbur~ stated that he would like to follow up on the letter received from the Department of Transportation. Would like to direct staff, with the Com- mission's approval, to follow this up with another letter with emphasis on either acquiring_the updated numbers as soon as possible, correction of the elevation, as brought to our attention, and see if he can be a little more specific on the means which the City can erect signs along the freeway dealing with rest, food, etc. Mr. Culp stated that they intend to start street improvements on Lakeshore Drive and Graham, possibly the middle of next week. There being no further discussion at the table, the Chairman asked for a motion to adjourn to Design Review Board. Motion by Commissioner Washburn to adjourn to Design Review Board, second by Com- missioner Barnhart. Approved 5-0 MINUTES OF HELD ON THE MI NUTE ACT! ON LAKE ELSINORE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD 7TH DAY OF MAY 1985 Motion by Commissioner Barnhart to approve minutes of April 16, 1985, as submitted, second by Commissioner Saathoff. Approved 5-0 BUSINESS ITEMS - 1. Single-Family Residence 1021 Parkway - Alphonso Diaz - Staff presented proposal to construct a one-story single-family residence on a 7,000 square foot lot, located approximately 50 feet northeasterly of the intersection of Avenue 3 and Parkway. Chairman asked if the applicant was in the audience. Receiving no response, the Chairman asked for discussion at the table. There being no discussion at the table, the Chairman asked for a motion. Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to approve Single-Family Residence at 1021 Parkway with staff recommendations, second by Commissioner Barnhart. Approved 5-0 PLANNING DIVISION CONDITIONS: 1. All roof mounted or ground support equipment incidental to development shall be architecturally screened so that they are not visible from neighboring property or public streets. 2. Building elevations shall be constructed as depicted on plans, or modified by the Design Review Board, any proposed changes by the applicant will require resubmitta1 to the Design Review Board. 3. Applicant to plant street trees, minimum 15 gallon, outside the public ri ght-o f-way . 4. Street trees to be planted a minimum of 30-feet apart. - 5. Applicant is to landscape all open areas, and provide a permanent sprinkler system for their upkeep. 2. Single-Family Residence 630 Lake Street - MFG Housing Corporation - Staff pre- sented proposal to construct a single-family residence on a 9,000 square foot lot, located 240 feet east of the intersection of Center and Lake Streets. Chairman asked if the applicant was in the audience, if he had received a copy of the conditions, and if there were any problems. Applicant stated that the house would not have masonite siding, it is stucco, and then questioned condition number 8, regarding the earthtone hues, stating that he wished to use gray tones or a Cape Cod coloring; condition number 9, pertaining to masonry veneer exterior materials, and; condition number 10, per- taining to masonite siding. Discussion was held on the above mentioned conditions, and applicant providing a redwood fence along the side and rear of the property. Motion by Commissioner Washburn to approve Single-Family Residence at 630 Lake Street with staff recommendations, striking that it is a manufactured house, that in fact, it is a stucco, stick built house; amend condition number 8, by del eti ng the word "earthtone" and insert the word "gray tone" ; amend condi tion number 9, to read: "App1 icant to provide stucco exterior material"; add condi- tion number 11, which will read: "Applicant to construct side and rear yard six-foot redwood fence 1 i ne, to screen and protect subject property", second by Commissioner Mellinger with discussion. - Commissioner Mellinger stated that he would go with a minimum five-foot fence. Commissioner Washburn amended his motion changing condition number 11, to five- Minutes of Design Review Board May 7, 1 985 Page 2 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE 630 LAKE STREET - MFG HOUSING CORPORATION CONTINUED foot or six-foot cedar or redwood fencing. Approved 5-0 PLANNING DIVISION CONDITIONS: 1. All roof mounted or ground support equipment incidental to the develop- ment shall be architecturally screened so that they are not visible from neighboring property or public streets. 2. Building elevations shall be constructed as depicted on plans, any proposed changes will require resubmittal to the Design Review Board. 3. Grading Plans to be approved by Engineering Department. 4. Applicant shall plant 15 gallon street trees at 30-foot intervals out- side of public right-of-way, to be approved by Planning Division. 5. Applicant is to install permanent sprinkler system for all planting areas. 6. Landscaping/irrigation plan shall be part of residential concept so that a design theme is established that will provide sufficient vegetation around the entire perimeter of the ~i~~fi,t~~Qd residence, which shall be reviewed by Planning Division. 7. Landscaping beyond immediate planter perimeter surrounding unit shall be placed at locations on subject site so that vegetation con- veys a positive visual depiction to all public views, and will be subject to review and approval by Planning Division. 8. Applicant shall incorporate GRAYTONE hues within the building eleva- tiona 1 des i gns for the purpose of conformi ng to exi s ti ng nei ghborhood character and environmental conditions. 9.. APPLICANT TO PROVIDE STUCCO EXTERIOR MATERIAL. lQ. Applicant to accent all building elevations with masonite siding variations in order to reduce monotonous and barren elevational pro- jections and thereby convey a positive visual configuration that will contribute to an interesting building texture. 11. APPLICANT TO CONSTRUCT SIDE AND REAR YARD FIVE-FOOT OR SIX-FOOT CEDAR OR REDWOOD FENCING,TO SCREEN AND PROTECT SUBJECT PROPERTY. 3. Single-Family Residence 16518 Smith Avenue Revised - Danny Celeketic - Staff presented revised elevations for proposed single-family residence at 16518 Smith Avenue. Chairman asked if the applicant was in the audience. Receiving no response, the Chairman asked for discussion at the table. A brief discussion was held on exterior materials to be used. Motion by Commissioner Barnhart to approve Revised Elevations for Single-Family Residence at 16518 Smith Avenue with staff recommendations, second by Commis- sioner Mellinger. Approved 5-0 PLANNING DIVISION CONDITIONS: 1. All conditions imposed and approved by Planning Commission and Design Review Board on August 7,1984 and February 5,1985, shall prevail. 2. Applicant shall use earthtone colors, so that the structure will blend in with the hillside area. 3. All retaining walls, where applicable, shall be screened with shrubbery (minimum 5 gallon), and trees (minimum 15 gallon). Minutes of Design Review Board May 7, 1985 Page 3 4. Elevations for Conditional Use Permit 85-3 - P.J. Fenton - Staff requested that this be continued to the meeting of May 21, 1985, to coincide with Planning Commission recommendation of continuation. Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to continue Elevations for Conditional Use Permit 85-3 to the meeting of May 21,1985, provided we obtain a site plan before the next Design Review Board meeting, second by Commissioner Washburn. Approved 5-0 - There being no further business, the Lake Elsinore Design Review Board adjourned at 9:00 p.m. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff, second by Commissioner Barnhart. Approved 5-0 Appro ved, Respectfully sub ~ Linda Gri nds ta ff Planning Commission Secretary - - MINUTES OF HELD ON THE 21ST LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION DAY OF MAY 1985 THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:05 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by City Engineer Cu1p. ROLL CALL found Commissioner Saathoff, Commissioner Mellinger and Commissioner Wash- burn. Commissioner Barnhart and Chairman Dominguez were absent. Also present were Community Development Director Corcoran, City Engineer Cu1p, Assistant Planner Coleman and Assistant Planner Miner. Being as Chairman Dominguez was absent, Vice-Chairman Washburn conducted the meeting. MINUTE ACTION Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to approve minutes of May 7, 1985, as submitted, second by Commissioner Mellinger. Approved 3-0 PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Tentative Parcel Map 20734 - W.R. Atkinson - Staff presented proposal to sub- divide 16.5r acres into four parcels, located easterly of Lakeshore Drive, at the intersection of Pierce Street and Gray Road. Vice-Chairman opened the public hearing at 7:09 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of Tentative Parcel Map 20734. Mr. Bill Atkinson spoke in favor of Tentative Parcel Map 20734, and stated that he had a couple of items to address. Vice-Chairman stated that he could address the items later. ,.... Vice-Chairman asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor. Receiving no re- sponse, the Vice-Chairman asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Re- ceiving no response, the Vice-Chairman closed the public hearing at 7:10 p.m. Mr. Atkinson was called back to the podium. Mr. Atkinson questioned condition number 9, pertaining to off-site public improvements; requested clarification on condition number 2, pertaining to the issuance of a Negative Declaration, and; condition number 11, pertaining to inclusion in the Lighting and Landscap- ing District. Chairman Dominguez arrived at 7:15 p.m. Commissioner Barnhart arrived at 7:17 p.m. Discussion was held on condition number 8, pertaining to all weather access road from Terra Cotta; condition number 9, pertaining to off-site public improve- ments, and whether this could be deferred by standard lien agreement, funding mechanism per Subdivision Map Act, and deleting the sidewalk; condition number 8, pertaining to County's recommendation for a 50 foot cul-de-sac instead of a 40 foot cul-de-sac, and; condition number 7, pertaining to the General Plan Amendment and the reduction in the right-of-way width. ,--. Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to approve Tentative Parcel Map 20734 with staff recommendations, and amending condition number 9, by adding the following verbiage "That the funding mechanism be approved by the City Engineer in compli- ance with the Subdivision Map Act", second by Commissioner Saathoff with dis- cussion. Commissioner Saathoff asked if the maker of the motion would be willing to add to condition number 9, somesort of verbiage that this be deferred until request- ed by the City, and that it be secured. Commissioner Mellinger stated that he believes the motion has enough leeway for the City Engineer. Commissioner Mellinger stated that he would like to amend his motion to have the funding mechanism approved by the City Engineer and the City Attorney, in compliance with the Subdivision Map Act. Minutes of Planning Commission May 21, 1985 Page 2 TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 20734 - W.R. ATKINSON CONTINUED Vice-Chairman Washburn stated that with further discussion, on condition number 9, he would like to ask the maker of the motion to delete sidewalk, since it is a rural area. Commissioner Mellinger amended his motion to include the deletion of side- walk in condition number 9, second by Commissioner Saathoff. Approved 5-0 - PLANNING DIVISION CONDITIONS: 1. A finding of no significant impact upon the environment. 2. Issuance of a Negative Declaration. 3. Comply with all requirements of the Subdivision Map Act, and all City Codes and Ordinances. 4. Verification of legal description by City Engineer. 5. Meet California Regional Water Quality Control Board requirements. 6. Agreement with the Lake Elsinore School District and the Elsinore Union High School District to off-set overcrowding. ENGINEERfNG DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS: 7. The adopted Terra Cotta Road/Pierce Street alignment of the General Plan major corridor intersects the west corner of this site and conti nues along the northwest boundary of this parcel. Refer to General Plan Land Use Map (Attachment "E"). An expected extension of Dryden Street would also intersect in some manner at the west corner of this area included in Parcel Map 20734. Two drainage swales intersect at the west corner of this property in Parcel Map 20734. There is no existing usable access to this Parcel Map site. - The developer indicated he wishes to provide access to his Parcel Map 2Q734 site along Gray Avenue to Terra Cotta Road. This access would cross a drainage swale just easterly of Terra Cotta Road and also the two drainage swales near the west corner of the Parcel Map. A General Plan Amendment should be proposed to align Terra Cotta Road along the alignment it presently follows (approximately), which is along the alignment shown on Record of Survey filed in Book 41 of Maps, Page 84, (Attachment "D"), and continuing along Main Street to Coal Avenue, thence generally along Coal Avenue to Pierce Street and finally along Pierce Street to the Freeway 15 interchange. This pro- posed General Plan Amendment should downgrade Terra Cotta Road from Lakeshore Drive to Johnson Avenue (Dryden Street extension, see Attach- ment "B") from 100-foot right-of-way and 86-foot curb-to-curb, to 80- foot right-of-way and 64-foot curb-to-curb. The portion of Terra Cotta Avenue from Johnson Avenue (Dryden) to the Freeway interchange should remain at 100-feet right-of-way and 86-foot curb-to-curb. The General Plan Amendment should also upgrade Dryden Extension from its intersection of Terra Cotta Road at Johnson Avenue to its con- nection to existing Dryden Street to 64-foot right-of-way and 50-foot curb-to-curb. This added width for Dryden Street extension will pro- vide width for two-way left turn. The General Plan Amendment must be approved before recording the Final Map. 8. Provide an all weather access road from Terra Cotta Road along Gray Avenue to the location of the Parcel Map 20734 and along Pierce Street extension to the proposed 40-foot wide cul-de-sac interior street. The road shall be constructed to grade approved by the City Engineer, 20-feet wide, with 4 inches of aggregated base on compated subgrade. Culverts shall be installed at drainage swales as required by the City - Minutes of Planning Commission May 21, 1 985 Page 3 TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 20734 - W.R. ATKINSON CONTINUED -- Engineer, based on a drainage study done by developer's engineer and approved by the City Engineer. The access road must be constructed or bonded for prior to recording the Final Parcel Map. 9. Off-site public improvements along the half-width of Pierce Street (Dryden extension) shall be provided by developer as a condition of future building permits. These public improvements to include paving to one-half of a 50-foot roadway in a 54-foot right-of-way with curb and gutter, s4eewalK, street lighting, signing, striping, and drain- age facil ities. The off-site publ ic improvements for the 40-foot wide access cul-de-sac, including paving, curb and gutter, s4eewalK, sign- ing, and drainage, as well as lighting, shall be done at time of issuance of building permits. Plans shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer. Provide as built plans and bonding at building permit issuance. THE FUNDING MECHANISM BE APPROVED BY THE CITY ENGINEER AND THE CITY ATTORNEY IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT. Traffic index for street design shall be provided by the City Engineer. 10. Pay Capital Improvement and Public Safety fees at building permit i ss uance. 11. Prior to recordation of the Final Parcel Map, or within the next twelve (J2) months, whichever is later, Tentative Parcel Map 20734 shall be included within a district to be formed under the Lighting and Landscaping Act of 1972 (commencing with Section 22500 of the Streets and Highways Code) to pay for the annual cost of lighting, landscaping and parks which benefit the project, by the annual levy and collection of an assessment within the project area. Owners agree to waive any right of protest under the Lighting and Landscap- ing Act of 1972. -- 12. Dedicate underground water rights on Final Parcel Map to the City of Lake Elsinore. 13. Provide a water service availability letter from the water purveyor. 14. Provide fire hydrant facilities as required in writing by the County Fire Department ldefer and require as a condition of the building permit L 15. Provide proof of sewage disposal as approved by Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District and/or the County Health Department. 15. Grading and drainage plans, drainage study, soils report, street design data, Certificate of Survey, and grade certification to be provided at building permit issuance. At this time, vtce-Chairman \'Lashburn turned the gavel over to Chairman Dominguez. 2. Conditional Use Permit 85-3 - P.J. Fenton - Staff presented proposal for a Conditional Use Permit to construct 126 condominium units on 10 acres, which will be developed over five phases, located north of Parkview off of Machado Street. Chairman opened the public hearing at 7:35 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of Conditional Use Permit 85-3. Mr. Gary Fallon of Community Engineering, representing the applicant, spoke in favor of the project, and stated that at a later time, he would like to address a coupl e of the condi tions. Chairman asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak in favor. Receiving Minutes of Planning Commission May 21, 1985 Page 4 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 85-3 - P.J. FENTON CONTINUED no response, the Chairman asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Re- ceiving no response, the Chairman closed the public hearing at 7:37 p.m. Discussion was held on the report, under BACKGROUND, where it refers to Tenta- tive Tract Map 16432, this should be changed to Tentative Tract Map 16452; whether or not project would be on sewer, and if condition number 9 is refer- ring to sewer or water; condition number 13, pertaining to providing transit facilities, and how transit facilities would be provided with the existing trees; City Council Minutes of December 28, 1982, pertaining to applicant pro- viding a cash security bond for the possible removal of the trees; utility poles, whether they would have to be relocated; condition number 17, adding verbiage "Prior to issuance of occupancy or 12 months, whichever comes later; condition number 8, changing the word "should" to "shall"; letter from the County Fire Department pertaining to driveways for Lot 3 and 30; condition number 7, addi ng the word "each", and; addi ng condition number 21, liThe 1 and- scaping theme along Machado shall provide for the maintenance and care of the trees (Deodara Trees) within the parkway, and the area in the parkway not to be paved, so they do have the drip, except for the entrance, and incorporated in the CC & R' s II . - Mr. Fallon asked for clarification on condition number 17. Mr. Fallon stated that sewer plans are approved by the Water and Sewer District, and they do have a will serve letter. Mr. Fallon stated that they would be providing 126 covered and uncovered park- ing spaces, not 126 covered and 135 uncovered as it states in the report. Mr. Fallon then stated that on condition number 19, that on the original ap- proved plans, on file with the City, is a concrete ditch being built between the two lots, and they recommended putting parking in front to get more land- scaping, buffering, and pipe the water underground in front of the units, in the fifth phase, and staff is requesting that the applicant install this in the first phase, which is the model complex. We would like to have this changed to a later phase, or prior to construction or getting building permits on Lots 15 and 16. - Discussion ensued on condition number 19, pertaining to the applicant's request; the number of lots in each phase; time period for all the phases, and; adding verbiage to provide temporary facilities, to be approved by the City Engineer prior to pulling permits at the completion of the fourth phase, or 102 units, whichever comes first. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to approve Conditional Use Permit 85-3 with staff recommendations, with the following changes and additions, in the para- graph under BACKGROUND, the Tentative Tract Map should be 16452; under DISCUS- SION, the applicant is providing 126 covered and uncovered parking spaces, condition number 7, the verbiage shoul d rea'd: II Duri ng each construction phase"; condition number 8, verbiage should be "equipment to or from the site shall be minimized to 50 percent etc"; condition number 9, changed to read: "Meet Elsi- nore. Valley Municipal Water Di.strict requirements for City sewer connection'); condition number 17, add verbiage "Prior to issuance of occupancy or 12 months, whichever comes later, applicant's property shall be included within"; condition number 19, add verbiage liThe app1 i cant shall provi de temporary storm drainage factl ittes as approved by the City Engineer, permanent facil ity to be constructed after the finish of the fourth phase, or 102 units, whichever comes first"; add condition number 21, which will read: "Landscaping theme should incorporate the Deodara Trees and care for that landscaped area, and to be incorporated in the _ CC & R's", s.econd by Commissioner Barnhart. Commissioner Washburn asked the maker of the motion if he would amend condition number 21, to say work with City Staff in the area, and it shouldn1t be paved over. Commissioner Saathoff stated that he would amend his motion to include that the landscaping theme should not have paving, second by Commissioner Barnhart. Approved 5-0 PLANNING DIVISION CONDITIONS: 1. Meet all City Codes and Ordinances. Minutes of Planning Commission May 21, 1 985 Page 5 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 85-3 - P.J. FENTON CONTINUED 2. Applicant shall enter into an agreement with the Elementary and High School Districts to off-set overcrowding. -- 3. Trailers utilized during the construction phase shall be approved by the Planning Division. 4. CC & R's for the project shall prohibit on-site street storage of boats, motorhomes, trailers, roof mounted microwave receivers, and trucks over ons-ton capacity. CC & R's and Homeowner's Management Association rules and regulations shall be submitted to the Planning Division to be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney. The CC & R's shall provide for the effective establishment, operation, management, use repair and maintenance of all streets, right-of-ways, graded slopes, common areas and open space. The CC & R's shall pro- vide that if the property is not maintained in the condition required by the CC & R's, then the City, after making due demand and giving reasonable notice, may enter the area and perform at the Homeowner Management Association's expense the necessary maintenance. The pro- perty shall be subject to a lien in favor of the City to secure any such expense not promptly reimbursed. 5. Meet Regional Water Quality Control Board requirements. 6. Meet County Health Department requirements. 7. During EACH construction phase, applicant shall enclose construction site with cyclone fencing to off-set potential vandalism and safety problems associated with unwarranted personnel coming onto the site, to be approved by Planning Division. - 8. During the construction phase, movement of slow-moving, oversized con- struction equipment to or from the site SHALL be minimized to 50 per- cent (~O%L during the periods of 7:30-9:30 a.m. and 4:00-6:00 p.m. 9. Meet Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District requirements FOR CITY SEWER CONNECTION. 10. A finding of no significant impact upon the environment. 11. Issuance of a Negative Declaration. 12. Applicant is to record within CC & R's provlslons for reciprocal park- ing, drainage and access throughout project site. 13. Provide transit facilities (i .e., covered bus stops) within said pro- ject area as deemed applicable by Chairman of Lake Elsinore Transit System. 14. Conditional Use Permit shall be valid for a period of three (3) years, which at the time of expiration will be subject to a review and a report to City Counci 1 . - 15. The Homeowner's Association shall be established prior to the sale of the last dwelling unit. 16.. Membership in the Homeowner's Association shall be mandatory for each buyer and each successive buyer. 17. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF OCCUPANCY OR 12 MONTHS, WHICHEVER COMES LATER, APPLICANT'S PROPERTY SHALL BE INCLUDED WITHIN a district to be formed under the Lighting and Landscaping Act of 1972 (commencing with Section 22500 of the Streets and Highways Code) to pay for the annual cost of lighting, landscaping and park which benefit the project, by the annual levy and collection of an assessment within the Project Area. A Community Facilities District to be formed under the Mello-Roos Com- munity Facilities Act of 1982 (commencing with Section 53311 of the Government Code) to pay for the cost of fire, police and stormwater Minutes of Planning Commission May 21, 1985 Pa ge 6 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 85-3 - P.J. FENTON CONTINUED protection services, by the ~nnua1 levy and collection of a special tax within the Project Area. The Developer agrees to waive any right of protest under the Lighting and Landscaping Act of 1972. Furthermore, the Developer agrees to vote affirmatively on the ballot proposition to be submitted at a special election incident to proceedings under the Me11o-Roos Com- munity Facilities Act of 1982. - 18. Applicant shall install paving and temporary AC diking, as approved by the City Engineer, with first phase of development to control surface drainage, and to provide adequate traffic circulation and emergency access. 19. Applicant shall construct the storm drainage facility between Lots 15 and 16 during the first developmental phase, and because of its approved design and location, this channel will necessitate a con- struction revision as approved by the City Engineer for the purpose of avoiding impacting the required parking spaces located in this area. THE APPLICANT SHALL PROVIDE TEMPORARY STORM DRAINAGE FACILITIES AS APPROVED BY THE CITY ENGINEER, PERMANENT FACILITY TO BE CONSTRUCTED AFTER THE FINISH OF THE FOURTH PHASE, OR 102 UNITS, WHICHEVER COMES FI RS T. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS: 20. All conditions imposed and approved by City Council action on July 8, 1980, for Tract 16452, shall remain in effect. 21. LANDSCAPING THEME SHOULD INCORPORATE THE DEODARA TREES AND CARE FOR THAT LANDSCAPED AREA, LANDSCAPING THEME SHOULD NOT HAVE PAVING, AND TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE CC & R'S. - B US I NESS ITEMS 1. Single-Family Residence 30381 Hill Avenue - Danny CeleketicjKenneth Geringer _ Staff presented proposal to construct a two-story single-family residence on a 11 ,250 square foot lot, located southeasterly of the intersection of Adam Avenue and Hill Avenue. Chairman asked if the applicant was in the audience, if he had received a copy of the conditions, and if there were any concerns. Mr. Celeketic stated that he had no problems with the conditions, and that they were having a grading plan prepared showing that they will meet the legal ease- ment from the street. Discussion was held on approving proposal with the 6 foot amendment or changed plot plan and plans be submitted showing proper setbacks; condition number 9, and condition number la, pertaining to curb, gutter, sidewalk, and asphalt pav- ing being deferred with standard lien agreement. Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to approve Single-Family Residence at 30381 Hill Avenue with staff recommendations, with the changing of condition number 9 and 10, to be deferred by standard lien agreement, and add condition number 24, whi ch will read: "P1 ans to be submitted ref1 ecti ng the proper setback", second by Commissioner Washburn. Approved 5-0 - PLANNING DIVISION CONDITIONS: 1. All slopes shall be planted with erosion control vegetation. 2. Applicant is to install permanent sprinkler system for all planting areas. Minutes of Planning Commission May 21, 1985 Page 7 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE 30381 HILL AVENUE - DANNY CELEKETIC/KENNETH GERINGER CONTINUED 3. Applicant shall meet all setbacks. 4. Applicant is to meet all applicable City Codes and Ordinances. - 5. Applicant to process a lot merger. 6. Meet all Riverside County Health Department requirements. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS: 7. Meet all conditions of Ordinance 572. 8. Dedicate 2.5' of right-of-way along total alley property frontage. 9_ Construct curb, gutter and sidewalk (if required) along total pro- perty frontage of Hill Avenue. Construct curb only, and standard ribbon gutter along total property frontage of alleyway. DEFER WITH STANDARD LIEN AGREEMENT. 10. Construct asphalt paving from street centerline to lip of gutter on Hill Avenue, and street alley paving from ribbon gutter to curb. DEFER WITH STANDARD LIEN AGREEMENT. 11. Street plans and specifications to be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and will include required signing and striping. As built street, grading, utility and drainage improvement plans are required. - Public improvements to conform with City Code requirements and River- side County Standard Drawings and Specifications. 13. Prior to occupancy, or within the next twelve (12) months, whichever is later, applicant1s property shall be included within a district to be formed under the Lighting and Landscaping Act of 1972 (com- mencing with Section 22500 of the Streets and Highways Code) to pay for the annual cost of lighting, landscaping and parks which benefit the project, by the annual levy and collection of an assessment within the project area. Owners agree to waive any right of protest under the Lighting and Landscaping Act of 1972. 12. 14. All grading must conform to City Ordinance 636 and the Uniform Build- ing Code, Chapter 70. 15. Provide soils and geology report, including street design recommenda- tions. Provide final grade certification and compaction report to the Ci ty Engi neer for approval. 16. Provide grading plan and Certificate of Survey to be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer. All property lines shall be at the top of the construction slopes with the required Uniform Building Code setback requirements. 17. Meet all requirements of Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District, Riverside County Health Department and Regional Water Quality Control Board for subsurface sewage. - 18. Provide will serve letter from Elsinore Valley Water District for water availability. 19. Dedicate underground water rights to the City of Lake Elsinore. 20. Meet all requirements of Riverside County Fire Department for fire protection. Upsize existing fire hydrant at the intersection of Hill Avenue and Chaney Street. 21. Pay all applicable Capital Improvement fees per Ordinance 572. 22. Pay all sewer fees per Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District's schedule, if required. Minutes of Planning Commission May 21, 1985 Page 8 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE 30381 HILL AVENUE - DANNY CELEKETIC/KENNETH GERINGER CONTINUED 23. Pay all School fees. 24. PLANS TO &E SUBMITTED REFLECTING THE PROPER SETBACK. 2. Single-Family Residence 16528 Smith Avenue - Danny Celeketic/Kenneth Geringer _ Staff presented proposal to construct a two-story single-family residence on a parcel approximately 5,000 square feet, located on the northwest corner of the intersection of Ingham Street and Smith Avenue. - Chairman asked if Mr. Celeketic had received a copy of the conditions, and if there were any concerns. Mr. Celeketic commented on condition number 14, pertaining to the fire hydrant installation and asked if there will be an agreement made up so that he can be reimbursed some of the cost; and the requirement of curb, gutter (condition 5). Discussion was held on reimbursement agreement for fire hydrant installation, curb and gutter requirement, and deferring curb and gutter on Bailey Avenue. Motion by Commissioner Washburn to approve Single-Family Residence at 16528 Smith Avenue with staff recommendations, and amend condition number 5, to indi- cate that improvements to be placed on Smith Street, but defer with standard lien agreement the improvements on Bailey Avenue, second by Commissioner Barn- hart. Approved 5-0 PLANNING DIVISION CONDITIONS: 1. Applicant shall meet all setbacks. 2. Applicant is to meet all applicable City Codes and Ordinances. 3. Meet all Riverside County Health Department requirements. - ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS: 4. Construct asphalt paving to City Standards from 2-feet from the edge of paving to lip of gutter on both Smith and Bailey Avenues. Some paving exists. Tests must show that existing paving conforms to City S ta nda rds . 5. Construct curb, gutter, sidewalk and paving to the specifications of the City Engineer. Sidewalk to be adjacent to curb. The curb-to- curb width to be 40-feet on Smith Avenue and 32-feet on Bailey Avenue. IMPROVEMENTS TO BE PLACED ON SMITH STREET, BUT DEFER WITH STANDARD LIEN AGREEMENT THE IMPROVEMENTS ON BAILEY AVENUE. 6. Street plans and specifications to be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and will include signing and striping. As built street, grading utility and drainage improvement plans are required and must conform to City Standards. 7. Prior to occupancy, or within the next twelve (12) months, whichever is later, applicants shall be included within a district to be formed under the Lighting and Landscaping Act of 1972 (commencing with Section 22500 of the Streets and Highways Code) to pay for the annual cost of lighting, landscaping and parks which benefit the project, by the annual levy and collection of an assessment within the project area. Owners agree to waive any right of protest under the Lighting and Landscaping Act of 1972. - 8. All grading must conform to City Ordinance 636 and the Uniform Building Code, Chapter 70; and must include slope landscaping and sprinkler systems required by the Community Development Director and/or City Engineer. 9. Provide City Engineer with grading and drainage plan, Certificate of Survey, compaction report, and grade certification for approval by the Minutes of Planning Commission May 21, 1985 Page 9 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE 16528 SMITH AVENUE - DANNY CELEKETIC/KENNETH GERINGER CONTINUED 10. - 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. City Engineer. Provide certificate of compliance with sewage disposal requirements of Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District and County Health Depart- ment. Provide a will serve letter guaranteeing water service from serving agency. Dedicate underground water rights to the City of Lake Elsinore. Pay all applicable Capital Improvement Fund fees per Ordinance 572. Install a fire hydrant. Ingham Street must be improved or vacated. It appears that Ingham Street would serve no public benefit. To vacate this short street, applicant must obtain permission of lot owner on the opposite side and request the City Council to initiate the proceedings. Applicant must supply information and documents for the vacation proceedings. 16. Pay School fees. 17. Pay all sewer fees per Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District's schedule, if required. Industrial Project 85-2 - Art Nelson - Staff presented proposal to construct a mi ni warehouse facil ity and an associated office/apartment on 1 .83:t acres, located on the northwest intersection of El Toro Road and Riverside Drive. 3. - Chairman asked if the applicant was in the audience, if he had received a copy of the conditions, and if there were any concerns. Mr. Fred Crowe of Butterfield Surveys, Inc., representing the applicant, stated that under DISCUSSION of the report, it states that the present topography of the site is characterized by uneven grades, and the entire property may be sub- ject to flood inundation. This was partially true before the freeway was built, but now the drainage is well defined at Riverside Drive and El Toro, the pro- perty is entirely free of flooding. Mr. Crowe then questioned condition number 11, pertaining to sidewalks, and asked that this be omitted, and place the curb in a flatter area, approximately six-feet back, and we would like to use the additional portion of the right-of-way for some landscape sloping; condition number 20, regarding the hydrology and hydraulic studies, stating that these studies have already been done; condition number 22, pertaining to processing a lot merger, stating that the City processed a Lot Line Adjustment and it should only be two parcels, not four as indicated on the Assessor's Book. Discussion was held on condition number 11, pertaining to deleting the sidewalk; condition number 20, pertaining to drainage; Lot Line Adjustment being done in the past, and if a Certificate of Compliance has not been issued on the two parcels, process a lot merger for the one piece being developed; condition number 7, pertaining to on-site storage; no electrical outlet shall be installed in any individual unit being added as a condition; office/apartment unit for this use; no occupancy by anyone under the age of sixteen years being added as a condition, and; school fees. - Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to approve Industrial Project 85-2 with staff recommendations, and the following changes, condition number 7, change the word "on-site" to "outdoor"; condition number 11, delete sidewal ks; amend condition number 22, to read: "Process a lot merger on the developed site"; add condition number 23, which will read: "No electrical outlet shall be installed in any individual unit"; add condition number 24, which will read: "The caretaker1s residence shall not be occupied by anyone under the age of sixteen years", sec- ond by Commissioner Saathoff. Approved 5-0 Minutes of Planning Commission May 21, 1985 Page 10 INDUSTRIAL PROJECT 85-2 - ART NELSON CONTINUED PLANNING DIVISION CONDITIONS: 1. All items depicted on site plan shall be provided as indicated on site plan unless otherwise modified by the Planning Commission or Design Review Board. 2. Applicant to meet all applicable City Codes. and Ordi.nances. 3. Applicant shall meet all project conditions prior to obtaining a Certificate of Use and Occupancy. - 4. Issuance of a Negative Declaration. 5.. Applicant is to meet all Riverside County Health Department require- ments. 6. Storage of hazardous or combustile materials will not be permitted. 7. The facil ity shall not permit the OUTDOOR storage of boats, motor- homes, trailers, roof mounted microwave receivers, and trucks over one ton capacity. 8. All storage of goods, materials, and wares shall be placed and screened in appropriately designated approved units. 9. A finding of no significant impact upon the environment. 10. Applicant shall provide an on-site restroom of a permanent nature. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS: 11. Construct paving to centerline and curb and gutter and sieewa+ks along El Toro Road and Riverside Drive. Replace existing paving unless tests show existing paving conforms to City Standards and can resist traffic loads represented by the City Engineer's traf- fic index. Construct cul-de-sac on Riverside Drive. Dedicate right-of-way required for cul-de-sac. Provide a structure for receiving and discharging drainage to the street from the exist- ing pipe under Freeway 15. This improvement to be approved by the City Engineer. Provide bonding for public improvements at issuance of building permit, if required by City Engineer. - 12. Provide grading plan, grade certification, Certificate of Survey, and soils report to include soils data for street pavement design. 13. Install street lights as approved by the City Engineer. 14. Plans and specifications for off-site publ ic improvements shall be prepared by a Civil Engineer. 15. Provide sewer service as required by Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District, the Health Department and City Codes. Provide written approval prior to building permit issuance. 16. Provide to the City a water availability letter from serving agency. 17. Provide required fire hydrant and written assurance that the County Fire Department requirements (to include fire hydrant locations) have been complied with prior to occupancy permit. - 18. Pay Capital Improvement fees. 19. Prior to occupancy, or within the next twelve (12) months, whichever is later, applicant's property shall be included within a district to be formed under the Lighting and Landscaping Act of 1972 (com- mencing with Section 22500 of the Streets and Highways Code) to pay for the annual cost of lighting, landscaping and parks which benefit the project, by the annual levy and collection of an assessment with- Minutes .of Planning Cammissian May 21, 1985 Page 11 INDUSTRIAL PROJECT 85-2 - ART NELSON CONTINUED - 20. in the praject area. Owners agree ta waive any right .of pratest under the Lighting and Landscaping Act .of 1972. Camply with City Engineer's requirements far drainage. Applicant must canstruct necessary facilities far adequately receiving and handling .of starm water run-aff. The City Engineer will cansider recammendatians .of the Riverside Caunty Flaad Cantral District in his requirements far drainage. Recard drainage ha1d harmless agree- ment indemnifying City if required by the City Engineer. Applicant must submit hydralagy and hydraulics study and .outline cantributing watershed accurately. 21. Dedicate undergraund water rights ta the City. 22. Pracess a lat merger ON THE DEVELOPED SITE. 23. NO ELECTRICAL OUTLET SHALL BE INSTALLED IN ANY INDIVIDUAL UNIT. 24. THE CARETAKER1S RESIDENCE SHALL NOT BE OCCUPIED BY ANYONE UNDER THE AGE OF SIXTEEN YEARS. 4. Cammercial Praject 85-3 William S. Buck - Staff presented applicant's request ta have this item cantinued ta the next scheduled meeting~ - 5. - Matian by Cammissianer Washburn ta cantinue Cammercial Praject 85-3 ta the meeting .of June 4, 1985, secand by Cammissianer Mellinger. Appraved 5-0 Residential Praject 85-2 - William S. Buck - Staff presented prapasa1 ta can- struct a twa-stary duplex an a parcel appraximately 5,300 feet, 1acated an the nartheastern carner .of Cawell Street and Ryan Avenue. Staff stated that he wauld like ta delete canditian number 5, due ta slape canstraints. Discussian was held an canditian number 5, pertaining ta the mavement .of the garage, parking area and number .of spaces far praject, and adding verbiage that narther1y fram the garage area adequate space be pravided far paved park- ing area far twa uncavered spaces. Matian by Cammissianer Saathaff ta apprave Residential Praject 85-2 with staff recammendatians, deleting canditian number 5, and replacing item 5 with the fallawing verbiage: "Twa paved spaces, uncavered far parking will be pravided an the praject site", secand by Cammissianer Barnhart with discussian. Cammissianer Washburn asked staff if, an applicant's earlier praject if we deferred street impravements? Wandering haw many prajects we are getting that are abutting, that we are getting to the paint where we might want ta call far the impravements. Cammissianer Washburn then asked if this was deferred .or deferred with standard lien agreement? Mr. Culp stated that it was deferred with standard lien agreement. Cammissianer Washburn then asked the maker .of the matian if hoe woul d amend his mation to i ncl ude this. Cammissianer Saathaff amended his matian ta include street impravements, candi- tians 7 and 8, ta be deferred by standard lien agreement, secand by Cammissianer Barnhart. Appraved 5-0 PLANNING DIVISION CONDITIONS: 1. All slapes shall be planted with erasian cantral vegetatian, ta be appraved by Planning Divisian. 2. Applicant is ta install permanent sprinkler systems far all planting areas. 3. Applicant shall meet all setbacks. 4. Applicant is ta meet all applicable City Cades and Ordinances. Minutes of Planning Commission May 21, 1985 Pa ge 1 2 RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 85-2 - WILLIAM S. BUCK CONTINUED 5. TWO PAVED SPACES, UNCOVERED FOR PARKING WILL BE PROVIDED ON THE PROJECT SITE. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS: 6. The only street widening dedication required on Cowell Street and Ryan Avenue is a corner cut-off. 7. - Install curb and gutter 15 feet from street centerline on and Cowell Street. Construct 4-foot sidewalk adjacent to total property frontage on Ryan Avenue and Cowell Street. street improvements BY STANDARD LIEN AGREEMENT. 8. Construct asphalt paving to City Standards from centerline to curb 1 ine on Cowell Street and Ryan Avenue to support the traffic loads represented by a Traffic Index of 6.0. Street plans to be prepared by a Civil Engineer. Defer street improvements BY STANDARD LIEN AGREEMENT. Ryan Avenue curb along Defer s. Provide City Engineer with soils report on this project to include s.treet design. Provide final soils report, Certificate of Survey, and grading certification. Provide City Engineer with a grading and drainage plan for approval. 10. Provide adequate drainage facilities to convey storm water to Lake- shore Drive as approved by the City Engineer. 11. Provide certificate of sewer service as approved by Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District and the County Health Department. 12. Provide water will serve letter guaranteeing water service from serving District. Dedicate subsurface water rights to the City of Lake Elsinore. - 13. A fire hydrant at the corner of Ryan Avenue and Cowell Street must be installed before building construction begins. 14. Prior to occupancy, or within the next twelve (12) months, which- ever is later, applicant's property shall be included within a district to be formed under the Lighting and Landscaping Act of 1972 (commencing with Section 22500 of the Streets and Highways Codet to pay for the annual cost of 1 ighting, landscaping and parks which benefit the project, by the annual levy and collection of an assessment within the project area. Owners agree to waive any right of protest under the Lighting and Landscaping Act of 1972. 15. Pay Capital Improvement fees. 6. Krouse Ruilders - Substandard sidewalk at 811 West Graham Avenue - Staff re-. ported that the old concrete sidewalk was removed by the owner during grading for a proposed commercial building, which was not subsequently constructed. The owner installed the interim asphalt sidewalk until he was prepared to develop the property, and stated that development will occur in six-months to a year. The permanent concrete sidewalk should not be constructed unless curb and gutter is installed at the same time on approved grade, which matches future street construction. The existing street plans prepared for this street work does not provide for the width required in the approved General Plan, and therefore must be revised. - The existing asphalt sidewalk is not a safety hazard, at this time. Motion by Commissioner Washburn to accept staff recommendation, to allow the existing asphalt sidewalk to remain until the property is developed or the street is reconstructed and widened, second by Commissioner Barnhart. Approved 5-0 Minutes of Planning Commission May 21, 1985 Pa ge 13 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR1S REPORT NONE PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION - Commissioner Saathoff - None Commissioner Mellinger - None Commissioner Barnhart - None Commissioner Washburn - None Chairman Dominguez - None Motion by Commissioner Washburn to adjourn to Design Review Board, second by Com- missioner Mellinger. Approved 5-0 - _. MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD HELD ON THE 21ST DAY OF MAY 1985 MI NUTE ACT! ON Motion by Commissioner Washburn to approve minutes of May 7,1985, as submitted, second by Commissioner Barnhart. Approved 5-0 BUS I NESS ITEMS - 1. Single-Family Residence - 1303 West Heald Avenue - Ron Perardi - Staff presented proposal to construct a single-family residence on a 8,250 square foot parcel, located northwesterly of the intersection of Mohr Street and Heald Avenue. Chairman asked if the applicant was in the audience, if he had received a copy of the conditions, and if there were any concerns. Mr. Perardi stated that he had no problem with the conditions, but wanted to confirm that a grading permit be issued to do the adjoining lot (as he owns both lots) with this lot, and no other improvements to be done on the adjoin- ing lot. Discussion was held on applicant's request to do the grading on both lots; curb and sidewalk being provided; and all conditions previously imposed, September 18, 1984, shall apply, and; adding condition that all conditions to be met prior to occupancy. Motion by Commissioner Barnhart to approve Single-Family Residence at 1303 West Heald Avenue with staff recommendations, and adding condition number 7, which will read: "All conditions to be met prior to occupancy, reference minutes of September 18,1984", second by Commissioner Saathoff. Approved 5-0 PLANNING DIVISION CONDITIONS: - 1. All roof mounted or ground support equipment incidental to development shall be architecturally screened so that they are not visible from neighboring property or public streets. 2. Building elevations shall be constructed as depicted on plans, any pro- posed changes will require resubmitta1 to the Design Review Board. 3. Applicant shall plant street trees outside the public right-of-way, to be approved by the Planning Division. 4. Street trees shall be planted a maximum of 30-feet apart, and be a minimum of 15 gallon. 5. All slopes shall be planted with erosion control vegetation, if ap- plicable. 6. Applicant is to submit a LandscapingjIrrigation Plan to be approved by Planning Division. 7. ALL CONDITIONS TO BE MET PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY, REFERENCE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 18, 1984. 2. Single-Family Residence - 30381 Hill Avenue - Danny Ce1eketicjKenneth Geringer - ... Staff presented proposal to construct a two-story single-family residence on a 11,250 square foot lot, located southeasterly of the intersection of Adam Avenue and Hill Avenue. Chairman asked for discussion at the table. There being no discussion at the table, Chairman asked for a motion. Motion by Commissioner Washburn to approve Single-Family Residence at 30381 Hill Avenue with staff recommendations, and add condition number 7, which will read: "All conditions to be met prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy", second by Commissioner Barnhart. Approved t>-O Minutes of Design Review Board May 21, 1985 Pa ge 2 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE - 30381 HILL AVENUE - DANNY CELEKETIC/KENNETH GERINGER CONTINUED PLANNING DIVISION CONDITIONS: 1. All roof mounted or ground support equipment incidental to development shall be architecturally screened so that they are not visible from neighboring property or public streets. 2. Building elevations shall be constructed as depicted on plans or modified by Des i gn Revi ew Board. 3. Applicant shall plant street trees outside the public right-of-way, to be approved by the Planning Division. 4. Street trees shall be planted a minimum of 30-feet apart, and be a minimum of 15 gallon. 5. All slopes'shall be planted with erosion control vegetation, to be approved by Planning Division. 6. Applicant shall use Class IIA" fire retardent roofing materials. 7. ALL CONDITIONS TO BE MET PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. 3. Single-Family Residence - 16528 Smith Avenue - Danny Celeketic/Kenneth Geringer - Staff presented proposal to construct a two-story single-family residence on a parcel approximately 5,000 square feet, located on the northwest corner of the intersection of Ingham Street and Smith Avenue. Chairman asked for discussion at the table. There being no discussion at the table, Chairman asked for a motion. Motion by Commissioner Barnhart to approve Single-Family Residence at 16528 Smith Avenue with staff recommendations, and add condition number 10, which will read: "All conditions to be complied with prior to Certificate of Occu- pancy", second by Commissioner Washburn. Approved 5-0 PLANNING DIVISION CONDITIONS: 1. All roof mounted or ground support equipment incidental to development shall be architecturally screened so that they are not visible from neighboring property or public streets. 2. Building elevations shall be constructed as depicted on plans, any pro- posed changes will require resubmittal to the Design Review Board. 3. Applicant shall plant street trees outside the public right-of-way, to be approved by the Planning Division. 4. Street trees shall be planted a minimum of 30-feet apart, and be a minimum of 15 gallon. 5. All slopes shall be planted with erosion control vegetation. 6. Applicant is to landscape and permanently maintain all open spaces. 7. All retaining walls, where possible, shall be screened by shrubbery (minimum 5 gallon) or trees (minimum 15 gallon). 8. All planting areas shall have a permanent sprinkler system. 9. Applicant shall use a Class "AII fire retardent roofing material. 10. ALL CONDITIONS TO BE COMPLIED WITH PRIOR TO CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. 4. Industrial Project 85-2 - Art Nelson - Staff presented proposal to construct a mini warehouse facil ity and an associated office/apartment on 1 .83:1- acres, Minutes of Design Review Board May 21, 1985 Page 3 INDUSTRIAL PROJECT 85-2 - ART NELSON CONTINUED located on the northwest intersection of El Toro Road and Riverside Drive. Chairman asked if the applicant was in the audience, if he had received a copy of the conditions, and if there were any concerns. Mr. Nelson stated tbat he had no problems with the conditions. Chairman asked for discussion at the table. Discussion was held on condition number 11, pertaining to sod treatment instead of groundcover, and; condition number 2, pertaining to the Landscaping/Irrigation Plan to be submitted to the Design Review Board. - Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to approve Industrial Project 85-2 with staff recommendations, and amend condition number 2, changing the words "Planning Division" to "Design Review Boardll, and adding condition number 12, which will read: "All conditions to be met prior to Occupancy", second by Commissioner Washburn. Approved 5-0 PLANNING DIVISION CONDITIONS: 1. Building elevations and color rendering depicting project shall be con- structued as indicated on said plans. Any proposed changes will re- quire resubmittal to the Design Review Board. 2. Landscaping/Irrigation Plans shall be approved by the DESIGN REVIEW BOARD. 3. All roof mounted or ground support equipment incidental to the develop- ment shall be architecturally screened so that they are not visible from neighboring property or public streets. 4. All planting areas shall have permanent and automatic sprinkler systems. - 5. Applicant shall plant, 15 gallon minimum, street trees outside of the public right-of-way, and will be a minimum of 30-feet apart on center within the planter areas. 6. If applicable, applicant shall provide erosion control vegetation on all embankments within project site, to be approved by Planning Division. 7. All on-site lighting shall be shielded to prevent the emission of glare onto neighboring streets, the interstate highway, and adjacent property, to be approved by Planning Division. 8. All signage is to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division prior to the issuance of a permit. 9. All trash areas and storage should be architecturally screened and ap- proved by Planning Division. 10. All planting areas shall be separated with a six-inch (6") high concrete curb enclosure. 11. Appl icant shall provide sod treatment as an al ternative to groundcover in areas designated to receive such a vegetational application on the future landscape plan. - 12. ALL CONDITIONS TO BE MET PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY. 5. Commercial Project 85-3 - William S. Buck - Staff presented applicant's request to have this item continued to the next scheduled meeting. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to continue Commercial Project 85-3 to the meet- ing of June 4, 1985, second by Commissioner Washburn. Approved 5-0 Minutes of Design Review Board May 21, 1985 Pa ge 4 6. Residential Project 85-2 - William S. Buck - Staff presented proposal to con- struct a two-story duplex on a parcel approximately 5,300 feet, located on the northeastern corner of Cowell Street and Ryan Avenue. A brief discussion was held on the architectural design of adjacent structures. Motion by Commissioner Barnhart to approve Residential Project 85-2 with staff recommendations, and adding condition number 8, which will read: "All conditions to be met prior to Certificate of Occupancy", second by Commissioner Mellinger. Approved 5-0 PLANNING DIVISION CONDITIONS: 3. 4. 5. 6. - 7. 8. 1. All roof mounted or ground support equipment incidental to development shall be architecturally screened so that they are not visible from neighboring property or public streets. 2. Building elevations shall be constructed as depicted on plans, or modified by the Design Review Board, any proposed changes will require resubmittal to the Design Review Board. All open areas to be landscaped and permanently maintained. Applicant shall plant street trees outside the public right-of-way, to be approved by the Planning Division. Street trees shall be planted a minimum of 30-feet apart, and be a minimum of 15 gallon. All slopes shall be planted with erosion control vegetation, to be approved by Planning Division. Applicant is to paint the house using earthtone hues so the structure will blend into the hillside area. ALL CONDITIONS TO BE MET PRIOR TO CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. 7. Residential Project 85-6 - Buster/Alles - Staff presented for review the Land- scaping/Irrigation Plan and Building Elevations for approved Tract 15020 Re- vised, located northwesterly of Terra Cotta Road and Harrison Avenue. Chairman asked if the applicant was in the audience, if he had received a copy of the conditions, and if there were any concerns. Mr. Bud Alles questioned condition number 4, pertaining to the sod treatment instead of the hydroseed. A lengthy discussion was held on condition number 4, pertaining to sod treat- ment and hydroseed mix for landscaping front yard and slopes. Mr. Alles asked the Board if they could approve the elevations for the other phases, as long as there were no changes in the floor plans or elevations. Mr. Alles was informed that elevations for each phase would have to come back before the Board. Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to approve Residential Project 85-6 with staff recommendations, with a change in condition number 4, to eliminate the words "sod treatment instead of the", and adding condition number 7, which will read: "Front yard shall be improved with sod", second by Commissioner Washburn. Approved 5-0 PLANNING DIVISION CONDITIONS: 1. All building elevations shall be constructed as depicted on plans, un- less otherwise modified by the Design Review Board. 2. Applicant is to implement the proposed landscaping/irrigation plan as depicted on the plans, unless otherwise modified by the Design Review Board. Minutes of Design Review Board May 21, 1985 Page 5 RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 85-6 - BUSTER/ALLES CONTINUED 3. Applicant shall place one (1) fifteen (15) gallon tree every 30-feet on center and/or one (1) similar size tree on each lot, outside of the public right-of-way. 4. Applicant is to provide se8-t~eat~eRt-4Rstea8-ef-tAe hydroseed mix in all areas designated to receive this type of application. All roof mounted or ground support equipment incidental to develop- ment shall be architecturally screened so that they are not visible from neighboring property or public streets. 6. All planting areas shall be separated from paved areas with a six- inch (6") high concrete curb. 5. -' 7. FRONT YARD SHALL BE IMPROVED WITH SOD. 8. Residential Project 85-7 - Art Nelson - Staff presented for review the build- ing elevations for approved Tentative Tract Map 20041, located south of Lake- shore Drive between Machado Street and Terra Cotta Road. Chairman asked if the applicant was in the audience, if he had received a copy of the conditions, and if there were any concerns. Mr. Nelson stated that he had no problem with the conditions. Chairman asked for discussion at the table. Discussion was held on condition number 7, pertaining to applicant providing sod treatment for landscaped areas, and applicant working with staff to find out what kind of soil is there and what is going to work best for that site. Motion by Commissioner Barnhart to approve Residential Project 85-7 with staff recommendations, second by Commissioner Mellinger. Approved 5-0 - PLANNING DIVISION CONDITIONS: 1. All roof mounted or ground support equipment incidental to development shall be architecturally screened so that they are not visible from neighboring property or public streets. 2. Building elevations shall be constructed as depicted on plans, any proposed changes will require resubmittal to the Design Review Board. 3. Applicant shall plant street trees outside the public right-of-way, to be approved by the Planning Division. 4. Street trees shall be planted a maximum of 30-feet apart, and be a minimum of 15 gallon. 5. All slopes shall be planted with erosion control vegetation. 6. All fence locations and materials are to be approved by Planning Division. 7. All open areas are to be landscaped and permanently maintained with an approved sprinkler system. 8. All structures are to be placed as depicted on the grading plan. Any proposed changes will require approval of Planning Division. - 9. Conditional Use Permit 85-3 - P.J. Fenton - Staff presented for review the elevations for the proposal to construct 126 condominium units on 10 acres, located north of Parkview off of Machado Street. Chairman asked if the applicant was in the audience, if he had received a copy of the conditions, and if there were any concerns. Minutes of Design Review Board May 21, 1985 Page 6 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 85-3 - P.J. FENTON CONTINUED - Mr. Fallon stated that the square footage mentioned in the report is incorrect, but he does not have with him the plans to give the correct square footage, it seems like they are almost double, maybe we can review this with staff at a later date. Mr. Fallon then questioned condition number 11, pertaining to pro- viding a six-inch high concrete curb. Discussion was held on condition number 11, pertaining to the six-inch concrete curb separating the planter areas and protecting landscaping areas, and prudent placement of landscaping to protect the areas with landscaping and eliminating the curb, and; condition number 5, changing the words "Planning Division" to "Design Review Board". Motion by Commissioner Washburn to approve Conditional Use Permit 85-3 with staff recommendations, and amend condition number 5, by changing the words "Planning Division" to "Design Review Board", amending condition number 11, to read: "Planting areas shall provide for some means of separation, or dividers between designated planted areas, design to be worked out between the applicant and staff", second by Commissioner Barnhart. Approved 5-0 PLANNING DIVISION CONDITIONS: 1. All roof mounted or ground support equipment incidental to the develop- ment shall be architecturally screened so that they are not visible from neighboring property or public streets, and subject to approval from the Planning Division. 2. Trash area to be enclosed and screened from public view, and subject to approval by the Planning Division. 3. Building elevations shall be constructed as depicted on plans, any proposed changes will require resubmittal to the Design Review Board. 4. Applicant is to install permanent and automatic sprinkler system for all planting areas. 5. Landscaping/Irrigation Plans shall be approved by the DESIGN REVIEW BOARD. 6. Applicant shall plant 15 gallon street trees at 30-foot intervals out- side the public right-of-way, to be approved by Planning Division. 7. Grading plans to be approved by Engineering Department. 8. A decorative wall shall be erected along the Machado Street frontage of Lots 1 and 32 in conjunction with a landscaping design, to be approved by the Planning Division. 9. Sufficient landscaping incorporating small full foliage trees and decorative boulders shall be provided along "common areas" that abut Woodcrest Drive, to be approved by the Planning Division. 10. Applicant is to provide a low lying concrete monument sign indicating project's entitlement at entryway to the residential neighborhood, positioned at corner Lot 1 or 32, as decided upon and approved by Planning Division. 11. PLANTING AREAS SHALL PROVIDE FOR SOME MEANS OF SEPARATION, OR DIVIDERS BETWEEN DESIGNATED PLANTED AREAS, DESIGN TO BE WORKED OUT BETWEEN THE APPLICANT AND STAFF. 12. Applicant is to provide sod treatment for all areas that will be desig- nated on the landscaping plan to receive ground cover growth material. There being no further business, the Lake Elsinore Design Review Board adjourned at Minutes of Design Review Board May 21, 1 985 Pa ge 7 9:15 p.m. Motion by Commissioner Barnhart, second by Commissioner Mellinger. Approved 5-0 Approved, ~4C~;~ Fred Doming~ Chairman ~ - ~lY su Li nda Gri nds ta ff Planning Commission Secreta ry - - MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON THE 4TH DAY OF JUNE 1985 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Commissioner Mellinger. ROLL CALL found Commissioner Saathoff, Commissioner Mellinger, Commissioner Washburn, and Chairman Dominguez. Commissioner Barnhart was absent. Also present were Community Development Director Corcoran and Assistant Planner Miner. MINUTE ACTION Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to approve minutes of May 21, 1985, as submitted, second by Commissioner Washburn. Appro ved 4-0 PUBLIC HEARINGS NONE BUSINESS ITEMS 1. Commercial Project 85-3 - William S. Buck Commissioner Washburn asked to be excused as he is a member of the Board of Real tors. Staff presented a proposal to construct an office building to house the Lake Elsinore Valley Board of Realtors, located 50 feet westerly of the intersection of Graham Avenue and Kellogg Street. Commissioner Barnhart arrived at 7:02 p.m. Chairman asked if the applicant was in the audience, if he had received a copy of the conditions, and if there were any concerns. Mr. William Buck questioned condition number 7, pertaining to the relocation of the trash enclosures; condition number 8, pertaining to the relocation of the three parking spaces to the rear; condition number 6, pertaining to moving of the building thirty-feet south to the front portion of the lot, and; condition number 5, pertaining to increased width of the on-site road to twenty-feet. Discussion was held on condition number 6, moving the building forward; fire wall extending above roof line; moving the building forward, if this would still retain the ten parking spaces; extending the planter area, possibility of two spaces in the front and another one in the back, as a possibility of gaining more landscaping in front; fifteen-foot aisle width; having a sign for exiting out of the alley; alley being one way; condition number 18, pertaining to the 2.5 foot dedication for alley widening; alignment of building to existing homes--building is aligned with the home on the west side, and; deleting condition number 7. Motion by Commissioner Barnhart to approve Commercial Project 85-3 with staff recommendations, and delete condition number 7. Commissloner Mellinger asked if the maker of the motion would like to address conditions 5, 6 and 8. Commissioner Barnhart stated that she would take an amendment to the motion. Commissioner Mellinger recommended that condition number 5 be deleted. Commissioner Saathoff asked for further discussion. Discussion ensued on wall being pushed too close to the street; the type of business; traffic coming in and out, and parking problem on Graham Avenue; the existing three parking spaces being visible; intermixing office structures with residential, and visibility of building. Commissioner Barnhart rescinded her motion. Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to approve Commercial Project 85-3 with the Minutes of Planning Commission June 4, 1985 Page 2 COMMERCIAL PROJECT 85-3 - WILLIAM.S. BUCK CONTINUED conditions as presented by staff with the following changes, condition number 5 deleted; amend condition number 6, "That applicant is to move proposed building ten-feet"; delete condition number 7; condition number 8, amended "Appl icant is to relocate one (1) space on the lot from the rear to the side", second by Com- missioner Barnhart. Approved 4-0 Commissioner Washburn excused PLANNING DIVISION CONDITIONS: ...., 1. Applicant is to meet all City Codes and Ordinances. 2. Finding of no significant impact. 3. Issuance of a Negative Declaration. 4. All items depicted on site plan shall be provided as indicated, unless otherwise modified by Planning Commission/Design Review Board. 5. A~~+4€aAt-4s-te-4A€Fease-tAe-w48tA-ef-tAe-eR-s4te-Fea8-te-tweAty-feet- {2Q! 1., - fa F- tAe- fH:lF[::lase-a f- [::lFe v 4 84 A~-a -IRe Fe- eff4 64eAt-a A8-S a feF- tFavefway feF-veA46+es-eAteF4A~-aA8-eK4t4R~-tAe-~Fe[::leFty~ DELETED. 6. Applicant is to move proposed building TEN-FEET (10') south to the front portion of the lot to ensure a more prevalent and immediate structural view of the elevational design abutting Graham Avenue. 7. A~~+4€aAt-4s-te-Fe+e€ate-tAe-tFasA-eA6+es~Fe-te-tAe-€eRtFa+-AeFtReast ~eFt4eA-ef-tAe-let-te-al+ew-feF-easy-saR4taFY-6e++e€t4eR-4A~Fessfe~Fess lReVelReAts~ DELETED. 8. Applicant is to relocate ONE (1) SPACE ON THE LOT FROM THE REAR TO THE SI DE. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS: - 9. An existing 80-foot right-of-way exists on Graham Avenue. No additional dedication required. Install curb and gutter 32-feet from street centerline on Graham Avenue. There is an existing sidewalk along the property frontage that will re- quire removal and replacement due to its deteriorated condition. Install an eight-foot wide sidewalk adjacent to the curb. 10. Construct asphalt paving to City Standards from centerline to curbline on Graham Avenue to resist a traffic load represented by a traffic index of 8.0. There is existing paving on both Graham Avenue and Lowell Street. Tests must show that the existing paving and base is to City Standards and will support the traffic load represented by the traffic index. Bond- ing for public improvements will be required at building permit issuance. 11. Provide City Engineer with grading and drainage plan, Certificate of Survey, and soils report which includes soil test for pavement design. 12. Plans and specifications for public improvements to be prepared by a Civil Engineer to include striping and signing as approved by the City Engi neer. 13. There is an existing fire hydrant on Graham Avenue at Kellogg Street that must be upgraded to City Standards to provide adequate fire pro- tection. - 14. Pay Capital Improvement fees. 15. Dedicate subsurface water rights to the City of Lake Elsinore. 16. Provide evidence of sewer service as approved by Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District, and the County Health Department. Minutes of Planning Commission June 4, 1985 Page 3 COMMERCIAL PROJECT 85-3 - WILLIAM S. BUCK CONTINUED - 17. Prior to occupancy, or within the next twelve (12) months, whichever is later, applicant's property shall be included within a district to be formed under the Lighting and Landscaping Act of 1972 (com- mencing with Section 22500 of the Streets and Highways Code) to pay for the annual cost of lighting, landscaping and parks which benefit the project, by the annual levy and collection of an assessment within the project area. Owners agree to waive any right of protest under the Lighting and Landscaping Act of 1972. 18. Dedicate 2.5 feet of property across the 50-foot width of the lot to the City for alley widening, and improve alley for the 50-foot width to City Standards. Commissioner Washburn returned to the table. 2. Commercial Project 85-4 - Tait & Associates (Chevron Oil Corporation) - Staff presented proposal to remove and reconstruct an existing service station, located on the northwest corner of Lakeshore Drive and Riverside Drive. Chairman asked if the applicant was in the audience, if he had received a copy of the conditions, and if there were any concerns. Mr. William Nealy, representing Chevron, stated that Chevron is the applicant, not Tait & Associates. Mr. Nealy then questioned condition number 10. - Discussion was held on design theme for the area; existing sign and whether or not it would be coming down; the price and logo signs moving them five-feet in towards the building--five-feet from the sidewalk; plot plan reference made to the corner piece of property, and; condition number 10, pertaining to the five additional feet for parking back-up. Motion by Commissioner Washburn to approve Commercial Project 85-4 with staff recommendations, and add condition number 24, which will read: "The existing freestanding sign, on the corner of Lakeshore Drive and Riverside Drive, shall be removed, at some time prior to Certificate of Occupancy", second by Commis- sioner Mellinger. Approved 5-0 PLANNING DIVISION CONDITIONS: 1. Issuance of a Negative Declaration. 2. A finding of no significant impact upon the environment. 3. Meet County Fire Department requirements. 4. Applicant is to provide restroom facilities on-site of a permanent nature. 5. All signage shall be under permit. 6. Applicant is to meet all conditions of approval prior to the issuance of a, Certificate of Use and Occupancy. 7. Applicant is to meet County Health Department requirements. 8. Applicant shall meet the County Road Department requirements. ~. Applicant is to move identification sign and price sign along Riverside Drive five-feet (5') inward off of the property line. 10. Per site plan submitted, the applicant shall provide five (5) additional feet for parking back-up radius on the northeasterly side of the property by reducing the length of the parking spaces to 18 feet. 11. Applicant is to meet all applicable Codes and Ordinances. 12. All items depicted on site plan shall be provided as indicated on site plan unless otherwise modified by the Planning Commission or Design Review Board. Minutes of Planning Commission June 4, 1985 Page 4 COMMERCIAL PROJECT 85-4 - TAIT & ASSOCIATES (CHEVRON OIL CORPORATION) CONTINUED ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS: 13. Meet all requirements of Ordinance 572. 14. Dedicate additional right-of-way to provide for 50-foot half-street right-of-way for Lakeshore Drive and Riverside Drive. 15. Dedicate additional right-of-way for standard corner cutback. - 16. Install curb and gutter at 38-feet from street centerline for Riverside Drive and Lakeshore Drive. Install 8-foot standard sidewalk. Existing curb, gutter and sidewalk locations do not meet the required General Plan designation as Major Highway. 17. Construct asphalt paving to City Standards from centerline to curbline on Lakeshore Drive and Riverside Drive. There is existing paving on both Riverside Drive and Lakeshore Drive. Tests must show that the existing paving and base is to City and State Standards and will sup- port the traffic load represented by the traffic index. Bonding for public improvements will be required at building permit issuance. Riverside Drive is a State Highway which will require Cal-Trans approval and permit issuance. 18. Provide City Engineer with grading and drainage plan, Certificate of Survey, and soils report which includes soil test for pavement design. Existing storm drainage improvements must be relocated and plans ap- proved by the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. A permit will be required from the District. 19. Plans and specifications for public improvements to be prepared by a Civil Engineer to include striping and signing as approved by the City Engineer. - 20. Pay Capital Improvement fees. 21. Dedicate subsurface water rights to the City of Lake Elsinore. 22. Provide evidence of sewer service as approved by Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District, and the County Health Department. 23. Prior to occupancy, or within the next twelve (12) months, whichever is later, applicant's property shall be included within a district to be formed under the Lighting and Landscaping Act of 1972 (commencing with Section 22500 of the Streets and Highways Code) to pay for the annual cost of lighting, landscaping and parks which benefit the project, by the annual levy and collection of an assessment within the project area. Owners agree to waive any right of protest under the Lighting and Land- scaping Act of 1972. 24. THE EXISTING FREESTANDING SIGN, ON THE CORNER OF LAKESHORE DRIVE AND RIVERSIDE DRIVE, SHALL BE REMOVED, AT SOME TIME PRIOR TO CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. , 3. Commercial Project 85-5 - Wally McGowan - Staff presented proposal to construct a 3,150 square foot commercial building consisting of three individual units, located on the northeast corner of the intersection of Saint Charles Place and Fraser Dri ve. - Staff stated that he would like to modify condition number 4, to read: "Decrease the planter bed" instead of "delete", and condition number 8, change to "twenty- four feet" instead of "twenty-two feet". Chairman asked if the applicant was in the audience, if he had received a copy of the conditions, and if there were any concerns. Mr. McGowan stated that he received a copy of the conditions, and has no problem with the conditions as presented. Minutes of Planning Commission June 4, 1985 Pa ge 5 COMMERCIAL PROJECT 85-5 - WALLY MCGOWAN CONTINUED - Discussion was held on condition number 4, pertaining to the width of existing planter beds; condition number 2, pertaining to expanding parking stall number 1, to fourteen-feet; how parking spaces were determined; Code requirement for handicapped parking; condition number 8, pertaining to aisle widths; sixteen- foot high block wall; maximum number of compact spaces; parking dimensions not meeting Code requirements and State Law; no loading zone provided; condition number 7, pertaining to type of business to be conducted within building--re- pair only; difference in grade between the carwash and proposed finished grade for the building site; drainage; circulation, reference Fraser Drive, and; what type of exits proposed for building. Discussion ensued on the planter area immediately adjacent to the front of the building--eliminating it, or reducing it to a foot and a half. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to approve Commercial Project 85-5 with staff recommendations, with the following changes condition number 8, should read: "twenty-four feet"; condi tion number 4, shoul dread: "Decrease the pl anter bed along the building, and add "that providing the minimum requirement for interior planting space is met per City Code, which is three percent"; condition number 2, should read: "parking space number 1, the width should be increased to four- teen-feet by twenty-feet, as required by Code; parking space number 2, would be a compact parking space and remain a compact parking space; space number 3, is to be designated a compact parking space; parking area 5, 8, and 11, are to be increased to ni ne-feet in wi dth ", second by Commi ss ioner Washburn. Commissioner Mellinger asked for further discussion. Discussion ensued on parking requirements, interior planting, and how number of parking spaces was determined. - Chairman asked for the vote. Vote: 2 AYES 3 NOES Motion failed to pass Motion by Commissioner Washburn to approve Commercial Project 85-5, second by Commissioner Mellinger. Discussion ensued on access, per plot plan, off of Fraser and if it would be feasible to shift, or block off the ingress/egress on the west side and inte- grate that space to provide for extra parking; deny without prejudice and have applicant work with staff; number of parking spaces required for proposed uses, and submitting a revised plan meeting the requirements. Chairman asked for the vote. Vote: 1 AYE 4 NOES Motion failed to pass Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to deny without prejudice Commercial Project 85-5, second by Commissioner Barnhart. Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. Commissioner Washburn asked deny without out prejudice for which items, stating that it is really with park- ing. Chairmah asked for the vote. Approved 4-1 Commissioner Washburn opposed 4. Industrial Project 85-3 - Ramsey Corporation - Staff presented proposal to con- struct a 2,760 square foot warehouse building on approximately .36~ acres, located approximately 250 feet west of the intersection of Poe and Minthorn Street. Chairman asked if the applicant was in the audience, if he had received a copy of the conditions, and if there were any concerns. Mr. John Outhuijse of Ramsey Corporation, questioned condition number 8, stating that he would like to match the existing available space, believes that it is 4 foot 2 inches, and condition number 12, it is a little hard to determine where the centerline of the Temescal Outflow Channel is, if we were to presume the centerline to be the centerline of the ditch as it sits today, what we would be doing is dedicating about half of the existing building. Minutes of Planning Commission June 4, 1985 Page 6 INDUSTRIAL PROJECT 85-3 - RAMSEY CORPORATION CONTINUED Discussion was held on condition number 8, pertaining to applicant's request to reduce the landscape area; whether or not there would be incidental retail; parking requirements and how the number of spaces was determined; condition number 12, pertaining to additional right-of-way for Temescal Outflow Channel; meeting Ordinance No. 711 requirements; signing a hold harmless agreement; condition number 13, pertaining to the requirement of a sidewalk; configuration of building being altered to provide extension, to provide the square footage without endangering potential take and without limiting spaces for parking, and; deny without prejudice, so that applicant can go back and work with staff. - Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to deny without prejudice Industrial Project 85-3 due to insufficient parking, second by Commissioner Barnhart. Approved 5-0 5. Residential Project 85-4 - W. W. Watkins - Staff presented applicant's request to have this item continued to the next available meeting. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to continue Residential Project 85-4 to the meeting of June 18, 1985, second by Commissioner Mellinger. Appro ved 5-0 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S REPORT None PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Commissioner Saathoff - None Commissioner Mellinger - Asked staff what happened to the Zoning Ordinance, Title 17? Mr. Corcoran stated that Title 17 is currently being worked on. We have sent a completed copy of Title 17 to the City Attorney, he has been making corrections along ... the way, and we have been going back and making corrections, and making corrections that Council requested. We are hoping to have this completed shortly. Before the next study session with Council, I would like to suggest that the Design Review Board consider landscape guidelines. We are getting alot of problems with landscaping as far as what is required and the theme. I think we should all start considering guidelines to make landscaping a bit easier for the applicant, that will be published and available for them before they submit landscaping plans. I think ideas should be thought of and put before Council, and I think that staff should cons i der a few to. Commissioner Washburn - I believe that Commissioner Mellinger is really referring to streamlining the landscaping guide, as we have a thick one that is really hard to work with. Commissioner Washburn then asked if there would be one more meeting with Council after all of the revisions to Title 17 have been made. Mr. Corcoran answered in the affirma- tive . Commissioner-Barnhart - None Chairman Dominguez - Asked each of the Commissioners to review the Energy Element, which will be part of the General Plan Amendment coming up on June 18, 1985. Commissioner Washburn asked if the Energy Element has been circulated, and if they have any questions who to contact. Mr. Corcoran stated that he would be happy to answer any questions. ... Motion by Commissioner Washburn to adjourn to Design Review Board, second by Commis- sioner Mellinger. Approved 5-0 MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD HELD ON THE MI NUTE ACT! ON 4TH DAY OF JUNE 1985 - Motion by Commissioner Washburn to approve minutes of May 21, 1985, as submitted, second by Commissioner Barnhart. Approved 5-0 B US I NESS ITEMS 1. Commercial Poject 85-3 - Will iam S. Buck Commissioner Washburn asked to be excused as he is a member of the Board of Realtors. Staff presented proposal to construct an office building to house the Lake Elsinore Valley Board of Realtors, located 50 feet westerly of the intersection of Graham Avenue and Kellogg Street. Discussion was held on condition number 3, pertaining to the additional five- foot landscaping area; condition number 12, pertaining to the three-foot masonry block wall; landscaping plan to include berming and come back before the Design Review Board, and; adding condition that all conditions to be met prior to Certificate of Occupancy. - Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to approve Commercial Project 85-3 with staff recommendations and the following changes, condition number 1, add verbiage lito be approved by Design Review Boardll; amend condition number 3, by adding the following verbiage lithe additional five-feet required in the front inay be taken from the rear, if desiredll; amend condition number 12, by adding the following verbiage lithe masonry wall along the easterly property line be of a material, in construction and appearance, to tie in with the building frontagell; and add condi- tion number 13, which will read: IIAll conditions to be met prior to Certificate of Occupancyll, second by Commissioner Mellinger with discusison. Commissioner Mellinger asked the maker of the motion if he would amend condition number 1, to include that the landscaping plan reflect a berm area in the front landscaping area. Commissioner Saathoff amended his motion to include in condition number 1, that the landscaping plan reflect a berm area in the front landscaping area, second by Commissioner Mellinger. Approved 4-1 Commissioner Washburn excused PLANNING DIVSION CONDITIONS: 1. Applicant shall revise landscaping/irrigation plan to reflect a more innovative and varied landscaping theme along Graham Avenue, to be approved by DESIGN REVIEW BOARD. THAT THE LANDSCAPING PLAN REFLECT A BERM AREA IN THE FRONT LANDSCAPING AREA. 2. All signage shall conform to the Cityls Sign Ordinance and will be subject to the Planning Divisionis approval prior to the issuance of a permit. .' - 3. Applicant is to accommodate for a five-foot (51) increase in the pro- posed front for a total of fifteen-foot (151) landscaped area abutting Graham Avenue. THE ADDITIONAL FIVE-FEET REQUIRED IN THE FRONT MAY BE TAKEN FROM THE REAR, IF DESIRED. 4. All roof mounted or ground support equipment incidental to development shall be architecturally screened so that they are not visible from neighboring property or public streets. 5. Grading plan to be approved by the Engineering Department. 6. Ruilding elevations shall be constructed as depicted on plans, any proposed changes will require resubmittal to the Design Review Board. 7. Street trees shall be planted a maximum of 3D-feet apart and be a minimum of 15 gallon selection. Minutes of Design Review Board June 4, 1985 Page 2 COMMERCIAL PROJECT 85-3 - WILLIAM S. BUCK CONTINUED 8. Applicant shall plant street trees outside the public right-of-way, to be approved by the Planning Division. 9. All planting areas shall be separated from paved areas with a six- inch (6") high concrete curb. 10. All planting areas shall have permanent and automatic sprinkler system. 11. Applicant shall provide sod treatment as an alternative to ground cover in areas designated to receive such vegetational application on the proposed landscape plan. 12. Applicant shall provide a low-lying three-foot (31) masonry block wall along the easterly property 1 i ne AND BE OF A MATERIAL, IN CONSTRUCTION AND APPEARANCE, TO TIE IN WITH THE BUILDING FRONTAGE, to buffer the existing residential unit from the commercial activities proposed to occur at this 1 oca 1 ity. - 13. ALL CONDITIONS TO BE MET PRIOR TO CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. Commissioner Washburn returned to the table. 2. Commercial Project 85-4 - Tait & Associates (Chevron Oil Corporation) - Staff presented proposal to remove and reconstruct an existing service station, located on the northwest corner of Lakeshore Drive and Riverside Drive. Chairman asked if the applicant was in the audience, if he had received a copy of the conditions, and if there were any concerns. Mr. William Nealy, representing Chevron, stated that he had no problem with the conditions as presented. - Chairman asked for discussion at the table. A brief discussion was held on condi tio n number 15, addi ng the word "appea ri ng" . Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to approve Commercial Project 85-4 with staff recommendations, second by Commissioner Barnhart. Approved 5-0 PLANNING DIVISION CONDITIONS: 1. Landscaping/irrigation plans shall be approved by the Design Review Board. 2. All roof mounted or ground support equipment incidental to the develop- ment shall be architecturally screened so that they are not visible from neighboring property or public streets. 3. All planting areas shall have permanent and automatic sprinkler systems. 4. Applicant shall plant, 15 gallon minimum, street trees outside of the public right-of-way, and will be a minimum of 30-feet apart on center , within the planter areas. 5. All on-site lighting shall be shielded to prevent the emission of glare onto nei ghbori ng streets, and adjacent property to be approved by Pl anni ng . Division. ...... 6. All signage is to be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Board prior to the issuance of a permit. .. 7. Applicant is to meet all conditions of approval prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Use and Occupancy. 8. All trash areas and storage shall be architecturally screened and approved by Planning Division. 9. All planting areas shall be separated with a six-inch (6") high concrete curb enclosure. Minutes of Design Review Board June 4, 1985 Pa ge 3 COMMERCIAL PROJECT 85-4 - TAIT & ASSOCIATES (CHEVRON OIL CORPORATION) CONTINUED - 10. Applicant shall provide sod treatment as an alternative to groundcover in areas designated to receive a vegetational application on the future 1 andscape p1 an. 11. Grading plan to be approved by Engineering Department. 12. All building elevations shall be constructed as depicted on plans unless otherwise modified by the Design Review Board. 13. Applicant shall provide concrete monument signage within the planter areas on Riverside Drive and lakeshore Drive, and is to be enclosed with "sea rock" construction material, as approved by the Planning Division. 14. Proposed landscape planters along Riverside Drive and lakeshore Drive shall reflect a mounding grade. 15. An old time anchor or ship wheel shall be implanted within the River- side Drive landscape planter, as approved by the Planning Division. 16. Proposed sign "C" and "0" per plot plan shall exhibit a perimeter con- figuration and color hues to mirror a "compass" signage design. 3. Commercial Project 85-5 - Wally McGowan - Staff recommended that the Design Review Board take the same action as the Planning Commission took on this item ea r1 i er. Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to deny without prejudice Commercial Project 85-5, second by Commissioner Washburn. Approved 5-0 4. Industrial Project 85-3 - Ramsey Corporation - Staff recommended that the Design Review Board take the same action as the Planning Commission took on this item ea r 1 i e r . Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to deny without prejudice Industrial Project 85-3, second by Commissioner Washburn. Approved 5-0 5. Residential Project 85-4 - W. W. Watkins - Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to continue Residential Project 85-4 to the meeting of June 18, 1985, second by Commissioner Washburn. Approved 5-0 There being no further business, the lake Elsinore Design Review Board adjourned at 8:35 p.m. Motion by Commissioner Barnhart, second by Commissioner Saathoff. Approved 5-0 " p~:~ Fred ~~ Chairman Respectfully s4bmitted, ~:~ind:t:~dafJ}/ Planning Commission Secretary MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON THE 18TH DAY OF JUNE 1985 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Commissioner Washburn. ROLL CALL FOUND Commissioner Saathoff, Commissioner Mellinger, Commissioner Washburn, Commissioner Barnhart and Chairman Dominguez. .- - Also present were Community Development Director Corcoran, Associate Civil Engi- neer Riley, Assistant Planner Coleman and Assistant Planner Miner. MINUTE ACTION Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to approve minutes of June 4, 1985, as submitted, second by Commissioner Washburn. Approved 5-0 PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. General Plan Amendment 85-1 - Elsinore Naval and Military Academy - Staff presented proposal to amend a portion of the City's General Plan Land Use Map from Low Density Residential (0-6.0 d.u./acre) to Mixed Use for approx- imately 6 acres located on the southeast corner of the intersection of Grand Avenue and Ortega Highway. Staff further stated that the Mixed Use desig- nation is not the highest and best use for the parcel in question. Because of the parcel's prime location and high visibility, and based on the predom- inant uses currently existing on site, a commercial designation would be more appropriate. Any additional residential development would detract f~om the maximum commercial potential of the site. The Mixed Use designation also has a negative impact on the Circulation Element of the General Plan. The Community Design Element of the General Plan states that mixed usage pro- motes an active, lively urban development. The area in question, however, is not an urban environment and by promoting a mixed usage, a pocket of in- compatible uses will be perpetrated. The Mixed Use designation works best where established areas containing a mix of businesses, entertainment and public facillties already exist. The parcel and area in question, however, lack most of those amenities. Finally the Ortega Highway and Grand Avenue intersection has been designated as a gateway to Lake Elsinore under the General Plan. This requires specific design standards to be implemented and carried out. Staff subsequently feels that the r1ixed Use designation will prevent a formal entry statement from being made and .that a commercial desig- nation would allow a much more coherent and stronger statement to be made. Therefore, staff recommends denial of General Plan Amendment 85-1 and adop- tion of Resolution No. 85-1. The Chairman opened the public hearing at 7:05 p.m., asking if anyone present \'-li shed to speak in favor 0 f General Pl an Amendment 85-1. Mr. James Rose, 601 South Main Street, Corona, representing the applicant, stated he was puzzled and confused with staff's recommendation. He feels the C-l (Limited Commercial District) zoning of the property and their request for Mixed Use Land Use designation would bring the General Plan into conformity with its current use. That is there position. - The Chairman asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor. Receiving no response, the Chairman asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. There being no one present wishing to speak in opposition, the Chairman closed the public hearing at 7:07 p.m. Discussion was held on protection against continued development of mixed use; questioned why C-l zoned property was given General Plan Land Use designation of Low Density Residential; staff's response that they didn't know why this happened but that under the proposed new Title 17 Zoning Ordinance, as drafted, commercial designations would not allow a residential use and that will make the existing structures nonconforming; prudent to look ahead to Title 17 as it will be when the project would go into effect; definite com- merci al nature of site and important "wi ndow" to City; when General Pl an land Use Map was considered and then adopted in December, 1982, this was one of the cases that "sl i pped through the cracks;" asked if sta ff was recom- mending a change to commercial; staff responded in the affirmative; asked that before they make a motion of denial for Mixed Use, are they not propos- ing an amendment giving this particular piece of property a commercial land use designation; staff informed them they could make the amendment now. Minutes of the Planning Commission June 18, 1 985 Page 2 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 85-1 - ELSINORE NAVAL AND MILITARY ACADEMY - CONTINUED Mr. Rose requested and received permission to speak. He said with the Zoning designation as it is now, they cannot go in and build commercial because it is inconsistent with the General Plan. The reason they asked for Mixed Use was that that is what the property is used for now. Can't the City control the development of the residential through site plan review and only author- ize the restaurant they wish to build. - Staff responded that changing the General Plan Land Use Map designation for this parcel to commercial would alleviate that concern. That would provide a consistency between the existing zoning of C-l and the General Plan Land Use Map designation of commercial. They would recommend a General Commer- cial Land Use classification. Staff was asked if they shouldn't act on General Plan Amendment 85-1 first before the Commission makes their own Amendment. Staff answered in the affir- mative. Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to deny General Plan Amendment 85-1, second by Commissioner Washburn. Appro~ed 5-0 Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to adopt Resolution No. 85-1, second by . Commissioner Barnhart, entitled as follows: Approved 5-0 RESOLUTION NO. 85-1 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 85-1. .... Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to approve General Plan Amendment 85-1-A, changing General Plan Land Use Map for subject property from Low Density Residential to General Commercial Land Use Designation, second by Commmis- sioner Barnhart. Approved 5-0. Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to adopted Resolution No. 85-5, second by Commissioner Saathoff, entitled as follows: Approved 5-0 - RESOLUTION NO. 85-5 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALI FORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 85-1-A. 2. General Plan Amendment 85-2 - Terry W. Shook" - Staff pr~sented proposal to amend the General Plan Land Use Map and redesignate .62- acres, located on southeast corner of Davis and Flint Streets, between Mohr and Davis Streets, from Low and Medium Density Residential (0.6.0 d.u./acre and 6.1-12.0 d.u./ acre, respectively) to Office/Professional Land Use designation which is appro- priate for subject site because it wilJ provi de the needed transition zone between existing industrial to the north and east and residential uses to the south and west and will provide an effective method of buffering exist- ing residential land uses from industrial land uses. - The Chairman opened the public hearing at 7:12 p.m~, asking if anyone pre- sent wished to speak in favor of General Plan Amendment 85-2. Mr. Terry W. Shook, 32910 Li11iam Road, Lake Elsinore, said he filed this Amendment because, in his opinion, that is about the only thing you can use that property for. He thinks staff has done an excellent job in analyzing this. If this General Plan Amendment is approved, they will develop the property as soon as approvals are met. The Chairman asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor. Hearing no reply, he asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Receiving no Minutes of the Planning Commission June 18, 1985 Page 3 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 85-2 - TERRY W. SHOOK CONTINED response, the Chairman closed the public hearing at 7:17 p.m. - A short discussion ensued at the table concurring with staff's report; staff was asked about the current R-l (Single-Family Residence) zoning which is not consistent with the General Plan and the new Office/Professional zoning which hasn't been adopted as yet; Staff replied that the City wil be giving this site the Office/Professional Zoning District designation as soon as the new Title 17 is adopted and during the transition period he believes it is acceptable to go by the General Plan designation; technically they have 120 days to change the zoning to be consistent with the General Plan Land Use designation so there is a need to move "post haste" on the new Title 17. Motion by Commissioner Washburn to approve General Plan Amendment 85-2, second by Commissioner Mellinger. Approved 5-0 Motion by Commissioner Washburn to adopt Resolution No. 85-2, second by Commissioner Barnhart, entitled as follows: Approved 5-0 RESOLUTION NO. 85-2 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 85-2. - 3. General Plan Amendment 85-3 - Elsinore Lakeside Investors - Staff presented proposal to amend the General Plan Land Use Map and redesignate .74r acres, located on the southwest corner of the intersection of Lincoln and Flannery Streets, from Medium Density Residential (6.1-12.0 d.u./acre). This Amend- ment will be used to expand an existing 112-unit apartment complex by allow- ing an additional 16 units on subject site. Subject proposal will facilitate coherent planning by providing High Density Residential designation (12.1- 32 d.u./acre) between an existing High Density development to the west and commercially zoned properties to the east. Staff feels the proposed High Density Residential designation is a logical extension of the residential development currently taking place in the area. The Chairman opened the public hearing at 7:24 p.m., asking if anyone present wished to speak in favor of General Plan Amendment 85-3. Mr. Tom Smith, Irvine, present owner of the 112-unit complex, stated he has just completed the project on the 112 units. There are 7 buildings compris- ing this complex and he would like to put one more building on the corner of Lincoln and Flannery. They have had to do all the street improvements and utility improvements around the street and feel it would enhance their project to put another building on the corner to tie in with.the other exist- ing 112 units and give the project a completed look. - The Chairman asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor and receiving no reply, he asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Receiving no response, the Chairman closed the public hearing at 7:25 p.m. Discussion was held on concurring with staff's report and recommendation on this particular request for a General Plan Amendment, but wanting to go on record as not favoring going to any more High Density Areas except under very extenuating circumstances; recommending applicant apply for a zone change from CP (Commercial Park) to R-3 (Multiple-Family ReSidence); staff inform- ing that upon adoption of the new Title 17, the City will be rezoning all properties in the City that need to be brought into conformance with the General Plan and applicant's property can be taken care of at that time. Motion by Commissioner Washburn to approve General Plan Amendment 85-3, second by Commissioner Barnhart. Approved 5-0 Minutes of the Planning Commission June 18, 1985 Page 4 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 85-3 - ELSINORE LAKESIDE INVESTORS - CONTINUED Motion by Commissioner Washburn to adopt Resolution No. 85-3, second by Commissioner Barnhart, entitled as follows: Approved 5-0 RESOLUTION NO. 85-3 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 85-3. - 4. General Plan Amendment 85-4 - City of Lake Elsinore, Energy Department- Staff presented proposal to amend the General Plan by adding the Energy Element thereto. The proposed Energy Element will serve as the General Plan basis for developing programs and policies to promote energy conservation and alternative energy development. These in turn will allow the City to: 1. Reduce its dependence on outside energy resources; 2. Retain more "energy dollars" in the local economy; and 3. Develop alternative energy resources to aid in local economic development. This Energy Element will allow staff, the Planning Commission and City Council flexibility in proposing and designing programs that can reduce energy consumption and promote the development of alternative energy resources. Instead of mandating energy efficiency, the proposed Energy Element will incorporate energy planning into the portfolio of tools avail- able to the City for improving its future environment and economic well- being. Energy planning would be the discretionary feature reviewed along the same lines as environmental and design considerations at the develop- ment review process on subdivisions and new development. - The Chairman opened the public hearing at 7:30 p.m., asking if anyone present wished to speak in favor of General Plan Amendment 85-4. Receiving no reply, the Chairman asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. With no response forthcoming, the public hearing was closed at 7:31 p.m. Discussion was held concerning statement that provides direction for land use patterns that are more compact and developed in close proximity, yet we are finding difficulty with high density; staff commented that that reference is made to the clustering technique as opposed to the high density residen- tial developments - more in line with larger pieces clustering that develop- ment between density transfers and some of the more accepted land trade-offs; will this apply to every type of review they will have or just for Specific Plans, P.U.D.'s, or what? staff replied they are hoping to use it as a guide- line; some of the "Objectivesll have to be specifically measurable - having problems with words like IImaintain" and lIencourage" as statements for 1I0b- jectives;" before it goes before the Council, some of the 1I0bjectives" be worded so they can be actually quantified - it only exists in about 5 or 6 "Objectives," but it could be worked on; was there any input from users, i.e., developers, builders or utilities; staff commented that he believes there was at one poi nt but not sure at what step 0 f the process - thi s El ement could be classified as a sub-element of the Energy Element with regard to geothermal resources. It is designed primarily to promote those goals as opposed to some of the earlier wording of it - whereas single-family homes _ had to be retrofitted, etc. for solar heating. Those have since been elim- inated and this Element has been designed primarily to accommodate the geo- thermal resources; discussion continued with request for input from devel- opers on implementation of some of these items; not sure Item 3.1.1. is true as a blanket statement (regarding Solar Rights Act); another item dealing with Land Division Ordinance requiring 70 percent of residential lots under 10,000 square feet to have a long axis within 20 degrees - that's the thing they feel the developer should be aware of; would like medium and large size developers to review this Element since they are going to be the ones using it, with their comments attached for the Co~ncil; would like to see Minutes of the Planning Commission June 18, 1985 Page 5 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 85-4 - CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, ENERGY DEPARTMENT - CONTINUED - it appropriate and usable; staff said he would be more than happy to ask Mr. Fissori to make a presentation on the Geothermal Program before the Commission if they so desire; asked if the wind energy ordinance to govern the use and access to wind of wind generators is appropriate to the Valley and if we have the consistent high wind patterns to make it feasible (on page 21) and appropriate - would like to see it deleted; on page 14, 3.1.1. feeling uncomfortable in voiding existing Convenants, Conditions and Restric- tions (CC & R's) inhibiting the use of solar energy systems - delete first objecti ve under 3.1.1. Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to approve General Plan Amendment 85-4 with the following recommendations: 1. That all "Objectives" be reworded to incorporate measurable statements. 2. Amend Section 3.1.1. to read: "To requi re future Covenants, Condit ions and Res tri cti ons to permi t the use of solar energy system" 3. Amend 3.1.2., second regulation, add verbiage "if feasible" as the first two words of this regulation. 4. Delete Section 5.5.2. - Second by Commissioner Washburn. Approved 5-0 Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to adopt Resolution No. 85-4, incorporating changes as aforementioned with the General Plan Amendment, second by Commis- sioner Barnhart, entitled as follows: Approved 5-0 RESOLUTION NO. 85-4 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 85-4. 5. General Plan Amendment 85-5 - Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District - Staff stated that applicant has requested this item be withdrawn from the agenda. Motion by Commissioner Washburn to approve withdrawal of General Pl an Amend- ment 85-5, second by Commissioner Saathoff. Approved 5-0 - 6. General Plan Amendment 85-6 - City of Lake Elsinore, Engineering Department - Associate Civil Engineer Riley presented proposal to amend the Circulation Element of the General Plan by changing vehicular traffic corridor classi- fications due to certain constraints and changed existing conditions. The purpose is to recognize topographic constraints and minimize impacts on existing and future industrial development. There is no significant impact on the environment with the proposed changes. The proposed changes will lessen the impacts upon the environment because of proposed reduced widths of certain streets. The following list identifies the proposed corridor classifications and limits: 1. Camino Del Norte (formerly Cal i forni a Street) From Main Street to Second Street From 881 -64' to 681 -511 2. Second Street From Camino Del Norte to Dexter Avenue From 88'-641 to 681_511 The Chairman open the public hearing at 7:48 p.m., asking if any person present wished to speak in favor of General Plan Amendment 85-6. Receiving Minutes of the Planning Commission June 18, 1985 Page 6 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 85-6 - CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT _ CONTINUED no reply, the Chairman enquired if anyone wished to speak in opposition. With no response forthcoming, the public hearing was closed at 7:46 p.m. Discussion consisted of concurrence with staff's report and recommendation. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to approve General Plan Amendment 85-6, second by Commissioner Washburn. Approved 5-0 .... Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to adopt Resolution No. 85-6, second by Commissioner Barnhart, entitled as follows: Approved 5-0 RESOLUTION NO. 85-6 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 85-6. 7. Revised Draft Specific Plan for Canyon Creek and Addendum to Environmental Impact Report - Railroad Canyon, A Joint Venture - Commissioner Washburn requested and received permission to be excused from sitting on this agenda item and on Tentative Tract Map 20472 and Tentative Tract Map 20473. Staff presented Revised Draft Specific Plan for Canyon Creek proposal for approximately 491 acres that would allow a maximum of 1,115 dwelling units along with commercial, public facilities and recreational uses. The San Jacinto River lies to the south and is adjacent to the property. Railroad Canyon Road is also south of the project site and the 1-15 Freeway bisects the site. - Staff further stated that the Revised Draft Specific Plan is submitted due to denial without prejudice by the City Council on April 9, 1985, for reasons that relate to project density, lot sizes, provisions for the fire station, Railroad Canyon Dam, noise attentuation measures, and the lack of adequate parking in heavily used areas. This Revised Draft Specific Plan addresses and resolves the aforementioned concerns. Also on March 21, 1985, the City Council certified the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Specific Plan for Canyon Creek as the Final Environ- mental Impact Report, subject to the inclusion of certain conditions within this document's final format. The Addendum to the Final E.I.R. discusses the effects of the prescribed project's density reductions and overall development modifications with regard to previously highlighted environ- mental issues associated with this Specific Plan. The Chairman opened the public hearing at 7:54 p.m., asking if there was anyone present who wished to speak in favor of the Revised Draft Specific Plan and Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report. Lawrence Buxton of Courton & Associates, Planners and Engineers for the < Canyon Creek Project, stated he had worked closely with staff to address .... issues raised by City Council. They have reduced the project in size from 1,413 to 1,115 dwelling units, thereby reducing the density in each tract (especially T.T.M. 20472 from 202 units to 143 units); all lots are 6,000 square feet; parks and vita course will be maintained by proponents; soccer field has additional parking; bicycle trail along Canyon Creek Drive and along San Jacinto Street (name could be changed later); signageprogram (he then passed pictures with logo design of several different signage con- cepts for Commissioners' perusal); easements to the property for Mariana Mohylyn and Mr. Swain -- they have contacted Mr. Swain and sent him a pro- posal for an easement with metes and bounds description that would be in the vicinity of Canyon Creek Road. To Mariana Mohylyn, they have sent a map which proposes a conceptual alignment and if she agrees to that, which Minutes of the Planning Commission June 18, 1985 Pa ge 7 REVISED DRAFT 'SPECIFIC PLAN FOR CANYON CREEK AND ADDENDUM TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - RAILROAD CANYON, A JOINT VENTURE - CONTINUED her representatives here tonight have in concept, they will prepare a metes and bounds description and follow through as they did for Mr. Swain. Also they discussed the concept of negotiating a second access to Mrs. Mohylyn's property; and on noise attentuation concerns, they have worked out an arrange- ment with Planning staff for some considerations along Railroad Canyon Road that would consider things like decorative walls with wrought iron, and with provisions that would comply with the City's Ordinance for noise insulation. Mr. Buxton then stated he wished to comment on two items on page 3 of the Staff Report under Section VII, Parks, #6, would like the verbiage changed to "Provi de bond or acceptable security for improvements by 1 01 units; com- pletion by 415 units Certificate of Occupancy." Secondly, under "Staff Recommendation," #4, add the following verbiage at the end of the sentence, "to clarify the phasing of improvements." The reason for this phrase is to clari fy the understanding that they are providing certain improvements including a community center site and other park facili- ties. This indicates it relates to the phasing of the improvements and would not be a new development agreement for things they have not discussed. The Chairman asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor. -- Bob Williams, 32172 Machado Street, Lake Elsinore, asked if the new presen- tation had anything to do with the bridge fees discussed at last presenta- tion. Was it included in this one. He wants to be sure these bridge fees are not neglected and are included as part of the approval for all of the projects out in that general area. The Chairman asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor. Receiving no reply, the Chairman asked if anyone present wished to speak in opposition. Martin Dowd of Psomas, Harrison & Associates, representing Mrs. Mohylyn, expressed Mrs. Mohylyn's need for access to her property from the south. Mr. Buxton has been very cooperative relative to the principal access point. Mr. Buxton has assured them that the easement would be in a width commen- surate with the roadway with verbiage of that easement forthcoming (Mr. Dowd assumes it is a 60-foot collector) and Mr. Buxton's firm has volun- teered to draft a centerline alignment for his client's approval. His client wants ultimate approval of that alignment added as a condition of approval to the Tentative Tract Map to protect her interest. Also,in the future, should his client develop her property, they recognize the primary point of access, but shoul d the City requi re a secondary poi nt of access, they would like to enter into negotiations with the proponents to consider the granting of a second easement in the southwest corner. Mr. Dowd also gave a new address for Mrs. Mohylyn since Notices to the address on the County Assessor's Rolls are not reaching her. .-- The Chairman asked if anyone else wished to speak in opposition. Mia Bloom, Mrs. Mohylyn's daughter, 305 West Sumner, Lake Elsinore, stated she wasn't speaking in opposition, just in concern for her mother's pro- perty. Her mother is seeking at least 2 and preferably 3 easements to her land. She intends to develop her land in the future. Their main concern is that dual access points be provided. The Chairman asked if anyone else wished to speak in opposition. Receiving no response, the public hearing was closed at 8:12 p.m. Discussion was held on Mr. Buxton's reference on completion of parks and #4 under Staff's Recommendation and there being no problem with his new verbiage; density being consistent with Specific Plan; minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet being consistent with the current zoning ordinance; request Minutes of the Planning Commission June 18, 1985 Pa ge 8 REVISED DRAFT SPECIFIC PLAN FOR CANYON CREEK AND ADDENDUM TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - RAILROAD CANYON, A JOINT VENTURE - CONTINUED for explanation on difference between Original Draft Specific Plan and the Revised one on fire station provisions. Mr. Buxton explained that the initial proposal, under the higher density unit, would have provided for a fire station, a truck and a site. The Revised proposal will provide a site for a fire station to be located in Tract 20704 or Tract 20705, whichever site the Fire Department specifies. Discussion returned to the table on Railroad Canyon Uam and the ability of the structure and the abutement rock to withstand a probable maximum flood and ability to withstand earthquake loads; letter received on April 30,1985 from Division of Safety and Dams states a comprehensive report by Woodward- Clyde Consultants on these items is being reviewed by them and should be completed in June, but their preliminary analysis indicates that the sta- bility of the Dam and abutement rock is adequate for maximum credible earthquake loads but they do point out that overtopping of the Dam during probable maximum flood level could severely erode the foundation right below the Dam. What is the status 0 f that repo rt? Mr. Buxton responded that as far as he knows the status of the report is still the same. The Dam is considered safe and the topping of the Dam dur- ing maximum flood is at the 1000-year flood level. They are referring to the 1000-year flood level - not the 100-year flood level. Discussion returned to the table with a quewtion for staff. How did they come up with the phasing and on the phasing. what is their response to the request by applicant on Park #6? Mr. Corcoran responded that staff wanted to have some parks improved prior to Certificate of Occupancy for the first unit. Staff doesn't want the project to have the first Map submitted, built out, and then the rest of the project never go - we'd lose out on all the other park sites. So we conditioned in such a way to have the park bonded for with the first Map being developed. Being on the other side of the bridge, it really isn't advisable to go ahead and build a part site without building the bridge across. Staff is hoping to have some bonding to insure that development will come about even if, not saying they will. developers should walk away. Discussion returned to the table with comment that during last review of the Draft Specific Plan they did indicate that the developer will partici- pate in a turn key assessment district for the bridge; asked if lot was large enough for 20 parking spaces for soccer field; Mr. Buxton responded in affirmative; concerns with library site and ballfield having only 12 or 13 parking spaces; easements required - should be recorded before Maps are approved. - - Mr. Buxton said that is no problem as long as they are not in the position where the person saying "no" on this and doesn't agree on the easement by say 3' or 4' one way or another, hypothetically - our concern would be we want to provide an easement. we have agreed in concept to it, but we don't want to be put in a position of having another property owner say "no." He doesn't feel they have a problem, but all their contact has been through correspondence and can't talk to them and can't get his Maps approved because they don't answer his letters. ... Staff commented that these matters should be addressed when those tentative tract maps are presented. Discussion returned to the table with question regarding Fiscal Impact Report and contribution by Redevelopment Agency with a blank after it. Mr. Buxton stated this Report pertains to Tentative Tract Maps 20704, 20705 and 20706 as a requirement of those Maps and is in draft form for response back from the City. Staff stated they believe the amount that would be in the blank is zero. Minutes of the Planning Commission June 18, 1985 Page 9 REVISED DRAFT SPECIFIC PLAN FOR CANYON CREEK AND ADDENDUM TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - RAILROAD CANYON, A JOINT VENTURE - CONTINUED. -. Discussion returned to the table with comments on the fine presentation of this project. Discussed Item VII on page 3 of Staff Report. Sta ff stated he woul d 1 i ke to amend that to read "Parks 1-5" "Bonded for improvements before the issuance of Certificate of Occupancy for the first unit" to insure that development will occur. Discussion returned to the table with the suggestion that completion of Parks 1 through 5 be before the issuance of Certificate of Occupancy on 200 units and Park 6 be completed upon completion of 415 units. Staff commented they woul d recommend not to put a set uni t on the completion of the parks, let the City call up the bond whenever the construction acti- vity ceases or there is a lag time. One bond up front on Parks 1 through 5. Larry Buxton stated they would very much like to have consideration of the verbi age that says "Bond or acceptabl e securi ty" because they bel i eve they can provide some security acceptable to the City. Commi ssi oner Saathoff moved approval 0 f Revi sed Ora ft Speci fi c Pl an fo r Canyon Creek in concept and approval of Addendum to Environmental Impact Report, with staff recommendations with the following changes in verbiage under Item VII that "Bond or acceptable security approved by City be pro- vi ded for Parks 1 through 5;" and under Recommendation, Item 4, the verbi age "to clarify the phasing of improvements" be added to end of Item 4, second by Commissioner Barnhart. Approved 4-0 1. The Draft Specific Plan is consistent with area development and will implement the General Plan. 2. The revised density and open space are compatible with development of the area. 3. The Draft Specific Plan reflects the values, interests, and needs of the City of Lake Elsinore with regard to shelter, commercial, public service and facilities and recreational support systems. 4. A Development Agreement will be required as part of processing individual tract maps TO CLARIFY THE PHASING OF IMPROVEMENTS. 8. Tentative Tract Map 20472 - Railroad Canyon, A Joint Venture - Staff pre- sented proposal to subdivide 32.5~ acres into 143 residential lots and 2 acres of commercial development, located east of 1-15 and north of Rail road Canyon Road, within the easterly region of Canyon Creek Specific Plan Area. - The Chairman opened the public hearing at 8:33 p.m., asking if anyone present wished to speak in favor of Tentative Tract Map 20472. Mr. Lawrence Buxton, Courton & Associates, Land Planner and Engineer for the Canyon Creek Project, stated this Tentative Tract Map is the first tract they would like to have approved on the Canyon Creek Project. It was orig- inally for 202 units with an average lot size of 4200 square feet. This Revised Map is for 143 units with a minimum lot size of 6000 square feet. They have worked with staff on the project to develop conditions and they have one comment on Condition #7. They would like the word "site" added after the words "community center." The community center site will be part of Tentative Tract Map 20705 in any case. Requested approval of Tentative Tract Map 20472. The Chairman asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor. Minutes of the Planning Commission June 18, 1985 Pa ge 1 0 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 20472 - RAILROAD CANYON, A JOINT VENTURE - CONTINUED Mr. Bob Williams, 32172 Machado Street, Lake Elsinore, stated he would like to know if bridge fees are included as a condition of approval on the Ten- tative Tract Map. Previously they were - are they still? The Chairman informed Mr. Williams they would give him an answer after the close of the public hearing. _ The Chairman asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor. Receiving no reply, the Chairman asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Mr. Lawrence Sanders, Carlsbad, stated he has property (123 acres) adjacent to the proposed development and would be landlocked and wants to be sure they would have access to their property. Other than that, he has no pro- blem with the proposal. The Chairman asked if anyone else wished to speak in opposition. Receiving no response, the public hearing was closed at 8:38 p.m. Mr. Buxton stated they had talked to Mr. Sanders and Mr. Davis briefly about their concern for access and, at the point they are talking about, at the eastern portion of Tentative Tract Map 20472, there is a gully, quite steep, but it is the least steep way for access. The concern that had been raised previously by the Engineering Department had been that this is a drainage area for 400 and some odd acres and that our own commercial site might, in fact, not be totally viable without some drainage improgements _ a larger culvert going underneath the area and some debris control facil- ities. There is also an emergency access to this tract which is planned around the back so there is the beginning of a narrow road coming around which has the potential of being expanded. The project proponents will discuss with them a proper easement, but he isn't sure he can get one with ~ less than 15 percent grade. It's a very steep grade, rocky and with some drainage concerns. They will work with them the same as with Mr. Swain and Mrs. Mohylyn. Mr. Corcoran commented that since this is the first Planning and Engineering staff have been made aware of this landlocking of a parcel, they would recommend that this easement be looked at and worked on by the Engineering Department and have a recommendation by the time it goes to Council. Discussion returned to the table and the question was asked if Condition 20 referred to miti gat ion fee for the bri dge. Staff responded that was his understanding but they might want to make mention for the record that that is what it is in relation to. Discussion continued with Condition #20 - regarding fee of $150 per living unit and $2,000 per acre for commercial areas - why was the $2,000 for commercial left off. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to approve Tentative Tract Map 20472 with staff recommendations with the following changes. On Condition #7 add the word "site" after "community center;" on Condition #20 add "and $2,000 per commercial acre" to end of condition; add Condition #30 to read "Staff will prepare recommendation to City Council in reference to an easement to the Sanders property in compliance with the Subdivision Map Act,1I second by Commissioner Mellinger. Approved 4-0 PLANNING DIVISION CONDITIONS: - 1. Finding of no significant impact upon the environment. 2. Applicant shall submit building elevations to the Design Review Board for approval. Minutes of the Planning Commission June 18, 1985 Page 11 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 20472 - RAILROAD CANYON, A JOINT VENTURE - CONTINUED - 8. 9. 10. ll. 12. - 13. 14. - 3. Applicant shall provide monument City entryway sign along Railroad Canyon Road at the City Limit boundary point, to be approved by the Planning Division. 4. Meet all City Codes and Ordinances. 5. Meet County Surveyor requirements. 6. Agreement with the Lake Elsinore Scttool District and the Elsinore Union High School District to off-set overcrowding. 7. Applicant is to enter into a development agreement with the City for dedi- cation and full improvements for the following facilities: Park and Trail Systems, and Community Center SITE. All signage must be under permit. Trailers utilized during the construction phase of this project shall be approved by the Planning Division. Certification of Final Environmental Impact Report. Provide transit facilities (i .e., covered bus stops) within said project as deemed applicable by Chairman of Lake Elsinore Transit System. Applicant shall record City Council/Redevelopment Agency CC & R's for the Tract prohibiting on-street storage of boats, motorhomes, trailers, and trucks over one-ton capacity, roof mounted microwave and satellite antennas. Applicant is to provide permanent and automatic sprinkler irrigation system for all landscaped treatment areas. Applicant shall provide sound insulation for all residential lots that abut Railroad Canyon Road, as approved by tHe Planning Division, these sound attentuation measures shall include the construction of a decorative wall that utilizes wrought iron in conjunction with a stucco base, along this designated corridor. In addition, structural residential insulation pro- visions shall be incorporated within said unit locations. These improve- ments will be subject to Building Code requirements and the approval by the Building Department. 15. Applicant shall POST bond OR SECURITY ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY for all park improvements for Park 6 (Park at Canyon Creek Drive entryway), identified on Attachment #1, at the issuance of 101st Certificate of Occupancy. 16. Applicant shall POST BOND OR SECURITY ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY FOR ALL PARK IMPROVEMENTS FOR Parks 1 through 5 (adjacent to San Jacinto River) prior to issuance of 1st Certificate of Occupancy. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS: 17. Dedicate underground water rights to the City. 18. Prior to recordation of the final map or within the next twelve (12) months, whichever is later, Tentative Tract Map 20472 shall be included within a district to be formed under the Lighting and Landscaping Act of 1972 (com- mencing with Section 22500 of the Streets and Highways Code) to pay for the annual cost of lighting, landscaping and parks which benefit the project, by the annual levy and collection of an assessment within the Project Area. Owners agree to waive any right of protest under the Lighting and Landscaping Act of 1972. 19. Pay street light signal - traffic mitigation fee. 20. Drainage mitigation for downstream reasonableness requirement of State Drainage Law of $150.00 per unit AND $2,000.00 PER COMMERCIAL ACRE. Minutes of the Planning Commission June 18, 1985 Page 12 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 20472 - RAILROAD CANYON, A JOINT VENTURE - CONTINUED 2l. Meet all requirements of Ordi nance No. 57l. 22. Meet all requirements of Ordinance No. 572. 23. Meet all requi rements of Ordinance No. 636. - 24. Meet all requi rements of Ordi na nce No. 529. 25. Meet all requi rements of Ordi nance No. 603. 26. Meet all requirements of Ordinance No. 71l. 27. Meet all requi rements of Resol ut ion No. 85-26. 28. Meet all requi rements of Resolution No. 83-87. 29. Meet all requi rements of Resolution No. 83-75. 30. STAFF WILL PREPARE RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL IN REFERENCE TO AN EASE- MENT TO THE SANDERS PROPERTY IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT. 9. Tentative Tract Map 20473 - Railroad Canyon, A Joint Venture - Staff presented proposal to subdivide to provide a commercial lot consisting of 12.7f acres within the Canyon Creek Specific Plan, located west of Interstate 15, north of Railroad Canyon Road within the easterly region of Canyon Creek Specific Pl an Area. The Chairman opened the public hearing at 8:58 p.m., asking if anyone present wished to speak in favor of Tentative Tract Map 20473. Mr. Lawrence Buxton, Courton & Associ a tes, Land Pl anner and Engi neer for the Canyon Creek Project, stated they concur with staff's recommendations, comments and conditions for subject Tentative Tract Map 20473 and urged approval of staff's recommendation. - The Chairman asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor. Receiving no reply, the Chairman asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Receiv- ing no response, the Chairman closed the public hearing at 8:59 p.m. Discussion was held on letter from County Health Department and conditions for letters being filed. Was informed by staff it is Health Certification before they can pull building permits; would like to see reciprocal parking and access be recorded on each parcel. Motion by Commissioner Barnhart to approve Tentative Tract Map 20473 with staff recommendations and with the addition of the verbiage "to be recorded on each parcel" between the words lIaccessll and IIthroughout" in Condition #3 and adding Condition #15 to read: "Applicant to provide secondary access," second by Commissioner Mell inger. The Chairman asked if there was anymore discussion. Commissioner Saathoff stated he would like to ask the maker of the motion in reference to mitigation fees for Lakeshore Drive/Mission Trail Bridge, "old Condition #30", be added as Condition #16 and be changed from $3,000 - per acre to $2,000 per acre, to be consistent with Tentative Tract Map 20472. Commissioner Barnhart so amended the motion, second by Commissioner Mellinger. Approved 4-0 PLANNING DIVISION CONDITIONS: 1. Certification of Environmental Impact Report. 2. A finding of no significant impact upon the environment. Minutes of the Planning Commission June 18, 1985 Pa ge 1 3 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 20473 - RAILROAD CANYON, A JOINT VENTURE - CONTINUED 3. Applicant to provide agreement for reciprocal parking and access TO BE RECORDED ON EACH PARCEL throughout project site. - 4. Comply with all requirements of the Subdivision Map Act, City Codes and Ordi nan ces . 5. Applicant shall submit building elevations to the Design Review Board for approval. 6. All signage must be under permit. 7. Applicant is to provide permanent and automatic sprinkler irrigation system for all landscaped treatment areas. 8. All proposed commercial uses and buildings that will be associated with this project will be subject to design layout use, and parking configura- tions/numbers considerations by Planning Division. All proposals in this regard will be required to receive appropriate review body approvals. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS: 9. Meet all requirements of Ordi nance No. 57l. 10. Meet all requi rements of Ordi nance No. 572. ll. Meet all requi rements of Ordi nance No. 636. - 12. Meet all requi rements of Ordinance No. 529. 13. Meet all requirements of Resolution No. 85-26. 14. Meet all requi rements of Resol uti on No. 83-87. 15. APPLICANT TO PROVIDE SECONDARY ACCESS. 16. DRAINAGE MITIGATION FOR DOWNSTREAM REASONABLENESS REQUIREMENT OF STATE DRAINAGE LAW OF $2,000.00 PER COMMERCIAL ACRE. Commissioner Washburn returned to his place at the table. BUSINESS ITEMS 1. Residential Project 85-4 - W. R. Atkinson - Staff presented applicant's request to have Residential Project 85-4 continued to the July 16, 1985, or August 6, 1985, meeting due to the resolving of problems on infill. Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to continue Residential Project 85-4 to the meeting of August 6, 1985, second by Commissioner Washburn. Approved 5-0 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S REPORT Mr. Corcoran stated that at the next Planning Commission meeting (July 16, 1985) Mr, Milo Keith, City Engineer, will be giving a brief presentation on an update of the Engineering Department before the Planning Commission. Mr. Riley, Associate Engineer - None PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS Commissioner Saathoff - On East Lakeshore Drive on property commonly known as "Downtown Camping," (104 and 106 E. Lakeshore Drive), there is an abandoned automobile that has been there for many, many weeks and appears to have been fired, rusty, busted windows - considers it an extreme health hazard. Also at 108 East Lakeshore Drive and the aban- doned buildings where windows are broken out. He is not Minutes of the Planning Commission June 18, 1985 Page 1 4 PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS - CONTINUED sure of the sewage there, but there are some residents living in those back abandoned buildings. Also at 110 East Lakeshore, would appreciate it if Code Enforcement would again visit them. It is becoming very trashy and unkempt. Code Enforcement is still aggressively going out and siting those that park abandoned vehicles on front yard and such? Mr. Corcoran replied that they were. Commissioner Saathoff then said there is a situa- tion near Franklin and Main Streets, on which he submitted a request to Code Enforcement to check, they are parking cars overnight on front yards that have no access. Looks very trashy. - Commissioner Mellinger - None Commissioner Barnhart - Speaking of trashy, have you seen the bus parked up on Graham across from her house? Please check. Commissioner Washburn - None Chairman Dominguez - On West Lakeshore Drive, across from Holiday Trailer Park, used to be a service station. That building has been abandoned a long time. What can we do with that? Mr. Corcoran responded that we just received a proposal for units on that site. He believes the intention is to use the back wall as a retaining wall. Also, they have just put it under abatement proceedings within the last three weeks. So if one doesn't work out, the other will. Motion by Commissioner Washburn to adjourn to Design Review Board, second by Commission Saathoff. Approved 5-0 I ..... J. MINUTES OF HELD ON THE MINUTE ACTION LAKE ELSINORE DESIGN REVIr~ BOARD 18TH DAY OF JUNE 1985 - Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to approve minutes of June 4, 1985, as submitted, second by Commissioner Barnhart. Approved 5-0 BUS INESS ITEM 1. Residential Project 85-4 - .W. R. Atkinson (Formerly W. W. Hatkins) - Staff presented applicant's request to have Residential Project 85-3 continued to the July 16, 1985, or August 6, 1985, meeting due to the resolving of pro- blems on infi11. Motion by Commissioner Washburn to continue Residential Project 85-4 to the meeting of August 6, 1985, second by Commissioner 8arnhart. Approved 5-0 There being no further business, the Lake Elsinore Design Review Board adjourned at 9:05 p.m. Motion by Commissioner Washburn, second by Commissioner Mellinger. - Approved ~~~~~~~ Respectfully submitted, ~ ?~dd Acting Secretary, Planning Commission - MINUTES OF HELD ON THE LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION 2ND DAY OF JUL Y 1985 THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:00 P.M. - PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Commissioner Barnhart. ROLL CALL found Commissioner Saathoff, Commissioner Mellinger, Commissioner Washburn, Commissioner Barnhart and Chairman Dominguez. Also present were Community Development Director Corcoran, Assistant Planner Coleman and Assistant Planner Miner. MINUTE ACTION Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to approve minutes of June 18, 1985, as submitted, second by Commissioner Mellinger. Approved 5-0 PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Conditional Exception Permit 85-2 - Surfside Builders - Staff presented pro- posal for a Conditional Exception Permit to allow for the encroachment of a structure three feet (3') into the required fifteen-foot (151) front yard set- back, located 250 feet northwesterly of the intersection of Flint and Lookout St reets . Chairman Dominguez opened the public hearing at 7:05 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of Conditional Exception Permit 85-2. Receiving no reply, the Chairman asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. - Diane Ekstein, 505 Lookout Street, stated she opposed this project and sub- mitted a petition from neighbors who oppose this apartment complex. The petition was given to the Planning Secretary. Rudy Lacayo, 287 Hill Street, stated he wasn't necessarily opposed to this project. He just had some questions regarding the drainage through the alley- way and how it would affect property on Ellis Street. He asked about retain- ing walls along the back end of the property. Dale Walling, 424 Lookout Street, stated the corner from Lookout and Flint is a blind corner from one direction and he feels this lO-unit complex in a 14- foot area is dangerous. Also stated the sewer line is not adequate for these additional units. He is very much against this project. Everett Rios, 506 Lookout Street, asked why they were putting apartments in this obscure corner - what about the parking situation that will develop? The Chairman asked is anyone else wished to speak in opposition, receiving no response, he asked if anyone wished to speak on the subject. Paul Diovanni, Jr., applicant, addressed a few comments that had been raised. He said the City Engineering Department and Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District have checked the sewer capability and have determined that it is adequate. They realize it is higher than the lots and they will have to pump up to it. Drainage has been addressed and seemed to be no problem. It was not brought up at that time. The water will drain down through the rear of the property and down to Flint Street. As far as parking goes, the project meets all the off-street parking requirements. With no one else wishing to speak on the subject matter, the Chairman closed the public hearing at 7:11 p.m. A brief discussion was held at the table on the merits of the Conditional Exception Permit and having no problems with the 3-foot encroachment; fact that the concerns expressed earlier would be taken up later in the meeting under Residential Project 85-3. Mr. Walling requested and was granted permission to speak further. He com- mented on the manhole at the corner of Lookout and Flint is less than 30 Minutes of Planning Commission July 2, 1985 Page 2 CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION PERMIT 85-2 - SURFSIDE BUILDERS - CONTINUED inches below the surface of the street and he is worried about blockage and sewage running down the street. Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to approved Conditional Exception Permit 85-2, second by Commissioner Saathoff. Approved 5-0 2. Zone Change 85-2 - Surfside Builders - Staff presented proposal to change the zoning district on a 14,500 square foot (.33 acre) parcel from R-l (Single-Family Residence) Zoning District to R-3 (Multiple-Family Residence) Zoning District, located 250 feet northwesterly of the intersection of Flint and Lookout Streets, to bring the zoning into compliance with General Plan. Chairman Dominguez opened the public hearing at 7:16 p.m., asking if anyone present wished to speak in favor of Zone Change 85-2. - Paul Giovanni, applicant, stated he was in favor of the project. Ron Kiskella, 30495 South Palm, Hemet, stated he was in favor of the project. The daughter of Crella Davis spoke for her mother. Her mother lives in New- port Beach but owns three lots in that area and her mother is in favor of thi s project. Rudy Lacayo, 287 Hill Street, stated he was in favor of thi s zone change this part of the project. The Chairman asked is anyone else wished to speak in favor, receiving no reply, he asked if anyone wis!hed to speak in opposition.. Diane Ekstein, 505 Lookout Street, stated she opposed it on the grounds of extra people in the neighborhood, extra traffic, losing tranquility of the neighborhood - the whole shot. ..., Dale Walling, 424 Lookout Street, commented on this corner and he feels traffic will be heavy and cause more accidents. He is opposed to this zone change. The Chairman asked if anyone else wished to speak in opposition. Receiving no response, the Chairman closed the public heariog at 7:19 p.m. Discussion at the table concerned the fact that by law the City has no choice but to change the zoning to bring it into conformance with the General Plan; the dividing line between High Density and Low Density is the alley, not Look- out Street, the entire property being in High Density Land Use Area. Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to approve Zone Change 85-2, for r.easons of compliance with the General Plan, second by Commissioner Barnhart. Approved 4-1. Commissioner Washburn opposed. BUSINESS ITEMS 1. Commercial Project 85-5 - Wally McGowen - Staff presented proposal to construct a 2,548 square foot commercial building consisting of three (3) individual units, located on the northeast corner of the intersection of Saint Charles Pl ace and Fraser Dr; ve. ..., The Chairman asked Mr. McGowen if he had any problems with the conditions he had received in the Staff Report. Mr. McGowen replied in the negative. Discussion was held on three (3) isolated parking areas and lacking flow- through from one parking area to the other; location and scale of project should not cause traffic concerns Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to approve Commercial Project 85-5 with conditions as presented by staff, second by Commissioner Barnhart. The Chairman asked for any further di scussi on. Minutes of Planning Commission July 2, 1985 Page 3 COMMERCIAL PROJECT 85-5 - WALLY MCGOWEN - CONTINUED Staff responded that they wished to add an additional condition that a lot merger be required because the project covers two (2) lots. Commissioner Mellinger, with the consent of the second, amended his motion to approved Commercial Project 85-5, with conditions as presented by staff and with an additional condition, Condition #20, to read "Applicant shall process a Lot Merger," second by Commissioner Barnhart. - Mr. McGowen was called forward and staff explained the addition of Condition #20 and what would be required. The Chairman called for the vote: Approved 5-0 PLANNING DIVISION CONDITIONS: 3. 4. - 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 1. Parking area to be surfaced as per City Standards. 2. Place tire stops in all parking stalls, delineate handicapped spaces and stripe entire lot, including directional arrows at all ingress and egress poi nts. A Right Turn Only Arrow sign, maximum 36 inches (36") high, shall be placed at the Fraser Drive exit. Reciprocal parking agreement is to be signed by all tenants of the development. The parking lot shall not be used for storage purposes nor shall the adjacent car wash be used for the aforementioned purposes. All business is to be conducted wholly within the buildings. Aisle widths shall be a minimum of twenty-four feet (241). Meet all County Health Department requirements. All conditions of approval are to be met prior to issuance of a Certi- ficate of Occupancy. Issuance of a Negative Declaration. Project shall be placed on-site as depicted on site plans or modified by Design Review Board. Any changes will require resubmitta1 to the Design Revi ew Boa rd. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS: 12. Meet all requirements of Ordi nance No. 571. 13. Meet all requirements of Ordi nance No. 572. - 14. Meet all requi rements of Ordi nance No. 636. 15. Meet all requirements of Ordinance No. 529. 16. Meet all requirements of Ordi na nce No. 740. 17. Meet all requi rements of Reso1 ution No. 85-34 18. Meet all requi rements of Resolution No. 85-26. 19. Dedicate underground water rights to the Ci ty of Lake El si nore per Ordinance No. 529. 20. APPLICANT SHALL PROCESS A LOT MERGER. Minutes of Planning Commission July 2, 1985 Page 4 2. Residential Project 85-3 - Surfside Builders - Staff presented proposal to construct two (2) two-story structures, Building "A" housing eight (8) units andl3uilding "B" housing two (2) units above a ten (10) stall carport. located 250 feet northwesterly of the intersection of Lookout and Flint St reets . The Chairman asked Mr. Paul Giovanni, applicant, if he had the conditions and if he had any questions. Mr. Giovanni stated he had the conditions and would like to address two of them. He asked about Condition #4 - mansard roof and additional siding on freeway side of the project. - Mr. Giovanni was informed that matter would come under Design Review Board later in the meeting. He then stated he had no more questions. Discussion was held at the table on changing topography of project site and the effect of the drainage on Ellis Street; retaining wall on the alley pro- tecting the property on Ellis - one on Lookout but not one on the alley that would protect Ellis Street; asked applicant what he would be doing for drain- age. Mr. Giovanni replied that they had two approaches but they have not decided on which one yet. A lot will depend on the discussions tonight. One will be to drain it back towards the freeway and there is a swale along that side, which was more than adequate, and then it goes on down to Main Street to a storm drain along the freeway right-of-way. The other way is to go down the alley the other way to Flint Street. The first way does not seem to have any particularly big problems except tilting the natural flow against where it's going at. It may create some problems for other people down the street later ___ on. They feel the most practical way is to go down the alley to F1 int Street and that would require some piping and a few other things they have already addressed with Engineering. They can submit some plans if that is necessary. They are not sure which plan the City's Engineering Department favors. Mr. Giovanni further responded that on Lookout Street part of this problem is being addressed. Right now there is definitely a drainage problem in that area due to the fact that all of that water coming down the freeway area and so forth goes through these lots and on down through the lots behin~ it. Part of the requirement by the City's Engineering Department is that they have a cul-de-sac and the curbs and so forth on Lookout Street and that the street be graded in such a fashion that they collect the water that comes off the freeway now and bring it down Lookout Street to Flint rather than across the property and back behind it. So the only waters that they will be dealing with are the actual waters that fall on this property would be the only waters draining off to the rear and would not have water flowing over the properties that face Ellis Street. Mr. Giovanni was asked how much higher are the two finished graded pads on the grading plan than the adjacent properties. Mr. Giovanni responded that basically the entire area slopes from the freeway towards Flint Street and from Lookout back towards Ellis. His drainage will run back towards the driveway on this particular property from both sides and then to the alley in the back. The pads are going to be the required di-stance --- above existing 9rades. Discussion continued at the table with concerns expressed about past experi- ence and that applicant will have to do some grading in the alley to get the drainage to go to the alley, or, if he works with his engineer or the City Engineer, to get drainage encroachment with Caltrans to go along that swale - the second alternative the applicant has been referring to; opinion that verbiage be placed as condition that those adjacent properties, per ordinance, be protected in the sense of drainage impact; installation of stop signs to alleviate problems at intersection; condition of street to be looked at by City Engineer; Caltrans drain at cul-de-sac; no overflow from that drain to Minutes of Planning Commission Ju 1 y 2, 1985 Pa ge 5 RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 85-3 - SURFSIDE BUILDERS - CONTINUED street; rather see drainage go down along the freeway if they can get drain- age encroachment letter from Caltrans; concerns of residents will be mitigated -- by conditions. Staff responded that Ordinance No. 636, the Grading Ordinance, requires how they direct their sheet flow. Also the State Drainage Law states that they cannot create any more of a drainage impact. Further, with regard to the stop sign, the Commission may want to recommend that the Public Safety Com- mission review that, and perhaps a traffic study of some kind to determine if there is a need for a stop sign. Before any stop sign is placed, a traffic study should be conducted. He recommended the Public Safety Commission review this matter since it is their function. Discussion returned to the table concerning Grading Ordinance answering the drainage problem; putting verbiage in regarding Public Safety Commission; Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District's will serve letter for sewer; and the parking being adquate. Motion by Commissioner Washburn to approve Residential Project 85-3 with con- ditions as presented by staff and with the addition of Condition #17, which shall read, "The City Ordinance shall provi de for proper downstream drainage protection of adjacent properties;" and Condition #18 which shall read, "Pub- lic Safety Commission to look into the necessity of installing a stop sign at Lookout and Flint Streets due to increased traffic flow by this project and, if found necessary, the applicant shall install per Engineering Department requirements," second by Commissioner Mellinger. Approved 5-0 -- PLANNING DIVISION CONDITIONS: 1. Meet all applicable City Codes and Ordinances. 2. Buildings shall be placed on site as depicted on Site Plan. Any changes will require resubmittal to Planning Commission. 3. The driveway shall be constructed of concrete. 4. Meet all County Health Department requirements. 5. All conditions of approval are to be met prior to Building Division's issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 6. No footings or support columnes, balconies, patios, or enclosures shall be allowed within any of the required side setbacks. 7. Process a Lot Merger. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS: 8. Meet all requirements of Ordinance No. 571. 9. Meet all requirements of Ordinance No. 572. 10. Meet all requirements of Ordinance No. 636. 11. Meet all requirements of Ordinance No. 529. 12. Meet all requirements of Ordinance No. 740. 13. Meet all requirements of Resolution No. 83-78. 14. Meet all requirements of Resolution No. 85-34. 15. Meet all requirements of Resolution No. 85-26. 16. Dedicate underground water rights to the City of Lake Elsinore per Ordinance No. 529. Minutes of Planning Commission July 2, 1985 Page 6 RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 85-3 - SURFSIDE BUILDERS - CONTINUED 17. THE CITY ORDINANCE SHALL PROVIDE FOR PROPER DOWNSTREAM DRAINAGE PRO- TECTION OF ADJACENT PROPERTIES. 18. PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION TO LOOK INTO THE NECESSITY OF INSTALLING A STOP SIGN AT LOOKOUT AND FLINT STREETS DUE TO INCREASED TRAFFIC FLOW BY THIS PROJECT AND, IF FOUND NECESSARY, THE APPLICANT SHALL INSTALL PER ENGI- NEERING DEPARTMENT REQUIREMENTS. - 3. Residential Project 85-5 - George F. Jenkins - Staff presented proposal to construct a two-story four (4) unit apartment building on a parcel approxi- mately 5,660 square feet in size, located on the northern side of Nashland Avenue at 3558 Nashland Avenue. The Chairman asked the applicant if he had the conditions and if he had any concerns. Mr. Jenkins replied that he had the conditions and had no concerns. A brief discussion was held expressing concurrence with staffls report. Motion by Commissioner Barnhart to approve Residential Project 85-5 with staffls recommended conditions, second by Commissioner Mellinger. Approved 5-0 PLANNING DIVISION CONDITIONS: 1. Meet all Riverside County Health Department requirements. 2. Applicant is to meet all applicable City Codes and Ordinances. 3. All parking areas are to be paved as per City Codes. 4. Parking stalls are to be striped and numbered so as to correspond to each individual apartment unit. - 5. The structure shall be placed on site as depicted by the Site Plans. Any changes will require resubmitta1 to the Planning Commission. 6. All conditions are to be met prior to Building Divisionis issuance of a Certi fi cate of Occupancy. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS: 7. Meet all requirements of Ordi nance No. 57I. 8. Meet all requi rements of Ordinance No. 572. 9. Meet all requirements of Ordi nance No. 636. 10. Meet all requirements of Ordi nance No. 529. 1I. Meet all requirements of Resolution No. 85 - 34 . 1 2. Dedicate underground water rights to the City of Lake Elsinore per Ordinance No. 529. 4. Residential Project 85-8 - William S. Buck - Staff presented proposal to con- struct two (2) attached single-family residential dwelling units (duplex) on a 5,000 square foot parcel located approximately 200 feet southeasterly of the intersection of Lawrence Way and Ryan Avenue at l7609-A and l7609-B Ryan Avenue. ..... The Chairman asked the applicant if he had received the conditions and if he had any concerns. Mr. William S. Buck, applicant, responded that he had the conditions and that he had a concern with Condition #5. He will be unable to move the pro- posed building 9 feet to the south due to need for 100 percent expansion of the leach field and the lO-foot dedication he must make for widening of Minutes of Planning Commission J u 1 y 2, 1 985 Page 7 RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 85-8 - WILLIAM S. BUCK - CONTINUED Lakeshore Drive. He then explained his parking space and their access to them. Discussion was held on the Health Department's requirement for 100-percent expansion; any extra space for additional parking space; street dedication and problems of this area. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to approved Residential Project 85-8, with staff's recommended conditions and deleting Condition #5, second by Commis- sioner Mell inger. Approved 5-0 PLANNING DIVISION CONDITIONS: 1. Applicant is to meet all applicable City Codes and Ordinances. 2. Applicant is to meet all County Fire Department requirements for fire protection. 3. Applicant is to process a lot merger. 4. Meet all Riverside County Health Department requirements. 5. ~ave -1:lf'al:laseEl-stf'l:l€tl:lf'eS-al:lfH'a*~R'hlte+Y-R~Re -feet- t9.!. j.- ta-tRe-seHtR-te I:lrev~E1e-fer-aR-aElEl~t4aRa+-l:lark~R~-sl:la€e. DELETED 6. All conditions of approval are to be met prior to Building Di vis ion I s - issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS: 7. Meet all requi rements of Ordinance No. 571. 8. Meet all requi rements of Ordinance No. 572. 9. r~eet all requi rements of Ordi nance No. 636. 10. Meet all requirements of Ordi nance No. 529. 11. Meet all requirements of Ordi nance No. 740. 12. Meet all requirements o f R~ sol uti 0 n No. 85 - 34 . 13. Meet all requi rements of Resolution No. 85-26. 14. Dedicate underground water rights to the City of Lake Elsinore per Ordinance No. 529. 5. Single-Family Residence - 320 Campus Way - Gordon Graff - Staff presented pro- posal to construct a two-story single-family residence on a 9,000 square foot parcel located at the intersection of Pottery Street and Campus Way at 320 Campus Way. The project meets allordi nance requi rements and wi 11 not create any adverse environmental impacts. The Chairman asked the applicant if he had the conditions and if he had any questions. Mr. Graff replied that he had the conditions but had noquest1ons. Discussion was held expressing concurrence with project as submitted. Motion by Commissioner Washburn to approved the Single-Family Residence at 320 Campus Way with staff recommendations, second by Commissioner Barnhart. Approved 5-0 PLANNING DIVISION CONDITIONS: 1. Applicant shall meet all City Codes, Ordinances and requirements. Minutes of Planning Commission July 2, 1985 Page 8 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE - 320 CAMPUS WAY - GORDON GRAFF - CONTINUED 2. Applicant shall meet all Riverside County Health Department requirements. 3. Grading Plans are to be approved by the Engineering Department. 4. All items depicted on Site Plan shall be provided as indicated on the Site Plan, unless otherwise modified by the Planning Commission and/or ... Design Review Board. 5. Applicant shall meet all conditions prior to the issuance of Certificate of Use and Occupancy. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS: 6. Meet all requirements of Ordinance No. 571. 7. Meet all req ui rements of Ordi nance No. 572. 8. Meet all requi rements of Ordinance No. 636. 9. Meet all requi rements of Ordinance No. 529. 10. Meet all requi rements of Resolution No. 85-34. 11. Dedicate Underground water rights to the City of Lake El s i nore per Ordinance No. 529. 6. & 7. Single-Family Residences - 718 Mill Street and 726 Mill Street - William S. Buck - Staff presented proposal to construct two (2) single-family residences on two (2) adjacent parcels of property, approximately 6,000 square feet each, located southeasterly of the intersection of Mill and High Streets, at 718 and ... 726 Mill Street. These two (2) projects meet all ordinance requirements and will not create any adverse environmental impacts. The Chairman asked the applicant if he had received the conditions and if he had any questions. Mr. Buck responded that he had received the conditions but had no questions. Discussion was held on whether applicant had worked with Engineering to solve drainage sheet flow off of the property; retaining wall at back to direct flow to street and this matter to still be discussed with the Engineering Department. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to approve Single-Family Residences at 718 Mill Street and 726 Mill Street with staff recommendations, second by Commis- sioner Mellinger. Approved 5-0 PLANNING DIVISION CONDITIONS: 1. Applicant shall meet all Planning Division requirements, City Codes, and Ordi nan ces . 2. Grading Plans are to be approved by the Engineering Department. 3. All items depicted on Site Plan shall be provided as indicated on the Site Plan, unless otherwise modified by the Planning Commission and/or Design Review Board. ..... 4. Applicant is to move the proposed garage at 718 Mill Street one (1) foot west per Site Plan to meet the City Zoning side yard setback requirement of six (6) feet; Similarly, the residential units shall be moved one (1) foot west and one (1) foot east to accommodate this aforementioned pro- vision in regard to the structures at 718 and 726 Mill Street, respec- tively. 5. Applicant shall meet all conditions of approval prior to the issuance of Certificate of Use and Occupancy. Minutes of Planning Commission July 2, 1985 Page 9 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCES - 718 MILL STREET AND 726 MILL STREET - WILLIAM S. BUCK - CONTINUED ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS: 6. Meet all requirements of Ordinance No. 57l. 7. Meet all requirements of Ordinance No. 572. 8. Meet all requirements of Ordinance No. 636. 9. Meet all requi rements of Ordi nance No. 529. 10. Meet all requirements of Resolution No. 85-34. ll. Dedicate underground water rights to the City of Lake El s i nore per Ordinance No. 529. 8. Lot Line Adjustment 85-4 - Thompson Investment Company - Staff presented proposal to adjust the mutual lot lines of Lots 2, 3, 4 and 5 of Tract No. 19389 and the abutting Lots 3, 4 and 5 of Tract No. 17222. These seven parcels are all a minimum of 6,000 square feet and are located between Le Harve Avenue and Highlands Road, off of Machado Street. This moving of the mutual property lines of the aforementioned lots will accommodate the con- structionof a fence along the subject rear lots of Tract 19389 to provide pri vacy and buffering effect for homeowners of sai d Tract. - The Chairman asked the applicant if he had received the conditions and if he had any concerns. Mr. Thompson replied he had received the conditions and had no concerns Motion by Commissioner Washburn to approved Lot Line Adjustment 85-4 with staff's recommendations, second by Commissioner Barnhart. Approved 5-0 1. City Engineer verification of legal descriptions as accurate. 2. Issuance of Certificate of Compliance. 9. Request to Annex - Winchester Associates, Inc. - Staff presented applicant's request to annex 71.31 acres, located 350 feet north of the intersection of Alvarado Street and Grand Avenue, into the City of Lake Elsinore to accommo- date future single-family residential proposals that would more appropriately reflect existing land use patterns with subject area. Motion by Commissioner Washburn to approve the Request to Annex, second by Commissioner Saathoff. Approved 5-0 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S REPORT. None PLANNING COMMISSIONERrS REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Commissioner Barnhart - Asked about waiver of fees east of Main. Staff responded that it is part of the Infill Program. It was a recom- mended item that was approved by Council. Staff is looking into it right now and amending Ordinance No. 572 to reflect this interest. Not all fees will be waived. They will select them and make them universal. Commissioner Barnhart then brought up the green bus that is still parked in front of her house and would like it checked out. Commissioner Washburn - Since the Engineering Department has changed the way they are presenting conditions on projects, he wishes the Engi- neering Department had been represented at the meeting tonight to explain their new procedure or had gotten together with the Planning Commission as a body prior to bringing them to the table as agenda items. Would like this added as one of the items to be discussed at the next Joint Study Session. Minutes of Planning Commission July 2, 1985 Page 10 PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION - CONTINUED Commissioner Mellinger - Recommended that projects under multiple listings be consolidated under one action, i.e., tentative tract maps, zone changes, variances, etc., for same project by same applicant. That way they can take action on all of them at the same time. Also, commented on his insistance on requiring Class A roofing materials for any building in the City of Lake Elsinore, but today you can just look into the skies and on the TV screens and you can understand why. It is outrageous to use anythi ng but Cl ass A roo fi ng materials anywhere in Southern California, especially in a city like Lake Elsinore. He feels anyone who plans on development in the City of Lake Elsinore should be made aware that we are trying to put that in our new Zoning Ordinance but in the meantime at the Design Review Board level Class A roofing materials are a definite must in the City of Lake E1~inore. Lastly, as of July 17th, he will no longer be working for the City of Orange but for the City of Escondido. - Commissioner Saathoff - None Chairman Dominguez - Welcomed E-Z Products into our community. They had their Open House today - it is very nice. He is sure they will be working with the community. He likes to see these type of projects come to the City. Motion by Commissioner Washburn to adjourn to the Design Review Board, second by Commissioner Barnhart. Approved 5-0 - - MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD HELD ON THE MI NUTE ACT! ON 2ND DAY OF JUL Y 1985 Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to approve the minutes of June 18, 1985, as sub- mitted, second by Commissioner Washburn. Approved 5-0 BUSI NESS ITEMS 1. Commercial Project 85-5 - Wally McGowen - Staff presented proposal to construct a 2,548 square foot commercial building consisting of three (3) individual units on a 8,330 square foot parcel, located on the northeast corner of the intersection of Saint Charles Place and Fraser Drive. - Discussion was held on Condition #4, whether the block walls were cement block or colored block; would like split face colored block at the discretion of the Planning Division; would like Condition #4 to read, "All walls, excluding the northern wall (fire wall) shall be of colored split face block to be approved by the Planning Division;1I was a color to be assigned to the roll-up door - the roll-up door should be of a color to match the building; eyebrowl type of awnings over each window to dress the place up; and mansard projectina; and favoring the kiosk in Condition #10. Motion by Commissioner Washburn to approve Commercial Project 85-5 with staff recommendations; chanqing Conditio.n #4 to read, IIAll walls, except the north facing fire wall, shall be of colored split face block and are to be approved by the Planning Division;1I Condition #10 to read, "Applicant shall use a cen- trally located kiosk, maximum 4.5' high by 5' wide, for all business identifi- cation. All signage is to be approved by City permit;1I and adding Condition #13 which shall read, IIRoll up door to be of a color that is complimentary to the building, excluding polished aluminum," second by Commissioner Saathoff. Approved 5-0 1. A landscaping plan incorporating the use of specimen trees (minimum 2411 box) shall be reviewed by the Design Review Board. Species are to be called out with biological and common names and shall include five (5) Mexican Fan Palm Trees. The landscaping plan shall show tree well cross sections and materials to be used for the planter boxes. 2. All landscaping shall be a maximum of 36 inches within ten feet (10') of all points of ingress/egress. 3. All landscaping areas to be continuously maintained with an automatic sprinkler and drip irrigation system. 4. All walls, EXCEPT THE NORTH FACING FIRE WALL, SHALL be OF COLORED split face block and are to be approved by the Planning Division. 5. All roof mounted equipment shall be architecturally screened with mater- ials to be approved by Planning Division. 6. A lighting plan showing placement of lights, their radii, and type of light standard are to be approved by Planning Division. 7. All conditions are to be met before a Certificate of Occupancy is issued. 8. As an alternative to the use of a planter box around the perimeter of the parcel, applicant shall use an earthen landscape berm. The berms should be sodded and trees planted similar to a planter box. 9. The two-foot (2') planter area adjacent to the building shall be planted with compact evergreen hedges. 10. Applicant shall use a centrally located kiosk, maximum 4.5' high by 51 wi de, eF-I:IR:i feFIfl-7 o;-s-SEjl:laFe-.feet- S:i~RS - RaR~:iR~- .fFelfJ-tRe-Fe9.f-ln'e~e€H8n for all business identification. All signage is to be approved by City Permit . Minutes of Design Review Board July 2, 1985 Page 2 COMMERCIAL PROJECT 85-5 - WALLY MCGOWEN - CONTINUED 11. Applicant shall make the top of the roof projection flush with the top of the structure. 12. Project shall be constructed as depicted by elevations or modified by Design Review Board. Any changes will require resubmitta1 to the Design Revi ew Boa rd. - 13. ROLL UP DOOR TO BE OF A COLOR THAT IS COMPLIMENTARY TO THE BUILDING, EXCLUDING POLISHED ALUMINUM. . 2. Residential Project 85-3 - Surfside Builders - Staff presented proposal to construct two (2) two"-story structures, Building "A" housing eight (8) units and Building "B" housing two (2) units above a ten (10) stall carport, located 250 feet northwesterly of the intersection. of Lookout and F1 int Streets. The Chairman asked the applicant if he had received the conditions and if he had any concerns. The applicant, Paul Giovanni, stated he had received the conditions and had concern on Condition #4 - on the change in material and the mansard roof on the freeway side of the project. He doesn't see any need to improve or dress up a part of a building you can't see from any place. On Condition #10, on the trash enclosure, they looked for a better place to put it but were unable to find a place better that would be accessible by the refuse company. Discussion was. held on area for trash enclosure; any opening from alley; open up green space; maybe swa1e in alley and therefore no access from alley; maxi- mum amount of green space desirable for this area; building design leaves something to be desired; building design along the freeway is bland, the roof- line is not completed and would give an uncompleted appearance to people coming to Lake Elsinore; continuation of roof; landscaping to break up the bland wall; interior court of building, finding the economics of saving money just to have a blank section is not something that would be of Design Review quality; same applies to the western side and especially for the entrance which will be the western approach off of Lookout Street - seems to be an incomplete project; it stops and then seems to continue - opposed to this and think it needs to go back for revisions; concerns needing to be mitigated as project will be highly visible from the freeway. - Motion by Commissioner Washburn to deny without prejudice Residential Project 85-3, second by Commissioner Saathoff. Approved 5-0 3. Residential Project 85-5 - George Jenkins - Staff presented proposal to con- struct a two-story four (4) unit apartment buil di ng on a parcel approximately 5,660 square feet in size, located on the northern side of Nash1and Avenue at 3558 Nash1and Avenue. A brief discussion was hel~ concurring with staff's report. Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to approve Residential Project 85-5 with staff recommendations, second by Commissioner Barnhart. Approved 5-0 PLANNING DIVISION CONDITIONS: - 1. All building elevations "are to be constructed as depicted on submitted plans. Any changes will require resubmittal to the Design Review Board. 2. All roof mounted or ground support equipment incidental to development shall be architecturally screened so they are not visible from neigh- boring property or public streets. 3. Street trees are to be planted a maximum of 30 feet apart inside the public right-of-way. 4. All planting areas shall have a permanent sprinkler system. Minutes of Design Review Board July 2, 1985 Page 3 RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 85-5 - GEORGE JENKINS - CONTINUED 5. Roofing material shall be of the Class A fire resistant type. 6. Applicant is to provide a centrally located trash receptacle which shall be architecturally screened. The location and method of screening shall be approved by Planning Division. 7. Applicant shall provide lighting of an acceptable intensity within the enclosed garage area. 8. All conditions are to be met prior to Building Division's issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 9. All internal incidental development equipment (i .e., water heaters) shall be effectively screened. 4. Residential Project 85-8 - William S. Buck - Staff presented proposal to con- struct two (2) attached single-family residential dwelling units (duplex) on a 5,000 square foot parcel located approximately 200 feet southeasterly of the intersection of Lawrence Way and Ryan Avenue at 17609-A and 17609-B Ryan Avenue. A brief discussion was held expressing no concerns with the project. Motion by Commissioner Barnhart to approve Residential Project 85-8 with the ten (10) conditions recommended by staff; second by Commissioner Washburn. Approved 5-0 - 1. All roof mounted or ground support equipment incidental to development shall be architecturally screened so that they are not visible from neighboring property or public streets. 2. Building elevations shall be constructed as depicted on plans, any pro- posed changes will require resubmittal to the Design Review Board. 3. Applicant shall plant street trees inside the public right-of-way, where possible. 4. Street trees shall be planted a maximum of 30 feet apart, and be a minimum of 10-gallon. 5. All slopes shall be planted with fire resistant, erosion control vege- tation. 6. Applicant is to paint structures with earthtone colors. 7. Applicant shall place a landscape area adjacent to the northern elevation of Building "A. II 8. Applicant is to install a permanent sprinkler system for all planting a re as. 9. All conditions of approval are to be met prior to the Building Division's issuance of Certificate of Occupancy. 10. Applicant is to save existing Palm tree. 5. Single-Family Residence - 320 Campus Way - Gordon Graff - Staff presented pro- posal to construct a two-story single-family residence on a 9,000 square foot parcel located at the intersection of Pottery Street and Campus Way at 320 Campus Way. The project meets all ordinance requirements and will not create any adverse environmental impacts. A brief discussion was held expressing no concern with the project. Motion by Commissioner Washburn to approve Single-Family Residence at 320 Campus Way with eight (8) conditions recommended by staff, second by Commis- sioner Barnhart. Approved 5-0 Minutes of Design Review Board Ju 1 y 2, 1985 Page 4 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE - 320 CAMPUS WAY - GORDON GRAFF - CONTINUED 1. All roof mounted or ground support equipment incidental to development shall be architecturally screened so that they are not visible from neighboring property or public streets. 2. Building elevations shall be constructed as depicted on plans, any pro- posed changes will require resubmittal to the Design Review Board. 3. If feasible, applicant shall plant street trees inside the public right- of-way, to be approved by the Engineering and Planning Division. 4. Street trees shall be a minimum of l5-gallon and shall be set at a minimum of 30-foot intervals on center. - 5. Applicant shall meet all conditions of approval prior to the issuance of Certificate of Use and Occupancy. 6. Applicant is to install permanent sprinkler system for all planting areas. 7. Applicant shall plant ero~ion control growth materials along all slopes within the project's interior property boundaries, as determined and approved by Engineering and Planning Departments. 8. Applicant shall submit a detailed landscaping and irrigation plan to be approved by Planning Division. 6. & 7. Single-Family Residences - 718 Mill Street and 726 Mill Street - William S. Buck - Staff presented proposal to construct two (2) single-family residences on two (2) adjacent parcels of property, approximately 6,000 square feet each, located southeasterly of the intersection of Mill and High Streets, at 718 and 726 Mill Street. These two (2) projects meet all ordinance requirements and will not create any adverse environmental impacts. - A brief discussion was held expressing no concern with the projects. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to approve Single-Family Residences at 718 Mill Street and 726 Mill Street with nine (9) conditions recommended by staff, second by Commissioner Washburn. Approved. 5-0 1. All roof mounted or ground support equipment incidental to development shall be architecturally screened so that they are not visible from neighboring property or public streets. 2. Building elevations shall be constructed as depicted on plans, any pro- posed changes will require resubmittal to the Design Review Board. 3. If feasible, applicant shall plant street trees inside the public right- of-way, to be approved by the Engineering and Planning Departments. 4. Street trees shall be a minimum of 15-gallon and shall be set at a minimum of 30-foot intervals on center. 5. Applicant shall meet all Conditions of Approval prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Use and Occupancy. - 6. Applicant is to install permanent sprinkler system for all planting areas. 7. Applicant shall plant erosion control growth materials along all slopes within the project interior property boundaries, as determined and approved by the Engineering and Planning Departments. 8. Applicant shall submit a landscaping/irrigation plan to be approved by the Planning Division. 9. Building elevations shall be varied through the use of different color schemes, roofing materials, and use of wood trim, to be approved by the Planning Division. Minutes of Design Review Board Jul y 2, 1985 Page 5 8. Commercial Addition - Elsinore Ready Mix - (Walk On) - Staff presented pro- posal to place a factory painted metal roof on a 42' x 721 currently existing three-walled storage structure on a parcel approximately 37,500 square feet in size and located on the northwest corner of the intersection of lakeshore Drive and Kansas Street at 16960 lakeshore Drive. Discussion was held on the current condition of the walls - their appearance. Staff responded that they are stucco and look fairly new and paint is good. Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to approve Commercial Addition at 16960 lakeshore Drive with one (1) condition recommended by staff, second by Commissioner Washburn. Approved 5-0 1. The roofing material shall be brown in color. There being no further business, the lake Elsinore Design Review Board adjourned at 8:40 p.m. Motion by Commissioner Barnhart, second by Commissioner Mellinger. Approved 5-0 Approved - -A~~-=- C' Fred mi n , . n Respectfully submitted, l!3<<~~LJ Actlng Secretary, Planning Commission MINUTES OF HELD ON THE LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION 16TH DAY OF JULY 1985 THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:00 P.M. - PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Commissioner Saathoff. ROLL CALL found Commissioner Saathoff, Commissioner Mellinger, Commissioner Washburn, Commissioner Barnhart and Chairman Dominguez. Also present were Assistant Planner Coleman and Assistant Planner Miner. MINUTE ACTION Motion by Commissioner Washburn to approve minutes of July 2, 1985, as submitted, second by Commissioner Barnhart. Approved 5-0 INTRODUCTION Mr. Coleman introduced Mr. Milo Keith the new City Engineer. Mr. Keith stated that he would be in the office every Tuesday and Thursday from 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., and made a brief presentation on Engineering Department's new policy and procedures and stated that they would be concentrating on the Master Plan Drainage System, and then gave a brief report on the Infill Program. PUBLI C HEARl NGS NONE - BUSINESS ITEMS 1. Residential Project 85-9 - Thomas Brothers Development Corporation - Commissioner Washburn asked to be excused. Staff presented proposal to construct a thirty-nine (39) unit senior citizen complex on 2.5t acres, located off of Flint Street between Kellogg and Lindsay Streets. The Chairman asked if the applicant was in the audience, if he had the condi- tions and if he had any questions. Mr. Nick Thomas, Pr.esident of Thomas Brothers Development Corporation, questioned condition number 15, regarding replacement of mineral water lines. A brief discussion was held on condition number 15, and the General Plan Land Use designation for the area. Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to approve Residential Project 85-9 with condi- tions as presented by staff, second by Commissioner Barnhart. Approved 4-0 Commissioner Washburn excused - PLANNING DIVISION CONDITIONS: 1. Appl i cant shall meet all appl i cabl e Ci ty Codes and Ordi nances . 2. All items depicted on Site Plans shall be provided as indicated unless otherwise modified by the Planning Commission and/or Design Review Board. 3. Meet all Environmental Health Services Division requirements concerning was tewa ter di s posa 1 . 4. Applicant shall meet all setback requirements. 5. Meet Regional Water Quality Control Board requirements. 6. The four (4) southmost parking spaces within the parking facility Minutes of Planning Commission July 16, 1985 Pa ge 2 RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 85-9 - THOMAS BROTHERS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION CONTINUED located off of Kellogg Street shall be converted to a carport design, as approved by Planning Division. 7. On the south property line abutting the alley, parking spaces in this area shall reflect a revised carport and open parking space arrangement that will ultimately provide a total of ten (10) covered (.2 maintained as handicap spaces) and four (4) open parking spaces. 8. The first two (2) opposite open parking spaces within the parking lot off of Lindsay Street shall be converted to open space so as to pro- vide an extended landscaping statement that continues into the park- ing space, as approved by Planning Division. 9. Applicant is to provide six (6) more handicap spaces on-site for the purpose of accommodating the special mobility needs of this elderly renting population that will occupy the complex, as approved by the Planning Division. ..." 10. Applicant is to meet all Conditions of Approval prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Use and Occupancy. 11. All handicap spaces shall be clearly designated with appropriate pave- ment markings, and signage, for the purpose of clearly identifying the acceptable users of these spaces. 12. All carport parking spaces are to clearly identify individual parking spaces for the tenants within the complex. To accomplish this, the spaces are to be numbered so as to correspond with the rental units. 13. Applicant is to process a Lot Merger. 14. If feasible, the applicant shall save as many trees as possible on- site; for every tree that needs to be removed, another tree shall be planted on-site, to be approved by the Planning Division. ..." GEOTHERMAL ENERGY DEPARTMENT CONDITION: 15. Applicant agrees to work with the City to replace mineral water lines removed to enabl e cons truction of road and pads. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS: 16. Meet a 11 requirements of Ordi na nce No. 57l. 17. Meet all requirements of Ordi nance No. 572. 18. Meet all requirements of Ordi nance No. 636. 19. Meet all requirements of Ordi nance No. 740. 20. Meet a 11 requirements of Resolution No. 83-78. 21 . Meet all requirements of Resolution No. 77-39. 22. Meet all requirements of Resol ution No. 85- 34. 23. Meet all requirements of Resol ution No. 85-26. 24. Meet all requirements of Resolution No. 83-87. 25. Dedicate underground water rights to the City of Lake Elsinore per Ordinance No. 529. 26. Dedicate 2.5 feet of right-of-way along the no rths i de of alley between Lindsay Street and Kellogg Street. ..." Minutes of Planning Commission July 16, 1985 Page 3 Commissioner Washburn returned to the table. 2. Single-Family Residence 30400 Morton Avenue - Ley Jakob - Staff presented pro- posal to construct a two-story single-family residence, located 230 feet south of the intersection of Morton and Cal ki ns Avenues. - The Chairman asked if the applicant was in the audience, if he had the condi- tions and if he had any questions. Mr. Ley Jakob stated that he had no problem with the conditions as presented by staff. The Chairman asked for discussion at the table. There being no discussion at the table, the Chairman asked for a motion. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to approve Single-Family Residence at 30400 Morton Avenue with conditions as presented by staff, second by Commissioner Washburn. Approved 5-0 PLANNING DIVISION CONDITIONS: 1. Applicant shall meet all City Codes, Ordinances and requirements. 2. Applicant shall meet all Riverside County Health Department require- ments. 3. Grading Plans are to be approved by the Engineering Department. - 4. All items depicted on Site Plan shall be provided as indicated on the Site Plan unless otherwise modified by the Planning Commission and/or Design Review Board. -- 5. Appl icant shall meet all condi tions prior to the issuance of a Certifi- cate of Use and Occupancy. 6. A P P 1 i can tis to process a Lot Merger. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS: 7. Meet all requirements of Ordi nance No. 57l. 8. Meet all requirements of Ordi nance No. 572. 9. Meet all requirements of Ordi nance No. 636. 10. Meet all requirements of Ordi nance No. 529. 11. Meet all requirements of Ordinance No. 740. 12. Meet all requi rements of Resol ution No. 77- 39. 13. Meet all requirements of Resol ution No. 85-34. 14. Meet all requirements of Resolution No. 85-26. 15. Dedicate underground water rights to the City of Lake Elsinore per Ordinance No. 529. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S REPORT NONE PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Commissioner Saathoff - None Commissioner Mellinger - Asked staff about status of Title 17. Mr. Coleman stated Minutes of Planning Commission July 16, 1985 Pa ge 4 PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION CONTINUED that they were working on the revisions, and will be taking it back to Council in about a month. Commissioner Mellinger then asked if there would be another study session on Title 17. Mr. Coleman answered in the affirmative. Commissioner Barnhart - The embankment on Spring Street (Chamber of Commerce's Parking lot) Ron Jones was going to get back to me on whether they were going to ___ fill in or put up pylons - she would like a report from Mr. Jones or from the City on what is to be done about that street. Commissioner Washburn - None Chairman Dominguez - Intersection of Collier and Channey - the street sign is off on Collier, would like to get a sign there directing where Channey comes in. Requested that staff get him information on Weed Abatement, as he is receiving a number of inquiries on weed abatement where alot of lots have not been cleaned. 208 Campus Way, there should be some type of inspection made for abatement of vehicles. Motion by Commissioner Washburn to adjourn to Design Review Board, second by Com- missioner Mellinger. Approved 5-0 --- I..... MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD HELD ON THE 16TH DAY OF , JULY 1985 MINUTE ACTION - Motion by Commissioner Barnhart to approve minutes of July 2, 1985, as submitted, second by Commissioner Washburn. Approved 5-0 B US I NESS ITEMS 1 . Residential Project 85-9.- Thomas Brothers Development Corporation - Commissioner Washburn asked to be excused. Staff presented proposal to construct a thirty-nine (39) unit senior citizen complex on 2.5i acres, located off of Flint Street between Kellogg and Lindsay Streets. Staff requested that redesign of the entryways be added as a condi- tion. The Chairman asked if the applicant was in the audience, if he had the condi- tions and if he had any questions. Mr. Nick Thomas, President of Thomas Brothers Development Corporation, questioned condition number 20, pertaining to the decorative split face block wall. Discussion was held on condition number 20, pertaining to fencing, security and 1 i ghti ng for proposal. - Deputy Brown of the County Sheriff1s Department stated that his department has the following concerns: Yarborough Park in relationship to the grounds; a brick wall in the manner recommended would obstruct visibility of vehicles on patrol; he favored the wrought iron rather than the block wall. He stated that one of his main concerns was the entryway leading into each of the apartment complexes, they can not be readily seen from a patrol or residences in the area, this area should be secured from the exterior or redesigned. He then stated concern on security lighting and asked what amount of light would be projected. Mr. Nick Thomas addressed some of the concerns presented by Deputy Brown. Commissioner Saathoff suggested that with the concerns brought up tonight that this proposal be denied without prejudice, and allow the applicant to bring it back with the redesign of the entryways also, a firm commitment on some sort of security fencing around the entire property, better design as far as the candle- light power is concerned~ and perhaps at that time, they could bring in the landscaping plan. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to deny without prejudice Residential Project 85-9, second by Commissioner Mellinger. Approved 4-0 Commissioner Washburn excused Commissioner Washburn returned to the table. 2. Residential Project 85-10 - The Grayson Companies/Robert Gray - Staff presented for review the design elevations for sixty-five (65) single-family residences located within approved Tract Map 20296. The Chairman asked if the applicant was in the audience, if he had the conditions and if he had any questions. Mr. Bart Crandel, architect for the project, stated that regarding condition number 2, they would have no roof mounted equipment; on condition number 4,.per- taining to trees being planted 30 feet apart, requested that this be part of approval on landscape plan; condition number 5, pertaining to slopes being planted with erosion control vegetation, which they intend to do, but one, 15- gallon tree for every 150 feet of slope area is excessive and requested that this also be part of approval on landscape plan; questioned condition number 7, pertaining to all open areas permanently maintained with an approved sprinkler system; requested clarification on condition number 9. Minutes of Design Review Board July 16, 1985 Pa ge 2 RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 85-10 - THE GRAYSON COMPANIES/ROBERT GRAY CONTINUED Discussion was held on condition number 7 and clarification was given on condition number 9. Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to approve Residential Project 85-10 with conditions as presented by staff, changing condition number 4 and 5 by adding verbiage "subject to submittal of landscaping plan"; amend condition number 7, by deleting the words "open areas" and insert the words "front yards"; and add condition number 15, which will-read: "Landscape Plan shall be reviewed by the - Des i gn Revi ew Boa rd", second by Commi ss ioner Washburn. Approved 5-0 PLANNING DIVISION CONDITIONS: 1. All buildings shall be constructed as depicted on drawings or modified by staff or Design Review Board. 2. All roof mounted or ground support equipment shall be architecturally screened so as not to be visible from adjoining property or public streets. 3. Applicant shall plant street trees, mlnlmUm 15-gallon, inside the public right-of-way wherever possible, to be approved by the Planning Division. 4. Street trees shall be planted a maximum of 30-feet apart SUBJECT TO SUBMITTAL OF LANDSCAPING PLAN. 5. All slopes shall be planted with erosion control vegetation and at least one (J) 15-gallon tree for every 150 square feet of slope area SUBJECT TO SUBMITTAL OF LANDSCAPING PLAN. 6. All fence locations and materials are to be approved by Planning Division. - 7. All FRONT YARDS are to be landscaped and permanently maintained with an approved sprinkler system. 8. All structures are to be placed as depicted on the Plot Plan. Any proposed changes will require approval of Planning Division. 9. Fences located in any front yard, or the exterior side of any corner lot shall not exceed 3.5 feet in height. 10. Only Class A fire retardent roofing materials shall be used. 11. Meet all appl i cabl e City Codes and Ordi nances. 12. All Conditions of Approval are to be met prior to Building Division's issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 13. Applicant shall submit a list showing which design elevations will be associated with which floor plan and lot. 14. Similar buildings existing adjacent to one another shall be made to exhibit obvious differences in exterior appearance. 15. LANDSCAPE PLAN SHALL BE REVIEWED BY THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD. - 3. Residential Project 85-11 - The Grayson Companies/Robert Gray - Staff presented for review design elevations for sixty-three (63) single-family residences located within approved Tract Map 20139. Chairman asked Mr. Crandel, if he had the conditions and if he had any questions. Mr. Crandel stated that he had questions on the same conditions as stated on Residential Project 85-10. Minutes of Design Review Board July 16, 1985 Page 3 RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 85-11 - THE GRAYSON COMPANIES/ROBERT GRAY CONTINUED - - - Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to approve Residential Project 85-11 with conditions as presented by staff, changing condition number 4 and 5 by adding verbiage "subject to submittal of landscaping plan"; amend condition number 7, by deleting the words "open areas" and insert the words "front yards"; and add condition number 15, which will read: "Landscape Plan shall be reviewed by the Design Review Board", second by Commissioner Saathoff. Approved 5-0 PLANNING DIVISION CONDITIONS: 1. All buildings shall be constructed as depicted on drawings or modified by staff or Design Review Board. 2. All roof mounted or ground support equipment shall be architecturally screened so as not to be visible from adjoining property or public streets. 3. Applicant shall plant street trees, mlnlmum l5-gallon, inside the public right~ f-way wherever possible, to be approved by the Planning Division. 4. Street trees shall be planted a maximum of 30-feet apart SUBJECT TO SUBMITTAL OF LANDSCAPING PLAN. 5. All slopes shall be planted with erosion control vegetation and at least one (1) l5-gallon tree for every 150 square feet of slope area SUBJECT TO SUBMITTAL OF LANDSCAPING PLAN. 6. All fence locations and materials are to be approved by Planning Division. 7. All FRONT YARDS are to be landscaped and permanently maintained with an approved sprinkler system. 8. All structures are to be placed as depicted on the Plot Plan. Any proposed changes will require approval of Planning Division. 9. Fences located in any front yard, or the exterior side of any corner lot shall not exceed 3.5 feet in height. 10. Only Class A fire retardent roofing materials shall be used. 11. Meet all appl i cabl e Ci ty Codes and Ordi nances . 12. All Conditions of Approval are to be met prior to Building Division's issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 13. Applicant shall submit a list showing which design elevations will be associated with which floor plan and lot. 14. Similar buildings existing adjacent to one another shall be made to exhibit obvious differences in exterior appearance. 15. LANDSCAPE PLAN SHALL BE REVIEWED BY THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD. 4. Commercial Project 85-4 Signage Plan - Tait & Associates/Chevron U.S.A., Inc. - Staff presented for review sign elevations for the Chevron service station located on the northwest corner of Lakeshore Drive and Riverside Drive. The Chairman asked if the applicant was in the audience, if he had the condi- tions and if he had any questions. Mr. Bill Prescott, Engineer for Chevron U.S.A., Inc., presented two colored renderings on proposed signs, and stated that they would like to eliminate "C" and modify "0" eliminating the company logo and making that a light. Discussion was held on proposed signs and the nautical setting. Minutes of Design Review Board July 16,1985 Pa ge 4 COMMERCIAL PROJECT 85-4 SIGNAGE PLAN - TAIT & ASSOCIATES/CHEVRON U.S.A., INC. CONTINUED Motion by Commissioner Washburn to approve Commercial Project 85-4 Signage Plan with conditions as presented by staff, amending condition number 1, allowing applicant to place logo as sign "C" and that "D" be modified to provide a nautical theme, second by Commissioner Barnhart with discussion. Commissioner Saathoff stated for clarification on motion, you are saying the applicant is to modify sign "0" to show nautical theme with compass points, _ and that sign "C" he is being allowed to place his logo only. Th.e Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. There being no furth.er discussion at the table, the Chairman asked -for the vote. Approved 5-0 PLANNING DIVISION CONDITIONS: 1. APPLICANT ALLOWED TO PLACE LOGO AS SIGN "C" AND THAT SIGN "0" BE MODIFIED TO PROVIDE A NAUTICAL THEME. 2. All items depicted on the Signage Plans shall be provided as indicated, unless itherwise modified by the Design Review Board's conditions. Any proposed changes must be resubmitted to the Design Review Board for approval. 5. Single-Family Residence 30400 Morton Avenue - Ley Jakob - Staff presented pro- posal to construct a two-story single-family residence, located 230 feet south of the intersection of Morton and Calkins Avenue. The Chairman asked if the applicant was in the audience. Being as the ap- plicant was not present, the Chairman asked for discussion at the table. Discussion was held on condition number 6, pertaining to permanent sprinkler system for all planting areas. ....., Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to approve Single-Family Residence at 30400 Morton Avenue with conditions as presented by staff, and amend condition number 6, deleting the words "all planting areas" and insert the words "front yard", second by Commissioner Washburn. Approved 5-0 PLANNING DIVISION CONDITIONS: 1. All roof mounted or ground support equipment incidental to development shall be architecturally screened so that they are not visible from neighboring property or public streets. 2. Building elevations shall be constructed as depicted on plans, any pro- posed changes will require resubmitta1 to the Design Review Board. 3. If feasible, applicant shall plant street trees inside the public right- of-way, to be approved by the Engineering and Planning Division. 4. Street trees shall be a minimum of l5-gallon and shall be set at a max- imum of 30-foot intervals on center. 5. Applicant shall meet all conditions of approval prior to the issuance ....., of Certificate of Use and Occupancy. 6. Applicant is to install permanent sprinkler system for FRONT YARD. 7. Applicant shall plant erosion control growth materials along all slopes within the project's interior property boundaries, as determined and approved by Engineering and Planning Departments. 8. Applicant shall submit a detailed landscaping and irrigation plan to be approved by Planning Division. Minutes of Design Review Board July 18, 1985 Page 5 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE 30400 MORTON AVENUE - LEY JAKOB CONTINUED 9. Applicant shall modify the residential unit according to the present Code regulation that address residential height limitations, so as to conform to a two-story construction, as reviewed and approved by the Planning and Building Divisions. - 6. Rehabilitation - 18135 West Lakeshore Drive - Patricia Lockhart - Staff pre- sented for review exterior elevations and landscaping plan for the conversion of an existing structure into a restaurant, located on Lakeshore Drive between Matich Street and Chaney Avenue. The Chairman asked if the applicant was in the audience, if she had the condi- tions and if she had any questions. Ms. Lockhart questioned condition number 1, pertaining to the number of park- ing spaces required; condition number 4, pertaining to the reduction of gated wall and elimination of the gate; condition number 7, pertaining to placement of a window on eastern elevation, and; conditions 21 through 28, stating that she did not know what the ordinances were so she could not comment on these. A lengthy discussion was held on condition number 1, pertaining to parking re- quirements, layout for parking area and signage for overflow parking area; condition number 2, pertaining to signage for delivery area; recording on Title that second floor is for banquet room only; elevation of property; condition number 4, pertaining to height of gated wall, which shall revert back to 10 feet, and storage area entrance (gate); condition number 7, pertaining to addi- tion of window; condition number 9, pertaining to jet ski rental and no boat launching allowed. - Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to approve Rehab at 18135 West Lakeshore Drive with conditions as presented by staff with the following changes, amend condi- tion number 2. adding "provide signage to note that deliveries are to be made in rear"; delete condition number 4; delete condition number 7; add condition number 29, which will read: "No boat launching"; add condition number 30, which will read: "The second floor be used for banquet usage only", second by Commissioner Barnhart. Approved 5-0 PLANNING DIVISION CONDITIONS: 1. Provide sufficient parking, as per City Standards, or reduce the total floor area so the amount of parking proposed will be adequate. 2. No del i veri es shall be made on Lakeshore Dri ve. All del i veri es shall be made from the parking area. PROVIDE SIGNAGE TO NOTE THAT DELIVERIES ARE TO BE MADE IN REAR. 3. Street trees, minimum 24-inch (24") box, shall be planted a maximum of 30-feet apart inside the public right-of-way. - 4. tRe-~atea-wa++-a+aA~-tRe-Aa~tRe~A-e+evat~aA-5Ra++-ae-~eaij€ea-ta-a-ffia*- ~ffiijffi-af-e~~Rt-feet-fg~+-~R-Re~~Rt;-tRe-~ate-5Ra++-ae-e+~ffi~Ratea-sa-as- ta-~~e€+ijae~a€€eSS-f~affi-bakesRa~e-Q~~ve;-aAa-tRe-wa++-sRa++-ae-ffiavea faij~-feet-f4~+-ta-tRe-SaijtR-~R-a~ae~-ta-~~av~ae-a-+a-faat-f+a~+-~+aAter area-~R-fraAt-af-tRe-st~ij€tij~e~ DELETED. 5. Meet all County Fire Department requirements. 6. Meet all County Health Department requirements. 7. A-w~Raaw-sRa++-ae-~+a€ea-aa~a€eAt-ta-tRe-e*~st~R~-w~Raaw-aA-tRe-easterR- e+evat~aR. DELETED. 8. Windows shall be placed on the rear half of the western and upper half of the northern elevation of the structure. 9. The commercial renting of Jet Skis will require additional parking to be provided. Minutes of Design Review Board July 16, 1985 Pa ge 6 REHABILITATION - 18135 WEST LAKESHORE DRIVE - PATRICIA LOCKHART CONTINUED 10. All landscape areas shall be maintained with an automatic irrigation system. 11. All roof mounted or ground support equipment shall be architecturally screened. 12. All fences shall be a maximum of six-feet (61) in height unless located adjacent to a public right-of-way where they may be a maximum of eight feet (8') in height. -- 13. Applicant shall sign a hold harmless agreement with the City concern- ing the potential flood of subject property. 14. No exhaust fans or other support equipment shall be visible from any adjoining property, public right-of-way or the lake. 15. All elevations shall be constructed as depicted on plans or modified by staff or the Design Review Board. Any changes by the applicant will require resubmittal to the Design Review Board. . 16. All Conditions of Approval are to be met prior to Building Divisionis issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 17. All signage is to be approved by Planning Division and erected under City Permit. Signage, as proposed on colored renderings, is acceptable, however, detailed drawings showing dimensions, and proposed coloring are to be approved by Planning Division prior to permits being issued. 18. All parking areas to be paved as per City Standards. 19. Provide a minimum of three percent (3%) interior landscaping within proposed parking area. -- 20. Meet all applicable City Codes and Ordinances. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS: 2l. Meet all requi rements of Ordi nance No. 57l. 22. Meet all requi rements of Ordi nance No. 572. 23. Meet all requi rements of Ordinance No. 636. 24. Meet all requirements of Resol ution No. 83-78. 25. Meet all requirements of Resol ution No. 77- 39. 26. Meet all requirements of Resol ution No. 83-87. 27. Dedi ca te lO-feet of right-of-way along property frontage of Lakeshore Drive. 28. Dedicate underground water rights to the City of Lake Elsinore per Ordinance No. 529. 29. NO BOAT LAUNCHING. -- 30. THE SECOND FLOOR BE USED FOR BANQUET USAGE ONLY. There being no further business, the Lake Elsinore Design Review Board adjourned at 8:36 p.m. Motion by Commissioner Washburn, second by Commissioner Barnhart. Approved 5-0 Respectfully submitted, ~#~ Fred Domin~~ Linda Gri nds ta ff Planning Commission Secretary MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON THE 6TH DAY OF AUGUST 1985 THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:00 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Commissioner Mellinger. -- ROLL CALL found Commissioner Saathoff, Commissioner Mellinger, Commissioner Washburn, Commissioner Barnhart and Chairman Dominguez. Also present were Community Development Director Corcoran, Assistant Planner Coleman and Assistant Planner Miner. MI NUTE ACT! ON Motion by Commissioner Barnhart to approve minutes of July 16, 1985, as submitted, second by Commissioner Washburn. Approved 5-0 PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Conditional Use Permit 85-4 - Church of Christ of Sedco Hills - Staff presented proposal to allow the temporary placement of a singular trailer (121 x 40') on the church1s property located at 405 Ellis Street, to accommodate bible study classes on the premises. Chairman opened the public hearing at 7:05 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of Conditional Use Permit 85-4. Receiving no response, the Chairman asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Receiving no response, the Chairman asked for discussion at the table. Discussion was held on placing the trailer behind the existing assembly build- ing; condition number 1, pertaining to time period and temporary not becoming permanent, adding verbiage subject to yearly review and deed restriction shall be required to indicate the removal of the trailer at the time the Conditional Use Permit expires or upon the order of City Council; Sketch 1 and Sketch 2; trailer to be skirted; deleting condition number 7, and; setback requirements between buildings and front yard. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to approve Conditional Use Permit 85-4 with staff recommendations, amending condition number 1, adding verbiage "that there be a one year review and that the Conditional Use Permit expires or as directed by the City Council"; delete condition number 7; approve Sketch 1 as submitted with the fifteen foot (151) front setback and five foot (51) space between the new and existing building, second by Commissioner Washburn. Approved 5-0 PLANNING DIVISION CONDITIONS: 1. Approval shall be for a period of three (3) years, and a deed restriction shall be required to indicate the removal of the trailer at the time the Conditional Use Permit expires OR AS DIRECTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL. CONDI- TIONAL USE PERMIT SHALL BE SUBJECT TO YEARLY REVIEW. 2. Issuance of a Categorical Exemption. 3. The trailer shall be used only for Sunday School activities. 4. Applicant shall meet all applicable City Codes and Ordinances. 5. Applicant shall meet all conditions prior to the issuance of Certificate of Use and Occupancy. 6. All items depicted on the plot plan shall be provided as indicated unless otherwise modified by the Planning Commission and/or Design Review Board. 7. A~~+4€aRt-sAa++-~e-a~~aR~e-tRe-e~4eRtat4eR-ef-tAe-~~e~esee-t~a4+e~-~R4t te-~ef+e€t-a-f4fteeR-feet-f+alt-~ea~-ya~e-setBa€k-4R-a€€e~eaR€e-w4tR b4tY-beee-~e~~4~effieRts,-te-Be-a~~~evee-By-tRe-P+aRR4R~-~4v4s4eR. DELETED 8. t.1eet County Health Department requirements for wastewater disposal. Minutes of Planning Commission August 6, 1935 Page 2 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 85-4 - CHURCH OF CHRIST OF SEDCO HILLS CONTINUED ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS: Since only a temporary facility, Engineering has no requirements at this time. When and if facility is proposed as permanent structure then Engineering would request another look at site for possible conditions to be met. BUSI NESS ITEMS - 1. Single-Family Residence 28770 Pierce Street - Timothy J. McCall - Staff pre- sented proposal to construct a one-story single-family residence, located approximately 1,000 feet southeasterly of the intersection of Pierce Street and Baker Street. Staff requested that condition number 8, be amended to read: "Applicant is to obtain a water well permit from the Engineering Depart- ment", and; condition number 16, amended to read: "30 feet" instead of "60 feet". The Chairman asked if the applicant was in the audience, if he had the condi- tions and if he had any questions. Mr. McCall questioned condition number 1, stating that there were no slopes on the property, and condition number 16, pertaining to the 30-foot dedication. Discussion was held on condition number 16, pertaining to dedication and the width of Pierce Street; condition number 9, pertaining to waiving Certificate of Survey. Motion by Commissioner Washburn to approve Single-Family Residence at 28770 Pierce Street with staff recommendations, and amending condition number 8, to read: "Applicant is to obtain a water well permit from the Engineering Depart- ment"; amending condition number 16, changing "60 feet" to "30 feet", second by Commissioner Barnhart. Approved 5-0 ...." PLANNING DIVISION CONDITIONS: 1. All slopes shall be planted with erosion control vegetation, to be approved by the Planning Division. 2. Applicant is to install permanent sprinkler system for all planting areas. 3. Appl icant shall meet all setbacks. 4. Applicant is to meet all applicable City Codes and Ordinances. 5. Applicant is to meet all County Fire Department requirements for fi re protection. 6. Meet all Riverside County Health Department requirements. 7. All conditions of approval are to be met prior to Building Division issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 8. Applicant is to obtain A WATER WELL PERMIT FROM THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT. ~. Applicant is to obtain a letter waiving grading requirements and the Certificate of Survey prior to issuance of Building Permits. .... ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS: 10. Meet all requirements of Ordinance No. 57l. ll. Meet all requi rements of Ordi nance No. 572. 12. Meet all requi rements of Ordi na nce No. 636. 13. Meet all requirements of Resolution No. 77-39. Minutes of Planning Commission August 6, 1985 Page 3 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE 28770 PIERCE STREET - TIMOTHY J. MCCALL CONTINUED - 14. Meet all requirements of Resolution No. 83-12. 15. Dedicate underground water rights to the City of Lake Elsinore per Ordinance No. 529. 16. Dedicate to provide 30-feet of right-of-way for the extension of Pierce Street. 2. Single-Family Residence 29409 Hague Street - Martha NavajEldorado & Associates - Staff presented proposal to construct a two-story single-family residence, located approximately 25 feet northwesterly of the intersection of Bond Avenue and Hague Street. The Chairman asked if the applicant was in the audience. Being as the appli- cant was not present, the Chairman asked for discussion at the table. A brief discussion was held on ordinance requiring street improvements. Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to approve Single-Family Residence at 29409 Hague Street with staff recommendations, second by Commissioner Saathoff. Approved 5-0 PLANNING DIVISION CONDITIONS: 1. All slopes shall be planted with erosion control vegetation, to be approved by the Planning Division. 2. Appl icant is to install permanent sprinkler system for all planting areas. - 3. Applicant shall meet all setbacks. 4. Applicant is to meet all applicable City Codes and Ordinances. 5. Applicant is to meet all County Fire Department requirements for fire protection. 6. Meet all Riverside County Health Department requirements. 7. All conditions of approval are to be met prior to Buil di ng Division issuance of a Certi ficate of Occupancy. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS: 8. Meet all requi rements of Ordi nance No. 57l. 9. Meet all requirements of Ordi nance No. 572. 10. Meet all requirements of Ordi nance No. 636. ll. Meet all requi rements of Resol ution No. 77-39. 12. Meet all requirements of Resolution No. 83-12. - 13. Dedicate underground water rights to the City of Lake E 1 sino re per Ordinance No. 529. COMMISSIONER WASHBURN REQUESTED THAT STAFF PREPARE AN EXAMPLE CASE, POSSIBLY 29409 HAGUE STREET, FOLLOWING IT THROUGH ON ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR AP- PLICANT'S COMPLIANCE ON EACH ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION LISTED AS CONDITION. 3. Single-Family Residence 220 Matich Street - Bernard RenaudjEldorado & Associates - Staff presented proposal to construct a one-story single-family residence, located on the southeast corner of Matich Street and Sumner Avenue. The Chairman asked if the applicant was in the audience. Being as the appli- cant was not present, the Chairman asked for discussion at the table. Minutes of Planning Commission August 6, 1985 Pa ge 4 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE 220 MATICH - BERNARD RENAUD/ELDORADO & ASSOCIATES CONTINUED There being no discussion at the table, the Chairman asked for a motion. Motion by Commissioner Barnhart to approve Single-Family Residence at 220 Matich Street with staff recommendations, second by Commissioner Washburn. Approved 5-0 PLANNING DIVISION CONDITIONS: 1. All slopes shall be planted with erosion control vegetation, to be approved by the Planning Division. -..II 2. Applicant is to install permanent sprinkler systems for all planting areas. 3. Appl icant shall meet all setbacks. 4. Applicant is to meet all applicable City Codes and Ordinances. 5. Applicant is to meet all County Fire Department requirements for fi re pro tecti on. 6. Meet all Riverside County Health Department requirements. 7. All conditions of approval are to be met prior to Building Division issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS: 8. Meet all requirements of Ordi nance No. 571. 9. Meet all requirements of Ordi nance No. 572. 10. Meet all requirements of Ordi nance No. 636. ~ 11. Meet all requirements of Resolution No. 83-78. 12. Meet all requirements of Resol ution No. 77-39. 13. Meet all requirements of Resolution No. 83-1 2. 14. Dedicate underground water ri ghts to the City of Lake Elsinore per Ordinance No. 529. 4. Single-Family Residence 17428 Ryan Avenue - E.W. Brigham - Staff presented pro- posal to construct a two-story single-family residence, located 150 feet north- westerly of the intersection of Cowell Street and Ryan Avenue. The Chairman asked if the applicant was in the audience. Being as the applicant was not present, the Chairman asked for discussion at the table. A brief discussion was held on square footage of lot and meeting setback require- ments. r1>tion by Commissioner Saathoff to approve Single-Family Residence at 17428 Ryan Avenue with staff recommendations, second by Commissioner Mellinger. Approved 5-0 ..., PLANNING DIVISION CONDITIONS: 1. All slopes shall be planted with erosion control vegetation, to be approved by the Planning Division. 2. Applicant is to install permanent sprinkler systems for all planting areas. 3. Applicant is to meet all setbacks. 4. Applicant is to meet all applicable City Codes and Ordinances. Minutes of Planning Commission Augus t 6, 1985 Page 5 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE 17428 RYAN AVENUE - E.W. BRIGHAM CONTINUED - 5. Applicant is to meet all County Fire Department requirements for fi re protection. 6. Meet all Riverside County Health Department requirements. 7. All conditions of approval are to be met prior to Building Division issuance of Certificate of Occupancy. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS: 8. Meet all requi rements of Ordi nance No. 571 . 9. Meet all requirements of Ordi nance No. 572. 10. Meet a 11 requirements of Ordi na nce No. 636. 11. Meet all requirements of Reso1 ution No. 83-78. 12. Meet all requirements of Resolution No. 77- 39. 13. Meet all requi rements of Resolution No. 83- 1 2 . 14. Dedicate underground water rights to the City of lake Elsinore per Ordinance No. 529. 5. Single-Family Residences - 710 and 716 lake Street - Tony Schiavone - Staff pre- sented proposal to cons truct two, one-story si ng1 e-family res i dences, 1 oca ted 90 feet east of the intersection of High and lake Street. - The Chairman asked if the applicant was in the audience, if he had received a copy of the conditions, and if he had any questions. Mr. Schiavone stated that he would like to clarify condition number 14, stating that the only ordinance that was waived was the Park Plan Ordinance, and that he has submitted a Certificate of Survey; street plan; will be putting in curb, gutter and sidewalk; a grading plan was not required due to the topo of the land. Mr. Schiavone stated that he would like to request that the Commission recommend to City Council that the school fees be deferred until occupancy is requested. A brief discussion was held on ordinance requiring payment of school fees, and applicant's clarification on condition number 14. Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to approve Single-Family Residences at 710 and 716 lake Street with staff recommendations, second by Commissioner Barnhart. Approved 5-0 PLANNING DIVISION CONDITIONS: - 1. Applicant shall meet all City Codes, Ordinances and requirements. 2. Applicant shall meet all Riverside County Health Department requirements. 3. All items depicted on site plan shall be provided as indicated on the site plan unless otherwise modified by the Planning Commission and/or Design Review Board. 4. Applicant shall meet all conditions of approval prior to issuance of a Certificate of Use and Occupancy. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS: 5. r~eet all requirements of Ordinance No. 571. 6. Meet all requirements of Ordinance No. 572. 7. Meet a 11 requi rements 0 f Ordi na nce No. 636. Minutes of Planning Commission Augus t 6, 1 985 Page 6 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCES 710 AND 716 LAKE STREET - TONY SCHIAVONE CONTINUED 8. Meet all requi rements of Ordinance No. 529. 9. Meet all requirements ofOrdi nance No. 740. 10. Meet all requi rements of Resol ution No. 83-78. 11. Meet all requirements of Resol ution No. 77-39. 12. Meet all requi rements of Resolution No. 85-26. 1 3. Dedicate underground water rights to the City of Lake Elsinore per Ordinance No. 529. -- 14. This project is within the Council Infill Program. Appl icant shoul d process 1 etter of request to City Council, Attention City Engi neer, for relief of Engineering Conditions as identified above. 6. Lot Line Adjustment 85-5 - Palmer Development Company - Staff presented pro- posal to adjust the mututal lot lines of Parcels 4, 5, and 6 of Parcel Map 20268, located northeasterly of the intersection of Rail road Canyon Road and Casino Drive. The Chairman asked if the applicant was in the audience. Mr. Fred Crowe, of Butterfield Surveys, Inc., representing the applicant stated that he would answer any questions the Commission may have on the proposal, and that they had no problem with the conditions as presented by staff. A brief discussion was held on whether or not the Lot Line Adjustment would affect the ingress/egress, reciprocal access and parking for the proposal. Motion by Commissioner Washburn to approve Lot Line Adjustment 85-5 with staff recommendations, second by Commissioner Barnhart. Approved 5-0 - PLANNING DIVISION CONDITIONS: 1. City Engineer verification of legal description as accurate. 2. Issuance of a Certificate of Compliance. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS: 3. All conditions of Parcel Map 20268 shall prevail. 7. Lot Line Adjustment 85-6 - Aurora Leasing Company - Commissioner Barnhart asked to be excused. Staff presented proposal to adjust the mutual lot lines of lots 15,17,18, and 20 to create Parcels A and B. Parcels are bisected by Como Street and are northwest of the intersection of Como Street and Corydon Road. The Chairman asked if the applicant was in the audience. Mr. Fred Crowe, of Butterfield Surveys, Inc., representing the applicant stated that they had no concerns with the conditions as presented by staff. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to approve Lot Line Adjustment 85-6 with staff recommendations, second by Commissioner Mellinger. Approved 4-0 Commissioner Barnhart excused ....., PLANNING DIVISION CONDITIONS: 1. City Engineer verification of legal description as accurate. 2. Issuance of a Certificate of Compliance. Commissioner Barnhart returned to the table. Minutes of Planning Commission Augus t 6, 1985 Pa ge 7 8. Residential Project 85-4 - W.R. Atkinson - Staff presented applicant's re- quest to have Residential Project 85-4 continued to the meeting of August 20, 1985. Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to continue Residential Project 85-4 to the meeting of August 20, 1985, second by Commissioner Saathoff. ~ Approved 5-0 9. Residential Project 85-12 - William S. Buck - Staff presented proposal to construct a twelve (12) unit apartment complex, located at the southeast corner of Chestnut Street and Graham Avenue. Staff requested that issuance of a Negative Declaration be added as condition number 18. The Chairman asked if the applicant was in the audience. Being as the ap- plicant was not present, the Chairman asked for discussion at the table. A brief discussion was held on whether or not a lot merger would be required fo r th i s pro po s a 1 . Motion by Commissioner Barnhart to approve Residential Project 85-12 with staff recommendations, and adding condition number 18, which will read: "Issuance of a Negative Declaration", second by Commissioner Saathoff. Approved 5-0 PLANNING DIVISION CONDITIONS: l. 2. ~ 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. All slopes shall be planted with erosion control vegetation, to be approved by the Planning Division. Applicant is to install permanent sprinkler system for all planting areas. Applicant shall meet all setbacks. Applicant is to meet all applicable City Codes and Ordinances. Applicant is to meet all County Fire Department requirements for fire protection. Meet all Riverside County Health Department requirements. All conditions of approval are to be met prior to Building Division issuance of a Certi ficate of Occupancy. Applicant is to move the stairways projecting from the north and south el evations so that they will not encroach into the front or rear yard setbacks. 9. The twelve (12) carports along the eastern property line shall be covered. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS: 10. Meet all requi rements of Ordinance No. 57l. - 1l. Meet all requi remen ts of Ordi nance No. 572. 12. Meet all requi rements of Ordi nance No. 636. 13. Meet all requirements of Ordinance No. 740. 14. Meet all requi rements of Reso1 ution No. 83-78. 15. Meet all requirements of Resol ution No. 77-39. 16. Meet all requi rements of Resolution No. 83-12. 17. Meet all requirements of Reso 1 ut ion No. 85-26. 18. ISSUANCE OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION. Minutes of Planning Commission August 6, 1985 Pa ge 8 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S REPORT Mr. Corcoran stated that he had nothing to report. Mr. Coleman stated that staff has been in contact with Ron Jones, Public Works Superintendent, and reported on the following concerns brought up by the Planning Commissioners, at their July 16th meeting. 1. The delineators near the Chamber of Commerce will be installed within the next couple of days, this was in regard to the parking in that area. 2. Street signs on Collier and Channey have been repaired according to a follow- up by the Engineering Department. 3. A copy of the status report on the City's Weed Abatement Program has been pro- vided to all the Commissioners, this evening. Chairman Dominguez stated that he is still concerned with Collier and Channey. I think that we are missing the direction where that sign should actually be, the post is there, its right in front of Channey on Collier. - PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Commissioner Saathoff: 1. I would like to have staff look into whether or not there is any requirement for a privacy fence or screening at Kay's Barn, on the northeasterly side, as you are coming from Four Corners. Its really a bad looking site and there is alot of storage of odds and ends and leftovers placed behind the trailers. I am wondering if a privacy fence was required. I realize that there was flood- ing and relief was made, at that time, when they were allowed to rebuild. If a privacy fence has not been required, I am wondering if we can look into the feasibility of whether or not it could be required. 2. At the same location, concerned about the number of sale items, since we do --- have an ordinance in reference to cars for sale. There are quite a few junkie trailers and so forth in that location. I just think that it looks really bad on Riverside Drive, particularly with all the new construction going on. 3. I also have a concern at 108 East Lakeshore Drive, there are several buildings there, many of which were flooded out in the Flood of 1980. They cannot be occupied, and I am just wondering about when they should be taken down, its only been five years. Commissioner Mellinger: Asked staff if there is a General Plan Study Session on Monday, August 12th? Mr. Corcoran answered in the affirmative, stating that it will be held at 6:30 p.m., and he would appreciate the Commission's attendance. Commissioner Washburn: 1. On October 18, 1985, the Department of Development and Keep Riverside Ahead Com- mittee, will sponsor an economic development seminar, trade show. The City will be invited to put in a booth and show off its area, to hopefully attract clean industry and tourism. It will be held at Raincross Square in Riverside; it will be an all day session; there will be a number of speakers, and information will be provided within the next couple of weeks to Cities and Chamber of Commerce. 2. I would like to make everybody aware of this. There are alot of new people in the audience and out in the public, at large. Anytime you have a complaint to lodge, there are forms available in the City Hall, City Clerk's Office and Planning Department. You can come in and pick up the forms and indicate that you have a concern, from barking dogs to parked cars; file the forms and you will receive a response within a short period of time. .. Commissioner Barnhart: We still have that green bus parked up on Graham Avenue, a block away from City Hall. I don't know what it is doing there or where it came from, but it is definately an eyeso re . Minutes of Planning Commission August 6, 1985 Page 9 PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION CONTINUED Chairman Dominguez: I have one item that I would like to direct to City Council, and that would be to have another joint study session with the County Planning and Land Zoning Enforce- ment. I see a need for this again, because there are things that concern us taking place in the County. .---. Commissioner Mellinger suggested that Mr. Corcoran request attendance by the Land Use Coordinator, stating that it would probably be more appropriate than the Director. Motion by Commissioner Washburn to adjourn to Design Review Board, second by Com- missioner Barnhart. Approved 4-0 Commissioner Saathoff absent from the table. ~ ~ MI NUTES OF HELD ON THE LAKE ELSINORE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD 6TH DAY OF AUGUST 1985 MI NUTE ACTION Motion by Commissioner Barnhart to approve minutes of July 16, 1985, as submitted, second by Commissioner Washburn. Approved 4-0 Commissioner Saathoff absent from the table Commissioner Saathoff returned to the table. BUSINESS ITEMS ..... 1. Single-Family Residence 28770 Pierce Street - Timothy J. McCall - Staff pre- sented proposal to construct a one-story single-family residence, located approximately 1,000 feet southeasterly of the intersection of Pierce Street and Baker Street. The Chairman asked if the applicant was in the audience, if he had the condi- tions and if he had any questions. Mr. McCall questioned condition number 3 and 4, stating that he has a tremen- dous amount of frontage and thinks it is excessive in the number of trees required. Discussion was held on condition number 3 and 4, pertaining to location, size and number of trees for proposal, and adding verbiage that applicant have a minimum of four to five trees in the front yard prior to issuance of Certifi- cate of Occupancy. Motion by Commissioner Washburn to approve Single-Family Residence at 28770 Pierce Street with staff recommendations, amending condition number 4, stating that a minimum of five (5) trees to be planted within the front yard shall take the place of the normal condition specifying 3D-foot per linear frontage of lot, 15 gallon trees or larger, second by Commissioner Saathoff. Approved 5-0 _ PLANNING DIVISION CONDITIONS: 1. All roof mounted or ground support equipment shall be architecturally screened so that they are not visible from neighboring property or public streets. 2. aui1ding elevations shall be constructed as depicted on plans, any pro- posed changes will require resubmitta1 to the Design Review Board. 3. Applicant shall plant street trees inside the public right-of-way. 4. A MINIMUM OF FIVE (5) TREES TO BE PLANTED WITHIN THE FRONT YARD SHALL TAKE THE PLACE OF THE NORMAL CONDITION SPECIFYING 3D-FOOT PER LINEAR FRONTAGE OF LOT, 15 GALLON TREES OR LARGER. 5. All slopes shall be planted with erosion control vegetation. 6. All conditions of approval are to be met prior to Building Division issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 2. Single-Family Residence 29409 Hague Street - Martha NavajE1dorado & Associates - Staff presented proposal to construct a two-story single-family residence, located approximately 25 feet northwesterly of the intersection of Bond Avenue and Hague Street. - The Chairman asked if the applicant was in the audience. Being as the appli- cant was not present, the Chairman asked for discussion at the table. There being no discussion at the table, the Chairman asked for a motion. r~otion by Commissioner Saathoff to approve Single-Family Residence at 29409 Hague Street with staff recommendations, second by Commissioner Barnhart. Approved 5-0 PLANNING DIVISION CONDITIONS: Minutes of Design Review Board August 6, 1985 Page 2 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE 29409 HAGUE STREET - MARTHA NAVAjELDORADO & ASSOCIATES CONTI NUE D - 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 1. All roof mounted or ground support equipment shall be architecturally screened so that they are not visible from neighboring property or public streets. Building elevations shall be constructed as depicted on plans, any pro- posed changes will require resubmittal to the Design Review Board. Applicant shall plant street trees inside the public right-of-way. Street trees shall be planted a maximum of 30-feet apart, and be a minimum of 15 gallon. All slopes shall be planted with erosion control vegetation. All conditions are to be met prior to Building Division issuance of Certificate of Occupancy. 3. Single-Family Residence 220 Matich Street - Bernard RenaudjEldorado & Associates - Staff presented proposal to construct a one-story single-family residence, located on the southeast corner of Matich Street and Sumner Avenue. The Chairman asked if the applicant was in the audience. Being as the appli- cant was not present, the Chairman asked for discussion at the table. Discussion was held on condition number 7, pertaining to relocation of the air conditioner, and if condition number 1, being architecturally screened wouldn't satisfy requirement and allow air conditioner to remain as proposed; condition number 4, pertaining to the amount of trees required. - Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to approve Single-Family Residence at 220 Matich Street with staff recommendations, and delete condition number 7, second by Commissioner Washburn. Approved 5-0 PLANNING DIVISION CONDITIONS: 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. - 7. 1. All roof mounted or ground support equipment shall be architecturally screened so that they are not visible from neighboring property or publ ic streets. Building elevations shall be constructed as depicted on plans, any pro- posed changes will require resubmittal to the Design Review Board. Applicant shall plant street trees inside the public right-of-way. Street trees shall be planted a maximum of 30-feet apart, and be a minimum of 15 gallon. All slopes shall be planted with erosion control vegetation. All conditions are to be met prior to Building Division issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Meve-at~-6eAattteAe~-te-tRe-SeijtRe~A-~e~tteA-ef-tRe-~a~6e+~ DELETED 4. Single-Family Residence 17428 Ryan Avenue - E.W. Brigham - Staff presented pro- posal to construct a two-story single-family residence, located 150 feet north- westerly of the intersection of Cowell Street and Ryan Avenue. The Chairman asked if the applicant was in the audience. Being as the appli- cant was not present, the Chairman asked for discussion at the table. There being no discussion at the table, the Chairman asked for a motion. Motion by Commissioner Washburn to approve Single-Family Residence at 17428 Ryan Avenue with staff recommendations, second by Commissioner Barnhart. Approved 5-0 Minutes of Design Review Board August 6, 1985 Pa ge 3 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE 17428 RYAN AVENUE - E.W. BRIGHAM CONTINUED PLANNING DIVISION CONDITIONS: 1. All roof mounted or ground support equipment shall be architecturally screened so that they are not visible from neighboring property or public streets. 2. Building elevations shall be constructed as depicted on plans, any pro- posed changes will require resubmitta1 to the Design Review Board. ..- 3. Applicant shall plant street trees inside the public right-of-way. 4. Street trees shall be planted a maximum of 30-feet apart, and be a minimum of 15 gallon. 5. All slopes shall be planted with erosion control vegetation. 6. All conditions are to be met prior to Building Division issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 5. Single-Family Residence 710 and 716 Lake Street - Tony Schiavone - Staff pre- sented proposal to construct two, one-story single-family residence, located 90 feet east of the intersection of High and Lake Street. The Chairman asked if the applicant was in the audience, if he had received a copy of the conditions and if he had any questions. Mr. Schiavone stated that on condition number 1, the air conditioning unit for 710 will be mounted on the west side of the building, the unit for 716 will be on the east side of the building, so it will not be seen from the front or rear because there is a thirteen foot setback. Mr. Schiavone then questioned condition number 7, regarding the submittal of a landscaping/irrigation plan. Mr. Schiavone was informed that he could prepare the landscaping/irrigation plan himself. ..- Mr. Schiavone stated that on condition number 8, regarding the use of trim exterior material, intent is to use 2x6 rough sawn wood trim around all the windows and the front porch is eliminated, so is the 1atice work. Discussion was held on the above mentioned conditions; the paved alleyway behind the property and fencing or screening for the rear yard, and; roofing material. Motion by Commissioner Washburn to approve Single-Family Residences at 710 and 716 Lake Street with staff recommendations, and adding condition number 9, which will read: liThe rear lot should provide for some type of fencing or screening, the applicant is to work with staff to come up with a design, it could be land- scaping as long as it provides protective screening, second by Commissioner Saathoff with discussion. Discussion ensued on condition number 1, pertaining to screening of ground sup- port equipment and the applicant's request for relief from this, and amending condition number 1, by deleting the word lIarchitecturally". Commissioner Washburn amended his motion to include the deletion of the word lIarchitecturallyll from condition number 1, second by Commissioner Saathoff. Approved 5-0 .." PLANNING DIVISION CONDITIONS: 1. All roof mounted or ground support equipment incidental to development shall be a~6R~te6t~~a++y screened so that they are not visible from neighboring property or public streets. 2. Building elevations shall be constructed as depicted on plans, any pro- posed changes will require resubmittal to the Design Review Board. 3. If feasible, applicant shall plant street trees inside the public right- of-way, to be approved by the Engineering and Planning Departments. Minutes of Design Review Board August 6, 1985 Page 4 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCES 710 AND 716 LAKE STREET - TONY SCHIAVONE CONTINUED - 4. Street trees shall be a minimum of 15-gallon and shall be set at a minimum of 30-foot intervals on center. 5. Applicant shall meet all conditions of approval prior to the issuance of a Certi ficate of Use and Occupancy. 6. Applicant is to install permanent sprinkler system for all front yard pl anti ng areas. 7. Applicant shall submit a landscaping/irrigation plan to be approved by the Planning Division. 8. Applicant shall use trim exterior material as a part of the residential unit located at 710 Lake Street. 9. THE REAR LOT SHOULD PROVIDE FOR SOME TYPE OF FENCING OR SCREENING, THE APPLICANT IS TO WORK WITH STAFF TO COME UP WITH A DESIGN, IT COULD BE LANDSCAPING AS LONG AS IT PROVIDES PROTECTIVE SCREENING. 6. Conditional Use Permit 85-4 - Church of Christ of Sedco Hills - Staff presented proposal to allow the temporary placement of a singular trailer (12' x 401) on the church's property located at 405 Ellis Street. The trailer will be con- structed of 5/8" wood exterior siding, sliding glass windows, two doorways, and gables on front and rear of the coach with a fourteen-inch overhang associated with the mansard roofing. The Chairman asked if the applicant was in the audience. Being as the applicant was not present, the Chairman asked for discussion at the table. "..... Discussion was held on condition number 7, regarding the landscaping plan and said plan coming back to the Design Review Board, and also include minimum size trees. Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to approve Conditional Use Permit 85-4 with staff recommendations, amending condition number 7, deleting the words "Planning Division" and inserting the words "Design Review Board", second by Commissioner Washburn. Approved 5-0 PLANNING DIVISION CONDITIONS: 2 . 3. 4. 5 . - 6 . 7 . 1. All roof mounted or ground support equipment incidental to the trailer shall be architecturally screened so that they are not visible from neighboring property or public streets. Applicant shall submit irrigation/landscaping plan to be reviewed and approved by Planning Division. Entrance to the classrooms are to have a ramped handicapped entrance way. Trailer is to be anchored by standard methods. The colors of the trailer are to reflect earthtones, as approved by the Planning Division. Trailer is to be fully skirted and maintained. Applicant shall provide extensive landscaping treatment along the property line parallel to the entire trailer, to be approved by the DESIGN REVIEW BOARD. 8. Applicant shall meet all conditions prior to the issuance of Certificate of Use and Occupancy. 9. Trailer elevations are to be constructed with exterior materials identi- fied by the patronized office trailer dealership, with regard to the applicant's selected unit size, as approved by the Design Review Board. Any changes by the applicant will require resubmittal to the Design Re- Minutes of Design Review Board August 6, 1985 Page 5 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 85-4 - CHURCH OF CHRIST OF SEDCO HILLS CONTINUED view Board. 10. Applicant is to install permanent sprinkler system for all planting areas. 7. Residential Project 85-4 - W.R. Atkinson - Staff presented applicant's request to have Residential Project 85-4 continued to the meeting of August 20, 1985. Motion by Commissioner Barnhart to continue Residential Project 85-4 to the meeting of August 20, 1985, second by Commissioner Washburn. Approved 5-0 ....- 8. Residential Project 85-12 - William S. Buck - Staff presented proposal to con- struct a twelve (12) unit apartment complex, located at the southeast corner of Chestnut Street and Graham Avenue. The Chairman asked if the applicant was in the audience. Being as the appli- cant was not present, the Chairman asked for discussion at the table. Discussion was held on fencing, relocation of laundry room to the rear, whether or not the Sheriff's Department has reviewed the proposal for safety reasons; relocation of trash enclosure, and architectural design of trash enclosure being similar to the laundry room. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to approve Residential Project 85-12 with staff recommendations, amending condition number 11, by adding the following verbiage "that the elevations for the laundry room, carport and trash enclosure shall be submitted with the landscaping plan", second by Commissioner Mellinger. Approved 5-0 PLANNING DIVISION CONDITIONS: ....., 1. All roof mounted or ground support equipment shall be architecturally screened so that they are not visible from neighboring property or public streets. 2. Building elevations shall be constructed as depicted on plans, revised by staff or changed by the Design Review Board, any proposed changes will require resubmitta1 to the Design Review Board. 3. Applicant shall plant street trees inside the public right-of-way. 4. Street trees shall be planted a maximum of 30-feet apart, and be a minimum of 15 gallon. 5. All slopes shall be planted with erosion control vegetation. 6. All conditions are to be met prior to Building Division issuance of a Certi fi ca te 0 f Occupancy. 7. All landscaped areas shall be permanently maintained. 8. All landscape areas shall have an automatic sprinkler system. 9. Trees existing on-site shall be saved whenever possible. 10. Landscaping plans shall be reviewed by the Design Review Board. ....., 11. Exterior building elevations for the laundry room, carport and trash enclosure shall be reviewed by the Design Review Board, and shall reflect the architectural design of the main structure. ELEVATIONS FOR THE LAUNDRY ROOM, CARPORT AND TRASH ENCLOSURE SHALL BE SUBMITTED WITH THE LANDSCAPING PLAN. 12. Place security lighting along the interior sidewalks and within park- i ng a rea. Minutes of Design Review Board Augus t 6, 1985 Page 6 9. Residential Project 85-13 - Thompson Investment Company - Staff presented for review building elevations for seventy-four single-family residence, within approved Planned Unit Development 84-1, located southeasterly of Macy Street and westerly of Ortega Highway. The Chairman asked if the applicant was in the audience. Mr. Thompson requested clarification on condition number 6. - Discussion was held on condition number 6, pertaining to fences; correspondence from Southern California Edison Company regarding sidewalk alignment (curvi- 1 i nea r s i dewa 1 k) . Mr. Thompson stated that he would like to be able to go back to a standard side- wal k. Discussion ensued on voting on project as submitted, and then perhaps ask for a motion on the request from Mr. Thompson in reference to the letters he sub- mitted. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to approve Residential Project 85-13 with staff recommendations, second by Commissioner Barnhart. Approved 5-0 MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SAATHOFF AS A VOTE OF CONFIDENCE TO REQUEST CITY COUNCIL TO ELIMINATE THE CURVILINEAR SIDEWALK AS ORIGINALLY REQUESTED ON THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT IN REFERENCE TO A LETTER FROM THOMPSON INVESTMENT COMPANY, DATED JULY 17, 1985, AND RECEIVED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT ON JULY 25, 1985, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BARNHART. APPROVED 5-0 - PLANNING DIVISION CONDITIONS: 6. 7. - 8. 9. 10. 11. 1. All bui1dings shall be constructed as depicted on plans or as modified by Planning Division and/or Design Review Board. 2. All roof mounted or ground support equipment shall be architecturally screened so as not to be visible from adjoining property or public streets. 3. If feasible, the applicant shall plant 15-gallon minimum street trees inside the public right-of-way, to be approved by the Planning Division. 4. The exact street tree placement and slope landscaping treatment to control erosion shall be provided in a comprehensive landscaping plan to be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Board. 5. If applicable, all fence locations, heights, and materials are to be approved by the Planning Division. Fences located in any front yard or the exterior side of any corner lot shall not exceed 3.5 feet in height. All front yards are to be landscaped and permanently maintained with an approved sprinkler system. All structures are to be placed as depicted on the plot plan. Any proposed changes will require approval of Planning Division. Only Class "A" fire retardent roofing materials shall be used. Meet all applicable City Codes, requirements and Ordinances. All conditions of approval are to be met prior to Building Division issuance of a Certificate of Use and Occupancy. There being no further business, the Lake Elsinore Design Review Board adjourned at Minutes of Design Review Board Augus t 6, 1985 Page 7 8:48 p.m. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff, second by Commissioner Barnhart. Approved 5-0 Approved, k'~::5--= ' Fred Domi~- Cha i rman ....., fully sUbmie~, - ~ ~aI~ L .nda Grindstaff ~ Planning Commission Secreta ry ....., ....., MINUTES OF HELD ON THE LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION 20TH DAY OF AUGUST 1985 THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:00 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Commissioner Saathoff. - ROLL CALL found Commissioner Saathoff, Commissioner Mellinger, Commissioner Washburn, Commissioner Barnhart and Chairman Dominguez. Also present were Assistant Planner Coleman and Assistant Planner Miner. MINUTE ACTION Motion by Commissioner Barnhart to approve minutes of August 6, 1985, as submitted, second by Commissioner Washburn with one minor change. Under PLANNING COMMIS- SIONER'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, the Department of Development Economic Seminar will be held on October 18th not the 19th. Commissioner Barnhart amended her motion to approve minutes of August 6, 1985, as corrected, second by Commissioner Washburn. Approved 5-0 PUBLIC HEARINGS NONE BUSINESS ITEMS 1. Request to Annex - Thompson Investment - Staff presented request to annex .66 acres of unincorporated territory into the City of Lake Elsinore for future residential development, located on the southeast corner of the intersection of Macy Street and Laguna Avenue. - A brief discussion was held on when the pre-zoning would actually take place, and a copy of the Municipal Plan of Services being included in the Commis- sioner1s packets on future proposals. Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to approve Request to Annex, second by Com- missioner Saathoff. Appro ved 5-0 2. Commercial Project 85-6 - Richard H. Wesselink - Staff presented proposal to construct a Jack in the Box fast food restaurant with provisions for drive- thru and sit down seating arrangements, located on the southeasterly side of State Highway 74 (Riverside Drive) and south of Joy Street. Chairman asked if the applicant was in the audience, if he had received a copy of the conditions and if he had any questions. Mr. Wessel ink presented a revised site plan, and then questioned condition number 5, pertaining to the wooden fence; stated that on the ingress/egress approaches that he would like to be able to go back and work with Cal-Trans; condition number 6, pertaining to the additional parking spaces, stating that with the redesign of the project they will be able to provide a total of 48 spaces; condition number 7, with the redesign of project, we have met this condition, and condition number 8, pertaining to the loop back toward the central aisleway, as previously discussed with ingress/egress. A lengthy discussion was held on ingress/egress on Riverside Drive; arrange- ment of ingress/egress points and a reciprocal agreement for the property to the south of proposal for access; widening driveway approach, from 25 feet to 35 feet, and making it a requirement for reciprocal and improved access to the south; eliminate the central access and maintain a right turn only exit from the drive-thru; continuing proposal so that the applicant can go back and work with Cal-Trans on driveway approaches; retaining layout as originally proposed by the applicant; type of fence required and type of material to be used; park- ing requirements and how the number was determined; visibility of building and moving it per second plot plan, and; clarification on what applicant has in mind for the grass area (picnic area), and type of barrier to be used, which can be on the plan when it comes back. Minutes of Planning Commission August 20, 1985 Pa ge 2 COMMERCIAL PROJECT 85-6 - RICHARD H. WESSELINK CONTINUED Mr. Wessel ink then asked with whom he should be working with at City Hall? Mr. Wessel ink was informed that he should work with Milo Keith of Engineering and Mark Coleman of Planning. Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to continue Commercial Project 85-6 to the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting, taking into account the direction received from the meeting tonight, second by Commissioner Wash- burn. Approved 5-0 - 3. Residential Project 85-4 - W.R. Atkinson - Staff presented proposal to con- struct two, two-story single-family residence, located on the northwest corner of Chestnut Street and Franklin Street. Chairman asked if the applicant was in the audience, if he had received a copy of the conditions and if he had any questions. Mr. Atki nson presented an i ndi vi dua 1 report on the I nfill Program as it a f- fects him and a cost evaluation for the proposed project. Discussion was held on the City.s Infill Program; General Plan directive on Infill Projects; suggestion that certain fees be waived or capped to imple- ment the General Plan directive to encourage a higher quality infill, or an assessment district formed; possible Redevelopment Area project for such improvements as flood control and streets; time limit for the Infill Program, and the location being a unique area and area of need. Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to approve Residential Project 85-4 with staff recommendations, with an additional recommendation that the require- ments, Engineering Department requirements specifically, either be waived or a cap be set on the fees involved, as a matter of fact all of these ordi- _ nances, with consideration to Council of immediate health and safety considera- tions. Obviously, not all fees can be waived because of immediate health and safety considerations of the building being constructed. However, I still believe, and the General Plan does direct us to implement an Infill Program, and I think that the only way it can be done is either to waive thes~ fees or a cap. I don't believe deference is the answer, so basically we either have a waiver of fees or a cap on the fees and not a deferment of the fees, because they should be resolved of sort, either an assessment district at a later date or Redevelopment Program at a later date. So again, to clarify the motion, it is approval of Residential Project 85-4 with a waiver of the Engineering Depart- ment fees or a cap as Council desires, second by Commissioner Washburn. Chairman asked if there was any further discussion at the table. Commissioner Washburn stated that if Council is watching tonight, and if they would like to get with us on this program, he would certainly be happy to. Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. Being as there was no further discussion at the table, the Chairman asked for the vote. Approved 5-0 PLANNING DIVISION CONDITIONS: 1. Applicant is to install permanent sprinkler systems for all planting a rea s . - 2. Applicant shall meet all setbacks. 3. Applicant is to meet all applicable City Codes and Ordinances. 4. Meet all Riverside County Health Department requirements. 5. All conditions are to be met prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS: 6. Meet all requirements of Ordinance No. 571. Minutes of Planning Commission Augus t 20, 1985 Page 3 RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 85-4 - W.R. ATKINSON CONTINUED 7. Meet all requi rements of Ordi nance No. 572. 8. Meet all requi rements of Ordi nance No. 636. 9. Meet all requi rements of Ordi nance No. 529. 10. Meet all requi rements of Resol ution No. 85-34. 11. Dedicate underground water rights to the City of Lake Elsinore per Ordinance No. 529. - 4. Residential Project 85-14 - Sylvia Z. Gloozman - Staff presented proposal to construct a four (4) unit apartment bui1ding, located approximately 50 feet northwesterly of the intersection of Chestnut Street and Graham Avenue. Chairman asked if the applicant was in the audience. Being as the applicant was not p"resent, the Chairman asked for discussion at the table. Discussion was held on proposal being within the Infill Project Area, and exact 1 oca tion 0 f proposal. Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to approve Residential Project 85-14 with staff recommendations, with the same considerations being, Infill Project, to either waive or cap the fees listed under the Ordinances under Engineer- ing Department conditions, second by Commissioner Barnhart. Approved 5-0 PLANNING DIVISION CONDITIONS: - 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.. If applicable, all slopes shall be planted with erosion control vegetation, to be approved by the Planning Division. Appl icant is to install permanent automatic sprinkler system for all planting areas. Applicant shall meet all setbacks. Applicant is to meet all applicable City Codes and Ordinances. Appl icant is to meet all County Fire Department requirements for fi re protection. Applicant is to meet all Riverside County Health Department require- ments. All conditions of approval are to be met prior to Building Division issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Place security lighting within the carport area. Obtain a letter waiving grading requirements or submit grading plan for Engi neeri ng Department approval. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS: 10. Meet all requi rements of Ordi nance No. 571 . 11. Meet all requi rements of Ordi nance No. 572. 12. Meet all requirements of Ordinance No. 636. 13. Meet all requi rements of Resolution No. 83-78. 14. Meet all requi rements of Resolution No. 77- 39. 15. Dedicate underground water rights to the City of Lake El si nore per Ordinance No. 529. Minutes of Planning Commission Augus t 20, 1985 Pa ge 4 I NFORMA TI ONAl Ms. Rita Wilsey gave a presentation on proposed multi-purpose trail system within proposed Annexation Number 39. Discussion was held on maintenance and dedication of trails; type of insurance or hold harmless agreement; working with City Staff and present to City Council as a request for General Plan Amendment, and; discuss this proposal at the next scheduled General Plan Study Session. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S REPORT - Mr. Coleman stated that the Community Development Director had nothing to report. PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Commissioner Barnhart: Asked staff, wilen we approve a project and then its approved by City Council, is there any time element. live seen projects approved and they sit there for years and noth- 1 ng bappens. Is there any way to put,. okay its approved, but you shoul d start con- struction within a certain amount of days; or is it because of financial arrangements and they have to go and get their financing after they get the projects approved? Commissioner Barnhart was informed that the permits do have a time limit, and it depends on the project, whether it be a tentative map or something else. Commissioner Barnhart asked, from the time City Council approves a project is there a time limit for them to pull their permits? Mr. Coleman answered in the affirmative and stated that he thought it was 180 days. Commissioner Washburn: None - Commissioner Mellinger: As a point tonight, concerning fast food restaurants. I think we should all remember that when the new ordinance comes up, there is a considerable distinction between restaurants and fast food restaurants and it still persists in the new ordinance, or proposed ordinance, that it be the same as what we have now; one per fifty square feet. With this project tonight, I did do some checking around, and its the most restrictive any where. One per one hundred is more normal. We do have a one per seventy-five for restaurants, which I think may be more consistent. Now that we have the revisions to Title 17, is there a time scheduled for the joint study session? Mr. Miner answered in the negative. Commissioner Saathoff: Commented on General Plan Study Session. Prior to Title 17, we really should have some General Plan Amendments, because there are some changes that I think the Planning Commission/City Council want to make. At the last meeting, I made a couple of requests and was hoping to have an answer, since staff does not have a report, I assume that they will look this up and I will hear from you at the next meeting. Chairman Dominguez: Would like to bid farewell to our Community Development Director, James Corcoran, and to wish him good luck in his new job. - Motion by Commissioner Washburn to adjourn to Design Review Board, second by Com- missioner Mellinger. Approved 5-0 MI NUTES 0 F HELD ON THE MI NUTE ACT! ON 20TH DAY LAKE ELSINORE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OF AUGUST 1985 Motion by Commissioner Washburn to approve minutes of August 6, 1985, as submitted, second by Commissioner Barnhart. Approved 5-0 BUSI NESS ITEMS 1. Commercial Project 85-6 - Richard H. Wesselink - Staff presented proposal to construct a Jack in the Box fast food restaurant with provisions for drive- thru and sit down seating arrangements, located on the southeasterly side of State Highway 74 (Riverside Drive) and south of Joy Street. Motion by Commissioner Barnhart to continue Commercial Project 85-6 to the next regularly scheduled Design Review Board meeting, second by Commissioner Saathoff with discussion. Commissioner Saathoff stated that he would like to yield the floor to the ap- plicant, so that he may have the opportunity to address any concerns he may have. Mr. Wessel ink questioned condition number 1, pertaining to no freestanding sign; condition number 5, pertaining to the nautical style posts and roping; condition number 13, pertaining to Jack in the Box resembling a sailor; condi- tion number 14, pertaining to the display board resembling a sailboat; condi- tion number 16, pertaining to walkways resembling gangplanks, and; condition number 18, pertaining to the ship's anchor. - Discussion was held on staff's feeling about some of the items, and the above mentioned conditions with the following recommendation by the Board: Condition Number 1: Condition Number 5: Condition Number 1 3: Condi tion Number 14 : Condi tion Number 15 : Condi tion Number 16 : Condition Number 1 7: Condi ti 0 n Number 18 : Acceptable, with a monument sign eight-feet (81) hi gh. Possible with some nautical style posts, but agrees with the applicant on the roping, this is not necessary and could be deleted. Delete entirely. Del ete. Acceptable, and applicant is agreeable to this. Delete, wasted item and not necessary for the project. Acceptabl e. With the landscaping done properly, we haven1t seen the landscaping plan, but it depends on how it would fit in with the landscaping. This could possibly be deleted. Discussion ensued on condition number 5 and condition number 8, with them being incorporated within the landscaping plan, carrying the nautical theme as much as possible, and the landscaping plan to be brought back before the Design Review Board, and; sign for the future shopping center. The Design Review Board recommended that the applicant proceed with a nautical architectural theme. There being no further discussion at the table, the Chairman asked for the vote. Approved 5-0 2. Residential Project 85-4 - W.R. Atkinson - Staff presented proposal to construct two, two-story single-family residences, located on the northwest corner of Chestnut Street and Franklin Street. Minutes of Design Review Board Augus t 20, 1985 Page 2 RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 85-4 - W.R. ATKINSON CONTINUED Chairman asked if the applicant was in the audience. Being as the applicant was not present, the Chairman asked for discussion at the table. Discussion was held on cost factor for adding a Spanish Tile roof. Motion by Commissioner Barnhart to approve Residential Project 85-4 with staff recommendations, second by Commissioner Saathoff. Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. - Discussion ensued on type of roofing material, red tile or concrete tile roof- ing, condition number 6. Commissioner Barnhart amended her motion to include that roofing material to he used is to simulate a tile roof, and appl icant can use any Class "A" material he desires, second by Commissioner Saathoff. Approved '5-0 PLANNING DIVISION CONDITIONS: 1. All roof mounted or ground support equipment incidental to development shall be architecturally screened so that they are not visible from neighboring property or public streets. 2. Building elevations shall be constructed as depicted and incorporating staff recommendations, any proposed changes will require resubmittal to the Design Review Board. 3. Applicant shall plant street trees outside the public right-of-way. 4. Street trees shall be planted a maximum of 30-feet apart, and be a minimum of 15 gallon. _ 5. All slopes shall be planted with erosion control vegetation, to be approved by Planning Division. 6. Applicant to use white stucco siding and red tile roofing, in order to dupl icate the Spanish Styl e of architecture. ROOFING MATERIAL TO BE USED IS TO SIMULATE A TILE ROOF, AND APPLICANT CAN USE ANY CLASS nAil MATERIAL HE DESIRES. 7. All visible retaining walls to be screened with shrubbery (minimum of 5 ga 11 0 n 1. 3. Residential Project 85-14 - Sylvia Z. Gloozman - Staff presented proposal to construct a four (4) unit apartment building, located approximately 50 feet northwesterly of the intersection of Chestnut Street and Graham Avenue. Chairman asked for discussion at the table. A brief discussion was held on automatic sprinkler system being provided, and roofing material to be used. Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to approve Residential Project 85-14 with staff recommendations, amendi ng condi tion number 7, by addi ng verbi age II to include permanent automatic sprinkler system to be installed for the front yard only", second by Commissioner Washburn. Approved 5-0 - PLANNING DIVISION CONDITIONS: 1 . All roof mounted or ground support equipment shall be architecturally screened so that they are not visible from neighboring property or public streets. 2. Building elevations shall be constructed as depicted on plans, any proposed changes will require resubmittal to the Design Review Board. 3. Applicant shall plant street trees inside the public right-of-way. Minutes of Design Review Board August 20, 1985 Page 3 RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 85-14 - SYLVIA Z. GLOOZMAN CONTINUED - 4. Street trees shall be planted a maximum of 30-feet apart, and be a minimum of 15 gallon. 5. All slopes shall be planted with erosion control vegetation. 6. All conditions are to be met prior to Building Division issuance of a Certi fi ca te 0 f Occ upancy . 7. Applicant is to submit a landscaping plan showing turf variety, tree placement and lighting placement, to be approved by the Planning Division. Staff recommends compact evergreen hedges to be placed along the southern elevation, and deciduous trees along the street frontage. PERMANENT AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER SYSTEM TO BE INSTALLED FOR THE FRONT YARD ONLY. 4. Addition and Retaining Wall at 600 Channey Street - Deleo Clay Tile - Staff stated that the applicant has corresponded to staff requesting that review only be for the retaining wall at this time, and not the metal structure addi tion. The applicant proposed to construct a retaining wall along the length of the building's frontage along Minthorn Street. Staff stated since applicant is only requesting approval on the retaining wall, that condition number 2, and condition number 7, be deleted. - Discussion was held on including as a condition that the fence fronting Col- lier Street be repaired; height of retaining wall, and; vegetatinn. Motion by Commissioner Washburn to approve Addition and Retaining Wall to Deleo Clay Tile building in Lake Elsinore, with condition number 2, to be deleted; condition number 7, to be deleted; add condition number 10, which will read: "Include that repair of the cyclone slated fence along Collier to be added as a condition of this project", and; that direction to staff would be a varied landscaping along the wall with an occasional small tree. Commissioner Washburn amended his motion to delete the addition (metal structure) and approve retaining wall with the above mentioned amendments, second by Commissioner Saathoff. Approved 5-0 PLANNING DIVISION CONDITIONS: 1. App1 icant shall meet all app1 icable Codes and Ordinances. 2. A~~tt€aAt-sAatt-ijtttt~e-Stffitta~-eeAst~ijetteA-ffiate~tats,-AijeS,-aAe ees t ~A- .:fea tl,lf'es -wt tR tA-~f'9 ~esee-e xtef'te f'-e+eva tteAs-te-lTIa tAtat A- €eAStsteA€Y-WttR-eXtsttA~-Bl,lt+etA~~-te-Be-a~~f'eVeQ-BY-tRe-P+aAAtA~ QtVt5t9A, DELETED. 3. Landscaping and irrigation plan shall be subject to the review and approval by the Planning Division. 4. Appl icant shall provide a permanent and automatic irrigation system. 5. Applicant shall meet all conditions of approval prior to issuance of Certificate of Use and Occupancy. 6. All items depicted on the plot plan shall be constructed as depicted on the drawings, any proposed changes will require resubmittal to the Design Review Board. 7. Att-f'ea.:f-lTIeI,lAte8-af'-~f'aI,lA8-SI,l~~af't-e~l,lt~lTIeAt-sRa+t-Be-af'€Rtte€t~f'a+ty Sef'eeAe8-sa-tRat-tRey-af'e-Aat-vtstB+e-.:ff'alTl-Aet~RBaf'tA~-~f'e~ef'ty-af' ~I,lBtt€-stf'eets. DELETED. 8. Proposed wall shall be a maximum of six-feet (61) in height and con- sist of gray concrete block construction material, as approved by Minutes of Design Review Board Augus t 20, 1985 Page 4 ADDITION AND RETAINING WALL AT 600 CHANNEY STREET - DELEO CLAY TILE CONTINUED Planning Division. 9. If applicable, all slopes shall be planted with erosion control vegetation. 10. REPAIR OF THE CYCLONE SLATED FENCE ALONG COLLIER TO BE ADDED AS A CONDITION OF THIS PROJECT. - There being no further business, the Lake Elsinore Design Review Board adjourned at 9:05 p.m. Motion by Commissioner Barnhart, second by Commissioner Mellinger. Approved 5-0 Approved, ~~~C~~ _ Fred Domi~ ~ Cha i rman l.. nda Gri nds ta ff Planning Commission Secreta ry - - r - MI NUTES OF HELD ON THE LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 1985 THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:02 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Commissioner Mellinger. ROLL CALL found Commissioner Saathoff, Commissioner Mellinger, Commissioner Washburn, Commissioner Barnhart and Chairman Dominguez. Also present were Assistant Planner Coleman and Assistant Planner Miner. MINUTE ACTION Motion by Commissioner Washburn to approve minutes of August 20, 1985, as submitted, second by Commissioner Barnhart. Approved 5-0 PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Conditional Exception Permit 85-3 - Howard Palmer/Palmer Development Corporation - Staff presented proposal for a Conditional Exception Permit to allow the place- ment of a forty-foot (401) high Sizzler Restaurant freestanding sign within ap- proved Commercial Project 85-2, located on the northeast corner of the inter- section of Rail road Canyon Road and Casino Drive. Chairman opened the public hearing at 7:05 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of Conditional Exception Permit 85-3. Mr. Palmer gave a brief background on sign proposal, and stated that the condi- tions were satisfactory. Mr. Palmer stated that he has two gentlemen with him that could offer exp1aninations on the operation of Sizzler Restaurant and why - we think it is important for the shopping center, the community and city itself. Mr. Palmer then stated that they would like to move the sign (reference plot plan), having it sit directly behind the Sizzler Restaurant. Mr. Gary Meyers, General Partner for Sizzler Restaurant in this area, gave back- ground on the Temecu1a Sizzler stating that the demographics there were similar to what we have here in Lake Elsinore. Mr. Romy Machan, builder and designer of the sign, stated that he would answer any questions on the structural design. Chairman asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor. Receiving no response, the Chairman asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Receiving no re- sponse, the Chairman closed the public hearing at 7:12 p.m. Discussion was held on what other extraordinary or exceptional circumstances or conditions applicable to the land exist to warrant this; type of signage pro- posed on Casi no. Mr. Palmer stated that there will probably be an application for a monument sign, either on the corner of Casino or near the freeway which would be on a mo un d and no ton a po 1 e . - Discussion ensued on whether or not other signs wou1 d be attached below the Sizzler sign; the placement of the sign and applicant working with staff on this. Motion by Commissioner Barnhart to approve Conditional Exception Permit 85-3 with staff recommendations, second by Commissioner Washburn. Approved 3-2 Commissioner Mellinger and Commissioner Saathoff voting no PLANNING DIVISION CONDITIONS: 1. Sign shall be placed at location identified on the site plan. 2. Sign shall not exceed a height of forty-feet (401) to top of sign. 3. Issuance of a Categorical Exemption. 4. Sign shall be utilized for identifying only "Sizzler" restaurant. Minutes of Planning Commission September 3, 1985 Page 2 CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION PERMIT 85-3 - HOWARD PALMER/PALMER DEVELOPMENT CORP. CONTINUED 5. A finding of conformance to the General Plan. BUSINESS ITEMS 1. Single-Family Residence 17179 Shrier Drive - Tom Nugent - Staff presented pro- posal to construct a single-family residence at 17179 Shrier Drive, located approximately 230 feet east of the intersection of Shrier Drive and Roberson Street. .... Chairman asked if the applicant was in the audience, if he had received a copy of the conditions and if he had any questions. Mr. Nugent stated that he did not receive a copy of the conditions. Mr. Nugent was given a copy of the conditions. Chairman stated that they would continue the Single-Family Residence to the end of the BUSINESS ITEMS, allowing Mr. Nugent time to review the conditions. 2. Commercial Project 85-6 - Richard H. Wessel ink - Staff presented applicant's reques t for conti nuance. . Discussion was held on a date being established for the continuance. Motion by Commissioner Barnhart to continue Commercial Project 85-6, second by Commissioner Saathoff. Approved 5-0 3. Commercial Project 85-8 - American Legion Post 200 - Staff presented applicant's request for continuance to a future date. - Discussion was held on a date being established for the continuance. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to continue Commercial Project 85-8 to a future date as requested by the applicant, second by Commissioner Washburn. Approved 5-0 4. Residential Project 85-15 - Elsinore Lakeside Investors - Staff presented pro- posal to continue the construction of an existing 112 unit apartment complex with a proposed 16 unit on .75! acres, located on the southwest corner of Lincoln and Flannery Streets. Chairman asked if the applicant was in the audience, if he had received a copy of the conditions and if there were any concerns. Mr. John Cowles, representative, stated that they had no problem with the condi- tions, and presented a colored rendering of the proposed 16 unit. Commissioner Mell inger stated that once the new Zoning Ordinance is adopted, staff should initiate a Zone Change, that was mentioned the last time around for this portion. Motion by Commi ss ioner Washburn to approve Res i denti a 1 Project 85-15 with s ta ff recommendations, second by Commissioner Barnhart. Approved 5-0 PLANNING DIVISION CONDITIONS: - 1. Applicant shall meet all applicable City Codes and Ordinances. 2. All items depicted on site plan shall be provided as indicated unless otherwise modified by the Planning Commission and/or Design Review Board. 3. Applicant shall meet all setback requirements. 4. Applicant shall meet all conditions of approval prior to the issuance Minutes of Planning Commission September 3, 1985 Pa ge 3 RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 85-15 - ELSINORE LAKESIDE INVESTORS CONTINUED - of a Certi ficate of Use and Occupancy. 5. Applicant shall relocate the isolated (1) open parking space on the travelway's east side to directly opposite the travelway thus convert- ing the vacated space to a covered parking space, to be approved by the Planning Division. 6. Applicant is to meet all County Fire Department requirements for fire protecti on. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS: 7. Meet all requirements of Ordinance No. 57l. 8. Meet all requirements of Ordi nance No. 572. 9. Meet all requirements of Ordinance No. 636. 10. Meet all requirements of Resol ution No. 83-78. ll. Meet all requirements of Resol ution No. 77-39. 12. Meet all requirements of Resolution No. 83-12. 13. Dedicate underground water ri ghts to the City of Lake Elsinore per Ordinance No. 529. 1. Single-Family Residence 17179 Shrier Drive - Tom Nugent Mr. Nugent stated that he did not see a problem with the conditions. Commissioner Saathoff commented on the designation of the area being Planned District, where it does give us latitude to allow changes in the minimum re- quirements. Commissioner Washburn commented on applicant already receiving approval from the County Health Department for septic. Commissioner Mellinger commented on applicant meeting all setbacks, submitting appropriate documentation indicating subject parcels were subdivided prior to December 23, 1953, and whether or not a lot merger would be required. Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to approve Single-Family Residence at 17179 Shrier Drive with staff recommendations, second by Commissioner Saathoff. Approved 5-0 PLANNING DIVISION CONDITIONS: 1. Applicant is to meet all applicable City Codes and Ordinances. 2. Applicant is to meet all Riverside County Health Department require- ments. 3. All conditions of approval are to be met prior to Building Division issuance of a Certificate of Use and Occupancy. 4. Applicant is to submit appropriate documentation to the Planning Division indicating the subject parcels were subdivided prior to December 23, 1953. 5. Applicant is to meet all setback requirements. 6. All items depicted on site plan shall be provided as indicated on the site plan unless otherwise modified by the Planning Commission and/or Design Review Board. 7. Meet all County Fire Department requirements for fire protection. Minutes of Planning Commission September 3, 1985 Page 4 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE 17179 SHRIER DRIVE - TOM NUGENT CONTINUED ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS: 8. Meet all requi rements of Ordi nance No. 57l. 9. Meet all req,ui rements of Ordi nance No. 572. 10. Meet all requirements of Ordi nance No. 636. ll. Meet all requi rements of Resol ution - No. 83-78. 12. Meet all requirements of Resol ution No. 77-39. 1 3. Meet all requirements of Resolution No. 83- 1 2. 14. Dedicate underground water rights to the City of Lake E 1 sino re per Ordinance No. 529. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S REPORT Mr. Coleman reported on the following items: 1. The street sign on Collier Street in front of Channey Street is presently being investigated by the City's Public Works Superintendent. 2. A City Code Enforcement Officer has been contacted concerning the Housing Abate- ment process occurring on Lakeshore Drive, and a report will be forthcoming on the status of those units. 3. The green bus on Graham Avenue has been removed. 4. The privacy fence that was mentioned to be placed in front of Kay's Barn is not feasible, because it is not under a new construction type of entitlement nor a situation where we would be able to negotiate with the applicant as in a new signage proposal. Chairman asked if he was talking about a sign? Mr. Coleman stated placing a privacy fence along that area shielding the existing signage. Chairman asked what about the trailers there; this is what Commissioner Saathoff brought up. - Commissioner Barnhart stated that they just wanted a fence there to hide the trailers, debris and back yard. Commissioner Saathoff stated that the City has tal ked to the owner of the pro- perty there in reference to some illegal signage and thinks that is what Mr. Coleman was referring to, even though I only requested that they look into the possibility of putting up a privacy fence; he mentioned signs because they have approached the property owner about that too. PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Commissioner Barnhart: I understand that Kay's Barn was suppose to have landscaping when it was built. I still see no landscaping there, and I don't know what the problem is, but I think that this should be pursued, because it is an eyesore to say the least. There are no driveways, you go off the pavement right into the dirt. She has done nothing with the landscaping, and I think something should be done. Mr. Coleman stated _ that they would follow up on this. Commissioner Washburn: None Commissioner Mellinger: In front of Machado Pines over on Machado, there was some street work done recently and it has blotted out the double yellow line. What happens now, because its been blotted out, people turning left into Machado Pines, the car is just going straight Minutes of Planning Commission September 3, 1985 Pa ge 5 PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION CONTINUED towards them and one of these days there is going to be a collision, so if you will look into that. Commissioner Saathoff: None Chairman Dominguez: Painting the crosswalks for the school. Commissioner Washburn stated that since school is going to be in session, that the paint crew should go out and look at the crosswalks where the kids frequent quite heavily and if they need repainted get them done. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to adjourn to Design Review Board, second by Commis- sioner Washburn. Approved 5-0 MINUTES OF HELD ON THE LAKE ELSINORE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 1985 MINUTE ACTION Motion by Commissioner Barnhart to approve minutes of August 20,1985, as submitted, second by Commissioner Mellinger with discussion. Commissioner Mellinger stated that on the item concerning the tile roofing or fac- simile thereof (Residential Project 85-4), just to clarify that the facsimile still should be Class II A" roofing material. Approved 5-0 - Chairman stated that we have a letter in our packet indicating that we will no longer be presiding as Design Review Board. Discussion was held on when this would take effect; who will be presiding, and; if they would follow after the Planning Commission? Mr. Coleman stated that this has been awarded to Kobata and Associates. they will be reviewing projects along with the Community Development Director and another gentleman to be named, and that they would meet prior to the Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Saathoff asked if this was the final draft of Ordinance No. 747, because there was a change that indicated that there would be one person selected from the Planning Commission. Commissioner Washburn stated that this was changed at the table. There being no further business. the Lake Elsinore Design Review Board adjourned at 7:38 p.m. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff, second by Commissioner Mellinger. Approved 5-0 - L nda Gri nds ta ff Planning Commission Secretary - MINUTES OF HELD ON THE LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 1985 THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:00 P.M. - PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Commissioner Washburn. ROLL CALL found Commissioners: Saathoff, Mellinger, Washburn, Barnhart and Chair- man Domi nguez. Also present was Assistant Planner Coleman. MI NUTE ACT! ON Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to approve minutes of September 3, 1985, as sub- mitted, second by Commissioner Barnhart. Approved 5-0 PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Tentative Tract Map 20704 REVISED - Railroad Canyon, A Joint Venture - Staff presented proposal to subdivide 90! acres to create 272 residential lots with parcels devoted to a fire station, daycare center, and soccer field, located East of Interstate 15, North of Railroad Canyon Road within the central region of Canyon Creek Specific Plan Area. Staff requested that condition number 13, Certification of Final Environmental Impact Report, be deleted. Chairman opened the public hearing at 7:03 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of Tentative Tract Map 20704 REVISED. - Mr. Lawrence Buxton, President of Courton and Associates, Land Planner and Engineer for the Canyon Creek Project, gave background report on said project, highlighting areas on parks, transportation system and community system center, flood control concerns and easements. Mr. Buxton stated that he would be happy to answer any questions that the Com- mission may have on the project. Mr. Buxton also showed a colored rendering of the logo sign and typical elevations for the four houses that are being proposed for said project. Chairman asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor. Mr. John Yasnent, Cushman and Wakefield, who represents the owners of Canyon Lake Hills, spoke on behal f of the Canyon Creek Project stating that they feel it would benefit what they are attempting to do. Chairman asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak in favor. Receiving no response, the Chairman asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Re- ceiving no response the Chairman closed the public hearing at 7:12 p.m. Chairman asked Mr. Buxton if he had received a copy of the conditions and if there were any concerns. Mr. Buxton stated that the conditions were satisfactory. Discussion was held on County Fire Department requirement pertaining to lot size for the fire station facility; condition number 1 and condition number 13 being deleted; condition number 20, pertaining to the irrigation system and maintenance for trees for the five year period; whether or not a Homeowner's Association would be created for the project; mitigation measures and standards of the Canyon Creek Specific Plan being incorporated in an implementation sched- ule added as a condition; access roads; easements for Mr. Swain and easements for property above proposed tract map. Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to approve Tentative Tract Map 20704 REVISED with staff recommendations, deleting condition number 1 and condition number 13, adding condition number 32, which will read: "That a Development Agreement shall be entered into with the City, which shall include an implementation schedule meeting all mitigation measures of the Final Environmental Impact Report and Standards of the adopted Canyon Creek Speci fic Pl an", second by Minutes of Planning Commission September 17, 1985 Page 2 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 20704 REVISED - RAILROAD CANYON, A JOINT VENTURE CONTINUED Commissioner Saathoff. Approved 5-0 PLANNING DIVISION CONDITIONS: 1 . ffRetR~-ef-Re-St~Rtft€aRt-fffi~a€t-~~eR-tRe-eRVt~RffieRt. DELETED. 2. Applicant shall submit building elevations to the Design Review Board for approval. 3. Applicant shall provide monument signage conforming to the Canyon Creek logo theme, at the entryway to the community via Canyon Creek Drive; and within the frontage area of the soccer field, and daycare center, to be approved by the Planning Division. - 4. Meet all City Codes, Ordinances, and requirements of the Sub- division Map Act. 5. Meet Elsinore Union High School and Lake Elsinore School District requirements to offset school overcrowding. 6. Meet Riverside County Flood Control requirements to mitigate flood- i ng conditi ons. 7. Meet Department of Transportation requirements. 8. Meet Riverside County Fire Department requirements for fire pro- tecti on. 9. Meet County of Riverside Health Department requirements. 10. Meet Regional Water Quality Control Board requirements. - 11. All signage must be under permit. 12. Trailers utilized during the construction phase of this project shall be approved by the Planning Division. 13. Ge~tfft€atteR-ef-f~Ra+-~RV~FeRffieRta+-*ffi~a€t-Re~~t. DELETED. 14. Provide transit facilities (i .e., covered bus stops) within said project as deemed applicable by the Board of Directors of the Lake Elsinore Transit System. 15. Applicant shall record City Council/Redevelopment Agency CC & R's for the Tract prohibiting on-street storage of boats, motorhomes, trailers, and trucks over one-ton capacity, roof mounted microwave and satell ite antennas. 16. Applicant is to provide permanent and automatic sprinkler irrigation system for all landscaped treatment areas. 17. The parki ng facil iti es for the soccer fi el d and daycare center pro- posed to be developed within this Tentative Map shall be fully improved (i .e., paving, striping, dimensions) according to City Standards. - 18. Applicant is to enter into a development agreement with the City for dedication and full improvements for the fire station facility at the issuance of the 500th Certificate of Use and Occupancy in re- lationship to the overall Canyon Creek Specific Plan Project. 19. Applicant is to enter into a development agreement with the City for construction and operation of the daycare center, to be operated as a non-profit business used only by the City of Lake Elsinore residents. 20. The irrigation system for the riparian area trees shall be maintained by an automatic sprinkler system for the first five year period follow- ing the final issuance of Certificate of Occupancy on Tentative Tract Minutes of Planning Commission September 17, 1985 Page 3 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 20704 REVISED - RAILROAD CANYON, A JOINT VENTURE CONTINUED Map 20704. 21. The daycare center and soccer field layout will be subject to site plan review by the Planning Division, and will ultimately be subject to the review and final approval by the appropriate City decision making bodies. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS: 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. Meet all requirements of Ordi nance No. 57l. Meet all requi rements of Ordi nance No. 572. Meet all requi rements of Ordinance No. 636. Meet a 11 requirements of Ordinance No. 529. Meet all requi rements of Ordi na nce No. 603. Meet all requi rements of Ordi nance No. 711 . Meet all requirements of Resol ution No. 83-78. Meet all requirements of Resolution No. 77-39. Meet all requirements of Resolution No. 85-26. Dedicate underground water rights to the City of Lake El si nore per Ordinance No. 529. 32. A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT SHALL BE ENTERED INTO WITH THE CITY, WHICH SHALL INCLUDE AN IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE MEETING ALL MITIGATION MEASURES OF THE FINAL ENVIRONME~TAL IMPACT REPORT AND STANDARDS OF THE ADOPTED CANYON CREEK SPECIFIC PLAN. 2. Tentative Tract Map 20705 REVISED - Railroad Canyon, A Joint Venture - Staff presented proposal to subdivide 130:! acres to create 277 residential lots with parcels devoted to a park, commercial property, and 350 unit apartment complex, located Northeast of Interstate 15 and Northwesterly of Railroad Canyon Road within the Easterly region of Canyon Creek Specific Plan Area. Chairman opened the public hearing at 7;21 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of Tentative Tract Map 20705. Mr. Lawrence Buxton, President of Courton and Associates, Land Planner and Engineer for the Canyon Creek Project, gave background report on said project, highlighting areas on park; potential generation of noise by Interstate 15 in certain areas, adjacent to the apartment site, and the need to include some other noise considerations in the design of the facility; mitigation measures that were discussed in the Environmental Impact Report will be included in a development agreement; easements for Ms. Mohylyn, Chairman asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor of Tentative Tract Map 20705. Mr. Martin Dowd, Psomas, Harrison and Associates, representing Ms. Mohylyn who is the property owner to the north. Mr. Dowd stated that he and Mr. B:uxton have had some lengthy discussion and have come to an agreement. Mr. Dowd stated that he would like to read into the record and submit typed copy of the conditions as they wish them to be included in the conditions of ap- proval. Commission requested that Mr. Dowd submit the typed copy. Mr. Dowd stated that they will be getting an easement off "J" Street, it would be a 60-foot ultimate width within an 80-foot wide initial easement that would be to allow for topographic :onstraints. It is our understanding that we will be using Lot 25 to provide a secondary access to Ms. Mohylyn's Minutes of Planning Commission September 17, 1985 Pa ge 4 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 20705 REVISED - RAILROAD CANYON, A JOINT VENTURE CONTINUED property. I have included two components for Lot 25, relative to the recordation: that the improvements be bonded for, the other is that they be physically constructed. In addition, we have called out the not to exceed payment figure and we have also put in a tag along condition re- lative to a tee on the main lines which would run in front of Lot 25 on the sewer and water mains. In addition, we would like to add that Ms. Mohylyn agrees to negotiate, in good faith, with Canyon Creek to provide an acceptable water tank site to serve the affected pressure zone, an appropriate width access road shall be constructed at no cost to Ms. Mohylyn, and landscaping of water tank site to be provided and maintained by the developer or assignee. - Chairman asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor. Receiving no re- sponse, the Chairman asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Re- ceiving n~ response, the Chairman closed the public hearing at 7:27 p.m. Chairman asked Mr. Buxton if he had received a copy of the conditions and if he had any concerns. Mr. Buxton stated that the conditions were satisfactory, and that the agree- ment as described by Mr. Dowd is as they have discussed and is acceptable. Discussion was held on incorporating conditions as proposed by Mr. Dowd pertaining to easement and water tank site. Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to approve Tentative Tract Map 20705 REVISED with staff recommendations, deleting condition number 1, and incorporating conditions relating to the easement agreement and the separate condition that was read into the record concerning the negotiations of the water tank, add- ing condition that a Development Agreement shall be entered into with the City, which shall include an implementation schedule meeting all mitigation measures of the Final Environmental Imapct Report and Standards of the adopted_ Canyon Creek Specific Plan, second by Commissioner Barnhart. Approved 5-0 PLANNING DIVISION CONDITIONS: 1 . f4Re4R~-ef-Re-s4~R4f4€aRt-4~~a€t-~~eR-tAe-eRv4FeR~eRt~ DELETED 2. Applicant shall submit building elevations to the Design Review B.oard for approval. 3. Applicant shall conform to the Canyon Creek logo theme in providing a monument sign at the Franklin Street entryway; and within the frontage area of the commercial site, park, and 350 unit apartment building complex. 4. Meet all City Codes, Ordinances and requirements of the Subdivision Map Act. 5. Meet Elsinore Union High School and Lake Elsinore School District requirements to offset school overcrowding. 6. Meet Riverside County Flood Control requirements to mitigate flood- i ng condi tions. .. 7. Meet Department of Transportation requirements. - 8. Meet Riverside County Fire Department requirements for fire protection. 9. Meet County of Riverside Health Department requirements. 10. Meet Regional Water Quality Control Board requirements. 11. All signage must be under permit. 12. Trailers utilized during construction phase of this project shall be approved by the Planning Division. Minutes of Planning Commission September 17, 1985 Pa ge 5 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 20705 REVISED - RAILROAD CANYON, A JOINT VENTURE CONTINUED 13. Provide transit facilities (i .e., covered bus stops) with said pro- ject as deemed applicable by the Board of Directors of the Lake Elsinore Transit System. 14. Applicant shall record City Council/Redevelopment Agency CC & HiS for the Tract prohibiting on-street storage of boats,motorhomes, tra il ers, and trucks over one-ton capacity, roof mounted microwave and satellite antennas. 15. Applicant is to provide permanent and automatic sprinkler system for all landscaped treatment areas. 16. The irrigation system for the riparian area trees shall be main- tained by an automatic sprinkler system for the first five year period following the final issuance of Certificate of Occupancy on Tentative Tract Map 20705. 17. Applicant is to enter into a development agreement with the City for dedication and full improvements for the park facil ity at the issuance of 138 Certificate of Occupancy for Tentative Tract Map 20705. 18. The proposed commercial and apartment building(s) specific design layouts will be subject to site plan review by the Planning Division, and will ultimately be subject to the review and final approval by the appropriate City decision making bodies. Applicant shall provide sound attentuation for all residential lots that abut the Interstate 15 Highway, as approved by the Planning Division. These sound insulation measures shall include the construction of a decorative wall along residential lots that border on this subject corridor. Additionally, structural insula- tion within these units in conjunction with sufficient setbacks shall be implemented to maintain a healthy and livable environment. Interior upgrading will be according to the highest standards specified by the Uniform Building Code for sound attentuation im- provements. 19. - ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS: . 20. 2l. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. Meet all requirements of Ordi nance No. 57l. Meet all requi rements of Ordinance No. 572. Meet all requi rements of Ordi na nce No. 636. Meet all requi rements of Ordi nance No. 529. Meet all requi remen ts of Ordi nance No. 603. Meet all requirements of Ordi nance No. 71l. Meet a 11 requirements of Resolution No. 83-78. Meet a 11 requi rements of Resol ution No. 77-39. Meet all requi rements of Resolution No. 85-26. Dedicate underground water rights to the City of Lake El sino re per Ordinance No. 529. 30. PRIOR TO THE RECORDATION OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 20705, THE DEVELOPER SHALL PROVIDE A LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF A 60-FOOT FULL WIDTH RIGHT-OF- WAY WITHIN A 80-FOOT EASEMENT (TO ALLOW FOR ADJUSTMENT DUE TO TOPO- GRAPHIC CONSTRAINTS), AND PLOT SAME ON TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 20705 (COMM:: NCI NG FROM" DOG LEG" ON "J" STREET AND HEADI NG GENERALLY NORTH- WEST 70 SUBJECT PROPERTY IN ACCORDANCE WITH ATTACHED EXHIBIT.) IN ADDIT:ON, THE DEVELOPER SHALL SUPPLY A PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN WHICH SHOWS THAT THE PROPOSED ALIGNMENT OF THE EASEMENT IS SATIS- Minutes of Planning Commission September 17, 1985 Pa ge 6 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 20705 REVISED - RAILROAD CANYON, A JOINT VENTURE CONTINUED FACTORY AND FEASIBLE TO CONSTRUCT AND IMPROVE TO CITY STANDARDS. 31. MS. MOHYLYN AGREES TO NEGOTIATE, IN GOOD FAITH, WITH CANYON CREEK TO PROVIDE AN ACCEPTABLE WATER TANK SITE TO SERVE THE AFFECTED PRESSURE ZONE, AN APPROPRIATE WIDTH ACCESS ROAD SHALL BE CON- STRUCTED AT NO COST TO MS. MOHYLYN, AND LANDSCAPING OF WATER TANK SITE TO BE PROVIDED AND MAINTAINED BY THE DEVELOPER OR ASSIGNEE. A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT SHALL BE ENTERED INTO WITH THE CITY, WHICH SHALL INCLUDE AN .IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE MEETING ALL MITIGATION MEASURES OF THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND STANDARDS OF THE ADOPTED CANYON CREEK SPECIFIC PLAN. 32. - 3. Conditional Exception Permit 85-4 - Secured Development I (Art Nelson) - Staff presented proposal to allow the placement of a twenty-foot (20') industrial freestanding sign within approved Industrial Project 85-2, located on the northwest intersection of El Toro Road and Riverside Drive. Staff requested that condition number 1 be deleted, if the Commission desires to approve Conditional Exception Permit 85-4. Chairman opened the public hearing at 7:35 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of Conditional Exception Permit 85-4. Receiving no response, the Chairman asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Receiving no response, the Chairman closed the public hearing at 7:36 p.m. Discussion was held on not being in favor of signs that are visible from the freeway; applicant building a structure in an industrial area; it being a commercial use it should be allowed to exist at 20-foot; feeling that the sign, if placed in the proper location, would not create any hazards, being i nfa vor of the sign under those circumstances; concurring with recommenda- tion of staff; it being an industrial use and the maximum is 10-feet; nothing exceptional, no special circumstances that exist with the property; not con- curring with the portion concerning type of business (under ANALYSIS) for denial. - Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to deny Conditional Exception Permit 85-4, for reasons of lack of findings for the requirements of State Law and our own Zoning Code for approval of variance, second by Commissioner Washburn. Approved 3-2 Commissioner Barnhart and Commissioner Saathoff voting no. B US I NESS ITEMS 1. Commercial Project 85-7 - Lanting/Dawson - Staff presented applicant's request for continuance to a future date. Motion by Commissioner Washburn to continue Commercial Project 85-7, second by Commissioner Barnhart. A brief discussion ensued on establishing a date for the continuance and whether or not this should be readvertised. There being no further discussion at the table, the Chairman asked for the vote. Approved 5-0 - 2. Commercial Project 85-10 - Wally McGowan Commissioner Washburn asked to be excused. Staff presented proposal to construct a five (5) bay coin operated car wash, located on the southeast corner of the intersection of Lakeshore Drive and Herbert Avenue. Chairman asked if the applicant was in the audience, if he had received a copy of the conditions and if he had any concerns. Mr. McGowan stated that he concurs with the conditions. Minutes of Planning Commission September 17, 1985 Pa ge 7 COMMERCIAL PROJECT 85-10 - WALLY MCGOWAN CONTINUED Discussion was held on vacuum area being adjacent to residential area and some sort of a division wall be placed along the one boundary line to mitigate noise, as identified in the initial study for environmental review, and; hours of operation. Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to approve Commercial Project 85-10, with staff recommendations, and adding condition number 16, which will read: "Along the south boundary noise attenuation measures shall be approved by the PlanniJlg Division", second by Commissioner Saathoff. Approved 4-0 Commissioner Washburn excused PLANNING DIVISION CONDITIONS: 1. Structure shall be moved five-feet (51) in a southerly direction. 2. Applicant is to certify that structure is located above the 12701 MSL mark before Building Divisionis issuance of permits. 3. Applicant is to meet all Riverside County Health Department require- ments. 4. Applicant is to meet all State and Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District requirements for wastewater disposal. 5. Meet all Riverside County Fire Department requirements. 6. Project shall be constructed according to site plan as submitted, modified by Planning Division or modified by Planning Commission. Any changes will require resubmittal to Planning Commission. - 7. All conditions must be met before Building Divisionis issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 8. Applicant shall process a Lot Merger. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS: 9. Meet all requi rements of Ordi nance No. 571. 10. Meet all requirements of Ordi nance No. 572. 11. Meet all requirements of Ordi nance No. 636. 12. Meet all requirements of Resolution No. 8 3- 78 . 13. Meet all requirements of Resolution No. 77- 39. 14. Dedicate underground water rights to the City 0 f La ke El s i nore per Ordinance No. 529. 15. Dedicate 20-feet of right-of-way for La kes ho re Dri ve per General Plan requirements. 16. ALONG THE SOUTH BOUNDARY NOISE ATTENTUATION MEASURES SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE PLANNING DIVISION. Commissioner Washburn returned to the table. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S REPORT Mr. Coleman reported on the following items: 1. The owner of the Lakeshore Restaurant, on Main Street, has been cited for the broken window and Code Enforcement will proceed with a follow-up on that once this case goes to court. This window is scheduled to be replaced within the next few days. 2. The optical business on Lakeshore has received a business license for their operation. Also, a temporary sign permit is currently being processed. Minutes of Planning Commission September 17, 1985 Page 8 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S REPORT CONTINUED 3. The City's Public Works Superintendent has had the repainting of the City's crosswalks near the schools brought to his attention. 4. Staff is proceeding to research permits issued for Kay's Barn, and will report back to the Commission, at a later date, on the feasible course of action to alleviate the previously identified problems on this property. 5. Code Enforcement has been notified and will be inspecting the street striping in front of Machado Pines. - 6. In connection with the optical business on Lakeshore Drive, the remodeling and building additions in question are being made under an approved permit. 7. The Housing Abatement status report along Lakeshore Drive will be forthcoming at the next Planning Commission Meeting, October 1, 1985. 8. The City Code Enforcement operation is now under the control of the County Sheriff's Department and the City will refer all Code violations to Sergeant Grotefend. Chairman Dominguez asked if we had anyone present from the Engineering Department. No one was present from the Engineering Department. Chairman Dominguez requested that someone from the Engineering Department be present at the Commission Meetings, just in case there are questions pertaining to engineering. Mr. Coleman stated . that he would check into this. PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Commissioner Saathoff: None Commissioner Mellinger: - Nothing to report, but would like to thank staff for the quick response to all the demands that seem to be placed upon them recently. Especially, on these matters that were just brought up at the last meeting. Commissioner Barnhart: None Commissioner Washburn: Commented on an article put in the Business of Business Magazine, basically, dis- tributed throughout Orange County. In it there is a nice article and ad dealing with the City of Lake Elsinore. Very nice text, there is about a 15-18 page section sponsored by Riverside County talking about the County, and we are getting some good PR these days. Chairman Dominguez: Nothing to report, but would like to comment on Code Enforcement being switched over to the Sheriff's Department, and how do we contact them, do we go through 911? Mr. Coleman stated that they them they proceed with it. daily routine drive through has to be reported directly have set up a priority list, once we make our report to If it is something that can be taken care of on their the City then they will take care of it; otherwise it to the Sergeant. - Commissioner Washburn asked about the normal complaint forms that are usually filed with the City; would the public still come in to City Hall to file those, and then be directed to certain departments and the department would issue them to the Code Enforcement? Mr. Coleman answered in the affirmative, stating that Code Enforcement ~,ill still be in the office and we will still have contact with them. Commissioner Saathoff asked if the Design Review Board has established a specific Minutes of Planning Commission September 17, 1985 Page 9 PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION CONTINUED date and time as to when they will be holding their meetings? Mr. Coleman stated that tentatively the Design Review Board is meeting in the after- noon (at 3:30), the same day that the Commission meets; meeting with the applicants going over their projects--the conditions that were placed on them, but it is sub- ject to change. - There being no further business, the Lake Elsinore Planning Commission adjourned at 7:58 p.m. Motion by Commissioner Washburn, second by Commissioner Barnhart. Approved 5-0 App ro ved, /<L~ ~~6mingU~~ Chairman Respectfully su~t~ed, ~~ linda Grindstaff ~ _ Planning Commission Secretary MINUTES OF HELD ON THE LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION 1ST DAY OF OCTOBER 1985 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Commissioner Barnhart. ROLL CALL found Commissioner Saathoff, Commissioner Mellinger, Commissioner Washburn, Commissioner Barnhart and Chairman Dominguez. Also present were Assistant Planner Coleman and Assistant Planner Miner. - MINUTE ACTION Commissioner Mellinger stated that on Tentative Tract Map 20705 REVISED, Page 4, under the motion it was mentioned about a Development Agreement and Implementation Schedule, this should be added as condition number 32. Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to add the above verbiage as condition number 32, for Tentative Tract Map 20705 REVISED, second by Commissioner Washburn. Approved 5-0 Motion by Commissioner Washburn to approve minutes of September 17, 1985, as cor- rected, second by Commissioner Mellinger. Approved 5-0 INTRODUCTION Mr. Miner introduced the City's new Assistant City Manager, Ken Gilbert and the City's new Interim Community Development Director, John Freiman. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Tentative Tract Map 20706 - Railroad Canyon, A Joint Venture - Staff presented - proposal to subdivide 140f acres into 82 residential estate lots, located at the northerly most area of. the Canyon Creek Specific Plan Area; north of Rail- road Canyon Road and east of Interstate 15. Chairman opened the public hearing at 7:05 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of Tentative Tract Map 20706. Mr. Lawrence Buxton, President of Courton and Associates, Land Planner and Engineer for the Canyon Creek Project, gave background report on said project, highlighting areas on lot sizes, hillside areas, road contours and alignment which pertains to the City's Master Plan of Roads to connect to Canyon Lake Hills. Mr. Buxton stated that he would be happy to answer any questions that the Com- mission may have on the project. Chairman asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor. Receiving no response, the Chairman asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Receiving no re- sponse, the Chairman closed the public hearing at 7:08 p.m. ;II Discussion was held on the length of the cul-de-sac pertaining to fire safety; amending the Specific Plan to make sure length of cul-de-sac is adhered to; secondary emergency access; spacing of fire hydrants; the six-foot (61) high concrete block wall required by the County Fire Department, and; amending condition number 6, to provide secondary emergency access. - Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to approve Tentative Tract Map 20706 with staff recommendations, amending condition number 6, to read: "Meet County Fire Department requirements for fire protection, to include a secondary emergency access and fire protection measures as approved by the County Fire Department, including a specific alternative to the six-foot (6') high concrete block wall as recommended on this project, if feasible", second by Commissioner Washburn. Approved 5-0 PLANNING DIVISION CONDITIONS: 1. Applicant shall submit building elevations to the Design Review Board fo rap p ro val . 2. Meet all City Codes, Ordinances, and requirements of the Subdivision Map Act. ~ Minutes of Planning Commission October 1, 1985 Page 2 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 20706 - RAILROAD CANYON, A JOINT VENTURE CONTINUED 3. Meet Elsinore Union High School and Lake Elsinore School District requirements to off-set overcrowding. 4. Meet Riverside County Flood Control requirements. 5. Meet Department of Transportation requirements. 6. Meet Riverside County Fire Department requirements for fire pro- tection, TO INCLUDE A SECONDARY EMERGENCY ACCESS AND FIRE PRO- TECTION MEASURES AS APPROVED BY THE COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT, IN- CLUDING A SPECIFIC ALTERNATIVE TO THE SIX-FOOT (61) HIGH CONCRETE BLOCK WALL AS RECOMMENDED ON THIS PROJECT, IF FEASIBLE. ...., 7. Meet County of Riverside Health Department requirements. 8. Meet Regional Water Quality Control Board requirements. 9. All signage must be under permit. 10. Trailers utilized during the construction phase of this project shall be approved by the Planning Division. 11. Provide transit facilities (i .e., covered bus stops) within said pro- ject as deemed applicable by the Board of Directors of the Lake Elsi- nore Transit System. 12. Applicant shall record City Council/Redevelopment Agency CC & Rls for the Tract prohibiting on-street storage of boats, motorhomes, trailers and trucks over one-ton capacity, roof mounted microwave and satellite antennas. 13. Applicant is to provide permanent and automatic sprinkler irrigation system for all landscaped treatment areas. ...., 14. A Development Agreement shall be entered into with the City, which shall include an implementation schedule meeting all mitigation measures of the final environmental impact report and standards of the adopted Canyon Creek Specific Plan. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS: 15. Meet all requirements of Ordi nance No. 571. 16. Meet all requirements of Ordi nance No. 572. 1 7. Meet all requirements of Ordi nance No. 636. 18. Meet all requirements of Ordinance No. 529. ,.. 19. Meet all requirements of Ordinance No. 603. 20. Meet all requirements of Ordi nance No. 711. 21 . Meet all requi rements of Resolution No. 83-78. 22. Meet all requirements of Reso1 ution No. 77- 39. - 23. Meet all requirements of Resolution No. 85-26. 24. Dedicate underground water rights to the City of Lake Elsinore per Ordinance No. 529. 2. Conditional Exception Permit 85-5 - Tony Schiavone - Staff presented proposal for a Conditional Exception Permit to allow a variance from City Code requiring all new single-family residential lots to be a minimum of 6,000 square feet; applicant is requesting to be allowed to create two (2) substandard parcels of approximately 4,815 square feet, located approximately 260 feet southeasterly of the intersection of Avenue 1 and Lake Street. Minutes of Planning Commission October 1, 1985 Page 3 CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION PERMIT 85-5 - TONY SCHIAVONE CONTINUED Chairman opened the public hearing at 7:22 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of Conditional Exception Permit 85-5. ,.... The following persons spoke in favor: David Ingles, lives next to proposed project; Ed Impiro, property owner at 779 Lake Street, Lake Elsinore, California; Lou Frances, 737 Lake Street, Lake Elsinore, California; Lennie DeMoville, 763 Lake Street, Lake Elsinore, California; Rob Willoughby, 784 Acacia Street, Lake Elsinore, California; Elmer White, 1051 Parkway, Lake Elsinore, California; Phil Wi 11 is, 800 Parkway, Lake El s i nore, Cali forni a; Ellen Peterson, property owner in the area; Darrell Edwards, 773 Acacia Street, Lake Elsinore, California; Larry Smith, 801 Parkway, Lake Elsinore, California Mr. Schiavone stated that all the people who just spoke are directly affected by this. None of these people own any additional property that could in any way come into play, in the future, as far as requesting variances or things of that nature. Their only interest is improving where we live. Mr. Schiavone stated that he would like to address items in the Staff Report, under ANALYSIS: (1) That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or condi- tions applicable to the land, buildings, or premises involved. This does apply, because I have tried to purchase the lot next to mine and have not been able to do so. - C2) That such conditional exceptions are necessary for the enjoyment of substantial property rights. This does apply, because I would be left with "thirty-feet (301) that is absolutely worthless, and I can- not build on the ninety-feet (901), there is no way I could sell it. l3} That the granting of such conditional exception will not be material- ly detrimental to the public health and safety. This will in fact improve the area. " (4) The area where subject property is located has many homes located on standard sized lots, unfortunately, that is not so. Lake Street is two blocks long, and the lots on both sides of the street are sub- standard. Mr. Schiavone stated that he was trying to put three sub- standard lots together and make two larger lots (not reducing lot sizes). Mr. Schiavone then stated that this project is in the Infill Project Area. ';,. Chairman asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor. Receiving no response, the Chairman asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Receiving no re- sponse, the Chairman asked if anyone eise wished to speak on the subject. - Mr. Danny Celeketic stated that he was not in favor nor opposition, but they had a similar situation on Ulmer Avenue and they were denied; and that he has two projects coming up that could be split in the same manner. If there is an adjustment made here, the whole valley would want the same thing, including mysel f. Mr. Phil Willis stated that he would like to add that he bought his home in 1980 and his lot size is only fifty-feet (501) across. Chairman asked if anyone else wished to speak on the subject. Receiving no re- sponse, the Chairman closed the public hearing at 7:35 p.m. A lengthy discussion was held on existing/proposed lot size; General Plan and Zoning designation and density for the area; amending the General Plan to in- clude Infill Area Development Standards; creating an Infill Program and incorpo- rating into the General Plan to facilitate this type of proposal; applicant being able to develop the lots as they exist under the Grandfather Clause, and an Area Minutes of Planning Commission October 1, 1985 Page 4 CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION PERMIT 85-5 - TONY SCHIAVONE CONTINUED Plan being devised. Mr. Schiavone stated that this went before City Council in December of last year, and at that time, a decision was brought in by the City Attorney, that the City does, in fact, have the authority to allow a variance, and the mechanics were setup by the City Attorney and the Director of Planning. Discussion ensued on Government Code, Section 65860 A, requiring zoning con- sistency with the General Plan, and Government Code, Section 65300.7 minimum requirements shall be met to implement the General Plan; proposal being in- consistent with the General Plan; approving proposal with certain stipula- tions tied to it that other bodies, such as City Council, would have to adopt it, provide an area plan specifying which areas would have minor alterations and which to promote infill under resolution; lot sizes for the Infill Pro- ject Area, consider reducing lot sizes for the Infill Project Area, and find- ings for a variance has to be made and the findings are not here. - Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to Deny Conditional Exception Permit 85-5, based upon the findings of not meeting criteria of State Law and Zoning Ordinance for variances and inconsistent with the General Plan, second by Commissioner Saathoff. Approved 3-2 Commissioner Barnhart and Commissioner Washburn voting no. B US I NESS ITEMS 1. Lot Line Adjustment 85-7 - Tony Schiavone Commissioner Mellinger stated that this item should not be presented since the denial of the Conditional Exception Permit. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to Deny Lot Line Adjustment 85-7, second by Commissioner Mellinger. Approved 3-2 Commissioner Barnhart and Commissioner Washburn voting no. - 2. Single-Family Residence - 29410 Edlund Street - C & G Development, Inc. - Staff presented proposal to construct a single-family residence at 29410 Edlund Street, located at the intersection of Edlund Street and Arnold Avenue. -< Chairman asked if the applicant was in the audience, if he had received a copy of the conditions and if there were any concerns. Mr. Danny Celeketic stated that he did not received a copy of the conditions. Mr. Celeketic was given a copy of the conditions. Chairman asked if Mr. Ce1eketic would like to have some time to review the conditions. Mr. Celeketic answered in the negative. Mr. Ce1eketic then gave a brief background report on said proposal highlighting areas on design layout and setbacks. Discussion was held on (referring to elevations) why Edlund Street was con- sidered the front; whether or not we have a minimum garage setback for access; defining what is the front of the lot and what is the side; access to the garage and if the garage door was to be put on the other side, where would the driveway be located; applicant working with staff and revising plan, and; set- back requirement for a corner lot. Motion by Commissioner Washburn to Deny without Prejudice Single-Family Resi- dence at 29410 Edlund Street, observing the comments made by this body, as well as the applicant, in relocating the entrance to the garage and the other solu- tions discussed, second by Commissioner Saathoff. Approved 5-0 - 3. Single-Family Residence - 16490 Stevens Avenue - C & G Development, Inc. - Staff presented proposal to construct a single-family residence at 16490 Stevens Avenue, located approximately 45 feet northwesterly of the intersection of Edlund Street and Stevens Avenue. Chairman asked if the applicant was in the audience, if he had received a copy of the conditions and if there were any concerns. Minutes of Planning Commission October 1, 1985 Page 5 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE - 16490 STEVENS AVENUE - C & G DEVELOPMENT, INC. CONTINUED Mr. Ce1eketic stated that he did not receive a copy of the conditions. Mr. Ce1eketic was given a copy of the conditions. - Discussion was held on whether or not this has been processed through the Design Review Board; adding condition that all conditions are to be met prior to Building DivisionIs issuance of a Certificate of Occupancyll. Motion by Commissioner Washburn to approve Single-Family Residence at 16490 Stevens Avenue with staff recommendations, and adding condition number 17, which will read: IIAll conditions of approval are to be met prior to Building Division's issuance of a Certificate of Occupancyll, second by Commissioner Ba rnha rt . Approved 5-0 PLANNING DIVISION CONDITIONS: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. - 6. 7. 8. If applicable, all slopes shall be planted with erosion control vegetation, to be approved by the Planning Division. Applicant is to install permanent sprinkler system for all planting areas. Applicant shall meet all setbacks. Applicant is to meet all applicable City Codes and Ordinances. Applicant is to meet all County Fire Department requirements for fi re protection. Applicant to process a lot Merger. Meet all Riverside County Health Department requirements. Structure shall be placed on-site as depicted on plot plan and/or as modified by Planning Division or Planning Commission. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS: 9. Meet all requirements of Ordinance No. 571. 10. Meet all requirements of Ordinance No. 572. 11. Meet all requirements of Ordi nance No. 636. 12. Meet all requirements of Ordi nance No. 529. 13. Meet all requirements of Resolution No. 83- 78. 14. Meet all requirements of Resolution No. 77- 39. 15. Meet all requirements of Resol ution No. 83- 1 2. 16. Dedicate underground water rights to the City 0 f la ke El s i nore per - Ordinance No. 529. 17. All CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ARE TO BE MET PRIOR TO BUILDING DIVISIONIS ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. 4. Commercial Project 85-8 - American Legion Post 200 - Chairman stated that a letter was received requesting postponement. A brief discussion was held on whether or not a date shoul d be establ ished for continuance. Motion by Commissioner Washburn to continue Commercial Project 85-8, second by Commissioner Mellinger. Approved 5-0 Minutes of Planning Commission October 1, 1985 Pa ge 6 5. Commercial Project 85-11 - Zizi Carasimu - Staff presented proposal to reha- bilitate an existing structure and convert its use to a restaurant, drinking and dancing establishment. The rehabilitation will occur in two (2) phases and will include complete interior and exterior renovations and the addition of approximately 940 square feet of floor area, located on the southwest corner of the intersection of Fraser Drive and Lakeshore Drive. Chairman asked if the applicant was in the audience, if he had received a copy of the conditions and if he had any concerns. Mr. Carasimu stated that he received the conditions, and the only concern is the extension of Lakeshore Drive, but thinks that problem has already been resolved. - Mr. Miner stated that at the Design Review segment, this afternoon, discussion was held on deleting the 243 square foot addition abutting Lakeshore Drive. It was staffls final conclusion that tree planters could be placed inside the public right-of-way and maintain that 243 square foot addition. Staff would also like to amend condition number 6, and require that tree planters be in- corporated into the project inside the public right-of-way instead of delet- ing the addition. Discussion was held on meeting the minimum standards of the Zoning Code; General Plan indication that adequate off-street parking be provided; requirement for parking and how it was determined (one space for every 75 feet of floor area or one space for each three seats), first phase requiring 38 spaces; loading space required and loading space provided being substandard; obtaining parking either by purchase or through an agreement that could be recorded with an adjacent use, if they have excess parking (recorded easement or agreement); applicant coming back when he can provide the required parking; if parking space 11 and 12 were deleted and reducing the greenbelt area if additional spaces could be provided; seating capacity for phase one (10 tables proposed); time line for proposal; deny proposal without prejudice; adding condition that applicant could not open until he meets the Code requirements, that would not be putting a time line on _ it, it would require applicant to obtain proper parking before opening, and appeal to City Council asking for relief from that Code Section, and base seat- ing upon patrons. Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to approve Commercial Project 85-11, with staff recommendations, adding condition number 19, which will read: "A Certificate of Occupancy will only be issued upon installation of the parking required by the Ordinance", and amending condition number 6, to read: "Meet requirements of De- sign Review Board", amending condition number 19, by adding verbiage "meet all conditions of approval prior to Building Divisionis issuance of Certificate of Occupancy", second by Commissioner Saathoff. Approved 5-0 PLANNING DIVISION CONDITIONS: 2. 1. The site plan as submitted or modified by Planning Commission shall allow a maximum of three restaurant seats for each parking space provided. Any increase in the number of restaurant seats, or the opening of a drinking or dancing area will require additional park- ing to be provided and subsequent approval of the means of providing that additional parking by Planning Commission. Signage shall be placed on the Lakeshore Drive entrance indicating "entrance on1y", such sign shall be no higher than 36 inches and have no more than 6 square feet of sign area per face. - 3. Loading area shall be marked. 4. The parking area shall be paved and striped per City Standards. All handicapped and compact car spaces shall be marked. 5. Parking spaces 11 and 12 should be deleted and the area used for landscaping. 6. MEET REQUIREMENTS OF DESIGN REVIEW BOARD. 7. Meet all Riverside County Health Department requirements. Minutes of Planning Commission October 1, 1985 Page 7 COMMERICAL PROJECT 85-11 - ZIZI CARASIMU CONTINUED 8. Meet all Riverside County Fire Department requirements. 9. All items depicted on site plan shall be provided as indicated on the site plan unless otherwise modified by the Planning Division and/or Planning Commission. - ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS: 10. Meet all requirements of Ordinance No. 571. 11. Meet all requirements of Ordinance No. 572. 12. Meet all requirements of Ordinance No. 636. 13. Meet all requirements of Ordinance No. 529. 14. Meet all requirements of Resolution No. 83-78. 15. Meet all requirements of Resolution No. 77-39. 16. Meet all requirements of Resolution No. 83-12. 17. Dedicate underground water rights to the City of Lake Elsinore per Ordinance No. 529. 18. Dedicate 20-feet of right-of-way on Lakeshore Drive per General Plan requirements. 19. A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY WILL ONLY BE ISSUED UPON INSTALLATION OF THE PARKING REQUIRED BY THE ORDINANCE. MEET ALL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PRIOR TO BUILDING DIVISIONIS ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. - 6. Industrial Project 85-4 - Harold Walker - Staff stated that at the Design Re- view Board, this afternoon, it was agreed by the applicant and staff that this project be continued to the n~xt meeting due to plot plan modifications. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to continue Industrial Project 85-4, to the meeting of October 15, 1985, second by Commissioner Barnhart. Approved 5-0 7. Residential Project 85-16 - Chehade Engineering - Chairman stated that a letter was received requesting continuance of this item to the November 5, 1985 meeting. Motion by Commissioner Washburn to continue Residential Project 85-16, to the meeting of November 5, 1985, second by Commissioner Barnhart. Approved 5-0 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S REPORT - Mr. Coleman reported on the following items: 1. Debris at Main Street and Franklin Street, next to Butterfield Escrow property and across the street, it has been indicated that Code Enforcement will be following up on this. They have contacted the absentee landlord and will be taking all necessary steps to have this debris removed. 2. Lakehouse Restaurantls window has been replaced. 3. Machado Pines street situation has been referred to Sergeant Soltz, he is the Riverside County Traffic Sergeant, and he will be conducting further investiga- tion. 4. Staff would like to comment on the initial project review initiated by staff. Staff is making every attempt to review each project that comes in and offer ..... Minutes of Planning Commission October 1, 1985 Page 8 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S REPORT CONTINUED applicants an initial review of their proposal, and provide to them comments. We are encouraging applicants to submit a rough preliminary plan on their building intentions, and we will be getting back with them within a very short period of time, so that they may revise their plans according to any identified problems. We think that this type of review is key to developing and formulating quality products that could be provided in the City, that will meet both the interest of the City and the project proponents. PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ...., Commissioner Saathoff: On the Infill Program, if the Commission so desires and feels that the action that was taken by the City Council as far as the Infill Program is concerned; if they feel it inadequate; if felt certain things should be done, I would be happy to ask for a special session for the Commission to get together and review the Infill Pro- ject, that has been proposed by the City Council and make some recommendations and changes. It is too late now for the next General Plan Amendments, but at least we can get it on the drawing board. Commissioner Mellinger stated that he thought that it should go on the next General Plan Amendment. Obviously, we can1t come up with an Area Plan within that time. However, we do have a policy of Infill incentives, and we also have an Implementa- tion Program. I think that a revision to the General Plan would be some sort of target date for an impl ementation, whi ch woul d set up our study sess ions, and some sort of direction for staff to meet an implementation date. Most of our implementa- tion dates are way out of line, but this one can be specific and revised for the General Plan Amendments that are coming up in November. Commissioner Mellinger: On the General Plan Amendments, we have received a memorandum from staff concerning other revisions to be made. The ones that Council brought up has to do with horse trails and so on. In addition, I think we came up with, at the last study session concerning densities, our low density designation of 0-6 units per acre. I think a General Plan revision would be in order, to create a policy based upon the location of a property within that designation in relation to the distance from City services and the distance from arterial or major designated roads on the Circulation Element, and an Implementation Plan would then be the type of zoning (R-1-6, R-10 and so on) creating larger minimum lot sizes for areas that are further away, so that would be one revision that would be considered. ...., Commissioner Saathoff stated that this would also hold with the Medium Density. Commissioner Mellinger stated that it may, but at this point, because it will have to be implemented by that zoning and put on a zoning map as part of the next zoning ordinance. The Medium and High could be down the line. Another recommendation, I refer to staff1s last comment about their concern of re- viewing projects that are put before us. I am "recommending that we hold a Planning Commission Study Session on Thursday, October 17, 1985, at 6:00 p.m. Basically, I would like to see the Planning Commission review the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) procedures, which you will find will be implemented by staff as far as our current/past environmental review over the last years, and how that af- fects the review of some of the projects. Staff will be implementing the proper notice procedure with these upcoming General Plan Amendments, and that can be reviewed at the study session in addition to anything else that would have to go on for Planning Commission discussion. ...., Commissioner Saathoff asked if they could receive a copy of the Infill Agreement or arrangement that the City Council has adopted. Commissioner Washburn: We often slide by the General Plan and leave it sitting, gathering dust in the corner. I would like, at some point, for us to review the Implementation Program and the things that staff has started and not had the time to complete, so that we are fa- miliar, because we are really looking at a capital improvement project and we often - Minutes of Planning Commission October 1, 1985 Page 9 PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION CONTINUED let things slide. There are alot of changes that have taken place. I would recom- mend this at the next meeting, but we should have a follow-up with the new staff members and with City Council and just go over it again. Commissioner Saathoff asked if Council has set a date for revisions on the General Plan's annual review. - Commissioner Washburn stated that he thought that we were almost at the limit and thought that it was five years. Commissioner Mellinger stated that he thinks Commissioner Saathoff is referring to State Law requirement of an annual report of our planning zoning actions in con- formance to the General Plan. The purpose of that is to review our General Plan. Very few Cities do this, and it may be wise for us to do it. There may be a date in the law anyway. Commissioner Barnhart: On lot sizes, even after the study session, one of the things that really concerns me. I cannot figure it out, if the minimum lot size is 50 x 100 how is the minimum square footage 6,000? Commissioner Mellinger stated that if you have a 100-foot depth, then you have to ha ve a 60- foot wi dth. Commissioner Saathoff stated that the minimum width is 50-feet, but the lot size has to be 6,000 square feet. Commissioner Mellinger stated that the 100-foot depth means that you have to have a 60-foot lot width. - Chairman Dominguez: Would like to have staff look into Ordinance No. 572, concerning the 650 minimum square footage without having to submit plans and pay for improvements. I am seeing some projects that are going through this and they get to be commercial projects or big homes without paying for any improvements or without submitting p 1 a ns . Would like to have staff look into the Overlay Ordinance, concerning the chain- link fences and outhouses that are coming out every weekend around the lake again. The idea of the Overlay Ordinance was so that we could keep the area clean, and here we are again back where we started. There being no further business, the Lake Elsinore Planning Commission adjourned at 8:53 p.m. Motion by Commissioner Barnhart, second by Commissioner Saathoff. Approved 5-0 - Approved ~cP~ Fred Domin~ Chairman A;: subm' ~~rindstaff Planning Commission Secretary ~ ,-' MINUTES OF HELD ON THE LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION 15TH DAY OF OCTOBER 1985 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Commissioner Saathoff. ROLL CALL found Commissioner Washburn, Commissioner Mellinger, Commissioner Saathoff and Chairman Dominguez. Commissioner Barnhart was absent. - Also present were John Freiman, Planning Consultant, Assistant Planner Coleman and Assistant Planner Miner. MI NUTE ACTI ON Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to approve minutes of October 1, 1985, as submitted, second by Commissioner Washburn. Approved 4-0 PUBLI C HEARl NGS 1. Zone Change 85-3 - Winchester Associates, Inc. (Lou F. Withrow) - Staff pre- sented applicant's request to have the Public Hearing on Zone Change 85-3 continued to December 3, 1985, to allow sufficient time to evaluate the impact of the School District's desire to locate a facility on the subject property. Chairman opened the public hearing at 7:07 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of Zone Change 85-3. There being no one present wishing to speak in favor, the Chairman asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. The following persons spoke in opposition, stating concern on density, traffic impact on Al varado, conformance with exi sti ng uses, and envi ronmental impacts. - Warren Corvin; property owner within 300 feet Charles Berney; property owner within 300 feet Don Babcock; property owner within 300 feet Ann Baker; property owner within 300 feet Jim Connley; property owner within 300 feet John Gridley; property owner within 300 feet Mr. Corvin returned to the podium stating that he has a petition with two- hundred (200) signatures against the Zone Change, and would turn in a copy of the petition to the Commission. Commissioner Barnhart arrived at 7:25 p.m. Commissioner Mellinger commented on density range (0-6 dwelling units per acre), General Plan consistency requirement, environmental review under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, public services, having an environ- mental impact report on proposal, coul d not see the issuance of a Negati ve Declaration with the potential impacts identified, and substantial public contro- versy. - Commissioner Washburn stated that we should only be discussing the pre-annexa- tion Zone Change, and the applicant has requested a continuance and that is the other item that we should be addressing. I don't think that we should have gotten into the environmental factor at this point. Lake Elsinore is a growing community; with a growing community we are always faced with a challenge of how we grow, where we grow and how fast we grow. I think the concerns we really have to keep under control is that we want balance growth. The density at this point in time agrees with the General Plan. Chairman directed staff to look into the new law on environmental review that Commissioner Mellinger brought up. Motion by Commissioner Washburn to continue Zone Change 85-3, to December 3, 1985, second by Commissioner Barnhart. Commissioner Mellinger asked for discussion. Commissioner Mellinger stated that at the very least we should renotice this, if we are considering a negative declaration. We can renotice this for the public comments period. At that time, people can not only make comments upon the proposed project, but actually present substantial evidence; for example, the observation of wildlife habitat and those will be considered with the pro- ~ Minutes of Planning Commission October 15, 1935 Pa ge 2 ZONE CHANGE 85-3 - WINCHESTER ASSOCIATES, INC. (LOU F. WITHROW) CONTINUED posed negative declaration. Commissioner Barnhart asked whether or not this would be a public hearing at the December 3rd meeting? Discussion ensued on this matter. There being no further discussion at the table, the Chairman asked for the vote. Approved 5-0 -- 2. Conditional Exception Permit 85-6 - MFG Housing Corporation - Staff presented proposal for a Conditional Exception Permit to allow variance from a City Code (Section 17.16.090.C.) which requires a minimum twenty-five foot rear yard setback for single-family residences in the R-1 Zone, located on the south side of Lake Street approximately 60 feet east of Center Street. Chairman opened the public hearing at 7:44 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of Conditional Exception Permit 85-6. Mr. Neil Peake, representative and principal in MFG Housing, requested the Commission approve Conditional Exception Permit 85-6, stating that they have built two houses in that area, and would like to build the third. Mr. Tony Schiavone spoke in favor of Conditional Exception Permit 85-6, stat- ing that proposal would help to build up Lake Street, and that proposal is in the Infill Project Area. There being no one else wishing to speak in favor, the Chairman asked if any one wished to speak in opposition. There being no one wishing to speak in opposition or on the subject, the Chairman closed the public hearing at 7:46 p.m. -- There being no discussion at the table, the Chairman asked for a motion. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff for issuance of Negative Declaration for Conditional Exception Permit 85-6, second by Commissioner Barnhart. Approved 5-0 Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to approve Conditional Exception Permit 85-6, second by Commissioner Washburn. Commissioner Mellinger asked for discussion. Commissioner Mellinger stated that approval should be based upon findings re- quired by the Lake Elsinore Zoning Ordinance. PLANNING DIVISION RECOMMENDATION: 1. Adoption of the Negative Declaration. 2. Approval of Conditional Exception Permit 85-6, with the following find- i ngs : a) There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances related to the subject property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same district, in that the water line ease- ment passes through the property at an angle such that usable areas of the property are much more restricted than on other properties through which the same easement passes. -- b) The Conditional Exception is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights in that the remaining buildable area of the lot exclusive of the water line easement is insufficient to erect a reasonably sized residence without relief from the setback requirements. c) The granting of the Conditional Exception will not be detri- mental to the public health, safety or welfare or injurious to conforming land uses or property in the area as required Minutes of Planning Commission October 15. 1985 Pa ge 3 CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION PERMIT 85-6 - MFG HOUSING CORPORATION CONTINUED side yard setbacks are being provided and there will be no rear yard confiicts. due to the rear alley. the railroad property. and Railroad Avenue located to the rear. - BUSINESS ITEMS 1. Single-Family Residence - 29410 Edlund Street - C & G Development. Inc. - Staff presented proposal to construct a single-family residence at 29410 Edlund Street. located at the intersection of Edlund Street and Arnold Avenue. Staff stated that this proposal was before the Commission on October 1. 1985. and at that time. there were two issues: the first issue. what was the definition of the front. side and the required setback; the second issue. the closeness of the garage to the right-of-way line and ways to mitigate that. The applicant was given two alternatives at that time. one was to consider the use of an automatic garage door opener. so that cars approaching the garage would not be blocking traffic. in order to enter or leave the garage. The second alternative. was a side entry garage. where the driveway and maneuvering area could be in what would be the rear yard of the structure. The applicant has taken a look at the two alternatives; the side entry garage would require him to place paving in an area where the County Health Department is requiring leach field to be placed. so he cannot pave over that area. The applicant is satisfied with the requirement and the condition that was added as condition number 8. the installation of an automatic garage door opener. The second issue has been resolved. in terms of the definition of the front and side yard. - Chairman asked if the applicant was in the audience. if he had received a copy of the conditions and if there were any concerns. Mr. Danny Celeketic stated that he received the conditions and would be gl ad to comply. . There being no discussion at the table. the Chairman asked for a motion. Motion by Commissioner Washburn to approve Single-Family Residence at 29410 Edlund Street with staff recommendations. second by Commissioner Mellinger. Approved 5-0 PLANNING DIVISION CONDITIONS: l. 2. 3. 4. - 5. Applicant is to install permanent sprinkler system for all planting areas. Applicant is to meet all applicable City Codes and Ordinances. Applicant is to meet all County Fire Department requirements for fire protection. Meet all Riverside County Health Department requirements. All conditions of approval are to be met prior to Building Division's issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 6. If applicable. all slopes shall be planted with erosion control vege- tation. to be approved by Planning Division. 7. If feasible. applicant shall save the two (2) trees located along Edlund Street. and incorporate into final landscape design on-site. 8. Applicant shall install an automatic garage door opener for the pro- posed attached garage unit. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS: 9. Meet all requirements of Ordinance No. 571. ~ Minutes of Planning Commission October 15, '1985 Pa ge 4 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE - 29410 EDLUND STREET - C & G DEVELOPMENT, INC. CONTINUED . 10. Meet all requi rements of Ordi nance No. 572. 11. Meet all requi rements of Ordinance No. 636. 12. r~eet all requirements of Ordi nance No. 529. 13. Meet all requi rements of Resol ution No. 83-78. 14. Meet all requirements of Resolution No. 77- 39. 1 5. Meet all requirements of Resolution No. 83-12. 16. Dedicate underground water rights to the City 0 f Lake Elsinore per Ordi nance No. 529. . - 2. Single-Family Residence - 17200 McBride Avenue - G.L. Joiner - Staff pre- sented proposal to construct a single-family residence at 17200 McBride Avenue, located on the northwest corner of La Shell Street and McBride Avenue. Chairman asked if the applicant was in the audience. Receiving no response, the Chairman asked for discussion at the table. Discussion was held on whether or not proposal meets setback requirements, street improvements, and adding as a condition that a standard lien agree- ment for street improvements be recorded. This condition also to be added as a condition on the next proposal for single-family residence. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to approve Single-Family Residence at 17200 McBride Avenue with staff recommendations, and adding condition number 15, which will read: "A standard lien agreement to be placed on the deed and recorded in regard to future road improvements", second by Commissioner Ba rnha rt. Appro ved 5-0 - PLANNING DIVISION CONDITIONS: 1. If applicable, all slopes shall be planted with erosion control vege- tation, to be approved by the Planning Division. 2. Applicant is to install permanent sprinkler system for all planting areas. 3. Applicant is to meet all applicable City Codes and Ordinances. 4. Applicant is to meet all County Fire Department requirements for fire protection. 5. Meet all Riverside County Health Department requirements. 6. All conditions of approval are to be met prior to Building Divisionis issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 7. Driveway and parking area shall be paved per City Standards. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS: 8. Meet all requirements of Ordi nance No. 571 . 9. Meet all requirements of Ordinance No. 572. 10. Meet all requirements of Ordi nance No. 636. 11. Meet all requirements of Ordinance No. 529. 1 2. Meet all requirements of Resol ution No. 83-78. 13. Meet all requirements of Resol ution No. 83-12. - Minutes of Planning Commission October 15,1985 Pa ge 5 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE - 17200 MCBRIDE AVENUE - G.L. JOINER CONTINUED 14. Dedicate underground water rights to the City of Lake Elsinore per Ordinance No. 529. - 15. A STANDARD LIEN AGREEMENT TO BE PLACED ON THE DEED AND RECORDED IN REGARD TO FUTURE ROAD IMPROVEMENTS. 3. Single-Family Residence - 17211 DeBrask Avenue - G.L. Joiner - Staff pre- sented proposal to construct a single-family residence at 17211 DeBrask Avenue, located on the south side of DeBrask Avenue 40 feet east of La Shell Avenue. Chairman asked if the applicant was in the audience. Receiving no response, the Chairman asked for discussion at the table. There being no discussion at the table, the Chairman asked for a motion. Motion by Commissioner Barnhart to approve Single-Family Residence at 17211 DeBrask Avenue with staff recommendations, and adding condition number 15, which will read: "A standard lien agreement to be placed on the deed and recorded in regard to future road improvements", second by Commissioner Saathoff. Approved 5-0 PLANNING DIVISION CONDITIONS: 1. Applicant is to install permanent sprinker system for all planting areas. - 2. Applicant shall meet all setbacks. 3. Applicant is to meet all applicable City Codes and Ordinances. 4. Structure shall be placed on-site as depicted on plot plan and/or as modified by the Planning Commission. 5. Meet all Riverside County Health Department requirements. 6. Applicant is to meet all County Fire Department requirements for fire protection. 7. Applicant shall meet all conditions of approval prior to issuance of Certifi ca te of Occupancy. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS: 8. Meet all requirements of Ordinance No. 571. 9. Meet all requirements of Ordinance No. 572. 10. Me eta 11 requirements of Ordi nance No. 636. 11. Meet all requirements of Ordi nance No. 529. - 1 2. Meet all requirements of Resolution No. 83-78. 13. Me eta 11 requirements of Resol ution No. 83- 1 2 . 14. Dedicate underground water rights to the Ci ty of Lake Elsinore per Ordinance No. 529. 15. A STANDARD LIEN AGREEMENT TO BE PLACED ON THE DEED AND RECORDED IN REGARD TO FUTURE ROAD IMPROVEMENTS. 4. Single-Family Residence - 17350 Pinnell Street - G.L. Joiner - Staff pre- sented proposal to construct a single-family residence at 17350 Pinnell Street, located at the corner of Pinnell Street and Gunnerson Street. Chairman asked if the applicant was in the audience. Receiving nO response, - Minutes of Planning Commission October 15, 1985 Page 6 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE - 17350 PINNELL STREET - G.L. JOINER CONTINUED the Chairman asked for discussion at the table. Commissioner Washburn stated that the same condition for standard lien agree- ment for road improvements be added. There being no further discussion at the table, the Chairman asked for a motion. - Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to approve Single-Family Residence at 17350 Pinnell Street with staff recommendations, and adding condition number 16, which will read: "A standard lien agreement to be placed on the deed and recorded in regard to future road improvements", second by Commissioner Saathoff. Approved 5-0 PLANNING DIVISION CONDITIONS: 1. All slopes shall be planted with erosion control vegetation, to be approved by the Planning Division. 2. Applicant is to install permanent sprinkler system for all planting a rea s . 3. Appl icant shall meet all setbacks. 4. Applicant is to meet all applicable City Codes and Ordinances. 5. Structure shall be placed on-site as depicted on plot plan and/or as modified by the Planning Commission. 6. Meet all Riverside County Health Department requirements. - 7. Applicant is to meet all County Fire Department requirements for fire protection. 8. Applicant shall meet all conditions of approval prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS: 9. Meet all requirements of Ordi nance No. 571 . 10. Meet all requi rements of Ordi nance No. 572. 11. Meet all requi rements of Ordi nance No. 636. 12. Meet all requirements of Ordinance No. 529. 13. Meet all requirements of Resolution No. 83- 78 . 14. Meet all requirements of Resolution No. 83- 1 2 . 15. Dedicate underground water rights to the City of Lake Elsinore per Ordinance No. 529. 16. A STANDARD LIEN AGREEMENT TO BE PLACED ON THE DEED AND RECORDED IN - REGARD TO FUTURE ROAD IMPROVEMENTS. 5. Commercial Project 85-6 - Richard H. Wessel ink - Staff presented proposal to construct a Jack in the Box fast food restaurant with provisions for drive- thru and sit down seating arrangements, located on the southeasterly side of State Route 74 (Riverside Drive) and south of Joy Street. Staff stated that this application was before the Commission on August 20, 1985, and continued to an unspecified date, in order for the applicant to work with Cal Trans on the ingress/egress approaches to the project. Staff stated that the applicant has revised the site plan to include an east- Minutes of Planning Commission October 15, 1985 Page 7 COMMERCIAL PROJECT 85-6 - RICHARD H. WESSELINK CONTINUED - erly portion of the property for the purpose of increasing the off-street parking space count. The revised parking space total indicates 53 stalls, with one, 12' x 40' loading space. The revised plan indicates, per Cal Trans directives, a proposed central travelway approach to service the restaurant use and future retail building, in the easterly areas of this 1 ayout. Chairman asked if the applicant was in the audience, if he had received a copy of the conditions and if there were any concerns. Mr. Wessel ink stated that he concurs with the conditions. Discussion was held on the revised site plan, pertaining to parking require- ments, the two-story building with retail and offices, the entire square footage with the restaurant and the number of parking spaces that would be required. Mr. Wessel ink stated that the two-story building has been withdrawn until they can make other provisions, and staff indicated to me that this is only before the Commission for consideration of the 300 foot depth, parking and the Jack in the Box restaurant. Discussion ensued on why only 34 spaces were provided when 42 are required; accessibility to some of the parking spaces, particularly on the southern boundary; whether there would be access further along for future develop- ment; reciprocal parking agreement and easement not extending to Riverside Drive; and enforcement for the right turn only sign. - Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to approve Commercial Project 85-6 REVISED, based upon site plan submitted on rendering, with staff recommendations, and adding condition number 17, which will read: "That the reciprocal access and parking agreement be recorded on the property with an easement to the south of the property not extendi ng to Ri vers i de Dri ve", second by Commi ss ioner Washburn. Approved 5-0 PLANNING DIVISION CONDITIONS: 1. Applicant shall meet all applicable City Codes and Ordinances. 2. All items depicted on site plan shall be provided as indicated unless otherwise modified by the Planning Commission and/or Design Review Board. 3. Appl icant shall meet Cal i fornia Department of Transportation requi rements . 4. Appl icant is to meet all conditions of approval prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Use and Occupancy. 5. Applicant shall meet County Fire Department requirements for fi re protection. 6. Site plan review pertains only to the development parameters of the subject restaurant proposal; subsequent uses on the property will be considered at such time that actual development intentions are presented to staff. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS: 7. Meet all requirements of Ordinance No. 571 . 8. Meet all requirements of Ordi nance No. 572. 9. Meet all requirements of Ordinance No. 636. 10. Meet all requirements of Ordi nance No. 603. 11. Meet all requirements of Ordi nance No. 711 . - Minutes of Planning Commission October 15,1985 Pa ge 8 COMMERCIAL PROJECT 85-6 - RICHARD H. WESSELINK CONTINUED 12. Meet all requirements of Resolution No. 83-78. 13. Meet all requirements of Resol ution No. 77-39. 14. r~eet all requirements of Resolution No. 83-12. 15. Dedicate underground water rights to the Ci ty of La ke Elsinore per Ordi nance No. 529. - 16. Dedicate 20-feet of right-of-way on Riverside Drive to provide total 50-feet half street right-of-way. 17. THAT THE RECIPROCAL ACCESS AND PARKING AGREEMENT BE RECORDED ON THE PROPERTY WITH AN EASEMENT TO THE SOUTH OF THE PROPERTY NOT EXTENDING TO RIVERSIDE DRIVE. 6. Industrial Project 85-4 - Harold Walker - Staff requested that Industrial Project 85-4 be continued to the meeting of November 5, 1985, due to plot plan modifications yet to be submitted. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to continue Industrial Project 85-4 to the meeting of November 5, 1985, second by Commissioner Barnhart. Approved 5-0 7. Residential Project 85-19 - Dura Construction - Staff presented proposal to construct a three (3) unit apartment building in conjunction with an exist- ing single-family residence, located on the northeast corner of the inter- section of Prospect Street and Chestnut Street. Chairman asked if the applicant was in the audience, if he had received a copy of the conditions and if there were any concerns. - A representative for the applicant stated that they had no problems with the conditions. Discussion was held on whether or not this had been before the Design Review Board, and if they established conditions to meet the Sheriff's Department conditions. Staff stated that this was reviewed by the Design Review Board, but the Sheriff's Department comments were not addressed and they should be addressed by the Commission. Commissioner Saathoff requested that a condition be added that applicant shall meet all County Sheriff's Department requirements in reference to lighting and height of landscaping. Staff stated that at the Design Review Board discussion was held on the site plan pertaining to the patio on the ground floor and a balcony on the second floor. It was felt that this intrudes into the required street side yard setback, and proposal was conditioned that it meets the requirements of the setback ordinance. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to approve Residential Project 85-19, with staff recommendations, and adding condition number 16, which will read: "Meet all County Sheriff's Department requirements, to be approved by Planning Division", second by Commissioner Barnhart. Approved 5-0 - PLANNING DIVISION CONDITIONS: 1. Meet all County Fire Department requirements. 2. Meet all applicable City Codes and Ordinances. 3. Project shall be developed as indicated on plot plans unless other- wise modified by Planning Division or Planning Commission. 4. All conditions of approval are to be met prior to Building Division's Minutes of Planning Commission October 15, 1985 Pa ge 9 RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 85-19 - DURA CONSTRUCTION CONTINUED issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 5. All parking area shall be striped and paved according to City Standards. - 6. Provide adequate on-site lighting in the carport area and along walkways. 7. The fence for the concrete patio located adjacent to Prospect Street shall be setback five-feet (5') from the property line. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS: 8. Meet all requirements of Ordi nance No. 57l. 9. Meet all requirements of Ordi na nee No. 572. 10. Meet all requirements of Ordi nance No. 636. ll. Meet all requi rements of Ordi na nee No. 529. 12. Meet all requirements of Resolution No. 83-78. 13. Meet all requirements of Resol ution No. 77-39. 14. Meet all requirements of Resolution No. 83-12. 1 5. Dedicate underground water rights to the City 0 f Lake Elsinore per - Ordinance No. 529. 16. MEET ALL COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT REQUIREMENTS, TO BE APPROVED BY PLANNING DIVISION. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S REPORT Mr. Freiman stated that he had nothing to report, but would like to remind the Com- mission of the study session scheduled for October 16, 1985, at 6:00 p.m. Mr. Freiman was informed that this was changed to Thursday, October 17, 1985, at 6:00 p.m., because the Council Chambers would not be available on the 16th. PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Commissioner Saathoff: None Commissioner Mellinger: The Saturday workshop with the Commission, Council and Management Staff was very successful and very encouraging. Reminded the Commission of Thursday's meeting, stating that it is rather important. Commissioner Washburn: Received a comment from a citizen, and its a recurring thing that we hear over and over. The seminar that we had Saturday might help to get some of these things brought forward, that being that the community is often viewed as dirty. The side- walks are dirty, there is trash laying around, there are junk cars. The community tends to look slopy and run down and his comment to me was, why does the City let it continually look like this? I just wanted to say, that I think we are all aware of this, and we are trying our best with Code Enforcement to clean it up. If any- one out there sees any violations report it to City Hall . Commissioner Barnhart: Thought that the Saturday workshop was very informative. - Minutes of Planning Commission October" 15, 1985 Pa ge 10 PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION CONTINUED In going along with Commissioner Washburn; Captain Thompson, at Saturday's work- shop, stated that since Code Enforcement is now under the direction of the Sheriff's Department they are planning on confiscating about 20 cars in the next two weeks and cleaning up. You are going to see a big difference with Code En- forcement under the Sheriff's Department direction, and a little more authority for Code Enforcement. - Chairman Dominguez: Concerning the Overlay District, on Lakeshore. There is a house in the 1300 block, that went to the appeals board and was granted approval to bring it up to Code. They have been working on this house, but it has never been brought up to Code, and now I see that it is occupied. In fact, there are cars, motor- cycles and etcetera for sale out in the front yard. Again, the reason for the Overlay District was to try and keep that area up to what it should be, and here we are allowing this to happen. I have been aware of this for over a week, someone should have noticed it. I would like to have this looked into. Commissioner Saathoff stated that he would like to bring to staff's attention, thinks it is 108 and 110 East Lakeshore, its not the Trailer Park there, it is the property just west of it that we have discussed before. There are cabins there that have been there since the flood, many abandoned for some time, and you were looking into that with Code Enforcement, but there was a burnt-out structure a couple weeks ago; the frame work is still standing and it is a real blighted area, those buildings should be taken care of. There being no further business, the Lake Elsinore Planning Commission adjourned at 8:30 p.m. Motion by Commissioner Washburn, second by Commissioner Saathoff. Approved 5-0 - ~y1:~ Linda Grindstaff ~ Planning Commission Secretary - MINUTES OF HELD ON THE LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION 5TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 1985 THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:05 P.M. - PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Commissioner Mellinger. ROLL CALL found Commissioners: Saathoff, Mellinger, Washburn, Barnhart and Chair- man Domi nguez. Also present were John Freiman, Planning Consultant, Assistant Planner Coleman and Assistant Planner Miner. INTRODUCTION Mr. Freiman introduced Mr. Nelson Miller the City's new Community Development Di rector. MINUTE ACTION Motion by Commissioner Barnhart to approve minutes of October 15, 1985, as sub- mitted, second by Commissioner Saathoff. Approved 5-0 PUBLI C HEARl NGS 1. Conditional Exception Permit 85-7 - Norman Manz - Staff presented a proposal for a Conditional Exception Permit to allow an existing nonconforming struc- ture to be converted to an apartment unit and be expanded by more than ten percent (10%) of its existing floor area, and to continue the existing four foot (4') side yard for the proposed expansion, located approximately 120 feet northwest of the intersection of Chestnut and Prospect Streets. - Chairman opened the public hearing at 7:10 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of Conditional Exception Permit 85-7. Receiving no response, the Chairman asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Receiving no response, the Chairman asked if anyone wished to speak on the subject. Staff stated that a letter was received in protest from Tom and Diane Frost stating the following reasons: 1) infringement on their privacy; 2) there is a parking problem; 3) single apartments bring young singles and the party element into the neighborhood, and many single units are rented to families with four or five bodies sharing a one room structure; and 4) it poses a fire hazard. Staff addressed the above mentioned concerns as follows: 1) the property is zoned R-3 and is permitted two units; 2) this is a civil and police matter not zoning; 3) the City cannot discriminate against proposal based on who might be renting; and 4) this proposal has been conditioned to meet all Build- ing, Health and Safety Codes. Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. There being no one else wishing to speak on the subject, the Chairman closed the public hearing at 7:13 p.m. - Chairman asked for discussion at the table. Discussion was held on the revised parking plan, and if it was going to be approved by staff; parking problems in the alley, retaining wall, and concern with ingress/egress there; whether or not Engineering would require applicant to put in half alley improvements; recommendation that Engineering Department look at the rear parking facilities and work with the applicant to solve the problem on ingress/egress, and re- quest that, if feasible, applicant put in half alley improvements per City Code, and width of the alley. Motion by Commissioner Washburn to adopt the Negative Declaration and approve Conditional Exception Permit 85-7 with staff recommendations, and amending condition number 2, by adding the following verbiage IIIf feasible, applicant to put in half alley improvements per City Codell, second by Commissioner Saa tho ff . Approved 4-1 Commissioner Barnhart abstained PLANNING DIVISION RECOMMENDATION: ~1 Minutes of Planning Commission November 5, 1985 Page 2 CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION PERMIT 85-7 - NORMAN MANZ CONTINUED A. Adoption of the Negative Declaration, and B. Approval of Conditional Exception Permit 85-7, subject to the follow- ing findings and conditions: FI NDI NGS: 1. That the granting of this Conditional Exception Permit is in con- formance with the City's General Plan, which allows the proposed dens ity. 2. That the approval of this Conditional Exception Permit does not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone that such property is situated. Other properties within this neigh- borhood exemplify similarly small lot width dimensions. Also, a number of structures on these subject lots were built prior to the adoption of the City Zoning Code, and were regulated by the Uniform Building Code (UBC) which required only a 3-foot side yard setback. -- 3. That the granting of this Conditional Exception Permit will not adversely affect the health, safety or welfare nor the public health within the immediate area where this Conditional Exception is applied. The approval to physically complete the construction of this unit and grant privileges for occupancy, according to set- back provisions granted, will be required to meet all health, sanitation and building code requirements. 4. That the granting of this Conditional Exception Permit will not negatively affect property values of the surrounding area. The new construction is conforming to and complementing to the exist- ing neighborhood housing character that has been established within this locality. ....., PLANNING DIVISION CONDITIONS: 1. A complete set of building plans shall be submitted for review and approval. Applicant shall meet all requirements of the Building Division. 2. A revised plot plan shall be submitted for review and approval, indicating a minimum of two (2) covered parking spaces and one (1) open parking space, meeting City standards. Said parking spaces shall be paved and striped. IF FEASIBLE, APPLICANT TO PUT IN HALF ALLEY IMPROVEMENTS PER CITY CODE. 2. Zone Change 85-4 - Robert Baker c/o George Schmiedel - Staff presented proposal to change the zoning on a 1.23 acre parcel from R-2 (Two-Family ReSidential) to M-l (Manufacturing District), thereby bringing the parcel into conformance with the existing General Plan Land Use designation of Limited Industrial, located on the northwest corner of Collier Avenue and Spring Street, abutting the 1-15 Freeway. Chairman opened the public hearing at 7:23 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of Zone Change 85-4. Receiving no response, the Chairman asked ...., if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Receiving no response, the Chairman asked if anyone wished to speak on the subject. Receiving no response, the Chairman closed the public hearing at 7:24 p.m. Chairman asked for discussion at the table. There being no discussion at the table, the Chairman asked for a motion. Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to adopt the Negative Declaration and approve Zone Change 85-4, with staff recommendation, second by Commissioner Washburn. Approved 5-0 Minutes of Planning Commission November 5, 1985 Page 3 ZONE CHANGE 85-4 - ROBERT BAKER C/O GEORGE SCHMIEDEL CONTINUED a. The proposed Zone Change will bring the parcel into conformance with the General Plan. b. - The City is mandated by State Law to bring its zoning into con- formance with its General Plan. c. The proposed zoning will be compatible with surrounding zoning and 1 and uses. BUSINESS ITEMS 1. Single-Family Residence 17330 and 17340 Ryan Avenue - Nick and Beverly Nash - Staff presented proposal to construct two (2) single-family residences on two (2) adjacent lots. Both parcels are approximately 5,000 square feet in size and are located approximately 50 feet and 100 feet respectively, northeast of the intersection of Manning Street and Ryan Avenue. Chairman asked if the applicant was in the audience, if he had received a copy of the conditions and if there were any concerns. Mr. Nash stated that he had received the conditions and had no concerns. Chairman asked for discussion at the table. Discussion was held on the size of the garage, access to the garage, turn around for driveway, grading-- pertaining to actual difference from the street to the height of the entry 1 evel and slope control for the front. - There being no further discussion at the table, the Chairman asked for a motion. Motion by Commissioner Barnhart to approve Single-Family Residences at 17330 and 17340 Ryan Avenue with staff recommendation, second by Commissioner Mellinger. Approved 5-0 PLANNING DIVISION CONDITIONS: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. - Applicant is to install permanent sprinkler systems for all planting a rea s . Applicant shall meet all setbacks by moving both structures a minimum of 5-feet and a maximum of 7-feet toward Ryan Avenue. Applicant is to meet all applicable City Codes and Ordinances. Applicant is to meet all County Fire Department requirements for fire protection. Meet all Riverside County Health Department requirements. All conditions of approval are to be met prior to Building Division's issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 7. Applicant shall reduce the slope of the driveway approach off of Ryan Avenue to a maximum of 15 percent. 8. Reciprocal access agreements shall be recorded on both parcels. 9. Any major changes to the plot plan, as submitted, shall require re- submittal to the Planning Commission. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS: 10. Meet all requirements of Ordinance No. 571. 11. Meet all requirements of Ordinance No. 572. Minutes of Planning Commission November 5, 1985 Page 4 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCES 17330 AND 17340 RYAN AVENUE - NICK AND BEVERLY NASH CONTINUED 12. Meet all requirements of Ordi na nce No. 636. 13. Meet all requi rements of Ordinance No. 529. 14. Meet all requirements of Resolution No. 83-78. 15. Meet all requirements of Resol ution No. 77-39. - 16. Meet all requirements of Resol ution No. 83-12. 17. Dedicate underground water rights to the City of Lake Elsinore per Ordinance No. 529. 2. Single-Family Residence - 16631 Stoddard Street - Raymond Marquez - Staff pre- sented proposal to construct a single-family residence at 16631 Stoddard Street, located 85 feet northeast of the intersection of Arnold Avenue and Stoddard Street. Chairman asked if the applicant was in the audience, if they had received a copy of the conditions and if there were any concerns. Mrs. Marquez stated that to the back five acres, which they want to build on, they have a 25-foot entrance coming off of Arnold Avenue. Discussion was held on whether or not applicant has a recorded easement, and condition number 8 pertaining to the recordation of an easement. There. being no further discussion at the table, the Chairman asked for a motion. Motion by Commi ss ioner Me11 i nger to approve Si ngl e- Family Res i dence at 16631 Stoddard with staff recommendation, second by Commissioner Saathoff. Approved 5-0 - PLANNING DIVISION CONDITIONS: 1. App1 icant shall plant all slopes with erosion control vegetation, to be approved by Planning Division. 2. Applicant is to install permanent sprinkler system for all planting a rea s . 3. Applicant is to meet all applicable City Codes and Ordinances. 4. Applicant is to meet all County Fire Department requirements for fi re protection. 5. Meet all Riverside County Health Department requirements. 6. All conditions of approval are to be met prior to Building Divisionis issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 7. The driveway approach (per plot plan) extending from Stoddard Street to the actual residential unit shall be paved with asphalt or concrete surfacing, as approved by the Engineering and Planning Departments. 8. The applicant shall guarantee grant rights for access through a recorded easement, incorporated as a deed restriction on the subject properties (A.P. Numbers 378-040-002-003). - ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS: 9. Meet all requirements of Ordinance No. 571. 10. Meet all requirements of Ordinance No. 572. 11. Meet all requirements of Ordinance No. 636. ~ Minutes of Planning Commission November 5, 1985 Pa ge 5 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE - 16631 STODDARD STREET - RAYMOND MARQUEZ CONTINUED - 12. Meet all requirements of Ordi nance No. 5~9. 13. Meet all requirements of Resolution No. 83-78. 14. Meet all requirements of Reso1 ution No. 77- 39. 15. Dedicate underground water rights to the City of Lake E1 sino re per Ordinance No. 529. 3. Single-Family Residence - 16769 Ho1borow Avenue - R. L. C1otworthy - Staff presented proposal to construct a single-family residence at 16769 Ho1borow Avenue, located approximately 3D-feet east of the intersection of Hague Street and Ho1borow Avenue. Chairman asked if the applicant was in the audience. Being as the applicant was not present, the Chairman asked for discussion at the table. There being no discussion at the table, the Chairman asked for a motion. Motion by Commiss"ioner Saathoff to approve Si ng1 e- Fami 1y Res i dence at 16769 Ho1borow Avenue with staff recommendation, second by Commissioner Washburn. Approved 5-0 PLANNING DIVISION CONDITIONS: - 1. Applicant is to meet all applicable City Codes and Ordinances. 2. Applicant is to meet all Riverside County Health Department require- ments. 3. All conditions of approval are to be met prior to Building Division's issuance of a Certificate of Use and Occupancy. 4. Applicant is to submit appropriate documentation to the Planning Division indicating the subject parcels were subdivided prior to December 23, 1953. 5. All items depicted on site plan shall be provided as indicated on the site plan unless otherwise modified by the Planning Commission and/or Design Review Board. 6. Meet all County Fire Department requirements for fire protection. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS: - 7. Meet all requirements of Ordinance No. 571. 8. Meet all requirements of Ordinance No. 572. 9. Meet all requirements of Ordinance No. 636. 10. Meet all requirements of Ordinance No. 529. 11. Meet all requirements of Resolution No. 83-78. 12. Meet all requirements of Resolution No. 77-39. 13. Meet all requirements of Resolution No. 83-12. 14. Dedicate underground water rights to the City of Lake Elsinore per Ordinance No. 529. 4. Residential Project 85-16 - Chehade Engineerin~ - Staff presented proposal to construct a 192 unit apartment complex on 8.48- acres, located approximately 732 feet east of the intersection of Machado Street and Grand Avenue. Minutes of Planning Commission November 5, 1985 Page 6 RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 85-16 - CHEHADE ENGINEERING CONTINUED Staff stated that the St~f Report (ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION) basically states that project meets all existing Zoning and General Plan criteria; would like to emphasize the existing Zoning and General Plan. The reason for that is, that there are two General Plan Amendments that will be coming before you at your next meeting, and one of the General Plan Amendments would change the density of the High Density District from its present maximum of 32 dwelling units per acre to a maximum of 24 units per acre. This proposal would still conform with that proposal. However, the second General Plan Amendment would ___ propose to change this area from High Density Residential to Medium Density, which has a lower density than this project is currently proposing and that would affect this plan. Basically, staff is recommending that this item be continued to the next meeting, so that those two items can be considered con- currently. If the Commission desires to act on this proposal tonight there are recommended conditions of approval. Chairman stated that the applicant was in the audience and wished to give a presentation on the project. Mr. Frank Buccella, property owner and developer, gave background report on said project, highlighting areas on open space, landscaping, architectural design, the widening of Grand Avenue and parking. Chairman asked for discussion at the table. Discussion was held on General Plan statement on page LU 21: "in areas where there is a del ineation between low density, medium density and high density the minimum density shall be required"; landscaping at property lines and rearrange the parking so that there would be a five-foot landscaping strip along the exterior property lines to act as a buffer between parki ng and adjacent property; hi dden s ta i rways proposed for project; whether or not this project was submitted to the Sheriff's Department for their comments; initial study and whether proposal is subject to CEQA requirements and if a Negative Declaration is required for proposal; classification of Grand Avenue when extended; continuing project and making a ___ determination as to whether project is discretionary or not; whether or not the environmental issues should be looked at; what the ~tatus was at Design Review Board; impact on the school system; whether or not the project is to be built in phases; and notice to residents. Mrs. Beverly Gibson asked about the widening of Grand Avenue and if this was just in front of project? Mr. Buccella answered in the affirmative. Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. There being no further discussion, the Chairman asked for a motion. Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to continue Residential Project 85-16 to the meeting of November 19, 1985, with the Planing Commission direction that any revisions requried by the Design Review Board be accomplished prior to that meeting; that staff solicit comments from the Sheriff's Department concerning the entrances; that a phasing schedule be submitted prior to the November 19th meeting; staff to make a determination as to whether this is a discretionary project and whether CEQA does indeed apply, and if so, that specific mitigation measures be incorporated into a Negative Declaration, second by Commissioner Saathoff with discussion. Commissioner Saathoff stated that if, in fact, it is determined that it is not necessary to show the mitigation measures that staff update any information they may be privy to as to developments that mayor may not affect the exten- tion to Grand Avenue in the very near future. Commissioner Washburn asked if Commissioner Saathoff would expand that to pro- jects that are surrounding the area as well. Commissioner Saathoff stated that was his intent and that he is interested in the circulation problem. --- Commissioner Mellinger amended his motion to include that staff provide any information on developments that would have an impact on Grand Avenue (City or County), second by Commissioner Saathoff. Approved 5-0 r> Minutes of Planning Commission November 5, 1985 Page 7 5. Industrial Project 85-4 - Harold Walker - Staff presented a proposal to con- struct a 8,800 square foot six (6) unit multi-purpose industrial building on .66I acres, located on Minthron Street approximately 80 feet west of the junction of Collier Avenue and Minthorn Street. ~ Staff stated that this proposal was before the Commission previously and continued due to concerns on circulation, loading/unloading areas and build- ing orientation. Staff stated that the project has been redesigned to resolve those concerns. Chairman asked if the applicant was in the audience, if he had received a copy of the conditions and if there were any concerns. Mr. Walker stated that he had no problem with the conditions. Chairman asked for discussion at the table. Discussion was held on the square footage of the unit; incorporating the Sheriff's Department comments on lighting into the conditions; parallel parking along the railroad right- of-way, and the size of the railroad right-of-way. There being no further discussion at the table, the Chairman asked for a motion. Motion by Commissioner Barnhart to approve Industrial Project 85-4 with staff recommendations, second by Commissioner Mellinger. Approved 5-0 PLANNING DIVISION RECOMMENDATION: A. Adoption of the Negative Declaration, and ~ B. Approval of Industrial Project 85-4, subject to the following conditions: PLANNING DIVISION CONDITIONS: 1. The loading are~ shall be delineated. 2. Uses within the proposed project shall be limited to light manufactur- ing and warehousing. Any storage or use of noxious or hazardous chemicals shall require Planning Division review and approval prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy/Business License. 3. No outside storage shall be allowed. 4. Meet all City Codes and Ordinances. 5. Meet all County Fire Department requirements. 6. Meet all County Health Department requirements. 7. All parking areas shall be paved and striped per City Code. 8. All conditions of approval shall be met prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. ~ 9. Prior to occupancy, or within the next twelve (12) months, whichever is later, applicant's property shall be included within: a) A district to be formed under the Lighting and Land- scaping Act of 1972 (commencing with Section 22500 of the Streets and Highways Code) to pay for the annual cost of lighting, landscaping and parks which benefit the Project, by the annual levy and collection of an assessment within the Project Area. b) A Community Facilities District to be formed under the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982 (commencing with Section 53311 of the Government Code) to pay for the cost of fire, police and storm water protection services. by the annual levy and collection of a special tax within the Project Area. Minutes of Planning Commission November 8, 1985 Page 8 INDUSTRIAL PROJECT 85-4 - HAROLD WALKER CONTINUED The Developer agrees to waive any right of protest under the Lighting and Landscaping Act of 1972 and the Mello- Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982. 10. Proposal shall be constructed as depicted on site plan or as modified by staff, Design Review Board or Planning Commission. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS: ..., 11 . Meet all requi rements of Ordi nance No. 57l. 12. Meet all requirements of Ordinance No. 572. 13. Meet all requirements of Ordinance No. 636. 14. Meet all requirements of Ordinance No. 529. 15. Meet all requirements of Ordinance No. 603. 16. Meet all requirements of Ordinance No. 711. 17. Meet all requirements of Resolution No. 83-78. 18. Meet all requirements of Resolution No. 77-39. 19. Meet all requirements of Resolution No. 83-12. 20. Dedicate underground water rights to the City of Lake Elsinore per Ordinance No. 529. 6. Industrial Project 85-5 - Terry W. Shook - Staff presented a proposal to con- ..., struct two (2) six (6) bay, 11 ,280 square feet structures for warehousing and light manufacturing on 1 .5f acres, located on the south side of Flint Street between Mohr Street and Silver Street. Staff stated for the Commission's edification and for the record, that there is a potential future problem regarding parking. The parking code for manu- facturing is 1 per 500 square feet; the parking code for warehousing is 1 per 2,000 square feet. If you take the 22,560 square feet and say it is going to be used for manufacturing the requirement is 46 spaces; whereas the applicant is proposing 36 spaces. If it was all used for warehousing the requirement would be 12 spaces. What it comes down to is that staff needs to monitor the occupancies as they occur, probably with some sort of Master Site Plan. If the occupancy ever surpasses the parking requirement required they either have to add additional parking or go back to the warehouse use, so that they do not exceed the parking requirement. Chairman asked if the applicant was in the audience, if he had received a copy of the conditions and if there were any concerns. Mr. Shook stated that building one was a prototype, they were not sure if it was what they wanted, but after completing it we feel it is a credit to the neighborhood. Mr. Shook then stated that the parking situation was taken care ,of in the CC & R's. Chairman asked for discussion at the table. Discussion was held on modifying condition number 2, to reflect the applicant's willingness to record in CC & R's that the parking requirement shall be adhered to; applicant improving half of Walnut Street for fire requirement (access), and the vacation of Walnut Street. There being no further discussion at the table, the Chairman asked for a motion. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to approve Industrial Project 85-5 with staff recommendations, with the change in condition number 2, that the parking re- quirements be recorded in CC & R's, second by Commissioner Barnhart. Approved 5-0 ..., Minutes of Planning Commission November 5, 1985 Page 9 INDUSTRIAL PROJECT 85-5 - TERRY W. SHOOK CONTINUED PLANNING DIVISION RECOMMENDATION: A. Adoption of the Negative Declaration, and ~ B. Approval of Industrial Project 85-5, subject to the following condi- tions: PLANNING DIVISION CONDITIONS: 1. Applicant shall provide a centrally located loading/unloading area as required per Title 17, Section 55.050.B.8.b. 2. Applicant shall include a provision requiring that Title 17, Parking requirements be met when a change in occupancy occurs. Parking re- quirements shall be met before a Certificate of Occupancy is issued and this provision be recorded on the property. THAT THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS BE RECORDED IN CC & Rls. 3. Uses within the proposed project shall be limited to light manufac- turing and warehousing. Any storage or use of noxious or hazardous chemicals shall require Planning Division review and approval prior to issuance of Occupancy/Business License. 4. No outside storage shall be allowed. 5. Meet all City Codes and Ordinances. 6. Meet all County Fire Department requirements. ~ 7. Meet all County Health Department requirements. 8. When Walnut Street is vacated, it shall be paved and used for fire access circulation and/or parking. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS: 9. Meet all requirements of Ordinance No. 571. 10. Meet all requirements of Ordinance No. 572. 11. Meet all requirements of Ordinance No. 636. 12. Meet all requirements of Ordinance No. 529. 13. Meet all requirements of Resolution No. 83-78. 14. Meet all requirements of Resolution No. 77-39. 15. Dedicate underground water rights to the City of Lake Elsinore per Ordinance No. 529. 7. Industrial Project 85-7 - Robert Baker c/o George Schmiede1 - Staff requested ~ that Industrial Project 85-7 be continued to the meeting of December 3, 1985, due to site plan concerns, and this application is on the site of the Zone Change 85-4, and not presently zoned M-1. Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to continue Industrial Project 85-7 to the meeting of December 3, 1985, second by Commissioner Washburn. Approved 5-0 8. Request to Annex (Annexation No. 42) - Richard and Marian Jercha - Commissioner Washburn asked to be excused. Staff presented applicant's request to annex lOt acres, located northwesterly of the intersection of Second Street and Dexter Avenue, into the City of Lake Elsinore. Minutes of Planning Commission November 5, 1985 Page 10 REQUEST TO ANNEX (ANNEXATION NO. 42) - RICHARD AND MARIAN JERCHA CONTINUED Chairman asked if the applicant was in the audience, and if he had any con- cerns. Mr. Jercha answered in the negative. Chairman asked for discussion at the table. A brief discussion was held on General Plan Amendments in this area going toward industrial; reviewing that entire area and consider an overall analysis as to whether industrial is ap- propriate in an expanded area rather than piecemeal General Plan Amendments, and have discussion with the County regarding zoning. ___ Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to approve Request to Annex with staff recom- mendations, second by Commissioner Saathoff. Approved 4-1 Commissioner Washburn excused PLANNING DIVISION RECOMMENDATION A. Approval of Request to Annex, with the following findings: 1. The subject property is within the City's Sphere of Influence. 2. The proposed annexation would be a logical extension of the existing City Limits. Commissioner Washburn returned to the table. 9. Single-Family Residence - 29410 Edlund Street REVISED - C & G Development _ Staff stated that subject single family residence was approved by the Planning Commission on October 15, 1985. The applicant has found two things, a conflict with the septic area and conflict with Southern California Edison easement. In order to solve those two problems he felt the best development was to detach the garage, put the garage farther toward the rear of the pro- perty. ... Chairman asked for discussion at the table. There being no discussion at the table, the Chairman asked for a motion. Motion by Commissioner Washburn to approve Single-Family Residence at 29410 Edlund Street REVISED with staff recommendations, second by Commissioner Mellinger. Approved 5-0 PLANNING DIVISION CONDITIONS: 1. Applicant is to install permanent sprinkler system for all planting areas. 2. Applicant is to meet all applicable City Codes and Ordinances. 3. Applicant is to meet all County Fire Department requirements for fire protection. 4. Meet all Riverside County Health Department requirements. 5. All conditions of approval are to be met prior to Building Division's issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 6. If applicable, all slopes shall be planted with erosion control vege- tation, to be approved by Planning Division. 7. If feasible, applicant shall save the two (2) trees located along Edlund Street, and incorporate into final landscape design on-site. 8. Applicant shall install an automatic garage door opener for the pro- posed attached garage unit. ... ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS: 9. Meet all requirements of Ordinance No. 571. Minutes of Planning Commission November 5, 1985 Pa ge 11 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE - 29410 EDLUND STREET REVISED - C & G DEVELOPMENT CONTINUED 10. Meet a 11 requirements of Ordi nance No. 572. ll. Meet all requirements of Ordinance No. 636. - 12. Meet a 11 requirements of Ordi nance No. 529. 13. Meet a 11 requirements of Resolution No. 83-78. 14. Meet all requirements of Resolution No. 77-39. 15. Meet all requirements of Resol ution No. 83- 1 2. 16. Dedicate underground water rights to the City of Lake Elsinore per Ordinance No. 529. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S RE PO RT Mr. Freiman stated that he had nothing to report, and informed the Commission that Mr. Miller would be taking over the meetings and that he has enjoyed working with the Commission. PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Commissioner Saathoff: Nothing to report, but would like to thank Mark and Larry for the excellent job they have done for us during the interim period of Jim leaving and Mr. Freiman coming on board. I would also like to welcome Mr. Miller aboard. - Commissioner Mellinger: Concur with Commissioner Saathoff. I think it might be appropriate for a study session this month to discuss the Infill Project Area and what to do about it, and also to continue our last study session concerning CEQA procedures. Discussion was held on setting a date for the study session. Mr. Miller stated that the CEQA issues are easily addressed, as there are state guidelines that address the requirements of CEQA. These could be addressed in a memo to the Commission, and then if there are further questions you could ask us individually. Then if you feel a study session is still necessary, we could schedule one. On the I nfi 11 Project Area, I woul d reques t some 1 eni ency for mysel f and s ta ff to get up to speed and give you the information that you want. If the Commission feels that it is something that is urgent, certainly we want to address it, but perhaps it is something that we could take up in early January. Discussion was held on scheduling a study session in early January; turning this over to Mr. Miller and letting him bring it back to the Commission at a later - time; Commissioners giving their suggestions, either verbally or in memo form, to Mr. Miller so that he will have a chance to go over them and see if they would be feasible, in his opinion. There is a 30 or 40 foot trailer, subdivision sign, showing direction to a sub- division 7 miles outside of the City. Currently, it is being stored behind the Chevron Station at Lakeshore Drive and Riverside Drive. I think that we should look into this. On the west side of Gunnerson just north of Lakeshore, I know that it is not the City's responsibility; however, it is an unincorporated area in which the City surrounds. There is still two apartment buildings that are wide open, broken windows, open doors, and kids playing in them. I would like to have it referred to the Land Use Coordinator, County of Riverside. If not perhaps the local Fire Department could look into it, since it is a Uniform Fire Code problem. If it is not resolved, I think the City should take whatever action they can to get it Minutes of Planning Commission November 12, 1985 Pa ge 12 PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION resolved. Commissioner Washburn: One informational item, this has not been confirmed yet, but I have heard that the railroad property has been purchased by an independent party and staff should be aware of this. At the location of Spring and Flint, there are alot of railroad rails still laying around. The department that issued the permit for the removal of the rails should contact the company who was handling this and have them come back and cl ean it up. In reference to the alley--Chestnut, I would like to see Code Enforcement, if at all possible, to go down there and cite any violations that they see and also if possible, get a City Crew up there to trim the trees in the alley. Another Code Enforcement problem is, the fence that separates the new Mobil Gas Station and Taco Bell is systematically being dismantled, and I think that Taco Bell and Mobil should decide who has to repair the fence and get it done. - Commissioner Barnhart: I have heard quite a few complaints on a circulation problem we have. When Butterfield Savings and Loan closed and Great American Federal took over all of their accounts; there is a small driveway off of Graham Avenue into the drive- up window and into the parking lot, it is just maybe 100 feet from the stop sign. This has gotten to be a real traffic hazard, you cannot get in, you cannot get out, they are blocking traffic a block down. I don't know what can be done about it, there is not enough room for another lane. Chairman Dominguez: - On Lakeshore Drive, the empty building there, across from where it use to be Holiday Trailer Park, they started cleaning it up and then left all of the tubing and pipe exposed, can we get this cleaned up? There being no further business, the Lake Elsinore Planning Commission adjourned at 8:50 p.m. Motion by Commissioner Barnhart, second by Commissioner Washburn. Approved 5-0 Approved, ~~ ' Fred~mi~~ Chairman ;;Z:lY Z:d. Linda Grindstaff ~ Planning Commission Secretary - MINUTES OF HELD ON THE LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 1985 THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:00 P.M. - PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Commissioner Washburn. ROLL CALL found Commissioners: Saathoff, Mellinger, Washburn, Barnhart and Chair- man Domi nguez. Also present were Community Development Director Miller, Assistant Planner Coleman and Assistant Planner Miner. MI NUTE ACT! ON Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to approve minutes of November 5, 1985, as submitted, second by Commissioner Barnhart. Appro ved 5-0 PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. General Plan Amendment 85-7 - City of Lake Elsinore - Staff presented proposal to amend the Residential Designation Standards of the Land Use Element (spe- cifically LU 21),. reducing the maximum density for multi-family residential developments within the High Density Land Use Designation from 32 dwelling units per acre to 24 dwelling units per acre, and increasing the maximum den- sity for condominium developments within the High Density Land Use Designation from 20 dwelling units per acre to 24 dwelling units per acre. Proposal af- fects all land currently designated High Density on the General Plan Land Use Map. -. The Chairman opened the public hearing at 7:02 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of General Plan Amendment 85-7. Receiving no response, the Chairman asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Receiving no response, the Chairman asked for discussion at the table. \ ... Discussion was held on total acreage of land zoned for multi-family residential; impact on public services; with the change in density, whether we could still meet the demand for apartment users; the Housing Element having to be revised every five years, and when staff does an inventory of housing needs, that would include vacancy factors, the amount of land necessary for apartment use could be determined at that time. The Chairman asked the Secretary if there was any written communications. The Secretary answered in the negative. There being no further discussion, the Chairman closed the public hearing at 7:07 p.m. Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to recommend adoption of Negative Declaration, approve General Plan Amendment 85-7 and adoption of Resolution No. 85-7, second by Commissioner Barnhart, entitled as follows: Appro ved 5-0 RESOLUTION NO. 85-7 ,-- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 85-7 2. General Plan Amendment 85-8 - City of Lake Elsinore - Staff presented proposal to amend a portion of the City's General Plan Land Use Map from Medium Density Residential to Tourist Commercial for 13r acres, located at the northwest re- gion of Lakeshore Drive and Spring Street. The Chairman opened the public hearing at 7:09 p.m., asking of anyone wished to speak in favor of General Plan Amendment 85-8. Receiving no response, the Chairman asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Receiving no response, the Chairman asked for discussion at the table. Minutes of Planning Commission November 19, 1985 Page 2 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 85-8 - CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE CONTINUED Discussion was held on Block 273 (Assessor1s Page 27 of Book 374) if this shouldn't be Tourist Commercial rather than Neighborhood Commercial; clari- fication on boundaries; clarification of uses tied to Title 17; continuing proposal, and whether or not this would have to be renoticed; plans for zone change to obtai n cons i s tency, and schedul i ng of a study sess ion to go over said proposal. The Chairman closed the public hearing at 7:26 p.m. - Motion by Commissioner Washburn to continue General Plan Amendment 85-8 to a study session on December 4, 1985, at 6:00 p.m., second by Commissioner Mell i nger. Approved 5-0 3. General Plan Amendment 85-9 - City of Lake Elsinore - Staff presented proposal to amend a portion of the City's General Plan Land Use Map from Neighborhood Commercial and High Density Residential (12.1-32 dwelling units per acre, apartments; 12.1-20 dwelling units per acre, condominiums) to Medium Density Residential (6.1-12.0 dwelling units per acre), for 12r acres located between Interstate 15 and Pottery Street; Lookout Street and Main Street. The Chairman opened the public hearing at 7:30 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of General Plan Amendment 85-9. Receiving no response, the Chairman asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Receiving no response, the Chairman asked for discussion at the table. Commissioner Saathoff stated that this does not go to Main Street from Look- out; it goes to the alley of Main Street. There is an area from Flint Street up to Ellis, bordered by Main Street and the freeway presently zoned Neighbor- hood Commercial--they are splitting that area in half, reducing a portion to Commercial and a portion to Medium Density. When that area was originally de- signated, the intent was to have sufficient sized parcel to entice commercial development on that corner. Discussion was held on existing zoning; if approved, initiate R-2 Zone Change as soon as possible; lot sizes and what could be built, and proposal being within the Infill Project Area. - The Chairman asked the Secretary if there was any written communications. The Secretary answered in the negative. The Chairman closed the public hearing at 7:35 p.m. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to recommend adoption of Negative Declaration, approve General Plan Amendment 85-9 and adoption of Resolution No. 85-9, second by Commissioner Washburn, entitled as follows: Approved 5-0 RESOLUTION NO. 85-9 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 85-9 4. General Plan Amendment 85-10 - City of Lake Elsinore - Staff presented proposal to amend a portion of the City's General Plan Land Use Map from: AREA A: High Density Residential (12.1-32 dwelling units per acre, apartments; 12.1-20 dwelling units per acre, condominiums) to Medium Density (6.1-12.0 dwelling units per acre) for 5 acres located 732 feet northeast of the intersection of Grand Avenue and Machado Street. AREA B: High Density Residential to Low Density Residential (0-6 dwelling units per acre) for 319 acres located northeast of the intersection of Malaga Road and Old Highway 71. - - - Minutes of Planning Commission November 19, 1985 Page 3 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 85-10 - CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE CONTINUE~ The Chairman opened the public hearing at 7:40 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of General Plan Amendment 85-10. Receiving no response, the Chairman asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Mrs. Beverly Gibson, 15171 West Grand Avenue, Lake Elsinore, asked what the square footage was for the carports? Mrs. Gibson was informed that she was addressing another project. Mrs. Gibson asked to be allowed to speak when the project she was concerned with came up. There being no one else wishing to speak on the subject, the Chairman asked for discussion at the table. Discussion was held on Area A, initiating the R-2 Zone Change as soon as possible. The Chairman closed the public hearing at 7:43 p.m. Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to recommend adoption of Negative Declaration, approve General Plan Amendment 85-10, for both areas, and adoption of Resolu- tion 85-10, second by Commissioner Barnhart, entitled as follows: Approved 5-0 RESOLUTION NO. 85-10 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 85-10 5. General Plan Amendment 85-11 - City of Lake Elsinore - Staff presented proposal to amend the Environmental Resources Management Element, specifically, the Out- door Recreation Chapter of the General Plan, by setting guidelines and basic standards for the formation of a CityWide multi-purpose trail system." Staff stated that the most important aspect of this General Plan Amendment will be the requirement that a Master Plan of Trails be prepared. Staff will be preparing this Master Plan of Trails with the assistance of interested community groups. The Master Plan of Trails will be the actual guidelines for trail de- velopment; it will be very specific including: specific trail locations, main- tenance schedules and cost. Staff is recommending that the map of proposed trails (Exhibit I) be approved in concept, and incorporated into the Master Plan of Trails, to be completed at a later date. The Chairman opened the public hearing at 7:44 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of General Plan Amendment 85-11. Receiving no response, the Chairman asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Receiving no response, the Chairman asked for discussion at the table. Discussion was held on after the Master Plan of Trails is adopted, if an ordi- nance will be required to exact that type of dedication from any development that would be adjacent to any of these trails. Mr. Miller stated that what we are recommending is that a framework be adopted, and the Master Plan of Trails be adopted by City Council. We felt that putting the actual Master Plan in the General Plan would inhibit the necessary modifica- tions and changes to the trail system, that might be necessary, but since the framework is there, then we would need to follow that up with implementation measures, to implement the General Plan. The Master Plan of Trails would be the implementation measure of the General Plan, and dedications would be re- quired as new tracts came in that were affected by the Master Plan of Trails. Discussion ensued on the proposed map (Exhibit I), pertaining to matters that still need to be resolved (maintenance, liability, actual construction and right-of-way); staff's meetings with the committee who prepared the map, and if they were aware of the dedications. Minutes of Planning Commission November 19, 1985 Page 4 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 85-11 - CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE CONTINUED Staff stated that the next step is to sit down with the Trails Committee, Engineering Division and determine which areas this map is incompatible with as it exists, and that is when the modifications will occur. The Chairman closed the public hearing at 7:52 p.m. Motion by Commissioner Washburn to recommend adoption of Negative Declaration, approve General Plan Amendment 85-11, and adoption of Resolution No. 85-11, ___ second by Commissioner Barnhart, entitled as follows: Approved 5-0 RESOLUTION NO. 85-11 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 85-11 6. General Plan Amendment 85-12 - City of Lake Elsinore - Staff presented proposal to amend the Circulation Element of the General Plan changing the vehicular traffic corridor classification of Terra Cotta Road from Lakeshore Drive to Pierce Street from a Major (100 feet right-of-way and 76 feet curb-to-curb) to a Secondary (80 feet of right-of-way and 64 feet curb-to-curb). The Chairman opened the public hearing at 7:55 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of General Plan Amendment 85-12. Receiving no response, the Chairman asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Receiving no response, the Chairman asked for discussion at the table. Discussion was held on being more site specific (exactly where Terra Cotta Road goes into Pierce Street); trail system and precise alignment; section c, of staff report referring to grading (the grading and also the cut on the slope has been done for months); whether or not this was graded at the reduced~right- of-way; when dealing with topographical areas, may want to look at grading plan or a grading ordinance concerning such items, and Terra Cotta Road to Lakeshore to Pierce needing clarity on precise alignment. --- The Chairman closed the public hearing at 8:02 p.m. Motion by Commiss ioner Mell i nger to recommend adoption of Nega ti ve Dec1 ara tion, approve General Plan Amendment 85-12 and adoption of Resolution No. 85-12, second by Commissioner Saathoff, entitled as follows: Approved 5-0 RESOLUTION NO. 85-12 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 85-12 BUSINESS ITEMS 1. Residential Project 85-16 - Frank Buccella (Chehade Engineering) - Staff pre- sented proposal to construct a 192 unit apartment complex, with provisions for two (2) pools, laundry facilities and rental office on 8.48:t acres, located ap- proximately 732 feet east of the intersection of Machado Street and Grand Avenue --- The Chairman asked if the applicant was in the audience, if he had received a copy of the conditions and if there were any concerns. Mr. Bucce11a stated that he received a copy of the conditions and has no con- cern with them as stated. The Chairman informed Mrs. Beverly Gibson that this was the item she wanted to address, and asked if she would like to state her concerns. Minutes of Planning Commission November 19, 1985 Pa ge 5 RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 85-16 - FRANK BUCCELLA (CHEHApE ENGINEERING) CONTINUED Mrs. Gibson asked what size the carports would be (square footage). Mrs. Gibson was informed that the standard size of parking area is 9 x 18. -- Commissioner Mellinger stated that per site plan, the minimum parking space is aligned, but often the supports for the carports will interfere with the movement in and out of the parking space, and the size of the parking space being standard really reduces that sometimes if not closely checked. Mrs. Gibson asked if the applicant is allowed to build in phases, is there a time line for this? Mr. Miller stated that there is no time limit on the construction of the units, but all of the street improvements along the entire length of the project on Grand must be completed before the release of any units, so that all of the street improvements will be done prior to completion of the units in Phase I. Mrs. Betty Brown, 121 South Spring Street, Lake Elsinore, asked how many parking spaces would be provided. Mrs. Brown was irtformed that the applicant is providing a total of 387 park- ing spaces with 195 covered, 192 open and 8 handicap. -- Discussion was held on whether or not this project was discretionary; impacts on transportation--trips generated from the site and the cumulative effects and what specific mitigation measures would address these impacts identified; whether or not the Sheriff's Department has reviewed and commented on project; roofing material proposed for the project; adding CC & R's to restrict tenants from parking their trucks, boats, dish antennae in the front yards. Mr. Miller stated that regarding the CC & R's, that typically CC & R's would not be applied to a apartment project, since it is a single owner. If you have specific concerns it would be most appropriate to attach a condition. Discussion ensued on location of tot lots; laundry facilities and if they were adequate; cumulative impacts on circulation and developers participating in capital facilities; impact on school system, and traffic circulation and main- tenance, and a Negative Declaration being appropriate. Mr. Miller recommended that the following be added as a condition: tiThe use of parking area shall be limited to parking of passenger vehicles and storage or parking of trailers, boats or commercial vehicles shall be prohibited." Discussion ensued on the above recommended condition, pertaining to the storage of boats. Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to deny project based upon traffic and cumula- tive impacts not being mitigated, second by Commissioner Saathoff. 1-4 Commissioners: Saathoff, Washburn, Barnhart and Dominguez voting no -- Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to approve Residential Project 85-16 with staff recommendations with the additional condition "That a designated area, to be approved by the Planning Department, be provided for the parking of boats, motorhomes and recreational vehicles." Commissioner Washburn asked if the maker of the motion would consider the size of the designated area or if this was being left up to staff. Commissioner Saathoff stated only the excess spaces over and above the required one and one half could be used. Second by Commissioner Washburn with discussion. Commissioner Washburn stated that he feels that this is probably the last high density project that he would see out in that area, towards Machado. Thinks that it was a mistake, in the first place, that these sites received R-3 Zoning, Minutes of Planning Commission November 19, 1985 Page 6 RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 85-16 - FRANK BUCCELLA (CHEHADE ENGINEERING) CONTINUED and will probably not vote for any further high density projects out in that area, at this point in time; unless staff, Council and Planning Commissioners work on the General Plan and designate areas which would have sort of tiered levels in density and decide what areas are applicable for a higher density, medium density and low density. There being no further discussion at the table, the Chairman called for the vo te . _ Approved 4-1 Commissioner Mellinger voting no PLANNING DIVISION CONDITIONS: 1. Applicant shall meet all applicable City Codes and Ordinances. 2. All items depicted on site plan shall be provided as indicated unless otherwise modified by the Planning Commission and/or Design Review Board. 3. App1 icant is to meet all conditions of approval prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Use and Occupancy. 4. All carport parking spaces are to clearly identify individual parking spaces for the tenants within the complex. To accomplish this, the spaces are to be numbered so as to correspond with the renta 1 uni ts . 5. Meet Elsinore Union High School District and Lake Elsinore School District requirements for off-setting overcrowding. 6. Meet County Fi re Department requi rements for fi re protection. 7. All off-site improvements along Grand Avenue, and the internal project circulation loop shall be completed prior to the release of util ities for any units, subject to the approval of the Com- munity Development Director. - 8. The proposed phasing schedule shall be adhered to, as indicated on submitted site plan. 9. All recreational amenities outlined within Phase I shall be com- pleted prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS: 10. Meet all requi rements of Ordi nance No. 571. 11. Meet all requirements of Ordinance No. 572. 12. Meet all requirements of Ordinance No. 636. 13. Meet all requirements of Resolution No. 83-78. 14. Meet all requirements of Resolution No. 77-39. 15. Meet all requirements of Resolution No. 83-75. 16. Dedicate underground water rights to the City of Lake Elsinore per Ordinance No. 529. - 17. Dedicate additional right-of-way along Grand Avenue to provide for a 50-foot one-half street ultimate right-of-way. 18. THAT A DESIGNATED AREA, TO BE APPROVED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, BE PROVIDED FOR THE PARKING OF BOATS, MOTORHOMES AND RECREATIONAL VEHICLES. Minutes of Planning Commission November 19, 1985 Page 7 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S REPORT Mr. Miller stated that he had nothing to report. PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION -- Commissioner Saathoff: Only one comment to staff, I noticed that some time ago there was a Airport Noise Symposium in Los Angeles, and that the City Council recommended that certain people from the Airport Committee and Public Space Commissioners be appointed to attend the meeting. I would hope, in the future, that when there are certain items of extreme concern to the Planning Commission that perhaps representation from that body also be requested. Commissioner Mellinger: On the complaint forms, are these actually filed or are you expecting us to fill these out some more or are these actually being looked into at this time? Mr. Miller stated that we are in the process of looking into these and will report back to you at the next meeting. Would like to bring to your attention the letter from our City Attorney, John Harper, he gave a very quick response to certain questions we had. As we are well aware, we do not have legal counsel at the meeting and that is understandable. However, if you note the last page, he will answer any questions from a legal stand- point. Concerning the Master Plan and Capital Improvements Program, one of the functions of the Planning Agency, which includes the Planning Commission, would be to review - those Capital Improvement Programs. I think perhaps one of the studies that could take place would be some sort of actual determination of existing capacities of roads, such as Machado or major roads. Based upon not only existing development, but developments, at least subdivisions and projects that have been approved both in the City and County Areas. Something that would give us some sort of ballpark figure so that when we do look at annexations, subdivisions, in those general areas where the extensions have not been made, we can have another basis to make our decisions. I think that the question of Grand has quite an impact on the general west side, and if there is some sort of indication as to what it is going to take to get that extension there, as the actual possibility of a Capital Improvements Program taking place or development, whatever. At least some sort of report and consideration in that we actually do get involved and review the Capital Improvement Program. Basically, this is required by State Law, but often Planning Commissions don't do that, but in this City, I believe that with all of the cumulative impacts that are taking place (one of our biggest concerns in this City would be the infra- structure, that was identified at a joint study session with all of the City leaders). I think that the Capital Improvements Program should be reviewed very closely with Planning Agency as well as Council and staff. Commissioner Washburn: Code Enforcement should look at the debris left behind Circle K on Graham Avenue. Would like to have the Chairman, myself and other Planning Commissioners, at some point, talk to Mr. r~iller about the Infill Project Area. Commissioner Mellinger stated that this was going to take place at a study session in January. It was mentioned that if you have certain specific areas, that they be given to Mr. Miller for his review so that he wouldn't have to go into this col d. Commissioner Barnhart: Nothi ng to report. Chairman Dominguez: Nothi ng to report. Minutes of Planning Commission November 19, 1985 Page 8 There being no further business, the Lake Elsinore Planning Commission adjourned at 8:50 p.m. Motion by Commissioner Washburn, second by Commissioner Mellinger. Approved 5-0 Approved, ~~~~ - Cha i rman ~espe~tful1Y ~. ~dstaff 7 Planning Commission Secreta ry ...-.II - HI NUTES 0 F HELD ON THE LAKE ELSINORE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 1985 MEMBERS PRESENT were Community Development Director Miller, Landscape Architect Kobata and Assistant Planner Coleman. BUS I NESS ITEMS - 1. Residential Project 85-16 - Frank Buccella (Chehade Engineering) - Proposal to construct a 192 unit apartment complex, with provisions for two (2) pools, 1 aundry facil i ti es and rental 0 ffi ce on 8.48r acres, located approximately 732 feet east of the intersection of Machado Street and Grand Avenue. Discussion was held on landscaping plan and internal parking. Project approved subject to the following conditions: 1. Applicant shall submit precise landscaping and irrigation plans, which shall include additional foundation plantings and enhanced entry treat- ments, subject to the review and approval of the Design Review Board. 2. The Sand Pit Play Area shall be separated from Grand Avenue with wrought iron fencing or be relocated to an internal project area, to be approved by the Community Development Director. 3. A Directory Map shall be erected at each entry to provide location and addresses for all units, subject to the approval of the Community De- velopment Director. - 4. Carport designs and construction shall be subject to the approval of the Building Division and Community Development Director. 5. Trash enclosures shall be relocated from intersections to areas that will not hinder visibility, to be approved by the Community Development Direc- tor. 6. The two (2) i nterna 1 parki ng a reas that encroach into the compl ex I s buil d- ing areas shall be revised to reflect an improved turn-around radius, to be approved by the Community Development Director. 7. A five foot (51) perimeter landscaping buffer shall be maintained between parking spaces that abut the external property boundaries. 8. The internal sidewalk system shall be modified to support a varied land- scaping design that will improve the visual impression conveyed to all views, to be approved by the Community Development Director. 9. Streetside elevations shall be enhanced through additional materials and/or architectural features including rotating typical side elevation depicted in drawings so it is oriented towards Grand Avenue. 10. All buildings shall be constructed as depicted on drawings or modified by staff or Design Review Board. 11. All roof mounted or ground support equipment shall be architecturally -- screened so as not to be visible from adjoining property or public streets. 12. Applicant shall plant street trees, minimum 15-gallon, inside the public right-of-way wherever possible, to be approved by the Community Develop- ment Director. 13. Street trees shall be planted a maximum of 30 feet apart. 14. All open areas are to be subject to vegetation treatment permanently main- tained with an automatic sprinkler system. 15. Only Class "A" fire retardent roofing materials shall be used. 16. Meet all applicable City Codes and Ordinances. Minutes of Design Review Board November 19, 1985 Pa ge 2 RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 85-16 - FRANK BUCCELLA (CHEHADE ENGINEERING) CONTINUED 17. All conditions of approval are to be met prior to Building Divisionis issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 18. Low level lighting shall be located at appropriate intervals along internal pathways within apartment complex. To be designed to provide sufficient illumination and circle radius to aid evening strollers, approved by the Riverside County Sheriff's Department and Community Development Director. ...." 19. Grading plans are to be approved by the Engineering Department. 20. All trash enclosures are to be effectively screened from all public views . 21. All project identification signage shall be subject to the review and approval by the Design Review Board, prior to the issuance of a City Sign Permit. 22. Security lighting shall be installed within the carports on-site to provide an appropriate illuminating intensity and circle radius for the subject ~tructures, to be approved by the Community Development Director and Riverside County Sheriff's Department. 23. Security lighting shall be placed at strategic locations on buildings and on-site, to be approved by the Riverside County Sheriff's Depart- ment and Community Development Director. All such lighting shall be directed on-site with effective shields to prevent the emission of g 1 a re . 24. Stamped concrete bands shall be incorporated within the two (2) entry- ways to the apartment facility off of Grand Avenue to alleviate pave- ment monotony and to lend definition to the project, as approved by the Community Development Director. ...", 25. A decorative s~+~t-fa6e-9+e6k wall be constructed along the entire perimeter of the complex. Colors and textural qualities shall be chosen to provide an appropriate interface with building elevations on-site, as approved by Community Development Director. 26. Fencing shall be erected along pool area perimeter and will consist of a decorative wrought iron design, with landscaping treatment, to be approved by the Community Development Director. 27. The laundry facility shall be subject to review by the Community Develop- ment Director as to the actual building elevations and exterior materials utilized with the structure1s design. 28. All planting areas shall be separated from paved areas with a six-inch (6") high concrete curb. 2. Industrial Project 85-6 - Art Nelson - Proposal to construct 210 units for the second phase of a mini-storage facility on 1.83 acres, located at the north- west intersection of E1 Toro Road and Riverside Drive. Proposal was approved subject to the following conditions: 1. A precise landscaping/irrigation plan shall be submitted to the Design Review Board for their review and approval. 2. Building elevations and color rendering depicting project shall be con- structured as indicated on said plans. Any proposed changes will require resubmitta1 to the Design Review Board. 3. All roof mounted or ground support equipment incidental to the development shall be architecturally screened so that they are not visible from neigh- boring property or public streets. ...." i Minutes of Design Review Board November 19, 1985 Page 3 INDUSTRIAL PROJECT 85-6 - ART NELSON CONTINUED ~ 4. All planting areas shall have permanent and automatic sprinkler systems. 5. Applicant shall plant, 15-ga11on minimum, street trees inside of the public right-of-way, and will be a minimum of 30 feet apart on center within the planter areas. 6. If applicable, applicant shall provide erosion control vegetation on all embankments within project site, to be appr~ved by Community Development Director. 7. All on-site lighting shall be shielded to prevent the emission of glare onto neighboring streets, the interstate highway and adjacent property, to be approved by Community Development Director. 8. All signage is to be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director prior to the issuance of a permit. 9. All trash areas and storage should be architecturally screened and ap- proved by Community Development Director. 10. All planting areas shall be separated with a six-inch (6") high concrete curb enclosure to separate designated planting space from paved surfaces. ~ 11. Applicant shall provide sod treatment as an alternative to groundcover in areas designated to receive such a vegetational application on the future landscape plan. 12. Applicant to meet all applicable City Codes and Ordinances. 13. Applicant shall meet all project conditions prior to obtaining a Certifi- cate of Use and Occupancy. 3. Residential Project 85-20 and Residential Project 85-21 - William S. Buck - These projects were not considered as the applicant was not present. ~ ~~ Nelson Miller, Community Develop- ment Director MINUTES OF HELD ON THE 3RD LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION DAY OF DECEMBER 1985 THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:00 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Commissioner Barnhart. ROLL CALL found Commissioners: Saathoff, Mellinger, Washburn, Barnhart and Chair- man Domi nguez. - Also present were Community Development Director Miller and Assistant Planner Coleman. MINUTE ACTION Motion by Commissioner Washburn to approve minutes of November 19, 1985, as submitted, second by Commissioner Barnhart. Approved 5-0 PUBLI C HEARl NGS 1. Zone Change 85-3 - Winchester Associates (Lou F. Withrow) - Staff presented applicant's request to withdraw proposal for pre-annexation zone change. Motion by Commissioner Barnhart to approve withdrawal, second by Commissioner Washburn. Approved 5-0 B US I NESS ITEMS 1. Single-Family Residence - 517 Ellis Street - Merle Watson - Staff presented - proposal to move a single-family residence onto a lot located 400 feet north of the intersection of Flint Street and Ellis Street. The Chairman asked if the applicant was in the audience, if he had received a copy of the conditions and if there were any concerns. Mr. Watson stated that he received a copy of the conditions and has no con- cern with them as stated. A brief discussion was held on the location of the move-on (being visible from the freeway ramp), and having it look good. Motion by Commission~r Mellinger to approve Single-Family Residence at 517 Ellis Street (Move-on) with staff recommendations, second by Commissioner Saa tho ff . Approved 5-0 PLANNING DIVISION CONDITIONS: 1. Applicant is to meet all applicable City Codes and Ordinances. 2. All conditions of approval are to be met prior to Building Divisionis issuance of a Certificate of Use and Occupancy and release of utilities. - 3. All items depicted on site plan shall be provided as indicated on the site plan unless otherwise modified by the Planning Commission and/or Design Review Board. 4. Meet all County Fire Department requirements for fire protection. 5. Applicant is to substitute proposed 0 & G driveway treatment with con- crete or asphalt paving. 6. The approval to construct the proposed single-family residential move- on located at 517 Ellis Street shall be contingent upon the approval of General Plan Amendment 85-9. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS: Minutes of Planning Commission December 3, 1985 Page 2 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE - 517 ELLIS STREET - MERLE WATSON CONTINUED 2. Commercial Project 85-8 - American Legion - Staff recommends that Commercial Project 85-8 be removed from the agenda due to concerns over the lack of development information provided by the applicant. At this time, Planning Division feels that a Conditional Use Permit would be a more appropriate vehicle for determining if the proposed use is applicable for the area, and as such is requiring that the applicants resubmit their request in the form of a Conditional Use Permit application. Motion by Commissioner Barnhart to approve withdrawal of Commercial Project 85-8 and have applicant apply for a Conditional Use Permit, second by Com- missioner Mellinger. Approved 5-0 3. Industrial Project 85-6 - Secured Development - Staff presented proposal to construct the second phase of a mini warehouse facility, to consist of 210 units, located on the northwest intersection of El Toro Road and Riverside Dri ve . ...., The Chairman asked if the applicant was in the audience. Being as the ap- plicant was not present, the Chairman asked for discussion at the table. Discussion was held on whether or not proposal has been reviewed by the De- sign Review Board; condition number 7, changing the word "on-site" to "out- door"; condition number 11, pertaining to the removal of temporary signage; culverts coming under the freeway and drainage from the freeway, and fee arrangement for drainage. Motion by Commissioner Barnhart to approve Industrial Project 85-6 with staff recommendations, and amending condition number 7, changing the word "on-site" to "outdoor", second by Commi ss ioner Washburn. Approved 5-0 PLANNING DIVISION CONDITIONS: 1. All items depicted on site plan shall be provided as indicated on site plan unless otherwise modified by the Planning Commission and/or Design Review Board. 2. Applicant to meet all applicable City Codes and Ordinances. 3. Applicant shall meet all project conditions prior to obtaining a Certificate of Use and Occupancy and release of utilities. 4. Issuance of a Negative Declaration. 5. Applicant is to meet all Riverside County H'ealth Department require- ments. ...., 6. Storage of hazardous or combustible materials will not be permitted. Minutes of Planning Commission December 3, 1985 Pa ge 3 INDUSTRIAL PROJECT 85-6 - SECURED DEVELOPMENT CONTINUED 7. The facility shall not permit the OUTDOOR storage of boats, motor- homes, trailers, roof mounted microwave receivers, and trucks over one-ton capacity. - 8. All storage of goods, materials, and wares shall be placed and screened in appropriately designated approved units. 9. A finding of no significant impact upon the environment. 10. All non-paved areas shall be landscaped including slopes, with erosion control growth, a precise irrigation/landscaping plan for these areas, shall be approved by the Community Development Director. 11. Applicant shall remove all temporary signage on and off site prior to issuance of building permits for second phase. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS: 12. Meet all requi rements 0 f Ordi nance No. 571. 13. Meet all requirements of Ordinance No. 572. 14. Meet all requirements of Ordinance 'No. 636. 15. Meet all requirements of Ordinance No. 529. 16. Meet all requirements of Resolution No. 83-78. - 17. Meet all requirements of Resolution No. 77-39. 18. Meet all requirements of Resolution No. 83-12. 19. Dedicate underground water rights to the City of Lake Elsinore per Ordinance No. 529. 4. Industrial Project 85-7 - Robert & Barbara Baker - Staff requested that Indus- trial Project 85-7 be continued to a later date due to delays in the applicant's submission of revised development plans. A brief discussion was held on whether or not a date for continuance should be set. Motion by Commissioner Washburn to continue Industrial Project 85-7, second by Commissioner Saathoff. Approved 5-0 5. Residential Project 85-18 - John Swanson/J Mar Realty - Staff presented appli- cant's request to continue Residential Project 85-18 to the meeting of January 7, 1 986. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to continue Residential Project 85-18 to the meeting of January 7, 1986, second by Commissioner Mellinger. Approved 5-0 6. Residential Project 85-20 and Residential Project 85-21 - William S. Buck - Commissioner Barnhart asked to be excused. Staff presented proposal to construct two (2) duplex buildings on three (3) adjacent parcels, located 135 feet west of the intersection of Cowell Street and Lakeshore Drive. The Chairman asked if the applicant was in the audience. Being as the applicant was not present, the Chairman asked for discussion at the table. t\. Minutes of Planning Commission December 3, 1985 Page 4 RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 85-20 AND RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 85-21 - WILLIAM S. BUCK CONTINUED Discussion was held on the site plan pertaining to parking (isolated open parking spaces and the number of spaces required); rental agreement to indicate assigned parking spaces; any change of occupancy should require Planning Department approval (because of this it will have to be recorded on the Deed). A lengthy discussion was held on condition number 10, regarding the cost of improvements in lieu of actual construction and the need to determine that cost; requirement for sidewalk being omitted (in the past sidewalks have been omitted in that area because there is not room); amending condi- tion to a lien agreement for construction of improvements on Ryan Avenue, which can include paving, curb and gutter, street lights, and be an equi- . table fair share that the applicant will participate in. Discussion ensued on continuing the proposal, and the collection of fees for improvements on a formula basis and this being reviewed by City Council, there should be a Resolution or Ordinance that governs show these fees are placed in the City coffers. - Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to continue Residential Project 85-20 and Residential Project 85-21 to the next regularly scheduled meeting, second by Commissioner Saathoff. Chairman asked if there was any further discussion. Commissioner Mellinger amended his motion to include as a condition "that the Planning Department will review rental agreement concerning parking", second by Commissioner Saathoff. Approved 4-0 Commissioner Barnhart excused Commissioner Barnhart returned to the table. - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S REPORT Mr. Miller stated that you have in your packets tonight a report that was prepared for City Council. At their last meeting, they requested an update on the progress of Title 17. I have made several observations regarding Title 17, and the Interim Community Development Director John Freiman had also prepared a set of observations regarding the existing draft. Based upon those observations, I have presented several alternatives to City Council, and recommended that they consider starting the entire process again, and employ a consultant to work closely with staff to re- vise Title 17, and present those to the Planning Commission and City Council in February. The concept that I presented was to identify the critical areas of the Zoning Code that would most impact inpending development and present those by February for study sessions, and providing that those were agreeable to Planning Commission and City Council proceed immediately thereafter to adoption of those critical sections. We would then identify other items to be addressed by the end of the physical year, and the balance of areas, that were perhaps less critical, we could undertake to revise in the next physical year. City Council approved that recommendation, and conse- quently we are in the process of finding a consultant, signing an agreement and re- vising those drafts. We will be presenting those to Planning Commission as soon as they are available, piecemeal, so that you will have a chance to look at them. - The area of assistance that I have requested from City Council and Planning Commission is to help staff identify those areas that are most critical, so if perhaps in the next week or so the Planning Commission could address to myself, either verbially or in written form, the areas that you as Planning Commissioners perceive to be most critical in revision of Title 17. Discussion ensued on the completion date for all of Title 17. PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION I Minutes of Planning Commission December 3, 1985 Pa ge 5 PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION CONTINUED Commi ss ioner Saathoff: Nothing to report. - Commissioner Mellinger: Nothi ng to report. Commissioner Washburn: Nothing to report. Commissioner Barnhart: Asked staff if they had a time schedule from Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District on the sewer, for both sides of the lake? Mr. Miller asked if she wanted current or future projects? Commissioner Barnhart stated both. Mr. Miller stated that there is a time schedule for the current project, and it will be made available to the Planning Commissioners. As to the future projects you will have to contact Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District. Chairman Dominguez: - Nothi ng to report. There being no further business, the Lake Elsinore Planning Commission adjourned at 7:53 p.m. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff, second by Commissioner Washburn. Approved 5-0 APpro;~# d ~~:~~ Fred Domi ~ ~ Chairman Respectfully s ~ Linda Gri nds ta ff Planning Commission Secretary MINUTES OF HELD ON THE LAKE ELSINORE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD 3RD DAY OF DECEMBER 1985 MEMBERS PRESENT were Landscape Architect Kobata and Assistant Planner Coleman. BUSI NESS ITEMS 1. Single-Family Residence - 517 Ellis Street (Move-on) - Merle Watson - Pro- posal to move a single-family residence onto a lot located 400 feet north of the intersection of Flint Street and Ellis Street. - Project approved subject to the following conditions: 1. All slopes on-site shall be planted with erosion control vegetation, as approved by the Community Development Director. 2. Applicant is to install a permanent sprinkler system for all plant- ingareas. 3. Applicant is to meet all applicable City Codes and Ordinances. 4. All roof mounted or ground equipment incidental to development shall be architecturally screened so that they are not visible from neighbor- ing property or publ ic streets. 5. Building elevations shall be maintained or reconstructed as depicted on plans, or as modified by the Design Review Board. 6. If feasible, applicant shall plant trees inside the public right-of- way, to be approved by the Community Development Director. 7. Street trees shall be planted a maximum of 30-feet apart, and be a minimum of 15-gallon. 8. All conditions of approval are to be met prior to Building Divisionis issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy and release of utilities. - 9. Applicant shall submit a grading plan, to be approved by the Engineer- i ng Depa rtment. 2. Commercial Project 85-7 REVISED - J. Ward Dawson/Lanting - Proposal was con- tinued to a future date to allow Riverside County Flood Control time to review and comment on revised proposal. 3. Industrial Project 85-7 - Robert and Barbara Baker c/o George Schmiedel - Pro- posal was continued to a future date to allow applicant time to revise develop- ment plan. . 4. Residential Project 85-18 - John Swanson/J Mar Realty - Proposal was continued to January 7, 1986, per applicant's request. 5. Residential Project 85-20 and Residential Project 85-21 - William S. Buck - Pro- posal to construct two (2) duplex buildings on three (3) adjacent parcels, located 135 feet west of the intersection of Cowell St~eet and Lakeshore Drive. Discussion was held on condition number 12, pertaining to low pressure sodium lighting. - Project approved subject to the following conditions: 1. All roof mounted or ground support equipment shall be architecturally screened so as not to be visible from neighboring property or public streets. 2. Building elevations shall be constructed as depicted on plans, or modified by Design Review Board or Planning Commission, any other changes will require resubmittal to the Design Review Board. Minutes of Design Review Board December 3, 1985 Page 2 RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 85-20 AND RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 85-21 - WILLIAM S. BUCK CONTINUED 3. Applicant shall plant street trees inside the public right-of-way. Variety and location to be reviewed and approved by Design Review Board. - 4. Street trees shall be planted a maximum of 30-feet apart, and be a minimum of 15-ga11on. 5. All slopes shall be planted with erosion control vegetation, to be reviewed and approved by Design Review Board. 6. All conditions are to be met prior to Building Divisionis issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy and release of utilities. 7. The applicant shall vary the architectural style of the two (2) structures by altering the use of plant~ons, stucco and wood siding, roof material and exterior colors used. In addition to differing from each other, the two (2) duplexes shall differ from other struc- tures the applicant has constructed in the area of the project in question, as approved by the Design Review Board. 8. All fencing material shall be shown in detail at Planning Commission meeting. 9. All landscape areas shall be irrigated with permanent sprinkler system. 10. The applicant shall incorporate existing evergreen trees into project. 11. Grading plans shall be reviewed and approved by Design Review Board. - 12. All outside lighting shall be +ew-~pessijpe-See~ijffi-a~e-sRa++-Be located and shielded to minimize the reflection of glare onto public right-of- way and adjoining properties. 13. Applicant shall meet all applicable Codes and Ordinances. 6. Residential Project 85-3 - Surfside Builders - Proposal to construct two (2) two-story structures, Building "A" housing eight (8) units and Building "B" housing two (2) units above a ten (10) stall carport, located 250 feet north- westerly of the intersection of Lookout and Flint Street. Discussion was held on elevations and landscape plan submitted; condition number 5, deleting the words "wheel stops"; condition number 7, deleting the words "low sodium". Project approved subject to the following conditions: 1. Buildings shall be constructed as depicted on plans or modified by the Design Review Board. Any changes will require resubmitta1 to the Design Review Board. 2. All landscape areas shall have a permanent automatic sprinkler system. - 3. Applicant shall intall street trees, minimum l5-gallon, a maximum of 30-feet apart inside the public right-of-way. 4. All signage is to be by City Permit. 5. All planting areas are to be separated from parking areas by 6-inch- 8-inch (6"-8") high curbs ep-wRee+-ste~s. 6. All roof mounted or ground support equipment shall be architecturally screened. 7. Applicant shall provide lew-See~ijffi lighting of an acceptable inten- sity within the enclosed garage area and site. Minutes of Design Review Board December 3, 1985 Page 3 RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 85-3 - SURFSIDE BUILDERS CONTINUED 8. All 1 ighting shall be shielded so as not to reflect or produce glare onto neighboring property or public roads. 9. The trash enclosure shall be moved to the western property line near the three (3) open parking spaces. . 10. All conditions are to be met prior to Building Divisionis issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy and release of utilities. ...." 11. All block walls shall be approved by the Community Development Di rector. 12. A landscaping plan shall be approved by the Design Review Board. 13. App1 icant shall save trees as indicated on Site Plans. - ~~ Nelson Miller, Community Develop- ment Di rector - MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER 1985 THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:03 P.M. - PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Chairman Dominguez. ROLL CALL found Commissioners: Saathoff, Mellinger, Washburn, Barn- hart and Dominguez. Also present were Community Development Director Miller and Assistant Planner Coleman. MINUTE ACTION Motion by Commissioner Washburn to approve minutes of December 3, 1985, as submitted, second by Commissioner Barnhart. Approved 5-0 PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Conditional Use Permit 85-5 - American Legion - Staff presented proposal for a Conditional Use Permit for the operation of an approximately 6,500 square foot American Legion Hall within the C-I, Limited Industrial District, located on the south side of Lakeshore Drive, approximately 300 feet east of the inter- section of Lakeshore Drive and Lucerne Street. - Chairman opened the public hearing at 7:05 p.m., asking if any- one wished to speak in,favor of Conditional Use Permit 85-5. Receiving no response, the Chairman asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Receiving no response, the Chairman closed the public hearing at 7:06 p.m. Discussion was held on plot plan (whether or not this was going to be the final plot plan); ingress/egress for proposal; exist- ing single-family residences, to the west, being within the C-I Zone; condition number 1, adding verbiage "as determined by the Community Development Director", and condition number 2, per- taining to verbiage "until use of the facility commences". Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to approve Conditional Use Permit 85-5 and adoption of a Negative Declaration, with the conditions as presented by staff, and amending condition number 1, by adding verbiage "as determined b:. the Community Develop- ment Director", second by Commissioner Saathoff. Approved 5-0 PLANNING DIVISION CONDITIONS: 1. Use of the proposed facility shall be limited to American Legion activities and social functions, or rental for meetings, not including social functions, to local com- munity organizations, such as Girl Scouts, Boy Scouts, Chamber of Commerce, Board of Realtors, Rotary, or similar organizations, AS DETERMINED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR. 2. This use permit shall be valid for a period of not to ex- ceed two (2) years, until use of the facility commences. After use commences, the use permit shall be reviewed one (1) year after commencement of operations. 3. Design of the facility and required parking shall be sub- ject to review and approval through the standard Design Review process, with all required dedications, improve- ments, and fees. Minutes of Planning Commission December 17, 1985 Page 2 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 85-5 ~ AMERICAN LEGION CONTINUED ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS: 4. Meet all requirements of Ordinance No. 571. 5. Meet all requirements of Ordinance No. 572. 6. Meet all requirements of Ordinance No. 636. 7. Meet all requirements of Ordinance No. 603. 8. Meet all requirements of Ordinance No. 711. 9. Meet all requirements of Resolution No. 83-78. 10. Meet all requirements of Resolution No. 77-39. 11. Meet all requirements of Resolution No. 83-12. 12. Dedicate underground water rights to the City of Lake Elsinore per Ordinance No. 529. - 13. Dedicate twenty-feet (20') right-of-way on Lakeshore Drive per requirements of City General Plan Circulation Element. BUSINESS ITEMS - 1. Single-Family Residence - 610 Lake Street - MFG Housing Corp. _ Staff presented proposal to construct a single-family residence at 610 Lake Street, located 60-feet southeast of the inter- section of Center Street and Lake Street. Chairman asked if the applicant was in the audience, if he had received a copy of the conditions and if there were any con- cerns. Mr. Neil Peake, applicant, stated that he received the condi- tions, but does not have copies of the Ordinances and Resolu- tions that the Engineering Department has listed in their conditions. Mr. Peake was informed that he could pick up copies of the Ordinances and Resolutions from the Planning or Engineering Departments. A brief discussion was held on proposal being in the Infill Project Area, and continuing proposal to allow applicant suf- ficient time to review the Ordinances and Resolutions that pertain to this proposal. - Motion by Commissioner Barnhart to approve Single-Family Resi- dence at 610 Lake Street with staff recommendations. Commissioner Washburn asked if the maker of the motion would include in condition number 1, the following words "CEP 85-6" (the variance that applicant received from City Council) . Commissioner Barnhart amended her motion to include the words "CEP 85-6" in condition number 1, second by Commissioner Mellinger. Approved 5-0 ! I Minutes of Planning Commission December 17, 1985 Page 3 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE = 610 LAKE STREET - MFG HOUSING CONTINUED ~ PLANNING DIVISION CONDITIONS: 1. Applicant shall meet all setbacks, CEP 85-6. 2. Applicant is to meet all city Codes and Ordinances. 3. Structure shall be placed on-site as depicted on plot plan and/or as modified by the Planning commission. 4. Meet all Riverside County Health Department requirements. 5. Applicant is to meet all County Fire Department require- ments for fire protection. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS: ----- 6. Meet all requirements of Ordinance No. 571. 7. Meet all requirements of Ordinance No. 572. 8. Meet all requirements of Ordinance No. 636. 9. Meet all requirements of Ordinance No. 529. 10. Meet all requirements of Resolution No. 83-78. 11. Meet all requirements of Resolution No. 77-39. 12. Meet all requirements of Resolution No. 83-12. 13. Dedicate underground water rights to the City of Lake Elsinore per Ordinance No. 529. 2. Single-Family Residence - 338 Avenue 1 - David B. Inglis - Staff presented proposal to construct a single-family resi- dence at 338 Avenue 1, located 300 feet north of the inter- section of Parkway and Avenue 1. Chairman asked if the applicant was in the audience, if he had received a copy of the conditions and if there were any con- cerns. Mr. Inglis stated that he would like to talk about the Infill Project Area (as proposal is within the Infill Area), and would like to get the Park and Recreation fee and the Capital Im- provement fees waived. Mr. Inglis was informed that the appropriate process would be to file a request with the Community Development and Engineer- ing Department, regarding the specific requests. Those would then be reviewed by staff and appropriate recommendations made to City Council, who would approve the ultimate waiver or deferment. Motion by Commissioner Washburn to approve Single-Family Resi- dence at 338 Avenue 1 with staff recommendations, second by Commissioner Barnhart. Approved 5-0 Minutes of Planning Commission December 17, 1985 Page 4 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE = 338 AVENUE ~ - DAVID INGLIS CONTINUED PLANNING DIVISION CONDITIONS: 1. Applicant shall meet all setbacks. 2. Applicant is to meet all applicable City Codes and Ordinances. - 3. Structure shall be placed on-site as depicted on plot plan and/or as modified by the Planning Commission. 4. Applicant is to meet all County Fire Department require- ments for fire protection. 5. Applicant shall meet all conditions of approval prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or release of utilities. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS: 6. Meet all requirements of Ordinance No. 571- 7. Meet all requirements of Ordinance No. 572. 8. Meet all requirements of Ordinance No. 636. 9. Meet all requirements of Ordinance No. 529. 10. Meet all requirements of Resolution No. . 83-78. 11. Meet all requirements of Resolution No. 77-39. ...., 12. Dedicate underground water rights to the City of Lake Elsinore per Ordinance No. 529. 3. Single-Family Residence - 738 Mill Street - Brent & Kathryn Rigby - Staff presented proposal to construct a single-family residence at 738 Mill Street, located 250 feet east of the intersection of High and Mill Street. The Chairman asked if the applicant was in the audience. Being as the applicant was not present, the Chairman asked for dis- cussion at the table. There being no discussion at the table, the Chairman asked for a motion. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to approve Single-Family Resi- dence at 738 Mill Street with staff recommendations, second by Commissioner Mellinger. Approved 5-0 PLANNING DIVISION CONDITIONS: 1. Applicant shall meet all setbacks. 2. Applicant is to meet all applicable City Codes and Ordinances. - 3. Structure shall be placed on-site as depicted on plot plan and/or as modified by the Planning Commission. 4. Meet all Riverside County Health Department requirements. 5. Applicant is to meet all County Fire Department require- ments for fire protection. Minutes of Planning Commission December 17,1985 Page 5 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE = 738 MILL STREET - BRENT RIGBY CONTINUED ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS: - 6. Meet all requirements of Ordinance No. 571. 7. Meet all requirements of Ordinance No. 572. 8. Meet all requirements of Ordinance No. 636. 9. Meet all requirements of Ordinance No. 529. 10. Meet all requirements of Resolution No. 83-78. 11. Meet all requirements of Resolution No. 77-39. 12. Dedicate underground water rights to the City of Lake Elsinore per Ordinance No. 529. 4. Single-Family Residence - 216 Davis Street - La Fleche Vaudry - Staff presented proposal to construct a single-family residence at 216 Davis Street, located 120 feet southeast of the inter- section of Summer Avenue and Davis street. The Chairman asked if the applicant was in the audience, if he had received a copy of.the conditions and if there were any concerns. - Mr. Fred Crowe of Butterfield Surveys, representing the appli- cant stated that they had no problem with the conditions as stated. Motion by Commissioner Barnhart to approve Single-Family Resi- dence at 216 Davis street with staff recommendations, second by Commissioner Washburn. Approved 5-0 PLANNING DIVISION CONDITIONS: 1. Applicant shall meet all setbacks. 2. Applicant is to meet all applicable City Codes and Ordinances. 3. Structure shall be placed on-site as depicted on plot plan and/or as modified by the Planning Commission. 4. Applicant is to meet all County Fire Department require- ments for fire protection. 5. The project's driveway approach on the northerly section is to be perpendicular to the right-of-way and be setback five-feet (5') from the southerly line at the curb line intersection, as approved by the Community Development Director. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS: 6. Meet all requirements of Ordinance No. 571. 7. Meet all requirements of Ordinance No. 572. 8. Meet all requirements of Ordinance No. 636. Minutes of Planning Commission December 17, 1985 Page 6 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE = 216 DAVIS STREET = LA FLECHE VAUDRY CONTINUED 9. Meet all requirements of Ordinance No. 529. 10. Meet all requirements of Resolution No. 83-78. ll. Meet all requirements of Resolution No. 77-39. 12. Dedicate underground water rights to the City of Lake Elsinore per Ordinance NO. 529. - 5. Residential Project 85-20 and Residential Project 85-21 - William S. Buck Commissioner Barnhart asked to be excused. Staff presented proposal to construct two (2) duplex buildings on three (3) adjacent parcels, located 135 feet west of the intersection of Cowell Street and Lakeshore Drive. staff stated that this proposal was continued from the December 3, 1985 Planning Commission meeting due to concerns on condi- tion number 10, pertaining to the cost of improvements. The City Engineer has indicated that the fee would be seventy-five dollars ($75.00) per front foot. Since each lot has 100 feet of street frontage, 50 feet on Lakeshore Drive and 50 feet on Ryan, the fee would be $7,500.00 per lot. Chairman asked if the applicant was in the audience, if he had received a copy of the conditions and if there were any con- _ cerns. Mr. Buck stated that he received a copy of the conditions, and regarding condition number 10, requested that he be allowed to put in the improvements or sign a lien agreement for the im- provements. Discussion was held on condition number 10, pertaining to adding verbiage so that there is a ceiling; procedure for enacting resolutions and collection of fees (pertaining to staff's memorandum to the Commission). Staff stated that if the Commission desires, condition number 10 could be reworded to: Applicant shall install the required improvements, or pay, or sign a lien agreement for the improve- ments. (As Ordinance No. 572 does require installation of improvements at the time of project construction.) A lengthy discussion was held on condition number 10, pertain- ing to improvements for Lakeshore Drive and Ryan Avenue (ex- cluding Lakeshore Drive, but have applicant install half-street improvements on Ryan Avenue); deleting the condition, or if the condition is to remain amend it to: "In lieu of actual con- struction of improvements on Lakeshore Drive, that a standard lien agreement be signed with the city". Discussion ensued on parking requirements (pertaining to the two (2) isolated open parking spaces recommended for deletion, and if this was discussed at Design Review.) - Minutes of Planning commission December 17, 1985 Page 7 ..--- RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 85-20 AND RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 85-21 = WILLIAM ~ BUCK CONTINUED Motion by Commissioner Washburn to approve Residential Project 85-20 and Residential Project 85-21 with staff recommendations, amending condition number 10, which shall read: "Actual con- struction of improvements on Ryan Avenue (half-street of Ryan Avenue) include street paving, curb, gutter, and street lights, lien agreement with the City and applicant on adjacent project should also be tied in, or called up to provide for the completion of half street paving and curb to Manning Street. Staff stated that he would like to point out that the Commis- sion does not have the authority to waive the improvements on Lakeshore Drive, that is requried by Ordinance. The Commission may wish to make a separate recommendation to City Council. commissioner Washburn amended his motion to delete condition number 10, second by Commissioner Mellinger. Approved 4-0 Commissioner Barnhart excused PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDS TO CITY COUNCIL THAT THE ACTUAL CONSTRUCTION OF.IMPROVEMENTS ON RYAN AVENUE (HALF STREET IMPROVEMENTS ON RYAN AVENUE), INCLUDE STREET PAVING, CURB, GUTTER, AND STREET LIGHTS, LIEN AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY AND THE APPLICANT ON ADJACENT PROJECT SHOULD ALSO BE TIED IN, OR CALLED UP TO PROVIDE FOR THE COMPLETION OF HALF STREET PAVING AND CURB TO MANNING STREET. (REFERENCE ORDINANCE NO. 572). PLANNING DIVISION CONDITIONS: 1. Applicant is to delete the isolated parking spaces on the two (2) lots, and substitute with landscaping treatment. The planting materials are to be approved by the Design Review Board. 2. Vehicular access to the units shall be taken only at the point of street entry designated on the site plan. 3. Applicant is to meet all applicable Codes and Ordinances. 4. Applicant is to meet all Riverside County Health Depart- ment requirements. 5. Applicant is to meet all County Fire Department require- ments for fire protection. 6. All conditions are to be met prior to Building Division's issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or release of utilities. 7. Project shall be developed as indicated on site plan unless otherwise modified by the Planning Commission and/or De- sign Review Board. 8. Applicant shall relocate trash enclosure to an area that will be more accessible to disposal service activities along Ryan Avenue, which shall be approved by the Com- munity Development Director. Minutes of Planning Commission December 17, 1985 Page 8 RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 85-20 AND RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 85-21 = WILLIAM ~ BUCK 9. Open space parking shall be striped and paved according to City standards. 10 . In- -J..i ~..Q f - ac.t uu -cons.tJ;uc.t..iOtl_.o.f. - i~ov.em&tlu -Otl- .R.jtatl A~\:le- -&RQ- :r..a.~esbo-Fe- ~ive- -;b.Re~.udi:R4J" -5'Eree1:- - f>&Y'~l'\~,- -e'tiro a~~\:l~~7-~;b.Q~lk7--&Ra-~Feet--li~1:-s-~el~~-~all ~ -se&t- -9f- ..:these- -ilR~-o.vemen'Es- 4.-nel*i-:RfJ- -des:i~ -ee&t:- -te- t.b& -~;i~ -iJ:l- ~9\iln:t.s - Q.et;Qnn.i-nea- ~ - t.ae. -e:i:t~ - Efl~i-Ae~. DELETED. -..II THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDS TO CITY COUNCIL THAT THE ACTUAL CONSTRUCTION IMPROVEMENTS ON RYAN AVENUE (HALF STREET IMPROVEMENTS ON RYAN AVENUE) INCLUDE STREET PAVING CURB, GUTTER AND STREET LIGHTS, LIEN AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY AND THE APPLICANT ON ADJACENT PROJECT SHOULD ALSO BE TIED IN, OR CALLED UP TO PROVIDE FOR THE COMPLETION OF HALF STREET PAVING AND CURB TO MANNING STREET. (REFERENCE ORDINANCE NO. 572) ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS: 11. Meet all requirements of Ordinance No. 571. 12. Meet all requirements of Ordinance No. 572. 13. Meet all requirements of Ordinance No. 636. 14. Meet all requirements of Ordinance No. 529. 15. Meet all requirements of Resolution No. 83-78. 16. Meet all requirements of Resolution No. 77-39. 17. Dedicate underground water rights to the City of Lake Elsinore per Ordinance No. 529. 18. Dedicate 10-feet of rights-of-way per City General Plan on Lakeshore Drive. -..II COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S REPORT Mr. Miller recommended that a study session be scheduled for January 9, 1986, at 6:00 p.m., to discuss the Infi11 Project Area with the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission agreed to schedule a study session for January 9, 1986, at 6:00 p.m. PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Commissioner Saathoff: -..II Appreciate receiving the report from Design Review. These reports that you have placed in our packets are your recommendations, and I would appreciate it if you would, when there are any significant changes made by Design Review Board, comment on them, perhaps orally. Minutes of Planning Commission December 17,1985 Page 9 PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION CONTINUED Commissioner Me11inqer: - Despite the discussion about the fees, I still feel that sing1e- family residences, that are going to Design Review Board, do not need to come in front of us anYmore. Now that we are getting into our environmental review, a little more properly, we do have a discussion section under the environ- mental evaluation. Basically, what I would like to see is under the discussion of environmental evaluation, in the environmental assessment, that after each item discussed if there is a mitiga- tion measure in the form of a condition, that condition be identi- fied adjacent to that mitigation measure. commissioner Washburn: Circle K on Graham Avenue has signage and/or lighting ~ebris behind the building, it has been there for at least three (3) weeks. To the listening audience, that takes time to tune in on the Planning Commission meetings, I would like to wish them a Merry Christmas. Commissioner Barnhart: Nothing to report, but would like to add her greetings to the listening audience, and to the gentlemen here at the table. Merry -- Christmas. Chairman Dominquez: Nothing to report. There being no further business, the Lake Elsinore Planning Commis- sion adjourned at 7:55 p.m. Motion by Commissioner Mellinger, second by Commissioner Saathoff. Approved 5-0 2~o Fred Domin~~ Chairman Respectfully ~mitted. ~~ Linda Grindstaff // Planning Commission Secretary MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD HELD ON THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER 1985 MEMBERS PRESENT WERE Community Development Director Miller and Assistant Planner Coleman. BUSINESS ITEMS 1. Single-Family Residence - 610 Lake Street - MFG Housing Corp. Staff presented proposal to construct a single-family residence at 610 Lake Street. .... Project approved subject to the following conditions: 1. All roof mounted or ground support equipment incidental to development shall be architecturally screened so that they are not visible from neighboring property or public streets. 2. Building elevations shall be constructed as depicted on plans or as modified by the Design Review Board. 3. Applicant shall plant street trees inside the public right-of-way, to be approved by the Planning Division. 4. Street trees shall be planted a maximum of 3D-feet apart, and be a minimum of 15 gallon. 5. Applicant shall use Class "A" fire retardant roofing materials. 6. All conditions of approval are to be met prior to Building Division's issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy and release of utilities. ...- 7. A six-foot (6') high wood fence shall be constructed along the side and rear property lines subject to approval of the Community Development Director. 2. Single-Family Residence - 338 Avenue 1 - David B. Inglis - Staff presented proposal to construct a single-family residence at 338 Avenue 1. Project approved subject to the following conditions: 1. All roof mounted or ground support equipment incidental to development shall be architecturally screened so that they are not visible from neighboring property or public streets. 2. Building elevations shall be constructed as depicted on plans or as modified by the Design Review Board. 3. Applicant shall plant street trees inside the public right-of-way, to be approved by the Planning Division. 4. Street trees shall be planted a maximum of 3D-feet apart, and be a minimum of 15 gallon. .... 5. Applicant shall use Class "A" fire retardant roofing materials. 6. All conditions of approval are to be met prior to Building Division's issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy and release of utilities. i .~l ~ I Minutes of Design Review Board December 17, 1985 Page 2 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE ~ 338 AVENUE 1 ~ DAVIS ~ INGLIS CONTINUED -- 7. Applicant shall construct all optional features being indicated on submitted plans and be subj ect .to construct- ing only the actual building elevations proposed, and not the indicated "optional" elevations unless otherwise modi- fied by the Design Review Board 8. A six-foot (6') high wood fence shall be constructed along the side and rear property lines subject to the approval of the Community Development Director. 3. Single-Family Residence - 738 Mill Street - Brent & Kathryn Rigby - Staff presented proposal to construct a single-family residence at 738 Mill street. Project was approved subject to the attached conditions: 1. All roof mounted or ground support equipment incidental to development shall be architecturally screened so that they are not visible from neighboring property or public streets. -- 2. Building elevations shall be constructed as depicted on plans or as modified by the Design Review Board. 3. Applicant shall plant street trees inside the pUblic right-of-way, to be approved by the Planning Division. 4. Street trees shall be planted a maximum of 30-feet apart, and be a minimum of 15 gallon. 5. Applicant shall use Class "A" fire retardant roofing materials. 6. -All conditions of approval are to be met prior to Building Division's issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy and release of utilities. 4. Single-Family Residence - 216 Davis Street - La Fleche Vaudry - Staff presented proposal to construct a single-family residence at 216 Davis Street. Project approved subject to the following conditions: 1. All roof mounted or ground support equipment incidental to development shall be architecturally screened so that they are not visible from neighboring property or pUblic streets. 2. Building elevations shall be constructed as depicted on plans or as modified by the Design Review Board. 3. Applicant shall plant street trees inside the public right-of-way, to be approved by the Planning Division. 4. street trees shall be planted a maximum of 30-feet apart, and be a minimum of 15 gallon. 5. Applicant shall use Class "A" fire retardant roofing materials. 6. All conditions of approval are to be met prior to Building Division's issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy and release of utilities. Minutes of Design Review Board December 17, 1985 Page 3 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE 216 DAVIS STREET - LA FLECHE VAUDRY CONTINUED 7. A six-foot (6') high fence shall be constructed along the side and rear property lines subject to approval of the Community Development Director. 5. Commercial Project 85-12 - Richard E. Seleine (7-Eleven) - Staff presented proposal to construct a 7-Eleven convenience store with self-service gasoline islands, located at the south- east intersection of Highway 15 and Main Street. - Discussion was held on condition number 1, pertaining to adequate maneuvering space for parallel parking; condition number 2, pertaining to circulation problems; the easterly alleyway in relationship to it's proximity to the residential neighborhood; building elevations; lack of landscaping around the building, street and perimeter property; Cal Trans comments on the northerly access point. Project was continued to the meeting of January 7, 1986. o~~ Nelson Miller, Community Development Director ...; .....