Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-07-1986 NAH MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY 1986 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, Barn- hart and Dominguez. Also present were Community Development Director Miller and Assistant Planner Coleman. MINUTE ACTION Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to approve minutes of December 17, 1985, as submitted, second by Commissioner Barnhart. Approved 5-0 PUBLIC HEARINGS None BUSINESS ITEMS 1. Residential Project 85-18 - Marsha & John Swanson/J Mar Realty - Staff presented proposal to construct a five (5) unit apartment building on .16 acres, located on the southeast corner of Pottery and Granite Street. -- Staff stated that this proposal was continued from the December 3, 1985 meeting to address design concerns raised by staff. Staff is recommending denial of this proposal, principally, due to the lack of street dedication on Pottery Street. Pottery Street is classified by the General Plan as a modified collector, which would require an 80-foot right-of-way. The present dedi- cation on Pottery Street is only 60-feet. Therefore, 10-feet of right-of-way dedication would be required on Pottery Street, which would reduce this to a forty-foot (40') wide lot. That reduction in lot would cause a number of design constraints on the property; reduces the amount of parking that could be pro- vided, and also reduces the setbacks to less that would be re- quired. In addition, staff has concerns regarding the building elevations. Staff stated that the street dedication was discussed, at great length, with the applicant at the Design Review Board Meeting, and the applicant was informed that the only way to get out of that dedication requirement would be for them to request an amendment to the General Plan, or they could request a variance from the setback requirements, but this would leave them short on parking. -- 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 General Plan Designation (being in place when the applicant first filed the application and the informa- tion available to the applicant); three-foot (3') dedication for alley on project's easterly boundary; when Pottery Street will be put back across the channel; Pottery Street and Spring Street width (being consistent with dedication requirements), and deny proposal without prejudice. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to deny without prejudice Resi- dential Project 85-18, second by Commissioner Mellinger., Approved 5-0 Minutes of Planning Commission January 7, 1986 Page 2 INFORMATIONAL Mr. Miller reminded the Commission of the study Session scheduled for January 9, 1986, at 6:00 p.m., regarding the Infill Project Area. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S REPORT Nothing to report. -- PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Commissioner Saathoff: Nothing to report. Commissioner Mellinqer: Nothing to report. Commissioner Washburn: Thanks to Code Enforcement the items and old sign behind Circle K on Graham was promptly cleaned up and removed. Is the City's street sweeper still working? Mr. Miller answered in the affirmative. Lately, downtown has had an abundance of filthy sidewalks, maybe we should contact the Downtown Business Association, but I would like to ask all of the citizens that have businesses in town to please at __ least once or twice a week hose off or sweep off their sidewalks. Commissioner Barnhart: Nothing to report. Chairman Dominquez: Nothing to report. There being no further adjourned at 7:11 p.m. Commissioner Barnhart. Approved 5-0 business, the Lake Elsinore Planning Commission Motion by Commissioner Washburn, second by Approved, /- L r/~. ~~~ Fred Domi~- Chairman -- .. ~R.~es ....,ccttfrull~u_bmitte..d. ' ~~47f Linda Grindstaff Planning Commission Secretary MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD HELD ON THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY 1986 MEMBERS PRESENT were Community Development Director Miller and Assistant Planner Coleman. MINUTE ACTION - Minutes of December 17, 1985 approved as submitted. BUSINESS ITEMS 1. Residential Project 85-18 - John & Marsha Swanson/J Mar Realty - Staff presented proposal to construct a five unit apartment building on .16 acres, located on the southeast corner of Pottery and Granite Streets. A lengthy discussion was held on Pottery Street (General Plan classification being a modified collector); applicant request- ing a General Plan Amendment to amend this classification; dedication required affecting a number of the design features on the property (required parking, location of trash enclosure); design elevation of the building concerning the stairways and the front of the building; landscaping requirement; density for proposal; reimbursement of fees (applicant to submit a written request for reimbursement); applicant requesting a continuance and request the General Plan be amended; applying for a variance to reduce setbacks instead of applying for a General Plan Amend- ment. Residential Project 85-18 denied. - 2. Commercial Project 85-12 - Richard E. Seleine - Staff pre- sented proposal to construct a 7-Eleven convenience store with self-service gasoline islands, located at the southeast intersection of Highway 15 and Main Street. Discussion was held on information requested on driveways on opposite side of street and Cal Trans concerns on easement not yet submitted by the applicant; architectural design of the building (referencing the Urban Design Study for downtown), and appealing the Design Review Board decision. Commercial Project 85-12 denied. 3. Single-Family Residence - 17640 Bromley Avenue - Andrew Moffat - Staff presented proposal to construct a single-family residence at 17640 Bromley Avenue, located 180 feet northwest of the inter- section of Bunker Street and Bromley Avenue. - Mr. Moffat questioned condition number 12, pertaining to the six- foot high fence or masonry wall; condition number 17, pertaining to sewer and if this condition was applicable because proposal is on septic; condition number 19, pertaining to the dedication of water rights to the City (proposal is not within the City's water district); condition number 14, pertaining to curb and gutter and applicant requesting deferment on these improvements. Discussion was held on the above mentioned conditions, and Mr. Moffat was informed that he would have to submit a letter to City Council, asking to be placed on the agenda, requesting that curb and gutter be deferred. Project approved subject to the 19 conditions as recommended by staff. Q~ Nelson Miller, Community Development Director MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY 1986 THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:00 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Community Development Director Miller. - ROLL CALL PRESENT: commissioners: Saathoff, Mellinger, Washburn, Barnhart and Chairman Dominguez. ABSENT: None Also present were Community Development Director Miller and Assistant Planner Coleman. MINUTE ACTION Motion by Commissioner Washburn to approve minutes of January 7, 1986, as submitted, second by Commissioner Barnhart. Approved 5-0 PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Tentative Parcel Map 21297 - Warm Springs - Commissioner Washburn asked to be excused from the next three items. - Staff presented proposal to subdivide 40 acres into 32 indus- trial lots, located at the southwest corner of Collier Street and Chaney Street. Staff stated that this item is also related to Conditional Exception Permit 86-2, to allow a cul-de-sac in excess excess of 600-feet long, until such time as the streets may be extended. Chairman Dominguez stated that since Conditional Exception Permit 86-2 goes with Tentative Parcel Map 21297 they would incorporate the pUblic hearings. Chairman Dominguez opened the public hearing at 7:03 p.m., ask- ing if anyone wished to speak in favor of Tentative Tract Map 21297 and Conditional Exception Permit 86-2. Mr. Fred Crowe, of Butterfield Surveys representing the applicant, questioned condition number 17, regarding the dedication of under- ground water rights, and requested a recommendation that staff have permission or consider that the final map be in conformance with tentative map if there are some minor changes in lot front- ages. - Chairman Dominguez asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak in favor. Receiving no response, Chairman Dominguez asked if any- one wished to speak in opposition. Receiving no response, Chair- man Dominguez closed the public hearing at 7:06 p.m. Discussion was held on condition number 17, regarding the dedica- tion of underground water rights (this being a problem in the past and should be duly noted); Conditional Exception Permit for cul- de-sacs, that there be adequate signage (since temporary) that it is not a through street; sufficient radius provided so that it is adequate for large service vehicles and safety equipment; sewage disposal (reference General Notes on Tentative Parcel Map); im- provements being done at individual building permit stage and how phasing would take place, as far as sewer lines and connections; improvements not being done piecemeal if a parcel was sold; proper access and improvements to Chaney or Collier for any of the lots; adding a condition "improvement between any lot shall be installed at the building permit stage, but complete either to Collier or Minutes of Planning Commission January 21, 1986 Page 2 TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 21297 - WARM SPRINGS CONTINUED Chaney, which ever is most appropriate, for proper access"; pro- viding a standard industrial CUl-de-sac; "B" Stree't and Third Street turn-around; adding condition "that as development occurs on "B" Street and Third Street, that adequate turn-around shall __ be required"; adding condition to Tentative Parcel Map that adequate turn-around be provided as it develops; power lines along Chaney Street; amending condition 17, by adding the words "or assignees", and Mr. Crowe's request that final map be found in conformance with the Tentative Parcel Map. Community Development Director Miller suggested that the Commission add the following as conditions to Tentative Parcel Map 21297: "Street improvements shall be required to provide full access to Chaney and/or COllier, for any parcel which is built upon, and adequate turn-around shall be re- quired for any development along Third Street or "B" Street." "Conditions of Parcel Map shall be recorded on each individual lot." Discussion ensued on the conditions to be added, and with the addition of these conditions whether or not the Conditional Exception Permit would be required. Motion by Commissioner Barnhart to approve Tentative Parcel __ Map 21297 with the 20 conditions as recommended in the staff report, and the following amendments: Condition number 17: adding the words "or assignees" Condition number 21: "Street improvements shall be re- quired to provide full access to Chaney and/or Collier, for any parcel which is built upon, and adequate turn- around shall be required for any development along Third Street or "B" Street." Condition number 22: "Conditions of Parcel Map shall be recorded on each individual lot." Second by Commissioner Mellinger with discussion. Discussion ensued on the added conditions being worded as stated by Community Development Director Miller. There being no further discussion, Chairman Dominguez asked for the vote. Approved 4-0 Commissioner Washburn excused 2. Conditional Exception Permit 86-2 - Warm Springs _ ...., Commissioner Washburn excused. Conditional Exception Permit 86-2 is a proposal to allow two (2) cul-de-sacs in excess of 600-feet long, located at the south- west corner of Collier Street and Chaney Street. The public hearing for Conditional Exception Permit 86-2 was incorporated in the public hearing for Tentative Parcel Map 21297 (related items). - Minutes of Planning Commission January 21, 1986 Page 3 CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION PERMIT 86-2 ~ WARM SPRINGS CONTINUED Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to approve Conditional Excep- tion Permit 86-2 with citing the findings in the staff report, second by Commissioner Barnhart with discussion. Discussion ensued on adding condition "that easements for full size cul-de-sacs shall be dedicated to the City for the south- westerly ends of Third Street and "B" Street, subject to the approval of the City Engineer and County Fire Department." Commissioner Barnhart amended her motion to include the above mentioned condition, second by Commissioner Mellinger. Approved 4-0 Commissioner Washburn excused Findinqs: 1. The proposed project will not have a significant impact upon the environment. 2. Approval has been granted to a nearby property under the same zoning designation. 3. It is intended that ultimately the cul-de-sacs will be eliminated and a complete circulation system improved. However, this is not practical at this time, due to un- certainties associated with improvement of Temesca1 Wash, which provides the outlet for Lake Elsinore. CONDITION OF APPROVAL: - 1. EASEMENTS FOR FULL SIZE CUL-DE-SACS SHALL BE DEDICATED TO THE CITY FOR THE SOUTHWESTERLY ENDS OF THIRD STREET AND "B" STREET, SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE CITY ENGINEER AND COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT. BUSINESS ITEMS: 1. Abandonment 86-1 - Warm Springs - Commissioner Washburn excused. Staff presented a proposal to abandon a portion of "old" Collier Avenue at the southwest corner of Collier Avenue and Chaney Street. (related to Tentative Parcel Map 21297 and Conditional Exception Permit 86-2). Discussion was held on length of abandonment, if it goes down to railroad in Collier. Staff stated that, at this time, we are only addressing the portion that is within Tentative Parcel Map 21297. - Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to adopt Negative Declaration 86-1, second by Commissioner Saathoff. Approved 4-0 Commissioner Washburn excused Motion by Commissioner Barnhart to approve Abandonment 86-1 with the 2 conditions as recommended in the staff report, second by Commissioner Saathoff. Approved 4-0 Commissioner Washburn excused Commissioner Washburn returned to the table at 7:35 p.m. 2. Commercial Project 85-7 - Jerry Lanting - Staff stated that this item was previously continued from the December 3, 1985, Planning Commission meeting due to concerns of the Riverside County Minutes of Planning Commission January 21, 1986 Page 4 COMMERCIAL PROJECT 85-7 = JERRY LANTING CONTINUED Flood Control District. The applicant indicates that they have now reached an understanding regarding allowed encroachments along the floodway and is preparing a revised plan to meet the requirements of the Flood Control District. Motion by Commissioner Barnhart to continue Commercial Project 85-7 to the meeting of March 4, 1986, second by Commissioner Washburn. __ Approved 5-0 3. Commercial Project 85-12 - Richard E. Seleine - Staff stated that this was an appeal of the Design Review Board's decision to deny a project to construct a 2,560 square foot convenience store with a self-service gasoline island, located at the southwest inter- section of Interstate Highway 15 and Main Street (516 Main Street). Staff stated that the Design Review Board denied the application based upon concerns regarding the architectural design and lack of conformance with the Urban Design Study that was approved and adopted in concept by City Council and Redevelopment Agency on August 28, 1984. Chairman Dominguez asked if the applicant was in the audience if he had received a copy of the conditions and if there were any concerns. Mr. Richard Seleine commented on items 1-6 of staff's report, recommendation on what the building exhibit to be more compatibll with the general theme; signage and lighting for proposal, and improvements on Cal Trans property. __ Discussion was held on other types of architectural designs the applicant has worked with for 7-Eleven; rear of the building facing residential property and what type of wall would be pro- vided; item number 3 of staff report pertaining to window designs; item number 2, pertaining to entry being recessed; landscaping plan to be approved by Design Review Board; type of Commission action for appeal of Design Review Board's decision; denial of project without prejudice; canopy for project; identity of pro- ject location; improvements on Cal Trans property, pertaining to the possibility of having to rebuild the freeway ramp. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to continue Commercial Project 85-12, second by Commissioner Barnhart. Commissioner Washburn asked for discussion, stating that he thinks a lot of the problem exists where there is not clear direction on what the Community, Members of the Board and Council make to staff. I made a few comments on other types of architectural designs that are available for 7-Eleven; type of canopy and sign for project, and the need for recessed entry. If there are any other comments to add, in reference to directior that we are looking for, it might be helpful to staff. There being no further discussion, Chairman Dominguez asked for __ the vote. Approved 5-0 4. & 5. Commercial Project 85-14 and Commercial Project 85-15 - Hill Masonry - staff presented proposal to construct two (2) retail commercial buildings, located on the southwest and southeast corner of Campbell street and Kuhns Street. Chairman Dominguez asked if the applicant was in the audience Minutes of Planning Commission January 21, 1986 Page 5 COMMERCIAL PROJECT 85-14 AND COMMERCIAL PROJECT 85-15 - HILL MASONRY CONTINUED ~ 6. ~ ~ if he had received a copy of the conditions and if there were any concerns. Mr. Phillip Esbensen, architect representing the applicant, questioned condition number 8, pertaining to the 8-foot side- walk. Discussion was held on condition number 8; site plan pertaining to the 2-foot overhang and planting area remaining 5-feet and not changing the back end radius between the parking spaces; number of parking spaces required for proposal, and loading zone requirement. Motion by Commissioner Washburn to approve Commercial Project 85-14 and Commercial Project 85-15 with the 19 conditions as recommended in the staff report second by Commissioner Mel- linger with the adoption of a Negative Declaration. Commissioner Washburn amended his motion to include the adop- tion of a Negative Declaration, second by Commissioner Mellinger. Approved 5-0 Residential Infill Incentive Program - Staff stated that this is a follow-up to the Study Session that was held on January 9, 1986, regarding the Residential Infill Program. At that time, it was the consensus of the Commission that a recommenda- tion be made to City Council that the Residential Infill In- centive Program should be re-evaluated, definite standards be developed that can be consistently and easily administered. Staff stated that the intent is to present the recommendation to City Council at it's next meeting on January 28, 1986. Staff would prepare a report to accompany it, discussing the items that were discussed at the Study Session, updating City Council on the the program to date, as well as the impacts upon the City as dis- cussed. Commissioner Saathoff suggested that the words "modification of development standards" be in all capital letters. Other than that, I feel that the things that we wanted to bring forth have been accomplished. The fact that we are concerned with the area; that it should probably be owner area, and the modification of development standards is a primary thing rather than a reduction of fees, and that we would like to form a Committee. Commissioner Mellinger stated that it should be made clear that the Committee would be formed to make recommendations to the Commission and Council. That there would be public hearings and plenty of room for public input. Because it is important and people have to deal with this and they would know what is going on while it is being formulated. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff that the memorandum, as submitted by the Development Director, addressed to the City Council be adopted and presented to said body, second by Commissioner Mel- linger with discussion. Commissioner Mellinger stated that perhaps they should make a recommendation for a time frame. Discussion ensued on length of time the Committee would need to review proposals, with a 90 days time frame being established, and which two Commissioners would sit on the Committee. Minutes of Planning Commission January 21, 1986 Page 6 RESIDENTIAL INFILL INCENTIVE PROGRAM CONTINUED Commissioners Saathoff and Washburn were recommended by the Planning Commission to sit on the Committee. Commissioner Saathoff stated that City Council will be the one to select the Committee, and thinks that it should go forth __ that any of the Planning Commissioners, that they desire, would be willing to serve on the Committee. Commissioner Saathoff amended his motion to present the draft memorandum to City Council with the modification that a report be made to City Council and Planning Commission within 90 days of the formation of the Committee, and that all members of Planning Commission are more than willing to serve, second by Commissioner Mellinger. Approved 5-0 Community Development Director Miller stated that he would like to point out, at the present time, there are three (3) requests pending under the present Program. Expects that those requests would be presented to City Council for their direction, as to whether they wish to take action or wait. The Commission stated that they were not in a position to make any comments at this time, and that they would have to proceed with it. INFORMATIONAL: Community Development Director Miller stated that included in your packets tonight, is an update on the Title 17 , which was included in the last City Council packet. In that, I have outlined the zones that we will be attempting to revise between now and the end of the month. Addressing some of the concerns, that I have seen in in the minutes of the previous drafts, regarding lot sizes in resi- dential and looking at some of the other things, as well as proce- dural questions. The entire draft will be reviewed and some of the additional sections will have some changes recommended. In that regard, City Council at their last meeting scheduled a joint study session for February 10, 1986, at 6:00 p.m. At that time, I will be presenting all of the recommended changes. -- Community Development Director Miller stated that he hopes to have the written text to Planning Commission and City Council at least a week prior to the study session, and if possible will try to get some of the sections to the Commission and Council even earlier than that. In addition, there is another study session that City Council has scheduled for January 30, 1986, from 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. At that time, our consultant will be presenting a draft report on the expansion of our Sphere of Influence. The Planning Commission is invited to attend. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S REPORT -- Community Development Director Miller stated that he had nothing to report. PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Commissioner Saathoff: Nothing to report. Minutes of Planning Commission January 21, 1986 Page 7 PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION CONTINUED ~ Commissioner Mellinqer: For efficiency, maybe in the future, when we have combined projects whether it be a business item or public hearing, possibly they could all be combined for discussion. In looking at some of the priorities for the Planning Department. I noticed that the new person is going to get the CEQA guidelines. One of the things that was brought up in the past, was our concern of cumulative impacts. I think possibly, that the same person may want to, if it hasn't been done and I know that it is very difficult to do and that is to maybe give a report to the Council and Commission on the status of projected projects. Projects that are approved in both the County area and City Limits. To give us an idea of the number of units that could potentially be developed. Currently, we are looking at the west side of the as being the major escape route to Orange County. sort of idea as to what type of development would along that area. Those are some of the concerns that I would like to see, basically, in the CEQA process, but also some sort of update so that we know what is going on, so that we are not approving projects as an island. City, Grand Avenue I would like some be taking place -- Community Development Director Miller stated that the revisions to the CEQA process are already under way. We have new forms that have been prepared and are now being distributed to applicants as they come in. You will not see the results from that for a couple of months. After we get another person on board, our intention is to get some formalized guidelines written down for all of City Staff, as well developers, and we can make a full report to the Planning Commission and City Council. The intent is to prepare a set of City guidelines as required by State Law implementing the CEQA process. Community Development Director Miller stated that in terms of your concerns about the developments that are out there, we can track some of those and present them to Planning Commission and City Council. However, I would like to remind the Commission that there is some speculation involved in terms of what kind of development is coming. Community Development Director Miller stated that in terms of Grand Avenue the major stumbling block, at this time, is still right-of-way acquisition. If all of the right-of-way were dedicated, it might be more feasible to see some sort of pilot street improved. At the pre- sent time, there is still not right-of-way that is dedicated to connect Grand Avenue to Lakeshore Drive and Robb Road. Commissioner Mellinger stated that on the staff report rev1s10ns, one -- thing that he would really like to see is more of a nexus between some General Plan Polices and Implementation Programs. Perhaps a section could be included as to how the General Plan POlices, Objectives and Implementation Programs really relate to specific projects. Community Development Director Miller stated that as you read through Title 17, the draft that is coming before you; remembering that the zoning is intended to implement the General Plan. One of the things that we are trying to do, in the new draft is to provide more clear cut procedures and findings that would be necessary in approving pro- jects. Those findings would be implementing the Goals and Objectives of the General Plan. Minutes of Planning Commission January 21, 1986 Page 8 PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION CONTINUED Commissioner Washburn: With the unfolding of the evolution of the land patterns of the Valley I think that at some future date a study session will be needed with input on long range planning from staff. I think that this is im- portant, it is also tied in with the concern on traffic circulation, __ especially at the west end of the Valley. Informed the Planning Commission that he would be representing them at the City/County Planning Commissioner Annual Steering Committee on January 23, 1986, and will give a report at the next meeting. Commissioner Barnhart: Nothing to report. Chairman Dominquez: The project on Mohr and Lakeshore Drive. This project has been up in the air for a couple of years. The project is being vandalized, and the neighbors are concerned. Would like information from the applicant, Mr. McCollom, on the project. Community Development Director Miller stated that staff would re- search this, and report back to Planning Commission. Community Development Director Miller stated that he would like to respond to Commissioner Washburn's request for some long range planning. One of the things envisioned in the priorities and pro- jects that staff has set forth for City Council, would be as soon as __ we complete the Zoning Ordinance, the next step in the process would would be to identify any inconsistencies between the Zoning and the General Plan. We have talked about needing some new zones to imple- ment some of the General Plan designations, Tourist Commercial, Com- mercial Office or Professional Office. Those two zones would be in the new draft and immediately thereafter, we would want to identify the areas of inconsistencies and examine some of the land use patterns around the City. Prepare a report for Planning Commission and City Council regarding those, and as Commissioner Washburn has suggested suggested have a study session to look at some of the land use patterns. Perhaps, do fairly massive General Plan and Zoning review, that may encompass some substantial changes in some of our land use areas and some of our zoning to make those more compatible with each other, also with some of the surrounding uses. To better address some of the physical constraint both from the environmentally sensitive areas, topographic constraints and circulation concerns. Chairman Dominguez asked how long before we have the next General Plan review? Community Development Director Miller stated that the next General Plan review is scheduled in March. Community Development Director Miller stated that they anticipate the study sessions, that he is talking about, happening in early May. To __ review some of the inconsistencies and begin talking about some of the land use patterns. Perhaps, implementing some of those as early as June, which would be the second scheduled review. For next physical year, one of the things that we have talked about, is more of a long term basis; looking at some of the General Plan Elements, notably the Land Use Element and the Circulation Element to look at those and make sure that they are consistent with the direction in which the City is moving now. Minutes of Planning Commission January 21, 1986 Page 9 - There being no further adjourned at 8:35 p.m. Commissioner Washburn. Approved 5-0 business, the Lake Elsinore Planning commission Motion by Commissioner Barnhart, second by Z~. Fred Domin~ ~ Chairman Linda Grindstaff Planning Commission secretary - - MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD HELD ON THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY 1986 MEMBERS PRESENT were Community Development Director Miller, Land- scape Architect Kobata and Assistant Planner Coleman. MINUTE ACTION Minutes of January 7, 1986, approved as submitted. BUSINESS ITEMS - 1. Single-Family Residence - 16580 McPherson Avenue - Timothy Yerian - Staff presented proposal to construct a single- family residence at 16580 McPherson Avenue, located ap- proximately 325 feet northwest of the intersection of Tetrick Avenue and McPherson Avenue. Discussion was held on condition number 7 and condition number 11. Single-Family Residence at 16580 McPherson approved subject to the 19 conditions as recommended in the staff report with the following amendments: Condition number 7: Deleted. Condition number 11: Amended to read: "In lieu of condition number 7, applicant shall save the three (3) existing Palm Trees on the property that are indicated on submitted site plan." 2. Single-Family Residence - 17385 Bromley Avenue - Ted E. Dahlke _ Staff presented proposal to construct a single-family residence __ at 17385 Bromley Avenue, located approximately 350 feet east of the intersection of Gunnerson and Bromley Avenue. Discussion was held on carport being modified and the front porch being eliminated or modified. Single-Family Residence at 17385 Bromley Avenue approved subject to the 22 conditions as recommended in the staff report with the two following conditions added: Condition number 14: "Carport shall be modified so that roofline extends the same roofline and roofing materials as the main house." Condition number 15: "Front porch shall be eliminated or modified such that porch shall be trellis type to extend front fascia subject to the approval of the Community Development Director." 3. Single-Family Residence - 388 Avenue 3 - Pete Burris - Staff presented proposal to construct a single-family residence at 388 Avenue 3, located on the southeast intersection of Avenue 3 and Mill Street. -- Single-Family Residence at 388 Avenue 3 approved subject to the 20 conditions as recommended in the staff report. 4. Commercial Project 85-7 - Jerry Lanting - Staff stated that the applicant is preparing a revised plan to meet the County Flood Control District requirements regarding encroachments along the floodway. Therefore, it is recommended that this proposal be continued to the meeting of March 4, 1986. Commercial Project 85-7 continued to March 4, 1986. Minutes of Design Review Board January 21, 1986 Page 2 5 & 6. Commercial Project 85-14 and 85-15 - Hill Masonry - Staff pre- sented proposal to construct two (2) retail commercial build- ings, located on the southwest and southeast corner of Campbell and Kuhns Street. - Discussion was held on condition number 4, 5, 10 and street trees. commercial Project 85-14 and Commercial Project 85-15 approved subject to the 12 conditions as recommended in the staff report with the following condition added: Condition number 13: "Applicant is to provide three-foot (3') wide landscape pockets to be established in the front section of the building elevations at specific intervals located at the fringes of the internal drivew aisles, between the proposed buildings and the parking space depiction, sub- ject to the approval of the Community Development Director." 7. Residential Project 85-22 - Steve smith - Staff presented pro- posal to construct a four (4) unit apartment building, located approximately 150 feet southwest of the intersection of Prospect and Olive Street. - Discussion was held on design elevations; condition number 2; condition number 4; condition number 6, and adding additional inlet on the south side to pick-up drainage. Residential Project 85-22 approved subject to the 20 conditions recommended in the staff report, and the following condition added: Condition number 21: "Add additional inlet on south side of property to pick-up drainage and pipe to drainage facility." 8. Residential Project 85-23 - Art Nelson - Staff presented for review design elevations for sixty-three (63) single-family residences located within approved Tentative Tract Map 20313. - Discussion was held on condition number 1; condition number 10; condition number 15; five-foot (5') slumpstone block wall being provided, and all slopes in excess of thirty-six inches (36") to be planted and irrigated. Residential Project 85-23 approved subject to the 15 conditions recommended in the staff report with the followintg amendments: Condition number 1: Amended to read: "Landscaping and permanent automatic irrigation system with common water and electric meters shall be installed in the street parkways on Machado and Grand Avenue, as approved by the Community Development Director" Condition number 10: Deleted. Condition number 15: amended to read: "A five-foot (5') high wood fence or masonry wall or wrought iron fence shall be constructed along the side and rear property lines subject to the approval of the Community Development Director." Condition number 16: "Slumpstone block wall five-foot (5') in height shall be erected along perimeter of pro- ject adjacent to Grand and Machado." Minutes of Design Review Board January 21, 1986 Page 3 RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 85-23 = ART NELSON CONTINUED Condition number 17: "All slopes in excess of thirty-six (36") shall be planted and irrigated, subject to review and approval of the Community Development Director or his designee." - 04~J( CkeLZ. Nelson Miller Community Development Director - - LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF HELD ON THE 4TH FEBRUARY 1986 DAY OF THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:00 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Commissioner Saathoff. ROLL CALL PRESENT: - Commissioners: Saathoff, Mellinger, Washburn, Barnhart and Chairman Dominguez. ABSENT: None Also present were Community Development Director Miller, Assistant Planner Coleman and Assistant Planner Bolland. INTRODUCTIONS - - Community Development Director introduced Mr. David Bolland, the new Assistant Planner for the City. MINUTE ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to approve minutes of January 21, 1986, as submitted, second by Commissioner Barnhart. Approved 5-0 PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. Conditional Exception Permit 86-1 - Robert A. Belzer - Staff presented proposal to vary from the City's Parking Code, section 17.66.040, for the purpose of accommodating a 3,342 square foot restaurant within an existing commercial shopping center, located 1,200 feet southeast of the intersection of Railroad Canyon Road and Mission Trail. Chairman Dominguez opened the pUblic hearing at 7:04 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of Conditional Exception Permit 86-1. Mr. Robert A. Belzer, applicant, stated that he believes that staff has covered all the major points on this issue, and that they have also done two other studys (on a Wednesday and a Saturday), both studys have indicated that the shopping center is well parked at those times. Also, through our study the center showed the least amount of traffic at 6:00 p.m., which is when our restaurant will be doing the majority of it's business. Mr. Belzer stated that the owner of the restaurant is in the audience, and that they would answer any questions that the Commission may have. Chairman Dominguez asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak in favor of Conditional Exception Permit 86-1. The Secretary stated that written communications from Mr. Larry J. Coats, of Lake Plaza Drugs was received on January 27, 1986, in favor of Conditional Exception Permit 86-1. There being no one else wishing to speak in favor of Condi- tional Exception Permit 86-1, Chairman Dominguez asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Receiving no response, Chairman Dominguez closed the public hearing at 7:06 p.m. Discussion at the table was held on exact location of the res- taurant; calculations for the number of parking spaces not including requirements for the Thrift and Loan nor the proposed restaurant; reciprocal parking agreement; parking reductions for integrated centers; continuing proposal until after the Minutes of Planning Commission February 4, 1986 Page 2 CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION PERMIT 86-1 = ROBERT ~ BELZER CONTINUED code amendment is in existence (referencing Title 17); finding number 2, 3, and 4; day/nigh uses and a deed restriction placed on those locations; use applied at site being under a master lease (property being under one ownership) and reciprocal agree- ment for the parking tied in with the master lease for all the __ uses within the center; similar use in the Vons Shopping Center; condition number 1, pertaining to the center's signage program; review parking code; being consistent with proposals; the possi- bility of adopting sections of Title 17, if the entire document is not adopted on the scheduled hearing date. Community Development Director Miller. stated that the center presently has a fairly low utilization of the existing parking, as verified by the parking survey that was conducted, and that revisions to the Parking Code are being considered. (Council and Commission have addressed the concept of shared parking or reduced parking at various hours for shopping centers.) Staff would suggest that in the new code that the appropriate mechanism to address this is a Conditional Use Permit supported by a parking study. The recommendation that we would make to Council and Commission regarding parking is based largely upon the Urban Land Institute Parking Survey of shopping centers. Chairman Dominguez asked if there was further discussion. Commissioner Washburn asked for further discussion. Discussion ensued on whether or not there would be a conflict with Title 17, proposed parking ordinance; parking reduction __ for retail center; deed restriction placed upon individual units; reviewing the Urban Land Institute Parking Study closely and see how it applies to specific centers, parking for the existing center, except for the spaces that are adjacent or in front of the existing uses, there seems to be adequate space within the heart of the center; whether or not the code is adequate; the exact number of seats for the proposed restaurant; having performance standards (site specific) or having a general code that can be applied; information on the Urban Land Insti- tute being supplied to the Commission, and continuing proposal to the next meeting for further study. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to approve Conditional Exception Permit 86-1, citing the findings in the staff report and the 2 conditions as recommended in the staff report, second by Commis- sioner Washburn. Approved 3-2 Commissioner Mellinger and Chairman Dominguez vot- ing no Findinqs: 1. That the proposed project will not have a significant impact upon the environment. 2 . That the granting of this Conditional Exception Permit will not jeopardize the safety or affect the general well being of individual patronizing businesses within the center, who will continue to utilize the existing off-street parking space arrangements. ... 3. That the granting of this Conditional Exception Permit is in conformance with the City's General Plan. 4. That the granting of this Conditional Exception Permit is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of sub- Minutes of Planning Commission February 4, 1986 Page 3 CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION PERMIT 86-1 = ROBERT ~ BELZER CONTINUED stantial property rights as allowed by City Codes and Ordinances within this particular location and within similarly zoned commercial districts. r- BUSINESS ITEMS 1. Industrial Project 85-8 - Butler, Gonser and Zepede - Staff stated that during the review process it was discovered that the site is within the floodway associated with Wasson Canyon Creek. There may be severe restrictions upon the construction and improvements, and we are requesting an indefinite continu- ance on this project until such time those issues can be re- solved. Motion by Commissioner Barnhart to continue Industrial Project 856-8 indefinitely, pending a complete review, second by Com- missioner Mellinger. Approved 5-0 2. Residential Project 85-22 - steve Smith - Staff presented pro- posal to construct a four (4) unit apartment building, located approximately 150 feet southwest of the intersection of Pros- pect and Olive Streets. - Chairman Dominguez asked if the applicant was in the audience, if he had received a copy of the conditions and if there were any concerns. Mr. Smith stated that he received a copy of the conditions and has no concern with the conditions as stated, and informed the Commission that he has a signed grading plan from the City Engineer. Chairman Dominguez asked for discussion at the table. Discus- sion was held on Design Review Board conditions, whether or not there were any changes in them; how drainage is being handled for the site; adding a condition that the slope shall be main- tained with landscaping to allow the percolation. . Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to approve Residential Project 85-22 with the 13 conditions as recommended in the staff report and the following added as condition number 14. Condition number 14: "That the slope area, at rear of building, shall be perpetually maintained with landscap- ing." - Second by Commissioner Saathoff. Approved 5-0 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S REPORT Community Development Director Miller stated that you have before you tonight the first part of the newly revised draft of Title 17, this is about a third of the draft, and all of what you have before you tonight is completely new. Community Development Director Miller highlighted the sections that were and were not included in the Title 17 draft, calling the Com- Minutes of Planning Commission February 4, 1986 Page 4 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S REPORT CONTINUED mission's attention to the sections on Conditional Use Permits, Conditional Exception Permits and Design Review since these are the areas that the Commission would be involved in, and stated that it is the recommendation contained within the packet that the responsibility for Design Review be returned to the Planning __ Commission. Community Development Director Miller then stated that most of the other sections, the ones that you have not received, are ones that will have minor revisions to the existing code, and will be pre- sented to the Commission on Friday, February 7th. Community Development Director Miller stated that if you have any questions on the revisions of Title 17 do not hesitate to contact him, and that he will try to provide the information requested on the Urban Land Institute Study by Friday. Commissioner Washburn asked if we are looking at revisions to some of the mapping, stating that when the maps were prepared there was some questions on where the boundaries belonged. Community Development Director Miller stated that this would be phase two of the project. After Title 17 is in place, we will be going forward looking at some of the areas in the City, both from the General Plan designation and Zoning designation, to apply zones in a more appropriate fashion. We have tried to identify the zones within the existing framework of the map, so that every designation on the map has a zone describing it. After reviewing the Zoning Map and the General Plan Map we discovered that most of the Tourist Commerical designation has a C-P (commercial Park) de- signation. Therefore, the Commercial Park designation is the zone intended to implement the Tourist Commercial designation. Community Development Director Miller stated that he would like to point out the the public that copies of Title 17 revisions are available in the Planning Department for review, and the public is encouraged and welcomed to purchase copies for their review and input. -- PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Commissioner Saathoff: Asked staff if the Council, at their last meeting, took any action on the Infill Project that was submitted to them? Community Development Director Miller stated that Council did accept the Planning Commission's recommendation to appoint a committee (two city Council Members, two Planning Commissioners and two members from the development community and the Community Development Direc- tor) to review the Infill Program, and suspend further implementa- tion of the Program until such time as the committee can make a report. (The proposals that were in process will move forward with __ the basic direction that the park fees be waived for the projects within the Infill Area that have already applied). Commissioner Saathoff asked Community Development Director Miller if he felt that this could be pursued immediately, or if any items in Title 17 might have a bearing on any considerations that we might be thinking about in the Infill Project? Minutes of Planning Commission February 4, 1986 Page 5 PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION CONTINUED Community Development Director Miller stated that some of the alter- -- natives that we might look at could effect some of the provisions of Title 17. However, thinks that those could move forward. There may be some advantage to getting Title 17 in place, because there would be a clearer understanding of what type of conditions would apply in various areas. commissioner Saathoff asked if city Council wants the Commission to proceed? Community Development Director Miller stated that the Mayor will take the lead in appointing the committee members, and at such time the committee members are appointed, he will take the lead to assem- ble them all together. Commissioner Mellinqer: Nothing to report. commissioner Washburn: Gave a brief report on the City/County Annual Steering Committee meeting attend on January 23, 1986, in San Bernardino. commissioner Washburn stated that the City of Lake Elsinore will be the hosting City for the Steering Committee Meeting in mid April; -- would welcome any suggestions that you have, and stated that he would keep the Commission informed. Commissioner Barnhart Nothing to report. Chairman Dominquez: Chairman Dominguez asked staff if he had an answer for him on the project on Mohr and Lakeshore, which he brought up at the last meeting? Community Development Director Miller stated that he did not have a report, but would fOllow-up on this and report back. There being no further business, the Lake Elsinore Elsinore Planning commission adjourned at 8:02 p.m. Motion by Commissioner Washburn, second by Commissioner Barnhart. Approved 5-0 -- Approved, ~...... ~ i/ - / d c-r-' ~~ '-~ --- Fred Doml.nguez .....S- Chairman R....esJ0e~tfullY ~./ ~itte~, './ -f0TU;4xe' )!;/ic-?~~ L{nda Grindstaff ~ Planning Commission Secretary MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD HELD ON THE 4TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 1986 MEMBERS PRESENT were Community Development Director Miller, Land- scape Architect Kobata, Assistant Planner Coleman and Assistant Planner Bolland. MINUTE ACTION Minutes of January 21, 1986, approved as submitted. BUSINESS ITEMS - 1. Industrial Project 85-8 - Butler, Gonser and Zepede - Com- munity Development Director Miller stated that during the review process it was discovered that the site is within the floodway associated with Wasson Canyon Creek, and that the recommendation to Design Review Board and Planning Commission is to continue this project until such time these issues can be resolved. Industrial Project 85-8 continued indefinitely. 2. Single-Family Residences - 740 & 750 Lake Street - Tony Schiavone - Assistant Planner Bolland presented proposal to construct two (2) single-family residences, located ap- proximately 390 feet west of Avenue 1 on the south side of Lake Street. Single-Family Residences at 740 and 750 Lake Street approved subject to the 18 conditions as recommended in the staff report. 3. Accessory Structure (Barn) - 4054 Crestview Drive - Roy R. Butler - Assistant Planner Coleman presented proposal to construct a 1,200 square foot accessory building (barn) on the rear portion of a lot that consists of an existing single-family residential unit. - Accessory Structure (Barn) approved subject to the 6 condi- tions as recommended in the staff report, and the following added conditions: Condition number 7: "Applicant is to provide wood shake roofing and colors compatible with existing single-family residence on site." Condition number 8: "The siding materials should either reflect a board and batt design wi~h batts two-feet (2') on center, or a design reflective of garage door design on main structure." Condition number 9: "Structure shall not be used as living quarters unless appropriate permits are obtain- ed from the City." Condition number 10: "All interior improvements or modifications including plumbing and electrical shall require separate approvals and permits from the City." 4. Walk-on - Commercial Project 85-1 - Art Nelson - Assistant Planner Coleman presented to the Board for review the land- scaping Plan and associated Kiosk use for Commercial Project 85-1. ...., Landscaping Plan and Kiosk for Commercial Project 85-1 approved subject to the 12 conditions pres~h~9. Nelson Miller Community Development Director MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 1986 THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:00 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Assistant Planner Bolland. - ROLL CALL PRESENT: commissioners: Saathoff, Mellinger, Washburn, Barn- hart and Chairman Dominguez. ABSENT: None Also present were Community Development Director Miller, Assistant Planner Coleman and Assistant Planner Bolland. MINUTE ACTION Motion by Commissioner Washburn to approve minutes of February 4, 1986, as submitted, second by Commissioner Barnhart. Approved 5-0 PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Amendment 86-1 (Title 17) - City of Lake Elsinore - Community Development Director Miller stated that due to the cancellation of the Study Session scheduled on February 10, 1986. Staff recommended that further action on this be continued to a Joint Study Session to be held on March 3, 1986, at 5:30 p.m. - Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to continue Amendment 86-1 to a Joint study Session to be held on March 3, 1986, second by Commissioner Washburn. Approved 5-0 BUSINESS ITEMS 1. Industrial Project 85-7 - Robert Baker c/o George Schmiedel _ Community Development Director Miller stated that the proposed project, requires abandonment of a portion of Spring Street as part of the project. The applicant has not yet filed an ap- plication for abandonment. We therefore request that the pro- ject be continued indefinitely, until such time that an abandon- ment application is received. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to continue Industrial Project 85-7 indefinitely, second by Commissioner Barnhart. Approved 5-0 2. Commercial Project 85-13 - Philip R. Williams - Assistant Planner Coleman presented proposal to construct a 6,440 square foot two-story office building that will be the business quarters for Century 21 Real Estate, located on the southwest side of Casino Drive and approximately 250 feet northwest of Railroad Canyon Road. - Assistant Planner Coleman informed the Commission of the modi- fication made in the conditions of approval at the Design Re- view Board Meeting on subject proposal. Chairman Dominguez asked if the applicant was in the audience if he had received a copy of the conditions and if there were any concerns. Mr. Williams questioned condition number 20, asking what the fee of $9,550.70 pertains to--whether it is for signage, bridge fee, or bond for off-site improvements. Minutes of Planning Commission February 18, 1986 Page 2 COMMERCIAL PROJECT 85-13 - PHILIP ~ WILLIAMS CONTINUED Community Development Director Miller stated that the $9,550.70 fee is for a traffic signal to be located at the corner of Casino and Railroad Canyon Road. Mr. Williams stated that he had a question on the bonding or construction of off-site improvements, not for the project site, but the parcel where the Mobile Home Sales Lot is located. Wanting to know if the entire construction would be required. Mr. Williams stated that they would perfer to bond for the improvements, as they don't know what will be going on with the bridge. - Community Development Director Miller stated that this was addressed in condition number 23. Discussion at the table was held on joint access with the Chevron Station, if there was already an easement recorded on that property; condition number 11 pertaining to sewer hook-up; adding verbiage on signalization, and formula for signalization. Motion by Commissioner Washburn to approve Commercial Project 85-13 with the 24 conditions as recommended in the staff report and amending the following condition: Condition number 20: "Meet all requirements of Resolution number 83-19, in the amount of $9,550.70. The fee repre- sented is for the total amount of acregage, which is ap- proximately 1.84 acres." _ Condition number 23: Adding verbiage: "The fee is for the total amount of acregage, which is approximately 1.84 acres." Second by Commissioner Barnhart. Commissioner Mellinger asked if the maker of the motion would amend his motion to include adoption of a Negative Declaration. Commissioner Washburn amended his motion to include the adoption of a Negative Declaration for Commercial Project 85-13, second by Commissioner Barnhart. Approved 5-0 3. Architectural Theme - Lakeshore Overlay District - Community Development Director Miller stated that the Lakeshore Overlay District presently specifies that all structures within the Lakeshore Overlay District shall be subject to review. Spe- cifically, under development standards in Section 17.65.070 subsection d, which states: "Fences may be erected within the Lakeshore Overlay District subject to the approval of an architectural theme determined by the Planning Commission. No fee is required to review." - Community Development Director Miller stated that at this point in time, we have received serveral complaints about the fences being erected in the Lakehsore Overlay District. These fences, typically, would not require a building permit due to the type of construction that is involved. Staff is suggesting that Planning Commission establish a theme and development standards that they feel would be appropriate in this area, so that pro- Minutes of Planning Commission February 18, 1986 Page 3 ARCHITECTURAL THEME - LAKE SHORE OVERLAY DISTRICT CONTINUED ~ ~ perty owners in this area are aware of the type of fencing that would be approved, and as long as it conforms to the theme could be approved administratively. A lengthy discussion was held on continuing with the State Park's theme (railroad ties, no higher than three feet); be- tween residences allowing an open type of fence that would not disrupt the view of the lake, and fencing allowed at certain elevations; between residential and commercial fences should be solid; inquiries on the fences, if they were for chain link to encompass a lot (for property owners to launch or store their boats), or if the fence is for privacy behind homes; removing the existing chain link and cyclone fences that go into the water and require fencing that conforms to the theme estab- lished; not allowing fences that run along the property line and down into the water; property owners along Lakeshore being allowed to enclose the rear portion for privacy, but not running the fencing down to the shoreline; establishing a distance of 20-feet for Lakeshore Drive, use the State Park's standard-- railroad ties (beyond that point, if a person wants to erect a fence it would have to be at no fee, but would have to be ap- proved by the Planning Director with applicant being able to appeal the Director's decision to Planning Commission and City Council), the front and side 50-feet after 20-feet, that this be something that does not obstruct the visual corridor (chain link or similar), beyond that point allow chain link or solid fencing and establish an elevation of 1252; notify property owners who erected fences subsequent to the passage of ordinance and have them come before the Design Review Board. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that corral or chain link fences around vacant lots not be allowed. Discussion ensued on establishing the State Park's theme for the front of Lakeshore Drive; for existing structures, if the pro- perty owner wants to erect a fence they should be allowed, pro- vided that it does not obstruct the view and does not go beyond elevation 1252; definition of lake view; rewriting the ordinance adding section for abatement of existing fences; discussing this with the landscape architect and coming up with three alterna- tives that could be accepted. Commissioner Washburn stated that most of the property fronting on Lakeshore Drive within the Overlay District is still and eye- sore. ..... Community Development Director Miller stated that at the next meeting he would return to the Commission with specific direc- tion, which Planning Commission can act upon, and will be looking to Code Enforcement to respond to the areas where there seems to have been construction since the adoption of the Over- lay District without the approvals. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S REPORT Community Development Director Miller stated that the Planning Com- mission has received an invitation from the Redevelopment Agency to attend the study session on February 19, 1986, at 7:00 p.m. The Redevelopment Agency will be considering a proposal from Pacific Heritage Associates, on a comprehensive Lakeshore - Downtown Planning Study. Minutes of Planning Commission February 18, 1986 Page 4 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S REPORT CONTINUED The study session on Title 17 was continued until March 3, 1986. Council felt that they needed additional time to review the material. Also, you received additional material in your packets on Title 17, there are still missing sections, these sections are technical in __ nature--definitions, general provisions and minor modifications to existing ordinances. There are still some significant ordinances outstanding (parking, signs, non-residential developmennt standards along with a couple of the environmental overlay zones). Community Development Director Miller stated that copies of a memo on parking has been given to the Commission, as requested at the last meeting. Community Development Director stated that if there are any major comments,in that regard, it would be helpful to have them in advance. PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Commissioner Saathoff: Nothing to report. Commissioner Mellinqer: Advertisement for the Zoning Ordinace, whether or not it would be the typical small legal notice, or are we going to be taking out a large advertisement. Community Development Director Miller stated that it is our intent to-- use a display ad. We have also been notifying developers, addressed the Board of Realtors and made information available in the Board of Realtors newspaper that we are in the process of drafting a new Zon- ing Ordinance. There is a copy at the counter in the Planning Depart- ment and copies are available for purchase. Commissioner Washburn: Informed Community Development Director Miller that the report pro- vided their packets on parking was very informative. Commissioner Barnhart: Nothing to report. Chairman Dominquez: still waiting for an answer on Mohr and Lakeshore Drive. Community Development Director Miller stated that work had ceased on that, the developer has experienced financial problems, and we have directed him to adequately secure the buildings. As to whether he is going to complete construction, this is something that we have difficulty in answering. We can not force him to complete con- struction, and as long as the buildings do not represent a safety __ hazard, we have no cause to abate them. Chairman Dominguez asked if the permits become void. Community Development Director Miller stated that the building permits would lapse, and any continued construction may require re-issuance of permits. Minutes of Planning Commission February 18, 1986 Page 5 There being no further business, the Lake Elsinore Planning Commis- sion adjourned at 8:05 p.m. Motion by Commissioner Barnhart, second by Commissioner Washburn. Approved 5-0 Approved, ~./ ~~~ ~ ~u~.~~ Chairman Respectfully ~ Linda Grindstaff Planning Commission Secretary MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD HELD ON THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 1986 MEMBERS PRESENT were Community Development Director Miller, Land- scape Architect Kobata, and Assistant Planner Coleman. MINUTE ACTION Minutes of February 4, 1986, approved as submitted. BUSINESS ITEMS ...., 1. Industrial Project 85-7 - Robert Baker c/o George Schmiedel _ Community Development Director Miller stated that the pro- posed project, as presented, incorporates a part of Spring Street within the project design. The applicant has previ- ously been advised that it would be necessary to submit an application for abandonment of the street along with pre- liminary title information for processing this project. Industrial Project 85-7 continued indefinitely until abandon- ment application is submitted. 2. Commercial Project 85-1 (Master Signage Program) - Art Nelson - Assist Planner Coleman requested that this proposal be con- sidered after Commerical Project 85-13, so that the Master Signage Program Plan could be located. 3. Commercial Project 85-13 - Philip R. Williams - Assistant Planner Coleman presented proposal to construct a 6,440 square foot two-story office building that will be the business quarters for Century 21 Real Estate, located on the southwest side of Casino Drive, approximately 250 feet feet northwest of Railroad Canyon Road. ...., Mr. Williams questioned condition number 4, 5, and 6. Discussion was held on design (designed as a zero lot line building); condition number 5, pertaining to the fin wall; condition number 4, pertaining to the horizontal tile band; condition number 6, pertaining to the recessed planters, and signage. Commercial Project 85-13 approved subject to the 13 condi- tions as recommended in the staff report, and condition number 4 and 5 amended as follows: Condition number 4: "Building elevation on the south and west sides shall exhibit a horizontal band or cap across the facade of these buildings, as approved by the Community Development Director. Condition number 5: "The fin stucco wall shall be reduced in size and be provided with additional architectural or landscape treatment, to provide a decorative quality and compatible structural scale with the proposed building, as approved by the Com- munity Development Director. ...., 2. Commercial Project 85-1 (Master Signage Program) - Art Nelson - Assistant Planner Coleman presented for review the Master Signage Program for Commercial Project 85-1 (Brookstone Shop- ping Center), located on the northwest corner of Riverside Drive and Lincoln Street. Discussion was held on color theme for signage program; in- ternal stop signs and retaining traditional colors and shape for the stop signs; height of center sign, and can signs. Minutes of Design Review Board February 18, 1986 Page 2 COMMERCIAL PROJECT 85-1 (MASTER SIGNAGE PROGRAM) - ART NELSON CONTINUED - Mr. Nelson requested that each tenant be allowed to use their own background color and lettering for the can signs. Discussion ensued on can signs pertaining to background and coloring being consistent for the center. Master Signage Program for Commercial Project 85-1 approved subject to the 7 conditions as recommended in the staff report. ~Ch~ Nelson Miller Community Development Director - - For 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 VircJinia J.Iloc�rnl 6ty Clerk ✓ APPROVED AS TO FORM: Barbara Zeid Leib`Qld, City Attorney MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH 1986 THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:00 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Assistant Planner Coleman. - ROLL CALL PRESENT: Commissioners: Saathoff, Mellinger, Washburn, Barn- hart and Chairman Dominguez. ABSENT: None Also present were Community Development Director Miller, Assistant Planner Coleman and Assistant Planner Bolland. MINUTE ACTION Motion by Commissioner Barnhart to approve minutes of February 18, 1986, as submitted, second by Commissioner Washburn. Approved 5-0 PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Conditional Use Permit 85-6 Robert McGill/Rancho Laguna Recreational Vehicle Park Assistant Planner Bolland pre- sented proposal to re-establish a former recreational vehicle park to permit 44 spaces including a caretaker's mobile home, restroom facilities and hook-ups around a man-made pond. Pro- ject site is about 5 acres on two parcels which total 31.22 - acres, located about 700 feet northwest of Grand Avenue at Hill Street, about 1,200 feet east of the intersection of Grand Ave- nue and Riverside Drive. Chairman Dominguez opened the public hearing at 7:05 p.m., ask- ing if anyone wished to speak in favor of Conditional Use Permit 85-6. Receiving no response, Chairman Dominguez asked if anyone if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Mr. George Nyiri commented on the use, stating that the City needs more facilities for recreational uses. Chairman Dominguez stated that at the close of the public hearing, if Mr. Nyiri wanted to comment further on the proposal he would be allowed to do so, but at the present time, the floor is open to those per- sons wanting to speak in opposition to the project. Chairman Dominguez asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition to Conditional Use Permit 85-6. - Mr. Ernest Ince stated that he was opposed to the project, and to have a recreational park at that location would be unsightly. Chairman Dominguez asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak in opposition. Receiving no response, Chairman Dominguez called Mr. Nyiri back to the podium. Mr. Nyiri stated that we need something there that would bring money and people into the City, but not a recreational park that consists of 31 acres in the heart of the City. Mr. Nyiri was in- formed that this proposal was to re-open a recreational park that was inundated by by the flood. Mr. Fred Crowe, Butterfield Surveys, representing the applicant stated that the proposed map was prepared from the map that was approved in 1979. Mr. Crowe then stated that there were a number of conditions that they had concerns on. Chairman Dominguez asked Mr. Crowe to comment on the conditions in question after the close of the public hearing. Minutes of Planning Commission March 4, 1986 Page 2 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 85-6 - ROBERT MCGILL/RANCHO LAGUNA RECREATIONAL PARK CONTINUED Chairman Dominguez asked if anyone else wished to speak on Condi- tional Use Permit 85-6. Receiving no response, Chairman Domin- guez closed the public hearing at 7:12 p.m. Commissioner Saathoff ask to comment on Conditional Use Permit __ 85-6 before the applicant's representative is called back to the podium, thus allowing the him to respond to his concerns. Commissioner Saathoff stated that if the Commission feels that they would like to approve this proposal, there are several conditions that he would like to add: 1) Since the impact of fairly high density population we should conform to regulations that appear in the Residential 2 and Residential 3; 2) That there should be decorative masonry walls sur- rounding the property to protect the quite and enjoYment of the surrounding property owners; 3) That any conditions that do not appear here, condi- tions in Title 25, California Administrative Code, under Section 2400 which addresses Recreational Trailer Parks should be met; 4) That CC & R's should be submitted and approved by the Development Director, pertaining to outside storage, pets and many sundries items; 5) Restroom facilities should be established and meet Title 25 requirements, which is a minimum require- ment; -- 6) On Recreational Vehicle Parks, existing bed tax ordinance should be reinstated. If the applicant is proposing that there would be some permanent resi- dents, as recommended by staff they would be on a case by case basis. These permanent areas should be designated and the lots should be of sufficient size; 7) Conditional Use Permit should be on a three (3) year time period with a one (1) year written review sub- mitted to the Planning Commission, and that they be granted an automatic renewal if all yearly reports meet the requirements of the Conditional Use Permit. Discussion was held on condition number 30, regarding the occu- pancy limit of 30 days with suggestion that this condition state "not to exceed 30 consecutive days for anyone-year period or 90 days for snowbirds"; impact upon school facilities and posting a bond in the event children were enrolled in pUblic schools; fencing around the man-made pond, with fencing to be approved by the Community Development Director; total number of spaces pro- posed to be re-opened for the park (43 spaces and 1 space for __ the caretaker's mobile); condition number 34, pertaining to the emergency plan for vacation of the park in case of high water conditions, and if a water elevation has been established; condi- tion number 18, pertaining to flood control easement along the east property line of parcel 22; management for the RV Park; condition number 32, pertaining to all RV's having hitches and wheels intact also including this to the manager's unit; RV Park going through the appeal process instead of going through the Conditional Use Permit process since it was an existing use, and ordinance for RV Parks to be prepared. . ~ Minutes of Planning Commission March 4, 1986 Page 3 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 85-6 - ROBERT MCGILL/RANCHO LAGUNA RECREATIONAL VEHICLE PARK CONTINUED Mr. Crowe was called back to the podium. Mr. Crowe questioned condition number 3, pertaining to the right-Of-way dedication; condition number 4, pertaining to the improvements of internal roads; condition number 6, applicant feels that this is reason- able as long as it is tied to condition number 26 and condition number 27; condition number 13, no objection with this condition if the screening could be some type of vegetation; condition number 18, pertaining to easement for flood control; condition number 21 and 22 are open ended, if there is a problem with these conditions would like to be able to come back to the Com- mission or to the Community Development Director so that these conditions can be worked out; condition number 24, regarding dedication of water rights to the City; condition number 25, regarding the County Fire Department conditions for a 4 inch looped water line, fire flow of 250 GPM for one hour duration, and the number of fire hydrants required for the project. Discussion ensued on the above mentioned conditions; denying without prejudice or continuing the project based on the con- cerns and comments made; mobility of motorhomes and RV trailers as they come off of Grand Avenue with some type of an area pro- vided where they can pull off the present right of way and make their turn. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to continue Conditional Use Permit 85-6 for not more than sixty (60) days, second by Com- ~ missioner Washburn. Approved 5-0 ~ 2. Conditional Exception Permit 86-3 Ken Jeffers Assistant Planner Coleman presented proposal to vary from the City's Park- ing Code, Section 17.66.040, for the purpose of accommodating a 1,500 square foot restaurant within an existing commercial shopping center, located on the southwest corner of Lakeshore Drive and Riverside Drive. Chairman Dominguez opened the public hearing at 8:00 p.m., ask- ing if anyone wished to speak in favor of Conditional Exception Permit 86-3. Mr. Ken Jeffers submitted a letter listing his survey figures on existing and required parking spaces with justification for same, and further stated that these figures were not in agree- ment with those presented in staff's report to the Commission. Chairman Dominguez asked if there was anyone else present wish- ing to speak in favor of Conditional Exception Permit 86-3. Mr. Dick Murphy spoke in favor of Conditional Exception Permit 86-3, stating that he feels the proposed restaurant is good for the community, and it does not impact the parking lot. Chairman Dominguez asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak in favor of Conditional Exception Permit 86-3. The Planning Commission Secretary stated that written communi- cations from Mr. and Mrs. Vail was received on February 18 1986 in favor of Conditional Exception Permit 86-3. ' Chairman Dominguez asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak in favor of Conditional Exception Permit 86-3. Receiving ~o response, Chairman Dominguez asked if there was anyone wish- ~ng to speak in opposition. Receiving no response Chairman Dominguez closed the pUblic hearing at 8:23 p.m. ' Minutes of Planning Commission March 4, 1986 Page 4 CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION PERMIT 86-3 ~ KEN JEFFERS CONTINUED Discussion at the table was held on logic used for approving proposal; calculations based on square footage and seating, and it being confusing, at this time - looking at one of three types of requirements (current Zoning Code, New Draft Zoning Code and Urban Land Institute Study); in looking at the current code, either we make the proper findings or we don't; there being a __ need for consistency; applicant to meet with staff to resolve all of the discrepancies; if property owner is willing to record CC & R's on each and every unit that those uses will not change, the hours of operation shall remain the same and that there will be no conflicts in sharing facilities on the basis of different hours of operation; adequate parking as required by the Zoning Ordinance, shall be provided on site, not on the street, for all facilities; providing accurate figures; defining and striping areas for parking; traffic congestion at Four Corners; continu- ing .proposal so that applicant can work with staff to resolve discrepancies. Motion by Commissioner Washburn to continue Conditional Excep- tion 86-3 for two weeks, second by Commissioner Mellinger. Approved 4-1 Chairman Dominguez voting no 3. Zone Change 86-3 Jerry Lanting Assistant Planner Coleman presented proposal to change the zoning designation associated with pending Commercial Project 85-7 (motel proposal) from R-l (Single-Family Residential) to C-l (Limited Commercial) to C-2 (General Commercial), for 4 acres, located on the northeast side of Casino Drive and on the southwest side of Interstate 15, east of the San Jacinto River, about 1,000 feet northwest or Railroad __ Canyon Road. Chairman Dominguez opened the public hearing at 8:50 p.m., ask- ing if anyone wished to speak in favor of Zone Change 86-3. Mr. J. Ward Dawson, architect for the project and representative for the applicant, spok~ in favor of Zone Change 86-3. Mr. Neil Alberding spoke in favor of Zone Change 86-3. Chairman Dominguez asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak in favor of Zone Change 86-3. Receiving no response, Chairman Dominguez asked if there was anyone wishing to speak in opposition. Receiving no response, Chairman Dominguez closed the pUblic hearing at 8:52 p.m. Chairman Dominguez asked for discussion at the table. There being no discussion at the table, Chairman Dominguez asked for a motion. Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to approve Zone Change 86-3 with the findings as presented in the staff report and adoption of a Negative Declaration, second by Commissioner Barnhart. Approved 5-0 ... BUSINESS ITEMS 1. Commercial Project 85-7 Jerry Lanting Assistant Planner Coleman presented proposal to construct a two phase 73 unit motel complex, on 4 acres, located on the northeast side of Casino Drive and the southwest side of Interstate 15, east of the San Jacinto River, about 1,000 feet northwest of Railroad Canyon Road. - Minutes of Planning Commission March 4, 1986 Page 5 COMMERCIAL PROJECT 85-7 ~ JERRY LANTING CONTINUED Assistant Planner Coleman stated that the first phase consists of 54 units built upon 1.55 acres, the second phase will in- clude the remaining 24 units constructed over .42 acres. A total of 5 buildings will be developed upon the project site, and contained in the layout will be a registration/lobby unit, manager's unit, excerise/sauna facility, a laundry room, and a pool facility located along the north property boundary. Assistant Planner Coleman stated that staff would like to amend the conditions of approval as follows: Condition number 1: add the following verbiage: "1. That the applicant demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, Riverside County Flood Control and Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) , that there is no encroachment of fill in the f1oodway, as required by Federal Emergency Management Agency regu- lations and Chapter 15.64 of the Municipal Code (Ordinance No. 603)." Add condition number 27, which will read: - "27. Property owner shall make irrevocable offer of dedi- cation for flood control purposes on all of the pro- perty within the f100dway of the San Jacinto River." Assistant Planner Coleman stated that the Design Review Board approved Commercial Project 85-7 subject to 16 conditions of approval. Chairman Dominguez asked if the applicant was in the audience, if he received a copy of the conditions and if there were any concerns. Commissioner Barnhart asked staff for the total number of units to be constructed, as there is a discrepancy in the figures contained within the staff report. Mr. J. Ward Dawson, architect for the project and representative for the applicant, stated that the project consists of 76 guest units and 1 manager's unit. Mr. J. Ward Dawson question condition number 27, pertaining to the dedication, not being able to discuss this added condition with the owner. Discussion was held on condition number 27, pertaining to ap- proving project with the condition, and if the applicant has any objections then he can appeal it to City Council when the project goes before that body. - Discussion ensued on condition number 1, pertaining to the added verbiage recommended by staff. Commissioner Saathoff stated that on Design Review Board condi- tions, it would be his recommendation that condition number 12, pertaining to the block walls, and condition number 13, pertain- to the decorative lighting be reviewed and approved by the De- sign Review Board instead of the Community Development Director. Motion by Commissioner Washburn to approve Commercial Project 85-7 with,the 26 ~o~ditions as recommended in the staff report and amend1ng cond1t1on number 1, and the adding of conditions 27, 28, and 29, which will read: Minutes of Planning Commission March 4, 1986 Page 6 COMMERCIAL PROJECT 85-7 = JERRY LANTING CONTINUED Condition number I, amended as follows: "1. Prior to the issuance of any grading or building permits the applicant shall submit appropriate engineering studies, including hydrological studies as required, to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, Riverside County Flood Control District and Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) that there is no encroachment of fill in the floodway, as required by Federal Emergency Management Agency regulations and Chapter 15.64 of the Municipal Code (Ordinance No. 603),. - Add condition number 27, which will read: "27. Property owner shall make irrevocable offer of dedi- cation for flood control purposes on all of the pro- perty within the floodway of the San Jacinto River." Add condition number 28, which will read: "28. Building elevational sections that exhibit expansive block wall as depicted within submitted e1evational plans shall receive additional architectural treat- ment to off-set bland views, as approved by the De- sign Review Board." Add condition number 29, which will read: "29. Two decorative Spanish design lighting lamps shall be erected on both sides of the driveway approach entrance to the motel complex, as approved by the Design Review Board." - Second by Commissioner Saathoff. Approved 5-0 2. Fence Standards in the Lakeshore Overlay District Assistant Planner Bolland presented fence standards and exhibit of fencing for the Lakeshore Overlay District, requesting direction from the Commission on policy. Commissioner Washburn stated discussion has been held on the type of fencing (rail, picket, post, wrought iron) and the standards (material, height, color, distance to rails), but nothing about the location in reference to frontage road, lake frontage or rear, and how far down the fences can go. Community Development Director Miller stated that this is for the design of fences. The Commission may feel that certain types of fences are appropriate in some locations and not others. Discussion was held on the type of fencing, referencing photo- _ graphs on exhibit presented, with the first selection for the front (Lakeshore Drive) to be split rail and the second se- lection the State Park theme; fences being consistent in height; whether or not the selection of split rail or the State Park's theme would be okay for vacant or existing property; any new development would be required to come before the Planning Com- mission. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that for the front (Lakeshore Drive) either split rail or the State Park's theme be utilized. - Planning Commission Minutes March 4, 1986 Page 7 FENCE STANDARDS IN THE LAKESHORE OVERLAY DISTRICT CONTINUED Community Development Director Miller asked if the Commission wanted to specify any height requirement for the front (Lake- shore Drive). Discussion ensued on establishing a height requirement of three-feet (3') for the front; item "B" as listed on the exhibit; privacy fencing for property owners utilizing the estate type with a fence behind it. community Development Director Miller stated that the Lakeshore Overlay Ordinance specifies that fences shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission, and suggested that the Commission adopt a general pOlicy, 'so that each individual person would not have to come before the Planning Commission. If a person wanted to con- struct some other type of fence, they would have the option of presenting that to the Commission. - Discussion ensued on fencing requirements for existing property in the Lakeshore Overlay District; specifying a pre-approved fence for existing properties; establishing fence requirements for side and rear; using the same fence for the side as long as it does not exceed the three-foot elevation; protecting the private property owner along the lakeshore; allowing some type of solid fencing (board-on-board or 1x6 cedar fencing or similar material, six-feet high) behind existing structures for privacy; having the existing property owners, since there are only a few, if they want to construct a fence for security or privacy purposes come before the Commission for review; notifying property owners and existing residents of the ordinance; fencing for the rear and side properties to come before the Commission for review. Community Development Director Miller stated that at the next meeting he would return with a Resolution for formal adoption. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S REPORT Community Development Director Miller stated that Title 17 was dis- cussed at the study session on March 3, 1986, and some of the Com- missioners had the opportunity to discuss some of the their concerns and others did not. If each of the Commissioners will either give written comments to me on the existing sections, or get together with me individually, I will assemble all of your comments for presentation Planning Commission and city Council. Once all of these comments are are assembled, then we can perhaps have one more study session to dis- cuss these various comments. Community Development Miller stated that there are still a number of section of Title 17 that you have yet to receive. We will be trying to get these to you within the next few weeks. Some of these sections have little or no change to the existing ordinances. Commissioner Barnhart asked after the study session on Title 17 is - completed, would Title 17 then be scheduled for public hearing? Community Development Director answered in the affirmative. PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS Commissioner Saathoff: Nothing to report. Commissioner Mellinqer: Nothing to report. Commissioner Washburn: Nothing to report. Minutes of Planning Commission March 4, 1986 Page 8 PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION CONTINUED Commissioner Barnhart: Nothing to report. Chairman Dominquez: Requested an answer from staff on what is going on with the property at Mohr and Lakeshore Drive, which was brought up at past meeting. - Commissioner Barnhart informed Chairman Dominguez that she had seen people working at the site, Mohr and Lakeshore. There being no further adjourned at 9:27 p.m. Commissioner Barnhart. Approved 5-0 business, the Lake Elsinore Planning Commission Motion by Commissioner Washburn, second by Approved. ~~~ Fred Domr~uez "'" Chairman Resp~ctfull)!bmitted' '/" . . . ,~~tiL .hh~~ Linda Grindstaff ///;:1 Planning Commission" Secretary - - MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD HELD ON THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH 1986 MEMBERS PRESENT were Community Development Director Miller, Land- scape Architect Kobata and Assistant Planner Coleman. -- MINUTE ACTION Minutes of February 18, 1986, approved as submitted. BUSINESS ITEMS 1. Commercial Project 85-7 - Jerry Lanting - Assistant Planner Coleman presented proposal to construct a 73 unit motel com- plex, located on the northeast side of Casino Drive and the southwest side of Interstate 15 (Corona Freeway), east of the San Jacinto River, about 1,000 feet northwest of Railroad Canyon Road. Discussion was held on condition number 13, pertaining to the two decorative Spanish design lighting lamps; the westerly driveway and the two end spaces; impact upon floodway and the amount of fill (applicant was informed that one of the condi- tions on the Planning commission Report requires that applicant perform adequate hydrological and engineering studies to satisfy the County Flood Control, City Engineer and Federal Emergency Management Agency), discussion ensued on this condition. Commercial Project 85-7 approved subject to the 16 conditions recommended in the staff report. -- Qk~ Nelson Miller Community Development Director -- LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF HELD ON THE 18TH MARCH DAY OF 1986 THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:00 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Community Development Director Miller. - ROLL CALL PRESENT: commissioners: Saathoff, Mellinger, Washburn, Barn- hart and Chairman Dominguez. ABSENT: - - None Also present were community Development Director Miller, Assistant Planner Coleman and Assistant Planner Bolland. MINUTE ACTION Motion by Commissioner Barnhart to approve minutes of March 4, 1986, as submitted, second by Commissioner Mellinger. Approved 5-0 PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Conditional Exception Permit 86-3 - Ken Jeffers - Community Development Director Miller stated that Conditional Exception Permit 86-3 was continued from the March 4th Agenda, so that staff and the applicant could resolve the discrepancies brought up at that meeting. Community Development Director Miller stated that the applicant had submitted additional information on March 17th (diagrams for the proposed restaurant and Malarky's and parking ratios), and that staff met with Mr. Jack Bresson, property owner of project site, on March 17th regarding the issues brought up (outcome of meeting was that Mr. Bresson felt that there were a number of measures that could be taken to alleviate the potential problems during the summer months). Community Development Director Miller stated that if the Commis- sion desired they could place certain conditions on the proposal limiting the number of vehicles that King Video would park on the premises; limiting the number of seats that would be permitted in the existing restaurant (Malarky's), either on the inside or out- side area, and limiting the number of seats that would be per- mitted in the new restaurant. Chairman Dominguez opened the public hearing at 7:05 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of Conditional Exception Per- mit 86-3. Mr. Ken Jeffers, applicant, asked if staff's recommendation was still denial. Community Development Director Miller stated that based upon the ideas that Mr. Bresson had presented, staff feels that the prob- lems can be addressed in the shopping center, and staff would recommend approval of the variance based upon certain conditions that would specifically limit the number of seats permitted in the proposed restaurant and in the existing restaurant, and limit the number of vehicles parked at King Video in the rear area. Mr. Jeffers addressed the formula for parking requirements and informed the Commission how he arrived at the number of parking spaces required for the entire center. Mr. Bresson stated that he built the center in 1973 with more than the required number of parking spaces, since that time the intensity of use has increased, but he feels that the current number of parking spaces still meets the City's required off- Minutes of Planning Commission March 18, 1986 Page 2 CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION PERMIT 86-3 = KEN JEFFERS CONTINUED street parking. Mr. Bresson stated further that he did not feel CC & R's were needed nor the proper instrument to control uses and parking at the center. Mr. Tom Thomas, General Manager of King Video Cable, addressed the parking of King Video Cable's trucks in the center. ~ Mr. Wayne Knowles, owner of Malarky's, stated that his concern is with the parking, because of the auto repair situation out front, and has had a meeting with the landlord and was assured that the cars would not be on that property. Chairman Dominguez asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor. Receiving no response, Chairman Dominguez asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Receiving no response, Chairman Domin- guez closed the public hearing at 7:33 p.m. Discussion was held on mitigation of parking impact; the rear 17 parking spaces, whether or not this area was lighted and marked; adding condition to provide adequate parking for the facility; deficiencies in the existing code; CC & R's pertaining to hours of operation for uses; have new code requirements for new con- struction and for existing structures. Community Development Director Miller stated that staff is recom- mending approval of Conditional Exception Permit 86-3 with a limitation on Malarky's not to exceed 66 seats; limitation on the proposed restaurant not to exceed 57 seats, and that King Video be limited to parking not more than 10 company vehicles on site. Discussion ensued on the above mentioned conditions that staff requested. ...- Motion by Commissioner Barnhart to approve Conditional Exception Permit 86-3 with staff's recommendation as presented tonight. Motion failed to pass due lack of a second. Motion by Commissioner Washburn to approve Conditional Exception Permit 86-3 with staff's recommendation with the following changes: The proposed restaurant, in question, not to exceed 48 seats; 66 seat expansion of Malarky's, and King Video Cable provided 10 spaces. Second by Commissioner Saathoff. Commissioner Mellinger asked for discussion. Commissioner Mel- linger stated that he still finds it difficult to make the find- ings, however, can support it with these conditions on the basis that he feels that the code is deficient, and stated that the direction and recommendation to City Council should include the Planning Commission's recommendation to make this action a direc- tive toward new parking requirements because the use, especially __ the cleaner's, perhaps even the liquor stores, as opposed to grocery stores, utilize the same ratios. Discussion ensued on whether or not to amend the motion to in- clude Commissioner Mellinger's recommendation. The Commission concurred that the findings in the Code are in need of alter- ation or correction and directed staff to look into this. Chairman Dominguez called for the question. Approved 5-0 Minutes of Planning Commission March 18, 1986 Page 3 2 . General Plan Amendment 86-1 and Zone Change 86-1 - Jercha/Bor- delon ..... Commissioner Washburn asked to be excused. Assistant Planner Coleman presented proposal to amend a portion of the General Plan Land Use Map from Very Low Density Residen- tial and County Designation of Open Space and Agricultural to City Land Use Designation of Limited Industrial, and to change the County Zoning designation from R-R (Rural Residential) to City Zoning of M-1 (Manufacturing) for 16 acres located north- westerly of the intersection of Second Street an Dexter Avenue. Chairman Dominguez opened the public hearing at 7:58 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of General Plan Amendment 86-1 and Zone Change 86-1. The following persons spoke in favor of General Plan Amendment 86-1 and Zone Change 86-1: Mr. Richard Jercha, applicant; Mr. Bordelon, applicant Chairman Dominguez asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Receiving no response, Chairman Dominguez closed the public hear- ing at 8:00 p.m. ..... A brief discussion was held on the location of proposal, and the conflict with County General Plan Designations and existing uses. Commissioner Mellinger suggested that with the next round of General Plan Amendments, to maintain orderly development, visual and design guidelines for this area, the City should initiate a General Plan Amendment for the entire area between Main Street and Central to Industrial. Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to approve General Plan Amend- ment 86-1; Zone Change 86-1; adoption of Negative Declaration and adoption of Resolution No. 86-1, second by Commissioner Barnhart, entitled as follows: Approved 4-0 Commissioner Washburn excused RESOLUTION NO. 86-1 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 86-1 Commissioner Washburn returned to the table at 8:03 p.m. ..... 3 . General Plan Amendment 86-2 and Zone Change 86-5 - Robert Parker c/o Jordan and Associates - Assistant Planner Bolland stated that the report should state amend the General Plan Land Use Element from Low Density Residential to General Commercial. Assistant Planner Bolland presented proposal to amend the General Plan Land Use Element from Low Density Residential to General Commercial, and to change the subject classification from R-1 (Single-Family Residential) to C-2 (General Commercial) for ap- proximately eight (8) acres located along the old Dawes right-of- way situated on the north side of Lakeshore Drive between Avenue 7 and Center Street, adjacent to Lakeshore Drive. Chairman Dominguez opened the public hearing at 8:05 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of General Plan Amendment 86-1 and Zone Change 86-5. Minutes of Planning Commission March 18, 1986 Page 4 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 86-2 AND ZONE CHANGE 86-5 - ROBERT PARKER C/O JORDAN AND ASSOCIATES CONTINUED Mr. Bruce Jordan, representative for applicant, gave a brief explanation of the project, and proposed that the triangular piece of property, approximately .71 acres (located between High and Center Street) be dedicated for a park or open space area, and the triangular piece of property between Avenue 1 and High be reserve for a small retail center. - Mr. Brian Weiss, one of the applicants, spoke in favor of the proposal. Chairman Dominguez asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor. Receiving no response, Chairman Dominguez asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Receiving no response, Chairman Domin- guez closed the public hearing at 8:10 p.m. Discussion was held on whether or not the railroad right-of-way between Dawes and Lakeshore Drive has been vacated; continuing the Zone Change application for two months as requested by staff; applicant's request on the triangular properties; description of property in Resolution reflecting a change to Neighborhood Com- mercial for the westerly one acre and Office Professional for the remainder; the one way alley between High Street and Avenue 1 separating the commercial and residential areas. Community Development Director Miller stated that staff's feeling is that a Neighborhood Commercial use could generate potential conflicts along that alley, and requested that the entire area be designated Office Professional. Discussion ensued on changing the Land Use Designation to Office Professional and the Zoning District to implement this designa- tion; having the small portion of property from Avenue 1 to High street as Neighborhood Commercial, the portion to the west and the remainder of the property could be Office Professional, and; sewer easements along Lakeshore Drive. - Motion by Commissioner Washburn to approve General Plan Amendment 86-2 and adopt Resolution No. 86-2, amending the Resolution to state Neighborhood Commercial for the western parcel between Avenue 1 and High Street fronting Lakeshore Drive and balance as Office Professional with staff's findings, and adoption of a Negative Declaration, second by Commissioner Barnhart, entitled as follows: Approved 5-0 RESOLUTION NO. 86-2 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 86-2 Motion by Commissioner Washburn to continue Zone Change 86-5 for a two month period, second by Commissioner Barnhart. _ Approved 5-0 4. General Plan Amendment 86-3 and Zone Change 84-4 - Bruce Ayres c/o Jordan and Associates - Assistant Planner Bolland presented proposal to amend the General Plan Land Use Element from Low Density Residential to General Commercial and to change the sub- ject classification from R-l (Single-Family Residential) to C-2 (General Commercial) for approximately 17 acres located on the north side of Lakeshore Drive bounded by Parkway on the upper Minutes of Planning Commission March 18, 1986 Page 5 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 86-3 AND ZONE CHANGE 86-4 - BRUCE AYRES C/O JORDAN AND ASSOCIATES property boundary, encompassed by 7th Street and Avenue 12 on the west and east sides, respectively. Chairman Dominguez opened the public hearing at 8:30 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of General Plan Amendment 86-3 and Zone Change 86-4. Mr. Bruce Jordan, representative for applicant, spoke in favor of the General Plan Amendment and Zone change, and gave a brief background report on proposal. Chairman Dominguez asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor. Receiving no response, Chairman Dominguez asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Receiving no response, Chairman Domin- guez closed the public hearing at 8:32 p.m. Discussion was held on residential area to the north; proposed school site between Avenue 7 and Avenue 9 and the abandonment of these right-of-ways. Mr. Lee Allen, 270 Avenue 9, Lake Elsinore; stated that to his knowledge, Parkway from Avenue 9 through to Avenue 7 was not a dedicated road, and asked for the date this dedication took place if indeed it did happen. - Chairman Dominguez informed Mr. Allen that he should meet with staff after the meeting. Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to approve General Plan Amend- ment 86-3, Zone Change 86-4, adopt Negative Declaration and adopt Resolution No. 86-3, second by Commissioner Saathoff, entitled as follows: Approved 5-0 RESOLUTION NO. 86-3 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 86-3 5. General Plan Amendment 86-4 and Zone Change 86-2 - Art Nelson _ Assistant Planner Coleman presented proposal to amend the General Plan Land Use Map from Low Density Residential (0-6.0 du/acre) to General Commercial and to change from County Zoning Designation C-P (Restricted Commercial) to City Zoning Designation of C-P (Commercial Park), for 1.79 acres located northwest of the inter- section of Clement Street and Lakeshore Drive. - Chairman Dominguez opened the public hearing at 8:43 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of General Plan Amendment 86-4 and Zone Change 86-2. Mr. Art Nelson, applicant, stated that he would answer any ques- tions the Commission may have. Mr. Elbert Smith, 521 Marview Drive, La Palma, California; stated that he was in favor of commercial development in this area. Mr. Forest Brothe, 16253 Lakeshore Drive, Lake Elsinore, Cali- fornia; stated that he was the only resident left in that area, and was in favor of the proposal provided it does not change his status as a private residence. Minutes of Planning Commission March 18, 1986 Page 6 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 86-4 AND ZONE CHANGE 86-2 - ART NELSON CONTINUED Chairman Dominguez asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor of General Plan Amendment 86-4 and Zone Change 86-2. Receiving no response, Chairman Dominguez asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Receiving no response, Chairman Dominguez closed the public hearing at 8:48 p.m. .... Commissioner Saathoff recommended that for the next round of General Plan Amendments that the City give consideration to expanding the designation (Neighborhood Commercial) over a larger area. Discussion was held on Commissioner Saathoff's suggestion, and Mr. Brothe's concern about his use becoming a non-conforming use. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to approve General Plan Amendment 86-4, Zone Change 86-2, adoption of a Negative Declaration and adoption of Resolution No. 86-4, second by Commissioner Washburn, entitled as follows: Approved 5-0 RESOLUTION NO. 86-4 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 86-4 BUSINESS ITEMS .... 1. Commercial Project 86-1 - Atlantic Richfield Company - Assistant Planner Bolland presented proposal to construct an AM/PM Mini- Market and Arco Self Service Station on .75 acres, located on the corner of Casino Drive and Railroad Canyon Road. Assistant Planner Bolland stated that the previous Shopper's Square site plan indicated a shared access between the subject site and Shopper's Square on Casino Drive. However, one of the conditions of approval for the Shopper's Square project was that the median between the subject site and the Shopper's Square site be extended down to Casino Drive and that the shared access be deleted; that the applicant would provide his own access off of Casino Drive for the gas station. The application, when it came to staff included two access points on Casino Drive, and through various site plan negotiations the applicant has agreed to reduce that down to one access. Staff has reviewed this situation for the center and is in support of this, however, it would require that the Planning Commission and City Council delete condition number 22 from Commercial Project 85-2. Chairman Dominguez 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 one small concern on the drives, and informed the Commission that earlier they had proposed 40-foot width drives to allow easy ingress/egress for large vehicles. .... Discussion was held on access being limited to 35 feet, and two of the accesses being shared; reciprocal access agreement re- quired to be recorded between the parcels on the original pro- ject; location of trash receptacles and location of air and water facilities. Minutes of Planning Commission March 18, 1986 Page 7 COMMERCIAL PROJECT 86-1 -ATLANTIC RICHFIELD CONTINUED Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to approve Commercial Project 86-1 with the 23 conditions as presented in the staff report, and adding condition number 24, and adoption of a Negative Declaration. "24. Air and water facilities shall be installed." Second by Commissioner Barnhart. Commissioner Washburn asked for clarification on the shared entry on Railroad Canyon. Community Development Director Miller stated that the shared entry was a condition approved by the Design Review Board (condi- tion number 5), if the Planning commission feels that this should be changed then a recommendation and condition of the Planning commission should be added. The Commission concurred with the Design Review Board condition number 5. There being no further discussion at the table, Chairman Domin- guez called for the question. Approved 5-0 2. Resolution No. 86-5 - Fences in the Lakeshore Overlay District - City of Lake Elsinore - Assistant Planner Bolland presented to the Commission a resolution establishing the architectural theme for fences within the Lakeshore Overlay District. Discussion was held on Exhibit "A", State Park theme shall not include wire between the rails; only the two types of fences (State Park and Split Rail) could be built along Lakeshore Drive, (in front) and approved over the counter, any other fencing would require Planning commission approval. Commissioner Saathoff stated that he thought that the State Park theme referred to was the State Park type along Lakeshore Drive not Riverside Drive, and recommended that the Commission change it to either the State Park on Lakeshore or the Split Rail, would like to see the verbiage Lakeshore Drive as representative of State Park on Lakeshore Drive. Commissioner Saathoff then commented on the section of the reso- lution referring to vacant or residentially zoned property. Com- munity Development Director Miller recommended that this be changed to residentially occupied. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to adopt Resolution 86-5 with changes in verbiage to indicate residentially occupied property, and that the two types of fences would be the State Park type located on Lakeshore Drive or the Split Rail type construction, second by Commissioner Barnhart. Community Development Director Miller asked for clarification. Commissioner Saathoff stated that his motion was Split Rail type and the vertical (State Park type post fence) and eliminate l.a (State Park type rail fence) in Exhibit "A". Discussion ensued on whether or not to include the State Park type rail fences (l.a). Commissioner Saathoff amended his motion include both types in Exhibit "A" plus the State Park type post fence on Lakeshore Drive, second by Commissioner Barnhart. Approved 5-0 Minutes of Planning Commission March 18, 1986 Page 8 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S REPORT community Development Director Miller reported on the following: General Plan Amendment 86-8, a study session was held to discuss the appropriate General Plan Designation and zoning for that area, a number of the property owners were in attendance. Since that time, the Redevelopment Agency has si~ned a ~lann~ng negotiati~g. agreement with Pacific Heritage Assoc1ates, 1n wh1ch that spec1f1c area is included to be planned by Pacific Heritage for presenta- tion to the Redevelopment Agency and city Council for the most ap- propriate land use. Pacific Heritage Associates has indicated that this report will not be available for at least six months. General Plan Amendment 85-l0A, regarding the five acres of land along Ulla Lane, changing the designation from High Density Resi- dential to Medium Density Residential. City Council decided not to go forward with this, and directed staff to return with a Gener- al Plan Amendment changing it to Low Density Residential. However, Mr. Hugh Mosbacher, property owner, has made a request to City Council that this be reconsidered, and this request has been sched- uled for the next City council Agenda. Pending Council's direc- tion, staff will be returning to the next Planning Commission meet- ing for consideration of a General Plan Amendment on that property. Discussion ensued on the Pacific Heritage Study, whether or not there was any privately owned property included, and if so if the property owners would have any say in what Pacific Heritage plans for them. Community Development Director Miller stated that regular meetings will be planned and community participation will be encouraged. -, PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION commissioner Saathoff: Nothing to report. commissioner Mellinger: Requested that goals and objectives be included in the General Plan Text to guide the design review, in the future, to ensure that there is not piecemeal industrial development for property between Main and Central . Stated that the major thing that should be guiding staff is the goals, objectives and implementation measures in the General Plan, with re- gard to the commercial/residential conflicts. Recommended that some sort of statement, goal, objective or study be established indicating guidelines and separation for these areas. Commented on the "walled entry", and weeds in the parkway along Lake- shore Drive brought up earlier this evening. Commented on construction of subdivisions stating that during the environmental review staff should not only look at the impacts after it is built, but should also look at the impacts while it is under construction. Recommended that some sort of condition be placed on subdivisions, in the future, that addresses the actual construction and how they impact neighboring residences or uses during construc- tion. Commissioner Washburn: Commented on the need for a master plan of flood control, positive that the Engineering Department has been directed to look into this, as it is becoming crucial. Concern is with projects being approved piecemeal and not having a master plan in place. Minutes of Planning Commission March 18, 1986 Page 9 PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION CONTINUED Pleased to hear that there are at least two or three Planning Commis- __ sioners attending the City/Council Planning Commissioners spring Conference, in Riverside, on March 20th. commissioner Barnhart: Asked staff about the Infill Program Committee that was to be formed a number of months ago. Community Development Director Miller stated that Council has had a lengthy discussion regarding establishment of this committee. It was decided by the Mayor with the concurrence of Councilmembers that this be postponed until after the election. commissioner Barnhart asked if the existing Infill Program would be utilized until after the election? Community Development Director Miller stated that Council action was the existing Infill Program be suspended pending the report from the subcommittee, making appropriate recommendations as to guidelines and implementation. Chairman Dominquez: On Graham Street and on the north side of Peck Street, Public Works should post the "No Parking for more than two hours" signs. People are being cited and there are no signs posted. -- Community Development Director Miller stated that before the Commis- sion adjourned, he would like to address, for informational purposes, some of the issues brought up by the Commissioners. Community Development Director Miller then commented on the landscaped areas along arterial streets; goals and objectives of the General Plan, and amending the text of the General Plan to have design guide- lines. There being no further adjourned at 9:32 p.m. Commissioner Washburn. Approved 5-0 business, the Lake Elsinore Planning Commission Motion by Commissioner Barnhart , second by -- Approved, ~/:g,? ~~-~H .-~ Fred DOmrngU~ Chairman Respectfully ~bmitted, qe4'~ ~4fk Linda Grindstaff ~ Planning Commission Secretary MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD HELD ON THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH 1986 , MEMBERS PRESENT were Community Development Director Miller, Land- scape Architect Kobata and Assistant Planner Bolland. MINUTE ACTION Minutes of March 4, 1986, approved as submitted. BUSINESS ITEMS 1. Commercial Project 86-1 - Atlantic Richfield Company _ Assistant Planner Bolland presented proposal to construct an AM/PM Mini-Market and Arco Self Service Gas Station on .75 acres located on the northeast corner of Casino Drive and Railroad Canyon Road. Assistant Planner Bolland stated that staff is requesting that the required parking be relocated to allow a larger landscaping pocket and to reduce internal conflicts, and previous Planning Commission/Design Review Board approval for Shopper's Square included a deletion of shared access with the adjacent site, Casino Drive, staff is recommend- ing that this condition be rescinded. A brief discussion was held on the relocation of the trash enclosure; relocating the required parking; condition for restroom facilities; time frame for construction, pertain- ing to sewer connection; master landscaping plan for the entire site. Commercial Project 86-1 approved subject to the six (6) conditions recommended in the staff report. ~~ Nelson Miller Community Development Director MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL 1986 THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:00 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Commissioner Saathoff. ~ ROLL CALL: PRESENT: commissioners: Saathoff, Mellinger, Washburn, Barn- hart and Chairman Dominguez. ABSENT: None Also present were Community Development Director Miller, Assistant Planner Coleman and Assistant Planner Bolland. MINUTE ACTION Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to approve minutes of March 18, 1986, as submitted, second by Commissioner Mellinger. Approved 5-0 PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. General Plan Amendment 86-5 and Zone Change 86-7 - Jim Thompson/ Thompson Investment Company - Assistant Planner Bolland presented proposal to amend the General Plan Land Use Map from Medium to Low Density Residential and pre-zone the site from County R-l and R-3 (Single and MUlti-Family residential) to City R-1 (Single- Family Residential), and PUD (Planned unit Development) Overlay . on all but one parcel, for 2.905 gross acres, located east and southeast of the intersection of Macy Street and Laguna Avenue. Chairman Dominguez opened the public hearing at 7:05 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of General Plan Amendment 86-5 and Zone Change 86-7. Mr. Jim Thompson, applicant, spoke in favor of this proposal and stated that he would answer any questions that the Commission may have. ~ Chairman Dominguez asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor of General Plan Amendment 86-5 and Zone Change 86-7. Receiving no response, Chairman Dominguez asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Receiving no response, Chairman Dominguez closed the public hearing at 7:06 p.m. There being no discussion at the table, Chairman Dominguez asked for a motion. ~ Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to approve General Plan Amend- ment 86-5; Zone Change 86-7; adoption of a Negative Declaration and adoption of Resolution No. 86-6, based on the findings listed in the staff report, second by Commissioner Barnhart, entitled as follows: Approved 5-0 RESOLUTION NO. 86-6 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 86-5 2. General Plan Amendment 86-6 and Zone Change 86-8 - City of Lake Elsinore - Assistant Planner Coleman presented proposal to amend a portion of the General Plan Land Use Map from High Density Residential (12.1 du/acre - 24.0 du/acre - apartments; 12.1 - 20 du/acre - condominiums) to Medium Density Residential (6.1 - 12.0 du/acre), and to change the zoning from R-3 (Multiple-Family Residential) to R-2 (Two-Family Residential) with a PUD (Planned Minutes of Planning Commission April 1, 1986 Page 2 GENERAL PLAN AMENMDMENT 86-6 AND ZONE CHANGE 86-8 - CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE CONTINUED unit Development) Overlay, for 5 acres located on the south side of Ulla Lane, approximately 860 feet east of Machado Street. Chairman Dominguez opened the public hearing at 7:08 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of General Plan Amendment 86-6 and Zone Change 86-8. - The Planning Commission Secretary stated that written communica- tion from Mr. & Mrs. Hugh Mosbacher, 3760 Ulla Lane, Lak~ Elsinore, owner of the five-acres involved, dated February 24 and March 28, 1986, was received stating that they are in favor of General Plan Amendment 86-6 and Zone Change 86-8. Chairman Dominguez asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor. Receiving no response, Chairman Dominguez asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Receiving no response, Chairman Domin- guez closed the pUblic hearing at 7:09 p.m. A brief discussion was held on future developments proposed for the project site. Motion by Commissioner Washburn to approve General Plan Amendment 86-6; Zone Change 86-8, based on the findings listed in the staff report, and adoption of a Negative Declaration, second by Com- missioner Barnhart. Commissioner Mellinger asked if the maker of the motion would like to include the adoption of Resolution 86-7. Commissioner Washburn amended his motion to include the adoption of Resolution No. 86-7, second by Commissioner Barnhart, enti- tled as follows: Approved 5-0 - RESOLUTION NO. 86-7 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 86-6 3. Conditional Exception Permit 86-4 - Lakeview Apartments - Assis- tant Planner Coleman requested that this proposal be continued to the meeting of April 15, 1986, due to specific site design problems relating to drainage, service grades, and soil testing for subsurface water disposal. Chairman Dominguez opened the public hearing at 7:12 p.m., ask- ing if anyone wished to speak in favor of Conditional Exception Permit 86-4. Receiving no response, Chairman Dominguez asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Ms. Helen Smith, 196 Olive Street, Lake Elsinore, stated that _ she was not necessarily in opposition, but wished to ask some questions. Mr. Floyd Briggs, 194 Olive Street, Lake Elsinore, stated that he also has some questions regarding the proposal. Chairman Dominguez informed Ms. Smith and Mr. Briggs that after the close of the pUblic hearing, they would be called back to the podium to address their concerns. Chairman Dominguez asked if there was anyone else wishing to Minutes of Planning Commission April 1, 1986 Page 3 CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION PERMIT 86-4 = LAKEVIEW APARTMENTS CONTINUED ~ speak in opposition. Receiving no response, Chairman Dominguez closed the public hearing at 7:13 p.m. Ms. smith was called back to the podium. Ms. smith had the following questions: how proposal will impact the water pressure; if the residents would be assessed a fee for upgrading water lines, with the same concern regarding sewer, and traffic circulation. community Development Director Miller stated that in terms of water pressure and sewer, the final plans for these items have not been worked out, but new development must make sufficient improvements to service their development without negatively impacting surrounding developments, and there would not be an assessment of any fees upon existing properties as a result of this project. Community Development Director Miller then stated that a full presentation will be made at the April 15th meeting, and asked Ms. Smith if she could attend that meeting or stop by the Plan- ning Department, any time before then, if she had any further questions. Ms. Smith then commented on the location of her mail box, stat- ing that she believes that her mail box may infringe upon the new property development, and asked who she talks to about this. Community Development Director Miller informed Ms. Smith that it would be best to address this to the Planning Department and they would work with her and the Post Office regarding this. Mr. Floyd Briggs was called back to the pOdium. Mr. Floyd Briggs asked what the dimensions of the proposed pro- ject were? ~ commissioner Mellinger asked staff to give a brief description on the proposed project, and exactly what the Conditional Excep-. tion Permit is for. ~ Assistant Planner Coleman stated that the proposal is for 24 units, located approximately 100 feet south of Olive street, access will be taken off of Olive Street via one entrYWay. The Conditional Exception Permit is for a 10-foot front yard setback in lieu of the required 15-foot setback. Community Development Director Miller responding to Mr. Briggs' question, stated that the existing structure (mid-block) is on the down hill side of Olive Street, which would be the northern edge of the property and it would extend along the rest of the length of Olive Street, where it makes the bend and goes up the hill. Commissioner Washburn recommended that any comments by concerned persons be brought directly to staff, as soon as possible. Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to continue Conditional Excep- tion Permit 86-4 to the meeting of April 15, 1986, second by Commissioner Washburn. Approved 5-0 4. Conditional Exception Permit 86-6 - Lori Lachance - Community Development Director Miller presented proposal to vary from the requirements of Section 17.66.030 of the Municipal Code, Develop- Minutes of Planning Commission April 1, 1986 Page 4 CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION PERMIT 86-6 - LORI LACHANGE CONTINUED ment Standards for off-street parking facilities, specifically regarding paving, circulation, and parking space arrangement. Community Development Director Miller stated that the Planning Commission has three alternatives: - 1) Approve the request subject to conditions recom- mended in the staff report; 2) Require an alternate parking layout as shown in Exhibit 2, or similar parking design that complies with code requirements, or provision of parking arrangement involving removal of the garage; 3) Deny request for waiver of paving and tandem park- ing layout. Chairman Dominguez asked what type of use was proposed for the site. Community Development Director Miller stated that when the ap- plicant filed for application, he had a tenant for office use, but at this time, it is not known if the applicant has a tenant for the building. Chairman Dominguez opened the public hearing at 7:24 p.m., ask- ing if anyone wished to speak in favor of Conditional Exception Permit. - Mr. Allen Baldwin, appearing on behalf of the applicant, stated that he has slides on the proposed site, and that the applicant is ready to comply with alternative number one as recommended in the staff report, if approved. Mr. Baldwin stated that the basic request is to change the use from residential to commercial, which is of mutual benefit to the applicant and the City; the intended commercial use of this pro- perty conforms to the General Plan; consideration should be given for the existing structure to fit the highest and best use of the site; this is a "mom and pop" investment and removal of the ga- rage and improvement of the parking area would create a financial hardship, and cannot be supported by the applicant at this time, and the only alternative would be continued use of the structure as residential. Mr. Baldwin presented slides on the project site informing the Commission which tree was recommended for removal; arrangement for tandem parking, as recommended in alternative one; poten- tial on-site parking space (between fence and car), and the stoop at the rear of the building recommended to be reduced in size. Mr. Baldwin informed the Commission that the applicant wishes - to leave the garage and have parking where the white car is located, as indicated in the slides. Chairman Dominguez asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor of Conditional Exception permit 86-6. Mr. Don Burnell, 32251 Corydon Road, Lake Elsinore, stated when they started this project, at lot of thought was given to the rehabilitation of this structure (remembered that the City has the 1920's theme), and that he is only aSking that Ms. Lachance be given the same consideration as some of the other facilities in town. Minutes of Planning Commisison April 1, 1986 Page 5 CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION PERMIT 86-6 - LORI LACHANCE CONTINUED ~ Mr. Burnell then stated that this structure was an office and a business prior to the flood. After the flood, due to economic reasons, the structure was returned to a residential use. Chairman Dominguez asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor. Receiving no response, Chairman Dominguez asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Receiving no response, Chairman Domin- guez closed the public hearing at 7:33 p.m. Discussion was held on structure's use prior to the flood; this type of conversion being a re-occuring problem and will probably continue until redevelopment changes take place (providing ade- quate parking or variances for the use of commercial buildings that presently exist along Main street); Exhibit I and 2 pertain- ing to parking layout, the possibility of Exhibit 1 being more appropriate; whether or not Alternative I involves backing out out into the street; whether or not there was an intent to con- tinue with the residential use and, if not, why the need for the garage; Alternative 2, with a need to look at different code standards and return for rehabilitation; finding number I in the staff report, how to determine the exceptional or extraordinary circumstances; length of time structure was discontinued from its previous commercial use; whether or not other single-family resi- dences, any where in town, in a C-I Zone requesting this type of conversion would be required to provide paved parking, if there is another mechanism to allow DG other than a variance; tandem parking; Exhibit 2, eliminate parking space number I (driveway would become parking space number 1) with spaces 2, 3, and 4 re- maining the same, if the garage is to remain; accepting Exhibit 2, allowing DG, and move parking space number lover in front of the garage; location of parking space number 5: total number of parking spaces required for the proposal; Cal Poly study (adopted for the downtown area, from the freeway to Lakeshore Drive waiv- ing parking requirements); being consistent--utilizing either the Cal Poly study or the Municipal Code; if there is adequate space to park parallel with the garage (parking a car parallel to Pot- tery in front of the garage, parking a car parallel to Pottery, behind the garage). ~ Community Development Director Miller commented on the Cal Poly study stating that there was a draft agreement proposed to im- plement these issues; however, no record can be found where this was actually adopted. ..... Community Development Director Miller stated as an additional alternative, the Commission could approve a variance to reduce the required number of on-site parking spaces to two or three, and allow credit for one on-street parking space. Discussion ensued on programs that could be drafted and proposed to waive certain standards in return for rehabilitation, the need to establish the exceptional or extraordinary circumstances; ad- dressing problems through a Code or Policy revision; adoption of new policies without facilities to implement them; Redevelopment Act, adopted in 1983, for the area along Main street, and Re- development Law/Safety Code for the state of California. There being no further discussion at the table, Chairman Domin- guez asked for a motion. Motion by Commissioner Washburn to approve Conditional Excep- tional Permit 86-6, with alternative number 1, with the four findings in the staff report, indicating that there are excep- tional findings to allow this Conditional Exceptional Permit and the Redevelopment Guidelines provides for such, as indic~ted Minutes of Planning Commission April 1, 1986 Page 6 CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION PERMIT 86-6 ~ LORI LACHANCE CONTINUED in the staff report, and that there shall be four spaces pro- vided, second by Chairman Dominguez. Discusison ensued on the motion, pertaining to tandem parking; applicant providing three parking spaces, two (2) on-site and one (1) Off-site, on Pottery; applicant providing the four park- ing spaces on site and eliminate the paving requirement. There being no further discussion at the table, Chairman Domin- ques called for the question. Approved 4-1 Commissioner Mellinger voting no - BUSINESS ITEMS 1. Commercial Project 85-12 REVISED - Richard E. Seleine - Assistant Planner Coleman presented proposal to construct a 2,560 square convenience store with a self-service gasoline island, located on .43 acres at the southeast intersection of Interstate Highway 15 and Main Street (516 Main Street). Assistant Planner Coleman stated that the Design Review Board ap- proved this proposal, subject to 23 conditions, and informed the Commission of the modifications made by the Board. Chairman Dominguez asked if the applicant was in the audience, if he had received a copy of the conditions and if there were any concerns. Mr. Richard E. Seleine, applicant, questioned condition number 22, pertaining to the restroom facilities. - Discussion was held on condition number 22; brick veneer material (Design Review Board condition number 22), and color of brick to be utilized. Mr. Seleine stated that the color of the brick to be utilized was a "common red". Discussion ensued on including in the Design Review Board condi- tions, that the color of brick material to be utilized shall be "common red", and recommended modifications to the architectural design and landscaping theme. Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to approve Commercial Project 85-12 REVISED with the 22 conditions as recommended in the staff report, with a note if condition number 22 is requested to be waived, that it come back to the Planning Commission, and adop- tion of a Negative Declaration, second by Commissioner Saathoff with discussion. Commissioner Saathoff stated that on the Design Review Board conditions, that he would like to see the "common red" brick with the batten metal be compatible in color, and recommended that the brick veneer be approved by the Community Development Director. - Community Development Director Miller recommended that this be added as a condition of the Planning Commission. Commissioner Mellinger amended his motion to add condition number 23, which will read: Condition Number 23: "The 'common red' brick and batten metal to be compatible in color, and approved by the Community Development Director. II Minutes of Planning commission April 1, 1986 Page 7 COMMERCIAL PROJECT 85-12 REVISED = RICHARD ~ SELEINE CONTINUED Second by Commissioner Saathoff. Approved 5-0 - 2. Residential Project 86-1 - Lakeview Apartments - Assistant Planner Coleman requested that this item be continued to the meeting of April 15, 1986, due to specific site design con- cerns. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to continue Residential pro- ject 86-1 to the meeting of April 15, 1986, second by Com- missioner Barnhart. Approved 5-0 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S REPORT Community Development Director Miller stated that the Commission received in their packets revised General Plan Maps. This reflects all General Plan Amendments that have been adopted through December 1985. The General Plan Land Use Map will be updated on a regular basis, incorporating the General Plan Amendments as we go along. Community Development Director Miller informed the Plannng Commission of the installation of City Council members scheduled for April 15th, at 6:00 p.m. It is requested that the Planning Commission adjourn their meeting tonight to 7:30 p.m. on the 15th, to allow sufficient -- time for the installation and the Chambers to be cleared. Community Development Director Miller informed the Commission that Council has scheduled a meeting with the Downtown Business Association for Monday, April 14th, at 5:00 p.m., and the Commission is invited to attend. PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION commissioner Saathoff: Informed the Commission that he would not be in attendance at the April 15th, meeting, and stated that he had nothing to report. Commissioner Mellinqer: Nothing to report. commissioner Washburn: Nothing to report. Commissioner Barnhart: - Nothing to report. Chairman Dominquez: Wanted to know if staff had an answer on the posting of the "No Park- ing" signs, for more than two hours, on Graham and on the north side of Peck Street. community Development Director Miller stated that this has been refer- red to the Public Works Department, and believes that it is their in- tention to present this to the Public Safety commission. Chairman Dominguez stated that it is posted on one side of the street and not the other; we already have the time limits, we don't have the signs posted. Minutes of Planning Commission April 1, 1986 Page 8 PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION CONTINUED Community Development Director Miller stated that from the information he received, this is the way the existing ordinance reads, and that it does require Council action to set time limits or no parking zones. - There being no further business, Commissioner Barnhart moved that the Lake Elsinore Planning Commission adjourn to April 15th, at 7:30 p.m., second by Commissioner Saathoff. Approved 5-0 Meeting adjourned at 8:25 p.m. Approved, ~~ Chairman /Resp ,c~fUllY s~:tted. ( ~~ L~nda Grindstaff ~ Planning Commission Secretary - - MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD HELD ON THE 1ST ~y OF APRIL 1986 MEMBERS PRESENT were Community Development Director Miller, Land- scape Architect Kobata, Assistant Planner Bolland and Assistant Planner Coleman. ~ MINUTE ACTION Minutes of March 18, 1986, approved as submitted. BUSINESS ITEMS The Board reviewed items out of sequence. 3. Single-Family Residence - 209 Mohr Street - Charles and Irene Estrada - Assistant Planner Bolland presented proposal to construct a single-family residence on a 9,000 square foot lot located on the west side of Mohr Street, approximately 250 feet north of Heald Avenue. Discussion was held on the plot plan pertaining to the back of the unit (sliding door and window); vacant property on both sides of proposal, applicant having to extend the main water line and the cost of extending this line, the water district that will service the proposal, and if proposal would be con- nected to the sewer system. Single-Family Residence at 209 Mohr Street approved subject to the 21 conditions recommended in the staff report. ..... 1. Single-Family Residence 16541 McPherson Avenue - Robert Hill - Assistant Planner Bolland presented proposal to construct a single-family residence on an 18,900 square foot lot, located on the northwest side of McPherson Avenue, approximately 200 feet north of the intersection of McPherson Avenue and Gunder Avenue. Assistant Planner Bolland stated that staff recommends this project be denied based on conflict with current Zoning pro- visions, or continued until such time as the proposed Zoning Code revisions have been adopted. ~ Discussion was held on the site plan/floor plan pertaining to the number bedrooms and square footage; setback requirement for the R-1 Zoning District and moving the house 4-feet to meet the setback requirements; utilizing the garage up stairs for parking of vehicles and the down stairs garage for storage or a workshop; eliminating the lower level driveway; height of structure; pro- posal being on septic and location of leach field; dry well being located in the front yard; whether or not the soils report has been submitted to the county Health Department; if a will serve letter for water service has been sUbmitted; approving the re- vised proposal, moving the building 4-feet; adding conditions for street tree program and standard conditions of approval for single-family residence; discussing proposal with the County Fire Department regarding location of fire hydrant and water pressure in the area. Mr. Hill asked if he could request a deferment on public improve- ments. Mr. Hill was informed that he would need to contact the Engineering Department regarding this request, and the request for deferment would have to be presented to City Council for their approval. Single-Family Residence at 16541 McPherson Avenue approved sub- ject to the following conditions: Minutes of Design Review Board April 1, 1986 Page 2 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE = 16541 MCPHERSON - ROBERT HILL CONTINUED PLANNING DIVISION CONDITIONS: 1. Design Review Board approval will lapse and be void one (l) year following date of approval. 2. Building shall be shifted to provide 10-foot side yard on each side of the building. 3. All exposed slopes in excess of three feet (3') shall have a permanent irrigation system and erosion control vegetation installed, approved by the Planning Divipion. 4. Meet all setback requirements. ~ 5. Applicant is to meet all applicable City Codes and Ordi- nances. 6. Applicant is to meet all County Fire Department require- ments for fire protection. 7. Applicant shall meet all conditions of approval prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy and release of utilities. 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 public streets. 9. Building elevations shall be constructed as depicted on plans or as modified by the Design Review Board. ~ 10. Applicant shall plant street trees, at least l5-gallon in size, a maximum of 3D-feet apart, as approved by the Planning Division. 11. Meet all Riverside County Health Department requirements. 12. Delete driveway on north side of building. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS: 13. Meet all requirements of Ordinance No. 571 (Chapter 12.08 of the Municipal Code) regarding encroachment permits. 14. Meet all requirements of Ordinance No. 572 (Chapter 16.34 of the Municipal Code) regarding public improvements for buildings and subdivisions. 15. Meet all requirements of Ordinance No. 636 (Chapter 15.72 of the Municipal Code) regarding grading. l6. Meet all requirements of Ordinance No. 529 (Title l6 of the Municipal Code) regarding Subdivisions. 17. Meet all requirements of Resolution No. 83-78 regarding __ fees for encroachment permits. 18. Meet all requirements of Resolution No. 77-39 regarding Capital improvement fees and engineering plan check fees for other than subdivisions. 19. Meet all requirements of Resolution No. 83-12 regarding installation of improvements as a condition of building permits. 20. Dedicate underground water rights to the City of Lake Elsinore or its designee per Ordinance No. 529. Minutes of Design Review Board April 1, 1986 Page 3 2 . single-Family Residence - 17300 Turnbull Avenue - Gary Easley - Assistant Planner Bolland presented proposal to construct a single-family residence on 1.74 acres, located on the north- side of the intersection of Gunnerson Street and Turnbull Avenue, approximately 700 feet east of the intersection of Gunnerson street and Pinnell street. Mr. Easley asked for clarification on condition number 14, per- taining to the required transition and drainage improvements on Gunnerson. ~ Discussion was held on condition number 14; driveway approaches indicated on site plan; street improvements along Turnbull and deferment of these improvements. Mr. Easley was informed that the City is in the process of revising the ordinance regarding public improvements, (requiring improvements to be installed when construction begins or in lieu of this the applicant may pay into a fund that would provide these improvements at 'a future date.) Discussion ensued on requirement of public improvements, and applicant contacting the Engineering Department regarding deferment of public improvements, the cost of public improve- ments; and roofing material to be utilized for proposal. single-Family Residence at 17300 Turnbull Avenue approved sub- ject to the 22 conditions recommended in the staff report. 4. Residential Project 86-1 - Lakeview Apartments - Assistant Planner Coleman requested that this proposal be continued to the meeting of April 15, 1986, due to specific site design problems relating to drainage, service grades, and soil test- ing for subsurface water disposal. Residential Project 86-1 continued to the meeting of April 15, 1986. 5. Commercial Project 85-12 REVISED - Richard E. Seleine - Assis- tant Planner Coleman presented proposal to construct a 2,560 square foot convenience store with a self-service gasoline island, located on .43 acres at the southeast intersection of Interstate Highway 15 and Main street (516 Main Street). Discussion was held on condition number 10, pertaining to the landscaping/irrigation plan, and amending this condition by adding the following verbiage "minimum 5 gallon shrubs and 15 gallon trees, except Limonium Perezi may be one gallon"; condi- tion number 21, regarding the emergency gates at the rear of the property, and amending this condition by adding the follow- ing verbiage "the driveway shall be modified to incorporate a 10-foot radius on the curb adjacent to the building"; irrigation plan to be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Board. Commercial Project 85-12 REVISED approved subject to the 23 conditions as recommended in the staff report with condition number 10 and condition number 21 amended as follows: Condition Number 10: A final landscaping/irrigation plan is to be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Board, with minimum 5 gallon shrubs and 15 gallon trees, except Limonium Perezi may be one gallon. Minutes of Design Review Board April 1, 1986 Page 4 COMMERCIAL PROJECT 85-12 REVISED - RICHARD ~ SELEINE CONTINUED Condition Number 21: The emergency gates identified on the site plan shall utilize wrought iron fencing, as approved by the Community Development Director, and the driveway shall be modified to incorporate a lO-foot radius on the curb adjacent to the building. - Ck~ .... Nelson Miller, Community Development Director - MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON THE 15TH DAY OF APRIL 1986 THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:32 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by City Manager Molendyk. - ROLL CALL: PRESENT: commissioners: Mellinger, Washburn and Barnhart. ABSENT: commissioner Saathoff, Chairman Seat vacant. Also present were Community Development Director Miller, Assistant Planner Coleman and Assistant Planner Bolland. Due to vacancy of the Chairman's seat, Vice Chairman Washburn conducted the meeting. MINUTE ACTION Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to approve minutes of April 1, 1986, as submitted, second by Commissioner Barnhart. Approved 3-0 PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Conditional Exception Permit 86-4 - Lakeview Apartments - Assis- tant Planner Coleman presented proposal to vary five-feet (5') from the City'S R-3 (Multiple-Family Residential) setback stan- dards, Section 17.28.080, which requires a minimum fifteen-foot (15') front yard setback. The requested application is associ- ated with a 24-unit apartment complex (Residential Project 86-1), which proposes to maintain a ten-foot (10') front yard setback, located approximately 225 feet southwest of the intersection of Prospect and Olive Streets. - Vice Chairman Washburn opened the public hearing at 7:36 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of Conditional Excep- tion Permit 86-4. Mr. Gary Zimmer, representative for Lakeview Apartments, gave a brief report on the proposal, highlighting the request for the variance. Vice Chairman Washburn asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor of Conditional Exception Permit 86-4. Receiving no re- sponse, vice Chairman Washburn asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Receiving no response, Vice Chairman Washburn asked if anyone had questions or wished to speak on the proposal. Ms. Smith asked if Olive Street would become a dead end street? Community Development Director Miller stated that there is a dedicated street "Ridge Road", and at some point that street may continue and Olive Street would not be a dead end street. - Ms. smith requested that a sign be posted stating that Olive Street is not a through street. Mr. Floyd Briggs asked if the grade and width of Olive Street was to be altered? Community Development Director Miller stated that the final design of the street plans have not been determined. Mr. Briggs asked how far west this proposal would go and when construction would begin? Vice Chairman Washburn informed Mr. Briggs that the proposal goes halfway down the hill towards Main Street, and that it was up to the applicant, after receiving all permits, when they would start Minutes of Planning Commission April 15, 1986 Page 2 CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION PERMIT 86-4 - LAKEVIEW APARTMENTS CONTINUED construction. There being no one else present wishing to speak on the matter, Vice Chairman Washburn closed the public hearing at 7:45 p.m. A brief discussion was held on the variance being warranted due __ topographical constraints. Motion by Commissioner Barnhart to approve Conditional Excep- tional Permit 86-4, with staff recommendation, and the adoption of a Negative Declaration, second by Commissioner Mellinger with discussion. Discussion ensued on the four findings listed in the staff report being appropriate. There being no further discussion at the table, Vice Chairman asked for the question. Approved 3-0 2. Conditional Exception Permit 86-5 - Bruce Ayres - Vice Chairman Washburn stated that staff has requested this item be continued to May 6, 1986, due to a lack of a quorum on this item. Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to continue Conditional Excep- tion Permit 86-5 to the meeting of May 6, 1986, second by Com- missioner Barnhart. Approved 3-0 3. Zone Change 86-6 - Jack Malki - Assistant Planner Coleman pre- __ sented a proposal to change the zoning designation associated with pending Commercial Project 86-2 (retail commercial pro- posal) from R-l (Single-Family Residential) and C-l (Limited Commerical) to C-2 (General Commercial), for 1.80 acres located approximately 500 feet southeast of the intersection of Railroad Canyon Road and Casino Drive. Vice Chairman Washburn opened the pUblic hearing at 7:48 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of Zone Change 86-6. The following persons spoke in favor of Zone Change 86-6: Mr. Jack Malki, applicant Mr. Del Acker, 35735 White Ash Road, Wildomar Vice Chairman Washburn asked if anyone wished to speak in opposi- tion. Receiving no response, Vice Chairman Washburn closed the public hearing at 7:49 p.m. A brief discussion was held on the Zone Change being required to bring the property into conformance with the General Plan. Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to approve Zone Change 86-6 with the three findings listed in the staff report, and adoption of a Negative Declaration, second by Commissioner Barnhart. __ Approved 3-0 BUSINESS ITEMS 1. Residential Project 86-1 - Lakeview Apartments - Assistant Plan- ner Coleman presented proposal to construct a 24 unit apartment complex on 1.03 acres, located 225 feet southwest of the inter- section of Prospect Street and Olive Street. Assistant Planner Coleman stated that the Design Review Board ap- proved this proposal, subject to 19 conditions, and informed the Commission of the modifications made by the Board. Minutes of Planning Commission April 15, 1986 Page 3 RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 86-1 = LAKEVIEW APARTMENTS CONTINUED Vice Chairman Washburn asked if the applicant was in the audi- ence, if he had received a copy of the conditions and if there were any concerns. Mr. Gary Zimmer, representative for Lakeview Apartments, re- quested clarification on condition number 11, and stated that the applicant is requesting that condition number 12, be a- mended to a 1.5:1 cut slope adjacent to Olive Street be main- tained. - Discussion was held on condition number 11, pertaining to the secondary access being for pedestrian access; condition number 12, pertaining to the applicant's request for 1.5:1 cut slope; erosion control vegetation, thirty days (30) after rough grad- ing there be some type of erosion control implemented; final grading/drainage plan, if there was a question to the adequacy of the drainage as proposed; drainage area for percolation to remain in perpetual open space; condition number 21, pertaining to the dedication of water rights; condition number 12, adding verbiage "all non driveway slopes". Community Development Director Miller stated that the Commission may wish to amend condition number 12, and condition number 13, adding the following verbiage: Condition Number 12: - Condition Number 13: "Except that a 1.5:1 cut slope may be permitted between the units and the street." "Interim erosion control methods shall be included as part of the grading permits." Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to approve Residential Project 86-1 with the 21 conditions in the staff report, amending condi- tion number 12, amending condition number 13, and adding condi- tion 22, as follows: Condition Number 12: Condition number 13: Condition number 22: "1. 5: 1 slope between the Olive Street right-of-way and the proposed units, as approved by the City Engineer." "Interim erosion control measures shall be taken within a maximum of thirty (30) days after rough grading, as approved by the City Engineer." "For any drainage measures requiring percolation that area is to remain unobstructed, and that be a deed restriction recorded on the property prior to issuance of any building permits." Second by Commissioner Barnhart. Approved 3-0 2. Commercial Project 86-2 - Jack Malki - Assistant Planner Coleman presented proposal to construct a small retail commercial center consisting of 16,970 square feet of building area (a 2,000 square foot restaurant; a 5,720 square foot Firestone Auto Service Cen- ter; a 9,250 square foot retail building), located approximately 500 feet southeast of the intersection of Railroad Canyon Road and Casino Drive. Assistant Planner Coleman stated that the Design Review Board Minutes of Planning Commission April 15, 1986 Page 4 COMMERCIAL PROJECT 86-2 = JACK MALKI CONTINUED approved this proposal, subject to 22 conditions, and informed the Commission of the modifications made by the Board. vice Chairman Washburn asked if the applicant was in the audi- ence, if he had received a copy of the conditions and if there concerns. - Mr. Jack Malki stated that he had no concern with the conditions as presented. A brief discussion was held on reciprocal access and an agreement for reciprocal access and parking be recorded on each parcel; ap- plicant processing a lot merger for the property, adding a condi- tion that the parcels shall be merged, and the block wall (east side), if future development were to take place adjacent to the property, if it would be feasible to open that up and provide reciprocal drive access between the proposals, and division be- tween Phase I and Phase II. Motion by Commissioner Barnhart to approve Commercial Project 86-2 with the 19 conditions as recommended in the staff report, and adding condition number 20, which will read as follows: Condition Number 20: "Applicant to process a Lot Merger". Second by Commissioner Mellinger. Approved 3-0 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S REPORT Community Development Director Miller stated that the Commission has received, tonight, an updated copy of the General Plan Land Use Map which reflects all General Plan Amendments approved to date, and in- formed the Commission of City Council action on the last General Plan Amendments. - Community Development Director Miller then informed the Commission that Assistant Planner Coleman has submitted his resignation, stating that he has accepted a position as Associate Planner for the City of Simi Valley, and wanted to thank him for the service he has given to the city. Assistant Planner Coleman stated that the would like to thank the Com- munity, Commission and City Staff for the fine time he has had while working for the City and wished the City well. PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Commissioner Barnhart: Commented on hard liquor being sold at gasoline stations (Texaco at Four Corners). Community Development Director Miller informed the Commission that some jurisdictions require a conditional use permit for any service of alco- __ holic beverages and some jurisdictions prohibit the sale of alcoholic beverages and gasoline at the same location. This is something that the Commission may want to consider in Title 17. However, if a conditional use permit is required some type of standards/guidelines should be established to approve or deny the request. Community Development Director Miller informed the Commission that there are two bills before the legislature (pending), one would pro- hibit the sale of gasoline and alcoholic beverages at the same location and the other would prohibit jurisdictions from prohibiting the sale of alcoholic beverages and gasoline at the same location. Minutes of Planning Commission April 15, 1986 Page 5 PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION CONTINUED -- commissioner Barnhart continued: Commented on the two driveways at Great American First Saving Bank (former name Laguna Federal) stating that, especially on Monday morning around 9:00 a.m., the cars utilizing the bank's drive-up window block the street (Graham Avenue) and it is creating a traf- fic hazard. community Development Director Miller stated that this has been brought up on a couple of other occasions, and at the Public Safety Commission Meeting, and believes the Assistant City Manager has con- tacted the Bank Manager to discuss this problem. Discussion was held on whether or not there was an ordinance that could be posted to prohibit the blocking of the street and pedes- trian walkways, and having Code Enforcement enforce this ordinance. commissioner Mellinqer: Commented on the General Plan Amendment (GPA 86-3) that Council had concerns with, wanting to tie it to some sort of Specific Plan, and asked what sort of mechanism would take place? Community Development Director Miller stated that the intent was to have an actual Specific Plan. Commented on the condition "voluntary development agreement" concerning -- school fees and overcrowding, wanting to know if this was in response to SB 201, State Law, for interim facilities or what this agreement is actually for; asked if the school district was reporting to the City the annual update report that is required; exactly what Ordinance 588 implements; what the school fees are now (dollar amount) and what the fees are based upon. Community Development Director Miller and Vice Chairman Washburn gave explanation of requirement, covering school fees, SB 201 and Ordinance 588, and the Elementary School District's projection that a school be constructed every year for the next five years. Commissioner Washburn: Passed an article from the Western City Magazine to Community Develop- ment Director Miller on small city main street programs. Community Development Director Miller stated that he did see the pro- gram and passed the information on to our DBA (Downtown Business Asso- ciation) liaison, Jo Barrick. However, in the grant application, it provides for a maximum of $15,000.00, basically directed towards organ- izational items. In looking at the application, I believe the program will favor communities that do not already have an ongoing program. The Elsinore Union High School District will be sponsoring a meeting on April loth, from 8:30 a.m. to 2:00 p.m., at the Steven Price Memorial Performing Arts Center. It will focus on educational impacts in grow- ing areas; impacts in reference to educational processing and setting up programs in growth areas. Guest speakers are State Senator Presley, Congressman McCandles and Carl Karcher speaking on free enterprises. They will also have a report from a San Francisco Economic Institute, which staff may find useful. The Riverside County Department of Development will be sponsoring a program, at the Irvine Hilton on April 23rd, to promote and encourage industrial, commercial development in Riverside County, as a whole. The City of Lake Elsinore will have a both there, and the guest speaker will be Wayne Wedin, Consultant. Minutes of Planning Commission April 6, 1986 Page 6 PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION CONTINUED Community Development Director Miller commented on the presentation that the City will have for this program. There being no further adjourned at 8:54 p.m. missioner Mellinger. Approved 3-0 business, the Lake Elsinore Planning Commission Motion by Commissioner Barnhart, second by Com- - ~proved " G~~!!:u~M,- vj{J) Chairman Re. spect. fUll~/ bmitted, J ~ ~~ . ~?c/"2 Linda Grindstaff tI Planning Commission Secretary - - MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD HELD ON THE 15TH DAY OF APRIL 1986 MEMBERS PRESENT were Community Development Director Miller, Land- scape Architect Kobata, Assistant Planner Coleman and Assistant Planner Bolland. - MINUTE ACTION Minutes of April 1, 1986, approved as submitted. BUSINESS ITEMS The Board reviewed items out of sequence. 2. Commercial Project 86-2 - Jack Malki - Assistant Planner Coleman presented proposal to construct a small retail commercial center consisting of 16,970 square feet of building area, (one 4,111 and one 5,139 square foot retail building; one 5,720 square foot Firestone Service Center; one 2,000 square foot restaurant), lo- cated approximately 500 feet southeast of the intersection of Railroad Canyon Road and Casino Drive. Mr. Lawyer, representative for the applicant, questioned condi- tion number 3 and asked for clarification on condition number 18. Discussion was held on condition number 3, pertaining to the mansard tile roof for the Firestone building and the block wall for the south elevation; condition number 4, pertaining to the horizontal tile band; condition number 18, pertaining to the treatment of brick and pavers; amending condition number 3, to read: "Applicant shall revised the south elevation of the Fire- -- stone building to eliminate the plain block and provide addi- tional enhancement, subject to the approval of the Community Development Director"; condition number 2, pertaining to the landscaping/irrigation for the proposal, and amending condition number 2, to read:"A final landscaping/irrigation plan is to be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Board to include screen planting for the front parking areas with turf in front to extenuate the street frontages". Commercial Project 86-2 approved subject to the 22 conditions in the staff report, amending conditions 2 and 3, as follows: Condition Number 2: "A final landscaping/irrigation plan is to be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Board, plan to include screen planting in front of parking areas with turf to accent the street frontages." -- "Applicant shall revise south elevation of the Firestone building to eliminate plain block and provide additional en- hancement, subject to the approval of the Community Development Director." 1. Residential Project 86-1 - Lakeview Apartments - Assistant Plan- ner Coleman presented proposal to construct a 24 unit apartment complex on 1.03 acres, located 225 feet southwest of the inter- section of Prospect Street and Olive Street. Condition Number 3: Mr. Zimmer, representative for Lakeview Apartments, stated that he had no concern with the conditions as presented. A brief discussion was held on the proposed site regarding drain- age; railing on the patio areas, street elevations for the walkway color scheme; and architectural elevations presented. Residential Project 86-1 approved subject to the 19 conditions in the staff report. Minutes of Design Review Board April 15, 1986 Page 2 4. Single-Family Residence - 670 Lake Street - MFG Housing - Assis- tant Planner Bolland presented proposal to construct a single- family residence on a 6,000 square foot lot, located on the south side of Lake Street, approximately 150 feet west of High Street. Mr. Neil Peake of MFG Housing commented on the required six-foot setback, stating that they have built this same house on three lots on the same street and this was not a requirement, with this requirement the plans would have to be re-designed. Community Development Director Miller informed Mr. Peake that the only solution to this would be to re-design the plans to provide for a six-foot setback, as addressed in the conditions, or file for a variance. - Mr. Peake stated that they would re-design the plans to conform to the six-foot setback requirement. Single-Family Residence at 670 Lake Street approved subject to the 22 conditions in the staff report. 3. Single-Family Residence - 18259 Strickland Avenue - George Alongi - Assistant Planner Bolland presented proposal to construct a single-family residence on a 6,600 square foot lot, located on the southwest corner of Strickland Avenue and Gedge Avenue. Community Development Director Miller stated that the applicant was not present. Single-Family Residence at 18259 Strickland Avenue approved sub- ject to the 22 conditions in the staff report. 5. Residential Project 85-10 REVISED - Grayson Companies - Assistant Planner Bolland presented proposal to amend the previous Design ReviewtBoard approval to replace four (4) floor plans for the Hillcrest Summit with four (4) floor plans from the Hillcrest Heights (Residential Project 85-11). - Community Development Director Miller stated that the applicant was not present. Residential Project 85-10 REVISED approved subject to the 16 conditions in the staff report. 6. Residential Project 85-11 REVISED ~ Grayson Companies - Assistant Planner Bolland presented proposal to amend the previous Design Review Board approval to allow the incorporation of a fourth floor plan for the Hillcrest Heights development. Community Development Director Miller stated that the applicant was not present. Residential Project 85-11 REVISED approved subject to the 16 conditions in the staff report. 7. Residential Project 84-9 - Hal Kempe (Walk On) - Extension of Time on Design Review Board Approval - Community Development Director Miller stated that the applicant is requesting that the Design Review Board approval for Residential Project 84-9 be extended for one (1) year. - Extension of Time on Design Review Board Approval for Residential Project 84-9 approved for one (1) year, time extension will ex- pire on January 18, 1987. ~ Nelson Miller, Community Development Director MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON THE 6TH DAY OF ~Y 1986 THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:00 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Assistant Planner Bolland. -- ROLL CALL: PRESENT: commissioners: Saathoff, Mellinger, Washburn and Barn- hart ABSENT: None Also present were Community Development Director Miller, and Assistant Planner Bolland. MINUTE ACTION Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to approve minutes of April 15, 1986, as submitted, second by Commissioner Barnhart. Approved 3-1 Commissioner Saathoff abstained NOMINATIONS vice Chairman Washburn opened nominations for Chairman and Vice Chair- man. Commissioner Barnhart nominated Commissioner Washburn as Chairman of the Planning Commission, second by Commissioner Mellinger. Commissioner Saathoff moved that nominations cease and a unanimous -- vote be cast. Commissioner Washburn asked for discussion, stating that it should be indicated that this is for an interim term, until the first meet- ing in July. commissioner Barnhart amended her motion to indicate that this was for an interim term, which will expire the first meeting in JUly, second by Commissioner Mellinger. . Approved 4-0 Chairman Washburn opened nominations for Vice Chairman. Commissioner Mellinger nominated Commissioner Barnhart as Vice Chairman, second by Commissioner Saathoff. Chairman Washburn asked if there were any further nominations or discussion. There being no further nominations or discussion, Chairman Washburn closed the nomi- nations. Approved 4-0 PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Conditional Use Permit 85-6 - Robert McGill - Assistant Planner Bolland stated that this proposal was before the Commission on March 4, 1986, and continued for 60 days to allow resolution of several significant issues (density, screening, development stan- dards. Proposal is to re-establish a former recreational vehi- cle park to permit 44 spaces including a care-taker's mobile home, restroom facilities and hook-ups around a man-made pond. Project site is about 5 acres, located about 700 feet northwest of Grand Avenue at Hill Street, about 1,200 feet east of the intersection of Grand Avenue and Riverside Drive. Chairman Washburn opened the public hearing at 7:11 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of Conditional Use Permit 85-6. Minutes of Planning Commission May 6, 1986 Page 2 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 85-6 = ROBERT MCGILL CONTINUED Mr. Fred Crowe of Butterfield Surveys, representing the appli- cant, stated that they were concerned with a couple of the conditions. Chairman Washburn informed Mr. Crowe that he would be called back to the pOdium at the close of the public hearing to address his concerns. - Chairman Washburn asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak in favor of the project. Receiving no response, Chairman Washburn asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Receiv- ing no response, Chairman Washburn closed the public hearing at 7:12 p.m. Mr. Crowe was called back to the podium. Mr. Crowe questioned condition number 1, pertaining to the end of the three year periOd, wanting to know if another permit would be required, if there would be a need to go through new mapping; and stated that some of the conditions are open end conditions, in regard to meeting conditions of all the dif- ferent agencies. Discussion was held on condition number 1, regarding the pro- cedures for this condition at the end of the three year period; yearly review/inspection; granting approval for a five year period; adding verbiage "subject to yearly review by staff and a three year review submitted to Planning Commission"; enforce- ment of conditions, and it being applicant's responsibility to _ submit a report for the yearly review; condition number 5, per- taining to hard surface roads being required rather than gravel for internal roads; ingress/egress roads being hard surface (oil surface) and internal roads gravel; CC & R's for proposal; post- ing on a board or having handout listing the rules of the park, with some of the rules referring to condition number 6; (parking), condition number 34, (limit of stay), condition number 36, (hitches and wheels remaining intact), condition number 26, per- taining to emergency evacuation), rules should also list: no skirting on trailers, no fencing of individual lots; no outside storage sheds; outside furniture shall be limited to patio type furniture and accessories; amending condition number 1, adding verbiage "that applicant is to submit an annual report to staff, and any violating deemed sufficient should provide grounds for Planning Commission review rather than revoking the permit", ref- erencing condition number 34; condition number 21, pertaining to the emergency plan, providing a timing plan for evacuation, and adding language that if the owner/user is not present there is permission to go in and remove recreational vehicle(s), Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to approve Conditional Use Permit 85-6 with the 38 conditions as recommended in the staff report, amending condition 1, as follows: Condition Number 1: - "Owner/operator shall be required ,to submit an annual report, verifying that all conditions set forth in this Conditional Use Permit have been met. There shall be rules posted advising people that there shall be no skirt- ing of trailers or fencing of indi- vidual lots or storage sheds, outside furniture shall be limited to patio type and accessories (barbecue pit, etc.). That conditions number 6, 34, 36 and 26 pertaining to evacuation be Minutes of Planning Commission May 6, 1986 Page 3 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 85-6 - ROBERT MCGILL CONTINUED - posted so that the residents are fa- miliar with those conditions. Also, in the rules, residents should be advised of the animal and leash laws, so that they will be adhered to. Second by Commissioner Barnhart. Chairman Washburn asked if the maker of the motion would consider amending condition number 1, where it states any violation shall be deemed sufficient grounds for revocation of this permit, to any violations of this permit shall be brought back to the Plan- ning commission for review. Discussion ensued on grounds for revocation of the permit. Chairman Washburn withdrew his request. Commissioner Mellinger asked if the maker of the motion would include adoption of a Negative Declaration. Commissioner Saathoff amended his motion to include the adoption of a Negative Declaration, second by Commissioner Barnhart. Approved 4-0 -2. Conditional Exception Permit 86-5 - Bruce Ayres Chairman Washburn excused himself from participating on this proposal. vice Chairperson Barnhart conducted the hearing. Assistant Planner Bolland presented proposal to vary from the Zoning Code, Section 17.94, to allow freeway identification signs to be located on the rear portion of an industrial build- ing, located on the northeast side of the intersection of Collier Avenue and Chaney Street between Collier Avenue and Interstate 15. Vice Chairperson Barnhart opened the pUblic hearing at 7:35 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of Conditional Excep- tion Permit 86-5. The following persons spoke in favor of Conditional Exception Permit 86-5: Mr. Bruce Ayres, applicant Mr. Harv Mosses, proposed tenant - There being no one else wishing to speak in favor, Vice Chair- person Barnhart asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Receiving no response, Vice Chairperson Barnhart closed the public hearing at 7:40 p.m. Discussion was held on variance not being appropriate for this application; applicant having opportunity, under the Sign Ordi- nance, to place leasing signs on the property; current and pro- posed Zoning Code regarding signs, and location of proposed signs. Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to deny Conditional Exception Permit 86-5 for lack of findings as requried by the Code, second by Commissioner Saathoff. Approved 3-0 Chairman Washburn excused Minutes of Planning Commission May 6, 1986 Page 4 Chairman Washburn returned to the table. 3. Zone Change 86-9 - John S. Curts/Center Development - Community Development Director Miller stated that the original application for this proposal was to change the zoning on a portion of the site that is proposed for a shopping center from R-l (Single- Family Residential) to C-P (Comm~rcial Park). Upon review of the entire site, staff determined that the site has a General Plan designation of General Commercial, and the zoning that would be most appropriate to implement this General Plan cate- gory would be C-2 (General Commercial). In order to facilitate the development of the shopping center, and apply consistent standards to the entire site, staff has recommended that the en- tire site, which consists of 18 acres, located at the northwest corner of Sylvester Street and Mission Trail be re-zoned from C-l (Limited Commercial) and R-l (Single-Family Residential) to C-2 (General Commercial). Chairman Washburn opened the public hearing at 7:53 p.m., and asked the applicant to address the project. Mr. John Curts, representing the applicant, stated that he has reviewed the report and recommendation and has no problem. Chairman Washburn asked if anyone wished to speak in favor of Zone Change 86-9. Receiving no response, Chairman Washburn asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Receiving no response, Chairman Washburn closed the public hearing at 7:54 p.m. - A brief discussion was held on whether or not affected parties _ were notified of the expanded area. Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to adopt a Negative Declaration and approve Zone Change 86-9, with the findings as listed in the staff report, for the entire 18.03 acres to C-2 (General Com- mercial), second by Commissioner Barnhart. Approved 4-0 BUSINESS ITEMS 1. split Rail Fence and Ramada - Weldon Page - Assistant Planner Bolland presented proposal for a split rail fence along the east property line as a traffic control and property enhancement, and to construct a "ramada" shade structure on property within the Lakeshore Overlay District, located on the south side of Lake- shore Drive approximately 100 feet west of Adam Avenue. Discussion was held on reason for recommendation; whether or not the ramada structure would be used for storage or only for shade purposes; whether or not the ramada would be a permanent or semi-permanent structure; concern regarding ramada, if ap- proved, setting a precedence along Lakeshore Drive without specific continuity; distance of the split rail fence from Lakeshore Drive down to the lake; if the Lakeshore Overlay Ordinance required the posting of no trespassing signs, and __ entrance fencing, should be some type of wood fence or sol~d bar, referencing condition number 2. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to approve Mr. Weldon's request for a Split Rail Fence on Lakeshore Drive, with the 2 conditions as recommended in the staff report, and deny the request for the construction of the ramada, second by Chairman Washburn. Discussion ensued on the ramada structure, and the Lakeshore Overlay Area. Minutes of Planning Commission May 6, 1986 Page 5 SPLIT RAIL FENCE AND RAMADA = WELDON PAGE CONTINUED - commissioner Saathoff requested that the Chairman,call for the question. Chairman Washburn called for the quest1on. Approved 3-1 Commissioner Barnhart voting no 2. Plan Review for Non-Conforming Residential Addition - 407 Flint street - I.G. and Zoray Watson - Assistant Planner Bolland pre- sented proposal to construct a 189 square foot porch addition to a non-conforming structure under the provisions of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code, section 17.72.040 (Non-Conforming Uses). A brief discussion was held on the requirement of adding a window along the west wall, and condition number 2 resolving this re- quirement; window should be installed prior to enclosure being finaled. Motion by Commissioner Barnhart to approve Addition at 407 Flint street with the 2 conditions as recommended in the staff report, second by Commissioner Mellinger. Approved 4-0 3. Commercial Project 86-3 - Richard Block - Community Development Director Miller presented proposal to construct a boat display sales lot and a 728 square foot office building on a 7,650 square foot lot (.018 acres), at the northeast corner of Lakeshore Drive and Davis Street. Discussion was held on lighting proposed for the use; hours of operation (9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.); signage for proposal; if property transferred ownership if the conditions of approval, as listed, would still apply; type of surfacing for parking and storage area; letter from the Boy Scouts of American referencing the storage of boats, trailers and assorted vehicles, and if the applicant represented the Boy Scouts; whether or not this use can be restricted to boat sales only; architectural appearance of the proposed office building, referring to the height of the building (28x22 foot high); limitations on outdoor storage in the C-l Zone; Design Review Board action on proposal; what authority the Commission has in reviewing this proposal, Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to approve Commercial Project 86-3 and adoption of a Negative Declaration with the 22 condi- tions listed in the staff report, and adding condition number 23 and 24, which will read as follows: Condition Number 23: "All lighting shall be low pressure sodium and shielded to prevent glare onto neighboring properties." "Signage shall be limited to identi- fication signs only, to be consistent with the Sign Ordinance." Second by Commissioner Saathoff. Condition Number 24: Chairman Washburn asked for discussion. Chairman Washburn stated that for clarification, the Commission is focusing on the Planning Division conditions that apply to this project. The size of the building and the concerns brought forth, even though added as conditions of approval, may require additional study to decide if there is something else that needs to be provided on this project. Minutes of Planning Commission May 6, 1986 Page 6 COMMERCIAL PROJECT 86-3 - RICHARD BLOCK CONTINUED Chairman Saathoff requested the Chairman call for the question. Vote: AYES: NOES: Commissioner Saathoff and Mellinger Commissioner Barnhart and Chairman Washburn Discussion ensued on outcome of proposal, since vote resulted in a tie vote. Community Development Director stated that City Council would not hear this item, since the motion failed to pass due to a tie vote. The applicant may appeal to City Council; however, if the applicant does not appeal then it would be the end of the action on this proposal. Mr. Block asked for the procedure and time line for submitting an appeal to City Council. Mr. Block was informed that depend- ing upon the timing of the receipt of the appeal, it would take approximately a month. Mr. Block was informed to meet with staff and proceed as he desires. 4. Commercial Project 86-4 - Grayson Properties, Inc. - Assis- tant Planner Bolland presented proposal to construct a 95,672 square foot neighborhood shopping center, restaurant and con- venience market in two (2) phases, on approximately 12 acres located on the southwest side of Grand Avenue between Ortega Highway and Macy Street. Assistant Planner Bolland stated that Phase I is proposed to encompass the easterly two-thirds of the site and include 22 small retail spaces (1,200 and 2,000 square feet each), a 96,000 square foot anchor store, restaurant, mini-market and fast food restaurant. Phase II is proposed to follow in about one year providing 15 small retail spaces (1,200 and 2,000 square feet), another anchor space of approximately 20,600 square feet, and development of a theme tower, Assistant Planner Bolland stated that the Design Review Board approved this proposal subject to 20 conditions, and informed the Commission of the modification made by the Board. Commissioner Saathoff yielded the floor to the applicant. Mr. Richard Coleman, architect for the project, commented on condition number 3, pertaining to the five-foot landscape separation; condition number 5, pertaining to the pedestrian walkways; condition number 7, pertaining to the 25-foot radius turns; condition number 22, pertaining to visual screening, and condition number 23, pertaining to the re-orientation of the mini-market, and asked about the proposed amendment to the park- ing requirements for commercial centers. Discussion was held on parking requirements for commercial shop- ping centers, referencing revisions to Title 17; revising the site plan to take advantage of changes in the Code; revisions to the site plan and plan check requirements pertaining to the re- orientation of the restaurant and mini-market; continuing pro- posal for two weeks, allowing applicant to meet with staff to discuss the revisions to the site plan; condition number 3, per- taining to the five-foot separation; condition number 5, pertain- ing to the pedestrian walkways; condition number 7, pertaining to the radius turns; condition number 22, pertaining to the visual screening; condition number 23, pertaining to the re-orientation of the mini-market, and this being subject to the approval of the Community Development Director and City Engineer, and applicant providing Class II bicycle lane. .... .... .... Minutes of Planning commission May 6, 1986 Page 7 COMMERCIAL PROJECT 86-4 = GRAYSON PROPERTIES. INC. CONTINUED - Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to approve Commercial Project 86-4 with the 30 conditions as recommended in the staff report, amending conditions number 3, 22, 23, as follows: Condition Number 3: Condition Number 22: Condition Number 23: "Provide a landscaped separation between fast food "drive thru" lane and parking area east of the restaurant." "Tower courtyard development details, including a landscape screen between the courtyard and the rear access alley shall be included in the Final Landscape Plan and subject to the ap- proval of the Director of Community Development." "That applicant be allowed to re- locate the mini-market and restaurant to meet the requirements and approval of the City Engineer, in reference to circulation, and the Community Develop- ment Director." Second by Commissioner Barnhart. Commissioner Mellinger asked for clarification on condition num- ber 23, wanting to know if this was to replace the existing condition or just added to it. Commissioner Saathoff stated that this was to replace the exist- ing condition. Chairman Washburn called for the question. Approved 4-0 5. Residential Project 86- 2 - William Collier - Assistant Planner Bolland presented proposal to construct two (2) four unit apart- ment buildings on two (2) adjacent 9,000 square foot lots, lo- cated on the east side of Langstaff Street about 250 feet north of Heald Avenue. Assistant Planner Bolland requested that condition number 3 be amended by adding the following verbiage "Meet all County Fire Department requirements for fire protection, subject to the approval of the Fire Marshal". Assistant Planner Bolland stated that the Design Review Board approved this project, subject to 15 conditions. Discussion was held on Design Review Board condition number 15, pertaining to the six-foot fence; drainage basins on site to be identified on the final plans; circular driveway, and reciprocal agreement for access to be recorded on property. Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to adopt a Negative Declaration and approve Residential Project 86-2 with the 21 conditions as listed in the staff report, amending condition number 3, and adding condition number 22, which will read: Condition NUmber 3: "Meet all County Fire Department re- quirements for fire protection, sub- ject to the approval of the Fire Marshal. II Minutes of Planning Commission May 6, 1986 Page 8 RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 86-2 - WILLIAM COLLIER CONTINUED Condition Number 22: "The on site drainage basins shall be identified on all plans submitted to the City. No impervious services shall be constructed on those basins. Second by Commissioner Saathoff with discussion. - Discussion ensued on the circular drive. Commissioner Mellinger amended his motion to include the addition of condition number 23, which will read: Condition Number 23: "That either the circular drive be completed in total or that a fence, temporary nature, be erected prior to any Certificate of Occupancy on either parcel." Second by Commissioner Saathoff. Approved 4-0 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S REPORT Community Development Director Miller stated that the study session on Title, scheduled for May 5th, and postponed has not been re- scheduled. Community Development Director Miller stated that if any of the Commissioners have further comments, please transmit them to him. _ PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Commissioner Saathoff: Nothing to report. Commissioner Mellinger: Question of staff, on the initial study is it going to be continued practice for the applicant to complete this study, or if it is just temporary until we come to full staff. Community Development Director Miller stated that the applicant is most familiar with the project and all of the various design considerations to identify the ways in which his project is mitigating any potential environmental impacts. Staff would then review those mitigation meas- ures and amend/refine them as appropriate. On the Buster Allis Tract, would like to have the Planning Commission and Design Review Board conditions checked for those two large cut slopes that still exist. Believes that the Design Review Board condi- tions stated that all slopes would be landscaped prior to Certificate of Occupancy. Commissioner Barnhart: - Question of staff, a study was being done on the traffic circulation on Graham Avenue, where Great American Savings is located (drive-thru window that blocks traffic), has an answer been received on this. Community Development Director Miller answered in the negative. Chairman Washburn: Does staff know anything about the reworking of Spring street, espe- cially on the eastern side of the centerline. Minutes of Planning Commission May 6, 1986 Page 9 PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION CONTINUED community Development Director Miller stated that he believes this has -- been addressed as part of the Capital Improvement budget for the up- coming year. There are a number of Pepper Trees that line Lakeshore Drive that block the visual ability to turn onto Lakeshore Drive. I submitted a formal request, about a month ago, and would like staff to follow-up on the tree trimming along Lakeshore Drive, from Lewis Street up to the inter- section of Graham Avenue, also on Line Street. Community Development Director Miller stated that Council has directed staff to study the possibility of returning Lakeshore Drive to a two way drive in that area, and will call this to the attention of the Maintenance Department. There being no further business, the Lake Elsinore Planning Commission adjourned at 9:40 p.m. Motion by Commissioner Barnhart, second by Commissioner Mellinger. Approved 4-0 ~proved' Ga~~~~tO~ Ch~~an ~11:; Linda Grindstaff Planning Commission Secretary mitted, ~ MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD HELD ON THE 6TH DAY OF MAY 1986 MEMBERS PRESENT were Community Development Director Miller, Land- scape Architect Kobata and Assistant Planner Bolland. MINUTE ACTION Minutes of April 15, 1986, approved as submitted. BUSINESS ITEMS - 1. Single-Family Residences - 1403, 1405, 1407 and 1409 Pottery Street - Norik Bedassian - Assistant Planner Bolland presented proposal to construct four (4) single-family residences on four (4) lots at 8,250 square feet each, located on the north side of Pottery Street, about 50 feet west of Davis Street, and with- in 100 feet of Chaney Street. Mr. Bedassian commented on condition number 17, pertaining to reversal of floor plans for two of the units; condition number 16.a, pertaining to abandonment of the alley. Discussion was held on condition number 16.a, pertaining to aban- donment of alley, and time line/procedure for abandonment of al- ley; condition number 16.b, pertaining to submittal of plans for full improvement of alley and adding verbiage "prior to release of any units"; condition number 17, pertaining to reversal of floor plans for two units and roofing coloration. Single-Family Residences at 1403, 1405, 1407 and 1409 Pottery Street approved subject to the 27 conditions in the staff report, amending condition number 16, and 17 as follows: Condition Number 16: "Prior to the issuance of permit by the Building Division a completed application for abandonment must be filed, and either "a" or "b" shall be completed prior to the release of any units. - a) The applicant shall complete abandonment proceedings for the alley between Chaney and Davis Streets and cause to be recorded a ten-foot (10') drainage easement across the rear (former alley) portion of all lots; b) The applicant shall submit to the City Engineer plans for the improvement of the full width of this alley between Chaney and Davis Streets and additional five-foot (5') dedication from the subject lots to provide a twenty-foot (20') wide alley." - Condition Number 17: "Prior to the issuance of permits by the Building Division, the ap- plicant shall submit plans for the reversal of the floor plan for two (2) alternate units, as well as a painting and trim variation which meets the approval of the Community Development Director." - - Minutes of Design Review Board May 6, 1986 Page 2 2. commercial Project 83-11 REVISED - Dave vosburgh/California Pro- perty Exchange - Assistant Planner Bolland presented proposal to construct a 5,600 square foot offi~e building on .68 acres, located on the southeast corner of Ra1lroad Canyon Road and Grape Street approximately 200 feet northeast of Interstate 15. Mr. Loren culp, representing the applicant, questioned the third paragraph of the staff report under Staff Discussion, pertaining to the grading plan and the existing cut slope (1:1) on the east property line, the six-foot (6') retention wall and re-construc- tion of a 2:1 slope between the wall and the property line. Re- questing that the six-foot retaining wall be eliminated, retain- ing the existing slope that is there with a slope stability analysis presented to the City by a registered soils engineer. Mr. Vosburgh, applicant, questioned condition number 12, pertain- ing to the lot merger, condition number 13, pertaining to the landscape/irrigation plan for the entire merged parcel; condi- tion number 14, pertaining to the grading plan for the entire merged parcel. Mr. Madden, representing the applicant, questioned the second to last paragraph of the staff report, under Staff Discussion, per- taining to extension of eaves to cover staircases affecting energy calculations, and then questioned the four brick columns requested on the rear of the building to enhance the visual interest, condi- tion number 5. Mr. Culp questioned condition number 8, pertaining to the fire hydrant; condition number 15, pertaining to slopes along street frontage not exceeding 2:1; condition number 21, pertaining to final landscaping plan; condition number 24, pertaining to the participation in the Lighting and Landscaping District; condi- tion 35, pertaining to paving of Railroad Canyon Road from the centerline, requesting match up paving be used in that location; condition number 38, pertaining to recorded agreement to partici- pate equitably in the cost of median in Railroad Canyon Road, wanting to know what the cost would be; defining the limits of the improvements, and entrance signage. A lengthy discussion was held on the staff report and conditions of approval, pertaining to issues raised by the applicant's representatives and the applicant. Commercial Project 83-11 REVISED approved SUbject to the 47 condi- tions in the staff report, amending conditions 8, 12, 14, 15, 35 and 38 as follows: Condition Number 8: "Applicant is to meet all County Fire Department requirements for fire protection, or alternatives as approved by the Fire Marshal." Condition Number 12: "Adjacent property (A.P. # 363-140- 044) shall be incorporated in grading and landscape plan and maintained by the owner of the project site to en~ sure adequate slope stability and appearance of the project. A docu- ment shall be recorded on this parcel regarding restriction of access to this parcel and granting an easement and agreement in favor of the project site for maintenance." Condition Number 14: "Applicant shall submit grading plan for entire merged parcel. Slopes shall not exceed a maximum of 2 Minutes of Design Review Board May 6, 1986 Page 3 COMMERCIAL PROJECT 83-11 REVISED = DAVE VOSBURGH/CALIFORNIA PROPERTY EXCHANGE CONTINUED Condition Number 15: Condition Number 35: Condition Number 38: horizontal to 1 vertical except along the east and south property lines if recommended by a soils engineer and developed in accordance with Chapter __ 70 of the Uniform Building Code, and including drainage swales at the pro- perty to control off-site drainage." "Slopes along street frontages shall not exceed 2:1 which will require re- design of grading plan and revised landscaping appropriate to slopes, except that a transitional steeper slope may be permitted within 70-feet of the eastern property line." "Subject to the City Engineer's ap- proval pave Railroad Canyon Road to curb line using T.I. of 8.5 for Rail- road Canyon Road and 7.5 for Grape Street (Frontage Road). Some paving exists on both Railroad Canyon Road and Grape Street. Tests must show that it can support the required traffic index, subject to City Engineer's approval." "Enter into a recorded agreement with the City to participate equitably in the cost of a median for the project site, including decorative paving and/or landscaping." -- The Board reviewed items out of sequence. 6. Walk-on - Residential Project 85-15 - Elsinore Lakeside Investors - Assistant Planner Bolland presented for review the Landscape Plan for Residential Project 85-15, as required by condition number 2. Mr. Bill Falter, representing the applicant, commented on the screening of the condenser units on the front of the building. Discussion was held on screening of air conditioning units on the front of the building along Flannery Street; irrigation plan to be submitted for proposal; all trees being 15 gallon minimum; all box wood being 5 gallon; planting area being a minimum of 4- feet; shrubs for foundation, replacing number 3 and 4 with dif- ferent variety; irrigation plan, when prepared, lawn area to be on a separate system from the shrub area, and not tying east with south or north with west, to eliminate maintenance problems in the future; applicant to revise the Landscaping Plan as discussed and resubmit plan to the Board. Landscaping Plan for Residential Project 85-15 approved in con- cept, applicant to revise the Landscaping Plan, subject to the changes discussed and submit an Irrigation Plan to the Board for approval. -- 4. Commercial Project 86-4 - Grayson Properties, Inc. - Assistant Planner Bolland presented proposal to construct a 95,672 square foot neighborhood shopping center, restaurant and convenience Minutes of Design Review Board May 6, 1986 Page 4 COMMERCIAL PROJECT 86-4 - GRAYSON PROPERTIES, INC. CONTINUED - market in two (2) phases, on approximately 12 acres located on the southwest side of Grand Avenue between ortega Highway and Macy Street. Assistant Planner Bolland stated that Phase I is proposed to encompass the easterly two-thirds of the site and include 22 small retail spaces (1,200 and 2,000 square feet each), a 96,000 square foot anchor store, restaurant, mini-market and fast food restaurant. Phase II is proposed to follow in about one year providing 15 small retail spaces (1,200 and 2,000 square feet), another anchor space of approximately 20,600 square feet, and development of a theme tower. Mr. Tim Gore, representing the applicant, questioned condition number 3. A lengthy discussion was held on the condition number 3, per- taining to the roof/eave projection and color deviating from the rendering presented, and revising the restaurant's east and west elevation; adding verbiage to condition number 3, that all the details are subject to the approval of the community Development Director; condition number 15, pertaining to the five-foot interior planter islands; condition number 6, pertaining to City being in agreement with Cal Trans requirements for landscaping. Commercial Project 86-4 approved subject to the 20 conditions in the staff report, amending condition number 3 as follows: Condition Number 3.: "All the details are subject to the approval of the Community Develop- ment Director." 5. Residential Project 86-2 - William Collier - Assistant Planner Bolland presented proposal to construct two (2) four unit apart- ment buildings on two (2) adjacent 9,000 square foot lots, located on the east side of Langstaff Street about 200 feet north of Heald Avenue. Mr. Collier questioned the location of the fire hydrant, Planning C~mmission condition number 3; Design Review Board condition number 9.d., pertaining to the pea gravel being replaced by turf grass in large areas, ground cover or shrubbery in narrow areas; Discussion was held on the location of fire hydrant; condition number 9.a., regarding replacement of pea gravel; access easement between the property, and location of trash enclosures. Residential Project 86-2 approved subject to the 15 conditions in the staff report. 3. Commercial Project 86-3 - Richard Block - Assistant Planner Bol- land presented proposal to construct a boat display and sales lot and a 728 square foot office building on a 7,650 square foot lot (0.18 acres), located at the northeast corner of Lakeshore Drive and Davis street. Community Development Director Miller stated that the applicant was not present. Commercial Project 86-3 approved subject to the 22 conditions in the staff report. Minutes of Design Review Board May 6, 1986 Page 5 7. Walk-on - Residential Project 84-11 REVISED (Lake Glen Tract 19389) - Assistant Planner Bolland presented proposal to replace four (4) individual houses with a new floor plan. The new floor plan is a 1,600 square foot, four-bedroom, three bath home with a 475 square foot attached garage, and will replace a 1,231 square foot house on Lots 20 and 22, a 1,102 square foot home on Lot 24, __ and a 1,406 square foot home on Lot 21. Elevations, materials and colors are to conform with those previously approved by the Design Review Board on October 1, 1985. Residential Project 84-11 REVISED approved. ~&L Nelson M111er, Community Development Director -- -- MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON THE 20TH DAY OF MAY 1986 THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:00 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Assistant Planner Bolland. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: commissioners: Saathoff, Mellinger, Barnhart and Chairman Washburn ABSENT: None Also present were Community Development Director Miller and Assistant Planner Bolland. MINUTE ACTION Motion by Commissioner Barnhart to approve minutes of May 6, 1986, as submitted, second by Commissioner Mellinger. Approved 4-0 PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Tentative Tract Map 21021 - James Thompson/Thompson Investment - Assistant Planner Bolland presented proposal to divide 8.077 gross acres into 34 single-family residential lots, located east of Macy Street and west of Grandview Avenue, south of Lake Ridge Road. Chairman Washburn opened the public hearing at 7:06 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of Tentative Tract Map 21021. Mr. James Thompson, applicant, spoke in favor of the project and stated that there were a few items he would like to discuss. Mr. Thompson was informed that he would be called back to the podium at the close of the. public hearing. Chairman Washburn asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak in favor of the project. Receiving no response, Chairman Wash- burn asked if there was anyone wishing to speak in opposition. Receiving no response, Chairman Washburn closed the public hear- ing at 7:07 p.m. Mr. Thompson was called back to the pOdium. Mr. Thompson questioned condition number l3.d, stating that there is some confusion regarding street right-of-way and paving sec- tions. The County Fire Department is asking for a 60 foot right- of-way with 40-feet of paving. However, on Lake Ridge Road they are satisfied with 52 foot right-of-way with 40 feet of paving. We would like to suggest that both of those streets and "B" Court be 52 feet of right-of-way, "A" Court be 40 feet of paving, Lake Ridge Road be 36 feet of paving, and "B" Court be 36 feet of pav- ing; requested clarification on condition number l6.c., regarding payment of sewer and water fees prior to issuance of building permits, and clarification on condition number 28, regarding orna- mental street lights. Discussion was held on condition number 16, regarding compliance to Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District requirement that sewer and water fees be paid prior to issuance of building permits; condition number l3.d., regarding right-of-way width for proposal; Lots along Lake Ridge (Lots 6, 7, 22,23, 30 through 34, etc.) if a parkway is proposed or added as a condition, and if there will be wall; height and maintenance of slopes; condition number 33, per- taining to the agreement with the County Flood Control District for construction, ownership and maintenance of drainage facilities and that the responsibility for maintenance would belong to the Minutes of Planning Commission May 20, 1986 Page 2 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 21021 = JAMES THOMPSON/THOMPSON INVESTMENT CONTINUED City or County Flood Control District; condition number 32, per- taining to the construction of the flood channel; condition number 16, adding verbiage "fees to be paid as scheduled by the agencies involved"; condition number 28, pertaining to ornamental street lights; street lights being low pressure sodium, to comply with __ Mount Palomar ObservatorY'f and right-of-way sections of the streets, curb-to-curb. Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to recommend adoption of Negative Declaration No. 86-21, and approval of Tentative Tract Map 21021 with the 43 conditions recommended in the staff report, and amend- ing condition number 13.d, as follows: Condition Number 13.d.: "Due to the number of dwelling units served by "A" Court, the Fire Department recommends the street width be increased to 40 feet of paving within a 52 foot right-of-way, or as ap- proved by the City Engineer." Commissioner Mellinger stated that his motion includes, for clari- fication only, condition number 33, (no verbiage added) that main- tenance of drainage facilities will either be by the Flood Control District or the City, second by Commissioner Barnhart. Approved 4-0 BUSINESS ITEMS -- 1. Industrial Project 85-7 - Robert L. Baker c/o George Schmiedel _ Community Development Director Miller presented proposal to con- struct a 12,968 square foot structure for industrial and ware- housing uses. Phase I is approximately 1.23 acres and is located adjacent to the I-15 Freeway on the northwest corner of Collier Avenue and Spring Street. Community Development Director Miller stated that this proposal was continued from the meeting of February 18, 1986, to allow the applicant time to address some of the concerns regarding incorpo- ration of adjoining street right-of-ways within his project. At this point in time, these concerns have not been any addressed, and since the City is required to act upon proposal within specified time frames, it is recommended that this project be denied. Chairman Washburn asked for discussion at the table. There being no discussion at the table, Chairman Washburn asked for a motion. Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to deny Industrial Project 85-7, second by Commissioner Saathoff. Approved 4-0 2. Industrial Project 85-8 - Butler, Gonser and Zepede - Community Development Director Miller presented applicant's request to continue Industrial Project 85-8 to the meeting of September 16, 1986. - Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to continue Industrial Project 85-8 to the meeting of September 16, 1986, second by Commissioner Mellinger. Approved 4-0 - -- Minutes of Planning Commission May 20, 1986 Page 3 3 . Commercial project 86-5 - E.S.T. Enterprises - Assistant Planner Bolland presented proposal to construct a 3,665 square foot fast food restaurant with drive-thru window on 1.21 acres, located on the southeast corner of Mission Trail and Railroad Canyon Road. Assistant Planner Bolland stated that this is a combined report to the Planning Commission/Design Review Board, and that the De- sign Review Board reviewed and approved subject proposal, and informed the commission of the modifications made by the Board. Chairman Washburn asked if the applicant was in the audience and if there were any concerns. Mr. John Tworoger, representing the applicant, stated that they have no concern with the conditions as listed. A brief discussion was held on revamping of access to the restau- rant, as modified by the Design Review Board, and condition number 1, pertaining to time limit of Desig~ Review Board approval. Motion by Commissioner Barnhart to recommend adoption of Negative Declaration No. 86-22, and approval of Commercial Project 86-5 with the 30 conditions as recommended in the staff report, second by Commissioner Mellinger. Approved 4-0 4. Commercial Project 86-6 - Elsinore Investments - Assistant Planner Bolland presented proposal to construct a 5,775 square foot Good- year Tire facility and a 2,700 square foot Econo Lube and Tune automotive maintenance facility on approximately one (1) acre, located on the northwest side of the Shopper's Square site, on the east side of Railroad Canyon Road approximately 300 feet north of Casino Drive immediately adjacent to the I-15 Freeway on-ramp. Assistant Planner Bolland stated that this is a combined report to the Planning Commission/Design Review Board, and that the De- sign Review Board reviewed and approved subject proposal and informed the Commission of the modifications made by the Board. Chairman Washburn asked for discussion at the table. Discussion was held on variance for the Sizzler sign, the devel- oper stated that he would discourage any other pole signs, espe- cially for the restaurant that was being proposed for future building "C", now there is a pole sign proposed for a restaurant and gas station; including in CC & R's that no repair shall take place in the parking aisles or parking areas; parking space re- quirement, if uses in the center were to change, the Commission would receive an update so that a variance on parking require- ments would not be necessary. Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to approve Commercial Project 86-6 with the 15 conditions in the staff report, second by commissioner Barnhart. commissioner Mellinger asked for discussion. Commissioner Mellinger asked if the maker of the motion would en- tertain adding condition number 16, to include in the CC & R's that no outdoor repair or servicing be permitted in the parking aisles or parking areas. Commissioner Barnhart withdrew her second. Commissioner Saathoff amended his motion to include the addition of condition number 16, which will read: Minutes of Planning Commission May 20, 1986 Page 4 COMMERCIAL PROJECT 86-6 - ELSINORE INVESTMENT CONTINUED Condition Number 16: "Include in CC & R's that no repair or servicing shall take place in the parking aisles or parking areas." - Second by Commissioner Barnhart. Approved 4-0 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S REPORT Community Development Director Miller informed the Commission of the Joint Study Session scheduled for May 29, 1986, at 6:30 p.m. on Title 17. Community Development Director Miller then informed the Commission that they have received, tonight, copies of the following Sections of Title 17: 17.02 17.16 17.19 17.38 17.66 Definitions; Residential Care Facilities; Rural Residential District; Non-Residential Development Standards, and Parking Requirements Community Development Director Miller stated that this leaves a few chapters, which you don't have according to your outline, but most of these will remain unchanged from the present Code, and then informed _ the Commission of the modifications to be made on the balance of Title 17: 17.01 17.03 17.05 17.30 17.35 17.36 17.42 17.64 17.68 17.72 17.80 17.84 17.88 17.92 17.98 17.99 General Provisions, minor modifications; Establishment of Districts, basically unchanged Lakeshore Overlay District, basically unchanged Condominium Conversions, basically unchanged Open Space, basically unchanged Recreational Zone, recently adopted as an Urgency Ordinance by City Council and will remain unchanged from that recent adoption. Central Business District, will continue working with the Downtown Business Association to ad- dress concerns they have; Industrial Quarry District, to be deleted; General Regulations and Exceptions, largely deleted as it presently exists, covered in other sections of the Code; Non-Conforming Uses, basically unchanged Administration, basically unchanged Amendments, basically unchanged Petitions, basically unchanged Hearings, basically unchanged Special Events, basically unchanged Specific Plan Districts, basically unchanged - Community Development Director Miller stated that any comments on the Sections just received, especially the Parking Requirements, can be discussed at the Study Session, and will try to outline all the vari- ous comments received from each Commissioner. Community Development Director Miller stated that the Commission may wish to give some thought to the sale of alcoholic beverages at estab- lishments that also dispense gasoline. There is currently legislation pending before the State Legislature that would prohibit the sale of Minutes of Planning commission May 20, 1986 Page 5 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S REPORT CONTINUED ~ alcoholic beverages and gasoline at the same location~ pending before the same committee is a bill that would prohibit cities from prohibit- ing the sale of gasoline and alcohol at the same location. Community Development Director Miller stated that this was an issue that people have expressed some concern a~out, and we would probably address this at the Study session, in terms of what the Commission and Council de- sires are in that direction. community Development Director Miller stated that there also has been some concern expressed about some of the sections, particularly the Planned Unit Development, that may require more extensive revisions than can be accomplished in the time frame that we are looking at. What I hope we would be able to do, after addressing the changes that have been suggested by various commissioners and Councilmembers, is to move forward and adopt those sections that everyone feels comfortable with and the sections everyone feels needs additional work, then we can continue to work on them. Community Development Director Miller informed the Commission that the next agenda is relatively light, and suggested that the Commission take a few minutes at this meeting to discuss some of the items that have come up in recent months regarding: streets and parkways, in residential districts~ fencing in residential zones, particularly single-family, and septic systems. ~ PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION commissioner Barnhart: Nothing to report, but would like to invite the public to come and en- joy the Parade, and if they are so inclined, attend the Rodeo follow- ing. The Parade starts Saturday at noon. It will reach Main Street from Franklin and come down Main Street and return to Graham Avenue, dispursing at the community Center. Commissioner Saathoff: Nothing to report, but commented on applicants receiving their copy of the reports/conditions the day of or the day before the meeting, and not having time to review and/or contact the necessary consultants or agencies. Stated that it does create a burden for the applicant hav- ing to make a decision, and whether or not it is the correct decision , and then at a later time having to arbitrate with Engineering Depart- ment, staff or someone. It would be nice if they could receive them much earlier. Commissioner Mellinqer: ,.... Commented on applicants rece1v1ng their condition, stating that if there is a problem with the developers getting the conditions late perhaps they would be receptive toa longer processing period. ' Commented on the Public Notices, stating that the notices should in- clude verbiage that a Negative Declaration has been prepared address- ing any environmental issues, so that the public is aware and can review the initial study. Another topic of discussion that we should consider, we have started to build out most of our flatter areas, and are getting into the hills.. I think t~at we should st~rt looking closely, especially at tentat1ve map rev1ew, of slope he1ghts and perhaps guidelines for landscaping such slope heights, large cut slopes, large fill slopes create visual impacts in addition to erosion control. ' Minutes of Planning Commission May 20, 1986 Page 6 PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION CONTINUED Chairman Washburn stated that the Hillside Ordinance has been adopted and should be applicable anytime a developer is working on slopes greater than 9 or 10 percent. Chairman Washburn: - Question to staff, asked if Council has indicated a date as to when the vacant Planning Commission seat will be filled. Community Development Director Miller stated that Council has not in- dicated a specific date. Question to staff, in the past some sites have had storage yards for tires, and even though I am opposed to wrecking yards and the opera- tion of wrecking yards. I am noticing, off the freeway, that Crowbar Wrecking is starting to stack alot of tires on the backside of the cut from the hillside. I would like to find out if the storage of tires is also applicable in their Business License as a wrecking yard. Community Development Director Miller stated that this will be looked into. There being no further business, the Lake Elsinore Planning Commission adjourned at 8:07 p.m. Motion by Commissioner Barnhart, second by Commissioner Mellinger. Approved 4-0 - ~proved. Ga~lJlt!~ Ch~tJ:~l Re. s~~pe . fully sUb~ted. ~' Pu,~ Linda Grindstaff $ Planning Commission Secretary - MINUTES OF HELD ON THE 20TH DAY LAKE ELSINORE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OF MAY 1986 MEMBERS PRESENT were Community Development Director Miller, Landscape Architect Kobata and Assistant Planner Bolland. MINUTE ACTION -- Minutes of May 6, 1986, approved as submitted. BUSINESS ITEMS The Board reviewed items out of sequence. 5. Commercial Project 86-5 - E.S.T. Enterprises - Assistant Planner Bolland presented proposal to construct a 3,665 square foot fast restaurant with drive-through window, on 1.21 acres, located on the southeast corner of Mission Trail and Railroad Canyon Road. Mr. John Tworoger, representing the applicant, questioned condi- tion number 5.a. and 5.b., regarding the contrasting tile bands and vertical trim; condition number S.c., regarding relocation of the sign; condition number 3.b., regarding drive-thru lane and drive aisle, and treatment for the rear corners; condition number 3.f., regarding re-orientation of the trash enclosure. Discussion was held on the above mentioned conditions; redesign of proposal to include enhancement for the rear area; condition number 3.e., regarding textured pavement, location of bicycle racks, and condition number 18, regarding landscape/irrigation plan. -, Commercial Project 86-5 approved subject to the 30 conditions listed in the staff report, amending conditions 3.b.; 3.f.; 5.b.; S.c., as follows: Condition Number 3.b.: Condition Number 3.f.: Condition Number 5.b: - Condition Number S.c.: "Landscaped (low shrub) planter strip separating drive-thru from drive aisle, 5-foot minimum width. In addition, an alternate drive- thru lane may be added to enter from the east, similar to the driveway in Exhibit 'D'." "Trash enclosure area shall be redesigned to provide landscaping abutting the rear building eleva- tion, and solid stucco wall, and all gates and exterior surfaces painted to match the building and trim." "Vertical trim on each corner of the westerly "box" element and on the lower portion of the easterly "box" element, which matches pro- posed trim material and color, or similar enhancement subject to ap- proval of the Community Develop- ment Director." "Relocation of proposed "Burger King" sign from the north mansard area to the north plane of the westerly "box" element or the building front elevation." 6. Commercial Project 86-6 - Elsinore Investments - Assistant Planner Bolland presented proposal to construct a 5,775 square foot Good- year Tire facility and a 2,700 square foot Econo Lube and Tune Minutes of Design Review Board May 20, 1986 Page 2 COMMERCIAL PROJECT 86-6 ELSINORE INVESTMENTS CONTINUED automotive maintenance facility as part of the Shopper's Square Retail Shopping Center, approximately one acre located on the northwest side of the Shopper's Square site, on the east side of Railroad Canyon Road approximately 300 feet north of Casino Drive immediately adjacent to the I-15 Freeway on-ramp. Discussion was held on condition_number 3, pertaining to the sub- mittal of a revised plot plan indicating amendment to the parking, drive aisle, building footprint and landscape planter. Commercial Project 86-6 approved subject to the 15 conditions as listed in the staff report. - 7. Commercial Project 84-5 REVISED - The Centennial Group - Assistant Planner Bolland presented proposal to construct a 2,846 square foot restaurant in a previously approved building with a 442 square foot patio addition, on .58 acres, located on the east side of Mission Trail approximately 1,200 feet southesat of the inter- section of Railroad Canyon Road. Mr. Robert Belzer, of The Centennial Group, stated that on condi- tion number 3, they would like to have the flexibility of includ- ing or not including the awnings, and questioned condition number 7, regarding approval of the landscaping/irrigation plan stating that this has already been accomplished. Discussion was held on condition number 3, regarding Mr. Belzer's request, and windows to match the existing windows, if awnings are not included, and condition number 7, pertaining to the landscap- .. ing plan approval referring to the portion of the site that is being modified. Commercial Project 84-5 REVISED approved subject to the 8 condi- tions as listed in the staff report, amending condition number 3, as follows: Condition Number 3: "Building elevations shall be constructed as depicted on plans or through utilization of the same windows as on the rest of the building as ap- proved by the Community Develop- ment Director." 1. Single-Family Residence - 411 Granite Street- Lloyd Roybal - As- sistant Planner Bolland presented proposal to construct a single- family residence on a 7,150 square foot lot, located on the west side of Granite Street approximately 300 feet north of Pottery Street. Single-Family Residence at 411 Granite Street approved subject to the 22 conditions as listed in the staff report. -- 2. Single-Family Residences - 220 Federick Avenue & 223 Chaney Street - Z.M. Toross Construction Company Single-Family Residence 220 Federick Avenue: Assistant Planner Bolland presented proposal to construct a sin- gle-family residence on a 4,000 square foot lot, located on the east side of Federick Avenue approximately 25 feet south of Sumner Avenue. Minutes of Design Review Board May 20, 1986 Page 3 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCES 220 FEDERICK & 223 CHANEY - Z.M. TOROSS CON- STRUCTION CONTINUED - Single-Family Residence at 220 Federick Avenue approved subject to the 21 conditions as listed in the staff report. Single-Family Residence - 223 Chaney Street - Z.M. Toross Con- struction Company - Assistant Planner Bolland presented proposal to construct a single-family residence on a 4,000 square foot lot, located on the southwest corner of Chaney Street and Sumner Avenue. Single-Family Residence at 223 Chaney Street approved subject to the 24 conditions as listed in the staff report. 3. Industrial Project 85-7 - Robert L. Baker c/o George Schmiedel _ Community Development Director Miller presented proposal to con- struct a 12,968 square foot structure for industrial and ware- housing uses. Phase I is approximately 1.23 acres and is located adjacent to the 1-15 Freeway on the northwest corner of Collier Avenue and Spring Street. Community Development Director Miller stated that this proposal was continued from the meeting of February 18, 1986, due to prob- lems associated with the extension of Spring Street north of Col- lier, and that the applicant was to submit an application along with appropriate documentation for abandonment of Spring Street. No such application has been submitted nor has the applicant pre- sented efforts to continue the project. Industrial Project 85-7 denied, due to lack of completion of the necessary associated applications. - 4. Industrial Project 85-8 - Butler, Gonser & Zepede - Community De- velopment Director Miller presented applicant's request to con- tinue Industrial Project 85-8 to the meeting of September 16, 1986, to enable the County Flood Control District to complete their review and provide the applicant time to address the prob- lems associated with this proposal. Industrial Project 85-8 continued to the meeting of September 16, 1986. ~~~ Nelson Miller, Community Development Director For 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 VircJinia J.Iloc�rnl 6ty Clerk ✓ APPROVED AS TO FORM: Barbara Zeid Leib`Qld, City Attorney MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON THE 3RD DAY OF JUNE 1986 THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:02 P.M. Chairman Washburn introduced Mr. Pat Callahan as the newly appointed Planning Commissioner, filling the seat vacated by Fred Dominguez. - PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Commissioner Callahan. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: commissioners: Saathoff, Mellinger, Barnhart, Callahan and Chairman Washburn. ABSENT: None Also present were Community Development Director Miller and Assistant Planner Bolland. MINUTE ACTION Motion by Commissioner Saathoff to approve minutes of May 20, 1986, as submitted, second by Commissioner Barnhart. Approved 4-1 Commissioner Callahan abstained PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Tentative Parcel Map 21604 - Mike Lesle - Assistant Planner Bol- land presented proposal to divide 2.16 gross acres into four (4) parcels of .9 acres, .6 acres, .4 acres, and .3 acres in size, located on the northwest corner of Machado Street and Larson - Road. Assistant Planner Bolland requested that the following conditions of approval be amended, as follows: Condition Number 13: Add the following verbiage after "protection": "specifically those of the letter dated May 28, 1986 (below) unless modified in writing by the Fire Marshal." a. Schedule "A" fire protection approved standard fire hy- drants, (6"x4"X2-1/2") located at each street intersection and spaced no more than 500 feet apart in any direction, with no portion of any lot frontage more than 250 feet from a hydrant. Minimum fire flow shall be 500 GPM for 2 hours duration at 20 PSI. b. Applicant/developer shall furnish one copy of the water system plans to the Fire Department for review. Plans shall conform to fire hy- drant types, location and spacing, and, the system shall meet the fire flow requirements. Plans shall be signed/approved by a registered civil engineer and the local water company with the following certification: "I certify that the design of the water system is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the Riverside County Fire Department." Minutes of Planning Commission June 3, 1986 Page 2 TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 21604 = MIKE LESLE CONTINUED Condition Number 18: Amend to read as follows: "Final Map shall show Flood Plain as shown on PM 14563." Condition Number 26: Condition Number 28: Amend to read as follows: "Hydrology and hydrologic studies, necessary master planning and detailed plans and profiles of the proposed flood control facilities shall be provided to River- side County Flood Control District and the City Engineer for review and ap- proval prior to issuance of building permits on parcels impacted by the Flood Plain as shown on the Final Map." Replace the term "subdivision" with the term "parcel map". - Condition Number 29: Add the word "ultimate" to modify the term "drainage facilities". Add Condition Number 41: To read as follows: "The owner shall sign and cause to be recorded a Flood Hazard deed notification form for all parcels created by this map to advise all future owners of flood hazard potential and building restrictions without installation of ultimate improvements to Leach Can- __ yon Channel. The text of this noti- fication is subject to the approval of the Director of Community Devel- opment and the City Attorney. This notification shall be acknowledged by all future property owners by their signature prior to sale of these parcels. Chairman Washburn opened the public hearing at 7:09 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of Tentative Parcel Map 21604. Mr. Fred Crowe, of Butte~field Surveys, Inc., stated that Butter- field Surveys prepared the map and then gave a brief background report on the reasons and conditions for the parcel configuration. Mr. Mike Lesle, applicant, commented on street improvements and size of lots proposed. Chairman Washburn asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak in favor of Tentative Parcel Map 21604. Receiving no response, Chairman Washburn asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Mr. Lee Tompkins, 15020 Larson Road, stated that he has a couple of questions, and not necessarily against the proposal. Mr. .. Tompkins then asked if curb, gutter and sidewalks would be re- quired (referring to Machado and Larson Road); if the two large existing trees would have to be removed; what type of housing is proposed for the site; if there is any type of flood control pro- posed and if the flood control channel would be lined (concrete lined) . Chairman Washburn asked if anyone else wished to speak in opposi- tion. Receiving no response, Chairman Washburn closed the public hearing at 7:16 p.m. Minutes of Planning commission June 3, 1986 Page 3 TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 21604 - MIKE LESLE CONTINUED Discussion was held on Mr. Tompkin's questions; dedication for -- Larson Road and clarification on street improvements; letter from County Flood Control dated March 25, 1986 referring to right-of- way dedication, alignment of Mc Vickers Canyon Channel, and the second paragraph recommending denial of land division and of pro- posed residence; condition number 41, referring to the purpose of condition, if it is to allow the applicant to build after the Master Drainage Plan is approved, but before the assessment dis- trict goes into place and the improvements are installed; interim facilities for drainage; time line for final approval on the Master Drainage Plan; condition number 26, pertaining to County Flood Control and City Engineer review and approval of hydrology and hydraulic studies prior to issuance of building permits for parcels impacted by the Flood Plain as shown on the Final Map; condition number 8, pertaining to the Walnut Trees; amending condition number 8, adding the following verbiage: "The Walnut Trees on the parcel to remain, if possible, however the large Eucalyptus Trees, in Larson Road, to be incorporated into the pro- project"; condition number 40, regarding the time line for adop- tion of the West Elsinore Master Plan of Drainage, amending this to "adoption prior to the recordation of the final map"; grada- tional planning for the area; condition number 8 being taken into consideration at building permit stage and location and preser- vation of these trees, and adding to the last sentence of condi- tion number 26, "provide drainage easements as required by the City Engineer, prior to the recordation of the final map". Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to recommend adoption of Nega- tive Declaration Number 86-26, approval of Tentative Parcel Map 21604 with the 40 conditions as recommended in the staff report as well as the amended conditions as presented in the memorandum dated June 3, 1986, and with the further amendments to said condi- tions, to read as follows: -- Condition Number 8: Condition Number 26: - Condition Number 40: "Applicant shall plant street trees, selected from the City street Tree list, a maximum of 30-feet apart and at least 15 gallon in size, as ap- proved by the Director of Community Development. The Walnut Trees on the Larson Road frontage shall be incorpo- rated into street improvement and street tree plans, if feasible, in consultation with the Director of Com- munity Development. The Eucalyptus Trees shall be retained." "Hydrology and hydraulic studies, necessary master planning and de- tailed plans and profiles of the proposed flood control facilities shall be provided to Riverside County Flood Control District and the City Engineer for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits on parcels im- pacted by the Flood Plain as shown on the Final Map. Provide drainage easements as required by the City Engineer prior to recordation of Final Map." "Meet all requirements of the City Engineer to provide proper interim Minutes of Planning Commission June 3, 1986 Page 4 TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 21604 - MIKE LESLE CONTINUED drainage conditions, and in addition, to meet the ultimate 100 year storm design conditions as required by the West Elsinore Master Plan of Drainage, prepared by the Riverside County Flood Control, conceptually approved by the __ City of Lake Elsinore City Council and to be adopted by the County and the City prior to recordation of final map. These requirements shall include necessary dedications, construction of improvements, and participation in assessment district for Leach Canyon Drainage Channel as requried by the City Engineer. Second by Commissioner Saathoff with discussion. Discussion ensued on condition number 8, pertaining to the Walnut and Eucalyptus Trees. There being no further discussion at the table, Chairman Washburn asked for the question. ; Approved 5-0 BUSINESS ITEMS None COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S REPORT ... Community Development Director Miller reminded the Commission of the Study Session scheduled for June 12th, at 5:00 p.m. on Title 17. Community Development Director Miller stated that the revisions to Title 17 has been scheduled for public hearing before the Commission on June 17th. The intent is to take testimony and recommend approval of the sections which the Commission/council is satisfied with, and on the sections that the Commission/council feels needs additional work, we can pull those and continue study. Community Development Director Miller stated that if the Commissioners can not attend the study session or have additional concerns please feel free to contact him. PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Commissioner Callahan: Nothing to report. Commissioner Barnhart: Stated that she was very happy to see that they are working on the ~ sidewalks on Graham. Commissioner Saathoff: A couple of weeks ago, we received a notification in reference to a program that is going to be available on June 21, 1986, The Roll of Planning Commissioner. I would hope that the Chairman and at least a couple of the Commissioners would attend. Stated that he would not be attending the next meeting, June 17th, Minutes of Planning Commission June 3, 1986 Page 5 PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION CONTINUED therefore is my final meeting as a Planning commissioner. I have -- enjoyed working with each of the Commissioners. Even though I won't be on the Planning Commission, I still have a great interest in the City and will certainly attempt to be involved in various aspects of the City and look forward to its continued growth. commissioner Mellinqer: Requested that the Commissioners receive a copy of the Notice of Hearing, at the same time notification is sent out to adjacent property owners. Chairman Washburn: Announced that the Department of Development will be holding its monthly meeting, Economic Development Council, June 12th., and the Planning Commissioners should have received their invitation. Chairman Washburn commended Commissioners Saathoff and Barnhart stating that they have added a great dimension and had good com- munity input to the Commission. Community Development Director Miller suggested that the Commission adjourn for a brief study session after the meeting. Chairman Washburn recommended that the Commission adjourn for a five minute recess. -- The Commissioners returned to the table. There being no further adjourned at 8:05 p.m. Commissioner Barnhart. Approved 5-0 business, the Lake Elsinore Planning Commission Motion by Commissioner Saathoff, second by ~proved' G~W~~~::h!u - c~~an -- Respectfully s~mi:ted. ~ ;4n/~ Linda Grindstaff ~ Planning Commission Secretary MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD HELD ON THE 3RD DAY OF JUNE 1986 MEMBERS PRESENT were Community Development Director Miller, and Assistant Planner Bolland. MINUTE ACTION Minutes of May 20, 1986, approved as submitted. BUSINESS ITEMS - 1. Single-Family Residence - 120 Lewis Street - Charles Seward _ Assistant Planner Bolland presented proposal to construct a single-family residence on a 7,200 square foot lot, located on the southeast corner of Lewis Street and Heald Avenue. Single-Family Residence at 120 Lewis Street approved subject to the 22 conditions listed in the staff report. ~ Nelson Miller, Community Development Director - ... For 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 VircJinia J.Iloc�rnl 6ty Clerk ✓ APPROVED AS TO FORM: Barbara Zeid Leib`Qld, City Attorney \ MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE 1986 THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:01 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Commissioner Barnhart. ~ ROLL CALL: PRESENT: commissioners: Mellinger, Barnhart, Callahan and Chairman Washburn. ABSENT: commissioner Saathoff Also present were Community Development Director Miller, Assistant Planner Bolland and Assistant Planner Perry. MINUTE ACTION Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to approve minutes of June 3, 1986, as presented, second by Commissioner Barnhart. Approved 4-0 Chairman Washburn asked that Community Development Miller introduce the new Assistant Planner. Community Development Director Miller introduced Mr. Michael R. Perry as the city's new Assistant Planner. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. Zone Change 86-10 - Vineyard Christian Fellowship - Community Development Director Miller presented a proposal to amend the text of the M-l , Manufacturing District, to allow churches as conditional uses, subject to obtaining a Conditional Use Permit. If approved, this would apply City-wide in the M-l Zones. ~ Chairman Washburn opened the pUblic hearing at 7:09 p.m., and asked the Secretary if there was any written communications. The Secretary stated that written communication was received from Mr. Richard Jercha stating that he was in opposition to the Zone Change. Chairman Washburn asked if anyone wished to speak in favor of Zone Change 86-10. Pastor Sandoval of Vineyard Christian Fellowship spoke in favor and mentioned other Fellowships who had gone through this en- deavor to establish their churches, and read one of several letters of encouragement received from other Fellowships. Mr. Ed Lambert, owner of property, spoke in favor of the Zone Change. Chairman Washburn asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak in favor of Zone Change 86-10. Receiving no response, Chairman Washburn asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Receiv- ing no response, Chairman Washburn closed the pUblic hearing at 7:20 p.m. Discussion was held on comments made by the applicant and pro- perty owner regarding precedence of Conditional Use Permits in industrial zones for churches in other communities, but general- ly these uses are located in large established industrial com- plexes, and Lake Elsinore has limited industrial space, as point- ed out in the staff report; and hours of operation and parking being in conflict with uses. Motion by Commissioner Callahan to deny Zone Change 86-10, second by Commissioner Mellinger. Approved 4-0 \ Minutes of Planning Commission June 17, 1986 Page 2 2. Zone Change 86-11 - Terry W. Shook - Assistant Planner Bolland presented a proposal to change the zoning designation from R-1 (Single-Family Residential) to c-o (Commercial Office) to bring this site into conformity with the previously adopted General Plan Land Use Designation of Office/Professional, and to allow development of a commercial office project, for a 27,000 square foot site located on the south side of Flint Street between Davi~ and Mohr Streets. Chairman Washburn opened the pUblic hearing at 7:29 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of Zone Change 86-11. Mr. Terry Shook, applicant, spoke in favor of the Zone Change, and stated that this Zone Change should have been done by the City and requested that the Commission approve the Zone Change and refund to him the fees required to process this application. Chairman Washburn asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak in favor of the Zone Change. Receiving no response, Chairman Washburn asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Receiv- ing no response, Chairman Washburn closed the public hearing at 7:31 p.m. A brief discussion was held on the new Commercial Office Zoning District. Motion by Commissioner Barnhart to approve Zone Change 86-11 with the findings listed in the staff report and adoption of Negative Declaration No. 86-23, second by Commissioner Mellinger. Approved 4-0 - 3. Conditional Exception Permit 86-8 - Terry Shook - Assistant Plan- ner Bolland presented proposal to vary from the rear setback standard of the proposed "C-O" Commercial Office Zoning District to allow office buildings ten-feet from the rear property lines adjacent to residential uses, for a 27,000 square foot site, located on the south side of Flint Street between Davis and Mohr Streets. Community Development Director Miller stated that since this Conditional Exception Permit and the Business Item, Commercial Project 86-8, on the agenda tonight, relates to the same pro- project and suggested that the Commission consider both items simultaneously. Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to consider both Conditional Exception Permit 86-8 and Commercial Project 86-8 simultaneously, second by Commissioner Callahan. Approved 4-0 COMMERCIAL PROJECT 86-8 (BUSINESS ITEM #2) - TERRY SHOOK Commissioner Mellinger stated that for clarification separate motions should be made on each proposal. Assistant Planner Bolland presented proposal to construct two commercial office buildings (7,260 square feet of office space as two buildings in two phases), on a 27,000 square foot site, located on the south side of Flint Street between Davis and Mohr Streets. .,.., Chairman Washburn opened the public hearing at 7:40 p.m., asking if there was anyone wished to speak in favor of Conditional Ex- ception Permit 86-8 and Commercial Project 86-8. Minutes of Planning Commission June 17, 1986 Page 3 CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION PERMIT 86-8 AND COMMERCIAL PROJECT 86-8 - TERRY SHOOK CONTINUED - Mr. Terry Shook, applicant, spoke in favor of the project and stated that he was not in favor of it as the Planning staff has designed it. Chairman Washburn asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor of Conditional Exception Permit 86-8 and Commercial Project 86-8. Receiving no response, Chairman Washburn asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Receiving no response, Chairman Washburn closed the public hearing at 7:42 p.m. Discussion was held on the findings necessary for a Conditional Exception Permit; if Conditional Exception Permit is approved then the standards should be changed to ten feet (10'); condi- tion number 2, pertaining to the landscaping and if a landscap- ing plan was submitted; Building Code requirement of two exits in an office building; roofing material, cedar shake should not be used anywhere in the City; relocation of trash enclosure and transformer for improvement of circulation patterns. - Mr. Shook was called back to the podium. Mr. Shook stated that the way the project is proposed, it takes more of a variance than what staff has indicated, there is also a front or side variance required. Mr. Shook requested that conditions 4, 5, 6, 7, 11, 13, 14, 18, 19, 20 and 21 be deleted from Commercial proj ect 86-8. -, Discussion was held on continuing Commercial Project 86-8 so that staff and the applicant can meet and resolve the issues in ques- tion, and possible changes in Title 17 that may take place in the next few weeks; Zone Change for proposal; conditions requested to be deleted are included in the existing and proposed Zoning Code; circulation for proposal; continuing proposal until Council has acted on Title 17; grade separation and contour of site pertain- ing to Building #1; if variance is approved, it should be ap- proved for Building #2 a~ well as Building #1; variance necessary for Building #1 but difficult to allow for Building #2. Motion by Commissioner Callahan to approve Conditional Exception Permit 86-8 with the findings and the 2 conditions as listed in the staff report, second by Commissioner Barnhart. Approved 3-1 Commissioner Mellinger voting no - Commissioner Mellinger asked if the Commission would consider the adoption of a Negative Declaration. Motion by Commissioner Barnhart to adopt Negative Declaration No. 86-23 for Conditional Exception Permit 86-8, second by Commis- sioner Callahan. Approved 3-1 Commissioner Mellinger voting no Discussion was held on the applicant's request to delete condi- tions 4, 5, 6, 7, 11, 13, 14, 18, 19, 20 and 21 from Commercial Project 86-8, each condition was discussed individually; condi- tion number 18.d. pertaining to solid screen planting; Design Review coming back to the Commission, and continuing proposal until City Council approves returning Design Review Board back to the Commission. Motion by Commissioner Barnhart that Commercial Project 86-8 be continued and brought back before the Commission when the Design Review Board has been moved back under the Planning Commission jurisdiction. Minutes of Planning Commission June 17, 1986 Page 4 COMMERCIAL PROJECT 86-8 - TERRY SHOOK CONTINUED Chairman Washburn asked if the maker of the motion would consider a time limit after which that takes place? Commissioner Barnhart stated after the next meeting. - Chairman Washburn stated that for clarification of motion, the following meeting after Council decides that the Planning Com- mission again would be Design Review Board (30 days after second reading of Ordinance). Second by Commissioner Callahan. Discussion ensued on conditions of approval not changing and there being no reason for the Commission to vary from what they have been approving for other developments in the city. There being no further discussion at the table, Chairman Washburn asked for the question. Approved 4-0 4. Conditional Exception Permit 86-7 - T &S Development - Assistant Planner Bolland presented a proposal to vary from the provisions of the Parking Ordinance to permit an overall parking ratio of one (1) stall per 197 square feet of building area for an 18 acre community shopping center, located on the west side of Mission Trail between Campbell and Sylvester Streets. Assistant Planner Bolland asked if the Commission would like to _ consider Business Item #1, Commercial Project 86-7, along with Conditional Exception Permit 86-7 as they are related items. It was the consensus of the Commission to take the items sepa- rate. Chairman Washburn opened the pUblic hearing at 8:38 p.m., asking is anyone wished to speak in favor of Conditional Exception Permit 86-7. . Mr. John Curts, representing T & S Development, spoke in favor of Conditional Exception Permit 86-7. Chairman Washburn asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak in favor of Conditional Exception Permit 86-7. Receiving no re- sponse, Chairman Washburn asked if anyone wished to speak in-op- position. Receiving no response, Chairman Washburn closed the public hearing at 8:39 p.m. Discussion was held on administration of parking requirements for proposed shopping center. Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to approve Conditional Exception Permit 86-7 with the 1 condition as listed in the staff report, and adoption of Negative Declaration No. 86-22, with the clarifi--- cation that all provisions including legal recording of limited hours of operation to account for sufficient shared parking based on the new Code will be provided, second by Commissioner Callahan. Approved: 3-1 Commissioner Barnhart voting no 5. Amendment 86-1 (Title 17) - City of Lake Elsinore - Community Development Director Miller presented the Revised Draft Zoning Ordinance for the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code, to the Commiss- sion and called their attention to the following new sections and stated that all changes from the last two study sessions are underlined in the text: \ Minutes of Planning Commission June 17, 1986 Page 5 AMENDMENT 86-1 (TITLE 111 - CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE CONTINUED New sections: ..... Overlay Zones; R-R, Rural Residential R-A, Residential Agricultural Mobile Home Park Conversions Residential and Non-residential Develop- ment Standards C-O, Commercial Office Conditional Use Permits Noise Design Review sections not included in Draft Ordinance, identified for further study: PUD, Planned unit Development Central Business District Antennas Chairman Washburn opened the public hearing at 9:00 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak on Title 17. Mr. Will Buck expressed concern on the new residential setback requirements as they will effect the ability to build on the older, smaller residential lots; the Hillside Development Ordi- nance; and Parking Requirements, and will brinq this up again at the City Council hearing. Mr. Terry Shook commented on Section 17.40.050, Commercial Office pertaining to required setback, stating that they should be re- duced to ten-feet (10'). Mr. Dave Cooper commented on Residential Uses, Sections 17.23.060, .080 and .110 referring to lot sizes and minimum house sizes and stated that the Building Industry Association, Riverside Chapter, has also asked him to voice their concerns on these sections. Chairman Washburn asked if anyone else wished to speak on Title 17. Receiving no response, Chairman Washburn closed the public hearing at 9:22 p.m. Discussion was held on Infill Area; small lots and m1n1mum house sizes in residential areas; Section 17.24.080.b, pertaining to side and rear yard setbacks, if this is changed in the Hillside Ordinance and whether or not this applies to Country Club Heights; Section 17.40.050 changing the front yard setback to average ten- feet (10'), and also consider this change for all commercial zones; Section 17.09 this section being held for further study; allowing lesser uses in higher zoning districts; adding a Section specifically for Country Club Heights Overlay Zone and start work- ing on this Section; section 17.66.070 pertaining to shared park- ing/off-street parking and loading zones could be reduced if a study was provided that confirmed the reduction. Motion by Commissioner Callahan to accept Title 17 except for Section 17.09. Commissioner Barnhart asked the maker of the motion if he would include the change in Section 17.40.050. Commissioner Mellinger suggested that separate motions be made. \ Minutes of Planning Commission June 17, 1986 Page 6 AMENDMENT 86-1 (TITLE 111 = CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE CONTINUED commissioner Callahan withdrew his motion. Motion by Commissioner Callahan that Section 17.09 be removed from consideration, second by Commissioner Barnhart. - Commissioner Mellinger asked if the motion was for deletion or just for continuance for further study. Commissioner Callahan stated that it is for continuance so that the FP 1 and FP 2 can be defined. There being no further discussion the Chairman asked for the question. Approved 4-0 Motion by Commissioner Barnhart that Section 17.40.050 be amended to read ten-feet (10'). Motion died due to lack of a second. Motion by Commissioner Barnhart to reserve Section 17.11 for Country Club Heights, second by Commissioner Callahan. Approved 4-0 Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to add to Section 17.38 to limit roofing material to Class "A" rating, second by Commissioner Callahan Approved 4-0 - Motion by Chairman Washburn that Section 17.66.070 include the following: "shared parking and loading zones could be reduced if a study is provided that confirmed the reduction", second by Commissioner Barnhart. Approved 4-0 Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to adopt Negative Declaration and the remainder of the Zoning Ordinance as presented, second by Com- missioner Barnhart. Approved 4-0 BUSINESS ITEMS 1. Commercial Project 86-7 - T & S Development - Assistant Planner Bolland presented a proposal to construct a 191,770 square foot community shopping center in two phases on an 18 acre site, located on the west side of Mission Trail between Campbell and Sylvester Streets. Assistant Planner Bolland informed the Commission that the De- sign Review Board approved this proposal subject to 47 conditions and informed the Commission of the modifications made by the Board, as follows: - Condition Number 4: "Plot plan approval is granted for Phase I, and for Phase II in con- cept. Phase II shall require fur- ther review by the Design Review Board with regard to specific build- ing elevations, floor plans, site grading and parking requirements." Condition Number 9: "All required off-site improvements associated with Phase I, including traffic signal shall be completed \ Minutes of Planning Commission June 17, 1986 Page 7 COMMERCIAL PROJECT 86-7 - ~ i ~ DEVELOPMENT CONTINUED - Condition Number 20: Condition Number 22.a Condition Number 22.b: Condition Number 32: - Condition Number 33: Condition Number 47: prior to release of utilities and issuance of Certificate of Occupan- cy for Phase I buildings (subject to City Engineer approval)." "A six-foot (6') high masonry block wall and/or combination of dense landscaping shall be provided along the rear property line to screen loading areas from adjacent pro- properties subject to approval of the Community Development Director." "Canopies over loading areas shall have sloped front roof treatment similar to front elevations." DELETE. "A plant-on or similar treatment shall be provided around the rear elevation." "An appropriate artistic feature which may reflect a recreational theme shall be located within the center, as approved by the Com- munity Development Director." "Bricks, pavers, or similar treat- ment shall be laid in band designs, and shall be located at all Mission Trail driveway approaches leading to the project, which are to be dimen- sioned not less than 6 feet in width, as approved by the Community Develop- ment Director." "Materials board and colors depicted on the approved materials board shall be used subject to the approval of the Community Development Director." Mr. John Curts, representing T & S Development, stated that they were in agreement with the conditions as approved by the Design Review Board. . There being no discussion at the table, Chairman Washburn asked for a motion. Motion by Commissioner Barnhart to approve Commercial Project 86-7 with the 46 conditions in the staff report and as amended by the Design Review Board and memorandum dated June 17th amending condi- tion number 4 and adding condition number 47, second by commis- sioner Mellinger. Commissioner Mellinger asked that adoption of a Negative Declara- tion be included. Commissioner Barnhart amended her motion to include the adoption of Negative Declaration No. 86-22 for Commercial Project 86-7, second by Commissioner Mellinger Approved 4-0 2. Commercial Project 86-8 - Terry W. Shook - This item was incor- portated with PUBLIC HEARING Number 3. \ Minutes of Planning Commission June 17, 1986 Page 8 COMMERCIAL PROJECT 86-9 - ART NELSON CONTINUED 3. Commercial Project 86-9 - Art Nelson - Chairman Washburn stated that the applicant has requested that Commercial Project 86-9 be continued to the meeting of July 1, 1986. Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to continue Commercial Project __ 86-9 to the meeting of July 1, 1986, second by Commissioner Barnhart. Approved 4-0 INFORMATIONAL 1. Great American Savings Bank (drive-up window) - Community Develop- ment Director Miller stated that the Commission has received a copy of a letter from the Assistant City Manager who has been negotiat- ing with the Manager of Great American Savings Bank, on Graham, re- garding concerns that have been expressed by Planning Commission, Public Safety Commission and City Council regarding the problems perceived along Graham. Since this letter, there have been addi- tional conversations between the Assistant City Manager and the Great American Savings Bank, and we hope that were are on the road to arriving at a solution. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S REPORT Community Development Director Miller stated that t~e Assistant City Manager has requested him to address the Commission regarding the City's Centennial Committee celebration on July 4th, stating that as __ part of that celebration there is a baseball tournament scheduled for Friday morning (9:00 a.m.), at Swick Field, and the Assistant City Manager is looking for and expecting recruits from the Planning Com- mission. PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS Commissioner Mellinqer: Stated that he has changed his vacation plans and will not miss the first Planning Commission meeting in August. Thank Commissioner Barnhart for all of her assistance since he has been on the Commission and stated that she has done a wonderful job. Thanked Community Development Director Miller and the City for looks, at least temporarily, of the lakeshore parkways. Thinks that the citizens will be working toward a landscaping program on their own with a bit of assistance from the City. Commissioner Callahan: Nothing to report. .... Commissioner Barnhart: Stated that this is her last meeting, and that she has enjoyed working on the Commission for the last six years, and gave some advise to the new incoming Commissioners. Thanked staff for all of their assistance and hard work. Chairman Washburn: Chairman Washburn thanked Commissioner Barnhart for all of her hard work for the last six years. Minutes of Planning Commission June 17, 1986 Page 9 Chairman Washburn passed the gavel to Commissioner Barnhart to ad- journ the meeting. - There being no further business the Lake Elsinore Planning Commission adjourned at 10:15 p.m. Motion by Commissioner Callahan, second by Chairman Washburn. Approved 4-0 "Approved, ~I'~' r/};:;M.dL---- Gary Washburn, Ch~i an R..espectfull~ubmitted, ~/du~ ~inda Grindstaff Planning Commission Secretary - MINUTES OF HELD ON THE 17TH LAKE ELSINORE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD DAY OF JUNE 1986 MEMBERS PRESENT were Community Development Director Miller, Land- scape Architect Kobata and Assistant Planner Bolland. MINUTE ACTION - Minutes of June 3, 1986 approved as submitted. The Board Reviewed items out of sequence. BUSINESS ITEMS 3. Commercial Project 86-7 - T & S Development - Assistant Planner Bolland presented proposal to construct a 191,770 square foot community shopping center in two phase on 18 acres, located on the west side of Mission Trail between Campbell and Sylvester. Mr. John Curts, representing T & S Development was present. A lengthy discussion was held on condition number 4 (as amended); condition number 6; condition 9; condition number 17; condition number 20; condition number 21; condition number 22., 22 a. and 22.b; condition number 25; condition number 32; condition number 33; condition number 35; Traffic Report sUbmitted; color of doors, referencing the small shops; elevation modifications pertaining to the Builder's Emporium building, the market build- ing and the trellis element. - Commercial Project 86-7 approved with the 46 conditions recom- mended in the staff report and the memorandum dated June 17th, amending condition number 4 and adding condition number 47, and with the following amendments: Condition Number 4: Condition Number 9: Condition Number 20: Condition Number 22a: Condition Number 22b: Condition Number 32: "Plot Plan approval is granted for Phase I, and for Phase II in con- cept. Phase II shall require fur- ther review by the Design Review Board with regard to specific build- ing elevations, floor plans, site grading and parking requirements." . "All required off-site improvements associated with Phase I, including traffic signal shall be completed prior to release of utilities and issuance of Certificate of Occupancy for Phase I buildings (subject to City Engineer approval). "A six-foot (6') high masonry block wall and/or combination of dense landscaping shall be provided along the rear property line to screen loading areas from adjacent pro- perties subject to approval of the Community Development Director." "canopies over loading areas shall have sloped roof treatment similar to front elevations." DELETED "A plant-on or similar treatment shall be provided around the rear elevation. "An appropriate artistic feature which may reflect a recreational theme shall be located within the center, as approved by the Com- munity Development Director." Minutes of Design Review Board June 17, 1986 Page 2 COMMERCIAL PROJECT 86-7 = ~ ! ~ DEVELOPMENT CONTINUED Condition Number 33: "Bricks, pavers, or similar treat- ments shall be laid in band designs, and shall be located at all Mission Trail driveway approaches leading to the project, which are to be dimen- sioned not less than 6 feet in width, as approved by the Community Develop- ment Director." - Condition Number 47: "Materials and colors depicted on the approved materials board shall be used subject to the approval of the Com- munity Development Director." 4. Commercial Project 86-8 - Terry Shook - Assistant Planner Bolland presented a proposal to construct 7,260 square feet of office space as two buildings in two phases on a 27,000 square foot site, located on the south side of Flint Street between Davis and Mohr Streets. Mr. Terry Shook, applicant, questioned the changes that staff has requested. Discussion was held on the changes that staff requested. Commercial Project 86-8 approved with the 33 conditions listed i) the staff report. - 5. Commercial Project 86-9 - Art Nelson - Assistant Planner Bolland presented applicant's request for continuance of Commercial Pro- ject 86-9 to the meeting of July 1, 1986. Commercial Project 86-9 continued to the meeting of July 1, 1986. 1. Single-Family Residence --409 Granite Street - Keith Clarke - As- sistant Planner Bolland presented proposal to construct a single- family residence on a 7,150 square foot lot, located on the west side of Granite Street between Flint and Pottery Streets. Single-Family Residence at 409 Granite Street approved with the 24 conditions listed in the staff report. 2. Single-Family Residence - 319 Mohr Street - William Barrett - As- sistant Planner Bolland presented proposal to construct a single- family residence on a 9,000 square foot lot, located on the west side of Mohr Street approximately 150 feet south of Pottery street. Single-Family Residence at 319 Mohr Street approved with the 26 conditions listed in the staff report. .... Ck~ Nelson Miller, Community Development Director MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON THE 1ST DAY OF JULY 1986 THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:02 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Chairman Washburn. ~ ROLL CALL: PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: Mellinger, Callahan, Brown, Kelley and Chairman Washburn NOMINATIONS Chairman Washburn opened nominations for Chairman and Vice Chair- man. commissioner Mellinger nominated Commissioner Washburn as Chairman of the Planning Commission, second by Commissioner Callahan. There being no further nominations, Commissioner Washburn was elected Chairman by a unanimous vote. Chairman Washburn opened nominations for Vice Chairman. Commissioner Mellinger nominated Commissioner Callahan as Vice Chairman of the Planning Commission, second by Commissioner Wash- burn. Commissioner Callahan nominated Commissioner Mellinger as Vice Chairman. There being no further nominations, commissioner Callahan was elected Vice Chairman by a 4-0 vote, with Commis- sioner Callahan abstaining. MINUTE ACTION Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to approve minutes of June 17, 1986, as submitted, second by Commissioner Callahan. PUBLIC HEARING 1. Planned unit Development 84-1 REVISED - Thompson Investment _ Assistant Planner Bolland presented a proposal to include an additional 2.9 acres, creating fourteen (14) parcels of 5,670 square feet each for single-family residential use, as a part of previously approved Lake pointe Subdivision (Grandview Gardens Tract), located on the southeast corner of Macy Street and Laguna Avenue. Chairman Washburn opened the public hearing at 7:08 p.m., and asked if anyone wished to speak in favor of Planned Unit Devel- opment 84-1 REVISED. Receiving no response, Chairman Washburn asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Receiving no response, Chairman Washburn closed the pUblic hearing at 7:09 p.m. ~ A short discussion ensued regarding its consistency with the General Plan; using same sales office trailer and not requir- ing new one; being required to come back before Design Review Board if lots are sold to another developer and the plans are changed; description of ornamental street lights; the fact that no fees have been changed since approval of Planned Unit Development 84-1. Motion by Commissioner Callahan to recommend approval of Planned Unit Development 84-1 REVISED and adopting previously adopted Negative Declaration 86-9, subject to the following conditions of approval, second by Commissioner Brown. Approved 5-0 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. Comply with all applicable Conditions of Approval for Minutes of Planning Commission July 1, 1986 Page 2 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT 84-1 - THOMPSON INVESTMENT - CONTINUED Planned Unit Development 84-1 as required by the City Engineer and the Director of Community Development. 2. The project shall connect to sewer. 2. Conditional Use Permit 86-1 - M. W. Haskell - Assistant Plan- ner Bolland presented proposal to place two (2) 720 square foot office trailers as administrative and lounge facilities with an asphalt parking lot, to rehabilitate one (1) of the existing hangers (the larger one is being demolished) and to apply decomposed granite on runways of the Skylark Airport. The total site is 178.6 acres with the proposed office trail- ers and rehabilitated hanger located on approximately five (5) acres on the northeast corner of the Airport site located on the southeast side of Cereal Street approximately 400 feet northwest of the intersection of Cereal Street and Corydon Road. - Community Development Director Miller informed the Commission that he needed to add additional verbiage to Condition #1. He stated it should be noted that this Conditional Use Permit is intended to address Phase I improvements. Therefore, in the second sentence of Condition #1, after the word "offices," the verbiage "or for offices as shown in Phase II" should be added. He further stated that it was intended that staff would recom- mend approval of the office trailer for Phase I but that a master plan of improvements would be required prior to approval for the second office trailer. Chairman Washburn replied they would make that notation. Chairman Washburn opened the public hearing at 7:16 p.m. and asked if anyone wished to speak in favor of Conditional Use Permit 86-1. - The applicant, Mr. M.W. Haskell, P. O. Box 690, Lake Elsinore, stated the only request they would make is to extend the time from three years to five years. Other than that, he agreed to all the conditions. Chairman Washburn asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor of Conditional Use Permit 86-1. Receiving no response, Chair- man Washburn asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Receiving no response, Chairman Washburn closed the public hearing at 7:19 p.m. Considerable discussion was held on time limitation in Condi- tion #1 being for just one (1) year instead of Three (3); hav- ing problems with previous businesses in the same locale under Conditional Use Permits for a longer period of time; if busi- ness practices are what they expect them to be, the Use can be extended on a yearly basis; in Condition #3 adding the words, "but not liinited to" after the word "includes;" on portable toilets in Condition #18 that the City should be notified if _ they need to be removed or serviced and be notified more often than twice a year;.and questioned why applicant does not have to pay any Capital Improvement fees since they will be using City roads requiring upkeep and other services. Community Development Director Miller responded to the question on Capital Improvement fees by stating it was based generally on the temporary nature as proposed in the conditions. Should the business prosper and grow and come back for a new use per- mit with the intention of constructing and improving then the Capital Improvement fees would be imposed, but the Planning Minutes of Planning Commission July 1, 1986 Page 3 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 86-1 = ~ ~ HASKELL = CONTINUED commission does have the perogative to charge the fees now if they so wish. Discussion continued with the recommendation that the charg- ing of Capital Improvement fees be looked into; on the screen- ing of toilets in Condition #18 not being as high as the toilets; not feeling "Findings" justify using temporary build- ings for business; other businesses being required to have per- manent structures and pay Capital Improvement fees; questioned whether it was a Code requirement that only construction trail- ers be approved; what kind of operation can still take place at the airport if this application were denied and the hanger not rehabilitated; Community Development Director Miller replied that it has been the stance of CalTrans Division of Aeronautics that there is an existing valid airport permit that allows operations of an airport and the opening of the two parallel runways, desig- nated 11-29. The larger hanger on-site is being demolished and the applicant is requesting approval to rehabilitate the smaller hanger on-site. Due to airport's "R," Recreational, Zone, any new uses or expansion of use requires a conditional use permit. - Discussion continued with the question that if there is no office on-site, no rehabilitated hanger, can they still land planes and park there, and can they administer, for instance, from a folding table, sitting next to a parked car? Community Development Director Miller answered that there is a valid permit for landing aircraft at the airport and because of the unique situation there, staff felt it would be in the interest of everyone concerned to provide for an administration facility to provide better control and management of the com- plete property. At the present time, they are operating out of one of the adjoining businesses. Further discussion raised the question regarding the General Plan Land Use designation of Airport Specific Plan Area for this location and the terminology of "master plan" in Condition #1. What is the distinction between the "master plan" require- ment for this airport site and the General Plan Land Use desig- nation of "Airport Specific Plan Area" for this whole property? Is there a difference or are they one and the same thing? The "master plan" would have to be in conformance with the General Plan. Community Development Director Miller explained that the "master plan" would set forth the immediate expansion of the airport to provide some sort of overall plan in which any additional facilities could be set so that they would not conflict with future plans - a plan that would indicate the directions of growth for the airport. A plan, as it relates to the operation of the airport, to address those things that are directly related to operating an airport. The Airport Specific Plan would typically have a broader context and look at, perhaps, airport related facilities on the site - that would be the distinction between an airport master plan that would address the operational needs of the airport versus related facilities that might support and be supported by the airport. The master plan is a guideline for the airport oper- ation. Further discussion concerned waiting until applicant gets a permanent building; a master plan for the operation itself; ",..-..."...:.~...._...,-... ._...:-,.-, Minutes of Planning Commission July 1, 1986 Page 4 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 86-1 = M. ~ HASKELL - CONTINUED allowing a one-year conditional use permit to be renewed each year after review until the master plan deemed it no longer re- quired a conditional use permit and became a permitted use; would this be included in the City's lake perimeter study next) year? - Community Development Director Miller replied that it would certainly be an issue in that study to the extent that it would be included since it is an existing use, but not for its use, but as it affects surrounding properties. Chairman Washburn asked the applicant if they were basically supplying minimal service, as the report states, to a low num- ber of aircraft? Are they supplying 25 tie-downs? What are their intentions at the airport? Mr. Haskell answered that their intentions are to supply good service to whoever comes in to the airport. As the Commis- sioners are aware, there is very little activity at the air- port. They have the same 4,5, or 6 aircraft that have been there for a good many years and two (2) abandoned aircraft that have been there for about ten years. They are endeavoring to bring in more business but don't anticipate any big influx of aircraft particularly with the condition of the airport as it is now. There is no place to relax or even go to the bathroom. Their intentions originally were to have a Category I Airport, however, they found that was unrealistic so they are going bacy to the same old operation that was very successful for years _ that is with the sky divers, ultralights and gliders. They need a place to relax, a ready room, a radio , a place for flight instructions, and a place from which to operate a unicom so they can direct traffic. At present time, it is almost im- possible to enforce the rules they are planning to formulate, which is for a safe and sane operation within the perimeter of the airport. Their sphere of influence is 5 miles and beyond that, they have no jurisdiction. He sees no big growth within the next 3 or 4 years. Mr. Haskell was asked if his intentions, basically, are to pro- vide tie-downs, sky diving activities and glider activities and he responded in the affirmative. Chairman Washburn asked staff if the School District had re- solved their problems with the overflight. Community Development Director Miller replied that the School . --District-l1ad--fil:ed-an-appllcatiotffor--real ignmerit - of the runway, however, the environmental documentation along with it is not complete so that is an issue that is still pending. - Mr. Haskell said he sent a letter to CalTrans, and he believes also the City, agreeing to realign the runway that is in ques- tion, but nothing was done about it. Recently he wrote a letter to the City and CalTrans authorizing them to change the runway -- to the necessary quadrants so it wouldn't affect the school. He hasn't heard anything since. Discussion returned to the table with concerns expressed on the sensitivity of the airport re-opening and concerns of a lot of the citizens in the neighborhood and surrounding neighborhood; the problems that existed with the sky divers and the run-up areas which is another thing they would like added as to where aircraft can run-up and where they can't run up because it gets to be a problem from the dust and noise with the homes along Corydon Road; three years being too long for the Use Permit and . ;..:.,:z-;;\.;:;:.;..,;".... ',",_ - -" '.''''"-'''''~',,''''''",'' ,.,C~""''- ,',,'", '_:'1~;_:\7-':;:;-;;',ii.n~_'~;"',,,~, _",,~_:;;;;:'~,_;<_-_,,~;;:.,:;:::,~_,_~.:";;:.::':~,~~,,; .:;;~;-:;;""::"":~;.:J,'_~'_c'';;''",.,.,, '....."'" ~".,.;' ,-, . ',-::";~"- -_.,.~ Minutes of Planning Commission July 1, 1986 Page 5 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 86-1 = M. W. HASKELL = CONTINUED and maybe a six-month review basis; providing safe and sane operation; Condition #4 could probably include the "run-up areas" and "no run-up areas," to be clearly identified and marked for aircraft and visiting aircraft that would come in; Capital Improvement fees certainly could be provided for and tied to any major change from a very limited nature; concern City could have, like in the past, of a snowballing effect of temporary trailer - Phase I, temporary trailer - Phase II, another trailer, more aircraft, more sky divers; adding item that overflight would not conflict with any school district - to provide that any realignment not to generate overflights over the Jean HaYman School or any other schools;" the Airport Study showed a need for 200 parking spaces in 1979 when the airport was operational and no where in the present plans does it show where parking would be provided - which brings back Capital Improvement. Mr. Haskell was asked if there was a water meter on the site and Mr. Haskell replied, "Yes." - Discussion continued regarding Condition #20 and the water meter; the fact that it can only be used to water down the dust or hose off things - it is not hooked up to any plumbing; needing permit from the City before they could; since site is in the floodplain, adding condition that applicant must have anti-backup valve between meter and hose or anything they use so in case of flood it can't contaminate the domestic water supply. Considerable discussion ensued on all matters and concerns previously brought up on the merits of granting or not granting subject Conditional Use Permit. Community Development Director Miller, upon being questioned, stated that the problem is to find a balance between what seems to be appropriate for the level of activity that is presently happening there versus the potential level of acti- vity. Therefore, staff has recommended, in essence, that there be a Use Permit for an interim period of three years. At such time, applicant would have to come forward with a mas- ter plan for the operations of the airport, including a sched- ule of improvements that would be proposed. Those would need to be addressed in terms of what more permanent facilities would be appropriate based upon the level of activity that was in evidence at that time and projected for future years. In essence, staff did not recommend major Capital Improvements and major Capital Improvement fees based upon the idea that this would be an interim facility to provide for control of existing operations until such time as a master plan was devel- oped, with the expectation that the applicant would be working on the master plan during the interim time and have it ready at the end of three years. Discussion then continued at the table on need of supervision at the airport for safety purposes; parking, and other changes needed; time frame - should it be for three years with master plan in place at end of two years and the Conditional Use Per- mit to expire at the end of three years; one year with a six- month review; screening of toilets; clarification on Condition #1, Condition #3, Condition #20; sending back to staff to work out all the previously mentioned changes with applicant and bring the matter back. Motion by Commission Mellinger to continue Conditional Use Permit 86-1 for one (1) month with direction to staff for re- visions as they have just discussed, second by Commissioner Callahan. Approved 5-0 Minutes of Planning Commission July 1, 1986 Page 6 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 86-1 - M. ~ HASKELL - CONTINUED 3. Community Development Director Miller commented that for the record he would like to point out that this item will return to Planning Commission on August 5, 1986. Conditional Exception Permit 86-9 - Arco - Assistant Planner Perry presented proposal to vary from the provisions of the Sign Code, Section 17.94.055 prohibiting freeway identifica- tion signs and 17.94.025 prohibiting signs in excess of 20 feet in height, to allow a 70-foot high off-site freeway sign to advertise an Arco Gasoline Station and Bob's Big Boy Res- taurant on the south side of I-15, approximately 250 feet east of Railroad Canyon Road. Chairman Washburn opened the public hearing at 8:11 p.m., and asked if anyone wished to speak in favor of Conditional Excep- tion Permit 86-9. - Mr. Larry Markham, representing the applicant, stated they would be removing the existing Arco sign at the existing Arco Station near the off-ramp. He stated the applicant was in favor of the Conditional Exception permit because they feel they need freeway exposure for the north bound lane and would be at an economic disadvantage relative to the other uses in the area with a like zoning. He feels a monument sign does not give them any freeway visibility as it is a very low pro- file sign. Chairman Washburn asked if anyone else wished to speak in faVOl of Conditional Exception Permit 86-9 and receiving no reply, asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Hearing no re- sponse, Chairman Washburn closed the public hearing at 8:16 p.m. - Discussion was held on no need for proliferation of signs at that prime location into the City; no justification for signs of this height; variance for off-site signs; integrated sign for Shopper's Square Center; signs already approved for Center; for the integrity of that area, City is trying to provide for a clean, quality development and to allow such a sign as is be- ing requested would be an atrocity; being in complete agreement with staff's "Findings" and recommendations. Staff was asked about the monument sign applicant has agreed to and if they can still put a pole sign at that corner. Community Development Director Miller responded that under the existing Code a 20-foot sign would be permitted and under the proposed Code a sign with the maximum height of 8 feet would be permitted. Motion by Commissioner Brown to deny Conditional Exception Permit 86-9, second by Commissioner Kelley. Approved 5-0 - BUSINESS ITEMS 1. Commercial Project 86-9 - Art Nelson - Assistant Planner Bol- land presented proposal to construct a four-unit, 10,000 square foot retail commercial building on approximately one (1) acre as Phase I of a planned neighborhood commercial center which will total 1.79 acres, located on the southwest corner of Lakeshore Drive and Clement Street. Chairman Washburn asked Assistant Planner Bolland to highlight what changes were made by the Design Review Board. Assistant Planner Bolland complied by pointing them out on the map. Minutes of Planning commission July 1, 1986 Page 7 COMMERCIAL PROJECT 86-9 - ART NELSON = CONTINUED - Community Development Director Miller commented that he was go- ing to bring up an item later in the evening on this agenda, but since it relates directly to this project he feels he should point it out to the Commission. At a Workshop Meeting yesterday afternoon, Mayor Strigotte and Councilman Matson met with a number of developers and have indicated they will recommend to City Council a 60-day continuance of Title 17 for further study, review and input by the Building Industry Asso- ciation. Therefore, the alternate parking plan, as proposed, in this development may, in fact, be required if the applicant proposes to proceed in a relatively short period of time, which he understands is Mr. Nelson's intent. The Commission may wish to particularly address itself to the alternate parking as shown since it now appears that Title 17 will not be adopted next Tuesday, July 8th, as was previously thought. He pointed out that Exhibit "D" is the alternate parking plan and Condi- tion #4 addresses that. Mr. Nelson, the applicant of 31681 Riverside, Lake Elsinore, stated the parking was not an area of concern. If Title 17 doesn't pass, he will go ahead and build it according to the existing code. His concerns are Condition #5 calling for a 6-foot masonry wall. If he doesn't have to use the alternate plan, the fence would be a temporary structure, and he would propose wood. On Condition #30 he would like to propose stan- dard concrete and paving. Has a lot of landscaping on this project and doesn't think the stamped concrete is really neces- sary. On Condition #44 would like to add a clause that states in the event the assessment district is formed for the North- west Assessment Area, he will receive a credit for the amount of the drainage impact fees that he will pay at this point. He doesn't want to have to pay twice. He further stated there were several items he would like Mr. Fred Crowe to comment on. Mr. Fred Crowe, 620 West Graham Avenue, Lake Elsinore, com- mented on the drainage flow across the driveway if they move the building back. On Condition #33, on the alternate site plan he planned to take it out the driveway and asked if that was considered crossing the sidewalk; the other location would cross the sidewalk. Staff was asked for their interpretation and Community Develop- ment Director Miller replied that it was their intent that there would not be concentrated drainage across any sidewalk unless it were a driveway situation with curbs similar to a street situation with a person stepping off of a curb onto a street where they would expect drainage. But if it were a typical driveway with a curb cut then it would be more appro- pricate to have any concentrated drainage directed through a pipe or cu1veret underneath the sidewalk. Mr. Fred Crowe questioned Condition #43 and going to an out- side source. Would like the wording changed regarding the striping plan that it shall be prepared by the consultant of the applicant and shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer and implemented prior to Certificate of of Occupancy. Discussion returned to the table concerning the roof line and the mansard; the second phase building continuing from the right hand side of the Phase I building; extending Con- dition #8 to cover the right hand side of the building; changing fence from block to wood; staff not having any pro- blem with putting in wood fence instead of a masonry wall; regarding parking and parking ratios, ultimate development Minutes of Planning Commission July 1, 1986 Page 8 COMMERCIAL PROJECT 86-9 - ART NELSON - CONTINUED be done according to the new Title 17; questioned wood fence if Phase II not developed; where is Planning Commission authority on conditions already approved by the Design Review Board? Community Development Director Miller explained that Planning Commission generally reviews things that relate to site plan and off-site type of concerns and obviously there is a very blurred line. As discussed, the recommendation contained in the new title 17 would be that that be consolidated into one authority. At the present time, the Planning Commission is the Appeal Boards for Design Review so ultimately the author- ity could rest with Planning Commission for review of these. - . Discussion continued on off-site surface drainage not across sidewalks and where it would be appropriate; hours of opera- tion concerning laundromats next to residences; Condition #43 being difficult to consider without Engineering Department representative in attendance; staff feels Mr. Crowe's request would be in line with what is required in Condition #43; in Condition #19, would like to see the verbiage "consistent colors;" questioned where dense evergreen buffer is and staff pointed out said area; questioned lighting for this buffer area - should be some kind of low lighting or decorative fen- cing to cut down on crime and the Sheriff's Department would probably like to see something of this sort to protect people; asked if the residences in the back would look directly into the back of the building or top of the roof and were informed they would look at the roof since the commercial pads are a couple feet lower than the residences and are a distance of 50 to 60 feet from the commercial building and all rear yards are fenced with a wall; on Condition #43 no problem with slight change in verbiage; on Condition #44, the assessment district, for the applicant to provide that there is a credit or payback if other people join the assessment district. - Assistant Planner Bolland informed the Commission that the City Engineer in his comments on this project indicated that the assessment fee has been calculated on a per acre basis for this area and it would be a figure of $4,386 per acre and that figure is already known ahead of time. He suggested the verbiage "Drainage Impact fees shall be paid once in the amount assessed." Community Development Director Miller stated the City has adopted the West End Drainage Plan in concept and it is awaiting County Board of Supervisors' approval. As soon as that approval is implemented, then the City staff and County staff will work towards the financing of that, for which. at this point in time, the most logical situation seems to be an assessment district. He wouldn't have a problem with Mr. Nelson's suggestion that he would agree to participate in the assessment district since that in essence is what the condition is referring to. Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to adopt Negative Declaration No. 86-24 and approve Commercial project 86-9 with the 45 con- ditions in the staff report and amending Condition #5 from "a six-foot (6') solid masonry wall" to "a six-foot (6') wood fence;" amending Condition #19 adding the word "consistent" between the words "specifies" and "colors;" and amending Condi- tion #44 to read, "Applicant shall agree to participate in the Drainage Assessment District prior to certificate of Occupancy," amending Condition #8 by adding the verbiage "Add some archi- tectural detail on the indicated right side elevations, as approved by the Community Development Director;" and add Con- - - - Minutes of Planning Commission July 1, 1986 Page 9 COMMERCIAL PROJECT 86-9 = ART NELSON - CONTINUED 2. dition #46 to read, "Secuirity measures including, but not limited to, security landscaping, fencing and low-wattage ground-mounted lighting at the rear of the building, subject to approval of the Community Development Director," second Commissioner Brown. Approved 5-0 Residential project 85-6, Phase II and Phase III - Brant Financial (Buster-Alles) - Assistant Planner Bolland presented proposal to construct sixty-nine (69) single-family dwellings ranging in size from 1.200 to 1,800 square feet as Phase II and Phase III (35 and 34 units respectively) of Lakeview Estates, Tract 15020, located along "Cherry Blossom Lane" and "Pear Blossom Lane," northwest of the intersection of Terra Cotta Road and Harrison Avenue. Applicant was asked if he had any comments or questions. Mr. Bud Alles, the applicant, 112 Sema Drive, San Marcos, stated he concurred with all the conditions and amendments but with the request to have clarification on the letter required in Condition #17. Assistant Planner Bolland explained that upon review staff is not satisfied that the letter submitted by applicant from California Geo Tek, Inc., Soils Engineers, is adequate to address the concerns that are noted in Condition #17 and in the Staff Report and that further backup information will be required. Mr. Alles stated he was sure Geo Tek has all the backup infor- mation that is necessary in regards to that study but they have encountered no ground water in their grading and building on-site to date. Mr. Fred Crowe spoke regarding the Geo Tek study. He said it was done for an earlier tentative map on this same property and he worked for a while with Geo Tek on this. At that time, the consideration was for a subsurface sewage disposal system and that was the specific concern at that time - not so much of whether it could be abridged or mitigated in the efforts of soils stability but more in regard to sewage disposal which now will be on the sewer system. Staff was asked to comment on why they were requesting Condi- tion #17. Community Development Director Miller responded that in terms of Condition #17 there has been concern expressed to staff re- garding ground water problems at this location and in reference to the letter provided by California Geo Tek, they make refer- ence to the fact that their previous report had discussed inter- mittent ground water and suggested that compacted fill must provide a minimum separation of 5 feet between ground water levels and the bottom of the footings. That has not been pro- vided in the present plans and staff feels it is entirely appro- priate to address that specifically in terms of condition #17, and in terms of certification of pads and compaction that is more or less a standard procedure for all buildings. Staff is asking that specific recommendations provided by California Geo Tek previously, which are not being followed in the pro- posed plans, be more specifically addressed since it was the same firm that made recommendations for separation between the footings and ground water levels previously discovered. Minutes of Planning Commission July 1, 1986 Page 10 RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 85-6. PHASE II AND PHASE III - BRANT FINANCIAL (BUSTER ALLES) - CONTINUED Discussion returned to the table regarding more backup material and supporting material on Geo Tek report; standing water at northwest portion where the larger cut slope is at the corner of Date and Apple Blossom; area pointed out on the map; remain- der of Tract be taken into account; making sure that if there is high rains and there is an underground water source there, that subsidence doesn't occur; Condition #17 may need more clarification; asked what Condition #10 meant by permanent ir- rigation system on slopes in excess of 3 feet and informed it meant actual sprinkler system of some type installed which could mean a drip irrigation system and not just a hose bib; questioned screening of utilities; questioned Condition #13 . for type of fencing; asked and received information that the proposed Title 17 has specific standards for fencing; asked if builder were to sell property and a different type of pro- duct were to be built, would it have to come back before the Design Review Board and was answered in the affirmative; noting that the minimum lot size is 6,000 square feet; concern regarding traffic flow - three ways to get out - Woodlake, Terra Cotta and Ohio and another exit through another tract map to Robb Road. - Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to adopt Negative Declara- tion and approval of Residential Project 85-6, Phase II and Phase III, with staff recommendations as amended by Design Review Board, second by Commissioner Kelley. Approved 5-0 3. Residential Project 85-13 REVISED - James Thompson/Thompson Investment - Assistant Planner Bolland presented proposal to construct 14 single-family homes with three (3) models, Plan 1: 1,111 square feet, Plan 2: 1,234 square feet, Plan 3: 1,406 square feet on lots established as Planned Unit Development 84-1 Revised, Lake Point Subdivision (Grandview Gardens Tract), located on the southeast corner of Macy Street and Laguna Avenue. - Discussion concerned stating in Condition #10 that air condi- tioners be on the ground and alleviating the possibility of them ending up on the roof; 4-foot chain link part of approval on last one. Motion by Commissioner Brown to adopt previously adopted Nega- tive Declaration 86-9 and approval of Residential Project 85-13 REVISED, subject to staff recommendation with Condition #10 amended to read "All air conditioning units which shall be on the ground, gas meters, electrical boxes or other electrical or mechanical equipment incidental to development shall be screened so that they are not visible from neighboring property or public streets. (Solar energy collectors and apparatus excepted.)," second by Commissioner Mellinger. Approved 5-0 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S REPORT - Community Development Director Miller reported that the proposed Title 17 is scheduled for public hearing before the City Council on July 8th but he anticipates that it will be recommended for a 60-day continuance to specifically obtain additional input from the Building Industry Association and various developers. If any- one still has questions, please forward them to his office. On Monday morning, June 30th, the City Manager, Mayor, former Mayor, Community Development Director and our consultant attended the LAFCO Minutes of the Planning Commission July 1, 1986 Page 11 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S REPORT - CONTINUED (Local Agency Formation Commission) public hearing in Riverside and -- LAFCO approved our proposal for expanded Sphere of Influence as recommended by LAFCO staff which deleted the Wildomar area west of the I-15 freeway. City Council had passed a motion at its last meet- ing concurring with LAFCO's recommendation in that respect. Our new Sphere of Influence will extend as previously proposed, which will be generally southward to the Rancho-Temecula line, just south of Clinton Keith, on the eastside of I-15 up to Canyon Lake and north of Canyon Lake across to approximately where Lee Lake (what is now known as -Corona Lake) along I-15 to the north. Also he stated he had given to them earlier this evening a sheet that has proposed Planning application fees. These fees have been reviewed by the Finance Sub-committee of the City Council and a public hearing has been scheduled before City Council next Tuesday to review these proposed fees. Also the Community Development Director asked the Planning Commis- sioners if, at the next meeting, they would like to consider a brief session after the regular meeting to talk about goals and objectives, which they have talked about in the past. It has been suggested, particularly with the seating of all our new Commis- sioners, that the Planning Commission may want to look towards the next year and specifically talk about the goals that it would have for itself as a Commission to achieve. -- Community Development Director Miller was asked how short the next Planning Commission meeting would be and he responded that so far there is only one item scheduled. Chairman Washburn commented that they could then adjourn and have a Study Session to which they all agreed. PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS Commissioner Brown Nothing to report. commissioner Mellinger For their Study Session, the Commissioners may want to think in certain areas that they would be looking at, for example, he has concerns about grading since we are heading toward the hills as far as any future development - everything else in the flat area has been approved unless we annex something. Also he has concerns about parkways. He is sure everyone present has certain concerns they could address and, as suggested a few months back, about an overlay zone for our infill projects. We are suggesting ad hoc committees and ad hoc committees can indeed work quite well as long as we know what we are really meeting for - so those are the types of things he suggests they think about and discuss, maybe not in detail during goals and objectives but types of subject matter they would be looking at during that next meeting and per- haps come back and discuss actual committees and so on. He commented that the continuance of the Zoning Ordinance is inter- esting and he can understand the political response to the BIA and the developers concerns. However, it was brought up at the Planning Commission hearing last time that the BIA's concerns were that Lake Elsinore should provide its fair share of affordable housing, which is quite interesting if you look at the housing County-wide be- cause it seems that not only with what has been developed but with what has been approved, considering lot sizes approved, we've had our fair share and not only that, but the regions's fair share and Minutes of Planning Commission July 1, 1986 Page 12 PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS - CONTINUED commissioner Mellinqer - continued probably exceed that several times over. Lake Elsinore cannot really afford projects that can't really pay their own way in terms of roads, schools. That should be a prime consideration, facilities we have, the overcrowding of schools which continues and, if indeed in the areas that are still left to be developed and approved, and certain standards that were brought up in the Zoning Ordinance are not included, then indeed we are still going to have lousy roads and overcrowded schools. What we are asking for is probably more of a balance as our General Plan intends to create - not just affordable housing for the whole region but affordable housing for Lake Elsinore, which we seem to have plenty of, and a balance of housing. There is certainly no need to rush development within the next few years. Maybe from the BIA's standpoint there is because there is a significant amount of profit and market avail- able for this low-cost housing. with just the development we have approved now, there is always that line that, "Gee, if you don't keep approving residential growth, the commercial people won't come in." But, indeed, we have approved several tracts already and there still will be residential development. Unfortunately, it won't tend to be the quality or provide the demographics for that commercial activity. So the balance is an absolute must. He just wants to reaffirm that the Zoning Ordinance, as presented, will create that balance and any relaxation of what has been discussed over the last two years will tend to distract from that imbalance. If you have ever gone to Orange County, there are certain communi- ties that have suffered through that same evolution and others that didn't. The ones that didn't had the balance. We don't have that balance and we need it through the Zoning Ordinance. .... .... Commissioner Callahan He feels everyone has a right to go into business but he doesn't feel they have a right to expect the City of Lake Elsinore, the Planning Commission or anyone else to give them special concessions if they don't feel they have enough money to go into business. As far as he is concerned, the bottom line is that if you don't have enough money to go into business, then you just don't go. We can't afford to continue for an endless period of time trying to make decisions with our heart instead of our head. Commissioner Kelley Nothing to report. Chairman Washburn He was going to suggest that they have a Study Session but as the Community Development Director, Mr. Miller, pointed out we are go- ing to have a real light agenda so we could have a study Session then. However, at some future date, if we need to continue, which we probably will on a steady basis, we should have a study Session with staff to go over the things that Commissioner Mellinger brought up and particular items that staff may have or that indi- __ vidual Planning Commissioners may have. Try to get the Body to have a feel or a sense of what we are trying to accomplish. Commissioner Brown asked if we have written goals and objectives now. Chairman Washburn replied that they are in the General Plan and we should all get it down, dust it off, and take a look at it. Also, we were suggesting at the last meeting or the meeting before that we would report to the City Council with a quarterly report of some sort. We used to have regular Joint Study Sessions with the Minutes of Planning commission July 1, 1986 Page 13 PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS - CONTINUED Chairman Washburn - continued -- Council but that has not taken place within the last year so so. It has been intermittent. We might suggest in our first report that we do meet with them to present it to them formally just to get that face-to-face discussion started again. If the Planning Commissioners would concur, we would then, at the end of the next meeting, just adjourn into a Study Session on our own. There being no further business, the Lake Elsinore Planning Com- mission adjourned at 9:56 p.m. Motion by Commissioner Brown, second by Commissioner Callahan. Approved 5-0 ~roved' i \ . da~Y~b~~\b- Ch~r~an Respectfully submitted, ~~~du Ruth Edwards Acting Planning Commission Secretary . \ MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD HELD ON THE 1ST DAY OF JULY 1986 MEMBERS PRESENT were Community Development Director Miller, Land- scape Architect Kobata and Assistant Planner Bolland. MINUTE ACTION - Minutes of June 17, 1986, approved as submitted. The Board reviewed items out of sequence. BUSINESS ITEMS 2. Residential Project 85-6, Phase II and Phase III - Brant Finan- cial (Buster/Alles) - Assistant Planner Bolland presented pro- posal to construct 69 single-family homes as Phases II and III (35 and 34 units respectively) of Lakeview Estates, Tentative Tract Map 15020 Revised, located along "Cherry Blossom Lane" and "Pear Blossom Lane," northwest of the intersection of Terra Cotta Road and Harrison Avenue. Community Development Director Miller asked the applicant, Mr. Bud Alles, if he had anything he wished to add or if he had any questions. Mr. Bud Alles questioned Condition #11 - the screening of roof mounted or ground support equipment; and Condition #15 regard- ing a Final Landscaping/Irrigation Plan. After discussion Residential Project 85-6, Phase II and Phase III approved with the 17 conditions recommended in the Staff Report and amending Condition #10 and Condition #15.a to read as follows: Condition Number 10: All exposed on-site slopes in excess of three feet (3') in height shall have a permanent irrigation system and erosion control vegetation installed, approved by the Planning Division. a. Hydroseeding of all off-site graded slopes with slope stabili- zing native plants prior to the release of any units. Condition Number 15.a 1. Commercial Project 86-9 - Art Nelson - A proposal to construct a four-unit, 10,000 square foot retail commercial building on approximately one (1) acre, as Phase I of a planned neighborhood commercial center which will total 1.79 acres, located on the southwest corner of Lakeshore Drive and Clement Street. Since the applicant, Art Nelson, was not present, the Design Review Board approved Commercial Project 86-9 with the 45 condi- tions recommended in the Staff Report. 3. Residential Project 85-13 REVISED - James Thompson - A request to revise Residential Project 85-13 to include fourteen (14) addi- tional units in three (3) floor plans on 2.905 acres, located on the southeast corner of Macy Street and Laguna Avenue. Since the applicant, James Thompson, was not present, the Design Review Board approved Residential Project 85-13 REVISED with the 13 conditions recommended in the Staff Report. Q~~ Nelson Miller, Community Development Director MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON THE 15TH DAY OF JULY 1986 THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:00 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Commissioner Kelley. ROLL CALL - PRESENT: Commissioners: Brown, Mellinger, Callahan, Kelley and Chairman Washburn ABSENT: None Also present were Community Development Director Miller, Planners Bolland and Perry. MINUTE ACTION Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to approve minutes of July 1, 1986, as submitted, second by Commissioner Brown. Approved 5-0 PUBLIC HEARINGS None BUSINESS ITEMS 1. Yankee Dollar Towing and Wrecking - Floyd W. Bridges - Assistant Planner Perry presented for review the revocation of approval to operate an auto wrecking yard. - Assistant Planner Perry stated that on June 25, 1986, the Planning Division began a routine investigation into the conditions of approval for Yankee Dollar Wrecking for a new business license ap- plication that was being applied for at the same location. As a result of that investigation the following violations were found. 1) An unapproved office was moved on site without proper authorization. 2) Vehicles being stored outside the fenced area. 3) Two campers being used as residences, in violation of City Code. 4) Landscaping has not been provided adjacent outside walls. 5) Fencing not adequate to properly screen salvaged automobiles. Additionally, there is no record of permits. 6) Recordation of easement not provided. 7) No record of Fire Department approvals. 8) No evidence provided of approvals for restroom facilities. Mr. Daniel Huff, 26935 Patterson Street, perris, California, attorney for the applicant addressed the following violations: 1) Cannot make an argument against this because an office was moved on, however, it is a portable office and any business has to have an office to operate. 2) The vehicles spoken of were cars that were waiting to be taken to the crusher. They were placed out- side of the fence in order for the person that hauls them to the crusher to piCk them up. The crusher was two days late in picking them up. They are now gone. Minutes of Planning Commission July 15, 1986 Page 2 YANKEE DOLLAR TOWING AND WRECKING - FLOYD ~ BRIDGES CONTINUED 3) There was a trailer that was abandoned outside the wrecking yard in the right-of-way that did not belong to Mr. Bridges, but has since been removed. Inside the wrecking yard was a motor home that belonged to the person that was staying there for security purposes, for the reason that Mr. Bridges had been burglarized three times within a period of several __ months. After the security person was placed there the burglaries stopped. 4) Presented photograph that shows that Mr. Bridges did put some landscaping in the front part of the property. That was the only part of the property in which he could get the landscaping to grow, at that time. 5) As far as the fencing not being adequate to properly screen the salvaged automobiles. Referred to re- quirement 4 of the original City Council Minutes, in which it states that "the applicant was to construct a six-foot high decorative block wall or equivalent of a design approved by the Planning Department". Mr. Bridges constructed a siX-foot steel wall fence and did have a member of the Planning Department approve such fence. As to the allegation that this was in violation of the State Code in that the auto- mobiles could be seen, if he were to make the fence any higher than six-foot he would have been in violation of the City Ordinance. In order to meet with this problem the only possibility is that we could raise the fence or not double stack the cars, either of which the applicant would be willing to do. -- Mr. Huff stated that he would like Mr. Bridges to address the re- mainder of the violations, he has some paperwork, and he is in a better position to explain what we are doing. Mr. Floyd Bridges, 24700 Oak Circle Drive, Lake Elsinore, addressed the following violation: 6) Presented a diagram of the wrecking yard leaving a 45 foot right-of-way back to City Auto Wrecking that was drawn on February 21, 1984, signed by H. Fields, Planning Department, Ms. Fisher and my- self. This should clear up the right-of-way. The fence was moved back 45 feet to protect City Auto Wrecking. There is a law suit still pending on the right-of-way between City Auto Wrecking and Ms. Fisher. Mr. Bridges stated that he had contacted Mr. Fields, previous As- sistant Planner for the city of Lake Elsinore, who worked on the original application, and that Mr. Fields gave him a letter that might help. Mr. Bridges then read the letter from Mr. Fields re- garding a building permit for the installation of a perimeter fence for screening purposes. __ Mr. Bridges gave a brief explanation to the Commission on the pro- cedure that he went through to get his auto dismantling license, City Business License and the request to stop building the fence, by Mr. James Corcoran, previous Community Development Director, due to a dispute in his license. Mr. Bridges stated that where Mr. Fields refers to a permit to do the operation that he already had obtained a City License not a permit. At that time, you did not need a permit to construct a fence in the City of Lake Elsinore, you had to have the fence come up to Code. Mr. Fields and myself discussed this fence and we ~ ~ ----- Minutes of Planning Commission July 15, 1986 Page 3 YANKEE DOLLAR TOWING AND WRECKING = FLOYD BRIDGES CONTINUED decided on metal because it didn't cost as much as cement block. Mr. Bridges stated that Mr. Whit Steed, who was on the Commission at that time, is in the audience. Mr. Bridges stated that before he addresses the Fire Department requirement he would like to have Mr. Steed address the Commission. Mr. Whit Steed, former Chairman of the Lake Elsinore Planning Com- mission, stated that Mr. Bridges, at that time, did have a bit of difficulty, he was issued a City License and then they decided that it should have come to Planning Commission with an open public hearing, which we did hold. Mr. Steed stated that in regards to the fence they did not specify, at that time, that it had to be a concrete brick wall or block wall, just so long as it was adequate, approved and provided screening whether it be chain link with snap in or block wall. They would not allow a wood fence for that type of use because of the fire hazard, but he opted to go with a corrugated steel fence. Mr. Steed stated that the cars, at one time, thinks they were stack- ing not there but else where in the valley, three high and the City thought that they were too visible and they reduced it and passed an ordinance to allow a two stack in wrecking yards, which he (the ap- plicant) has complied with. Mr. Steed stated regarding the matter of fire extinguishers, five- gallon bottle type fire extinguishers, were placed on 4x4 posts and scattered within the confines of the yard itself, so that they were readily accessible in case there was a fire. Mr. Steed stated that at that time, we would approve, coming again for a conditional use permit, either a portable office on wheels or a portable building on skits so long as it was not a permanent structure. Unfortunately, he did not apply for a conditional use permit, had he applied for it I don't think that there would have been any problem. Mr. Steed stated that when we did the new General Plan it was decided, at that time. that any dismantling yards would be placed out in the Flood Plain, the logical place to have them, because most of that property was considered impractical to try and build a permanent building on. Also, at that time, Cal Trans informed us that they were going to bring Riverside Drive out around Lake and come kitty-corner across that valley (Warm Spring Valley) and connect to make the right-of-way come through for accessibility to the State Park and other recreational areas on the lake and connect to go on over the Ortegas. Mr. Steed stated that if the Commission had any questions pertain- ing to the situation at that time he would be willing to answer them. Commissioner Callahan stated that he thought that Mr. Steed would tell why we don't have a record of Fire Department approval. Mr. Steed stated that he did not know and could not answer this, and believes that Mr. Dave Flake had just taken over as the Fire Chief for the County of Riverside, but stated that he had seen information flow back and forth pertaining to that particular thing. They did request a fire hydrant to be within 450 feet of the area. There is a fire hydrant that falls within the dis- tance that they can reach with a hose in case there is a fire. I know at the time, I think that Councilman Dominguez would back me on this, there was conversation regarding the five-gallon bottles hung on 4x4 posts within the yard itself. There was never anything in writing on this. So at this point, it would just be hearsay from myself and Councilman Dominguez. Minutes of Planning Commission July 15, 1986 Page 4 YANKEE DOLLAR TOWING AND WRECKING ~ FLOYD ~ BRIDGES CONTINUED Mr. Bridges stated that he would like to address violation number 7 regarding Fire Department approval: Mr. Bridges stated that he has a letter to Mr. Norman C. Rubel, former City Engineer for the City of Lake Elsinore, dated March 28, 1984, stating that the Fire Department has no objections to the installation of a proposed hydrant on Collier Avenue for the wrecking yard, signed by David L. Flake, County Fire Chief. __ Mr. Bridges stated that he also has a letter to the Fire Chief by the Engineer, Mr. Rubel, regarding Yankee Dollar Towing and Wreck- ing. Referring to a map showing the location of a wrecking yard in the City of Lake Elsinore, which states that "the location of the wrecking yard was shaded in red, and as a condition of approval required that fire protection be provided as required by the County Fire Department. We propose to require an industrial type hydrant at the location adjacent to the street indicated on the map. Your office indicated by phone that this would be satisfactory. A future street is shown which shows locations of future fire hy- drants." Mr. Bridges stated that soon after that he met with the City Engi- neer, all of you may be familiar with the project that went next door to Yankee Dollar Auto Wrecking, at that time, I was meeting with the City Engineer they had proposed to put in four fire hy- drants within 400 feet of the Yankee Dollar Auto Wrecking. Al- though, to reach any three of them you would have to cross a fence. The one on the corner is around 300-350 feet from where the fire hydrant is now to Yankee Dollar Auto Wrecking. I went to.the City Engineer, and he pulled the records on what construction was going on in the vicinity and this particular situation. We discussed this and what it would cost to put in a fire hydrant, and under the __ circumstances of the construction that was going on adjacent to this property he and I both agreed, in a manner of speaking, that we shelf this problem for the time being and see what is going to happen in that development area. Mr. Bridges stated that he went on to the City Water Company and that he has their plans for a fire hydrant on Collier, if needed; even went as far as getting an estimated cost on it. The estimated cost that the Fire Department gave for fire hydrants at Yankee Dollar Auto Wrecking, in front of the Pet Cemetery would be, accord- to the engineer that I talked too, about $7,000.00. I have never refused to spend that amount of money to put in a fire hydrant. If I have to put that fire hydrant in, by all means, I will put it in. But what I would like to say, before I finish is that I sold Yankee Dollar Auto Wrecking two weeks ago, for very little of what I have invested. I told the people that were buying the property that we may have to put in a fire hydrant. If we do have to put in the fire hydrant I will take it out of the price of the sale to put that fire hydrant in. Mr. Bridges then presented the plans for the fire hy- drant to the Commission for their review. Mr. Bridges then addressed the violation regarding restroom facili- ties stating that the property is very close to the flood plain, the only sewer system that you can have out there is Right Way. Before I opened up the yard, I made arrangements for Right Way to take care-- of the restroom facilities, and they have been out there to service the restroom facility every week. Mr. Daniel Huff, attorney for the applicant, stated that in his opinion that Mr. Bridges has substantially complied with all the necessary rulings of the City Council. In those areas where there might be some allegation of non-compliance it would not be inten- tional. Mr. Bridges has stated to me and also to you this evening that he would be willing to comply with any ruling that the Com- mission were to make, and to do anything that he needs to to fix these alleged violations. All that we would like is a chance to comply with the list of demands made here. Minutes of Planning Commission July 15, 1986 Page 5 YANKEE DOLLAR TOWING AND WRECKING = FLOYD W. BRIDGES CONTINUED Chairman Washburn stated that his concern lies primarily in, if staff had been working with the applicant or the applicant working with city staff, why it took almost a year and a half for these to be brought to the table. Community Development Director Miller stated that as Mr. Perry indicated, these conditions basically came to light as a result of an inspection of a new business license or a transfer of business license application at this location. Our present routine for re- view of business license calls for submittal of certain information and an inspection by the Building Department. In this case, the Planning staff went out to review the conditions since there were specific conditions imposed by previous Council approval, and at the time of that inspection the non-compliance with the conditions was discovered. Commissioner Brown asked when Article 5, section 746 came into being, stating that the reason he is asking is if State statutes supersedes ours, in which we can adopt local ordinances but they must be equal to or greater than those imposed by this Article. One of the conditions of approval was that the fence be six-foot high, but then we allow the applicant to stack cars two cars high, they are in contradiction to each other. If Article 746 says that it is not to be visible then you can not stack them two high or you must have greater than a six-foot fence. Assistant Planner Perry stated that this section of the State Code was adopted in 1966. - commissioner Brown stated that we have a conflict in our condition of approval that we ask the applicant to put in a six-foot fence, but then tell him that it is okay to stack two cars. So we are telling him, in essence, that it is okay to violate it. Community Development Director Miller stated that remembering that this is an auto dismantling yard, they could conceivably be par- tially dismantled and stacked two high and still not exceed the height of the fence, but what you say could be perceived as a contradiction. Commissioner Brown stated that he did go out and look at the fence, it is not attractive; does not know if it was or was not approved Mr. Bridges says that it was. On several places it is coming apart, on what I would say the southwest side, it is painted halfway down the property and the rest is just left to the elements. Also, noted on the landscaping concern, there were eight (8) Junipers planted across the front and nothing on either side or on the rear of the property (rear abuts another business so this may not be practical). Commissioner Brown asked in reference to approved restroom facili- ties, "provide restroom facilities as approved by the Planning Department" what this would be? Community Development Director Miller stated that the concern was regarding the appearance of the restroom facilities. We had some concern as to whether portable chemical facilities would be the type of restroom facilities that would be approved; could not find evidence regarding the approval of those. Commissioner Brown asked if that type of restroom facility were ap- proved if we would like to see screening. Community Development Director Miller answered in the affirmative. Commissioner Brown stated that he went to the site and he did not Minutes of Planning Commission July 15, 1986 Page 6 YANKEE DOLLAR TOWING AND WRECKING = FLOYD ~ BRIDGES CONTINUED see any vehicles parked outside, it doesn't mean that has not been a habitual thing in the past, and I'm sure that staff would not mention that if it had not been. commissioner Brown stated that his concern is with the office, but the applicant has no problem with that. - Commissioner Mellinger stated that since our ordinance was in effect in 1968, actually 1953, and there is a State Ordinance that says, (the reason this actually went to Planning Commission and Council, the third requirement is not optional), "that the Planning Commis- sion shall require the applicant to install on all sides of the pro- perty a masonry wall or such other wall or fencing to ensure that the operation is not visible from adjacent property, public streets or freeways, and make such other further requirements as may be reasonable." Commissioner Mellinger stated that on the question of screening, the operation should be screened; thinks that it could be done by a wall or landscaping or whatever. Commissioner Mellinger stated that there is nothing in the ordinance that allows stacking two high, does not see anything in the condi- tions or anything that allows this, thinks perhaps with maybe a change in the operation not to double stack, and with the change in the landscaping perhaps to ensure more screening. Commissioner Mellinger stated that what we are addressing here is this business item and the Code Section. It sounds to me that the applicant is willing to screen or have the operation not visible. This is what we are aSking for, what has happened in the past is a _ mute point, right now apparently with the visibility that is just a violation, so that is all that we are looking for in that respect. Granted though, the fence could be maintained a little better, there could be a little more painting involved, maybe repaired. Commissioner Mellinger stated that on the landscaping, doubts if the Juniper trees were approved by the Planning Department, typically requires some watering, and then asked if irrigation was available around the perimeter? Commissioner Mellinger stated that the Planning Department does have a list of types of plants, knows that there is a problem with the high water table. That is another factor that should take place at the Planning Department. The Planning Department should approve a landscaping plan that will assist in the screening. Commissioner Mellinger asked if the cars waiting for the crusher had to be outside or if they could be on the inside? Mr. Bridges stated that it did not make a difference, on the work area, we load six cars at a time. That is what was on the outside, there were six cars waiting to be loaded, and the truck that was to pick them up broke down and would not be there, so I moved them back inside. Commissioner Mellinger stated that for the office, that a condi- tional use permit for any temporary office has been required and thinks that this should still be the case; one should be processed if there is a security office requested. - Commissioner Mellinger stated that screening of the restroom facili- ties is something that we have been requiring in recent approvals, just basically building a wall around it. Commissioner Mellinger stated that he thinks that all of these can be resolved, and regarding the fencing, knowing the Planning opera- tion over the last five years, would have to give the applicant the Minutes of Planning Commission July 15, 1986 Page 7 YANKEE DOLLAR TOWING AND WRECKING = FLOYD W. BRIDGES CONTINUED benefit of doubt on the fence. commissioner Mellinger stated that as far as the Fire Department -- approval, thinks that we all agree that we should probably get some sort of current up date approval as to what should be done for fire safety in that area. We could probably contact or have the appli- cant, if we decide not to revoke the business license, to make sure that the Fire Department makes a current inspection, and then in- stall within a reasonable period of time what is required for fire protection in that area. commissioner Mellinger then asked if the City Attorney reviewed this case, and if so what his opinion was; are we proceeding in the proper manner or do we have to revoke, can we impose conditions with time limits to comply? Community Development Director Miller stated that the City Attorney has not reviewed this specific case, but in terms of this type of approval, if conditions are imposed then prior to imposing any new conditions or changing conditions it must be by mutual consent of the parties involved. Commissioner Kelley asked how we enforce maintenance (for example on the fence), and asked if there was any way to have that come up for review on an automatic basis of once a year as a stipulation of the business permit. Community Development Director Miller stated that generally that -- would be subject to conditions, and as indicated to Commissioner Mellinger, if this was a condition the Planning Commission wished to impose, then it should be with the consent of the applicant in order to change the conditions. Commissioner Callahan stated that he would like to address the issue of a security guard on the premises; stating that he was sympathetic that the applicant had been robbed a few times, but moving a trailer on for a security guard to sleep is not consis- tent with the man being a security guard. Whatever you have to do to make your property secure I am all for, but that does not justify bringing a trailer in for someone to use like a residence. We don't allow that for anyone else and we are not going to allow that for your operation. Mr. Steed stated that this has been a practice in the past for hous- ing tracts (they have security on the premises living in trailers), and individual single-family residences allowing the builder/owner to live on the property for security reasons. Chairman Washburn stated that he would like to clarify that, the tracts are usually under construction, and require Staff, Council and Planning Commission approval and are allowed for their opera- tion of setting up. Mr. Bridges then commented on the reason for the motor home and security guard, and stated that there was a small trailer that was abandoned on his right-of-way and that he removed it. Commissioner Callahan asked Mr. Bridges if he had not already had an office building that he had moved to inside the yard. Mr. Bridges answered in the affirmative, stating that it was the one he had removed from below the Casino. Commissioner Callahan stated that what he was saying was that there were already facilities there for protection from the elements for the security guard, and also restroom facilities, and there was no reason to have a motor home or trailer in there. Minutes of Planning Commission July 15, 1986 Page 8 YANKEE DOLLAR TOWING AND WRECKING = FLOYD W. BRIDGES CONTINUED Chairman Washburn stated that staff has indicated that a lot of the conditions were not adhered to; were not taken care of, or there was a weak attempt to come to staff to work out some of the problems of theft, things of that sort. Feels that staff would have noted that in the logging in if there had been some attempt, and there was no attempt until the change in business license. Chairman Washburn stated that in his opinion that all wrecking yards should be with conditional use permits. In this case, there should be no difference than in any other wrecking yard. with conditional use permits there should be conditions to mitigate (if it can be mitigated), and to have them in an area which is appropriate. Finds that there is a discrepancy in the conditions that were allowed from the past Council and not taken care of. .... Chairman Washburn stated that the wrecking yard itself does have approximately a six-foot high fence and it is painted, so there is an attempt, unlike some other wrecking yards in the valley that have clear visibility from the freeway, two come to mind. I think that those wrecking yards should comply if any changes are made here and passed on to Council. Chairman Washburn stated that he feels that he is not ready to ap- prove and allow the operation to change hands because there won't be any changes, but on the other hand, not ready to deny it on every item. Stating that there is often blatant disregard for conditions that are applied by City Council and Planning Commission. Commissioner Brown asked Chairman Washburn if he would consider the original conditions of approval with a very strict time line for installation? __ Commissioner Mellinger informed Commissioner Brown that this would require the mutual agreement of the applicant. Commissioner Brown stated that he was going back to the original conditions of approval that have not been met, and that the applicant has already agreed to these conditions, as previously set down, unless we add additional conditions. Chairman Washburn stated that there are always mitigation measures that we could apply. Commissioner Brown stated that additional mitigation possibly agree- able to the applicant, but with a very strict time line, something over 90 days, or there will be no business license period. Commissioner Kelley stated that he believed that they could come up with some additions to the conditions that would make it acceptable and give a firm deadline for compliance. Chairman Washburn asked what control you would have on that. Commissioner Kelley asked if the business license could not be re- voked after 90 days if compliance was not met. Community Development Director Miller stated that the Planning Com- mission could continue this action for whatever period of time it felt appropriate and bring it back to the table. However, I should remind the Planning Commission that Mr. Bridges has indicated that he has sold the business, so you would be dealing with a different owner at that point in time. Mr. Bridges stated that any reasonable conditions that this body were to impose on the Yankee Dollar Auto Wrecking the new owner would comply with them within a reasonable amount of time. Mr. Bridges stated that he could assure the Commission of this be- ... Minutes of Planning Commission July 15, 1986 Page 9 YANKEE DOLLAR TOWING AND WRECKING - FLOYD W. BRIDGES CONTINUED cause he would put the money in escrow, to make sure that it has been done. Mr. Bridges stated that he would like to get out of the wrecking yard business, and would make sure that they are done before the license is transferred. Chairman Washburn asked for clarification, asking Mr. Bridges if he was selling just the business, and if the land belonged to a separate party, Ms. Fisher. Mr. Bridges answered in the affirmative and stated that there is six more years on the lease. Mr. Bridges stated that he understands that there is a plan within the City that is going to phase out all wrecking yards over a period of six, eight or ten years, and can't see what difference it makes who operates that wrecking yard as long as they are in compliance with the City. Chairman Washburn asked for clarification, wanting to verify that a new business license has not been issued to the new owner. Community Development Director Miller stated that a new business license has not been issued. Commissioner Callahan asked Mr. Bridges how long was his escrow? ..... Mr. Bridges stated that the escrow was a mutual agreement between him and another party, there is no escrow. Mr. Bridges stated that he was made an offer, if the city would transfer the license, and the other party then went down and made an application and natural- ly the application sparked this situation. I did not realize that I was in violation of these conditions, but they will be complied with. All that I want is a chance to sell my business to this man. Commissioner Brown asked Community Development Director Miller what enforcement tools we have if the Commission does not approve this tonight, if we go with the original conditions and say 90 days, what lever we will continue to have? Community Development Director Miller stated that in essence, if the Commission continues this action, you would be saying that you would bring it back for review at some future point in time for review of compliance with conditions as originally approved, if those condi- tions were not complied with you could continue with the proceedings that have been brought to you tonight, in terms of revoking the permission to operate. Chairman Washburn stated that they could add further conditions and that it would go on to Council. Community Development Director Miller stated that if the Commission continued the action that it would not go to Council. Commissioner Brown stated that he would like to find out what the feeling is at the table about additional conditions. Commissioner Kelley stated that he would like to see something done to visually block that from Route 74, and asked if there was a height restriction of six-feet on the fence. Community Development Director Miller answered in the negative, stating that was simply a condition that was required previously. Chairman Washburn asked Commissioner Kelley if he was referring to the stacking of automobiles. Commissioner Kelley stated that the automobiles are visible from Route 74. Chairman Washburn stated for clarification, that there are two separate wrecking yards out there. Minutes of Planning Commission July 15, 1986 Page 10 YANKEE DOLLAR TOWING AND WRECKING = FLOYD W. BRIDGES CONTINUED commissioner Kelley answered in the affirmative, stating that the other wrecking yard is visible from the freeway, and this one is visible from Route 74, stating that you can see the cars along the top of the fence. Commissioner Kelley stated that this could be blocked with either trees or a fence; the residency should be removed; the trailers __ that I saw were in a horrible state of disrepair and could be seen from the drive; the fence could be painted; the restroom should be fenced, and we should assure that it meets the fire codes; defi- nitely thinks that additional landscaping can be put in there that would grow. Commissioner Mellinger stated that since it is not a conditional use permit, and in essence it is, even though it is under permitted uses. I feel that the applicant has indicated that there is a will- ingness to comply with reasonable conditions. I think what we are trying to do is to get it screened, to get it to look nice, to meet all of these conditions that are listed. Whether or not vehicles are stacked no more than two high or not it can't be seen according to our own code requirements, so that is all that we are really looking for. I think what we really need to do is have these condi- tions met with the addition of the screening of the restrooms; have the landscaping plan approved by the Planning Department, and in- stalled within a reasonable amount of time after that approval. My feeling is that the landscape plan, working with staff, can be drawn up within 30 days and installation can be done approximately 45 days thereafter. Commissioner Mellinger stated that he did not believe that there should be any office building, temporary or otherwise, because it __ specifically states that, unless there is a conditional use permit procedure available to it. Commissioner Mellinger asked if there were any comments, from staff, on the easement, as this was not discussed much, and he is not clear as to what the hang up is on this. If Ms. Fisher signed something on this, sounds like she is agreeable, what is the problem with recording this? Community Development Director Miller stated that he did not know if there was a problem, just indicated that we did not have any evidence that it was ever recorded in compliance with the condi- tions. A brief discussion ensued on the document that Mr. Bridges pre- sented to the Commission for their review regarding the easement, with the suggestion that the applicant work with staff and this be clarified and met within a reasonable amount of time. Chairman Washburn stated that he has three items of concern: 1. That no automobiles be stacked higher than the fence or at all visible from the fence from Route 74. ... 2. No forklifts to raise any type of vehicles over the fence line at any time. 3. No blockage or visible cars left overnight in the easement at all. Chairman Washburn stated that he would like to go a step further and request, as indicated by staff, that if they had mutual consent from all parties if this could be changed to a conditional use permit, wanted to know if this was correct. Community Development Director Miller answered in the affirmative. Minutes of Planning Commission July 15, 1986 Page 11 YANKEE DOLLAR TOWING AND WRECKING = FLOYD ~ BRIDGES CONTINUED Chairman Washburn stated he would like too see that added in. commissioner Mellinger stated that in essence it is; asking what is the difference between this and a conditional use permit since we are putting conditions on it and potentially revoking it. Community Development Miller stated that this would be very similar to a conditional use permit process. Generally, the only distinc- tion would be that conditional use permits would typically be public hearing items, but in form, as you indicated this would be essen- tially the same as a conditional use permit. commissioner Mellinger stated that if any of the conditions are not met after the time period, then revocation can start again, and that we are considering phasing out the use anyway. Chairman Washburn stated that he was looking at time frames for these items, and if you are considering time frames for the items that would be provided as mitigation measures. Commissioner Brown asked if he was asking that they cease operation. Chairman Washburn stated that he does not want to see what has happened in the past, where they do allow the operation to continue and there is no abiding by the regulations. ..... commissioner Brown stated that this was his question before, that if we give a 90 days grace to this, where at the end of 90 days all of the conditions have to be met. If not, at that point in time, the license for operation has been revoked, and they must abate the pro- perty within so many days. Commissioner Mellinger stated that time limits only need to be applied to the maintenance and repair of the fence; the landscaping plans, and the removal of the office building. Discussion ensued on Article 746 and the City's ordinance pertaining to the stacking of automobiles. Commissioner Mellinger asked staff if they needed the mutual consent at this time, and wanted to know how they could impose conditions if there is no mutual consent. Community Development Director Miller stated that in order to impose new conditions, you should have the consent of the applicant or you should take a different action. commissioner Mellinger suggested that the Commission consider what they are going to move on and get that consent. That his feeling is the screening of the restrooms; landscaping plan should be approved by the Planning Division within 30 days, and installation within 45 days after approval of that plan by the Planning Division. Also, it is my feeling that the use of the office should be discontinued within 5 days, and if there is a conditional use permit available then that is a different story. As far as the recordation of the easement, this should be resolved within 30 days, one way or the other, with staff. As far as fire protection measures, the Fire Department approval should be obtained within 30 days, and the installation should be done after the Fire Department approval, within 90 days. Community Development Director Miller asked for clarification for staff purposes, as indicated by himself and Mr. Bridges, he is in the process of selling this, would it be the Commission's intent to withhold the approval of the transfer of the business until the conditions are met, or would it be the Commission's intent to allow the new owner to comply with the conditions. Minutes of Planning Commission July 15, 1986 Page 12 YANKEE DOLLAR TOWING AND WRECKING = FLOYD W. BRIDGES CONTINUED Chairman Washburn stated that he did not believe the Chair could live with that, because you would find the same thing taking place or likely to take place. Community Development Director Miller asked for Commission direction and also in terms of, as has been alluded to, the standards that we would typically apply today may be different than what have been ap- plied in the past, so in looking at Planning Department approval of, __ for instance, a landscaping plan we would look for something much different than Junipers and much more comprehensive. Commissioner Brown stated that this was the applicant's problem since he failed to do it the first time, and this time it may be considerably more. Commissioner Mellinger stated that the direction there, to provide clarification for staff, that they were just looking for evergreen trees that would screen effectively. To ensure no visibility, that complies with code, adjacent properties, public streets and free- ways. Obviously, staff will be looking at some sort of plant that will handle that high water table and still be drought and heat resistant. Discussion ensued on sending the matter back with staff for addi- tional conditions and bring it back before the Commission; obtaining the mutual consent; standards today being different from what they were two years ago; Council's indication that they would like to see written into the new zoning code a prohibition on new auto salvage/ wrecking yards, and a ten year abatement of existing ones; needing Commission's direction for new conditions that would be appropriate; continuing the proposal for four weeks and indicate to Mr. Bridges that he should provide compliance with all of the conditions; having Mr. Bridges return prior to approval of transfer of business license or Planning Commission review within 30 days. Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to continue the revocation of ap- proval to operate an auto wrecking yard for thirty (30) days, second meeting in August, with direction to staff that they work with the applicant to determine whether these conditions be met within four (4) weeks, second by Commissioner Kelley. Approved 5-0 -- Mr. Bridges requested clarification of the motion. Community Development Director Miller stated that for clarification for Mr. Bridges, since they discussed it last week, that he believes that it would be the intent to allow him to continue to operate and comply with the conditions in those thirty (30) days. 2. Commercial Project 86-10 - Architectural Team Three (Parks/Abrams) - Assistant Planner Bolland presented proposal to construct a 12,300 square foot neighborhood shopping center on a site previ- ously used for a temporary drive-through bank facility, located on the northeast corner of Lakeshore Drive and Riverside Drive. Assistant Planner Bolland stated that the project presents numerous __ site planning and design problems in a location that is one of the most important intersections in the city. Staff is recommending that the proposal be denied and redesigned. Discussion was held on the project's need to help establish the de- sign standards for the Four-Corners and Riverside Drive area; need- ing visual continuity rather than minimum standards; the roof line needs to be broken up; the stark/blank appearance coming down River- side Drive and the need for a decorative design to enhance that; the landscaping plan needs to be upgraded; parking standards for the Minutes of Planning commission July 15, 1986 Page 13 COMMERCIAL PROJECT 86-10 - ARCHITECTURAL TEAM THREE (PARKS/ABRAMS) CONTINUED center; elimination of the Lakeshore Drive access and whether or not a Wisconsin Street access was implied; providing changes in the elevation perhaps providing mansard all the way around; landscaping plan pertaining to the strips being too narrow for the trees to be planted, as shown on the rendering; the number of parking stalls re- quired and how the figure of 73.21 stalls was arrived at. Mr. Lon Bike, of Architectural Team Three, gave a brief explanation at how they arrived at the total number of parking spaces required. Motion by Commissioner Callahan that Commercial Project 86-10 be denied. Chairman Washburn asked if the motion was for a denial or a denial without prejudice? Commissioner Callahan stated that his motion was for a denial with- out prejudice, second by Commissioner Mellinger. Commissioner Mellinger stated that staff indicated the findings and that the maker of the motion may want to include those. Commissioner Callahan stated that he would recognize the findings as listed in staff report. There being no further discussion, Chairman Washburn asked for the question. Approved 5-0 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S REPORT Community Development Director Miller stated that he had nothing to report. PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Commissioner Brown: Nothing to report. Commissioner Mellinqer: Nothing to report. Commissioner Callahan: Nothing to report. Commissioner Kelley: Nothing to report. Chairman Washburn: Nothing to report. There being no further business, the Lake Elsinore Planning Commission adjourned at 8:30 p.m. Motion by Commissioner Mellinger, second by Commissioner Kelley. Approved 4-0 Commissioner Brown absent from the table. .Respec.tfull~SU ~tted, ~d,L/ .~ t!r~~ Linda Grindstaff, nning Commission Secretary Approved, J:dj~~JJ- airman MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD HELD ON THE 15TH DAY OF JULY 1986 MEMBERS PRESENT were Community Development Director Miller, Landscape Architect Kobata, Assistant Planner Bolland and Assistant Planner Perry. MINUTE ACTION Minutes of July I, 1986, approved as submitted. The Board reviewed items out of sequence. BUSINESS ITEMS -- 2. Commercial Project 86-10 - Architectural Team Three (Parks/Abrams) - Assistant Planner Bolland presented proposal to construct a 12,300 square foot neighborhood shopping-center on a site previ- ously used for a temporary drive-through bank facility, located on the northeast corner of Lakeshore Drive and Riverside Drive. Assistant Planner Bolland stated that the project presents numerous site planning and design problems in a location which is one of the most important intersections in the City. Staff is recommending that the proposal be denied and redesigned. Mr. Lon Bike, of Architectural Team Three, stated that the design presented was designed according to the existing ordinance on the books, except for parking requirements. Mr. Bike gave an explana- tion on how they arrived at the total number of parking spaces required for the project. Mr. Bike then commented on the possibility of redesigning the Wisconsin Street elevation (extending the mansard to soften the west elevation and also the same could be done with the north elevation of Building "B") , and changing the color scheme to a darker grey. __ Discussion was held on the parking ratio for proposal and future tenants for project and the possibility of loading zones becoming a critical factor; architectural appearance and landscaping of the project; parking and circulation problems on the site. Mr. Bike suggested that the driveway approach from Lakeshore Drive be made a right turn in only. Community Development Director Miller informed Mr. Bike that the Engineering Department has stated that they would recommend denial of any driveway approach on Lake- shore Drive. Mr. Bike wanted to know what requirements the City was looking for on landscaping and building setback for this site. Community Development Director Miller stated that the setback and landscaping requirement would be fifteen feet, as proposed in the new Zoning Code, Title 17, that is presently being considered by the City. Discussion ensued on the nautical theme proposed for the site; the availability through a lease (lease is with the original developer, Butterfield Savings and Loan) with the adjacent property owner of sixteen (16) parking stalls for the project--this has not been con- sidered in any of the parking calculations, and how this lease __ could be utilized; parking ratio for developments after the new Zoning Ordinance is adopted and what the parking ratio would be if the new ordinance is not adopted; circulation pertaining to the maneuvering of trucks into the loading and trash areas; loading area being accessed off of Wisconsin, and having a drive access off of Wisconsin. Commercial Project 86-10 denied based upon the findings listed in the staff report. Minutes of Design Review Board July 15, 1986 Page 2 3. Walk-on - Single-Family Residence - 31777 Via Cordova - Rodick Johnson - Assistant Planner Bolland presented a proposal to locate a mobile home in ortega West Mobile Home Subdivision, located on the northwest side of Via Cordova approximately 245 feet north of Lincoln Street. Mr. Johnson stated that his only concern was if he could have a chain link fence. Community Development Director Miller informed Mr. Johnson that chain link fencing is not permitted. Single-Family Residence at 31777 Via Cordova approved subject to the 21 conditions recommended in the staff report. 1. single-Family Residence - 17184 Shrier Drive - Lou Joiner - Assis- tant Planner Bolland presented proposal to construct a single- family residence on a 10,800 square foot lot, located on the north side of Shrier Drive approximately 100 feet east of Robertson Street. Since the applicant, Mr. Johnson, was not present, the Design Re- view Board approved Single-Family Residence at 17184 Shrier Drive subject to the 22 conditions as recommended in the staff report and amending conditions number 9 and 10 to read as follows: Condition Number 9: "Prior to the issuance of building permits applicant shall submit a soils and hydrology report which addresses seasonal high water, sur- face seepage and soil permeability problems associated with the soils on this site and which includes a sewage disposal plan approved by Riverside County Health Department. This system shall be installed and inspected prior to issuance of permits for the building." Condition Number 10: "Garage shall be constructed to pro- vide a minimum of ten (10') by twenty (20') feet of interior clear space for two (2) cars for a total interior clear space of twenty (20') by twenty (20') feet. ~~ Nelson Miller, Community Development Director MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON THE 5TH DAY OF AUGUST 1986 THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:00 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Commissioner Callahan. ROLL CALL - PRESENT: Commissioners: Brown, Mellinger, Callahan, Kelley, and Washburn. ABSENT: None Also present were Community Development Director Miller, Planners Bolland, Perry and Hensley. MINUTE ACTION Motion by commissioner Brown to approve minutes of July 15, 1986, as submitted, second by Commissioner Callahan. Approved 5-0 PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Conditional Use Permit 86-1 - M. W. Haskell - Community Develop- ment Director Miller stated that the applicant has withdrawn part of the application and requested that action on the balance of the proposal be continued. Staff is requesting that this item be continued to September 2, 1986, due to several issues that have to be resolved. A brief discussion was held on the number of continuances allowed for a proposal. - Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to continue Conditional Use Permit 86-1 to the meeting of September 2, 1986, second by Com- missioner Callahan. Approved 5-0 2. Tentative Parcel Map 21773 - Robert Cirac/Helen Jane Bills - Planner Bolland presented a proposal to divide two (2) parcels of .50 and .40 net acres into four (4) parcels of 15,700; 8,760; 8,000, and 7,200 square feet (net), located on the southwest corner of Machado Street and Larson Road. Chairman Washburn opened the pUblic hearing at 7:07 p.m., asking if there was anyone wishing to speak in favor of Tentative Parcel Map 21773. Mr. Fred Crowe, of Butterfield Surveys representing the applicant, stated that basically they were in agreement with the conditions; however, there is one minor concern, it is probably covered in condition #3, meeting the requirements of other agencies to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director and City Engi- neer. However, to satisfy our concerns, I would like to request that a condition be added, which could read: "All improvements and improvement plans to be at building permit stage". Chairman Washburn asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak in favor of Tentative Parcel Map 21773. Receiving no response, Chairman Washburn asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. The following persons spoke in opposition stating concern on zon- ing (City working on the R-lE Equestrian Zoning), and lot sizes. Mr. Scott Josephson, 15070 Alvarado Street, Lake Elsinore Ms. Pam Riser, 15042 Zieglinde, Lake Elsinore Ms. Nicki Deutsch, 15019 Zieglinde, Lake Elsinore Minutes of Planning Commission August 5, 1986 Page 2 TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 21773 = CIRAC/BILLS CONTINUED Chairman Washburn asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak in opposition. Receiving no response, Chairman Washburn closed the public hearing at 7:13 p.m. Discussion was held on buffer between lot sizes; the area being appropriate for equestrian type subdivisions (basically half acre lot sizes between Machado and Lakeshore); transitional zoning (further away from the City and arterial streets); condition #8, pertaining to mature trees on the site, and streets being sub- standard with these lot sizes; deleting the words uif feasibleu from condition #8; flood impacts; parcel configuration; location of existing house on the property; increasing parcels to a quarter of an acre in size (equal size parcels); whether or not there were any other trees, not shown on the map, in the right-of-way; tentative parcel map being incompatible with existing properties; R-1E being the foundation for the R-A (Residential Agricultural District) in Revised Title 17, Section 17.20; the R-A Zoning does not designate any area of the city on a map; what size lots are needed to be consistent with the R-A Zoning; what agreement has has been proposed, and what type of off site improvements are being required as part of the parcel map for the remainder parcel, and type of improvements for parcels 2 and 3; whether or not this would meet the requirements of a remainder lot according to the Subdivision Map Act, and continuing proposal for further research and consultation with legal counsel as to whether this would meet the requirements of a remainder parcel; condition #15, pertaining to the subdivision agreement and if this is in reference to the remainder lot; a new parcel configuration for transition, if the applicant would be willing to drop parcell, and create parcel 1 and parcel 2 and a remainder--this would provide a transition from 16,000; 13,000 down to 12,000 on the corner; Title 17 not yet a- dopted and proposal being in conformance with existing General Plan and Zoning Code; size of parcels for the Tentative Parcel Map approved across the street on Larson. - - Motion by Commissioner Callahan to deny Tentative Parcel Map 21773, second by Commissioner Kelley. Commissioner Mellinger asked for discussion. Commissioner Mellinger stated that he would like to make a finding that the density proposed under this parcel map is not suitable for the location, that would be the finding for denial. Chairman Washburn asked if the maker of the motion would make that finding. Commissioner Brown stated that he did not receive a reply on the new parcel configuration recommended. Chairman Washburn stated that he did not feel that straight denial was appropriate. If the Commission was looking for direction to change to three parcels as indicated by Commissioner Brown, would recommended denial without prejudice. Commissioner Callahan amended his motion to deny without prejUdice Tentative Parcel Map 21773, second by Commissioner Kelley. _ Approved 4-1 Chairman Washburn voting no BUSINESS ITEMS 1. Residential Project 86-4 - Jim Moore (James Hawkes et al) - Plan- ner Bolland presented proposal to construct a four (4) unit apart- ment building and associated parking garages, on a 6,000 square foot site, located on the northwest corner of Riverside Drive and Robertson Street. Minutes of Planning Commission August 5, 1986 Page 3 RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 86-4 = JIM MOORE (JAMES HAWKES ET ALl CONTINUED Planner Bolland stated that staff is recommending denial of this project due to concerns regarding density, conflict with the Circulation Element, site design, insufficient landscaping, site drainage, potential noise impacts and the fact that privacy fenc- -- ing would be prohibited as the patio intrudes into setback area and site distance at the intersection of Robertson and Riverside. Mr. Jim Moore, applicant, commented on the concerns brought up by staff and listed in the Staff Report. Discussion was held on project be incompatible with the General Plan, pertaining to density; architectural design pertaining to connection of the two buildings and continuance of roof treatment; street dedication, proposal being in conformance with the Zoning and General Plan Land Use. commissioner Mellinger .commented on the walls along that area, stating that whether they are set back 10, 20, or 30 feet noise is going to impact. The noise contour will certainly impact any building along all of Riverside Drive and Lakeshore. Thinks that some sort of policy should be developed that would address sound attenuation. There should be some noise attenuation measures for development along any major roads, whether it be berming, land- scaping, double pane glass or sound walls not limited to three and one-half (3-1/2) feet in height. There could be site distance cut backs from corners (10, 12, 15 feet whatever is reasonable). Chairman Washburn stated that this is a good item and should be brought up at a study session, rather than at the table. Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to deny Residential Project 86-4 as it exceeds the maximum density of the General Plan, second by Commissioner Callahan. Approved 5-0 2. Review of Conditional Use Permit 84-6 - Lakeside Mini Storage _ Planner Perry presented a report on the annual review of Condi- tional Use Permit 84-6, for the conversion of a storage building into a watchman's quarters. Planner Perry stated that a routine review was conducted on July 21, 1986. The review revealed that no conversion from an office/ storage to living quarters was started. A brief discussion was held on what happens to a Conditional Use Permit when no action has begun; if a time limit has been estab- lished in the Revised Title 17 for Conditional Use Permits. Report on Conditional Use Permit 84-6 received and filed. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S REPORT Community Development Director Miller reported on the Design Subcom- mittee meeting held last week, stating that the direction was to establish design themes for three areas of the nine that are identi- fied in the General Plan. The three areas would be: Four Corners, Riverside Drive and Railroad Canyon Road. Community Development Director Miller stated that another Design Sub- committee meeting has been scheduled for September 11, 1986. PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Commissioner Kelley: Nothing to report. Minutes of Planning Commission August 5, 1986 Page 4 PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION CONTINUED commissioner Callahan: Nothing to report. commissioner Brown: Asked staff for information on the signs on the rear of the buildings at the new shopping center where the 7-11 store is at the off-ramp at __ Railroad Canyon Road. The bank at Four Corners, the mobile, was that under a Conditional Use Permit? Commissioner Brown was informed that the bank was under a Conditional Use Permit. Commissioner Brown asked if we could do something about the condition of that property, stating that all of the landscaping is dead and it presents a fire hazard. Commissioner Brown asked what we are going to do in the future with all of the lots on Riverside Drive that are only 30 and 60 feet wide, and only have ingress/egress to Riverside Drive. Commissioner Mellinqer: An afterthought, on the meeting we had concerning design themes, what we intend to do is actually come up with some photographs on the types of architectural styles that we are looking for. Something that I think should be tied into that, in a way, is the tree issue. We do have some trees that are quite old and I think that in our Conserva- tion Element we may want to address tree conservation sites, and actually designate tree preservation sites. This should come up in one of our General Plan Amendments to add text for tree conservation sites. -- Chairman Washburn: Understands that we have lost one of our Code Enforcement Officers and only have one Code Enforcement Officer left, is this correct? Community Development Director Miller stated that there has been a reallocation of resources and zoning enforcement will now be directly under the supervision of the Community Development Director. A new person will be hired that will be responsible for zoning enforcement issues. There are still two Code Enforcement Officers who will be working under the supervision of the Sheriff's Department to address concerns of law enforcement. Although, one of the Officers has re- cently accepted a promotion to a Sheriff's Officer and will soon be leaving, but the Sheriff's Department is making every effort to re- place that person as soon as possible. Reported on the two blue semi trailers parked between the buildings (where the old Holiday Bar use to be, just before the San Jacinto River). Believe that they are full of antiques and they off load on weekends and sell. Community Development Director Miller stated that this was brought to their attention yesterday, and we are presently in the process of following up. -- Chairman Washburn explained the procedure used for persons wanting to register a complaint, stating that there are complaint forms available in the City Clerk's Office, Planning Department and Engi- neering Department. Minutes of Planning Commission August 5, 1986 Page 5 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION CONTINUED commissioner Mellinger stated that he would like to thank staff for taking care of the slurpee sign at Railroad Canyon Road. .---. There being no further adjourned at 8:16 p.m. missioner Callahan. Approved 5-0 business, the Lake Elsinore Planning Commission Motion by Commissioner Brown, second by Com- pproved, Respe~tfull~i~ted' ~~dstaf:7~ -- Planning Commission Secretary MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD HELD ON THE 5TH ~y OF AUGUST 1986 MEMBERS PRESENT were Community Development Director Miller, Planners Bolland, Perry and Hensley. MINUTE ACTION Minutes of July 15, 1986, approved as submitted. BUSINESS ITEMS 1. Single-Family Residence - 388 Avenue 3 - Pete Burris - Planner Perry presented proposal to located a manufactured residence on a .16 acre site, located on the southeast intersection of Avenue 3 and Mill Street. .... Planner Perry stated that there was a minor correction regarding the colors recommend. The siding will be white with a blue trim. Mr. Pete Burris stated that the siding can be done either way, it makes no difference to him and that he has no concern with the conditions, as presented. Single-Family Residence at 388 Avenue 3 approved subject to the 23 conditions recommended in the Staff Report. The Board reviewed items 2, 3 and 4 concurrently. Single-Family Residences - 31764; 31765 and 31785 Via Cordova _ John F. Konieczny - Planner Perry presented proposal to relocate three mobile homes on three lots in the Ortega West SUbdivision. 31764 Via Cordova: A 7,350 (plus/minus) square foot lot, located on the southwest corner of Via Cordova and Via Valle. .... 31765 Via Cordova: A 7,350 (plus/minus) square foot lot, located on the northwest corner of Via Cordova and Via Valle. 31785 Via Cordova: A 7,623 square foot lot, located on the northeast corner of Via Cordova and Lincoln Street. A brief discussion was held on condition number 12, pertaining to street trees; condition number 5, pertaining to setback re- quirements; condition number 25, pertaining to the requirement of a fully dimensioned and to scale site plan, and lot number 29 (31785 Via Cordova), regarding driveway being located on the property line. Single-Family Residences at 31764; 31765 and 31785 Via Cordova approved subject to the 26 conditions as recommended in the Staff Reports. 5. Residential Project 86-4 - Jim Moore (James Hawkes et al) _ Planner Bolland presented proposal to construct a four (4) unit apartment building and associated parking garages, on a 6,000 square foot site, located on the northwest corner of Riverside Drive and Robertson Street. .... Planner Bolland stated that staff is recommending denial of this project due to concerns regarding density, conflict with the Circulation Element, site design, insufficient landscaping in the courtyard area. site drainage, potential noise impacts and the fact that privacy fencing would be prohibited as the patio intrudes into setback area and site distance at the intersection of Robertson and Riverside. Minutes of Design Review Board August 5, 1986 Page 2 RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 86-4 = JIM MOORE (JAMES HAWKES ET AL) CONTINUED Mr. Moore, applicant, commented on the concerns brought up by Planner Bolland and listed in the Staff Report. -- Discussion ensued on the existing Palm Trees--if the trees are in a location so as to be in the street right-of-way they will probably have to be removed, or relocated on the property; the additional ten-foot dedication which would reduce the lot size, and compatibility with surrounding neighborhood. Residential Project 86-4 denied based upon the findings listed in the Staff Report. ~~~ Nelson Miller, Community Development Director -- MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON THE 19TH DAY OF AUGUST 1986 THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:04 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Chairman Washburn. ROLL CALL PRESENT: commissioners: Mellinger, Kelley, and Washburn ABSENT: commissioners: Brown and Callahan Also present were Community Development Director Miller, Planners Bolland, Perry and Hensley. MINUTE ACTION Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to approve minutes of August 5, 1986, as submitted, second by Commissioner Kelley. Approved 3-0 PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Zone Change 86-14 - Preston Barrett - Planner Bolland presented proposal to change the zoning classification from R-l (Single- Family Residential) to R-3 (Multiple-Family Residential) Zoning District, on a 1.1 acre site located on the west side of Lewis Street between Graham Avenue and Lakeshore Drive. Chairman Washburn opened the public hearing at 7:08 p.m., asking if there was anyone wishing to speak in favor of Zone Change 86-14. - Mr. John Hall, of Preston Barrett, stated that he was in favor of the proposal. Chairman Washburn asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak in favor of Zone Change 84-14. Receiving no response, Chairman Washburn asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Receiv- ing no response, Chairman Washburn asked the Planning commission Secretary if there were any written communications. The Secretary responded that there was one letter received from Mr. and Mrs. Peter J. Lehr, 108 South Lewis Street, and read said letter which stated opposition to the proposed zone change due to density, entry to proposed project and congestion on Lewis Street. There being no further opposition, the Chairman closed the public hearing at 7:10 p.m. Discussion was held on R-l Zoning not being consistent with the Mixed Use Designation and what other zones would be compatible; R-3 Zoning, by rights, permits densities in excess of 20 units per acre and maximum density for Mixed Use would be 20, and the General Plan would have to be High Density before any project can be approved; General Plan density of Mixed Use (7.3 to 20) being more acceptable than the 24. Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to adopt Negative Declaration No. 86-30 and recommend approval of Zone Change 86-14 with the findings listed in the Staff Report, second by Commissioner Kelley. Approved 3-0 2. Conditional Exception Permit 86-10 and 86-10A - Preston Barrett - Planner Bolland presented requests to vary from the two standards of the R-3 (Multiple-Family Residential) Zoning District, for a 1.1 acre site located on the west side of Lewis Street between Graham Avenue and Lakeshore Drive. Minutes of Planning Commission August 19, 1986 Page 2 CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION PERMIT 86-10 AND 86-10A - PRESTON BARRETT CONTINUED Conditional Exception Permit 86-10: a request to vary from the required front yard setback of fifteen feet (15') to allow apart- ment buildings to encroach up to nine feet (9') from property line in the R-3 (Multiple-Family Residential) Zoning District; Conditional Exception Permit 86-10A: a request to vary from the required rear yard setback of fifteen feet (15') to allow con- __ struction of parking garages up to the rear property line. Chairman Washburn opened the public hearing at 7:18 p.m., asking if there was anyone wishing to speak in favor of Conditional Exception Permit 86-10 and 86-l0A. Mr. John Hall, of Preston Barrett, stated that he was in favor of the proposal. Chairman Washburn asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak in favor of Conditional Exception Permit 86-10 and 86-10A. Re- ceiving no response, Chairman Washburn asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Receiving no response, Chairman Washburn stated that the letter received from Mr. and Mrs. Peter J. Lehr, on the Zone Change and read earlier should probably be included. There being no further opposition, the Chairman closed the public hearing at 7:20 p.m. Discussion was held on the findings listed in the Staff Report not justifying the need for variance; proposal exceeding the General Plan maximum density; redesign site plan that would constitute less of a variance or no variance; front yard set- back--if an arterial street is involved, there is an impact on the project itself, and what noise attenuation is proposed; installation of double pane glass along frontages; condition number 1, why the need for a Lot Line Adjustment and the size of the lots to be created; exception for rear balconies to en- croach into right-of-way and encroachment of trash facilities. -- Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to deny Conditional Exception Permit 86-10 and 86-10A for lack of findings, second by Chairman Washburn. Approved 3-0 BUSINESS ITEMS 1. Yankee Dollar Towing and Wrecking - Floyd Bridges - Planner Perry presented for review the revocation of approval to operate an auto wrecking yard, and stated that at the Planning Commission Meeting held on July 15, 1986, this matter was continued for 30 days, by unanimous consent, to allow the applicant to comply with the conditions of approval. Planner Perry stated that the owner has met with staff on several occasions to discuss the original conditions of approval and the appropriate landscaping that would be provided. However, since that time (we have seen preliminary plans) no formal submittal __ has been received. In addition, staff visited the site on August 14, 1986 to ascertain compliance with the original 12 conditions of approval. At that time, 6 of the original violations were still in effect, and additional violations were found as follows: Violations still In Effect: 1. An unapproved office was moved on site without proper author- ization. Minutes of Planning commission August 19, 1986 Page 3 YANKEE DOLLAR TOWING AND WRECKING = FLOYD BRIDGES CONTINUED 3 . 4. 5. ..... 6. 7. 8. 9. 2. Vehicles being stored outside fenced area. 3. Landscaping has not been provided adjacent outside walls. 4. Fencing not adequate to properly screen salvaged automobiles. Additionally, there is no record of permits. 5. Recordation of easement not provided. 6. No evidence provided of approvals for restroom facilities. Additional Violations Noted: 1. The Juniper Trees originally planted by the business owner in 1984 had been cleared of weeds, however no new land- scaping had been planted. 2. A mobile home office was observed at the same location and no permit or application for a conditional use permit applied for. Fencing was not adequate to properly screen automobiles from public right-of-way, and was in a state of disrepair. No record of easement had been provided, nor evidence of easement dispute between the two adjacent landowners. No screening provided for restroom facility on site. No record of Fire Department approval. No evidence of approved parking facilities. No record of sign permit on file. Automobiles were visible from state Highway 74 (Collier Avenue). Mr. Floyd Bridges, 24700 Oak Circle, addressed the following violations: Mr. Bridges stated that the Juniper Trees are still there, and presented a copy of a court restraining order preventing him from doing anything in the right-of-way. Mr. Bridges then stated that Ms. Fisher, the property owner, has been out of town for three weeks, and he cannot do anything on her property without her permission. Mr. Bridges stated that he received a note from Mr. Dan Downer (on the opposite side of the fence--Air Pro Manufacturing) stating that he did not want to give up any easement at all for trees or shrubbery, and presented the note to the Commission for their review. Mr. Bridges stated that Ms. Fisher has indicated that she would be willing for him to plant trees that she selected, which would be of a Pine state so that there would be 'little maintenance be- cause she is an elderly woman, which I am willing to do. Mr. Bridges stated that at the last meeting there was nothing said about 15 gallon trees, we were talking about shrubbery. The City Manager came out and talked to me for an hour and fif- teen minutes, and he recommended that we plant Junipers all the way around the fence on the front and back of both sides. I submitted this plan to the Planning Division and it was not ac- cepted. Minutes of Planning Commission August 19, 1986 Page 4 YANKEE DOLLAR TOWING ~ WRECKING - FLOYD BRIDGES CONTINUED Mr. Bridges stated that if you plant a fifteen gallon tree on another persons property you have to plant it ten feet away from the fence, because when it is grown it will take up ten feet of property on each side--you are talking about 20 feet of another persons property and they are not going to let me do that, and my fence was put right on the property line when it was erected and I had a permit to put it up, and it was approved by the Planning Commission and City Council. Mr. Bridges then presented to the Planning Commission for their review the plan which was presented to the Planning Division. Mr. Bridges stated that this was all complete including the papers for the office. I handed these in to Mr. Miller, Com- munity Development Director, and he handed them back to me, I believe twice, because he could not accept them unless he could okay the shrubbery or the 15 gallon trees. It does not make sense to put 15 gallon trees out there, to me anyway. Mr. Bridges stated that it was his understanding, the reason Mr. Miller, Community Development Director, wanted to try to ball it all up into one package and bring it before the Planning Commis- sion at one time would be for the shrubbery and the office permit. .... Mr. Bridges then stated that he would have to apologize on the 30 day situation, stating that he was a little bit late on getting the screening around the bathroom, and that it was done today. Mr. Bridges then presented photographs of the screening. Mr. Bridges stated that the fence was also painted. Mr. Bridges stated that the City Manager suggested that they screen them all (restroom facilities) at the baseball park and the beach too, if I was going to have to do it. .... Mr. Bridges stated that he would like to call his wife up to read the letter they received from the County Fire Department. Mrs. Shirley Bridges stated that they were trying to comply with all of your wishes in a timely fashion. Mrs. Bridges stated that they contacted the County Fire Department and asked them if they would come out and inspect the premises and make sure that we are not doing anything that is going to be hazardous to anyone. Mrs. Bridges stated that the County Fire Department came out on August 8, 1986, and read the letter they received from the County Fire Department after the inspection of the premises. Mr. Bridges stated that he has the parking situation pretty well in hand. There are three parking spaces in front, on an angle, and we can park all the way back on the right-of-way, it has been agreed by City Auto Wrecking and myself, and we have more than adequate parking. There is never more than two or three cars there at a time. Mr. Bridges stated that there was a 4x8 sign that somebody went out there and took a picture of that I had leaning up against the fence, so that we could work on that fence, it was inside the fence, and I had them to take down so that we could work on the .... fence and someone leaned it up against the fence. Mr. Bridges stated that he has not seen the pictures taken, and you can not make heads or tails of the photographs after they have been reproduced, but I noticed that most of those pictures were taken inside the wrecking yard, and stated that he would like to see the original pictures. Mr. Bridges stated that there was no sign out there so there would be no record. It was a 4x8 sign that was on the inside Minutes of Planning Commission August 19, 1986 Page 5 YANKEE DOLLAR TOWING ~ WRECKING - FLOYD BRIDGES CONTINUED of the wrecking yard, it was not on the outside because I took it down. Chairman Washburn asked Mr. Bridges if he had a sign permit on file. Mr. Bridges stated that there was no sign permit on file because he does not have a sign, the only sign that was there was one that was attached inside the fence. Mr. Bridges then presented a photograph of where the sign was at, taken today. 'Mr. Bridges 74 and that Mr. Bridges cars down. down. stated that the automobiles are visible from Highway there are still 3 or 4 of them still sitting up high. stated that he gave an order this morning to take the Mr. Bridges stated that these automobiles will come Mr. Bridges commented on the City's proposal to phase out auto wrecking yards and wanted to know where they are going to be put, stating that you have to have some leadership in that direction. Because you cannot get rid of wrecking yards, if you do the cars will be 6 feet deep in two years. There are 250 cars a month coming into this town that have to be wrecked. Chairman Washburn stated that he had a few comments to make prior to going into discussion. First of all, would like to point out that primarily the Planning Commission sits at the pleasure of the Council. We do not respond to visits by City Managers or by staff personnel unless it is through the input of documentation, so this has no bearing on the issue tonight. Chairman Washburn stated that he also finds that item number 9, for example, automobiles visible from the State Highway. There was ample time, 30 days in fact, in which to give the order and the order waited 30 days. I find that a slap in the face to the City. Chairman Washburn stated that he finds that other problems have cropped up, does not feel that there was strong earnest co- operation with staff, and thinks that should have taken place long ago. commissioner Mellinger commented on item number 1 pertaining to landscaping requirements, as indicated at the last meeting, would be similar to any other project that would be approved in the City and would be applied to this project, and landscaping in addition to fencing would be used to screen the operation as re- quired by State and local law, and stated that the 15 gallon trees are certainly not out of the question in comparison with the other landscaping requirements for any other business coming into the City, especially one that requires a conditional use permit, because a conditional use permit is applied to businesses that have more of an impact than any other typical business that would be permitted in the zone. A wrecking yard certainly falls under that category, not only by ordinance but by nature. There is potential for visual and aesthetic impacts by wrecking yards, so landscaping is very important. commissioner Mellinger stated that a question that he has is if the fencing was put on the property line and the cars were stacked above the fencing for so many months and Juniper Trees were planted originally, how did the Juniper Trees get planted if they were not allowed in the first place? Minutes of Planning Commission August 19, 1986 Page 6 YANKEE DOLLAR TOWING k WRECKING - FLOYD BRIDGES CONTINUED Mr. Bridges stated that he planted them. Commissioner Mellinger asked how he got the permission to do that if he does not have permission now. Mr. Bridges stated that he received approval from the Planning Commission and that he planted over a hundred Juniper Trees around there, along the front and down one side. Ms. Fisher allowed the first trees but refuses to let me plant anything along the front of that property. However, she said that I could plant pine Trees. Mr. Bridges stated that this would all have been done, but he cannot trespass onto other people's pro- perty. - Commissioner Mellinger stated that the original conditional use permit required a landscaping plan--now if the landscaping plan was required in the original conditional use permit and the planning were to take place on someone else's property why was the fence then placed on the property line? Mr. Bridges stated that he had a permit to put it there, that is all that he knows about it. Commissioner Mellinger stated that the mobile home office re- quires a conditional use permit; a conditional use permit is applied for when it is submitted, the fees paid and it is deemed complete. Mr. Bridges stated that this application was turned down by Mr. Miller, Community Development Director. - commissioner Mellinger stated that apparently it was not a complete application; that is the requirement, it has to be a complete application. Mr. Bridges stated that he could not complete it because they won't let him. Commissioner Mellinger stated that some work has been done on the fence, but as required before, would like to see that in a state of good repair, and this was agreed to last time. Commissioner Mellinger then commented on the record of easement that was required by the original conditional use permit. It still has not been recorded, and understands why because you are indicating that Ms. Fisher is not available. Commissioner Mellinger stated that approved parking facilities means approved by staff and asked if they are paved parking facilities. Mr. Bridges stated that he did not believe that staff was going to approve anything and that he would like to get something straight; stating that we have just started a three and one half million dollar project out there, a half mile from me. Red told me today that City Auto Wrecking is going out by the highway. Regardless of what I do or say, you people are not going to listen to me anyway. My battle is going to be with the City Council. I know that you want to get rid of Yankee Dollar Auto Wrecking. You have already set your minds to that because I have already been told that by some City officials. Chairman Washburn informed Mr. Bridges that that does not have any bearing here at the moment. - Minutes of Planning Commission August 19, 1986 Page 7 YANKEE DOLLAR TOWING k WRECKING = FLOYD BRIDGES CONTINUED commissioner Mellinger stated that basically what they were look- ing at were the conditions that were agreed to 30 days ago, and -- indication that they would be done. Commissioner Mellinger stated that any sign on the site would require a sign permit; if it is just leaning there it is not a sign for your business. Commissioner Mellinger then asked if Mr. Bridges intended to have a sign for his business in the future at all? Mr. Bridges answered in the negative. commissioner Mellinger then commented on the automobiles being visible as admitted before. Mr. Bridges stated that he would like to get one point clear, that we have an ordinance in this town that will allow me or anyone else to stack cars two high. commissioner Mellinger stated that he did allow him to stack cars two high. them 2, 3 ,4 or 5 high no matter what not be visible from the street. This to get. Mr. Bridges stated that they established the height of the fence and then got permission to put it up. did see that the condition However, whether you stack size they are they just can is all that we are trying -- Commissioner Kelley stated that his concerns are identical to last time and that he has been driving by the wrecking yard, at least every other day for an entire month, and has seen no pro- gress other than the fence being painted. The screening of the restroom facilities, I am sure it was not presented for an opinion before it was done and it is inadequate. I see this as a slap in the face to the city and agree with all other statements that have been made. Chairman Washburn asked staff if the application, that was passed before them, was considered a complete application and when it was submitted. Community Development Director Miller stated that Mr. Bridges brought the application in approximately a week and a half ago, in somewhat the manner you saw it this evening. At that time, I did ask him to dimension the plan, provide critical dimensions of the site so that we could determine the width of the drive aisle, location of the drive aisle and certain other critical dimensions. In addition, I indicated that two sets of mailing labels would be required as indicated on submittal requirements, and at that time, it was not complete. In addition, the material, as you can see, is rather sketchy in terms of the office that is to be located there and there is also at least one other structure, a shed type structure, that is used for activities on site as well as the required application fees. I returned the application to Mr. Bridges and informed him that in in order to complete the application we would need a more fully dimensioned site plan as well as additional information regarding the trailer, and he asked if he could provide photographs and I indicated that would be acceptable. as well as the mailing labels along with a description of what was precisely being proposed. In addition to that, one of the things that we asked for in terms of dimensioning was the parking. Mr. Bridges has indicated that he was not permitted to put in any landscaping in the easement Minutes of Planning Commission August 19, 1986 Page 8 YANKEE DOLLAR TOWING ~ WRECKING - FLOYD BRIDGES CONTINUED area that is being talked about. I met with Mr. Bridges and the property owner, the Friday after the Planning Commission Meeting, and they indicated that there has been a legal action on behalf behalf of the person to the rear of this site regarding this easement. As near as I could determine, there is not a recorded easement, but a legal action pending regarding it. Apparently, it has been pending for several years, and I asked for some veri- fication of that and its status. Being as this has been pending for several years, I questioned whether it was still a current action. Mr. Bridges stated that the person who is sueing for that easement has indicated that he would not allow any landscap- .ing in that area. Although Mr. Bridges, later in his statements, did indicate that he would allow parking in that area, although that is not indicated on the plans he submitted. - Chairman Washburn asked if staff, when advising the applicant that his application was incomplete, did he then ask to go forward to Planning Commission or was it decided to be put on the agenda mainly because we asked that it come back in 30 days? Community Development Director Miller stated that several times Mr. Bridges had indicated that he felt that staff was not making every effort to cooperate with him, and that Mr. Bridges felt it most appropriate to return to the Planning Commission to resolve the issue. Motion by Commissioner for revocation, second by Commissioner Kelley. Approved 3-0 - 2. Residential Project 86-3 - Preston Barrett - Community Development Director Miller stated that this item is related to the Zone Change and Conditional Exception Permit that was heard under the public hearings. The Planning Commission has denied the Conditional Exception Permit relating to this proposal, and asked for direction. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to hear the pro- posal. Planner Bolland presented proposal to construct a twenty-four (24) unit apartment complex and associated recreational and parking facilities, on a 1.1 gross acre site, located on the west side of Lewis Street between Graham Avenue and Lakeshore Drive. Planner Bolland stated that the initial environmental assessment and project analysis identified a drainage concern and staff is recommending that condition number 42 be amended, and that condi- tion number 43, be added which would read: Condition No. 42: "Applicant shall dedicate additional right-of-way to provide ultimate 40 foot half street and curb face at ~ feet from centerline per General Plan CirCUlation Element along Lakeshore Drive frontage, and to provide g corner cut-off with g 25 foot radius return at the intersection of Lewis Street and Lakeshore Drive, unless alternate ar- rangements are made between the City and the applicant to satisfy this conditions." - Minutes of Planning commission August 19, 1986 Page 9 RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 86-3 - PRESTON BARRETT CONTINUED "The applicant shall provide a hydrology study which addresses development of off- site drainage facilities to meet the ap- proval of the City Engineer. Appropriate drainage facilities shall be installed at the intersection of Lewis Street and Lake- shore Drive to conduct run-off to the Lake. The City will cooperate with the applicant to provide use of City property east of Lewis Street for construction of drainage outflow facilities. All plans and facili- ties to be approved by the City Engineer and installed prior to Certificate of Occupancy or Release of utilities." Planner Bolland informed the Commission of the modifications made by the Design Review Board: Condition No. 43: Condition No. 31: - Condition No. 43: "The project site plan shall be re- designed to reflect the following: a. The central north-south oriented garage shall be moved to provide wider north-south drive aisles. c. The central east-west oriented garage shall be moved south to provide for a wider planter strip adjacent to the trash enclosure and a fifteen (15) foot rear yard setback in this location." "The applicant shall provide a hydrology study which addresses development of off- site drainage facilities to meet the ap- proval of the City Engineer. Appropriate drainage facilities shall be installed at the intersection of Lewis Street and Lake- shore Drive to conduct run-off across Lake- shore. The City will cooperate with the applicant to provide use of City property east of Lewis Street for construction of drainage outflow facilities. All plans and facilities to be approved by the City Engineer and installed prior to Certificate of Occupancy or Release of utilities." Chairman Washburn asked if the applicant had any comments. Mr. John Hall, applicant, requested that the Commission recon- sider their decision on the denial of their Conditional Exception Permit application, and then gave a lengthy background report on the proposal. Considerable discussion was held on insufficient parking facili- ties for proposal; traffic circulation; compatibility of General Plan Land Use and Zoning designation and density; processing a General Plan Amendment; garage setbacks; variance for frontage along Lakeshore Drive; status of Lakeshore Drive and Graham Avenue; noise issues; lack of required findings for variance and redesignation for proposal; status of old Planned Unit Develop- ment; proposal falling within the Redevelopment Project Area I; Minutes of Planning Commission August 19, 1986 Page 10 RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 86-3 = PRESTON BARRETT CONTINUED noise issues; CC & Rls should include the following: "perpetual use of access, common areas and amenities also mutual access, parking and maintenance easements should be irrevocable ease- ments, garages must have enough clearance to house vehicles and not be used for storage"; lack of turn around, if all open park- ing spaces are filled, maybe at the end of each aisle a small kicker (4 feet wide) could be included; relocation of the in- gress/egress entrance further north along Lewis toward Graham, __ and the reason behind the existing design of entrance; if there are any items dealing with reciprocal parking rights these should be recorded on any deeds; providing pedestrian protection (stop sign) on Graham Avenue; existing zoning ordinance versus new Title 17 regarding total number of parking spaces required for proposal; why a traffic study was not required; condition number 27, pertaining to proposal being contingent upon the submittal of a General Plan Amendment, which may not be approved; condition number 31, pertaining to the driveway widths. Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to continue Residential Project 86-3 to the next General Plan Amendment hearing, second by Chair- man Washburn. Approved 3-0 Community Development Director Miller asked if the Commission would like to see a redesign of the project that would provide the full 15 foot setback along Lakeshore Drive. It was the consensus of the Commission to see a redesign of the proposal for code compliance for structures ranging between 13 and 15 foot setback along Lakeshore Drive. 3. Commercial Project 86-11 - Alfred Anderson - Planner Perry pre- sented proposal to construct a 10,000 square foot mini-storage facility on a site partially developed as an existing mini- storage facility, on 1.71 acres, located at the southwest corner of El Toro Road and Riverside Drive approximately 185 feet north- west of the intersection of Riverside Drive and Collier Avenue. - Planner Perry informed the Commission of the modifications made by the Design Review Board: Condition No.9: "Applicant shall provide a trash enclosure subject to the approval of the Community Development Director." Condition No. 10: "Applicant shall eliminate storage en- trances facing Riverside Drive on new building or provide a screen wall to extend from corner of proposed build- ing to existing garage." Planner Perry stated that staff is recommending that the follow- ing two additional conditions be added, which will read: Condition No. 29: "These conditions of approval shall be attached or reproduced upon first page of building plans prior to their ac- ceptance by the Division of Building and Safety." - Condition No. 30: "Design Review Board approval will lapse and be void one (1) year follow- ing date of approval." Chairman Washburn asked if the applicant would like to comment on the proposal. Minutes of Planning Commission August 19, 1986 Page 11 COMMERCIAL PROJECT 86-11 - ALFRED ANDERSON CONTINUED Mr. Gordon Anderson, son of owner, questioned condition number 11, pertaining to the requirement of carports, and gave a brief background report on the utilization of mini-storage facilities. Discussion was held on condition number 11, pertaining to the requirement and location of carports; drive aisle width between buildings--emergency vehicles requiring a 20 foot drive width; storage of vehicles on premises, referencing Conditional Use Permit 85-2 and same conditions being placed on this proposal; businesses being run out of storage units and a condition being added regarding electrical outlets to prevent this--condition could read "the only electricity provided in units would be for lighting"; condition number 3, regarding soils percolation test and the possibility of deleting this condition; condition number 27, whether or not this was required because of the encroachment of the single-family residence; deleting condition number 11. Motion by Chairman Washburn to adopt Negative Declaration No. 86-38 and recommend approval of Commercial Project 86-11, with the 28 conditions as recommended in the staff report deleting condition number 3, deleting condition number 11, and adding the two additional conditions as recommended by staff, second by Commissioner Mellinger with discussion. commissioner Mellinger asked if the motion included the changes to conditions 9 and 10 as suggested by staff and with the adding of a condition "that no electrical outlets shall be placed in the individual units". - Chairman Washburn amended his motion to include the modifications to condition number 9 and 10 as recommended by staff and the addition of condition number 31, which will read: Condition No. 31: "No electrical outlets shall be placed in the individual units". There being no further discussion the Chairman called for the question. Approved 3-0 4. Review of Conditional Use Permit 85-2 - Alfred Anderson - Planner Perry presented a report on the review of conditions of approval relating to Commercial Project 86-11. Planner Perry stated that a routine investigation of compliance with said conditions revealed the following violations: Condition No.5: Applicant has no lighting plan on file. No street light has been installed to date. Condition No. 15: - Condition No. 18: Applicant has not recorded an indemnity and hold harmless from drainage liability agreement to date. Condition No. 25: Applicant has not processed a lot line merger to eliminate existing lot line to date. Condition No. 27 and 29: At date of inspection, August 5, 1986 eight (8) automobiles were observed four (4) of which appeared to be inoperable. Chairman Washburn asked if Mr. Anderson would like to comment on the listed violations. Minutes of Planning Commission August 19, 1986 Page 12 REVIEW OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 85-2 = ALFRED ANDERSON CONTINUED Mr. Anderson stated that there are were things that should have been taken care which he did not do, with some things there were mitigating circumstances, and stated that he would do his best before the next meeting to work on these and get them taken care of. Mr. Anderson then commented on the requirement for a lighting plan to be on file; the installation of street lighting; the hold harmless agreement; the requirement for the processing of a lot line adjustment; landscaping for the front portion of the property, and the storage of vehicles on the premises. Discussion was held on condition 15, pertaining to street light- ing; condition number 17, pertaining installation of street lighting referring to the City Council Minutes dated March 12, 1985; continuing review of proposal; definition of suspension of Conditional Use Permit; storage of vehicles on site and the number of vehicles owned by the applicant; and time limit for continuance. .... Motion by Chairman Washburn to allow the applicant to continued with the operation of the business and continue the review for 30 days, September 16, 1986, at which time clear evidence is to be brought back before the Commission indicating compliance with conditions of approval, second by Commissioner Mellinger. Approved 3-0 Community Development Director Miller asked for clarification on owner's vehicles. Chairman Washburn stated that the number of vehicles was six (6). .... COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S REPORT Community Development Director Miller informed the Commission that at the Adjourned City Council Meeting on Thursday, August 14, 1986, City Council passed the first reading of an ordinance adopting new Title 17, this will be scheduled for second reading on August 26th and will take effect 30 days thereafter, if passed. Community Development Director Miller stated that there were several changes made at the table, on Title 17, last Thursday night, in re- sponse to additional concerns from the development community, and we are in the process of writing those up, revised copies of Title 17 will be available next week. Community Development Director Miller stated that the Design Review was discussed last Thursday, but not acted upon. Community Develop- ment Director Miller gave a brief background report on the Design Review process in the new Title 17. PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Commissioner Mellinqer: Stated that he would find out if we have an ordinance regarding ice __ cream trucks and if we do then would like to have the ordinance en- forced, if we do not have such an ordinance (could contact the City of Anaheim and Santa Ana which has such an ordinance) would like one prepared restricting them from operating after dusk. Community Development Director Miller asked for clarification on the type of ordinance referred to. Commissioner Mellinger stated hours of operation for ice cream vendors of all types. Minutes of Planning Commission August 19, 1986 Page 13 PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION CONTINUED commissioner Kellev: Nothing to report. - Chairman Washburn: Informed the Commission that there will be a City/County Planning Com- mission Association meeting next month, September 18, 1986, and you will hear more about that later. It will be the first time the City of Lake Elsinore has hosted this, and gave a brief outline on subjects to be on the agenda. commissioner Callahan: Absent Commissioner Brown: Absent Mr. John Hall, of Preston Barrett, commented again on his desires for the projects. There being no further adjourned at 9:50 p.m. Chairman Washburn. Approved 3-0 business, the Lake Elsinore Planning commission Motion by Commissioner Mellinger, second by - ~pproved, ~~. V'?, lOc~kft- Ga Washburn Ch 'rman ~U1A:;d' Linda Grindstaff Planning Commission Secretary MINUTES OF HELD ON THE 19TH LAKE ELSINORE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD DAY OF AUGUST 1986 MEMBERS PRESENT were Community Development Director Miller, Landscape Architect Kobata and Planners Bolland, Perry and Hensley. MINUTE ACTION Minutes of August 5, 1986, approved as submitted. BUSINESS ITEMS The Board reviewed items out of sequence. - 2. Single-Family Residence - 31770 Via Cordova - Willard La Bathe - Planner Hensley presented proposal to relocate a mobile home unit, in the ortega West Mobile Home Subdivision, on a .16 acre lot on the east corner of Via Cordova. Mr. La Bathe, applicant, questioned the condition on roofing materials (condition number 8); condition on the six-foot high fence (condition number 13); street trees (condition number 12); screening of ground support equipment (condition number 11). Discussion was held on amending condition number 8, pertaining to the roofing material; condition number 24, pertaining to the construction of porches and awnings; condition number 13, per- taining to the fence; time limit for complying with conditions; amending condition number 12, pertaining to street trees being selected from Street Tree List; condition number 11, pertaining to the screening of roof mounted and ground support equipment, and deleting the words "gas meters". Single-Family Residence at 31770 Via Cordova approved subject to the 25 conditions listed in the Staff Report and amending condi- tions 8, 11, 12 and 13 as fol~ows: __ Condition No.8: Condition No. 11: Condition No. 12: Condition No. 13: "Existing baked enamel covered metal roof shall be approved." "All roof mounted or ground support air conditioning units, electrical boxes or other electrical or mechanical equip- ment incidental to development shall be screened so that they are not visible from neighboring property or public streets. (Solar energy collectors and apparatus excepted.)" "Applicant shall plant street trees, from the City's Street Tree List, a maximum of 30-feet apart and at least 15 gallon in size as approved by the Director of Community Development." "A six-foot high solid wood fence or masonry wall shall be constructed from the mobile home to the side property lines to screen the rear, subject to the approval of the Community Develop- ment Director." - 1. Single-Family Residence - 319 Avenue 5 - R. L. C10tworthy _ Planner Hensley presented proposal to construct a 1,880 square foot single-family residence on a 5,680 square foot lot located on Avenue 5, three lots from the corner of Park Way and Avenue 5. Mr. Rogers, representing the applicant, questioned condition number 9, pertaining to the installation and inspection of the septic system prior to issuance of building permits, stating that he would prefer to do this before the final inspection. Minutes of Design Review Board August 19, 1986 Page 2 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE = 319 AVENUE ~ - ~ ~ CLOTWORTHY CONTINUED Discussion was held on condition number 9, pertaining to the installation of the septic system, and condition number 24, pertaining to the additional five-foot dedication along Avenue 5. - Single-Family Residence at 319 Avenue 5 approved subject to the 25 conditions listed in the Staff Report. 3. Residential Project 86-3 - Preston Barrett - Planner Bolland presented proposal to construct a twenty-four (24) unit apart- ment complex and associated recreational and parking facilities, .on a 1.1 gross acre site, located on the west side of Lewis Street between Graham Avenue and Lakeshore Drive. Planner Bolland stated that the initial environmental assessment and project analysis identified a drainage concern and staff is recommending that condition number 42 be amended, and that condi- tion number 43, be added which would read: Condition No. 42: - Condition No. 43: "Applicant shall dedicate additional right-of-way to provide ultimate 40 foot half street and curb face at ~ feet from centerline per General Plan Circulation Element along Lakeshore Drive frontage, and to provide g corner cut-off with g 25 foot radius return at the intersection of Lewis Street and Lakeshore Drive, unless alternate ar- rangements are made between the City and the applicant to satisfy this conditions." "The applicant shall provide a hydrology study which addresses development of off- site drainage facilities to meet the ap- proval of the City Engineer. Appropriate drainage facilities shall be installed at the intersection of Lewis Street and Lake- shore Drive to conduct run-off to the Lake. The City will cooperate with the applicant to provide use of City property east of Lewis Street for construction of drainage outflow facilities. All plans and facili- ties to be approved by the City Engineer and installed prior to Certificate of Occupancy or Release of utilities." Mr. John Hall, of Preston Barrett, commented on condition number 31, regarding the redesign of site plan pertaining to the re- location of garages; amended condition number 42, regarding face of curb at 32 feet on Lakeshore Drive; condition number 43, re- garding drainage facilities on Lakeshore Drive; density for sub- ject proposal; condition number 29, regarding the wrought iron and slumpstone pilaster fence; condition number 25, regarding mailboxes. Discussion was held on amending condition number 31, eliminating the reference to feet; condition number 42, regarding curb face on Lakeshore Drive; amending condition number 43, deleting the words "to the lake" and inserting the words "across Lakeshore"; density requirements; condition number 29, regarding fencing and condition number 25, regarding the mailboxes. Minutes of Design Review Board August 19, 1986 Page 3 RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 86-3 - PRESTON BARRETT CONTINUED Residential Project 86-3 approved subject to the 42 conditions listed in the Staff Report along with the addition of condition number 43 and amending conditions 31 and 43, as follows: Condition No. 31: Condition No. 43: "The project site plan shall be re- designed to reflect the following: a. The central north-south oriented garage shall be moved to provide wider north-south drive aisles. - c. The central east-west oriented garage shall be moved south to provide for a wider planter strip adjacent to the trash enclosure and a fifteen (15) foot rear yard setback in this location." "The applicant shall provide a hydrology study which addresses development of off- site drainage facilities to meet the ap- proval of the City Engineer. Appropriate drainage facilities shall be installed at the intersection of Lewis Street and Lake- shore Drive to conduct run-off across Lake- shore. The City will cooperate with the applicant to provide use of City property east of Lewis Street for construction of drainage outflow facilities. All plans and facilities to be approved by the City Engi- neer and installed prior to certificate of __ Occupancy or Release of utilities." 5. Commercial Project 86-12 - Jack Malki - Planner Hensley presented proposal to construct a 2,000 square foot restaurant in a previ- ously approved retail commercial center (Commercial Project 86-2) located approximately 500 feet southeast of the intersection of Railroad Canyon Road and Casino Drive. Mr. Jack Malki asked for direction on signs for the proposal. Discussion was held on signs for proposal being consistent within the center and additional landscaping, between the center and Taco Bell, for the center. Commercial Project 86-12 approved subject to the 13 conditions listed in the staff report. 4. Commercial Project 86-11 - Alfred Anderson - Planner Perry pre- sented proposal to construct a 10,000 square foot mini-storage facility on a site partially developed as an existing mini- storage facility, on 1.71 acres, located at the southwest corner of El Toro Road and Riverside Drive approximately 185 feet north- west of the intersection of Riverside Drive and Collier Avenue. __ Planner Perry stated that staff is recommending that the follow- ing two additional conditions be added, which will read: Condition No. 29: "These conditions of approval shall be attached or reproduced upon page one of building plans prior to their acceptance by the Division of Building and Safety." Minutes of Design Review Board August 19, 1986 Page 4 COMMERCIAL PROJECT 86-11 - ALFRED ANDERSON CONTINUED Condition No. 30: "Design Review Board approval will lapse and be void one (1) year following date of approval." Mr. Gordon Anderson, son of the owner, questioned condition number 9, regarding the trash enclosures; condition number 10, regarding the elimination of storage entrances, and condition number 11, regarding the carports. Discussion was held on amending condition number 9, deleting the word "relocate" and inserting the word "provide" and adding 'verbiage "as approved by the Community Development Director"; amending condition number 10, by adding verbiage "or provide a screen wall to extend from corner of proposed building to exist- ing garage"; condition number 11, being deferred to the Planning commission for their consideration; condition number 13, regard- ing landscaping and fencing; and color scheme for doors. Commercial Project 86-11 approved subject to the 28 listed in the Staff Report along with the addition of conditions 29 and 30, and amending condition number 9 and condition number 10, as follows: Condition No.9: "Applicant shall provide a trash en- closure subject to the approval of the Community Development Director." Condition No. 10: "Applicant shall eliminate storage en- trances facing Riverside Drive on new building or provide a screen wall to extend from corner of proposed building to existing garage." ~~ Nelson Miller, Community Development Director MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON THE 2ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER 1986 THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:00 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Commissioner Kelley. ROLL CALL PRESENT: commissioners: Brown, Mellinger, Callahan, Kelley, and Washburn. - ABSENT: None Also present were Community Development Director Miller, Planners Bolland, Perry and Hensley. MINUTE ACTION Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to approve minutes of August 19, 1986, with the following correction: Page 10, 4th paragraph: "It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to see a redesign of the proposal for code compliance for structures ranging between 13 and 15 foot setback along Riverside Drive." Second by Commissioner Kelley. Approved 3-2 Commissioner Brown and Callahan abstaining PUBLIC HEARINGS - 1. Conditional Use Permit 86-1 - M. W. Haskell - Planner Bolland presented proposal to allow the rehabilitation of a 9,600 square foot airplane hanger and application of decomposed granite on runways of the Skylark Airport. The Airport site is 178.6 acres, located on the southeast side of Cereal Street approximately 400 feet northwest of the intersection of Cereal Street and Corydon Road. Chairman Washburn opened the public hearing at 7:12 p.m., asking if there was anyone wishing to speak in favor of Conditional Use Permit 86-1. Mr. John Smith, representing the applicant, spoke in favor and stated that they had concerns on a number of the conditions of approval. The following listed persons then spoke in favor of Conditional Use Permit 86-1 stating that the Airport was a good advertisement for the Community; a good source of tax growth; a good source of tourism and media coverage; it is privately funded and there would be no extra public tax monies used, and it would supply jobs and would benefit the Community with the emergency vehicle locations (Medivac, Life Light, Fire Watch) and aerial surveys. Mr. Cy Perkins, original builder of the airport; Mr. Kenny Staller, resides on Stoneman Street; Mr. Larry Perkins, business owner on Corydon adjacent to the airport; Mr. Bruce Knowles, pilot Mr. Norm Nichols, 33205 Macy street, Lake Elsinore; Mr. Ross Wroblewski, President of American Para- chuting, Inc. Mr. Curly Anise, pilot Chairman Washburn asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak in favor. Receiving no response, Chairman Washburn asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Receiving no response, Chairman Washburn closed the public hearing at 7:32 p.m. Minutes of Planning Commission September 2, 1986 Page 2 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 86-1 - ~ W. HASKELL CONTINUED Discussion was held on policing of fill; whether or not it would be detrimental to bring in decomposed granite and not remove soil; if there is a mechanism in force for the removal of the old hanger; Environmental Assessment item l4.c, pertain- ing to the airport operation and the schools; status of runway alignment and the school. Commissioner Mellinger requested that the applicant be called back to the podium to address concerns on the conditions that he felt to be unreasonable. - Mr. John Smith, representing the applicant, stated that they are asking for a permit to rehabilitate a hanger. Mr. Smith then questioned condition number 15, pertaining to inoperable aircraft, vehicles, other materials or salvage shall be re- moved, and condition number 19, pertaining to the office use. Discussion ensued on condition number 15, pertaining to the removal of inoperable aircraft, vehicles and other materials or salvage; condition number 19, pertaining to the office use and any request for office use should be under separate use permit. Chairman Washburn asked if Mr. Smith had a concern with all 22 conditions listed in the Staff Report or if there were other specific conditions? Mr. Smith stated that he would like to save the Commission's time in having to go through the conditions one by one. As a general comment to these conditions there are conditions which are unreasonable and feels for a simpler application. Mr. smith stated that these conditions could be cut down alot for what they are looking at which is the rehabilitation of a hanger. - Discussion ensued on the application being strictly for the re- habilitation of the hanger and adding decomposed granite and nothing else; condition number 5, pertaining to the emergency evacuation plan; permit for the operation of two parallel run- ways; Ad Hoc Airport Committee may have recommendations, guide- lines or assistance to offer; operation of aircraft referencing designated tie-downs and signage to designate tie-downs, run-ups, parking and restricted areas, this could be added to condition number 8; how conditions of approval would be enforced. Mr. Smith stated that he would like to make a clarification for the records, and that is that the Haskell Brothers are co-owners and managers of the airport. Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to recommend adoption of Nega- tive Declaration No. 86-25 and approval of Conditional Use Permit 86-1 for the rehabilitation of the hanger and the request to re- pair the runways with D.G., with the findings and 22 conditions listed in the Staff Report, amending condition number 1, as follows: Condition No.1: "If permits are not obtained and con- struction commenced within three (3) months from the date of City Council approval, this Use Permit shall expire and the structure shall be condemned by the City and demolished, unless an extension is granted by City Council prior to the expiration date. Prior to approval of another Use Permit for offices or any other structures or improvements, a Master Plan for the - Minutes of Planning Commission september 2, 1986 Page 3 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 86-1 - ~ ~ HASKELL CONTINUED -- Airport shall be submitted addressing a schedule of improvements and pro- posed uses with a plan of the areas that would be devoted to various uses." Chairman Washburn asked if the maker of the motion would include in condition number 8 signage for clearly marked runways, run- ups, tie-downs, parking and restricted areas. Commissioner Mellinger amended his motion to include the amend- ment to condition number 8, as follows: Condition No.8: "Signage shall conform to the pro- visions of Title 17, Chapter 94. Signage shall be provided for clear- ly marked runways, run-ups, tie- downs, parking and restricted areas." Second by Commissioner Callahan. Approved 5-0 BUSINESS ITEMS 1. Residential Project 86-5 - Art Nelson Commissioner Brown asked to be excused due to potential conflict of interest. Planner Perry presented proposal to construct 30 single-family homes comprised of three floor plans, as Phase I of Laurel Point Tract 19402, located southwesterly of the intersection of Lincoln and Machado Street. Planner Perry informed the Commission of the modifications made by the Design Review Board: Condition No. 20: "Applicant shall create a drainage easement along the rear property lines of Lots 28, 29, and 30 of Phase I, Lot 21 of Phase II, and Lots 22 through 29 of Phase III. Said drainage easement shall be constructed of either underground pipe or cement swale as approved by the Chief Building Official, unless lots regraded to drain to street." Chairman Washburn asked if the applicant had any comments or concerns. Mr. Art Nelson, applicant, stated that he had no comments or concerns. Discussion was held on condition number 17, pertaining to the 20 by 20 clear interior space for garages and what is being pro- posed; condition number 18, pertaining to the relocation of unit on Lot 6. Motion by Commissioner Kelley to recommend adoption of the previ- ously adopted Negative Declaration for Tract 19402 and approval of Residential Project 86-5 with the findings and 22 conditions listed in the Staff Report, second by Commissioner Callahan. Approved 4-1 Commissioner Brown excused Minutes of Planning Commission September 2, 1986 Page 4 Commissioner Brown returned to the table. 2. Residential Project 86-6 - Jim Moore - Planner Hensley presented proposal to construct a triplex on two (2) 3,000 square foot lots, located on the northerly side of Riverside Drive, approxi- mately 60 feet to the west of the corner of Riverside Drive and Robertson Street. Chairman Washburn asked if the applicant had any comments or con- cerns. - Mr. Jim Moore, applicant, gave a brief background report on the proposed project, and then questioned condition number 27, re- garding the Hydrology Study; condition number 25, regarding the size and number of parking spaces required. Community Development Director Miller informed the Commission of the modifications made by the Design Review Board: Condition No.7: Condition No. 10: Condition No. 23: Condition No. 32: "Existing Palm Trees may be used for street trees, if possible." "All planting areas shall be separated from paved driveway areas with a six- inch (6") high concrete curb." "The mailboxes for the rental units on- site shall be arChitecturally treated to soften the appearance of the hard edge "metal box" construction, with treatment to match the building materials used in the development of the units, as approved by the Community Development Director, which may include mailboxes built into wall." - The stairway shall be redesigned as depicted in Exhibit "B" to screen it's view from Riverside Drive or shall be screened with stucco wall as depicted in rendering." Discussion was held on ingress/egress, setbacks and traffic count on Riverside Drive; City changing the zoning from R-3, for the area, in the future; condition number 25, pertaining to the re- quirement of a Hydrology Study; condition number 33, pertaining to architectural enhancements (walls) and the possibility of landscaping working just as well; eaves on building; stop sign and right turn only when exiting the site; traffic visibility-- difficulties in making right and left turns in the area; whether or not the City Engineer had any comments on traffic visibility or traffic recommendations for the proposal; drainage easement; providing directional traffic down Robertson street; applicant's previous project (Residential Project 86-4) adjacent to this pro- posal in which there was considerable discussion on density and the width of Robertson and denied by the Commission; amending _ condition number 33, by adding the word "front"; condition number 32, how Exhibit "B" will be enforced into the conditions. Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to recommend adoption of Nega- tive Declaration No. 86-43 and approval of Residential Project 86-6 with the findings and 42 conditions listed in the Staff Report with the conditions as modified by the Design Review Board, and amending condition number 33, as follows: Minutes of Planning Commission September 2, 1986 Page 5 RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 86-6 - JIM MOORE CONTINUED Condition Number 33: "Plans which provide acceptable architectural and landscaping enhancements along the front and side elevations shall be submit- ted prior to the issuance of Building Permits subject to the approval of the Community Develop- ment Director." Second by Commissioner Callahan. Chairman Washburn stated that he would like to see some added comments on exiting from the site. Discussion ensued on installation of a stop sign and enforcement of said sign. commissioner Mellinger amended his motion to include the addition of condition number 43, which will read: Condition No. 43: "Applicant shall provide a stop sign architecturally acceptable by the Community Development Director." There being no further discussion, Chairman Washburn called for the question. Approved 4-1 Commissioner Brown voting no 3. Industrial Project 86-1 - Norman Industries - Chairman Washburn stated that we have received a request from the applicant for continuance. Community Development Director Miller requested that the Commis- sion continue this proposal to a specific date. Motion by Chairman Washburn to continue Industrial Project 86-1 to the meeting of September 16, 1986, second by Commissioner Mellinger. Approved 5-0 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S REPORT Community Development Director Miller informed the Commission that at the regular meeting on August 26, 1986, City Council passed second reading of the revisions to Title 17. Consequently, it will take effect on September 26, 1986. Community Development Director Miller stated that we are still in the process of editing the draft document, there were a couple of sections that Council directed staff to work with some of the speakers at the last meeting regarding the Sign Ordi- nance and Mobile Home Community District along with some other areas that the Commission and Council identified for additional work. We are hoping to have copies available for the Commission by the next meeting. Community Development Director Miller stated that since next Tuesday, September 9th, is a holiday the City Council will be meeting on Wednesday, September 10th. Community Development Director Miller stated that the Design Subcom- mittee of the Planning Commission has scheduled a meeting for next Thursday, September 11th, at 5:30 p.m. and suggested that this meeting be held in his office since the city Council will be meeting with DBA and other interested business people in the Chamber at 6:30 p.m. Minutes of Planning Commission September 2, 1986 Page 6 PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Commissioner Brown: Thanked staff for the response on the Conditional Use Permit for the bank at Four Corners, and asked staff if there has been any response and the length of time for the applicant to respond. Community Development 'Director Miller stated that no response has been received and that typically on a situation like this they are __ given two weeks to thirty days to respond. Commissioner Brown asked about the information on signs he had re- quested stating that being as he was gone someone may have already gotten it for him and he has not seen it.' Commissioner Brown stated that he has noticed another sign going up on the new industrial complex on Collier (on the freeway side). Also the building on the off-ramp at Railroad Canyon, the new building where 7-11 is located, wanting to know if all those signs were in compliance with the code. Community Development Director Miller stated in reference to the com- mercial center at the corner of Railroad Canyon and the freeway, the Design Review Board did allow freeway signs facing the frontage, so the permanent signs that have been erected are in compliance with the sign program approved by the Design Review Board. Community Develop- ment Director Miller stated that in reference to some of the temporary signs we have taken action to advise these people that they are not in compliance with code. Commissioner Brown commented on the problem with the ingress/egress on Riverside Drive, as with the project tonight, stating that he was not against the project, but could not in good conscious vote for a project that he felt to be a traffic hazard, and asked if this will be addressed in the future. __ Chairman Washburn stated that this was a topic that should be brought up at a study session. Commissioner Mellinqer: Commented on noise abatement along arterial streets, as discussed on previous project, stating that perhaps an overlay along arterial roads could be applied as to what type of ingress/egress and setbacks there would be. An overlay would supersede any of the normal zoning regula- tions that we would have. Commissioner Mellinger stated that the only other question that he might have is the small lots that we have along arterial streets and we need research, maybe an opinion from the City Attorney, as to what type of controls we can really do that would, in essence, prohibit development along those areas. We may even want to look at a totally new zoning designation for some of these areas where we have small lots along arterial roads. Commissioner Mellinger asked staff about the hydroseeding for the Buster Alles tract, wanting to know if any plans have been submitted or if there has been any timing scheduled for this? Community Development Director Miller stated that it was a requirement that Buster Alles submit plans prior to the issuance of Building Permits and that there are still a number of things outstanding that we are trying to resolve with them, particularly with respect to grad- ing on that tract. Commissioner Mellinger stated that there has been a significant amount of damage created by their construction activity on streets. -- Minutes of planning commission september 2, 1986 Page 7 PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION CONTINUED Community Development Director Miller stated that this has been point- ed out to them and we are trying to get this resolved. commissioner Mellinger stated that he would like to thank staff, he received a call from Ken Gilbert, Assistant City Manager, on the ice cream vendor ordinance. commissioner Kelley: Nothing to report. commissioner Callahan: Nothing to report. Chairman Washburn: Only one item, and believes that staff has already taken care of it, and that is the restriping of the crosswalks, for the school year that is coming up. There being no further adjourned at 8:40 p.m. missioner Mellinger. Approved 5-0 business, the Lake Elsinore Planning commission Motion by Commissioner Brown, second by Com- Respectfull~.~ ubmmitted, ~~ Linda Grindstaff~ Planning Commission Secretary MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD HELD ON THE 2ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER 1986 MEMBERS PRESENT were Community Development Director Miller, Planners Bolland, Perry and Hensley. MINUTE ACTION Minutes of August 19, 1986, approved as submitted. BUSINESS ITEMS 1.' Single-Family Residence - 31784 Via Cordova - A-I Mobile Home Service (Charles Fenner) - Planner Hensley presented proposal to locate a mobile home unit, in the Ortega West SUbdivision, on a .17 acre lot on the east side of Via Cordova. - Discussion was held on the plans for the garage, condition number 17; setback requirements; landscaping strip; roofing and awning material. Single-Family Residence at 31784 Via Cordova approved subject to the 26 conditions listed in the Staff Report. 2. Residential Project 86-5 - Art Nelson - Planner Perry presented proposal to construct 30 single-family homes, comprised of three floor plans, as Phase I of Laurel Point, Tract 19402, located southwesterly of the intersection of Lincoln and Machado street. Mr. Art Nelson, applicant, questioned condition number 17, per- taining to the 20 foot clear space for garages; condition number 6, pertaining to the setback requirements--referring to status of Title 17. Discussion was held on condition number 17, regarding the 20 foot clear space to the interior of all garages and front yard _ setback; condition 6, regarding setback requirements and status of Title 17; condition number 18, regarding the relocation of units on Lots 6 and 7; condition number 19, regarding fencing plans for Lots 13, 26 and 27, and condition number 20, regarding drainage easement and amending this condition by adding verbiage "unless lots regraded to drain to street". Residential Project 86-5 approved subject to the 22 conditions listed in the Staff Report and amending condition number 20, as follows: Condition No. 20: "Applicant shall create a drainage easement along the rear property lines of Lots 28, 29 and 30 of Phase I, Lot 21 of Phase II, and Lots 22 through 29 of Phase III. Said drainage easement shall be constructed of either underground pipe or cement swale as approved by the Chief Building Official, unless lots regraded to drain to street." 3. Residential Project 86-6 - Jim Moore - Planner Hensley presented proposal to construct a triplex on two (2) 3,000 square foot lots, located on the northerly side of Riverside Drive, approxi- mately 60 feet to the west of the corner of Riverside Drive and Robertson Street. - Mr. Jim Moore, applicant, commented on the submittal of colored elevations and landscaping plans; then questioned condition number 7, pertaining to the street trees; condition number 8, . Minutes of Design Review Board September 2, 1986 Page 2 RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 86-6 - JIM MOORE CONTINUED pertaining to the window treatment; condition number 10 pertain- ing to the separation of paved areas; condition number 23, per- taining to the mailbox treatment; condition number 31, pertain- -- ing to the three foot wall; condition number 32, pertaining to the redesign of the stairway; condition number 33, pertaining to the architectural enhancements; condition number 34, pertain- ing to the six-foot fence; condition number 36, regarding Ordi- nance 572 and 764; condition number 38, regarding Ordinance 529, and condition number 25, pertaining to the redesign of garage area. Discussion was held on the above mentioned conditions and amend- ing condition number 7, allowing existing Palm Trees to be used for street trees; adding the word "driveway" to condition number 10; adding verbiage "which may include mailboxes built into wall" to condition number 23; adding verbiage "or shall be screened with stucco wall as depicted in rendering" to condition number 32. Residential Project 86-6 approved subject to the 42 conditions listed in the Staff Report and amending conditions 7, 10, 23, and 32 as follows: Condition No.7: Condition No. 10: -- Condition No. 23: Condition No. 32: "Existing Palm Trees may be used for street trees, if possible." "All planting areas shall be separated from paved driveway areas with a six- inch (6") high concrete curb." "The mailboxes for the rental units on- site shall be architecturally treated to soften the appearance of the hard edge "metal box" construction, with treatment to match the building materials used in the development of the units, as approved by the Community Development Director, which may include mailboxes built into wall." "The stairway shall be redesigned as depicted in Exhibit "B" to screen it's view from Riverside Drive or shall be screened with stucco wall as depicted in rendering." The Board reviewed the next two items out of sequence. 5. Commercial Project 83-11 REVISED II - Dave Vosburgh (California Property Exchange) - Planner Bolland presented a proposal to amend the Design Review Board approval of a two-story 5 600 square foot office building, located on the southeast c~rner of Railroad Canyon Road and Grape Street (Frontage Road) approxi- mately 200 feet northeast of Interstate 15. Mr. Loren Culp, representing the applicant, commented on the previous approval regarding landscaping/irrigation and grading plans for the parcels behind the project stating that he thought that they had requested that this be deleted from the adjacent parcels. Mr. Culp then asked for consideration on the degree of landscap- ing for the proposal being as they have reoriented the building to hide the slope. Minutes of Design Review Board September 2, 1986 Page 3 COMMERCIAL PROJECT 83-11 REVISED II - DAVE VOSBURGH (CALIFORNIA PROPERTY EXCHANGE) CONTINUED A lengthy discussion was held on the previous condition of ap- proval for landscaping/irrigation and grading plans; grading and landscaping/irrigation plans for the revised proposal (conditions 11, 12, 13 and 27); condition number 23, pertaining to cooperation in the establishment of a Lighting and Landscap- ing District; condition number 34, pertaining to the paving of __ Railroad Canyon Road; condition number 37, pertaining to the recorded agreement to participate equitably in the cost of a median and decorative paving, and amending this condition to "applicant shall payor install median, if possible, prior to the issuance of Certificate of Occupancy". Discussion ensued on condition number 37, regarding exact dollar amount for the median, with a request that this also be subject to the review and approval of the applicant.- Commercial Project 83-11 REVISED II approved subject to the 46 conditions listed in the Staff Report and amending condition 37, as follows: Condition No. 37: "Applicant shall pay the City an equitable share of the cost of a median for the project site in- cluding decorative paving and/or landscaping or install median, if possible, prior to the Certificate of Occupancy." 4. Industrial Project 86-1 - Norman Industries (Howard Parsell) _ Community Development Director Miller stated that a letter was received from Mr. Parsell requesting continuance on Industrial Project 86-1. Industrial Project 86-1 continued to the meeting of September 16, 1986. - ~~ Nelson Miller, Community Development Director -- MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON THE 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 1986 THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:03 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Commissioner Brown. ROLL CALL -- PRESENT: commissioners: Brown, Mellinger, Callahan, Kelley, and Washburn. ABSENT: None Also present were Community Development Director Miller, Planners Bolland, Perry and Hensley. MINUTE ACTION Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to approve minutes of September 2, 1986, as submitted, second by Commissioner Callahan. Approved 5-0 PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. General Plan Amendment 86-8 and Zone Change 86-12 - Schmid Devel- opment - Chairman Washburn asked to be excused due to conflict of interest, and turned the gavel over to Vice Chairman Callahan. Planner Hensley presented proposal to change the current General Plan designation from Limited Industrial to Commercial Manufactur- ing and to change the Zoning from Limited Manufacturing to Com- -- mercial Manufacturing on approximately 50 acres of land located north of Collier Avenue to Interstate 15 from Nichols Road to approximately 1,700 feet west of Riverside Drive. Vice Chairman Callahan opened the public hearing at 7:07 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of General Plan Amend- ment 86-8 and Zone Change 86-12. Mr. Dick Knapp, representing Hammon Tree Estate, stated that he was not against the project, but wanted verification on where flood drainage would be on the Hammon Tree property, asking if there has been any down stream flood mitigation measures proposed. Mr. Lou R. Schmid, President of Schmid Development, stated that he would like to respond to Mr. Knapp's comments. Mr. Schmid stated that presently a study is being done and some of the miti- gating matters have been addressed, although nothing has been resolved at this time, but it should be noted, however, that the water flow as it presently exists will not be changed. Vice Chairman Callahan asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak in favor of General Plan Amendment 86-8 and Zone Change 86-12. Receiving no response, Vice Chairman Callahan asked if there was anyone wishing to speak in opposition. Receiving no response, Vice Chairman Callahan asked if there was anyone wish- ing to speak on the matter. Receiving no response, Vice Chairman Callahan closed the public hearing at 7:11 p.m. Discussion was held on drainage mitigation and when this would take place; how much difference commercial activities would have in terms of impervious structures and drainage run-off as opposed to industrial uses on the site; consideration for traffic dif- ferences; logic behind commercial manufacturing uses rather than industrial uses; biological report--whether or not a Fish and Game Permit will be required. Community Development Director Miller stated that drainage miti- ation measures would be conditions of approval of project develop- Minutes of Planning Commission September 16, 1986 Page 2 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 86-8 AND ZONE CHANGE 86-12 - SCHMID DEVELOP- MENT CONTINUED ment and that drainage and traffic impacts would be essentially the same for the proposed General Plan designation as generated by the existing designation possibly increasing traffic levels but not beyond capacity of adjacent arterial streets; need for additional commercial manufacturing in this visible and accessi- ble location; biological report, submitted by applicant, indi- cated that the existing habitat area on site was of marginal value and that there was no sighting of Least Bell's vireo or nesting areas and that Fish and Game clearance would probably not be necessary. - Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to recommend adoption of Nega- tive Declaration No. 86-40, approval of General Plan Amendment 86-8, Zone Change 86-12 and adoption of Resolution No. 86-8, based on the findings listed in the Staff Report and the facts in the discussion supporting those findings, second by Commis- sioner Brown, entitled as follows: Approved 4-0 Chairman Washburn excused RESOLUTION NO. 86-8 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 86-8 Chairman Washburn returned to the table. 2. General Plan Amendment 86-9 and Zone Change 86-14 REVISED _ _ Preston Barrett Corporation - Planner Bolland presented proposal to amend the General Plan Land Use Map from Mixed Use to High Density Residential and change the Zoning District from C-1 (Limited Commercial) to R-3 (Multiple-Family Residential) on 1.93 acres, located on the west side of Lewis Street between Graham Avenue and Lakeshore Drive and on the southeast corner of Lewis street and Graham Avenue. Chairman Washburn opened the public hearing at 7:22 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of General Plan Amendment 86-9 and Zone Change 86-14 REVISED. The following listed persons spoke in favor of General Plan Amend- ment 86-9 and Zone Change 86-14 REVISED. Mr. Ray Hall, adjacent property owner; Ms. Barbara Ward, Manager of Preston Barrett's existing apartment complex (Lakeside Village); Mr. William Cook, 1006 Lakeshore Drive (pro- perty owner directly across the street) Chairman Washburn asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak in favor of General Plan Amendment 86~9 and Zone Change 86-14 REVISED. Receiving no response, Chairman Washburn asked if any- one wished to speak in opposition. Receiving no response, Chair- _ Washburn stated that written communication was received from Mr. Peter J. Lehr stating opposition to the proposal. There being no one else wishing to speak on the subject, Chairman Washburn closed the public hearing at 7:24 p.m. A brief discussion was held on the Mixed Use General Plan desig- nation being appropriate. Motion by Commissioner Brown to recommend adoption of Negative Declaration No. 86-30 REVISED, approval of General Plan Amendment 86-9 and Zone Change 86-14 REVISED, and adoption of Resolution Minutes of Planning Commission September 16, 1986 Page 3 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 86-9 AND ZONE CHANGE 86-14 REVISED - PRESTON BARRETT CORPORATION CONTINUED No. 86-9, based on the findings listed in the Staff Report, second -- by Commissioner Callahan, entitled as follows: Approved 5-0 RESOLUTION NO. 86-9 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 86-9 3. Zone Change 86-13 - Realty Center - Planner Perry presented pro- posal to rezone approximately .57 acres of land from R-3 (High Density Residential) to C-l (Neighborhood Commercial), located on the southwest intersection of Riverside Drive and Lash Avenue, extending approximately 200 feet south of Riverside Drive. Chairman Washburn opened the public hearing at 7:28 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of Zone Change 86-13. Receiv- ing no response, Chairman Washburn asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Receiving no response, Chairman Washburn closed the public hearing at 7:29 p.m. A brief discussion was held on the single-family residence exist- ing on the property; whether or not Office Professional was ever considered for the property and other type of uses that could be considered. Motion by Commissioner Brown to recommend adoption of Negative Declaration No. 86-41 and approval of Zone Change 86-13, second by Commissioner Mellinger. Approved 5-0 4. Conditional Exception Permit 86-10 and 86-l0A REVISED - Preston Barrett Corporation - Planner Bolland asked if the Commission would like to consider Residential Project 86-3 at the same time since this project is closely dependent. It was the consensus of the Commission to consider the proposals separately. Planner Bolland presented revision of previously requested vari- ances to allow: 1) Apartment building to encroach to ten feet (10') from property line in the front yard setback adjacent to Lakeshore Drive (Condi- tional Exception Permit 86-10 Revised); and 2) Construction of a parking garage within the rear yard setback (Conditional Exception Permit 86-10A Revised). The project site is 1.1 acres (two parcels) located on the west side of Lewis Street between Graham Avenue and Lakeshore Drive. ~hairman Washburn opened the public hearing at 7:34 p.m., aSking 1f anyone wished to speak in favor of Conditional Exception Permit 86-10 and 86-10A Revised. The following listed persons spoke in favor of Conditional Excep- tion Permit 86-10 and 86-l0A Revised. Minutes of Planning Commission September 16, 1986 Page 4 CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION PERMIT 86-10 AND 86-10A REVISED - PRESTON BARRETT CORPORATION CONTINUED Mr. william Cook, 1006 Lakeshore Drive (pro- perty owner directly across the street); Ms. Barbara Ward, Manager of Preston Barrett's existing apartment complex (Lakeside Village); Mr. Ray Hall, adjacent property owner - Chairman Washburn asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak in favor of Conditional Exception Permit 86-10 and 86-l0A Revised. The Secretary stated that written communication was received from Mr. William Ponce, of Century 21, stating that he was in favor of of proposal. Chairman Washburn asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. The Secretary stated written communication from Mr. Peter J. Lehr stating opposition to the proposal should also be noted. Chairman Washburn asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak in opposition or on the subject. Receiving no response, Chair- man Washburn closed the public hearing at 7:38 p.m. Discussion was held on setback requirement being mitigated by the design of the building; lot configuration and setback requirement; possibility of Lakeshore Drive being abandoned; Scheme "B" would not constitute a variance for the front yard setback; adding as a condition to Conditional Exception Permit 86-l0A "irrevocable reciprocal access and parking easement to be recorded"; findings __ for variance, pertaining to shape of lots, and potential of a precedence being set for anyone with a lot that is not precisely rectangular or square in shape considering this grounds for a variance. Community Development Director Miller stated that to alleviate concern on establishing a precedence, the Commission may want to consider an average setback for some zones, and stated that the Commission could look at this variance and further direct staff to bring back an amendment to the code suggesting that an average setback within a certain range be acceptable. Discussion ensued on whether or not there was any further input from the Engineering Department regarding the possible change of Lakeshore Drive; condition number 1 on Conditional Exception Permit 86-10 and 86-10A Revised, pertaining to the setback dis- tance and requirement for Lot Line Adjustment; Pacific Heritage Plan, accepted by City Council, pertaining to the abandonment of Lakeshore Drive; whether or not the findings support a variance or whether or not it was a situation of development maximizing density. Community Development Director Miller stated that in looking at the two alternative schemes that the applicant has provided, it is shown that it is possible to meet the required setbacks with _ the same number of units and generally the same design. However, the applicant feels that a better project would result by pro- viding that additional open space on the interior of the project rather than along the perimeter. Discussion ensued on actual required findings; whether or not the recommendation for Lakeshore Drive was for complete abandonment. Minutes of Planning Commission september 16, 1986 Page 5 CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION PERMIT 86-10 AND 86-l0A REVISED - PRESTON BARRETT CORPORATION CONTINUED community Development Director Miller stated that Lakeshore,Drive would not be completely abandoned, however, what has been d~s- cussed is the deletion of Lakeshore Drive as an arterial street, it would still remain as a local residential street. Discussion ensued on the idea of an average setback having merit; landscaping design of project and Scheme "B". Motion by Commissioner Callahan to recommend approval of Condi- tional Exception Permit 86-10 and 86-l0A REVISED with the findings and conditions (6 conditions total) as listed in the Staff Report, second by Commissioner Kelley. Commissioner Mellinger asked if the maker of the motion would con- sider on Conditional Exception Permit 86-l0A that a condition be added that an irrevocable access and parking easement shall be recorded upon all parcels. Commissioner Callahan amended his motion to include the addition of condition number 4, on Conditional Exception Permit 86-l0A, which will read: Condition No.4: "An irrevocable access and parking easement shall be recorded upon all parcels." Second by commissioner Kelley Approved 2-3 Commissioner Brown, Mellinger and Washburn voting no MOTION FAILED TO PASS. 5. Tentative Parcel Map 21587 - Schmid Development Chairman Washburn asked to be excused due to conflict of interest, and turned the gavel over to Vice Chairman Callahan. Community Development Director Miller stated that this is a pro- posal to divide 40.76 acres into sixty-one (61) industrial lots, located north of Collier Avenue to Interstate 15 from approxi- mately 1,000 feet east of Nichols Road to approximately 1,700 feet west of Riverside Drive. In the packet, this evening, staff had recommended a continuance to October 21, 1986, to address concerns staff had with respect to minimum lot size. Community Development Director Miller stated that the applicant has submitted an amended map (Amendment No. 2), thi~ evening, and staff has not had time to assess the layout nor prepare a full report and conditions, and would recommend that this item be continued to October 7, 1986. By presenting this item on the next Planning Commission Agenda, we could schedule this Tentative Map for City Council at the same time as the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change which was heard earlier. Community Development Director Miller stated that the Commission may wish to accept testimony, and in that regard Mr. Knapp had asked a question regarding drainage, as shown on the map. A continuation on the matter would enable Mr. Knapp to come in to the office and examine the map and we could discuss his concerns in detail and probably answer his questions. Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to continue Tentative Parcel Map 21587 to the meeting of October 7, 1986, second by Commissioner Kelley. Approved 4-0 Chairman Washburn excused Minutes of Planning Commission september 16, 1986 Page 6 TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 21587 - SCHMID DEVELOPMENT CONTINUED Community Development Director Miller asked if the Commission wished to receive testimony. Vice Chairman Callahan asked if there was anyone wishing to speak on Tentative Parcel Map 21587. Mr. Louis R. Schmid, President of Schmid Development, stated that he would like to address any concerns that the Commission or any- one in the audience might have at this time, so that we could better address these concerns between now and the next meeting, other than those already mentioned (the drainage and the possible requirement of Fish and Game Permit). Mr. Dick Knapp, representing Hammon Tree, presented a map illus- trating drainage culverts. Commissioner Mellinger stated that since we have no environmental assessment or initial study, would like to ensure that staff has all the impacts that are to be examined including Fish and Game, flood control, grading and a slope height analysis being pro- vided. Chairman Washburn returned to the table. BUSINESS ITEMS 1. Industrial Project 85-8 - Butler, Gonzer and Zepede _ . Chairman Washburn stated that before they get into this proposal he would like to bring to the attention of staff a concern of his, this has been brought to the attention of two other Commis- sioners, thinks from this point on when we have continued an item twice, when it comes back it should not be with a request for denial, but a request for denial without prejudice. Chairman Washburn stated that a request for withdrawal has been received on Industrial Project 85-8. Chairman Washburn asked if there was any further discussion. 2. Discussion was held on continuances for projects and the amount of time staff spends on continued projects; interpretation of recommendation of denial or denial without prejudice; time limit for re-filing of projects. Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to accept request for withdrawal of Industrial Project 85-8, second by Chairman Washburn. Approved 5...0 Industrial project 86-1 - Norman Industries - Planner Bolland presented proposal to construct an 18,500 square foot office/ warehouse building with associated site improvements, on a 4.53 acre site located on the west side of Corydon Road approximately five hundred feet (500') south of Como street at 32371 Corydon Road. Planner Bolland informed the Commission that condition number 24 has been amended to read as follows: Condition No. 24: "The existing mobile caretaker's residence and greenhouses shall be landscaped to screen these structures from Corydon Road." - - - Minutes of Planning Commission September 16, 1986 Page 7 INDUSTRIAL PROJECT 86-1 ~ NORMAN INDUSTRIES CONTINUED Chairman Washburn asked if the applicant would like to address any of the conditions. Mr. Norman Brodie, owner of Norman Industries, stated that he had no problem with the conditions as listed. Discussion was held on additional architectural enhancements being provided; use of metal building material not wise, but being appropriate for this proposal due to proximity of the Alquist Priolo Zone; landscaping should be significantly up- graded for fault areas; condition number 24, pertaining to screening of caretaker's unit and greenhouses; number of em- ployees present and future; caretaker's unit and greenhouses whether or not a conditional use permit is required; earthquake study pertaining to construction of tilt-up being more likely to collapse during a earthquake; landscaping being more effective adjacent to the north-south elevations, similar to what is being proposed out front. Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to recommend adoption of Negative Declaration 86-36, approval of Industrial Project 86-1 with the findings and 33 conditions recommended in the Staff Report with clarification on condition number 22, that the landscape plan in- clude some trees similar to what is being proposed along the front elevation, at least in the rendering, along the north-south eleva- tions and condition number 24, eliminating as originally proposed and amending ?ondition number 24 as follows: Condition No. 24: "The existing mobile caretaker's residence shall be landscaped to screen structure from Corydon Road." Second by Commissioner Callahan. Approved 5-0 3. Residential Project 86-3 - Preston Barrett Corporation - Planner Bolland presented proposal to construct a twenty-four (24) apart- ment complex and associated recreational facilities and parking facilities, on a 1.1 gross acre site, located on the west side of Lewis Street between Graham Avenue and Lakeshore Drive. Planner Bolland stated that this proposal was continued from the Planning Commission Meeting of August 19, 1986 to allow the ap- plicant to address several land use and design issues. Planner Bolland stated that the applicant has submitted two (2) alternatives. Scheme A: Provides for a m1n1mum setback distance of ten (10) feet along Lakeshore Drive, necessitating a revised variance request, and provides twenty- eight (28) foot drive aisles and backup pockets throughout internal parking area. Scheme B: Provides the required building setback of fifteen (15) feet along Lakeshore drive, gaining the additional five (5) feet by narrowing the distance between residential buildings and garages from twelve (12) to ten (10) feet on each side of the parking area, and narrowing a planter area from five (5) feet to four (4) feet where the complex mailboxes are proposed to be located. Community Development Director Miller stated that both schemes presented have the garage with a zero setback along the rear Minutes of Planning Commission September 16, 1986 Page 8 RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 86-3 - PRESTON BARRETT CORPORATION CONTINUED where it adjoins the garage on the adjacent property. With the denial of the Conditional Exception Permit, in order to meet the setback requirements on Lakeshore Drive the Commission would have to consider Scheme "B". However, even Scheme "B" would represent a zero setback of the garages where those two lots adjoin. It is felt that this is a better proposal because it provides a buffer and screening of the adjacent Circle K. At the last meeting, it was discussed that this was considered more of a technical nature and perhaps not even requiring a variance, so we would request additional clarification on this issue. - Discussion was held on the variance being for Lakeshore Drive frontage; condition number 24, pertaining to recordation of mutual access park~ng and maintenance easement on property; CC & R's for the property to be approved by the Community Development Director and to include common access and maintenance of all common areas and amenities; density for proposal and two-story structures along the lake; traffic circulation for the entire area and the possi- bility of additional stop signs on Graham Avenue; vehicle trips generated; if consideration was given to the re-Iocation of the driveway other than what was provided in the upgrading of the entrance; wall along Lewis Street; new Title 17 pertaining to density and parking requirements. The Secretary stated that included in your packets are copies of letters (15 total) from tenants in the Preston Barrett apartment complex at Lewis and Graham stating that they were in favor of the proposed project, and also the letter from Mr. Peter J. Lehr stating opposition should be noted for the record. - Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to recommend adoption of Nega- tive Declaration No. 86-30 REVISED and approval of Scheme "B" for Residential Project 86-3 with the findings and the 44 conditions listed in the Staff Report, with the Commission's interpretation concerning the garage location as being incorporated into the project as a unit and therefore not a variance, and the addition of condition number 45, which will read: Condition No. 45: "cc & R's shall be approved by the Community Development Director in- cluding requirement for common maintenance and access to all com- mon areas and amenities." Second by Commissioner Kelley. Approved 5-0 4. Review of Conditional Use Permit 85-2 Alfred Anderson - Planner Perry presented a report on the review of conditions of approval for Conditional Use Permit 85-2, and stated that the Commission continued this matter from the August 19, 1986 meeting in order to allow the applicant sufficient time to bring back clear evidence indicating compliance with the conditions of approval. Planner Perry stated that the deficiencies noted on August 19th meeting are as follows: - Condition No.5: Applicant has no lighting plan on file. Condition No. 15: No street light has been installed to date. Minutes of planning Commission september 16, 1986 Page 9 REVIEW OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 85-2 - ALFRED ANDERSON CONTINUED Condition No. 18: ~ Condition No. 25: Condition No. 27 and 29: Applicant has not recorded an indemnity and hold harmless from drainage liability agreement to date. Applicant has not processed a lot line merger to eliminate existing lot line to date. At date of inspection, August 5, 1986 eight (8) automobiles were observed four (4) of which appeared to be in- operable. Planner Perry stated that on september lOth staff performed both an on-site inspection and review of records, to determine com- pliance with original conditions of approval. The above mention- ed deficiencies were still in effect on that date, and the following additional deficiencies were noted: 1. Applicant has not dedicated the property necessary to complete road construction of the corner of radii on Riverside Drive and El Toro Road. No directional arrows have been provided upon existing roadways for the purpose of directing on-site traffic. 3. There is no record of dedication of water rights to the City of Lake Elsinore or its designee on file. 2. ..... Planner Perry stated that it should be noted that on September 16th, the applicant met with staff and presented some documents attempting to meet the conditions of approval. Staff has not had time to review these documents to determine their adequacy with the original conditions of approval as set forth, and in those documents the applicant is appealing two (2) of the condi- tions that were originally set forth. Chairman Washburn asked if the applicant would like to comment on the listed violations. Mr. Anderson commented on the following violations: Condition No. 15: ..... Condition No. 18: Condition No. 25: No str~et light installed, an ap- plication has been submitted and it will take approximately six (6) weeks for the installation, and the first year's installment has been paid. A indemnity and hold harmless has been recorded, this was accepted today. The Lot Line Merger, the application is ready to submit, but one of the require- ments is a preliminary title report. Stewart Title has been retained to do the title report, and I was told that the earliest that I could, hopefully, get it is next week. A cashier's check has been drawn for the Lot Merger application. Minutes of Planning Commission september 16, 1986 Page 10 REVIEW OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 85-2 - ALFRED ANDERSON CONTINUED Condition No. 27 and 29: Storage of eight (8) automobiles, a 30 day notice has been served to three of the owners and they all have replied. The 30 day notice will be up either September 22nd or the 25th. Three (3) of the vehicles are mine and do show show current registration, but one is currently registered and the other two I will be selling. The other two (2) vehicles belong to persons who store their motorhomes and then leave their car there while utiliz- ing their motorhome. -- Condition No.5: No lighting plan on file, I have been un- successful in getting an electrician to come out and work with me on this, this is one of the conditions that I would like to have waived. Mr. Anderson then stated that he has posted a cashier's check in the amount of one thousand dollars to show good faith and to work diligently to get this resolved. Mr. Anderson tnen stated that on the dedication of property for the corner radii on Riverside Drive and EI Toro Road, this was all submitted to staff at an earlier date and should have been submitted for recordation. A copy of the meets and bounds and map, prepared by Butterfield Surveys and submitted approximately two years ago, has been included in the documentation submitted, so I thought that this was taken care of. -- Mr. Anderson stated that he has recorded, today, the dedication of water rights to the city. Mr. Anderson stated that the other thing that he had not complied with is the directional arrows, and does not understand why this was required as the traffic flow is restricted. Discussion was held on difficulty with Conditional Use Permits being enforcement of conditions; proceeding with recommendation to Council for revocation of Conditional Use Permit which would still allow time for the applicant to comply with the conditions of approval, and then take it up with Council; if action taken and within time limit provided if all of the conditions were met would it have to come back before the Commission, or even if all the conditions were met would the Conditional Use Permit still be revoked; dedication of water rights being recorded, and if the applicant's intention is to have it recorded--nothing was in- cluded in the documentation submitted; condition number 27 and 29, pertaining to the storage of vehicles and the original Condi- tional Use Permit did not allow for storage of vehicles on-site __ other than those belonging to the applicant; why it took the applicant until today to submit the documentation for compliance of conditions; continuing proposal to the next scheduled meeting to allow staff sufficient time to review documentation submitted. Motion by Commissioner Callahan to continue Review of Conditional Use Permit 85-2 to the meeting of October 7, 1986, second by Com- missioner Kelley. Minutes of Planning Commission September 16, 1986 Page 11 REVIEW OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 85-2 = ALFRED ANDERSON CONTINUED Discussion ensued on applicant having to correct these violations within this time line; if the Conditional Use Permit were to be -- revoked, tonight, when it would appear on the Council Agenda. There being no further discussion, Chairman Washburn asked for the question. Approved 3-2 Commissioner Brown and Mellinger voting no 5. Street Abandonment 86-4 - Norik Bedassian - Planner Hensley pre- sented proposal for abandonment of a dedicated alley and for the project to be evaluated for conformance with the ~eneral Plan, the location is approximately two hundred and eight f~ve feet (285') between Davis and Chaney Streets north of Pottery Street. Community Development Director Miller stated that as additional information the applicant has already pulled permits to build four (4) single-family residences on Pottery street, and a condi- tion of approval was that he either improve the alley or process an abandonment. A brief discussion was held on the single-family residence on Lot 7, whether or not the vacation was providing them half of the alley or if it is a total vacation of the alley to the project. Motion by Commissioner Brown to find that Street Abandonment 86-4 is in conformance with the General Plan, second by Commissioner Mellinger. . Approved 5-0 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S REPORT Community Development Director Miller asked if the Commission wanted to consider looking at or direct staff to prepare potential amendment to consider average setbacks within specified range for mUlti-family residential as well as what was originally discussed as a possibility for industrial and commercial. Chairman Washburn stated that he was not sure if he did. Commissioner Mellinger stated his feeling was that if the concept was to be proposed as stated earlier, thinks that it would require some- thing to the approach that was attempted with commercial setback. In other words, it would require high quality architectural design, high quality landscaping to mitigate problems of the actual encroachment, and would like to see it presented. Believes that this'would en- courage higher quality projects. Chairman Washburn asked Community Development Director Miller to clarify his request. Community Development Director Miller stated that in commercial and industrial zones we proposed that buildings have an average setback, depending on the zone it might be fifteen or twenty feet. However, we stipulated in no case should that setback be less than ten feet. So as presented, for instance, tonight if that were also applied to multiple-family residential, conceivably the Commission could have granted the applicant's request without having the findings of a variance. Community Development Director Miller stated that as Commissioner Mellinger has suggested it is also possible to incorporate language that averaging could be considered where excellence in design is demonstrated. Although City Council did eliminate that language Minutes of Planning Commission September 16, 1986 Page 12 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S REPORT CONTINUED from the proposed code because of concern by the development com- munity about what interpretation would be given to excellence in design. Discussion ensued on a Planned Unit Development concept versus averag- ing setbacks for multiple-family residential lots, and health and safety factors. Chairman Washburn stated that this was a good topic to bring up at a joint study session, which he was going to ask to be set. - PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Commissioner Brown: Stated that one project was approved and now is a blight on the com- munity and we can not do anything about it, understands that the bank at Four Corners has not responded. Wondered if this matter could be brought up as part of a joint study session so that these issues can be resolved. Commissioner Mellinqer: Stated that the Design Subcommittee has come up with some design guidelines and believes that it would be appropriate to discuss them at the next joint study session. Commissioner Kellev: Nothing to report. Commissioner Callahan: - Recommended that the Planning Commission take a break. Chairman Washburn: Stated that he would like to have a study session set with Council, since we have three new Commissioners. Believes that there has to be an understanding between the Planning Commission and Council, especially on some key items (Title 17, General Plan or whatever the case may be, and recommended that a date be set and passed on to Council. Commissioner Mellinger stated that he would like to see a study session scheduled for the matters discussed tonight prior to that, and recommended that a study session be scheduled in two weeks and then another one two weeks after that. Discussion ensued on the setting October 8th from 6:00 to 8:30 p.m. for the study session. Discussion ensued on setting a date for a joint study session with Council, two weeks later. Community Development Director Miller suggested that in requesting a __ joint study session with Council the Commission way just want to identify the week. Chairman Washburn suggested the week after the 8th and no longer than the end of the month. Community Development Director Miller stated that he did not know if Council was going to set a study session, however, staff is going to suggest to city Council they consider a joint study session on Minutes of Planning Commission september 16, 1986 Page 13 PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION CONTINUED ----- September 30th, to consider some Redevelopment items, and informed the Commission that they might put this date on their calendar as a possible joint study session. Chairman Washburn informed the Commission of the City-County Planning Commissioner Conference, sponsored by the City of Lake Elsinore, on September 18, at 6:30 p.m., at the Women's Club. There being no further business, the Lake Elsinore Planning Commission adjourned at 9:22 p.m. Motion by Commissioner Callahan, second by Commissioner Mellinger. Approved 5-0 ~~proved, ~~W~ GarY~ashburn, Chairman L da Grindstaff Planning Commission Secretary MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD HELD ON THE 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 1986 MEMBERS PRESENT were Community Development Director Miller, Planners Bolland, Perry and Hensley. MINUTE ACTION Minutes of September 2, 1986, approved as submitted. BUSINESS ITEMS The Board reviewed items out of sequence. - 4. Single-Family Residence - 116 Lindsay Street - Kenneth C. Engle - Planner Perry presented proposal to construct a single-family residence on a 9,000 square foot lot located on the west side of Lindsay Street approximately 120 feet south of Heald Avenue. Discussion was held on condition number 10, pertaining to the twenty by twenty foot interior clear space and deleting condi- tion, accepting garage as presented by applicant; grading plan pertaining to retaining wall on the south property line. Single-Family Residence approved subject to the 24 conditions listed in the Staff Report deleting condition number 10. 1. Industrial Project 86-1 - Norman Industries - Planner Bolland presented proposal to construct an 18,500 square foot office/ warehouse building with associated site improvements, on a 4.53 acre site located on the west side of Corydon Road approxi- mately five hundred feet south of Como Street. Planner Bolland stated that condition number 24 has been amended to read as follows: Condition Number 24: "The existing mobile caretaker's residence and greenhouses shall be landscaped to screen these structures from Corydon Road." - A brief discussion was held on amended condition number 24, pertaining to screening of existing caretaker's residence and greenhouses. Industrial Project 86-1 approved subject to the 33 conditions listed in the Staff Report and condition number 24 as amended. 2. Single-Family Residence - 21060 Malaga Road - Charlotte Shapcott - Planner Hensley presented proposal to construct a single- family residence on a .62 acre lot on Malaga Road east of Inter- state 15, approximately 575 feet east of Lakeview Drive. Single-Family Residence at 21060 Malaga Road approved subject to the 25 conditions listed in the Staff Report. 3. Single-Family Residence - 18000 Sumner Avenue - Mark Quental _ Continued to a future date. ..... (-2z~ eM, Nelson Miller, Community Development Director MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON THE 7TH DAY OF OCTOBER 1986 THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:02 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Chairman Washburn. ROLL CALL PRESENT: commissioners: Brown, Mellinger, Callahan, Kelley, and Washburn ABSENT: None ~ Also present were Community Development Director Miller, Planners Bolland and Hensley. \ MINUTE ACTION Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to approve minutes of September 16, 1986, as submitted, second by Commissioner Brown. Approved 5-0 PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Tentative Parcel Map 21587 - Schmid Development - (Continued from September 16, 1986, meeting) Planner Hensley presented proposal to divide 40.76 acres into fifty-three (53) commercial-manufacturing lots located north of Collier Avenue to Interstate 15 from approximately 1,000 feet east of Nichols Road to approximately 1,700 feet west of Riverside Drive. Planner Hensley also advised that two conditions, Conditions #18 and #19, have been amended to read as follows: Condition #18: "All slopes within the project area shall be at a maximum slope of 2:1, however, 1-1/2:1 slopes may be permitted adjacent to the free- way provid~d they receive special landscaping treatment including use of jute netting, sub- ject to approval of the Community Development Director." Condition #19: "Finished floor elevations shall be at least 1 foot above the 100-year flood level, which is 1258.5 feet above m.s.l." At this time, Chairman Washburn asked to be excused due to con- flict of interest, and turned the gavel over to Vice Chairman Callahan. vice Chairman Callahan opened the public hearing at 7:07 p.m. asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of Tentative Parcel Map 21587. Louis R.Schmid, President of Schmid Development, said he was there to answer any questions that might be posed during the evening and that he was in complete accordance with all th~ conditions. Dick Knapp, 29606 Dwan Drive, Lake Elsinore, representing the Hammon Tree estate, which is the adjacent property on the other side of Collier Avenue, stated he was in favor of the project except for Conditions 20, 22, and 24 which have a lot to do with the drainage problem. Is concerned where drainage ditch is coming through on Hammon Tree property. Said he had talked to Mr. Schmid that day and feels they can work something out to divert the water down to Collier Avenue and past the trestle area. If not, he sees some problems later on in the future. Minutes of Planning Commission October 7, 1986 Page 2 TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 21587 - SCHMID DEVELOPMENT CONTINUED Vice Chairman Callahan asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor. Receiving no response, Vice Chairman Callahan asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Receiving no reply, Vice Chairman Callahan asked if anyone else wish to speak on on the matter. Receiving no response, Vice Chairman Callaham closed the public hearing at 7:09 p.m. ~ - Discussion commenced with question as to what is the condition of approval on slopes, where there is quite a differential be- tween some of the pads, for,planting and irrigating and what height requires it? Community Development Director Miller replied the typical cri- teria they would apply would be any slopes in excess of three (3) feet in height would require landscaping and permanent irrigation. Discussion continued concerning letter in packet from Tierra Madre Consultants regarding potential habitat for the least Bell's vireo (songbird) and whether it had been reviewed by the Department of Fish and Game. Community Development Director Miller responded that they have discussed some general concerns regarding Department of Fish and Game review and they have indicated that they would require permits in these areas and conditions of the permit might require mitigation measures, depending upon a staff review of the area involved. The consultant has indi- cated it is a relatively sparse habitat area and does not appear that there would be significant mitigation measures or conditions required in order to obtain the Department of Fish and Game approval. The Department of Fish and Game has been concentrating their efforts out here with respect to process and procedures in making sure appropriate permits and approvals are obtained and this requirement is covered in one of the project's Conditions of Approval. Upon perusal of the conditions, it was found that it had been omitted and the Community Development Director stated the verbiage "and Department of Fish and Game" should be added after "Army Corps of Engineers" in Condition #29. - Further discussion questioned at what point special landscap- ing would be required - prior to recordation of the Map, at building permit stage (state law requires it at building per- mit stage and not at recordation), certificate of occupancy, when? Asked same question on preliminary soil investigation. since this is a Parcel Map, if subdivision is recorded, some of the conditions may not be met until building permit stage and concerns like erosion control and landscaping could go for several years if the lot were sold off. Concern was expressed that since there are 53 lots some could be subdivided and recor- ded but nothing could happen on some of the lots, say it was sold, and some of these measures hadn't taken place, there could be impacts not only off the site but on some of the lots that were SUbdivided; what was the intent for some of these measures for erosion control, grading, landscaping, etc. Community Development Director Miller replied that perhaps Mr. Schmid could address this better, but since this is an indus- trial subdivision, he believes there is an intent by the devel- oper to rough grade the area prior to the issuance of building permits. Therefore, staff will look for a number of these things done prior to the issuance of any grading permits. This could conceivably come either prior to or after actual recorda- tion of the Map, but they would require certain guarantees that they would be accomplished prior to issuance of building permits. .... Minutes of Planning Commission October 7, 1986 Page 3 -- TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 21587 - SCHMID DEVELOPMENT CONTINUED Mr Schmid commented that other than pursuing the erosion con- tr~l methods outlined by the City, the subdivision wouldn't be accepted ~nless all conditions are met. The bonds wouldn't be released the City wouldn't accept the streets, the improve- ment and, therefore, you wouldn't issue building permits for any structure that would be intended on those lots. community Development Director replied that they would look at it prior to issuance of building permits or, at minimum, there would be erosion control measures required to be incorporated into any grading plans. If'rough grading was conducted for the entire site prior to issuance of building permits, they would look at erosion control measures that might or might not include landscaping, depending upon the height, steepness and location of the slope. Further discussion made it clear that erosion control is certain- ly more important at this point. From an aesthetic standpoint, landscaping will be important as building permits are issued. Mr. Schmid was asked if he intends for the billboards in question on the site to stay. Mr. Schmid replied, "Not at this time." Condition #27 was then discussed and the intent of the wording "as much as possible" was questioned. Community Development Director MilYer answered that two things were involved. First, there are some grade differences involved -- in various segments along there and also they have discussed with the applicant the intention of looking at shared access wherever appropriate. However, given that there are an odd num- ber of lots that front onto various sections of the street and different lot sizes and topography, it may not be feasible to require shared access for all, of the parcels. Discussion continued with the statement that from the Commis- sion's standpoint, it would probably be in their interest, per- haps as a directive, that this emphasis take place at least on lots at level grade abutting Collier. On interior streets it is not that significant but on those on Collier, if there are a number of cuts, it could be an impact that wouldn't be accep- table in the long run. The biggest problem for lack of shared access in an industrial type area is the lack of a loading area. Believe the concentration should be on lots where there isn't much of a grade separation. Those that do front onto Collier should have shared access so there should be some direction there. The question was then asked what street improvements would come from this SUbdivision on proposed Collier Avenue. Community Development Director Miller replied that the intent -- here is that the entire street, since there is going to be some extensive vertical realignment involved and the dirt road that exists now follows the contours, would have to have grading done to establish the street and that would pretty much be rough graded for the entire street with the actual paved improvements provided on the typical half-street section. Another factor that enters into this is that the City does have funds set aside that were provided through agreement with CalTrans to provide a local access road between Nichols Road and Riverside Drive. They will need to work out the details of that but anticipate, with the development of this area, they would work out an agree- ment with the developer to provide that entire street from at least a pilot road. Minutes of Planning Commission October 7, 1986 Page 4 TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 21587 - SCHMID DEVELOPMENT CONTINUED Discussion then covered the Environmental Assessment, Section 5.a, suggesting a tree conservation plan, and feeling that that would be appropriate as a condition and should be incorporated into the conditions of approval. Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to recommend adoption of Nega- tive Declaration No. 86-40 and approval of Tentative Parcel Map __ 21587 with the findings and the 30 conditions listed in the Staff Report as well as the added Conditions #31 through #34 as presented in the memorandum dated October 7, 1986; amending Conditions #18 and #29 and adding Condition #35, each to read~ as follows: Condition #18: "All slopes within the project area shall be at a maximum slope of 2:1, however, 1-1/2:1 slopes may be permitted adjacent to the free- way provided they receive special landscaping treatment including use of jute netting, sub- ject to approval of the Community Development Director." Condition #29: "Developer shall obtain permission and approval of the Army Corps of Engineers and California Department of Fish and Game before wetland area is disturbed." Condition #35: That tree conservation plan, as indicated in the Environmental Assessment, be submitted and approved by the Community Development Director." Second by Commissioner Brown. Approved 4-0 (Commissioner Washburn excused) At this time, 7:25 p.m., Chairman Washburn returned to the Council Chamber and took his seat at the table. -- 2. Tentative Parcel Map 21962 - T & S Development - Community Devel- opment Director Miller presented the proposal to subdivide 18.03 acres, located on the west side of Mission Trail between Camp- bell and Sylvester Streets, into fourteen (14) parcels. Commun- ity Director Miller further stated this Parcel Map is in con- junction with Commercial Project 86-7, approved by City Council on July 8, 1986, and that this parcel layout was determined by the needs and demands of various tenants, lenders, and developers. Chairman Washburn opened the public hearing at 7:27 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of Tentative Parcel Map 21962. Mr. John Curts, representing T & S Development, 5225 Canyon Crest Drive, Riverside, stated he has reviewed the staff's report and conditions and concurs with their recommendation. Chairman Washburn asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor of Tentative Parcel Map 21962 and receiving no reply, asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Receiving no response, Chairman Washburn closed the pUblic hearing at 7:29 p.m. __ A short discussion was held at the table with an explanation asked for on Parcel 11. Mr. Curts explained they are providing an on-site storage and maintenance facility to facilitate the property management of the project and their lending institution requires a separate lot for each building and that is considered a separate build- ing and, therefore, it has a separate lot. '(,,-\_~~~;.~. " '.. /~';{, '! ",;,':~-,_: ~~~,~'-, "'Mi,,,,,~ .81~~f Minutes of Planning Commission October 7, 1986 Page 5 TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 21962 - ~ i ~ DEVELOPMENT - CONTINUED Discussion was held on Condition #7 and adding the word "irre- vocable" to the wording "mutual access." Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to recommend adoption of Nega- tive Declaration 86-42 and approval of Tentative Parcel Map 21962 with the fourteen (14) conditions recommended in the Staff Report and amending Copdition #7 by adding the word "irrevocable" between the words "mutual" and "access" to read as follows: Condition #7: The applicapt shall record irrevocable mutual access, parking, and maintenance easements on all lots in favor of all other lots created by this map. Evidence of these easements shall be indicated on the Final Map. Second by Commissioner Callahan Approved 5-0 3. Tentative Parcel Map 21773 REVISED - Robert Cirac - Senior Planner Bolland presented proposal to divide two (2) parcels of .50 and .40 net acres into three (3) parcels of 10,700, 11,000 and 17,000 square feet (net), located on the southwest corner of Machado Street and Larson Road. Senior Planner Bolland further stated this proposal is a revision of the previous Par- cel Map, which was denied without prejudice by the Planning commission on August 5, 1986, and is intended to address the commission's concerns about the lot size and density of the previous proposal. -- Chairman Washburn opened the public hearing at 7:31 p.m. and asked if anyone wished to speak in favor of Tentative Parcel Map 21773 REVISED. Mr. Fred Crowe, Butterfield Surveys, 620 West Graham Avenue, Lake Elsinore, commented that the applicant had instructed him to prepare a map that would satisfy most of the concerns voiced. It now has a lower density, provides for a transition area from the higher densities along Machado to the lower densities back a way from Machado. The street paving width would be approxi- mately the same as what is on Machado now in the two lane road area and they could still keep the trees - similar to where the pines trees have been left on Machado a couple blocks away. They feel they can move traffic through without any difficulty and can provide parking in those areas where necessary. Mr. Crowe then stated he was available to answer any questions that might arise later. Mr. Robert Cirac, 8931 Bosun, Huntington Beach, owner of the property, stated he supports staff's recommendation and feels he has met their requirements and looks for the Commission's approval on his proposal. -- Chairman Washburn asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor of Tentative Parcel Map 21773 REVISED and receiving no response, asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Receiving no reply, Chairman Washburn closed the public hear- ing at 7:34 p.m. Discussion was held on the much improved revision; an explana- tion of the off-street parking and prohibition of on-street parking in Condition #7 was asked for. Senior Planner Bolland explained that in consultation with the City Engineer it is necessary to have street improvement plans submitted by an applicant in order to determine the actual curb- to-curb width. After that is determined, and the fact that it Minutes of Planning Commission October 7, 1986 Page 6 TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 21773 REVISED - ROBERT CIRAC - CONTINUED is a local street and would carry two way traffic, one lane each way, it would probably necessitate prohibition of parking on at least one side. If that is the case, then it would re- duce the amount of parking adjacent to these potential lots and, therefore, that parking.needs to be accommodated on the site. Discussion returned to~the table and best case for preserving the trees with curb, gutter and sidewalk, the ultimate street width was questioned. \ Senior Planner Bolland replied the ultimate street width would be 30-foot curb-to-curb, and since it is unknown that that will be the actual curb-to-curb width, parking cannot be prohibited now. It was asked who would do the signage on the street and Senior Planner Bolland responded that the street improvements adjacent to the lots in question would be required at building permit stage, including signage. Discussion continued regarding Condition #4 and request for clarification of Parcel Map 117/69 and what kind of deed restrictions are on it. Senior Planner Bolland replied that this is the parcel map that was done as the parent parcel map for these two parcels that were created and was created in the County when the pro- perty was under the jurisdiction of the County. The deed restrictions are something they don't have access to. Community Development Director Miller commented that on the deed restrictions, they would recall it was something they discussed when the property qn the other side of the street was subdivided approximately six months ago, with Fred Crowe also doing that map, and the deed restrictions related to the flood restrictions due to the presence of the channel cross- ing Larson Road. Discussion was held on Conditions #18 and #19, status of mature trees, ultimate street width, and whether some of those trees may come out. Community Development Director Miller replied that with streets you have to look at drainage and maintaining adequate drainage along Larson Road it could conceivably affect the elevation of the street. Since several of those trees are Eucaluptus with a rather shallow root ball and, if the drainage necessitated lowering the street, it could affect major root systems of the trees. They won't know for sure until a final engineering plan is prepared for the street improvements as to what will be the effect. Discussion returned to the table with concern expressed that street width may be a problem in future development if anything does come about on the end of Larson; if approval is given for end of Larson and is approved with a through street onto Larson, it may be a mistake if they are trying to preserve the trees with two-way traffic along Larson; feel that Conditions #18 and #19 should come back for approval as a Business Item before the Planning Commission after final engineering street improvement plans are submitted; allowing for drip area around the trees and not pave over to allow percolation down to the root system; current dedication for street being 60 feet of right-of-way irrespective of the trees. - - - .. .,.. ~-+f."lt!F Minutes of Planning Commission October 7, 1986 Page 7 -- TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 21773 REVISED - ROBERT CIRAC - CONTINUED Chairman Washburn asked the applicant if he understood the pos- sibility of Conditions #18 and #19 coming back before the Plan- ning commission. Mr. Cirac responded in the affirmative and stated he would comply. Motion by commissionet Mellinger to recommend adoption of Nega- tive Declaration 86-32 and approval of Tentative Parcel Map 21773 REVISED with the finqings and the 32 conditions listed in the Staff Report and amending Conditions #18 and #19 to read as follows: Condition #18: All mature trees on Machado Street and Larson Road frontages shall be incorporated into street improvements and street tree plans, subject to the approval of the Planning Com- mission. Condition #19: Prior to issuance of any building permits for residences on Parcel 2 or 3, street plans and specifications shall be prepared by a regis- tered civil Engineer, which incorporates Par- cels 1, 2 and 3 and which includes a typical section for Larson Road to accommodate pre- servation of the mature trees on each side of the street in front of this site, subject to approval of the Planning Commission. All im- -- provements shall be complete prior to issuance of certificate of Occupancy or release of utilities. Second by commissioner Brown Chairman Washburn gave direction that Conditions #18 and #19 were to come back to staff and be put immediately on the agenda to go before the Planning Commission as a Business Item and thereby no time will be wasted. Approved 5-0 4. Conditional Use Permit 86-5 - zizi Carasimu - Planner Hensley presented proposal to develop a thirty-two (32) space valet parking facility to service an existing restaurant project which requires additional parking as a condition of approval. This project site is located on the south side of Fraser Drive approximately 200 feet west of Lakeshore Drive. Chairman Washburn opened the public hearing at 7:48 and asked if anyone wished to speak in favor of Conditional Use Permit 86-5. Mr. Robert G. Williams, 32172 Machado Street, Lake Elsinore, -- representing the applicant, mentioned problems connected with Fraser street - Fraser is a half-street, with property owned by the owner of Longtin Auto Supply; is a one-way because City failed to take a dedication when the building was built. The applicant, because of his restricted parking, is willing and has negotiated to purchase the excess right-of-way, which goes clear up to the building and does not leave any room. It is possible that the way the building is set, that the 22.5 feet as specified may not be able to be met at certain locations. He requested the figure be changed to "approximately 22.5 feet." Obviously, the applicant can't buy the building and dedicate the building to the City so would like a change made to what- ever is available from the building out - it would help the applicant. Minutes of Planning Commission October 7, 1986 Page 8 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 86-5 - ZIZI CARASIMU - CONTINUED Mr. Williams asked for further changes. On Condition #12, they are able to meet the 32 space requirements and also the 15 space requirements for Longtin's Auto and would like that restriction removed. On Condition #15 it may be only two- tenths of a foot they might not be able to meet and would like it changed. On Condition #26, the restaurant building was moved in in the v~ry early 1950's and inadvertantly they placed the building over the property line by three feet. All previous and present owners are aware of this and the only solution is to tear the bu~lding down. But, as real estate law goes, if you encroach on somebody's property and if that encroachment stays with no objection from the property owner for a period of three years, the encroachment does not have to be removed. It does not give the property owner encroach- ing any rights to the property and once the building is re- moved, it goes back to normal property lines. Therefore, he would like Condition #26 removed. - Mr. Williams further informed the Commission that Mr. Caramisu is paying Mr. Longtin upwards of $30,000 to provide a two-way street for the City of Lake Elsinore and to solve an obvious problem. He feels it would be fair if the City would give con- sideration to the fact that right now the building is going to be used as a restaurant and valet parking will work very pro- perly for him. He also requested five (5) on-street parking spaces be allowed due to the street improvement. Should his business fail, there will be 15 parking spaces next door at Longtin's for future businesses that may be in there. There is what appears to be a parking problem, but the County build- ing next door, although they can't go into any written agree- ments, they are allowing them to use their lot for parking if there is any overflow parking. So there will be more than enough parking in the area as long as the restaurant is being used. He then stated the applicant agrees with all of the other conditions. - Chairman Washburn asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor of Conditional Use Permit 86-5. Receiving no reply, Chairman Washburn asked if anyone wished to speak in opposi- tion. Receiving no response, Chairman Washburn closed the public hearing at 7:54 p.m. Discussion commenced with a question on Condition #12 and why staff feels it is justified and applicant doesn't. Is there in fact adequate parking for the Auto Supply store over and above what the applicant needs. Community Development Director Miller responded by drawing their attention to the site plan. The plan does not show there would be an additional 15 parking spaces available in addition to the valet parking illustrated, hence the reason for the con- dition. The question was raised as to the hours of operation of Long- tin's Auto Supply and Mr. Williams said he believed they were from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Upon being asked his comment on the Community Development Director's response to Condition #12, Mr. Williams stated what Mr. Miller had said was true, but they had only shown the spaces for the valet parking and not for Longtin's Auto Supply. There are 15 spaces that will be pro- vided for Longtin's. Upon being asked "Where," Mr. Williams pointed them out on the map. - Comments were made on the two spaces on the corner radius and the fact that on that radius is a bus stop and asked if Mr. ""'::!:(f;:~~ l+';i~..~ ~.,..". . .~ , ~.~.,: ' " Minutes of Planning commission October 7, 1986 Page 9 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 86-5 - ZIZI CARASIMU - CONTINUED Longtin was going to improve that in such a way that you could pull in over the corner radius. Mr. Williams commented that they may loose two spaces but they are very close to the 43 and are talking one or two spaces one way or the other when they get the site fully engineered and if they allow them the f~ve on the street it will more than take care of it. . Discussion returned to the,table concerning the operation of both establishments at the 'same time and if the parking con- figurations met the City Code and does the City allow tandem parking anywhere else in the City. community Development Director Miller replied that tamden park- is not allowed but valet parking is somewhat different in which tandem parking is very typical. However, concerns regarding the plans submitted by Mr. williams are several. There is a storage area presently fenced in behind Longtin's Auto Supply that would encroach upon several of the parking spaces and also the parking spaces in front along Lakeshore Drive would require backing out on Lakeshore Drive, which is not only pro- hibited by Code but is hazardous and would suggest that the five spaces illustrated in front of Longtin's would not be feasible. with these concerns along with the five valet park- ing spaces on the street, they don't feel there are fifteen spaces for Longtin's provided in addition to the valet parking. Discussion continued on Condition #12 and if both establish- ments were operating at the same time, and an auto parts cus- tomer parked in front of a car parked in a valet parking space and the person from the restaurant wanted his car from the valet space, how would he get it. They would have to wait until the customer came out of Longtin's before they could get their valet parked car. Mr. Williams said there would be a valet man to handle even the parking for Longtin's. Any cars that come in the back will be handled by a parking lot attendant. Discussion continued with the question as to whether they could place a condition on Longtin's to have valet parking for an auto parts store. Mr. Williams said this parking would be for employees and if the only solution to it is smaller parking, then it could be smaller parking. Discussion returned to the table with staff requested to com- ment on the 22.2 feet of right-of-way in Condition #15 since it was indicated that the building would be within that 22.2 feet. Mr. Williams commented that until they do the engineering they are not sure, but it looks like the building was not set exact- ly parallel with street and there is a possibility of a few inches of encroachment if the full 22.5 feet were dedicated. Discussion returned to the table with the comment that the actual street dedication could be approved by the City Engineer and that the Staff Report indicates the additional 22.2 feet on the south side to be dedicated, but what if the negotiations break down, would that make this a null and void approval. Community Development Director Miller replied that if he did not meet the conditions of approval, he would have to return to Planning Commission for revision of that condition. Minutes of the Planning Commission October 7, 1986 Page 10 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 85-6 - ZIZI CARAMISU - CONTINUED Discussion continued on Condition #24 and having it recorded as a deed restriction; on Condition #26, believe it can be handled by the City Attorney who can give an opinion to satisfy that condition; on Condition #27, could add as determined by the Sheriff's Department//Chief of Police; being hesitant to approve on-street parking for any use; Condition #12 and having no overlap of operatiqns and valet parking at the rear of Long- tin's when restaurant "is open as agreed upon by a prior lease arrangement; most of Longtin's customers parking in the front; questioned the width of st~eetand if parking on street would be permitted. Community Development Director Miller responded that this would be a substandard width street with only 50-foot wide right-of- way so given the curb-to-curb width, depending on what design was derived, it would be a substandard size street and it is likely that parking would be prohibited on at least one side and possibly on both sides of the street. Discussion continued on on-street parking and its not being feasible - anyone could park there, not just restaurant patrons; if both businesses operated at the same time and there wasn't enough parking, it would be their problem - not the City's _ they would be hurting each other; if not enough parking, cus- tomers will park wherever they can - Staters lot, elsewhere and may impact other businesses or other on-street parking; must make sure Condition #20 stays in force at all times; concerns about the parking if Longtin's should sellout to some other type of business. Mr. Williams commented that the three-year lease is a somewhat temporary issue at this point. They have 22 acres next to this property where the restaurant building does encroach, which is for sale. They are intending to get the restaurant open and as they sell and develop the property, no guarantees, but the in- tent is to put their parking over there and eventually eliminate the lease. They know the lease has to be there as long as they are operating and then later they will have to buy additional property. If the required parking spaces could be lowered five spaces from 42 to 37, that would solve the problems. Discussion returned to the table with the remarks that part of the responsibility and the problem that existed in the past was the City's due to not acquiring dedication from that property owner so now it has fallen on the current property owner for this project; difficulty in accepting hours of operation for the restaurant to be only for dinner and not for breakfast and lunch; concern with Condition #33 requiring applicant to imple- ment measures to ensure that his patrons do not park on adjoin- ing properties - feels it can be posted but shouldn't have to check car licenses and so forth; feels rehabilitation of the structure, dedication of the right-of-way and street improve- ment are pluses because it has been an eye sore for a long . time; On Condition #23, the deed restriction would be alright if the operation would remain but something in the clause should make it null and void if that operation should cease; On Condition #32, the parking and valet area should be well lit; concurring with applicant's wishes on Condition #15 making it 22.2 plus or minus; feeling that because of the innovative approach the City is trying to take, the request for parking spaces less than required seems appropriate; questioned whether the definition on structure encroaching for three years and not being made to remove it, allows it to stay, and is that in fact the case. Community Development Director Miller replied that what they .... .... .... Minutes of Planning commission October 7, 1986 Page 11 - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 86-5 - ZIZI CARAMISU - CONTINUED are dealing with is the area of conscriptive rights and the state sets forth certain guidelines but basically those rights have to be established in court. There are a number of ways to resolve this issue and since there are a number of concerns involved with this, including Buildings Codes and such things, they felt it was appropriate that this should be resolved. There have been discus~ions at length between the applicant and the adjacent property owner and discussions regarding perhaps a lot line adjustment. Mr. Williams has suggested it could be resolved through legal means. They have left the door open on how that could be done but indicated that it should be resolved. Community Development Director Miller further stated that re- garding earlier statements about recordation of certain condi- tions, it might be most appropriate to have all the conditions of this use recorded as a condition of this use thereby giving notice to all future purchasers of this property that as long as this use is in effect these conditions would apply. Discussion continued with the comments that a new purchaser may not want a restaurant; questioned what was actually encroaching and informed it was the building itself; would the condition regarding the encroachment be a long process and hold up the business operation. Mr. Fred Crowe was called to the podium and asked, since he has dealt with encroachments as a surveyor for years, if he would highlight or comment on this matter. Mr. Crowe responded that he had not read the condition, how- ever, it could be handled between the owners if it was never resolved. It would not affect the City. It could put either property owner at a disadvantage to be required to resolve it. The Chair commented that it was his position on this that Condition #26 could be deleted without due hardship on either party. Staff was asked what concerns they had if this were approved. Community Development Director Miller replied they have two basic concerns; 1. The Building Codes and in terms of firewall it is not a matter of two inches (2") it's a matter of 2-1/2 to 3 feet that the building encroaches. So you'd also have con- cerns about wrapping around the building; and 2. The concern expressed by the adjacent property owner who feels the City in approving the improvements to the structure may have been re- miss in allowing those improvements to encroach upon his pro- perty. Discussion continued on Condition #26 and feeling it should be a matter between the two individual property owners and the Condition not being a rational posture for the City to be tak- ing; questioned whether improvements were required for Lake- shore Drive and informed that they were for 2-1/2 feet; on Con- dition #33, requiring additional language that applicant shall not allow his valet parking on adjoining properties without written consent from owners which shall be placed on file with the city; deleting Conditions #12 and #13 because #13 really relates to #12; if Condition #13 is approved would like the parking spaces not taken up by storage and would like the Con- dition to relate only to storage space; would like Condition #13 to read, "All storage related to the Auto Supply store shall be removed and kept clear of required parking areas." Discussed when Commercial Project 85-11 was first approved, it was clearly intended to the applicant that he would have to meet the Parking Ordinance as in existence at the time. It was a fair warning. We changed the Zoning Ordinance but we did not change the General Plan. You will note that in the General Minutes of Planning Commission October 7, 1986 Page 12 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 86-5 - ZIZI CARASIMU - CONTINUED Plan all uses approved in the City of Lake Elsinore are re- quired to meet the Parking Ordinance. If Condition #12 and #13 are dropped, it is exactly what was not approved the first time and is opposed to the General Plan and feeling it is not legal and that it is inappropriate; asked what the 15 spaces required for Longtin's Auto Supply was based on and was informed it was predicated on the squ~re foot and under the new Parking Ordi- nance a commercial building requires one space per 250 square feet of gross building area; if applicant can provide evidence to the Community Developme~t Director that there is in fact 15 safe parking spaces including safe access to Lakeshore Drive, then can go along with it, otherwise no. Mr. Williams stated that before the vote is taken he would like to reiterate the fact that if they are not able to meet those requirements on the property that they have before them, then the project does not go and the street still stays a half- street and a one-way street. Their engineer can bring all the property outlined there up to the max and they are only talking two or three spaces. Mr. Williams was asked what he presumed would be a time frame for permanent resolution of this with the other property owner. Mr. Willians responded that presently they have several poten- tial offers but nothing in writing. They have negotiating go- ing on right now with the adjoining property owners and as that property is developed, it is the intent of the applicant to purchase an easement for parking or to purchase additional land for parking, to resolve the encroachment and also to provide additional parking so he can drop the lease for the valet park- ing. The biggest problem they have in dealing with these peo- ple is that it is an estate and there are many people involved. Discussion continued on Condition #21 and changing issuance of the use permit to one (1) year instead of three (3) years; be- ing able to review it at that time and see if any additional parking has been procured; favoring some leniency for the appli- cant for what he is doing for the City on Fraser Drive; appli- cant was asked if, when the conditions were provided to him, he felt he could operate for the dinner hour only and his busi- ness would succeed or would he later need to further request additional hours of operation. Mr. Williams replied that he didn't think so. Mr. Williams was asked if they allowed the operation during the lunch hour and dinner hour and the balance of the spaces not taken for Longtin's operations (15) being allocated as valet parking, might that not be a "midway" approach and then during the evening hours they would have the rest of those re- maining 15 spaces, which wouldn't cause them to have to deal with the Parking Ordinance or some of those concerns brought. up earlier; discussion continued regarding shared parking and need for survey and study and adding as Condition #34. Motion by Commissioner Brown to adopt Negative Declaration 86-44 and approve Conditional Use Permit 86-5 with the findings and the 33 conditions listed in the Staff Report and deleting Condition #26 and amending Conditions #12, #13, #15, #21, #27, #32, #33, and adding Condition #34 to read as follows: Condition #12: To allow for adequate parking at all times for restaurant and Auto Supply store (which requires 15 spaces) with the 15 parking spaces for Long- tin's Auto Supply Store to be available solely - - - Minutes of Planning commission October 7, 1986 Page 13 ...-- CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 86-5 - ZIZI CARAMISU - CONTINUED for the valet parking for the restaurant after the close of business hours each day of Long- tin's Auto supply store and that these parking arrangements shall be set down within the lease agreement between Longtin's Auto Supply store and the applicant, and such lease agreement shall~e on file with the City Planning Division and shall be subject to review at any change of ownership or use of the property. Condition #15: \ All storage related to the Auto Supply store shall be removed and kept clear of required parking areas. Applicant shall provide for a 50-foot wide right-of-way along Fraser Drive which shall include the dedication of an additional 22.2 plus or minus feet on the south side of Fraser Drive. Condition #13: Condition #21. Use Permit is issued for one (1) year and is subject to annual review for compliance with conditions. Condition #26: Deleted. Condition #27: Valet parking shall be operated as to not create traffic hazards along Fraser Drive or Lakeshore -- Drive, to be determined by the Sheriff or Chief of Police Condition #32: Parking area shall be kept free of litter, storage, trash and objects and valet parking area shall be well lighted as determined by the Sheriff's Department. Condition #33: Applicant shall not allow valet parking on ad- joining properties without written consent from owners which shall be filed with the city. Condition #34: Applicant to provide Parking Survey and Parking Study to substantiate a finding for shared park- ing, subject to approval of the Community Devel- opment Director. Second by Commissioner Callahan. Approved 4-1 Chairman Washburn stated he was going to call for a five minute recess. community Development Director Miller then requested that before the recess was called he would like to make the statement that the Parking Ordinance would also prohibit use of parking spaces that re- quire backing out onto public streets in commercial zones and, there- fore, the five (5) parking spaces illustrated in front of the build- ing would not be considered consistent with the Parking Code. When the applicant is considering the shared parking it should be noted that those five (5) spaces do not comply with the Parking Code. The question was posed as to whether the tandem spaces comply also and Community Development Director Miller responded that in a valet parking arrangement the tandem spaces are considered adequate. At this time, 8:58 p.m., Chairman Washburn called for a five minute recess. Minutes of Planning Commission October 7, 1986 Page 14 At 9:08 p.m., the Commissioners returned to their seats at the table. BUSINESS ITEMS 1. Commercial Project 86-10 REVISED - Parks/Abrams (Architectural Team Three) - Senior Planner Bolland presented proposal to con- struct a 13,500 square foot neighborhood shopping center on a site previously used fpr a temporary drive-through bank facili- ty, which is slightly larger than one acre and is located on the northeast corner of Lakeshore Drive and Riverside Drive. Senior Planner Bolland furtper stated this proposal is a revi- sion of a previous proposal, which was denied without prejudice by the Planning Commission on July 15, 1986, and is intended to address the Commission's concerns about the parking, traffic circulation and project design. Chairman Washburn asked the applicant if he would like to give any input or address any item or condition on this project. Mr. Lon Bike, Architectural Team Three, 3617 West MacArthur Boulevard, Santa Ana, stated they have had an opportunity to review staff's conditions and are basically in agreement with them. He also stated he, as the project architect, and the project engineer are there to answer any questions that might arise and they are looking forward to their project being approved. Chairman Washburn asked if anyone else wished to speak on Com- mercial Project 86-10 REVISED and receiving no response brought the discussion to the table. Discussion commenced with pleasure expressed on the new design of project; a question was raised that doesn't necessarily re- flect on this project but could be a concern in the. future _ the Department of Fish and Game is becoming very touchy about water run-off from commercial centers, especially for grease; noticed the water from this project is going into the lake and doesn't think the Fish and Game lakes are any better than ours. Thinks we need to start dealing with this in the future and some areas in the Valley are requiring grease traps for drainage waters and would like to address that issue; agreeing that this is a very nice project and appropriate for that location; with City's new Code, the additional 16 parking spaces may not be required; on Condition #18, may want to amend that standard Condition to add "that decorative light- ing equipped with automatic timers so that such lighting is turned off between 11:00 p.m. and sunrise" is appropriate. The purpose of low sodium lamps, other than energy conserva- tion, is to protect Mt. Palomar Observatory which can filter the low pressure sodium but not others. However, decorative lighting of low pressure sodium would wash away the colors, is not that aesthetically pleasing, and since Mt. Palomar doesn't start until 11:00 p.m. and as long as there are auto- matic timers to turn the light off and any lighting that would be on after 11:00 p.m. such as security and parking lighting, would still be low sodium lighting. Feeling this method would be more appropriate from now on; Community Development Director Miller requested to be allowed to interrupt in order to inform the Commission that two of the tenants of this location are Chief Auto Parts and 7-Eleven who are known to operate 24-hours a day Discussion continued with the comment that as long as there are timers for any kind of lighting other than low sodium, it would be appropriate. On Condition #15, feel that on major streets should provide for Class 2 bicycle striping - on River- ~ - -- Minutes of Planning Commission October 7, 1986 Page 15 - COMMERCIAL PROJECT 86-10 REVISED - PARK/ABRAMS (ARCHITECTURAL TEAM THREE) - CONTINUED side Drive and Lakeshore Drive should be provided; have been doing that on larger projects for years; on Condition #25, requesting a lot merger to consolidate the entire project as one parcel, and in the earlier hearing on T & S Development we provided individual separation of parcels for individual build- ings, so for clarifica~ion asked why we are asking that it be removed. . Senior Planner Bolland resppnded that the major concern that staff has is separation of parking from potential building sites and the existing parceling configuration doesn't reflect the plans before them. Discussion returned to the table with the request for clarifi- cation of three dimensional architectural type signage on Con- dion #5. Senior Planner Bolland responded that that has been a misprint. Discussion continued with concern on the signage on the eleva- tions. Feels a 7-Eleven internally illuminated sign might de- tract significantly from the architectural integrity of the building and asked what type of sign program are we requiring and was informed that Condition #17 addresses that; then asked if that would be coming to the Community Development Director and what type of criteria we were looking for. Senior Planner Bolland replied that it would be coming to the Community Development Director and they were asking the appli- cant to develop a criteria and that criteria to be reviewed by the City. Discussion then ensued on the types of signs and the intent that the signage blend well with the architectural integrity of the building; have seen some nice signage that is not box signage but is individual letters that are lit; same color; no signs facing residential. Community Development Director Miller commented that perhaps this could be most easily addressed by having the Master Sign- age Program returned to the Planning Commission for review. Chairman Washburn asked Mr. Bike if he had anything to say on the signage. Mr. Bike commented that typically the projects developed by Park/Abrams have a very stringent sign program. On practically all jobs they use an individual internally lit letter. They do not use any can signs. They feel it gives a better product for the center and better display and reading signage for the ten- ants. That would be what they would propose here in a Master -- Signage Program for the entire project. Discussion continued with concern over any auto parts store opened 24-hours a day and customers buying parts and oil and working on their cars on the parking lot; should pick up parts and leave; prohibit buying parts and oil and putting in the part or oil on the spot; should be signage to the patrons or posted signs on lots prohibiting this practice; Community Development Director Miller said the most appropriate means would be signage. Could attached a condition that if auto parts store is intended use in the center signage shall be included to prohibit any changing of parts or work to be done. Minutes of Planning Commission October 7, 1986 Page 16 COMMERCIAL PROJECT 86-10 REVISED - PARK/ABRAMS (ARCHITECTURAL TEAM THREE) - CONTINUED Discussion continued with comment on maybe adopting an ordi- nance; or just having auto parts store post signs prohibiting work. Chairman Washburn asked Mr. Bike if he had a comment. Mr. Bike stated in th~ lease agreement between the developer and the auto parts store there is a condition that prohibits auto repair from occurring\within the project. They are trying to accomplish the. same task the City is. Motion by Commissioner Callahan to recommend to City Council adoption of Negative Declaration No. 86-29 REVISED and approval of Commercial Project 87-10 REVISED with the findings and the 42 Conditions of Approval recommended in the Staff Report, second by Commissioner Kelley. - Commissioner Mellinger asked for discussion and amended Condi- tion #5 by replacing the word "Signage" with "Roofing;" amended Condition #15 by adding verbiage "Provide Class 2 bicycle strip- ing on Lakeshore Drive and Riverside Drive;" amended Condition #17 by adding verbiage "Master Signage Program to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission," and deleting verbiage "subject to approval of the Community Development Director;" and amending Condition #18 by changing verbiage to read "All exterior lighting shall be from decorative lighting equipped with automatic timers so such lighting is turned off between 11:00 p.m. and sunrise," and deleting the verbiage "low sodium lamps." Commissioner Callahan amended his motion to include the amended conditions, and Commissioner Kelley amended his second, with the amended conditions to read as follows: - Condition #5: Roofing shall be three dimensional architec- tural type, subject to the approval of the Community Development Director or his designee. Condition #15: Bicycle racks shall be provided adjacent to convenience market. Placement, design, and quantity shall be indicated on the Final Land- scaping Plan, and subject to the approval of the Community Development Director or his designee. Provide Class 2 bicycle striping on Lakeshore Drive and Riverside Drive. Condition #17: Signage locations as shown on building eleva- tions and plot plan are not approved. The applicant shall develop a Master Signage Pro- gram for the center which specifies consistent colors, materials and specifications which will advance the center's design theme and meet the provisions of Lake Elsinore Municipal Code, Chapter 17.95. Master Signage Program to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Comrnis- _ sion. All signage to be by City permit and in conformance with the Master Signage Pro- gram. The Master Signage Program shall be approved prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy or release of utilities. Indivi- dual sign permits are required for each sign at the time of tenant occupancy. Condition #18: All exterior lighting other than low pressure sodium shall be equipped with automatic timers Minutes of Planning commission October 7, 1986 Page 17 COMMERCIAL PROJECT 86-10 REVISED - PARK/ABRAMS (ARCHITECTURAL TEAM THREE) - CONTINUED - so such lighting is turned off between 11:00 p.m. and sunrise, and such lighting shall be oriented and shielded to prevent direct illumination on to adjacent properties or streets. Approved 5-0 "; 2 . Commercial Project 86-14 - System Construction (Renee E. Rich) Planner Hensley stated the ,~pplicant has asked.fo~ a continu- ance until October 21, 1986, and that the Comm1SS10n has a copy of his letter requesting this. Motion by Commissioner Brown to continue Commercial Project 86-14 until the meeting on October 21, 1986. Motion died for lack of a second. Chairman Washburn asked if there was anyone in the audience who came to the meeting to address this item. Upon receiving an affirmative reply, Chairman Washburn asked anyone who wished to speak in favor of Commercial Project 86-14 to come forward. with no one wishing to speak in favor, Chairman Washburn asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Anthony Temple, 1506 West Heald, Lake Elsinore, asked if a two- story commercial building could be put there on Lakeshore Drive and was informed that technically, yes, it could, and he could live there, according to the old Zoning Code, which is what this project was filed under. The new Code would not allow it. He doesn't feel there is enough area for parking spaces. He feels this project would be an eye sore, and would be in his backyard. There are piles a~d piles of junk and a busted up trailer there now. If he is allowed to build, how long does he get and does he have to build to blend in with area. Was told the applicant would have to have an architectural review and he would have a time limit on permits issued to him. Mr. Temple was told he could come into the City and file a com- plaint on the rubbish on this lot and something will be done. John Rogers, 18356 Sanders Drive, Lake Elsinore, stated he owned the property immediately behind this piece of property. He thinks the traffic hazards will be a problem. He under- stands there is going to be quarters for handicapped and feels it is a bad location for handicapped. Bill Wolcher, for Nicholas Wolcher, who is in escrow for same house behind that property. Wanted to be assured that the Commission will consider the aesthetics of the area and uphold the upgrading feel that seems to be affecting that area, not to mention the loss of the view and the value of the homes. Discussion commenced on the proposal not meeting the old Park- ing Code; no landscaping around the building proposed; no set- backs required under the old Code; trash enclosure being close to Lakeshore; seeing nothing of value in the project; will add nothing to Lakeshore Drive; concurring with all findings of City staff; project does not meet building code nor the proper- ty values or quality of neighborhood. Planner Hensley informed the Commission there is a change in the Findings to make them correct. In the second finding, the wording "General Plan Policy of the City" should be changed to read, "Design Review criteria of City Code Section 2.28." Minutes of Planning Commission October 7, 1986 Page 18 COMMERCIAL PROJECT 86-14 - SYSTEM CONSTRUCTION (RENEE ~ RICH) _ CONTINUED Chairman Washburn asked the applicant if he still wished the continuance of his project and the applicant answered in the affirmative. Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to deny Commercial Project 86-14 based on the fi~dings as presented by staff and amended on #2, second by Commissioner Callahan. Approved 4-1 Mr. Rich protested not bei~g able to speak and was informed he had the opportunity to speak when the Chairman asked for anyone in favor of the project to come forward. He was in- formed that he could now protest the Planning Commission's denial of his project in writing to the City Council within ten (10) days and pay the appeal fee. - 3. Review of Conditional Use Permit 85-2 - Alfred Anderson _ Chairman Washburn stated this was a request for continuance and in view of the request feels it is appropriate and would entertain a motion. Motion by Commissioner Brown to continue Review of Conditional Use Permit 85-2 to the meeting on December 2, 1986, second by Commissioner Mellinger. Approved 5-0 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S REPORT Community Development Director Miller stated they have distributed to the Commission this evening copies of the new Title 17 that have now been edited and all the typos hopefully removed, and all the changes that have been approved by City Council have now been incor- porated. Should have a complete text now. It was announced to the audience that the new Title 17 is available at the Planning Division for $10.00. - Community Development Director Miller stated that several of the Planning Commissioners have been working on a Design Review Sub- committee and that he must apologize to those members because through various constraints within his department they have not assembled the information they had given to them. They will have it available at the next meeting. Community Development Director Miller informed the Commission that the city has commenced looking at annexing additional areas to the Redevelopment Areas and he suggested at the last meeting that they were going to try to schedule a Joint Study Session with the City Council. As yet they have not gotten a firm date on that, but as soon as they do have a date with the Consultant and the City Council they will advise the Commission. The purpose of the study Session would be for the Consultant to review with both Planning Commission and City Council the steps we would go through in annexing an addi- tional area to Redevelopment Project Areas. PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION - Commissioner Kelley: Stated he would li~e to thank the City Engineering for repairing the monumental pot hole on Lakeshore in such quick time. Also, Commissioner Kelley stated that at the next meeting of the Planning Commission on October 21, 1986, he will be out of the state. Commissioner Callahan: Nothing to report. Minutes of Planning Commission October 7, 1986 Page 19 PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION - CONTINUED -- commissioner Brown: Stated he would like to go further into the information on possibly requiring grease traps on large commercial projects for on-~it7 drainage if it is in fact going to go into the lake. Comm1ss1oner Brown sald he would be glad to bring in the information, if they would like. " Community Development Director Miller commented that he and Senior Planner Dave Bolland spoke with the representative of the Department of Fish and Game this afternoon\at some length and he did bring this topic to their attention and they were going to try to work out some additional communication and information, and any information that Commissioner Brown has would certainly be appreciated. Chairman Washburn said another point source would be all the irri- gated waters that are leaving nurseried areas that are providing a lot of fertilization. Commissioner Brown stated this is being required by the Department of Fish and Game for any tracts for ground water off of the streets now, and especially in this area that would enter any habitat what- soever. Commissioner Mellinqer: stated there is a situation at Grand at the terminus of Machado that is rather dangerous. There are four corners there but only stop signs on a couple of them which makes it quite confusing. Especially -- when the two stop signs are perpendicular to each other. The problem is that some of it is County and some of it is city. Was hoping we could coordinate some efforts in order to resolve it. Can understand stops on one street but not on both streets and leaving the other two wide open. Very dangerous and something is going to happen there one of these days. Chairman Washburn: He also requested formally to the Mayor today for a Study Session and he said he would try to set one at the next City Council meeting and he wanted the Community Development Director to be aware of that since he may be contacting him too. Chairman Washburn stated he wanted to again express his thanks and appreciation for those who were involved in getting on the 17th at the Women's Club. For those who attended, he heard it was a very good function and the City provided the agenda and the items were dealing basically for Planning Commissioners and Planning Directors throughout both counties and the topic was "Lake Management". They provided the video presentation, the model and oral presentation by Chuck Bryant and he heard it went quite well. There being no further adjourned at 9:54 p.m. Commissioner Brown. Approved 5-0 business, the Lake Elsinore Planning Commission Motion by Commissioner Kelley, second by Respectfully submitted, Ilai f!~~ Ruth Edwards Acting Planning Commission Secretary g:ro~diotdJv~ . Gar~ 'ashburn, Ch~U;an ,.....;..""'.. c MINUTES OF HELD ON THE LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION 21ST DAY OF OCTOBER 1986 THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:03 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by community Development Director Miller. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: commissioners: Brown, Mellinger, Callahan and Washburn. ABSENT: commissioner: Kelley Also present were Community Development Director Miller and Senior Planner Bolland. MINUTE ACTION commissioner Mellinger stated that on Page 16, condition number 18 should read: "All exterior lighting other than low pressure sodium shall be equipped with automatic timers so such lighting is turned off between 11:00 p.m. and sunrise, and such lighting shall be oriented and shielded to prevent direct illumination on to adjacent properties or streets." Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to approve minutes of October 7, 1986 with the above correction, second by Commissioner Brown. Approved 4-0 PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Tentative Parcel Map 21976 and Tentative Parcel Map 21977 - Thompson Investment (James E. Thompson) - Chairman Washburn asked to be excused due to conflict of interest, and turned the gavel over to Vice Chairman Callahan. Senior Planner Bolland presented proposal to divide two (2) 1.5 acre lots for industrial use into six (6) parcels each, under two separate Parcel Maps, ranging in size from 8,240 to 12,753 square feet. Three (3) acres total in two lots located on the east side of Birch Street (TPM 21977) approxi- mately 600 feet due west of the intersection of Minthorn Street and Chaney Street. Vice Chairman Callahan opened the public hearing at 7:09 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of Tentative Parcel Maps 21976 and Tentative Parcel Map 21977. Jim Thompson, applicant, stated that> he was in favor of the proposal and that his remarks would deal with the design review aspect or the reason for the project as well as the parcel maps. - Mr. Thompson stated that he was requesting the approval of a development concept that has been used successfully in cities near by (Costa Mesa, Orange, Anaheim and Corona). This is a concept of building small industrial buildings to suit the needs of small companies, small users. This proposal would cater to businesses who are desirous of obtaining the bene- fits of real estate ownership, which are not currently avail- able in Lake Elsinore and in many other areas. Mr. Thompson stated that this project meets the requirements of Title 17 as to land coverage, parking, landscaping, and believes the project will also be aesthetically pleasing. Minutes of Planning Commission October 21, 1986 Page 2 TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 21976 AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 21977 _ THOMPSON INVESTMENT CONTINUED Mr. Thompson stated that he has reviewed staff's recommenda- tions and finds them acceptable, but we do have some serious concerns with conditions 10, 11, 12 and 17. Mr. Thompson stated that the current subdivision of Warm Springs Industrial Park is designed to drain onto adjacent property which is also owned by the developer. It was their intent to handle this drainage, and that he has no control over that adjacent parcel, and it is his belief that it is not the developer's desire to deal with some of these agen- cies at this time. Mr. Thompson stated there are requirements here for me to deal with the U.S. Corps of Engineers, Department of Fish and Game and how these things affect wetlands. I was never aware that this would be a problem, and I am not sure how to deal with it. I would like to request that the Planning Commission eliminate the requirement that these agencies be dealt with. We do have a negative declaration issued and yet these requirements are still put forth. Mr. Thompson stated that Mr. Fred Crowe was present and perhaps he could give more in depth information. Mr. Fred Crowe, of Butterfield Surveys, representing the Warm Springs Group, stated they are the sellers of these parcels on the parcel maps that Mr. Thompson has purchased. They own the land, approximately 600 feet between the parcel map and the outflow channel. From the beginning they have been willing to accept the drainage from this parcel map as it comes from there. They plan to continue to farm this land between the channel and the parcel map until final decisions are made on the outflow channel (final grade line and final alignment). Mr. Crowe stated that he has recently been in contact with County Flood Control and Engineering Science and received some of their initial working drawings for the channel. How- ever, they are still doing soil testing, trying to evaluate how the project might be built. In the interim, the owners would like to continue to accept the water onto their land, farm their land and later develop their land once the final decisions are made on the channel. They do not want ditches, pipes or this area torn up so that it cannot be farmed. The amount of water leaving this subdivision is minimal; it is leaving already in the flood plain. The projects themselves are being protected by elevating the floors out of the flood plain, and they do not want their property broken up by any flood channels that they can not maintain. They can easily maintain the project now with disking and weed control. If they have ditches and things across they would have to use special equipment and they would not be able to use their land for farming in this interim. This has been their plan from the concept of the original map. I think that the City needs the industrial commercial development, and I think that this would be a hindrance to using these other parcels of these kind of conditions are put on. The owners do not have a problem work- ing with Mr. Thompson or any other owners, but they do not want to be involved in dealing with the Army Corps of Engineers, Flood Control or anyone else until those people have made their final decision on the channel, and then they hope to develop their land to fit into those plans. Mr. Crowe stated that in regards to the conditions of approval he would like condition number 11 removed, doesn't believe it - -- ...., ::''!:,~,''~\H~. Minutes of Planning Commission October 21, 1986 Page 3 TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 21976 AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 21977 - THOMPSON INVESTMENT CONTINUED is a problem with Mr. Brown and his group thinks that they are held to condition number 12, as on the original map; do not believe that they have a problem with condition number 10. I think that Mr. Thompson wants his lots to drain out to Birch Street; condition number 17, pertaining to the wet- land area and the Fish and Game concerns, all of the land between this parcel map and the outflow channel has been farmed, and that is where the affluent from the sewer plant has been, and it is certainly not a Fish and Game wetland. Mr. Crowe stated that they would like to have conditions 11 and 17 removed. Vice Chairman asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor of Tentative Parcel Map 21976 and Tentative Parcel Map 21977. Ms. Judy McGill, Box 1436, Lake Elsinore, (one of the owners of the Warm Springs Industrial Park) stated that she would like to speak on behalf of the project stating that she thinks that is a very good project and something that the City of Lake Elsinore needs. Ms. McGill stated that as Mr. Crowe pointed out, it had always been the intent that those flows would sheet flow across our property (the twenty acres below there) until which time the flood control channel was designed and a final design created, and at that time we would go forward with the development of that lower twenty acres. .-- Vice Chairman Callahan asked Ms. McGill if they owned all of the property between this project and the outflow channel? Ms. McGill answered in the affirmative. Vice Chairman Callahan asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak in favor of Tentative Parcel Map 21976 and Tentative Parcel Map 21977. Receiving no response, Vice Chairman Cal- lahan asked if there was anyone wishing to speak in opposition. Receiving no response, Vice Chairman Callahan asked if there was anyone wishing to speak on the project. Receiving no re- sponse, Vice Chairman Callahan closed the public hearing at 7:19 p.m. Commissioner Brown asked if there was such a thing as drainage easements for sheet flow or if it has to be confined and whether or not the drainage issue could be addressed this way. Community Development Director Miller stated that typically you would look for drainage easements for a confined flow, but it is possible to have an easement. However, there are two things to identify: the interim solution, until such time as the outflow channel is designed and constructed, and perma- nent solution of disposing of the drainage once the outflow -- channel is constructed. Considerable discussion ensued on the property Changing hands during the interim period and if we have a drainage easement across the property then that would have to be maintained; Fish and Game Permit #1603 and Fish and Game enforcement regardless of what the City would require as a condition of approval; procedure for dealing with the Department of Fish and Game; background on concerns pertaining to the Army Corps of Engineers and the Riverside County Flood Control; City'S relationship with these agencies in regard to development; proposals being circulated to the Department of Fish and Game Minutes of Planning Commission October 21, 1986 Page 4 TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 21976 AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 21977 _ THOMPSON INVESTMENT CONTINUED and the Army Corps of Engineers for their review and which permits are required (whether it is #404 for wetlands as re- quired by Federal law through the Army Corps of Engineers, or whether it is #1603 for stream alteration permit or possible impact on habitat); designs for the outflow channel and drain- age facilities in this area; disputes between the Department of Fish and Game and the Riverside County Flood Control District regarding requirements; continuing proposal to allow sufficient time to consult with the Army Corps of Engineers and the Riverside County Flood Control District regarding the outflow channel; grade for the channel and the flow line as it exists now; condition number 10 and 11, pertaining to what agency (the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Riverside County Flood Control or the City) would approve the interim drainage facilities; condition number 12, pertaining to the drainage letter from downstream property owners, and there only being one property owner from the site to the wash; drainage being directed to the existing wash or to the proposed wash and clarification on condition number 12, since there is only one property owner drainage could be directed to the proposed wash; condition number 18, pertaining to Tentative Parcel Maps being conditioned upon the approval of Industrial Project 86-2 and the intent of this condition; reciprocal easements and condi- tion number 30 from Industrial Project 86-2 being added as a condition to the Tentative Parcel Maps. A lengthy discussion ensued on condition number 12, pertaining to the drainage letter from downstream property owner, cover- ing where such letter would be kept; protection of future buyers and the City; continuing to farm the property and utilization of sheet flow; once the sheet flow is accepted it being accepted forever; in lieu of a drainage letter having a deed restriction against the title of the property; effect a deed restriction would have on the property; proposal to sub- divide and develop two lots from a senior map in which there is already a drainage letter on file; having a drainage ease- ment accepting all sheet flow instead of a deed restriction; need of legal consultation pertaining to drainage documents; and enforcement of drainage letter versus drainage easement. Discussion ensued on whether or not there are directives on industrial condominiums or industrial planned unit develop- ments; City having limited area zoned for industrial and the need to establish percentage to be allocated for small industrial use; concern with small lots in industrial zones-- lack of common maintenance and access and the importance of reciprocal agreements; concern with small industrial areas having larger industrial users in smaller buildings and then having loading/unloading being performed in the streets; pro- posal being consistent with the ordinance as written. ..., .... Discussion ensued on condition number 10 and 11, pertaining to the applicant's request to eliminate these two conditions; how the drainage issue would be taken care since it was the only significant impact identified; if this was not already covered __ by the recordation of the original parcel map and drainage ac- ceptance letter; whether or not the drainage acceptance letter is a legal and binding document; purpose of the SUbdivision Map Act--is that cities control the design and drainage improve- ments to eliminate possible civil matters; if condition number 11 is eliminated what control the City has over drainage. . Minutes of Planning Commission October 21, 1986 Page 5 TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 21976 AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 21977 - THOMPSON INVESTMENT CONTINUED Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to recommend adoption of Negative Declaration No. 86-45 based upon the findings as listed and specifically pointing out that condition number 11, particularly listed as a mitigation measure could not be withdrawn otherwise an Environmental Impact Report would be required, and approval of Tentative Parcel Maps 21976 and 21977 also based upon the six findings as listed and with the conditions as listed in the Staff Report, and add- ing condition number 28, and condition number 29, which will read as follows: - Condition No. 28: .- Condition No. 29: "The developer shall cause to be recorded an irrevocable reciprocal parking, circulation and landscape maintenance easement in favor of all lots of Tentative Parcel Map 21976, subject to the approval of the Director of Community Develop- ment. In addition, CC & R's shall be approved by the City Attorney and Director of Community Develop- ment which enforce standards of building maintenance, participation in landscape maintenance, prohibi- tion of outside vehicle or material storage. That an irrevocable offer for the same easement be recorded for Tentative Parcel Map 21977." "The developer shall cause to be recorded an irrevocable reciprocal parking, circulation and landscape maintenance easement in favor of all lots of Tentative Parcel Map 21977, subject to the approval of the Director of Community Develop- ment. In addition, CC & R's shall be approved by the City Attorney and Director of Community Develop- ment which enforce standards of building maintenance, participation in landscape maintenance, prohibi- tion of outside vehicle or material storage. That an irrevocable offer for the same easement be recorded for Tentative Parcel Map 21976." Second by Commissioner Brown with discussion. Commissioner Brown asked if the maker of the motion would add the following verbiage to condition number 12, "that the ap- -- plicant shall provide a recorded drainage letter from down- stream property owners to the Temescal Wash accepting drain- age." Commissioner Mellinger amended his motion to include this verbiage in condition number 12, and in addition to include verbiage "subject to the approval of the City Attorney and City Engineer". Condition No. 12: "Applicant shall provide a recorded drainage letter from downstream pro- perty owners to the Temescal Wash accepting drainage, subject to the Minutes of Planning Commission October 21, 1986 Page 6 TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 21976 AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 21977 _ THOMPSON INVESTMENT CONTINUED approval of the City Attorney and the City Engineer." Second by Commissioner Brown. Approved 3-0 Chairman Washburn excused At this time, 8:37 p.m., Vice Chairman Callahan called for a five minute recess. - The Planning Commission reconvened at 8: 42 p.m. BUSINESS ITEMS 1. Commercial Project 86-8 - Terry Shook Community Development Director Miller stated that the applicant is not present this evening, and staff has had no further con- tact with the applicant since this item was continued, but will go ahead and present the report. Senior Planner Bolland stated that the Commission at their meeting on June 17, 1986, continued Commercial Project 86-8 to the next available meeting after the Commission assumed the Design Review duties. However, the Design Review Board approved this proposal on June 17, 1986, subject to thirty- three conditions. Senior Planner Bolland stated that the zoning is now "C-O" (Commercial Office) this was approved by City Council on October 14, 1986. At the same meeting City Council continued the related Conditional Exception Permit 86-8 until they could consider that item in conjunction with the Commercial Project. - Senior Planner Bolland stated that Commercial Project 86-8 is a proposal to construct two office buildings, located on the south side of Flint Street between Davis Street and Mohr Street. The project is two one-story office buildings with independent parking bays and a five to seven foot retaining wall, materials to be utilized are stucco with cedar shake mansard roofing. Senior Planner Bolland stated that staff concerns are with circulation, handicapped parking, and trash and transformed locations. Senior Planner Bolland stated that staff is recommending that condition number 8, be amended to include the following verbi- age, and the addition of condition number 34, which will read: Condition NO.8: "Materials and colors depicted on approved materials board shall be used unless modified by the Plann- ing Commission. Cedar shake shall be treated to provide Class "B" fire resistance." - Condition No. 34: "These conditions of approval shall be attached or reproduced upon page one of the building plans prior to their acceptance by the Division of Building and Safety." ~:;':~".l;'~ Minutes of Planning Commission October 21, 1986 Page 7 COMMERCIAL PROJECT 86-8 - TERRY SHOOK CONTINUED Chairman Washburn asked if there was anyone present wishing to speak in favor, in opposition or on the project. Receiving no response, Chairman Washburn asked for discussion at the table. Discussion was held on landscaping being placed between build- ing one and two at the edge of the parking lot; Exhibit "C" pertaining to location of the transformer and trash enclosure and the direct view from the of the existing residence; condi- tion number 11, whether or not the intent of this condition is to meet the requirements of Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District; condition number 18, pertaining to the Final Land- scaping/Irrigation Plan if this would come back to the Commis- sion for review and approval or if this would be handled at staff level; condition number 23, pertaining to exterior light- ing and adding the following verbiage "except such lighting equipped with automatic timers to turn off non low pressure sodium fixtures by 11:00 p.m. and sunrise"; condition number 6.d., pertaining to enhancements for front elevations on both buildings; landscaping plan coming back before the Commission so that the Commission can see what the enhancements and land- scaping has done for the project. Motion by commissioner Mellinger to recommend adoption of Negative Declaration No. 86-23 and approval of Commercial Project 86-6 with the revisions to condition number 8, condi- tion number 11, condition number 18, condition number 23, and the addition of condition number 34, as follows: Condition No.8: "Materials and colors depicted on approved materials board shall be used unless modified by the Plann- ing Commission. Cedar shake shall be treated to provide Class "B" fire resistance." Condition No. 11: "The applicant shall meet all requirements of Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District regard- ing water and sewer service, including: a) Applicant should contact the District (EVMWD) so as to determine connection fees for both water and sewer. Condition No. 18: b) Present to the District (EVMWD) for approval water and sewer plans showing connection points. c) Water and sewer connection fees to be paid prior to issuance of building permits." "A final landscaping/irrigation plan is to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission, and shall indicate: a) Water demand at each valve and irrigation details. b) All shrubs shall be 5 gallon size. Minutes of Planning Commission October 21, 1986 Page 8 COMMERCIAL PROJECT 86-8 - TERRY SHOOK CONTINUED c) Shrub plantings for north and west elevations (Building #1) as foundation plantings for planter areas adjacent to the building, sidewalk and parking lots. d) Solid screen planting on rear of buildings adjacent to retaining wall. ...... e) Show street tree locations and selection." Condition No. 23: "All exterior lighting sources shall be low pressure sodium shielded and directed in~such a way so as not to shine on adjacent properties. Except other types of lighting equipped with automatic timers, so that non low pressure sodium fixtures will be turned off between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and sunrise." Condition No. 34: "These conditions of approval shall be attached or reproduced upon page one of the building plans prior to their acceptance by the Division of Building and Safety." Second by Commissioner Brown with a request that condition number 6.d. also come back to the Planning Commission for review. - Commissioner Mellinger amended his motion to include that condition number 6 a through d come back before the Planning Commission for approval. Approved 4-0 2. Industrial Project 86-2 - Thompson Investment (James E. Thompson) - Chairman Washburn asked to be excused due to conflict of interest. Senior Planner Bolland presented proposal to construct a planned industrial development of twelve (12) 4,018 to 5,548 square foot buildings with associated parking and internal circulation in two major phases, on three acres located on the east side of Birch street in the Warm Springs Industrial Park, west of the intersection of Minthorn and Chaney Streets. Vice Chairman Callahan asked if there was anyone present wishing to speak in favor, in opposition or on the project. Mr. Jim Thompson, applicant, stated that he was in favor of the project, but there are a couple of things that he would to discuss. The two foot gap between the buildings was probably architecturally arbitrary. However, the two inches may be very difficult to do as these are tilt-up buildings and not certain that they will work that closely together, maybe a four or six inch gap would be more acceptable from a construction standpoint, and still provide the protection that the City wants. - Minutes of Planning Commission October 21, 1986 Page 9 INDUSTRIAL PROJECT 86-2 = THOMPSON INVESTMENT (JAMES ~ THOMPSON) CONTINUED Mr. Thompson then addressed, referring to the site plan pre- sented location of interior planters, where they have less than five feet; screen walls being provided adjacent to the loading doors, and location of trash enclosures. Vice Chairman Callahan asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak in favor of the project. Receiving no response, Vice Chairman Callahan asked if anyone wished to speak in opposi- tion. Receiving no response, Vice Chairman Callahan asked for discussion at the table. Discussion was held on interior planters, whether or not this would impact parking as presented, and the intent behind the screen walls and location of the trash enclosures; separation of buildings being left up to the Community Development Director; amending condition number 7, adding verbiage: "Ex- cept other types of lighting equipped with automatic timers, so that non low pressure sodium fixtures will be turned off between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and sunrise"; and signage for the proposal. Motion by Commissioner Brown to recommend adoption of Negative Declaration No. 86-45 and approval of Industrial Project 86-2 with the findings as listed and the 30 conditions listed in the Staff Report, amending condition number 7; the separation of the walls shall be up to the Community Development Director; condition number 30, to be replaced with condition number 30 and 31 as worded on the Tentative Parcel Maps, as follows: - Condition No.7: Condition No. 30: - Condition No. 31: "All exterior lighting sources shall be low pressure sodium shielded and directed in such a way so as not to shine on adjacent properties. Except other types of lighting equipped with automatic timers, so that non low pressure sodium fixtures will be turned off between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and sunrise." "The developer shall cause to be recorded an irrevocable reciprocal parking, circulation and landscape maintenance easement in favor of all lots of Tentative Parcel Map 21976, subject to the approval of the Director of Community Develop- ment. In addition, CC & Rls shall be approved by the City Attorney and Director of Community Develop- ment which enforce standards of building maintenance, participation in landscape maintenance, prohibi- tion of outside vehicle or material storage. That an irrevocable offer for the same easement be recorded for Tentative Parcel Map 21977." "The developer shall cause to be recorded an irrevocable reciprocal parking, circulation and landscape maintenance easement in favor of all lots of Tentative Parcel Map 21977, subject to the approval of the Director of Community Develop- ment. In addition, CC & Rls shall be approved by the City Attorney Minutes of Planning Commission October 21, 1986 Page 10 INDUSTRIAL PROJECT 86-2 - THOMPSON INVESTMENT (JAMES ~ THOMPSON) CONTINUED and Director of Community Develop- ment which enforce standards of building maintenance, participation in landscape maintenance, prohibi- tion of outside vehicle or material storage. That an irrevocable offer __ for the same easement be recorded for Tentative Parcel Map 21976." Second by Commissioner Mellinger. Approved 3-0 Chairman Washburn excused Chairman Washburn returned to the table at 9:11 p.m. INFORMATIONAL 1. Planning Commission Design Subcommittee - Design Guidelines _ Commissioner Mellinger, Chairman of the Design Subcommittee, stated that basically these guidelines were a result of a number of meetings, and the next step is how these guidelines will be formulated. Discussion was held on implementation of these guidelines; having guidelines as a handout to developers; title for the guidelines; architectural guidelines pertaining to materials; larger shopping centers being allowed different base level elevation for individual buildings within the center; pre- senting these guidelines to City Council for their review and input at a joint study session; adding specific items, as examples, as pointed out by Commissioner Mellinger; and document being limited to two pages. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that the De- sign Guidelines be discussed at a joint study session with City Council. .... COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S REPORT Community Development Director Miller reminded the Commission of the joint study session that has been scheduled with City Council and Redevelopment Agency for Wednesday, October 29, 1986, at 6:30 p.m., to discuss various policy issues. Chairman Washburn asked if there was going to be an agenda. Community Development Director Miller stated that he did not believe that an agenda has been clearly identified, and stated that it might be helpfUl if Chairman Washburn would coordinate some of the particular concerns of the Commission, and perhaps we could address a memo to Council outlining some of the things the Commission would like to discuss. Community Development Director Miller stated that we are in the process of studying the possibility of annexing some additional areas to the Redevelopment Project Areas. Hopefully, at that time, our consultant can present an informational background report to Commission and City Council. Chairman Washburn asked if the consultant can make that meeting how much time would they require for the presentation? .... Minutes of Planning Commission October 21, 1986 Page 11 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S REPORT CONTINUED Community Development Director Miller stated that,this was some- thing that could be.qu~te short or ~engthy depend~ng upon the desires of the Comm~ss~on and Counc~l. Commissioner Brown stated that since the meeting is being held at the request of the Planning Commission, it is up to the Com- mission to put together an agenda, so that we cover the items that we want addressed, and ask Council if there is anything they would like added on the agenda, so that we can get to the issues and not spend time discussing what we are going to discuss. Chairman Washburn stated that he would get with each of the Com- missioners individually and come up with some items and forward them to staff. PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Commissioner Brown: Nothing to report. commissioner Callahan: Referred back to the Planned unit Development (PUD) Ordinance, thinks that we need to be more consistent. We do not have a PUD Ordinance any more for industrial projects than we do for R-l, R-2 and R-3. The fact that the verbiage is in the M-l Zone and states that you do not have to comply with a lot of the minimum standards provided you are going to master plan a PUD. What we are doing, in one case, under the M-l Zone is that we are allowing a developer to come in and say this is my master plan and it is a PUD and we accept it. Why are we not doing the same thing with R-l, R-2 and R-3 or any other zone, because, you can have a PUD within anyone of these. What are we going to do, are we going to allow the developer to come in and say that I am going to master plan this as a PUD and that is it, or are we going to have a PUD Ordinance which is going to govern and set guidelines for all the different zones. Chairman Washburn suggested that this be one of the items brought up under Title 17, have it on the agenda at the joint study session--Discussion about Title 17, because it is a document that is not fully completed. Commissioner Mellinger stated that he agrees with this, and there was certainly no intent not to do a PUD Ordinance. It was just a matter of discussing how we want to word it. There are some very strong issues that will be coming up soon since we are getting into hillside areas, as to how we want to transfer densities and such. -- Community Development Director Miller stated that as Chairman Wash- burn has indicated this would be a good topic for the joint study session and prioritize the remaining areas identified. There were six or eight areas identified either by Planning Commission or City Council for further study. We indicated, at that time, that over the next six to eight months we would anticipate looking at some of those. It would be helpful to prioritize what those are. Council has already identified the Special Events Ordinance, adopted in the new Title 17, as something that staff is to return to Council within the next sixty days with recommended revisions. It would be very helpful if Council and Commission were to agree upon which sections we would be concentrating on first. Minutes of Planning Commission October 21, 1986 Page 12 PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION CONTINUED Commissioner Mellinqer: Nothing to report. Chairman Washburn: Nothing to report. - There being no further business, the Lake Elsinore Planning Commis- sion adjourned at 9:38 p.m. Motion by Commissioner Callahan, second by Commissioner Mellinger. Approved 4-0 pproved, f11/~~ Washburn, an Respectfully ~. . L~nda Gr~ndstaff Planning Commission Secretary - ~ . MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON THE 4TH ~y OF NOVEMBER 1986 THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:03 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Commissioner Kelley. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Commissioners: Brown, Mellinger, Callahan, Kelley and Washburn ABSENT: None Also present were Community Development Director Miller and Planner Hensley. MINUTE ACTION Motion by Commissioner Callahan to approve minutes of October 21, 1986, as presented, second by Commissioner Brown. Approved 5-0 PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Variance 86-12 - Heath & Company - Planner Hensley presented proposal to vary from the City Sign Code and construct a 170 square foot, 60 foot high pole sign located at 31712 Mission Trail, Taco Bell. Chairman Washburn opened the public hearing at 7:06 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of Variance 86-12. Mr. Joe Beasley, representative of Heath & Company, presented photographs of the site; gave background report on the pro- popsal, and stated that applicant would be willing to accept a smaller sign provided freeway visibility is available. Chairman Washburn asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak in favor of Variance 86-12. Receiving no response, Chairman Washburn asked if there was anyone wishing to speak in opposition. Receiving no response, Chairman Washburn closed the public hearing at 7:09 p.m. A brief discussion was held on state and local justification for variances; non-conforming signs, and existing sign on site. Motion by Commissioner Callahan to deny Variance 86-12 based on the findings listed in the Staff Report, second by Commis- sioner Brown. Approved 5-0 2. Variance 86-11 - Duane Cline, M.D. - Planner Hensley presented proposal to vary from the parking standards to facilitate a building addition, at 119 West Sulphur Street. Chairman Washburn opened the pUblic hearing at 7:14 p.m., ask- ing if anyone wished to speak in favor of Variance 86-11. Re- ceiving no response, Chairman Washburn asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Receiving no response, Chairman Wash- burn closed the public hearing at 7:15 p.m. A brief discussion was held on staff findings; proposal being against City Code; parking in the downtown area; parking-in- lieu fees and the need of further study along with input from the Downtown Business Association. Motion by Commissioner Callahan to deny Variance 86-11 based on the findings as listed in the Staff Report, second by Com- missioner Mellinger. .. Minutes of Planning Commission November 4, 1986 Page 2 VARIANCE 86-11 = DUANE CLINE. M.D. CONTINUED Chairman Washburn asked if there was any further discussion. Commissioner Kelley asked if a denial without prejUdice, would enable the applicant to come back at a future date and possibly mitigate with fees, or if a straight denial is appropriate? Chairman Washburn stated that in either case the applicant could come back if the conditions were to change. Community Development Director Miller stated that under the cur- rent code, an applicant may not make the same application within one year of the denial unless there was a significant change in the conditions affecting the development. Commissioner Mellinger stated that his preference is that if a program is established, utilizing either parking-in-lieu fees or off-site parking, that it be accomplished through a mechanism other than a variance. There being no further discussion Chairman Washburn called for the question. Approved 5-0 BUSINESS ITEMS - 1. Industrial Project 86-3 - Industrial Concepts I - Planner Hensley presented proposal to construct nine (9) "spec" industrial build- ings for multi-tenant usage, on Lots 2 through 5 of the Warm Springs Business Park, 93,000 square feet of building area on -- 6.08 net acres. Planner Hensley stated that staff met with the developer and the engineer of the project. As a result of that meeting, staff is recommending the following amendments to conditions 14, 24, 36, 37 and 38: Condition No. 14: "Meet all County Fire Department re- quirements for fire protection, as listed or as amended and approved by the County Fire Department. a). The water mains shall be capable of providing a potential fire flow of 4000 GPM and an actual fire flow available from anyone hydrant shall be 2000 GPM for 2 hour duration at 20 PSI residual operating pressure. b). Approved super fire hydrants, (6" x4"x 2-1/2") shall be located at each street intersection and spaced not more than 330 feet apart in any direction, with no portion of any lot frontage more than 165 feet from a fire hydrant. c). Applicant shall furnish one copy of the water system plans to the Fire Department for review. Plans shall conform to fire hydrant types, lo- cations and spacing and, the system shall meet the fire flow require- ments. Plans shall be approved by -- .. Minutes of Planning Commission November 4, 1986 Page 3 INDUSTRIAL PROJECT 86-3 = INDUSTRIAL CONCEPTS I CONTINUED Condition No. 24: Condition No. 36: Condition No. 37: I Condition No. 38: d) . a registered civil engineer and Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District with the following certi- fication: "I certify that the de- sign of the water system is in ac- cordance with the requirements prescribed by the Riverside County Fire Department". The required water system including fire hydrants shall be installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building materials being placed on an individual lot." "Developer shall plant erosion control vegetation or provide approved erosion control devices, in Phase II area before final certificate of Occupancy for Phase I buildings for any slopes in excess of three feet (3') or for any concentrated drainage." "Developer shall obtain appropriate per- mits from Army Corps of Engineers and Department of Fish and Game, if required." "The developer shall grade the entire pro- ject to drain to Chaney street and shall provide drainage acceptance letters and interim drainage facilities to return drainage to sheet flow condition." DELETE. "The developer shall work with the de- veloper of the Warm Springs Industrial Park (Tentative Parcel Map 21297), River- side County Flood District and the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers to insure immedi- ate adequate interim and permanent dis- posal of all run-off from Chaney Street into Temescal Wash in anticipation of full development of the outflow channel. Such plans are subject to the review and ap- proval of the Directors of community Services and Community Development and in- terim measures shall be operational prior to issuance of certificates of Occupancy for Industrial Project 86-3." Planner Hensley stated that in addition to the above recommended amendments to conditions of approval, staff is recommending that condition number 26 be amended to read: Condition No. 26: "Building 3 shall be relocated four feet (4') to the north (towards building 1) and the seven (7) parking spaces on the north of the building shall be deleted, or as approved by the Community Develop- ment Director." " Minutes of Planning Commission November 4, 1986 Page 4 INDUSTRIAL PROJECT 86-3 = INDUSTRIAL CONCEPTS I CONTINUED Chairman Washburn asked if the applicant would like to speak on the project. Mr. Art Nelson, applicant, responded that upon discussion with his architect on condition number 26, his architect informed him that the City Code requirement was for one (1) twelve by __ by forty foot (12'x 40') loading zone per building. Believes that Building 3 and the parking spaces can be left where they are and still meet that requirement. He then pointed out the loading zone location on the site plan exhibit. Chairman Washburn asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak or comment on the project. Mr. Fred Crowe, of Butterfield Surveys, stated that staff was very helpful in trying to work out something that was acceptable to the seller of the property, the developer and of benefit to the City, and if there are any questions would be happy to answer them. Discussion was held on Environmental Assessment number 13.a, b., and f., pertaining to transportation/circulation; condi- tion number 26, pertaining to loading area per building/tenant and aisle widths; landscaping--upgrading entrances; trees utilized in parking aisles, areas to the south and the parking overhang (3 to 4 foot width overhang) not allowing trees to grow; and significant impact on converting M-l Zone to C-M Zoning; separation of Phase I and Phase II; landscaping along Chaney, whether or not this was to be of a berm type; whether or not sidewalks would be required along Chaney; and memorandum __ amending conditions of approval. Community Development Director Miller stated that there was one other item that was discussed with the applicant which was not included in the memorandum and that was condition number 22. The applicant requested, and staff concurs, that this condition be amended to read: Condition No. 22: "A will serve letter shall be pro- vided prior to the issuance of building permits." Discussion ensued on the traffic issue referring back to the Environmental Assessment for the proposal; possible need for a traffic study to be done by the applicant. Ms. Judy McGill, one of the owners of the Warm Springs Business Park, stated that as an item of information, which might answer some of the concerns on traffic impacts, the developer, Warm Springs Business Park, had already paid approximately $25,000.00, toward traffic signalization, when the original map was recorded. There being no further discussion, Chairman Washburn called for the question. Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to recommend adoption of Nega- tive Declaration No. 86-52, and approval of Industrial Project 86-3 with the 51 conditions listed in the Staff Report with the following amendments, and the addition of condition number 52, which will read as follows: - Condition No.9: "A Final Landscaping/Irrigation Plan is to be approved by the Director of Com- munity Development or his designee. The minimum eight percent (8%) landscaping be required as per Code, deducting for " Minutes of Planning Commission November 4, 1986 Page 5 INDUSTRIAL PROJECT 86-3 - INDUSTRIAL CONCEPTS ~ CONTINUED Condition No. 14: - Condition No. 22: Condition No. 24: Condition No. 26: the overhang, and direction that tree size at the entrances be upgraded to twenty-four inch (24") box, at entrances only." "Meet all County Fire Department re- quirements for fire protection, as listed or as amended and approved by the county Fire Department. a). The water mains shall be capable of providing a potential fire flow of 4000 GPM and an actual fire flow available from anyone hydrant shall be 2000 GPM for 2 hour duration at 20 PSI residual operating pressure. b). Approved super fire hydrants, (6" x4"x 2-1/2") shall be located at each street intersection and spaced not more than 330 feet apart in any direction, with no portion of any lot frontage more than 165 feet from a fire hydrant. c). Applicant shall furnish one copy of the water system plans to the Fire Department for review. Plans shall conform to fire hydrant types, lo- cations and spacing and, the system shall meet the fire flow require- ments. Plans shall be approved by a registered civil engineer and . Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District with the following certi- fication: "I certify that the de- sign of the water system is in ac- cordance with the requirements . prescribed by the Riverside County Fire Department". d). The required water system including fire hydrants shall be installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building materials being placed on an individual lot." "A will serve letter shall be provided prior to the issuance of building per- mits." "Developer shall plant erosion control vegetation or provide approved erosion control devices, in Phase II area before final certificate of Occupancy for Phase I buildings for any slopes in excess of three feet (3') or for any concentrated drainage." "Building 3 shall be relocated four feet (4') to the north (towards building 1) and the seven (7) parking spaces on the north of the building shall be deleted, , Minutes of Planning Commission November 4, 1986 Page 6 INDUSTRIAL PROJECT 86-3 - INDUSTRIAL CONCEPTS ~ CONTINUED or as approved by the Community Develop- ment Director." Condition No. 36: "Developer shall obtain appropriate per- mits from Army Corps of Engineers and Department of Fish and Game, if required." - Condition No. 37: "The developer shall grade the entire pro- ject to drain to Chaney Street and shall provide drainage acceptance letters and interim drainage facilities to return drainage to sheet flow condition." Condition No. 38: DELETE. Condition No. 52: "The developer shall work with the de- veloper of the Warm Springs Industrial Park (Tentative Parcel Map 21297), River- side County Flood District and the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers to insure immedi- ate adequate interim and permanent dis- posal of all run-off from Chaney Street into Temescal Wash in anticipation of full development of the outflow channel. Such plans are subject to the review and ap- proval of the Directors of Community Services and Community Development and in- terim measures shall be operational prior to issuance of Certificates of Occupancy -- for Industrial Project 86-3." "Class II bicycle lane shall be installed, as approved by the Community Development Director." Second by Commissioner Brown with discussion. commissioner Brown requested that the Negative Declaration and the project be voted on as separate items. Commissioner Mellinger amended his motion to include Commis- sioner Brown's request to vote on the Negative Declaration and the Industrial Project as separate items with the consent of the second. Chairman Washburn called for the question on Negative Declaration No. 86-52. Approved 4-1 Commissioner Brown voting no Chairman Washburn called for the question on Industrial Project 86-3. Approved 5-0 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S REPORT Community Development Director Miller stated that a memorandum re- garding the Joint Study Session held on October 29, 1986, has been distributed to the Commission, which outlines areas that are in need of further study: A. General Plan Policies. Minutes of planning Commission November 4, 1986 Page 7 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S REPORT CONTINUED C. Policy, statement or code amendment addressing transition of lot sizes where there are two different residential densities abutting each other. Additional sections or revisions to existing sections in the new Zoning Code, prioritized as follows: 1. Special Events 2. Flood Prone overlay 3. Planned Unit Development 4. Hillside Planned Development Overlay 5. Central Business District 6. Lakeshore Overlay District 7. Country Club Heights 8. Antennas B. Community Development Director Miller stated that at this time, he has not received any comment from City Council regarding the Design Guidelines prepared by the Design Subcommittee, but will request that their comments be transmitted to him and then they will be brought back before the Commission. community Development Director Miller recommended that the Plan- ning commission set a study session to discuss the above mentioned issues and identify items of particular interest to be addressed. Chairman Washburn requested that the study session be scheduled and the new planners be in attendance. Community Development Director Miller stated that City has hired several new planning staff members, three which started November 3rd, and one will start next week. Those people will be present at our next Planning Commission Meeting and/or Study Session. PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Commissioner Kellev: Nothing to report. commissioner Callahan: Commented that along strickland between Chaney and Riverside Drive, on what appears to be the south side of the street, there is a wood fence, approximately ten feet in height but nothing matches up, and some type of structure, similar to a barn, sticks up above the fence and nothing fits there either. I brought this to the attention of Bob Fink, Senior Building Inspector, today, but would like to make it more official. I am not interested in seeing it red tagged and stopped, I am interested in seeing it disappear. A short while back, when the gentleman came in and wanted to build a motel on Lakeshore Drive, we had several residents who spoke against the project. They expressed their concern that he had brought in a great deal of lumber and debris, and has stored it on the property. Our Municipal Code does not permit any storage on vacant lots. Lakeshore Drive is one of our scenic corridors. I made a mistake when I told those people that we have a tool if you come in and file a complaint, the Weed Abatement Ordinance would cover it. At this point, I feel that I passed the buck, these people have come to the City when they come to us. They have already expressed their concern, and I would personally like to see ourselves and staff pick it up from this point, and if that is in fact the situation then we should get in cleaned up. Minutes of Planning Commission November 4, 1986 Page 8 PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION CONTINUED Chairman Washburn asked Commissioner Callahan if he would report back to the Commission on this item when he has received a reply from Code Enforcement or Bob Fink, Senior Building Inspector. Commissioner Brown: Thanked City Council and staff for the meeting the other night, found it to be very informative. - commissioner Mellinqer: Asked when the study session would be scheduled? Chairman Washburn: Asked staff what dates the street sweeper works on Main Street and Graham Avenue, and if they work once or twice a week? Community Development Director Miller stated that he was not familiar with their schedule. Chairman Washburn stated that there seems to be a lack of need to maintain the sidewalks in the downtown retail area. This is something that should be brought in front of the DBA (Downtown Business Association). We have alot of people driving through, walking around town and clients that the City deals with every- day and when you walk across the street or down the sidewalk you have to step around all of the trash and litter. I am going to talk with DBA and see if we can coordinate the retailers to clean the sidewalks, at least once a week to straighten up the downtown area. - Chairman Washburn asked the Commission to decide on a date and time for the study session. It was the consensus of the Commission to schedule Wednesday, November 19, 1986, at 6:00 p.m. for a study session to discuss the issues listed in the memorandum presented. Chairman Washburn stated that there is a Planning Commissioners Association Conference coming up on November 20th, in the City of ontario. The topic is "Who and What Are We Planning For". There is money budgeted for this, and any Commissioner wishing to attend should contact the Planning Commission Secretary so that reservations can be made. There being no further business, the Lake Elsinore Planning Com- mission adjourned at 8:06 p.m. Motion by Commissioner Mellinger, second by Commissioner Callahan. Approved 5-0 ~proved , Jt1l ~),i c~~:~1dn. - Respectfull submitted, ~indsta~f Planning Commission Secretary MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 1986 THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:01 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Senior Planner Bolland. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: commissioners: Brown, Mellinger, Callahan, Kelley and Washburn ABSENT: None Also present were Community Development Director Miller, Planners Bolland, Hensley, Last, Spencer, Magee and Manee. MINUTE ACTION Motion by Commissioner Brown to approve minutes of November 4, 1986, as submitted, second by Commissioner Callahan. Approved 5-0 INTRODUCTIONS Community Development Director Miller introduced the four new City Planners Thomas Last, Nancy Spencer, Bob Magee, and Alan Manee. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. General Plan Amendment 86-10 - Lake Country Villas - Planner Bolland presented a proposal to amend the General Plan Land Use designation from General Commercial to High Density Resi- dential for 1.86 net acres, located south of Walnut Drive, approximately 700 feet west of Riverside Drive. Chairman Washburn opened the public hearing at 7:09 p.m., ask- ing if anyone wished to speak in favor of General Plan Amendment 86-10. Mr. John Saar, partner in Lake Country Villas, gave background report on the proposal highlighting areas on previous tentative map approval and expiration of said map, density requested for the proposal and existing site activity. Mr. Gene Swearingen, commented on the improvement plans being completed, when the first tentative map was approved. If the density is lowered then the plans would have to be redone, and this would be a hardship. Chairman Washburn asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor of General Plan Amendment 86-10. Ms. Joy Elizabeth Florthunder, 308 Lime, Lake Elsinore, stated that any progress to Lake Elsinore would be great. Chairman Washburn asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor of General Plan Amendment 86-10. Receiving no response, Chair- man Washburn asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Re- ceiving no response, Chairman Washburn closed the public hearing at 7:16 p.m. commissioner Kelley asked if there was any way of holding the applicant to 28 units, if we were to approve that portion of the proposal? Community Development Director Miller stated that a General Plan Amendment could not be conditioned. The only mechanisms that would be available would be through the actual review process or through a development agreement. Minutes of Planning Commission November 18, 1986 Page 2 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 86-10 = LAKE COUNTRY VILLAS CONTINUED Commissioner Mellinger commented on the applicant's statement and the existing designation, General Commercial, and asked if the 28 units could be developed under this designation. Senior Planner Bolland stated the developer had pursued a tenta- tive tract map to create 28 condominium units, which was approved in 1981 and expired in 1982. .... Commissioner Mellinger stated that he was concerned about the division of the four-plex, and asked if it was their intention to do a subdivision map on this project? Mr. Saar stated they are not dividing them into four-plex lots, they are complexes of four condominiums each. Mr. Saar then stated in answer to the question on zoning, this must have been an oversight on the City's part to zone it commercial when there had already been a project developed next door to it, and this is half of a project that was developed before the change came about. Commissioner Brown asked Community Development Director Miller how a development agreement for 28 units could be done under High Density Residential, and would we have to go with that designation to get the 28 units? Community Development Director Miller stated that in order to obtain the 28 units it would need to be some type of High Density Residential designation. Theoretically, a development agreement is possible although there would be a considerable amount of time and work involved in doing such. Commissioner Brown asked who's time and work. .... Community Development Director Miller stated that typically this would be a joint process in which there would be considerable staff time expended as well as Planning Commission and Council review. A development agreement would be used to provide certain guarantees in return for, on the part of the developer, certain things that the City desires. It is possible to use it in this situation although it is not typically or frequently used. Commissioner Brown asked if this would only hold true to that developer or if it would be passed on to his successor; what protection the city has that he would not sell the adjoining property to another developer, and the other developer trying to use it to its maximum use. Community Development Director Miller stated that you could struc- ture development agreements to run with the land as a recorded document. commissioner Brown commented on the day trips (traffic) and asked for the current project's acreage? Community Development Director Miller stated that the net acreage, as presented in the Staff Report, is 1.86 acres. Commissioner Brown asked if this was a combination or if the other project was included, and asked for the acreage on the one that is currently built, Phase I. Community Development Director Miller stated that the acreage for Phase I is 2.5 acres. .... commissioner Brown asked if the Environmental Assessment Report is cumulative or if it deals only with this project; if it Minutes of Planning Commission November 18, 1986 Page 3 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 86-10 - LAKE COUNTRY VILLAS CONTINUED allows for cumulative affect, and then asked for an estimate on the number of cars leaving the plaza (Patricia Plaza). community Development Director Miller stated that the Environ- mental Assessment Report deals only with this project and it does not address the cumulative impact. commissioner Callahan commented on the similarity between PUBLIC HEARING NO.3 and this item, stating the problem that we are faced with if we are not careful, we are going to find ourselves contradicting our own issue between number 1 and 3. The way I see it is the desire to have an upward buffer of zoning--Low Density, Medium Density, High Density and then into commercial, which is what the applicant is asking for. Commissioner Callahan stated that he would not like to see a General Plan Amendment and asked if it was possible, as a solution, not to have a General Plan Amendment and have the applicant ask for a variance to build 28 units instead of 22 units. Community Development Director Miller stated that there are two questions, I will address the second question first. Use vari- ances are prohibited by state law, so you may not give a variance to a use which would be an increase in density. Community Development Director Miller stated in response to the first question, we would draw a distinction between this item and item number 3. Item number 3, is surrounded by High Density, as far as actual land use. The adjoining two sides is High Densi- ty Residential. In this case, we have more of a Medium Density development pattern established by the General Plan. The other thing that we have indicated in item number 3, and we are also suggesting here, is that you try to determine logical physical boundaries between different types of development, and that streets do form such a physical boundary. So in both cases, we we are suggesting that the street (in this case, Walnut Street and in the case of item number 3, Lincoln Street) define that physical boundary between two different types of land use. Commissioner Callahan stated that this was a self serving defini- tion and personally does not see that kind of distinction between the two projects. Suggested that whatever is done, that it be consistent from one to the next. If we are going to try and apply a buffer area between Low Density and High Density in the form of Medium Density and from there on commercial then we must continue to do that instead of having a street as a boundary. If we are concerned about lighting affecting a part of this, that street is not going to stop that. If there is commercial right across the street, they are going to have their lighting so that it comes into this residential project. Chairman Washburn stated that we are looking at a concern for future planning, which is one of the things that we have been talking about and will be looking for in the near future. How do we plan for projects in reference to the General Plan. The General Plan in place, it is a living document, we change it four times a year, and with those changes it is altered, some- times these requests come prior to the ability to look down range long enough on a particular project. Maybe we are not doing enough looking at the map and potential changes prior to getting some of these applications. Chairman Washburn stated that in this case, he went out and looked at the site, talked to some other people and staff, and feels that it might be a little premature to even look at this now, but not opposed to a buffer change there. Minutes of Planning Commission November 18, 1986 Page 4 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 86-10 - LAKE COUNTRY VILLAS CONTINUED Chairman Washburn stated that it is currently a cul-de-sac situ- ation. It does not mean that in the future, the next project or development could provide an access street to Lakeshore Drive through that other parcel. Community Development Director Miller stated that in actuality the present street dedication stops at the entry t9 the existing pro- ject, so it could not extend any further to the west which would be towards Machado, but it would be possible to do a knuckle street. .... Community Development Director Miller stated to expand upon Chair- man Washburn's comments about looking at other projects, one of the things that the adjoining property owner, of the 20 acres, has discussed with staff is the possibility of splitting that 20 acres into a 10 acre parcel fronting Lakeshore that would be developed commercially, and considering residential development of the rear 10 acres, which would be adjoining this property. This is some- thing that has just been discussed. This is one of the reasons that we refer to the fact that this may have future planning implications in planning the area around it. Chairman Washburn stated then there are preliminary discussions with the larger land owner to the north in terms of access from Lakeshore Drive and commercial and residential. Commissioner Mellinger stated that there are two issues, one would be the future planning; agrees with staff's logic that the street is a logical boundary. The determination is what type of resi- dential we have on the other side. Typically, it would be High Density to Medium Density away from commercial. The traffic im- pacts that we are looking at naturally, general commercial, exist- ing conditions would be far greater than if we go down to High Density Residential. I have no problem with that zoning pattern, High Density. Especially, at Lake Elsinore's 20 units per acre maximum for High Density. Commissioner Mellinger stated that he would not have a problem with 37 units on the site from an impact standpoint because the existing zoning is commercial. On the other hand, the pre- liminary discussions about the site, I was hoping that perhaps we could make a policy statement concerning that boundary of Walnut Drive. One of the biggest problems in cities that are looking for commercial, 10-15 years down the line, is a sincere lack of large commercial parcels, 10 acres is pretty much the minimum for larger centers, 20 acres maybe down the line. .... Commissioner Mellinger stated that right now it is very difficult to develop a 20 acre parcel. It might be appropriate to develop a 10 acre parcel. With everything in mind, considering the im- pacts and so on, I have no problem with the High Density Resi- dential zoning pattern, it is a logical pattern considering our 20 units per acre. But there is a problem considering any resi- dential on the north-northeast side of Walnut. It is so close to Four Corners--it is going to be an important commercial location in the future. __ Commissioner Brown stated that he agrees that it is a lesser use than commercial but the problem is that the commercial may be far down the line, at which time we will have a way to mitigate the impact. We now have a project in front of us, we will have to mitigate the impact, and live with it. Commissioner Mellinger stated that he felt the same way, but looking at Walnut he could never see a signal there. If we are looking far down the line; if there is any signalization--Four Minutes of Planning Commission November 18, 1986 Page 5 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 86-10 = LAKE COUNTRY VILLAS CONTINUED Corners first, secondarily with,the school on Joy and the de~e1op- ment there; anytime you put a s~gna1 between those two locat~ons you would have a problem in the long run. In that respect, you would have to assume bui1dout ultimately commercial, and I do not have a problem with that pattern because I think it important that commercial be retained on the other side of Walnut. This is the reason I think High Density is logical. Chairman Washburn commented on going forward with a commercial project holding it in reserve for a full commercial project, you are talking about a very large commercial project, and the City is not ready for that type of project now, and a Mixed Use or a product besides commercial to go in the rear--deeper south of Lakeshore Drive, would seem appropriate. Commissioner Mellinger stated that it would be if you had the attitude that we have to implement our General Plan within six months, but if we are looking at our General Plan down the line it would be a mistake. I have no problem with subdividing, but anything less than 10 acres, would be a mistake 5, 10, 15 years down the line. If the City was not to grow past 1990, I agree but I think that we will need the 10 acres in the long run; with that basis I think that the proposed High Density is appropriate. Chairman Washburn asked with the current and proposed commercial on line? ..... commissioner Mellinger stated that we have commercial right now. If we are looking at a cumulative impact we would still have to account for the ADTS at that location. Chairman Washburn stated that he agrees with the traffic concerns and that traffic is going to increase rapidly. Question is whether or not that 20 acre site can go that deep at full com- mercial. Looking at future planning and also the need of another road to come in off Lakeshore Drive to access this cUl-de-sac, which is Walnut Street. If this project is approved, we need more accessibility to this interior heartland. Commissioner Mellinger stated that he was not suggesting that it be divided up into small commercial parcels. Thinks that it is appropriate for a larger commercial center, which is abso- lutely necessary, otherwise we end up with small commercial development all up and down the street which ends up competing with each other and then the for lease signs are more common than the store signs. commissioner Brown stated that since the table was leaning toward High Density would the table entertain an idea of a development agreement, and with that who would benefit? Chairman Washburn stated that he did not know if a development agreement was an appropriate mechanism. Commissioner Mellinger stated that development agreements are suc- cessful over large areas, over this area it might not be. The potential, if you are concerned about 37 units, would only arise if Council accepted such. The biggest concern would be years down the line. I would not have any problem with 37 on this site , if it remains commercial. Chairman Washburn and Commissioner Brown stated that they would have a problem with it going this high. Commissioner Callahan stated that he would like to yield the floor to Mr. Saar. Minutes of Planning Commission November 18, 1986 Page 6 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 86-10 - LAKE COUNTRY VILLAS CONTINUED Mr. Saar stated that there is a way to restrict the number of units. It would be to approve the tentative tract which gives you the amount of units, and approve the General Plan Amendment at the same time, in that way you have tied it in for that tract. However, we would have trouble with 37, because we would have to look at parking and many other things that would not allow it to be approved. This would be a suggestion, bu~ it does not sound like it would be the answer for what you are looking for, because it could expire at some time. .... Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to recommend adoption of Nega- tive Declaration No. 86-51, based upon the initial study and the Environmental Assessment, especially noting that the traffic impacts should be reduced, second by Commissioner Callahan. Approved 4-1 Commissioner Brown voting no Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to approve General Plan Amend- ment 86-10 and adoption of Resolution No. 86-10, second by Com- missioner Kelley. Chairman Washburn asked if there was any further discussion. Community Development Director Miller asked if Commissioner Mel- linger would clarify his motion. Commissioner Mellinger amended his motion to recommend approval of General Plan Amendment 86-10 from General Commercial to High Density Residential, and adoption of Resolution No. 86-10 stating such, second by Commissioner Kelley. Chairman Washburn asked if there was any further discussion. .... Chairman Washburn stated that he would have a hard time living without a higher density since we have worked long and hard to reduce that and adopt new Title 17, so I am opposed to that. commissioner Brown asked for clarification on allowable maximum buildout in that district. commissioner Brown was informed by Commissioner Mellinger and Chairman Washburn that the application was still a discretionary permit. There being no further discussion at the table, Chairman Washburn asked for the question. Approved 4-1 Chairman Washburn voting no RESOLUTION NO. 86-10 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 86-10, CHANGING THE LAND USE FROM GENERAL COMMERCIAL TO HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL .... 2. General Plan Amendment 86-11 and Zone Change 86-15 - Industrial Concepts I and Warm Springs Business Park Chairman Washburn asked to be excused from this item and the next item due to conflict of interest, and turned the gavel over to Vice Chairman Callahan. Planner Hensley presented a proposal to amend the General Plan designation from Limited Industrial and Floodway Fringe to Com- mercial Manufacturing and to rezone the area from "M-l" (Limited i Minutes of planning Commission November 18, 1986 Page 7 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 86-11 AND ZONE CHANGE 86-15 - INDUSTRIAL CONCEPTS CONTINUED Manufacturing), for 14.41 net acres, Lots 1-5 and 26-30 of the Warm springs Business Park, located along Chaney street from Collier Avenue, west 1,441 feet along Collier Avenue, north 1,350 feet. Vice Chairman Callahan opened the public hear!ng at 7:48 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of General Plan Amend- ment 86-11 and Zone Change 86-15. Mr. Steve Brown, co-applicant and representing the Warm Springs Business Park, gave a brief report on the history behind this proposal and commented on the reasons they feel the proposal would benefit the community. vice Chairman Callahan asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak in favor of General Plan Amendment 86-10 and Zone Change 86-15. Receiving no response, Vice Chairman Callahan asked if there was anyone wishing to speak in opposition. Receiving no response, Vice Chairman Callahan closed the public hearing at 7:51 p.m. commissioner Brown stated that he would like some backup data on traffic mitigation, referring to page 2 of the Report under ANALYSIS, third paragraph from the bottom, going back for the last six months on what has been approved and what the total traffic count will be on the two streets referred to. Discussion was held on uses permitted in the C-M and M-l Zones, and superior appearance for all structures as required in the M-l Zone; overall traffic study and the inclusion of other pro- jects in the area benefiting and supporting this proposal; main- taining a balance of land uses throughout the community and how the balance is being determined; if M-l is being eliminated what effect this will have years down the line; development of the area as a business park being of a great benefit to the com- munity. Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to recommend adoption of Nega- tive Declaration No. 86-52 based upon the findings and the Environmental Assessment, second by Commissioner Kelley. Approved 4-1 Chairman Washburn excused Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to recommend approval of General Plan Amendment 86-11 and Zone Change 86-15 with the findings as listed in the Staff Report, and adoption of Resolution No. 86-11, second by commissioner Kelley. Approved 4-0 Chairman Washburn excused RESOLUTION NO. 86-11 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 86-11, CHANGING THE LAND USE FROM LIMITED INDUSTRIAL TO COMMERCIAL MANU- FACTURING 3. General Plan Amendment 86-12 and Zone Change 86-16 - Courton and Associates (Mark Grosvner Company) - Planner Hensley presented a proposal to amend the General Plan from Specific Plan Residential to General Commercial and Zone Change from C-P (Commercial Park) to C-2 (General Commercial), for 6.02 net acre site on the south- west corner of Lincoln Street and Riverside Drive and Flannery Street. Minutes of Planning Commission November 18, 1986 Page 8 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 86-12 AND ZONE CHANGE 86-16 - COURTON AND ASSOCIATES (MARK GROSVNER COMPANY) CONTINUED Vice Chairman Callahan opened the public hearing at 7:59 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of General Plan Amend- ment 86-12 and Zone Change 86-16. Mr. Lawrence Buxton, representing the applicant, gave a brief background report on the proposal. Mr. John Potocki, architect for the project, gave a brief report on the architectural concepts for the proposal; highlighting the following areas: screening of service areas, landscaping, light- ing and landscape setbacks. Mr. Ron Pepper, marketing consultant for the project, gave a brief report on the marketing potential of the site and informed the Commission of the various inquiries they have received. ... Mr. Kent Mitchell, general partner of Lake Elsinore Development, commented on the marketing potential of the site, and then gave a brief report on their previous meetings with staff and stated that they had never received an indication that their commercial plans for the site were in conflict with the General Plan. Vice Chairman Callahan asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak in favor of General Plan Amendment 86-12 and Zone Change 86-16. Receiving no response, Vice Chairman Callahan asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Receiving no response, Vice Chairman Callahan closed the public hearing at 8:14 p.m. Vice Chairman Callahan stated that before they go into dis- cussion at the table he would like to state for the records, that Mr. Mitchell contacted him by phone yesterday afternoon, and we talked for a few minutes, mostly a one sided convera- tion, he explained his views, and I stated to him that I could not make any decision or comments, but I would be happy to simply hear his views, and we have heard those views again this evening. .... Discussion was held on extension of commercial along Riverside Drive being a logical Choice; previous meetings between staff and the developer pertaining to the comment made by Mr. Mitchell of not being in conflict with the General Plan; state law re- quirement that zoning be in conformance with the General Plan; existing General Plan designation of 12 du/acre being denoted on the map before this proposal was submitted, and staff's response to the applicant when this was discussed; if a proposal were sub- mitted under the current C-P Zoning would it be consistent with that General Plan designation; need for consistency with the General Plan and a zone change from Commercial Park to an ap- propriate designation; environmental law pertaining to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) referring to the environmental initial study with regard to the daily trips generated and date of review; sending the environmental assessment back and a proper environmental impact analysis be prepared with close adherence to CEQA guidelines; uses allowed under the old zoning code; types of boundaries separating the zoning areas, and how much high density property is needed. .... Discussion ensued on concerns with the environmental assessment prepared for this proposal, and if a Negative Declaration is not adopted then the project can not be considered by law; continuing the proposal with the stipulation that a proper Negative Declara- tion be done. Motion by Commissioner Brown that General Plan Amendment 86-12 and Zone Change 86-16 be continued so that a proper Negative Minutes of Planning Commission November 18, 1986 Page 9 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 86-12 AND ZONE CHANGE 86-16 - COURTON AND ASSOCIAT~MARK GROSVNER COMPANY) CONTINUED Declaration can be prepared for the proposal, second by Commis- sioner Mellinger. Approved 4-0 Chairman Washburn excused At this time, 8:39 p.m., Vice Chairman Callahan called for a five minute recess. At this time, 8:48 p.m., the Planning commission reconvened. Vice Chairman Callahan stated that the Commission felt they had not really concluded the business on the last item, and brought it back to the table. commissioner Brown amended his motion to continue General Plan Amend- ment 86-12 and Zone Change 86-16 to the meeting of December 2, 1986, second by Commissioner Mellinger. Approved 4-0 Chairman Washburn excused At this time, 8:49 p.m., Chairman Washburn returned to the table. 4. Zone Change 86-17 - Courton & Associates (Mark Grosvner Company) - Planner Bolland presented a proposal to rezone 1.6 acres of land from C-P (Commercial Park) to C-2 (General Commercial), which would facilitate development of a commercial shopping center (commercial Project 86-15) being processed concurrently, located on the northwest corner of Riverside Drive and Walnut Drive. Chairman Washburn opened the public hearing at 8:52 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of Zone Change 86-17. Mr. Lawrence Buxton of Courton & Associates, planner and engineer for the project, gave a brief background report on the proposal. Chairman Washburn asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak in favor of Zone Change 86-17. Receiving no response, Chairman Washburn asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Receiv- ing no response, Chairman Washburn closed the public hearing at 8:55 p.m. Discussion was held on site plan for the proposal coming before the Commission in the future; environmental assessment for the Zone Change also being utilized for Commercial Project 86-15, and reference to the traffic generated (daily trips). Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to continue Zone Change 86-17 to the meeting of December 2, 1986, so that staff can prepare an adequate environmental impact assessment, second by Commis- sioner Callahan. Approved 5-0 -. BUSINESS ITEMS 1. Commercial Project 86-7 REVISED - T & S Development - Planner Hensley presented a request to: 1) To amend the site design of Commercial Project 86-7; 2) To incorporate a Sign Program in compliance with Condition Number 17, of the Original Approval; 3) To reconsider condition number 18, and to allow High- pressure Sodium Lighting. Community Development Director Miller stated that there has been considerable discussion about the policy implications Minutes of Planning Commission November 18, 1986 Page 10 COMMERCIAL PROJECT 86-7 REVISED = ~ k ~ DEVELOPMENT CONTINUED of the low pressure sodium lighting. Planning Commission and Council, in the past have had conversation about this, but in rather general format. Due to the applicant's request there has been contact initiated with Cal Tec, who are the operators of Palomar Observatory, and we have a representative from Palomar here tonight. Community Development Director Miller stated that since this has policy implications and there may be considerable discussion regarding that issue, the Commission may wish to separate those two discussions to focus on the direct project request as it relates to the sign criteria and amendment of the plan and then discuss separately the low pressure sodium lighting. Chairman Washburn stated that with the consensus of the Commis- sion he would like to take the issues one at a time. When the issue on low pressure lighting comes up, would request that the representative from Palomar Observatory come forward and we will take input for the record and ask questions at that time. It was the consensus of the Commission to address the issues separately. Chairman Washburn asked if there was anyone wishing to speak on the project. Mr. John Curts, representing T & S Development, spoke in favor of the proposal, stating that he has reviewed the Staff Report and conditions of approval, and as far as the sign program goes they are in agreement. Mr. Curts then asked for consideration on item D.2.b., under sign criteria, requesting modification to increase the size of the under canopy signs from 2 square feet to 4 square feet, stating that due to the clearance under the canopies they would like to maintain a 6 foot 8 inch minimum clearance, which is a standard door height, to give flexibility where there are lower canopies. Mr. Curts stated that the conditions of approval for the revised project, for the most part they have no problem--thinks that they can comply with each one of those. Mr. Curts then stated that pertaining to the supermarket (working with Albertson's--the deal has not been finaled), the building is not designed, and believes that some of the issues that are addressed in the conditions con- cerning the storage areas, screening walls and trash enclosures will be taken care of with that design. Mr. Curts stated that the elevations adjacent to Sylvester are of concern to them, where it indicates that the front elevation be continued around to the side. Indicated that in terms of opera- tional aspects of the market that a store front and glass would be impractical facing Sylvester. If we are talking about enhancement of the exterior elevation, in terms of some form of architectural treatment or color enhancement, we would be willing to work with the Community Development Director in that regard. Mr. Curts then commented on the extension of the tile mansard roof -- around the side and rear of the building stating that this would be a very costly endeavor, and one he believes would not neces- sarily give the aesthetic return the cost would indicate. Mr. Curts suggested the incorporation of a substantial planter along the side of market building as it faces Sylvester, which is what has been done along the rear of the building. Mr. Curts stated that Mr. Kolek, the lighting consultant for the project is present this evening and can address the low pressure sodium lighting issue. ... ... ..... ..... Minutes of Planning commission November 18, 1986 Page 11 COMMERCIAL PROJECT 86-7 REVISED = ~ ~ ~ DEVELOPMENT CONTINUED Mr. Mark Kolek, of Lightlines, stated that he is a lighting con- sultant and specialist in the area of marketing lighting and application. Mr. Curts asked that I come tonight to discuss some of the issues regarding low pressure sodium and its application. Mr. Kolek stated that he has worked, in the past, with Doctor Brucato and the Riverside County Planning Department in applica- tion of this within the 30 mile radius for Mount Palomar. I am in favor of the use of low pressure sodium because it does have attributes that can take place. However, high pressure sodium when done properly and applied with the proper optics within fixtures can be an acceptable lighting source for a project like this. What we have done to basically direct ourselves to this issue and to address ourselves to the proximity of Mount Palomar is to select a fixture that is optically superior to anything else that has been used in the general area, and optically superior to anything else that is in the market place. What this has done, asking the Commission to refer to the report submitted, is it has reduced the amount of spill light that is going to be coming from that fixture by directing it all down into the park- ing lot so that you will have minimum (if none) reflection. It reduces the amount of dark spots within the parking lot that some- times makes the parking lot unsafe. When you are working with a low pressure light source, you are working with a source that is very difficult to control and to direct into the parking lot. By using the high pressure sodium source we have created a parking lot that is more evenly illuminated; has lower light levels throughout the parking lot and makes for safe ingress/egress of this center. The attributes of high pressure sodium over low pressure sodium, and the safety of this project is the fact that high pressure sodium renders a larger spectrum of colors. There- fore, making objects in the parking lot easier to spot; makes any- thing of interest to security much easier to locate and still maintain what we call a cut-off. We have also addressed ourselves to the issues around the canopies, in the shopping center, for the general illumination of walkways in keeping our light levels down below 4,000 lumins, which has also been recommended by Mount Palomar. Mr. Kolek stated that with the permission of the Commission, he would like to show some of the color rendering characteristics of low pressure sodium, for those who are not aware of this. Chairman Washburn stated that there is interest, but not at this point, and that he would be called back to the podium later. Chairman Washburn asked if anyone else wished to speak on the project. Doctor Brucato, Assistant Director of Palomar Observatory, from the California Institute of Technology, stated that the issue of light pollution is a vital issue to Palomar Observatory. The -- incredible growth that we are experiencing in Southern California brings with it increased light levels from the community, and over the years we have found a deterioration in the dark sky environment that has been so essential to the successful use of the facilities at Palomar, particularly the 200 inch telescope. Doctor Brucato stated that over the last five year or so we have been working with the communities immediately adjacent to the observatory, starting in close and working out from there, to see what kind of lighting policies could be adopted that would, at the same time, meet the needs of the community and not destroy the observatory's environment. The process has been divided over the years, because of various timing factors into two different areas: 1) street lighting policy and; 2) private lighting policy. Minutes of Planning Commission November 18, 1986 Page 12 COMMERCIAL PROJECT 86-7 REVISED - I k ~ DEVELOPMENT CONTINUED Doctor Brucato stated that as a result of their long and careful work, he believes that there is reasonably good lighting ordinance in place, and stated that there is a similar ordinance in place in the cities of San Diego and Vista, and that other communities are actively pursuing these same questions. Doctor Brucato then pre- sented to the Commission a copy of the ordinance on Lighting adopted by the City of San Diego. Doctor Brucato stated that with the amount of growth going on in this area, in particular, as it relates to the 30 mile radius area it would be wrong to think that anything outside the 30 mile area has no effect on the observatory. The effect of any parti- cular community on the observatory depends on its distance and size. - Doctor Brucato stated that they have proposed a number of things in these communities relating to the use of low pressure sodium lights, because they of all the types of lighting available to us cause the least interference with the observatory. High pres- sure sodium has a slightly broader band pass, broad enough to contaminate the spectrum and that would really be a problem for the observatory. Doctor Brucato stated that the use of shielding on lights is very important--shielded lights are better than unshielded lights. If you do not send light straight up into the sky you have made an improvement. It is wrong to assume that once you have put the shields on the lights that you have solved the problem, because the ground reflects light. Doctor Brucato then addressed the applications where low pressure __ and high pressure sodium lighting should and should not be utilized. Doctor Brucato stated that he would be happy to provide any in- formation and assistance that he could in helping to establish the policy for lighting. Chairman Washburn asked if anyone else wished to speak on the project. Receiving no response, Chairman Washburn asked for discussion at the table, requesting that the Commission start with the first issue, the footprint changes. Discussion was held on stacking for shop "P"; ingress/egress from Sylvester and whether or not there would be signs posted (exit only signs); type of drive-thru proposed; pylon signs and clearance for sight distance; condition number 8, pertaining to landscaping treatment at the rear of the building and this coming back before the Commission for approval. Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to approve amendment to site plan for Commercial Project 86-7 as presented by staff, amending condition number 8, which will read as follows: Condition No.8: "The landscape plan shall exhibit intense landscaping along rear elevations to screen stark rear elevations as approved by the Planning Commission." - Second by Chairman Washburn. Approved 5-0 Chairman Washburn asked for discussion on the Low Pressure Sodium request. Minutes of Planning commission November 18, 1986 Page 13 COMMERCIAL PROJECT 86-7 REVISED = ~ i ~ DEVELOPMENT CONTINUED ~ commissioner Brown asked Mr. Kolek after the Doctor's presentation what he has to say. Mr. Kolek stated that he agrees with the attributes of low pres- sure sodium, however, when high pressure sodium is properly con- trolled and directed in a cut-off plane it does not have such a negative effect on the environment, as the Doctor has indicated. Commissioner Brown asked about the reflection from the ground. Mr. Kolek stated that the reflection from the ground would be minimal. We have put a maximum of 1.5 footcandles on the ground and you have a maximum of 15 percent reflection, therefore the light traveling into the atmosphere would probably be negligible. commissioner Mellinger asked what type of surface the 15 percent was based upon. Mr. Kolek stated that it was based upon a dirty asphalt surface and that a clean asphalt surface would be 7 to 10 percent re- flection. commissioner Mellinger stated that his presumption is there would be a considerable number of cars in the parking lot and what the reflector factor for cars would be? Mr. Kolek stated that the reflection from cars would be very dif- ficult to measure, since the angle of incident on those cars is __ almost impossible to measure. Also, there is landscape that will absorb and reflect, anywhere from 2 to 3 percent, light back in to the parking lot. commissioner Mellinger asked Doctor Brucato for his views on timing considerations, stating that proposals in other cities have been to use high pressure sodium up to a certain time and then turned off, and then parking lots could incorporate low pressure sodium at that time. Doctor Brucato referred to the ordinance adopted by the City of San Diego, stating that the timing requirements are basically imposed on broad spectrum lighting, sources that do have an ad- verse impact on the observatory. Commissioner Mellinger stated that the only problem we face in determining what needs color rendition is who would make that determination. There has been a lot of input from police depart- ments stating that they would like to see color renditions of parking lots. commissioner Mellinger stated that typically, he feels that most of the businesses within the center would be closed at 10:00 p.m., would this be an acceptable alternative or compromise if those -- lights went off at 10:00 p.m., and various parking lot lights (low pressure sodium lighting) going on after 10 p.m. for security reasons. Doctor Brucato stated that he would prefer that the lot be uni- formly lit with low pressure sodium. Discussion ensued on whether or not color renditions should be required for parking lots, and whether or not the observatory should be protected from light sources; the values of the light- ing matrix submitted by EMCO Environmental Lighting. Motion by Commissioner Brown to deny the request for waiver of condition number 18, second by Chairman Washburn. Approved 5-0 Minutes of Planning Commission November 18, 1986 Page 14 COMMERCIAL PROJECT 86-7 REVISED = ~ k ~ DEVELOPMENT CONTINUED Chairman Washburn asked for discussion on the Sign Program re- quest. commissioner Mellinger recommended that the landscaping be main- tained at a low level so that there is adequate sight clearance. Motion by Commissioner Kelley to approve the Sign Program for Commercial Project 86-7 REVISED, second by Commissioner Callahan. ... Chairman Washburn stated that the applicant has requested a minor change and asked if there was any further input on this request. Discussion ensued on the applicant's request to change item number D.2.b., changing the under canopy sign from 2 square feet to 4 square feet, maintaining a 6 foot 8 inch minimum clearance; Code requirement--this being a direct requirement from the Code; sign criteria, as identified by Council, as an area needing further study. There being no further discussion, Chairman Washburn called for the question. Approved 5-0 2. Commercial Project 86-15 - Courton & Associates (Mark Grosvner Company) - Planner Bolland stated that he would like to point out that the Negative Declaration attached to this project is the same one that was previously recommended for continuance, and therefore staff would recommend continuance on this project and its environmental assessment. Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to continue Commercial Project 86-15, second by Commissioner Callahan. Approved: 5-0 Community Development Director Miller stated that for clarifica- tion, that on the last item it was indicated it would be continued to the next meeting, December 2, 1986. ... Chairman Washburn answered in the affirmative. INFORMATIONAL Chairman Washburn informed the Planning Commission of the Study Session scheduled on November 19, 1986, at 6:00 p.m. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S REPORT Community Development Director Miller reported to the Commission that at the last City Council meeting, the appeal of Mr. Renee Rich (motel project on Lakeshore Drive) was considered and Council was concerned with some of Mr. Rich's comments. Their action was to deny his appeal without prejudice, and refer it back to the Planning Commission for re-consideration, on December 16, 1986. However, in conversation with Mr. Rich, he has indicated a desires to make revisions to his plans, -- and would not be able to present those revisions in time for staff to review and prepare a report. I believe that Mr. Rich will be filing a written request for continuance. PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Commissioner Brown: Nothing to report. Minutes of Planning Commission November 18, 1986 Page 15 PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION CONTINUED commissioner Mellinqer: Stated that as far as Mr. Rich's project goes, if there are any vari- ances from the zoning standards, required as part of the application, would prefer that they be included and reviewed together; thinks that the Commission's direction is clear--that variances have to be justi- fied. Mr. Rich's project seemed to have numerous or at least a sig- nificant number of variances that would have had to be required to approve such a project. At the intersection of Machado and Grand (the perpendicular two way stop), I think that we should address the County on this issue, as strongly as possible, until there are two stop signs put up on the County side. Chairman Washburn informed Commissioner Mellinger that he could contact Ron Kirchner, Public Services Director regarding this. commissioner Kellev: Nothing to report. commissioner Callahan: Reported on the following items that he brought up at the last meeting: Presented photograph of the structure on Strickland, and read the -- letter Planner Hensley sent to the owner regarding said structure. Reported that Mr. RiCh, the gentleman who has a proposal to build a motel on Lakeshore Drive, and who has chosen to use that as a storage yard, has been informed that he has until November 20th, to remove all of the debris. Chairman Washburn: Nothing to report. There being no further adjourned at 9:54 p.m. Commissioner Callahan. Approved 5-0 business, the Lake Elsinore Planning Commission Motion by Commissioner Mellinger, second by ~fProved, ~QLJ. \ ltb)lO~,--- Gary ashburn Chai an ;/ ~R~rctfUl~/ s\lbmitted, ~2'(dPL/ ~?~-d~ Linda Grindstaff ~~ Planning Commission Secretary MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON THE 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER 1986 THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:05 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Commissioner Mellinger. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: commissioners: Brown, Mellinger, Callahan, Kelley and Washburn ABSENT: None Also present were Community Development Director Miller, Planners Bolland, Hensley, Last, Spencer and Magee. MINUTE ACTION Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to approve minutes of November 18, 1986, with the following corrections: Page 4, paragraph 6: changing the words "per acre" to "on the site" Page 5, paragraph 10: deleting the words "units per acre" Page 9, paragraph 4: Motion was made by Commissioner Brown and second by Commissioner Mellinger. Page 9, paragraph 11: changing the word "applicant" to "staff" Second by Commissioner Brown. Approved 5-0 PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. General Plan Amendment 86-12 and Zone Change 86-16 - Court on and Associates (Mark Grosvner Company), continued from November 18, 1986. Chairman Washburn asked to be excused from this item due to conflict of interest and turned the gavel over to Vice Chair- man Callahan. Planner Hensley presented proposal to amend the General Plan from Specific Plan Residential to General Commercial and Zone Change from C-P (Commercial Park) to C-2 (General Commercial), for 6.02 net acres on the southwest corner of Lincoln Street and Riverside Drive and Flannery Street. Vice Chairman Callahan opened the public hearing at 7:11 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of General Plan Amendment 86-12 and Zone Change 86-16. Mr. Lawrence Buxton, representing the applicant, gave a brief background report on the proposal. Vice Chairman Callahan asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak in favor of General Plan Amendment 86-12 and Zone Change 86-16. Receiving no response, Vice Chairman Callahan asked if there was anyone wishing to speak in opposition. Re- ceiving no response, Vice Chairman Callahan closed the public hearing at 7:13 p.m. Commissioner Mellinger commented on the Environmental Assess- ment being adequate except for the run-off; not being able to justify Finding number 2 and 3; logical extension of commercial boundaries and Lincoln Street being a logical boundary; the Four Corners Area, pertaining to commercial development and vehicular movement; the logic for extension of commercial in this area not being present. Minutes of Planning Commission December 2, 1986 Page 2 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 86-12 AND ZONE CHANGE 86-16 - COURT ON AND ASSOCIATES (MARK GROSVNER COMPANY) CONTINUED Commissioner Callahan commented on existing high density resi- dential to the south and west of this proposal and lighting in the area; type of separations (buffer wall being just as suit- able as a street for such separation); previous City Council approval for this type of use on the site. -- Commissioner Brown commented on the existing zoning of the site and zoning for the area--what is enough adequately zoned pro- perty in the area for commercial; residential versus commercial and the percentage of use--why expand commercial into residential when there is plenty of unused commercial; information the ap- plicant received from City Staff in the past. Commissioner Callahan commented on the commercial development creating employment for people in the valley, and stated that what we have to look at is whether or not we want residential or commercial development on this site--sees no adverse impacts on surrounding uses by rezoning this to commercial. Commissioner Brown commented on the traffic report, pertaining to the report addressing only the parking restrictions and noth- ing about the impact once the cars reach the curb edge. Commissioner Brown commented on whether or not the Zone Change could be conditioned with regard to traffic and drainage im- pacts; Environmental Assessment item number S.d., pertaining to all commercial projects in the valley--if the drainage is to enter the lake, in any shape or form, that the sites be pro- vided with grease traps or some method to remove toxins from drainage waters, and the need for guidance from the Department __ of Fish and Game on this matter. Commissioner Mellinger commented on also requiring grease traps on residential developments; Environmental Assessment item number 4, pertaining to plant life and the Department of Fish and Game being contacted for their review and input, as required by CEQA, (California Environmental Quality Act), and the possibility of an Environmental Impact Report being appropriate for the pro- posal. Commissioner Mellinger commented on making the commercial site compatible with the surrounding area by adding conditions and mitigation measures, and this action being construed as a policy measure. Discussion ensued on the valley being known as a bedroom com- munity; the need of additional commercial development in the valley; significant amount of commercially zoned property at identified centers and the need to avoid strip commercial pit- falls of traffic congestion and competition that leads to high vacancy rates in commercial areas; future development of the Four Corners area, and how much acreage at Four Corners cur- rently zoned commercial and how much of that land is vacant. Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to recommend adoption of Nega- tive Declaration 86-55, with the addition of mitigation measure concerning run-off for commercial development, and requiring that grease traps be installed for any commercial development on the site, second by Commissioner Brown. Approved 4-0 Chairman Washburn excused Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to deny General Plan Amendment 86-12, Zone Change 86-16 and Resolution No. 86-12 based upon the -- Minutes of Planning Commission December 2, 1986 Page 3 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 86-12 AND ZONE CHANGE 86-16 - COURTON AND ASSOCIAT~MARK GROSVNER COMPANY) CONTINUED inability to justify Findings number 2 and 3, second by Commis- sioner Brown. Vote: 2-2 Commissioner Callahan and Kelley voting no; Chairman Washburn excused Mr. Lawrence Buxton asked for clarification. commissioner Mellinger stated that the proposal would go to City Council without a recommendation from the Planning Commission due to the tie vote. At this time, 7:52 p.m., Vice Chairman Callahan called for a five minute recess. At this time, 8:00 p.m., the Planning Commission reconvened. 2. Zone Change 86-17 - Courton and Associates (Mark Grosvner Company) - Planner Bolland stated that this proposal was continued from the November 18, 1986 meeting, and is a proposal to rezone 1.6 acres of land from C-P (Commercial Park) to C-2 (General Commercial), which would facilitate development of a commercial shopping center (Commercial Project 86-15) being processed concurrently, located on the northwest corner of Riverside Drive and Walnut Drive. Chairman Washburn opened the public hearing at 8:04 p.m., asking -- if anyone wished to speak in favor of Zone Change 86-17. Mr. Lawrence Buxton, representing the applicant, spoke in favor of the proposal and gave a brief background report. Chairman Washburn asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak in favor of Zone Change 86-17. Receiving no response, Chairman Washburn asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Receiving no response, Chairman Washburn closed the public hearing at 8:05 p.m. A brief discussion was held on the zone change being appropriate and the environmental assessment being adequate. Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to adopt Negative Declaration No. 86-56 based upon the findings that no significant impacts will occur due to the Zone Change, second by Commissioner Brown. Approved 5-0 Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to approve Zone Change 86-17 based upon the Findings listed in the Staff Report, second by Commissioner Brown. Approved 5-0 3. Amendment 86-3 - City of Lake Elsinore - Community Development Director Miller presented proposal to amend Section 17.23.060 regarding lot area in the R-1 (Single-Family Residential) District, to require a transition of lot sizes when abutting property is in a lower density zoning district. Chairman Washburn opened the public hearing at 8:10 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of Amendment 86-3. Recieving no response, Chairman Washburn asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Receiving no response, Chairman Washburn asked if there was anyone wishing to speak on the subject. r'~' ....,. ii' (l!' Minutes of Planning commission December 2, 1986 Page 4 AMENDMENT 86-3 - CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE CONTINUED Mr. Fred Crowe, of Butterfield Surveys, commented on administra- tion of transition in smaller areas and on undeveloped acreage. Mr. Jim Skinner, Warmington Homes, commented on lot sizes stat- ing that he would like to see 7,200 square foot lots instead of the 6,000 square foot lots, and is very interested in the out- come of this ordinance. -. Chairman Washburn asked if anyone else wished to speak on the subject. Receiving no response, Chairman Washburn closed the public hearing at 8:16 p.m. commissioner Brown commented on the transitional lots, referred to the problem the county has with transitional lots; stating the main concern is with tract maps and how this is going to be implemented opposed to individual zones. commissioner Mellinger commented on the seventy-five percent (75%) minimum lot size; feels that the ordinance is a step in the right direction from a policy statement, and the need for an appropriate mechanism in our General Plan to address zone changes and subdi- vision sizes. Commissioner Kelley stated that he agrees that the ordinance is a step in the right direction, and asked Commissioner Mellinger how this would be implemented into the General Plan. Commissioner Mellinger stated that he was not sure that this would have to be implemented into the General Plan--what is required is that the Zoning Ordinance implement the General Plan Policies, and the need to come up with implementation measures to get our Gener- al Plan Policies in effect. - commissioner Callahan commented on natural boundaries and lot sizes, referring to the possibility of having minimum lots sizes across the street from a one or two acre development; decreasing property values, and the need for further study. Discussion ensued on this approach being a blanket statement; whether or not streets are boundaries; the need of further study and input from other agencies (BIA and local developers), and continuing this to a future study session. Motion by Commissioner Callahan to continue Amendment 86-3 to a future study session, second by Commissioner Kelley. Approved 5-0 4. Amendment 86-4 - City of Lake Elsinore - Community Development Miller stated that Amendment 86-4 is a proposal to amend Section 17.98, Special Events, of the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code. How- ever, staff is still evaluating some of the revisions under con- sideration and therefore request that this item be continued to January 6, 1987. Chairman Washburn asked if there was notification sent to organi- zations and clubs that often come to the City for Special Event Permits. - Community Development Director Miller answered in the negative. Chairman Washburn asked that staff identify the agencies who re- quested such a permit in the past, and that a notice be sent to them, so that their input can be incorporated. ~ Minutes of Planning Commission December 2, 1986 Page 5 AMENDMENT 86-4 = CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE CONTINUED Chairman Washburn opened the public hearing at 8:26 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of Amendment 86-4. Receiving no response, Chairman Washburn asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Receiving no response, Chairman Washburn closed the public hearing at 8:27 p.m. Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to continue Amendment 86-4 to the meeting of January 6, 1987, second by Commissioner Brown. Approved 5-0 BUSINESS ITEMS 1. Review of Conditional Use Permit 85-2 - Alfred Anderson (Continued from October 7, 1986) - Planner Bolland presented a report on the review of conditions of approval for Conditional Use Permit 85-2, which was granted on March 12, 1985, and the applicant's request that the Conditional Use Permit be granted a two year extension. Planner Bolland stated that the previous proposal was found to be Categorically Exempt (Class 4) from CEQA (California Environ- mental Quality Act). However, since the proposal is being recom- mended for more permanent status a new initial study has been performed and staff is recommending adoption of a Neg~tive Decla- ration. Chairman Washburn asked if the applicant or his representative would like to speak. Mr. Russel Hilderbrand, representing the applicant, thanked Planner Bolland for all of the assistance he has given in the last few months. Mr. Hilderbrand commented on condition number 7, provide direc- tional signs on the rear of each mini-storage building, stating that as the spaces are rented, the people are escorted into the area and shown the way to enter and exit. The applicant has agreed to put these sign up, if requested. Mr. Hilderbrand asked for clarification on conditions number 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16 and asked why these conditions would be attached to a Conditional Use Permit when as a property owner these things are brought up, and all people that own property in that area would participate. Mr. Hilderbrand commented on condition number 20, pertaining to license and registration for RV's and boats, stating that the applicant does require that people have current registration when they rent the space, and requested that this condition be deleted or changed to where they would require current registration at the time the vehicle is stored. Mr. Hilderbrand commented on condition number 26, pertaining to improvements being completed within 120 days, stated that condi- tions 2 and 3 are connected to the new building on the property in which they have one year to pull the permit, and requested that condition number 26 be amended to reflect the same amount of time to comply. Chairman Washburn asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak on the subject. Receiving no response, Chairman Washburn asked for discussion at the table. Minutes of Planning Commission December 2, 1986 Page 6 REVIEW OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 85-2 = ALFRED ANDERSON CONTINUED Chairman Washburn commented on condition number 7, pertaining to the original condition placed on the Conditional Use Permit, and believes the intent of the directional exit signs is for clear identification for traffic flow. Planner Bolland stated that the original condition number 7 re- quired painted on arrows throughout the mini-storage facility to guide people out of the RV facility, and the applicant requested deletion of the arrow requirement. Staff agreed that the paint- ing of arrows was difficult and a replacement with signage for exiting direction was recommended. ... Chairman Washburn commented on condition number 12, pertaining to participation in the Me11o-Roos Community Facilities District, and stated that this is something that other developments have been asked to participate in. Planner Bolland stated that condition number 12, has not been changed from original conditions of approval. Chairman Washburn commented on condition number 13, pertaining to participation in traffic signalization program. Planner Bolland stated that condition number 13, should be clari- fied to focus specifically on the intersection of Riverside Drive and Collier Avenue. Chairman Washburn commented on condition number 14, pertaining to Capital Improvement fees and condition number 15, pertaining to Public Safety Fees, stating these are standard requirements, and would have to be taken up with City Council. .... Chairman Washburn asked staff for clarification on condition number 16, stating that there is a residence there and they are on septic. Planner Bolland stated that this was taken from the original conditions of approval, and believes that the intent of condi- tion number 16, is to assure that people using the RV storage facility would have access to restroom facilities. Chairman Washburn commented on condition number 20, pertaining to current licence and registration on RV's and Boats. Commissioner Mellinger stated that this condition would be used in case there were a problem, the use turning into a junk yard in the future, and this condition being an enforcement tool for the City. Mr. Hilderbrand stated that this was covered in conditions 21, 22, and 23, which the applicant agrees with. A lengthy discussion was held on condition number 20, pertaining to whether or not condition 20 was covered in conditions 21, 22, and 23; owners of vehicles being responsible for current regis- tration and they (the vehicle owners) would be violating the Conditional Use Permit if this -is not done, and the applicant's request that this condition be deleted or amended. .... Commissioner Mellinger commented on condition number 16, pertain- ingto sewage disposal, and the reason for the two year extension. Commissioner Brown commented on the two year extension and the difficulties in the past pertaining to unmet conditions. Minutes of Planning Commission December 2, 1986 Page 7 REVIEW OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 85-2 - ALFRED ANDERSON CONTINUED commissioner Mellinger commented on condition number 26 in rela- tion to condition number 3, asking if this required the submission of a lighting plan and not installation of lighting within 120 days. Planner Bolland stated that a lighting plan has been submitted, and staff supports the lighting plan, the question is when it should be executed. A lengthy discussion was held on condition number 26, pertaining to the applicant's request that this condition be amended to re- flect the same time schedule as condition number 2 and 3 for Com- mercial Project 86-11; condition number 2, pertaining to time schedule for landscaping and deleting the words "as approved by the community Development Director"; access to the site and deleting the access width from the condition, and phasing instal- lation to coincide with the construction of the building. Commissioner Kelley stated that it disturbes him that we are asking the applicant to enforce registration and licensing of vehicles--does not see justification, and would like to see condition number 20 removed. commissioner Callahan commented on the review of Conditional Use Permit on August 5, 1986, in which there were eight vehicles observed (4 of which were inoperable)--shares Commissioner Mel- linger's concern, and does not review this as a police type action that has to be performed by the applicant, reference condi- tion number 20. commissioner Callahan commented on condition number 26, pertain- ing to the 120 day time period, asking if the applicant had agreed to this. Community Development Director Miller stated that this condition was suggested by staff. Commissioner Callahan commented on the number of conditions in which the applicant is deficient (6 out of 34), stating that a year and a half is certainly enough time to get all of these conditions completed--agrees with the 120 day time period, and stated that the 120 days would fall prior to the expiration of their present Conditional Use Permit. Commissioner Callahan suggested that condition number 26, be amended by deleting the words "or revocation proceeding shall be commenced " and inserting the words "approval contingent upon all conditions being met" Discussion ensued on the expiration date of the Conditional Use Permit 85-2, and the suggested amendment to condition number 26. Community Development Director Miller stated that he feels that commissioner Callahan is suggesting the consolidation of condi- tions 25 and 26, indicating that all improvements required by conditions of approval shall be completed or the Conditional Use Permit shall be extended to March 12, 1989, provided all condi- tions of approval are met prior to that time, otherwise extension of time would not be granted. A lengthy discussion ensued on condition number 26, condition number 2 and 3 pertaining to time schedule, and adding the following verbiage to condition number 26, "all improvements required by conditions of approval will be met within 120 days or Conditional Use Permit will be null and void". Minutes of Planning Commission December 2, 1986 Page 8 REVIEW OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 85-2 - ALFRED ANDERSON CONTINUED Discussion was held on the location of the proposed building (Commercial Project 86-11) and condition number 3, pertaining to the lighting plan dealing with the RV storage facility, and hours of operation for the RV storage facility. commissioner Callahan suggested amending condition number 25, adding verbiage "that renewal shall be valid provided all conditions listed have been complied with, or extending the Conditional Use Permit for six (6) months. - Commissioner Brown commented on the applicant agreeing to the improvements on the original application; the amount of time the applicant had to meet the conditions of approval, and conditions should be completed by the expiration date of the current Conditional Use Permit or there will be no renewal. Community Development Director Miller stated that for clarifica- tion on condition number 2, it was the intent that the improve- ments actually be installed and not just a plan submitted. Chairman Washburn commented on review of previous use permits where applicants have not met conditions agreed to, but in this case, feels that the applicant has cooperated and will go forward with the improvements as requested. Chairman Washburn commented on amending condition number 16, to indicate restroom facilities for mini-storage clients. Chairman Washburn suggested that condition number 20 be retained, and modified to indicate that RV and boat owners are responsible for registration and licensing. However, if retained it would __ still be a part of the Conditional Use Permit. A lengthy discussion ensued on condition number 25 and 26, per- taining to suggested modifications; the two year extension re- quested by the applicant; the suggested modification to condition number 20, and whether or not conditions 21, 22, and 23 adequately covers condition number 20; condition number 20 being an enforce- ment tool for the City, and this requirement being easily encom- passed in the rental agreement, and types of vehicles that require registration. Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to recommend adoption of Negative Declaration, and extension as recommended by staff, with the conditions as presented, amending conditions 13, 16, 25, and 26, as follows: Condition No. 13: "Applicant to agree to join in any participative program formed if traffic signalization at Collier Avenue and Riverside Drive becomes necessary within the life of the conditional use permit." Condition No. 16: "Provide adequate restroom facilities with adequate sewage disposal to the satisfaction of the Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District, and the County Health Department." - Condition No. 25: "Conditional Use Permit shall be valid until March, 1989, provided all condi- tions are met." Minutes of Planning Commission December 2, 1986 Page 9 REVIEW OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 85-2 - ALFRED ANDERSON CONTINUED Condition No. 26: - "All improvements required by conditions of approval shall be completed within 120 days of approval or Conditional Use Permit is null and void." Second by Commissioner Brown with discussion. commissioner Brown stated that for clarification on condition number 26, referring to the 120 day time period--that we are not going to stated that it is 120 days from today, that will be understood by everyone. Commissioner Mellinger answered in the affirmative. There being no further discussion, Chairman Washburn called for the question. Approved 5-0 2. Commercial Project 86-15 - Courton and Associates (Mark Grosvner Company) - Planner Bolland stated that this proposal was con- tinued from the November 18, 1986 meeting due to concerns over the Environmental Assessment, and is a request to construct two commercial buildings with a total of 19,255 square feet on a 1.6 acre lot located north of Riverside Drive to Fraser Drive and west of st. Charles Place to Walnut Drive. Planner Bolland stated that staff is requesting the the following conditions be amended and added, as follows: - Condition No. l2.b: "Minimum driveway width on River- side Drive shall be 35 feet minimum. The first parking stall, which is perpendicular to the driveway, shall be a minimum of 40 feet from the ultimate curbface. Condition No. 37: DELETE, this condition is incorporated in other conditions. Condition No. 40: Condition No. 41: Condition No. 42: Condition No. 43: "Meet all requirements of Resolution No. 83-12 regarding installation of improvements as a condition of build- ing permit." "STOP" signs shall be installed to control outbound traffic at the Riverside and Walnut Drive access driveways." "The Walnut and Riverside Drive ac- cesses shall be curb-return type driveways." "Sign an agreement to annex to city Landscaping and Street Lighting District (Resolution No. 86-26, 86-27, 86-36)." "Provide and install off-site street light to meet the approval of the Public Services Director." Chairman Washburn asked that the applicant or the applicant's re- presentative come forward and address their concerns. Minutes of Planning Commission December 2, 1986 Page 10 COMMERCIAL PROJECT 86-15 - COURTON AND ASSOCIATES (MARK GROSVNER COMPANY) CONTINUED Mr. Lawrence Buxton, representing the applicant, gave a brief report on the proposal and stated that regarding the added conditions, they had not seen condition number 42 or 43, but sees no problem with the added conditions. Mr. Buxton stated that they had reviewed the conditions of ap- proval and concur with staff recommendation. However, on condi- tion number 18, regarding the trash enclosures--initia1Iy the the trash enclosures were located in the rear parking area. We would request that the trash enclosures be relocated to the rear parking area. Mr. Buxton then read a letter they received from Rodriguez Disposal regarding bin enclosure, and the time of day for refuse collection. - Discussion was held on location of trash enclosures; time of day for refuse collection; lighting design to be incorporated to en- hance the architecture of the building; adding condition number 44, "surface drainage and grease traps"; landscaping pertaining to tree species (Crepe Myrtle), and 24 inch box should be pro- vided if this specie is used; site plan with suggestion that the building be moved back and the access moved to Fraser further south; rear parking/landscaped area--eliminating the parking in the back and redesigning the center so that all parking is con- tiguous. Discussion ensued on condition number 16, pertaining to low- pressure lighting and if this requirement is consistent with other proposals; all lighting other than low-pressure being equipped with timers, and what time in the evening the lights should be turned off. - A brief discussion was held on condition number 24, pertaining to the use of oleander being inappropriate, and amendments on conditions of approval as presented by staff. Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to deny Commercial Project 86-15 due to an inadequate parking design. Motion died for lack of a second. Motion by Commissioner Brown to recommend adoption of Negative Declaration No. 86-56, second by Commissioner Callahan. Approved 4-1 Commissioner Mellinger voting no Motion by Commissioner Callahan to approve Commercial Project 86-15, second by Commissioner Brown, with the amendments and additions as presented by staff, and amending conditions 16, condition 18 and adding condition number 44, as follows: Condition No. 12.b: "Minimum driveway width on River- side Drive shall be 35 feet minimum. The first parking stall, which is perpendicular to the driveway, shall be a minimum of 40 feet from the ultimate curbface. ...... Condition No. 16: "All exterior lighting other than low- pressure sodium shall be equipped with automatic timers so such lighting is turned off between 10:00 p.m. and sun- rise, and such lighting shall be ori- ented and shielded to prevent direct illumination on to adjacent properties or streets." Minutes of Planning commission December 2, 1986 Page 11 COMMERCIAL PROJECT 86-15 - COURTON AND ASSOCIATES (MARK GROSVNER COMPANY) CONTINUED Condition No. 18: - Condition No. 37: Condition No. 40: Condition No. 41: Condition No. 42: Condition No. 43: "Trash enclosures shall be combined into one double-size enclosure placed in the rear, constructed per City Standards, as approved by the community Development Director." "Meet all requirements of Resolution No. 83-12 regarding installation of improvements as a condition of build- ing permit." DELETED. "STOP" signs shall be installed to control outbound traffic at the Riverside and Walnut Drive access driveways." "The Walnut and Riverside Drive ac- cesses shall be curb-return type driveways." "Sign an agreement to annex to City Landscaping and Street Lighting District (Resolution No. 86-26, 86-27, 86-36)." "Provide and install off-site street light to meet the approval of the Public Services Director." "Applicant shall install surface drain- age and grease traps on-site to effec- tively treat run-off prior to entering public right-of-way or storm drainage facilities, as approved by the Chief Building Official." Chairman Washburn asked if the maker of the motion would so amend his motion. commissioner Callahan answered in the affirmative. Condition No. 44: There being no further discussion at the table, Chairman Washburn called for the question. Approved 4-1 commissioner Mellinger voting no 3. Extension of Time - Residential Project 85-3 - Paul Digiovanni - Planner Bolland presented request for a six (6) month extension of time to June 3, 1987, to allow the applicant to obtain re- financing and building permits on the project. Chairman Washburn asked if the applicant was present and if he would like to address this item. Mr. Paul Digiovanni stated that considerable time has been spent on this project, and that it is in a difficult area to develop (within the infill project area). Mr. Digiovanni questioned condition number 14, pertaining to the requirement of full off-site improvements, stating the he had several meetings with the Engineering Department and modified improvements were agreed to. Mr. Digiovanni stated that they did attempt to change the alley so that it would be more accessible, and spent considerable time meeting with the all of the neighbors. Mr. Digiovanni requested that the original condition pertaining to off-site improvements remain. Minutes of Planning commission December 2, 1986 Page 12 EXTENSION OF TIME - RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 85-3 - PAUL DIGIOVANNI CONTINUED Mr. Digiovanni stated that he had originally requested a twelve month extension and would feel more comfortable with this time extension, rather than the six month extension proposed by staff. Discussion was held on condition number 14, pertaining to alley improvements and whether or not this was for full improvements from Flint Street to the site or half alley improvement; zoning -- and design standards not met (referring to the old and new Title 17 requirements); condition number 12, pertaining to landscaping and irrigation plan; modified improvements pertaining to drain- age and access; if there would be any health and safety problems either on-site or off-site with modified or deferral of improve- ments. Motion by Commissioner Callahan to approve Extension of Time for Residential Project 85-3 per staff recommendation, second by Commissioner Kelley. Approved 5-0 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S REPORT Community Development Director Miller stated that the Commission has been provided the latest version of the City's Organizational Chart. Chairman Washburn stated that there was some unfinished business and asked the Commissioners to discuss the scheduling of a study session. The Commission schedule December 11, 1986, at 6:00 p.m. for a study session to discuss the Lighting Ordinance, General Plan Policies and Guidelines. -- commissioner Brown stated that he has no time available between now and Christmas, and would be unable to attend the study session. PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Commissioner Callahan: Nothing to report. commissioner Kelley: Commented on a number of appliances and cars abandoned on Lake Street, and doesn't know what a solution is for this--mostly County property. It is only a matter of time before people start dumping appliances within the City Limits. Commissioner Kelley stated that they have not received the outline of Escondido's Lighting Ordinance, and asked when this will be coming. commissioner Mellinger stated that Escondido's Lighting Ordinance has been turned in to the Planning Department. Commissioner Kelley asked for a copy of this ordinance prior to the study session so that they will have a chance to review it. ~ Community Development Director Miller stated that it was indicated that a draft ordinance would be prepared and presented, but it is not anticipated that this will be ready before January. Discussion ensued on Escondido's Lighting Ordinance being brought to the study session and the draft Lighting Ordinance being discussed at a future study session. Minutes of Planning commission December 2, 1986 Page 13 PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION CONTINUED commissioner Mellinger stated that another model ordinance is being developed by San Diego County Lighting Advisory Board, which will be ready in January, and it might be appropriate to review this at the study session. Community Development Director Miller asked if the Commission would like to discuss Amendment 86-3 at the December 11th study session? Chairman Washburn answered in the affirmative. Community Development Director Miller stated that in terms of approv- ing Commercial project 86-15, this evening--approved with time res- trictions, if the Commission would like to reconsider any action on the lighting issue. Chairman Washburn stated that he felt that this would have an impact on what is looked at at the study session. Both will have to be reviewed and consideration given to possible consolidation or cor- rections. commissioner Mellinger stated that when the ordinance is written it could refer to when this would go into effect, and it could supercede some of the conditions. Chairman Washburn informed Commissioner Kelley that he could contact Ron Jones, Public Works Superintendent, about the abandoned appliances and vehicles. -- Community Development Director Miller informed Commissioner Kelley that is would probably be more effective if he contacted county staff directly, as they tend to respond better to a direct citizen complaint as opposed to a staff complaint. commissioner Brown: Commented on the city limit boundary for Escondido, and their Lighting Ordinance. Commented on a brochure received on development courses through UC Irvine, stating that if there is money in the budget he would like to attend, and asked if anyone else was interested in attending. Commented on the structure on Strickland, referring to the structure being built on a 50 degree slope, and that the person is carrying water up by the bottle, asking if anything has been done about this. Community Development Director Miller stated that the owner has been contacted, and indicated that the various constuction that has has been erected will have to be removed or we would have to start abate- ment proceedings. Commissioner Brown asked if this includes the travel trailer that he is living in? Community Development Director Miller answered in the affirmative. commissioner Callahan asked if this also included the wood fence that was built inside the chain link fence. Community Development Director Miller stated that he felt this would also be covered. Commissioner Mellinqer: Commented on the large cut slopes on the Buster Alles tracts, stating that with the rain we have had so far they have received more ruts, Minutes of Planning Commission December 2, 1986 Page 14 PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION CONTINUED to the point where they probably won't have any possibility of land- scaping as agreed to by the developer. Asked for a written report, by the next meeting, as to the type and timing of landscaping on all of the off-site cut slopes. commissioner Brown asked if the developer was required to bond for the cut slope landscaping. - Community Development Director Miller answered in the negative, and stated that the conditions call for the slopes to be hydroseeded prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy. Commissioner Mellinger recommended that all certificates of Occupancy be held until all landscaping is in place and thriving. Commissioner Mellinger commented on the mining operations being per- formed by Buster Alles (directly across from Tee Pee Ranch and west of the cut slope tract, commenced approximately 7-8 months ago) how the grading plan relates to the approved tract on the site. Community Development Director Miller stated that this was an illegal grading operation. The developer had obtained a stock pile permit from the Engineering Department. We have notified the developer of the illegal grading and we are still trying to get some compliance from the developer. Commissioner Mellinger requested a status report on this by December 16th, as far as how we are proceeding and what steps we are taking. Commissioner Mellinger commented on a vacant and unfinished residence on smith and Machado, stating that he would like to have the owner contacted and have the site boarded up and a fence put around it. ... Chairman Washburn: Nothing to report. There being no further business, the Lake Elsinore Planning Commission adjourned at 10:20 p.m. Motion by Commissioner Callahan, second by Commissioner Kelley. Approved 5-0 loved. GaJtL;J/::Zui!~ Cha~an Resp. ectfull~.. bmitted., ~. 1-'/..- ~_ ~ t/f~~d~ ~~d~ L~nda Grindstaff ~ Planning Commission Secretary .., MINUTES OF LAKE ELSINORE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER 1986 THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:03 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Commissioner Callahan. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: commissioners: Brown, Mellinger, Callahan, Kelley and Washburn ~ ABSENT: None Also present were Community Development Director Miller, Planners Spencer, Magee and Last. MINUTE ACTION Motion by Commissioner Brown to approve minutes of December 2, 1986, as submitted, second by Commissioner Mellinger. Approveq 5-0 PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Zone Change 86-18 - George & Ruth Killian - Planner Spencer presented a proposal to amend the zoning designation from R-l/HPD (Single-Family Residential/Hillside Planned District) to C-2 (General commercial) for five (5) acres north of the freeway, east of Main Street on Camino del Norte. Chairman Washburn asking if anyone 86-18. Receiving if anyone wished response, Chairman 7:06 p.m. opened the public hearing at 7:06 p.m., wished to speak in favor of Zone Change no response, Chairman Washburn asked to speak in opposition. Receiving no Washourn closed the public hearing at Commissioner Mellinger stated that he agrees with the Zone Change provided the General Plan designation with that interpretation is correct. Commissioner Mellinger then asked if there were any future plans for development of the site; as there are considerable constraints on the site that need to be addressed. Community Development Director Miller stated that, at the present time, the site is on the market, and we are not aware of any proposed project for the site. commissioner Mellinger stated that he would like to have included in the motion "that any future development pro- posals would require some close environmental review in terms of drainage and grading on the site". Chairman Washburn commented briefly on the difficulty of developing the parcel. Motion by Commissioner Mellinger to recommend adoption of Negative Declaration and approval of Zone Change 86-18 based upon the Findings listed in the Staff Report, and including in the motion "that further environmental review for any proposals on the site will be required, especially for grading and drainage", second by Commissioner Callahan. Approved 5-0 2. Conditional Use Permit 86-7 - SignArts, Inc. - Planner Magee presented a proposal to allow three (3) l2'xlO' construction site signs, 17' in height. To provide temporary identi- fication for the Elsinore Town Center, located on the west side of Mission Trail between Campbell and Sylvester Streets. Minutes of Planning Commission December 16, 1986 Page 2 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 86-7 ~ SIGNARTS. INC. CONTINUED Chairman Washburn opened the pUblic hearing at 7:11 p.m., asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of Conditional Use Permit 86-7. Receiving no response, Chairman Washburn asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Receiving no response, Chairman Washburn closed the public hearing at 7:11 p.m. Commissioner Brown commented on the length of time, asking if one year was standard for this type of sign permit? Planner Magee answered in the affirmative. .... Commissioner Mellinger stated applicant leases all but one one year period, if it would be be removed. . that his concern is if the of the spaces prior to the appropriate that the sign Commissioner Mellinger asked if the sign copy was changed would it have to come back before the Planning Commission? Planner Magee answered in the affirmative. Commissioner Mellinger asked how the Commission felt about the length of time; stating that he would like to see a limit of one year or a percentage of occupancy. Commissioner Brown stated that he would like to have it limited to six (6) months with a review. Chairman Washburn commented on the location of the signs, and stated that he has no problem with the one year time limit. If they do start to fill up they can come back and work with staff to relocate the sign on to Phase II. Commissioner Callahan asked if the right hand side would be Phase I and the left hand side Phase II. .... Community Development Director Miller answered in the affirma- tive, stating this is generally the case. The outlining pads that are removed from the main bulk of the cen~er, those out closest to Mission Trail, which may not be built until Phase II. Commissioner Callahan asked if it was permissible, as far as we are concerned at this point, that a developer be able to move those signs to a more appropriate position. Community Development Director Miller stated that whatever the Commission felt appropriate could be incorporated into the conditions of approval. Commissioner Callahan stated that this was his feeling at this point. If we are going to allow them two signs now, the two signs will not really be at either extreme end, but if they get the right hand side developed then they really do not need a sign to cover it. Feels that it would be .... appropriate that if they are allowed the two signs to go ahead and move the other one down, to say the extreme left hand corner. Chairman Washburn stated that he does not see why it would have to keep coming back to the table. Thinks that the maker of the motion could incorporate that they (the ap- plicant) have the right to relocate one or both signs with the Community Development Director's permission. Minutes of planning Commission December 16, 1986 Page 3 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 86-7 = SIGNARTS, INC. CONTINUED - Motion by Commissioner Callahan to allow the applicant to relocate signs with the Community Development Director's permission, second by Commissioner Kelley. Chairman Washburn asked if there was any further discussion. commissioner Mellinger stated that the key is to make sure that it is set back, as there is only five feet clearance up above, and with construction traffic it would not be ap- propriate near sidewalks; just insure that it is not located where there would be any site distance problems--not for traffic but for sidewalk movement. commissioner Callahan amended his motion to approve Conditional Use Permit 86-7 with the Findings listed in the Staff Report, and that any movement would have to be approved by the Com- munity Development- Director, second by Commissioner Kelley. Approved 5-0 BUSINESS ITEMS NONE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S REPORT Community Development Director Miller presented to the Commission a copy of a resolution amending Exhibit "A" of Resolution 86-71 designating a redevelopment survey area for study purposes, which will be presented to City Council, for action, at their next meeting. Community Development Director Miller stated that at the January 6, 1987 Planning Commission meeting additional information will be brought to the Commission on the preliminary plan for the Redevelopment Area and selection of the project areas. Community Development Director Miller stated that City Council has scheduled a special meeting for December 17th, at 6:30 p.m. At which time, staff will review information that has been provided from Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District and Engineering Sciences regarding the outflow channel, drainage issues and issues generally related to lake management. PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS commissioner Kelley: Nothing to report. Commissioner Callahan: Informational only. An item that was discussed about a month ago, where building material was being stored on a lot, owned by Mr. Renee Rich. Mr. Rich is having some problems getting moved out and his time has been extended, as I understand it, to January 2, 1987. Mr. Rich came to my house and we discussed the matter and because of family problems he needed a time extension. I suggested that he come in and talk to the City Staff as I felt that they would certainly be sYmpathetic enough to do that, so we shall see what happens by January 2nd. Mr. Rich also wants to come back before the Commission with his project, and I would certainly like to see his lot cleaned up before that. Minutes of Planning Commission December 16, 1986 Page 4 PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION CONTINUED Reported that a certain amount of demolition work has been done on the building project on Strickland. I would like to see that continue, including the eight or ten foot wooden fence that is on the inside of the chain link fence. Reported that the Water District has rescheduled their meeting for December 17th, at 7:30 p.m. - Commissioner Brown: Nothing to report. commissioner Mellinqer: Asked staff about the status of the Pacific Heritage Project, wanting to know if anything would be coming before the Planning Commission and City Council, and in what form? Community Development Director Miller stated that the Redevelop- ment Agency had signed a planning agreement with Pacific Heritage, which expired in November. Due to various concerns that had been discovered in gathering information, particularly with respect to the lake management plan, there have been a number of changes that have taken place in their planning process, and the Redevelopment Agency has extended the planning agreement with Pacific Heritage. Community Development Director Miller stated that Pacific Heritage does anticipate making a presentation to the Redevelopment Agency on the 23rd, and before any actual project could be approved it would have to go before the Planning Commission and City Council in the normal design review process. - Community Development Director Miller stated that City Council had approved one alternative (Alternative "A", the preferred alternative), which included Elsinore Bay. It now appears that this may be infeasible for technical reasons. Commissioner Mellinger asked when the Redevelopment Agency makes these approvals, what does this mean? Lets say that it was feasible, does that mean that they can go ahead with the project? Community Development Director Miller agreement would most likely give right to pursue that concept with the ment Agency. stated that the form of the Pacific Heritage the exclusive cooperation of the Redevelop- Chairman Washburn: Even though city Council has already made a public announcement on the work being done downtown, I want to make a public announcement that there will be inconveniences in traffic flows due to the place- ment of culverts for subsurface drainage in the downtown area. - Asked for the schedule on street cleaning for the commenting on the need to work in more strips contact Ron Jones, Public Works Superintendent, as should be directed to him. downtown area, downtown. Will this question Wished everyone in the audience and the citizens of Lake Elsinore a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. Minutes of Planning Commission December 16, 1986 Page 5 There being no further business, the Lake Elsinore Planning commis- sion adjourned at 7:30 p.m. Motion by Commissioner Callahan, second Commissioner Mellinger. Approved 5-0 - ~;~uw~~ Respectfully ~ndstaff Planning Commission Secretary - -