Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem No.1aMINUTES. JOINT ADJOURNED REGULAR CITY COUNCIL/ PLANNING COMMISSION'�MEETING CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE 130 SOUTH MAIN STREET LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 1.0, 1993 •, r,►*, rwrrrt+* ww: rr* r*+** rrtr** t * *wrt *w * * *rtr,r * *,t * * +wwrrt * *t *,tat *w,r* CALL TO ORDER The Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting was called to order by Mayor Washburn at 3:31 p.m. - ROLL CALL PRESENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ALONGI, CHERVENY, DOMINGUEZ, WASHBURN, WINKLER NONE BRINLEY, BULLARD,`METZE, NEFF, "WILSEY NONE: Also present were: City`Manager Molendyk, - Assistant City Manager Rogers, Administrative Services Director'Boone, Community Services Director Sapp, Public Services Director'Tecca, Special Projects Coordinator' Wood, Manager of Special Projects Watenpaugh, and City Clerk Kasad. BUSINESS ITEM _ e City Manager Molendyk advised that he had two additional items to be 'added to the agenda. One being a'letter from the Chamber of Commerce asking the City to Co= sponsor the Miss Lake Elsinore Pageant Contest. The Chamber explained that they needed an answer as soon as possible in order to start publicity. The second item being from Western Classic, is requesting use of the City water truck in' order to prepare for their Pro Circuit Rodeo 'the end, of this month. They 'are asking for use of the Water Truck!,ifor 16'hours, to implement dust control. Mr. Molendyk explained that he had checked with the City Attorney and the Risk_ Manager, and it was decided that the only way that it could - be,�rdone is with a City driver. He recommended that if the CouncilI; does approve the use of the water truck it would be the City!-truck with a, City driver. The cost for this would be approximately,$800.00. MOVED BY WASHBURN, SECONDED BY CHERVENY AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO.ADD TO THE AGENDA THE REQUEST OF THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE TO CO- SPONSOR-THE MISS LAKE ELSINORE PAGEANT AND THE REQUEST OF WESTERN CLASSICS TO-USE THE CITY WATEk TRUCK. 1. Co- Sponsor Miss Lake 'Elsinore Paqeant -, - Request by Lake City Manger Molendyk explained that the Chamber of Commerce would like to hold the pageant at the Community Center and on Saturday, February 26, 1994 and has requested that the City provide the Community Center at no charge. He further explained that last year they had to go outside the'City to hold their event. �� iiE`„ PAGE TWO ADJOURNED JOINT REGULAR CITY COUNCIL /PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 10, 1993 MOVED BY WASHBURN, SECONDED BY DOMINGUEZ AND CARRIED BY A 4 -1 VOTE WITH ALONGI CASTING THE DISSENTING VOTE TO APPROVE THE CO- SPONSORSHIP OF THE MISS LAKE ELSINORE PAGEANT WITH THE LAKE ELSINORE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE. 2. Request of Western Classic Productions to use the City water truck. City Manager Molendyk explained that this request was made by Western Classic Productions to mitigate dust at the Rodeo grounds, at the Central /Collier site for Saturday and Sunday,, November 20th and 21st. Mayor Washburn explained that he had met with Warren Alstatt and discussed the concerns of Western Classic Productions. He stated that he .did not have a problem in assisting in -this manner. MOVED BY WASHBURN, SECONDED BY DOMINGUEZ AND CARRIED BY- ,UNANIMOUS VOTE TO APPROVE THE REQUEST OF WESTERN CLASSIC PRODUCTIONS TO USE THE CITY WATER TRUCK WITH A CITY DRIVER AT THE RODEO - GROUNDS. 3. Lake Elsinore City Center Project (Oak Grove Equities). , City Manager Molendyk presented the site plan proposed by Oak Grove Equities and explained that the City Council and Planning Commission, based upon both boards approvals voiced several.expectations regarding entry statements, landscaping and the view of the project from the freeway. The developer has asked to eliminate some -of the landscaping due to grading problems on the site, as well as, a change in the type of walls. Mr. Molendyk explained that he felt that the changes were substantial enough that they needed to come back before both the Planning Commission and the City Council to allow a unified thought in regard to the project. Mayor Washburn asked that Council -and Planning Commission pay close attention -to this presentation, because there are several small details that will. need decisions and are important to the project and its appearance. City Planner Leslie explained the site plan and the difference in elevation between the site and Grape Street. He further explained the transition between the retaining walls, crib walls and building along the,drive -way approach. Councilman Dominguez asked if the traffic circulation would,be affected by. the change in the crib and retaining. walls. City Planner Leslie stated that-it would not. Mayor Washburn asked if the area being discussed was the main entrance. City Planner Leslie stated that it was not. •,Commissioner Wilsey asked City Planner Leslie if the crib wall that they are suggesting would have to be tiered. City -,. Planner Leslie stated that it would. Mr. Wilsey asked if the change in the entry would affect the entry or the.monument signage. City Planner Leslie explained.that,it would not. Commissioner Brinley asked how much landscaping the City would loose. City Planner, Leslie stated that it ,would be approximately half the landscaping, although the top of-the project does pick up some landscaping. - Commissioner Neff asked what the difference was between the height of the crib wall and of the retaining wall.. City Planner Leslie stated that there was no difference./ AGENDAI'L ,..( �. PAGE THREE ADJOURNED JOINT REGULAR CITY COUNCIL /PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 10, 1993 Craig Schleuniger, representing Oak Grove Equities, explained that it is 25 to 30 feet in height. Mayor Washburn asked if the grade;of the entrance was 68 to 88. City Planner Leslie stated that it was`. City Manager Molendyk suggested that all entrances should be treated as main entrances. Councilman Alongi asked how ,much cost difference there is between the two entrances. Commissioner Neff asked if the City Planner had seen a crib wall combined with a block wall. City Planner Leslie stated that he can visualize the wall, but he doesn't recall ever seeing one. Commissioner. Bullard asked if the same as -the drive.. City would. the retaining wall would rise Planner Leslie stated that it Commissioner Metze asked if there was more maintenance required for a crib wall. City Planner Leslie explained that on a crib wall there is the landscape maintenance because something must grow on 'it, the retaining wall must be painted and kept clean. Mr. Metze asked' if the maintenance is the responsibility of the owner or the City. Mr. Leslie explained that it is the responsibility of'the property owner. - Commissioner Brinley asked how the City could make the owner maintain the landscaping and what ^can be done especially on a crib wall. Mayor Washburn explained that a retaining wall and a crib wall will do the same thing, just one is a blank wall and the other is landscaped. Commissioner Wilsey explained that the developer will be spending a great deal of money on landscape and it behooves them to do a proper job and maintain the landscaping to enhance, their ,ability to rent. Commissioner Brinley explained .that when this project was presented and passed she .felt that it was a class "A" project and would be visible to the entire community; she suggested that it should be the best possible project that can be done. She further explained that she knew that there was going to be some crib wall, 'but there was plain wall to keep maintenance checked. City Manager Molendyk explained that the project meets the minimum requirement for visibility, but is not the best approach. - Commissioner Metze asked if they would be looking at bus stops. The developer has been conditioned to meet with the RTA to work out the bus stops. Commissioner Wilsey noted that they have taken away from the entry wall and because -of the crib wall have moved the monument and changed the look ofthe project. He stated that he has not seen the developer moving the two buildings back and the crib wall in. Mr.' Schleuniger explained of wall, crib or retaining a .308 grade. that the reason for using any type is to "conform to the slope which is AGENDA ITEM NO. 1._. PAGE FOUR ADJOURNED JOINT REGULAR CITY COUNCIL /PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING' NOVEMBER 10, 1993 Commissioner Metze asked what the dollar savings would be to make such a difference to the project. City Manager Molendyk asked what the big wall would cost versus what the little wall would cost. Commissioner Neff explained that it.would be easier to go with those two pads and go with a two to one grade, but the parking limitations affect this action. Commissioner Wilsey asked if the project is that close to the parking limit. Milt Freeman explained that the monument sign_ is still in place, but it is just in a slightly different location. The overturn of the 20 foot wall for footing is what has caused the change which would cost at least $100,000. Commissioner Wilsey asked what the calculations would be for a crib wall versus a retaining wall. Staff explained the retaining wall would be straight up and down, whereas the crib wall would be two to one. Mr. Freeman explained that there would be approximately ten feet less. Mr. Wilsey stated that if the pads could be moved slightly back and hit a happy medium.between the base of the crib wall and the top and still not adversely affect parking. Mr. Freeman explained that they are at'the limit for their parking requirements. Mr..Schleuniger explained what the revision was and why they were asking for the change. Councilwoman Cherveny asked if what we approved was for 30 feet and now there is 9 feet. Staff concurred. Councilman Alongi asked how Oak Grove Equities could' come before the Council and Planning Commission and not know the amount of. parking, that would be lost, how much space would be lost on the building, or the cost. Mr. Alongi stated . that the City is going to contribute quite a few dollars to "this project and he would like to know what is going to be exchanged. He stated that as a developer these facts should have been available at this time and. there is quite a savings for Oak Grove Equities. Mr. Freeman explained that there are two different owners, so the pad cannot be moved, because the adjacent property is owned by someone else. Councilman Alongi stated that perhaps Oak Grove Equities, should contact Wal -Mart and see if they can buy some of that property next to their location, in order to move the pads. .Commissioner Wilsey asked if there was a reciprocal- parking agreement'' and whether it would solve the problem. Mr. Schleuniger explained that in their CC & R's it does not call for a reciprocal parking agreement. City Planner Leslie stated that the site actually has more parking than what is required; that is the overall parking. Commissioner Wilsey stated that from his perspective 'there is a much nicer visual approved plan than what is proposed. He stated that he would like to see some visual enhancement on the crib wall for example. " Commissioner Metze asked what the effect on visibility is going to be coming and going. AGENDA ITEM Pi . 7 PAr. CF PAGE FIVE ADJOURNED JOINT REGULAR CITY COUNCIL /PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 10, 1993 - - Mayor Washburn stated that Mr. Tecca will answer visibility issues, but he cautioned the Commissioners and- Council "that the purpose of this meeting is to come to a decision and not to postpone this issue. The 'reason for the final decision is that the applicant must meet deadlines -with- their agreement to Wal -Mart regarding the pads and there is a certain amount'of dirt 'that-is coming off that site'for the baseball stadium. They'-also have to pin where the pilaster placement' is going to be. This is to-Answer the footing requirements. A- retaining wall must be built first before a'crib wall can be built on top of it. Mayor Washburn stated that until 'a decision -is reached by Council and Planning Commission the project -is -dead in the water. Commissioner Brinley agreed with Commissioner Wilsey and Councilman Alongi and she stated that she understood that there was a cost problem, but -she felt that this was an issue known by' the developer prior to attending the meeting. She explained that this amounts to over a $100,000 change and she wondered what else they would not be able to afford: _ 'Councilwoman Cherveny explained that this was supposed to be one of the corner stones "of the community and like the stadium it would be a first class project; and after a lengthy review process by 'both, the Planning Commission and "Council 'and promised funding through' the Redevelopment Agency',' they are coming back to cut corners. She stated that this was not suppose to be a run-of- the -mill Wal -Mart, but rather a unique and first class project,'better than any others.' Councilwoman Cherveny explained that these requested changes,' caused her real concern. City Manager Molendyk' explained that this is a major'entryway to the City and he wanted Council and Planning Commission to have a clear idea,exactly what type of project they will be getting. He stated that the City is learning by doing and " that the Outlet Center has had its share of problems, and he wants Council to know exactly -what they will be getting He stated that 30 feet of grass is a lot different than 9 feet of grass. Mayor Washburn stated that the second rendering shows it -going 'from-30 feet to 9 feet of grass and if it is!'a question'of aesthetics then planters can be added and a'flat retaining wall can be added to give a facade look; and the only thing that would be lost is the depth of the eatra`10 or 12 feet. Councilman Alongi stated that looking at the second rendering is like going 'from Tuscany Hills to Vow Income Housing'. "He explained that Moving the-retaining wall 5 or 6 feet -still gives the-City 25 feet of set back from the street of grass -area. 'He asked that he be 'given an exact amount of footage that they want to use. If the'retaining wall can be brought forward, to give the necessary amount of area for the building - then there is no need for'the crib wall. ' Councilman Alongi stated that what is really being discussed is cost and not moving things around. He asked the developer how much room are they "looking for to place the building. Mr. Freeman stated that he `is '�reilly not looking for more square -footage. He explained that the change is for constructability. "Councilman Alongi stated that he wished to have the retaining -wall addressed and not the crib 'wall.` He asked- what is restricting the developer from building the retaining wall. AGENDA ITEFfi 1:'.:. G PAGE � =_C1 PAGE SIX ADJOURNED JOINT REGULAR CITY COUNCIL /PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 10, 1993 Mr. Schleuniger explained that it is very difficult designing and constructing, the retaining wall. Councilman Alongi,-commented that there are a lot of things that are difficult,, but it can be done. He stated that it is the cost that is being discussed.. He stated that when the developer brought the project to the Planning Commission and Council, the, cost was there; and this should have been discussed at that time and not-now. Councilman. Alongi pointed .out the .difficulty of air conditioners and how. they had resolved that issue and he- suggested that they meet with Wal- Mart to resolve the parking problems, so that there is no need for change. He stated that there seems to be a habit of fast tracking, and he feels that if it delays the project slightly, then at least it will be done right. Public Services Director Tecca explained that.looking at the plan, entry "B" will be signalized .and the entry that is being discussed is not signalized;, and the entry with the signal will attract more people. He explained that the - street goes down hill, and yet the parking lot remains level and it causes a major grade difference. The public who will, be leaving the parking ,lot will have a tunnel feeling and they will be making a left or right hand turn with traffic coming from the signal. Mr. Tecca explained that.they meet minimum requirements of 30 feet visibility, but the.more visibility they have the better the public will feel. Councilman Alongi asked if Public Services.Director is talking in.favor of the project or not. Public Services Director Tecca commented that if the original wall was built, 30 feet back there would.be a lot more .open area.for the intersection. Councilman Dominguez asked whether even with the alterations, it still meets the, safety requirements. Public ,Services Director Tecca stated that it does. He further,explained the minimum requirements, Councilman Alongi asked why a signal light was not placed at that intersection. Public Services Director Tecca explained that originally it was designed for access for trucks, services vehicles and that type of use; but now it.has been upgraded for public use and it was not advisable to place a ,traffic signal at that location because.it cannot be timed properly. Commissioner Metze asked,if the City needs to keep more .visibility in that-location because there are no traffic signals: He stated that he felt that•the developer wanted the middle one to be the main entrance, but the other is the first _ entrance that the public comes to. Mayor Washburn asked how much the plan has changed from the original plan, in visibility, to the new plan. City Planner Leslie advised that it was.21 feet difference. John Myhre, Nashland Engineering, commented on how good the proposal will look; and explained that it was an error in engineering, that they,didn't realize how difficult it would be to go from a retaining wall to a crib walla Councilman Alongi stated that he did not feel, that the question was how beautiful or not beautiful a'crib wall is, AGENDA ITE!,h, No. PAGE _L2- OF PAGE SEVEN ADJOURNED JOINT REGULAR. CITY COUNCIL /PLANNING.COMMI,SSION MEETING NOVEMBER 10, 1993" nor aesthetics.; the question is the difference in set back and the loss of visibility. Mayor Washburn explained that he was concerned -with project at Tuscany Hills and it turned out beautiful; and on the other hand " projects that he ,had concerns in `regard to became reality. " .Councilman Alongi.explained it is the quality of the product and all these problems should have been ,seen at the engineering stage. John.Myhre explained that one of the concerns of a Planning Commissioner was the - appearance of the pioject'and he wished to assure everyone that it will be a very attractive entrance. Commissioner Brinley explained that the major-concern she has is with the maintenance and up -keep of the crib wall Councilman Winkler stated -that problems can be addressed by Ordinance. and -Code Enforcement if they should arise: He explained that the concern is legitimate, based on -past projects. Commissioner Metze stated that a retaining wall is designed to keep dirt back and questioned the function of a crib wall. Mayor Washburn explained -,the difference between a`ciib iaall and a retaining wall. ,There was general discussion regarding the transition of the retaining wall and the.crib wall: Commissioner Wilsey asked if there was some way that 'a decision could be reached at to whether there should be a retaining wall, or the Board and Council would accept. the revised plans.,and go_with the crib wall. Commissioner Neff 'stated that -he far .prefers the crib wall which is a softer image, to a'30 foot stucco wall which would be subject to graffiti. There was' discussion"' in regard to what `was 'presented - -at" Planning Commission and how's 30 foot wall would be handled. Planning Commission was •assured that there would be -a treatment done with trees and ivy to soften the large size of the wall. Councilwoman Cherveny clarified this-is not the beginning of the process. MOVED BY CHERVENY, SECONDED BY ALONGI TO DENY THE CHANGES AND REMAIN WITH THE ORIGINAL APPROVED PROJECT. John Myhre explained that if there are specific ideas in regard to doing a two to one slope or any other answer, they would be open to suggestions. Councilwoman Cherveny explained that her motion is saying that she doesn't like what the developer and his engineer came up with and she liked what was originally approved. Commissioner Wilsey asked if- the-building could -be placed on the pad if there were redesigns in regard to the building. AGENDA ITEW. . PAGE Ur PAGE EIGHT ADJOURNED JOINT REGULAR CITY COUNC IL/PLANNING'COMMI SS ION MEETING NOVEMBER 10, 1993 There was general discussion in regard. to the cost of developing for the pads and the fact that it would be cost prohibitive. 'Mayor Washburn stated that there' was a motion on the floor to deny any change and go with the original project as approved by Planning Commission and Council. Commissioner Bullard stated that now there is a problem with Entry -way "A" and there will be the same problem with Entry- way "B ". Mayor Washburn stated that there would not be the same problem, since there.is not the grade.problem. Councilman Alongi asked the consensus of what the_Planning Commission thinks.. Councilman Winkler explained that he. voted "yes" for the original project, and he stated that he did not feel that the proposed.concept.presented was what he wanted to see, due to decreased visibility and traffic.' THE FOREGOING MOTION WAS APPROVE BY A 3- 2,VOTE WITH DOMINGUEZ AND WASHBURN CASTING THE DISSENTING VOTES. Commissioner Metze stated that this developer is not Wal -Mart and they are going to have to improve their development to meet the City's standards. Councilman Winkler explained.' that he is receptive to some other idea, but that the developer had a big burden of proof to get him to change his mind. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilwoman Cherveny advised that City Attorney'Harper had stated that.Tuesday, November 16, at 5:00 p.m. would be a.good, time for a Study Session regarding the Card..Room Ordinance. Mayor Washburn instructed the City Clerk to check with the other Councilmembers to see if. -this date would be available. Councilwoman Cherveny stated that City Attorney Harper said that he could do the meeting at 2 :00 p.m.'or at 5:00 p.m. MOVED BY DOMINGUEZ, SECONDED BY ALONGI AND CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE TO ADJOURN THE ADJOURNED CITY COUNCIL MEETING AT 4:40 P.M. ATTEST: VICKI KASAD, CITY CLERK GARY WASHBURN, MAYOR CITY'OF LAKE ELSINORE AGENDA ITEM -` PAGE C�i