Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-16-2002 JointCity Council/Planning Commission Study SessionMINUTES JOINT CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE 130 SOUTH MAIN STREET LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA TUESDAY, JULY 169 2002 CALL TO ORDER The Joint Study Session was called to order by Mayor Kelley at 11:35 a.m. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS BRINLEY, BUCKLEY, SCHIFFNER, KELLEY HICKMAN BARNES, LaPERE, MATTHIES, NASH, UHLRY NONE Also present were: City Manager Watenpaugh, Assistant City Manager Best, Assistant City Attorney McClendon, Administrative Services Director Boone, Community Development Director Brady, Police Chief Walsh, Recreation/Tourism Manager Fazzio, Public Works Manager Payne, City Treasurer Ferro and City Clerk/Human Resources Director Kasad. DISCUSSION Planning Commission Procedures (Overlays, General Plan Community, Development Issues)(F:60.1)(X:60.2) Mayor Kelley congratulated Commissioners LaPere and Uhlry on their appointment and welcomed them. PAGE TWO - JOINT STUDY SESSION - JULY 169 2002 City Manager Watenpaugh advised that it was the intent to get the Council back into quarterly meetings with the Planning Commission to allow the two boards open communication. He indicated that the Commission will be working on updating elements of the General Plan. He noted that Community Development Director Brady had met with the new Commissioners to provide information; and suggested that the topics presented were merely a basis for discussion, as the main interest was getting the two boards together. Community Development Director Brady explained that the Planning Commission was the one Commission required by law, and that five members were required, which could be the City Council. He further explained that the Council was empowered to establish the powers and responsibilities of the Commission. He noted that Lake Elsinore's Commission was similar in responsibilities to other cities. He also noted that he had met with Commissioner LaPere, but had not yet been able to meet with Commissioner Uhlry. He advised that he had provided the new Commissioners with copies of the League of California Cities Commissioners Handbook, which provides an overview of the Planning Process. He also advised that the Commissioners would have an opportunity to attend a workshop on August 22nd hosted by the local APA Chapter. He explained that the areas the Planning Commission reviews are generally set out by State law, with the Commission serving as a recommending body to the City Council. He indicated that their decisions could be appealed to the City Council. He noted that staff provides the background information and assures that the legal issues and requirements have been met, and explained that the Zoning Code, as adopted by the City Council, establishes those requirements. He displayed the General Plan and noted that it serves as a strategic plan or business plan for the City's development, showing how the Planning Commission /Council would like to see the community develop over the next ten to fifteen years. He advised that the Housing Element had been updated and in compliance with State law, but the other six elements were not required to be updated on a regular basis. Councilwoman Brinley questioned the requirements for updating of the Housing Element. Community Development Director Brady clarified that it was required to be reviewed on an annual basis. He explained that there were seven State PAGE THREE - JOINT STUDY SESSION - JULY 169 2002 mandated elements and others which are optional. He further explained that the General Plan was implemented with the Zoning Map, General Plan Map and Zoning Regulations. He noted that the Zoning requirements were part of the Municipal Code, adopted by the City Council as Ordinances. He commented as an example that if an Overlay District was adopted the General Plan would need to be revised as well. He indicated that the Planning Commissioners had been given copies of the Zoning Ordinance and would receive a copy of the General Plan. He noted that the Commission would be meeting on Wednesday, and advised that Commissioner Barnes was the current Chairman and Commissioner Matthies was the current Vice - Chairman. He indicated that they were responsible for leading the commission meetings and conducting the public hearing process. Commissioner Barnes noted that the City Clerk would be providing the Municipal Code for the new Commissioners. Community Development Director Brady noted that a representative of the City Attorney's Office was in attendance at all Commission meetings for assistance. He explained that staff prepared information in support of the Commission, researched questions, prepared staff reports and presented material at the Planning Commission meetings, similar to the City Council. He noted that the Commission also serves as the Design Review Committee for the City. He indicated that basically all large developments go before the Commission, as well as General Plan Amendments and Capital Projects; with the Commission, in most cases, making a recommendation or decision. He noted that staff was busy, however there were a number of things that they would like to see revised, including sign regulations, fencing requirements, compact car parking requirements, etc. He further noted that attempts were being made to simplify the process for the developers coming into the community, and improve the design components. City Manager Watenpaugh introduced Assistant City Attorney McClendon to the Planning Commissioners. Planning Commissioner Matthies noted that the City Engineer is also present at their meetings for questions on engineering issues. She indicated that staff works well with the Commission, as they know the Commission's general direction, and have developed a high form of communication to allow them to iron out problems PAGE FOUR - JOINT STUDY SESSION - JULY 16, 2002 early on. She commented that although the Commission serves as additional eyes and ears for the Council, the backbone was the staff who made it easy for the Commissioners. Mayor Kelley noted the possible topics for discussion and questioned the Country Club Heights Overlay. City Manager Watenpaugh noted that this matter was brought forward by Councilman Buckley and staff was working with a consultant on it. He indicated that it would be coming to the Planning Commission for their input, as it would need to address the issues of terrain, small lots, street standards, septic requirements, etc. He suggested that it would be years before a large developer could consolidate lots and develop a large plan, and the thought was that to change the standards would encourage more development in that area. Councilwoman Brinley noted that such an Overlay had been discussed before, and it was thought that the whole area should be studied to assure adequate input. She suggested that it was difficult to discuss issues of this magnitude in a few minutes. City Manager Watenpaugh clarified that it was not staffs intent to resolve issues at this meeting, but rather to highlight the efforts underway. He indicated that the consultant would be discussing the issue at length. He stressed the importance of shared thoughts on issues such as entryways to the community and appropriate development standards. Councilwoman Brinley commented that a lot of issues were viable, and she would like a full day workshop to address the individual issues and provide input. She suggested discussion of the relationship between the two boards. Mayor Kelley suggested that the Council summarize their focuses and what they would like to see, as well as areas of sensitivity. Councilman Buckley highlighted his interests, including the Country Club Heights issues, and noted that he had met with the residents. He explained that the vision would be for custom and semi - custom homes, while preserving the integrity of the existing neighborhood. He noted that some people had concerns that overlay districts would encourage tract homes, but when he explained it as a way to allow people to build their dream homes they were more supportive. He indicated that generally he would like to address standards for tracts, larger lots, more specific PAGE FIVE - JOINT STUDY SESSION - JULY 169 2002 architectural detail on the sides and backs of houses, and a way to help downtown and older neighborhoods with permits and encourage renovation as long as the development stays in character with the area. He stressed making development cheaper, easier and more accessible. Councilwoman Brinley stressed the importance of the Planning Commission as the "nuts and bolts" of projects, and indicated that she would like to see a great relationship between the two boards. She further stressed the need to work cooperatively and fairly. She noted that the City had a good staff and information was well provided. She indicated that with regard to development she would like to see quality before quantity, and she looks to the Planning Commission to make the decisions to accomplish that goal. She stressed that she needs to trust the Planning Commission to make sure that the City has quality development with the right match of development. She indicated that she looks for the Planning Commission to be politically sensitive and serve as the first line of defense. She noted recent work with Tuscany Hills and Lusk Homes and the care taken in that process. She indicated that she had no problem working with the development community and suggested that when the boards can talk to the development community they can build mutual respect and understanding. She stressed that the Commission should work through the Department Director and Commission Chairman. She indicated with regard to Overlay District it had been discussed for a long time and a past proposal was for estate lots, however there were concerns with lot mergers, street setbacks, sewer, etc. She supported building custom homes in the area, but stressed the need for appropriate amenities. She indicated that the Commission needed to be flexible and look at options; and maintain relationships for open communication between the Boards for betterment of the community. Mayor Pro Tem Schiffner commented that the City Council had established the rules by which the Planning Commission makes decisions, and indicated that he expected them to make decisions and recommendations based on those rules. He indicated that the Commission had done a good job and stressed the complexity of the issues and the study required. He indicated that there were certain things upon which they could make the final decision and he had no problem with that. He suggested that some things that were referred to Council were not necessary and PAGE SIX - JOINT STUDY SESSION - JULY 16, 2002 some changes had been made to allow the Planning Commission to make more final decisions, and noted that there might be other areas to do more of that. He indicated that the process was relatively simple if the decisions were based on the codes. He addressed the overlay district noting the physical constraints which impacted standards, noting that the City had violated its own rules to pave some streets. He indicated that revisions needed to be made to make the development consistent, rather than arbitrary and in violation of our own rules. He suggested that the Redevelopment Agency might have to establish a project area to address the area, as it was very complex for people to contact others to consider the purchase of additional lots. He stressed the need for a plan and a set of rules for everyone to follow, if this area is to develop. He expressed confidence in the ability of the Planning Commission to do a good job. Mayor Kelley summarized that the Planning Commission should follow codes and policy, build relationships, call the Council, keep an eye on streamlining the process, keep an eye on quality as the community grows, keep in mind sensitive areas like Country Club Heights, address landscaping requirements for residential and commercial development particularly on main corridors such as Riverside Drive, Main Street, etc., address fencing and signage. She concurred that she would like a more in -depth study session for further review of planning issues, noting the complexity of some of the issues. She stressed that good judgement should always prevail. Commissioner Barnes welcomed Commissioners Uhlry and LaPere, and noted that they scored high on the interviews. He indicated that with regard to the Country Club Heights Overlay, he was happy for the opportunity to consider it and commented that it was an excellent thing to move forward with development in that area. He indicated that a consultant should be hired for input on what could be done with the area, noting the potential habitat impacts. He indicated that other topics of concern to him were in -fill lots, where the Commission might want to look at allowing the department to handle the projects without coming to the Commission, noting the time impacts of waiting for Commission consideration. He noted that at the next meeting the Commission would be discussing a meeting time and day change to 6 p.m. on the I" and 3`a Tuesdays, for better scheduling and use of department staff. Community Development Director Brady noted that this PAGE SEVEN - JOINT STUDY SESSION - JULY 169 2002 change would be consistent with Council Meetings and eliminate the problem of meetings occurring back to back in the same week. He also noted that the earlier start time would same money as well. Commissioner Nash indicated that he looked forward to working with the new Commissioners, and concurred that there was a need to look at some of the General Plan and make some amendments, particularly the Warm Springs area, how to address in -fill lots, and basic requirements on duplexes. He noted that things come up all the time which are not appropriate, but they are on the books and require an ordinance to change them. He noted that some duplexes were coming in with carports with cabinets in them, as they are allowed by ordinance. He noted that these issues were addressed with staff as they came up; but suggested a need to review the codes. He further noted that some policies were very stringent and required too much. He inquired when the General Plan was last reviewed. Community Development Director Brady indicated that it was revised in 1990, and reviewed in 1995. Commissioner Nash noted that the size of projects, fees, square footage, etc. were issues that drove people crazy in the process. He commented that the Planning Commission meetings were generally very quiet, with only applicants and a few with objections in attendance, and noted the level of apathy. Councilwoman Brinley noted that the Planning Commission meetings used to be televised so people were more aware of the meetings. Mayor Pro Tem Schiffner noted the agendized items for the Planning Commission and indicated that it would be appropriate to allow more discussion on items, which might require changes in the code, and questioned if there was a regular item for open discussion. Community Development Director Brady noted that they had a section of Commission comments, and at times specific issues were brought to study sessions for discussion. City Manager Watenpaugh addressed the agenda for the meeting on Wednesday and noted that there might be a conflict issue. Commissioner Barnes confirmed that they would be discussing KB Homes and Forecast Homes, and explained that his firm was the consulting firm for those projects, so he would excuse himself from those discussions. He also noted that Commissioner Nash lived three houses PAGE EIGHT - JOINT STUDY SESSION - JULY 169 2002 away from the project and would also be excluded from the discussion; so there would be three Commissioners making the decision. Commissioner Matthies commented that all issues mentioned by the Council were kept in mind, and they respected the value of new development, as well as the value of those who have been in the community for years. She noted that they always keep an eye on the historic downtown and necessary changes. She further noted the Commission's review of fencing standards; and commented that blank back walls were also a pet peeve of hers; and it was now a requirement that they be addressed. She noted that staff knows what the Commission wants and have started requesting items up front in the process. She expressed appreciation to staff for their support of the Commission. She stressed that the Commissioners all live in the community and want it to be beautiful. Commissioner Uhlry indicated that he was looking forward to serving on the Commission, and noted that Country Club Heights was of particular concern to him so he was looking forward to getting involved. He commented that he already had a good idea of Council's direction. Commissioner LaPere commented that the Handbook for Planning Commissioners was a stroke of genius, even though it took three days to read. He noted that he had called Mr. Brady regarding the KB Homes at Torn Ranch as it related to electrical. He noted that there would be a learning curve, and he would not sit back and not ask questions. He stressed that he was a team player and looked forward to the challenge. He noted that he had no prior exposure, other than working with the Advisory Committee, but he stressed his belief in public input, and promised to listen effectively and act constructively for the benefit of the whole. Councilwoman Brinley commented that the fencing ordinance changes were working, as the required galvanized poles were holding the fences in place. Mayor Kelley noted discussion of the Brown Act and ethics in the interview process, and the new Commissioners all answered correctly, even with no prior experience. PAGE NINE - JOINT STUDY SESSION - JULY 169 2002 City Manager Watenpaugh inquired whether the Planning Commissioners had questions or legal issues for the City Attorney; and noted that they were under contract with the City and could assist the Commissioners. Mayor Kelley thanked the Planning Commissioners for their participation in this meeting. Mayor Pro Tem Schif Tier inquired if in relationship to Councilman Buckley's issues, whether a memo could be generated to the Planning Commission and City Council to provide early notice of people who have contacted staff about projects, so they would have an idea of what was coming up. Councilwoman Brinley noted the car wash as an example. Community Development Director Brady noted that to some extent this was already occurring in the weekly memo, but offered to provide more detail. He also noted that the City Council receives the Planning Commission packets for review, and indicated that the Council was welcome to attend the Planning Commission meetings. Mayor Pro Tem Schiffner indicated that he was thinking more about projects at the staff level, where developments were being considered. He suggested that it would be helpful to know about viable projects when they are in the discussion phase. City Manager Watenpaugh noted that the Planning Commission does not receive the weekly memo, and the only concern would be that anything in writing to the Council is public information. He noted that there were a couple of developments where if the property was mentioned it might cause a bidding war, but he agreed to try to provide more information. He questioned the best format to get information out to the Council and get events written on their calendars to avoid scheduling conflicts. He concurred that a half or whole day session would be a good idea. Mayor Pro Tem Schiffner commented that this meeting had been scheduled for quite some time. Commissioner Barnes indicated that he was notified of today's meeting at 3 p.m. yesterday. ADJOURNMENT PAGE TEN - JOINT STUDY SESSION - JULY 16, 2002 The Joint Study Session was adjourned at 12:30 p.m. GENIE KELLEY, MAYO CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE JOHN BARNES, CHAIRMAN PLANNING COMMISSION �MC, CITY CLERK/ HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE