Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-24-2000 City Council/RDA Study SessionMINUTES CTTY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY STUDY SESSION CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE 130 SOUTH MAIN STREET LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA TUESDAY, OCTOBER 24, 2000 .............................................................................., CALL TO ORDER Mayor Brinley called the City Council Study Session to Order at 4:04 p.m. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: KELLEY, SCHIFFNER, BRINLEY ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: METZE, PAPE Also present were: City Manager Watenpaugh, Assistant City Manager Best, City Attorney Leibold, Community Development Director Brady, and City Clerk Kasad. DISCUSSION 1. A~enda Review. (F:44.1~ Presentations Mayor Brinley stated that there would be two items added to the Presentations. She indicated that Item b. would be a presentation far Thelma Ball and Item c. would be Terra Cotta Middle School performing an excerpt from Guys and Dolls. Mayor Brinley clarified that she would not have to add these items by Council Motion. City Attorney Leibold confirmed. Public Hearing Mayor Brinley indicated that there was a clerical error and she would be pulling Business Item No. 31, Tentative Parcel Map No. 29235 "Abbacy Holding Corporation", and move this item to Public Hearing Item No. 21b. City Attorney Leibold noted that it was noticed as a Public Hearing and was accidentally placed under Business Items and suggested that Item No. 21 should be heard as 21a and move Item No. 31 to 21b since they are related items. Mayor Brinley stated that Item No. 32 under Business Items would become Item No. 31; and noted that she did not need to call for a motion since the item was properly noticed. City Manager Watenpaugh stated that Community Development Director Brady and the proponent Mr. Kipp were present to answer any questions. Councilman Schiffner questioned the dates on Page 11 of Item No. 21, of the Ordinance, City Clerk Kasad stated that she would make sure that the PAGE TWO - STUDY SESSION MINUTES - OCTOBER 24, 2000 right date was placed on the book copy of the Ordinance. Councilwoman Kelley asked that when Community Development Director Brady gave his overview of this item, that he include the background of the Planning Commission consideration; how Mr. Kipp worked with the residents; and where the project was regarding the concerns of the residents. Community Development Director Brady noted the exhibits of the Canyon Estates Specific Plan and indicated that it was adopted in 1985. He identified the area the Specific Plan covers and noted that it does include a 12-acre parcel on the other side of the Freeway. He noted that the proposal included a Specific Plan Amendment, Zone Change and two General Plan Amendments. He noted that one of the first actions proposed was to take the car dealership area out of the General Plan, since it does not have continuity to the Specific Plan; and changing the Zone to a Commercial instead of Specific Plan. He noted that the other aspect of the action requested is to change the multi-family zone designation to a commercial designation and include it in the existing commercial designation. He indicated that several of the residents had e~ressed concem regarding the area being made a C-2 designation. He explained that there were two Town Hall Meetings with the residents to allow them to provide input as to what type of use that they would like to see in the G2 designation. Community Development Director Brady stated that during the Town Hall Meetings, one of the concerns stated was that the street would become a five-lane highway. He explained the EIR process and noted that the traffic counts which are figured from a total build out of the City would take appro~mately 20 years; and based on land use throughout the City, all the surrounding tracts are coming in with a much lower density than was originally proposed, therefore the proposed traffic counts would never reach the numbers that are included. He stated that staff clarified the issueS to the residents and explained that the road would not be widened until it became necessary. ' Councilwoman Kelley asked if the residents were satisfied with the information. Community Development Director Brady stated that the ' residents have a clear understanding that there will be no five-lane highway, ' but rather just an additional ten feet of right-of-way, if there were a need to expand the roadway, the right-of-way would be available. Councilman Schiffner clarified the additional area and asked if it would allow for a turn out lane. Community Development Director Brady stated that it would allow for two additional lanes should the need exist, however it would be a narrower roadway than what the General Plan shows. He stated that the applicant has agreed to provide the additional ten feet as part of the approval of the Parcel Map. Councilwoman Kelley asked if the residents understand that Franklin will be opened up and will be open to through traffia Community Director Brady stated that at the second public meeting this issue was clarified and a PAGE THREE - STUDY SESSION MINUTES - OCTOBER 24, 2000 majority of the residents were very much in favor of Franklin being opened. , Councilwoman Kelley asked when the City could anticipate that connection. Community Development Director Brady stated that it would be within this , fiscal year. He explained that the design was almost complete and they were ~ completing the acquisition for the right-of-way. Councilman Schiffner inquired that if should Franklin be completed all the way to Main Street to another interchange, would it still be part of this project, or would it be planned to have another road next to the Freeway. Community Development Director Brady indicated that it would dependant on future land uses to dictate the ultimate design. Councilman Schiffner stated that at some time in the future Franklin could be a connector street all the way to Main Street. City Manager Watenpaugh stated that it could actually go all the way to Highway 74. Mayor Brinley asked how the proposed commercial uses were determined. Community Development Director Brady gave an overview of the review process and explained that they selected what were perceived to be the most compatible to the needs of the area. Mayor Brinley questioned the location of the Service Station. Community Development Director Brady stated that the C-2 permits the development of a car wash and gasoline-dispensing establishment although they would ha~e to have Conditional Use Permits. Community Development Director Brady stated that the residents were specific about the types of uses of the commercial property. He noted that some of the residents would ha~e preferred to have the zoning remain for Multi-Family Residential, however the commercial uses that were agreed upon satisfied those same residents. Councilman Schiffner clarified the restrictions of the Specific Plan. Community Development Director Brady indicated that the Planning Commission had recommended elimination of all service stations, car washes, hotels and tenant type facilities within the area and was included as part of the recommendations for commercial uses allowed within the zone. He advised that the applicant had indicated that the hotel and tenants issue was not a concern to him, however he would like the opportunity to develop a car wash and gasoline-dispensing facility. He noted that the modification to the condition was that only hand car washes would be allowed and the gasoline-dispensing facilities would have to be 200 feet from any residence. He indicated that both would be required to obtain a Conditional Use Permit. Councilwoman Kelley asked if Mr. Kipp had businesses lined up far that area. Mr. Kipp explained that they have prospects and explained that the designations of uses was done to protect the City. He stated that what was decided was what specific uses the residents need and like; and noted that one of the items was a gas station with a mini-mart. He explained that all the residents on that side of Railroad Canyon have to travel across Railroad Canyon Road or go under the Freeway to get to the gas stations. He further noted that Yhe only place to obtain a coke is the small liquor store on the PAGE FOUR - STUDY SESSION MINUTES - OCTOBER 24, 2000 corner. He explained that the residents were in favor of the gas station and mini-mart. He further explained that the only place the gas station could be located was at the corner of Summerhill and Canyon Estates Drive, which is the only parcel where a left hand turn could be made. Mayor Brinley clarified that the gas station would be across the street from Summerhill Park. Mr. Kipp noted that there was an EVMWD easement between the property and the river, therefore the suggested site is the best. Community Development Director Brady stated that the Planning Commission recommended that those uses be eliminated. Mayor Brinley asked for clarification. Mr. Brady eaplained that it was the Planning Commission's concern of the association of the residential between the two land uses. Mr. Kipp noted the proposed location of a service station and stated that he felt that it would not be in conflict. Mayor Brinley clarified the site and how it would impact the area. Mr. Kipp explained the process that would be necessary to build a gas station. Community Development Director Brady explained that if a service station were to be allowed it would have to be as a Conditional Use, which gives the Planning Commission and Council the ability to review the item and consider the impacts, access and design. He noted that there are ways to designate that it could be built in a certain area and designed a certain way. Mayor Brinley clarified the ability for the Planning Commission and Council to condition the location and design of the station. She noted the gas stations in Irvine which are inverted and when a car drives by all they see is wall and landscaping. Community Development Director Brady concurred. Mr. Kipp e~lained that the proposed site contains a great deal of rock and if the station were to be inverted, then it would require a great deal of digging. He explained that when Mr. Friedman graded the property, 50% of the shoring was solid rock from the hills they blasted. He further eaplained that the reason the dirt had never been moved was because it was so well compacted and graded. He suggested that the site be walled all the way around, since the property is lower than the berm and would provide approximately 9 feet from curb to top of wall and provide the desired effect. Community Development Director Brady stated that what was being discussed were design issues and what should be discussed was land use. He stated that the question is whether Council wishes to allow the use at that location. Mayor Brinley stated that the problem with the elimination of a service station/mini-mart would be the loss of sales tax revenue. Councilman Schiffner stated that one of things Council was being asked to consider was if Council wished to allow a service station/mini-mart, since the Planning Commission took it out. He stated that the inclusion of a service station/mini mart was fine with him since there would be no auto repair flncluded. Mayor Brinley stated that she addressed the design issues to inform Mr. Kipp of her position prior to starting the process. Mr. Kipp stated that Community Development Director Brady and Planning Manager Villa had PAGE FIVE - STUDY SESSION MINUTES - OCTOBER 24, 2000 been a great help. He noted that he had been in attendance at all the public hearings and Meetings to hear the concerns of the residents. He stated that it was his intent to make his project a hallmark in the City. Community Development Director Brady noted that if Council would wish to include the car wash, staff would recommend a hand car wash facility with no automation. He stated that the project would not please every single resident, however it does answer the concerns of the majority of residents and what they prefer. Community Development Director Brady stated that the item also addresses the extension of Summerhill Drive and stated that it is not feasible and asked that the item be eliminated from the Specific Plan. He explained that the final subject to be addressed was the Parcel Map which incorporates and divides the parcels into four sections and includes the ten feet of right-of-way for the widening of the roadway. Councilman Schiffner stated that he thought there was something in the action that would include participation in a signal. Community Development Director Brady confirmed and stated that it would address a signal at Summerhill and Canyon Estates Drive. He noted that the signal would be installed at some later point. Mr. Kipp stated that the signal would be installed at the time that parcel4 is developed. Councilman Schiffner noted a typo on item EE on page 17 of 131 and should read 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. Mayor Brinley asked the hours of the restaurants in other areas of the City. She questioned the fairness of the set hours; and noted that Denny's and Hunny's are open later and questioned the difference. Councilman Schiffner stated that it would be closer to residences and the other restaurants are not. Mayor Brinley stated that she would like to see the hours of operation set at 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. Community Development Director Brady stated that the item before Council was a Specific Plan and had unique zoning. He explained that what was suggested was consistent with what would be allowed in a G1 zone today. He noted that a C-2 zone has no specific restrictions, however this is not a suggested C-2 zone. Mayor Brinley asked if the Council could change the hours to allow a potential restaurant to compete with the other restaurants. Councilman Schiffner asked if this was an item with which the residents had concerns. Community Development Director Brady stated that he did not recall any concerns on this issue. Mayor Brinley indicated that she felt the residents would have no problem with extending the business hours one-hour on each end of the day to allow competition. She stated that she would make that suggestion at the meeting. City Attorney Leibold indicated that the Council could not make the zoning PAGE SIX - STUDY SESSION MINUTES - OCTOBER 24, 2000 designation more lenient, only more restrictive; and noted that changing the Specific Plan was the only way it could be done. Community Development Director Brady suggested amending Condition K by adding "or restaurants that wish to stay open beyond the hours permitted under the permitted use" could change the hours of business. Councilman Schiffner stated that he would not want to place any restrictions which would prohibit any first-class restaurant from coming in. City Manager Watenpaugh asked for clarification. City Attorney Leibold stated that if the hours were to be eatended it would have to be done by a Conditional Use Permit. Council concurred that was what they would like to do. Mayor Brinley clarified the action that needs to be taken by Council. Councilman Schiffner clarified the time frame on the signal. Mayor Brinley addressed Item No. 22 regarding the request for approval of a Resolution of Necessity and Authorization to Commence Eminent Domain Proceedings to acquire real property necessary for the improvement of Mission Trail. City Attorney Leibold explained that the adoption of the Resolution of Necessity allows the City to file a complaint of Eminent Domain. She further explained that it doesn't preclude additional negotiations. She indicated that the City would continue to attempt to acquire the property by negotiating as opposed to actually going to trial. She stated that it is staff's understanding that the property owner does not intend to appear at the public hearing. She further indicated that he has been unwilling to accept the appraised value offer which included the severance damages. She stated that it was her understanding that when the County was negotiating they did not offer severance damages. She noted that he had been offered $51,200 for the street widening; drainage easement, which generated the severance damages; and a utility easement. City Attorney Leibold stated that staff would continue negotiations. Councilman Schiffner stated that he did not want to see the project delayed. City Attorney Leibold stated that if Council adopted the Resolution of Necessity, she was prepared to file a complaint as early as tomorrow and gain possession by the end of the month. Business Items Mayor Brinley aslced the City Manager to address Item No. 32 which was an agreement containing Covenants affecting Real Property and Dedication, Funding and Construction of Road Improvements. PAGE SEVEN - STUDY SESSION MINUTES - OCTOBER 24, 2000 City Manager Watenpaugh explained that this item addressed the road right- , of-way for the Fire Station at McVicker Park. He indicated that the City had negotiated with the La Laguna Development to elevate the street and do full width grading on an easement along the development property. He stated that La Laguna would provide the entire amount of fill dirt for the street and the Fire Station site; and that the City and La Laguna will split the cost of ' the grading which would be an additional $70,000. , Councilman Schiffner questioned where the fill dirt would come from. City ' Manager Watenpaugh stated that part of the dirt would come from the top of the hill on the road site and the rest from the development site. Councilwoman Kelley questioned the status of the La Laguna Development. City Manager Watenpaugh advised that they were in the process of finding someone to do phase one. Councilman Schiffner asked what this action would do to the cost of the Fire Station. City Manager Watenpaugh stated that it would increase the overall cost by approximately $120,000. Redevelopment Agency City Attorney Leibold addressed Item No. 4 regarding the License Agreement for the Lake Elsinore Diamond Stadium. She asked that the Agency pull the item from the agenda and take no action. Closed Session - Redevelopment Agency City Attorney Leibold stated that the Agency will consider both Closed Session Items "A & B". Closed Sessions - City Council City Attorney Leibold stated that she would announce Closed Session Items "A & B" and there would be no need to hear item "C" this evening. Mayor Brinley requested clarification of the procedure to move Item No. 31 to Item No. 21. City Attorney Leibold suggested that the Mayor make an announcement of all the corrections on the Agenda and the additions to the Presentations. Councilman Schiffner asked if the agenda reorganization would require Council action. City Attorney Leibold stated that it would not. Community Development Director Brady stated that it was brought to his attention that Condition K on Item No. 21 does satisfy the hours that were discussed. PAGE EIGHT - STUDY SESSION MINUTES - OCTOBER 24, 2000 , ADJOURNMENT THE CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA REVIEW STUDY SESSION WAS ADJOURI~~ED AT 4:59 P.A~ PAMELA BRI1~fLEY, MAYOR ~ CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE ~~ ~~~" / ~~ ROBERT L. SCHIFF R, CHAIRMAN REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY