Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-29-1987 Joint Meeting CC/PC . Jl,a.., MINUTES JOINT MEETING CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE 130 SOUTH MAIN STREET LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA THURSDAY, OCTOBER 29, 1987 - 7:00 P.M. -- *************************************************************** 00 en C\.I w CD <C - - 1. CALL TO ORDER The Joint Meeting of the City Council and Planning Commission was called to order by Mayor strigotte at 7:03 p.m. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Brinley. 3 . ROLL CALL PRESENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: DOMINGUEZ, MATSON, VERMILLION WINKLER, STRIGOTTE COMMISSIONERS: BRINLEY, BROWN, KELLEY, MELLINGER, WASHBURN ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE COMMISSIONERS: NONE Also present were: City Manager Molendyk, Assist:ar..t City Manager Gilbert, Community Development Director Miller, Public Services Director KirChner, Senior Planner Libiez, Senior Planner Manee, Assistant Planner Last, Assistant Planner Magee, Associate Planner Wilkins and Deputy City Clerk Bryning. 4. BUSINESS ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION Planninq Commission/City Council Review Process. Mr. Molendyk led the discussion by stating that the Planning Department is in the process of upgrading the plan checking process. Mr. Miller then presented the steps necessary to process Development Applications. The procedure applies to most applicants with the exception of single-family residential projects. The lead time from receipt of application, to the time that the City Council reviews the item, is approximately nine weeks. Mr. Miller further explained that there is a different set of submittal requirements for Minor Design Review which encompasses single-family residential, detached dwellings, duplexes, and additions to commercial and industrial structures not exceeding 15% of the floor area of the structure and less than 2000 square feet. For that, the Planning Department requires three sets of prints and no color renderings. The review time is approximately two weeks. There was general discussion in regard to repeat reviews of Single-Family Residential. .:Ill Page two b Joint Meeting October 29, 1987 Mr. Miller stated that a planner is assigned to each project and follows that project to completion. This has been implemented to avoid repeat reviews. The Planning Department is working on fliers which will give guidelines for Minor Design Reviews, Variances, and Conditional Use Permits which would be for the small developer or single-family residential projects. Mr. Vermillion questioned the meaning of Financial Feasibility. Mr. Miller responded by explaining that certain projects which are proposed in concept, do not justify the necessary expenditure which have to be made to make the proposed project a reality. - There was general discussion in regard to the review process and suggestions were made to stream line the process and give a better overview of the final project to City Council. The suggestions were as follows: 1. Planning Commission wishes to do a complete review of the project and not leave the responsibility to the Community Development Director only. 2. The Council would like to see the project sent to the Council in the final stage. Not listing "Subject to Planning Commission review or Subject to Community Development Directors review". Planning Commission should do all reviews prior to the item being sent to Council. 3. Amend Title 17 to allow Planning Commission to Deny project without prejudice, until found complete by Planning Commission. Discussion of Minor Variances and More Flexible Desiqn Standards. - The items discussed were as follows: 1. Commercial set backs. developer wished to do landscaping that there to 10 feet. It was suggested that if the an exceptional job of be a variance from 20 feet 2. Parking spaces behind commercial centers. It was suggested that the parking be restricted to loading and room enough behind the loading zone for an isle way for passing cars. 3. Parking lot lighting standards. It was suggested that there be a uniform standard for parking lot lighting. There was general discussion regarding phasing. It was explained residential is required to show all the phases, but with commercial it is not possible to show all the phases due to the needs of the business which the space will be built for. Signage for commercial centers was also discussed. ~ Mr. Miller addressed Minor Design Review items which are single-family detached houses, duplexes, commercial and industrial additions which are less than 15% of the floor area and not exceeding 2000 square feet which are subject to Minor Design Review, subject to Community Development Director approval. If an applicant wants to apply for a variance to those items, Mr. Miller suggested that Council might consider delegating the authority to approve or disapprove those variances, to ~ 00 m ru w m ~ ~ ~ Page three Joint Meeting October 29, 1987 the Community Development Director, to make those decisions which would save time in processing and in fees to the applicant. Mr. Miller suggested incorporating, as part of the Design Review Process a provision that if Planning commission and City Council make a finding of excellence in design of architecture or landscaping the applicant could reduce the set back up to one half. Getting the excellence of design in lieu of set-back. There was general discussion in regard to the burden placed on City Council decision. The developer will then expect the reduction of set back. It was the general consensus to leave the variances as they are. ~ ~ THE CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION RECESSED AT 8:15 P.M. THE CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION RECONVENED AT 8:18 P.M. Update on General Plan Land Use and Circulation Element Revisions and Proposed Scheduling. Mr. Manee gave a general overview of the General Plan/Zoning Designation Maps. Mr. Manee explained the graphs and maps presented an explanation regarding quadrants which represent over six hundred study items. He further explained that seventy percent of the City is in nonconformance and this project will address this and bring some consistency into the make up of the City, along with best use. Mr. Manee stated that the General Plan and Zoning Designation will be on one map to prevent confusion and bring consistency to the growth of the City. Mr. Manee stated that the General Circulation has been addressed with the generaL,build up of the City. The focus will be on alignment and capacity of roadways. Mr. Manee suggested that he advertise for an Advisory Committee made up of the general public to receive in-put. Mr. Strigotte suggested that it might be better and more organized if each member of the City Council and Planning Commission appointed a person to sit the committee. He stated that the joint boards could appoint persons who would be responsible to the community and be committed to the project. Country Club Heiqhts Area Mr. Matson stated that there has been considerable concern with the Country Club Heights Area. The existing right-of-ways need to be forty feet instead of sixty feet. Mr. Matson further stated that there are concerns with water lines and pressure as well as sewer. Mr. Strigotte stated that he had been contacted by several persons from the Country Club Heights area, who wish to participate on a citizens Advisory Committee. 4.. Page four ~.'" Joint Meeting ~ October 29, 1987 Mr. Matson stated that he hoped to start planning for formation of a Committee by November 10, 1987. It was concurred by the Joint Board that the items listed on the Agenda which were not addressed at this meeting will be addressed at a later time. MOVED BY STRIGOTTE, SECONDED BY MATSON TO ADJOURN THE JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION AT 9:09 P.M. - ~ARY &~~, CHAIRMAN PDA ING COMMISSION CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE Respectfully submitted, - -