Loading...
PC Minutes-2004-11-2332400 PASEO ADELANTO (949) 493- 1 17 1 (949) 493- 1053 FAX SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO, CA 92675 ww~v.saizJirariCu~rsti-c~iio. 0r.g MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 23,2004 MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL SAM ALLEVATO DIANE L BATHGATE WYAlT HART JOE SOT0 DAVID M. SWERDLIN CALL TO ORDER The meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Neely at 7:08 p.m., followed by the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. ROLL CALL: b Commissioners Present: Tim Neely, Chairman Robert Cardoza, Vice Chairman Sheldon Cohen Joe Drey Gene Ratcliffe Commissioners Absent: none Staff Present: Molly Bogh, Planning Director; Omar Sandoval, Deputy City Attorney; Bill Ramsey, Principal Planner; Nasser Abbaszadeh, City Engineer; Alan Oswald, Traffic Engineer; Amy Wolf Volzke, Principal Planner; Sue McCullough, Recording Secretary. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None CONSENT CALENDAR Minutes October 26, 2004: Commissioner Cohen moved approval, seconded by Commissioner Ratcliffe, of the Minutes of October 26, 2004, and the motion passed by a vote of 4-0, with Commissioner Drey abstaining due to his absence at the meeting of October 26, 2004. San Juan Capistrano: Preserving the Past to Enhance the Future PC Meeting 2 November 23,2004 PRESENTATIONS L Presentation by Deputy City Attorney, Omar Sandoval: Overview of the Brown Act and Political Reform Act. Mr. Sandoval provided a handout summarizing the major provisions of the Brown Act (Open Meetings Law) and the Political Reform Act (Conflict of Interest Law). Mr. Sandoval said that the Brown Act specifies that all discussion pertaining to the public’s business in the City has to be done openly and in public. The Brown Act applies to all committees and commissions of the city beginning with the City Council and any committee formally constituted by the City Council. The exception would be ad hoc committees informally formed. Before you can have a meeting an agenda with a brief description of each item to be discussed must be posted 72 hours before that meeting. The two exceptions to items allowed to be discussed at the meeting are: 1) an emergency exception which requires a finding of public health and safety immediate danger and a vote to put the item on the agenda, and 2) an urgency finding of a need to take urgent action and the circumstances came about after the posting of the agenda. For Special Meetings 24 hour notice is needed and posted in the news media and at three locations in the City. The Brown Act prohibits serial meetings. Meetings are defined as any congregation of a majority of a covered body at the same time and place to hear, discuss, or deliberate on any item that is within the jurisdiction of the body or the jurisdiction of the City. All Commissioners may attend a workshop or other meeting where no business of the City is being discussed with the majority of members of the body. --- Violations of the Brown Act are misdemeanors punishable by up to a $1,000 fine and/or six months in jail, and/or both, where the prosecuting attorney shows that there was intent to violate the Brown Act. Whenever there is a violation there is an obligation of the attorney to notify the agency. Mr. Sandoval discussed the Political Reform Act of 1974, conflict of interest laws that apply to public officials, specifically City Council Members, City Attorney, City Treasurer, and Planning Commissioners. In December the City Clerk will propose to the City Council that all Commissions within the City be included in the conflict of interest law. According to the Political Reform Act, conflict of interest only applies to financial or economic interest. The Commissioner must state what the conflict of interest is and leave the room of the meeting. The Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC)’s 8-Step process outlined in the handout is to be used to identify conflicts of interest. If a property being discussed is within 500 feet of your property, then you are presumed to have an interest and are required to recuse yourself and leave the room. Violations of the Political Reform Act can result in fines of $500 and up. Mr. Cardoza asked for clarification regarding a potential conflict of interest with an Applicant’s team member. Mr. Sandoval referred to Step 4 of the 8-Step process. PC Meeting 3 November 23,2004 Mr. Neely asked about the appearance of impropriety. Mr. Sandoval said each person affected must weigh each situation and may recuse themselves because of the appearance of a conflict. Mr. Sandoval referred to Disqualification on page 13, which applies to Commissioners but not City Council members -- appointed officials cannot accept a political contribution of $250 or more from any person that may have an item before that Commission in the last 12 months or 3 months after action by the Commission. The cure is returning the money. u PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF ARCHITECTURAL CONTROL (AC) 04-03, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) 04-01, ORTEGA HIGHWAY GAS; A REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, ARCHITECTURAL CONTROL, AND ZONING EXCEPTION APPLICATIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT OF A NEW GAS STATION, MINIMART, CAR WASH, AND MEZZANINE OFFICE ON A 48,238 SQUARE FOOT SITE LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF ORTEGA HIGHWAY AT AVENIDA LOS CERRITOS (AT THE OLD SHELL STATION SITE, APN 650-1 51 -1 8) Continued from the November 9, 2004 Planning Commission Meeting. Commissioner Cardoza recused himself from this item due to a potential conflict of interest. b Ed Thurston, adjacent business owner, asked that the item be continued. Phil Schwartze, representing the applicant, stated the applicant does not agree with the request for continuance. The Planning Commission voted to consider the item. Written Communications Staff report dated November 23,2004 Proiect Proponents Representative Phillip Schwartze, for M&M Petroleum, The PRS Group, 31682 El Camino Real, San Juan Capistrano, CA 92612 Applicant - Propertv Owner Bob Hendrickson, P.O. Box 5776, Irvine, CA 92616 Architect Richard Finkel, Bundy-Finkel Architects, 20331 Imine Avenue, Suite 7, Santa Ana Heights, CA 92707 PC Meeting 4 November 23,2004 Civil Enqineer Dru Mayers, Mayers & Associates, I9 Spectrum Pointe Drive, #609, Lake Forest, CA 92630 Staff oresentation & recommendation Ms. Bogh presented the staff report as an item continued from the last meeting to address new information on comparable gas station-minimart operations and determine whether the gas station and ancillary uses are appropriate for the proposed site based on that information and the considerations set forth in the staff report. Three new conditions of approval have been added to augment those in the earlier report relating to DRC follow-up review, Historic Depiction Program, and under-canopy lights. If the use is determined appropriate, staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit, architectural control and zoning exception applications based on the findings and subject to the conditions in the resolution. Public Hearing Richard Finkel, Bundy-Finkel Architects, 20331 lrvine Avenue, Suite 7, Santa Ana Heights, CA 92707, presented slides of similar local projects and site plans. Commissioner Cohen asked why franchise food services are no longer in gas stations. Mr. Finkel said that people would rather not get franchise fast food served at gas stations and that the gas stations didn’t get enough return on large franchise fees. Phillip Schwartze, representing M&M Petroleum, said the site utilizes more of the property than the old Shell station. The traffic study prepared by the City concluded that this new project will generate 977 additional trips, 47 in the a.m. peak and 71 in the p.m. peak. Commissioner Drey asked what the ultimate distance would be on the front of the site if there were another traffic lane there. Mr. Schwartze said 12 feet would be reserved for the right-turn lane under the freeway. Chairman Neely asked about alternate site designs that used some of the Avenida Los Cerritos right-of-way. Mr. Schwartze said that the property is dedicated and has easements. Ed Thurston, owner of the Union 76 Station across the street, spoke in opposition to the project and voiced concerns regarding additional traffic congestion, especially during the summer, and the City’s image being adversely affected by signage. Commissioner Questions and Comments Commissioner Drey said this project has an excellent design and that it appears that the setback would still be more than 25 feet in front of the station even with an additional lane. He voiced concern regarding the sale of alcoholic beverages. PC Meeting 5 November 23,2004 L Commissioner Ratcliffe said that the site plan is aesthetically pleasing but she was concerned regarding traffic, signage, and sale of alcoholic beverages. Commissioner Cohen said that he is concerned with forced U-turns on Ortega Highway due to right-in, right-out, and that the convenience store would not be convenient for City residents. Chairman Neely said that traffic issues could be mitigated with one of the future interchange designs. He stated concerns regarding the potential for multiple freeway signage, the need for less parking and more landscaping, and the need for architectural enhancements. Mr. Neely asked what would be involved in vacating a portion of Avenida Los Cerritos. Ms. Bogh said that there is a reciprocal access agreement between this parcel and the adjacent parcel to the east, sewer and water easements, and Fire Department emergency access requirements out of Avenida Los Cerritos. Ms. Bogh said that since there is one owner for the gas station use, signage would be allowed for a single-tenant building. Commissioner Ratcliffe asked for clarification of the parking requirements. Ms. Bogh said that the Planning Commission has the authority to adjust the level of parking spaces, now at 22 spaces, due to shared uses on the site. Public Hearinq Mr. Schwartze said that a detailed lighting plan had been submitted, a monument sign is planned, and that the DRC would review building plans, site plan, architecture, landscaping, grading, lighting and signage, and that the sale of alcohol is an important factor in the business plan. Blash Momoney, 22495 Via Verde, M&M Petroleum, said the Applicant has been approached by several oil companies, and Circle K may be one of the options. The location was doing 130,000 - 140,000 gallons when the previous station was there, and they would be fortunate to do 280,000 gallons. The site is on a large lot and Subway may be one of the food service options. Mr. Finkel said the signage is not proposed to be substantial, the tenants have not been determined, and that people using any gas station off that off ramp would need to make a U-turn. Chairman Neely asked staff how much authority the Planning Commission has to refer design issues to the DRC. Ms. Bogh said Condition I states that the Planning Commission is approving a 5,267 square foot gas station with minimart. The Planning Commission, not the DRC, has the authority to grant an exception from parking for shared use, to approve the building general layout footprints and whether or not street vacations would be required. Ms. Bogh recommended that if the Planning Commission wants to set some parameters as to parking, building footprints, streets, and utility easements, that another sentence be added to Condition 2 that says, “The DRC review shall take place within the following guidelines: . . .I’ and let the Planning Commission PC Meeting 6 November 23,2004 establish what the DRC is to review. She summarized the concerns identified by the Planning Commission to this point as follows: sale of alcoholic beverages; right-in right- turnout access on Ortega Highway; size of the convenience store; whether or not a portion of Los Cerritos should be vacated; a desire for less parking and more landscaping; reduction of glazing on the window frontage; feasibility of shifting the building to the east; the need for a more simple, proportional design to the canopy; addressing the character, quality and richness of detail on the building and canopy; the need for a utility easement for the ultimate under-grounding of the utility line that runs across the frontage and over the freeway; and specifying that no pole sign would be allowed and any signage would be identification for the primary use only, not for accessory uses. ...-, Ms. Bogh asked Mr. Sandoval to address recent case law and First Amendment rights regarding City regulations on signage and sign copy. Mr. Sandoval said that for franchises that have trademarked color schemes and lettering, the City can’t regulate federally protected trademarks, but it can prohibit them altogether. Chairman Neely asked if the DRC can dictate the size of signage to a franchise. Ms. Bogh stated staff would research sign provisions. In response to a question regarding ABC licensing, Ms. Bogh said there are a number of alcohol outlets in the area, but if a CUP is granted by the Planning Commission, it would be accepted as approval for the ABC to grant another liquor license. Motion Commissioner Drey moved, seconded by Commissioner Ratcliffe, to continue the item to the December 14 Planning Commission meeting, leave the public hearing open, and provide staff time to bring back revised conditions regarding what the Design Review Committee’s (DRC’s) review will consist of and to answer procedural questions on the signage and vacation of Avenida Los Cerritos. -.-/ AYES: Commissioners Cohen, Drey and Ratcliffe, and Chairman Neely NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None RECUSED: Commissioner Cardoza This motion passed by a vote of 4-0 with recusal of bornmissioner Cardoza. Chairman Neely declared a recess at 950 p.m. and the meeting reconvened at 10:08 p.m. 2. CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, L, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP (TTM) 16221, RANCHO MADRINA-HONEYMAN RANCH: A PC Meeting 7 November 23,2004 REQUEST FOR A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR AN APPROVED TRACT MAP PARCEL LOCATED ALONG THE EAST SIDE OF RANCHO VIEJO ROAD AND L- TO DEVELOP 119 SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED (SFD) LOTS ON A 78.6 ACRE ABOUT 200 FEET NORTH OF ORTEGA HIGHWAY, APN# 650-141-01,04, & 14; 650- 152-09; 650-552-03. 04.06, & 07. Continued from the November 9,2004 Planning Commission Meeting. Commissioner Cardoza recused himself from this item due to a potential conflict of interest. Written Communications Staff report dated November 23,2004 Staff presentation & recommendation Mr. Ramsey presented the staff report as an item continued from the last meeting to review and forward the Development Agreement to City Council. The Development Agreement is a companion document to a Joint Community Facilities Agreement approved and entered into by City Council in September 2004, which is an agreement with the Capistrano Unified School District (CUSD) that is primarily designed to generate necessary capital funds for school expansion and building new school facilities. The benefits to the City in the Joint Community Facilities Agreement provide the City with a lump sum payment. The agreement will result in the sale of bonds which will raise capital revenues, the bulk to go to the school district and some to the City. The development impact fees that William Lyon would have to pay for Honeyman Ranch would be paid to the City as a lump sum as opposed to being paid over a period of two or three years as the project developed. The Community Facility District that’s envisioned provides additional bonding capacity not being used by the school district which the City would use, which would result in the City being able to raise approximately $400,000 in capital funds. u Staff recommends that the Commission adopt a resolution recommending City Council approval of the Development Agreement for Tract 16221, Rancho Madrina. Public Hearinq Mr. Grable reiterated that this is a win-win for William Lyon Homes, the school district, and the City. Motion Commissioner Cohen moved, seconded by Commissioner Ratcliffe, to adopt Resolution 04-1 1-23-1 recommending approval of a Development Agreement for Tract 16221, Rancho Madrina, approved for I 19 single family detached dwelling units subject to Comprehensive Development Plan (CDP) 01 -01, Honeyman Ranch Planned Community (William Lyon Homes, Inc.). PC Meeting 8 November 23,2004 AYES: Commissioners Cohen, Drey and Ratcliffe, and Chairman Neely u NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None RECUSED: Commissioner Cardoza This motion passed by a vote of 4-0 with recusal of Commissioner Cardoza. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. NEW BUSINESS None JOINT WORKSHOP OF PLANNING COMMISSION AND DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE Discussion of Roles, Responsibilities, and Coordination. The Planning Commission and DRC Member Jeff Parkhurst convened a joint workshop with the DRC. b Ms. Bogh referred to the November 23, 2004 staff report regarding Planning Commission and Design Review Committee Roles, Responsibilities, and Procedures. Staff looked at various iterations of design review and architectural review over the last 40 plus years and how long it is taking applicants to get through the process over the last year, and summarized issues brought to staffs attention. Commissioner Cohen said that projects are spending too much time at the DRC and the DRC has grown dramatically over its initial charge. Commissioner Cohen asked for a mechanism for items including land use issues to come to the Planning Commission first, then to the DRC for details such as landscaping and signage. Chairman Neely said that problems occur when the DRC is constrained by Planning Commission decisions or when the applicant takes the item prematurely to the City Council. Ms. Bogh said that Code specifies what constitutes an Architectural Control and Conditional Use Permit, and specifies that building footprints, building size and height, setbacks would be items on which the Planning Commission would rule and those decisions would be appealable to City Council. PC Meeting 9 November 23,2004 'W Commissioner Cardoza said when a project goes through development of a refined conceptual plan, DRC makes recommendations and forwards the item to the Planning Commission with conditions. Chairman Neely said that trust is necessary between staff, Planning Commission and the DRC in order to have applicants comply with suggestions. He suggested having less design commitment at the beginning of the project. Ms. Bogh said that major projects have been expedited in 5-7 months including staff review, traffic studies, drainage studies, geotech reports, DRC and Planning Commission meetings. Many applicants comment that the DRC process has been beneficial to them, the projects improve and the applicants have a better understanding of City policy and regulation. The Planning Commission has the authority to approve or deny an Architectural Control, a Conditional Use Permit, a variance, monument and free-standing signs, sign programs. DRC provides review and input and handles design issues, but does not have approval authority and is an advisory body to the Planning Commission. Mr. Sandoval said there is a delegation of authority issue. The law says that legislative acts and policy issues cannot be delegated, but have to be exercised by the body that has that authority. Commissioners agreed that the DRC is essential. Ms. Bogh asked for consensus on going to DRC on fundamental design issues, then to Planning Commission for the public hearing and then back to DRC on the detail design issues. An alternate DRC staff report format would be provided at the next meeting giving summary information and the Chairman of the DRC suggested a design review checklist to cut down on the bulk of the paperwork and cut down on the meeting format. The general consensus was that the DRC plays a needed role in establishing initial design parameters and reviewing final design details. Planning Commissioners indicated their desire to receive DRC agendas and minutes. The members agreed to use the design checklist provided in the staff report as a tool for identifying design issues, focusing DRC meetings, and recording comments. Ms. Bogh said there is an internal staff review group called the Development Advisory Board, which consists of department heads, the Fire Department, and Water Department, to meet with the applicants to review their application for completeness and bring it back for Conditions of Approval before it comes to the Planning Commission. Commissioners may attend those meetings held at 9:00 a.m. the first and third Wednesdays if they want information about projects earlier in the review process. CO M M I SS IONISTAF F COMMENTS None u PC Meeting 10 November 23,2004 ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 11:55 p.m. The next regular meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, December 14, at 7:OO p.m. in the Council Chambers. Respectfully submitted, Planning Director ism