Loading...
PC Resolution-11-12-13-01PC RESOLUTION NO. 11-12-13-1 GRADING PLAN MODIFICATION (GPM) 11-003 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF A GRADING PLAN MODIFICATION FOR TRACT 9382, LOT 9 TO ALLOW FOR GRADING AND FILLING OF A SLOPE AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF A RETAINING WALL ALONG THE REAR PORTION OF THE PROPERTY AND REMOVAL OF THE TRACT DEVELOPMENT LANDSCAPE THAT FACES ORTEGA HIGHWAY; LOCATED AT 27652 ROSEDALE DRIVE, GENERALLY LOCATED 550 FEET EAST OF BELFORD TERRACE (ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBER 650-191-08)(GASPAR PASTOR). Whereas, Gaspar Pastor has requested approval of a modification to authorize revisions to the grading plan for Tract 9382, Lot 9. Requested improvements include grading and filling of a slope to remain and to construct a retaining wall with vines. The grading and removal of shrubs and trees was conducted by the property owner in 2007 without the benefit of land use entitlements and permits. The project has been a code enforcement case since that time and the applicant is now seeking approval to legalize the previously constructed/installed improvements on the property located at 27652 Rosedale Drive which is General Plan -designated Low Density (LD) and classified "RS -10,000" (residential single -family -10,000 s.f. lot minimum) on the Official Zoning Map; and, Whereas, the proposed project has been processed pursuant to Section 9- 2.301, Development Review of the Land Use Code; and, Whereas, pursuant to Section 3.06 of the City's adopted CEQA Guidelines, and pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080(b)(5), CEQA does not apply to disapproved projects; and, Whereas, the Planning Commission conducted a duly -noticed public hearing on December 13, 2011 pursuant to Title 9, Land Use Code, Section 9-2.335, City Council Policy 5, and Planning Department Policy 510 to consider public testimony on the proposed project and has considered all relevant public comments. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission of the City of San Juan Capistrano does hereby make the following findings as established by Section 9-2.323 of Title 9, Land Use Code of the City of San Juan Capistrano: The proposed grading modifications would be inconsistent with the General Plan, Land Use Code, Design Guidelines, and applicable specific plan or comprehensive development, including but not limited to requirements for ridgeline protection, natural landform grading, minimizing use and height of retaining walls, and effective use of landscaping for erosion control and aesthetics because the proposed grading PC Resolution 11-12-13-1 December 13, 2011 concept includes a retaining wall with a height ranging from 5.8 feet to 10.5 feet and approximately 210 cubic yards of fill, resulting in a new pad area of 3,300 square feet, respectively. The grading plan does not propose horizontal slope rounding to transition the proposed retaining wall and proposed grades into adjoining natural slopes. In evaluating the visual impact of the proposed grading and retaining wall design, staff notes that the property is situated in a visually prominent area adjacent to Ortega Highway and that the proposed graded pad would not conform to the character of the neighborhood. All other private rear yard slopes in Belford Terrace situated directly along Ortega Highway are heavily landscaped with trees and shrubs and buffered from Ortega Highway by the existing masonry subdivision privacy wall at the top of the slope. The applicant has removed that portion of the privacy wall along his property line, removed slope landscaping and installed a graded pad. Furthermore, the City's General Plan Community Design Element states that "Major travelways including both vehicular and rail provide the public with a visual image of the quality of life envisioned by the community. Scenic corridors include designated arterials contained in the Circulation Element and the railroad corridor that passes through the City. The following design criteria are provided to ensure that these scenic corridors are developed with a sense of care to aesthetic values: Buffer to screen existing un -slightly features outside of the right-of-way. Use of innovative design features for bicycle, sidewalks, equestrian trails, boundary walls, and parkways. Attention to building design features that are proposed adjacent to a scenic corridor. The proposed retaining wall will be highly visible from Ortega Highway which is considered a "primary arterial". The proposed retaining wall is inconsistent with the General Plan because it will deviate from the design of the Tract development perimeter wall resulting in incompatible materials and an unsightly visual condition due to the lack of design uniformity and compatibility. Furthermore, the submitted "landscape" plan does not thoroughly address screening of the proposed pad area. The City's Design Guidelines, Community Design Goal 3 (Policy 3.3) states that projects should "Preserve and enhance scenic transportation corridors, including Interstate 5 and the railroad." The proposed grading and retaining wall are inconsistent with this goal because they will be highly visible from Ortega Highway. In addition, the City's Design Guidelines Chapter 2, Single Family Residential Section C.1 (Grading) states that.- a. hat: a. "Landform preservation should shape and guide site development. Grading should not substantially alter natural grades to increase the area of developable land. Grading of or within characteristic topographical PC Resolution 11-12-13-1 December 13. 2011 areas such as ridgelines, unique hillside features and creeks is prohibited". b. "Innovative grading techniques such as contour grading that incorporate use of variable slopes, both vertical and horizontal, and meandering tops and toes of slopes are encouraged". c. "Smooth, gradual transitions between manufactured and natural slopes are encouraged". d. "Use of retaining walls should be minimized. Where use of retaining walls cannot be avoided, they should be screened to the maximum extent possible and use of plantable retaining walls should be employed as part of the design solution"; and, 2. The proposed grading modifications would be inconsistent with the approved site plan, preliminary grading plan, landscape plan, grading standards, and design concepts of the original project as approved by the reviewing authority because the project proposes to remove a portion of the existing subdivision perimeter wall while in 1976, the Planning Commission approved Tentative Tract Map 9382 (Maurer Development/Belford Terrace) per Resolution #76-7-27-9 which contains condition #11 which states that: "A masonry or block wall shall be provided between the development and Ortega Highway. The wall shall be such design and height so as to effectively buffer the development from the arterial highway. In addition, the area between the wall and sidewalk shall be provided with groundcover and street trees. An irrigation line with separate water meter shall be designed and installed to service subject landscape area. " The Tract Map was developed with a perimeter slump stone wall to mitigate noise from Ortega Highway, provide privacy for homeowners, and establish a consistent design theme with trees and shrubs on the slope area between the wall and Ortega Highway. Furthermore, the lots were developed with property lines extending beyond the rear yard block walls. The slopes within the landscape areas were created as part of the subdivision mass grading plan. This type of grading was designed to accommodate the construction of dwelling units with setbacks taken from the top of the slope and not from the property lines which extend beyond the perimeter wall. The pad design concept was purposely intended to place the units away from Ortega Highway and provide substantial landscape screening along the large manufactured slopes that are adjacent to Ortega Highway. The non -permitted grading extends into the landscaped slope area which makes it very visible from Ortega Highway as well as from the adjoining EI Nido Mobile Home Estates. The applicant is proposing to extend his usable pad area by installing a PC Resolution 11-12-13-1 4 December 13, 2011 retaining wall that ranges from a height of 5.8. feet to 10.5 feet within 45 feet of Ortega Highway; and, 3. The proposed grading modifications would be inconsistent and incompatible with immediately -adjacent lots or units, including but not limited to blending of slopes with adjacent property boundaries, rounding of slopes at both top and bottom to blend the grading into the existing terrain, and a design which harmonizes the design with the natural contours of the property and surrounding lots because the proposed grading concept includes a retaining wall and approximately 210 cubic yards of fill. The proposed conceptual site plan is designed to accommodate a 3,300 square foot pad area for potential development. The proposal does not propose horizontal slope rounding to transition the retaining wall and proposed grades into adjoining natural slopes. In evaluating the visual impact of the proposed grading and retaining wall design, staff noted that the property is situated in a visually prominent area and that the proposed pad area would not conform with the character of the neighborhood where adjacent lots have a landscape buffer of approximately 50 feet. Furthermore, the non -permitted grading substantially deviates from the graded condition of adjacent lots along Ortega Highway which have slopes that blend into each other and blend to the grades along the sidewalk located at Ortega Highway. The applicant's grading and retaining wall do not harmonize with the design of the contours on the surrounding lots; and, 4. The proposed grading modifications would be inconsistent with the applicable zone district setback standards because as designed, the graded pad area would provide additional area for future development on the lot. This area could potentially be used for accessory uses including tennis court, swimming pool, sports court, pool cabana, playground equipment, etc. all which are highly visible from Ortega Highway. The proposed retaining wall would be located 1'-3" feet to 4'-0" from the property line; which is inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the design standards and setbacks under Section 9-4.513. The submitted grading plans do not provide a detailed landscape plan as required under Section 9-4.513(e) and staff concludes that the project is not consistent with the provision and standards in this Section; and, 5. The proposed grading modifications would cause adverse impacts to other properties, including but not limited to potential impacts on hydrology, water quality, views, trail easements, or other aspects of development because the proposed grading plan does significantly alter the grades near adjacent properties and has visual impact on the property located to the west. The contours are not matching those of the adjacent property and the proposed 5 gallon Eugenia shrubs will not screen the interior of the property significantly, thereby, not screening the retaining wall and future accessory uses on the lot. The retaining wall and graded pad area will be highly visible from Ortega highway which is considered a scenic corridor. PC Resolution 11-12-13-1 December 13, 2011 Furthermore, the applicant proposes to install a 4"drain line on the property and run it through the adjacent private property to the west (Lot 8), through the Belford Terrace Landscape District and ultimately drain into the Caltrans right-of-way at Ortega Highway. The City manages the landscape district and has not been contacted by the applicant with this proposal. Furthermore, the City was not provided with written authorization from the property owner of Lot 8 authorizing such improvements. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission of the City of San Juan Capistrano hereby denies the proposed Grading Plan Modification. EFFECTIVE DATE & FINAL APPROVAL: This project approval shall become effective following expiration of the fifteen (15) day appeal period without filing of an appeal application. The appeal period shall expire at 5:00 p.m., Wednesday, December 28, 2011. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 13th day of December, 2011, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Ginny Kerr, Jeff Parkhurst, Timothy Neely, Robert Williams, and Vice- Chair Gene Ratcliffe. NOES: None RECUSE: Chairman Sheldon Cohen ABSENT: Commissioner Roy Nunn Gene Ratcliffe, Vice-Chairl" William A. Ramsey, AICP, Princial PI nner Secretary