PC Minutes-2011-03-0832400 PASEO ADELANTO
SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO, CA 92675
(949) 493-1171
(949) 493-1053 FAx
www.sanjuancapistrano.org
A. CALL TO ORDER
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
TUESDAY, MARCH 8, 2011
MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
SAM ALLEVATO
LAURAFREESE
LARRY KRAMER
DEREK REEVE
JOHN TAYLOR
The meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order by Chair Cohen at 6:32 p.m.
B. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Chair Cohen led the pledge of allegiance.
C. ROLL CALL:
Commissioners Present
Commissioners Absent
Sheldon Cohen, Chair
Gene Ratcliffe, Vice -Chair
Ginny Kerr
Jeff Parkhurst
Rob Williams
Tim Neely
Roy Nunn
None
Staff Present: Grant Taylor, Development Services Director
David Contreras, Senior Planner
Nick Taylor, Associate Planner
Justin Kirk, Senior Management Analyst
Tram Tran, Deputy City Attorney
D. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None
E. CONSENT CALENDAR
1. The Planning Commission continued the February 22, 2011 Minutes with revisions
identified by Commissioner Kerr to include that monument sign details be referred back
to the DRC, the General Plan Annual Progress Report include Commission comments,
Darmal speakers expanded, and Commissioner Williams comments that plans were
inconsistent.
San Juan Capistrano: Preserving the Past to Enhance the Future
0 Printed on 100% recycled paper
PC Meeting Minutes 2 March 8 2011
F. OLD BUSINESS
1. Architectural Control (AC) 90-031, San Juan Hills Golf Tournament Room; a request for
review of design plans for a proposed 6,144 square foot new building, service area, and
trash enclosure located at 32120 San Juan Creek Road, generally located 2,750 feet
northeast of the intersection of Valle Road and San Juan Creek Road (APN 666-011-
27)(Applicant: Dan Friess)(Project Manager: Justin Kirk, Senior Management Analyst)
Justin Kirk presented the staff report and stated the project is a request for approval of a
6,144 square foot golf course tournament event building on a 29.26 acre parcel located
at 32120 San Juan Creek Road. The Planning Commission has reviewed the
application on September 22, and December 14, 2010 and the Planning Commission
raised concerns including parking and landscaping.
Mr. Kirk responding to the Planning Commission stated the resolution requires
landscaping be referred back to the DRC and the parking standards are worse case
scenario and may result in double counting.
Deputy City Attorney Tram Tran responding to Chair Cohen stated Dan Friess being a
member of the DRC is not a conflict to represent his client to the Planning Commission.
Commission Questions and Comments
Commission Kerr inquired about the staff report on page 5 identifying the total golf
course area parking standards and would that be double counting that may result in
excess parking. Commissioner Kerr commented she concurs with her colleagues
regarding parking, and a condition to close windows and doors during amplified music
events may be restrictive as patrons would not be able to enjoy outdoor areas.
Commissioner Parkhurst inquired about the landscaping plan and commented he
reviewed the parking study, the overflow parking would only be used during a large
event or when all facilities are in use, opposes the paved overflow parking as it would
impact the landscaping, supports parking as originally proposed, stated that the
"hammerhead" turnaround is too close to San Juan Creek Road, and requested the
landscape plan be returned to the DRC.
Commissioner Neely concurred with Commissioner Parkhurst and commented the
overflow parking is based on excessive figures and a worst case scenario, should keep
paving away from the street, delay overflow parking development as the Planning
Commission may review in the future, provide valet parking during peak events, and
place the ADA stall on the other side of the building.
Commissioner Nunn concurred with Commissioner's Parkhurst and Neely and
commented the ADA stall should be on the other side of the building, special events
require overflow parking, and did not support going back to the DRC.
Vice Chair Ratcliffe concurred with Commissioner Neely and commented the parking
should not be for worst case scenario, future parking demand could be brought back to
the Planning Commission, and prefers landscaping over paving.
Commissioner Williams commented he was concerned with parking and requested the
study, does not want excessive paving area, regulate parking now and potentially
evaluate in the future, ADA parking should be on the other side of the building, and the
PC Meetinq Minutes 3 March 8 2011
landscaping should go back to the DRC
Chair Cohen asked the City Attorney if Mr. Friess representing the applicant is a
potential conflict due to his being a DRC member. Chair Cohen commented he concurs
with his colleagues comments, overflow parking should be turf, the golf course will know
the parking demand for their activities, concurs with Commissioner Kerr regarding the
condition for windows and doors being closed during amplified music as being
restrictive, maybe have an acoustical analysis like the Forster Mansion, potentially
evaluate parking in 6 months, and supported landscaping going back to the DRC.
Public Hearing
Dan Friess, 32120 San Juan Creek Road, spoke in support of the project. Mr. Friess
commented his client is trying to avoid a visual impact of excessive paving and they
propose 99 parking stalls.
Adoption of Resolution
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SAN JUAN
CAPISTRANO APPROVING ARCHITECTURAL CONTROL (AC) 10-028 TO
CONSTRUCT A 6,144 SQUARE FOOT TOURNAMENT ROOM (BANQUET FACILITY)
ON A 29.26 ACRE PARCEL LOCATED AT 32120 SAN JUAN CREEK ROAD (APN 666-
011-27). Motion by Commissioner Neely, seconded by Commissioner Parkhurst, to
adopt the resolution of approval and add conditions to (1) require a parking management
plan to be approved by staff, (2) perform an acoustical test regarding windows and
doors open during amplified events, and (3) refer ADA parking to the DRC for review
and final action.
Chair Cohen inquired about overflow parking capacity and Commissioner Kerr
suggested revising the resolution to state that the overflow parking will be turf.
Commissioner Neely commented the parking management plan would address overflow
parking capacity and concurred the resolution should identify overflow parking areas with
no improvements. Commissioner Parkhurst concurred his second.
The motion to approve passed on a vote of 7-0.
G. NEW BUSINESS
Pre -Application (PA) 11-001 Lacouague Ranch. a request for a General Plan
consistency determination for a potential subdivision of a 5.18 acre project area into 8
parcels for single-family residences at 31202 and 31204 Camino Lacouague, generally
located on the southeast corner of San Juan Creek Road and Camino Lacouague (APN
664-141-34 & 35)(Applicant: Daniel Lacouag ue) (Project Manager: Nick Taylor,
Associate Planner). .
Nick Taylor presented the staff report and stated the applicant is requesting to subdivide
an existing 5.18 acre parcel from two lots into 8 lots for single-family residential
development. The subject property is not included in Comprehensive Development Plan
(CDP) 86-2 Rancho San Juan. The applicant is requesting that residential development
density within Rancho San Juan be transferred to the subject property and there are
discrepancies in the maximum residential density. Mr. Taylor further stated the property
is General Plan designated Very Low Density (i.e. 0 to 1 dwelling unit per acre) and the
project proposes 1.5 units per acre. Staff recommends the Planning Commission
PC Meeting Minutes 4 March 8 2011
authorize the subdivision into five parcels to include four parcels for existing residences
and one parcel to maintain the existing orchard.
Nick Taylor responding to Planning Commission questions stated according to the
General Plan designation the maximum density is 5 units, the Rancho San Juan CDP
has various land use designations, a General Plan Amendment would be required
unless the Planning Commission finds the project consistent, and the intent of the item is
for the Planning Commission to provide comments and direction, and receive and file.
Commission Questions and Comments
Commissioner Neely inquired if the letter from the applicant includes an exhibit and
commented he disagrees with his colleagues, the project is similar to Darmal, the
property not being a part of the CDP is a concern, the PC zone never identified density,
the project should be analyzed in larger context and not individual parcels, and the entire
site density including the CDP is 245 units. Commissioner Neely concurred with the
applicant that 245 units is the maximum density available and further commented the
project is capable of General Plan consistency, the PC zoning does not reflect density,
the application is not a general plan issue but is a zoning issue.
Commissioner Williams inquired if five residences would be the maximum allowed by the
General Plan and commented he visited the site, inquired why the 5 acre property was
carved out of the CDP, it may be difficult to add the property in the Rancho San Juan
CDP, a General Plan Amendment would be required, and he cannot support 8 parcels.
Commissioner Kerr commented she concurs with Commissioner Williams, can support
five lots, and cannot support incorporating the project into the CDP.
Vice Chair Ratcliffe commented she supports subdividing for the existing residences,
supports a fifth parcel for the orchard, and is uncomfortable with the proposed density
swap.
Commissioner Nunn commented he spoke with the applicant on the phone, supports
seven parcels for residences and the eighth parcel for the orchard, inquired if the map
was schematic or proposed, he was on the Planning Commission during the original
project approval, and the property was cut out for future subdivision.
Commissioner Parkhurst commented the project should be processed as a standalone
not related to the CDP, the lot sizes should be consistent with the area, lots should not
be less than 2/3 acre, and he can support maybe 6 or 7 lots, not 8.
Chair Cohen inquired if a General Plan Amendment is necessary and commented he is
not concerned with setting a precedent, should do what is right, concurs with
Commissioner Parkhurst the project should be separate from the CDP, and he is not
comfortable with 8 lots and possibly could support 6 or 7.
Public Hearing
Diane Bathgate, RRM Design Group, 232 Via Fabricante, Suite 112, San Clemente, CA
spoke in support of the project stating the property originally had a one acre parcel for
the family home, three additional homes were built, it's a problem selling and refinancing
when the home owners and property owner are different, and commented the CDP
document identifies a maximum of 245 units which would allow 11 more residences.
PC Meeting Minutes 5 March 8 2011
Ms. Bathgate commented the family and property have historical significance and they
have no immediate plans to build homes at this time.
Dan Lacouague, 326 Heiroy, Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 spoke in support, he is part
owner and the oldest family member, and the family dedicated 100 acres of open space
to the City in 1986.
Planning Commission Action
The Planning Commission provided comments and direction to staff and the applicants
on submittal of a formal application, and by consensus, received and filed.
H. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS
Continued Consideration of Architectural Control (AC) 10-002 Plaza Banderas Hotel; a
request for follow-up review of development plans for a hotel, restaurant, retail and office
project on an existing 3.18 acre property located at 26871 & 26891 Ortega Highway and
generally located at the northeast corner of Ortega Highway and EI Camino Real (APN
124-170-12,14,15,16)(Applicant: Stroscher G3, Gretchen Stroscher Thomson)(Project
Manager: David Contreras, Senior Planner).
David Contreras presented the staff report and stated on October 5, 2010 the City
Council approved the project with conditions the project architecture and details shall be
referred back to the DRC and Planning Commission pursuant to Conditions of Approval
#59 and #60. The DRC last reviewed the revised plans on February 17, 2010 and
forwarded to the Planning Commission with comments.
Mr. Contreras responding to Planning Commission questions summarized the language
in Conditions #59 and #60, if the construction documents are different than the design
approved by the Planning Commission the DRC can determine they are inconsistent and
require revised plans, no turf is proposed, the building area is 2,500 square feet greater
overall, on February 17, 2011 the DRC determined the plans consistent with Condition
#59, and the DRC may provide final approval of the plans or refer back to the Planning
Commission,
Commission Questions and Comments
Commissioner Nunn, the project architect, recused himself and left the City Council
Chambers.
Commissioner Williams inquired what if construction documents end up being different
than the drawings approved by the Planning Commission, and commented he concurs
with Vice Chair Ratcliffe and Commissioner Kerr that the project is much improved, likes
the massing, approves of the restaurant and retail design, the landscaping is clean,
there are inconsistencies between the plans that must be addressed, details still need to
be reviewed, but the project has come a long way.
Vice Chair Ratcliffe commented the new plans are refreshing and a substantial
improvement, likes the distinctive roof types, landscaping has improved, five additional
parking stalls, suggested unidentified green spaces be called out and minimize turf.
Commissioner Kerr inquired if the hotel, restaurant and retail areas are larger and
commented the revised plans are a huge improvement, the plans are now presenting a
"wow" factor, and likes the landscaping
PC Meetinq Minutes 6 March 8 2011
Commissioner Parkhurst commented he was on the DRC during the project evolution, is
pleased with the project direction, the proof is in the details, is uncomfortable with sketch
details especially openings, wants specific details, wants to see depth of recesses and
sill details, there are significant inconsistencies between the site plan and elevations,
and would like to review construction documents and details.
Commissioner Neely commented the DRC made it clear that details needed work,
construction drawings need to be reviewed, the site planning is vastly improved, the
commercial architecture is definitive, and the applicant overall did what the Planning
Commission and DRC directed.
Chair Cohen commented the project is obviously making significant progress, the City
Council mandated Planning Commission review, the applicant needs to provide more
than pencil sketches that are more definitive, the construction drawings should come
back to the Planning Commission,
Public Hearing
Tom Merrell, Civic Solutions, 27362 Calle Arroyo, San Juan Capistrano is the consultant
for the applicant and owner who spoke in favor of the project and made a power point
presentation that summarized the history and evolution of the project.
Commission Action
Motion by Commissioner Neely to find the project plans consistent with the City Council
approved project and that the DRC refer the final plans back to the Planning
Commission. Second by Commissioner Williams. The motion passed on a vote of 6-0-1
with Commissioner Nunn abstaining.
I. NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS
None
J. STAFF & COMMISSION COMMENTS
Grant Taylor provided the Planning Commission with a status of projects to be heard in
upcoming meetings by the City Council, Planning Commission, DRC, and DAB.
Commissioner Williams inquired about the closed Unocal 76 Station. Mr. Taylor stated staff
did not know but would check.
K. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 8:50
p.m. The next regular meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, March 22, 2011, at 6:30 p.m. in
the Council Chambers.
Approved on TueiopmeKntServices
M22, 2011:
Grant Taylor, Dev Director
Acting Planning Commission Secretary