Loading...
PC Minutes-2011-05-10i• PASEO ADFLANTO • .,. 493-1171 (949) 493-1053 FAx www.sanjuancapistrano.org UIRQIMHN PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Tuesday, May 10, 2010 The meeting was called to order by Chairman Cohen at 6:30 p.m. Chairman Cohen led the Pledge of Allegiance. C. ROLL CALL: Commissioners Present: Sheldon Cohen, Chairman Gene Ratcliffe, Vice -Chair Ginny Kerr Roy Nunn Tim Neely Jeff Parkhurst Commissioners absent: Rob Williams (excused) Commissioners Absent: none MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL Staff Present: William A. Ramsey, AICD, Principal Planner Grant Taylor, Development Services Director E. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Minutes of April 12, 2011: The Commission passed a motion to approve the subject minutes as submitted by a 6-0 vote. 2. Minutes of April 26, 2011: The Commission passed a motion to approve the subject minutes subject to revisions requested by Commissioners Kerr and Parkhurst by a 0 �s Printed on 100% recycled paper PC Meeting Minutes 2 May 10, 2011 5-0-1 vote (Neely abstained). F. PUBLIC HEARINGS Gradinq Plan Modification (GPM) 10-006 Trowbridge Residence; a request for approval of a preliminary grading plan to modify existing finished grades in the rear yard by 2'-0" or more on an existing residential lot located at 26952 Via La Mirada and generally located approximately 1,200 feet north of Avenida Calita (APN 675- 141-03). The subject application has been submitted to resolve an existing Code violation for grading previously completed without City -required grading permits. (Applicant: Bretton E. Trowbridge) (Project Manager: Nick Taylor, Associate Planner). Nick Taylor, Associate Planner advised that the application is a new project and has not been previously reviewed by the Planning Commission. The applicant has requested approval of a preliminary grading plan to modify existing finished grades in the rear yard by 2'-0" or more on an existing residential lot. The subject application has been submitted to resolve an existing Code violation for grading previously completed without City -required grading permits. The DRC reviewed the project on January 20, 2011 and forwarded the project to the Planning Commission with a recommendation of approval. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution conditionally approving the project. Commission Questions Commissioner Ratcliffe stated that the plans appear to show the proposed grading extending off-site and asked if the adjoining homeowner had approved that aspect. Mr. Taylor replied that the limits of grading for the project don't extend beyond the property line and all grading will be confined to the project site. Commissioner Parkhurst asked whether the geotechnical report had been completed prior to or following the unauthorized site work by the applicant and Mr. Taylor responded that the geotechnical report had been submitted with the Grading Plan Modification (GPM) application; however, Lawson & Associates Geotechnical Consulting Inc., the City's 3rd party peer review consultant, had specifically looked at the pool demolition work that had been begun by Mr. Trowbridge, the applicant/owner, and opined that the demolition raises no geotechnical issues or concerns. Public Hearin Notice having been given as required by law, Chairman Cohen opened the Public Hearing and asked the owner/applicant if he had a presentation or any testimony for the Commission. Mr. Trowbridge declined to provide testimony. James Lee (26962 Via La Mirada) provided a letter with six recommended additional conditions of approval and photos of the project area. He questioned the accuracy of the preliminary grading plan; questioned the direction of drainage and potential impacts to slope stability from drainage over the rear of the lot into the canyon; expressed concern over the slope stability impacts from demolition of the PC Meeting Minutes 3 May 10 2011 pool on his property; and requested six additional conditions of approval outlined in a letter presented to the Planning Commission at the meeting and made a part of the public record. Maryam Lee stated that the Trowbridge property essentially supports her and her husband's property and that any excessive ground vibration or other effect could initiate a new landslide. She asked that the Commission require the applicant to address this issue. Commission Discussion Commissioner Ratcliffe stated that she would like to see the geotechnical report and the City's 3rd party review to determine the extent of potential slope stability issues. She noted that the Meredith Canyon Homeowners Association (HOA) appears to support the proposed plan to repair the rear yard of the property; and wanted confirmation from staff that no geotechnical issues would occur. Commissioner Kerr stated she would like a continuance so as to provide the opportunity to review the geotechnical issue to assure that the Commission has "all the bases covered." Commissioner Nunn asked James Lee for confirmation that his sole issue was the potential impact to his property from demolishing the pool and he responded that it was. Mr. Nunn asked staff if Lawson & Associates Geotechnical Consulting Inc. has specifically evaluated the demolition of the pool from a geotechnical perspective and Mr. Taylor responded that they had and determined that demolition would not result in any geotechnical -related issues. Taylor also indicated that prior to building permit, a more detailed site-specific soils study would be completed. Commissioner Neely stated that while he would like to see the geotechnical report, he was comfortable with the staff's review and recommendation, and the additional building/demolition permit level geotechnical evaluation. He stated that Mr. Lee had raised several valid points and they need to be addressed as part of the Planning Commission's consideration of the project. He noted that the applicant needs to provide specifications for completing the landscaping of the rear yard. Commissioner Parkhurst stated that the Commission has incomplete information and is not in a position to take action at this time. Chairman Cohen concurred with Mr. Parkhurst stating he wanted to see the 3rd party geotechnical review and also wanted a written opinion from Lawson & Associates Geotechnical Consulting Inc. as to the potential impacts of demolition on the Lee property. He stated the Commission needs to continue consideration of the item. PC Meeting Minutes 4 May 10 2011 Commission Action Commissioner Neely moved that the Planning Commission continue consideration of the item to the regularly scheduled May 24 meeting to allow Commission review of the 3rd geotechnical report and to address Mr. Lee's concerns over the potential impacts of demolition. Commissioner Kerr seconded the motion and it passed on a 6-0 vote. G. UNFINISHED BUSINESS H. NEW BUSINESS Sign Permit (SP) 11-013, Independence Bank; a request for approval of a monument sign for the Independence Bank building located at 32291 Camino Capistrano (APN 668-091-07) (Applicant: Independence Bank Larry Thomas) (Project Manager: David Contreras, Senior Planner). David Contreras, Senior Planner, the project manager, made the staff presentation advising the Commission that staff was requesting both review of the proposed free-standing, monument sign and an interpretation of the Title 9, Land Use Code, Sign Regulation as they would apply to the project site and proposed sign. He advised that the proposed monument sign would be 3'-0" tall, 5'- 2" wide, and 23 square feet, double -sided, with a concrete base, precast cap and built-in up -lighting. The monument sign would be made of aluminum with a texture coat and paint to match the Vons Center monument sign. Staff recommended that the Commission review the proposed monument sign and provide a Title 9, Land Use Code interpretation based on the provisions of the Sign code and the proposed design of the free-standing, monument sign. Larry Thomas, representing Independence Bank, covered the background on the property in terms of the development of the bank structure, prior bank owners, and the current bank operation. He noted that the free-standing, monument sign was needed because while the bank had excellent exposure to northbound (NB) traffic on Camino Capistrano, southbound traffic, by the time the wall -mounted sign came into view, had already passed the bank entrance. He explained in detail the bank's plans to improve the hardscape and landscape. Commission Questions Commissioner Parkhurst stated that due to the limited Southbound (SB) visibility of the bank and wall -mounted sign, perhaps the free-standing, monument sign would be needed. However, he indicated that he had difficulty supporting the request because overall, the bank generally has adequate visibility to Camino Capistrano. Commissioner Neely stated that the Design Review Committee (DRC) had recommended the general design approach now being pursued by the applicant and he was prepared to support the concept. He stated he was not a fan of the "ladder board" signs which are generally cluttered and difficult to read. He noted that the bank is essentially a "major tenant" to the shopping center and a free- standing, monument sign would be beneficial and appropriate to provide identification. However, Mr. Neely noted that the Code does provide that individual Meetina Minutes 5 Mav 10. 2011 users within a "shopping center" are not permitted to have individual free-standing, monument signs so the question was whether the bank was a separate land use or part of the "shopping center." Mr. Neely questioned whether the bank, by virtue of having a separate parcel with separate parking but with shared access was a separate use. He expressed the opinion that a Code Amendment may be necessary to resolve the issue. Commissioner Nunn stated that he did not recall the specific of the site from his time of the City Design Review Commission in the late 1980s, but expressed the opinion that the bank property was a separate business entity that under the definition of the Code, was not part of the Von's Shopping Center. He stated that the applicant has appears to have addressed the Design Review Committee's issues and that the Planning Commission is in the position to make an interpretation that the free-standing, monument sign is allowable under the Code. Commissioner Ratcliffe stated that given the facts of the case and the layout of the property, she was inclined to treat the property as a separate parcel. Commissioner Kerr stated that based on the definition provided by Deputy City Attorney Tram Tran, is was evident that the bank property was part of the Von's Center and the free-standing, monument sign could not be permitted. Chairman Cohen concurred with Commissioner Kerr that the bank property does not appear to be a separate parcel from the shopping center (although it is a legal lot) and questioned whether the property would be classified as such. In response to the question, Deputy City Attorney Tram Tran read the definition of "shopping center" into the record which indicated that the shared parking and shared access would classify the property as part of the Von's Center. Commissioner Parkhurst replied that based on the definition read by the Deputy City Attorney, the proposed free-standing, monument sign does not appear to meet the Code requirement. Commissioner Neely opined that based on the definition and common access drive provision, the bank property may be considered part of the Von's Center. However, because the property is separate and has dedicated on-site parking, the Commission has the discretion to consider the project site as a separate parcel. Commission Action Commissioner Parkhurst made a motion that the Planning Commission determine that the Independence Bank is a part of the Von's center, based on the provisions of the Code and therefore, is not permitted to install and maintain a free-standing, monument sign and Commissioner Kerr seconded the motion. Commissioner Neely stated that while he was leaning toward supporting the motion, the Code -required finding of visibility is problematic because the site has limited PC Meeting Minutes 6 May 10, 2011 visibility for southbound traffic on Camino Capistrano. Whatever action the Commission takes, it needs to be supported by appropriate findings. He requested that the findings for the proposed action be clarified. Chairman Cohen responded that the free-standing, monument sign was not needed and did not meet the Code criteria because the building has adequate visibility. The Chairman called the question and the motion passed by a 4-2 vote (Neely and Nunn opposed). I. STAFF & COMMISSION COMMENTS Mr. Ramsey briefed the Planning Commission on the status of several open space projects and noted that Marriott is proceeding on schedule. Mr. Taylor briefed the Commission on actions and direction provided by City Council at the prior meeting and briefed the Commission on upcoming projects. J. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 8:42 p.m. The next regular meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, May 24, 2011, at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers. Respectfully submitted, William A. Ramsey, AICP, Princip I PI nner Planning Commission Secretary