Loading...
PC Minutes-2011-05-2432400 PASEO ADELANTO i % MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO, CA 92675 (949) 493-1171 SAMALLEVATti IA(AAra serf A (949) 493-1053 FAX • fSTAAIISAfA I LAURA FREESE I96� LARRY KRAMER www.sanjuancapistrano.org 1776 DEREK REEVE • • JOHN TAYLOR ANA Aj- PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES May 24, 2011 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: Commissioners Absent Sheldon Cohen, Chairman Ginny Kerr Tim Neely Jeff Parkhurst Rob Williams Gene Ratcliffe Roy Nunn Staff Present: William Ramsey, AICP, Principal Planner Grant Taylor, Development Services Director Deputy City Attorney Tram Tran David Contreras, Senior Planner Nick Taylor, Associate Planner None. E. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. May 10, 2011 Minutes: The Commission unanimously approved the subject minutes with revisions. Chairman Cohen re -ordered the meeting agenda by moving the Ortega Highway item ahead of the public hearings. San .Tuan Capistrano: preserving the Past to Enhance the Future �Mi Printed on 100% recycled paper PC Meeting Minutes 2 May 24 2011 F. NEW BUSINESS 1. Consideration of Preliminary Design Plans for the Proposed Ortega Highway Sidewalk Widening Project (Camino Capistrano to EI Camino Real); a request for review of proposed design plans to widen the existing sidewalk along the south side of Ortega Highway between Camino Capistrano and EI Camino Real by 6'-0" (Project Manager: Nasser Abbaszadeh, Public Works Director). Nasser Abbaszadeh, Public Works Director made the staff presentation and advised the Commission that the City's draft Historic Downtown Master Plan seeks to reinforce pedestrian scale and character by making walking and bicycling an integral part of the multimodal transportation network. Because the highest concentration of pedestrian activity takes place at the intersection of Camino Capistrano and Ortega Highway, Studio One Eleven has proposed wide parkways (sidewalk and landscaping), two 8 foot parking lanes, and two travel lanes as the ultimate cross section for this segment of Ortega Highway. The roadway cross-section currently consists of two 10 -foot wide sidewalks (the south sidewalk varies in width), four 11 - foot wide travel lanes, and two 8 -foot wide parking lanes. The proposed project would expand the width of the existing sidewalk along the south side of Ortega Highway by 6'-0" from 10'-0" to 16-0", install new curb and gutter, and re -stripe the roadway. Staff recommended the Commission provide review comments. Commission Questions/comments Commissioner Parkhurst stated that while he liked the concept of widening the sidewalk along this segment of Ortega, he was concerned about the effect on traffic circulation and congestion and was concerned that the Historic Town Center Master Plan had not yet been adopted and could be subject to further revision. Commissioner Neely stated that the proposal was reasonable and he had no objection but was concerned that the project had not been reviewed by the Design Review Committee to establish streetscape elements such as landscaping, street furniture, lighting, etc. Commissioner Kerr stated that she supported the general concept of widening sidewalks but thought the City needs to maintain downtown traffic circulation and eliminating a travel lane could be problematic. Chairman Cohen stated that the timing of the project is problematic since the Historic Town Center Master Plan had not been adopted by the City Council and because of the impending work on the Plaza Banderas Hotel and the 1-5/Ortega Interchange. He noted that while pedestrian circulation was very important, the city needs to study/understand the cumulative impact of expanding sidewalks and narrowing streets in the downtown. Nasser Abbaszadeh thanked the Planning Commission for their comments and stated that he would forward those to the City Council and Community Redevelopment Agency Board for consideration. PC Meetina Minute G. PUBLIC HEARINGS Mav 24. 2011 Continued Consideration of Grading 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 Cit -- required grading permits. (Applicant: Bretton E. Trowbridge) (Protect Manager: Nick Taylor Associate Planner). Nick Taylor made the staff presentation and advised the Commission that 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 proposal includes new landscaping for the proposed slope and demolition of an existing pool. The applicant began the work in an area on the property that had previously been severely damaged by a landslide. The scope of work identifies approximately 40 cubic yards of earthwork. Mr. Taylor reminded the Planning Commission that they had continued the project on May 10, 2011 and requested staff to provide copies of the geotechnical report provided by the owner, as well as the third -party review performed by Lawson & Associates (LGC) to include demolition of the pool in the scope of work and those have been provided as attachments to the staff report. He stated that Lawson Geotechnical Associates (LGA) has opined that the demolition of the pool would not create any geotechnical concerns or issues. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission conditionally approve the proposed project. Commission Questions/comments Commissioner Kerr questioned if the work outlined in the 2000 geotechnical report had been performed and Mr. Taylor responded that he would need to defer to the applicant, Mr. Trowbridge for a response. Chairman Cohen asked if the supplemental geotechnical work and opinion had been provided and Mr. Taylor responded that it was an attachment to the agenda report. Public Hearing James Lee, a neighboring resident, read his letter into the public record raising geotechnical concerns over the proposed demolition of the pool on the stability of his property. Marian Lee restated the concerns expressed by the prior speaker, James Lee. Bob Mickologick stated that the applicant should be required to prepare a new geotechnical study for the proposed project. Brett Trowbridge, the applicant, stated that he understood, based on the geotechnical report and supplement, that the landslide scarp should not be PC Meeting Minutes 4 May 24, 2011 "touched" and he had no intent on grading within that area. He stated that proposed landscaping would prevent erosion and provide additional added stability. Commission Questions/comments Commissioner Parkhurst stated that he had no confidence in the 3rd_partypeer review by Lawson Geotechnical Associates (LGA) of the 2000 Geotechnical Report on the Via La Mirada Landslide. Commissioner Neely stated that the project was not ready for Planning Commission action and that additional details and geotechnical analysis were necessary. He stated that the City's Engineering staff should have been involved in the staff review of the project and geotechnical studies with respect to the pool demolition/removal. Nick Taylor added that the demolition of the pool had been required as Code Enforcement action by the city. Commissioner Kerr stated that she was confused by the scope of the project and Mr. Ramsey responded that the Grading Plan Modification (GPM) application was required because of the un -permitted fill in the rearyard and that the pool demolition was included in the project plans, but was not specifically under the jurisdiction of the GPM application and required an over-the-counter Demolition Permit. Mr. Taylor suggested the application be amended to separate the Grading Plan Modification from the Demolition Permit. Chairman Cohen stated that he continued to have concerns about the planned pool demolition and remained unconvinced that the geotechnical issue had been sufficiently addressed. Grant Taylor explained the City's geotechnical review process and stated that the Planning Commission should not second-guess the conclusions of the registered engineering geologist who conducted the 3rd -party peer review or the geotechnical report. Commissioner Parkhurst stated that the Commission was not second- guessing the 3rd -party peer review or the geotechnical report, but was seeking adequate information on which to make an informed decision on the project. Commission Action Commissioner Neely made a motion to continue consideration of the project so that appropriate staff/consultants could provide testimony to the Commission on the geotechnical issues and the motion was seconded by Commissioner Parkhurst. The motion passed by a 4-0 vote. H. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. 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 made the staff PC Meetinq Minutes 5 May 24, 2011 presentation and noted that at the May 10, 2011 meeting, the Planning Commission reviewed the Municipal Code provisions on free-standing, monument signs as they would apply to the project site and following comments, agreed with the Development Services Director's interpretation, by a 4-2 vote, that the proposed free-standing, monument sign did not meet the Municipal Code findings for approval. Specifically, the Planning Commission determined that the existing sign on the building of the bank was "plainly visible" and that the bank was part of a shopping center despite being located on a separate parcel. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution of denial based on findings that the Municipal Code does not permit a free-standing, monument sign on the project site. Applicant Presentation Larry Thomas representing Independence Bank stated that he understood but did not agree with the Commission's and staff's conclusion and interpretation of the Sign Code and that he would need to appeal the decision to the City Council. Commission Questions/comments Commissioner Parkhurst stated that the proposed sign does not meet the City's Sign Code criteria because the building is substantially visible to traffic along Camino Capistrano. Commissioner Kerr stated that her opinion had not changed and that the free- standing, monument sign was not necessary and the building -mounted sign was sufficient. Chairman Cohen stated that there was no obstruction or limitation to seeing the building -mounted sign. Adoption of Resolution PC RESOLUTION NO. 11-5-24-1, SIGN PERMIT (SP) 11-013, INDEPENDENCE BANK A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO, CALIFORNIA DENYING A FREE-STANDING MONUMENT SIGN LOCATED AT 32291 CAMINO CAPISTRANO (APN 668-091- 07) (INDEPENDENCE BANK). Commissioner Kerr made a motion seconded by Commissioner Parkhurst to adopt a resolution denying the proposed project. The motion passed by a 4-0 vote. AYES: Chairman Sheldon Cohen, Commissioners Gene Ratcliffe, Ginny Kerr, Tim Neely and Jeff Parkhurst. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. PC Meeting Minutes 6 May 24, 2011 2. Continued consideration of General Plan Amendment (GPA) 10-001 & Rezone (RZ) 10-001, Plaza Banderas Hotel; a request for review and approval of the Comprehensive Development Plan (CDP) for the approved 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 (Assessor Parcel Number 124 -170 -12,14,15,16) (Applicant: StroscherG3 Gretchen Stroscher Thomson)(Proiect Manager: David Contreras, Senior Planner). David Contreras, Senior Planner made the staff presentation noting that on October 19, 2010, the City Council adopted an ordinance approving the Comprehensive Development Plan for the Plaza Banderas Hotel project. The approving resolution contained conditions of approval #59 which required that the project details be submitted to the Development Services Department for review and approval by the Design Review Committee and Planning Commission and including a provision to, "Update the Comprehensive Development Plan (CDP) design guidelines consistent with the revised design plan to be approved by the DRC and PC. (DS)" Staff recommended that the Planning Commission determine that the updated Comprehensive Development Plan (CDP) for Plaza Banderas Hotel & Mixed Use Development is in substantial conformance with the City Council -approved project and with Condition of Approval #59. Commission Questions/comments Commissioner Kerr questioned the provision regarding conflicts between the Title 9, Land Use Code and Comprehensive Development Plan. Mr. Contreras responded that the CDP typically takes precedent over the Title 9, Land Use Code except where standards may conflict. He noted that if necessary, staff would need to make a Code interpretation which may involve Planning Commission review. Applicant Presentation Tom Merrell, Civic Solutions, representing the applicant stated that he was amenable to working with staff to develop appropriate language to resolve the issue. Commission Discussion Commissioner Kerr stated that the language on pg. 15, 3rd paragraph, 2nd sentence of the Final Draft CDP should be deleted ("In the event of any conflict between the provisions of this CDP and the provisions of the San Juan Capistrano Municipal Code, the requirements of this CDP shall apply'). Chairman Cohen suggested reversing the language so that where there were conflicts between the Title 9, Land Use Code and CDP, the Land Use Code would prevail. Mr. Ramsey stated that the provisions of the Comprehensive Development Plan govern all standards and land use except where the CDP is silent on a particular standard, in which cases the Title 9, Land Use Code would apply. The language could be revised accordingly to reflect that relationship. PC Meetinq Minutes 7 May 24, 2011 Commissioner Neely stated that because the site plan and architecture constitute a specific development plan for the property, the CDP standards merely establish a regulatory framework for those plans. Development of the site must be insubstantial compliance with the CDP provisions however, the bottom line is that the City ultimately retains full discretion over site development and design through the development review process. Chairman Cohen asked for staff to clarify that the 45'-0" height standard only applied to "hotels" and Mr. Ramsey responded that was correct and all other structures with uses other than a hotel would be required to comply with the 35-0" height limit. Commission Action Commissioner Neely made a motion for staff recommendation, that the Planning Commission determine that the updated Comprehensive Development Plan (CDP) for the Plaza Banderas project is in substantial conformance with the City Council - approved project and Condition of Approval #59, and the motion was seconded by Commissioner Parkhurst subject to the following: • That the CDP language expressly provide that only the "hotel" structure may exceed 35'-0" up to a maximum height of 45'-0". • That page 15, 3rd paragraph, 2nd sentence shall be deleted (i.e. "In the event of any conflict between the provisions of this CDP and the provisions of the San Juan Capistrano Municipal Code, the requirements of this CDP shall apply'). The motion passed by a 4-0 vote. I. NEW BUSINESS Consideration of Tree Removal Permit (TRP) 11-036; Northwest Open Space entrance; a request to remove a Deodar Cedar located at 30291 Camino Capistrano and generally located on the west side of Camino Capistrano and the north side of the Northwest Open Space entrance (Applicant: City of San Juan Capistrano)(Proiect Manager: William Ramsey, AICP, Principal Planner). Mr. Ramsey made the staff presentation and advised the Commission that as part of the entrance design evaluation process, the City's traffic engineer had field - assessed the safe sight -distance for traffic exiting the Northwest Open Space entrance. As a result of that assessment, the traffic engineer found that the existing Deodar cedar to the north side of the entrance obstructed the clear sight distance of exiting traffic and the ability to see bicyclists in the southbound bike lane. Given the fact that Camino Capistrano is a designated Class 2 bikeway by the City, is part of the County's Master Plan of Bikeways, carries significant volumes of bicycle traffic, and that some bicycle riders can exceed 25 mph, the Deodar cedar poses a public safety threat to cyclists. He noted that because the tree poses an imminent public safety threat to bicyclists, it requires removal in order for the Northwest Open Space PC Meeting Minutes 8 May 24, 2011 entrance to provide safe and convenient public access. Staff recommended approval of the Tree Removal Permit. Commission Discussion Commissioner Parkhurst stated that he saw no good reason to remove the existing tree which was an important aesthetic and natural asset to the Camino Capistrano corridor, and that drivers and bicyclists needed to exercise appropriate caution. Commission Neely stated that while removal of the Deodar cedar was an unfortunate consequence of the pending opening of the Northwest Open Space to the public, it was clearly necessary in order to protect public health and safety. Commissioner Kerr stated that she was saddened by the prospect of removing the tree which is a beautiful specimen but acknowledged that public safety needs to take precedent. Chairman Cohen expressed concurrence with Tim Neely and Ginny Kerr and stated that while it was unfortunate to have to remove the tree, there were no other alternatives to providing safe access. Commission Action Commissioner Neely made a motion for approval of the Tree Removal Permit, the motion was seconded by Commissioner Kerr and passed 3-1 vote (Parkhurst opposed). I. STAFF & COMMISSION COMMENTS Staff briefed the Commission on the status of several open space -related projects and the status of recently approved projects. There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 8:40 p.m. The next regular meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, June 14, 2011 at 6:30 pm in the Council Chambers. Respectfully submitted, William A. Ramsey, AICP, Princ;OPlanner Planning Commission Secretary