PC Minutes-2011-06-2832400 PASEO ADELANTO *11111SH(l)
MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO, CA 92675
LEVATO
(949) 493-1171 � LAURA FREES
LAURAFREESE
(949) 4931053 FAx I96f LARRYKRAMER
wwwsanjuancapistrano.org 1776 DEREK REEVE
® JOHN TAYLOR
PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
Tuesday, June 28, 2011
A. CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Cohen called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m
B. PLEDGE
Chairman Cohen led the Pledge of Allegiance.
C. ROLL CALL:
Commissioners Present: Gene Ratcliffe, Vice -Chair
Ginny Kerr
Roy Nunn
Tim Neely
Jeff Parkhurst
Rob Williams
Commissioners Absent: Sheldon Cohen, Chairman (excused)
Staff Present: William Ramsey, AICP, Principal Planner
Grant Taylor, Development Services Director
Tram Tran, Deputy City Attorney
Teri Delcamp, Historic Preservation Manager
Nick Taylor, Associate Planner
D. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
E. CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Minutes of June 14 2011: By motion duly -made and seconded, the Commission
continued the subject minutes to the July 12 meeting by a 6-0-0 vote.
San Juan Capistrano: Preserving the Past to Enhance the Future
0 n®
Printed on 100% recycled paper
PC Meeting Minutes 2 June 28, 2011
2. Consideration of a Resolution Denying Tree Removal Permit (TRP) 11-034: an
application to remove a Redwood Tree Located at in the Front Yard of Residence at
32222 Avenida Los Amigos (APN: 668-451-09)(Applicant: Kathy Liftell)(Proiect Manager:
Laura Stokes, Housing/Redevelopment Coordinator). Grant Taylor, Development
Services Director advised the Commission that the resolution had been prepared to
reflect the direction of the Commission from the June 14 meeting.
Adoption of Resolution
PC RESOLUTION NO. 11-06-28-01, TREE REMOVAL PERMIT (TRP)11-034, A
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SAN JUAN
CAPISTRANO DENYING A TREE REMOVAL PERMIT FOR ONE REDWOOD
TREE LOCATED AT 32222 AVENIDA LOS AMIGOS (APN. 668-451-09).
It was moved by Commissioner Parkhurst and seconded by Commissioner Ratcliffe
to adopt a resolution denying the proposed project. The motion passed by a 5-0-1
vote (Nunn abstained).
AYES: Acting Chair Gene Ratcliffe and Commissioners Ginny Kerr,
Tim Neely, Jeff Parkhurst and Rob Williams.
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: Roy Nunn
F. PUBLIC HEARINGS
Architectural Control 10-036 Site Plan Review 10-002 Zone Variance 11-001 Tree
Removal Permit 11-014, Mission San Juan Capistrano Gate House Preservation,
Entry and Gift Shop: a request for approval of modifications to a historic site
including but not limited to preservation of the historic gate house and construction
of a new entry gate, reconstructed arch, group entry and gift shop located at 26801
Ortega Highway, with a General Plan designation of Public and Institutional, and a
zoning designation of Public and Institutional (APN: 124-180-06) (Applicant: Maft
McKinley, Barnard Ventures and Mechelle Lawrence -Adams, Mission San Juan Capistrano)
(Project Manager: Teri Delcamp, Historic Preservation Manager).
Staff presentation & recommendation
Teri Delcamp, Historic Preservation Manager made the staff presentation advising
the Commission that the proposed project includes removal of an existing circa
1954-56 entry gate, arch and ticket area with circa 1998-2001 additions;
construction of new entry gate and arch to reference the circa 1920 arch
appearance; and relocation of existing gift shop use from 1650 SF historic Sala
building into a new 15' high, 1750 SF single story building that encroaches into the
required front setback, including a 370 SF interior storage mezzanine and a small
section of roof that is 18'-0" high, with entrances fronting the street at 26801 Ortega
PC Meetinq Minutes 3 June 28, 2011
Highway (APN 124-180-06). The project also includes: adjacent new ticket/work
area; electrical room; a new group entry gate; repair and rehabilitation of existing
circa 1916 gate house; removal of approximately 126 lineal feet of circa 1952 and
re -built 1997 perimeter wall sections; removal of 3 existing trees; addition of
landscape planters, seat walls, benches and hardscape; lighting; and signage. The
site has a General Plan Land Use designation of Public and Institutional (P&I), is
located in the P&I Zoning District, and is listed on the City's Inventory of Historic and
Cultural Landmarks, the California Register of Historical Resources and in the
National Register of Historic Places.
On behalf of staff, Ms. Delcamp recommended that the Planning Commission adopt
a resolution approving the Mitigated Negative Declaration and conditionally
approving Architectural Control (AC) 10-036, Zone Variance (ZV) 11-001, and Tree
Removal Permit (TRP) 11-014.
Commission Questions
Commissioner Williams questioned the building width and mass stating that
appeared slightly different from what the Design Review Committee (DRC) had
reviewed. Mechelle Lawrence -Adams and Matt McKinley, representing the Mission,
explained that the width of the building had been narrowed by 60" so as to protect
and preserve the existing pergola on the Mission grounds directly to the east of the
proposed project.
Public Hearing
Notice having been given as required by law, Chairman Cohen opened the Public
Hearing.
Dan Friess, speaking as a resident, stated that the project design was excellent and
that he fully supported the proposed project
Commission Discussion
Commissioner Williams complimented the design team stating this was a "great"
project and would be an asset to the Historic Town Center. He indicated that he
would like to see the design plans & details be subject to Design Review Committee
review.
Commissioner Kerr concurred with Commissioner Williams noting because the
architect is a long-time resident, he was able to successfully create a design that
respects the heritage of the Mission.
Commissioner Parkhurst stated that the reduction in building height and mass and
the changes to the windows have resulted in a project design that fits well into the
downtown. He asked Ms. Delcamp about the disposition of the three plaques
currently displayed on the existing building and wall and she responded that the
conditions of approval address those and focus on integrating the State historic
landmark plaque into the new design.
PC Meeting Minutes 4 June 28, 2011
Commissioner Neely stated that this was a "first-rate" design team and project
design and that the applicant had been very responsive to the DRC's suggestions
and recommendations.
Adoption of Resolution
PC RESOLUTION NO. 11-6-28-02, ARCHITECTURAL CONTROL (AC) 10-036,
ZONE VARIANCE (ZV) 11-001, TREE REMOVAL PERMIT (TRP) 11-014, A
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SAN JUAN
CAPISTRANO, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION AND MODIFICATIONS TO MISSION SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO'S
MAIN ENTRY LOCATED AT 26801 ORTEGA HIGHWAYAND MORE PRECISELY
REFERRED TO AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBER 124-180-06 (MISSION SAN
JUAN CAPISTRANO GATE HOUSE PRESERVATION, ENTRY AND GIFT SHOP)
It was moved by Commissioner Nunn and seconded by Commissioner Parkhurst to
adopt a resolution approving the proposed project subject to confirmation review of
the design plans & details by the Design Review Committee (DRC). The motion
passed unanimously by a 6-0 vote.
AYES: Acting Chairman Gene Ratcliffe and Commissioners Ginny
Kerr, Tim Neely, Roy Nunn, Jeff Parkhurst and Rob Williams
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
G. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None.
H. NEW BUSINESS
Commissioner Roy Nunn recused himself and left the Council chambers citing a conflict of
interest due to an on-going professional business relationship with the appellant, Mr.
Friess.
Appeal of the Development Services Department's Plan Check Approval of a
Tenant Improvement for a "Convenience Store" within the General Commercial
Zone District located at 32252 Camino Capistrano (APN 668-453-16) (Appellant: Dan
Friess) (Project Manager: Nick Taylor, Associate Planner).
Staff Dresentation & recommendation
Nick Taylor, Associate Planner made the staff presentation stating that staff had
approved building permit plans for an interior remodel of the former St. Vincent de
PC Meeting Minutes 5 June 28, 2011
Paul Thrift Store (apparel sales) to convert the 4,641 square foot tenant space to a
"convenience store." Staff reviewed the plan for compliance with the applicable use
and parking provisions Title 9, Land Use Code, determined the proposed use and
the parking met the provisions of the Code, and approved the tenant improvement
plan. Dan Friess, owner of the adjoining commercial property to the south,
subsequently submitted an appeal of the Department's tenant improvement plan
approval based on the parking requirements contending that the proposed use did
not provide sufficient parking in compliance with the Code. Mr. Friess, in his appeal,
contends that the proposed use is a "grocery store" or "supermarket" as opposed to
a "convenience store."
On behalf of staff, Mr. Taylor recommended that the Planning Commission adopt a
resolution denying the appeal and upholding the Development Services
Department's decision to approve the tenant improvement plan and parking
determination/calculation for a "convenience store" in the General Commercial (GC)
Zone District.
Commission Questions
Commissioner Parkhurst questioned the use of subsection (e)(2)(B) of the parking
code which relates to "enlargement" of an existing legal, non -conforming use noting
that since there was no enlargement, this section did not appear to apply. The Code
section reads:
"Where parking and loading requirements are the cause for
nonconformity, the use shall not be intensified, nor associated
structure enlarged or altered to create additional dwelling units, guest
rooms, seating capacity, or floor area, unless additional parking and
loading requirements are supplied and maintained to meet the parking
requirements, subject to the provisions of Section 9-3.535 Parking."
Mr. Taylor responded that while the ordinance construction may be a bit awkward,
staff had determined that the provision clearly applies because the provision speaks
to parking non -conformities. This section applies by virtue of the fact that the
business is non -conforming with respect to parking and the applicant is not
enlarging the building area. The Code provides that in cases where enlargement
occurs and the parking is non -conforming, the proposed use must comply with
parking requirements so that conversely, if no enlargement occurs, than the parking
provided to serve the use does not need to be increased to meet requirements.
Appellant Presentation
Dan Friess, the appellant stated that he had no issue with the proposed use, only
the insufficient parking for the use. He stated that the property provides 12 parking
spaces while the code requires at least 24 spaces so that the proposed "food store"
use is grossly under -parked in violation of the Code. Mr. Friess stated that the prior
use was required to provide 1 space per 250 square feet (SF) while the Title 9, Land
Use Code parking ordinance requires "food store" to provide 1 space per 200
PC Meetinq Minutes 6 June 28, 2011
square feet (SF). He asked that the Planning Commission require the applicant to
meet the Codes parking requirements. He reviewed other Cities parking standards
including San Clemente, Rancho Santa Margarita, and Mission Viejo noting that
those cities also require "food stores" to provide 1 parking space per 200 SF. Mr.
Friess went on to note that the original building on the subject property consisted of
roughly 3,100 SF and the owner subsequently constructed a 1,500 carport which
was converted to a storage addition and in doing so, eliminated 6 parking spaces at
the rear of the building which, if available, would provide a total of 18 parking
spaces. In summary, Mr. Friess stated that the provision of the Title 9, Land Use
Code with respect to parking and the change in class of land use to "food store"
require that the proposed use comply with the parking Code and that the solution
would be to remove the 1,500 SF addition at the rear of the building.
Public Comment
Chairman Cohen opened the floor for public comment.
Dan Malcolm, the property owner, stated that he opposed the appeal and disputed
the basis. He said the proposed "convenience store" with less than 5,000 square
feet (SF) of floor area clearly meets the Code definition of that use. Because the
use would occupy the existing building with no additions, there is no "enlargement"
and therefore, no requirement to make the parking conforming. He concluded by
stating there are numerous commercial property vacancies in the City and this
proposed project would eliminate one of those.
Ziad Faraj, representing Mercado EI Rey, spoke against the appeal and described
the use as a small-scale market that met the Code -mandated definition of
"convenience store." He stated that the proposed store would not have shopping
carts, only shopping baskets as do the other two stores operated by him and his
business partners.
Alfredo Rodriguez, the contractorwho had designed the floor plan spoke againstthe
appeal stating there was only 1,929 square feet (SF) of retail area and so, the store
was not a "supermarket" which are substantially larger.
Dan Tulipani, a commercial broker who assisted Mr. Malcolm with acquiring the
property, spoke against the appeal stating that the store would have a single check-
out clerk and specializes in foods for the Hispanic market. He stated that the lease
provides that employee parking will be restricted so that adequate patron parking is
available. He noted that many customers would walk to the market. He responded
to several follow-up questions by the Commission related to parking, building area,
deliveries, maximum number of shoppers at any time, etc.
Commission Questions
Grant Taylor reviewed the staff position and recommendation and stated that other
options are available for the market or property owner including a possible variance
to the parking standards in the event the appeal is approved.
PC Meeting Minutes 7 June 28, 2011
Commissioner Neely asked if "food stores" and convenience stores" are permitted in
the "GC" (General Commercial) Zone District and Mr. Taylor replied they were. Mr.
Neely concluded that land use is not an issue in this case. However, the class of
parking use is the issue which needs to be addressed.
Commissioner Williams stated that given the fact that the Code required parking for
a "convenience store" use would be 19 spaces, the provision of the 12 existing
spaces was not sufficient.
Commissioner Kerr noted that the net square feet was substantially less than the
gross square feet and that should be taken into consideration (i.e. 1,929 NSF
versus 4,641 GSF).
Commissioner Parkhurst asked if there would be any increase in the overall floor
area and staff responded there would not be.
Commissioner Neely asked if there existed a comparable example within town,
perhaps Alipaz Plaza, that has a "convenience store" that could be assessed in
terms of parking demand and staff responded the EI Campeon Carniceria in EI
Adobe Plaza would be comparable.
A general discussion ensued between Commissioners as to the nature of the
appeal.
Commissioner Neely noted that in the final analysis, given the facts of the case and
the language in the Code, the Planning Commission has broad discretion.
Commissioner Parkhurst stated that while the proposed use may be a "convenience
store", it also appears to be a "food store" under the provisions of the parking Code
and requires additional parking. Tram Tran, Deputy City Attorney responded that
the question the Planning Commission must resolve is whether the proposed use is
an intensification of use (note: intensification would require the property owner to
resolve the legal, non -conforming parking issue).
Commissioner Ratcliffe noted that based on testimony, the net floor area of the
proposed use will be substantially less than the net floor area of the St. Vincent de
Pauls prior retail store use.
Commission Discussion
Commissioner Kerr advised her fellow Commissioners that the proposed use does
not result in "intensification" because the net floor area is substantially less than the
gross and less than the prior net floor area. She suggested the employees be
required to park remotely. She also stated that given the nature of the market, the
patrons are more likely to walk than drive.
PC Meeting Minutes 8 June 28, 2011
Commissioner Parkhurst stated that he has no objection to the proposed use but
believes that the parking shortage must be addressed based on the land use. He
stated that the proposed use is not a typical "convenience store" (e.g. 7-11, AM -PM
Mini -Mart) but a destination use that needs to meet either the 1 space per 200 SF or
1 space per 250 SF parking standard and it presently does not meet either.
Commissioner Neely stated that the Commission must focus on the legal issue
involving the class of use. The facts of the case and the proposed land use appear
"disconnected." He stated that the use is certainly a "food store" but he is persuaded
that the use of baskets and no carts will limit the intensity of use. Also, he stated the
"food store" use would be less auto -oriented than typical "food stores."
Unfortunately, the Code does not contain use class that's specific to the proposed
"food store."
Commissioner Williams stated that initially he was encouraged by the nature of the
"convenience store" use. However, after conducting a field visit, he quickly
concluded parking is an issue. He stated that based on the applicant's description,
the proposed use will be a "food store", albeit small -scaled, and will be more intense
than the thrift shop use that previously occupied the building. He expressed concern
that the Code would require 23 parking spaces (4,641 SF / 200 = 23.21) but only
provides 12 off-street spaces.
Commissioner Ratcliffe stated that the use and parking requirement are separate
issues and that the "convenience store" is the best fit for the proposed use and so,
there is no intensification of use. She stated that the Commission could expect more
foot traffic than auto traffic for this use. Ms. Ratcliffe stated that the Commission
should be "conservative" and support staff recommendation to deny the appeal.
Commissioner Parkhurst stated that the "convenience store" use is merely a subset
of "food store" and therefore, the proposed use should be required to provide 1
parking space per 200 SF.
Adoption of Resolution
PC RESOLUTION NO. 11-06-28-03, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO UPHOLDING AN
APPEAL AND DENYING DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
APPROVAL OF A PLAN CHECK FOR TENANT IMPROVEMENTS FOR A
"CONVENIENCE STORE" IN THE GENERAL COMMERCIAL ZONE DISTRICT
LOCATED AT 32252-54 CAMINO CAPISTRANO (APN 668-453-16)(APPELLANT:
DAN FRIESS).
Commissioner Williams made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Parkhurst to
adopt a resolution to uphold the appeal of the Development Services Department's
approval of the tenant improvement plans for Mercado EI Rey and determination
PC Meetinq Minutes 9 June 28, 2011
that the parking is legal, non -conforming and furthermore, that the proposed use
would be an intensification of land use under the provisions of the Code thereby
requiring the property owner to resolve the parking deficiency. The motion passed
by a 3-2 vote.
AYES: Commissioners Tim Neely, Jeff Parkhurst and Rob Williams.
NOES: Acting Chairman Gene Ratcliffe and Commissioner Ginny
Kerr.
ABSTAIN: None.
I. STAFF & COMMISSION COMMENTS
Staff briefed the Commission on the future meeting workload, major development projects,
and code enforcement issues of Commission interest.
J. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the Commission, Acting Chairman Ratcliffe
adjourned at 8:45 pm p.m. to the next regularly scheduled meeting for Tuesday, July 12,
2011 at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers.
Respectfully submitted,
William A. Ramsey, AICP, Princ' al lanner
Planning Commission Secreta