Loading...
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