Loading...
PC Minutes-2010-07-2732400 PASEO ADELANTO J MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO, CA 92675 iij 1,1.9011110 (949) 493-1171 SAM ALLEVATO LAURA FREESE (949) 493-1053 FAx www.sanjuancapistrano.org 1776 THOMAS W. HRIBAR MARK NIELSEN DR. LONDRES USO MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, July 27, 2010 CALL TO ORDER The meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Cohen at 6:30 p.m., followed by the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. ROLL CALL: Commissioners Present: Sheldon Cohen, Chairman Gene Ratcliffe, Vice -Chair Ginny Kerr Jim Mocalis Bruce Tatarian Rob Williams Commissioners Absent- Tim Neely Staff Present: William Ramsey, AICP, Commission Secretary Grant Taylor, Development Services Director AQUA The Planning Commission approved the July 13, 2010 meeting minutes. PUBLIC HEARINGS None. 1 Printed on 100% recycled paper PC Meeting Minutes 2 July 27, 2010 UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Continued Worksession; General Plan Amendment (GPA) 10-02; Code Amendment (CA) 10-01; Establishing General Plan Policies, Amending the Architectural Design Guidelines, and Amending Title 9, Land Use Code Regulations for Hotels and Motels. (Project Manager: Grant Taylor, Development Services Director). Staff presentation & recommendation Grant Taylor, Development Services Director made the staff presentation noting that the proposed project had been initiated by the City Council and having been introduced to the Planning Commission at the July 13 meeting. He advised that staff had conducted additional research to address the issues raised by the Commission at the July 13 meeting including parking, floor area ratio (FAR), building height, setback, and landscaping standards and focusing on hotels only. As a result of that survey, Mr. Taylor advised that staff had further revised the proposed General Plan, Title 9, Land Use Code, and Architectural Design Guidelines amendments to address the Commission's hotel development issues and include the following. • Increase hotel building height to a maximum 45 feet from finished grade with roof elements and architectural projections permitted to a maximum height of 55 feet. • Increase hotel project floor area ratio (FAR) to maximum 0.65:1 for all buildings on the subject property. • First floor to second and third floor FAR ratio for hotels shall be determined by the Planning Commission. • Hotel parking shall be 1 space per guest room plus additional spaces for accessory uses to include 1 space per 100 square feet dining area for restaurants, 1 space per 4 seats for banquet/conference facilities, and parking standards may be reduced through a parking study and shared parking agreement. Mr. Taylor recommended that the Planning Commission, following staff presentation, accept public testimony, continue the work session review, provide further comments and direction to staff, and direct staff to notice a public hearing for the Planning Commission meeting on August 24, 2010. Commission Questions Commissioner Ratcliffe asked if the potential off-site lighting impacts of hotel are addressed by existing or proposed City standards. Mr. Taylor responded that the Title 9, Land Use Code establishes provisions prohibiting off-site light spillage and that the City requires the submission of photometric plans with the Architectural Control (AC) application or as a conditions of approval to assure this standard is met. PC Meeting Minutes 3 July 27, 2010 Commissioner Mocalis complimented the additional work conducted by staff and stated he had no further questions or comments. Commissioner Tatarian stated that in reviewing the San Clemente and Dana Point, floor area ratio (FAR) development standards for hotels, the City's proposed standard of 0.65 was in the range of those other cities. He asked about the City's two pending proposals and Mr. Taylor replied that the Mission Inn project on State Route -74 (Ortega Highway) proposes a 0.66 FAR and the proposed hotel for the former Ford Truck site at Stonehill and Camino Capistrano proposes a 0.52 FAR. Mr. Tatarian stated that the term "motel" still appears in certain provisions. Mr. Ramsey noted that the Title 9, Land Use Code definitions distinguish between "hotel" and "motel" and establish different definitions for each. Chairman Cohen questioned whether the City would be creating a precedent by establishing a use -specific (hotel) floor area ratio standard. Mr. Taylor responded that because hotels have unique requirements with respect to establishing a "critical mass" of hotel rooms and facilities; because hotels are important to adding vitality to the downtown; and because of the significant fiscal benefits, the amendments to the General Plan and Title 9, Land Use Code are warranted and appropriate. Mr. Cohen also asked if the proposed "hotel" standards should apply to the "TC" (Tourist Commercial) Zone District and Mr. Taylor stated they should and he would make that change. Public Comment Thomas Merrell, Civic Solutions, testified that he thought the staff work reflected a good overall effort but questioned whether or not the "Mission" District was a designated geographical area. Staff replied that the General Plan Community Design Element actually establishes the "Mission" district which encompasses the Historic Town Center Master Plan study area. Mr. Merrell stated that requiring a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) in the "PC" (Planned Community) Zone District would be "overkill" since the Rezone process would provide the City with adequate opportunity to establish project -specific requirements. The Comprehensive Development Plan standards essentially eliminate the need for imposing a CUP process. He also noted that the proposed numerical standards for "hotels" were appropriate for the Title 9, Land Use Code but not for the General Plan. Mr. Merrell suggested the City would retain flexibility by taking a policy approach to hotel uses in the General Plan and regulating the FAR only within the Title 9, Land Use Code. By doing so, the City would retain the discretion to allow marginal increases in hotel FAR through variances or exemptions (subject to appropriate criteria) without the need for a future General Plan Amendment. PC Meeting Minutes 4 July 27, 2010 Commission comments Chairman Cohen asked if the proposed 1.0 parking space per guest room included public parking. Mr. Taylor responded that given the typical occupancy rates of hotels which vary between 68 and 92%, the standard would accommodate employees most of the time. He acknowledged that during special community events when a hotel might be booked to capacity, the parking demand would exceed the off-street parking supply. However, such occasional peak parking demand could be easily accommodated by public parking in the vicinity. Commissioner Williams questioned the proposed parking standard and whether the City should be eliminating the Codes current hotel parking requirement which expressly provides for employee parking. He stated that the City shouldn't mandate a parking survey, but provide that as an option when projects propose to provide less parking than required by the Code. He noted that setback standards would be established by the code and asked what role the Design Review Committee would have. Mr. Ramsey responded that the Design Review Committee (DRC) would ultimately retain design discretion over Architectural Control (AC) applications for hotels and projects would not only need to meet the numerical standards, but also would need to meet the intent of the hotel design policies as determined by the Committee. Mr. Williams asked if "hotel" projects would require City Council review and approval and Mr. Taylor responded that any hotel project proposed within a base zone district that allows "hotels" would be subject to final review and approval by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Kerr asked if the proposed project would be subject to any other advisory Commission review and Mr. Taylor responded that only site-specific projects would be subject to advisory review. Ms. Kerr suggested that the Community Design Element be revised to address the "Mission" District. Mr. Taylor clarified that while the Element establishes policies for the District, it does not precisely establish the limits of the District. However, the Historic Town Center Master Plan does establish "Mission" District limits. Chairman Cohen reminded staff to assure that August 24 Public Hearing Notice expressly advised the public that the proposed project consisted of amendments to the General Plan, Title 9, Land Use Code, and Architectural Design Guidelines that were not project -specific and Mr. Taylor acknowledged. The worksession was concluded. NEW BUSINESS None. PC Meeting Minutes 5 July 27, 2010 Mr. Taylor reviewed the Tentative Meeting Schedule and briefed the commission on projects scheduled for future meetings. Mr. Taylor provided an update on the Historic Town Center Master Plan process and stated he would provide copies of the Powerpoint presentation from Studio 111 to the Commissioners. Commissioner Mocalis stated that during his tenure as City Manager in the 1980s, he had hired Tom Merrell as Planning Director. However, since that time, he has had no further professional nor business relationship with Mr. Merrell. Commissioner Tatarian summarized the benefits of the proposed hotel versus the fast food restaurants that would be displaced by the i-5/State Route -74 (Ortega Highway) interchange project. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned ai 7:28 p.m. The next regular meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, July 27, 2010, at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers. Respectfully submitted, 11 Ile OW William Ramsey, AICP, Principa�'Plan er Planning Commission Secreta.,°