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.,°