Loading...
PC Minutes-2010-08-244; 493-1171 305 www.sanjuancapistrano.org CALL TO ORDER MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, August 24, 2010 MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL SAM ALL.EVATO LAURA FREEST THOMAS W. HRIBAR MARK NIELSEN UR. LONDRES USO 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 Commissioners Absent: Sheldon Cohen, Chairman Gene Ratcliffe, Vice -Chair Ginny Kerr Jim Mocalis Tim Neely Rob Williams Bruce Tatarian Staff Present: William Ramsey, AICP, Principal Planner Grant Taylor, Development Services Director David Contreras, Senior Planner Justin Kirk, Associate Planner City consultants: Keeton Kreitzer, Keeton Kreitzer Consulting Rich Barretto, Associate Principal, Linscott, Law and Greenspan Tin Cheung, The Planning Center ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. CONSENT CALENDAR Minutes of July 10, 2010: The Commission approved the subject minutes with a revision to pg. 4, par. 4, line 2 to read "58'-3" by a 6-0 vote. San Juan Capistrano: Preserving the Past to Enhance the Future Printed on 100% recycled paper PC Meeting Minutes 2 August 24, 2010 PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 09-015, Armstrong Nursery (T -Mobile); a request to develop and maintain a wireless telecommunications facility located at 32382 Del Obispo. (Applicant: T -Mobile, Amiee Weeks, Representative)(Project Manager: Justin Kirk. Associate Planner) Staff presentation & recommendation Justin Kirk, Associate Planner made the staff presentation advising the Commission that the proposed project consists of the installation (new construction) of a 45'-0" tall, 154, diameter faux water tower, which will house twelve paddle antennas and is located approximately 160 feet from Del Obispo. In addition the applicant has proposed a 28'-1" by 22'-0" area for ground mounted equipment to be enclosed by a T-0" wood fence, to match the existing wood fence. Mr. Kirk reviewed the changes made by the applicant to the design in response to prior Design Review Committee review. Staff recommended the Commission adopt the draft resolution conditionally approving the proposed project. Commission Questions Commissioner Williams stated that the view simulations appear to more "accurately" represent the final appearance of the proposed faux water tower and requested clarification of the project proposal. Mr. Kirk responded that the project design plans constituted the proposal and the view simulation depicted how the tank, if constructed to those plans, would appear. Commissioner Kerr asked whether the faux water tower would provide for collocation and Mr. Kirk responded that the facility had the capacity to accommodate one additional cell service carrier. Commissioner Ratcliffe asked whether the DRC -recommended horizontal metal bands would be used in the design and Mr. Kirk replied they would be to convey a more authentic appearance to the tank. Commissioner Ratcliffe asked whether the City could require changes to the design of the project in the event future technology would change and provide new alternatives not presently available. Mr. Kirkresponded yes and that draft condition of approval #10 would address such circumstances as provides as follows: 10. In the event that future technology renders the approved antenna or the screening structure obsolete due to performance or aesthetic considerations, the antenna may be replaced or removed at the expense of the applicant, subject to review by the Planning Commission. Chairman Cohen asked if the subject project should be treated in the same manner by the Planning Commission as the proposed cell site at the City's tree farm along Camino Capistrano. Mr. Kirk responded that would not be appropriate since the City owns and has lease control over the "tree farm" parcel, while the subject property is privatelyowned, PC Meeting Minutes 3 Auqust 24, 2010 Aaolicant Presentation Amy Weeks, representing T -Mobile Wireless, advised the Commission she had reviewed the conditions of approval and that T Mobile was amenable to all conditions. Public Hearing Chairman Cohen open the public hearing and the following persons provided public testimony. Jim Maag advised the Commission that he opposed the project as presently proposed due to potential environmental health impacts, especially those related to the close proximity of the cell site facility to Marco Forster Middle School and Kinoshita Elementary School and potential exposure of children to non -ionizing, electromagnetic radiation (NIER). Mr. Maag submitted information provided by Los Angeles City Councilwoman Janice Hahn's office on EMF (electromagnetic field radiation). Commission Discussion Commissioner Ratcliffe asked whether the cell site was justified due to a lack of coverage or capacity. Mr. Kirk responded that staff evaluated coverage analysis by the applicant cell carriers to verify any coverage issue, and with respect tothe subject application, T -Mobile had met the Federal FCC standard in demonstrating a lack of cell coverage in the immediate vicinity of the project. Commissioner Kerr stated that she thought the proposed design of the project was appropriate and compatible with the project setting but would like additional information about EMF and potential adverse health effects. Commission Attorney Eggart advised the Planning Commission that that the City and all local agencies were effectively pre-empted from considering EMF which was under sole authority of the Federal government. Commissioner Williams stated that while he was not a "big fan" of the proposed project and design approach, he concurred with the need for service. He stated that the City needs to assure that the conditions are written to guarantee that what is constructed will be the same as the design displayed in the view simulation. Condition of approval #10 is a good idea and he expressed support for the condition. Commissioner Mocalis stated that he concurred with Commissioner Kerr's concerns especially assuring that the water tank design accurately reflects the appearance of a "rural water tower/tank." He acknowledged Mr. Eggart's comments on FCC limits to local discretionary authority. Commissioner Neely stated that the design appears substantially consistent with theprior DRC and Commission design direction. He agreed with Commissioner Williams that the plans need to provide additional specificity and noted that the view simulations and the project plans were inconsistent in several significant ways. He stated that the DRC should confirm the adequacy of the final design for the project. Mr. Kirk responded that staff conditions with some refinement would provide assurances to the Commission on the project design. PC Meetinq Minutes 4 Auqust 24, 2010 Chairman Cohen asked if any siting alternative had been considered and Mr. Kirk replied that the City and T -Mobile has considered the Sports Park field lighting towers as a potential location. However, they did not provide sufficient coverage of the Del Obispo Street corridor to meet the main service objective of the project. Mr. Cohen stated his support for condition of approval #10 and the City's ability to revisit the project design in the future as technology improves. Adoption of Resolution PC RESOLUTION NO. 10-8-24-1 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 09-015 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO APPROVING THE PLANS FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY THAT INCLUDES TWELVE PADDLE ANTENNAS AND SIX PIECES OF GROUND MOUNTED EQUIPMENT LOCATED AT 32382 DEL OBISPO GENERALLY LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 1500 FEET NORTH EAST OF CAMINO DEL AVION AND MORE SPECIFICALLY REFERRED TO AS APN 121-182-53. Commissioner Mocalis made a motion for staff recommendation, seconded by Commissioner Kerr to adopt a resolution conditionally approving the proposed project subject to an additional condition requiring Design Review Committee (DRC) review and approval of final design plans. The motion passed by a 6-0 vote. AYES: Chairman Sheldon Cohen, Commissioners Gene Ratcliffe, Ginny Kerr, Jim Mocalis, Tim Neely, and Rob Williams NOES: None ABSTAIN: None 2. Consideration of a General Plan Amendment (GPA) 10-001, Rezone (RZ) 10-001, Architectural Control (AC)10-002, Grading Plan Modification (GPM)10-001, Tree Removal Permit (TRP)10-003, Floodplain Land Use Permit (FP)10-001, Tentative Parcel Map (TPM) 10-001, Plaza Banderas Hotel; a proposed mixed-use development that encompasses a 74,973 square foot, 124 -room hotel, approximately 14,500 square feet of commercial land uses, including 6,509 square feet of retail commercial floor area, a 5,747 square foot restaurant, and a 1,971 square foot private office 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 (APN124 -170 -12,14,15,16) (Applicant: Stroscher G3, Gretchen Stroscher Thomson)(Proiect Manager: David Contreras, Senior Planner) Staff presentation & recommendation David Contreras, Senior Planner made the staff presentation and described the project as a proposed mixed use development that encompasses a 74,973 square foot, 124 -room hotel, approximately 14,500 square feet of commercial land uses, including 6,509 square feet of retail commercial floor area, a 5,747 square foot restaurant, and a 1,971 square foot private office. Primary access to the site is from Ortega Highway along the property's southern boundary. Also, a proposed driveway on EI Camino Real and two driveways on Spring Street would provide secondary site access. A total of 185 parking spaces are proposed to accommodate guests of the hotel as well as the retail, office, and restaurant uses. Curb side parking is available on the south side of Spring Street adjacent to the subject property. PC Meeting Minutes 5 Auqust 24, 2010 Based on the information submitted with the application the following information pertains to the project. The total project site consists of 3.18 acres(138,520.8 sf). Mr. Contreras advised the Commission that the DRC had reviewed the project at their August 19 and staff had crafted additional conditions of approval (#60-62) to address the need for further DRC review to resolve outstanding design issues related to design details, colors, finishes, etc. Those conditions are also contained in the Commission's draft resolution. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission open the public hearing, accept public comment, close the public hearing and following discussion and consideration; by motion: adopt a resolution forwarding the proposed project to the City Council with a favorable recommendation subject to the conditions of approval and mitigation measures contained in the draft resolution. Commission Questions Commissioner Kerr asked about shared parking and Mr. Contreras replied that the applicant had prepared and submitted a shared parking study that had been evaluated in the Draft EIR and based on staff's analysis, the proposed parking would be sufficient to meet the parking demands of the project. Commissioner Mocalis noted a needed correction to the draft resolution (p. 6, item 5.) and staff responded that the word "are" would be deleted so the finding read correctly. He asked if a full tree survey had been completed and Mr. Contreras replied that the project landscape architect, Land Concern, had completed a comprehensive survey of all trees onsite. Commissioner Kerr stated that original landscape concept had included a small citrus (orange) orchard near the east end of the hotel building and asked if that would be retained in the preliminary design plans. Mr. Contreras responded that the follow-up review of the landscape plans by the Design Review Committee would provide discretion to include that feature in the project landscape palette. Aoplicant Presentation Tom Merrell, Civic Solutions, made the applicant presentation and reviewed the main design attributes of the project including building heights and setbacks, architectural design, parking and land uses. Chairman Cohen asked about finished grades in relation to the elevation of State Route -74 (Ortega Highway) and Mr. Merrell replied that the project site would be about 5-6 feet below Ortega at the east end of the site and roughly at grade at the west end. He noted that while the project proposes an 0.66 floor area ratio (FAR), after realignment of State Route -74 (Ortega Highway) and the conveyance of right-of-way to the hotel site, the project would have an 0.58 FAR. Mr. Merrell reviewed the draft conditions of approval and indicated that conditions 49, 57, 65a, 80, 86, 111, 120, 121, and 122 were not acceptable as presently written and the applicant requested revisions to be documented in writing to the City. Commission Questions Chairman Cohen asked about the shared parking study and specifically, how would the parking accommodate all the proposed uses, especially given the removal of the existing PC Meeting Minutes 6 August 24, 2010 parking lot at the corner of State Route -74 (Ortega Highway) and EI Camino Real. Mr. Merrell responded that the parking has not been designed to accommodate a worst-case scenario, but would accommodate maximum typical peak parking demand. While 100% hotel occupancy could occur during certain summer periods, that would be rare and a 78 80% occupancy rate would be typical during most of the year. Public Hearing Geoff Sumich stated that the design was not up to City standards; the Franciscan Promenade project on Camino Capistrano was an excellent example of a well-designed, exquisitely -detailed building which the hotel project should emulate in terms of design quality; the hotel proposes too much stucco wall area and is not authentic in its design approach; and the City needs to negotiate with the applicant to secure a substantially improved architectural design for the site. Lisa Wilhelm concurred with Mr. Sumich's testimony and stated that the project was built to the maximum intensity; the elevations were dominated by windows; the elevations conveyed a monotonous appearance; the project architect needs to do a better job; and public safety is a concern. David Ewing stated that the project has a lot of potential and maintaining the "urban edge" along the streetscape is a good feature of the project and is on the "right track"; parking will be adequate; the architecture is the main concern and needs to embody a unique and authentic approach; and the City will need to negotiate a better archibctural design. Bill Lopez stated that the project needs to address potential impacts of the project to the historic Stroschein house located at the southeast corner of EI Camino Real and Spring Street. Commission Discussion Commissioner Ratcliffe stated that the architectural design was the main concern and that the applicant needed to "raise the bar." Follow-up review of the design by the City will also be needed to assure the project meets the City's guidelines. She stated the Commission will need to assure that adequate parking is provided. The proposed grading concept forthe site appears acceptable. Mr. Ramsey responded that staff -recommended condition of approval #60 would address the need for follow-up review of the architectural plans by the Design Review Committee. Commissioner Kerr asked for clarification of the view simulations and discussed the issue with Commissioner Ratcliffe who clarified the matter. She stated that parking was not a concern for her until she read that the shared parking study assumed peak employee parking demand would occur from 6 pm to 6 am. In response, Mr. Barretto explained the shared parking study and the assumptions that validated the conclusion that the proposed 184 parking spaces would be sufficient. He noted that on -street parking and off-street public parking in the vicinity of the project would address the occasional worst-case parking scenario and provide a "safety net" with respect to adequate parking. Commissioner Williams stated the project is an "exciting" addition to the historic downtown and the project site is a "great" location." However, the proposed architectural design is a major concern. He questioned whether the Commission could make findings for the PC Meetinq Minutes 7 August 24, 2010 Architectural Control (AC) approval when the design required significant additional review and attention. Ramsey stated that staff conditions #60 through 62 were intended to assure that the final design would be fully consistent with the City's Architectural Design Guidelines. Commissioner Ratcliffe stated that she agreed with Commissioner Kerr comments and concern over the adequacy of parking. Commissioner Mocalis advised Mr. Lopez that the Stroschein house has been protected through the proposed site design which provides buffering and parking against the common property line and provides a substantial setback for the hotel and other buildings. He stated that he was impressed with the overall project, the efficiency of the City's process and stated that the hotel was arguably the most important project in the downtown. Commissioner Neely stated that he fully concurred with the prior commentsand concerns expressed by Commissioner Williams and Mr. Sumich and that the building architecture and parking remained as major unresolved issues that require atention. Chairman Cohen stated the proposed hotel was one of the most important projects in the City over the past twenty years and because of that, the fast-track processing has been a disservice. The Planning Commission needs to be involved in the review and approval of the final architectural plans to assure the project becomes an asset for the downtown. The applicant needs to submit the view simulations previously requested. He reiterated that the Planning Commission needs to be an integral and important part of the project review process. Commissioner Williams stated that he would like the Commission to be able to meet the October 5 City Council action date, but the applicant needs to do a much better job in providing the necessary design revisions and information to allow the Commission to conclude review and forward a recommendation to City Council. Chairman Cohen stated that the project and the new staff -recommended conditions (#60-62) need to be presented to the Design Review Committee. Commissioner Williams concurred that the conditions require revision and DRC review. Commissioner Neely clarified the Design Review Committee's role and stated that it would be disingenuous to make the Architectural Control (AC) findings when the project design clearly does not meet the City's Architectural Design Guidelines. He stated that the findings and conditions both needed to be substantially revised to reconcile this issue. If these cannot be reconciled, then the project can't be supported. Commissioner Ratcliffe stated that the Planning Commission should not allow itself to be "boxed -in" to making a decision. Commissioner Kerr stated that while she agreed that the project design need to be fine- tuned, it did not need to be substantially redesigned. Mr. Taylor briefed the Commission on its available options and stressed the point that the Commission must make a recommendation to City Council no later than the next Commission meeting on September 14. At that time, staff will present resolutions for both conditional approval and denial and the commission will need to "pull the trigger." He agreed PC Meeting Minutes 8 August 24, 2010 that the findings and conditions should be reviewed by DRC and staff would get that completed prior to the September 14 Commission hearing. Commissioner Neely stated that the Design Review Committee should also review the proposed findings for the Architectural Control (AC) application action. Neely made a motion to continue the public hearing and consideration of the project to the Commission's September 14 hearing, and refer the Architectural Control (AC) findings and revised conditions of approval to the DRC for review and comment. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Ratcliffe and passed by a 6.0 vote. 3. Continued Consideration of General Plan Amendment (GPA)10-02; Code Amendment (CA 10-01; Establishing General Plan Policies in the Land Use and Community Design Elements, Amending the Architectural Design Guidelines, and Amending Title 9, Land Use Code Regulations for Hotels and Motels (Proiect Manager: Grant Taylor, Development Services Director). Staff presentation & recommendation Grant Taylor, Development Services Director made the staff presentation and hoted that this Code Amendment project had been initiated by City Council. He reviewed the Commission's prior worksessions and recommendations on the draft ordinance amendments and Architectural Design Guideline amendments. As a result of those worksessions, as well as public testimony, Mr. Taylor advised that staff proposes changes to certain General Plan policies on hotel land use, revisions to the Architectural Design Guidelines, amendments to the City's hotel development standards as follows: • Increase hotel building height to a maximum 45 feet for habitable areas 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. • Parking shall be provided: 1 space per guest room Mr. Taylor stated that the Planning Commission may require additional spaces for accessory uses to include restaurants and banquet/conference/meeting facilities. Parking standards may be reduced with a parking study and/or shared parking agreement. Staff also recommends revisions to the Architectural Design Guidelines to establish additional guiding policies on the design and development of hotel and motel uses. Finally, staff proposes changes that would foster hotel development whilemotels would continue to be regulated under current standards. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission 1) adopt a resolution recommending the City Council certify the Negative Declaration and approve General Plan Amendment (GPA) 10-02; 2) adopt a resolution recommending the City Council certify the Negative Declaration and introduce an ordinance approving Code Amendment (CA) 10-01; and, 3) adopt a resolution recommending the City Council certify the Negative Declaration and approve amending the Architectural Design Guidelines, Chapter VI. PC Meetinq Minutes 9 Auqust 24, 2010 Commission Questions Commissioner Williams asked if the proposed amendments had been revised to differentiate between hotels and motels and Mr. Taylor replied that they had been. He stated that the proposed amendments would only address "hotel" uses, and the current standards for "motels" would remain unchanged. Chairman Cohen asked if the amendment proposes to allow "hotels" within all zoning districts and Mr. Taylor responded that they would only be permitted in certain commercial and industrial zoning districts. He stated that the parking standards should establish an absolute minimum numerical requirement. Commissioner Williams stated that basing parking on the proposed room count is a reasonable approach to consider, and would help encourage higher -quality hotel development by providing convenience and accommodating guest needs. Commissioner Ratcliffe asked if the "PC" (Planned Community) Zone District has the ability to provide greater flexibility in establishing parking standards and Mr. Taylor responded that it does. He noted that while that flexibility exists, the city must still assure that any project in a "PC" Zone district provides adequate parking. James Eggart, Commission Attorney, stated that the parking ordinance provisions could establish a minimum numerical parking requirement for hotel uses or the zone district standards could include notations within the land use tables prescribing how parking requirements are established. Commissioner Neely stated he would not be supporting the proposed amendments because the development standards (i.e. floor area ratio, building height, setbacks, etc.) undermine the integrity of the City's design review process. The proposed amendment to the parking standards which provide discretion makes sense. He concluded by stating the City should ultimately rely on the design review process to determine the acceptability of project site planning and architecture. Mr. Taylor noted that the proposed development standards which include a maximum height of 55'-0" would result in all hotels being the highest buildings within the City. Commissioner Kerr disagreed with Commissioner Neely and stated that while the design process was extremely important, the City must have minimum and maximum development standards because while the current DRC had excellent design review qualifications and ability, future Committees may not. Commissioner Williams stated that as a practicing architect, he would prefer not to have standards and to have complete latitude in design. However, he thought standards were ultimately necessary to constrain the unscrupulous. Chairman Cohen stated he tends to agree with Commissioner Neely and asked if the city really need to adopt the proposed amendments. He asked, "Are we concerned about the future," in a way that creates the need for the proposed amendments. Commissioner Neely stated that the General Plan should not contain development standards. The General Plan should provide a broad policy framework and the City's Land PC Meeting Minutes 10 August 24, 2010 Use Code should establish development standards. The City should eliminate the floor area ratio (FAR) provisions of the General Plan Land Use Element. The city should put the burden on the applicants for hotel projects to demonstrate their proposals are consistent with the City's General Plan and Design Guidelines. Public Hearing Chairman Cohen opened the public hearing and seeing no one coming forward to provide testimony, closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion Commissioner Mocalis stated that he agreed with Commissioner Neely in concept and the City's main concern needs to be focused on securing the highest quality of development possible. Commissioner Ratcliffe said she agreed in principle with Commissioner Neely's position and that it was dangerous to give the development community the idea that they were entitled to a certain level or intensity of development. Commissioner Kerr stated that without standards, the resulting subjectivity would be worrisome and could result in arbitrary and capricious decision-making. Development standards are necessary in order to provide the public with certainty. Commissioner Williams stated that some standards and restrictions are necessary. He noted that historically, the development review process in the City has been rigorous and so, the City needs to provide a process and development standards to encourage the type of development the city desires to promote. He statedhe supports the amendments. Chairman Cohen reiterated the he doesn't see a compelling need for the proposed amendments. Commissioner Kerr made a motion for staff recommendation, seconded by Commissioner Williams. The motion failed by a 2-4 vote (Chairman Cohen, and Commissioners Ratcliffe, Mocalis and Neely opposed). Adoption of Resolution PC RESOLUTION NO. 10-8-24-2, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (GPA) 10-02; CODE AMENDMENT (CA) 10-01; ESTABLISHING GENERAL PLAN POLICIES IN THE LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENTS, AMENDING THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN GUIDELINES AND AMENDING TITLE 9 LAND USE CODE REGULATIONS FOR HOTELS AND MOTELS. Commissioner Neely made a motion to forward the proposed amendments to the City Council with a recommendation of denial with a resolution and appropriate findings provided to the Commission for review and acceptance at the September 14 meeting. Commissioner Ratcliffe seconded the motion which passed by a 4-2 vote (Commissioners Williams and Kerr opposed). PC Meeting Minutes 11 August 24, 2010 AYES: Chairman Sheldon Cohen, Commissioners Gene Ratcliffe, Jim Mocalis, and Tim Neely. NOES: Commissioners Williams and Kerr. ABSTAIN: None UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. NEW BUSINESS None. STAFF & COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Williams asked about the status of the Union Bank "bell" ornament on the fencing and Mr. Taylor responded that the "bell" was indicated on the City -approved plans and that staff had requested both the bank President and contractor to remove the "bell" ornaments but they had declined to do so. Commissioner Neely briefed the Commission on the status and recent activity involving the City's work with Caltrans on the Interstate-5/State Route -74 (Ortega Highway) interchange design plans, especially landscaping, signage, retaining walls, and bridge rail details. Although Caltrans has made minors changes, several major design elements remain unresolved. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 9:12 p.m. The next regular meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, August 24, 2010, at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers. Approved on September 14, 2010: mjjzlq�& fi'G . Wi m A. Ramsey, AICP, Principal Pla er Planning Commission Secretary