Loading...
PC Minutes-2006-02-14*2400 PASEO ADEL.ANTO SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO. CA 92675 W49) 493-1171 (949) 493-1053 FAx ►+•ulw.sarlittancapisrraiao. org CALL TO ORDER OWN* 1776 J, J/ J'� � ;IAf1APAAAFFI � FSTAIIIfAEI 1961 1776 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 2006 0 MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL SAM ALLEVATO DIANE BATHGATE WYATT HART JOE SOTO DAVID M. SWERDLIN The meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Neely at 7:02 p.m., followed by the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Tim Neely, Chairman Robert Cardoza, Vice Chairman Sheldon Cohen Gene Ratcliffe Commissioners Absent: Joe Drey (excused) Staff members in attendance: Molly Bogh, Planning Director; William Ramsey, Principal Planner; Sam Shoucair, Senior Engineer; Sue McCullough, Recording Secretary. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None CONSENT CALENDAR Items listed on the Consent Calendar are considered routine and will be enacted by one motion and one vote. There will be no separate discussion of these items. If discussion is desired, that item may be removed from the Consent Calendar and will be considered separately. • San Juan Capisti-ano: Preserving the Past to Enhance the Future CS Printed on reuded Doer PC Meeting 0 2 0 February 14, 2006 1. APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF JANUARY 10, 2006. Ms. Bogh said that staff apologizes that the January 10, 2006 Minutes were not included in Commissioner Packets, and that they would be brought to the next meeting. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP TPM 05-154 TAVASSOL: REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A THREE LOT SUBDIVISION FOR SINGLE -FAMILY - DETACHED, CUSTOM HOME, RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ON AN EXISTING 2.65 ACRE PARCEL. THE LOTS WILL TAKE ACCESS FROM THE PROPOSED EXTENSION OF AN EXISTING PRIVATE ROAD CONNECTING TO FORSTER RANCH ROAD (VALLE ROAD). AN EXISTING RESIDENTIAL UNIT WILL REMAIN ON ONE OF THE LOTS. THE PROJECT SITE IS LOCATED ALONG THE EAST SIDE OF FORSTER CANYON ROAD ABOUT 950 FEET SOUTH OF THE MCCRACKEN HILL GATED ENTRY AND IS MORE PRECISELY REFERRED TO AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER (APN) 675- 341-02. THE PROJECT SITE HAS A GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION OF VERY LOW DENSITY (VLD) AND A ZONING DESIGNATION OF RSE-20,000. (APPLICANT: JAFFAR TAVASSOL) Written Communications Staff report dated February 14, 2006 Staff presentation & recommendation Mr. Ramsey presented the staff report as a request for approval of a three lot subdivision for single -family -detached, custom home, residential development on an existing 2.65 acre parcel. Although this property is not within the McCracken Hill Specific Plan, it is subject to similar covenants and restrictions. Mr. Ramsey discussed access, grading, General Plan conformance, .and consistency with the McCracken Hill development pattern. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend City Council approval of the proposed project based on findings that the project is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan Land Use Element and Community Design Element and meets the Title 9, Land Use Code and Subdivision Map Act findings for approval. Commissioner Questions and Comments Commissioner Cohen voiced concern regarding having no specific project to look at and not enough information to determine if the project meets the design • element. Mr. Ramsey responded that this proposal is only a request to subdivide one lot into three lots, and no development is proposed at this time. PC Meeting • 3 • February 14, 2006 40 Chairman Neely asked how the Commission could make findings on residential design. issues. Mr. Ramsey responded that staff is recommending a condition of approval that would require approval of a Grading Plan Modification for each new lot prior to development. This will allow review of site grading, landscaping, and building massing prior to approval of each new dwelling unit. Vice Chairman Cardoza asked if there are four proposed parcels as referenced in Exhibit A Condition 1. Ms. Bogh said that the applicant originally submitted four parcels, but now there are three, and that the typo in Condition 1 would be corrected. Commissioner Cohen said that it will be difficult to make a decision tonight without benefit of specific development plans. Mr. Ramsey said staff believes there is enough information to meet the criteria to approve the two areas additional lots. Mr. Ramsey said the Commission could direct the applicant to prepare concepts for development on those lots to come through the review process concurrently. Ms. Bogh said the findings to be made by the Commission are the Subdivision Map Act findings and usually on a parcel map we get less detail than on a Tract Map. The Commission would have to make findings that it is feasible to build on these lots in a manner consistent with the General Plan, understanding that Conditions of Approval have been added requiring compliance with the General Plan Hillside Design Guidelines and requiring review of a Grading Plan Modification that gives the Commission discretionary authority. Ms. Bogh said that staff tried to protect the lower slopes by asking for the non -buildable easement on the lower side of the slope that would protect that lower area from any accessory structures and from any garages or RV storage. All the buildings would be at the top of the hill. As the project is conditioned staff feels the Commission has been given enough discretion in the grading plan modification requirement to allow the Commission to make the findings. Chairman Neely asked Mr. Shoucair if separate geo-testing was done for this project. Mr. Shoucair said that every house would have its own, and that the Sun - Cal geotechnical investigation completed for the entire area showed ancient landslide soils on this site. Chairman Neely asked if Mr. Shoucair is comfortable that this site could not only support the structures that might be proposed, but if soil were imported to make enlarged pads, if that would be a feasible design. Mr. Shoucair said that the landslide is deep in this area and if an import is required the soils report would identify the surcharge. Mr. Shoucair said that the applicant was encouraged to build the sewer line so that the slope would be more stable, and that he does not anticipate a lot of soil import or export for two homes. Chairman Neely asked about design parameters in terms of structural massing, number of stories, split level designs, zoning, and CUR restrictions. Mr. PC Meeting • 4 • February 14, 2006 40 Ramsey said the CC&Rs include provisions for single -level and split-level homes that apply to this area and that the owners of individual lots have to demonstrate compliance with those standards. Mr. Ramsey said depths of cut and fill and heights of retaining wails would be under Commission jurisdiction through the grading plan modification application. Ms. Bogh said staff is asking for a separate sheet of information to be recorded along with the final parcel map that would deal with the issue of the non -buildable area at the bottom of the hill and the dedication of access rights. The Commission could add additional building restrictions as a condition of approval to Condition 28. Mr. Ramsey said that the issue is creating development compatible with the existing character of development and sensitive to adjoining property owner needs. With the extension of this private access road which requires some widening, the concern is that there are a number of private improvements that encroach on the private access easement which contribute to the over-all character of the neighborhood. Staff has added the following language to Condition 36: "The improvement plans shall show all existing mature specimen trees and any private improvements situated within the limits of the private right- of-way. The improvement plans shall be designed so as to accommodate, to the greatest extent practicable, existing mature trees and private improvements in 0 consultation with potentially affected private property owners." Public Hearing Mr. Jaffar Tavassol, applicant, requested the Commission's approval of the project, which will bring the sewer line into the hill to be a benefit for the residents of the hill. Charles Krolikowski, 895 Dove Street, 5t' Floor, Newport Beach, representing Shawn Sweeney, 33582 Valle Road, spoke in opposition to the proposal for the following reasons: 1) the project density violates the standards of the General Plan density of 1 unit per acre; 2) access from the lower portion of Valle Road is being restricted to the private access easement, which was created with the intent to provide road access to five property owners. The road easement for this project is for road purposes only, not for underground utilities. Mr. Krolikowski presented to the dais a November 2005 letter, two record of surveys prepared in the 1960s and language of the easement; 3) the private covenants in the McCracken Specific Plan area restrict development to one-story houses or split- level single family residences, and require 15 feet side yard setbacks and a 100 - foot frontage requirement. The building envelopes are 10 feet from the property lines and do not meet the frontage requirement; 4) issues of additional freeway noise and glare, grading; and 5) issues of soil stability. Mr. Krolikowski presented to the dais the General Plan and Mr. Tavassol's August 10, 2005 letter to the Planning Department. Mr. Krolikowski said there is no plan showing how the private 40 -foot easement from the upper portion of Valle Road to the property will PC Meeting 0 5 • February 14, 2006 be widened while still avoiding existing landscape improvements. Mr. Krolikowski requested denial of the application. Mr. Ramsey said that the agenda item attachments include the November 16, 2005 letter and CC&Rs provided by Mr. Krolikowski. Shawn Sweeney, 33582 Valle Road, spoke in opposition to the project due to the project being inconsistent with the neighborhood and the steep slopes. Cgmmissioner Questions and Comments Vice Chairman Cardoza asked for staff responses to Mr. Krolikowski's comments. Mr. Ramsey said that General Plan Designation is discussed on page 2 of the staff report. Staff considered the overall density of the McCracken Hill subdivision in determining the resulting density of 0.56 dwelling units (du) per acre from this parcel map. Commissioner Cohen asked if there are public benefits outside the few on McCracken Hill that could be used as a basis for the over-all density. Mr. Ramsey said the two -lot parcel map proposes to extend the sewer line to be more accessible to adjoining properties, provide widening of the private drive, and additional support to the road maintenance association. Mr. Ramsey said that City Attorney John Shaw reviewed the CC&Rs and advised staff that there is no prohibition against further subdivision in the area based on the right to use the access drive. Ms. Bogh asked Mr. Shoucair if utilities are included in the easement. Mr. Shoucair said on the easement map provided by Mr. Krolikowski, the entire McCracken Hill road is designated as a road easement, and the road contains utilities; therefore, it appears that utilities have been permitted in the private road easement. Commissioner Cohen asked if there is a Title Report that would reflect the nature of the easement. Mr. Ramsey said that could be evaluated in detail, but staff does not have that information available at this time. Vice Chairman Cardoza asked Mr. Shoucair if utilities are usually associated with road easements. Mr. Shoucair said that the word "exclusive" would be present in easements not to be encumbered by utilities. Ms. Bogh said that Condition 24 puts the burden on the applicant of obtaining any outside easements. Chairman Neely asked whether under the Subdivision Map Act if off-site improvements required can't be gained by the applicant, would the City have to use powers of Eminent Domain at a cost to be borne by the landowner to obtain PC Meeting • 6 • February 14. 2006 • the offsite improvements. Mr. Shoucair said the standard condition states that the applicant must obtain permission of the surrounding homeowners for temporary construction easements. Ms. Bogh said that conditions can be more restrictive than the Subdivision Map Act. Staff requires that the applicant agrees that it is his responsibility. Mr. Ramsey said that the proposed lots of 130 ft. width and 140 ft. width comply with the CC&R's for lot width. Commissioner Ratcliffe asked for clarification of the CC&Rs and previous agreements regarding the 15 ft. setback. Mr. Ramsey said that the subdivider has to meet zoning requirements as well as CUR development standards. Commissioner Ratcliffe said one of the CC&Rs from 1962 has an expiration date of 1989. Mr. Ramsey said there is an automatic extension provision and the safest position is they need to comply with the standards. Ms. Bogh said the City is not obligated to enforce private CC&Rs, but that the Commission could enforce the more restrictive standards through the development restrictions map required by Condition 24. Vice Chairman Cardoza said it seems that utilities would be a permitted use in the easement, and the building mass could be reviewed with the final design at the time of GPM approval, Vice Chairman Cardoza said that number of units per acre could have some flexibility if the over-all area includes a hillside. Commissioner Ratcliffe said that she would be comfortable with conditioning an approval with more restrictive conditions per the CC&R's, and asked if total square footage is affected when a portion of a lot is taken out of the buildable area. Mr. Ramsey said that the development restrictions proposed at the base of the hill would not affect the lot size in a density calculation. Commissioner Cohen said he feels the Commission is being asked to make findings relative to the design of a project when there is no project. In order to approve a project with less than 1 unit per acre we have to find that the project offers exceptional design quality, important public amenities or benefits. We know nothing about the design of the project, such as low horizontal profile, open space, etc. Condition 28 does not require the project to come back to the Planning Commission for further review. Chairman Neely concurred with Commissioner Cohen's comments. Chairman Neely would prefer to see more information on grading, especially if properties are developed independently. He would be uncomfortable moving forward based on the information given to date. PC Meeting 0 7 0 February 14, 2006 is Vice Chairman Cardoza suggested that the item be continued in order to view the site, and see further documentation materials and information. Ms. Bogh asked what information the applicant should provide. Vice Chairman Cardoza asked that setback prospects be identified, cut and fill designations, the impact on the view, and sensitivity towards slope treatment, Mr. Ramsey said staff would envision the applicant preparing both a grading concepts and building massing concept, and view simulations to provide adequate information to the condition. Commissioner Cohen asked if the applicant can provide a Title Report to determine if there are utilities or any other easements on the property. Commissioner Ratcliffe asked for additional information regarding density, saying that this could be a precedent -setting project if we're looking at over-all densities rather than individual lot densities. Mr. Ramsey said the resulting impact of a precedent would only be one unit. Chairman Neely asked if there is a time constraint under the Map Act on this project. Ms. Bogh said we haven't adopted the Mitigated Negative Declaration yet, and said it might be helpful to find out if the applicant would agree to a continuance. Mr. Tavassol said he would agree to a continuance and that the easement road is being used for water, power, gas, cable, and telephone. Chairman Neely said that more information such as a conceptual building Is envelope and conceptual grading is needed for the Commission to make a determination of feasibility of the project. Mr. Tavassol said that he is planning to develop the lots himself in order to maintain a good environment, and that he could provide conceptual information. Mr. Ramsey recommended continuing the item to the second meeting in March. Motion Commissioner Cohen moved, seconded by Vice Chairman Cardoza, to continue the item to the March 28, 2006, with the applicant being directed to provide the Planning Commission with the information previously discussed regarding a three (3) lot tentative parcel map on an existing 2.65 acre parcel located on the east side of Forster Ranch (Valle) Road (Assessor's Parcel Numbers 675-341- 02) (Jaffar Tavossol). AYES: Commissioners Cohen and Ratcliffe, Vice Chairman Cardoza, and Chairman Neely NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Drey 0 ABSTAIN: None PC Meeting 0 8 0 February 14, 2006 is The motion passed by a vote of 4-0. OLD BUSINESS None. NEW BUSINESS None. COMMISSIONISTAFF COMMENTS Ms. Bogh reminded Commissioners who would like to attend the League of Cities Planners Institute, to contact Brenda Heskett as soon as possible to make reservations. Commissioner Cohen said that the Ortega Business Center now has curb stops. Ms. Bogh said staff would check the site plans to see if curb stops were approved. Chairman Neely asked about the contractor's storage staging area at the northern tip of Blue Cross off Camino Capistrano. Ms. Bogh said that staff would check into it. Commissioner Cohen suggested a Commissioners field trip regarding signage. Ms. Bogh agreed with the suggested field trip and said the department just hired a new code enforcement officer. Commissioner Ratcliffe said the bonsai man is back in town on the north side of Ortega Highway within the City limits. Ms. Bogh stated she would refer this matter to code enforcement. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 8:52 p.m. The next regular meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, February 28, 2006. at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. Approved: -44-&k Molly 861h, P4nning Director 0. APPOTOVED 5 114 1"