Loading...
PC Minutes-2006-04-11A1111111042400 PASEO ADELANTO N JUAN CAPISTRANO. CA 92675 (949) 493-1171 (949) 493-1053 FAX 1L°tt'1(:Sal?iiia 7cupfslrCr+tr).oig CALL TO ORDER �see .� . i 10(01 FIR IN tSTRI LISNEC 1961 1776 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY, APRIL 11, 2006 i� 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 7:04 p.m., followed by the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Robert Cardoza, Chairman Sheldon Cohen, Vice Chairman is Joe Drey Tim Neely Gene Ratcliffe Commissioners Absent: None Staff members in attendance: Molly Bogh, Planning Director; Omar Sandoval, Deputy City Attorney; William Ramsey, Principal Planner; Sam Shoucair, Senior Engineer; Richard Greenbauer, Associate Planner; Teri Delcamp, Historic Preservation Manager; 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. is Commissioner Cohen suggested that the minutes be taken separately for consideration. San Juan Caprstt•ano: Preserving the Past to Enhance the Future j Printed on recKled paper PC Meeting 2 WpN 11, 2006 1. APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 14, AND MARCH 28, 2006. Minutes of February 14, 2006: Vice Chairman Cardoza moved approval, seconded by Commissioner Ratcliffe. The motion passed by a vote of 4-0-1, with Commissioner Drey abstaining. Minutes of March 28 2006: Commissioner Drey moved approval, seconded by Commissioner Cohen. The motion passed by a vote of 5-0. 2. APPROVAL OF SUMMARY OF SPECIAL MEETING OF MARCH 29, 2006. Summa of Special Meeting of March 29 2006: Commissioner Cohen moved approval, seconded by Commissioner Ratcliffe. The motion passed by a vote of 5-0. PLANNING COMMISSION REORGANIZATION SELECTION OF CHAIRMAN, VICE-CHAIRMAN, APPOINTMENT OF TWO COMMISSIONERS TO SERVE AS THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE, AND ONE APPOINTMENT TO THE HOUSING ADVISORY COMMITTEE. Commissioner Cohen nominated Vice Chairman Cardoza as Planning Commission Chairman. The motion was seconded by Chairman Neely and passed 4-0-1, Vice Chairman Cardoza abstaining. Commissioner Drey nominated Commissioner Cohen as Planning Commission Vice Chairman. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Ratcliffe and passed 4-0-1, Commissioner Cohen abstaining. Vice Chairman Cohen nominated Chairman Cardoza and Commissioner Neely to continue to serve as the Design Review Committee. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Drey and passed 3-0-2, Chairman Cardoza and Commissioner Neely abstaining. Commissioner Neely nominated Commissioner Drey as an alternate to the Design Review Committee. The motion was seconded by Chairman Cardoza and passed 5-0. Commissioner Drey nominated Commissioner Ratcliffe to continue to serve on the Housing Advisory Committee. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Neely and passed 5-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. ARCHITECT RAL CONTROL AC 05-03 TREE REMOVAL PERMIT TRP 04- 169: THE VILLA WEDDING VENUE. A REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A WEDDING PC Meeting 0 3 *April 11, 2006 AND SPECIAL EVENT FACILITY INVOLVING INSTALLATION OF A COMMERCIAL KITCHEN AND MINOR BUILDING ADDITIONS; LIVE ENTERTAINMENT/DANCING WITH BEER AND WINE AND A MAXIMUM OCCUPANCY OF 150; JOINT -USE PARKING; AND THE REMOVAL OF ONE TREE ON AN EXISTING 0.24 ACRE PARCEL AT 31431 CAMINO CAPISTRANO, MORE COMMONLY REFERRED TO AS APN: 121-130-04 (APPLICANT: JOHN Q. HUMPHREYS) Continued from the Hearing of March 14 and on-site workshop of March 29, 2006. Written Communications April 11, 2006 Owner/Applicant John Q. Humphreys, 31752 Los Rios St., San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 Engineer/Architect Tony Brown Design & Build, 31481 La Matanza, San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 Staff presentation & recommendation Ms. Delcamp presented the staff report as a request for continued consideration of CUP 05-06, AC 05-03, TRA 04-169 to allow a wedding and special event facility at 31431 Camino Capistrano, based on the required findings and conditions of approval. Ms. Delcamp said based on input from the Planning Commission at the March 14 meeting and at the March 29 special meeting, staff has revised Conditions of Approval Conditions 1, 25, 29, 30(b) and (c), and 32, and deleted Condition 13(e) for the project. Ms. Delcamp discussed the revised Parking Management Plan as per the handouts provided to Commissioners. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution approving a Mitigated Negative Declaration and approving CUP 05-06, AC 05-03, TRP 04-169 to allow a wedding and special event facility with live entertainment and dancing and catered beer and wine; a maximum occupancy of 150; joint -use parking; minor building additions; and removal of one 9 -inch tree at 31431 Camino Capistrano, based on the required findings and conditions of approval. Commissioner Comments and Questions Vice Chairman Cohen asked if staff has identified the number of parking attendants needed for 150 guests. Ms. Bogh said Conditions 32 and 8 place the burden of safe parking operation on the applicant, the Traffic Engineer would review the operation, and that the Conditional Use Permit could be revoked if traffic issues are not addressed. Vice Chairman Cohen asked about a letter from Erin Gettis stating that there is no issue with parking. Ms. Bogh said that Erin Gettis, a former staff member, had met with the applicant and issued a letter regarding the use; however, a paragraph had been added to the letter saying if the intensity of the use is expanded, then parking would need to be 0 reviewed. Staff has determined that conversion of the former retail use to a full-time PC Meeting 0 4 *April 11, 2006 wedding and event facility constitutes an intensification of the use, requiring review of parking. Chairman Cardoza asked if overflow parking in nearby establishments had been addressed. Ms. Delcamp said that the conditions have been crafted so that noise and traffic complaints could result in review and revocation of the CUP. Mr. Sandoval said that the vehicle code authorizes private property owners to call a tow company and have vehicles not approved to be parked in front of a property towed away at the vehicle owner's expense. Commissioner Ratcliffe asked what sort of enforcement would preserve the parking spaces provided by the CUSD. Ms. Delcamp said the applicant will be required to submit an application to rent the parking spaces far in advance of each event, and the CUSD has indicated the applicant will have preference for use of the spaces. Continuation of Public Hearing Phillip Schwartze, 31682 EI Camino Real, said that free valet parking is included in the wedding cost and that the applicant accepts the revised Conditions of Approval and the revisions to the Parking Management Plan. Vice Chairman Cohen asked how many patrons the proposed shuttle busses would hold, would the cars in CUSD parking be delivered by the valet, and how many valets would be needed. Mr. Schwartze said there are 26 -passenger and 35 -passenger shuttle busses (jitneys), the valet would more than likely deliver the cars from CUSD parking, and that the number of valets would be determined by the valet companies depending on the size of the event, Charles Rea, 28001 Paseo Barranca, spoke in support of John Humphreys and the proposed project, citing Mr. Humphrey's success in establishing and operating the Ramos House Cafe. Enrique Garcia, owner of the adjacent EI Maguey restaurant and market, 3148 Camino Capistrano, stated his concerns regarding the proposed project due to potential problems of wedding goers parking in his place of business. Angela Duzich, 31372 Don Juan Avenue, spoke in opposition to the project, asked where the soccer players would park on Saturdays and Sundays, said that eliminating the red curb in front of the venue could result in unwanted parked cars, cited potential problem of stacking of cars on Camino Capistrano, asked if valets would be using the crosswalks, and asked that the project be revisited in 4-6 months to insure that any traffic, parking, and noise impacts be in compliance with the CUP. Russell Armstrong, 79 Nightingale Drive, Aliso Viejo, spoke in support of John Humphreys and the proposed project. 0 PC Meeting S 5 •April 11, 2006 Commissioner Questions and Comments Chairman Cardoza asked staff to respond to the Code Enforcement issues and removal of the red curbing. Ms. Delcamp said the Conditions require follow-up on complaints and that the removal of some of the red curbing in front of the Villa would free up one additional parking space and accommodate the arrival of guests. Ms. Bogh suggested a Parking Management Plan amendment to require the applicant to provide a liaison to monitor the adjacent businesses once or twice an hour during the event and make the owner of the facility aware of people trying to circumvent the valet parking so that the adjacent businesses could be contacted. Mr. Schwartze indicated the applicant would agree to that amendment. Ms. Bogh said that there is an agreement between CUSD and the applicant saying the 60 or 80 spaces would be reserved; there is additional parking for Stone Field other than the spaces being reserved; and we have assurance from the owner of the parking lot that those spaces will be reserved for the Villa's use. Ms. Bogh said that a provision could be added to the Parking Management Plan saying that valets and all personnel have to adhere to all traffic regulations, and that Condition 2 says they have to adhere to the all the laws, including jaywalking. Ms. Bogh said that the Conditional Use Permit would be granted based on these conditions and if there were a problem in achieving these conditions, it would be brought back to the Planning Commission in a Public Hearing and possible action to revoke the CUP. Commissioner Neely said that the March 29, 2006 field trip was beneficial, that he agrees with staff recommendations on limitations of days and hours, is still concerned about parking safety, asked that a yellow curb be extended to where the red curb starts, and said he supports the idea of the parking monitor. Commissioner Neely asked that the parking instructions flyer be brought back to the Commission for review with clear emphasis on notifications of consequences of parking in adjoining commercial sites. Commissioner Ratcliffe said the field trip brought up parking concerns and that built-in controls are needed since the CUP runs with the facility, not the operator. Vice Chairman Cohen voiced concern about safety and the need to tighten up the Parking Management Plan and Conditions of Approval. The City Traffic Engineer should have the discretion to immediately switch from CUSD parking to J. Serra or other offsite parking, in the event the CUSD lot is unavailable. Vice Chairman Cohen suggested providing valet parking to adjacent businesses and said that Condition of Approval 8 should include safety and traffic as well as noise, odor, and dust. 9 PC Meeting 0 6 *April 11, 2006 Commissioner Drey commended the applicant and staff for the joint effort and is suggested reducing the speed limit in that area. Mr. Shoucair said the speed limit is 35- 45 miles per hour, and 25 miles per hour when the school is operational. Ms. Bogh said that Condition 8 could be modified to add traffic safety and said the flyer informing visitors about the parking arrangements could be added as an exhibit to the Parking Management Plan, which would be brought back to the Commission. Ms. Bogh said the ideas related to parking about painting the curbs yellow and switching to alternate sites when needed, could be tied down in final wording in the Parking Management Plan which could be brought back to the Commission, and that Condition 32 requires adherence to the Parking Management Plan. Chairman Cardoza said that noise disturbance complaints would be brought before the Commission, and said he would have no objection to the removal of the olive tree. Motion Vice Chairman Cohen moved, seconded by Commissioner Ratcliffe, to approve Resolution 06-04-11-1 adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and conditionally approving a wedding and special event facility for a 0.24 acre parcel located at 31431 Camino Capistrano, subject to revised conditions and modifications to Conditions 8, 25, and 32, and that the final parking management plan to come back to the Planning Commission for review. AYES: Commissioners Drey, Neely and Ratcliffe, Vice Chairman Cohen, and Chairman Cardoza. NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None The motion passed by a vote of 5-0. 2. CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP (TPM) 05-154. TAVASSOL; AN APPLICATION TO SUBDIVIDE AN EXISTING 2.65 ACRE PARCEL INTO THREE RESIDENTIAL LOTS GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF FORSTER RANCH ROAD IN MCCRACKEN HILL NEIGHBORHOOD (ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER 675-341-02) (APPLICANT: JAFFAR TAVASSOL) Continued from the Hearing of February 14, 2006. Written Communications April 11, 2006 n PC Meeting 0 7 April 11, 2006 Applicant/Property Owner Jaffar Tavassol, 33562 Valle Road, San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 Civil Engineer Toal Engineering, Mark Browe, P.E., 139 Avenida Navarro, San Clemente, CA 92672 Staff presentation & recommendation Mr. Ramsey presented the staff report as a request for continued consideration of TPM 05-154, a proposal for a 3 -lot parcel map subdivision by Mr. Tavassol. At the February 14, 2006 meeting the Commission directed the applicant to prepare a conceptual grading plan, a conceptual building massing plan, sections and view simulations. Mr. Ramsey referred to conceptual plans presented to the DRC on March 30, 2006, and said that the DRC concluded that the project generally demonstrates developability in terms of the proposed building location and site conditions, and that during Planning Commission review, the applicant needs to demonstrate compliance with conditions, covenants and restrictions related to single -story or split-level development, and that building masses cannot incorporate two-story continuous wall planes along any elevation. Mr. Ramsey said Draft Condition 13 reiterates the requirement that the applicant needs to file grading plan modifications for each lot prior to development, and that per the McCracken Hill Specific Plan, all proposed residences shall be single -story or split-level and that two-story residences are prohibited. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution recommending that City Council conditionally approve 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 Vice Chairman Cohen asked what typical accessory structures would be allowed. Mr. Ramsey said the applicant could have a detached garage, cabana, storage buildings, a secondary dwelling unit, and would be subject to a grading plan modification if a change in grading were required. Mr. Ramsey said it would be appropriate to change "buildable pad" to "building envelope" on page 2, paragraph 3. Vice Chairman Cohen said that the public benefit required to exceed the density standard has not been established. Mr. Ramsey said that a potential public health issue is being addressed by the applicant's proposal to extend the sanitary sewer for lots currently on septic systems. Public Hearing Chuck Krolikowski, 895 Dove Street, Newport Beach, attorney representing John Sweeney, 33582 Valle Road, the neighbor to Mr. Tavassol, spoke in opposition to the proposed project due to increased density, traffic, noise and dust. Of the three PC Meeting 0 8 0 April 11, 2006 properties, immediately surrounding the Tavassol property, the Sweeney property is 1.135 acres, the Ecklund property is 1.382 acres, and the Plump property is 1.562 acres, and approval would open up other properties to partial splits, which would be against the General Plan. There is no public benefit to this project and the private road easement from Valle Road is for road purposes, not for utility purposes, and violates the deeds with respect to the proposed utility use. Items that need to be addressed would be soil studies as well as setbacks and trees that would need to be removed with the widening of the access road within the easement. Mr. Krolikowski objected to the project and requested that the density be limited to two dwelling units, in conformance with the General Plan allowed density of 1 dwelling per acre. Ms. Bogh asked the Commission to make a finding on two General Plan interpretation issues: 1) Is the interpretation correct that we can look at the district as a whole rather than individual lots, in calculating the gross density of McCracken Hill at less than one dwelling per acre for this project; and 2) The General Plan contains a provision saying that maximum density should only be granted on new development if it can show that there is some sort of benefit to the general public. Chairman Cardoza asked if staff has reviewed all the lots within the development to see which are in compliance with the General Plan requirements. Mr. Ramsey said there has not been an evaluation in terms of the General Plan but there has been an evaluation of McCracken Hill in terms of CC&Rs. Mr. Ramsey said that Exhibit "C" Page 4 shows the relative parcel sizes in McCracken Hill. Ms. Bogh said this area has split zoning, and north of the dotted line is two per acre and south of the dotted line is one per acre. Chairman Cardoza said precedent may have already been established by having lesser lot sizes. Ms. Bogh said that staff could bring to the Commission the acreage of the previous subdivisons in the one -acre lot area. Commissioner Ratcliffe asked about the private road document wording. Mr. Ramsey said that City Attorney Shaw indicated that he did not see an issue in regard to limitations on putting utilities within the private access easements. Mr. Shoucair said the description that describes the easement on Valle Road that leads to the rest of this neighborhood has the same language for road purposes as this little private road. Typically, if no utilities are allowed in a road easement, the word "exclusive" is used in the easement description. The little private road will not have sewer as the sewer goes downhill from the property to the lower portion, and does not have a storm drain. There will be the dry utilities and Cox cable and gas similar to the rest of Valle Road. The easement is a 20' wide easement. The property has a vested right to utilize it as a road also. The road can be meandered in order to save one or two trees. 0 PC Meeting 0 9 *April 11, 2006 Mr. Sandoval said that normally if you are going to grant an easement only for a particular purpose it will say only for this purpose and not otherwise, and that for municipal owned easements or public access the California Code specifically authorizes private utilities to utilize public roads subject to the City encroachment permit process. Mr. Sandoval has not reviewed similar provisions with respect to private easements, but he believes that Mr. Shaw found that the language did not exclude utilities on these grants. Chairman Cardoza asked if the road being built to provide services or access to a few lots does not mean that it excludes additional lots. Mr. Sandoval said the easement rights go to the land, so the whole land has the benefit, and burdens the initial grantors unless the language of the grant specifically says no more subdivisions, and he doesn't see a problem. Mr. Ramsey said staff receptive to making sure that the improvement plans minimize any impact on private improvements within the easements. Ms. Bogh suggested adding to Condition 36 a requirement that the final plan for that access road improvement project be brought to the DRC and Planning Commission and that notice be given to all of the other property owners who use that same access road or are affected by that access road. Shawn Sweeney, 33582 Valle Road, said an area being overlooked is the development of the slope, which is unstable, and that other property owners may want to subdivide their properties if this project is approved. A recess was called to allow staff to find additional information on McCracken Hill parcel sizes. Mr. Sandoval suggested that the two property owners present would know the size of their lots, the CC&Rs were recorded in 1964, the General Plan was amended in 2042, and that it could be that the one -acre lot provision is applicable from 2002 forward and some of these lots may be grandfathered. Mr. Sandoval said the issue is whether the Commission's interpretation would allow any additional subdivisions for lots less than one acre. Commissioner Questions and Comments Chairman Cardoza asked what the interpretation is under hillside conditions for other new developments under the General Plan designations and if they all are within the standard lot sizes. Mr. Sandoval said sometimes you do allow for grandfathered conditions with the understanding that any future development would have to comply with the standards in place at that time. Mr. Sandoval said that precedent as to a particular property would not apply to other properties because under California law no two properties are exactly the same, and that the question before the Planning Commission is one of interpretation of the application of the General Plan that applies to the McCracken Hill area. The question PC Meeting 0 10 *April 11, 2006 posed to the Commission is as follows: If the General Plan says one acre per lot, does that mean each lot can be subdivided to no less than one acre; or do we look at the whole area and whether the net acreage of the area is a density of one acre on average. Depending on the Planning Commission's interpretation, other properties may be affected that are subject to this General Plan designation. Ms. Bogh said that staff has distributed to each Commissioner two pages from the assessor parcel records, and noted that Parcel 2 on page 341 is the parcel in question. Parcels 1, 3, 4, and 5 adjacent to this parcel meet the acre minimum requirement. The current General Plan was adopted in 1999. Ms. Bogh said to keep in mind that General Plan density is a gross density per acre. It is not meant to be a regulation on lot size, and in some cases the General Plan would allow clustering. In areas where you could cluster homes in a hillside area and still maintain an over-all density of one unit per area, you would still be in compliance with the General Plan. In this case, one home is existing on the flat area at the top of the hill and the proposal is to create two more parcels on the sloping area of the property. Chairman Cardoza asked if there is leniency to the interpretation being the gross density allowable that would permit the Commission to go forward with the conditions as outlined. However, if it is determined that one acre means exactly one acre, that means there are only two parcels that would be permitted, and all the other conditions could change. Commissioner Ratcliffe asked about the long-term significance of gross versus per - parcel density, and with gross density the first people to subdivide would have a greater opportunity to subdivide. Vice Chairman Cohen said that we don't have enough information to make a finding that warrants deviating from the General Plan and going below one unit per acre. Chairman Cardoza asked if the Commission's action is denial, does the applicant have the ability to appeal to City Council. Mr. Ramsey said that City Council takes final action on all subdivisions. If the majority of the Commissioners conclude it is not a reasonable interpretation to look at the entire area and to look only at the individual lot, the Commission could advise the applicant that it would be willing to support a two -lot parcel map rather than a three -parcel map, and Mr. Tavassol could revise the map and bring the revision forward to the Commission. Commissioner Neely said that General Plan density is a policy decision for City Council and their interpretation of how the General Plan is to be applied. Commissioner Neely would be willing to forward to City Council with the recommendation that a two -lot subdivision is probably clearly consistent with the General Plan, but if something more is to be authorized, City Council interpretation would be needed. Commissioner Neely said that the question of showing "public benefit" for any project over the midpoint of the density range is a separate issue. They came in at .56 and that PC Meeting 0 11 eApril 11, 2006 meant they were above the midpoint. You don't even get to that point of the analysis unless you get past the fundamental issue of whether or not this way of calculating density that they are proposing is equivalent to 1 du per acre as required by the General Plan, He noted that it is unclear how the project meets the hillside design criteria of the Community Design Element. Chairman Cardoza asked what recourse the applicant might have, and if the applicant could resubmit a revised two -parcel application or appeal the denial to City Council, Mr. Sandoval said the applicant could resubmit the application, and that the City Council is the final decision maker. Mr. Sandoval said this application is a three -lot subdivision and the Planning Commission needs to make a recommendation to the City Council on the application. Motion: Vice Chairman Cohen moved, seconded by Commissioner Neely, to recommend denial due to 1) a proposed project density of 1.13 dwellings per acre, which exceeds the maximum General Plan density of one (1) dwelling per acre; and 2) insufficient information to demonstrate how the project complies with the Community Design Element hillside development criteria. AYES: Commissioners Neely and Ratcliffe, Vice Chairman Cohen, and Chairman Cardoza • NOES: Commissioner Drey ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None The motion passed by a vote of 4-1. Continued to April 25, 2006 consent calendar for adoption of a resolution. OLD BUSINESS FOLLOW-UP REVIEW OF ARCHITECTURAL CONTROL (AC) 05-05. SADDLEBACK VALLEY CHRISTIAN SCHOOL; A REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF THE FINAL TOWER ELEMENT ELEVATION IN ORDER TO SATISFY CONDITION NUMBER 46, OF PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 06-03-28-1 FOR THE SADDLEBACK VALLEY CHRISTIAN SCHOOL (SVCS) PROJECT LOCATED AT 26333 OSO RD. SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO, CA. (ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBERS: 121-070-55,56) (APPLICANT: TERRY JACOBSON O/B OF SVCS) Written Communications April 11, 2006 0 PC Meeting 0 12 April 11, 2006 Staff presentation & re ommendation Mr. Greenbauer presented the staff report as a follow-up review of AC 05-05, a request for approval of the final tower element elevation in order to satisfy condition number 46 of Planning Commission Resolution No. 06-03-28-1 for the Saddleback Valley Christian School project located at 26333 Oso Rd. San Juan Capistrano, CA. The applicant has returned with three options: 1) the 42' tower element showing the massing in relation to the primary building, 2) 38' maximum height, and 3) 35' maximum height. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review the three proposed tower elements and by motion approve a tower element design alternative. Commissioner Questions and Comments Commissioner Drey said he is in favor of the 42' tower height. Commissioner Neely said he is in favor of the 38' tower height. Applicant Terry Jacobson said the applicant's preference is the 42' tower height, and that the eave adjacent to the 38' tower is 24-25', and the ridge is 30' from ground level. Vice Chairman Cohen, Commissioner Ratcliffe, and Chairman Cardoza said they favor the 38' tower height. Motion: Chairman Cardoza moved, seconded by Commissioner Neely, approval of the final tower element elevation of 38 feet. AYES: Commissioners Drey, Neely and Ratcliffe, Vice Chairman Cohen, and Chairman Cardoza NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None The motion passed by a vote of 5-0. NEW BUSINESS SIGN PERMIT SP 05-21 • HIRSCH PIPE & SUPPLY SIGN:, A SIGN PERMIT APPLICATION PROPOSAL FOR ONE (1) FREE-STANDING, DOUBLE SIDED MONUMENT SIGN ON A 2.33 ACRE PARCEL LOCATED AT 32107 ALIPAZ STREET (APN: 668-151-05) (APPLICANT: TIFFANY DELGATTO) i PC Meeting 0 13 *April 11, 2006 Written Communications April 11, 2006 Applicant Western Sign Systems, Tiffany Delgatto, 1020 Linda Vista Drive, San Marcos, CA 92069 Property Owner Hirsch Pipe & Supply, 32107 Alipaz Street, San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 Staff presentation & recommendation Mr. Greenbauer presented the staff report as request for approval of (1) free-standing 6'0" high monument sign for "Hirsch Pipe & Supply" and implementation of a modified landscaped area in the vicinity of the proposed sign located at 32107 Alipaz Street. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the attached resolution approving SP 05-21. Ms. Bogh suggested deleting the references to phasing and bicycle racks in Condition 15, and deleting everything after the first sentence in Condition 16. Commissioner Questions and Comments Vice Chairman Cardoza said a Lombardy Poplar was suggested by the DRC so as not to interfere with cars entering the driveway. Public Hearing Applicant Dominic Minshelly, 32107 Alipaz, clarified that per DRC recommendations, the scalloped edge has been removed, the address at the base has been elevated, and the height of the Palo Verde tree was increased to 25 ft. Commissioner Neely said the applicant has cooperated with DRC recommendations, and suggested an arc shape to the top of the sign. Robert Rice, Owner of Capistrano Plumbing, 32111 La Paz, said there is a shared driveway with his property and there is a problem with ingress and egress due to sight distance past olive trees, and now with the sign, it will be more difficult to see to get out on the street. Drivers can't see the sign until they get almost to the middle of the driveway, which causes them to swing close to his building. Via Tonada has at least a 15' to 20' red zone on both sides of their entranceway, and Casitas De Alipaz, the trailer park, has red zones. Mr. Rice said a 10' to 15' red zone would greatly increase visibility for ingress and egress, 18 -wheelers and big trucks enter constantly all day, the building has been hit twice by 18 -wheelers trying to make it in there, and it is important to have a tall and sparse tree in the sign planter area to preserve visibilty. PC Meeting 0 14 *April 11, 2006 Mr. Shoucair said staff would evaluate and determine if a red curb would be warranted. Ms. Bogh asked staff to. clarify that the setback of the sign meets the zoning requirement for encroachments in the front setback. Mr. Greenbauer said the monument sign is an encroachment requiring Planning Commission approval, and it could be placed 12 feet back from the curb. Motion: Commissioner Drey moved, seconded by Commissioner Neely, to adopt Resolution 06- 4-11-2 approving a sign permit for one freestanding 18.73 square foot, double sided monument sign, with an aggregate sign copy area of 5.66 square feet per side, and to be located at 32107 Alipaz Street, with modifications to Conditions 15 and 16, the Palo Verde tree, revised shape for the top of the sign, and placement of the sign 12 feet back from the curb. AYES: Commissioners Drey, Neely and Ratcliffe, Vice Chairman Cohen, and Chairman Cardoza NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None The motion passed by a vote of 5-0. COMM ISSIONISTAFF COMMENTS Ms. Bogh said that two Planning Commission members were present at the April 10, 2006 Open Space Meeting, that Ms. Bogh attended a tourism summit looking at how to make more friendly downtown areas, and that it is nice to see groups in the community focusing on planning issues. Commissioner Neely said that Ms. Bogh gave an excellent presentation on how open space comes into fruition in the development process and communicated to those who would use the Open Space Committee to meet directly with landowners and enter into negotiations that to do so would be contrary to the zoning procedures set forth for the Planning Commission and City Council. Commissioner Ratcliffe said she was asked about deer sighted close to the school district building. Ms. Bogh said there are deer in the McCracken Hill area and no enforcement has been needed to date. Vice Chairman Cohen thanked Tim Neely for his excellent contribution as Planning Commission Chair. PC Meeting 0 15 *April 11, 2006 Chairman Cardoza said that having the representation and vision of Sheldon Cohen and Tim Neely puts San Juan Capistrano at the leading edge of preservation and conservation of open space for the long-term benefit to the City of San Juan. Commissioner Neely said that Tom Merrell's presentation about the history of open space would be invaluable for the Open Space Committee. Ms. Bogh said Tom Merrell was invited to give a presentation to the Open Space Committee meeting on Monday, May 1, and the Planning Commissioners may wish to attend. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m. The next regular meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, April 25, 2006, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. Approved: ID ' L Molly Bogh, P14nning Director APP - OVEY) dl/ j