CITY OF YORBA LINDA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES. October 14, 2015

Transcription

1 CITY OF YORBA LINDA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES October 14, 2015 The Yorba Linda Planning Commission will convene at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers at 4845 Casa Loma Avenue, Yorba Linda, California. Note: No new items will be considered after 11:00 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Commissioner Mole ROLL CALL Planning Commissioners: APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES 1. APPROVAL OF AUGUST 12, 2015 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Commissioner Brown stated with a correction on page 2 when Chairwoman Watson opened the public hearing seeing 'one' should be changed to 'none'. A motion was made by Commissioner Lyons, second Commissioner Mole, to approve the August 12, 2015 Planning Commission minutes. The motion carried (5-0) with the following roll call vote: 2. APPROVAL OF SEPTEMBER 9, 2015 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES A motion was made by Commissioner Mole, second Commissioner Brown, to approve the September 9, 2015 Planning Commission minutes. The motion carried (5-0) with the following roll call vote:

2 Page 2 PUBLIC COMMENTS WAIVE READING IN FULL OF ALL RESOLUTIONS ON THE AGENDA Approval of reading by title all resolutions on the agenda and declare that said titles which appear on the public agenda shall be determined to have been read by title and further reading waived. A motion was made by Commissioner Lyons, second by Commissioner Brown to approve waiving readings in full of all resolutions. The motion carried (5-0) with the following roll call. PUBLIC HEARINGS Chairwoman Watson asked if all public hearing items were properly noticed. Director Steve Harris stated all public hearing notices have been sent. 3. APPEAL OF SECOND UNIT REQUEST GAMBINO: A request to construct a 1,200 square foot detached second unit and a 200 square foot carport attached to the main dwelling, on the property located at Pineridge Drive, north of Buena Vista Avenue and east of Richfield Road within the Residential Estate (RE) zone. (APN: ) CEQA Status: Statutory Exemption ( Ministerial Projects) RECOMMENDATION: To determine by minute motion action that the project application does conform to the standards and criteria of section with the Yorba Linda Municipal Code. Pedro Gomez, Project Planner explains this item is an appeal of administrative approval of a second unit proposed by Mr. and Mrs. Gambino. He advised second units are regulated in the Zoning Code pursuant to and in compliance with state law. He explained the standards and criteria that are needed to be eligible for a second unit. The project met all eligibility requirements, as well as the 10 standards and criteria, thus staff recommended approval of the project. Staff received an appeal letter from neighbor, Mr. and Mrs. LePage, appealing the approval of the second unit. A comprehensive review of the standards and criteria was provided in the staff report and staff believes the project is in conformance. He provided a visual and explained how the applicant installed story poles to show elevation and line of sight for the second unit which does not appear to impose any privacy issues. Property also has lush vegetation which will help with privacy issues.

3 Page 3 Commissioner Lyons and Mr. Gomez discussed the line of sight between the different properties and distances between the neighbors. Commissioner Brown advised he visited the property that day and looked at the proposed location of the units sliding glass doors that the neighbors are concerned about. Commissioner Brown said if you look out, all you see are bushes, he didn't see any intrusive presence of the second unit. Plus, they are taking out several yards of dirt to lower the property and he thinks it was well thought through. Commissioner Mole and Mr. Gomez discussed the characteristics of a covered parking space. Mr. Gomez stated it can be either enclosed or just have a roof cover on it, but must be permanent structure with footings. Commissioner Mole asked if section has any regulation on privacy of second story units and Mr. Gomez said it does not. Chairwoman Watson asked the applicant to come forward and asked if they read the staff report and if they agreed with all the conditions of approval. Christina Gambino Fernandez, daughter of the applicant, stated they agree with the conditions of approval. She pointed out the pole lines are actually the roof lines, they are bringing the home down five feet and they are removing 600 cubic yards of soil. The neighbors home will actually be sitting 2 1/2 feet higher than the unit they are building, so there is no way they will be looking down on the neighbor. They will also have aggressive retaining walls that will prohibit site into their property. She assured that their privacy is also important to them. Chairwoman Watson opened the public hearing, seeing none she closed the public hearing. Commissioner Mole asked for an explanation of how the change in legislature viewed second units. Principal Planner Brantley explained that previous to the adoption of the second unit statute the city relied on the 'granny housing statute' and required a conditional use permit for granny units. He stated the state has really limited how much discretion cities have with regard to second dwelling units on the properties which supplanted the granny housing statute. The city was required to craft its own ordinance which is the set of regulations in the zoning code right now which tracks with what the state allows. A motion was made by Chairman Pro Tem Pease, Second by Commissioner Brown to determine by minute motion, the project application to construct a second unit on the property addressed as Pineridge Drive, does conform to the standards and criteria of section with the Yorba Linda Municipal Code. The motion carried (5-0) with the following roll call vote:

4 Page 4 Chairwoman Watson stated, for the record, just before the meeting, Planning Commission received a memo with neighborhood signatures in support of the project. 4. PUBLIC HEARING RE: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT METZ: A request to construct a new 4,662 square foot custom two-story single-family residence with a second-story balcony/deck and an attached 944 square foot three-car garage, the area of second story construction within seventy feet (70 ) of another dwelling, on the property addressed as 5992 Foxfield Lane, located north of Imperial Hwy and west of Fairmont Blvd., within the Parkside Estates Planned Development (PD) zone. (APN: ) CEQA STATUS: Categorical Exemption (Class 3, New Construction) RECOMMENDATION: To adopt a resolution approving the project. Planner Gomez presented a presentation to construct a new 4,662 square foot secondstory home with second-story deck. Staff reviewed architectural compatibility, privacy impacts and found there would be no impacts to neighbors and home would be compatible with others in the area. No objections or concerns have been received by any of the neighbors. Staff recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit with the attached conditions of approval. Chairwoman Watson invited the applicant to come forward and asked if they read the staff report and agreed with all the conditions of approval. Thomas Metz advised he reviewed the staff report and conditions of approval and agrees with all. Chairwoman Watson opened the public hearing, seeing none she closed the public hearing. A motion was made by Commissioner Brown, Second by Commissioner Lyons to adopt Resolution No approving Conditional Use Permit Metz subject to the attached conditions. The motion carried (5-0) with the following roll call vote:

5 Page 5 5. PUBLIC HEARING RE: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SCALES: A request to establish and operate a crossfit fitness center, within a 2,850 square foot industrial tenant space on the property addressed as Via Del Rio, located on the northeast corner of East La Palma Ave. and Via Lomas De Yorba West, within the Light Manufacturing (M-1) zone. (APN: ) CEQA STATUS: Categorical Exemption (Class 1, Existing Facilities) RECOMMENDATION: To adopt a resolution approving the project. Planner Gomez explained this is a request for a crossfit fitness center within an industrial tenant space and provided a description of the project location, business operations and hours of operation. He also stated he reviewed the parking demand and determined the anticipated parking is less than the provided parking for the tenant space. They also found it to be compatible with surrounding tenant spaces and the zone, therefore recommends approval of the project. Chairwoman Watson asked the applicant to approach and asked if he read the staff report and agrees with all the conditions of approval. Jeffrey Scales approached and stated he read the staff report and agrees with the conditions of approval. Chairwoman Watson opened the public hearing, seeing none she closed the public hearing. A motion was made by Commissioner Mole, Second by Commissioner Brown to adopt Resolution No approving Conditional Use Permit Scales with the attached conditions. The motion carried (5-0) with the following roll call vote: 6. PUBLIC HEARING RE: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT & DESIGN REVIEW CROWN CASTLE: A request to construct and operate a wireless telecommunications facility by removing an existing public street light and replacing it with a new street light designed to support a micro antenna mounted within a 9 diameter by 48 high radome shield on the street light standard above the light fixture, with one ground level meter pedestal located within a landscape parkway on the on the east side of Paseo Del Prado, the project located within the Paseo De Las Palomas Road right-of-way 200 east of Paseo Del Prado, within the Eastlake Village PD (Planned Development) zone. (APN: N/A as project in street ROW)

6 Page 6 CEQA STATUS: Categorical Exemption (Class 32) RECOMMENDATION: To adopt a resolution approving the project. Greg Rehmer, Senior Planner explained this is an application to install and operate a wireless telecommunications facility. He gave the history of various carriers who have come forward to obtain approval for a similar facility in this location since He explained how Crown Castle's design is consistent with the city's stealth code and believes the design is innocuous enough to be supportive of what's being proposed. Senior Planner Rehmer noted that the facility will not include ground mounted equipment, and that there would only be a small module on the back side of the pole which will be hidden behind the speed limit sign to the east. Mr. Rehmer also noted that he believed that Crown Castle had done their best to minimize the design impacts of the facility. Chairman Pro Tem Pease and Senior Planner Rehmer discussed the coverage around Paseo Del Prado as well as the height and dimension of the module. He asked who owned the light pole and Mr. Rehmer stated it is Edison, but the city pays for the service. Commissioner Mole asked if the city won't benefit by giving up this important real estate to a wireless provider. Mr. Rehmer stated the city cannot collect fees for a lease in the public right-of-way, the benefit is the city does not have to maintain the pole or pay for power to that light. Commissioners discussed the fact that there's been considerable amount of revenue that goes to wireless providers. Chairwoman Watson stated a lot of cities are acquiring their streetlights from Edison so they can control the wireless providers that go on their streetlights. She asked the applicant to come forward and asked if she read the staff report and agreed with all the conditions. Lena Hoffmeyer from Crown Castle stated she read the staff report and agrees with all the conditions of approval. She explained this facility is being built for T-Mobile. This is a low profile system that they are installing at this location which allows them to get close to residential. She explained they will own the pole and the process they will use to de-commission and re-commission the pole and maintenance agreement. Chairwoman Watson opened the public hearing, seeing none wishing to speak on the matter she closed the public hearing. Commissioner Mole commented, for the record, that he feels this is an opportunity for revenue that has been lost by the city. Crown Castle just demonstrated this is a valuable piece of real estate that the city is turning over and the city really should be financially benefiting from this. The city needs the wireless facilities and the city should be looking for ways to benefit from it. Chairwoman Watson agreed with Commissioner Mole.

7 Page 7 A motion was made by Commissioner Lyons, Second by Commissioner Brown to adopt Resolution No approving Conditional Use Permit Crown Castle with conditions. The motion carried (5-0) with the following roll call vote: A minute motion was made by Commissioner Lyons, Second by Commissioner Brown approving Design Review with conditions. The motion carried (5-0) with the following roll call vote: OLD BUSINESS - NEW BUSINESS 7. LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT CHILD: A request to remove the common property line and consolidate two existing parcels into a single lot to accommodate future developments and provide adequate rear yard space to an existing single-family residence, for the property located north of Buena Vista Ave. and west of Richfield Rd., in the Residential Suburban (RS) zone. (APN s: ; ) CEQA STATUS: Categorical Exemption (Class 5, Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations) RECOMMENDATION: To adopt a resolution approving the project. Planner Gomez explained this is a request to remove the common property line between two lots to consolidate them into one to provide rear yard space. Staff reviewed the proposed lot line adjustment and determined it complies with the property development standards for the RS Zone, therefore staff supports the applicant's request. Chairwoman Watson called applicant to the podium and asked if he read the staff report and agreed with the conditions of approval. Brian Child, applicant, stated he reviewed the staff report and agrees with all the conditions of approval

8 Page 8 Chairwoman Watson gave an opportunity for others to speak even though this was not a public hearing seeing none she brought it back to Commission. A motion was made by Chairman Pro Tem Pease, Second by Commissioner Mole to adopt Resolution No approving Conditional Use Permit Child with conditions. The motion carried (5-0) with the following roll call vote: 8. DESIGN REVIEW AND SIGN REQUEST ASHLEY FURNITURE: A request to approve the architectural design of proposed modifications to the exterior of the existing Ashley Furniture retail building, and to establish a planned sign program for Ashley Furniture to allow two (2) nondescriptive murals on the south and west facing building elevations of the existing Ashley Furniture retail building, each mural being 9 wide by 15 tall, and to allow three (3) Ashley Furniture tenant wall signs. CEQA STATUS: Categorical Exemption (Class 1: Existing Facilities) RECOMMENDATION: Adopt by minute motion approving the project. Senior Planner Rehmer provided report on the design review and murals being proposed by Ashley Furniture. Mr. Rehmer noted that the proposed murals will be 15' x 9' and are unique and typically part of a sign program, but due to the massive size of the building, staff believed that the propsed murals would not be out of scale and would provide interest to an otherwise stark building, thus staff recommends approval. Mr. Rehmer also noted that the murals will not be out of place as two other stores in the area have similar characteristics. Chairwoman Watson asked the applicant to approach and asked if they read the staff report and agree with the conditions of approval. Aaron Haugdone, representing Ashley Furniture stated he reviewed the staff report and asked if they could have some flexibility as to where they would put the text on the murals because it is currently limited to the bottom 2 feet of the murals. Director Harris advised he would like to make a distinction as to whether this is a sign regulation or are they speaking about a mural because the sign ordinance limits what they can do as far as content-based regulations. He'd like to get away from identifying the murals as signs. He asked City Attorney if there is a legal issue with regulating the content of a mural.

9 Page 9 City attorney, Alisha Patterson stated they cannot regulate what the text can and cannot say. She stated the condition of approval states future changes to the sign would have to come back to Commission for approval. Commissioners and staff discussed the meaning and options of the placement, size and percentage of text on the mural. Aaron Haugdone retracted his request and stated they will keep it as is, at the bottom of the mural. They are not using the murals to advertise they just want to help identify this as a retail location rather than just an industrial location. He went on to explain they submitted tenant improvement plans and have begun with the remodel to the inside of the store. Chairman Pro Tem Pease commented he thinks the project is really good, this will make the store stand out and give it more of a retail feel. Chairwoman Watson gave an opportunity for others to speak even though this was not a public hearing, seeing none she brought it back to Commission. A minute motion was made by Chairman Pro Tem Pease, Second by Commissioner Brown approving Design Review and Sign Request Ashley Furniture with conditions. The motion carried (5-0) with the following roll call vote: 9. GOVERNMENT CODE FINDING RE: DISPOSAL AND ACQUISITION OF EQUESTRIAN TRAIL EASEMENTS BY THE CITY OF YORBA LINDA: For the purpose of realigning an existing, unimproved segment of equestrian trail easement, a request for determination that the abandonment of said existing segment of equestrian trail easement (old alignment) and acquisition of a new segment of equestrian trail easement (new alignment), located generally within the southeasterly portion of the Kerrigan Ranch Covington Heights residential community, on unaddressed property identified as Lot B of Tract 16321, situated north of Bastanchury Road and east of Clydesdale Drive, is consistent with the Yorba Linda General Plan per the requirements of State Government Code Section Principal Planner Brantley explained this was developed in the mid-2000's and has a number of equestrian trails that are developed but there are some equestrian trail easement that have not been improved. They were delayed to allow for the off-site grading from the toll road. He explained the benefits of the realignment of the trail.

10 Page 10 He explained this is a swap out for an existing approved trail easement for another more favorably aligned trail easement which would remain consistent with the General Plan policies related to the provision of equestrian trails. Chairwoman Watson asked if anyone from the public wanted to speak on this item, seeing none she brought it back to Commission. A motion was made by Commissioner Lyons, Second by Commissioner Mole to adopt Resolution No approving Government Code Finding regarding disposal and acquisition of equestrian trail easements by the City of Yorba Linda. The motion carried (5-0) with the following roll call vote: 10. DISCUSSION AND ACTION RE: NOVEMBER PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATES Director Harris stated due to the Veterans Day and Thanksgiving holidays they would like to move the Planning Commission meetings to November 4 and November 18. All Commissioners advised they would be available on those dates. Therefore the November 4th meeting will hear the ETCO Homes Apartments if the Subsequent EIR is ready and noticing can be sent out in time. On November 18, the Pre-Zone application for Esperanza Hills will be heard if they are ready. He explained the annexation process for this item. Chairman Pro Tem Pease asked if the EIR on Esperanza Hills has been challenged and Director Harris stated that because neither one of these are on this agenda, he doesn't want to get too deep into discussion about the particulars of the project, but there have been a number of lawsuits filed. Chairwoman Watson asked to have people from Fire Authority, School Board, Water District, Sheriff's Department and every single entity that is involved in any way shape or form, so they can verify facts at the meetings in November. December will only have one meeting on the 9th due to the holidays. The October 28 meeting will have four or five public hearing items. DIRECTOR S REPORT Director Harris asked Mr. Rehmer to provide comments on the new 60 day shot clock rules implemented by the FCC and how it affects the processing of certain applications for communication facilities.

11 Page 11 Mr. Rehmer explained FCC has implemented a shot clock rule stating that whether the city is supportive or not supportive, they have to take action within a certain timeframe or it is deemed approved. It ties the city's hands in forcing them to make a determination on the cell towers. It is giving the cell towers more ability to have them pushed through administratively and cities have no discretionary review. City Attorney Ashley Patterson added that the FCC defines substantial change in a way that a layperson would not define substantial change, for example adding 20 feet to a pole. All decisions must now be done within 60 days, if not it is deemed approved. Director Harris stated staff in the city attorney's office met to go over the recent US Supreme Court decision, Reed versus Town of Gilbert regarding the temporary sign ordinance. Staff identified areas of the temporary sign ordinance that need to be addressed and the City Council will be holding a special workshop next month to discuss the court's ruling and where the sign ordinance is and what needs to be addressed. The city went through this process a few years ago and dealt with local realtors in the community and the Chamber of Commerce but the Council decided not to make any amendments to the ordinance. Staff and the consultant will be giving a General Plan Update presentation to the City Council next Tuesday. The Draft policy document will be distributed to the City Council and to the GPAC Commission. City Council's direction was to have GPAC Commission receive the Draft policy documents and hold two meetings, and then they'll go back to City Council with the results of the review. A formal public review process will be opened after the first of the year then later in the spring it will go to City Council. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS - CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED - ADJOURNMENT - 8:02 p.m. The next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting is October 28, 2015 beginning at 6:30 p.m. STEVEN K. HARRIS, AICP DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT