February 24, APPROVAL OF JANUARY 13, 2016 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

Transcription

1 CITY OF YORBA LINDA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES February 24, 2016 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 Mole ROLL CALL Planning Commissioners: APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES 1. APPROVAL OF JANUARY 13, 2016 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES A motion was made by Commissioner Lyons, second Commissioner Darnell, to approve the January 13, 2016 minutes. The motion carried (5-0) with the following roll call vote: 2. APPROVAL OF JANUARY 27, 2016 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Commissioner Darnell excused herself because she was absent from this meeting. A motion was made by Commissioner Lyons, second Commissioner Brown, to approve the January 27, 2016 minutes. The motion carried ( ) with the following roll call vote: Brown, Lyons, Mole, Pease

2 Page 2 Darnell PUBLIC COMMENTS NONE 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 Darnell, second by Commissioner Mole to approve waiving readings in full of all resolutions. The motion carried (5-0) with the following roll call vote. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. PUBLIC HEARING RE: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT COHEN: A request to keep eight fowl (CHICKENS) on the property addressed as 5475 Avenida Del Tren, located on the west side of Avenida Del Tren, north of Via Lenardo, in the RS (Residential Suburban) zone. (APN: ). CEQA STATUS: Categorical Exemption (Class 1, Existing Facilities) MEASURE B APPLICABILITY: a) Vote No; b) Public Notice No TRAFFIC COMMISSION REVIEW: No RECOMMENDATION: To adopt a resolution approving the project. Director Brantley stated all notices have been sent for this item. Senior Planner Greg Rehmer explained the applicant currently has five chickens and would like to keep up to eight chickens on his property. Mr. Rehmer noted that there have been no complaints from existing neighbors regarding the five chickens already on the property and staff is recommending approval of the CUP. Mr. Rehmer also noted that what prompted the applicant to obtain a CUP was due to a general inquiry the City received regarding his existing chickens. Commissioner Darnell verified that this zone would only allow chickens with a CUP approval and Mr. Rehmer said correct. Commissioner Darnell also wanted to make sure that the chickens are for eggs and not for slaughter and Mr. Rehmer said yes, according to the applicant s letter of intent. Commissioner Darnell asked if there are zones within the City that would allow chickens without a CUP, Senior Planner Rehmer noted that the RA, RLD, and RE zones do allow for chickens without the need for a CUP. Chairman Pease asked the applicant to approach and asked if he agreed with all the conditions of approval.

3 Page 3 Farid Cohen, applicant stated yes he read the conditions and agrees with all of them. Chairman Pease opened the public hearing and seeing no one wishing to speak on the matter, he closed the public hearing. A motion was made by Commissioner Darnell, second by Commissioner Mole to adopt Resolution No approving Conditional Use Permit subject to the attached conditions of approval. The motion carried (5-0) with the following roll call vote. Director Brantley advised this action by the Planning Commission is final this evening unless it is appealed to the City Council within 15 days through the City Clerk's office. 4. PUBLIC HEARING RE: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PATOLIA: A request to construct a 545 square foot second story addition with a 168 square foot second story balcony/deck expansion and a 93 square foot two-story exterior elevator, on an existing two-story single-family residence, the area of second story construction within seventy feet (70 ) of another dwelling, for the property addressed as 4020 Naples Court, located north of Bastanchury Rd. and south of Fairmont Blvd., within the North Yorba Linda Estates (PD) zone. (APN: ) CEQA STATUS: Categorical Exemption (Class: 1, Existing Facilities) MEASURE B APPLICABILITY: a) Vote No; b) Public Notice No TRAFFIC COMMISSION REVIEW: No RECOMMENDATION: To adopt a resolution approving the project. Director Brantley stated all notices have been sent for this item. Assistant Planner Gomez provided a presentation describing the location of the property and explained the details for a second story addition with a second-story balcony/deck, and a 93 ft.² two-story exterior elevator on an existing two-story single-family residence. Staff does not feel there are any privacy impacts on neighbors and all neighbors within a 300 foot radius were notified and no concerns or objections were received. Applicant will be installing an elevator in the rear of the property. Staff as well as neighbors have no concerns. The home is architecturally compatible and consistent with other homes in the neighborhood and staff recommends approval. Commissioner Lyons asked if city has any control over the elevators and no one was quite sure. Commissioner Lyons suggested that staff research the city's control over elevators, as more then may be coming up in the future. Chairman Pease agreed with Commissioner Lyons and suggested that staff look into the building standards for the future. He asked the applicant to approach and asked him if he read and agreed with all the conditions of approval.

4 Page 4 Dhirajlal Patolia approached and advised he read and agrees with all the conditions of approval and stated the elevator is for his elderly parents. Chairman Pease opened the public hearing and seeing no one approached, he closed the public hearing A motion was made by Commissioner Mole, second by Commissioner Brown to adopt Resolution No approving Conditional Use Permit subject to the attached conditions of approval. The motion carried (5-0) with the following roll call vote. 5. PUBLIC HEARING RE: TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP AND ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT HUANG: A request to subdivide an approximately 0.41 acre parcel into two single-family residential lots, and a request to reduce the required seventy-five feet (70 ) minimum lot width by 6.6 percent for Lot 1 of the Tentative Parcel Map, on the property addressed as 4082 Valley View Avenue, located north of Marda Avenue and south of Brooklyn Avenue within the RU (Residential Urban) zone. (APN: ) CEQA STATUS: Categorical Exemption (Class 32, In-fill Development Projects) MEAUSRE B APPLICABILITY: a) Vote No; b) Public Notice No TRAFFIC COMMISSION REVIEW: No RECOMMENDATION: To adopt a resolution approving the project. Assistant Planner, Jamie Smith explained that this item is to subdivide acres into two single-family residential lots for future development. Future development on both of these sites would be subject to a design review which will require approval of the Planning Commission. Tonight's hearing is solely on the subdivision of the property with no development. Parcel one would have access off of the Brooklyn Avenue parcel, parcel two will continue to take access off of Valley View. The lot as is, is legal nonconforming, not meeting the 100 foot depth requirement, the lot depth only measures 70 feet. The subdivision will not intensify the nonconformity for parcel two, therefore no action except for consideration of the map is needed. However, an administrative adjustment is requested to address the lot width of parcel one. Per the Zoning Code, RU properties are required to have a 75 foot minimum lot width and the applicant is requesting an administrative adjustment to reduce that by 5 feet. Staff is supportive in that the proposed minimum lot depth and lot size exceed the minimum standards. The proposed density would be 4.9 du/ac, exceeding the maximum density standard of 7.0 du/ac as required by both the General Plan and Zoning Code. However as this property is a remnant lot left over from the subdivision of Tract 7933 the total acreage of the proposed parcel map is added to the total acreage of Tract 7933 and multiplied by the density standard of 4.0 du/ac. Based on this calculation, twenty-seven lots would be permitted. Twenty-five lots created per the Tract 7933 plus two lots for the proposed

5 Page 5 parcel map. Staff believes that had the original subdivision of Tract 7933 included the subject property the property would have been subdivided into two lots at that time. Property owners to the east raised concerns with the map if future dwelling units were two-story and requested that the map limit development to single-story. One neighbor requested that the approval of the map be postponed until it is decided whether or not the development on the property will be single or two-story. Staff expressed the privacy concerns of the neighbors to the applicant and the applicant does not feel comfortable limiting her future development to a single-story at this time. She said she will consider it when she proposes to move forward. Both properties, if the parcel map is approved would be subject to a design review and if the applicant does propose two-story homes, a conditional use permit would be required and need to be approved by Commission. The property owners would be re-noticed and have the opportunity to refuse the proposed plans. Staff recommends approval of both the tentative parcel map as well as administrative adjustment. Commissioner Lyons asked if the pad dimensions and positioning shown on this tentative tract map will be mandatory. Director Brantley stated typically when a tentative parcel map includes grading information, it is just to identify that that area is suited for placement of the home. If Commission approved it tonight, it would not lock that in 100%. There is a little bit of flexibility of about plus or minus 3 feet of elevation difference which is the tolerance on final grading review for drainage purposes. Commissioner Lyons asked if it's the pad elevation that is critical and not the size of the lot. Chairman Pease clarified that the dimensions of Lot 2 is 25 feet by 111, so the footprint is approximately 2750 ft.², so is whatever gets built there not to exceed 2750 square feet? Director Brantley said not without approval of an administrative adjustment or variance. Commissioner Mole asked what the setbacks are on the surrounding properties. Ms. Smith said the requirement is 25 feet from the property line. Commissioner Brown stated he visited the property and there is a big tree on the property that could address some privacy issues. Chairman Pease asked the applicant to approach and asked if he read the conditions of approval. We Badc, Civil Engineer for the project approached and stated he understands the privacy concerns. He talked about the pad elevations on this property. He also stated that from the pads to the properly line, setbacks are at or about 25 feet from the property line and the neighbors building is another 20 to 30 foot back, so the neighbor's building would be a total of 45 to 50 feet away. He said they read the conditions of approval and will comply with them.

6 Page 6 Commissioner Mole clarified the neighbor has a 30 foot setback and they are proposing a 10 foot setback and Mr. Badc said yes. Mr. Badc also said lot one will be a one-story house so privacy issue will not be a problem. Commissioner Mole said that is different from what was previously said so restricting it to a one-story is now acceptable? And would he consider restricting lot one to a singlestory residents? Mr. Badc stated yes. Applicant Judy Huang approached and said she has not decided on how to develop the future building plan. She understands the neighbors concerns about privacy and she will discuss it with the architect, but will not commit or guarantee a one-story home at this time. For now, she is only here to subdivide the property. Chairman Pease asked if she was leaning towards a two-story on lot two and Mr. Badc said yes. Commissioner Lyons stated chapter subsection H of the Municipal Code limits the height of a building to one story on a major arterial highway. Commissioner Darnell asked staff if Tentative Tract Map 7933 is restricted to singlestory homes and Ms. Smith stated she could not find any restrictions, however the neighbors to the east said they were limited to single-story. Commissioner Darnell asked if anyone wanted to add a second story, would they have to go through the conditional use permit process and would it not be restricted and Ms. Smith said yes. Commissioner Darnell stated if they put a restriction on the corner lot to only allow single-story development at the exact same density of the neighboring lots, then they are spot zoning it and spot zoning can legally get them in a lot of trouble. Chairman Pease opened the public hearing. Renae Culolias lives in the middle of the property. They've had neighbors apply for a conditional use permit for a second story but were denied. There are no two-story homes in their tract. She does want something on that property, but is totally opposed to multistory homes because it will intrude on her privacy. She has all sliders and no windows in the rear of her home giving neighbors a clear view into her home. She asked that Commission take her privacy concerns and consideration. Norm Meinhardt asked the city if he could purchase that land years ago, but the city said no. He stated all the neighbors agree something needs to be put on that property. He stated the homes in that area have an average square footage of 1649 square feet and a 3600 ft.² house doesn't fit in. He feels it would be in everyone's best interest to take a step back and obtain more information before making a decision. It would also benefit the petitioner to come up with a plan with what may or may not be able to be constructed on the site. Rick Shoren has been there for 47 years and in 1985 he wanted to add a second-story addition to his home and was flat out denied.

7 Page 7 Judy Huang approached and stated she appreciates everyone's concerns about privacy issues but hasn't decided on the building plans yet. She will consider their concerns when she starts the plans. Chairman Pease closed the public hearing. He stated he drove past the area and went to visit Ms. Culolias, but nobody answered the door. Commissioner Lyons also stated he drives past their everyday, lives about 1400 feet from the site so he's very familiar with the surroundings. Commissioner Mole stated Commissioner Darnell brought up a very good point about spot zoning. He stated density for Tract 7933 is four units per acre and the proposed tentative parcel map changes it to 4.9 per acre. He agrees they should not play favorites with zoning. He asked if they are doing an administrative adjustment on the property, increasing the density, decreasing setback requirements, aren't they giving more land rights to this parcel. Commissioner Darnell stated because it is existing legal nonconforming, the only reason why they have to do the administrative adjustment is because the requirement is that the lot fronts Brooklyn as opposed to Valley View. If the home is allowed to face Valley View they wouldn't need the administrative adjustment. Director Brantley stated that is correct, however it would be very narrow and Commissioner Darnell stated it would be narrow, but you would not have to do an administrative adjustment. Commissioner Mole just wants to follow the logic and clarified that if they are increasing the density and changing the setback requirements compared to the neighbors how are they reducing land rights from one property to the other. Commissioner Darnell stated she agreed but that discussion needs to take place at the design review, not at the parcel map level. Commission will have an opportunity to have that discussion when it comes back for design review, not now when they are conditioning the parcel map. Chairman Pease stated there are couple of other issues in place; one is that the municipal code indicates that this will be one-story unless something else happens. Also the applicant has indicated their intent to put a two-story house on that lot. Commissioner Mole stated the point of having two-story is not relevant tonight. He brought it up because it's in the staff report and the applicant said she will not consider going to one-story, but the civil engineer said they might consider it. For the record he wanted to note that Commission is granting different land rights to this parcel compared to Tract 7933 if they approve the tentative parcel map tonight. This is technically being spot zoned in the other direction Commissioner Lyons stated the Municipal Code section is Section H which limits it to one-story. He also stated there is nothing in this proposal that is changing setbacks. Also, the administrative adjustment is to comply with the state law on minimum lot width, but, in so doing they haven't modified the setbacks. We are not giving them any land rights with regard to setback that that isn't enjoyed by all the other neighbors.

8 Page 8 Director Brantley pointed out condition 63 states that design review approved by the Planning Commission shall be accomplished prior to issuance of building permits or the development of parcels one and two of the map and public notices of the design review shall be provided to all property owners who are contiguous to the boundaries of the map. In addition, there is a Municipal Code section that requires a conditional use permit for any two-story construction within 70 feet of any neighboring property therefore, a notice of 300 feet would be sent. Also, the building height ordinance on an arterial collector street limits the design to a single-story home. The applicant would have an opportunity to present something, but it is within the Commissions discretion to approve development there. City Attorney Alisha Patterson stated the term spot zoning has been mentioned tonight and she wanted to clarify that Commission is not doing any zone changes in connection with this project. The zoning code allows for administrative modifications to setbacks, but zoning changes are not being made. Chairman Pease closed the public hearing. A motion was made by Commissioner Lyons, second by Commissioner Mole to adopt Resolution No approving Tentative Parcel Map subject to the attached conditions of approval. The motion carried (5-0) with the following roll call vote. Commissioner Lyons wanted to make it clear that they are not making any decision other than a tentative parcel map approval. They are just telling the developer they have the land and it is properly zoned. A minute motion was made by Commissioner Lyons, second by Commissioner Mole approving Administrative Adjustment subject to the attached conditions of approval. The motion carried (5-0) with the following roll call vote. Director Brantley advised this action by the Planning Commission is final this evening unless it is appealed to the City Council within 15 days through the City Clerk's office. OLD BUSINESS Greg Rehmer, Senior Planner stated they've had 29 meetings and will have a final draft document ready for review by the Planning Commission sometime in May and the Circulation Element will be going to the Traffic Commission. After that there will be an initial review to the Planning Commission during the EIR release, then a final review by

9 Page 9 Planning Commission with a recommendation to City Council. They are hoping this city Council will approve it in early June. Director Brantley stated chair of GPAC, Mr. Tom Watts, wrote a letter saying he really appreciated being part of the opportunity to shape the city's future and really enjoyed working as chair. NEW BUSINESS 6. DESIGN REVIEW SARANTOS: A request to modify the front elevation building façade of an existing multi-tenant building for the retail center commonly known as Frisco s at Imperial Highway, located on the intersection of Imperial Highway and Lemon Drive. CEQA STATUS: Categorical Exemption (Class 1, Existing Facilities) MEASURE B APPLICABILITY: a) Vote No; b) Public Notice No TRAFFIC COMMISSION REVIEW: No RECOMMENDATION: Adopt by minute motion approving the project Assistant Planner Pedro Gomez gave a description of the project citing changes to the façade, roof and elevations to the building. Architecture is compatible and consistent with the surrounding businesses and staff recommends approval. Commissioner Lyons stated it is a significant improvement to the building. Commissioner Mole agreed with Commissioner Lyons Chairman Pease open the public hearing seeing no one approach he closed the hearing. A minute motion was made by Commissioner Darnell, second by Commissioner Brown to approving Design Review subject to the attached conditions of approval. The motion carried (5-0) with the following roll call vote. Director Brantley advised this action by the Planning Commission is final this evening unless it is appealed to the City Council within 15 days through the City Clerk's office. DIRECTOR S REPORT At the last Council meeting they approved the second reading of a Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance which amplifies the design requirements for new landscaping, primarily for projects that are discretionary and meet certain size thresholds. Projects that normally need landscape approval will be reviewed and approved by the City Landscape Architect. It increases the design requirements in the interest of saving more water.

10 Page 10 The city's has a plan of landscape design changes within the public right-of-way, medians and parkways. There has been a lot of turf in the public right-of-ways but due to it being water thirsty, Public Works is taking the lead and will be asking the Planning Commission to participate in the effort of looking for alternate design concepts to transition to more drought tolerant landscaping. The March 9 th Commission meeting will have a couple of General Plan consistency findings, one related to right-of-way acquisition for new Street A within the Town Center area, as well as landscape slope. There is also a design review for substantial modification to the Yorba Linda carwash on Imperial Highway and a second design review for the addition of the leasing office within the Yorba Linda Archstone Apartments. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Commissioner Darnell brought attention to Cal State Fullerton Urban Planning students present in the audience who were there to observe a Planning Commission meeting. There were no other Commissioner comments. CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED One was received. ADJOURNMENT: 7:58 p.m. The next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting is March 9, 2016 beginning at 6:30 p.m. DAVID BRANTLEY, AICP DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT