Loading...
2015 - November 2Planning Commission November 2, 2015 Minutes Planning Commission November 2, 2015 City of Orange 6:00 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Correa, Gladson, Glasgow, Simpson, and Willits ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Leslie Roseberry, Planning Manager Gary Sheatz, Senior Assistant City Attorney Sharon Penttila, Recording Secretary STUDY SESSION CALL TO ORDER: Chair Gladson called the Study Session to order at 6:02 p.m. ROLL CALL: All Commissioners were present. Chair Gladson wanted this to be an informal setting to discuss several topics and to get to know each other a little better. Leslie Roseberry, Planning Manager, said with 3 new Planning Commissioners this was a chance to talk about some of the main topics and she noted this meeting was open to the Public. Gary Sheatz, Senior Assistant City Attorney, indicated that the City Council had conveyed the need to have the same meeting protocol from the Design Review Committee meetings to the Planning Commission meetings to the City Council meetings. Mr. Sheatz explained the 3- minute time limit on public speakers versus the amount of time afforded the applicants. He explained the applicant's right to due process, and the applicant having property interest before the Planning Commission and it would be the subject of the action taken. Mr. Sheatz stated that less is more from the dais and the Commissioners do not have to provide comments on every question. Commissioner Willits thought it was their place to make comments on everything. Chair Gladson said the Commissioners can explain the reasoning behind their views and opinions in order to explain the basis of their conclusions. Mr. Sheatz clarified that the Commissioners have to be recognized by the Chair before speaking; that they do not follow Robert's Rule of Order but follow the Orange Municipal Code; and they need to disclose if they have met with an applicant on an active project. Ms. Roseberry encouraged the Commissioners to meet with both the applicant and staff involved with the project to double check the facts. Mr. Sheatz said the other two topics he was going to cover, the Brown Act and Conflict of Interest, would have to be discussed at another meeting due to the lack of time. Ms. Roseberry briefly discussed case processing. She explained she has 5 planners on her team who serve an average of 500 customers a month at the Planning counter. She described the process from when the application is submitted to the Planning Division to when the written staff report and resolution are provided to the Commission. The Study Session adjourned at 7:00 p.m. Planning Commission November 2, 2015 Planning Commission City of Orange November 2, 2015 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Correa, Gladson, Glasgow, Simpson, and Willits ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Leslie Roseberry, Planning Manager Gary Sheatz, Senior Assistant City Attorney Chad Ortlieb, Senior Planner Kelly Ribuffo, Associate Planner Sharon Penttila, Recording Secretary REGULAR SESSION 1.1 CALL TO ORDER: Chair Gladson called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. 1.2 FLAG SALUTE: Commissioner Simpson led the flag salute. 1.3 ROLL CALL: All Commissioners were present. 1.4 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION None 1.5 CONTINUED OR WITHDRAWN ITEMS: None 1.6 PLANNING MANAGER REPORTS None 2. CONSENT CALENDAR: 2.1 APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM THE REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING OF OCTOBER 19, 2015. Motion was made to approve the minutes as written. MOTION: Commissioner Willits SECOND: Commissioner Glasgow AYES: Commissioners Correa, Gladson, Glasgow, Simpson, and Willits NOES: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED. 2 Planning Commission November 2, 2015 3. NEW HEARINGS: 3.1 ZONE CHANGE 1278 -15; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2975 -15; AND MINOR SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 0809-15 — LOFTUS NURSERY The applicant seeks to establish zoning consistent with the General Plan Land Use designations for the property to establish a tree and shrub farm on the southerly portion of the parcel. The subject property is a currently unzoned former railroad right -of -way located between two residential tracts. LOCATION: Between Craig Drive & Malena Avenue NOTE: Final Program Environmental Impact Report No. 1815 -09 for the Comprehensive General Plan Update was certified on March 9, 2010 and prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Zone Change is within the scope of the previously approved General Plan and is adequately analyzed in the previously certified General Plan Program EIR for purposes of CEQA. Specifically, the General Plan Land Use Element, which includes the General Plan Land Use map, designates the property as Low Density Residential 2 -6 du/ac (LDR). The proposed Single Family Residential, 7,000 SF (R -1 -7) zoning implements the existing General Plan designation for the site. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 34 -15 recommending (1) that the City Council approve the zone change for the establishment of R -1 -7, R -3 and C -1 zoning, consistent with existing General Plan Land Use designations for a currently unzoned property and (2) that the City Council approve Conditional Use Permit 2975 -15 and Minor Site Plan 0809 -15 for the establishment of a tree and shrub farm. Discussion: Chad Ortlieb, Senior Planner, presented a project overview consistent with the staff report. He explained the issues related to the project which included the easement; public access; proposed use and operational concerns; and parking and loading as detailed in the staff report. The Commission had questions for staff regarding future public sales on the site; any farm equipment being used; future residential development; the passive entrance on the southerly portion of the property; any comments received from the neighbors; and the delivery and pickup schedule of the trucks. John Koos, representing Loftus Nursery, thanked Mr. Ortlieb for his hard work and diligence on the staff report. He clarified that the only reason for the zone change was Planning Commission November 2, 2015 because the property currently has no zoning. He explained that a postcard about the project was mailed to each adjacent single family home. They did receive a couple of responses and Mr. Loftus met with them. The applicant agreed with all the conditions in the staff report; explained how the frontage of the property would be cleaned up and they would add drought tolerant plants; and security fencing would be installed. The Commission questioned the applicant about the number of trees and bushes being stored on the property; who would deliver the plants; if the site was strictly for storage; and what would be the maximum height of the trees. Public Hearing was opened. The following persons spoke in opposition to the project citing concern with the height of the trees and the structures; with the zone change and would it pave the way for homes to be built in the easement; that it was inconsistent with the neighborhood; the street frontage on Palmyra provided no space for commercial deliveries; that there was not enough on -site parking for loading and unloading of the trees; the weight of the tree boxes would require large equipment to move them; vehicles and heavy equipment would cause noise and emit carbon pollution onto the adjacent residences; that the operation hours would be from 7:00 a.m. — 7:00 p.m. 7 days a week; there would be an impact on the property values; there could be drainage onto adjacent properties; there could be poisons which would be in the soil and airborne; the stacks of wood would create a fire hazard and attract rodents; future property owners and uses when the property was sold; and security concerns for adjacent residences. Kirk Norton Paul Santaniello Richard Hess Dawn Schmidt Steve Crouch Seyed Allaeddini Mr. Koos returned to address the issues raised by the neighbors. He explained that they had reached out to the residents prior to the meeting; that the conditions of approval do mitigate many of the issues raised; the height of the trees could be limited by the Planning Commission; and future development options for the site would be a challenge as far as property uses. Ed Loftus, property owner, discussed the tree heights and box sizes; noise issues; hours of operation; drainage; loading and unloading of trucks and truck sizes; and security. The Commission questioned Mr. Loftus about airborne fertilizer particulates; maximum amount of trees on the property; what kind of equipment would be used to move trees; how often would plants be moved to and from the property; the propose of rumble strips; whether other properties he owned were next to residential properties; and the noise from the backup horns. 4 Planning Commission November 2, 2015 The Commission questioned staff about the condition related to the hours of operation. Mr. Ortlieb stated the hours were 7:00 a.m. -7:00 p.m. with no construction activity allowed on Sundays and Federal holidays but the condition did not address other activity on the property on those days. The Commission asked what could be developed on the property. Mr. Ortlieb cited the uses listed in the zoning code. Ms. Roseberry explained that the configuration of the site would make it difficult to develop. Public Hearing was closed. The Commission thought there were enough conditions that addressed the issues and this would be the best use for the property. Also the Zone Change and the CUP were appropriate and were in compliance with the General Plan. The Commission wanted a condition which would restrict the hours of all activity on Sundays and Federal holidays. Motion was made to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 34 -15 recommending that the City Council approve Zone Change 1278 -15 for the establishment of R -1 -7, R -3, and Cl Zoning, consistent with existing General Plan Land Use Designations, for currently unzoned property located south of Chapman Avenue between Craig Drive and Malena Drive and; that the City Council approve Conditional Use Permit 2975 -15, and Minor Site Plan Review 0809 -15 for the establishment of a tree and shrub farm on the southerly portion of the property with the last sentence on Condition No. 7 amended as follows: 1. No activity will be permitted on Sundays and Federal Holidays. MOTION: Commissioner Correa SECOND: Commissioner Gladson AYES: Commissioners Correa, Gladson, Glasgow, Simpson, and Willits NOES: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED Planning Commission November 2, 2015 3.2 APPEAL 541 -15 — DAVID'S SOBER LIVING The applicant has filed an appeal of the approval of Sober Living Permit (SLP) No. 13- 15 for David's Sober Living. The permit allows for a non -state licensed sober living facility of no more than six (6) residents in a single family residence. LOCATION: 7633 E. SADDLEHILL TRAIL NOTE: The proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Class 1 — Existing Facilities) because the project consists of the operation and licensing of an existing private structure. RECOMMENDED ACTION: There is no recommended action regarding this application. Staff requests that the Planning Commission provide guidance as to the type of resolution to prepare based on the action the Commission votes to take on this item. The resolution will then be brought back to the Commission for final adoption at a date certain at a future meeting. Discussion: Kelly Ribuffo, Associate Planner, presented a project overview consistent with the staff report. She explained that the Planning Division staff has provided no recommendation to the Commission regarding this item and it was the purview of the Commission to weigh the evidence and testimony regarding the appeal and to make a final decision. She stated staff did receive one public comment letter which was in the Commission's hot file. The Commission asked if the proposed facility had applied under the City's municipal code and not the State, who applied first for the license; and how this item applied in terms of a land use perspective. Ms. Roseberry explained that the purview of the Planning Commission was on the land use aspect and the appeal was on the use of the property as a sober living facility. Mr. Sheatz referred to OMC 17.14.050.0 which was the section that must be in compliance for a permit and this was the section the appellant had based their appeal on. Kathryn Rathvon and Victor Republicano, appellants, stated their reasons for the appeal. They explained their reasons for opening the facility; their inability to obtain a permit since the neighbor had already applied for one; they found that Mr. Tous filed the application as a ruse and it was fraudulent; he has no intention of going forward with a Sober Living Permit (SLP) and his entire purpose was to stop them from obtaining a SLP. They also stated Mr. Tous' application and other information was plagiarized and misleading; that disabled people were being discriminated against; he was not following City, State and Federal regulations; and he was not being a good neighbor. Planning Commission November 2, 2015 Public Hearing was opened. Paul Sandford said he had sold the property to Victor and Kathryn. He stated he was confronted by Mr. Tous who said he would do anything to stop and prevent them from obtaining a SLP. David Tous stated he was the one who applied for the SLP. He explained that all the information in the application was true and the anger he has relates to profiting from others' addictions. He was concerned with the amount of money they were charging. He explained he requested a business license but it was denied due to this appeal. He described his property as being a good location for a sober living facility and how the appellant's property was not a good location. The following persons spoke in opposition to the appeal citing concerns that the appellants sent a threatening letter to the neighbors and it did not promote a good neighbor policy; how Mr. Sandford had been a thorn in the community; too many cars are being parked on the road; false allegations are being said against the Tous' and they are here in support of the integrity of the Tous'; that Victory and Kathryn do not live at the residence, and the adult residents would be living right next door to neighbors who have two small girls. Rod Stone Nancy Vance John Cora Debra Tous Debra Sandford The appellants returned to follow up on the comments made by the neighbors. They said there had been a lot of false statements made; that they don't try to park in the street and that 8 -10 cars can fit in their driveway; the backyard was secluded and there was privacy; there would be a maximum of 6 residents; residents would not be allowed to have automobiles on -site; the amount of money being charged was not relevant and the business was not about the money; and they questioned the integrity of Mr. Tous. Public Hearing was closed. The Commission questioned the staff if there was a time frame in which the facility had to be opened to say it was a business and it would be ongoing. Ms. Ribuffo stated there was no timeline in the sober living portion of the code. Mr. Sheatz explained that the time line was not built into the ordinance and it would be looked at in terms of a reasonable period of time. The Commission explained they were dealing with a land use issue within a 300' radius, and who submitted the application first. Since the Tous' put in their application first, they should be able to proceed with the application. It also appeared the application was issued correctly by the City and if there was false and misleading information, that 7 Planning Commission November 2, 2015 appeared to be a legal issue and not a Planning Commission one. The Commission agreed the appeal had to be denied. Motion was made as a recommendation to staff to come back with a resolution to deny Appeal No. 541 -15, David's Sober Living, at 7633 E. Saddlehill Trail based on the land use and the initial application. The resolution would return to the Commission for approval on November 16, 2015. MOTION: Commissioner Glasgow SECOND: Commissioner Correa AYES: Commissioners Correa, Gladson, Glasgow, Simpson, and Willits NOES: None ABSENT: None MOTION CARRIED Planning Commission November 2, 2015 4. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned to the regularly scheduled meeting on Monday, November 16, 2015. MOTION: Commissioner Glasgow SECOND: Commissioner Simpson AYES: Commissioners Correa, Gladson, Glasgow, Simpson, and Willits NOES: None ABSENT: None Meeting adjourned at 9:25 p.m. MOTION CARRIED. 9