MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE LA HABRA HEIGHTS
PLANNING COMMISSION
April 24, 2001
OPENING CEREMONIES
CALL MEETING TO ORDER
A meeting of the La Habra Heights Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Bruce Douglas at 7:31 p.m. at the Community Center, 1245 North Hacienda Boulevard, La Habra Heights, California.
SWEARING IN OF NEW OFFICERS
Ms. Sanderson swore in the new Planning Commission starting with Chairman Douglas, then on to Commissioner Bergman, Commissioner Blagden, Commissioner Wolfe and Commissioner Hinz.
ROLL CALL
Those present: Chairman Bruce Douglas, Vice-Chairman Ginger Skinner, Commissioners Brian Bergman, Stephen Blagden, Robert Wolfe and alternate Commissioner William Hinz. Also present Director of Planning Sheryl Sanderson, Planning Technician Barbara Doppieri, Deputy City Engineer David Gilbertson and Commission Attorney Ruben Duran.
Chairman Douglas introduced the Commissioners to the City.
FLAG SALUTE
Chairman Douglas led the flag salute.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
None
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF POSTING OF AGENDA FOR MEETING OF April 24, 2001
Ms. Sanderson stated the agenda had been posted in accordance with the state law.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Minutes of the regular Planning Commission Meeting of March 27, 2001.
City Attorney Ruben Duran clarified for the Commission that because the new Commissioners had not been on the Commission for that meeting they would need to abstain from voting. He explained as Vice-Chairman Skinner has been on that Commission and did attend that meeting she could vote and a vote of 1 ayes and 4 abstain would be enough to pass the minutes.
Vice-Chairman Skinner moved to approve the minutes as prepared. The motion was approved as follows.
AYES: Skinner
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: Douglas, Bergman, Blagden, Wolfe
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Ms. Sanderson swore in those wishing to testify.
Chairman Douglas explained because the applicant for the Tree Removal Permit had asked for a continuance, he would like to hear this item first. Ms. Sanderson explained that would take a motion of the Commission to bring that item forward. Chairman Douglas moved to hear the Tree Removal Permit it first. Seconded by Commissioner Wolfe and approved as follows:
AYES: Douglas, Bergman, Blagden, Skinner and Wolfe
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Tree Removal Permit (TRP) 2001-01 (Pat Klinker) 1280 Walnut Street
Ms. Sanderson presented the staff report stating this application was submitted by Pat Klinker to request a Tree Removal Permit to remove approximately 75 trees; the trees have already been removed; these trees were located along the east and west sides of the driveway; this is a code enforcement case; she included the chronology of this case in the staff agenda report; the applicant has requested a continuance because she was out of town; staff recommended that the Planning Commission either grant the continuance to a date specific or review the finding for granting a Tree Removal Permit and direct staff to bring a resolution back with the appropriate findings and conditions of approval.
Chairman Douglas asked if the Commission had questions of staff.
Vice-Chairman Skinner asked if it was necessary since this was a code enforcement case that the applicant be present.
Ms. Sanderson stated it was not necessary for the applicant to be present, however if the Commission had questions of the applicant, she is not here to answer any questions you might have.
Commissioner Blagden asked regarding the permit streaming lining act time frame.
Ms. Sanderson stated this item could be continued and would still meet the permit streaming lining act.
Commissioner Bergman moved to continue this item to the May 22, 2001 Planning Commission Meeting. Commissioner Blagden seconded the motion.
AYES: Douglas, Bergman, Blagden, Skinner and Wolfe
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Mr. Duran suggested that Chairman Douglas open the meeting for public comment on this item before moving forward with the next item.
Chairman Douglas opened the public hearing portion of the meeting and seeing no one come forward he closed the public hearing and continued this item to the May 22, 2001 meeting.
Standards Modification (SM) 2000-36 (Marc Gerber representing EPAC Construction, Inc)
501 Dorothea Road
Ms. Sanderson presented the agenda report stating this application was submitted by Marc Gerber representing EPAC Construction Inc. for a Standards Modification for view preservation to exceed the 750 square foot building limitation and 16 foot in height limitation for construction of a residential dwelling; the site referred to as Lot 9 of ìThe Reserveî subdivision is 1.57 acres in size and is zoned RA-1 with a R (rural) general plan designation and it is also part of the Lynch Specific Plan; development of this lot was originally approved on June 22, 1999 by Planning Commission Resolution No. 99-03 subject to a list of conditions; on July 8, 1999, the Planning Commission decision to approve this Standards Modification was appealed to the City Council; after numerous continuances, on January 13, 2000, the applicant withdrew the Standards Modification application; the development plans are the same plans presented at the June 22, 1999 Planning Commission Meeting; therefore no additional staff analysis has been provided; staff recommends approval of Standards Modification 2000-36 subject to conditions of approval and adoption of Planning Commission Resolution 2001-01.
Commissioner Blagden indicated he was abstaining from this item and would step down from the podium.
Commissioner Blagden then left the dais; Commissioner Hinz stepped up to the dais to act in this matter.
Chairman Douglas asked if the Commission had any questions of staff.
Chairman Douglas asked regarding the two changes to the Resolution including the Lynch Specific Plan and the time limit voiding of this approval after 2 years.
Ms. Sanderson stated part of the recommendations of approval she added reference to the Lynch Specific Plan and added a time limit of this approval if substantial construction has not taken place within 2 years.
Vice-Chairman Skinner stated there was a letter from Julia Kemp; she asked if here concerns were regarding the Specific Plan were addressed
Ms. Sanderson stated Ms. Kemp's letter arrived at 6:45 p.m. this evening and she had not read the letter.
Commissioner Wolfe asked what the definition of substantial construction meant.
Mr. Gilbertson stated substantial construction means the building's footings and rough framing need to be done.
Chairman Douglas then opened the public hearing and asked anyone wishing to testify to please come forward.
Eric Rans, 18401 Von Karman, Ste 350, Irvine, CA 92612 stated he was the attorney representing EPAC Construction Company Inc.; he gave a presentation on the history of this project; prior Planning Commission previously approved this identical project; EPAC previously considered selling of this lot, however they chose to resubmit this application for approval; previously the Swartzbaugh's claimed their view was impacted, EPAC has since settled with the Swartzbaugh's, and the Swartzbaugh's now support the current application; the second issue brought up in 1999 was by the Metzger's; the prior staff report required EPAC to plant mature landscaping and to lower the pad elevation by 2 feet; EPAC willing to mitigate privacy concerns of Metzger's.
Commissioner Hinz stated the Metzger's have alleged this development will diminish their on site view; he asked EPAC why were the Metzger's wrong.
Mr. Rans stated the Metzger's front door faces this development; their primary view is out the back side of their home; there is no impact with the Metzger's home; previously the Metzger's had claim privacy was there issue; EPAC is willing to deal with that issue by heavy landscaping.
Commissioner Wolfe asked if EPAC had reviewed the proposed resolution and was it acceptable to EPAC.
Mr. Rans stated they have reviewed and do agree with the proposed resolution.
Chairman Douglas asked what is the height of the current story poles.
Marc Gerber, EPAC Construction Company Inc, 3070 Bristol Street, Ste 520, Costa Mesa stated he did not know how tall the story poles were; he believed they were two feet higher than the proposal before the Commission.
Commissioner Bergman asked if screening would eliminate the Metzger's view of the home.
Mr. Rans stated it would depend on the landscaping that the Metzger's choose; EPAC is waiting to meet with them and then the plan would need to be approved by the Planning Commission.
Dr. Skip Metzger, 506 Dorothea Road asked why it was necessary for Commissioner Blagden to step down.
Mr. Duran stated the advice that was given to Commissioner Blagden was client/attorney privilege communication.
Dr. Metzger asked if the attorney's client could waive the client/attorney privilege communication.
Mr. Duran stated his client is the City; the City Council would have to make the decision as to where the client/attorney privilege communication could be waived.
Dr. Metzger stated he was representing his mother who passed away last week; his family has lived in this home since 1947; they disagree with EPAC position that there is not blockage of view; entrance to Lot 9 was approved to come off Dorothea in 1998; what landscaping would be planted to preserve the privacy; will share county easement to enter property with EPAC, it will be tight but it could be bearable; if approved it will come back to bite the Commission; you have a 16 foot height limit, you should stick with; does the height limit apply to parapets or chimneys; the hill that use to protect the Metzger's is no longer there, EPAC took it down and raised a pad 74 feet into the air; it is the premiere building site for EPAC; Metzger's bay windows look all the way to Manhattan Beach.
Commissioner Hinz asked Dr. Metzger was their issue privacy or view.
Dr. Metzger stated that their issue was both privacy and view.
Commissioner Hinz asked if they would be less concerned if the proposed home was 3000 square feet.
Dr. Metzger stated he would be less concerned if it was 16 feet tall and single story; then it would fit in with most of the neighborhood.
Commissioner Wolfe asked how long has his house been there.
Dr. Metzger stated since 1947.
Commissioner Wolfe asked did he consider to be his radius of view and how did the proposed structure impact this view.
Dr. Metzger stated they have 3 bay windows that face southwest; the first window is blocked, the second window is less blocked the third window is even less blocked.
Vice-Chairman Skinner asked regarding the pictures of the hillside; when you stood in your windows was the view blocked by the hillside.
Dr. Metzger stated no, they saw around the hillside; can see more now that the hill is gone.
Vice-Chairman Skinner asked Dr. Metzger if the view straight out of the windows was affected, or was it affected only when looking to the right.
Dr. Metzger stated yes; however previously he could look to Catalina and beyond, and he looked at 18 acres of beautiful acres of avocado and orange, now he sees 15 monstrosities down below him; they have turned hills into houses.
Vice-Chairman Skinner asked if the east side of the house has a large view.
Dr. Metzger stated yes, he has 3 windows that look to the east.
Julia Kemp 800 S. Beach Blvd, La Habra, CA stated she is the attorney for the Metzger Family; felt the poles have been cut and are not a 27 feet; previously there was talk about adjusting the pad 6 feet; wants a fair hearing; asked why was Commissioner Blagden required to step down; Commissioner Blagden had previously had done research on this project and had concluded at that time it should be denied.
Chairman Douglas instructed Ms. Kemp that her questions should be directed to the Chair and he would determine if staff would be needed to help answer her questions; the City Attorney has already taken the position and we need to move on; he asked for her comments relating to the Standards Modification.
Ms. Kemp explained the pictures included in her letter; the Metzger's can talk about their privacy issues; a 3 car garage will be 30 feet from the Metzger's home; EPAC wants relief of their approved Specific Plan; she explained all the things EPAC agreed not to do in their Specific Plan that they went right ahead and did; when went on to site the Specific Plan; EPAC is now proposing to build a home that will significantly impact of surrounding residents that they agreed not to do; this is having an enormous impact; there is suppose to be a gradual topographical transition; they have exceeded grading to this site; contour grading; explained her exhibits from the Specific Plan; they are asking for a waiver of the standards; they will sell it for more; all of this has been brought out before; the Metzger'' had to do through the appeal process and they were mislead; EPAC was to redesign this home and lower it; on that basis they agreed to not go forward with the appeal hearing; she read from minutes of a meeting where EPAC agreed to redesign the home; she alleged that EPAC waited until no one was still on the City Council to reapply.
Commissioner Hinz asked if the Metzger's property had been appraised to show the current appraised value and the potential appraised value if the view was restricted.
Ms. Kemp stated she was a Real Estate Broker and the value of the Metzger's home will be impacted by this development; stated she was not aware if an appraisal had been done; Metzger's will financially suffer.
Vice-Chairman Skinner asked if the condition that was added regarding the Specific Plan satisfied her.
Ms. Kemp stated it opens up a wonderful field for attorneys; they are just restating the obvious; this development is not in compliance with the Specific Plan; part of the problem is we haven't be focusing on the big picture; they are still in non compliance; the homes are suppose to be contoured down the hillside.
Commissioner Bergman asked what would be acceptable for this property.
Ms. Kemp stated a major reorientation of the property is needed.
Dr. Gene Metzger 2249 Ardsheal stated this home will sit right outside their door step; this is not insignificant issue; asked the Commission to carefully consider the information presented to them; EPAC has the right to build a 16' house; they can build to the white lines on the poles; if they want to build that house it is fine; this has gone on long enough; don't let EPAC break one more rule with one more house; has no other problem with any other house built in this tract; he wants all this to stop; poles are not what they are proposing; Maislen proposed a 6 foot drop to the pad; asked for denial of this proposal; it is not reasonable.
Commissioner Wolfe asked if anyone from his side had prepared a conceptual plan of what they would accept.
Dr. Metzger stated any home that was kept under the white line on the poles would be fine with his family.
Commissioner Wolfe asked if the Metzger's have done an analysis of what it would cost EPAC to step this home down further.
Dr. Metzger stated no he has spent his money on attorney fees; EPAC created the problem, it is there responsibility to resolve it.
Commissioner Wolfe asked if he had seen the conceptual plan his attorney had referenced.
Dr. Metzger stated those plans are out of EPAC's Specific Plan and that drawing is acceptable; three house in this area all are stepped pads, even the Swartzbaugh's.
Mr. Rans rebutted the public testimony for EPAC; this plan was approved for a long time; second time they have requested this approval; the principal view of the Metzger's home is from the ocean to the east; the hill that was removed previously blocked their view; Swartzbaugh's issue was view, Metzger's issue was privacy; 3 years later Metzger's are now alleging View; willing to work with the Metzger's to cut down on the privacy issues; they cannot take the pad down anymore.
Chairman Douglas asked if the pad could be lowered anymore.
Mr. Rans stated the retaining walls to accomplish lowering the pad 6 feet would be more expensive than the building of the home.
Commissioner Wolfe asked if the Metzger's previously only raised a privacy issue and now are stating their issue is view.
Mr. Rans stated it was his understanding that in the previous hearings that the Metzger's issues were privacy not view.
Commissioner Bergman asked what the existing slope of the driveway is now.
Mr. Gilbertson stated on one side of the driveway it is at a 10.16% grade, and the steeper side is at 15%; the Municipal Code allows a driveway up to 25% grade, however he would never recommend a driveway that steep; the garage is already 4 feet below Dorothea and the 2 foot condition was to lower everything 2 feet but the garage.
Seeing no one else come forward Chairman Douglas closed the public hearing and asked for comments from the Commission.
Commissioner Wolfe stated he felt there has been new evidence presented at this meeting; he did not feel the applicant has not proven the burden of proof, the burden is on the applicant.
Chairman Douglas asked Commissioner Wolfe if he felt the applicant hadn't met the burden of proof relating to the view impairment.
Commissioner Wolfe stated yes.
Commissioner Hinz stated settlements are done for many reasons; felt if this was granted we would be taking something from the Metzger's; wants EPAC to be less disruptive
Vice-Chairman Skinner stated she was on the previous Planning Commission when this was passed; the City Council approved this pad in the early 90s.
Mr. Gilbertson stated the tentative tract map went through several drafts; in 1996-1998 EPAC purchased the site and they grading plan was approved; the tract map has been approved and it has been recorded; the grading plan has been approved, certified and accepted by the City Council and all the lots but Lot 9 have been built.
Vice-Chairman Skinner stated this is a legal pad; in 1999 the Schwartzbaugh's had a primary view concern; the main issue with the Metzger's was privacy; felt the Metzger's primary view is south to ocean and then east; primary view is not taken from the setback area; agrees with the Metzger's regarding their privacy; however this lot is legal; this is not a significant loss of view; hasn't changed her opinion from the 1999 decision; has considered the Metzger's statements regarding their view as new evidence and still hasn't changed her opinion.
Commissioner Bergman stated he would have liked to have the benefit of seeing this property with the hill; stated he has seen what the property looks like now; stated he basically agreed with what Commissioner Skinner had said.
Commissioner Hinz stated this is a new issue with new facts stated he won't be bound by what the previous Commission did.
Chairman Douglas asked the City Engineer if proper noticing was done for the previous meeting back in the 90s; asked if the pad elevation changed; asked if this was ever a split elevation pad.
Mr. Gilbertson stated he wasn't around in the early days of this project, however to his knowledge this has always been a single level pad.
Chairman Douglas stated this is a legal lot; is has been a disruption to the Metzger's, however any construction would be a disruption to the Metzger's; clearly the right to exceed 16 feet should be granted along with any other conditions of approval; view is a tricky issue in La Habra Heights, the Metzger's have approximately 250 degrees of view and it is wonderful; it is hard to say their primary view is blocked, clearly their view is altered; as long as the lot stands, what the Commission needs to focus on is are there mitigation's that can do anything at any height; concerned about the height of the poles.
Chairman Douglas asked what the pleasure of the Commission was.
Commissioner Hinz moved to deny project; seconded by Commissioner Wolfe.
AYES: Hinz and Wolfe
NOES: Bergman, Douglas and Skinner
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Motion failed.
Commissioner Wolfe stated he has visited the site; the Metzger's have a 240-degree view; has not received enough evidence from EPAC to persuade him that there is not a significant impact to their view; EPAC has the burden of proof and they haven't done that.
Chairman Douglas asked when the percentage of view blockage becomes significant.
Commissioner Wolfe stated you have to look at each application on an individual basis, he may be on the fence, but EPAC has not persuaded him.
Commissioner Hinz stated he agrees with Commissioner Wolfe, EPAC was not convincing; felt there has been a taking from the Metzger's without compensation.
Chairman Douglas states it is hard it agree with the applicant when the staking of poles doesn't represent what they are asking.
Vice-Chairman Skinner stated tonight evidence is a little different that what was previously presented, maybe more time would allow EPAC to gather more evidence.
Commissioner Hinz asked why she would want more evidence.
Vice-Chairman Skinner stated as far as she was concerned she has enough evidence.
Chairman Douglas didn't feel he wanted to get into a continuance.
Chairman Douglas asked for another motion.
Vice-Chairman Skinner moved to approve Standards Modification 2000-36 and Resolution 2001-01 with the added conditions from the recommendation; seconded by Commissioner Bergman and approved as follows:
AYES: Bergman, Douglas and Skinner
NOES: Hinz and Wolfe
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Commissioner Blagden returned to the dais.
ITEMS FROM THE PUBLIC
Chairman Douglas seeing no one come forward closed the public hearing.
ANNOUNCEMENTS FROM THE COMMISSION
Chairman Douglas recommended an items from the Commission be added to future agendas; he then announced the City Council would like to schedule some joint study sessions for the Council and the Planning Commission within the next two months and staff would be calling the Commissioners to determine dates the Council and Commission would be available.
Commissioner Wolfe stated May 14/29th would be good days for him.
Commissioner Blagden expressed a desire to see the podium be taken away and the table and chair be returned; he also asked to have plans back on the wall at these meetings.
Chairman Douglas stated the plans on the wall are quite helpful; staff can consider a table to allow applicants a little more ease in dealing with their paper.
ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Blagden moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:45 p.m.; Seconded by Commissioner Wolfe.
AYES: Douglas, Bergman, Blagden Skinner and Wolfe
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Bruce Douglas, Chairperson
ATTEST:
Sheryl Sanderson, Director of Planning
PAGE 9
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE LA HABRA HEIGHTS
PLANNING COMMISSION
March 27, 2001
OPENING CEREMONIES
CALL MEETING TO ORDER
A meeting of the La Habra Heights Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Richard Martin at 7:31 p.m. at the Community Center, 1245 North Hacienda Boulevard, La Habra Heights, California.
ROLL CALL
Those present: Chairman Richard Martin, Vice-Chairman David Maislen, Commissioners Randall Fritz, Marlin Gunns and Ginger Skinner. Also present: Director of Planning Sheryl Sanderson, Planning Technician Barbara Doppieri, City Engineer Dominic Milano, Deputy City Engineer David Gilbertson and Commission Attorney Paula Baeza.
FLAG SALUTE
Chairman Martin led the flag salute.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Vice Chairman Maislen announced the next Garden Harvest would be held April 14, 2001 from 9 am to 12 noon at ìThe Parkî.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF POSTING OF AGENDA FOR MEETING OF March 27, 2001
Ms. Sanderson stated the agenda had been posted in accordance with the state law.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Minutes of the regular Planning Commission Meeting of February 27, 2001.
Vice Chairman Maislen moved to approve the minutes; seconded by Commissioner Martin and approved as follows:
AYES: Fritz, Gunns, Martin, Maislen, and Skinner
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Standards Modification (SM) 2000-36 (Marc Gerber representing EPAC Construction, Inc)
501 Dorothea Road
Chairman Martin asked for a motion to table this item to the April 24, 2001 meeting.
Commissioner Skinner was not in favor of continuing this item.
Vice Chairman Maislen moved to table item to the April 24, 2001, seconded by Commissioner Gunns and approved as follows:
AYES: Gunns, Martin, and Maislen
NOES: Skinner & Fritz
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Tree Removal Permit (TRP) 2001-01 (Pat Klinker) 1280 Walnut Street
Chairman Martin asked for a motion to continue this item as well.
Commissioner Skinner moved to hear item 8 and not continue it. Commissioner Fritz seconded the motion.
AYES: Fritz & Skinner.
NOES: Gunns, Martin & Maislen
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Motion failed.
Vice Chairman Maislen moved to continue this item to the April 24, 2001 Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Gunns seconded the motion.
AYES: Gunns, Martin, and Maislen.
NOES: Fritz & Skinner
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
ITEMS FROM THE PUBLIC
Chairman Martin asked anyone from the public who wished to speak to come forward. Seeing no one come forward, he closed the public hearing.
ADJOURNMENT
Vice Chairman Maislen moved to adjourn the meeting at 8:00 p.m.; Seconded by Commissioner Gunns. :
AYES: Fritz, Gunns, Martin, Maislen, and Skinner.
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Richard Martin, Chairperson
ATTEST:
Sheryl Sanderson, Director of Planning
PAGE 2
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE LA HABRA HEIGHTS
PLANNING COMMISSION
February 27, 2001
OPENING CEREMONIES
CALL MEETING TO ORDER
A meeting of the La Habra Heights Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Richard Martin at 7:33 p.m. at the Community Center, 1245 North Hacienda Boulevard, La Habra Heights, California.
ROLL CALL
Those present: Chairman Richard Martin, Vice-Chairman David Maislen, Commissioners Randall Fritz, Marlin Gunns and Ginger Skinner. Also present: Director of Planning Sheryl Sanderson, Planning Technician Barbara Doppieri, and Commission Attorney Paula Baeza.
FLAG SALUTE
Commissioner Skinner led the flag salute.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Vice Chairman Maislen announced the next Garden Harvest at The Park would be held March 10, 2001 from 9am to noon; he encouraged everyone to vote on March 6, 2001.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF POSTING OF AGENDA FOR MEETING OF February 27, 2001
Ms. Sanderson stated the agenda had been posted in accordance with the state law.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Minutes of the regular Planning Commission Meeting of January 23, 2001.
Vice Chairman Maislen moved to approve the minutes; seconded by Commissioner Gunns and approved as follows:
AYES: Fritz, Gunns, Martin, Maislen, and Skinner
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Conditional use Permit 2000-09 (Sun Mar Healthcare) 2400 Panchoy Place
Ms. Sanderson stated the applicant Sun Mar Healthcare has withdrawn their application; stated as this was a continued item it had to come back to the Commission as required.
Chairman Martin instructed staff to receive and file Sun Mar Healthcare letter.
Vice Chairman Maislen asked if they reapply will there be new public noticing of this project.
Ms. Sanderson stated if Sun Mar Healthcare reapplies it will be a brand new application and yes it would require new public noticing.
Tentative Parcel Map 26006 (La Habra Cloister, LLC) West Side of Cloister Drive, South of West Road (identified as APN# 8236-016-008)
Ms. Sanderson presented the staff report stating this item was continued from the January 23, 2001 Planning Commission meeting in order for staff to bring back the resolution as instructed by the Commission; she stated the applicant had also submitted a letter requesting to reduce the parcel map from four lots to three.
Chairman Martin asked if any of the Commissioners had any comments on this letter.
Commissioner Fritz stated he would want to see specific proposal of what the lot split would be, before he commented.
Vice Chairman Maislen stated was against the four parcels, is also against three parcels, felt this lot is designed for one parcel because of the access driveway; traffic on this access driveway is dangerous, would support a single home.
Commissioner Gunns asked at what point does the eighteen-foot driveway become legal.
Ms. Sanderson stated when it serves one home, when it serves more than one it needs 20 feet.
Commissioner Gunns felt this was a tough situation to overcome.
Chairman Martin stated he was not seeing a lot of support for the change to three lots; felt the applicant was asking for a three lot subdivision and then the applicant and staff would spend the next month working out the details; seeing no support for the change he asked for any comments from the Commission before they move forward in passing the Resolution to deny the Tentative Parcel Map.
Vice Chairman Maislen clarified in the Resolution in Item 2 in Section 5 states that this site is not suitable for multiple lots.
Ms. Sanderson confirmed Vice Chairman Maislen was correct.
Vice Chairman Maislen moved to approve Resolution 2000-24 denying Tentative Parcel Map 26006. Seconded by Commissioner Gunns, resolution approved as follows:
AYES: Fritz, Gunns, Martin, and Maislen
NOES: Skinner
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Variance 2000-01 (Richard Pierce) 1480 Harbor Boulevard
Ms. Sanderson stated this item was continued from the January 23, 2001 Planning Commission meeting in order to allow staff the opportunity to prepare the resolution which recommends approval to the City Council; an amended Resolution was given to each Commissioner adding an additional condition; this condition was suggested by the Deputy City Engineer; Ms. Skinner had voiced a concern and Mr. Gilbertson incorporated a condition that addressed her concerns; the condition reads as follows ìThe proposed retaining wall and parkway grading shall taper down to join the natural grade at the southerly end of the project to the satisfaction of the City Engineerî.
Commissioner Skinner states the visual impact of this was important; the wall needed to follow the curb; when the wall is filled there is a small area at the end where 2-3 feet drops off; she was looking for a way to eliminate the drop off; wants it to be aesthetically pleasing; the safety issue is taken care of by this condition; asked staff if this condition reflects her concerns.
Ms. Sanderson stated she would meet with Mr. Gilbertson to ensure that it does reflect her concerns.
Commissioner Skinner stated she wanted to ensure the safety issue was addressed.
Commissioner Gunns asked for clarification of the end of this wall.
Vice Chairman Maislen explained Commissioner Skinner was concerned about a drop off at the end of the property, as the fill dirt could not be placed on the neighbor's property, this condition will eliminate a drop off.
Vice Chairman Maislen states he is not against a wall larger than six feet.
Commissioner Gunns moved to adopt Resolution 2000-25 and forward a recommendation to the City Council to approve this project. Seconded by Vice Chairman Maislen and approved as follows:
AYES: Fritz, Gunns, Martin, Maislen, and Skinner.
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
ITEMS FROM THE PUBLIC
Ms. Sanderson swore in those wishing to testify.
Jim Messinger, 205 Leucadia stated he came to speak against the expansion of the Heights Inn; spoke regarding survey he presented to the Commission; spoke regarding public noticing; questioned the environmental report on this project.
Commissioner Gunns explained to the public that if they wishes to submit information to the Commission regarding projects on the agenda they need to submit the information to staff at least a week or more before the meeting; submitting information at the last minute does not allow the Commission time to study what is submitted.
Ms. Baeza stated this petition would be placed in the file.
William Hertzog, 1471 Cloister voiced his concerns regarding a recent campaign flyer, criticizing the Planning Commission for taking away someone's view; unfortunately this picture appears to have something superimposed on it; asked the Planning Commission if this is what was approved, is this before and after pictures.
Commissioner Gunns asked what he was referring to.
Mr. Hertzog distributed the flyer to the Commission and asked as a citizen if he was being properly informed.
Ms. Baeza stated this item would need to be agendized for the Planning to discuss it; if they wished it could be agendized to the next Planning Commission Meeting.
Chairman Martin advised Mr. Hertzog that the Commission would look into this matter and if it required further discussion it would be agendized to the next Planning Commission Meeting.
Vice Chairman Maislen stated the pictures are self-explanatory.
Chairman Martin encouraged everyone to vote.
Vice Chairman Maislen agreed with Chairman Martin.
Commissioner Skinner stated she would be resigning after this term in office.
ADJOURNMENT
Vice-Chairman Maislen moved to adjourn the meeting at 8:10 p.m.; Seconded by Commissioner Gunns and approved as follows:
AYES: Fritz, Gunns, Martin, Maislen, and Skinner.
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Richard Martin, Chairperson
ATTEST:
Sheryl Sanderson, Director of Planning
PAGE 1
CITY OF LA HABRA HEIGHTS
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE LA HABRA HEIGHTS
PLANNING COMMISSION
January 23, 2001
OPENING CEREMONIES
CALL MEETING TO ORDER
A meeting of the La Habra Heights Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Richard Martin at 7:33 p.m. at the Community Center, 1245 North Hacienda Boulevard, La Habra Heights, California.
ROLL CALL
Those present: Chairman Richard Martin, Vice-Chairman David Maislen, Commissioners Randall Fritz, Marlin Gunns and Ginger Skinner. Also present: Director of Planning Sheryl Sanderson, Planning Technician Barbara Doppieri, Deputy City Engineer Dave Gilbertson, Fire Marshal Bill Milligan and Commission Attorney Paula Baeza.
FLAG SALUTE
Commissioner Skinner led the flag salute.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Vice Chairman Maislen announced the next Garden Harvest at The Park would be held February 10th from 9am to noon; The I Love La Habra Festival will be held February 9, 10, 11; encouraged everyone to watch the new video which will be airing shortly on Channel 3, "Save our Open Space".
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF POSTING OF AGENDA FOR MEETING OF January 23, 2001
Ms. Sanderson stated the agenda had been posted in accordance with the state law.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Minutes of the regular Planning Commission Meeting of November 28, 2000.
Vice Chairman Maislen moved to approve the minutes; seconded by Commissioner Skinner and approved as follows:
AYES: Fritz, Gunns, Martin, Maislen, and Skinner
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Ms. Sanderson swore in those wishing to testify.
Tentative Parcel Map 26006 (La Habra Cloister, LLC) West Side of Cloister Drive, South of West Road (identified as APN# 8236-016-008)
Ms. Sanderson presented the staff report stating this item was continued from the November 28, 2000 Planning Commission meeting in order to allow the Planning, Engineering and Fire Department Staff to determine if the conditions of approval listed in the Planning Commission Resolution 90-29 were consistent with the proposed conditions of approval listed in Draft Planning Commission Resolution 2000-24; based upon the Planning Commission Resolution 90-29, revised conditions of approval have been incorporated into the draft Planning Commission Resolution 2000-24. In addition, the water district was sent a copy of the Tentative Parcel Map for review and approval and their recommended conditions of approval have also been incorporated into the recommended conditions of approval; she presented some revisions to conditions of the resolution; 1) Condition 10 should read, the parcel map must be based on a field survey, 2) Condition 17 is revised to read, the common driveway plan shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval and shall be based on current Municipal Code Standards and design guideline; there are 3 additional conditions that need to be added, they are 1) The Planning Commission recommends elimination of the requirements of the street lights in accordance with Section 192.6 of the Subdivision Ordinance since all lots contain an area greater than 40,000 sq. ft. and street lights are not necessary to maintain the continuity of the neighborhood pattern 2) The Planning Commission recommends the elimination of the requirement for sidewalks in accordance with Section 196.8 of the Subdivision Ordinance since all lots exceed 15,000 sq. ft. in area and sidewalks are not necessary to maintain the continuity of the neighborhood pattern 3) The applicant shall dedicate to the City of La Habra Heights the right to prohibit any further subdivision of the land covered by this parcel map; staff recommends that Tentative Parcel Map 26006 be granted to create 4 lots from an existing parcel of property subject to the revised conditions of approval and adoption of Planning Commission Resolution 2000-24.
Chairman Martin asked with all the changes that have been made, has there been any of significant consequence.
Ms. Sanderson stated yes, one condition could affect the recording of the parcel map; the condition that the private driveway needs to be a minimum of 20 foot wide clear; this could affect the recordation of the parcel map.
Vice Chairman Maislen asked why the Commission is going forward with this, since the owner cannot obtain the distance necessary for a 20 foot right of way and two retaining walls.
Mr. Gilbertson stated the applicant has the right to attempt to obtain additional easement area from the neighboring properties to widen the driveway to whatever width is necessary to meet this condition.
Vice Chairman Maislen questioned why they didn't have to get the easement before they receive approvals.
Mr. Gilbertson stated they would have to obtain the easements before recording the map.
Vice Chairman Maislen asked staff for a better understanding of item 31 of the Resolution, felt at this point with the map that staff has the Fire Department should know whether they want a hammerhead turnaround or a cul-de-sac; they should know what they want.
Mr. Milligan stated the applicant has a choice whether they want a hammerhead turnaround or a cul-de-sac.
Vice Chairman Maislen stated it was his intention to save the trees and have the developer move the pad on lot 4 and maintain a ten foot clearance around the trees, where no grading could be done within 10 feet; asked if this condition could be added.
Commissioner Skinner had a lot of concerns on this project.
Vice Chairman Maislen asked was item 17 changed to remove reference to 4-8-87 grading plan; will a new grading plan be required.
Ms. Sanderson stated yes.
Vice Chairman Maislen asked regarding where the utilities would be installed underground.
Mr. Gilbertson explained the driveway would also be a utilities easement; 20 feet is adequate for the utilities.
Commissioner Skinner asked staff regarding moving the fire hydrant out of the cul-de-sac.
Mr. Milligan stated the hydrant would be moved.
Commissioner Gunns felt this project has so many conditions on it, it is doomed before it starts; didn't feel 4 lots would be acceptable for this property.
Vice Chairman Maislen stated he was troubled by LHHMC Section 8511 and why this development was not considered a Multiple Lot Development; felt a 25% grade on the driveway should not be allowed; asked staff to explain why this is not considered a Multi Lot Development.
Mr. Gilbertson stated it was the determination of the City Attorney, the Director of Planning and the City Engineer that this project did not fall under the Multi Lot Development guidelines; it is a single parcel being developed; it is not two or more parcels being developed by the same owner; this is not a land locked parcel, it already has an easement.
Vice Chairman Maislen stated it ultimately will be 4 parcels; stated the LHHMC is not clear.
Ms. Sanderson quoted from LHHMC in order for it to be a Multi Lot Development it must be ì1) two or more contiguous lots or parcels of land, 2) the development of a single parcel where any adjacent lot or parcel is under common ownership or control, or 3) the provision of access to one or more lots or parcels where no access is currently provided or the creation of two or more parcels or lots from one existing parcel or lotî; for this project to be a Multi Lot Development it must meet provision number 1 and either provisions 2 or 3.
Vice Chairman Maislen recommended that this section be rewritten to make it clear.
Chairman Martin opened the public hearing.
Barbara Stracner, 1451 Cloister stated will not grant any additional easement to widen the driveway; concerned about the trees.
George Yackey, 1434 Cloister stated 4 additional homes on this street will cause additional traffic; felt there is a safety hazard with this proposal.
Stephen Blagden, 2118 Citron stated he wrote a 12 page letter to the Commission on this project; stated the Commission had the ability to fix a mistake that was made 10 years ago; felt this was a Multiple Lot Development; Health Code requires percolation tests be done prior to recording the map; this would create flag lots.
Allen Herzog, 1471 Cloister stated this lot was previously part of a subdivision; felt 15% grade for the driveway was proper; lives next to the proposed driveway and will not grant an easement for the driveway; requested the Commission deny the division of this parcel; felt traffic will increase by 50% on Cloister Drive; wants deed restrictions to protect the trees; submitted to the Commission a petition from surrounding residents recommending denial of the project.
Purandar Amin, 815 S. Central Avenue, Ste 29, Glendale, CA 91204 stated the 1990 Conditions of Approval have been incorporated in the current resolution; states restriction of 20 foot wide drive way is OK; will meet the slope requirement of the driveway; wants to move forward with this project; asked the Commission to approve this project.
John Erickson, 1417 Cloister Drive expressed concerns regarding the drainage off the site; gave overview of previous Commission hearings on this project; driveway is too steep.
Chairman Martin asked how he voted on the previous approvals.
Mr. Erickson stated he never saw a complete parcel map; driveway approach to the road was of great concern.
Chairman Martin closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Gunns stated there are two decisions pass the existing resolution with conditions that are unattainable or to deny it and request the applicant come back with a better plan.
Commissioner Skinner stated there may be some conditions that the applicant may not be able to meet, she felt the property owner meets current ordinances and this gives him the right to split the lot; as much as she doesn't want this development to take place, she respects the owners right to develop the land; she has some concerns regarding the 1990 conditions and current conditions; the biologist and paleontologist reports use the word should instead of shall, that has a real different meaning; preferred the 1990 Resolution.
Commissioner Fritz was not comfortable splitting this site into four parcels.
Vice Chairman Maislen stated this project is very poor land use; moved to deny this lot split.
Chairman Martin asked staff if this property was part of a prior subdivision.
Mr. Gilbertson stated the recording information on the tentative map indicated that this was part of a very ancient subdivision.
Chairman Martin questioned why if past Commissions and Councils had approved this project why this Commission would deny the same request; driveway is less than ideal.
Vice Chairman Maislen moved to deny Tentative Parcel Map 26006. Seconded by Commissioner Gunns:
AYES: Fritz, Gunns, Martin, and Maislen
NOES: Skinner
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Ms Sanderson advised the Commission the Resolution would be brought back for their approval at the next Planning Commission Meeting.
Variance 2000-01 (Richard Pierce) 1480 Harbor Boulevard
Ms. Sanderson stated this item was continued from the November 28, 2000 Planning Commission meeting in order to allow the applicant to provide an accurate site plan; according to the submitted site plan, the variance is for an approximately 225 ft portion of the proposed fence which is to be placed less than 5 ft from the front property line in addition to also locate along the property line. The proposed fence will be of open materials and will be 6 ft in height situated on top of a 3 ft retaining wall; staff is still recommending that the Planning Commission forward a recommendation to the City Council for denial of Variance 2000-01 to increase the height of a fence (6 ft proposed 3 ft required) within the front yard setback area and adoption of Planning Commission Resolution 2000-25; there is a correction to page 2 of the Resolution, under #3 the second sentence should read ìa 6 foot fence within the front yard setback could be inconsistent with the City's General Plan goals and policies.
Chairman Martin asked if the Commission had any questions of staff.
Vice Chairman Maislen asked what happened since the last meeting; it was his understanding the applicant was going to go back and work with staff to meet our code provisions.
Ms. Sanderson stated the applicant has reduced the size of the retaining wall from 4 feet to 3 feet which is in compliance with the code, had changed the fence from being a solid block wall to an open material; applicant has chosen to locate 225 feet less than five feet from the property line and in some cases on the property line.
Commissioner Skinner clarified the reason the variance is before the Commission is because the fence is on the property line.
Ms. Sanderson some of the fence is closer than 5 feet and that is what is in question; the height is an issue for the variance for the portion that is less than 5 feet from the property line; if the fence is less than 5 feet from the property line it cannot exceed 3 feet in height.
Commissioner Gunns asked if the portion of the fence that is closer to the property line is on the lower part to the plans submitted.
Commissioner Fritz asked what is the overall height of a fence allowed within the setback.
Ms. Sanderson stated within the front yard setback the fence cannot exceed 3 1/2 feet unless they meet the following criteria, the wall or fence shall not exceed a height of 6 feet in height, the wall or fence shall be located at least 5 feet from the property line, at least 90 % of portion of the wall or fence which is above 3 feet in height shall be constructed of non-view obscuring, open material, such as wrought iron.
Commissioner Fritz asked if you put a 6-foot fence on top of a 3-foot wall wouldn't it be a 9-foot wall.
Mr. Gilbertson stated the retaining wall portion of this is not counted in this calculation, because it cannot be seen from the roadway, it is below grade,
Commissioner Skinner clarified that the north half of the proposed wall was in compliance, second half is not.
Ms. Sanderson clarified that this is his front yard, the definition states the yard that fronts on a street is considered the front yard.
Commissioner Skinner clarified that some parcels on Harbor do not front Harbor; in some cases the fencing on Harbor is in side or rear yards.
Vice Chairman Maislen agreed with Commissioner Skinner.
Commissioner Fritz asked regarding the entryway.
Ms. Sanderson stated the entryway is in the side yard setback and it can be a solid 6-foot fence that goes right up to the property line.
Commissioner Gunns asked how far off the road does the applicants property line run.
Mr. Gilbertson stated in the southerly portion of this right of way area varies from 10 feet to 18 feet.
Commissioner Skinner asked who owns the land between the applicant's property and the curb.
Mr. Gilbertson stated this property is owned by the City and maintained by the County.
Chairman Martin re-opened the public hearing.
Richard Pierce, 837 Wildrose, Brea, CA 92821 showed a sample of the wrought iron 6 foot section with the pilaster that will be used, explained showing a map the route the fence will go; wants to match neighbors fence; this house has no front yard it is all side and back yard; wants to keep wall at the same elevation with the curb; will bring dirt in to fill from the curb to the wall.
Commissioner Gunns asked why they would lower the wall below the curb line, shouldn't it follow the curb.
Mr. Gilbertson agreed this was the best idea; it would maintain a consistent shoulder area.
Austin Aikopojoe, 1480 Harbor Blvd. questioned the definition of his front yard; cited LHHMC Section 9121.6F; others have built walls on Harbor; showed examples; they should all be treated the same; 180 feet of wall will be placed on the property line; wants wall to look nice; plans to construct a pool and the dirt will be enough to fill behind the wall; asked to build this wall.
Vice Chairman Maislen asked Mr. Aikopojoe when he bought the property.
Mr. Aikopojoe stated in December 1999.
Vice Chairman Maislen asked if he did research of what he could do before he bought the property.
Mr. Aikopojoe stated no not really, he came to the office after he bought the house, moved into the house in December 1999, came to the office in January to find out about the easements; was told to get a survey.
Vice Chairman Maislen asked if he were told the fencing he wanted to use would not be allowed.
Mr. Aikopojoe stated no it was in October when he started talking about building a wall; had no idea what would be required; no one at the City would give him information on the easements; first met with Mr. Gilbertson in April.
Vice Chairman Maislen asked staff if Mr. Aikopojoe inquired regarding a wall before he bought the property.
Mrs. Doppieri stated she was unsure of the time frame; the first time Mr. Aikopojoe came in he stated he was purchasing the property, the second time he came in he spoke to Mr. Gilbertson and the third time he spoke to Mr. Milano.
Mr. Aikopojoe stated he had already moved in.
Commissioner Fritz clarified the proposal was to fill in the area between Harbor and the 3 foot retaining wall, which is City property, maintained by the County of Los Angeles.
Mr. Gilbertson stated that is correct.
Commissioner Fritz asked what will be done at the south end of the wall where it transitions into his neighbors property, will it be 3 foot of fill.
Mr. Gilbertson stated he would have to have a portion of the retaining wall that turns along his side property line to pick up that grade difference; that is a detail left (unable to understand the tape).
Commissioner Fritz asked if it was not a problem to fill in this land that is City property.
Mr. Gilbertson stated no; this would improve the City's property.
Chairman Martin seeing no one else comes forward, he closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Gunns clarified the reason for the variance was that the lower portion along the property line and the fence is taller than three feet.
Ms. Sanderson stated the variance is for the height, if the wall were five feet back he would not need a variance.
Commissioner Gunns stated this is close to what the Commission asked for.
Commissioner Gunns asked if the project could be conditioned to have the retaining wall follow the slope of the hill.
Vice Chairman Maislen asked to revisit staff's recommendation for denial; what specific part of the project has caused staff to recommend denial.
Ms. Sanderson stated staff felt the burden of proof has not been met by the applicant, if the Planning Commission finds that the burden of proof has been met, then they can recommend to the City Council that it be approved and direct staff to prepare a resolution approving it; staff asked what type of conditions they would like incorporated in the conditions of approval; according to the code in order for calculation purposes if the retaining wall exceeds 3 feet in height and it is not retaining any soil, it is added into the calculations.
Commissioner Gunns stated he thought it was retaining soil.
Mr. Gilbertson stated the whole intent was to retain the shoulder area of the street.
Commissioner Fritz stated he was more in favor of it, if it is retaining soil.
Mr. Gilbertson stated if the area were filled in, all that will be seen would be six feet of fence.
Ms. Sanderson stated she was unaware before tonight that the area was to be filled in; the variance was for approximately 225 feet of fence; the entryway was not affected.
Vice Chairman Maislen stated he supports this simply because of the orientation of his home.
Mr. Gilbertson clarified on the plans exactly where the wall was and what were in question.
Commissioner Skinner stated the property is very noisy, this is a great improvement.
Commissioner Gunns moved to recommend to the City Council approval of this project with the following conditions. Condition (1) 3- foot retaining wall increase to 4 foot and backfill the fence. Condition (2) drainage improvements to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Seconded by Vice Chairman Maislen and approved as follows:
Chairman Martin praised Ms. Sanderson for her work on this case.
Commissioner Gunns agreed with Chairman Martin stating Ms. Sanderson is consistent interpreting the Municipal Code, she is doing exactly what she is suppose to be doing.
Vice Chairman Maislen agreed with Commissioners Martin and Gunns, there has been a tremendous improvement with staff reports, minutes and it is making the Commissioners job much easier, even Mr. Gilbertson is doing a better job.
AYES: Fritz, Gunns, Martin, Maislen, and Skinner.
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Ms. Sanderson stated she would be bringing back the resolution at their February 27th meeting for the Commission to take final action.
ITEMS FROM THE PUBLIC
Stephen Blagden, 2118 Citron Road, promoted his web site; stated videotapes of all City Council and Planning Commission meetings are available at City Hall for check out.
ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Martin moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:30 p.m.; Seconded by Vice Chairman Maislen and approved as follows:
AYES: Fritz, Gunns, Martin, Maislen, and Skinner.
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Richard Martin, Chairperson
ATTEST:
Sheryl Sanderson, Director of Planning
PAGE 9