December - No Meeting
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE LA HABRA HEIGHTS
PLANNING COMMISSION
November 28, 2000
OPENING CEREMONIES
CALL MEETING TO ORDER
A meeting of the La Habra Heights Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Richard Martin at 7:35 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 Fritz. Led the flag salute.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Vice Chairman Maislen announced the next Garden Harvest at The Park would be held December 9th from 9am to noon.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF POSTING OF AGENDA FOR MEETING OF November 28, 2000
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 October 24, 2000.
Vice Chairman Maislen moved to approve the minutes; seconded by Commissioner Fritz 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 application was submitted by La Habra Cloister Land, LLC to request a Tentative Parcel Map (TPM) to create 4 lots from an existing parcel on the west side of Cloister Drive, south of West Road; the site is 4.41 acres in size and is zoned RA-1 with a Rural General Plan designation and is within View Preservation District A; in 1990 a TPM for a 4 lot parcel map was granted for the subject site by adoption of Planning Commission Resolution 90-29; the map expired prior to it being recorded; the TPM before the Commission is the original design configuration; the lot vary in size from 1-acre to 1.33 gross acres and the average slope of the lots varies from 18.4% to 31.8%; the reports submitted with the previous approved TPM for the site which expired prior to it being recorded has been updated and the recommended mitigation measures have been incorporated into the conditions of approval; a 20-foot wide reciprocal access easement is proposed which provides access to the 4-lots; the tentative parcel map has been reviewed environmentally and a Categorical Exemption has been issued in accordance with CEQA; staff recommends that TPM 26006 be granted to create 4 lots from an existing parcel subject to conditions of approval and adoption of Planning Commission Resolution 2000-24.
Chairman Martin asked if the Commission had any questions for staff.
Vice Chairman Maislen asked for a report from the Fire Department.
Fire Marshal Milligan stated the Fire Department had looked at these plans again and would like the following conditions added to the resolution; a 20 foot width to the private drive, a fire hydrant within 600 feet of the structures with 750 GPM with a steamer hydrant.
Ms. Sanderson stated that if the Commission chose to add these conditions the resolution would need to be revised.
Vice Chairman Maislen asked if the driveway width between the retaining walls was wide enough to ask for a 20-foot width.
Mr. Gilbertson stated the parcel only has a 20-foot easement for the driveway; the current driveway width is 1 foot 4 inches short of 20 foot wide, because of the retaining walls; the original parcel map was brought before the Planning Commission in 1988 and was approved.
Chairman Martin asked what was the purpose of the 20-foot width.
Mr. Gilbertson stated it is part of the code; it allows for two-way traffic.
Chairman Martin asked how wide is it currently.
Mr. Gilbertson stated it is currently 18 - feet wide; he felt the 18 - foot width on the driveway was adequate as it only serves four lots.
Mr. Milligan stated there is a problem with the retaining walls; felt the Fire Department can overlook the 20-foot width; the adoption of the Uniform Fire Code established the 20-foot driveway width; this was established because new fire engines keep getting bigger.
Commissioner Skinner asked if a turnaround would be required.
Mr. Gilbertson stated there would be a Fire Department turnaround would be required; there would be a hammerhead designation.
Vice Chairman Maislen requested that staff understand what additional conditions need to be written into this approval.
Ms. Sanderson asked the Fire Department to read the additional conditions into the record.
Mr. Milligan stated there would be a hammerhead turnaround, 18 foot paved road, water availability certificate, fire hydrant within 600 feet of all structures with a 750 GPM, with a steamer hydrant and a 4-inch and 2 - inch outlet.
Vice Chairman Maislen asked what happens if between the retaining walls the road is not 18 feet.
Mr. Milligan stated the Fire Department must have the full 18 feet paved.
Vice Chairman Maislen stated it should be so stipulated, if the distance is less than 18 feet then the walls need to be moved.
Chairman Martin asked for clarification of the requirement for the special fire hydrant.
Mr. Milligan stated on Cloister there is a standard warp hydrant, however for this development the Fire Department wants the steamer hydrant with both a 4 inch and 2 - inch outlet.
Vice Chairman Maislen asked regarding the report from the Water Department.
Ms. Sanderson stated it has not been a recent practice of the Planning Department to send it off to the Water Company for comment.
Vice Chairman Maislen asked if the determination regarding the water should be done before or after the lot split.
Mr. Gilbertson stated it is something that should be done before the lot split; new water mains will need to be installed to serve the four houses and the hydrants.
Commissioner Fritz asked where the front yard setbacks would be measured from for lots 1 and 2.
Mr. Gilbertson stated the front yard setback would be measured from the edge of the fire lane.
Mr. Gilbertson asked to add a condition to the resolution that was inadvertently left off the conditions; that percolation tests be conducted prior to the recordation of the final map.
Vice Chairman Maislen asked regarding the archeological habitats and a stand of 85 pine trees; how does this lot split impact what is said in the ecological reports.
Mr. Gilbertson stated there are conditions of approval that the applicant has to comply with the recommendations contained in the paleontological and arborist reports; additionally in the 1990 approval there were conditions imposed in these areas; one being restricted use of the area of the pine trees; therefore the pad for lot 4 would need to be moved out of the stand of trees; by moving the pad north it would then be out of the stand of outcroppings.
Vice Chairman Maislen asked why was the City presented with the same map as before.
Mr. Gilbertson stated approval of the map does not approve the pad location; there will be a flood hazard line on the recorded map, a one hundred year flood line and all pads will have to be out of that area.
Commissioner Fritz asked if pad locations could be restricted within this approval.
Mr. Gilbertson stated yes you can restrict pad location; the 1990 approvals did add a restricted use zone on lot 4; arborist and paleontologist will have to be on site during construction of any of the four lots, in addition to the construction of the driveway; staff have requested the driveway be constructed prior to the recordation of the map.
Chairman Martin asked how would the owners of lot 4 know they are not suppose to dig around in the restricted zone.
Mr. Gilbertson stated if it is shown on the map, then it will show up in the title report.
Vice Chairman Maislen concerned whether the developer would actually have the arborist and paleontologist on hand while development occurs.
Mr. Gilbertson stated the Commission could add a condition that the developer, develop a buyer awareness package to be approved by the Planning Director or City Staff for each of the four lots, this would alert potential buyers of the restricted use zone.
Vice Chairman Maislen stated he thought that would be very appropriate and asked that it be added as a condition of approval.
Ms. Sanderson stated she had copies of the 8-23-1990 Planning Commission Minutes and the Conditions approved at this meeting; the Commission might want to consider adding the following conditions (1) development of lot 4 is subject to Planning Commission approval (2) a Tree Preservation Area shall be designated by a line 5 foot distance from that line that represents the perimeter of all pine trees where their diameter exceeds 24 inches above local ground (3) no trees shall be removed from this area without permission of the Planning Commission (4) the applicant shall prepare a deed restriction to run with the land as approved by form by the City Attorney providing information concerning the proper care watering and maintenance of the trees on the subject site (5) the total allowable impervious surface for the four lots shall include for each a proportionate share of that impervious surface resulting from the paved driveway crossing the segregate parcel adjacent to the south, said parcel shall not be assessed any portion of any such impervious coverage and applicant shall cause a covenant declaring such to be recorded against the parcel .
Vice Chairman Maislen asked for a clarification of condition #5.
Mr. Gilbertson recommended not adopting the last condition; it basically says the impervious coverage is divided in 4, each parcel would then share º of the driveway in their impervious calculations; this condition just reaffirms what the Engineering Department already does.
Vice Chairman Maislen felt the Planning Director could approve the relocation of the pad and it would not need to come back to the Commission.
Chairman Martin asked if this was a condition of approval.
Ms. Sanderson stated this was a revision that was added to the resolution Mr. Gilbertson was talking about.
Chairman Martin clarified those conditions were part of the conditions of approval that expired and they are not part of the new resolution; asked why those conditions would not carry forward.
Mr. Gilbertson stated they were not carried forward because they were only found a few days ago; he asked that these conditions be added with the exception of the one condition regarding the driveway and impervious coverage.
Vice Chairman Maislen asked if there were any other conditions missing that should be added.
Commissioner Fritz clarified if they add the restriction staying 8 feet beyond any tree over 24 inches in diameter, would that get the pad away from the fossils.
Mr. Gilbertson stated it would need consultation with the paleontologist to confirm it.
Chairman Martin opened the public hearing.
Allen Herzog, 1471 Cloister stated the conditions of approval from the prior resolution resulted after many hours of debate; the prior resolution belongs as is; there shouldn't be modifications; he felt it was the prior Planning Commission feeling that if there were any changes to lot 4 they would be taken back to the Planning Commission; (transcriber unable to here resident on the tape); wants Fire Marshal to consider two other items; prior approvals required a fire hydrant and hydrant at hammerhead turnaround; this lot split is the same as what has been approved twice before; in each of the prior approvals the developer agreed to preserve the 75 year old stand of pine trees located on lot 4; questioned width and grade of driveway; the driveway of lot 4 crosses a culvert which drains the site to the La Mirada Creek, asked for a bridge instead of storm drains; asked if there would be agreements to maintain the culverts; spoke regarding the arborist report and how it differs with the City's Tree Removal Permit; no view preservation has been given to lot 4, felt trees would be cut down to enhance the view; no consideration has been given to the fact that the trees have been a prized part of the West Side of town for many years; thinks developer plans to destroy the trees; took exception to the negative declaration; driveway will cause problems with traffic on Cloister; questioned no comments from the Water Department.
Purandar Amin, 815 S. Central Avenue, Ste 29, Glendale, CA 91204 stated he met Mr. Herzog on the site; 8 trees have already been destroyed by fire or have died; assured the Commission that the trees increase the value of the property; wants to plant additional trees on the perimeter; no view impact on Mr. Hertzog's property; plenty of place on lot 4 for the location of the pad; will comply with any condition regarding the water flow; these 4 houses would not increase traffic or noise substantially; arborist and paleontologist will be present when development occurs.
Commissioner Skinner asked if he was the new owner of this property.
Mr. Amin states they bought the property in January of 2000.
Vice Chairman Maislen asked if the applicant agreed to relocate the pad on lot 4 and would they stay out of the pine trees and archeological sites during development.
Mr. Amin stated yes they would relocate the pad on lot 4 if necessary; there are only 6 trees in the pad location now; eight of the pine trees have fallen or burned down; proposed the City approve the final location of lot 4.
Vice Chairman Maislen didn't feel there was a lot of room for the pad to move.
Mr. Amin felt there was plenty of room where there are no trees.
Commissioner Fritz clarified the applicant was in agreement to keep the pad out of the pine tree perimeter.
Mr. Amin agreed.
Chairman Martin asked staff if the conditions of approval for the new resolution are the same as the prior approvals if 1990,
Mr. Gilbertson stated the conditions are consistent with the 1983 and 1990 approvals; the project is virtually the same; the conditions are worded differently, because now we have standardized computer conditions, they may be worded differently but they are saying the same thing, with the addition of tonight's conditions.
Ms. Sanderson stated the Planning conditions are standard conditions.
Chairman Martin asked if someone challenged these conditions would the conditions be interpreted the same.
Ms. Sanderson stated each condition would need to be analyzed, the intent was there, the conditions are worded differently.
Vice Chairman Maislen stated if staff needs more time to make sure the resolution that is dealt with is at least as restrictive as it was ten years ago, to protect what this community wants protected, then he is in favor of a continuance.
Chairman Martin stated there might be something in the conditions that need to be updated or changed.
Mr. Gilbertson stated a continuance would allow staff to incorporate the Water District conditions from the original conditions.
Dan Stracner, 1451 Cloister Drive stated the drainage from this site is terrible; the width and slope of the driveway is dangerous; road runs next to their barn and will disturb their horses; vehicles will create a great deal of noise going up this driveway; the rural environment will be changed materially by this approval; concerned with a view impairment because of the building of lot 1; will be disruptive to the neighborhood; pine trees have endured a lot, it would be a shame to see them taken out.
Bob Gilbert, 4552 Lincoln Ste 206, Cypress, CA 90630 stated his company prepared the map for this approval; when new owner approached him, he simply copied the original map; asked to not have the hearing continued; the grade of the road is at 25% and that is the maximum allowable by the City.
Mr. Gilbertson stated the plan for the driveway will have to go through the plan check process again which will include hydrology and hydraulics to determine the size of the culvert and the adequacy of the swale along the driveway to ensure that all 4 pads are properly protected and no erosion occurs and that it is safely distributed into Leffingwell Creek and not causing erosion; he stated there is a swale 15-20 feet north of the driveway; new plans will need to be drawn because standards have changed over the last 10 years; there is now NPDES requirements and SUSWMP requirements that will have to be met.
Mr. Gilbert stated the water requirements are a little different and the fire department will condition the project, the Water Department does not need to condition the project; the applicant just has to do what the Water Department requires.
Mr. Hertzog felt this project has not been thoroughly examined by staff and it makes it difficult for the Commission to render a decision; it should be continued until the Commissions January meeting.
Chairman Martin closed the public hearing and opened it back up to the Commissioners for comments.
Vice Chairman Maislen felt this item needed to be continued and asked staff to very carefully determine what was done then and why, and what was done now and why and come to a factual and meaningful melding of those thoughts.
Commissioner Fritz was in favor of continuing this item; he would like to see how difficult it would be to put the flood hazard zone on this map.
Mr. Gilbertson stated that as part of the parcel map process they would require a hydrology study to determine the 100-year flood level line; the applicant has not yet prepared those reports.
Commissioner Fritz felt this was necessary to determine where the pad on lot 3 would go before the lot could be split.
Commissioner Skinner stated if they split this parcel into 4 lots and then cannot build on each of the four lots that is their problem.
Mr. Gilbertson stated based on the dimensions of the creek, it is a concern, he didn't anticipate it being a problem.
Chairman Martin clarified that the Commission is not agreeing to any specific configuration, the next step would be for the applicant to try and put all the pieces of the puzzle together.
Mr. Gilbertson stated they did not want to create a parcel that is unbuildable; those reports will be required prior to recordation of the map; if the flood level crosses through the middle of lot 3 this project will be coming back to the Commission for approval.
Chairman Martin confirmed that this is at the applicant's risk.
Mr. Gilbertson stated yes; typically projects require percolation tests and the Engineering Department does not require them until there is an approved project, because they are so expensive, hydrology studies will be a significant cost.
Vice Chairman Maislen stated all of these studies take place before the map is recorded; approving this project doesn't ensure that this is going to go anywhere, it simply gives the developer the opportunity to further delve into the feasibility.
Mr. Gilbertson agreed.
Commissioner Skinner asked once a lot is approved does the City have to allow a building to be built on it.
Mr. Gilbertson stated it is considered a legal conforming lot; all lots when developed would be coming back to the Commission for approval.
Ms. Sanderson stated she would make the determination whether each of these lots would be handled administratively or if they would be brought to the Planning Commission,
Mr. Gilbertson stated the Commission could condition the Map that all four lots would need to come before the Commission for approval.
Commissioner Fritz asked what happens if lot 1,2 and 4 are developed and then we find out lot 3 has trouble, what is done then.
Mr. Gilbertson stated all geologic studies would, fault lines would be determined, flood level calculations will be done, tree preservation lines, all of this will be done prior to recordation of the map; this is all done to ensure all the lots can be developed.
Vice Chairman Maislen moved to continue the hearing on Tentative Parcel Map 26006 until January 23, 2001 to allow staff further study this project and to gain input from the Water District; Seconded by Commissioner Fritz:
AYES: Fritz, Gunns, Martin, Maislen, and Skinner.
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Variance 2000-01 (Richard Pierce) 1480 Harbor Boulevard
Ms. Sanderson stated this application was submitted by Richard Pierce to request a variance to increase the height (11 feet is proposed; 3 - feet required max) for a fence within the front yard setback area; at 1480 Harbor Blvd; the site is 0.96 acres in size and is zoned RA-1 with a rural General Plan designation and is within View Preservation District A; the project site is developed with a residential dwelling and the surrounding land use consisting of residential dwellings, vacant land, and a church; a 7 ft. high solid wall with lattice on top of a 4 ft high retaining wall totaling 11 feet is being proposed; according to the submitted site plan, the proposed fence will be located along the front property line approximately 160 ft. from the south property line; staff believes the findings can not be made in support of the variance; the proposed project has been reviewed environmentally and a Categorical Exemption has been issued in accordance with CEQA; staff recommends the Planning Commission forward a recommendation for denial of Variance 2000-01 to the City Council and adoption of Planning Commission Resolution 2000-25.
Chairman Martin asked if the Commission had any questions for staff.
Vice Chairman Maislen asked staff if there was any fence within the City of La Habra Heights that was a 7-foot solid wall.
Ms. Sanderson stated she did not believe so.
Vice Chairman Maislen confirmed that this is in direct opposition to our Municipal Code.
Ms. Sanderson stated that is why they are asking for a variance, to deviate from the Municipal Code; it also conflicts with the City's General Plan; the General Plan talks about a rural environment and you have to consider if an 11-foot solid wall is consistent with a rural environment
Chairman Martin states he has observed some high walls within the front yard setback within Community but felt they were not new walls; they were probably built prior to incorporation of the city.
Vice Chairman Maislen stated that if they exist they should be check by Code Enforcement.
Commissioner Skinner stated they might have been grandfathered in.
Austin Aikapojoe, 1480 Harbor Blvd stated he is the homeowner; (owner moved out of microphone range, unable to transcribe) owner showed pictures of his property and show where he was proposing the wall.
Vice Chairman Maislen asked if the 4-foot retaining wall was below grade; all that would be seen of the wall is a 7-foot wall.
Mr. Aikapojoe stated yes, a six-foot solid wall with one foot of lattice on the top; he went back to explaining his pictures.
Chairman Martin asked if he were walking up Harbor Blvd. how much fence would he be looking at.
Mr. Aikapojoe stated it would be 6-feet of fence and 1-foot of lattice.
Mr. Gilbertson explained if you go from the easterly curb line on Harbor Blvd the topography drops off into a depression and then goes up the hill towards the house; the applicant is proposing to build his fence in the bottom of that depression; he was requesting to build his retaining wall to bring it to a level equal to the curb; the retaining wall will still be visible with a 7-foot fence on top of it.
Chairman Martin asked what the purpose of the fence was for.
Mr. Aikapojoe stated it was for security, people have tried to break into his house several times, on one occasion he called the police; ever since they have moved in people have been trying to get into their house; trash dumped on property is a common occurrence; because of the traffic he is worried about his children playing in his yard.
Chairman Martin asked if he is building the fence for security purposes and safety issues could it be build out of the setback.
Mr. Aikapojoe asked for clarification of setback.
Chairman Martin stated there is a limit of height within the setback.
Vice Chairman Maislen stated there is a limitation of height and density.
Ms. Sanderson stated within the setback area an 11-foot fence needs to be out of the 35-foot setback area.
Vice Chairman Maislen explained to the applicant there are many ways to accomplish what the owner was trying to accomplish without putting in this type and size fence.
Mr. Aikapojoe stated he is willing to compromise to ensure he would not violate the specific code.
Vice Chairman Maislen stated it is very important that the owner get the security he deserves while maintaining the rural nature of the fence.
Mr. Aikapojoe stated he is willing to lower the retaining wall so it could not be seen from a car.
Mr. Gilbertson stated there is a swale area, but it is not of a big concern, this retaining wall will not block any drainage flow.
Mr. Aikapojoe continued to explain his pictures; didn't feel there was a site distance problem.
Commissioner Gunns asked where the palm trees would be in relation to the wall.
Mr. Aikapojoe stated some will be inside the wall and some will be outside.
Chairman Martin asked if there was an easement along this side of the property.
Mr. Gilbertson stated yes there is a slope easement recorded on this lot, Engineering has review it and do not feel it is a big concern and they are willing to grant an encroachment permit into that slope easement.
Vice Chairman Maislen asked if this proposed fence is at least 5 feet from the property line.
Mr. Gilbertson stated it is closer to 16 feet.
Ms. Sanderson that plans that were submitted to the Planning Department are not the same plans the applicant has presented tonight; there is no clear depiction of exactly where this fence is proposed; she stated what she is looking at shows the fence on or near the property line and is not setback 5 feet; she reminded the Commission what is before them is the approval of a wall 160 feet in length; now the owner states the wall is closer to 360 feet.
Mr. Aikapojoe showed other walls within the vicinity of his home that are above 6 feet tall.
Vice Chairman Maislen asked if Mr. Aikapojoe understood the difference between a retaining wall and a fence.
Mr. Aikapojoe stated yes he understood.
Mr. Gilbertson explained the retaining walls were constructed as part of the Harbor Blvd reconstruction.
Chairman Martin was concerned with the visual appearance of the wall whether it is a retaining wall or a fence.
Vice-Chairman Maislen stated when you build a solid wall you create a precedent; there is a big difference between a solid security fence and a retaining wall;
Richard Pierce, 837 Wildrose, Brea, CA 92821 stated he is the General Contractor on this project; owner wanted a security wall; future plans are to construct a pool on the lower level and privacy is an issue; wants to lower the noise coming off Harbor Blvd; when Harbor was built there was a raising of the ground level for the surface of the road; one solution was to fill the gully in with fill dirt and put a fence on top of it; felt retaining wall was a better choice; wouldn't be too noticeable from the street; dirt could be brought in to cover the retaining wall; wants to create a level area for whatever wall he puts up; the proposed wall would be vinyl and is graffiti proof, (contractor moved out of the microphone range and was not audible); property was surveyed and easements were marked; Mr. Aikapojoe property goes out into the middle of Harbor Blvd; the fence does encroach by a foot or so into the 5 feet for about 15 feet but that is not big deal; states could put the fence right at the curb and still be 7 feet back from the property line
Mr. Gilbertson stated when the county did this expansion they acquired the additional street right of way; stated the applicants documents are probably not the most current documents; is sure there is adequate right of way and that the property line is 5-10 feet beyond the curb line.
Mr. Aikapojoe states they have been researching that and have not found any record of the county acquisition of the property.
Seeing no one else come forward, Chairman Martin closed the public hearing.
Vice Chairman Maislen stated that what the applicant is looking to do can be done with the code; felt the applicant and the contractor need to work with staff; what he has seen he cannot approve.
Commissioner Fritz agreed with Vice Chairman Maislen.
Commissioner Gunns felt the drawings were not accurate, landscaping could hide the wall.
Commissioner Skinner states she has a problem with a solid 11-foot high wall; needs security, but it could be accomplished another way; suggested working with staff.
Chairman Martin supports staff recommendation for denial, applicant has an opportunity to work with the staff and be a little creative and with a little effort may be able to obtain most of what he is looking to accomplish.
Ms. Sanderson asked for a recess so she could meet with Mr. Gilbertson.
Vice Chairman Maislen pointed out to the applicant less fence material and more landscaping would be the solution.
Chairman Martin recessed meeting.
Chairman Martin reconvened the meeting.
Ms. Sanderson stated staff is recommending that this item be continued to the January 23, 2001 Planning Commission meeting so that the applicant can get a more accurate survey so we can determine where the property line is; staff may be in agreement that the fence could be setback 5 feet and could maintain the requirements of the La Habra Heights Municipal Code.
Mr. Aikapojoe stated he agreed that he needs to re-survey his property line.
Vice Chairman Maislen moved to continue the Public Hearing until January 23, 2001 to allow the applicant more time to work on his design; seconded by Commissioner Fritz:
AYES: Fritz, Gunns, Martin, Maislen, and Skinner.
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
ITEMS FROM THE PUBLIC
None
ADJOURNMENT
Vice Chairman Maislen moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:35 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
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE LA HABRA HEIGHTS
PLANNING COMMISSION
October 24, 2000
OPENING CEREMONIES:
CALL MEETING TO ORDER
A meeting of the La Habra Heights Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Richard Martin at 7:30 p.m. at the Community Center, 1245 N. 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 and Commission Attorney Paula Baeza. Absent alternate Adrienne Murphy
FLAG SALUTE
Commissioner Fritz led the flag salute.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Vice Chairman Maislen announced the next Garden Harvest would be held November 11, 2000 9 am-noon at The Park.
Chairman Martin asked Mr. Maislen how many ribbons he won at the Los Angeles County Fair for his bee keeping and honey. Mr. Maislen stated he won 27 awards.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF POSTING OF AGENDA FOR MEETING OF OCTOBER 24, 2000.
Ms. Sanderson stated the agenda had been posted in accordance with state law.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Minutes of the regular Planning Commission Meeting of September 26, 2000.
Vice Chairman Maislen moved to approve the minutes; seconded by Commissioner Fritz and approved as follows:
AYES: Fritz, Gunns, Maislen, Martin and Skinner
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Ms. Sanderson swore in those wishing to testify.
Conditional Use Permit 2000-09 (Sun Mar Healthcare) 2400 Panchoy Place
Ms. Sanderson explained the applicant had requested a continuance of this Conditional Use Permit until the Planning Commission Meeting of February 2001; staff recommended that the Commission grant the continuance.
Vice Chairman Maislen moved to grant the applicant's request for a continuance until February 2001; seconded by Commissioner Gunns and approved as follows:
AYES: Fritz, Gunns, Maislen, Martin and Skinner
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
8. Tentative Parcel Map 26055 (Roberts) Southwest intersection of Dorothea Road/Fullerton Road
Ms. Sanderson reported this application was submitted by Kent Roberts to request a Tentative Parcel Map to create 2 lots from an existing parcel located at the south west intersection of Dorothea Road and Fullerton Road; the project site is 4.07 acres in size and is zoned R-A with a Rural Residential General Plan designation and is within view preservation District A; Lot 1 is proposed to be a 2.73 acre parcel with an average lot slope of 35% and lot 2 is proposed to be a 1.78 acre parcel with an average lot slope of 29.5%; staff believes the required finding can be made in support of the proposed project; the Map has been reviewed environmentally and a Categorical Exemption has been issued; staff recommends approval of Tentative Parcel Map 26055 subject to conditions of approval and adoption of Planning Commission Resolution 2000-22; stated condition #15 needs to be eliminated as it is a duplicate condition; condition #12 needs to state ìprior to the filingî.
Chairman Martin asked if the Commission had any questions for staff.
Commissioner Skinner abstained from this item as she is within the 500 foot radius.
Vice Chairman Maislen stated there was a letter from John Peller stating he had no objection to the Parcel Map, Mr. Peller lives directly across the street.
Chairman Martin opened the public hearing.
Kent Roberts, 720 Greenway Terrace, La Habra stated he planned to build on lot 1; agreed with the staff report.
Seeing no one else come forward Chairman Martin closed the public hearing.
Vice Chairman Maislen stated this project is straight forward and he recommended approval.
Commissioner Fritz agreed.
Vice Chairman Maislen moved to approve Parcel Map 26055 and Resolution 2000-22, seconded by Commissioner Gunns and approved as follows:
AYES: Fritz, Gunns, Maislen, and Martin
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: Skinner
9. Conditional Use Permit 2000-03 (Family Resource Ministries) 1225 N. Hacienda Blvd.
Ms. Sanderson explained this application was submitted by Glenn Carvin representing Family Resource Ministries, to request a Conditional Use Permit to construct a temporary shade cover for student activities in the main courtyard of the junior high area and to extend the covered walkway in the preschool area of The Heights Christian School which is located at 1225 North Hacienda Blvd; since the original Conditional Use Permit approval for the operation of a private Junior High School required new structures to be subject to the Conditional Use Permit process and the proposed project concerns structures by definition this Conditional Use Permit is being required; the existing temporary structures which are currently installed on the project site, are without benefit of an approved Conditional Use Permit; the details of the proposed structures are discussed in the staff agenda report; staff believes the required findings can be made in support of the proposed project; the Conditional Use Permit has been review environmentally and a Categorical Exemption has been issued; staff recommends the Planning Commission forward a resolution to the City Council recommending approval and adoption of PC Resolution 2000-23.
Chairman Martin asked if the Commission had any questions of staff.
Vice Chairman Maislen asked for a review of the history of these structures.
Ms. Sanderson explained staff discovered these tents were being installed; explained to applicant that they needed a Conditional Use Permit; made it clear to the applicant that if they affixed it to the ground it would require a CUP; assured it would be affixed to the ground; when construction began the cover was affixed to the ground; applicant was notified and they applied for a Conditional Use Permit.
Vice Chairman Maislen asked regarding signage on the tents.
Ms. Sanderson stated yes, the original tents did have signage on them.
Chairman Martin opened the public hearing.
Steven Blagden, 2118 Citron Road, felt the Commission must consider the applicants track record, these tents were put up without approvals, they were told to taken them down, they put up more structures without approvals, read from a part of previous CUP approvals, signage out front has not come before the Planning Commission; recommended approving the structure, but condition the approvals.
Vice Chairman Maislen asked staff what issues were still outstanding on the operation of the school.
Ms. Sanderson stated the item before the Commission tonight is tents not the school operation.
Vice Chairman Maislen expressed concerns regarding Family Resource Ministries previous track record.
Ms. Sanderson volunteered to bring to the next Planning Commission Meeting a status report on the progress with Family Resource Ministries.
Chairman Martin stated the outstanding issues were brought up two meetings ago.
Ms. Sanderson stated Family Resource Ministries is providing monthly updates to the City Council.
Glen Carvin, 15912 Alecanta Rd., La Mirada, Vice President of Operations Family Resource Ministries, gave a background on the installation of tents to the Commission, in September 1999 the students conducted a fund raiser to pay for the canopy; there is a matching canopy for the preschool; the project manager didn't understand it required a CUP or that it was a violation of the previous CUP; Planning Department notified the school and the canopies were taken down; current building codes would not allow the smaller of the two tents between buildings; proposed extension of roof line; they have a few issues to address; the tents are not temporary, they will be a permanent part of campus; color of canopy; asked for clarification of Conditions 5 and 6 of resolution.
Betty Kimes, owner Family Resource Ministries, stated all the fire issues of the previous CUP have been met; canopy is needed because the kids have to sit in the sun; this request is for a huge overhead canopy, that is 15 feet in height, color was chosen to match the schools colors, teal and black is the school colors; they felt teal would blend in; picked a neutral color; the new canopy will be twice the size of the original canopy; this canopy will be part of the master plan; people complimented them on the canopies; second canopy at pre school will not be used, they are incorporating it into the covered walkway; not very visible from the street; new people running their project; meets with the City on a regular basis.
Commissioner Gunns asked if the tents are they fire retardant and what is the life expectancy.
Answers given outside of the microphone range.
Commissioner Fritz asked if the second canopy had been ordered.
Ms. Kimes stated the second canopy had not yet bee ordered.
Vice Chairman Maislen asked if the Planning Director approved the teal color.
Ms. Kimes stated the Planning Director expressed it is not her favorite; they do not have a lot of choices; they picked the color that most blended with the school.
Vice Chairman Maislen asked if the teal color was neutral or a bold color.
Ms. Kimes stated the color is beautiful bold neutral color.
Vice Chairman Maislen stated obviously it would have to be bold or neutral.
Ms. Kimes stated she did not consider teal to be a florescent color.
Ms. Sanderson expressed concerns to Chairman Martin over temporary structure vs. permanent structure; according to the project description given to staff by Family Resource Ministries, the canopy was presented as being a temporary structure; analysis was based on one temporary shade structure and a permanent walkway, now Family Resource Ministries is stating this is a permanent structure.
Chairman Martin asked staff if it could be a temporary structure until their master plan is submitted.
Ms. Sanderson referred the Commission to Condition #4; the public noticing that was done for this item was for a temporary structure not a permanent structure.
Chairman Martin asked if this could canopy were left as a temporary structure to be removed consistent with staff's recommendation and then be re-visited when their master plan is submitted.
Ms. Sanderson staff's concern is this was advertised as a temporary shade cover with a deadline for removal.
Chairman Martin asked Ms. Kimes if they understood this condition.
Ms. Kimes stated yes because they will be back submitting their master plan within 60 days.
Chairman Martin asked staff if it would be practical to leave this as a temporary structure.
Ms. Sanderson stated yes as long as the Commission understood they are voting on a temporary structure and a permanent walkway.
Ms. Kimes stated she is willing to go ahead and is comfortable with this condition because they are coming right back with their Master Plan.
Vice Chairman Maislen asked what would happen if this CUP were not approved.
Ms. Kimes stated the Commission would have 220 very angry parents who would have kids sitting in the hot sun again; they would continue with what they have now.
Commissioner Gunns asked staff had they known the canopy was permanent, what would have changed.
Ms. Sanderson stated without doing another detailed analysis, she could not answer the question; she expressed concerns that this Conditional Use Permit was advertised as a temporary structure.
Commissioner Gunns asked what difference would it make.
Ms. Sanderson stated the application clearly stated it was a temporary structure.
Commissioner Fritz asked if there was concrete slab.
Ms. Kimes stated yes it is an existing slab.
Commissioner Skinner asked staff where did 1 year come from.
Ms. Sanderson felt temporary structures are normally given 1 year.
Brian Burgess, 1940 Skyline Vista Drive, representing Family Resource Ministries, questioned Condition 6 regarding the Fire Regulation; felt the Fire Department has already approved the fabric for the tent; asked what else would need to be approved.
Ms. Sanderson explained that if the Fire Department has already approved the tent, then there shouldn't be a problem with this condition; she then went on and explained the planning process to Mr. Burgess.
Mr. Burgess asked the Commission to accept the color; it is below the roofline; the City has no architectural review; would like the permanent structure included in the master plan.
Commissioner Gunns thought the fire department would approve a project prior to it coming to the Planning Commission.
Chairman Martin stated this application is for approval of the use of the tents, compliance with codes would occur through the Planning Department; he didn't feel the Commission was here to make decisions regarding codes.
Commissioner Gunns asked why it wouldn't be reviewed to comply with code before it was brought to this level.
Chairman Martin stated the Commission is being asked to approve a concept.
Vice Chairman Maislen stated typically this isn't done after the fact, so if they approve a concept, then they submit the type of material.
Chairman Martin stated this is like any other project, the Commission are asked to approve the project and then the regular approvals are given.
Chairman Martin closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Gunns stated he had no concern with the color.
Chairman Martin felt the Commission is here to approve a concept and wants the other decisions left to the Planning Director.
Ms. Sanderson stated if the Commission approved of the color they could delete this condition; staff's concern was based on aesthetics.
Chairman Martin preferred not to get involved in the decision of color, prefers approving the concept of the project.
Commissioner Skinner stated she would prefer to have Condition #2 out; chose to leave it as a temporary structure with a 1-year time frame.
Commissioner Gunns asked if the conditions could be amended.
Chairman Martin stated yes they could amend the conditions.
Commissioner Fritz stated he didn't mind the cover; would like to see an overall site plan.
Commissioner Skinner felt this is piece meal but that is OK; it may not be as well planned.
Vice Chairman Maislen stated what they saw two years ago is not what they are seeing today; he is frustrated with Family Resource Ministries; this is one of a number of changes they have made; it seems they do what they want not what the City requires; signage is another case in point; a huge tarp among the buildings does not reflect the rural atmosphere of our City; stated it looks like an eyesore; has a real problem with what they are doing; a huge tarp blowing in the breeze is not the way to provide a temporary/permanent shade for students; if they want to enclose the courtyard then they need to build a structure with a decent looking roof.
Commissioner Gunns moved to approve the recommendation to the City Council and approval of Resolution 2000-03 and revise Conditions, #2 to be struck, #4 temp canopy structure to be located in the main courtyard shall be reviewed as a permanent structure in the Master Plan soon to be submitted. Seconded by Commissioner Skinner. Commissioner Skinner asked for a clarification of the signage.
Ms. Sanderson stated as part of the original Conditional Use Permit a signage plan needs to be brought forth to the Planning Commission.
Vice Chairman Maislen expressed concern asking the Commissioners to understand that the motion on the table is to approve a 3,200 square foot canvas tent that will flap in the breeze between those building; asked for consideration of the rural nature prior to making this decision.
Chairman Martin called for the question.
AYES: Gunns, Martin and Skinner
NOES: Fritz and Maislen
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Vice Chairman Maislen asked staff to review any signage that has been put up at Family Resource Ministries since they received their approvals, that did not come to the Commission for approval
Ms. Sanderson agreed.
COMMENTS ON MATTERS NOT ON THE AGENDA
ITEMS FROM THE PUBLIC
Steven Blagden, 2118 Citron Road, questioned the authority of staff to make decisions on projects within La Habra Heights, stating if changes are made, the projects should come to the Planning Commission.
Chairman Martin asked staff to clarify.
Ms. Sanderson stated major changes to projects do come back to the Commission, if they are not major changes or if they are the result of a field visit they do not come back to the Commission; if staff has a concern and they are not sure they contact the Chairman and ask for guidance, if the Chairman feels it is significant they bring it to the Commission even if staff feels it is not a significant change.
Chairman Martin asked if she had discussed any such projects with him.
Ms. Sanderson stated no; she had discussed a couple of cases with the previous Chairman.
Vice Chairman Maislen asked Mr. Blagden for specifics.
Mr. Blagden declined to provide.
Chairman Martin stressed to Mr. Blagden that in the future he needs to provide specifics to be verified.
Vice Chairman Maislen was surprised a 100-foot wall grew from 3 feet to 8 feet and did not come back to the Commission; he asked for a specific address.
Mr. Blagden stated this 8 foot wall was then covered to 5 feet; stated Family Resource Ministries is another case where renegotiations are being done behind the scenes.
Vice Chairman Maislen felt it was interesting that when the specifics were requested the 8 foot wall disappeared; felt comments from the public must be back up with fact; this kind of stuff makes the staff look bad to those who view the meetings on TV.
ADJOURNMENT
Vice Chairman Maislen moved to adjourn the meeting at 8:41 p.m. Seconded by Commissioner Gunns and approved as follows:
AYES: Fritz, Gunns, Maislen, Martin and Skinner
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Richard Martin, Chairperson
ATTEST:
Sheryl Sanderson, Director of Planning