July 18, 2001 Special - Jr High
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE LA HABRA HEIGHTS
PLANNING COMMISSION
July 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 7:33 p.m. at the Community Center, 1245 North Hacienda Road, La Habra Heights, California.
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 Dave Gilbertson and Commission Attorney Ruben Duran.
Commissioner Wolfe arrived at 7:35 p.m.
FLAG SALUTE
Alternate Commissioner Hinz led the flag salute.
ITEMS FROM THE PUBLIC
None
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF POSTING OF AGENDA FOR MEETING OF July 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 June 26, 2001.
Chairman Douglas stated he had heard there were corrections to the minutes. He asked the Commission to get their comments to Barbara for correction. Asked that the minutes be brought back to the Commission in September.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Standards Modification 2000-34 (George Than) 2046 Ahuacate Road
Ms. Sanderson explained that staff currently is having trouble with the City's computer system. She apologized for errors created by the system problems. The Than Resolution has some corrections. Condition 3 of the resolution has been reworded to say ìa dust free earth covering for the corral and riding rinkî. Condition 5, second sentence in order the shield the two barn structures from public view landscaping shall be provided along the Ahuacate Road frontage and along the south side of the two barn structures.
Commissioner Blagden asked if Condition 3 could say ìa dust free earth covering such as decomposed graniteî.
Ms. Sanderson stated that would be fine.
Commissioner Blagden asked that Condition 3 reflect that the corral and riding rink covering should be maintained.
Ms. Sanderson stated OK.
Chairman Douglas stated he didn't want to lock the applicant into just granite.
Commissioner Blagden moved to approve Resolution 2001-11 as amended. Chairman Douglas seconded the motion and it was approved as follows:
AYES: Douglas, Blagden, and Wolfe
NOES: Bergman and Skinner
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
PUBLIC HEARING
Chairman Douglas asked to move Item 9 to the beginning of the public hearing process because there was a request for continuance.
Commissioner Blagden moved to hear Item 9 first. Vice-Chairman Skinner seconded the motion and it was approved as follows:
AYES: Douglas, Bergman, Blagden, Skinner and Wolfe
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Ms. Sanderson swore in those wishing to testify.
Conditional Use Permit 2000-11 (Verizon) street-right-way along North Hacienda Road
John Bitterly, Project Representative for Verizon ñ they have been researching irrigated landscaping around their proposed equipment, as well as the color of the metal boxes. He is in the process of designing landscaping to bring back to the Commission; there are other colors they can use on the equipment boxes; he asked for more time to complete the landscaping plan and to continue his search for a solution to the third facility, which does not have water to it; he asked for another months continuance.
Commissioner Bergman asked if the applicant had looked at alternate sites besides Hacienda.
Mr. Bitterly stated the intended service area is on Hacienda Blvd and they use the right of way to provide the service.
Commissioner Blagden asked about under grounding the equipment boxes for safety and aesthetic reasons.
Chairman Douglas asked about co locations along Hacienda.
Mr. Bitterly stated given the land use in this area it would not be appropriate.
Commissioner Bergman asked the applicant to bring back a report on the maintenance of these facilities.
Vice-Chairman Skinner stated there would not be a meeting in August.
Mr. Bitterly stated he was fine with the next available meeting would be fine.
Vice-Chairman Skinner moved to continue CUP 2000-11 until the September 25, 2001 meeting. Commissioner Blagden seconded the motion and it was approved as follows.
AYES: Douglas, Bergman, Blagden, Skinner and Wolfe
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Tree Removal Permit 2001-01 (Pat Klinker) 1280 Walnut Street
Ms. Sanderson stated before the Commission is a preliminary landscape plan submitted by Ms. Klinker; it was prepared by a landscape designer; it includes the planting of 10 trees; the trees are compatible with the climate zone of the City; staff recommends that the Planning Commission review the findings and direct staff to bring back a resolution with the appropriate findings and conditions of approval if necessary.
Chairman Douglas asked if there were questions of staff.
Ms. Sanderson brought to the Planning Commission's attention at the last meeting they did request that the plan be drawn by a licensed landscape architect; a landscape designer drew these plans.
Chairman Douglas stated the plans submitted clearly are not what the Commission had asked for.
Seeing the Commission had no questions for staff, he opened the public hearing.
Pat Klinker, 1280 Walnut ñ stated she did not know what kind of additional information the Commission was looking for. Stated she chose 15 gallon trees because of the cost of the trees; if she went with the 24î box trees, they would not be able to do all of the trees at once.
Vice-Chairman Skinner asked about the tree Ms. Klinker was proposing to put in; bark shredding; felt that this was more of a maintenance tree.
Ms. Klinker stated it doesn't shred it peals.
Vice-Chairman Skinner asked how large they would get.
Ms. Klinker stated there is no need for trimming.
Commissioner Bergman asked if it was clear to her that the Commission had requested a landscape architect.
Ms. Klinker stated she did not know there was a difference; her time frame was short.
Commissioner Blagden stated this is a spreading tree and wanted to hear what the Ellis' thought of this tree.
Vice-Chairman Skinner asked if the applicant had an objection to Cypress.
Ms. Klinker stated she does not like them; but if that are what the Commission wants, that is what she will put back.
Julie Ellis, 1282 N. Walnut ñ stated all three neighbors have expressed their pleasure with the Cypress trees; not happy with her choice of trees; wants replacement of like and kind; thinks this plan is cheap and chinchy; felt the plan was to minimize the cost to the Klinkers; errors on her plans; their property line cuts across Klinker's driveway; the first tree does not start for 13-14 feet; requested the rules be followed; wants 24î box trees; priced them at $160; wants replaced at 5 foot centers; questioned how they will issue a permit for the planting on the Ellis's property; was willing to give permission to replant the trees; wants a full row of trees; estimates it will take 5 years to obtain a low privacy barrier;
Shawn Ellis, 1282 N. Walnut ñ asked how the City could issue a permit for the planting of trees on someone else property.
Mr. Duran explained one of the words of caution and advise he had given the Commission that there are pending civil litigation between the applicant and the neighbor; the City cannot involve itself in that dispute; the City cannot issue a permit for the planting of trees on the Ellis' property; if there is a question of property boundaries he advised the Commission to leave that alone until it is settled.
Commissioner Blagden asked since it is a private dispute and it could be years before it is settled, could the Commission instruct Ms. Klinker to put the trees back.
Mr. Duran stated there may be a portion of land not in dispute and that is what the Commission should decide, until the dispute is settled.
Ms. Sanderson suggested the Commission consider requiring a survey as part of the Conditions of Approval. She stated neither Planning nor Engineering has seen a survey of this property.
Mr. Ellis stated that in 1995-1996 they had a survey done and after the trees were removed they had another survey done.
Ms. Sanderson stated that at this time it appears the survey is also in dispute; the City Engineer would not want to make an interpretation of which survey is accurate.
Mr. Gilbertson stated the two parties need to work it out themselves.
Ms. Klinker stated she did not understand why it becomes her responsibility to provide screening for the Ellis' property; they can provide the trees to screen their property.
Vice-Chairman Skinner asked if Ms. Klinker had ever had the property surveyed.
Ms. Klinker stated no she had not had the property surveyed, she did not know if her attorney had had a survey done.
Mrs. Ellis stated someone came into their neighborhood and trashed a beautiful stand of trees; she broke the rules and should be held accountable for the code of the City.
Commissioner Blagden asked that when she went to the nursery did she look at the different sizes of Cypress Trees.
Mrs. Ellis stated she did not go to the nursery, she called; Cypress Trees is 24î Boxes are guaranteed to be an average of 8 feet tall by 1 - 2 feet in diameter; she asked for all similar size trees.
Chairman Douglas closed the public hearing.
Vice-Chairman Skinner stated she has no clue what to make a decision on without a survey.
Commissioner Blagden stated they could say some trees, so many feet along the Klinkers property.
Mr. Duran suggested the Commission continue this item until the battle over the property boundaries has been resolved.
Commissioner Blagden stated he wanted it resolved as this property is for sale; if they worded it to say along Klinker's property and when she gets to the end of it she stops.
Ms. Sanderson stated the applicant has an idea of where their property boundary is, and they would not plant trees on property they do not feel is there's.
Mr. Duran again suggested the Commission continue this item until the property boundaries are straightened out; there is no permit streamlining act timeframe for this project.
Commissioner Blagden was concerned because the property is for sale. He felt the Ellis' & Klinker's could reach an agreement.
Commissioner Bergman asked what prevents the property from being sold and the trees never being replaced.
Mr. Duran stated the violation runs with the property; the new property owner would be responsible for the replacing of the trees. He cautioned the Commission from becoming involved in something they really don't want to become involved in.
Commissioner Blagden asked if they could ask the two parties and see if there is a point in which they do agree.
Mr. Duran again advised Commissioner Blagden to stay out of the civil dispute.
Alternate Commissioner Hinz stated it is crucial the City not get involved in the litigation; the owner decided without permit or permission to cut down a lot of trees; then they ask for a permit; they were given specific instructions from this Commission and she chose not to follow those instructions.
Chairman Douglas agreed with Commissioner Hinz; staff and the Commission has been trying to get the applicant to submit a plan to resolve this; is not concerned about who's property is who's; the Commission could say however many trees were removed from the Klinker's property must be replaced at a two to one ratio; if there is a dispute of how many trees were removed, let them submit a survey to staff to come up with the numbers; on the one side it could be conditioned to replace what was removed.
Commissioner Bergman stated wanted the property returned to the condition it was before the trees were removed.
Commissioner Blagden asked staff if that was something the Commission could do.
Mr. Duran stated you could require replacement of trees.
Commissioner Blagden asked if they could require whatever tree at whatever spacing on their property; would that keep the Commission out of the dispute.
Mr. Duran stated yes.
Commissioner Wolfe stated the applicant was given clear instructions; the Commission is in the same place it was 60 days ago and this plan is worthless; these trees do not come even remotely close to the Municipal Code; doesn't want the City to be involved in their civil dispute; doesn't want to deny this application; is at a loss; doesn't want Code Enforcement to handle this; open for suggestions.
Alternate Commissioner Hinz stated it would be legally inappropriate for this Commission to direct the Klinker's to replace trees on someone else's property.
Chairman Douglas agreed.
Vice-Chairman Skinner asked if the Commission could approve the permit, make a plan, that the trees will be replaced with 24î box trees a X amount of ratio and not have it go into effect until after the litigation is over.
Commissioner Blagden stated the same purpose is served by say on their property.
Commissioner Bergman stated it was not an issue; he stated all they need to do is talk about the one property and the replacement of trees on her property.
Ms. Sanderson asked for a brief recess so she could talk to the City Engineer.
Commissioner Wolfe asked if this item could be continued indefinitely pending the outcome of the litigation.
Ms. Sanderson stated the item could be continued indefinitely and when it is ready to come back to the Commission, it would need to be re-noticed.
Chairman Douglas asked if the City's rights are preserved.
Ms. Sanderson stated the application runs with the land and if she sells the property the new owner would be responsible for the planting of those trees.
Mr. Duran stated it would behoove Ms. Klinker to advise a purchaser of the Tree Removal Permit Application, as she would avoid another lawsuit.
Commissioner Wolfe asked who would re-notice the next meeting.
Ms. Sanderson stated staff would be responsible for the re-noticing.
Commissioner Wolfe asked how staff would know when the lawsuit is resolved.
Ms. Sanderson it would be the responsibility of staff to monitor the lawsuit.
Alternate Commissioner Hinz was concerned with this being continued indefinitely.
Ms. Sanderson suggesting the applicant provide a status report for the next meeting.
Chairman Douglas asked if the permit was denied, could the applicant reapply; Code Enforcement would be cognizant of the on going litigation and would be left waiting as well.
Ms. Sanderson stated her recommendation is to go through the public hearing process and not go through the Code Enforcement Process.
Commissioner Blagden stated the time frame for resolution would not be a long process, because it has a cloud hanging over it.
Commissioner Wolfe recommended the applicant provide a status report to the Commission every 90 days.
Ms. Sanderson agreed that was a good idea.
Commissioner Blagden moved to continue this item indefinitely with status reports by the applicant every ninety days, brought back to the Commission. Commissioner Bergman seconded the motion.
AYES: Bergman, Blagden, Skinner, Wolfe
NOES: Douglas
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Tentative Parcel Map 24162 (Newbre) 255 Canada Sombre
Ms. Sanderson stated this application was submitted by Mr. & Mrs. Richard Newbre to request a Tentative Parcel Map or revision to create 2 lots from an existing parcel. The site is located at 255 Canada Sombre. The site is 6.05 acres in size and is zoned RA-1 with a Rural General Plan designation and is within View Preservation District A. Lot 1 will be 1.4 acres in size with an average slope of 29% and lot 2 will be 4.65 acres in size with an average slope of 25%. Lot 2 is also a flag lot. 21.45 acres of the original Tentative Parcel Map were sold to the Puente Hills Landfill Native Habitat Preservation Authority as permanent open space. That is the reason for this revised Parcel Map. The findings can be made in support of the Tentative Parcel Map. This Tentative Parcel Map has been review environmentally and a categorical exemption has been issued in accordance with CEQA. Staff recommends approval of the revised Tentative Parcel Map 24162 subject to a list of conditions and adoption of the Planning Commission Resolution No. 2001-10.
Chairman Douglas asked if the Commission had questions of staff.
Commissioner Blagden stated a revised map is not like an extension in that it is not an automatic approval.
Ms. Sanderson stated not it is not an automatic approval, this is a new Parcel Map.
Commissioner Blagden stated this plan is dated February 2001 and the Engineer's seal expired June 1997; he stated he has a problem with the plan to start with; original parcel was listed at 27.5 acres, this parcel is listed at 24.6 acres, 4.6 and 1.4; that adds up to over 30 acres; doesn't know what is going on with the parcel.
Ms. Sanderson stated the applicant is in the audience to answer his questions.
Commissioner Blagden asked staff what a restricted use area was and how does it affect the property.
Mr. Gilbertson stated the restricted use area was recorded on this map from the original Parcel Map. It is a geologic restriction area and there is a condition of approval that covers they have to prepare an update to the restricted use area. He stated a restricted use area could be a landslide, fault zone, uncompacted fill area. A habitable structure cannot be built in a restricted use area.
Commissioner Blagden asked for the definition of a flood hazard area.
Mr. Gilbertson stated a flood hazard area is an are prone to flood induction during major storms; you cannot place habitable structures in a flood hazard area.
Commissioner Blagden stated that on these maps the applicant is proposing to move the flood hazard area and asked how that would be done.
Mr. Gilbertson stated the applicant has to prepare improvements to that drainage channel and provide hydrolic calculations to show what the extent of that flood limit would be during a storm and that would be subject to review by the City Engineer.
Commissioner Blagden stated it appears to be moving up hill and asked if there was someway to contain the water so it doesn't come down and stays up.
Mr. Gilbertson stated he didn't know if they were moving the flood hazard area; they are redefining it. In the area below the existing flood hazard area, they have a proposed 20 ft wide flood hazard area, in portions of the map they are making the flood hazard area wider.
Commissioner Blagden stated on the upper part of the map it says proposed 30-ft wide flood hazard area but it is on someone else's property.
Mr. Gilbertson stated that was from the old parcel map and wasn't taken off of this one; they won't record a flood hazard easement over an open space lot; there is no purpose to that.
Commissioner Blagden stated the original plans from 1995 show the access drive on the left side and now it is on the east side; he asked if it was a concern.
Mr. Gilbertson states staff prefers that location, stating the least amount of points of ingress/egress on Canada Sombre the better.
Commissioner Blagden stated the original tentative map showed the barn on a separate lot; so rather than a similar parcel that was 3 lots now it is 2 lots; do we need to think about it being divided again to 3 lots.
Mr. Gilbertson stated it is possible in the future to apply for a subdivision to subdivide lot 2 further if they meet the lot size requirements.
Commissioner Blagden asked what the net areas were.
Mr. Gilbertson stated it is a 20 ft flag lot for the existing parcel 2, so there isn't any net area for parcel 2; the net for lot size, takes out street easements not restricted use areas.
Chairman Douglas opened the public hearing.
Richard Newbre, 255 Canada Sombre ñ stated he could address the questions Commissioner Blagden had brought forward; he stated he has read the Agenda Report and the Resolution and the matters that are raised there are acceptable to them; pointed out in the Resolution Section 5, subsection 5, it reads there is a known 20 ft wide flood hazard area along the west property line, he stated that should read east property line.
Commissioner Blagden suggested the map be redone so that it is correct.
Mr. Newbre stated he would ask Mr. Wilch to do so.
Commissioner Blagden asked if the original parcel was 27.5 acres.
Mr. Newbre stated yes.
Commissioner Blagden stated the map shows it in 3 segments, 24.66, 4.65 and 1.4 and that all adds up to over 30 acres.
Mr. Newbre stated what happened in connection to the donation of the land to the conservancy, they donated about 21 acres, 75% was a donation, when they purchased the Pellkoffer property next door the conservancy wanted some additional land, so he sold them an additional 5 acres, making it a total of 21 acres. In connection with that sale, the conservancy conveyed to him a portion of the Pellkoffer property, a small piece down near the flat area of his property, where the garden is, a triangle piece of land that was a subject of a Lot Line Adjustment a couple of years ago. The use of that conservancy increased the overall size of the parcel from 27 acres to 30 acres.
Commissioner Blagden stated that Mr. Wilch stated in the findings needed to approve a flag lot that it reduces grading; he said there is not grading plan to show it is reducing grading.
Mr. Newbre stated if they were to build a road other than through the flag lot, there would be a lot of grading; at the moment there is no grading plan, the 1.4 acre parcel is 25% slope area, it is relatively flat and can be developed with very little grading, they do not plan to develop it, the 4 acre parcel is nice and they use it. They plan to sell the 1.4-acre parcel. The original parcel map did have 3 lots. Lot 2 was the barn lot; Lot 3 was the house lot, plus the rest of the 27 acres. They conveyed the land to the conservancy so that their remaining parcel came out to about 6 acres. They decided lots 2 and 3 should remain together and lot 1 should be separate.
Commissioner Blagden asked if lot 1 was the lot with the horse corral and the water fountain in the middle.
Mr. Newbre stated they are the neighbor's horses and he lets them use the land. They are disposing of their horses and he will be cleaning the property shortly. He then addressed the flood hazard area. The City Engineer and Mr. Wilch will determine where it should go, and there may need to be some minor grading. Might result in about 3 feet of fill.
Commissioner Wolfe stated condition 19 of the resolution requires potential future restrictions of more subdivision of the parcels.
Mr. Newbre stated he was aware of the condition, he didn't really like it, but he would live with it.
Chairman Douglas also asked the applicant to have Mr. Wilch update the map.
Mr. Newbre agreed and stated the final map is almost ready for recordation.
Commissioner Blagden stated he wanted to see the map that is more to scale with a valid seal on it.
Chairman Douglas closed the public hearing and returned it to the Commission for discussion and or deliberation.
Commissioner Blagden stated he wanted to see a valid map before he would approve it.
Chairman Douglas asked staff how to handle it.
Mr. Duran stated he wouldn't advise against it, if you have enough trust in your City Engineer and you are comfortable the applicant is on the up and up and not trying to pull the wool over your eyes, it very likely it is a clerical error and is something you can take into consideration as you are considering it and leave it up to the City Engineer to be sure that the updated maps gets submitted.
Mr. Gilbertson stated he knew for a fact that Mr. Wilch has a valid license that is current with an expiration date beyond 2001, it was an over site on his part, but he does have a valid license.
Commissioner Wolfe stated Mr. Wilch has been before the Commission on many occasions; has no problem with this map at all. Commissioner Wolfe moved to adopt Resolution 2001-10. Commissioner Bergman seconded the motion.
Commissioner Blagden asked to have a condition added requiring a new map and the current seal.
Ms. Sanderson stated that is a normal procedure the City Engineer follows before the map is finaled.
Mr. Gilbertson stated he wanted the Tentative Map that would be kept in the file to be correct with the correct seal. He suggested adding a condition requiring the new map within 30 days with the correct stamp on it.
Commissioner Wolfe stated he was adding that condition to his motion.
AYES: Douglas, Bergman, Blagden, Skinner and Wolfe
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Variance 2001-02 (Kwong) 2625 Ardsheal Drive
Ms. Sanderson stated this application was submitted by Phillip and Nancy Kwong, to request a variance, to exceed the amount of impervious surface area at 2625 Ardsheal Drive. The site is 1.2 acres in size. According to the applicant, a carport situated on a dirt surface was removed from the site. Once the carport was removed, the applicant chose to concrete the area without approval from Engineering Department. The site exceeds the impervious surface area by .04 acres. The Planning Commission should grant the variance if the findings listed in the staff agenda report can be made. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review the findings for granting a variance and direct staff to bring a resolution back with appropriate findings and conditions of approval if necessary.
Chairman Douglas asked if the Commission had questions of staff.
Commission Blagden stated he had a question about the size of the lot and the calculations. He stated it was 1.2 acres, but he saw it was a net 1-acre and with the calculations it was figured at 1.2. He asked staff if that was a problem.
Mr. Gilbertson stated the calculations prepared by the applicant appears to use the gross area in lieu of the net area, which results in exceeding the allowable impervious coverage by approximately 4,000 square feet in lieu of what was stated in the application.
Commissioner Blagden stated that instead of being the 2,000 square feet, it is 4,000 square feet more or less. He asked if the same thing was done on the original application.
Mr. Gilbertson stated he received some information from the old application through the Planning Director, they verified the calculations on the map before the Commission, the number are correct, how much they exceed the allowable is the difference.
Commissioner Blagden stated he asked about the previous one, it makes a difference if they based their calculations on the previous one on the gross not the net, then they probably exceeded the impervious coverage at that time and it wasn't caught and it diminishes the amount that they are exceeding it.
Mr. Gilbertson stated based on their original calculations they were at the limit of their impervious coverage using the correct net area. On the original application the applicant used the net area and on this application they used the gross.
Commissioner Bergman asked if there was any information on the car port, the description and square footage.
Mr. Gilbertson suggested the applicant answer that question.
Commissioner Blagden stated if they are exceeding the impervious coverage, by 2,00 sq. ft. by the car port being concreted over, but there actually exceeding it by 4,000 sq. ft., he did not see how they could have been at their limit originally.
Mr. Gilbertson stated the request is for an additional square footage of 3,750 sq. ft. Which is fairly close to the limit, which is what they are requesting right now. Plus or minus a few feet.
Commissioner Blagden stated just for the record did Mr. Kwong apply for an impervious coverage variance and he did pay the application fee for that.
Ms. Sanderson stated yes, or this item wouldn't be before the Commission tonight.
Mr. Gilbertson stated that is why this is before the Commission. His inspector was out doing his final inspection and noticed that he had deviated from his approved plans and that the impervious coverage was more than what was approved. He instructed him to removed the additional concrete or apply for a variance and come before the Planning Commission.
Chairman Douglas asked Mr. Gilbertson to point out where the carport was and where the new concrete mass is.
Mr. Gilbertson went to the map and stated the northerly driveway branch, from there to the north was all to be eliminated and that is what the applicant chose to concrete. The carport was shown on the original plans, but it was shown to be removed.
Commissioner Blagden stated that in talking to the applicant, the applicant stated the carport was gravel.
Mr. Gilbertson stated he believed that was correct.
Commission Blagden asked if gravel was considered an impervious surface.
Mr. Gilbertson stated yes; anything with a footprint is considered impervious regardless of what is beneath it.
Commissioner Blagden asked if he was originally going to remove the carport and the gravel.
Mr. Gilbertson stated yes.
Vice-Chairman Skinner stated she was on the Commission when this was approved and she didn't remember the carport. She remembered barns that were to be removed.
Mr. Gilbertson clarified on the plans the carport is shown to be removed.
Commissioner Blagden stated he was not on the Commission at that time, however he was at this meeting and spoke in favor of the Standards Modification.
Commissioner Wolfe asked if there was a reason why it was shown to be removed, was it to reduce the impervious coverage to get it passed.
Mr. Gilbertson stated exactly. He was at his limit for impervious coverage and based on the improvements he wanted to do, he had to remove impervious coverage from somewhere else, and this was what he chose to remove.
Vice-Chairman Skinner asked staff what this concrete area is going to be used for.
Mr. Gilbertson deferred to the applicant.
Commissioner Blagden stated there was a revised staff report and asked what the difference was.
Ms. Sanderson stated there was a reference to a tree removal permit and it should have reference a variance.
Phillip Kwong, 2625 Ardsheal ñ stated he has been a resident at this location for 20 years; two years ago they chose to undertake this project; two years later they are still before this Commission and living out of his house; Commissioner Skinner has a good memory; the carport was not required to be removed, the barns and stables were. He decided to remove the carport in addition to the barns and stables because it was falling apart. It was falling apart because he footing was beginning to lean on the side of the hill next to it. It became an unstable structure and he had it removed. He has been battling that hillside for 20 years, it is still eroding. He felt it was reasonable to put a slab of concrete there graded at an angle with a channel in the middle to channel the sheet flow away from the hillside so it can be brought to a lower level without going to the side. He has gone to a great expense to draw an additional drainage system on top of this hillside to decrees the flow down here. The purpose was to try and stabilize the hillside. Everything else they have done has not worked.
Randy Itaya, Architect ñ stated the original calculations for the original permit was 1.2 gross area. It may have been a misunderstanding on which numbers should have been used in the calculation and it was approved. The section that was added during construction was 1,833-sq. ft. more than what was previously approved. He stated the owner did it not to slip something by, he was unaware of the impervious area; he had good intentions, this area became very eroded because of the hillside run off; he decided in the middle of construction to pour concrete and install an extensive drainage system to try and improve the situation; had he know there was a restriction he would not have done it; there are two characteristic of this site that make it so that a strict application of the ordinance were applied, it would deprive his of certain privileges; the steep slope of this site there is a 60 foot change in elevation from the beginning of his driveway to the bottom of his property; the code says the steeper the slope the less impervious coverage you are allowed; the other characteristic is that he has a flag lot with a very long driveway; his drive way is approximately 355 feet long; the total square footage of this existing driveway is 8,200 square feet; it comprises a great amount of the impervious area; if it wasn't a flag lot it would not need such a long driveway. Would like leniency applied because of these two conditions. He stated in the original proposal in order to mitigate the water run off they show 4 seepage pits. These were preliminary; they placed them at the termination of the existing drainage system. After further discussion and some cost estimates, Dr. Kwong would prefer to provide mitigation for only the amount that they are over. The 4 seepage pits would mitigate all of the water runoff for the entire site. If they are only over 3.5% he asked if they could mitigate only that amount of runoff.
Commissioner Blagden asked about the dry wells being located in the street right-of-way. Could they be moved out of the right-of-way?
Mr. Gilbertson stated one of the conditions of approval was that they have to be moved out of the street right-of-way and onto private property.
Commissioner Blagden asked if the applicant was aware of that condition.
Mr. Itaya stated it was no problem to locate them on his property.
Mr. Gilbertson stated for the record that is shown in the second paragraph on page 2, last sentence.
Commissioner Bergman asked if Mr. Itaya drew up the original set of plans for the house and when did that occur.
Mr. Itaya stated he drew them about 1999.
Commissioner Bergman asked when the new set of plans were done.
Mr. Itaya stated about 2-3 months ago.
Commissioner Bergman asked when the cement was put in.
Mr. Itaya stated the original drawing did not include this cement, it was during construction, a spontaneous decision by the owner to put the concrete in. No plans were drawn, as he was not aware it was going to be done.
Commissioner Wolfe understood that the cement pad was placed to prevent further slippage of the hillside below the pad. He asked Dr. Kwong if he spoke to anyone to determine if the cement would help prevent further slippage of the hillside.
Dr.Kwong stated over the last two years the building project evolved and the decision to take down the carport was based on the fact he felt it was an asset to remove it. Once it was down he still had the problem with the erosion. He spoke with his landscape contract, he felt it was one way to stabilize the sheet flow and to channel it in a more gradual way and they came up with this idea. The existing carport was not helping to channel the water.
Commissioner Wolfe asked if during the prior public hearing process was the concept of impervious coverage ever discussed.
Dr. Kwong stated impervious coverage was not an issue at that time.
Commissioner Wolfe asked what was his understanding of why the corrals and barns needed to be removed.
Dr. Kwong stated the Commission felt they were a fire hazard, it had nothing to do with impervious coverage. Being a flag lot, being on a steep slope, the allowable impervious coverage for the entire property is 30.5%. His driveway at 8,200-sq. ft. is 51% of his allowable impervious coverage. He is only asking for 3.5% more. Wants more parking area down below.
Commissioner Wolfe stated the Commission is extremely worried about applicants doing work and then asking for approval after the fact. He clarified that Dr. Kwong was unaware of the impervious coverage requirement. He asked if it was acceptable for that north east portion that directly drains out of that slab and sheet flows.
Dr. Kwong stated he would prefer not to have to dig a well. If he can be granted the variance without digging the well he would be more than happy. He would prefer granting of the variance only.
Commissioner Wolfe asked what the square footage of the house was.
Mr. Gilbertson stated if was 5,298 square feet.
Commissioner Bergman asked for a description of the carport.
Dr. Kwong stated it was a large high wood structure, it had cement footings and the floor was gravel. He plans to use it to store vehicles and to use it as a turnaround area; it has a 10-foot sliding gate in front of it and has a channel for drainage. The square footage of the original carport he did not have. The carport was probably to 3/5 of the existing slab.
Commissioner Bergman asked if the walls were existing.
Dr. Kwong stated on of the walls was, the side that was against the hill was existing. The new wall is on the north side and a little of the east side.
Commissioner Blagden asked for the special circumstance required in the findings.
Dr. Kwong stated the lot is a steep flag lot, most of his neighbors on Ardsheal are very close to the street. His lot is allowed only 30.5% impervious coverage of that 30.5%, 51% is driveway at 8,200 sq. ft.
Chairman Douglas seeing no one else come forward closed the public hearing.
Chairman Douglas asked staff if the original calculations were net area or gross area.
Mr. Gilbertson stated the applicant now states they were net, he did not have his old file to verify.
Chairman Douglas asked if staff had the original conditions of approval indicated what structures were to be removed.
Vice-Chairman Skinner stated she did not remember if the impervious coverage issue was brought up because it was not an issue at that time. The barns were to be removed because they were a fire hazard, not because impervious coverage.
Ms. Sanderson read the condition of approval from the resolution. Ms. Sanderson stated there are no conditions that refer to a carport. This was a Standards Modification application.
Chairman Douglas stated he was at a loss what to do here when the history is so clouded.
Vice-Chairman Skinner stated this was strictly a Standards Modification for Setback and View. She stated the issue before this Commission is a variance.
Commissioner Blagden stated the part that carries over from before the calculations for the original one where they based on 1.2 acres or 1 acre. Because if they were based on 1.2 then it wasn't the applicants fault that it was missed and minimizes the excess they have now, but if it really is 4,500 difference in impervious coverage, that is about 40% impervious than they should have vs. if its 2,000 sq. ft. difference then it is only 20% more than they should have.
Mr. Gilbertson stated the gross was used not the net. 1.2 acres was used.
Commissioner Blagden stated they acted in good faith and it slipped through and wasn't picked up, so the original application exceeded impervious coverage and he didn't know it and no one knew it until now.
Chairman Douglas stated now he has a better impervious area because it has drains in it. He asked staff if they are required to address the impervious coverage from two years ago.
Ms. Sanderson stated the issue before the Commission is the variance for the current impervious surface; the previous Standards Modification occurred before she came on board;
the City Engineer made the determination at that time, which it did not exceed the impervious calculations at that time.
Commissioner Blagden stated what they have is a case where the impervious is exceeded by about 4,500-sq. ft., but only 2,200 were deliberate.
Chairman Douglas stated the entire amount has been impervious the entire time. The approved amount didn't require the carport to go away. He asked what new impervious coverage are we talking about.
Commissioner Blagden stated the carport was the back third of the area in question, the difference is the carport cover was removed.
Chairman Douglas asked staff if the carport and gravel have always been considered impervious.
Mr. Gilbertson stated he did not believe that, that area was designated, did not have the original plans; his inspector pointed out it was not shown as impervious coverage, it was shown as dirt; his inspector flagged it.
Mr. Gilbertson stated based on the original calculations the Planner supplied compared to now, there appears to be an increase of 1,600 sq. ft. of impervious coverage from the original approval to now. Two years ago they proposed 16,241-sq. ft., now they are at 17,807.
Commissioner Wolfe stated he wanted to look at this as it is presented here today; most of this property is driveway; he has to have access to his property; it's a long flag lot; it is consistent with the General Plan; it is well landscaped; there are special circumstances; granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public interest; concerned about further erosion of the hillside below; is satisfied it will protect the public interest; blends well into the hillside; the request is consistent with the purpose and intent of the Zone in which the site is located; the site is physically suitable for the proposed variance and he has drainage; there are adequate provisions for public access to serve the use authorized by the variance, there are adequate provisions for that. There are sufficient findings to grant this variance.
Commissioner Bergman asked the Engineer for a lesson on seepage pits.
Mr. Gilbertson stated he calls them dry wells, part of SUSMP requires most of the homes in the Heights now to have something on site to collect the initial runoff. He suggest this as a way to get it approved by the Planning Commission. Based on percolation tests they know how fast water infiltrates into the ground. Based on that and the amount of runoff this imperious coverage will generate, they determined the size of the dry well, the depth, and the number.
Commissioner Bergman clarified this is on a formula, your draining so many sq. ft., you want so much dry well, whether it is multiple or smaller dry wells and the diameter and depth of them.
Mr. Gilbertson stated exactly and it is up to this Commission to determine how much they want them to contain in those dry wells. Do you want them to contain what they are exceeding or do you want them to contain more, it is up to the Commission.
Chairman Douglas state SUSMP kicks in at some number of square footage of new impervious coverage.
Mr. Gilbertson stated any new residence with a slope of 25%. This project was approved before SUSMP was required. This did not have to comply with that.
Chairman Douglas felt there was channelization of the water.
Mr. Gilbertson stated yes. It still goes to the same place, across the private street and down into the drainage canyons. Engineering in their analysis looks at how they slow down that water. A Geotechnical Engineer will determine the location of the wells.
Commissioner Blagden questioned the height of fencing and the landscaping of it.
Vice-Chairman Skinner asked if the project could be conditioned to require the fencing be no more than 6 feet in height.
Chairman Douglas agreed with the other commissioners that the fenced portion was not necessary.
Commissioner Bergman stated he wanted the impervious coverage area to drain into a dry well.
Chairman Douglas stated the finding could clearly be made.
Ms. Sanderson stated there is not resolution before the Commission, the motion would be to direct staff to prepare a resolution recommending to the City Council approval/denial of Variance 2001-02.
Commissioner Wolfe moved to direct staff to prepare a resolution regarding Variance 2001-02 recommending to the City Council approval of variance and adding condition of approval that the fence surrounding the subject concrete area be removed as well as required drain and dry well be installed as depicted for drainage off of that location be installed. Commissioner Bergman seconded the motion.
Commissioner Blagden wanted the fencing lowered to six feet and covered with landscaping, as well as specifying that the dry well handles 2,000 sq. ft.
Commissioner Wolfe wanted the dry well the same as depicted on the plans.
Mr. Gilbertson stated you should specify the amount of square footage you want in the dry well. It could change the dimensions of the well.
Commissioner Blagden stated he wanted 2,000-sq. ft. as the amount.
Chairman Douglas stated 2,00 sq. ft.
Commissioner Wolfe modified his motion to include the 2,000 sq. ft and reduce the fencing to 6 feet as opposed to removal of the fencing. Commissioner Bergman seconded the motion.
AYES: Douglas, Bergman, Blagden, Skinner and Wolfe
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Ms. Sanderson stated that resolution would be brought back to the Commission for approval at their September 25, 2001 meeting.
ITEMS FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Chairman Douglas stated there are a couple of things going on in the community. The General Plan revisions that will be forthcoming. He has been working on ways on some ways to try and find the opinion of the previous Commissioners as to what could be done and asked for the e-mail address of the Commissioners. He stated he was soliciting non-official input. If staff has a problem with this type of e-mail they should speak now or hold their peace.
Mr. Duran stated the Commission is well aware of the restrictions of the Brown Act and he has confidence the Commissioners will abide by those laws and regulations. Sending an e-mail does not mean you will get a response back.
Commissioner Blagden asked if he was looking for items that might have a track record of being problematic or ambiguous.
Chairman Douglas stated in the future we are going to want to start trying to bring forward lists of ordinances we find troublesome on a repeat basis. Ordinances that are not clear, lacking, irrelevant. So the General Plan Committee can be notified. When we start complying them formally they will become part of the record.
Commissioner Wolfe asked for phone numbers on the agenda report.
Ms. Sanderson asked for it be made by motion.
Commissioner Blagden moved phone numbers be put on the staff report. Seconded by Chairman Douglas.
Ms. Sanderson advised the Commission that staff rarely put plans on the wall. The reason was plans that are not colorized are very difficult to see. She asked for a motion by the Commission if they want the plans on the wall, that the applicant submit one of the sets must be colorized.
Commissioner Blagden moved to direct staff to implement the policy that one set of plans must be colorized.
Ms. Sanderson asked Mr. Itaya what the cost of a colorized plan.
Mr. Itaya stated it varies, if a magic marker is used it might be $40-50 per sheet. If it is more elaborate that is different and might take 2-3 hours.
Commissioner Bergman was concerned with the cost and the use.
Commissioner Wolfe stated the cost could be very large and it might not be used. Difficult to enforce across the board.
Commissioner Blagden stated it should be required when it is scheduled to a public hearing. There should be a threshold for the colored plans.
Chairman Douglas asked staff that in many cases it would be a clear benefit to the applicant. Plans are helpful. Maybe staff could suggest it when appropriate without out force of law behind it. If it makes their project more likely to be approved you would think they would be willing to get the magic marker out.
Ms. Sanderson guaranteed if it is not a requirement they will not comply. Making it as a suggestion has never worked.
Commissioner Blagden stated the City would not need colored floor plans.
Ms. Sanderson stated the Commission was talking about the site plans and elevation plans.
Commissioner Blagden stated you are talking about 1-3 plans and did not feel it was an unnecessary burden.
Chairman Douglas stated he wanted only the ones that related to the variance of the code.
Ms. Sanderson stated some cities require it some don't. The ones who didn't require it the plans were not put on the wall. The Cities that did put their plans on the wall required them to be colorized. Usually site plans and elevations.
Chairman Douglas stated the Commission would think about it and see what they can come up with.
Commissioner Wolfe reminded the Commission that there was a motion on the floor to add the phone numbers to the agenda report. He again moved to require the phone numbers on the Agenda Reports. Seconded by Commissioner Blagden.
AYES: Douglas, Bergman, Blagden, Skinner and Wolfe
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
13. ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Douglas moved at 10:24 p.m. to adjourn to the Special Meeting of July 26, 2001. Seconded by Commissioner Blagden and approved as follows:
AYES: Douglas, Bergman, Blagden, Skinner and Wolfe
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Bruce Douglas, Chairperson
ATTEST:
Sheryl Sanderson, Director of Planning
PAGE 2
MINUTES OF A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE LA HABRA HEIGHTS
PLANNING COMMISSION
July 18, 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 7:35 p.m. at the Community Center, 1245 North Hacienda Road, La Habra Heights, California.
ROLL CALL
Those present: Chairman Bruce Douglas, Vice-Chairman Ginger Skinner, Commissioner Brian Bergman, and alternate Commissioner William Hinz. Also present Director of Planning Sheryl Sanderson, Planning Technician Barbara Doppieri, City Engineer Dominic Milano and Commission Attorney Ruben Duran.
Absent: Commissioner Blagden and Commissioner Wolfe
FLAG SALUTE
City Engineer Dominic Milano led the flag salute.
ITEMS FROM THE PUBLIC
None
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF POSTING OF AGENDA FOR MEETING OF July 18, 2001
Ms. Sanderson stated the agenda had been posted in accordance with the state law.
PUBLIC HEARING
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2000-12 (Family Resource Ministries) 1225 N. Hacienda Road.
Ms. Sanderson swore in those wishing to testify.
Ms. Sanderson presented the staff report stating this application is an amendment to CUP 99-01, a Conditional Use Permit to operate a private junior high school at The Heights Christian School, which is located at 1225 North Hacienda Road. This Conditional Use Permit was adopted by City Council Resolution 99-22 on August 31, 1999. She stated before the Commission is the proposed Campus Master Plan for ìThe Heights Christian Schoolî. It is a phased development. The phased include:
Phase 1A - Construction of 10 new classroom and Administration Building while portable classrooms remain and Construction of the parking area adjacent to North Hacienda Road
Phase 1B - Construction of parking area adjacent to the Administration Building and removal of portable classrooms
Phase 2 - Construction of the Assembly Building & attached accessory rooms, and parking and separate entrances are provided for both the pre-school and junior high school
At built-out there will be 24,580 square feet of buildings for the junior high school and 8,200 square feet of buildings for the pre-school.
There are many aspects of the proposed project that extends outside of the property boundaries into the City of La Habra's park site. The applicant has not provided documentation from the City of La Habra authorizing The Heights Christian School to use the adjoining area.
The building height of the proposed Assembly Building is 28 feet and Administration Building and classrooms are 16 feet. This measurement is from finished grade to the highest roof peak. The applicant did submit front views only along with a colored rendering. However, staff feels the information submitted does not provide an accurate depiction of the building design
Because the City's General Plan designated Hacienda Rd as a scenic highway, the building design/building materials/ color scheme are important components of the proposed project.
The submitted landscape is in compliance with Zone 23, which is the climate zone for La Habra Heights.
The proposed project provides 140 parking spaces in which 89 are proposed on-site, 26 parking spaces on the adjoining City of La Habra's park site, staff believes there are 25 parking spaces available at City Hall through a reciprocal easement agreement with the City of La Habra Heights. Based on the La Habra Heights Municipal Code, a minimum of 202 parking spaces are required 7 for the pre-school and 195 for the junior high school. Deviations from the parking requirements of the La Habra Height Municipal Code would require a variance.
The Planning Commission needs to consider if the site is being overbuilt.
A sign program is proposed. The program includes directional signage, identification signage, and a marquee for events. According to the plans, the 32 square feet in area existing identification sign will be removed and be replaced with a larger sign (48 square feet in area). This proposed sign program lack the details, which have been identified in the staff report.
Since the La Habra Heights Municipal Code does not provide sign regulations, the Planning Commission needs to provide direction. The Planning Commission may want to consider limiting the number of colors that may be used, height limitations, signage materials such as wooden painted signs, etc.
The lighting plan meets the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
City Engineer Dominic Milano stated the original concept for the Hacienda Road improvements is all predicated on how the parking layout was. The parking has been realigned into three segments, the entry parking lot (queing parking lot), a preschool parking lot, and the junior high parking lot. The traffic studies require a signal to be placed at Sansenia. There will be a left-hand turn for northbound traffic movement. The second entry into the parking lot is for southbound traffic, allowing them to enter the preschool parking lot. Exiting is again at two locations, through the preschool parking lot which requires a right hand turn only, and a free movement out of the entry parking lot (queing parking lot) this allows for right and left turns. The junior high parents will be directed to the rear parking lot, the preschool parents to the preschool parking lot. Preschool parents need to park to take their children into the school. This is not the case with junior high students. On paper or theory this works. What may have to happen is a proctor may need to be in the lot to direct traffic.
Mr. Milano stated the impervious coverage is exceeded. The allowable impervious coverage is 1.2 acres. What is proposed is 2.26 acres. It is almost double of allowable impervious coverage by the Municipal Code. Currently there is a drainage system on the west side of the complex. There is a series of catch basins that take the water north and dumps it into the streambed behind the complex. That is a blue line stream that is controlled by Fish and Game and the Army Corp of Engineers. The proposal is for the southern portion of the property. La Habra will not allow the water coming off this site onto the park. The additional impervious are will be caught up in a catch basin and piped to the blue line stream. The issues the Commission will be dealing with is the applicant is over the impervious coverage, the City is trying to control the runoff because we do not have a system to collect water. The applicant is proposing to dump the water on the boundaries of La Habra into the blue line stream. The issue is should we be controlling that runoff per our Municipal Code and not allow the additional impervious coverage or have it contained on site using dry wells or allow the applicant to try and get the permit from Fish and Game and the Army Corp of Engineers to allow the water to go into the stream bed. In this blue line stream we do have urbanization that has occurred and there are a number of areas that are already draining into to from paved surfaces, homes, etc.
Ms. Sanderson stated she felt the findings could be made in support of this amended Conditional Use Permit. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a recommendation for approval of CUP 2000-12 subject to a list of conditions to the City Council and adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. 2001-09.
Chairman Douglas asked if the Commission had any questions of staff.
Commissioner Bergman asked what happens to the water draining towards the street.
Mr. Milano stated most of the water goes to the west of the property.
Commissioner Hinz asked if the applicant had approached Fish and Game.
Mr. Milano stated he did not know, however there is not a permit in place.
Commissioner Hinz asked if the environmental impact report had been done for the traffic.
Ms. Sanderson stated a Negative Declaration was prepared for the original Conditional Use Permit 99-01 and did involve traffic studies and environmental concerns.
Chairman Douglas asked if all the previous conditions from CUP 99-01 would be brought forward with this approval.
Ms. Sanderson stated that is condition number 1 of the proposed resolution.
Chairman Douglas stated the City Council at their last meeting granted a 3-month extension for the usage of the temporary buildings. Does the Planning Commission need to deal with any issues for the Councils deliberation in August.
Ms. Sanderson stated no. This is their 3rd Time Extension. They need a time extension otherwise their Conditional Use Permit will expire. The extension allows the continued operation of a private junior high school.
Chairman Douglas asked if SUSMP and the BMPs would be handled by the City Engineer's Office.
Mr. Milano stated yes. SUSMP will come into play no matter what.
Chairman Douglas asked if the park owned by La Habra which was in an unincorporated area of La Habra had been resolved.
Mr. Milano stated Orange County has turned the authority for the park over to La Habra.
Commissioner Bergman asked if there could be a performance bond placed on the two-year condition.
Ms. Sanderson stated that condition means that construction needs to begin within 2 years from the date of approval.
Commissioner Bergman asked if a performance bond could be placed on the project.
Ms Sanderson stated yes.
Chairman Douglas opened the public hearing.
Betty Kimes, 1555 El Travesia ñ she gave an overview of the school's accomplishments over the last two years. Goal was to keep the preschool and junior high students separated. Needs the assembly building for awards assemblies and chapel. Has been renting the gym at the park for their athletics program. La Habra has been interested in a gym facility they could use, as La Habra has no gyms within their City.
Andy Anderson, Contractor, 16742 Drury Drive, Whittier ñ explained the drainage; there is an existing storm drain system already on site; the existing site already exceeds the impervious coverage; the design has been accepted at staff level in La Habra.
Bruce Macpherson, Architect, 474 S. Raymond Avenue, Pasadena ñ he explained the massing and layout for the school; no details yet; wanted a consistent image at the street; new development in the rear.
Chairman Douglas asked regarding the Fire Department concerns and had all concerns been met.
Mr. Anderson stated the evacuation plan was prepared and submitted to the fire department, which has been approved.
Ms. Sanderson asked the fire marshal if the evacuation plan had been approved.
Fire Marshal John Nielsen stated that he had asked for a color rendering, he has not seen a new plan.
Mr. Anderson stated he would get the color rendering and then explained they hydrant locations; radius study has been done; the hydrant in the front does not have enough pressure; when construction starts a new hydrant will be installed; pump station will be moved; in its place will be trash enclosure and restrooms.
Mr. Anderson stated discussions with La Habra have only been surface discussions until they receive approvals from La Habra Heights.
Commissioner Bergman stated the parking is a real concern.
Mr. Anderson stated the use agreement gives the school the first rights of activities and parking, La Habra will be second.
Vice-Chairman Skinner asked regarding the size of the assembly building, was it necessary to have it that big; plans show 6,800 sq. ft; 4,200 sq. ft, traffic assessment.
Ms. Kimes stated they added large locker rooms and restrooms and storage.
Mr. Milano stated the drawing in the packet is confusing, the gym is shown as 6,800 sq. ft. Building total looks to be about 8,000 sq. ft.
Ms. Sanderson stated that is the way it is presented in the master plan document.
Mr. Duran asked Mrs. Kimes to recreate her conversation with Commissioner Skinner up at the map so it makes its way into the record.
Mr. Macpherson stated the gym is 6,800-sq. ft. plus the accessory rooms.
Ms. Sanderson stated the way staff interpreted it was the assembly building at 6,800 sq. ft., the other rooms are not included in the calculations.
Vice-Chairman Skinner stated between the existing junior high school and pre school buildings there is a cemented area, she asked what was the need for so much cemented area between the buildings.
Mrs. Kimes stated 200 children walking in the rain on grass turns to mud.
Chairman Douglas asked regarding the current enrollment.
Ms. Kimes stated the junior high school enrollment is at 240 students this year and the preschool is at 145 children.
Chairman Douglas asked regarding discrepancies in the master plan.
Glenn Carvin, 15912 Alicante Road, La Mirada, CA 90678 ñ that was an error that was not caught.
Chairman Douglas asked the applicant to make the corrections and submit a corrected copy, it must be as accurate as possible.
Chairman Douglas asked regarding accreditation
Mrs. Kimes discussed the process to becoming an accredited school. She stated they are in the second year of a five-year process. After approval you are reevaluated every 3-6 years.
Chairman Douglas asked if the Conditional Use Permit could be conditioned to require accreditation because the code requires it.
Mr. Duran stated religious schools are forwarded additional protection and he would look into it. The fact the City has granted CUPs to the school in the past may have vested some right for them to run a school.
Chairman Douglas asked staff to check for an agreement regarding the parking; staff to resolve the reciprocal agreement.
Mr. Anderson stated in his discussions with Ms. Lindsey, she indicated it was not necessary to identify the parking in the reciprocal agreement for City use.
Mr. Sanderson stated there were meetings held with Family Resource Ministries and the City Manager that she was not included in, and it is possible a verbal agreement was made.
Chairman Douglas asked staff to look into this and see if there are records not part of this hearing. He asked if Family Resource Ministries understands they do not have unlimited use of City Hall parking.
Mrs. Kimes stated she would have to read the agreement, it was her understanding that they had use of City Hall parking and the City Hall had use of their parking.
Chairman Douglas asked staff to make the interpretation and get that information to Mrs. Kimes.
Chairman Douglas asked regarding the use of the park and is there a security plan.
Mr. Carven those items will be in the joint use agreement with La Habra. The school after construction will be secured with fencing.
Chairman Douglas asked regarding a plan to address current student enrollment and future enrollments.
Mrs. Kimes stated they do not plan to increase the school past the maximum number allowed.
Chairman Douglas asked if the applicant was going to have to move any of the utilities.
Mr. Anderson stated yes along Hacienda Road. The pump station and the power poles.
Chairman Douglas asked how many people could fit in the assembly building.
Mr. Anderson stated about 700.
Mrs. Kimes stated there are two times a year that they need large parking, open house and back to school night. The new signal will help with the traffic calming on Hacienda.
Commissioner Bergman asked if the Conditional Use Permit could limit the number of parking spaces to control the parking.
Mrs. Kimes stated she expected the Conditional Use Permit to be conditioned.
Commissioner Hinz asked again if there was an adequate evacuation plan accepted by the fire marshal.
Mr. Nielson stated that as soon as he could review a color rendering he would be satisfied.
Commissioner Bergman asked about a performance bond.
Mrs. Kimes stated that was normal, they have built 11 campuses.
Vice-Chairman Skinner asked if the applicant had contacted Fish and Game regarding the blue line stream.
Mr. Anderson stated no, but he doesn't anticipate a problem.
Vice-Chairman Skinner asked if the conditions of approval would transcend onto La Habra.
Mr. Duran stated the conditions apply to the school and anyone using the school.
Chairman Douglas stated he wanted the school to provide an operational plan; classes, enrollment, hours. The Commission will also want an operational plan for the facility.
Mrs. Kimes stated that is when the three sets of lawyers will need to get together.
Chairman Douglas indicated that until the parking lots are done Family Resource Ministries will need to continue busing.
Glen Pedersen, Traffic Engineer ñ stated they have looked at a number of entrances; has had numerous discussions with La Habra over the signal at Sansenia; there have been some concern from residents in the county area that traffic will become worse at Janine Drive; there might be a slight worsening at Janine; this plan presents a better approach.
Commissioner Bergman asked staff if there are there any potential problems with the plan.
Mr. Milano stated there might be some conflicts occurring within the internal queing system; a proctor or monitor would help with the traffic flow.
Commissioner Bergman stated he wanted that as a condition.
Chairman Douglas stated the data is based on the 1999 school year; ultimately you will monitor the flow once the school is opened.
Mrs. Kimes stated it is there policy to have proctors in every one of their parking lots to make it safe for the children. Their figures were based on the worst case scenarios.
Mr. Pederson stated they were mostly interested that the pocket does not overflow and thus blocking the Number 1 through lane.
Chairman Douglas stated he would like the project conditioned heavily to keep traffic problems from occurring, along with a monitoring program by staff.
Mr. Anderson stated the one thing La Habra was concerned about was, what happens if there is congestion at the signal. He stated they have used the worst case scenarios.
Mrs. Kimes stated there has not been a problem so far with 220 children showing up at the same time. There are days the buses do not run.
Chairman Douglas stated there is confusion with the numbering of pages in the traffic study.
Mr. Anderson stated he has rewritten pages 16-19 and presented them to Chairman Douglas.
Chairman Douglas asked staff to have copies made for each Commissioner before the next Planning Commission meeting on this subject.
Chairman Douglas asked if at the Sansenia intersection are the exiting lanes 4 lanes, 2 in and 2 out?
Mr. Pedersen stated it would be wide enough to hold 2 lanes. It would be tight.
Chairman Douglas stated if it looks like it is wide enough you will have 2 lanes of traffic. You should widen it or narrow it.
Mr. Anderson stated heading south on Hacienda you have one lane that turns right. Coming out of the parking lot you have one lane for turning south and one lane for turning north.
Commissioner Bergman asked who would be setting up the signal.
Mr. Pederson stated La Habra.
Chairman Douglas seeing no one else coming forward closed the public hearing. He then asked for comments from the Commission.
Commissioner Hinz stated he had some concerns about the blue line stream, Fish and Game could have some input. He was less than impressed about the parking; 122 parking spaces is not a lot. Some of the drawings were not adequate. This project will impact City Hall and the emergency vehicles. Hacienda is busy and not built for this kind of traffic; if the building and the use of it were under the control of La Habra Heights, that he would be more comfortable. He would prefer the Parks Commission control what happens in the gym than leaving that control to the City of La Habra. Will the approval of these plans foster a rural atmosphere in the City of La Habra Heights. He felt the answer is no.
Vice-Chairman Skinner stated the City Council entered into an agreement with Family Resource Ministries. She wants some control over the use and size of the buildings. Wants it to blend into the community; condition of parking. She was concerned with the elevations, signage, and size of assembly building; is concerned about impervious coverage and Fish and Game.
Commissioner Bergman agrees with Commissioner Skinner. It has always been a school. It needs to get built and done. Parking is a major concern. Wants more parking. Wants the City in control of the events at the school.
Chairman Douglas asked staff regarding the conditions on the blue line stream and the Fish and Game approvals; the Operational Plan to come back to the Planning Commission; condition regarding parking.
Chairman Douglas stated as it relates to the drainage issue, there is such a body of law in place in the conditions, must have Fish and Game approvals or handle on site treatment, Best Management Practices put in place and monitored forever. The elevations and how to make that blend in the Planning Commission wants it brought back to the Commission. The Commission also wants to see the signage. They have heard that the applicant is willing to accept conditions. The school will need to prepare an operational plan for the assembly building, showing how it is going to be used after you finish your negotiations with La Habra. This operational plan needs to come back to the Commission. If a parking problem does occur, it will come back to the Commission. He felt the Commission should direct staff at this point. Wants a condition showing how quickly this project should move ahead. Wants a matrix developed showing when these milestones will be met. Wants a condition relating to the operational plan. He wants the condition requiring the operational plan for the school to stay in effect. Add a condition requiring the City Engineer to monitor the parking and traffic. Wants to monitor the operational plan and the joint use agreement with La Habra for traffic concerns.
Ms. Sanderson stated that yes they understand the proposed conditions.
Mr. Duran asked for further direction, were they seeking to continue all of the original conditions, are there new conditions.
Chairman Douglas to the extent any of the conditions require future action, they want them included with realistic time frames of when they will occur. Anything that requires a future action, there's the end point in time, the milestones and the method of reporting in a simple fashion. The operational plan for the joint use facilities is a new condition. The operational plan for the school is a condition they want to see yearly. They want a condition that the City Engineer monitors the major public works projects. Monitoring of the traffic and parking by the City Engineer is a condition. They also want a bond surety bond that encourages the applicant to move quickly through this process, tied to the end dates of the build out. Wants a time line agreed upon by the School and our staff agreeing it can be done by the dates agreed.
Brian Burgess, Attorney at Law, representing Family Resource Ministries, 1940 Skyline Vista, La Habra Heights ñ stated the surety bond is to make sure the thing is built from the owners standpoint, the City control over that would be a Conditional Use Permit, you want to make sure they have a contract to see it is built, not holding FRM liable.
Chairman Douglas stated that no they are interested, in making FRM financially responsible to keep this project moving along. Will leave to staff to impose the method to get it done.
Mr. Milano asked if the Commission would want the public improvements in place before the buildings are done.
Chairman Douglas stated before the busing program is abandoned.
Mr. Milano asked if they cannot get approvals for the storm drain into the blue line stream, they will redesign to handle it on site.
Chairman Douglas yes it is already covered in the conditions. If they cannot get approvals from Fish and Game and the Army Corp of Engineers to drain into the blue line stream, then they will need to maintain the water on site with Best Management Practices.
Mr. Milano stated yes systems to hold the water on site will work, they are very expensive but they can be done.
Chairman Douglas asked staff if the road map was very clear.
Chairman Douglas asked what the pleasure of the Commission was.
Timing was discussed and the Commission chose to hold a special meeting on Thursday, July 26, 2001 at 7:30 p.m. to approve this final resolution.
The Commission took a break at 10:30 p.m. to change the tapes. The meeting was reconvened at 10:35 p.m.
Chairman Douglas asked staff if they got the conditions the Commissioners were looking for.
Mr. Duran re read the added conditions of approval.
To the extent that any of the future conditions require future actions, that these conditions be place into a time line with an end date and milestone dates and monitoring to ensure the dates are adhered to.
Operational Plan for the Gym.
Continued review of the schools operational plan.
After build out periodic checks of the traffic and parking issues by the City Engineer and the Planning Director. La Habra should be included in this condition.
Bond to ensure the project is built to completion.
Busing continues until all street improvements have been done and all of the parking lots are completed.
Fish and Game and Army Corp of Engineers must approve the storm drain or SWUMP and BMPs must be followed with on site percolation.
Chairman Douglas moved to direct staff to prepare the resolution for a meeting on July 26, 2001. Commissioner Hinz seconded the motion and it was approved as follows:
AYES: Douglas, Bergman, Skinner and Hinz
NOES: None
ABSENT: Blagden and Wolfe
ABSTAIN: None
Chairman Douglas asked the Commission and staff what things need to come back to the Commission. The Commission wants to see the operational plan, the joint use agreement with La Habra; signage will need to come back to the Commission,
Chairman Douglas stated staff could handle the lighting plan.
Ms. Sanderson stated the Commission did not vote on parking or impervious coverage.
Chairman Douglas stated they wanted the parking and impervious coverage covered under the Conditional Use Permit.
Ms. Sanderson stated for the record there needs to be a separate motion.
Chairman Douglas asked staff to also prepare a resolution approving the variance for parking and impervious coverage as discussed in said conditions of the Conditional Use Permit.
Chairman Douglas wants to see the elevation plans back to the Commission.
ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Hinz moved at 10:50 p.m. to adjourn to the Regular Meeting of July 24, 2001. Seconded by Chairman Douglas and approved as follows:
AYES: Douglas, Bergman, Skinner and Hinz
NOES: None
ABSENT: Blagden and Wolfe
ABSTAIN: None
Bruce Douglas, Chairperson
ATTEST:
Sheryl Sanderson, Director of Planning
PAGE 12
Back to top
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE LA HABRA HEIGHTS
PLANNING COMMISSION
June 26, 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 7:35 p.m. at the Community Center, 1245 North Hacienda Road, La Habra Heights, California.
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, City Engineer Dominic Milano and Commission Attorney Ruben Duran.
FLAG SALUTE
Commissioner Bergman led the flag salute.
ITEMS FROM THE PUBLIC
None
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF POSTING OF AGENDA FOR MEETING OF June 26, 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 April 24, 2001.
Vice-Chairman Skinner moved to approve the minutes as amended. Seconded by Commissioner Blagden and approved as follows:
AYES: Douglas, Bergman, Blagden, Skinner and Wolfe
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Minutes of the regular Planning Commission Meeting of May 22, 2001.
Commissioner Blagden moved to approve the minutes. Seconded by Commissioner Wolfe.
AYES: Douglas, Bergman, Blagden, Skinner and Wolfe
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
PUBLIC HEARING
Chairman Douglas stated he had a request for a continuance of item #14 Conditional Use Permit 2000-11 (Verizon) along Hacienda Road. He asked if the commission was willing to move this item to the beginning of the agenda.
Commissioner Blagden moved to move Item 14 to number 7 and renumber the agenda. Seconded by Commissioner Wolfe and was approved as follows:
AYES: Douglas, Bergman, Blagden, Skinner and Wolfe
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Chairman Douglas explained to the audience that this was a full agenda, and asked everyone to limit their comments to 5 minutes. Ms. Sanderson swore in those wishing to testify.
Conditional Use Permit 2000-11 (Verizon) along Hacienda Road
Ms. Sanderson stated the applicant is requesting a continuance to allow him time to talk with the residents, because there are concerns with the placement of these cellular sites. The applicant would like to develop some mitigation measures to present to the Planning Commission at their next meeting of July 24, 2001.
Commissioner Blagden had some ideas he wanted to share with the applicant. He asked staff if they could split the CUP into a CUP for each of the antennas, so each antenna would have its own permit and could be dealt with individually.
Ms. Sanderson stated if you split it up, each case would need to be re-noticed. New fees would be needed. The environmental would need to be redone. New fees would need to be sent to the county for the environmental. The staff reports instead of one would need to be done. It would take a lot of additional staff time.
Commissioner Blagden still felt they needed to be split up. After further discussion Commissioner Blagden asked staff if in the future they would split these types of applications up. He asked the applicant to look into the pole antennas rather than having the panel antennas. Asked if the cabinets could be placed underground. Are there any other antennas along Hacienda they could co-locate with? He asked staff to look into charging rent for them to use the right of way. He also asked to see the landscaping plan.
Mr. Duran stated there is a motion on the table that needs to be acted on.
Seconded by Vice-Commissioner Skinner and approved as follows:
AYES: Douglas, Bergman, Blagden, Skinner and Wolfe
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
CONSENT CALENDAR
8. REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RECORD TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 23770 Broshears) 783-787 West Road
Commissioner Blagden asked to have this item pulled from the consent Calendar.
Commissioner Blagden voiced a concern last month that the Commission did not have a map to look at. Maps in the files are different that what is in the file. He questioned what was the approved map and how would the Commission know the map they have is approved or not.
Mr. Milano stated he reviewed the maps and the dimensions are the same for this map and the approved map, parcel elevations for the pads are the same, driveways and streets are the same, the schedule of total acreage, the allowable grading, actual grading and cut and fill calculations are the same. He stated the Deputy City Engineer Gilbertson has determined that these maps are in substantial compliance with the approved map. The map in the agenda packet, is the map to look at.
Commissioner Blagden questioned parcel 2 complying with Ordinance 188.
Mr. Milano stated 34 % requires a parcel greater than 1.35 acres; he stated the calculations would be rechecked to make sure the final map conforms to ordinance 188. If indeed the code section does require larger parcels and he cannot meet it with this map, the applicant will have to come back to the Planning Commission for a variance when he does his final calculations.
Commissioner Blagden previously asked about the map, which shows 3.95 acres, and the description says 3.87.
Mr. Milano stated the tentative map was based on the County Assessor Maps. In the final map checking when they do a metes and bound survey and they do the final closure calculations the figures may change. The County Assessor's Map figures are close at best and do not necessarily reflect the legal size of that parcel.
Commissioner Blagden also asked what happens when the lots do not conform to the ordinances. He was told the Commission has the right to deny the map or require the applicant to come back with the right size.
Chairman Douglas asked staff even though the map shows grading and pads; approval of the map does not give the applicant the right to grading entitlements.
Mr. Milano stated what the grading shows on these maps is conceptual at best and the developer when he is ready to go will submit for an application for grading. A more precise grading plan will be submitted. The amount of grading that would be required for these three lots would need to come back to the Planning Commission for a Conditional Use Permit.
Commissioner Blagden asked for an explanation of the strip of land off Picaacho.
Mr. Milano stated this is a proposed 3-foot by 37 foot street dedication. During the title search there was a small portion of land that was undedicated. When staff receives the final title report they will they will be going through it and determining why this strip is there. It is on the December 3, 1992 map.
Commissioner Blagden questioned the driveway grades.
Mr. Milano stated the tentative maps show grades of 20%, 10% and 15%. He agreed the grade should be no more than 20%. He stated the condition does not authorize the applicant to violate the municipal code.
Commissioner Blagden stated he would like a condition of approval that all parcels must comply with the minimum lot size.
Mr. Duran stated case law establishes that when a tentative map is up for extension the Commission may not add new conditions of approval. It is not appropriate for the Commission to revisit the original map approval. Nor would it be appropriate for the Commission to condition the extension. A staff report does not create entitlements, the resolution does. The Commission can deny the extension or approve the extension or continue the item.
Chairman Douglas asked what the pleasure of the Commission was.
Vice Chairman Skinner asked if this map comes back to the Commission before it is finalized.
Mr. Milano said no.
Commissioner Blagden moved to continue this item to wait for the Engineer's Report.
Seeing no second motion failed.
Commissioner Bergman asked if the extension is granted nothing changes as far as the requirements of the map.
Mr. Duran stated that is correct.
Commissioner Blagden wanted the map continued to make sure the lot size works.
Commissioner Hinz stated continuing this item is not what the applicant is requesting. They are entitled to this extension.
Mr. Milano stated if during the extension the Commission finds there is a violation of the Municipal Code as exclusively stated on this map or within the staff conditions you have the right to go back and revisit that to make sure it was not the intent of the original approving body, to allow them something different than what the code said. If indeed it is suppose to be 1.45 instead of 1.35 that is something that is a mistake and you should extend it because it is off 300-400 sq. feet on that one parcel. If the driveway interpretation of 25 vs. 20%. If you see something that is wrong on this map you have the right to bring that up and discuss that issue to see if it was an oversight in the approval process. You must remember the information on this map was pulled off a County Assessor's map. Until the final survey is done these numbers will fluctuate.
Commissioner Wolfe moved to grant a one-year extension of time for Tentative Parcel Map 23770 subject to all of the original conditions. Seconded by Commissioner Bergman and approved as follows:
AYES: Douglas, Bergman, Skinner and Wolfe
NOES: Blagden
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
OLD BUSINESS
REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RECORD TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 24162 (Newbre) 255 Canada Sombre
Chairman Douglas stated staff has received a request for a continuance on this item.
Mr. Milano stated the applicant has requested a continuance. The lot lines have changed on this parcel. The owner has sold or given away a portion of the land to the conservancy for open space. This required the moving of some of the lot lines. They have asked for a continuance to the July 24th meeting to bring this back to the Commission.
Chairman Douglas asked if they need to make significant changes to the boundaries, yet they still comply with the Municipal Code would they need to file a new map.
Mr. Milano stated no that it would be an amendment to the existing map. He felt they still need to go back through the public hearing process for the new map.
Ms. Sanderson stated the applicant has submitted a revised parcel map to the City and it will be coming to the Planning Commission.
Mr. Milano stated they are asking for a continuance not an extension of the map, they do not want this map to die.
Commissioner Blagden moved to approve the continuance. Commissioner Wolfe seconded the motion.
AYES: Douglas, Bergman, Blagden, Skinner and Wolfe
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Mr. Milano stated staff would bring this item back to each meeting with a status report of where the project stands.
REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RECORD TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. Tract Map 51275 ( Finn) 2000 Chota Road
Ms. Sanderson stated the applicant is withdrawing their application. This item was put on the agenda before staff became aware of the applicant's request. She recommended the Commission receive and file this report.
Chairman Douglas received and filed their request.
PUBLIC HEARING
Ms. Sanderson swore in those wishing to testify.
Tree Removal Permit 2001-01 (Pat Klinker) 1280 Walnut Street
Ms. Sanderson stated that at the last Planning Commission meeting this item was continued to allow staff to contact a landscape architect, to prepare a landscape plan for the area in which the trees were removed. Staff did contact various landscape architects however; staff was unable to retain any architect to prepare the plans. Staff does recommend that the Planning Commission review the findings for granting the tree removal permit and direct staff to bring a resolution back with the appropriate findings. The applicant sent an e-mail stating she would not be available for tonight's meeting. She is willing to plant some trees; she suggested birch or amber in 15-gallon size containers. She suggested planting them 15 feet apart.
Commissioner Wolfe asked why staff was unable to retain a landscape architect.
Ms. Sanderson stated several were contacted and several did go to the site. When staff checked back with them they did not want to be involved because of the civil dispute between the neighbors
Commissioner Bergman asked if allowing more time would resolve it.
Ms. Sanderson stated at this time the applicant is willing to replant trees and the Commission should consider how many they want planted.
Commissioner Bergman asked if the Commission could shift the burden to the applicant.
Ms. Sanderson stated yes.
Chairman Douglas asked for a motion to reopen the public hearing.
Commissioner Blagden moved to reopen the public hearing. Commissioner Wolfe seconded motion and it was approved as follows:
AYES: Douglas, Bergman, Blagden, Skinner and Wolfe
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Chairman Douglas reopened the public hearing.
Julie Ellis, 1282 N. Walnut Street ñ stated was willing to write letter indemnifying the landscape architect. Asked the Commission to not consider the planting of deciduous trees or poisonous trees.
Shawn Ellis, 1282 N. Walnut Street ñ he spoke of the beautiful green belt. He asked the Commission not to consider deciduous trees. The Cypress Trees were the best trees. The previous trees were not damaging her driveway.
Vice Chairman Skinner asked Mr. Ellis how many trees were removed from that portion of the driveway.
Mr. Ellis stated 38 trees were removed from that side, 78 in total, 22-25 trees were on their property. They were spaced about 4-5 feet apart.
Chairman Douglas closed the public hearing and asked for comments or questions of the Commission.
Vice Chairman Skinner stated she would like to see the Commission approve the Tree Removal Permit and condition it with the replacement of Cypress Trees. In addition she would like a bond to be required to make sure the trees are planted and maintained for a period of time.
Mr. Duran stated the Commission could impose a requirement for a bond.
Commissioner Bergman asked what size trees Ms. Skinner was looking for.
Vice Chairman Skinner stated a 15 gallon tree could be 5-6 feet, 24î box could be 5 feet. She wanted the trees conditioned by their height not by the container.
Chairman Douglas stated they can condition it to require a landscape architect prepare the plans and if the Klinker's didn't want to do that, they can simply replace all the trees.
Commissioner Bergman stated that is exactly what he was thinking, using a 2-1 ratio, with Cypress. If they want to do something different they would need to hire a landscape architect.
Commissioner Blagden stated he wanted the Cypress Tress put back on the north side of the driveway, with irrigation and a bond.
Commissioner Wolfe stated he felt the Commission was moving in the direction of approving this request for Tree Removal along with conditions. Given there were 38 Cypress Trees removed, they should replace it with 38 Cypress Trees, 24î box or larger. The Ellis' want the Cypress Trees. Put it back the way it was.
Commissioner Blagden moved to approve the Tree Removal Permit with the conditions that the applicant replace the trees with 24î Box Trees placed 48î on center, irrigation to the point of self sufficiency and a bond to ensure that it all get done.
Seeing no second motion failed.
Commissioner Bergman moved to instruct the applicant to put it back the way it was or to come back to the Planning Commission with a landscape plan review by staff and the neighbors, with the condition requiring the bond. Seconded by Commissioner Wolfe and approved as follows:
Commissioner Bergman clarified his motion that he wanted the trees planted within 90 days and he wanted all the trees replaced. Commissioner Wolfe withdrew his second.
Commissioner Wolfe stated Ms. Klinker needs to be kept on a short leash and she needs to be given direction. Commissioner Wolfe then moved to continue this item, instruct the applicant to bring a landscape plan back within 2 weeks by a registered landscape architect to be reviewed by the Planning Commission at its July 24th meeting. Commissioner Blagden seconded the motion. It was approved as follows:
AYES: Douglas, Bergman, Blagden, Skinner and Wolfe
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Conditional Use Permit 2000-10, Standards Modification 2000-35, and Variance 2001-01 (Ramaswamy Ramkumar) 16390 Las Cumbres
Ms. Sanderson stated that at the last meeting the Planning Commission requested the applicant provide the original design location plans for the tennis court. The applicant mentioned at the last Planning Commission meeting that original design location does maintain the required 35 foot front yard and 25 foot side yard setbacks. Staff recommends that the Commission review the findings for the granting of the Conditional Use Permit, Standards Modification and Variance and direct staff to prepare a resolution with the appropriate findings.
Chairman Douglas asked if the commission had any questions of staff.
Commissioner Blagden clarified that the pool was not part of these approvals.
Chairman Douglas asked staff to define grading.
Mr. Milano stated grading is defined as moving dirt. Per the City's Municipal Code grading is defined as the moving of 50 cubic yards of dirt.
Chairman Douglas asked what gradable area was.
Mr. Milano stated gradable area has a function of the slope of a piece of property. The average slope is then plugged into a formula that is in the Municipal Code, and that gives you the amount of surface area that can be touched, moved or disturbed. It is not considered grading unless they are changing contours. If the slope is being changed that is grading.
Chairman Douglas felt that not more than a couple thousand feet of dirt on this site has not been moved.
Chairman Douglas asked if there was a motion to re-open the public hearing.
Commissioner Blagden moved to reopen the public hearing. Seconded by Commissioner Wolfe and approved as follows:
AYES: Douglas, Bergman, Blagden, Skinner and Wolfe
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Mike Douglass, 4401 Atlantic Ste 200, Long Beach- discussed the 2 options before the Commission. The first plan was more sensitive to the community. He has redesigned the court 2 feet lower and this helps with the cut and fill and reduces the effect of the retaining walls. The landscaping will not affect the neighbor's view. The new proposed retaining walls will be more visible, landscaping will help to screen.
Commissioner Bergman asked if the fencing was 12 feet.
Ms. Sanderson stated fencing cannot exceed 8 feet from the grade.
Commissioner Bergman asked if the applicant was aware that if they did the setback the applicant would be further limited to his fencing.
Ms. Sanderson stated the code states when courts comply with setback fences have to be no higher than 8 feet of the grade outside of the court.
Commissioner Bergman stated if the court does not comply with the setbacks then the court shall be depressed at least 3 feet below grade and the fencing cannot exceed 6 feet from the outside court.
Mr. Douglass stated the lighting would be reduced from 8 light standards to 6 light standards, the lumens are the same and they would be using the baffle to direct the light to the court. Mr. Douglass stated there are other tennis courts within the City with the same conditions. Mr. Douglass felt the first court was more sensitive to the Community. The first plan put the retaining wall on the backside of the court where it is less visible. The second plan the court is shifted out towards the street and puts the retaining wall on the outside of the court where it will be visible from El Terraza. In both conditions the court will drain to Las Cumbres.
Commissioner Blagden asked what the hardship was on this lot that would allow the Commission to grant the variance.
Ms. Sanderson read the findings from the applicant's application.
Chairman Douglas closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Blagden stated the applicant hasn't shown a hardship. This court will be visible from above and below. This is an urban estate; the acreage cannot support the project.
Vice Chairman Skinner stated she has no problem with the Conditional Use Permit.
Chairman Douglas is not in favor of the tennis court in the setback. It doesn't conform to the General Plan.
Commissioner Wolfe stated he was not adverse to the original plan. However, he cannot make the findings, is OK with the Conditional Use Permit. He has serious problems with the variance.
Commissioner Hinz felt the project is to busy for the site.
Vice Chairman Skinner stated she also has a problem with the setbacks and has problems with the variance.
Commissioner Bergman stated the applicant has done an excellent job if mitigation all the different factors. He is on the fence on this one.
Chairman Douglas stated 85% of this project is within our City.
Commissioner Wolfe stated it does border on the City of Whittier, and home of a similar like. Given the fact that it is on the border and in Whittier, wonders whether those findings can be made in respect to the variance.
Commissioner Blagden stated the homes in Whittier are not in La Habra Heights zoning classification and the adjacent homes do not have this amount of impervious coverage.
Commissioner Blagden moved to recommend to the City Council that CUP 2000-10 be denied. Seconded by Vice Chairman Skinner and approved as follows:
AYES: Blagden, Douglas and Skinner
NOES: Wolfe
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: Bergman
Ms. Sanderson stated the original resolution recommending denial is in the packet and asked if the commission was adopting that resolution.
Chairman Douglas stated yes.
Standards Modification 2000-34 (George Than) 2046 Ahuacate Road
Ms. Sanderson stated at the last Planning Commission meeting the Commission did request the applicant provide alternative design locations for the barn structures. The applicant did provide an alternative design location. Staff is recommending that the Commission review the findings and direct staff to bring a resolution back with appropriate findings.
Chairman Douglas asked if there were questions of staff.
Commissioner Blagden asked if the applicant could keep the barns out of the setback, is it up to the Planning Commission to determine where they go.
Ms. Sanderson the setback encroachment is what is in front of the Commission, you requested the applicant bring back plans for your to consider, if you agree with the new plans then you would deny the application for setback encroachment.
Chairman Douglas asked for a motion to reopen the public hearing.
Commissioner Blagden moved to reopen the public hearing. Seconded by Commissioner Wolfe and approved as follows:
AYES: Bergman, Blagden, Douglas, Skinner and Wolfe
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
George Than, 2046 Ahuacate Road ñ he reviewed his opinion of the General Plan, the findings, issues of neighbors and the alternative sites.
Chairman Douglas asked if the Commission had any questions of the applicant.
Vice-Chairman Skinner asked what Mr. Than ment by temporary structures.
Mr. Than stated when his horses die he will taken the barns down.
Vice-Chairman Skinner asked if Mr. Than's property was for sale.
Mr. Than stated yes it is.
Commissioner Blagden stated the stables were built without permits and they were built within the setbacks.
He asked what the cumulative affect would be if the City let everyone build what ever they wanted wherever the wanted without permits and then came in looking for approval.
Commissioner Wolfe stated the Planning Commission is just trying to comply with the General Plan.
Chairman Douglas closed the public hearing and asked for Commission discussion.
Commissioner Blagden stated if the Commission moved forward with this he would like to offer a couple of conditions. 1. Roofs have a non-reflective coating, 2. Dust reducing covering be required for the corral, 3. Deliveries are to be done from the driveway not the street and 4. The structures be landscaped.
Chairman Douglas stated the factual damage caused by this transgression is fairly small. Does not impair views. Horses could be there anyway and the barns lessen the impact. Felt this is the best place for the barns. Is inclined to condition the project rather than require it be moved.
Commissioner Wolfe stated he wants to remain consistent. His opinion last time was to approve the Setback Modification. Drove by it a couple of times before he saw it. If it were a real concern to the neighbors they would be at the meeting. He has the right to have the horses.
Commissioner Hinz felt it is serious. The applicant testified he didn't feel there was any violations. It was argued it would be a hardship for the applicant to move the barns, it would appear not to have ascetically prejudiced the rest of the neighborhood, in spite of the General Plan. He felt this was problematic. We want to preserve the rural character and that is why we have these setback. What should have happened is the applicant should have come to the Commission and asked permission. Because he chose to thwart our rules we are suppose to bend the rules. If we are not going to enforce the General Plan we ought to scrap it. He urged the Commission to deny this application.
Vice-Chairman Skinner stated she did not feel this was about the keeping of horses. She supports everyone having his or her animals. This is about setbacks. Last month she was against this, she is still against it. She feels modifications should be minor. This is a 30% encroachment this is not minor. It should have come to the Planning Commission first before they were built. Is still firm the applicants request should be denied.
Commissioner Bergman stated his position has not changed from the last meeting. Is not in favor of approval within the setback. Cannot support the applicant's request.
Chairman Douglas stated he does not see that there is damage to the City or damage to the neighbor.
Vice-Chairman Skinner stated her objection is that it is not a minor encroachment and does not go along with the General Plan.
Break taken at 10:35 p.m. to change the tape. Chairman Douglas recalled the meeting to order at 10:40 p.m.
Chairman Douglas stated he felt this was a minor encroachment.
Vice-Chairman Skinner stated she has a real problem with it being in the front yard setback.
Commissioner Blagden stated he agrees 100% with what Commissioner Hinz said. He does not like encroachments in the front yard, he also doesn't like people building without permits and then coming here and berating the Commission.
Commissioner Blagden moved to approve with the following conditions, 1. Non-reflective roof coating that is maintained, 2. Dust reducing covering in corral and riding ring, 3. Deliveries be made to the driveway, 4. Landscaping on the Ahuacate side and the south side of the barn and survey of the front property line to ensure it is 25 feet back from the property line 5. If survey reveals that it is less than 25 feet from the property line, the barns shall be moved. Seconded by Chairman Douglas.
Commissioner Wolfe agrees with motion without the survey.
Commissioner Blagden restated motion withdrawing the condition requiring the survey. Chairman Douglas seconded amended motion and approved as follows.
AYES: Blagden, Douglas and Wolfe
NOES: Bergman and Skinner
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Ms. Sanderson to bring back a resolution with conditions to the Commissions July 24th meeting.
Conditional User Permit 2000-13 (Compass Telecom) 718 East Road
Commissioner Wolfe recused himself from hearing this item because he is a full equity member of the Hacienda Golf Club. Alternate Commissioner Hinz stepped into replace Commissioner Wolfe.
Ms. Sanderson stated Mike Blackwell representing Compass Telecom Services on behalf of Sprint submitted this application. Sprint is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to operate a Sprint PCS facility at the Hacienda Golf Club. The facility will be located in the general vicinity of the driving range area of the golf course. The furthest west existing net pole at the driving range will be replaced with a pole of equal height and will be painted to match the existing poles. Also, four equipment cabinets inside of a 9.8-foot block wall enclosure (approximately 254 square feet in area) will be hidden by existing landscaping is also proposed. Staff believes the findings can be made in support of this Conditional Use Permit application. Staff recommends the commission forward a recommendation for approval of Conditional Use Permit 2000-13 to the City Council subject to conditions and adoption of Planning Commission Resolution 2001-07.
Chairman Douglas asked if the Commission had any questions for staff.
Commissioner Blagden asked staff how the conditions of approval are enforced.
Ms. Sanderson stated with all CUPs it is up to the Planning Staff to ensure they comply with the conditions of approval, if they do not comply the remedy is revocation of the Conditional Use Permit.
Chairman Douglas opened the public hearing.
Mike Blackwell, Sprint PCS, 17070 Skypark Circle, Irvine, CA ñ stated they proposing to locate a telecommunication facility at the Hacienda Golf Club. They will be replacing a 65-foot net pole. It was originally measured at 60 feet and has since been surveyed at 65 feet. The 9.8 feet is the width of the enclosure and the height is 8 feet. This project will not create any visual impact. The equipment enclosure is at the base of the hill along a service road and will not be seen from nearby residences. This is in substantial conformance with the City's Municipal Code. There is a possibility for co-location without the need for additional vertical elements. There is quiet an opportunity for other carriers to come in and take advantage of this site.
Chairman Douglas stated he liked the plans that were submitted.
Commissioner Bergman asked what the safe range to the antenna would be.
Mr. Blackwell stated at zero feet from the base of the antenna the FCC has determined the antennas are 50 times lower than what they have set as a safety thresh hold. At the top of the 65-foot pole there is zero impact.
Commissioner Blagden asked what the noise level of the equipment would be.
Mr. Blackwell stated there would be any noise from the equipment.
Commissioner Blagden stated there wouldn't be any screening of the block wall on the driving range side.
Mr. Blackwell stated they are not proposing any landscaping. People using the driving range will be too far away to see the wall. There is existing landscaping that will hid the wall.
Commissioner Blagden asked what benefits was Sprint offering the City besides the increased coverage.
Mr. Blackwell stated this facility would provide wireless service in times of emergencies for the community.
Mr. Blackwell proposed to make a minimal change to add two more boxes for an additional square footage of 31 square feet.
Chairman Douglas asked if the enclosure would change in size.
Mr. Blackwell stated the enclosure would change by 31 square feet, elongating the enclosure by 3 feet on the west side.
Mr. Blackwell showed the Commission a before and after picture.
Ms. Sanderson asked the applicant what the revision to the plans would be.
Mr. Blackwell stated they would be adding 31 square feet, increasing to 10.6 feet x 27 feet. They are proposing 2 battery cabinets, 1-power cabinets and 3 radio cabinets.
Ms. Sanderson stated the original application was for 6 cabinets. Mr. Blackwell just stated they are proposing 6 cabinets. Application dated 3-6-01 stated 6 cabinets. She stated the plans the Commission has are dated 1-29-01.
Mr. Blackwell stated the 1-29-01 plans are the correct plans. They need 6 cabinets for this project to work. The total length of the enclosure is 27 feet.
Chairman Douglas asked what staff would like to do with the inconsistencies.
Ms. Sanderson stated the Commission could continue the item to allow the applicant to submit an accurate project description.
George Casey, President of the Hacienda Golf Club, 718 East Road ñ stated the Golf Club is in support of this project. The Golf Club is leasing the property to them.
Chairman Douglas closed the public hearing.
Chairman Douglas asked staff regarding landscaping.
Commissioner Blagden stated he would like the following conditions of approval, pole and equipment yard to be removed if the net is ever removed, indemnify the City, anyone who uses the site must have a business license with the City.
Mr. Duran to look into the FCC rules.
Commissioner Blagden moved to approve Conditional Use Permit with the above conditions. See no second the motion failed.
Commissioner Hinz moved to approve the Conditional Use Permit as presented. Commissioner Bergman seconded the motion and it was approved as follows:
AYES: Bergman, Blagden, Douglas, Hinz and Skinner
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
ITEMS FROM STAFF
Scheduling of an additional Planning Commission Meeting in July, 2001.
Chairman Douglas stated there has developed a need for a Special Planning Commission Meeting in July 2001. He asked if everyone was available July 17, 2001. Everyone agreed they would be available except Commissioner Blagden who would be out of town. Chairman Douglas stated, as Commissioner Hinz was available there would be a quorum.
Cancellation of the August 28, 2001 Planning Commission Meeting.
Chairman Douglas stated that do to personal business the Director of Planning would not be available for the August 28, 2001 meeting. He asked the consensus of the Commission of canceling the August 28, 2001 meeting. It was the consensus of the Commission to cancel the meeting.
ITEMS FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Chairman Douglas asked the Commission for their opinion regarding a Summary Report of over the counter approvals.
Commissioner Blagden was in favor of this report.
Commissioner Bergman was concerned about overloading staff.
Ms. Sanderson stated it would take extra staff time.
Commissioner Wolfe stated it had been provided in the past and at times it was helpful.
Chairman Douglas so directed staff to prepare the report.
Chairman Douglas asked staff to provide the phone number of the applicants on the staff reports.
Commissioner Blagden asked to have the plans put back up on the wall, have the podium removed and to have surveys required.
Ms. Sanderson stated staff has reviewed the minutes and there is no policy requiring surveys.
Chairman Douglas stated he trusted staff to decide when a survey is required.
ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Wolfe moved at 9:30 p.m. to adjourn to the Special Meeting of July 17, 2001. Seconded by Chairman Douglas and approved as follows:
AYES: Douglas, Bergman, Blagden, Skinner and Wolfe
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Bruce Douglas, Chairperson
ATTEST:
Sheryl Sanderson, Director of Planning
PAGE 12
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE LA HABRA HEIGHTS
PLANNING COMMISSION
May 22, 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 7:30 p.m. at the Community Center, 1245 North Hacienda Road, La Habra Heights, California.
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.
FLAG SALUTE
Vice-Chairman Skinner led the flag salute.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
None
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF POSTING OF AGENDA FOR MEETING OF May 22, 2001
Ms. Sanderson stated the agenda had been posted in accordance with the state law.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Minutes of the special Planning Commission Meeting of April 18, 2001.
Commissioner Blagden moved to approve the minutes as prepared. Seconded by Vice-Chairman Skinner and approved as follows:
AYES: Douglas, Bergman, Blagden, Skinner and Wolfe
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Minutes of the regular Planning Commission Meeting of April 24, 2001.
Vice-Chairman Skinner moved to continue this item to allow staff time to clarify two items within the minutes and bring this item back to the June 26th Planning Commission meeting. Seconded by Chairman Douglas.
AYES: Douglas, Bergman, Blagden, Skinner and Wolfe
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
CONSENT CALENDAR
Ms. Sanderson swore in those wishing to testify.
7. a) REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RECORD TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 23770 (Broshears) 783-787 West Road
REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RECORD TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 24162 (Newbre) 255 Canada Sombre
REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RECORD TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. Tract Map 51275 ( Finn) 2000 Chota Road
Commissioner Blagden asked to have the three maps pulled from the consent calendar.
Vice-Chairman Skinner agreed.
Commissioner Blagden requested to have these items continued to the June 26th meeting to allow staff to bring copies of the maps and descriptions of the sub-divisions back to the Commission.
Mr. Gilbertson stated staff could supply copies of the tentative maps to the Commission.
Mr. Duran expressed concern some of the maps may expire if they not approved at this meeting.
Mr. Gilbertson stated the Commission has six months to act on these extensions and the delay of one month was not a problem.
Vice-Chairman Skinner asked for a clarification of why each of these maps refers to another previously extended map.
Mr. Gilbertson stated the purpose of that memo was to identify all of the ordinances that possibly could affect any of our maps, it was not making reference to a previous map.
Chairman Douglas asked Mr. Gilbertson for an updated memo as it relates to these maps.
Mr. Gilbertson stated what Commissioner Skinner is looking for is updated maps so she can do her own calculations.
Chairman Douglas asked if anyone in the audience wish to come forward and speak on these maps.
Ken Wilch, Cypress ñ stated he is the engineer of record on these maps and had no objections to a one-month extension. The map that was in question relating to the parcel sold off to the conservancy. As this is a governmental agency it was allowed to be sold. The owner of the land wants to keep his vested interests in finishing the map.
Commissioner Blagden moved to continue the consent calendar to the June 26, 2001 Planning Commission Meeting. Commissioner Wolfe seconded the motion.
AYES: Douglas, Bergman, Blagden, Skinner and Wolfe
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
PUBLIC HEARING
Ms. Sanderson swore in those wishing to testify.
Tree Removal Permit 2001-01 (Pat Klinker) 1280 Walnut Street
Ms. Sanderson stated this application was submitted by Pat Klinker to request a tree removal permit to remove approximately 75 trees located at 1280 Walnut Street; this is a code enforcement case; enclosed in the staff report is a chronology of the enforcement case; in reviewing this application the Planning Commission is guided by a set of criteria referred to as findings; the issue before the Planning Commission is that the trees have already been removed from the site without benefit of an approved permit and whether the applicant should be required to provide replacement trees on-site; staff recommends the Planning Commission review the findings for granting the tree removal permit and direct staff to bring a resolution back with the appropriate findings and conditions of approval if the Planning Commission so desires.
Chairman Douglas asked if the Commission had any questions for staff.
Commissioner Blagden asked for an explanation of why someone can't remove trees on their property.
Ms. Sanderson explained the tree removal permit is enforced when someone removes more than 4 trees.
Chairman Douglas opened the public hearing.
Pat Klinker, 20101 Amapola, Orange ñ stated she removed the trees because they were a fire hazard; flag lot; trees lined the driveway; visibility was poor; concerned about safety; had she knows about the requirement for a permit she would have asked for one; received weed abatement notice to clear drive back 3 feet.
Chairman Douglas asked staff for an explanation of the weed abatement notice.
Ms. Sanderson deferred the Chairman's request to the fire department, if they chose she could have someone from the fire department at the next meeting if they continue the case.
Commissioner Wolfe asked when she removed the trees; when did she receive the weed abatement notice; prior to removal did she get a recommendation from a safety expert.
Ms. Klinker states moved the trees in January; received the weed abatement notice February 22nd; notice came after she removed the trees; did not get a recommendation from a safety expert, however everyone who came to the home talked about the hazard.
Commissioner Blagden asked what evidence she had that the trees were a fire hazard.
Ms. Klinker stated the trees were so thick; they hung out into the driveway; they originally planned to trim them; they were advised not to trim them.
Commissioner Blagden asked if she had thought of replacing the trees on just one side.
Ms. Klinker stated she had thought of doing something along there, however right now there is an issue with one of the neighbors and she has been advised not to do anything along there until that issue is resolved.
Vice-Chairman Skinner asked Ms. Klinker if she was opposed to replanting.
Ms. Klinker stated if she was planning to live there she would prefer not to replanting the trees, she would prefer a hedge.
Vice-Chairman Skinner clarified Ms. Klinker has no plans to live there.
Ms. Klinker stated she does not plan to live there.
Commissioner Bergman asked if she talked to her neighbors before cutting out the trees.
Ms. Klinker stated someone talked to her daughter; one neighbor liked the trees, one didn't care; there is a lawsuit pending because of the removal of the trees.
Jean Gelezunas, 1274 N. Walnut ñ stated she has lived there over 26 years; knew previous owner who planted the trees; there is a hydrant within 10 feet of the trees; there is no problem with the driveway; not all of the trees that were removed belonged to Ms. Klinker; the privacy of residents was violated by someone who lives outside the City; seclusion; sound barrier; owls are gone; compromise could have been reached if they had followed the rules; paramedics have made it down that driveway without a problem.
Commissioner Wolfe how long did it take to remove the trees.
Ms. Gelezumas stated the trees were removed in one day; she thought it was someone pruning trees; these trees could have just been pruned back; before she knew what was happening the trees were removed and down.
Julie Ellis, 1282 N. Walnut Street ñ passed out pictures they have taken this year; the trees were removed Thanksgiving week last year; her husband notified the tree men that the trees were on her property and they refused to listen; they bought their home 5 years ago for privacy; Ms. Klinker and her daughter bought the home in question as a spec house; they did talk to them about the trees; the trees were watered from her side of the property; they removed 23 trees on her property; now they are asking for a permit; the trees were not diseased, top heavy or a fire hazard; they opposed the toping of the trees and Ms. Klinker knew that; now from Walnut you can see in her home; wildlife is gone; they now have wind and noise; she requested a permit not be issued.
Commissioner Blagden asked what her thought would be to only replacing the trees on the north side.
Mrs. Ellis stated they are now embroiled in a lawsuit with Ms. Klinker; until the lawsuit is resolved they haven't made any decisions.
Commissioner Bergman asked when she noticed the trees were being removed.
Mrs. Ellis stated when they had already removed 5 trees; they thought it was their neighbor using his wood chipper; husband talked to the tree guys and they refused to stop; they had to call the realtor to get the Klinker's name.
Commissioner Hinz asked what the status of the lawsuit was.
Mrs. Ellis stated they have sued and it is expected to be over within nine months to a year, they sued for the value of the trees on their property.
Commissioner Bergman asked what resolution she would like from the Commission.
Mrs. Ellis stated she was looking for the permit to be denied; she hadn't considered any other options.
Shawn Ellis 1282 N. Walnut Street - stated the Klinker's cut down the trees that averaged forty to fifty feet tall; a 275 foot hedge on either side of the driveway; there could have been a lot of other alternatives; the children had told him that they felt it crowded their driveway and it would be easier to sell the home if the trees were removed.
Vice-Chairman Skinner asked staff if a survey has been done.
Ms. Sanderson stated no.
Chairman Douglas asked staff what was the breakdown of tree removal.
Ms. Sanderson stated only the trees on the subject site.
Ms. Klinker stated when purchased the property the trees follow the driveway and fence is behind that; when they purchased the home they were told the fence was the property line; probably should have had a survey; when the Ellis' met with here daughter they never disclosed that some of the trees were on the Ellis' property; passed a picture to the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Wolfe asked when the picture was taken.
Ms. Klinker stated it was taken in October of last year; it took four days for the trees to be removed; no one approached the Klinker's while the trees were being removed.
Ms. Klinker stated she never counted the trees, however she gave Commissioner Wolfe an estimate of 70-75 trees that were removed in total.
Commissioner Wolfe asked how many trees were removed; were 23 on another property.
Ms. Klinker stated she has not had a survey done yet and has not yet seen a survey; she stated the Ellis' have done a survey and there is a section where the fence will now be moved; the trees were within the fence line they had been told were on her property.
Mr. Duran explained to Ms. Klinker that the photo she showed to the Commission is part of the record and the City will need a copy of the picture.
Ms. Klinker stated she would make a copy of the picture and mail it to the City the next day.
Ms. Gelezunas stated the original family allowed trees to be planted on others properties.
Chairman Douglas closed the public hearing.
Vice-Chairman Skinner asked if this is how the City deals with code enforcement.
Ms. Sanderson stated yes, this is how the City deals with code enforcement cases.
Chairman Douglas stated the Commission is still acting on the original tree removal permit application and they have the authority to grant a conditional permit with conditions.
Ms. Sanderson recommended that if the Commission approved the permit they should condition it; type of trees; ratio, etc.
Commissioner Bergman moved to deny this permit.
Chairman Douglas asked for discussion of motion.
Commissioner Bergman recommended denying it rather than conditioning it.
Chairman Douglas asked staff if the permit was a flat denial what would occur next.
Mr. Duran explained the code enforcement action would continue, and the City Prosecuting Attorney would proceed with the case.
Chairman Douglas felt it was in the City's best interest to condition the permit, which would get some of the trees back where court action would get the trees back.
Commissioner Hinz stated it was a flagrant disregard of the rules; to consider any action other that denial the permit is inappropriate; applicant's testimony was disingenuous; 2 neighbors were most directly involved; applicant trespassed and took away property of our residents.
Commissioner Wolfe stated he doesn't want to deny it out right; agreed it was flagrant abuse; he suggested continuing it and require the applicant to provide a landscape plan for replacement; only the trees on the applicants property.
Chairman Douglas stated he had the same feeling similar feeling; the City's interests and the neighbor's interests may be best served by requiring a replacement program; maybe we can give them some guidelines; spoke of canopy mass; favored having a similar foliage replacement; might require some neighbor's approval of a final plan.
Ms. Sanderson stated that if it is the Commission's pleasure she can notify the neighbors once the landscape plan is in, for their review and comments.
Commissioner Blagden felt they needed more information to go on; the problem with denying the application is, it will leave it up to code enforcement which will take a very long time and the house is up for sale; a permit with conditions will be a lot more binding.
Chairman Douglas asked if there was a second to the motion to deny the tree removal permit. Seeing no second motion failed.
Vice-Chairman Skinner stated this definitely was a flagrant act; City's best interest is not served by denying this; she felt a survey was needed, asked if a bond could be placed on this project.
Commissioner Blagden asked could we assume when someone comes in with an application that the land is there's.
Mr. Gilbertson stated that has been the policy of the City; it is their responsibility to show their boundaries; it is not a major deal to have a survey done.
Vice-Chairman Skinner stated they could provide a survey of the driveway area.
Commissioner Wolfe asked regarding the permit streamlining act timeline.
Ms. Sanderson stated that was not a concern here; she expressed concerns regarding the mention of a landscape architect being hired, she asked that if that is the Commission's choice they put that request in the form of a Condition of Approval, because the applicant will be bearing the cost of the landscape architect.
Commissioner Blagden stated we could condition it that what they took out they put back.
Chairman Douglas felt the Cypress Trees were not necessarily in the best interest of the Community, other trees might be better.
Commissioner Blagden stated there were no trees necessary on the south side.
Vice-Chairman Skinner agreed with Commissioner Blagden, stating the other side is stark.
Chairman Douglas spoke of replacement ratio and 24" box trees.
Vice-Chairman Skinner was in favor of fewer larger trees.
Commissioner Blagden stated that not many trees would fit in a 3-foot wide area that will not require a lot of trimming.
Commissioner Bergman asked for a condition to be added that a landscape architect look at the trees from before and make a recommendation at not cost the city.
Ms. Sanderson stated the Commission could direct staff to retain a landscape architect to draw a design using the pictures and Ms. Klinker would be responsible for paying the cost of the drawings, that the drawing would be replacing the feel that was there before.
Commissioner Blagden moved to grant the application and require applicant to plant Italian Cypress, 15 gallon, 6 feet average height.
Vice-Chairman Skinner asked if Commissioner Blagden had researched the Cypress Trees
Commissioner Blagden stated no.
Chairman Douglas seeing no second, motion failed.
Commissioner Wolfe moved to hire a landscape architect at the applicants expense to comply with the replacement of trees with trees of a suitable type, size and number and appropriate location; if the landscape architect determine a survey is required that staff obtain a survey within the next 30 days at the applicants expense and to be brought back to the Commission on June 26th. Seconded by Commissioner Bergman and approved as follows:
AYES: Douglas, Bergman, Blagden, Skinner and Wolfe
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Conditional Use Permit 2000-10, Standards Modification 2000-35, and Variance 2001-01 (Ramaswamy Ramkumar) 16390 Las Cumbres
Ms. Sanderson stated this application was submitted by Mike Douglas to request a conditional use permit to construct a tennis court, a standards modification for setback encroachment to encroach 15 feet into the required 25-foot side yard setback area, and a variance to exceed the amount of impervious surface area; the site is located at 16390 Las Cumbres Drive; the proposed tennis court is positioned in the northeastern portion of the site; the court is approximately 6,325 square feet in size; tennis court lighting consisting of 8 light poles are also being proposed along with 12 foot high chain link fencing; it is unclear as to which light design is being proposed; it is unclear as to whether the proposed project is in compliance with all of the General Plan policies; a building addition is currently under construction on-site; the pool area on the grading plan is not part of this application; the issue before the Commission is whether the amount of development occurring on the subject property is appropriate and if setback encroachment should be granted to accomplish the overall development of the site; based on the submitted application, staff believes that the appropriate findings cannot be made in support of this standards modification for setback encroachment; if the Commission concurs with staff'' recommendation, then there is no viable project before the Commission to consider for the conditional use permit and variance purposes, if the Commission's recommendation to the City Council is in agreement with staff's position regarding denial of the standards modification for setback encroachment for the proposed tennis court, the conditional use permit and variance must be denied.
Chairman Douglas asked if the Commission had any questions for staff.
Commissioner Blagden stated the application and the grading application and these plans are not consistent the plans submitted; he also asked regarding the landscape plan; he stated the assessor's records show this as being less than an acre.
Ms. Sanderson stated he should direct the question regarding lot size to the applicant; within the General Plan the Community Development Policy does list criteria for landscape plans, it is a good thing to see the landscaping.
Commissioner Blagden asked who checks impervious coverage.
Ms. Sanderson state the City Engineers check impervious surface coverage and Planning staff check the setbacks.
Commissioner Blagden asked who checks the plans on site.
Ms. Sanderson stated prior to the final and release of Certificate of Occupancy, Engineering, Building, Fire and Planning all check to see the project was built according to the approved plans.
Chairman Douglas asked what the relationship of Murphy Ranch Park to this project site.
Ms. Sanderson stated she did not feel there was a significant view impact.
Chairman Douglas asked if based on staff recommendation if they should deal with the Standards Modification first.
Ms. Sanderson stated no the Commission should deal with the entire project. Staff felt there should be a denial of the Standards Modification as the findings could not be met. If there were a denial of the Standards Modification there would be no viable project
Chairman Douglas stated they should deal with all of it, however they should deal with the Setback Modification first, if it is not approved there would be no point going further.
Chairman Douglas opened the public hearing.
Mike Douglass, 4401 Atlantic Ste 200, Long Beach ñ stated he was representing the homeowner and gave a presentation in support of their project.
Commissioner Blagden asked the applicant why their lot size kept changing and what is the correct size of the lot.
Mr. Douglass stated he used the information from the assessor's map as .98 acres for the larger parcel and .12 acres for the smaller parcel.
Commissioner Blagden stated on the first page it stated 1.12 acres.
Ms. Sanderson stated she took the information straight from the applicant's application.
Mr. Douglass apologized for the error.
Mr. Gilbertson stated .98 acre is correct and he has verified it.
Commissioner Blagden asked Mr. Douglass how this lot is a hardship.
Mr. Douglass stated the circumstances are a hardship only in that by the amount of impervious coverage they would have to deal with; a portion of the impervious coverage is the private drive that they share.
Commissioner Blagden asked how does building on and paving over two thirds of the site make it rural.
Mr. Douglass stated they are doing the same as others, where the impervious coverage has been relaxed, due to certain situations.
Vice-Chairman Skinner asked what is there about this lot that makes it necessary to go into the setbacks.
Mr. Douglass stated absolutely not, they have a viable plan that meets all the setbacks, they felt this was a better placement of the court; this is a better placement for the court.
Commissioner Blagden asked if the proposed landscaping would create additional view impacts to the neighbors.
Mr. Douglass stated they could modify the landscaping.
(Someone spoke from the audience, unable to transcribe.)
Chairman Douglas seeing no one else come forward closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Wolfe stated the applicant has not shown an unnecessary hardship finding.
Vice-Chairman Skinner agreed with Commissioner Wolfe, findings haven't been met; this is not a minor setback encroachment; hardship has not been shown, the lot is being overbuilt; sees no reason to allow it.
Commissioner Blagden felt the development is overdone; agreed with applicant that the court would be better back than down with a large retaining wall; it would make more sense to minimize its impact.
Chairman Douglas stated he felt this application has not met the findings; felt it impacts the Murphy Ranch Park; previous tennis courts have met the findings.
Commissioner Wolfe stated he was sold on this project until Mr. Douglas stated he had an alternative plan.
Ms. Sanderson suggested the Commission continue this hearing to the next scheduled meeting to allow the applicant to bring in an alternative plan.
Commissioner Bergman agrees with the rest of the Commission, understands pushing it into the hill, however it does not meet the General Plan.
Commissioner Blagden asked to move forward with the variance.
Commissioner Wolfe moved to reopen the public hearing. Seconded by Chairman Douglas and approved as follows:
AYES: Douglas, Bergman, Blagden, Skinner and Wolfe
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Mr. Douglass stated he would resubmit a new plan adhering to the 25-foot setback.
Chairman Douglas closed the public hearing.
Vice-Chairman Skinner asked staff that when the second plan comes before the Commission, if they feel it is not viable they could have the option to approve the plan submitted tonight.
Commissioner Wolfe moved to continue this item to June 26, 2001 allow the applicant time to submit his alternate project with the tennis court out of the setback. Seconded by Vice-Chairman Skinner and approved as follows:
AYES: Douglas, Bergman, Blagden, Skinner and Wolfe
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
A break was taken at 9:49 p.m. to allow Ms. Sanderson to meet with the applicant.
Meeting resumed at 9:57 p.m.
Standards Modification 2000-34 (George Than) 2046 Ahuacate Road
Ms. Sanderson stated this application was submitted by George Thank to request a standards modification for view preservation to exceed the 500 square foot building area, and also a standards modification for setback encroachment to encroach 10 feet within the required 35 foot front yard setback area and to encroach 9 feet within the required 25 foot side yard setback area for 2 existing barn structures; the site is located at 2046 Ahuacate Road; this is a code enforcement case; she included a chronology of the enforcement case in the staff report; in reviewing this application, the Planning Commission is guided by a set of criteria referred to as findings; the Commission should grant this application if the appropriate findings in support of this application can be made; staff recommends that the Commission review the findings for granting a standards modification for view preservation and standards modification for setback encroachment and direct staff to bring a resolution back with the appropriate findings and conditions of approval if the Commission so desires.
Chairman Douglas asked if the Commission had any questions of staff.
Commissioner Blagden asked where the front property line is; Ahuacate is a 50-foot road and in this area the road is only 25 feet wide.
Mr. Gilbertson stated there was no boundary survey as part of this application; the applicant has certified that his information is correct.
Chairman Douglas asked if staff is was looking at this as being 25 feet from edge of pavement.
Mr. Gilbertson stated the applicant has shown the barn as 25 feet from his property line.
Chairman Douglas stated when you look at the site, something doesn't appear wrong.
Mr. Gilbertson clarified that the pavement is not necessarily centered within the right-of-way.
Commissioner Wolfe asked what the total size of the two barns; are each barn considered independently.
Ms. Sanderson stated when the application is submitted; it is the total being proposed.
Chairman Douglas opened the public hearing.
George Than, 2046 Ahuacate Road ñ He spoke of the letter of objection from his neighbor; felt there were alternatives to the neighbor's objections; not aware they had created a hardship on their neighbor's; asking for 10 foot encroachment in the front, from street to barn and 8 feet on the side.
Chairman Douglas asked if the Commission had questions of the applicant; asked where the horses were kept prior to the construction of the barns.
Mr. Than stated prior to the barns his horses were in pipe corrals; needed barns for shavings and safety of animals; replaced a 2 foot retaining wall with a 3 foot retaining wall when barns were built; since the front door faces in another direction, he thought the barns were out of the setbacks; didn't consider the barns as structures because they are not concreted in, they can be moved; built a 150 yard retaining wall, 3 feet in height.
Commissioner Hinz asked how many horses did the applicant have.
Mr. Than stated he has 4 horses and one pony.
Commissioner Bergman asked what foundation do the barns sit on and how are they attached to the ground; could they be moved.
Mr. Than stated they sit on a 2-3 inch layer of decomposed granite; they are not attached to the ground; they could be moved.
Vice-Chairman Skinner asked if the retaining was one wall or two; could the front barn be moved out of the setback.
Mr. Than stated there isn't anywhere to move the barns; between the barns is a tree.
Commissioner Blagden stated the area near the steps looked like a possible location and it would get it out of the front yard setback.
Mr. Than stated it would still be in the side yard setback; the width of the barns is about 50 feet and you have 25-foot setbacks, so it wouldn't fit there either.
Commissioner Blagden stated he would prefer the side yard setback over the front yard setbacks.
Mr. Than stated that move would require a 5-6 foot retaining wall and a tremendous about of grading; the small barn has a 2 foot retaining wall and the large barn has a 3 foot retaining wall; the neighbor's complaint was they see is barn, if he moves it they will still see it.
Commissioner Bergman stated the plan shows the smaller barn in to the side yard setback of 8 feet; asked what the dimension of the longer barn was to the property line.
Mr. Than stated the longer barn is in the side yard setback
Chairman Douglas stated the large barn is 32 feet from the side yard property line and the small barn is 17 feet.
Commissioner Bergman asked if the smaller barn could be straightened out.
Mr. Than stated if he moved the smaller barn forward to get it out of the setback he would have to build a 5 foot retaining wall, this would be a tremendous amount of concrete.
Chairman Douglas closed the public hearing.
Recess was taken to change the videotape, 10:16 p.m. The meeting was called back to order at 10:21 p.m.
Commissioner Wolfe stated there was no view issue; it was built without permits; it is not in the City's best interests to deny it because it was built without permits; drove past the barns twice before he found them, they are well hidden.
Commissioner Blagden stated there is no view issue; we need horses in out city; felt there is an alternative location; felt the findings cannot be met; the setback is more important to preserve than keeping this barn in its current location.
Chairman Douglas stated horses are mentioned in the General Plan goals twice; typically setbacks are a privacy concern; didn't feel the neighbors would be affected; the small barn could be lowered a couple of feet and it could be moved forward; the loading area was a concern; if the project could conform to the code it should; isn't convinced the smaller barn cannot be moved.
Commissioner Bergman stated the Commission needed to be sensitive to the neighbor's concerns; the Commission needs to support the 25-foot setback in the side yard.
Vice-Chairman Skinner stated she had a problem with the larger barn; asked staff regarding the City legal position with trucks stopping in the street.
Commissioner Blagden felt the larger barn needed to be moved; is willing to allow the sideyard setback if he can get the larger barn out of the front yard setback; asked for an accurate plan clearly showing the property lines and where the buildings are placed.
Chairman Douglas did feel the Commission would require a survey on this project; as these barns are modular they can be moved, 10 feet could be taken off the end of the larger barn.
Commissioner Wolfe stated the goals the Commission is trying to protect by the side yard setback with respect to the small barn, encroaching 8 feet is not a problem; does not have a problem with modifying the front or side yard setback.
Chairman Douglas asked if they could have their deliveries to the front driveway.
Mr. Than indicated yes he could do that.
Commissioner Bergman stated he has the opposite opinion, he has more of a problem with the side yard setback than the front yard setback; deliveries can be made to the front driveway; our regulations say 25 feet and he can comply with the small barn.
Commissioner Blagden moved to approve the encroachment in the side yard and deny the encroachment in the front yard by moving the barn back 8-10 feet to remove it from the front yard setback. Seconded by Chairman Douglas.
AYES: Blagden and Douglas
NOES: Bergman, Skinner and Wolfe
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Motion failed. Chairman Douglas asked for more discussion.
Vice-Chairman Skinner that motion was not clear, it must be very specific.
Chairman Douglas reopened the public hearing.
Mr. Than stated the barns come in 12 foot sections; horses will create more of a hazard if they are in a turn out all day long; can cut down the tree down and move the barn if that is what the Commission would like; tree is currently shading the barn; if he cuts it down the barn will show.
Mr. Than then went to the map on the wall and showed the Commission what he was talking about.
Commissioner Hinz asked if there was anything in the General Plan that encourages buildings be hidden by shrubbery.
Ms. Sanderson stated the General Plan does talk about policies, preserving the rural environment, providing landscaping to achieve it, creating the individualist lifestyle, but nothing that requires buildings be hidden.
Chairman Douglas closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Wolfe moved to approve the view preservation modification and the setback modification.
Commissioner Bergman stated there is no value to removing the tree, wanted the smaller barn moved.
Vice-Chairman Skinner stated this is an after the fact approval; could vote either way; if it hadn't been built and the applicant submitted the applicant, she wouldn't have allowed the encroachment into the front yard setback, may have allowed the side yard setback.
Chairman Douglas stated the barns do not affect the privacy; could support Commissioner Wolfe's motion and approve the view preservation and the setback modification.
Commissioner Wolfe stated this is an after the fact approval; this is two small modular barns; believes him when the applicant said he didn't know he needed permits.
Chairman Douglas asked how it would benefit the City or the neighbor by taking one barn unit down.
Commissioner Blagden stated the fact that the barns are modular and easy to move is reason enough to have him move it, the finding that it is an unnecessary hardship on the applicant has not been met; taking the section off and moving it back 12 feet solves the problem.
Commissioner Bergman stated moving the barn 10 feet wouldn't resolve the delivery trucks problems; he only has an issue with the small barn.
Commissioner Hinz stated the issue is not what kind of activity will take place there; the issue is, is there the proper setback; is the encroachment something the City can live with.
Chairman Douglas indicated there is a motion on the table and seconded Commissioner Wolfe's motion.
AYES: Douglas and Wolfe
NOES: Bergman, Blagden and Skinner
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Motion failed.
Commissioner Blagden asked if there was support for moving both structures out of the setback.
Commissioner Bergman wanted the smaller barn moved out of the setback; the smaller barn can comply with the setbacks.
Commissioner Blagden asked why not move them both; move the 12-foot section off the larger barn and put it where the tree is, and then move the smaller barn out of the setback.
Vice-Chairman Skinner stated the Commission shouldn't be deciding where he moves the barns; the Commission either requires he move them or they allow them in the setback.
Chairman Douglas asked the commission if there were special circumstances about the site and due to the unique circumstances denial would impose an unnecessary hardship on the applicant; is it a hardship.
Commissioner Blagden moved to deny Standards Modification 200-34 for the entire project.
Commissioner Wolfe stated the problem he has with that motion is that it throws this problem back in the hands of code enforcement and then if we deny the Standards Modification it goes to the City Prosecutor to determine if he wants to prosecute the case.
Ms. Sanderson stated if you deny the project, the applicant would be required to remove both structures out of the setbacks and if chooses not to remove it out of the setback it would be turned over to the Prosecutor.
Vice-Chairman Skinner stated the Commission has seen these type cases before and denied them and the applicant moved it.
Commissioner Bergman agreed with Commissioner Wolfe; to force them to take out a tree, it would be better to move the barn down.
Commissioner Blagden stated it was better to remove one tree if it means preserving the setback.
Vice-Chairman Skinner asked the Commission if there was any other location for these barns.
Chairman Douglas stated yes but it would not be a cost benefit to move the barns; he asked if there was a second to Commissioner Blagden's motion. Seeing none, motion failed.
Commissioner Blagden moved to approve side yard encroachment and deny front yard encroachment and have applicant move barns 12 feet back. Seconded by Chairman Douglas.
AYES: Blagden and Douglas
NOES: Bergman and Skinner
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: Wolfe
Commissioner Wolfe stated he would approve a motion if the applicant could move the smaller barn out of the side yard setback.
Commissioner Blagden stated the front barn is more of an encroachment and is easier to fix; the small one is 8 feet and is more work to move.
Commissioner Wolfe moved to deny the application for view preservation and setback encroachments and put it in the applicant's lap to fix. Seconded by Commissioner Blagden.
AYES: Blagden and Wolfe
NOES: Bergman, Douglas and Skinner
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Commissioner Hinz suggested to the Commission that they might want to continue this item to allow the applicant to redraw his plans and modify his application, if he does not come back with a modified proposal then the application could be denied.
Ms. Sanderson stated the Commission would need to direct the applicant of the alternatives.
Commissioner Wolfe moved to continue this item to the June 26, 2001 meeting to allow the applicant to redraw his plans and bring back. Seconded by Commissioner Blagden.
Commissioner Bergman encouraged the applicant to come back with a lot of options.
AYES: Douglas, Bergman, Blagden, Skinner and Wolfe
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
ITEMS FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Chairman Douglas announced there would be a Joint City Council ñ Planning Commission Meeting on May 31, 2001 at 6:00 p.m.
Commissioner Blagden asked to have the podium removed and the table and chairs brought back.
Ms. Sanderson stated she would look into it.
ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Blagden moved at 11:10 p.m. to adjourn to the Special Meeting of May 31, 2001. Seconded by Commissioner Wolfe and approved as follows:
AYES: Douglas, Bergman, Blagden, Skinner and Wolfe
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Bruce Douglas, Chairperson
ATTEST:
Sheryl Sanderson, Director of Planning
PAGE 9