MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE LA HABRA HEIGHTS
PLANNING COMMISSION
December 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 7:33 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 and Stephen Blagden. Also present Director of Planning Sheryl Brady, Planning Technician Barbara Doppieri, Karen Warner and Lori Peat of Cotton/Bridges/Associates Inc.
Absent Commissioners Wolfe and Hinz.
FLAG SALUTE
Commissioner Bergman led the flag salute.
ITEMS FROM THE PUBLIC
None
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF POSTING OF AGENDA FOR MEETING OF
December 18, 2001
Ms. Brady stated the agenda had been posted in accordance with the state law.
PUBLIC HEARING
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2000-02 (City of La Habra Heights) Citywide
Mrs. Brady stated this is a request for a General Plan Amendment to amend the City of La Habra Heights General Plan to update the City of La Habra Heights Housing Element for the 2000-2005 period, which was initiated by the City. California State law requires each city to adopt a general plan. The Housing Element is one of the seven mandated elements. State law requires local governments to adopt an updated Housing Element by December 31, 2000. The City entered into a contract with Cotton/Bridges/Associates, Inc. in October 2001. Karen Warner of Cotton/Bridges/Associates, Inc. will be presenting the city of La Habra Heights Housing Element for the 2002-2005 period. The Housing Element was reviewed environmentally and a negative declaration was issued for the project in accordance with CEQA. Staff recommended that the Commission forward a recommendation to the City Council for approval of General Plan Amendment 2000-2005 period and adoption of Planning Commission Resolution Number 2001-20.
Mrs. Brady then introduced Karen Warner and Lori Peat from Cotton/Bridges/Associates, Inc.
Ms. Warner gave a presentation on the Housing Element. She started her presentation with a Housing Element Background. She gave an overview of some of the key housing needs within the City. The State of California has adopted a goal for decent housing and a suitable living environment for every Californian. It is one of seven state-mandated elements of the City's General Plan. Unlike the rest of the General Plan, this is a 5-year plan. This is the element for the 2000-2005 period. The City is running about one year behind. In this region SCAG initiates this process through release of their regional housing needs (RHNA) assessment figures. Once SCAG releases those RHNA figures which identifies the housing growth that each jurisdiction must provide and that is when the housing cycle begins. The five Housing Element Law really addresses these five areas. We have structured your housing element to address each of these 5 areas. The five areas are (1) Identify future housing sites to address regional housing needs. (2) Assist in the development of adequate housing to meet the needs of low and moderate-income households. (3) Conserve and improve the condition of the existing affordable housing stock. (4) Address governmental constraints to the maintenance, development and improvement of housing. (5) Promote equal housing opportunities. The Housing Element is required to be reviewed by the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). They prepare a written letter on the draft element and indicates whether in their opinion your draft element complies with the statutes. Once HCD prepares their written findings whether in their opinion your element complies, jurisdictions have two choices. Amend the element to address the deficiencies identified by HCD or Adopt local findings that identify why the City's element in the City's opinion does comply with the statutes. There is a presumption of validity with a State approved element. If someone were to challenge a city's housing element and the State had found the element was not in compliance and the City had adopted findings that it was, the court would require the jurisdiction to bare the burden of proof. It is better from a legal standpoint to have the State on your side. The status of La Habra Heights Housing Element in terms of the State review is, we had a phone consultation with the State on the draft housing element and to review and address their comments. The State understands the City's constraints but basically the City is required to provide the sites to meet the RHNA figures. The City is mandated by SCAG to meet these needs. The Stated did not find the City's element met these requirements. Their letter dated 9-7-01 found the City's draft element did not comply with the State statutes. The City's Attorney then drafted findings which detail why the City's element complies with the statutes and basically would allow the City Council to self-certify the element. The bottom line issue in La Habra Heights preventing us from getting the States compliance letter is RHNAs requirement for an additional 203 units. The number of units in it self isn't necessary at issue. It is the breakdown into the various income categories. Without any multi family zoning these housing needs cannot be met. Previously staff had recommended a Senior Overlay Housing Zone to meet these needs. The City Council made it loud and clear this was not their desire. What was sent to the State was an element that continues the status quo of your community and documents the various constraints of Housing. There is a bill in the legislature AB 938 that would carry financial penalties for Cities that do not have a State approved Housing Element.
Ms. Peat gave an overview of the contents of the element including the five-year program strategy. One of the components of the housing elements is to look at constraints of development. They looked at circulation, fire flows, lack of sewer availability, fault lines, unstable slopes, wildlife corridor, blueline streams, fire hazards and absence of government funding. They determined the vacant parcels within the City and using the RA1 zoning determined a potential for 311 parcels. They also looked at special needs households -ñthe elderly, disabled, large families, and female headed households. For Housing Affordability they looked at the income for very low, low and moderate according to LA County and then determine the maximum affordable housing price and maximum affordable rental price. The medium housing value in 1990 in La Habra Heights was $450,000.00. A moderate household could afford $202,200.00. Moderate income could purchase some of the older homes within the City, but otherwise they are restricted. Part of the five year housing program that was included in the element are Code Enforcement, Handyworker Fix Up Program, Section 8 Rental Assistance, Senior Assisted Living, Facilitate New Construction, Residential Sites Inventory, Expedite Project Review and Fair Housing.
Chairman Douglas asked if the Commission had any questions of staff.
Commissioner Blagden stated that the Dial A Ride program should be mentioned as it helps seniors stay in the City. Asked to have pictures added that show chicken coops or goats.
Chairman Douglas stated he had a few questions. He asked what happens if the City doesn't comply with the five year cycle.
Ms. Warner stated you are out of compliance once your element is over due. Any SCAG jurisdiction that hasn't adopted their element yet is now deemed out of compliance.
Chairman Douglas clarified the whole entire General Plan is less defensible. If it is self certified it is better than being totally out of compliance.
Ms. Warner stated you are actually required to self certify if you are not addressing all of the States comments.
Chairman Douglas asked if that provides a level of defense against litigation.
Ms. Warner stated the City's Attorney feels that it does and that is why your element goes in to such detail on your environmental infrastructure constraints, because basically that is your defense.
Chairman Douglas stated there were a couple of typos in the document. Page 1-1 refers to a Senior Housing Overlay Zone and that reference had been deleted from the document. He asked why this document is not based on the 2000 Census information.
Ms. Warner stated there is only partial data available through the 2000 Census. The State wants the Cities to use the 1990 Census because that is the whole basis for the RHNA.
Chairman Douglas stated on Page 1-4 the City is in the process of trying to do the other elements of the General Plan. He stated the reference might not be correct on how the City is going to group the elements and ask that she just list the required elements. Page 2-15 regarding housing growth. He asked why the other 8 tracts were not listed.
Ms. Peat referred the Commission to Page 4-3 in Table 21 that shows the units constructed between 1998 ñ 2000 as 36 units and the 16 units from EPAC are part of that number. They would be happy to include any other tracts.
Chairman Douglas asked if the City really did have two mobile homes within the City.
Mrs. Brady stated there is one manufactured house that staff are aware of on Oak Ranch Road.
Chairman Douglas asked regarding the source for Fire Flow on Page 12 and the reference to inadequate water flow pressure.
Ms. Peat stated it either came from the previous element or conversations she had with the Fire Department. Would need to refer to her notes.
Chairman Douglas stated that on Page 5-4 Handyworker Fix up Program makes reference to advertising in two City Newspapers, which is the same newspaper.
Commissioner Blagden referred to Page 3-6 stated the residential planned development should disappear because that was Powder Canyon.
Ms. Warner stated the current land use element has the RPD but the revised update will eliminate that classification.
Chairman Douglas asked if there were any questions of the negative declaration or the resolution.
Commissioner Blagden stated he had some things for the findings. Cost per square foot should be mentioned because La Habra Heights is not that much more than La Habra. He felt we have the potential for moderate-income housing. Manufactured housing could be built for under $200,000.00. Wanted to reduce the parking requirement for smaller homes if there is a deed restriction. Stated in the case of manufactured house the fees could be reduced.
Mrs. Brady brought to the attention of the Commission that this resolution was prepared by the City Attorney's Office and they feel with these findings that we have a legally defensible document and additional findings you would want added will need to be run by the City Attorney first to determine if they are legally defensible.
Commissioner Blagden moved to forward a recommendation of approval to the City Council for approval of a General Plan Amendment 2000-02 and adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-20. Seconded by Vice-Chairman Skinner and approved as follows:
AYES: Douglas, Bergman, Blagden, and Skinner
NOES: None
ABSENT: Wolfe
ABSTAIN: None
ITEMS FROM STAFF
Report on Planning / Building Projects
ITEMS FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Commissioner Blagden asked regarding a Variance for Impervious Coverage for the City Hall site; Cellular Towers on Hacienda; some encroachment permits should go to the Planning Commission to diminish their impact in the Community.
Mrs. Brady advised the Commission that the items they were discussing had not been agendized.
Chairman Douglas passed out a homework assignment for the Planning Commission; he then discussed what is going on with the General Plan Advisory Committee.
Commissioner Blagden wanted to see the Impervious Coverage Issue on the agenda for next months meeting.
Chairman Douglas asked Mrs. Brady regarding putting the Impervious Coverage Issue on the agenda for the January meeting.
Mrs. Brady stated she and the Engineer could give a presentation on Impervious Coverage.
ADJOURNMENT
Vice-Chairman Skinner moved at 9:03 p.m. to adjourn to the Meeting of January 22, 2002. Seconded by Commissioner Blagden and approved as follows:
AYES: Douglas, Bergman, Blagden, and Skinner
NOES: None
ABSENT: Wolfe
ABSTAIN: None
Bruce Douglas, Chairperson
ATTEST:
Sheryl Brady, Director of Planning
PAGE 5
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE LA HABRA HEIGHTS
PLANNING COMMISSION
November 28, 2001
OPENING CEREMONIES
CALL MEETING TO ORDER
A meeting of the La Habra Heights Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Bruce Douglas at 7:31 p.m. at the Community Center, 1245 North Hacienda 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 Brady, Planning Technician Barbara Doppieri, City Engineer Dominic Milano and Commission Attorney Ruben Duran.
FLAG SALUTE
Vice-Chairman Skinner led the flag salute.
ITEMS FROM THE PUBLIC
None
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF POSTING OF AGENDA FOR MEETING OF November 28, 2001
Ms. Brady stated the agenda had been posted in accordance with the state law.
6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Minutes of a Regular Planning Commission Meeting of 9-25-01.
Commissioner Blagden moved to approve the Minutes of 9-25-01. Seconded by Commissioner Bergman and approved as follows:
AYES: Douglas, Bergman, Blagden, Skinner and Wolfe
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Minutes of a Regular Planning Commission Meeting of 10-23-01.
Commissioner Blagden moved to approve the Minutes of 10-23-01. Seconded by Commissioner Wolfe and approved as follows:
AYES: Douglas, Bergman, Blagden, Skinner and Wolfe
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
CONSENT CALENDAR
Commissioner Blagden asked to have Item 7 removed from the Consent Calendar.
Chairman Douglas pulled this item from the Consent Calendar.
Mrs. Brady swore in those wishing to testify.
STANDARDS MODIFICATION 2000-16B (Hanson) 2535 Ardsheal Drive
Commissioner Blagden stated the conditions of approval required a new survey be done. He asked if the survey had been done.
Commissioner Wolfe read the minutes of the September 25, 2001 which stated a survey would be done for the garage only, not the house.
Commissioner Blagden moved to approve Resolution Number 2001-13. Seconded by Commissioner Wolfe and approved as follows:
AYES: Douglas, Bergman, Blagden, Skinner and Wolfe
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
PUBLIC HEARING
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (Compass Telecom/Sprint) 1750 N. Hacienda Road
Mrs. Brady stated this was a continued agenda item and was submitted by Compass Telecom on behalf of Sprint to request a Conditional Use Permit to operate a Sprint PCS telecommunication facility. The site is at 1750 N. Hacienda Road and is owned by the Water District. A number of concerns were expressed at the October 23rd Planning Commission Meeting. Staff believes that the information provided does not address staff's concerns. According to the submitted plans, the facility maintains the required setback areas. In the staff report it was mentioned there appears to be inconsistencies with the project description and the project plans. The applicant indicated the height of the pole is 35 feet measured from the finished grade to the highest peak of the pole. According to the plans, the branches exceed an additional 4 feet above the pole, not 2 feet as indicated on the submitted plans. Therefore, the true height of the facility is 39 feet. The plans show landscaping situated behind a 6-foot high chain link fence. The fence needs to be set back 5 feet from the property line in order to maintain the 6-ft height; otherwise it needs to be reduced to 3 feet in height. The planning Commission should consider if the desired aesthetic appearance for the road is achieved with the proposed landscaping. Signage is identified on the submitted plans. However, no details were submitted. Without City regulations, the Planning Commission needs to provide direction to staff. 6 service lights are proposed. A lighting plan was not submitted with this application. This project was reviewed environmentally and a Negative Declaration was issued in accordance with CEQA. Staff is recommending the Planning Commission review the findings for granting a Conditional Use Permit and direct staff accordingly.
Chairman Douglas asked if the Commission had any questions for staff.
Commissioner Blagden asked regarding the use of other's property; he asked regarding the piles of dumped material on the site; he wanted a consultant hired; wanted an EMP report; wanted story poles with branches on top.
Mr. Milano stated the title report probably shows a joint easement, you should asked the applicant; the dirt piles are on the Water Company property, you should ask the applicant this question as well.
Chairman Douglas asked staff regarding the use of service lights and signage.
Mrs. Brady stated we need to get on the record the correct information; applicant will address the service lights and signage.
Vice-Chairman Skinner asked if the pole is a structure.
Mrs. Brady stated, yes the pole is a structure.
Chairman Douglas opened the public hearing.
Mike Blackwell 17870 Skypark Circle #102, Irvine, CA ñ stated the antennas have been reduced to 6 antennas, 2 per sector; new landscaping has been introduced to the plan; the signage is meant to warn people approaching the facility, it is an FCC requirement to provide proper signage to notify those approaching the project that there is radio equipment cabinets within that enclosure the lights are only for servicing in emergencies at night, OSHA requires the lighting; is willing to provide a pole that is co-locatable; is proposing to build this mono pine up to 35 feet, plus or minus the palm branches; fencing is existing; will provide EMF Report; if the Commission wanted they would build story pole; the dirt pile is temporary and will be removed.
Commissioner Bergman asked why the oleander is on the inside of the fence; he wanted the landscaping on the outside of the fence; he asked if they had submitted an irrigation plan.
Mr. Blackwell stated they would be happy to put the landscaping on the outside of the fence; he stated an irrigation plan would be provided.
Vice-Chairman Skinner asked regarding the signage.
Mr. Blackwell stated he didn't have a sign with him and didn't know the size, location or quantity.
Commissioner Blagden wanted shaded lights; wanted to see approvals for use of other's property.
Mr. Blackwell stated there is no relationship to anyone else's property other than the entrance drive.
Mr. Duran stated the City has no right to allow them to use it, they have to obtain approvals to use the other person's property.
Commissioner Blagden asked for landscaping on the north; he asked to have an ornamental steel gate instead of chain link.
Mr. Blackwell stated there is no property for planting on the north. He would have to plant on his neighbor's property to provide that screening.
Commissioner Wolfe clarified Sprint would be maintaining the landscaping.
Mr. Blackwell stated yes.
Commissioner Blagden asked how many cabinets would be installed.
Mr. Blackwell stated 6 cabinets; and a 35' mono pine, antennas were reduced 4 antennas per sector, 3 sectors would be 12 antennas.
Don Madrid, 411 W. Greenwood, La Habra ñ stated he supports this project.
Chairman Douglas seeing no one else come forward, closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Hinz stated this is a useful project; with a slight modification it should be approved.
Commissioner Wolfe stated he was in favor of the project if it is a full tree; wanted landscaping on outside of fence.
Vice-Chairman Skinner supported the project and agreed with the other commissioners; wanted landscaping on outside of fence; asked regarding material for the gate and size of oleanders.
Chairman Douglas asked what size oleanders.
Mrs. Brady stated one of the conditions is a landscape plan will need to be submitted with the size of the oleanders.
Commissioner Bergman wanted lighting condition to read for maintenance purposes only; wanted oleanders on outside of fence.
Chairman Douglas asked if the lights could be baffled; wanted landscaping on outside of fence; fence set back 5 feet; minimum size of oleanders.
Vice-Chairman Skinner stated the size of the oleanders could be left to staff.
Vice-Chairman Skinner wanted something nicer than chain link for an entry gate.
Commissioner Blagden wanted an outside consultant to review this project; wanted 15-gallon oleanders planted 5' on center irrigated and maintained; wanted ornamental steel gates; branches of tree to start 10' off ground; wanted the dirt piles moved; at end of use remove the tree and equipment; provide EFM report; indemnify City and hold harmless.
Commissioner Wolfe stated the details of the tree could be left with staff.
Mrs. Brady expressed concerns regarding signage.
Chairman Douglas suggested leaving the signage up to staff.
Commissioner Blagden moved to approve Conditional Use Permit 2001-02 and recommend approval to the City Council, subject to all the conditions the Commission came up with. Seconded by Commissioner Bergman and approved as follows:
AYES: Douglas, Bergman, Blagden, Skinner and Wolfe
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
STANDARDS MODIFICATION 2001-27 AND 2001-28 (Steinleitner) 1170 & 1180 Encanada Drive
Mrs. Brady presented the staff report stating this application is for a Multi Lot Development and Standards Modification for View Preservation to exceed the 500 and 750 square foot building area and 16 ft in height limitation for construction of 2 residential dwelling on 2 separate lots. These lots are located at 1170 and 1180 Encanada Drive. These sites are zoned RA with a Rural General Plan designation and are located within View Preservation District A. These sites are vacant and are surrounding by residential development. A 4,499 sq. ft 2-story residential dwelling including an attached garage is proposed for tax lot 19 (1170 Encanada) and a 4,837 sq. ft 2-story residential dwelling including an attached garage is proposed for tax lot 20 (1180 Encanada). Both dwellings are in compliance with the required parking and bldg. height requirements for VP District A. A landscape plan has been submitted for each site. These plans provide the type of plants that are compatible with the conditions of the City. These lots front an existing 25-ft wide private and future street easement for Encanada Drive. In order to maintain the required 35-ft front yard setback, this easement needs to be vacated. Therefore, the project has been conditioned accordingly. If not vacated, an approved setback encroachment or re-design of the project would be necessary. This project was reviewed environmentally and a Categorical Exemption has been issued in accordance with CEQA. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council for approval of SM 2001-27 & 28 subject to a list of conditions and adoption of Planning Commission Resolution 2001-18.
Chairman Douglas asked if the Commission had any questions for staff.
Commissioner Bergman asked if the easement was an issue.
Mr. Milano stated no.
Commissioner Blagden questioned the easement; story poles; blocked views and the requirement for a tree removal permit.
Commissioner Blagden asked regarding grading plans and how the City Engineer checks them.
Mr. Milano stated they do not verify topos; they are stamped by a registered civil engineer or a licensed surveyor and his registration is on line if they falsify documents; slope calculations; verification process is done through plan check; pad certification; the applicants Civil Engineer license is on the line to make sure it is correct.
Chairman Douglas opened the public hearing.
Tom H. Cao, Civil Engineer ñ thanked staff for their report; story pole is at the highest ridge.
Jim McKechnie, 1175 Encanada ñ stated he supports this project; the City abandoned the easement; Fire Road was also abandoned; the easement is a common easement; improvement to the neighborhood; there is a joint easement over this road.
Vice-Chairman Skinner clarified his primary view was towards the ocean; she also asked about the impact of the parking at 1180 Encanada.
Mr. McKechnie stated it did not impact his property.
Chairman Douglas seeing no one else come forward, closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Hinz stated the project should be approved.
Commissioner Wolfe stated he was abstaining from this project.
Commissioner Blagden questioned the story poles; the trees; the view blockage of 1170 Encanada.
Chairman Douglas stated he did not feel this was a substantial impediment; he was impressed with the plans.
Commissioner Blagden moved to recommend approval of Resolution 2001-18 and forward a recommendation to the City Council to approve the projects. Seconded by Vice-Chairman Skinner and approved as follows:
AYES: Douglas, Bergman, Blagden, Hinz and Skinner
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: Wolfe
10. Conditional Use Permit 2000-10B & Variance 2001-01B (Ramkumar) 16390 Las Cumbres Drive
Mrs. Brady stated this is a Conditional User Permit to construct a tennis court and Variance to exceed the amount of impervious coverage; at the November City Council this item was remanded back to the Planning Commission with the following direction; they wanted to see submittal plans with proper title blocks, signed by the appropriate licensed personnel; they wanted the Planning Commission to review and comment on the concept lighting plan; they requested that the plan needed to address screening on the south side of the tennis court and also for the Planning Commission to also look at solutions for reducing impervious surface area; she asked the Commission to provide direction to staff.
Chairman Douglas stated the Commission discussed all these items previously at length; he asked if the City Council gave direction on what more they wanted.
Mrs. Brady stated the Council wanted a more finalized landscape plan.
Mr. Milano felt the bigger issues were the lighting layouts and the amount of light that was being distributed around the tennis court; the other major issue was the impervious coverage; if you take the driveway used by the neighbor out and add back in the patios and door stoops that are actually under the allowable impervious coverage by a few square feet; is that 1,800 sq. ft just an undo burden on this property; 75% of this lot drains to another city with curbs and gutters and it drains out to another municipality; Whittier has presented a letter that they will accept this runoff; the new lighting plan shows six poles; with eight light standards there would only be a foot candle of lighting spilling off the court.
Chairman Douglas clarified the tennis court has been reduced.
Mr. Milano stated the tennis court has been reduced as small as it can get.
Commissioner Bergman stated the normal size of a tennis court is 60 x 120; when does it become unrealistic.
Commissioner Wolfe stated that if you eliminated the shared driveway, take the court as it is now and add back in the patios, do they now fall below the maximum impervious coverage.
Mr. Milano yes it would be 400 sq. ft below the allowable impervious coverage.
Mr. Milano stated in the Council stated they did not want large impervious coverage on properties; didn't think the plans were clear enough.
Vice-Chairman Skinner asked if the driveway was shared as she keeps hearing different things.
Mr. Milano stated there are three sections of driveway involved in this project, the serpentine driveway is only used by the applicant; there is a portion of the old driveway that leads to both properties; there is the other driveway that does down the hill, this is his hardship driveway; he owns it but he doesn't use it.
Commissioner Bergman could the paving be removed.
Mr. Milano stated it depends on the agreement he has with his neighbors.
Commissioner Blagden asked to see the entire landscaping plan for the site rather just for the tennis court.
Mrs. Brady stated that as part of the approval they would need to submit a landscape plan for review and approval.
Chairman Douglas opened the public hearing.
Ramaswamy Ramkumar, 16390 Las Cumbres ñ gave a presentation of his revised project.
Commissioner Bergman asked if he would be in agreement to a time limit on lighting.
Mr. Ramkumar stated a time limit on the lights was fine.
Commissioner Hinz questions whether a time limit on lights was legal.
Mr. Duran stated he was not sure it was allowable.
Mrs. Brady stated other tennis courts have been conditioned with time limits.
Commissioner Bergman asked if the shields on the lights were the best the industry has to offer.
Mr. Ramkumar stated yes; a time limit at 9-10 p.m. was fine.
Commissioner Hinz objected to the idea of restricting lights on tennis courts.
Commissioner Wolfe clarified 75% of the drainage would flow to Whittier; is now satisfied with the impervious coverage; has established the lighting issues.
Chairman Douglas stated the Council had a reason for remanding it back and that is what the Commission must look at.
Commissioner Blagden asked if the variance would go away.
Mr. Duran stated no that it justifies the need for a variance.
Mr. Milano stated that in a prior case because of a very long flag lot the Planning Commission granted a variance because you could not get to that house without that long driveway. In this case the variance is still on the table because there is still over 15,000 of impervious coverage, the driveway does not benefit this applicant it benefits the neighbor.
Commissioner Blagden asked if the eves of the home had been removed and was the roof part of the impervious coverage.
Mr. Milano stated only if the roof area has concrete below it, if the ground under the eve is dirt then it is not counted.
Commissioner Blagden wanted more landscaping; wanted the court screened; didn't want the fencing to show; he clarified the shared driveway was actually 3,600 sq. ft. in size.
Chairman Douglas seeing no one else come forward, closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Wolfe stated he had no issue with the impervious coverage.
Chairman Douglas stated he had no issue with the impervious coverage; the marginal cost to the city is nil; the applicant has reduced it as much as he can.
Commissioner Bergman stated the water flow is not the issue; aesthetics is the issue; with proper landscaping and lighting it can work.
Vice-Chairman Skinner stated she was satisfied with the impervious coverage; wasn't an issue last time or this time.
Commissioner Blagden stated with the reduction in the size of the tennis court and the easement information, the impervious coverage is not an issue; wanted more screening of the court and landscaping.
Vice-Chairman Skinner stated she wants the court fencing screened with landscaping.
Commissioner Blagden recommended 15-gallon oleanders planted 5' on center on the lower side around to the North East corner; and retain the eucalyptus and crape myrtles below that.
Commissioner Bergman agreed with Commissioner Blagden.
Commissioner Wolfe agreed with Commissioner Blagden.
Chairman Douglas suggested adding it as a condition for staff to see that it is done.
Commissioner Wolfe stated he opposed a time limit on the lights.
Commissioner Blagden stated this is a mechanism to control abuse.
Vice-Chairman Skinner asked staff if there was a light nuisance ordinance.
Mr. Duran stated there are public nuisance laws.
Chairman Douglas stated the applicant was OK with a time limit.
Commissioner Hinz stated that if it is a problem the City Council should impose a lighting restriction on everyone.
Mr. Milano stated the plan itself is a photo metric type plan; very detailed type plan especially what he submitted this evening and it matches exactly what he intends to build.
Commissioner Wolfe stated if the applicant is willing to limit himself to 9 p.m. he will vote to get this passed.
Commissioner Bergman stated condition it to 9 p.m. and the issue goes away.
Chairman Douglas agreed on the impervious coverage, landscaping and lighting to 9pm.
Commissioner Blagden moved to recommend an approval to the City Council a Conditional Use Permit 2000-10b and Variance 2000-1b with conditions regarding limiting lights to 9:30 p.m.; landscaping as described; verification of impervious coverage prior to Certificate of Occupancy. Seconded by Commissioner Wolfe and approved as follows:
AYES: Douglas, Bergman, Blagden, Skinner and Wolfe
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
11. ITEMS FROM STAFF
Report on Planning / Building Projects
Mrs. Brady stated she plans to bring the Housing Element to the Commission in December and the consultant is on a very tight schedule.
ITEMS FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Chairman Douglas encouraged the Commission to watch and attend the GPAC Meetings; many of the items being discussed will be coming to the Commission in the future.
Commissioner Blagden questioned the project on Dorothea; the antenna farms on the hill; the cellular site on Hacienda; undergrounding all new lines.
13. ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Bergman moved at 11:10 p.m. to adjourn to the Meeting of December 18, 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 Brady, Director of Planning
PAGE 5
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE LA HABRA HEIGHTS
PLANNING COMMISSION
October 23, 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 Brady, City Engineer Dominic Milano and Commission Attorney Ruben Duran.
FLAG SALUTE
Commissioner Blagden led the flag salute.
ITEMS FROM THE PUBLIC
None
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF POSTING OF AGENDA FOR MEETING OF October 23, 2001
Ms. Brady stated the agenda had been posted in accordance with the state law.
CONSENT CALENDER
It is recommended that items 6a through 6b be acted upon simultaneously by one motion of the Planning Commission unless separate discussion and/or action is requested by a Commissioner or member of the audience.
Commissioner Blagden stated he had questions on both items.
6a. Tentative Parcel Map 24385 (Overturf) 1778 Kashlan Road
Commissioner Blagden stated there is a not charge for map extensions and he felt there should be a charge for this; he asked when or if the conditions get represented on an updated map or do they only get represented on a final map; he questioned the width of the driveway and the future subdivision of the adjoining 5-acre parcel; he asked for a 10-foot easement on lot 2 and make a cul-de-sac at the bottom, that would take care of the future sub-division.
Mr. Milano stated the final map has to incorporate all of the conditions within the tentative map approval; the engineering department takes care of all of the engineering issues to make sure they are on the map; if there are fire department issues or planning department issues they are referred to those departments for approval; a letter showing they have check the map would be required before it goes to the City Council for final approval; he stated the 10-foot driveway was already there; by theory Mr. Blagden's suggestion would wipe out a stand of trees; it is hard to predetermine if someone will subdivide their property in the future.
Chairman Douglas asked if this property included a blue line stream.
Mr. Milano stated he believed it was on an adjoining property; if it was on this parcel we would see it when they submit a grading plan; the way the contours are drawn on this map it doesn't suggest a stream type function on this property; he felt it was on the property to the west of this property.
Chairman Douglas asked if staff had researched the fee schedule for a fee for this.
Mrs. Brady stated that would have to take place when the City amends their fee schedule
6b. Conditional Use Permit 2000-10, Standards Modification 2000-35, and Variance 2001-01 (Ramkumar) 16390 Las Cumbres Drive
Chairman Douglas stated this was brought back for adoption of a Planning Commission Resolution Number 2001-14 recommending approval of a Conditional Use Permit to construct a tennis court and Variance to exceed the amount of impervious surface area.
Commissioner Blagden asked regarding Condition #3; he did not feel that area was flat; is there verification of the impervious coverage once the project is finished; does engineering know what numbers they will be verifying.
Mrs. Brady stated the plan that was presented at the last meeting is the plan that you have approved and that is the plan that will be used; the numbers in the current application are the numbers that will be verified.
Chairman Douglas stated it is the submitted plans and if there are any additional sidewalks that were not reflected on that plan, then are not approved; the final plan that Engineering has is what they will be going on.
Mrs. Brady stated it is the plan that is date stamped September 17, 2001 is the plan that will be used.
Commissioner Wolfe stated the resolution states the plans are to be constructed in substantial conformance with the plan submitted; which are the September 17, 2001 plans; it is up to staff to determine if they are in substantial conformance once the project is constructed.
Mr. Milano stated that is correct; when the applicant submits the engineered drawings, he will be comparing that plan with the September 17, 2001 plan to make sure they are in compliance; if indeed there is a problem, the applicant has the option of removing the error or making an applicant to the Planning Commission to approve what he did out in the field.
Chairman Douglas stated the applicant has gone to a lot of trouble to cut down on their concrete and the Commission did not want them to not have stoops around their doors; if they can do that and be in substantial conformance they should do that.
Chairman Douglas asked for a motion on approval of the consent calendar. Commissioner Blagden asked to have them voted on separately.
Chairman Douglas asked for a motion on Tentative Parcel Map 24385.
Commissioner Wolfe moved to approve resolution granting a one years extension of Tentative Parcel Map 24385 subject to all of the original conditions of approval. Seconded by Commissioner Blagden as follows:
AYES: Douglas, Bergman, Blagden, Skinner and Wolfe
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Chairman Douglas asked for a motion on Conditional Use Permit 2000-10b and Variance 2001-01b.
Commissioner Wolfe moved to approve Resolution 2001-14 and recommending approval to the City Council. Seconded by Chairman Douglas as follows:
AYES: Douglas, Bergman, Skinner and Wolfe
NOES: Blagden
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
PUBLIC HEARING
Ms. Sanderson swore in those wishing to testify.
7. Standards Modification 2001-118 and Variance 2001-03 (Palmer) 1403 West Road
Mrs. Brady stated this applicant was submitted to request a Standards Modification for setback encroachment to encroach 12 feet within the required 25-foot side yard setback area for construction of a residential addition and Variance to exceed the height of a retaining wall, 8 feet is proposed and 6 feet is the maximum allowed; a one story 400 square foot building is proposed which is in compliance with View Preservation District A; the addition will be situated where an existing patio currently is; a Variance is also being proposed; a 4 foot stone veneer wall situated on top of a 4 foot high retaining wall is proposed; according to the building department, the uniform building code does require a three foot high minimum barrier above the retaining wall for safety purposes; the applicant could potentially reduce the height of the wall by 1 foot; however, the proposal is pleasing for adjacent neighbors; findings can be made in support of the application; the proposed project has been reviewed environmentally and a categorical exemption has been issued; staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a recommendation to the City Council for approval for Setback Encroachment and Variance subject to a list of conditions and adoption of Planning Commission Resolution 2001-15.
Seeing no questions from the Commission to staff, he opened the public hearing.
Tod Palmer, 1403 West Road ñ stated eight years ago their was a residence built next door that eliminated their turnaround and made it very difficult and dangerous to enter and exist the property; they need to widen the drive way which requires a retaining wall; the height meets the approval of their neighbors and the height will provide privacy to the neighbors; it is dangerous the way it is.
Seeing no one else come forward he closed the public hearing and returned the matter to the Commission for deliberation.
Commissioner Wolfe stated the addition of the retaining wall would be a benefit for anyone to that property; 8 foot is acceptable; with respect to the addition he didn't see anywhere else this addition could go; he liked this location because it kept the ridge line uniform; it has met all the requirements for a Standards Modification.
Vice-Chairman Skinner agreed with Commissioner Wolfe; it is a very needed addition for safety; is against setbacks; garage is already in the setback and there is no other location for it; it flows with the design of the house; they did a good job making their case.
Commissioner Bergman agreed with what the other Commissioner have said; cannot see doing the retaining wall differently; increasing the height is a better deal for both parties; the proposed addition is in the right location and they have the support of the neighbors.
Commissioner Blagden agreed with the other; the retaining wall is fine and the addition is in the right location.
Chairman Douglas agreed with the others; the addition makes sense; the retaining wall is aesthetically pleasing.
Commissioner Blagden moved to approve Standards Modification 2001-18 and recommend approval of Variance 2001-03 to the City Council. Seconded by Commissioner Wolfe and approved as follows:
AYES: Douglas, Bergman, Blagden, Skinner and Wolfe
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Mrs. Brady stated it would go as a package to the City Council.
8. Conditional Use Permit 2001-02 (Compass Telecom) 1750 North Hacienda Road
Mrs. Brady presented the staff report stating this application was submitted by Compass Telecom to request a Conditional Use Permit to operate a Sprint telecommunication facility; at 1750 N. Hacienda Road; the facility includes 6 equipment cabinets inside an 8 foot high chain link fence with barbed wire; however barbed wire is not permitted within the City; antennas are located on top of a 35 foot structure designed as a palm tree and also 6-7 high service lights are being proposed; there appears to be some inconsistencies within the text in plan; staff has expressed concerns in the staff agenda report to the applicant; the applicant will be presenting additional information to address staff's concerns; staff is recommending the Planning Commission review the findings for granting a Conditional Use Permit and to direct staff accordingly.
Chairman Douglas asked if the Commission had questions of staff.
Mr. Duran stated the record should reflect Mrs. Brady just passed out an information packet to the Commission submitted by the applicant.
Commissioner Blagden stated this plan is in a minuscule scale and you need a magnifying glass to see where the building is; the building looks to be in the setback; if it is in the setback where is the Standards Modification; in the black and white pictures you cannot tell what it was; wanted to see pictures of these palm trees that are already in place in other cities.
Mrs. Brady stated she address quiet a few concerns with the applicant; did have concerns of how the structure is going to look; how it will look with the traveling public along Hacienda Road; landscaping play a role and the applicant knows her concerns.
Commissioner Blagden asked the City Attorney if it was within their authority to hire an outside consultant to review their plan; to justify the need for the antenna and its size.
Mr. Duran didn't know whether the Commission wanted to rely on the applicant's information presented in the packet; you wouldn't be precluded from hiring a consultant.
Commissioner Blagden asked if there were any future plans for other antennas.
Mr. Duran stated even if there were he advised it should not be discussed because those items were not noticed for an item on the Commissions agenda; he advised against discussing it at this meeting.
Chairman Douglas opened the public hearing.
Mike Blackwell, Compass Telecom Services representing Sprint PCS ñ he stated Sprint is proposing to install an unmanned wireless telecommunications facility at 1750 Hacienda Road; the facility would consist of a 35 foot mono pole structure, discussed to look like a pine tree similar to what is currently on the site; he stated in the packet that was handed out there are other samples of mono pines around California; staff had discussed concerns to the ascetic of the proposed facility; the pole does not exceed the height limit and it would not stand out; it is the best attempt with this property to present a vertical element that does blend in with the existing setting; he pointed color picture the in packet; the element would be hidden by trees on three sides; the West side would be exposed; this mono pine is state of the art and the best available, unlike some of the earlier elements; he included a photo simulation in the packet; the original applicant included barbed wire to match what is already there; Sprint is willing to work with the City to find an enclosure that is more suited to the City.
Commissioner Bergman asked if the antenna could be built to less than 35 feet.
Mr. Blackwell stated no; 35 feet is the top of the antenna.
Commissioner Blagden stated that with the tree decoration it looks taller than 35 feet.
Mr. Blackwell stated there is a plus or minus there; the branches move in the wind; there is a 2-4 foot deviation; the branches could be adjusted to not be higher than 35 feet, but the look of the tree would be affected.
Commissioner Blagden asked if it was in the setback; that it looked like it was only 7 feet from the property line and the setback is 25 feet.
Mr. Blackwell stated it is not into the setback; the parcel has been divided into 2 pieces and the property line for the larger piece is at the street with the same property owner.
Commissioner Blagden asked staff if setbacks apply to every parcel or combined parcels; wouldn't they need a Standards Modification.
Mrs. Brady stated the setback applies to every parcel; she stated this is new information; originally she was under the impression it did meet the setbacks; if it does not it would need a Standards Modification for setback encroachment.
Mr. Blackwell stated there is an existing fence on the property about 8 feet behind the outward enclosure; if what your saying is correct then the existing use on site is encroachment as well.
Commissioner Blagden stated that building is grandfathered in but new structures would need to meet the setbacks.
Chairman Douglas clarified they cannot be in the setback without a Standards Modification.
Commissioner Blagden stated he would like to see new plans that the can read; that address the setbacks issue and a landscape plan; there is an existing telephone pole on the property; couldn't it be converted to an antenna like the applicant did at the golf course.
Mr. Blackwell stated not with this kind of antenna it cannot be done; what is required there is the 12 antennas; the golf course is one antenna; new cross Polaris can be used; they are smaller and he can reduce the number of antennas by half if it pleases the Commission; if you are concerned about the massing this is an option.
Commissioner Blagden stated he would like to see the smaller pole with fewer antennas; he would like to know where it is going first.
Chairman Douglas asked how many antennas are on the proposed project.
Mr. Blackwell stated 12 antennas.
Chairman Douglas asked how tall the telephone poles are.
Mr. Blackwell stated he did not survey the telephone poles; it shows well in the photo simulation.
Commissioner Wolfe stated on the standard tree antenna there would be 3 basic arms with 4 panel antennas on each; on the cross polar antenna turns 2 arms with 3 antennas.
Mr. Blackwell stated the sectors would stay the same; the direction of the signal propagation would stay the same; the number of antennas would be reduced; on the plans as proposed you see 3 sectors with 4 antennas per sector; same height; he stated the pines can be added to; they can add branches, extend branches for a different look.
Commissioner Blagden asked how do they order more branches.
Mr. Blackwell stated in other Cities once the antenna is built, staff goes to the site and has final approval.
Chairman Douglas stated it appears there may need to be a Standards Modification.
Mrs. Brady stated what the applicant needs to do is formally submit an application for a Standards Modification for Setback Encroachment; it is going to have to be renoticed; you have expresses your concerns to the applicant on additional information you would like to see; encouraged the Commission to give the applicant all of the things you are looking for.
Chairman Douglas gave a list to the applicant of what the Commission is looking for; no barbed wire; landscaping in front of the cabinetry.
Commissioner Bergman stated this is the perfect project to hide the landscaping.
Mrs. Brady explained to the applicant that the Commission would like to see a conceptual landscape plan; site plan needs to be at a legible scale.
Commissioner Wolfe stated the landscape plan has been battered about and the concept has been to hide the boxes; consider planting trees around it to hide it better.
Commissioner Blagden suggested relocating it out of the setback; put it in the back.
Commissioner Wolfe stated he would like to see the cross-polar if it is available.
Chairman Douglas asked for a motion.
Commissioner Blagden moved to continue Conditional Use Permit 2001-02 to a dated yet to be determined. Seconded by Commissioner Wolfe and approved as follows:
AYES: Douglas, Bergman, Blagden, Skinner and Wolfe
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
NEW BUSINESS
9. Standards Modification 2000-18 (Ramkumar) 16390 Las Cumbres Drive
Mrs. Brady presented the staff report stated this application is brought before the Planning Commission because the proposed residential building addition is not being constructed in accordance with the approved plan by exceeding the maximum height limitation by approximately 1.75 feet; this was determined by staff at the roof nailing inspection; this is the time building height corrections can be made to the roof; the applicant has submitted a revised grading plans as opposed to lowering the height of the roof; which would bring the building height into compliance with the View Preservation District A requirements; the applicant will provide a revised grading plan; staff recommended the Planning Commission accordingly.
Chairman Douglas asked if the Commission had questions of staff.
Commissioner Bergman asked if it was 1.75 feet.
Mrs. Brady stated approximately.
Commissioner Bergman stated that in their letter the applicant stated it was less.
Mrs. Brady stated the City's Building Inspector went out to the site and measured it at 1.75 feet; he measured each floor and then totaled it up; this was measured to the slab and there probably is another 6 inches to grade.
Commissioner Blagden stated in the applicant letter they sited unexpected floor joists of 14 inches; however in the floor plan the joists were always 14 inches; in the original conditions of approval they were to show building elevations from the finished grade to the highest roof peak and shall not exceed 37 feet, but the new plans didn't show that.
Mrs. Brady stated the original plans that were approved for plan check for the building permit showed it would not exceed 37- foot maximum height from the finished grade to the highest roof peak.
Commissioner Blagden asked is the highest roof peak the finished product or is the roof added over that.
Mr. Milano stated it is suppose to be the very top of everything including the tiles or shingles.
Chairman Douglas seeing no more questions for staff opened the public hearing.
Ramaswamy Ramkumar, 16390 Las Cumbres ñ gave a presentation on why the roof is higher than the approvals and recommended raising the finished grade; he knew there was a variation; he thinks he can correct the problem by raising the finished grade by 1 foot 4 inches.
Chairman Douglas asked if the Commission had questions of the applicant. He asked the City Engineer if the applicant has lowered the ridgeline, he presumed the parallel plane measurement is less close than it was before.
Mr. Milano stated the ordinance is written to the lowest footing; however there is a resolution by the Planning Commission a year or two ago that adopted the policy because staff was having trouble interpreting what the lowest footing meant; in the case of stem walls where do you take the measurement from; the determination was that it is measured to the finished grade on the outside of the house; what this applicant is proposing to do is change the finished grade from the initial plans by raising the finished grade to conform to the 37 foot approval.
Chairman Douglas referred to Ordinance 175; if you raise the grade then the parallel plane is even better.
Mr. Milano stated from a technical engineering standpoint their solution will work; the real issue the original approvals showed the finished grade at a certain elevation and now it is 1.39 feet higher in order to meet the 37 feet.
Commissioner Blagden stated the applicant stated the house is 6 inches lower and the City is saying is a foot and æ taller.
Mr. Milano stated he is not sure if it is 1.75 fee t taller; the difference between the peak of the roof and the finished grade, there is a discrepancy.
Vice-Chairman Skinner clarified that the applicant stated the basement was made 1 foot taller than it was suppose to be.
Mr. Ramkumar stated the 37 feet is the distance from the highest ridge line to the finished grade not the slab; the discrepancy they noticed was the 9 foot basement height; the engineering elevation of the ridgeline measured electronically by the Civil Engineer, they are six inches lower in the main ridgeline; in the finished grade location they are off by over a foot; that is why they want to raise the finished grade 1 foot 4 inches to bring it into compliance.
Vice-Chairman Skinner stated if the grade is raised a foot it will cover their doors.
Mr. Ramkumar stated they would have a wall and they will have to step up; there would be a pocket you would walk out onto and then you would step up.
Vice-Chairman Skinner stated the original plans that were submitted and approved didn't exceed the 37- feet from slab to the top.
Mr. Milano stated those plans didn't exceed the 37 feet from the finished grade on the outside of the house to the ridge; it was not measured from the slab; using his hands he tried to draw a picture for the Commission of what actually occurred; the whole building was pushed down into the grade; the ridgeline is actually 4 inches lower than projected on the plans but since they pushed it down, they are still 1.39 feet greater than what it was initially; what he wants to do is move the grade line back up.
Vice-Chairman Skinner stated she was not talking elevations; the house is higher no matter what the elevation is.
Mr. Milano stated that is correct because they increase the basement ceiling from 8 to 9 feet and that accounts for 12 inches of the problem; they are lucky the pushed the house further into the ground or they would have been that much higher.
Vice-Chairman Skinner asked how common is it to change a finished grade.
Mr. Milano stated what you see out there right now probably isn't the final finished grade; the fine grading is done pretty much after the construction is complete; does the pad elevation change from what is approved to what is built, generally it doesn't; the Engineers comes in and certify the pad elevation; it is to the benefit of everyone that he pushes it down into the ground; being off 2-3 inches is very common; being off a foot is pushing it.
Commissioner Bergman stated that maybe they could do the same with landscaping.
Mr. Ramkumar stated they decided to bring it into conformance in a manner that the Engineering Department would accept; this is a solution they will not argue about; if there was a more lenient solution the Commission would offer they would accept.
Commissioner Hinz stated he didn't see what impact this would have on anyone; the resolve should be the least difficult to the applicant.
Mike Douglass, Architect, 4401 N. Atlantic Blvd., Long Beach ñ he stated the design of the house comes in 2 phases; they submit a package for Planning in the beginning and it usually is exterior elevations and floor plans; when he designed the house it was with a standard conception of 12 inch floor joist; that is the norm in construction; they are scaled on the exterior elevations; all of the technical engineering was done after the initial Planning approvals and that is when it was determined that a 14 inch floor system was the best way to deal with the spans; this is a two story house with a basement; the basement is where it problem is; everything from the first floor up is accurate; the best solution is to raise the finished grade.
Seeing no one else come forward, Chairman Douglas closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Wolfe agreed the 37- feet is to eliminate a profile; doesn't see a problem with landscaping to resolve the problem; he asked why was this brought to the Commission.
Mrs. Brady stated she was trying to help the applicants; she would not have rendered a favorable decision; the applicant would have had the opportunity to appeal her decision and would have had to pay the appeal costs; this process expedited time and money for the applicant; what is before you is a revised grading plan; she asked if the Commission accepted the revised grading plan.
Chairman Douglas stated staff felt it was enough of a change to require a grading modification and staff did not want to handle it administratively.
Commissioner Wolfe commended staff for trying to help out the applicant and trying to expedite the applicant; no one is being singled out; there is an obvious mistake.
Vice-Chairman Skinner stated she did not like the idea of raising the grade; felt that is a temporary fix; after final approval you can take it down; she asked staff isn't there another choice.
Mrs. Brady stated if you do not accept the revised grading plan and you want them to do landscaping they would then need a variance.
Commissioner Blagden stated it would be simpler to add the little wall away from the door section and add landscaping.
Chairman Douglas stated this project is a foul technically; this project has pushed the envelope technically; he is sorry the applicant is back here again.
Mrs. Brady stated there are other applications out there that are waiting to get on the Commissions schedule.
Vice-Chairman Skinner stated if you make the applicant go through the variance process you would be able to condition the landscaping to hide what ever the Commission wants them to hide; she felt this was the best solution.
Mr. Milano suggested there are 2 alternatives; one is the variance procedure; two is to allow them to build a stem wall; he didn't think the home is of the stated it would be occupied within the next 30-60 days; if the Commission approves tonight the concept of the grading and allow him the option of coming back if he so desires to apply for a modification to the height if he so desires; he should have enough time to make that applicant to come back to the Commission; then he would have the option prior to the home being finaled to build the stem wall; if the Commission doesn't approve this, then he will always have this issue hanging over him and he may never get a final on this house; staff will not final his house with this issue outstanding; this is a resolution which would allow him to proceed with his project.
Chairman Douglas stated staff has noted that there is a discrepancy in the plans and the code says at no event will it exceed this height; inspections or whatever; if staff gave the applicant approvals to go ahead they would have compromised their positions; the suggestion is reasonable; the have the entitlement to build this wall; they also have a few months to come in and asked for the change; which allows them the variance so they don't have a pond and it allows them to continue building and not having to wait; he stated the applicant has to have a variance.
Mr. Milano stated the applicant senses to have some support on the Commission for the Variance and to go ahead and process for it; at least if you modify the grading plan the applicant will be able to get a final on his house.
Commissioner Bergman asked if they could reopen the public hearing to hear from the applicant.
Chairman Douglas asked if the Commission agreed to reopen the public hearing. Seeing agreement he reopened the public hearing and asked Mr. Ramkumar his feeling about the two options.
Mr. Ramkumar stated his position is not to spend any more money with the City if there is a possibility he has daggers in it; it was not his position to skirt the building codes; he would like the Commission to approve the grading plan and he will go back and discuss what the variance process would take; doesn't want to jeopardize the construction that has been if there is any chance he may have to redo something; will go back a reevaluate the grading plan and if necessary will ask for the Variance.
Chairman Douglas stated the Variance would allow him to leave the finished grade right where it is and would allow you to raise the height; he then closed the public hearing.
Vice-Chairman Skinner stated if they give him the option, then the Commission has lost control; she doesn't feel he will come back; and to keep this from happening again he shouldn't be given the option; she stated she was in favor of denying this revised grading plan.
Chairman Douglas stated if this grading plan was not approved, the applicant's construction is frozen until he does apply for the Variance and receives approvals unless he lowered the pitch of the roof.
Commissioner Wolfe stated he hasn't heard anyone articulate a reason why the Commission could approve the revised grading plan.
Vice-Chairman Skinner stated she couldn't approve it because grading to her is just putting some dirt there with a barrier; they move some dirt around and put this wall in front of the door; they get their final and then they can take the wall down and move the dirt away; she did not feel this was a permanent fix, it is temporary; where a variance cannot be altered.
Commissioner Wolfe stated he didn't think there was anything in the Municipal Code that prohibited him from granting the change to the grading plan.
Mrs. Brady stated there isn't.
Vice-Chairman Skinner stated in all of her years on the Planning Commission they have never dealt with a revised grading plan after the fact; she asked staff if this was usual.
Mr. Milano stated no it is not usual; however he stated he did not believe the applicant would be removing this stem wall after the fact because it is tied to a stud wall and would be very costly for him to do so.
Commissioner Blagden felt putting the wall in front of the basement door was excessive and we cannot pull out a portion of the grading plan that we think of as excessive so it is either up or down; cannot see approving it knowing they will be coming back for a variance.
Commissioner Wolfe stated his problem with it is he presents a grading plan to the Commission and if it complies with code; who are they to say no you cannot do it the way you present it because I don't like the fact there is this particular area.
Commissioner Bergman stated the applicant want closure to this thing; why should the Commission hold him up; it is acceptable and it meets the criteria and everything else; has no problem with it; will support a Variance.
Chairman Douglas asked for a motion of the Commission to approve the grading plan and impose landscaping.
Mrs. Brady stated she has a problem because there already is an approved landscaping plan; she stated the issue before the Commission is do they accept the revised grading plan; you do not have a landscape plan in front of you.
Mr. Milano stated you could condition a grading plan and Mr. Ramkumar would probably revise his landscape plan if you asked him to do so.
Commissioner Blagden asked to have landscaping along that side of the house to screen at least 50% of the house.
Commissioner Blagden moved to approve the revised grading plan, with landscaping plan to screen at least 50% of the side of the corner of the side of the building surrounding the basement. Seconded by Commissioner Wolfe and approved as follows:
AYES: Douglas, Bergman, Blagden, and Wolfe
NOES: Skinner
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
OLD BUSINESS
10. Tree Removal Permit 2001-01 (Klinker) 1280 Walnut Street
Mrs. Brady stated the status report is in their agenda packet.
Commissioner Blagden questioned the fact the house has sold and how will that affect things.
Mrs. Brady stated the new owner is aware of the situation.
11. ITEMS FROM STAFF
Mrs. Brady stated the holidays are fast approaching; the Commission has two meetings scheduled for the remainder of the year; the November meeting is scheduled for the Tuesday after Thanksgiving; she has reserved Tuesday December 18th for a possible Commission Meeting as their regularly scheduled meeting would have fallen on Christmas Day; if the Commission plans to have a December meeting, she will be bringing forth the Housing Element; the environmental notices must be sent out this week; she is under a very tight schedule and must work around what the Commission chooses.
Chairman Douglas asked regarding scheduling for the November meeting.
Commissioner Wolfe suggested November 28th.
Commissioner Blagden might not be available.
Chairman Douglas stated most of the Commission would be available for Wednesday, November 28th and asked staff to check and see if the room was available. He then asked if everyone was available for a December 18th meeting.
Chairman Douglas stated it was the consensus the Commission would hear the Housing Element on December 18th.
12. ITEMS FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Chairman Douglas stated he hoped everyone was watching the GPAC Meetings on TV; it looks like portions of the rewrite will be coming before the Commission very soon.
Chairman Douglas asked about where plans are kept and how the process works.
Mrs. Brady stated when someone comes in to get approval to build a new house; they get the Planning Department approval; then they submit their plans for plan check; they submit their grading plan to engineering; 9 times out of 10 the grading permit is issued before the building permit.
Mr. Milano stated generally the two come together; they don't sign a grading plan for approval until the building department has completed their plan checking; in no case does a building plan check proceed the approval of the grading plan.
Chairman Douglas asked what is the process for plan; who keeps the plans.
Mr. Milano stated once the grading plan and building plan is signed and approved there should be a copy here at City Hall; there should be plans kept at City Hall.
Commissioner Blagden stated he found that not to be the case; he stated the preliminary approved plans are in the file; however the final approved set aren't always there.
Mr. Milano stated that shouldn't be the case; final approved plans are suppose to be kept at City Hall.
Commissioner Blagden asked how would someone go about putting in a Tentative Map Renewal Fee.
Mrs. Brady suggested he go to the Council; typically feels are looked at, at the beginning of each fiscal year.
Mr. Duran stated it has to be initiated by the Council.
Commissioner Blagden asked Mrs. Brady to look into the big antennas up on the hill and their non-compliance with their Conditional Use Permits.
Mrs. Brady stated she would look into it.
13. ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Wolfe moved at 9:54 p.m. to adjourn to the Meeting of November 28, 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 Brady, Director of Planning
PAGE 10
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE LA HABRA HEIGHTS
PLANNING COMMISSION
September 25, 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 7:34 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) Brady, Planning Technician Barbara Doppieri, Deputy City Engineer Dave Gilbertson 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 SEPTEMBER 25, 2001
Ms. Sanderson stated the agenda had been posted in accordance with the state law.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Minutes of a Regular Planning Commission meeting of June 26, 2001
Vice-Chairman Skinner moved to approve the minutes. Seconded by Commissioner Wolfe and approved as follows:
AYES: Douglas, Bergman, Blagden, Skinner and Wolfe
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Minutes of a Special Planning Commission meeting of July 18, 2001
Commissioner Bergman moved to approve the minutes. Seconded by Chairman Douglas and approved as follows:
AYES: Douglas, Bergman, Hinz, and Skinner
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: Blagden and Wolfe
Minutes of a Regular Planning Commission meeting of July 24, 2001
Commissioner Blagden moved to approve the minutes. Seconded by Vice-Chairman Skinner and approved as follows:
AYES: Douglas, Bergman, Blagden, Skinner and Wolfe
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Minutes of a Special Planning Commission meeting of July 26, 2001
Commissioner Blagden moved to approve the minutes. Seconded by Vice-Chairman Skinner and approved as follows:
AYES: Douglas, Bergman, Blagden, Skinner and Wolfe
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Minutes of a Special Planning Commission meeting of July 31, 2001
Vice-Chairman Skinner moved to approve the minutes. Seconded by Commissioner Blagden and approved as follows:
AYES: Douglas, Bergman, Blagden, Skinner and Wolfe
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Minutes of a Special Planning Commission meeting of August 14, 2001
Commissioner Bergman moved to approve the minutes. Seconded by Vice-Chairman Skinner and approved as follows:
AYES: Douglas, Bergman, Blagden, and Skinner
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: Wolfe
PUBLIC HEARING
Ms. Sanderson swore in those wishing to testify.
Conditional Use Permit 2000-11 (Verizon) street-right-way along North Hacienda Road
Chairman Douglas explained this was a Conditional Use Permit to construct three microcell antenna facilities on three power/utility poles and nearby equipment pedestals within the street right-of-way along North Hacienda Road; he explained there had been some changes to the status and asked for a staff report.
Mr. Duran presented the staff report stating the application had been closed and withdrawn; telephone companies by state law have been granted a franchise to use the public right of way to provide telephone service as long as they do not interfere with the free flow of traffic.
Chairman Douglas asked if there were questions of staff. He then asked if it was all users or just this applicant that Mr. Duran's memo applied to.
Mr. Duran stated in this instance all telephone companies and all telecommunication users because of the special rights granted to them by the legislature.
Commissioner Blagden asked could there theoretically be an antenna on every telephone pole.
Mr. Duran stated they have to go through the encroachment permitting process and it has its own standards that relate to safety and proper use of the streets.
Commissioner Blagden asked couldn't the City rent the ground space.
Mr. Duran stated no; the state has already given the franchise.
Commissioner Blagden asked who determines if the utility boxes need to be underground.
Mr. Duran stated that would be up to the City Engineer working in conjunction with the telephone company.
Variance 2001-02 (Kwong) 2625 Ardsheal Drive
Chairman Douglas stated the Commission is looking at adoption of their resolution in which they recommended approval of the variance to exceed the amount of impervious surface area.
Mrs. Brady stated there was a change in the condition #7; it was brought to her attention that this condition should state the size of the dry well; so the plan shall include the installation of 2,000 square foot dry well.
Mr. Gilbertson stated the condition should read plans should include the installation of dry wells to contain the initial runoff on site from the amount of the additional square footage of concrete.
Mrs. Brady stated she was concerned potentially a sports court could be developed from the fenced area; she tried to condition the approval requiring a Conditional Use Permit if an sports court is built; in Condition #2 she required all the fencing and poles be removed; she asked for direction on how the Commission wanted Condition #2 to read.
Commissioner Blagden stated the fencing as it is now is at 10 feet; the original condition was to reduce it to 6 feet and the Planning Director is recommending removing the fencing entirely.
Chairman Douglas asked if the applicant has seen the resolution.
Mrs. Brady stated the draft resolution was mailed to him.
Chairman Douglas stated he was concerned about taking away the applicants rights.
Commissioner Wolfe stated his original motion was to remove the fence, then it was changed to allow for a 6 foot fence and he adopted that recommendation, did see a problem with removing the fence; requiring a condition that would require a CUP was OK with him.
Commissioner Bergman stated he wanted to leave it the way they voted on it.
Commissioner Blagden stated he could see lowering the perimeter fence to 6 feet and eliminating the interior fencing.
Chairman Douglas stated a condition requiring a CUP if it is turned into a sports court would be appropriate.
Vice-Chairman Skinner clarified a new condition would be added.
Mrs. Brady stated Condition #2 would be changed to include the maximum height of the fence would not exceed 6 feet.
Commissioner Blagden moved to approve resolution as amended. Vice-Chairman Skinner seconded motion and 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 (Ramkumar) 16390 Las Cumbres
Mrs. Brady presented the staff report stating the City Council denied the former application without prejudice; the applicant has submitted a revised plan; this plan complies with the required setback area, therefore a Standards Modification for setback area would not be required; she stated a 4 foot separation between the dwelling and the tennis court would be required by the building department; the revised site plan identifies six lighted poles; the height of the poles are 20 feet; a lighting plan was not submitted with this submittal package; according to the City Grading Ordinance the amount of impervious surface area cannot exceed .32 acres; the amount of impervious surface area is .36 acres including the tennis court on the revised plan; the City of Whittier has agreed to accept the drainage runoff onto Las Cumbres; staff recommended the Commission review the findings for granting a Conditional Use Permit and Variance and direct staff accordingly to bring back a resolution with the Commissions recommendation to the Commissions next scheduled meeting.
Chairman Douglas asked if the Commission had questions for staff.
Commissioner Blagden questioned the level of confidence they could have in the plan as it is unsigned, undated and not stamped.
Mr. Duran stated he assumed the applicant would take responsibility for the plans, however the Commission could require a signed and sealed plan; he didn't know if it was necessary for what the Commission needed to do at this meeting; you might want to ask the applicant.
Commissioner Blagden questioned the limit of grading and why the lower driveway was not included.
Mr. Gilbertson stated a driveway is considered graded area; however the lower driveway is not a shared driveway, it is a individual driveway for the adjoining property that was constructed when the adjoining property was developed and is used solely by them; they probably have prescriptive rights it has been there so long; because it is used solely by an adjacent property and not by this property, that area is not included in the graded area.
Commissioner Blagden asked if it was charged to the other lot.
Mr. Gilbertson felt so, since the other lot was developed 15-20 years ago.
Chairman Douglas asked if they had taken an area net of the existing driveway and then taken the prescribed percentage of that net area.
Mr. Gilbertson stated since it is solely for the adjacent and not used by this applicant, he has not counted any of that area in his graded area, it was included as impervious coverage, but the applicant indicated it as a hardship.
Chairman Douglas questioned the original acreage of .98 acres and asked if it was exclusive of that driveway.
Mr. Gilbertson stated it includes that area, as there is not easement for that driveway at this point
Chairman Douglas pointed out the applicant has shown parts of that driveway as impervious coverage and called it a hardship.
Mr. Gilbertson agreed he had only shown of the driveway.
Commissioner Blagden asked why would they include a portion of the driveway as impervious and not consider that same portion as graded area; he asked if there was an easement.
Mr. Gilbertson stated it shouldn't be graded area or impervious coverage; currently there is not easement; since it has been there as long as it has the other property owner would have prescriptive rights to it if challenged in court; it is up to the Planning Commissions discretion to make the determination.
Mr. Duran stated it up to the Planning Commissions discretion.
Vice-Chairman Skinner asked for a rough percentage of how much water will flow to Whittier and how much will flow to La Habra Heights; would the tennis court's runoff flow to Whittier.
Mr. Gilbertson estimated 75% would flow to Whittier, 25% would flow to La Habra Heights; yes the tennis courts runoff would flow to Whittier.
Vice-Chairman Skinner stated the applicant did not submit a lighting plan, so if they granted this CUP would the lighting be included.
Mrs. Brady stated the lighting would be a condition of approval unless you brought it back for a conceptual lighting plan; there was some information about the wattage.
Ramaswamy Ramkumar, 16390 Las Cumbres gave a detailed presentation on his project; he stated Mr. Murphy does have a recorded easement for the lower driveway; they have significantly reduced the size of the tennis court; they have deleted the pool from the site; Gas easement on the Whittier side required a longer serpentine driveway; light poles are called out clearly on the plans; the foot candles from these lights are not measurable 10 feet away from the court; asked for consideration of the easement and that would bring him under the impervious coverage requirement.
Mike Douglass, Architect, 4401 Atlantic Blvd., Long Beach ñ stated they made some very last minute submittals that further established the accuracy of their plans and in there haste they did not get the title block on; he would be more than happy to resubmit the plans with a title block and a stamp.
Commissioner Blagden questioned why they were only including of the driveway.
Mr. Ramkumar stated they are only including the portion that is legally within their property and that is of the easement.
Commissioner Blagden stated the plan from June and the current plan are similar and yet the applicant is stating they cut the impervious coverage by 46%.
Mr. Ramkumar stated in the packet there is an impervious coverage breakdown; the tennis court have been reduced by 34%; the lower driveway in the first plan they took the whole easement and counted it against them; this time they cut the calculation in half.
Mr. Gilbertson if the Commission is going to treat it as a shared driveway then would be attributable to the applicant; he stated it is used 100% by the Murphy's and should be counted against this applicant at all; the policy in the past has been that if it is a shared driveway then you take half.
Mr. Ramkumar stated that in the previous submittal the pool was included in the impervious coverage calculations.
Chairman Douglas asked regarding the fencing.
Mr. Douglass stated there is a 4-foot landscape area surrounding the court on the downhill side, which establishes grade point, and the fence will be 8 foot high from grade.
Commissioner Hinz was unclear on what light design the applicant was proposing.
Mr. Douglass passed around a lighting brochure and stated this is a standard tennis court lighting system; the baffles direct all of the lighting downwards onto the court rather than allowing any of the lighting to penetrate horizontally; it is a standard 20 foot high light with six pole spaced evenly around the court as shown on the grading plan.
Chairman Douglas asked if across the canyon, would the lights be visible.
Mr. Douglass stated that no the lights would not be visible.
Mr. Ramkumar stated the lights are measured in foot candles; in this case they are .4 foot candles at 10 foot away from the boundary of the court; with these lights and the landscaping it would not be seen from across the canyon at night.
Commissioner Wolfe clarified if they eliminated the Murphy drive it would reduce their project to below the impervious coverage threshold and that 75% of the runoff from the applicant's property would flow into Whittier.
Mr. Ramkumar stated yes.
Chairman Douglas seeing no one else come forward closed the public hearing; he then asked for Commission deliberation.
Vice-Chairman Skinner stated they have done a good job; with there changes she has no problem approving; would like a condition setting a time at night when the lights should be turned off.
Commissioner Hinz was satisfied with the changes.
Commissioner Wolfe was OK with this project; not encouraged by a light limit.
Commissioner Bergman stated this is a unique property so close to Whittier; satisfied with the runoff; didn't feel it warranted a limit on the lighting.
Commissioner Blagden stated he couldn't see where the big reduction was in impervious coverage; very little of the site won't be graded; opposite of the City's General Plan; the figures change a lot; it is a urban estate; granting this would be granting special privilege.
Chairman Douglas stated the house fits better with the Whittier neighborhood in which it is primarily located; virtually all of the lot has been graded; does not think there will be any more of a cost to the residents and the City with this new plan; erosion issue has been dealt with; not an aesthetic cost to the City with the landscaping; asked to have the applicant put his sidewalks back in place as they don't contribute to an erosion of the property; asked if the lighting could be treated as a nuisance because of our Dark Skies Policy.
Mrs. Brady stated it is something she would need to look into.
Commissioner Bergman didn't feel the lighting would be an issue.
Commissioner Blagden stated it would take several years for the landscaping to shield the court; a time limit would be very reasonable.
Mr. Duran stated the City has a noise ordinance and any noise would fall under that ordinance.
Chairman Douglas asked for a motion.
Commissioner Wolfe stated he isn't here to bargain; he just looks at the plans and makes a decision.
Vice-Chairman Skinner moved to recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit 2000-10b and Variance 2001-01b, seconded by Commissioner Bergman and approved as follows.
AYES: Douglas, Bergman, Skinner and Wolfe
NOES: Blagden
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Mr. Brady stated a resolution would be brought back to the Planning Commission at their next regularly meeting.
Standards Modification 2000-16 (Hanson) 2535 Ardsheal
Mrs. Brady presented the staff report stating this application is for a Standards Modification for setback encroachment to encroach an additional 10 feet totaling a 15-foot encroachment within the required 25-foot side yard setback area for a residential building addition which is currently under construction; on June 28, 2000 a Standards Modification for View Preservation and Setback Encroachment to encroach 5 feet into the side yard setback area for a building addition was administratively approved subject to a list of conditions; the addition is currently under construction; in question is the additional encroachment of the second story addition; a site visit did reveal that the site conditions were not consistent with administrative approval of the Standards Modification; the building addition actually encroaches 15 feet into the required 25 foot side yard setback area; the building department did issue a stop work order for the subject property; the applicant was informed of his options; gain Planning Commission approval for the additional encroachment or bring the building addition into compliance with the approved Standards Modification; staff is recommending the Planning Commission review the finding for Standards Modification and direct staff accordingly.
Chairman Douglas asked if the Commission had questions for staff; he clarified that the actual encroachment was greater than what was approved by staff and the applicant has chosen to reapply for an additional 10-foot encroachment.
Commissioner Bergman asked if the plans were not clear when they were submitted to the City, how did we get here.
Mrs. Brady stated the plans clearly stated that there was 20 feet between the side yard property line and the building; when the applicant submitted his plans for a View Preservation and Setback Encroachment the plans stated the closest setback to the east property line was 20 feet and that was provided by the applicant.
Chairman Douglas stated in the file there is the results of a survey that does show a minimum side yard setback of 20 feet.
Vice-Chairman Skinner stated she is here to hear the Standards Modification, not to try and figure out who is at fault.
Commissioner Hinz stated that if it is decided that this encroachment is incompatible and the error was because of a professional they relied on, their legal remedies are with that professional.
Vice-Chairman Skinner agreed there was fault somewhere, however she did not feel it was her job to determine the fault.
Vice-Chairman Skinner asked staff if there were any letters of opposition.
Mrs. Brady stated no; we received numerous verbal complaints; when the original public noticing was done for the original approval there were no complaints; the complaints came after the construction started.
Commissioner Wolfe stated the plans were approved at an administrative level; the house was constructed according to the plans that were approved; and then after construction commenced there were complaints that were received and there was a second site review that revealed that it was not in conformity with the administrative approval; it was an error we observed that did not conform with the approvals.
Mrs. Brady stated yes, it was not a new dwelling, it was a building addition.
Commissioner Hinz asked why with inspections the staff did not notice there was a problem.
Mr. Gilbertson stated it is not always obvious where the property line is; it is a case by case basis; this one wasn't obvious to the inspector until it was brought to our attention.
Commissioner Blagden asked at what point do they do setback inspections.
Mr. Gilbertson stated the policy is they don't do a setback inspection; they take the applicant for his word; some cities require certification of the structure location.
Chairman Douglas opened the public hearing limiting the speakers to three minutes.
Thomas Drummond, Architect ñ stated it was all his fault; he apologized to the Commission and to the Hansons for this error; had never made a mistake like this before; had he caught the error before he would have applied for the additional approvals; the structure will not impair any view or vista from public or private property; will not result in any loss of privacy for the neighbors; the neighbors are in support of this project.
Commissioner Bergman commended him for coming forward and admitting his error, had he know this in the beginning, did he have any thoughts on what the design would have been.
Mr. Drummond stated the original concept was to create a two story home over the existing home; as the house is not parallel with the property line it would not have been possible to add the second story, they would have had to asked for the additional 10 feet when they applied originally.
Chairman Douglas asked why he was taking responsibility for this error when he relied on a licensed civil engineer.
Mr. Drummond was the one who measured the setback and gave the information to the civil engineer for the topographical survey.
Chairman Douglas stated at some point most of the first floor was removed and the original intent wasn't to do that.
Mr. Drummond stated during remodels when you start to demo you come across all kinds of things; in this case wall were deteriorated, rotten and not constructed properly and this had to be done to support a second story.
Commissioner Blagden asked staff on the building permits there is an area for signature of setbacks and location; what did this area refer to.
Mr. Gilbertson stated we take the applicant's word; he built it in the correct location, its just that that dimension is off.
Chairman Douglas stated that is a process question and is best deferred; this is a Standards Modification.
Pete Kreger, 2524 Ardsheal spoke in support of this project; this house is in the same location it has been in for the last 50 years.
Tom Higgs, 2010 El Cajonita ñ stated he is in opposition of this project because it is just plan bad land use.
Mary Hanson, 2535 Ardsheal ñ they bought this property and it was in a terrible state; they have done a tremendous job of cleaning it up; they were told as long as they kept the same footprint we would be OK; the chain link fence is the property line; neighbors are in support of this project.
Kyle Miller, Ardsheal ñ stated he supports this project; it is hard to believe someone didn't catch this error.
Chairman Douglas seeing no one else come forward closed the public hearing and returned it to the Commission.
Commissioner Wolfe asked if the Commission approves the Standards Modification what is the process to release the stop work.
Mrs. Brady stated the resolution would come back to your next meeting; you can instruct staff to release the stop work immediately.
Commissioner Wolfe stated this is not a close call; it is a series of mistakes by everyone involved; would have approved it had it come to him in the first place.
Vice-Chairman Skinner stated she has reviewed the findings and can support this project; privacy will not be hindered; residents support this project; most of the homes on Ardsheal are in the setback; this fits in; a denial would be a hardship to the owner and there would be no benefit for the city.
Commissioner Bergman stated he is frustrated with having to sort this out at this time; it is not in the best interest of the city to change this; please with the neighbor's support of the project.
Commissioner Blagden stated the fact that someone already has a house in the setback does not grant the automatic approval to build a second story on the same footprint; he stated we have to think of the future neighbors to the neighborhood; there were alternative locations for this home; this is what we have to deal with.
Chairman Douglas stated the purpose of the ordinance is to primarily protect privacy principals; didn't see a privacy loss and neighbors verified that; agreed to granting this and immediately removing the stop work.
Commissioner Wolfe stated he looked at this from the beginning stages and whether he would have approved it at that point; seems like at every meeting they have had a case for approval after the fact scenario; you cannot ignore rules and get away with it; this was the best suitable plan for this lot.
Chairman Douglas asked for a motion from the Commission.
Commissioner Blagden moved to approve the Standards Modification and asked for a condition that a survey comes out and makes sure the garage is place in the proper location and that the stop work order be immediately removed.
Mrs. Brady stressed to the Commission that all setbacks are being measured on this site.
Commissioner Blagden stated he wanted to keep his motion as it is.
Vice-Chairman Skinner seconded the motion.
AYES: Douglas, Bergman, Blagden, Skinner and Wolfe
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
11. ITEMS FROM STAFF
Report on Planning / Building Projects for August 2001
Mrs. Brady asked if this was what the Commission was looking for.
Commissioner Blagden asked to have the format changed so it was a rolling summary of projects, when completed the projects could be removed.
Mrs. Brady stated it may take a while to implement
Timeliness of agenda packets
Mrs. Brady stated she has always strived to release the agenda packets by close of business the Tuesday before a Commission meeting however there are times when that cannot be done.
Chairman Douglas stated it is easier for the Commissioners to fit this work into their schedules when they receive it a week in advance. He stated if possible he would like it Tuesday or Wednesday.
Commissioner Bergman stated if we get it by Tuesday or Wednesday it would be fine; he understood sometimes that is not possible.
Mrs. Brady stated her goal has always been Tuesday, sometimes it just cannot happen.
ITEMS FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Chairman Douglas announced that the General Plan Advisory Committee will meet for the first time tomorrow night and some of their finished work will be coming before this body.
Commissioner Blagden would like to start cleaning up the ordinances with 1-2 brought to the Commission each month.
13. ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Blagden moved at 10:00 p.m. to adjourn to the Meeting of October 23, 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 13