CITY OF LA HABRA HEIGHTS
MINUTES OF A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE LA HABRA HEIGHTS
PLANNING COMMISSION
OPENING CEREMONIES
1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER
Chairman Bruce Douglas called a meeting of the La Habra Heights Planning Commission to order at 7:04 p.m. at the Community Center, 1245 North Hacienda Road, La Habra Heights, California.
2. ROLL CALL
Those present: Chairman Bruce Douglas, Vice-Chairman Ginger Skinner, Commissioners Brian Bergman, Stephen Blagden and Robert Wolfe. Also present Director of Planning Sheryl Brady, Planning Technician Barbara Doppieri, City Attorney Ken Rozell, and City Engineer Craig Melicher.
3. FLAG SALUTE
Commissioner Bergman led the flag salute.
4. ITEMS FROM THE PUBLIC NOT ON THE AGENDA
None
5. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF POSTING OF AGENDA FOR MEETING OF
January 28, 2003
Ms. Brady stated the agenda had been posted in accordance with the state law.
6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
It was the consensus to hear the minutes after the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Mrs. Brady swore in those wishing to testify.
7. Standards Modification 2002-06 & Tree Removal Permit 2002-03 (Aloyan) 854 Reposado
Mrs. Brady stated the applicant has requested a continuance to February 25, 2003.
Chairman Douglas opened the public hearing to hear from the applicant.
William Renshaw, Architect, P.O. Box 1702, Chino, CA – stated they are asking for a continuance because there is a pending sale of the property
Vice-Chairman Skinner wanted to decide this tonight.
Commissioner Bergman felt they should grant the extension of time.
Commissioner Wolfe asked if the could hear the Tree Removal Permit tonight and continue the Standards Modification to next monthÕs meeting.
Mrs. Brady stated it was processed as one application, it should be heard as one application.
Chairman Douglas called a five-minute recess so staff could obtain a written agreement from the applicant agreeing to a continuance of the Standards Modification.
Chairman Douglas called the meeting back to order and asked what was the Commissions pleasure.
Chairman Douglas stated it was the consensus of the Commission to grant the extension of time for the Standards Modification, however they wanted to hear from the public on the Tree Removal Permit.
Mrs. Brady stated this application was submitted by William Renshaw representing the owners requesting a Tree Removal Permit for the removal of 40 trees. The site is located at 854 Reposado. The existing tennis court was approved by City Council Resolution 92-33. The tennis court was condition to provide landscaping between the tennis court and the adjacent property on the west. This landscaping was provided to screening of the tennis court. There was no approved landscaping plan in the file, however, the previous Planner indicated by memo that the landscaping was in compliance. The Tree Removal Permit Application indicates 40 trees were removed without benefit of a permit. The proposed replacement includes 15-gallon evergreen trees. The Code recommends 24Ó box or greater. The application indicates that 80 trees will be replanted. Staff visited the site and surrounding properties and has concerns that the existing landscaping no longer screens the tennis court from view and believes the landscaping no longer is in compliance. Without an approved landscape plan, the Planning Commission needs to determine the type of landscaping that will be needed to comply with the intent of the Code. Staff believes the issue regarding the landscaping is whether the concept plan provides an adequate number of replacement trees on-site. Staff did not believe the current plan is adequate. The project has been reviewed environmentally and a Categorical Exemption has been issued. There is an existing guest home that is not in conformance with the City Codes by including a kitchen. The building inspector has been to the site and informed the owners of the need work to bring this building into conformance. As of the date of this meeting the owner has not called for a re-inspection. Staff is recommending approval of Tree Removal Permits subject to a list of conditions.
Chairman Douglas asked if the Commission had any questions for staff.
Chairman Douglas stated the Commission was considering a continuance but wanted to hear from the public.
Commissioner Bergman asked what trees screened the court.
Mrs. Brady stated there was nothing in the file to show what trees were planted.
Chairman Douglas asked regarding the guesthouse issue.
Mrs. Brady stated the guesthouse has a nexus to the Standards Modification.
Chairman Douglas opened the public hearing.
Dick Sands, 855 Reposado – asked if there was anything in the sales agreement about the trees.
Bonnie Bausch, 832 Reposado – stated the landscape plan is not adequate; wants 20-40 trees between the court and her property; wants cypress next to the court and avocado trees as a sound barrier; lights on the court have been left on for 2 days at a time; wants a guideline for lighting.
Barbara Clemens, 875 Reposado – great job addressing the tree issue; story poles are not accurate.
Val Clemens, 875 Reposado - stated he was concerned the house could close escrow and the new owners may not know this is going on; felt all Conditional Use Permits should be recorded on the title.
Jerry Lowe, Kanola – stated the property was ruined; wants the site restored and then allow them to ask for permits.
Margaret Lowe, 850 Reposado – stated the tree stumps are suckers now; asked what happens to all of these problems if the sale goes through.
Chairman Douglas continued the public hearing.
Vice-Chairman Skinner stated she ran into the buyer at the site; how will the Tree Removal Permit be affected by the sale.
Mr. Rozell stated the Tree Removal Permits runs with the land.
Commissioner Wolfe asked regarding revocation of the Conditional Use Permit.
Mr. Rozell stated it would require a public hearing and could be done.
Commissioner Blagden asked about amending the original Conditional Use Permit.
Mr. Rozell stated it was possible.
Vice-Chairman Skinner stated a decision tonight goes against current owner, continuing it goes against the new owner.
Chairman Douglas asked what was the Commissions pleasure.
Vice-Chairman Skinner stated the Commission could give instructions to plant around the tennis court.
Commissioner Wolfe wanted a landscape plan within 30-45 days; meet with neighbors and then bring it back to the Commission.
Commissioner Bergman wanted 24Ó box trees.
Commissioner Blagden wanted to up size the trees to 6-12Õ trees.
Commissioner Wolfe suggested granting the Tree Removal Permit providing landscaping plan for neighborÕs review within 60 days, wanted mature trees on West side of court to adequately screen court for neighbors.
Vice-Chairman Skinner suggested Italian Cypress against court and more trees between court and property line.
Chairman Douglas wanted the trees densely packed.
Mrs. Brady suggested keeping the public hearing open, require a landscape plan, with instructions for applicant to work with staff. Direct applicant with exactly what you want.
Chairman Douglas asked if the Commission would want staff to start revocation or modification of CUP.
Vice-Chairman Skinner stated she had concerns regarding the view preservation.
Mrs. Brady presented the staff report regarding the View Preservation Modification, stating, the applicant is requesting Standards Modification for View Preservation to exceed the 750 square foot building area and 16 feet in height for a residential building addition; the site is located at 854 Reposado; the site is 2.32 acres in size and is zoned RA-1, within the rural General Plan designation and also within View Preservation District A; the dwelling addition includes a 5,501 sq. ft. addition with a gazebo and a fountain; the existing improvements on size total approximately 13,571 sq. ft. The building elevation plans do not conform with the 27.5 ft height measurement; the project has been conditioned accordingly; the existing guest house is not in conformance with the codes by having a kitchen; building department has done a site inspection and has given the owner a list of corrections to bring the building into conformance; to date the owner has not brought the guest house into conformance; existing tennis court conditions of CUP have not been complied with; staff does feel findings can be made in support of the Standards Modification for View Preservation; the project has been reviewed environmentally; staff does recommend approval of the Standards Modification subject to a list of conditions and adoption of Resolution 03-02.
Commissioner Blagden asked to have the story poles put back up; house is 30% to tall; architectural setback; poles need to be adjusted to new plan.
Commissioner Bergman stated he wants the building to conform to the building height.
Chairman Douglas moved to continue this item to February 25, 2003. Seconded by Commissioner Blagden and approved as follows:
Ayes: Bergman, Blagden, Douglas, Skinner and Wolfe
Noes: None
Abstain: None
Absent: None
8. Standards Modification2002-18 (Hernandez) 1750 Fullerton Road
Vice-Chairman Skinner stated she would step down on this item because she lives within 500 feet of the site.
Mrs. Brady presented the staff report stating this application was submitted by Mike Douglass representing the owners requesting a Standards Modification for View Preservation to exceed the 500 sq. ft. building area and 16 feet in height limitation and a Grading Modification for construction of a residential dwelling. The site is located at 1750 Fullerton Road. The site is .03 acres in size and is zoned RA-1 and is within the Rural General Plan designation and it is within View Preservation District A. The site is undeveloped and the surrounding land uses consist of Single Family Dwellings. A 2-story 6,539 sq.ft. dwelling is proposed. According to the applicant, 6 trees are proposed to be removed which requires a Tree Removal Permit. The Tree Removal Permit will be required prior to issuance of a Building Permit. Staff feels that the necessary findings can be made in support of the Standards Modification for View Preservation. However, Engineering staff believes that the site could be developed consistent with City codes utilizing an unlimited number of alternate dwelling floor plans, which Engineering will further discuss in more detail. Therefore, staff feels that the necessary findings cannot be made in support of the Grading Modification. The project has been reviewed environmentally and a categorical exemption has been issued in accordance with CEQA. Staff recommends denial of Standards Modification for View Preservation and Grading Modification and adoption of Planning Commission Resolution 2003-01.
Mr. Melicher, City Engineer, stated there are two areas where the plans are out of compliance with the Municipal Code; 1) Section 8517a – where the applicant exceeds the grading; 2) Section 8517e – the cut of the driveway slope; he felt the findings couldnÕt be met.
Mrs. Brady stated she had prepared an amended resolution.
Chairman Douglas asked if the Commission had any questions for staff.
Commissioner Bergman asked how would you approach it.
Mr. Melicher stated the floor plan does not fit this site; if the project were flipped and the pad raised you might be able to make it work; driveway is cut in so deep; raising pad; it is not a slope issue as much as the cut is so deep.
Commissioner Blagden identified the Plan on the wall was not the same plan that is in the agenda packet.
Mr. Melicher stated this plan is a real challenge.
Chairman Douglas then opened the public hearing.
Ken Wilch, Civil Engineer, 2440 Hacienda Blvd., Hacienda Heights – stated he prepared the conceptual site plan; stated the plan he brought to the meeting last month did not need a grading modification; stated he had a difference of opinion with new staff; owner has no access to a easement.
Commissioner Blagden asked why plan on the board is different in packet.
Mr. Wilch stated there are only a few minor changes between the plans; it is the interpretation of the Grading Ordinance; never was told that an 8-ft slope of driveway exceeded the ordinance; MelicherÕs interpretation of the ordinance is different than what has been historical for the City; read the grading ordinance.
Chairman Douglas asked where the conflict is between the two ordinances.
Mr. Wilch states Mr. Melicher felt that because the driveway go behind the house, that it applies to all of the slope on the driveway behind the house; he stated you have to separate the building site and the driveway; the driveway ends when it connects with the building site; this section is to conceal the slope with the building site
Mr. Wilch went to the wall to explain on the plan; he felt the entire driveway should not be counted because most of it is part of the building site; he did not feel a Grading Modification was required; it is his interpretation of the code.
Mr. Melicher stated the word in the code is cut; in this area the cut is nearly 11 feet; the code states where is a cut is made for a driveway it shall not exceed 8 feet.
Mr. Wilch stated the code states grade; he thought the intention of the code is what do you see.
Mr. Melicher felt there was an 11-ft difference; then explained the difference; he felt the points are the cut and the original natural grade.
Greg Hernandez, 8391 Fox Hills, Buena Park – stated there is an interpretation problem; WilchÕs experience; low profile; costly to change project.
Commissioner Bergman stated it is clear in his mind.
Mr. Wilch felt they are separate areas and separate issues; felt this was redundant.
Mr. Melicher stated the driveway goes all the way across the lot to the garage; he felt they are two independent provisions; that one limits the total width of the finished cut for the site; then there is a separate provision that is applicable to the driveway; he felt you need to satisfy both of these provisions of the code; didnÕt feel they overlay.
Commissioner Bergman asked why couldnÕt the driveway be raised and reduces the amount of cut.
Mr. Wilch felt he was in compliance along the driveway.
Mr. Melicher stated as a pure vertical cut there is an 11-foot difference; the code only talks about cut not slope.
Mr. Wilch disagreed; he didnÕt feel the code said vertical cut; felt the driveway behind the house is a concealed area; you could have a 20-foot slope there because it is concealed.
Commissioner Wolfe agreed with City Engineer, driveway does not end at the lateral extension of the house; these are two different issues; agreed with City Engineer but sees Mr. WilchÕs position.
Chairman Douglas asked Mr. Wilch regarding the raising of the pad elevation.
Mr. Wilch didnÕt feel it could be done.
Commissioner Bergman asked why the driveway could not be elevated.
Mr. Wilch stated he could raise it 3-4Õ but couldnÕt meet the 8 feet.
Mr. Melicher stated the driveway could be moved 30 feet north; couldnÕt raise the pad because the ridge is at its maximum; this would result in less earthwork.
Mr. Hernandez stated they would move the driveway; agreed to an extension of time not to exceed 90 days.
Chairman Douglas closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Blagden moved to continue the hearing until February 25, 2003. Seconded by Commissioner Wolfe and approved as follows:
Ayes: Bergman, Blagden, Douglas and Wolfe
Noes: None
Abstain: Skinner
Absent: None
9. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Rozell asked the Commission to continue the minutes, as his office had not yet completed their review of the minutes.
Commissioner Wolfe moved to continue the minutes until February 25, 2003. Seconded by Commissioner Blagden and approved as follows:
Ayes: Bergman, Blagden, Douglas, Skinner and Wolfe
Noes: None
Abstain: None
Absent: None
ITEMS FROM THE COMMISSION
Commissioner Bergman asked for a formal report on the Grading project going on at 707 Dorothea.
ITEMS FROM STAFF
Mrs. Brady explained to the Commission that she had provided them another schedule and change dates.
ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Blagden moved to adjourn the meeting at 10:00 p.m. to the regular meeting of January 28, 2003. Seconded by Vice-Chairman Skinner and approved as follows:
ABSTAIN: None
ATTEST: