CITY OF La Habra HEIGHTS
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE LA HABRA HEIGHTS
PLANNING COMMISSION
OPENING CEREMONIES
1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER
Commissioner McCoy called a meeting of the La Habra Heights Planning Commission to order at 7:33 p.m. at the Community Center, 1245 North Hacienda Road, La Habra Heights, California.
2. ROLL CALL
Those present: Commissioners Layne Baroldi, Brent Grebbien and Margarita McCoy. Also present Community Development Director Sandra Massa-Lavitt, Planning Technician Barbara Doppieri, City Engineer Craig Melicher and City Attorney Sandra Levin. Commissioner McCoy: Acting Chairperson.
Chairman Wolfe, Vice Chairman Black and Alternate Commissioner Garcia were absent. Alternate Garcia arrived at 7:42 p.m.
3. FLAG SALUTE
Commissioner Layne Baroldi led the flag salute.
City Attorney Levin noted that they will not have consideration of Item 7 on the Draft Code Ordinance as they would prefer to have all of the Commission and Staff present and they are canceling that item for tonight. She stated that the Public may still comment on the subject at ÒItems from the Public not on the AgendaÓ since it has been pulled.
4. ITEMS FROM THE PUBLIC NOT ON THE AGENDA
John Beau stated that he would rather make his comments to the whole Commission.
Stephen Blagden, Citron Road, spoke of the Staff report on 500 Greenview and noted that much of the Geological report can be understood by everyone and they should review it; 448 East Road was reviewed some time ago and the applicant depended on his Engineer and we did too, accepting his word that it was not in a landslide zone even though it is clearly shown as one on the maps. The 500 Greenview geological report was prepared by an Engineer who has been cited by the State for multiple counts of professional negligence and incompetence.
City Attorney Levin commented that the Commission will get copies of the Geological report when this item comes before them and will have a chance to ask questions then on 500 Greenview.
Community Development Director Massa-Lavitt noted that there was a report on 448 East Road. It had a soils and landslide report and the Building Department found that it was not in the landslide area, however it is close to one. The permits were issued and it is now under construction.
Chairperson McCoy noted that Alternate Commissioner Garcia has arrived at 7:42 p.m. and is a Commissioner for tonight.
5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR MAY 24, 2005, JULY 25, 2005 AND JULY 26, 2005
Layne Baroldi moved to approve the minutes of May 24, 2005. Seconded by Commissioner Garcia AYES: 4 NOES: 0.
Commissioner Garcia moved to approve the minutes of July 25, 2005. Seconded by Commissioner Baroldi. AYES: 4 NOES: 0.
Commissioner Grebbien moved to approve the minutes of July 26, 2005. Seconded by Commissioner Baroldi. AYES: 4 NOES: 0.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING
6. STANDARDS MODIFICATION 2004-30, TREE REMOVAL PERMIT 2005-01 (Reece) 1020 West Road
Community Development Director Massa-Lavitt reported that this project had been reviewed at the previous meeting and it was found that the plans the Commission had were different than the plans used to analyze and review the project. It was continued so Staff would have time to take a look at the revision that was made by the project Architect. In the revision, on the West Elevation the height extends above the building envelope, which is limited to 25 feet in height, and the revised measurement is 27 feet 2 inches taken from the lowest natural grade to the highest peak. The story poles on site are accurate to the revised plans and have been certified by the Engineer. What you see on site is accurate. It is up to the Planning Commission whether or not this 3,000 plus square feet addition to this home is approvable due to its height rising above the limit of 25 feet. The Planning Commission may see if all of the zoning requirements are met. The home is old and closer to the road than we would ordinarily allow, but the addition itself is beyond the 35-foot setback so it does not encroach. You may approve the project as is with the height encroachment or deny the application without prejudice and instruct the applicant to revise the drawings to bring down the height. Ms. Massa-Lavitt did not make a recommendation and after the Commission considers all of the points, they need to direct Staff to make the appropriate Resolution for the Commissions decision.
Commissioner Baroldi stated that the first 20 feet of driveway has a 24% slope and he asked if that was an issue?
Ms. Massa-Lavitt answered that it was not an issue. It could be flattened out more but it would require retaining walls.
Commissioner McCoy asked if this was more of a slope than we allow.
Ms. Massa-Lavitt answered that we can go for short distances at a 25% slope.
Chairperson McCoy opened the meeting to Public Comment on Item 6.
Abdon Barembaum, architect - stated that he could not see that the two feet two inches should be such an issue. He stated that the site slope is extreme on the West side of the house. The East side complies with the height requirements.
Commissioner Baroldi asked what the height of the inside rooms are.
Mr. Barembaum stated that the rooms have a 9-foot ceiling.
Stephen Blagden, Citron Road, stated his opinion that exceeding the height is not acceptable. He stated that the old garage should be removed as it is non-conforming. They will have another garage. That should not affect the house. He noted that he still did not see the six required parking places on the plan and the drainage structures on the southeast corner are in the setback. He didnÕt remember seeing the existing corral on the plans. Are they keeping it?
Chairperson McCoy returned the Meeting to the Commission for consideration.
Commissioner Baroldi stated that he doesnÕt have a problem with the dominance of the house. He also noted that the trees already obstruct the view from the road so you are not compounding the view obstructing with the addition. We might consider getting the height down from 2 feet, 2 inches of encroachment to just 2 inches.
Commissioner Grebbien noted that the intent of the building envelope height regulations is to keep the house from dominating views. On this particular lot there isnÕt a significant view from the road and the addition to the home will not change that significantly. He didnÕt think the height is a big problem.
Chairperson McCoy commented that if you are going to ignore the Ordinance you need a good finding for it and that you are not just making an exception out of good fellowship.
Commissioner Grebbien explained that his finding would be that the massing of the structure and the view would not be hampered by two feet in height. He stated that he did not think it was significant. He stated that on the other side, if the other Commissioners did not agree with him, it would be simple to drop down to the eight-foot ceilings and that would make it meet the required standard height.
Commissioner Garcia stated that he concurred that there is not a significant impact to view obstruction.
Chairperson McCoy asked what they thought about Steve BlagdenÕs suggestion about bringing the old garage into conformance by tearing it down.
Commissioner Grebbien noted that the old garage is close to the road but he felt that the slope of the driveway and the height of the house are really the only things that are a technical problem.
Chairperson McCoy noted that the slope on the driveway is legal for the short distance.
Commissioner Grebbien stated that was good, but this is the most stressed road (West Road) that you could put a marginal driveway on.
Chairperson McCoy asked where we stand legally on a rather dangerous driveway that is legal.
City Attorney Levin explained that the safety and design issues are the responsibility of the property owners.
Chairperson McCoy stated that she was asking if we had grounds to require a change in the driveway.
Ms. Levin stated that she would have to confer with the City Engineer on how much discretion we have under the Building Code.
Commissioner Baroldi noted that as far as tearing down the nonconforming garage, the way he understands it, if someone is modifying a structure they should not exacerbate the nonconformity, and they are not. He stated that he would not want to discourage people from remodeling a legal nonconforming structure.
Chairperson McCoy stated that this is a point we should remember when we review this part of the Ordinances.
Chairperson McCoy reopened the meeting to Public Comment.
Mr. Barembaum, explained that the driveway was made according to the Ordinances. He noted that he has two more areas for parking that are not shown on the plans. Mr. Barembaum explained that the old garage is going to be converted into a game room. He also explained that there was an office below the garage. The garage is a two-story building and demolishing it just would not work. There is no need to demolish it.
Stephen Blagden, Citron Road, clarified that the nonconformity is being increased by raising the roof; the driveway slope is allowed up to 25% if there is a written report from an Engineer saying it is alright.
Judy Brown, West Road, asked that the Commission approve the project as it will improve the looks of the property.
Chairperson McCoy closed the Public Comment.
City Engineer Melicher explained that the current code allows for driveway slopes up to 25%. Some of our streets are steeper than that driveway. The driveway has nice transition areas both before and after the 24% slope area.
Chairperson McCoy asked if there is room to stop at the top and check for traffic before pulling out on West Road.
City Engineer Melicher checked the plans and stated that there should be enough room to stop and check for traffic. He noted that the 10% portion of the driveway looks like it is about 15 feet long.
Commissioner Baroldi noted that he has seen several drainage pits located in a setback. He asked if that is allowed by the code.
City Engineer Melicher commented that he is not aware of any restriction that would prohibit the drainage pit from being in a setback.
Commissioner Baroldi asked the City Attorney what findings would allow the 2 feet 2 inches encroachment into the height constriction.
City Attorney Levin stated that Commissioner Baroldi needs both the View Preservation Modifications findings and the Standards Modification findings. She noted that the View Preservation findings are at 94.04.6 and the Standards Modification findings are at 94.05.4.
Commissioner Baroldi noted that the finding that seems to apply is that the extra height doesnÕt significantly impair the view or vista from Public View.
Chairperson McCoy asked if he would go along with E – Unique Circumstances.
Commissioner Grebbien stated that in his opinion Unique Circumstances or Hardship would not apply.
Chairperson McCoy stated that you would have to find eight-foot ceilings are a hardship.
City Attorney Levin stated that would not exactly apply that way. She stated that there are three separate issues and she would think that the third one would be most applicable.
The Commission discussed if the old garage was going to exacerbate the nonconformity of the structure.
Community Development Director Massa-Lavitt explained that they intend to change the roof on the garage from a flat roof to a peaked roof to match the new addition. She stated that the new roof would not exceed the height of the addition. Ms. Massa-Lavitt also explained that the old garage was a two-story structure before and they are not exacerbating the nonconformity.
Commissioner Baroldi stated that gets rid of that issue and the only issue is the findings that would allow the height modification.
Commissioner Garcia noted that the applicant has done a good job on the addition and it is a modest addition in size. He doesnÕt see any view problem.
The consensus of Commissioners Baroldi, Grebbien and Garcia was to approve the plans as presented.
City Attorney Levin stated that it is up to your discretion. She stated that denying this could be more disruptive. She stated that she felt you could make the findings that would allow approval and that denial could lead to results inconsistent with the article.
Commissioner Baroldi offered a motion, to approve Standards Modification 2004-30. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Garcia. AYES: 4 NOES: 0
PUBLIC HEARING
7. Zoning Code Amendment 2005-01 – Article 7 – Zoning Ordinance
Chairperson McCoy opened Item 7 and noted that under direction of Staff this Item was pulled due to lack of Commissioners and Staff. We will continue this Item to October 11 at 7:00 p.m.
ITEMS FROM STAFF
8. Planning/Building Department Report
Community Development Director Massa-Lavitt stated that her monthly report is in the Commissioners packets and if they have any questions tonight she will answer them or you can come to our office at any other time for information.
Chairperson McCoy asked if Ms. Massa-Lavitt and the City Engineer are satisfied with the geology report that was questioned earlier.
Ms. Massa-Lavitt stated that they are going to talk about it.
Commissioner Baroldi noted that there are a lot of nuisance cases regarding obstructing streets. Is that plants and trees?
Ms. Massa-Lavitt explained that it is and they are on a program right now to remove those problems from along the streets. It is an ongoing project and we are having good 99% compliance.
ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Baroldi moved to adjourn the meeting at 10:08 p.m. to the meeting of October 11, 2005.
Larry Black, Vice-Chairman
ATTEST:
Sandra Massa-Lavitt, Community Development Director