CITY OF La Habra HEIGHTS
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE LA HABRA HEIGHTS
PLANNING COMMISSION
OPENING CEREMONIES
1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER
Chairman Wolfe called a meeting of the La Habra Heights Planning Commission to order at 7:36 p.m. in the Community Center, 1245 Hacienda Road, La Habra Heights, California.
2. ROLL CALL
Those present: Chairman Robert Wolfe, Commissioners, Brent Grebbien, Margarita McCoy. Vice Chairman Black arrived at 7:56 p.m. Alternate Commissioner Garcia: absent. Also present Community Development Director Sandra Massa-Lavitt, Planning Technician Barbara Doppieri, City Engineer Craig Melicher and City Attorney Sandra Levin.
3. FLAG SALUTE
Ed Borrowe led the flag salute.
4. ITEMS FROM THE PUBLIC NOT ON THE AGENDA
Ed Borrowe spoke regarding a new Fire Station/City Hall.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Chairman Wolfe asked that Item 6 be taken out of order.
6. STANDARDS MODIFICATION 2005-21, GRADING MODIFICATION 2005-07 AND TREE REMOVAL PERMIT 2005-07 (Patel) 500 Greenview
Commissioner Baroldi offered a motion to adopt Resolution 2005-07 regarding 500 Greenview Road for Standards Modification 2005-21, Grading Modification 2005-07 and Tree Removal Permit 2005-07. The motion was seconded by Commissioner McCoy.
Chairman Wolfe confirmed with staff that this was a denial without prejudice.
The motion was approved as follows:
AYES: Baroldi, Grebbien, and McCoy
NOES: Wolfe
ABSENT: Black and Garcia
Chairman Wolfe continued with Item 5 and turned the meeting over to Commissioner McCoy and recused himself as he lives within 500 feet of the subject property.
5. STANDARDS MODIFICATION 2004-30, TREE REMOVAL PERMIT 2005-01 (Reese) 1020 West Road
Commissioner Baroldi offered a motion to approve Resolution 2005-08 for Standards Modification 2004-30 and Tree Removal Permit 2005-01 for 1020 West Road. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Grebbien and approved as follows:
AYES: Baroldi, Grebbien and McCoy
NOES: None
RECUSED: Wolfe
ABSENT: Black and Garcia
PUBLIC HEARING
Chairman Wolfe returned to the dais.
7. STANDARDS MODIFICATION 2005-10 & GRADING MODIFICATION 2005-13 (Eicher) 1707 Kanola Road
Community Development Director Massa-Lavitt noted that we have plans for a new home located at 1707 Kanola Road. The issues are the configuration of the lot and the design; the driveway is long; the house is over 16 feet in height; the story poles are on site and depict the outline footprint and the peaks of the roofs for the project; the roofline is lower than the view-plain from the closest property if you take the view from their pool area and the first floor; the best view is from the second floor; this should not impair the view corridor of that property since their view is from a different direction; there is an encroachment on the sideyard setback; the biggest encroachment on the sideyard setback is 10 feet for the library and sitting room in the master bedroom; other encroachments in that sideyard setback are much less; she noted that there is no development on the lot to the west of this project; the landscaping already there and what is proposed should screen it from anything built to the West of it that would impact the sideyard setback and cause the feeling of encroachment on their space; the encroachment will not be a problem; the front yard setback is correct; a setback at the end of a flag lot is always 25 feet; the lot is just less than one acre and there is 24,000 square feet of this lot that is restricted and nothing can be built there; the issue before the Planning Commission is whether the impervious surface calculation can be based on the total unimproved lot including the restricted use area or subtracting out the restricted use area and then calculating the impervious surface; the impervious surface is exceeded, however since nothing can ever be built in the restricted area, there isnŐt any future development that could take place and it could be possible to include that area to calculate impervious surface; the project proposes 700 plus cubic yards of soil to be moved on the site; the applicant is limiting his grading to the driveway; the apron and the footprint of the house with a small area in the back for a lawn; there will be a 9-foot retaining wall at the back of the property to create that lawn area; staff is recommending that the Planning Commission review the project, take testimony and approve the proposed development and a Resolution will be prepared at your direction for the next meeting.
Commissioner McCoy asked the City Attorney how she views the restricted area; it is not an easement that would reduce the net area.
City Attorney Levin answered that based just on the language of the code, she would be more inclined to say it should be included, because the gradable area is defined in terms of a percentage of each lot and it doesnŐt subtract anything for restricted use. Impervious is 50% of the allowed gradable area. She stated that it is not crystal clear and there is room for interpretation. Ms. Levin noted that it comes back to the CommissionŐs determination about the policies of the City and the goals of the General Plan.
Vice Chairman Black arrived at 7:56 p.m.
Chairperson Wolfe opened the public comment; he stated Mr. Sperling submitted a letter.
Mr. Ken Parsons, architect, stated that the reason they didnŐt request entrance from East because the slope is restricted because the soils engineer determined when it was sub-divided that there was a geological hazard in that area; previously there had been land slippage in that area; felt that to build in that area would be hazardous; the pavement in the easement that is also being used by the property to the east should not be counted against them as far as impervious coverage is concerned; Mr. Sperling, came up with a good idea for screening with landscape.
Stephen Blagden, Citron Road, spoke regarding Fire Department turnaround; the restricted use area should be deducted from the gross figure and not included in the net figures; the driveway is not an easement; drainage culvert should be included in the impervious coverage; there is grading still to be done on the driveway; the proposed recreation area in back is in violation of land use policies 16 and 17.
Chairman Wolfe closed the public comment and returned the meeting to the Commission.
The Commission then discussed whether the restricted use area should be included.
City Attorney Levin stated that they should not look at it as to how it should be divided; the impervious coverage is on this lot and is charged to this lot; the question is whether you are going to give them a Standards Modification to allow them to exceed the impervious requirements; there may be considerations about this lot that would allow you to give a Standards Modifications; the questions you need to answer are; what are the constraints on this lot and the impacts on the neighbors and community.
Commissioner Baroldi noted that one issue is the drainage and how to remove the water from the site and not cause any problems; they seem to have created the drainage by following the natural drainage course of the water; the other issue is the aesthetic portion of the impervious coverage; that a house of approximately 3800 square feet, he did not think the size was that offensive except possibly the one to the east; it doesnŐt affect the community character.
Commissioner McCoy commented that she felt the house was too big for the amount of space they have to build on; the proposed house would block the view from the empty lot.
Chairman Wolfe suggested that they start with the Grading Modification; the amount of grading allowed does not allow the proposed amount of impervious coverage; meets the requirements listed to approve a Standards Modification; trying to reduce the proposed house by the amount they are over the impervious coverage is not reasonable to try to get the proposed house into closer conformance with the objectives of the policies; he didnŐt want to discuss the proposed pool and spa because he really doesnŐt have full information on it.
City Attorney Levin clarified that any approval given tonight would not include the pool.
The consensus of the Commission was that they could approve a Standards Modification for View Preservation, Setback and Grading Modification.
City Attorney Levin explained that if this is approved and we come back with a Resolution, she would recommend that the Resolution would include as a condition, that somebody obtain a grading permit for the adjacent property where the rest of that driveway is going to be built. This development cannot go forward without the other 10 feet.
Commissioner McCoy stated she thought it was too massive so she was not going to approve an encroachment into the sideyard setback.
Vice Chair Black stated that he likes the step-down building and he did not think the house was too large and the encroachment was only a maximum of 10 feet.
Chairman Wolfe stated that the design of this house is very good.
Chairperson Wolfe moved to approve Grading Modification 2005-13 and that the pool shown on the landscaping plan is not being considered at this time. Seconded by Vice Chair Black with the caveat that the Attorney had some additional language related to the driveway to the west that may be developed at a later date.
City Attorney Levin noted that there would be a variety of other standard conditions. A Resolution will come back to you before this approval will become final.
The motion was approved as follows: Vote 5-0
Commissioner Baroldi moved to approve Standards Modification 2005-10 for View Preservation. Seconded by Commissioner Grebbien and approved as follows: Vote 5-0
Commissioner McCoy moved that approval of encroachment into the sideyard setback not be approved.
Chairman Wolfe noted that the motion failed as there was no second.
Chairman Wolfe moved that the Standards Modification 2005-10 be approved for the encroachment into the sideyard setback by 10 feet. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Baroldi. The motion was approved as follows:
AYES: Baroldi, Grebbien and Wolfe
NOES: Black and McCoy
City Attorney Levin explained that there would be just one Resolution to cover all three motions because they are all part of one project and conditions would apply to all.
8. STANDARDS MODIFICATION 2005-01 (Harrison) 1965 N. Cypress
Community Development Director Massa-Lavitt reported that this is a proposal to add a third story to an existing two-story home; it is actually a one and one-half story with a basement that is used as a living area; the applicant intends to increase the height of the existing home by the additional story; the story poles are in place and are clearly visible from Cypress Street from the public right-of-way; that she could not see that this would affect private views; it would obstruct some views from the street; the General Plan does refer to the construction of three stories in a vertical plane (Land Use Policy 5); the purpose is to protect the view and prevent bulking and massing of huge houses looking down the slope being visible to houses all around; this will be visible from properties at a lower elevation; this house is old and constructed under the County Zoning Ordinance; it is set back 3 feet from the rear property line and the applicant is not proposing to exacerbate that non-conformity; the Architect has tried to avoid the three stories in a vertical plane by setting the third story back and using balconies; the basement is pretty well screened from the side view by a fence; she would like the Planning Commission to direct staff to prepare the appropriate Resolution, which will be ready for the November Meeting.
Chairman Wolfe asked if there were any questions of staff, seeing none he opened the public hearing.
Mr. Harrison, owner, noted that from the front of the house it looks like a single story house; he explained that the second story is not going to be over the basement area.
Chairperson Wolfe noted that there was nobody else who wished to speak on this and he closed the Public Comment and returned the meeting to the Commission. Mr. Wolfe asked if Staff considers this a two story house or a three story in a single vertical plane.
Community Development Director Massa-Lavitt explained that the basement had given her pause, but instead of making an administrative decision she is bringing it to the Commission to make a decision on how they want to interpret Land Use Policy 5. The house from one direction is viewed as three stories.
Commissioner Grebbien stated that in his opinion it is a three level house, but he doesnŐt see anything that would exceed two above grade levels on a vertical plane.
Vice Chair Black stated that he basically agrees, but when you look at the south elevation, there is one area where you see all the floors.
Commissioner Baroldi commented that you need to know what a basement actually is. Is it a garage, a story, a foundation?
Commissioner McCoy explained that it was the east elevation that bothers her.
The Commission discussed whether this met the elements of three stories in a single vertical plain.
Commissioner Baroldi moved to approve Standards Modification 2005-01. Seconded by Commissioner McCoy. The motion was approved as follows:
AYES: Baroldi, Grebbien and McCoy
NOES: Black and Wolfe
ITEMS FROM STAFF
9. PLANNING/BUILDING DEPARTMENT REPORT
CDD Massa-Lavitt stated that this is a Receive and File item.
Ms. Massa-Lavitt commented that there would be a meeting on this Thursday, October 27, 2005 and a Public Hearing on November 5, 2005. Both meetings will have a Public Hearing on the new Zoning Ordinance. The meeting on Saturday will be at 9:00 a.m.
ADJOURNMENT
Chairperson Wolfe adjourned the meeting to the Special Meeting of the Planning Commission on October 27, 2005 at 10:02 p.m.
Larry Black, Chairman
ATTEST:
Justin Powers, Community Development Director