CITY OF LA HABRA HEIGHTS
MINUTES OF A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE LA HABRA HEIGHTS
PLANNING COMMISSION
OPENING CEREMONIES
1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER
Vice Chairman Black called a Special Study Session of the La Habra Heights Planning Commission to order at 7:14 p.m. at the Community Center, 1245 North Hacienda Road, La Habra Heights, California.
2. ROLL CALL
Those present: Vice Chairman Larry Black, Commissioners Layne Baroldi, Brent Grebbien, Margarita McCoy and Alternate Commissioner Steve Garcia. Also present Community Development Director Sandra Massa-Lavitt, City Attorney Sandra Levin, Planning Technician Barbara Doppieri, Mayor Bruce Douglas and Consultant Mark Blodgett. Chairperson Wolfe was absent.
3. FLAG SALUTE
Alternate Garcia led the flag salute.
1. ITEMS FROM THE PUBLIC ON THE AGENDA
John Beau, Casalero Drive, stated there have been several characteristics of La Habra Heights through the years; that a person should be able to sell produce from his property; with a reasonable sign; no roadside stands; should be a general statement that views be preserved; no limit on house size as long as it follows the General Plan requirements; tree replacement statement is good without having a specific number and not practical to require a permit to cut down a significant tree.
Steven
Blagden, Citron Road, stated the
definition of a significant tree is not useful.
ÒWherever possible and whenever possibleÓ do not belong in an Ordinance as they
provide no direction; neighborhood character should have a definition; privacy
is not just visual; for two-years all projects should come to the Planning
Commission rather than being approved over the counter to learn how the
Ordinances are working; changes in grading or building beyond 2% should come
back to the Planning Commission. Add local views and make changes in view
preservation.
Community Development Director Massa-Lavitt stated that 9 out of 10 projects are approved over the counter is not correct; Administrative Approvals through the staff are made after story poles have been set up, after notices have been sent out to the 500 foot radius property owners, then Administrative Approval may be given and then there is an appeal period. This can take as long as a month; the only things approved over the counter are 500 square foot or 750 square foot additions which are less than 16 feet in height and the lot is over an acre; the grading is checked to be sure it follows the plans; the Building Inspector is checking everything about the building; that a building permit is not given unless all plans match.
Ginger Skinner, Kanola, commented that the landscaping and irrigation section seems very restrictive and will discourage people from improving their property; shouldnÕt require 100% screening by landscaping as this would cause the owner to lose his own views; needs wording changed.
Mayor Douglas noted that there is a policy that if there is existing landscaping, you may not have to do any further landscaping.
Ms. Massa-Lavitt stated the Landscape Consultant, Purkiss Rose, will prepare the approved list of ground cover, shrubbery and trees; this will include the tree height at maturity; we will be able to determine which trees are best for certain areas then; this is something staff and the Landscape Architect will have to look at to also protect the views.
Community Development Director Massa-Lavitt commented that this is looking at new planting, not existing planting.
STUDY SESSION
5. ZONING CODE AMENDMENT 2005-01 – ARTICLE 7 – ZONING ORDINANCE
The Commission started their discussion with Landscaping 7.12.10.
Mayor Douglas explained that when there is no lever possible, the City will try to develop some arbitration and if that does not work the two neighbors can go to court but the City will not be involved.
Vice Chairman Black stated that we wouldnÕt always be asking for removal but sometimes just trimming. Vice Chairperson Black commented that last time they ended on Article 7.40 and now we are ready for 7.50.
Consultant Blodgett started consideration of: 7.12.50 Tree Preservation, Identification of Significant Trees, Conservation of Significant Trees during site development, Tree removal permit is required; Tree replacement; Exceptions, 7.12.60 Findings Required for Approval of Standards Modification for Landscaping. Mr. Blodgett noted that there have been a number of changes made that will appear in the review version.
Consultant Blodgett explained that there are two areas that we need to quantify; preservation and the exception that states how many trees we can remove in five years without a permit.
Alternate Garcia suggested wording that the definition of a significant tree be at least 20 inches in circumference as measured 4 ½ feet from the ground and for trees with more than one trunk the combined circumference should be 30 inches when measured 4 ½ feet from the ground as a significant tree. Mr. Garcia also suggested a sub-category, which would include a stand of trees as they can do a lot to create privacy or enhance the character of a neighborhood. He stated that there are also indigenous trees such as sycamores, oaks, and walnuts that could have special interest.
Mayor Douglas asked for a definition of a stand of trees.
Alternate Garcia explained that he would think we might mean a group of trees of any size that are ecologically or aesthetically related to each other in such a way that the loss of several of them would cause impact to the immediate area.
Mayor Douglas stated that we probably should consider a 20-inch walnut or oak anywhere on the property as significant.
Commissioner Baroldi noted that this chapter is all about Landscaping Standards for new development; which is also applicable to all existing places when you remove trees.
City Attorney Levin noted that how long you are required to maintain landscaping is determined by the terms and conditions of approval. It could vary from property to property. If it was used to screen something, it could be required for perpetuity.
City Attorney Levin suggested adding a definition of significant trees, Òany tree that was required to be planted pursuant to a landscaping planÓ.
There was further discussion on the need to make a distinction between different classes of trees as far as requiring a permit.
Alternate Garcia noted that changing the size of a significant tree to 20 inches in circumference will remove most of the nuisance problems associated with these standards. Mr. Garcia noted that when you go to scenic significance, a 20-inch tree would address that more appropriately.
Alternate Garcia answered that walnuts, sycamore and oaks are the big ones.
Consultant Blodgett noted that he would like some direction on the frequency of removal for trees; stated two trees per year or not more than 25%, whichever is less.
City Attorney Levin summed up the discussion by saying Categories 1 and 2 require a permit for removal. Category 3 and unprotected trees could be removed at four per year. We can get rid of E-5 and replace it with a provision that you can remove up to four trees per year of the unprotected or lesser-protected trees.
Consultant Blodgett noted that we could place that requirement under Sub-Section C and eliminate E 5.
Commissioner Baroldi noted that doesnÕt apply to removal of six trees that are not of the protected type. If there has to be replacement, what size do they have to be?
City Attorney Levin stated that would be a discretionary decision made either administratively or by the Planning Commission.
City Attorney Levin explained that there will be two different levels of significant trees, and even non-significant trees wouldnÕt be removed without a permit in numbers of greater than four per year; species would be added to tree replacement and also the elimination of E-5.
The consensus of the Commission was to leave it discretionary.
Consultant Blodgett continued with 7.13.10 The Purpose of the Chapter, 7.13.20 Applicability of this Chapter, 7.13.30 Performance Standards for Parking and Access, Off-Street Parking, Safety, Environmental Effects, Community and Neighborhood Character, 7.13.40 Development Standards for Parking and Access, Off-street Parking Required for Residential Development. initial four.
Consultant Blodgett noted that on 7.40.3 sub section 7, there is one more requirement, we have quantifiable measures in dealing with grade and dimensions of the parking areas.
Consultant Blodgett explained that in their discussions gravel did not come up as a surface material. All weather was either asphalt, landscape concrete or concrete.
Ms. Massa-Lavitt commented that it was discussed in our committees to use gravel under certain conditions, but we did rest our discussion on Grasscrete for the overflow parking. We will need your direction on this.
Mayor Douglas commented that this code does not deal with impervious, it deals with hardscape surfaces. Only the Engineers deal with impervious along with the SUSMP. We say the Grasscrete is a hardscape surface. We donÕt care whether it is impervious.
Commissioner McCoy noted that there were two requirements that are no longer with us. One is on the slope of the driveway and the other is on the width of the driveway that serves more than one house. Is it your feeling those 12 feet wide is enough?
Mayor Douglas stated that in some situations that is enough. On long steep driveways a 20-foot wide driveway requires more grading and lots of big walls. These cause people a lot of problems. Mr. Douglas stated that the Fire Department says they can get up all of these driveways. Safety issues have to be met.
Consultant Blodgett commented that we are going to make the correction where we have a new Sub Section C, replacing existing Sub Section C, Landscaping for Parking Area Screening, Parking of Large Vehicles.
Commissioner Baroldi commented that if C was worded properly it would cover D also. Can these parking spaces be in the 25-foot setback?
Consultant Blodgett explained that was correct, C and D do compliment each other.
City Attorney Levin added that they do not completely overlap each other. C only requires not dominating the views; D actually requires that they be out of view.
Commissioner Baroldi noted that in his opinion this was impossible to screen large vehicles from view.
Mayor Douglas stated that as he remembered, the intent was to have them screened. Maybe it needs a definition of how much screening.
Consultant Blodgett continued with Commercial Vehicle Parking, Construction Equipment Parking, Special Parking Permit
Mayor Douglas noted that it doesnÕt particularly belong in the Development Code. ItÕs in the Nuisance Section actually. He noted that he had been here for 17 years and he was able to get by, but the Fire Marshal was really unhappy about having to squeak his fire engines by.
Vice Chairman Black noted that this item states that parking is prohibited on or within five (5) feet of the pavement. In some areas there is sufficient area to park off of the pavement. The way this is written you are prohibiting any parking off road if the code is written as it is, or there has to be a stipulation that there is no parking overnight.
Mayor Douglas stated that if this was in the Nuisance Code, it would give the Sheriff another tool if there is a repeat problem.
Vice Chairman Black asked what sort of process we are looking at when we get a permit.
Consultant Blodgett answered that he thought it was just a matter of notification.
City Attorney Levin stated that the permit they are talking about does not belong in the development issue. Ms. Levin noted that this is a permit that should be granted by the Fire Department and would be a simple routine notification and a reminder of what the CityÕs regulations are. She stated that the aspect of this that belongs in this Development Section is some acknowledgement that the design of the parking on site should be so as not to obstruct Fire Department access to structures on site. The Code is both enforcement and an educational tool.
Consultant Blodgett commented that we also have a Performance Standard that deals with Safety under 7.13.30. He noted that he could take that language that was suggested and make sure that was reflected in that Performance Standard. We would move the existing G into Nuisances. Consultant Blodgett continued with Section 7.13.50 Findings Required for Approval of a Standards Modification for Parking
Ms. Massa-Lavitt noted that we also passed up Non-Conforming. Ms. Massa-Lavitt noted that the Commission has to coordinate dates for further meetings on the Code for issues that you need to discuss and come to conclusions on. We will probably need six (6) or seven (7) more meetings. If you could schedule four (4) for sure, then schedule the rest later. Ms. Massa-Lavitt noted that Mondays, Tuesdays, or Wednesdays are good for staff and she suggested that we have one a week. It could be some Saturday.
The consensus of the Commission and staff was to meet on Thursday October 27, 2005 and all day on Saturday, November 5, 2005.
Ms.Massa-Lavitt commented that the Agenda for the next meeting was supposed to be out today, but it will not be distributed to the Planning Commission until Thursday, late afternoon. Ms. Massa-Lavitt stated that she would give them the addresses of the new cases that will be on the Agenda.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 10:55 p.m. to the meeting of October 25, 2005 and the Public Hearing on the Zoning Code was continued to October 27, 2005 at 7:00 p.m.
Larry Black, Vice Chairman
ATTEST:
Justin Powers, Community Development Director