CITY OF LA HABRA HEIGHTS

 

MINUTES OF A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE LA HABRA HEIGHTS

 

PLANNING COMMISSION

 

October 27, 2005

 

OPENING CEREMONIES

 

1.              CALL MEETING TO ORDER

 

Vice Chair Black called to order a Special Meeting of the La Habra Heights Planning Commission, Thursday October 27, 2005 at 7:04 p.m. in the Community Center, 1245 N. Hacienda Road, La Habra Heights, California.

 

2.              ROLL CALL

 

            Those present: Vice Chairman Larry Black, Commissioners Layne Baroldi, Brent Grebbien, Margarita McCoy. Also present Community Development Director Sandra Massa-Lavitt, City Attorney Kathy Paspalis, Mayor Douglas and Consultant Marc Blodgett.

 

            Chairman Robert Wolfe and Alternate Steve Garcia: absent.

 

3.              FLAG SALUTE

 

Margarita McCoy led the flag salute.

 

4.              ITEMS FROM THE PUBLIC ON THE AGENDA

 

Stephen Blagden, Citron Road, spoke on definition of “net area” and “restricted use”; suggested adding a statement that restricted use areas will be deducted from the net area; definition of privacy includes sound and smells; protected views; it is up to the person who is losing a view to prove that he is losing one; exhibit 7-13 has a table showing gradable area and hardscape which would allow the possibility of an entire lot being under hardscape in some cases.

 

John Beau spoke about Setback and Yard Use Standards in Chapter 7.11; noted that on page 7-33, exhibit 7-5 ties in with Chapter 7.18 later; that he does not know of any place in the General Plan that says anything about floor space; it states policies but not square footage; he was opposed to Exhibit 7-5 and suggested it be eliminated along with supporting language.

 

Mayor Douglas clarified that Exhibit 7-5 is not a limit on size, it is an increase of setback for certain sizes; asked why we would want to have setbacks other than what we already have; didn’t feel it should be required; should depend on the individual circumstance.

 

Mr. Blagden stated that he was in support of the required setbacks at the larger size. This would reduce any impact; the same thing applies to a second story impact.

 

 

John Beau explained that his objection is that this might not always do well for the builder; he objected to the set standard; it should be discretional to the situation.

 

Stephen Blagden stated that these rules are very reasonable and useful and we have exceptions when needed.

 

CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING

 

0:22:00

 

5.              ZONING CODE AMENDMENT 2005-01 – ARTICLE 7 – ZONING ORDINANCE

 

Commissioner McCoy commented that she and Commissioner Baroldi would like to make an amendment to the Landscape section of the Ordinance.

 

Commissioner Baroldi stated that this raises the question of what provision is made for the possibility of a lot owner on a new development planting a tree outside of the landscape area that might affect another landowner’s protected view?

 

Mayor Douglas noted that it had been discussed during the development of the General Plan. It ended up that the City would attempt arbitration and it will show up in the Nuisance Code. You will have some discretionary approval when a person asks for a View Modification. He stated that if the arbitration didn’t work, then the Nuisance Code would possibly help the person in litigation with the other property owner.

 

Commissioner McCoy asked if the City has set up an Arbitration Board?

 

Vice Chair Black commented that the City of Palos Verde Estates has an Arbitration Committee. The way they handle it is the person who’s view is blocked can pay for the trimming and when it grows back it would be up to the owner. It seems to work for them, but it also is non-binding.

 

Ms. Massa-Lavitt noted that it is expensive to protect views and it is difficult to recover 100% of the costs.

 

0:31:43

 

            Chapter 7.11 Setback and Yard Use Standards

 

            Mr. Blodgett explained that this City is unique and has affected how we established requirements for setbacks. We only have two types of setbacks, front yard setbacks (the yard facing the street) and other setbacks. Table 7-8 lists Minimum Setback Requirements for Structures; noted that we have an additional setback distance for the second floor; there is a great deal of flexibility in encroachment into these setbacks; the issue was raised in Public Comment about Exhibit 7-5 where we have variable setback standards; this approach is cumulative; some are really designed to address mansionization; this was a big issue in preparing the General Plan; the approach we opted to take was that if you have a big enough lot where you implement certain performance standards, and it doesn’t create a problem, you can build a larger house; we just don’t want the size of the house to intrude on privacy, the community character and neighborhood compatibility; Exhibit 7-5 is a first step in insuring that is maintained; Chapter 7.11 also provides other setbacks such as; Alquist Priolo requirements for fault lines, drainage channels, septic tanks/SUSUMP; we have listed what is permitted in yards; these are shown in Table 7.9; the Chapter indicates certain things that are not allowed in yards because it would intrude on the neighbor’s views; we do have findings that would be used if you had to have a Standards Modification.

 

            The Commission then discussed setbacks.

           

The consensus of the Commission was that 35 and 25 feet setback for driveways and parking was too high.

 

Mayor Douglas stated that 15 feet or 20 feet should be enough room to screen the property line to keep the view from being obnoxious.

 

Consultant Blodgett explained that we will do some research on this issue and come up with a minimum width for screening and he noted that he would assume it will be 15 to 20 feet.

 

Vice Chair Black asked if everyone is in agreement that we have to change Table 7-7 so it doesn’t overlap with Table 7-8?

 

Commissioner Baroldi explained that Table 7-7 is the driveway setback and you will come back with suggestions for screening. On table 7-8 you are going to put into text that the side yard and front yard setbacks will be 25 and 35 feet and potentially eliminating the first row talking about residential/agricultural (Zone RA) depending what the decision is on Exhibit 7-5.

 

Consultant Blodgett suggested that they revise Table 7-8 to retain the first floor setback and eliminate the second floor setback which does not apply. Exhibit 7-5 covers mansionization.

 

Mayor Douglas explained that made the RA Zone the same setback for first floor and second floor. We will maintain the differences in the setbacks in the other Zones.

 

Mayor Douglas noted that it must be remembered that the purpose of this is to control bulk and mass. No matter how the space is used, it affects the mass.

 

 

Mayor Douglas commented that the Commission sees what is coming in to the Planning Department and it is up to you to decide the trigger point and factor that will begin to alter community character. The setback is policy. With the setback increasing, the slope is critical.

 

Commissioner Baroldi asked that some hypothetical examples on the scale be brought back to aid their decisions.

 

The Commission discussed the conditions that would cause further investigation for earthquake areas.

 

Consultant Blodgett noted that the USGS and the California Geological Survey published 7.5-minute quadrangles that delineate on it a fault zone. It is rather general, but it says that if you are in this fault zone additional investigation is required.

 

CDD Massa-Lavitt explained that they have started to have a third party review of geology reports. This isn’t required.

 

Mayor Douglas noted that he thought this was a good idea.

 

Vice Chair Black commented that on 7.11.40 K – Access Gates it says “Gates for vehicles must be setback a minimum distance of twenty (20) feet from the roadway edge of pavement.

 

CDD Massa-Lavitt noted that they have not made people move their gates if they have been there for a long time.

 

Mayor Douglas stated that it was not a new rule.

 

Commissioner McCoy noted 7.11.50 C. 1. - Prohibited Uses in Yards.

 

Mayor Douglas noted that items 1. and 4. considering parking are not needed.

 

Commissioner Grebbien commented that trash containers need to be close to the road for the collectors to pick them up. It would be nice if we could find some way to screen such items.

 

Mayor Douglas noted that the dumpster would always have to be near the road as they can’t easily be rolled out.

 

2:18:42

 

           Chapter 7.14 Lot Development Standards

 

Consultant Blodgett explained that on 7.14.40 C – Selection of Development Site. This is a new development requirement. We are asking the applicant to do some homework before submitting an application; we are asking them to take a look at some of the constraints of the property and make sure in their development plan that they are sensitive to those constraints.

 

Mr. Blodgett also noted E. – Remediation of Existing Nonconformities. We will have more detail in later chapters. If there is an existing nonconformity that can be fixed as part of the current development application and we can establish a nexus, then there should be an effort to do that.

 

Mr. Blodgett noted F. – Storm Water Management. We must follow both SUSMP and City Storm Water Management Program requirements. The plans need to be sensitive to both Regional and more local programs.

 

Mr. Blodgett then mentioned K – Existing Code Violations. There is no flexibility here. Any Code violations must be corrected.

 

Mr. Blodgett then mentioned M. – Variable Setbacks. If you are going to do a multiple lot development, we don’t want a row-house look, we want to see some variation of how those buildings are oriented on the lots.

 

Mr. Blodgett turned to T. – Modifications Not Allowed. There are certain modifications that are not allowed. Lots where the original use was not intended to build a house. They were usually owned by a Public Utility Company and they were very small lots.

 

Commissioner Baroldi noted on 7.14.30 B. – Design Consideration in Lot Development, that there will be a lot of debates come in on this.

 

Commissioner McCoy noted that it is in more detail in 7.14.40 C. – Selection of Development Site;

 

Commissioner Baroldi commented that it says “the development shall be placed”, so the City determines where to place it. It implies that there can be only one place that it can go.

 

Commissioner Grebbien noted that the intent is fine, but he felt the language was a little strong.

 

Vice Chair Black suggested that the work “area” in 7.14.30 “C” be changed to read “areas”.

 

Vice Chair Black stated that he was having more trouble with 7.14.40 B. – Accessory Structures and Uses and the requirement of different elevations and distances from each other and from the primary residence at least twenty feet horizontally and eight feet vertically.

 

Commissioner Baroldi asked a question on E – Remediation of Existing Nonconformities;

noted that it infers that the nonconformities you are looking at are only those relevant to the development you are contemplating.

 

Commissioner McCoy noted a correction in 7.14.30 A. Primary Criteria should be Primary Criterion.

 

Vice Chair Black noted that this Public Hearing would be continued to the Special Meeting on November 5, 2005 at 9:00 a.m.

 

ADJOURNMENT

 

Commissioner Grebbien moved to adjourn the meeting at 10:01p.m. to the Special meeting of November 5, 2005. Seconded by Commissioner Baroldi. Vote : 4-0

 

 

_________________________________

Larry Black, Vice Chairman

 

ATTEST:

                                                                       

Justin Powers, Community Development Director