CITY OF LA HABRA HEIGHTS

 

MINUTES OF A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE LA HABRA HEIGHTS

 

PLANNING COMMISSION

 

November 5, 2005

 

OPENING CEREMONIES

 

1.              CALL MEETING TO ORDER

 

Vice Chair Black called to order a Special Meeting of the La Habra Heights Planning Commission, at 9:04 a.m. in the Community Center, 1245 N. Hacienda Road, La Habra Heights, California.

 

2.              ROLL CALL

 

Those present: Vice Chairman, Larry Black, Commissioners Margarita McCoy, Layne Baroldi, Brent Grebbien and Alternate Commissioner Steve Garcia. Also present were City Engineer Craig Melicher, City Attorney Sandy Levin, Planning Technician Barbara Doppieri, Consultant Marc Blodgett and Mayor Bruce Douglas.

 

            Chairman Robert Wolfe was absent.

 

3.              FLAG SALUTE

 

Alternate Commissioner Garcia led the flag salute.

 

4.         ITEMS FROM THE PUBLIC ON THE AGENDA

 

Judy Hathaway Francis, Chota - voiced her feelings regarding how significant the job is the commission is doing now, how important it is to the future of the community and also identifies that is arduous and fraught with potholes.

 

John Beau, Casalero - referred to memorandum he submitted several weeks ago and brought attention to final paragraph.

 

Steven Blagden, Citron Rd. – stated that the ordinance is part of the implementation of the General Plan, The General Plan describes what the community is, how it will be developed and property rights.

 

Norm Zezula, Canonita - hoped that his remarks are not taken personally by anybody. He likes and respects every person on the staff, the commission and the council. What he’s talking about, basically, are general principles.

 

CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING

 

5.         ZONING CODE AMENDMENT 2005-01 – Article 7 – Zoning Ordinance

 

Consultant Blodgett then explained the Commission would be discussing Chapter 7-16; Subdivisions and Lot Line Adjustment Standards.

 

Consultant Blodgett gave an overview of what is being worked to accomplish today. Chapter 7-16 is where we will begin and then go to Grading Retaining Walls and Hardscape Standards;

Building Design Standards; Chapter 7.18 and then 7.5. The one remaining chapter; Zoning Administration will be covered if there’s time.

 

Commissioner Baroldi states that the goals of the General Plan are to maintain the community character.

 

Consultant Blodgett mentioned that in the first cut from the files sent out July 11 showing the old relation and the new relation and in that center section there certainly is a lot of difference and we briefly touched upon that and it’s certainly more conservative and it’s certainly a policy question and the existing curve states to have drastic increases on the acreage required for small changes in slope and slope is a cumbersome issue and it’s something that no one likes to have to deal with on the staff level. You could easily better match the existing curve by just having a bilinear, two straight lines. The curve now has a bottom portion where nothing happens and it becomes very steep so you could make it a little simpler to use by linearizing it or you could keep it this way which would be more conservative, you could make it less conservative. It certainly a policy question and we don’t particularly like the sensitivity of the existing relation when you get above 35-36 degrees it starts going kind of nuts.

 

Commissioner Baroldi says that a lot isn’t typically a uniform 35 degrees across the entire lot and typically you’ll find that all of the sudden it becomes a 40 % lot even though you have a wonderful building spot.

 

Vice Chairman Black added that there are a number of parcels in the city still undeveloped that in terms of density of slope, they’re going to be real issues.

 

Consultant Blodgett stated there are a couple of different issues and they can see they’re recommending the average slope not control graded or developable area; so they’ve taken the approach to try to get away from the slope control; you can try to figure out why the communities adopted the original formula; well it certainly says something about mountain developments areas that are prone to runoff; maybe landslides are more common so on our part it could have been a catchall design for a bunch of things and certainly it had an impact on undeveloped space and therefore community character; he expects there’s a lot of other fallout from this thing as well as engineering issues.

 

City Attorney Levin stated earlier we were talking about variances and standards modification; one thing we don’t need in this chapter and one thing missing; we don’t need 7.16.70; sub-section 70 should be deleted.

 

Vice Chairman Black felt that once we see the text, it will allow us to get a much better opinion; he acknowledges a card from Mr. Blagdon.

 

Mr. Blagdon stated regarding the lot size standards whether it should be the curve or the straight, from an ease of use, the straight is of course easier.

 

Commissioner Baroldi stated that without a hypothetical to look at, and to understand that there are few areas to subdivide and they are all oil owned and you do have some flat ones still, the minimum parcel dimension, and obviously there are far and few between of the typical rectangular or square lots.

 

Commissioner Baroldi says you don’t want to encourage a bunch of the uniform lots.

 

Commissioner Grebbien asked if what you’re saying is that with the restrictions on minimal parcel dimensions, it’s not going to be inconsistent with the subdivision of multiple lot development with the set backs and relief versus just having the square neighborhood tracts.

 

Consultant Blodgett says it basically says that when you create a subdivision that a certain number that in this case was fixed at 75%, it must conform to the minimum dimensions that are identified in that exhibit.

 

City Attorney Levin stated it means each parcel looking at it on a parcel by parcel basis. 75% of the area of the parcel has to be bounded by a fairly regular shape, by the dimensions in the chart so most of the area has to be in an area of at least those dimensions. The other 25% can be odd shaped and added on which allows that flexibility to create unusual, irregular parcels.

 

Commissioner Baroldi was confused and thinks it might be an unusual constraint to try to apply and having 30% number with a frontage variation is clear, the non-uniform setbacks is understandable but this one might be tough. He thinks it’s at least difficult to interpret.

 

Consultant Blodgett thinks the intent is to not allow creation of new non-conformity, there’s lots of lot line adjustments on already non-conforming lots and you have to define that it’s not creating some new modification requirement by doing so. You now have a new lot because you’ve done that adjustment; the existing non-conformity still exists and will still require modification when it come to commission. We don’t want to stop lot line adjustments if they’re not causing some new damage. There’s no necessary benefit to the community. We don’t want to be able to lot line adjustment that I take my entire steep portion off under existing code and give it to Larry so now I have a different sub-dividable lot. So that would be creating some new non-conformity.

 

Commissioner Baroldi asked why the City would want to get involved if there’s no change in square footage

 

Attorney Levin thinks it should say there shouldn’t be a Standards Mod where one wasn’t required before.

 

Vice Chairman Black doesn’t think this is addressing adjacent parcels where one is conforming and one is non-conforming and they want an adjustment to make the non-conforming lot conform.

 

Consultant Blodgett didn’t think so either. It’s more complicated than that and we don’t want to get in the way of residences wanting to do this.

 

Commissioner McCoy wants to know where lot splits fit in. and where does it fit in.

 

Attorney Levin says it’s governed by this chapter because it is still considered a subdivision.

Consultant Blodgett says Exhibit 7-11 debate with respect to the regression line; same is true with minimum parcel dimension line, they’re policy issues that at some point need to be modified. and finalized.

 

Commissioner Baroldi said if it’s proportionally developed, it shouldn’t matter. And the 3 acre requirement on a 35% slope is too much.

 

Consultant Blodgett agreed. And thinks we should bring back the simplest linearization of bilinearizing the model.

 

Vice-Chairman Black suggests data points to sanity check the curve. Something with a lesser slope would be more appropriate.

 

Commissioner Baroldi doesn’t think residents that bought large parcels before 1978 planning to subdivide them and use the proceeds for retirement should now be unable to do so.

 

Commissioner McCoy doesn’t want to see lots split up.

 

Vice Chairman Black said that if the Commission goes to a parcel and see what’s being created doesn’t require the new owner to have to deal with new problems, it would be fine but would require a standards modification

 

Attorney Levin said it’s the purpose of Subsection B; Limit on Variances and Modifications

 

Consultant Blodgett stated that 7-11 accepted there was some historical reason when it’s average is steeper, it takes more to make it simpler. He recommends making it easier for staff to deal with.

 

Vice Chairman Black isn’t interested in incurring hardship on the residence.

 

Attorney Levin said the task is to put a number on the concept, use the historical formula but using the community character, determine what lots are available for subdivision., No formula is perfect but there needs to be one and it is preferred to be a line and not a curve.

 

Commissioner McCoy wants a body of ordinances sooner rather than later and suggests going with what has been proposed and motions for vote.

 

Attorney Levin said there are now two distinct motions and suggests the chair look for a second. for one and continue discussion on the other so we can move on.

 

Vice Chairman Black offers a second to Commissioner Grebbien’s motion and suggests making improvements to Commissioner McCoy’s.

 

Vice Chairman Black then calls for a vote on the 3 line segment motion.

 

Motion fails.

 

Commissioner McCoy reinstalls her motion to approve slope density as written and asks for a second.

 

Alternate Garcia seconds, there’s a vote and motion fails.

 

Commissioner McCoy said we’re not getting anywhere since these two options have been turned down..

 

Vice Chairman Black wants consultant to come back with something less harsh.

 

Consultant Blodgett acknowledges they are preparing redline versions of all the recommendations but there are still some outstanding issues but there will be something to react to at some subsequent meeting.

 

Alternate Garcia stated that one of these plans more closely meets the intent of the General Plan and thinks there should be language to that effect.

 

Vice Chairman Black agrees and thinks the language should be more benefit driven. And easy to interpret.

 

Consultant Blodgett will stay with the end points but match it closely to the numerical statistics.

 

Grading Retaining Walls and Hardscape Standards

 

Consultant Blodgett had difficulty trying to apply a conditional use permit procedure for controlling grading. This chapter has performance standards and development standards and modification findings that need to be made at the conclusion of the chapter. Key performance standards have a direct linkage to the General Plan. There are prohibitions of grading for the sole purpose of creating a building pad. There needs to be some sensitivity to maintaining all of these amenities. The other philosophy also doesn’t want to prohibit grading so that it lead as to other impacts possibly degrading other views from neighboring property. Grading could be a way to set a house down to avoid this. We want to make sure it’s balanced.; 7-57 Exhibit 13 shows a graphic exhibiting this. 7-58 has a lengthy table that establishes hard line development criteria for not only cut and fill but the location and extent of retaining walls needed with that grading. There are a lot of exhibits that can be finalized when the Planning Commission gives its direction. The conclusion gives certain findings that need to be made with regards to retaining walls and hardscape requirements.

 

Mayor Douglas said City Engineer Craig Melicher looked at all of this as it was being developed and thought Consultant Blodgett was referring to the most recent review.

 

Consultant Blodgett agreed.

 

Commissioner Baroldi made the comment that the formula to determine grading and impervious coverage areas is difficult to interpret.

 

Vice Chairman Black said that was the idea of the new code, to make it easier to interpret.

 

Mayor Douglas said if you want to control grading, control grading. But he doesn’t get why you would want to limit grading as a function of degree of slope. So, basically, the amount you can grade is a function of the size of your lot.

 

Commissioner Baroldi said that there is still the opportunity for a standards modification as illustrated by 7-13.

 

Attorney Levin said to remember the concept is permanent graded area, not the area that you grade and put back the way it was.

 

Mayor Douglas pointed out that the removing of old avocado terraces and replanting with something else would still be a permanent graded area. And part of the intent of the new code is that grading is not considered bad. We minimize alteration of natural terrain but defining natural terrain is difficult.

 

Commissioner McCoy said Mr. Bagwell objected to grading an area and returning it to it’s original state.

 

Attorney Levin said the way to detect illegal grading is to see if someone is grading where they aren’t supposed to be grading. If they’re allowed to move dirt around anywhere on the lot, it is much more difficult to identify when someone is not conforming to their grading plan. The burden of proof is shifted to the City. What protections are in place to allow us to determine it.

 

Mayor Douglas said the code gives a benefit of embedding a structure and the haul permit fees help cover the cost of road repair . His understanding of immense grading is it alters the look of the natural terrain, so there are large linear surfaces. He doesn’t see how that in itself is negative.

 

City Attorney Melicher agrees and also emphasized extreme deviation from a plan is a code enforcement issue rather than a development policy issue. Do we want to regulate exchanging poor topsoil for better? Why would someone over-excavate and bring it back in unless they were trying to improve it?

 

Commissioner McCoy said she only was commenting that it was Mr. Bagwell’s concern. She understands grading is a tool and not necessarily an evil. On the other hand, she draws back that we are writing an ordinance that we can move the whole face of the earth in a lot so long as what you wind up with is legal.

 

Attorney Levin says the problem would occur if someone grades a whole lot and runs out of money. So she assumes that a condition of the grading permit, staff would require some sort of bond and that should be written into the grading ordinance, but that’s a different chapter.

 

Commissioner Baroldi said the grading provisions in the county code mandates security deposit if you move more than 1000 yards. The provisions are already there. There would have to be a planned approved.

 

Commissioner McCoy said that the plan would only have the outcome. It’s the wording that needs to be addressed, not the curve.

 

The Commission took a break for lunch.

 

Vice Chairman Black announces return from break and restarts discussion of grading issues.

 

Consultant Blodgett refocuses on Exhibit 7-13 and the specific issue had to do with how to control graded and impervious area on properties less than one acre.

 

Mayor Douglas pointed out that the existing code says 85% if the lot is flat and the gala in the General Plan is to minimize alteration of natural terrain and he’s puzzled as to why that wasn‘t implemented in that case. That’s his reasoning for pulling the base down and limit grading to the primary purpose of the lot.

 

Commissioner Baroldi feels limiting the base to 8000 would be discouraging, especially if someone wanted to widen a driveway or something that help the fire department with access. He just doesn’t want any discouragement of upgrades.

 

Mayor Douglas said most of the time its adding two stories rather than needing more grading, and that’s why they ended up using footprints.

 

City Engineer Melicher thinks 8000 is enough for a driveway and wouldn’t be too discouraging.

 

Commissioner Baroldi wanted to make sure the cumulative impact doesn’t become and issue. The one way to have the least adverse impact on a natural surrounding is by picking the specific spot were the house goes. With the types of houses now being developed in the city, he doesn’t see any plan being approved at the staff level since they’re greater than 8000 sq ft impervious and hardscape coverage.

 

Vice Chairman Black said 7-17.30, item E also states that the grading should be limited to that necessary for the primary structure and the accessory structures and uses should be placed at varying distances to minimize grading for the pad. But then you’re creating more hardscape to get from one to the other.

 

Attorney Levin pointed out that the limits currently imposed are by and large not the size of the footprint since most of the plans call for two or more stories.

 

Vice Chairman Black said he’s just trying to make sure they are all of with the 8000 sq ft figure.

 

Commissioner Grebbien noted the new exhibit 7.13 gives maximum grading independent of slope and that’s where the struggle is since there’s a variable missing from the old code that every one was familiar with.

 

Mayor Douglas mentioned that table 7.11 limits the grading. Grading is controlled by grading limits, not the slope of the lot.

 

Commissioner Baroldi said the proposed new code would make it impossible to approve plans that under the current code have been approved and there’s not enough room for the planning commission to make decisions since the code is more restrictive.

 

Commissioner McCoy said that if you want to restrain undesirable size, you have to go to the general plan because the old ordinances don’t cover it. The new ordinances are more stringent because they are supportive of the new General Plan and she’s all for it.

 

Commissioner Baroldi thinks there’s room for debate on it.

 

Attorney Levin requests to go back to the basics of the new code. The overall design of the new code was to make the approval by right boundaries be fairly strict but to relax the ability to grant a standards modification. The idea is to make the staff decisions easier and the commissions decisions broader.

 

Commissioner Grebbien deferred to a chart that shows a proposed hardscape that illustrated that the numbers were not actually more restrictive.

 

Commissioner Baroldi suggested that a footnote or caveat be installed for a long sloped driveway.

 

Mayor Douglas agreed.

 

Attorney Levin felt the way to address it is to create some discretion at the administrative level before it comes to the commission.

 

Vice Chairman Black called for review of Article 7, Chapter 17

 

Attorney Levin brought up the treatment of easements, what kind gets counted and which don’t. She would like to see the definition of net area continued in the new code.

 

Vice Chairman Black asked if the maximum permanent graded area is acceptable.

 

Commissioner McCoy’s problem with it was in the wording. She wanted to know what would happen if it was allowable graded and hardscape surface areas.

 

Commissioner Grebbien said that if someone wanted to scrape the surface and replace with better topsoil would that be ok.

 

Attorney Levin said the landscape plan would trigger the discretionary review.

 

Vice Chairman Black asked if everyone is happy with 7-13 with no objections.

 

            Building Design Standards 7-18.

 

Consultant Blodgett said this includes performance standards, development standards and findings that need to be made if there’s a request for modification standards. We’re trying to control development characteristics without the benefit of architectural or design review board. Mansionization is the one of the issues in the new General Plan. It’s tough to establish size and appearance standards without the review board. Exhibit 7-21 shows the bigger the lot, the greater the footprint. Height limits are also shown as well as an established ratio of 2^nd floor and 1^st floor as stated in 7-68. Finally, the table that talks about architectural articulation with an engineering term and we don’t want plain walls without some architectural treatment to break up that appearance.

 

Vice Chairman Black deferred to comments.

 

Commissioner Grebbien said that he thinks if there’s a legal non-conforming, and it’s not in the setback, the new code would allow a 1500 build without the need for a discretionary review.

 

Consultant Blodgett said if the addition is on the side of the house that is not near the property line it would not kick in the standards modification.

 

Attorney Levin said it would kick it in, but administratively.

 

Commissioner McCoy View Protection ideal would be defined by the owner of the view, limited by one area on the site. The area would be picked by the homeowner. The General Plan mentions arbitration as a solution to private disputes.

 

Attorney Levin said that’s a nice service to offer but to put it in the code would open the city up to lawsuits. She doesn’t think it would be consistent to the General Plan which is broadening the concept of protective view. There would need to be a mechanism for determining and tracking what the homeowner’s idea of protected view. The view has to be something that is reasonable to protect and she’s not sure where the legal boundary would be.

 

Vice Chairman Black introduced the chart for maximum 2^nd floor area. Is the setback from the front yard or where.

 

Consultant Blodgett said that when they were dealing with setbacks, they were told to modify the requirement for 2^nd floor setback. He believes there no more differentiation between the 1^st floor and 2^nd. We’re now talking about a total floor area.

 

Fences and Walls 7.69e

 

Commissioner Grebbien wandered why there is no chain linking in the front.

 

Consultant Blodgett said it was a policy due to numerous offence fences including some with razor wire in the city. It’s a policy issue. If it’s landscape covered, who cares. Commission agreed it should be rewritten.

 

Attorney Levin suggested the term screened by added and chain link fencing allowed.

 

Commissioner Garcia is concerned by the distance view areas from the public right of way if fencing is allowed and then landscape.

 

Commissioner McCoy is loathed to see cyclone fencing prohibited in a rural community.

 

Vice Chairman Black then asked if there is a need for a motion.

 

Attorney Levin said it needs to be decided whether chain linking is allowed in the front and if it needs to be landscaped and will it be allowed to erect a fence near a right of way that would obstruct a primary or distant view.

 

Consultant Blodgett determined from discussion that the reference to chain link be omitted from the wording.

 

Vice Chairman Black agreed.

Attorney Levin requested clarification on the consistency with wording for fence and view.

It was determined that it will be determined by the basic standards modification.

 

            7.69 Residential Garages

 

Vice Chairman Black asked if the 10’ high egress includes motorhomes, since they will not fit into a normal garage.

 

Consultant Blodgett suggest that larger garages be allowed but shielded from view.

 

            7.69N Limitation of Roof Mounted Utilities

 

Commissioner Grebbien wondered if that included small satellites like for TV.

 

General discussion agreed it should not be included.

 

Consultant Blodgett indicated it will be added to the wording that small satellite dishes are allowed. He will research whether or not HAM antennas cause interference and it will be determined if they should be restricted.

 

            7.69P Underground Utilities

 

Commissioner Grebbien asked when an addition to a home would trigger the need for underground utilities.

 

Consultant Blodgett asked the commission to choose a number.

 

The Commission asked Consultant Blodgett to determine one and it will be debated.

 

Color Palate was then brought up.

 

Attorney Levin mentioned that the code should reflect some sort of regulation and an established approved or disapproved palate should be determined. The intent just needs to be cleared.

 

It was then determined that there needs to be an additional meeting to discuss 7.19-7.20 and another special meeting should be scheduled.

 

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