CITY OF LA HABRA HEIGHTS
MINUTES OF A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE LA HABRA HEIGHTS
PLANNING COMMISSION
OPENING CEREMONIES
1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER
Chairman Black called a Special Meeting of the La Habra Heights Planning Commission to order at 7:24 p.m. at the Community Center, 1245 North Hacienda Road, La Habra Heights, California.
2. ROLL CALL
Those present: Chairman Larry Black, Vice Chairman Layne Baroldi, Commissioners Brent Grebbien, and Margarita McCoy. Also present Community Development Director Justin Powers, Planning Technician Barbara Doppieri, City Engineer Craig Melicher, Assistant City Attorney Kathy Paspalis, Consultant Marc Blodgett and Mayor Bruce Douglas.
Commissioner Garcia: absent.
3. FLAG SALUTE
Community Development Director Powers led the flag salute.
4. ITEMS FROM THE PUBLIC ON THE AGENDA
Stephen Blagden, spoke on importance of following the General Plan; brought a diagram from Diamond Bar which shows what different slopes look like and the relationship of ratio, percentage and degree that he thought might be helpful to put in our Code. He also provided a copy of the L. A. County SEA (Significant Ecological Area) map; has no impact on us.
The Commission commented in favor of having the diagram of slopes in the Code.
Mayor Douglas commented that it is noted that they will find a good place to insert the diagram and you can find what we say about SEA information at Page 7-50 Q.
The Commission and Staff discussed if there are possible problems or changes that might be caused by the SEA.
Attorney Paspalis answered that she would have to look into this and possibly have some information at the next meeting.
Commissioner McCoy stated that former City Attorney Colantuono had looked into this and noted that it is so vague that it does not matter.
Stephen Blagden commented that in his opinion the information provided by the SEA could be useful to the City.
0:25:00
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING
5. ZONING CODE AMENDMENT 2005-01 – ARTICLE 7 – ZONING ORDINANCE
The Commission started their discussion with Article 7, Chapter 17 and the redline changes of Grading, Retaining Walls and Hardscape Standards.
Consultant Blodgett explained that in Chapter 17 we have tried to address ÒmansionizationÓ by grading, size of retaining walls, amount of grading area, building size and setbacks, all together. We may be able to expand on the tables and explanation of them.
Community Development Director Powers noted that sometimes a few numbers might help.
Commissioner McCoy expressed her concern about the word ÒpermanentÓ in Exhibit 7-13. She stated that this would allow you to grade the whole parcel as long as you wind up with what Exhibit 7-13 shows as permanent. Possibly we need some numbers or change the word ÒpermanentÓ.
Mayor Douglas commented that the construction process moves much ground to get to the allowed grading.
Commissioner Grebbien noted that the limit of grading seems to be waived for agricultural purposes, possibly to allow terraces in the present code.
Chairman Black commented that the question is how does the City document what the original slope looked like.
Mayor Douglas noted that ÒNatural GradeÓ is defined as the grade at City incorporation (1978).
Commissioner Grebbien commented that we might want to keep language in the code that would allow terraces for vineyards.
Chairman Black agreed.
Commissioner McCoy stated that a limit is needed for how much land can be moved.
The Commission discussed this idea.
City Engineer Melicher explained the routine for plan consideration and the work the site goes through. An Engineer measures necessary areas before the work and at completion.
Mayor Douglas noted that there are ways of building that we encourage that actually need a larger amount of earth movement so we do not want to place a cubic yard limit on the grading volume.
Consultant Blodgett noted that bringing the disturbed earth back to the natural grade keeps you
from grading more than you are allowed for other purposes.
Chairman Black opened the Public Hearing for Public Comment.
Stephen Blagden stated that they need to keep the CUP for moving earth over 1,000 cubic yards. We want to encourage owners to conform to the terrain to minimize grading; Mr. Blagden noted that Article 7 is the shortest he has seen about that subject; we want enough information so that we understand the codes; he spoke on Page 7-59, Exhibit 7-13, stating that these lines would allow considerably more grading than now; according to this exhibit, everyone who has less than an acre gets to grade as much as an acre and trades off reducing the amount of grading on a flat lot and increasing grading on a steep lot; administrative approval; maximum disturbed area; graded area and disturbed area should be staked out; total extent of retaining walls formula.
Engineer Melicher stated that retaining walls less than three (3) feet in height are not considered as retaining walls.
Mr. Blagden noted that you need limits for retaining walls and a larger setback is needed for driveway landscaping; should be twenty (20) feet.
1:22:14
The Commission and Staff further discussed Exhibit 7-13. noting that it seems to be very unequal for lots under one acre and those that are over one acre; why the figure of 12,000 square feet as a maximum graded area?
The Commission directed Staff to bring the grading down to 10,000 square feet and keep it at 8,000 for the hardscape for the lots under an acre. They also discussed how flat lots and sloped lots are affected by Exhibit 7-13.
Commissioner McCoy asked why they abandoned the relationship between slopes to grading and hardscape?
Mayor Douglas explained that it doesnÕt really give you anything. It just gives hardships.
The Commission continued their discussion with Staff.
City Engineer Melicher commented that the limiting of the length of retaining walls beyond the structure will limit the graded area on sloping lots.
Chairman Black asked if the restrictions on hardscape are too onerous on lots, and do we want to correct anything there? He asked that they talk about Table 7-10, which covers slopes and retaining wall limits.
Consultant Blodgett commented that once we complete the Planning Commission review we will refine the exhibits.
The Commission discussed any concerns they have on Table 7-10 and if the Exhibits connected with Table 7-10 were helpful and could be refined to make them easier for the applicant to interpret.
Commissioner McCoy noted the possibility that the total width of the structure parallel to the slope plus 40 feet was too much, and in her opinion this discourages different levels for accessory uses.
The Commission discussed different opinions.
Commissioner McCoy also asked if irrigation should be mentioned for Landscaping Requirements?
Community Development Director Powers noted that it is already required and the problem we have is that some people water too much and it affects the road.
Mayor Douglas noted that he thought pictures in the Exhibits were helpful and he stated that it might also help to explain the intent of the Exhibit.
The consensus of the Commission was that this should be done.
2:21:00
The Commission made small changes at Page 7-58 E: Placement of Building Pads; Page 7-59 A. Selection of Development Site, who decides what is the best site? How do applicants know what site has the least adverse impact?
Planning Technician Doppieri noted that Staff is already having applicants look at different site locations and bring back the numbers they pick and we will run them to see what the impacts are.
Mayor Douglas noted that it would be helpful for Staff to know what the most important issues are in making decisions on a proper site and he commented the General Plan gives the decision to the Community Development Director. If the applicant does not agree with Staff, then it goes to the Planning Commission.
Community Development Director Powers stated that one way to get things going sooner, is to have a pre-file meeting which would be before applicants get too far in their plans and include a meeting with the different departments whose requirements they have to meet.
Vice Chairman Baroldi noted that the Planning Commission did not give Staff much information on the maximum permanent grading and hardscape on one-acre flat lots.
Mayor Douglas spoke about grading and hardscape allowances and what is reasonable for primary uses for an acre lot. This comes out to at least 8,000 square feet of reasonable uses for hardscape on an acre lot. The limits for administrative approval should be somewhere near the reasonable uses for the lot.
Commissioner Grebbien discussed Page 7-63 F. 3: Fences, garden walls or safety fences, retaining walls not used for driveways having at least a five (5) foot setback from the top of the retaining wall. He noted that it looks like a play yard. Could be a safety issue?
After discussion, the consensus of the Commission was to change this to read Òa minimum of three (3) feet setback.Ó
Mayor Douglas asked if the Commission would be comfortable with this happening entirely administratively approvable, as it will come up so often?
There was no objection from the Commission.
The Commission and Staff discussed 7.17.50 Findings Required for Approval of a Standards Modification of Grading, Retaining Walls and Hardscape. When doing something simple to an older house, does it require a complete topographical overview of the whole property at all times?
Mayor Douglas explained that you would not have to do anything topographical. The intent is to not make a small project overly difficult and we have also increased the size of structure that would trigger a Standards Modification from 500 square feet to 1500 on less than an acre.
ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner McCoy moved to adjourn and continue the Public Hearing at 10:21 p.m. to the meeting of February 21, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. Seconded by Commissioner Baroldi. Vote: 4-0.
Larry Black, Chairman
ATTEST:
Justin Powers, Community Development Director