Note: The text of these minutes was created by OCR of the printed document. As such artifacts and spelling errors may occur.
CITY OF LA HABRA HEIGHTS REGULAR MEETING OF THE
LA HABRA HEIGHTS PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 23, 2007
OPENING CEREMONIES
1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER
Chairman Larry Black called the October 23, 2007 Regular Planning Commission Meeting to order at 7:04 p.m.
2. ROLLCALL
Present: Chairman Larry Black, Vice-Chairperson Margarita McCoy, and Commissioners, Brent Grebbien, Tony Liu and Carl Westerhoff.
Also present: City Attorney Laurence Permaul, Community Development Director (CDD) Justin Powers, and City Planner Barbara Feeler.
3. FLAG SALUTE
Norm Zezula led the flag salute
4. ITEMS FROM THE PUBLIC NOT ON THE AGENDA
Stephen Blagden, stated he sent a letter explaining the "findings" that the Planning Commission has to make for their 'decisions; that if a decision is challenged in court, the "findings" will be used to trace the' Commission's reasoning and to determine whether their decision was legally justified; there must be specific evidence to support each "finding"; the Municipal Code has baseline limits that must be followed.
Norm Zezula noted that when outsiders try to justify a project that clearly violates the goals and policies of our General Plan, they make up goals and policies; the Codes were made to control what can be built on lots that are odd shaped or difficult to build on and the developer is required to fit the building to the lot; they must honor our General Plan.
CONSENT CALENDAR
5. APPROV AL OF MINUTES FOR AUGUST 28, 2007
Commissioner Westerhoff noted that the minutes state that he approved the July minutes. He actually abstained as he had not been at that meeting.
Vice Chairperson McCoy moved to approve the August 28, 2007 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes as amended. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Westerhoff and approved as follows:
A YES: Black, Grebbien, Liu, McCoy and Westerhoff.
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
PUBLIC HEARINGS OLD BUSINESS
6. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2006-02 AND GRADING MODIFICATION 2006-04 1823 E. SKYLINE DRIVE (HELIESEN)
City Planner Feeler reported that this report should be received and filed. The applicant, has sold the property and the new owner has withdrawn this application and has no intention of building a tennis court.
Chairman Black noted that it was received and filed. 0:11:20
NEW BUSINESS
7. STANDARDS MODIFICATION 2007-01, GRADING MODIFICATION 2007-01. AND TREE REMOVAL PERMIT 2007-01 (FORMER MUNICIPAL CODE)
City Planner Feeler stated this application is for 2124 Sapota for a single family horne; applicant, Phil Edmondson, is asking for a Standards Modification for view preservation, a Grading Modification for alterations to the natural terrain and a Tree Removal Permit for the removal of 23 trees; the property is currently undeveloped and in the RA zone; the project was denied in December 2006 because it blocked the neighbor's view, eliminated their privacy and the grading did not preserve the natural terrain; the new plan is two feet further away from the property line and four feet lower; the new plan increased the size of the house by 460 square feet, the proposed graded area increased from 18,195 square feet to 25,100 square feet, the cut increased by 1800 cubic yards and the fill increased by 1455 cubic yards; the impervious coverage increased by 137 square feet; staff looked for alternative locations and determined that the project could potentially be pulled forty feet away from its current location and dropped ten feet; the grading numbers would be similar to the current project, but it would eliminate the view preservation and privacy issues; on December 12, 2006 the Commission gave the applicant the following instructions: they wanted to see other alternatives, the structure was too large, the applicant was being inconsiderate of the neighbors and there were land use policies that were not being met; the average slope of the lot was incorrect, it should have been 36%, which lowered their allowable grading and impervious coverage; staff has identified that the proposed project still obstructs the view of 2148 Sapota. They still feel that their view is impaired and they have a loss of privacy; there is a letter from 1445 East Road; the owner is concerned with the loss of trees, the grading and possible land slide issues and any potential retaining walls that would be on the site; staff decided that "fmdings" 11,13,16,17, 18, 19,20, 21, and 22 for this project could not be met; staff's recommendation is to deny "with
prejudice", which would not allow the applicant to resubmit for one year and the project would need to be designed under the new Municipal Code.
City Planner Feeler assured Vice Chairperson McCoy that the project is not over the height limit.
City Planner Feeler explained that the reason for the recommendation for a "denial with prejudice" is because the present plan is similar to the one denied in December when the Commission gave specific instructions to the applicant on what they wanted to see done, and staff did not believe it was accomplished.
Chairman Black noted that this project is being studied under the former Municipal Code, but is still under the General Plan. He then opened the meeting for Public Comment.
Lily Moniz, stated that the house invades their privacy, is too close and intrudes into their view.
Craig Moniz, stated that the privacy invasion is very bothersome and the project is a whole acre and it is not necessary to be so close; that the homes in the neighborhood are much smaller than the one proposed; if the view is taken away, it devalues their home.
Stephen Blagden, stated there is an alternative plan and although the Commission told them the home was too large, they increased everything; that just by flipping the pool and the house it minimizes grading, shortens the driveway, which reduces the impervious coverage, puts parking by the street, the house is lower, many items are eliminated and retaining walls reduced; it is good to have balanced grading.
Phil Edmondson, Architect stated he thought the main concerns were taken care of by lowering the house four feet; the lower part of the slope is so steep we want to stay away from it; they eliminated the pool house; he kept windows away from the area facing the neighbors, having only two windows in closet areas; their view area is their outside area with a pool which is legal non-conforming and that hasimade a hardship on us; he did not agree with some of the findings from staff and went through the list with his justifications; staff recommends "denial with prejudice", but the Resolution says "denial without prejudice".
City Planner Feeler explained that it was a typo and can be amended by the motion.
COO Powers stated that Land Use Element 10 does not have a size limit for the land as Mr. Edmondson stated; there are no story poles so we have showed the previous story poles and if it is moved two feet over and four feet down it is a little different perspective.
Commissioner Westerhoff asked CDO Powers if he is saying that the representation is significantly inaccurate.
Mr. Powers stated that he can't say as there are no story poles for him to measure.
City Planner Feeler stated that they did change the old story poles with new poles and presented staff with certification that they were correct. Then the story pole contractor came and stated that they had been there so long and he needed them for another project and would have to take
them down. Ms. Feeler told him to contact the property owners and tell them, but they evidently missed contact and the poles were taken down.
Chairman Black stated that none of the Commission got to see the new story poles and two of the Commissioners had not seen the old ones.
Commissioner Grebbien commented that the most natural building pad would be close to the complaining neighbor and stated that it was his understanding that if it was a smaller home the applicant can build a 16-foot high home without any consideration of the view.
City Planner Feeler explained that in the old Code, there are two triggers for view preservation, if a home is more than 500 square feet in size and/or the home exceeds 16 feet in height.
Mr. Edmondson estimated that 16 feet would place the house somewhere just below the top of the trees from the Moniz home; that the corner of their swimming pool area is on Mr. Hoyt's property.
Commissioner Westerhoff asked what the current status is of the encroachment.
Mr. Edmondson stated that they have a topographical survey of the property and it indicated that a portion of their pool deck area is on our property; they proceeded to have a record of survey prepared by a surveyor which is to LA County standards; there are issues caused by this and they have not been resolved at this time.
Chairman Black asked what the Commission's responsibility is as far as the encroachment.
City Attorney Permaul stated that the encroachment issue would be a civil issue between the property owners; the Commission will have to make your decisions with the property lines as recorded; the City would not be involved in any agreement between the owners, but any agreement would have to comply with the City's zoning regulations.
City Planner Feeler noted that the encroachment is not part of this application; they could later corne to the City and ask for a lot line adjustment; it may go through the courts, or they may decide between themselves for a proscriptive easement; the pool was built before we became a city and it was not under a 25 foot setback from the lot line at that time.
Commissioner Westerhoff stated his concern that there is not more written record of the process that staff and the applicant have gone through and what was or was not stated.
Brian Hoyt, owner of 2124 Sapota, stated the size of his home was not out of character of the neighborhood; the whole neighborhood is diverse; he has made changes out of respect for view preservation; we might not have followed the suggestions to make the home smaller; asked for the definition of ~~View" and asked if this includes the neighbor's view of the trees on his property that his house might block; he asked for an explanation of why they may be given a punitive decision of "denial with prejudice"; if we are "denied without prejudice" we ask the Commission to give direction and we will try to follow your intent; we would appreciate approval of our project.
Craig Moniz stated that he does not agree with what Mr. Hoyt is claiming is their primary view; he believed it is a much broader view; he did not agree with the amount of the
encroachment; they could have moved the house over more than two feet; he asked that the project be "denied with prejudice" so they can improve the project.
Mr. Hoyt commented that he had prepared this report before he knew the story poles had been removed and he apologized to the Commission for taking their time and asked that they alter the recommended decision that would be partly due to the story poles not being there.
Stephen Blagden, explained that the way of measuring the height of this building is faulty and he eXplained how he felt it should be done.
Chairman Black returned the meeting to the Commission for discussion. 1:26:00
The Commission discussed whether or not the view is a protected view if a house with a 16foot height blocks that view or if the house can be moved somewhere else on the property.
City Planner Feeler read the codes that refer to the view and read that it is up to the CDD to make the decision on what is a primary view. Section 9404.4-A and 9200.2-A notes that a trigger for a View Modification is a property over one acre when the development is over 750 square feet and when it is 16 feet in height. The City Council Resolution 2000-29, explains what the triggers are on a sloped lot and how the height is measured.
The Commission discussed the lack of story poles; size of the home; not meeting all of the General Plan requirements; minimizing the number of issues; is "denial with prejudice" the correct recommendation; the "findings" needed; suggestions given at the last meeting with this applicant for what needed to change were mostly ignored; discussed the rules they have followed; house terraced; landscape plan; house follows land form as it is formed on the slope; grading was discussed; concern about the 20-foot retaining wall along the driveway.
City PI~er Feeler expl~ed tha~ on import and export, 1,000 combined yards of soil triggers a Con~ltional Use PermIt. Plannmg Commission is the recommending body and Council the approvmg body under the old Municipal Code; the Planning Commission determined that during the transitions of the Code that 1,000 yards of cut and 1,000 yards offill would trigger a Grading Modification to meet Goal Two of the General Plan and if it exceeded that it must be brought to the Planning Commission; the grading limit is based upon the average slope of the lot and this project is within that numeric standard.
CDD Powers stated that the Commission asked for staff to work with the applicant on the issues they found at the December meeting; on the view, the size of the house and minimize grading; we have met with the applicant four times and sent six letters; what we got was the house lowered about four feet, but made larger and more grading; that is why we recommended "denial with prejudice".
Commissioner Westerhoff stated that he did not think that following the General Plan which states that grading should be minimi~ed, means that being within what the Code requires is not enough.
Chairman Black asked for an intermission at 9:54 p.m. and opened the Public Hearing for Public Comment at 10:02.
Craig Moniz stated he would like to see the Commission focus more on the view and privacy issues which he thought were the main issues; suggested that the Commission visit the view
from the inside of the existing home when the story poles are replaced; felt the project is too close and too large.
Will Slattery, stated that he was concerned that the curved roof would reflect light into the surrounding homes and he encouraged that the roof follow all zoning and General Plan requirements; he asked that new story poles be installed in a timely manner and that the Commission and staff inspect and record their location; he expressed his concern that the landscaping could become a problem in the future.
Stephen Blagden, stated that the flat area by the Moniz's is not the best site, too small; stated that land use policies 16 and 17 prohibit the creation of the large flat yard area by the driveway; the graded area would disturb the natural terrain quite substantially; the retaining wall is too tall; he stated that a grading modification is actually a variance, which is much stricter.
Brian Hoyt stated that he thought that by lowering his project he had helped the view; we don't really know the definition of a primary view.
Phil Edmondson stated that he believed the project should be continued to place the story poles in the new conformation; that would give us better data to resolve what we should do.
Chairman Black asked both Mr. Edmondson and Mr. Hoyt if this is continued to put up the story poles, would they be willing to consider further recommendations for changes that the Commission might make.
Both Mr. Edmondson and Mr. Hoyt agreed that they would be willing to do that.
Commissioner Westerhoff stated that it would be helpful to him if Mr. Edmonson and Mr. Hoyt would get together with the staff and work out some of the issues and if there are some that they cannot, that they describe each side of the differences and the reasons in writing.
Chairman Black closed the Public Hearing for comments.
Vice Chairperson McCoy moved to continue the item for Standards Modification 2007-01, Grading Modification 2007-01 and Tree Removal Permit 2007-01 to replace story poles for this project until the next regular Planning Commission Meeting on November 22, 2007. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Westerhoff.
Chairman Black asked that staff record what direction the pictures were taken from, what height it was taken and on what surface.
The motion was approved as follows:
AYES: Black, Grebbien, Liu, McCoy and Westerhoff
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ITEMS FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Vice Chairperson McCoy stated she $upported a study session to discuss the new Codes. Chairman Black stated he would support this idea.
City Planner Feeler stated that they intended to do that, but they have been waiting to get through the old Code projects as it would be more confusing to be using both the old and the new Codes. The present project is the last one under the old Code.
CDD Powers stated that one of the considerations is that right now we have a Municipal Code Update Committee looking at revisions, made up of Chairman Black, Council Member Baroldi and Mayor Bergman, and we will be looking at the Code, have public input, making changes and one of the things we will do is have a meeting with the Planning Commission and City Council.
Vice Chairperson McCoy stated that she was concerned about amending parts of the new Code before it has been used to see if it works or not.
Chairman Black stated that there are some areas with some conflicts and some areas that need to be made clearer; the Planning Department has been able to tell over the last year that there are some areas that just don't quite work to our intent when we did the Codes; this is what we will be working on and fine tuning.
CDD Powers explained that we need the Study Session with the City Council and Planning Commission to look over the Codes and also get feedback from Engineers and Architects who are trying to design with the new Code; this is the Holiday season and we would like to have a meeting every two weeks, so we probably will get started in January.
Commissioner Grebbien stated that when a Staff Report refers to a General Plan Goal or a Code, he would like to see the reference in its exact words. The language matters.
ITEMS FROM STAFF
8. MONTHLY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT REPORT - August and September 2007
There were no questions from the Cotnmission.
ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Black adjourned the meeting at 10:51 p.m. and he asked that residents volunteer their services to their city.
Larry Black, Chairman ATTEST:
Justin Powers, Community Development Director
~