CITY OF LA HABRA HEIGHTS

 

REGULAR MEETING MINUTES

 

OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION

 

JUNE 24, 2008

 

 

OPENING CEREMONIES

 

1.              CALL MEETING TO ORDER

 

Chairman Black called the June 24, 2008 Planning Commission Meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. in the Multi-Purpose Room at 1245 Hacienda Road, La Habra Heights California.

 

ROLL CALL

 

Present: Chairman Larry Black, Vice Chairperson Margarita McCoy, Commissioners Brent Grebbien, Tony Liu and Carl Westerhoff.

 

Staff present: Interim City Manager Shauna Clark, City Planner Kenneth Phung, and Planning Attorney Daniel Ballin.

 

2.              FLAG SALUTE

 

Chairman Black led the flag salute.

                                                

3.              ITEMS FROM THE PUBLIC NOT ON THE AGENDA

 

Norm Zezula noted the massive and conscientious work that went into writing the General Plan; it represents the consensus of our Community; the New Code and proposed revisions were written behind closed doors with minimal publicity, no public opinion surveys, and no town hall meetings. In the case of Code revisions, only the bare minimum of Public Meetings required were held and no attempt to get Community consensus. The revisions were written to accommodate outside developers with resident input being an afterthought. Now we are handing the authority to grant variances and modifications to a part-time consultant who does not work directly for our City. All such decisions should come before our Planning Commission so there will be some chance for the public to voice their opinions. With the Code revisions we will have much more concrete and grading. Developers will have more power.

 

Stephen Blagden, Citron Road, noted that with the Planning Department having been dissolved by the City Council and replaced by a contract planner, the Planning Commission will need to play a much more active role in order to protect the property rights of both applicants and neighbors and to insure compliance with the General Plan and Codes. The projects approved at the end of one Planning Directors time and the start of a new one are the ones that give the most problems. Mr. Blagden commented that 1662 Hacienda was Administratively approved and needs a “Call for Review”. There are serious problems with the approval Resolution. You cannot tell which plan was approved. There are several errors and there is an item that violates the General Plan. They are building on a State Map Land Slide Hazard Zone with massive grading and having to alter a “blue line stream”. He spoke about categorical exemptions. Two Council votes are needed for a “Call for Review”.

 

CONSENT CALENDAR

 

4.              APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR APRIL 22, 2008

 

RECOMMENDATION: That by Minute Action the Planning Commission approve Planning Commission Minutes for April 22, 2008.

 

Vice Chairperson McCoy moved to approve the April 22, 2008 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes as presented. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Westerhoff and approved as follows:

 

AYES: Black, Grebbien, Liu, McCoy and Westerhoff

NOES: None

ABSENT: None

 

PUBLIC HEARINGS

 

5.              STANDARDS MODIFICATION FOR RETAINING WALL STANDARDS (PRJ 2007-07) (NAHMAD) 1607 WALNUT STREET

 

City Planner Kenneth Phung passed out the vicinity map and the site plan to the Commission and presented the Staff report. Mr. Phung stated that this is a Standards Modification for a retaining wall up to eight feet on the east side yard at 1607 Walnut Street to facilitate a driveway to a single family home at that address. The retaining wall does not meet the minimum height and setback requirements according to the Municipal Code. There is a shared driveway for about 150 feet from Walnut and at that point the applicant proposed this driveway to reach the new single family home. By using the existing driveway the aplicant is trying to minimize the grading and preserve the natural contour of the land. Mr. Phung stated that the application tonight is particularly on the retaining wall. Any decisions on hardscape are made by Administrative Approval of Staff. Staff’s recommendation is to adopt Resolution 2008-07 approving a Standards Modification to allow an eight foot retaining wall within the side yard setback to facilitate the driveway to a single family home.

 

Chairman Black asked City Planner Phung for a short entitlement history of the property.

 

City Planner Phung noted that this first came before the Planning Commission in 2002 and proposed a single family home. PRJ 2002-14 was approved and that application expired in 2004 and now stands empty. The Applicant brought it back now for a 5,000 square foot home and it is compliant with the General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance of La Habra Heights. He stated that this project is a little larger than the one that was approved in 2002.

 

Chairman Black opened the Public Hearing for Public Comment.

 

Ken Parsons, Applicant for the project, stated that this house proposal is in much the same place as the one that was proposed in 2002. It is a different shape and configuration and has a different property owner. To access in any other place would have created many other problems. Mr. Parsons clarified to Vice Chairperson McCoy that there is not going to be a pool, poolhouse, cabana or casino on the property. The title shows the easement for the shared driveway.

 

The Commission asked questions about details on the 2002 project and how it compares with the present project and if there are other sites available for the project.

                                                           

Mr. Parsons explained that to use the natural valley there is a property line running through the middle of it. There would be a slope involved and it would require a second driveway from Walnut and the house would then be a significantly compromised home and it would still need the retaining wall. Percolation tests showed the best site was the one decided upon.

 

Planning Commission Attorney Ballin stated that discussions need to relate to the findings on the retaining walls tonight. He noted that nothing else has been approved yet. This has to be the first approval.

 

Mr. Parsons explained that the project before you falls within the Administrative or Planning Directors approval limits for everything except the retaining walls in the setback and the proximity of those retaining walls to the property line.

 

The Commission discussed that they are accustomed to dealing with whole projects and this seems strange. It was discussed that residents were reluctant to improve their homes if they have to come before the Planning Commission to consider every small item.

 

Stephen Blagden stated that they need to discuss other items to consider that the house is actually placed on the best site. He stated that the flattest part of the lot is where the previous house was placed. If the house was placed there, it would require less grading and the walls would not need a retaining wall exemption. They would only have to be 4 or 5 feet tall. They could have the same floor plan that they have now. You were not provided with alternatives. The Commission needs to ask the applicant to provide those alternatives and why they were not chosen. He stated that the hardscape allowance is exceeded and will need a Standards Modification. That might be eliminated if the house is placed on the previous site. He suggested they continue the Item to see an alternative plan.

                                                                                                               

            Norm Zezula stated that his concern is whether you can approve a Standards Modification for a retaining wall without the why and wherefore of the reason for the Modification.

 

            Ray Secunda, Walnut Street, spoke about a catch basin for water from Walnut and Cypress that has two pipes to get rid of the water. He stated that one goes under the driveway and out onto Walnut. None of the water goes onto Walnut so we suspicion that the pipe has collapsed. All the water seems to run onto my property. We cannot get anyone to look at the other one.

 

            Interim City Manager Clark stated that she will have Public Works go out and look at this drainage problem tomorrow.

 

            Mr. Parsons noted that the drainage for this property is handled on the property and does not go down to Walnut. Mr. Parsons stated that this project was designed to work with the flat benches and the existing long driveway and we have tried to develop a plan that falls within the Administrative Approval limits of this Code.

 

            Chairman Black closed the Public Hearing and brought the meeting back to the Commission.

 

            Commissioner Westerhoff moved to adopt Planning Commission Resolution PRJ 2007-07. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Liu.

           

            The Commission noted concerns with the amount of grading and the amount of slope. They were also not in favor of projects coming to them in small pieces. They expected that even though they are only deciding the retaining walls, they should have topographical information. It was discussed whether the Commission was supposed to pick the best site on the lot. The Commission discussed how the new Code does this with Interim City Manager Clark.

 

            The motion was approved as follows:

 

            AYES: Black, Liu and Westerhoff

            NOES: Grebbien and McCoy

            ABSENT: None

.                                                                                                                          

6.              STANDARDS MODIFICATION FOR HARDSCAPE STANDARDS (PRJ 2008-05) (Nolte) 2164 Papaya

 

 

City Planner Phung presented the Staff Report. He passed out exhibits of the project. Mr. Phung stated that the applicants, David and Kathryn Nolte, are asking for a Standards Modification for Hardscape and construction of a deck because it exceeds the maximum hardscape by approximately 3,000 square feet above the Administrative limit of Staff. The patio and deck is to be screened by landscaping. This is two acres made up of two lots joined together in 1988. It is a single family home. When we reviewed the previous project we decided that one driveway had not been counted as hardscape.

 

Recommendation: Pending testimony at the public hearing and the deliberations of the Planning Commission, it is recommended the Planning Commission approve the project, with the approval of the attached Resolution and Conditions of Approval.

 

Vice Chairperson McCoy asked if this is a shared driveway? She stated that there is usually an “easement” on such a driveway and usually that guarantees that all the lots get to use the driveway, then we call it the net part of the property. She stated that the first error was to not count the driveway at all and then the second error was to go too far the other way.

 

Chairman Black opened the Public Hearing and also left it open for questions to Staff.

 

David Nolte stated that they do own two of the four lots, but all four lots share the common driveway. He stated that it was probably over 200 feet long.

 

Interim City Manager Clark stated that the Code does not allow the hardscape to be shared.

 

Mr. Nolte noted that the “easements” are just on both of his properties.

 

The Commission and Staff discussed how to handle the shared driveway.

 

Planning Commission Attorney Ballin noted that he assumed Staff did proper work in their decision.

 

Stephen Blagden stated that we don’t deduct any longer for “easements”. It is burdened legally so it is not a hardship. He stated that he thought you should make a “finding” such as 5.D on hardship. It needs to be reworded.

 

Vice Chairperson McCoy approved PRJ 2008-05 for Standards Modification for Hardscape at 2164 Papaya. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Westerhoff and approved as follows:

 

AYES: Black, Grebbien, Liu, McCoy Westerhoff

NOES: None

ABSENT: None

 

7.              MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT: A DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF PROPOSED MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENTS OF THE LA HABRA HEIGHTS MUNICIPAL CODE WITH RESPECT TO PARTS OF ARTICLE 7 (DEVELOPMENT CODE)

 

Interim City Manager Clark stated that on April 22, the Planning Commission listened to possible Code changes by a Development Code Committee through work with Staff. The Commission actually adopted a series of recommendations, but it was decided to hold another meeting to get more Public Comment on these issues. At that meeting, the Development Code Committee discussed two particular areas and recommended modifications to two items that the Commission had approved to soften them.

 

Development Standards for Grading, Retaining Walls and Hardscape

 

Section 7.17.40 H Access and Parking Surfaces      

 

Section 7.17.40 Allowable Maximum Permanent Graded and Hardscape Areas

 

Interim City Manager Clark drew an example of the driveway that the Commission had approved and the hardscape exemption for it. The April 22 recommendation said that the first 35 feet of driveway, that is no more than 12 feet in width, will serve as hardscape and everything beyond that will be exempted. The Development Code Committee stated that we might not want to exempt that much as some driveways could be quite long so they suggested that we might want to exempt a significant portion of the driveway beyond the 35 feet of hardscape and anything beyond that should trigger a hardscape limitation. The Planning Commission could exempt more of the driveway in order to approve the whole project. Ms. Clark suggested that we should have stated “Once a driveway exceeds 235 feet, the hardscape beyond that on the driveway will be counted toward the total hardscape for the project. If the total hardscape exceeds the hardscape limitations for Staff discretionary approval, the Planning Commission may, if they choose, exempt more of the driveway in order to be under the hardscape limitations.”

 

Interim City Manager Clark stated that the next item concerns swimming pools. On April 22 the Planning Commission voted to take swimming pools out of the calculations for determining the total hardscape on a project. The Development Code Committee looked at that and decided that there could be some extraordinary type of pool and there should be a decision as to what would be automatically exempted and beyond what measurement should be added to existing hardscape calculations. Ms. Clark stated that she found an Olympic pool is 1375 square feet and a standard back yard pool is 800-1,000 square feet. Ms. Clark suggested that they say: The 1,000 square foot area between a regular pool and an Olympic pool shall be added to the hardscape calculations. If that area then triggers a Standards Modification for hardscape, the Commission has the right to take a look at the pool and exempt some of the additional area beyond the 1,000 square feet.”

 

Interim City Manager Clark stated that if you accept the two recommendations of the Development Code Committee tonight we will prepare the correct language in your Resolution and take all of your recommendations to the City Council in the form of an Ordinance on July 9^th. If you choose not to follow the Development Code Committee’s suggestions you do not have to do anything, your April 22 approval decision will go to the Council.

 

The Commission discussed whether the changes were necessary as table 7-12 already gives them a lot of discretion on hardscape areas. It already makes every lot unique.

 

Norm Zezula commented that the fact that the Commission could only look at the Walnut retaining wall should tell you that you need to take so much discretion away from Staff and return it to the Commission. This would be a good decision to make. Mr. Zezula noted that exempting so much hardscape has no basis in our General Plan. These suggestions apply to all lots. This could destroy the neighborhood. It would be breaking faith with the neighbors. Mr. Zezula noted something could be added to the Codes to protect the residents.

 

Stephen Blagden commented that the Staff Report does not represent what transpired at the Development Code Committee Meeting on May 22 nor the direction given to Staff by them. He stated that the changes were made on biased propaganda. They wanted to take care of extreme cases with additional findings through Standards Modifications, not exceptions. Regarding pools, they only said a size limit should be put on them. Instead of saying they aren’t hardscape, you should increase the hardscape limit by a surface area of up to 800 square feet. The Committee didn’t want pervious concrete to be exempted, just turf block. The Committee also talked about the two story that was one story and should have added that 75% of the basic structure should not be taller than 16 feet in height.. Most of these changes are unnecessary under Table 7-12.

 

Chairman Clark brought the program back to the Commission.

 

The Commission discussed the two recommendations.

 

Interim City Manager Clark stated that swimming pools are not mentioned in the present Code but the April 22 approval stated that swimming pools are not counted as hardscape. If you don’t want that we will have to bring back the April 22 approval to change it at another time. She suggested that they approve one or the other and after six months it comes back to us to look over and get numbers on how many apply for different pools.

 

Chairman Black opened the Public Comment.

 

Stephen Blagden stated that if they would like this type of setup, he would suspend the Standards Modification change for six months and you will be able to collect the information.

 

Norm Zezula suggested having the projects brought to you on the Consent Calendar so you can tell if something goes wrong within a month. The next City Council Meeting will be on Wednesday the 9^th and this critical meeting will be on the night of Music in the Park and a lot of people will not be here.

 

Interim City Manager Clark noted that this will come before the Council twice for an Ordinance. Once on July 9^th and again on Thursday August 14^th..

 

Chairman Black closed the Public Comment.

 

Vice Chairperson McCoy asked if the Council will be advised that we wish to look at how the changes of the Ordinances are working after six months?

 

Interim City Manager Clark noted that the Council would be advised of your action.

 

The consensus of the Planning Commission was that the April 22 approval and the recommendations of the numbers discussed tonight from the Development Code Committee are being recommended to the Council and that whatever is approved by the Council will come back in six months to see how it is working.

 

ITEMS FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION

 

8.              Vice Chairperson McCoy asked for an item to be placed on the Agenda to discuss a conflict between the General Plan and the new Codes on View Preservation.

 

Commissioner Westerhoff stated that lots are accessed by driveways, public roads and private roads. He asked that Staff bring back information on how these are handled differently as far as Hardscape by the Code. It would be nice to have consistency in how they are handled. Mr. Westerhoff stated that he also wants to consider fencing along the road. He asked that it not be agendized at this time, but that the acting CDD look into whether or not this is being enforced as it had been. Mr. Blagden stated that there has not been a Code change. He stated that he would like to see something about relaxing grading for the long driveways to go along with the hardscape in the future.

 

Chairman Black stated that he has noticed several violations lately on the “Dark Skys” Policy. Can we do anything about this?

 

Interim City Manager Clark stated that Code Enforcement does not have staffing for or the money to enforce it. We ask for compliance and a fee is not involved. We cannot charge a fee unless it is a penal item.

 

ITEMS FROM STAFF

 

9.         MONTHLY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT REPORT

           

            RECOMMENDATION:                    Receive and File Report

 

ADJOURNMENT

 

            Chairman Black suggested that people volunteer for their City and spay and neuter their dogs and cats. Chairman Black adjourned the June 24, 2008 Planning Commission at 9:57 p.m.

 

 

 

            ___________________________

            Larry Black, Chairman

 

            ATTEST:

 

 

 

            ____________________________

            Kenneth Phung, City Planner