CITY OF LA HABRA HEIGHTS

 

REGULAR MEETING MINUTES

 

OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION

 

JULY 22, 2008

 

 

OPENING CEREMONIES

 

1.              CALL MEETING TO ORDER

 

Chairman Larry Black called the July 22, 2008 Planning Commission Meeting to order at 7:11 p.m.

 

ROLL CALL

 

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

 

Staff Present: Planning Commission Attorney Daniel Ballin and City Planner Kenneth Phung

 

2.              FLAG SALUTE

 

Commissioner Westerhoff led the flag salute.

 

3.              ITEMS FROM THE PUBLIC NOT ON THE AGENDA

 

Stephen Blagden, Citron Road, stated at the last Planning Commission, the Commissioners were inappropriately questioned regarding the outcome of the Sapota case. The Commission conducted appropriately by directing the applicant to revise the project and rejecting their plans, as it did not comply with the Municipal Code. It was only after the applicant realized that the Council might reject their submitted plans that they complied with the Commission’s recommendation. Mr. Blagden noted that the Commission should have a blanket “Call for Review” for all projects. He also noted there is only a part time planner not familiar with our City and codes. The City needs hand on action from the Commission in reviewing applications presented to the City and bringing those plans forward to the Commission. He stated that in the meantime things are slipping through the cracks and procedures ignored.

 

CONSENT CALENDAR

 

            N/A

 

PUBLIC HEARINGS

 

            N/A

 

ITEMS FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION

 

6.         MUNICIPAL CODE DISCUSSION REGARDING CLARIFICATION, INTERPRETATION, AND EXEMPTION IN REGARD TO THE DEVELOPMENT CODE WITH RESPECT TO ARTICLE 7 (DEVELOPMENT CODE) AND ARTICLE 12 (DEFINITION):

 

A.   Treatment of private road versus public road as to lot coverage/hardscape area (Section 7.14.10.V. Slope Density Requirements; pg. 7-52 thru 7-53).

 

City Planner Phung explained that this item was brought back as requested at the last meeting because some thought certain lots were penalized by the way the hardscape was counted regarding access to properties. He also explained how new subdivisions are addressed in regards to hardscape and easement for shared driveway deducted from minimum 1 acre net lot size.

 

Stephen Blagden stated that the easement deduction doesn’t penalize the developer but provides benefits to the future lot owners and neighbors of having a full net acre. He stated that an easement is a legal burden.

 

Mayor Black closed the Public Hearing and brought it back to the Commission for discussion.

 

Commissioner Westerhoff noted that he had only been interested in the different forms of these accesses into sub-divided lots and how they are treated differently. Some are treated as City roads, some as Private roads and some as access driveways. How do they differ in the way they count hardscape? He stated that he wanted a chart on how the Code treats each one as far as grading and hardscape. It appears that we are treating different kinds of property owners differently.

 

City Planner Phung suggested that Commissioner Westerhoff make an appointment with him to look into this matter.

 

Commissioner Grebbien stated that he has concerns similar to Mr. Westerhoffs.

 

The consensus of the Commission was that on new subdivisions easement for access drive should be deduced from net area.

 

Vice Chairperson McCoy stated that her concern was with shared driveways.

 

Commissioner Westerhoff stated that we need a good definition of an access road regardless of what type of road.

 

City Planner Phung stated a public road is a road dedicated and accepted by the City.

 

Planning Commission Attorney Ballin asked for confirmation that the Commission wants a definition of “Access Road” and also data on how the differences of each type would be treated for the next meeting.

 

Chairman Black agreed with emphasis on how it provides access and whether there are any differences. We want to know if there is anything we are missing.

 

City Planner Phung asked if they still want Commissioner Westerhoff to meet with him.

 

Chairman Black stated that he did not think it was necessary.

 

Commissioner Liu stated that he wants the legal definition of “Access Road” which in his opinion would include that it be recorded so it would be subject to the easement legally. He stated he would consider that a Public Road would be completely exempt.

                                                                                                         

B.    Exemption for driveway grading beyond the first 35-feet (Note: The City is in the process of approving exemption for driveway hardscape beyond the first 35-feet. Second reading of the Ordinance is scheduled for August 14, 2008.)

 

City Planner Phung noted that this is a Code Modification to exempt driveway grading beyond the first 35-feet. The City is in the process of approving exemption for hardscape beyond the first 35-feet. The second reading of the Ordinance is scheduled for the next Council Meeting.

 

Chairman Black opened the Public Hearing for comment.

 

Stephen Blagden commented on “Access”, that Public Roads are exempt because they are on public land. The current Code was well thought out. There is plenty of provision in the present Code, so no changes need to be made. The hardscape exemption did not need to be changed.

 

Chairman Black closed the Public Hearing and brought it back to the Commission for discussion.

 

Commissioner Westerhoff stated that when they passed the driveway hardscape exemption in April, staff stated that the accompanying grading exemption should have been included but there was an oversight. Now we have no matching Resolution for this Item and we will end up having to discuss this item again when the Resolution comes back. He stated that he was reluctant to consider it at this time.

 

The consensus of the Commission was that they get a recommendation and a Resolution for the item for the next meeting.

 

C. View hierarchy for local, distant and primary views (Section 12.2.10 Defined Terms and Phrases; pg 12-19 thru 12-20)

 

City Planner Phung stated there is a definition for a “View Corridor”, “View Distance”, and “Local View”. The “View Primary”, helps defines the “Distant View”, defined as being either from the ground floor for the principal living area or the primary living area excluding bedrooms on the ground floor. The “findings” that the City must make helps define these Views. There should be only one Primary View.

 

Vice Chairperson McCoy suggested that changing the definition to make “Local Views” worthy of as much protection as given to “Distant Views”. She stated that when she asked Attorney Sandra Levin about there being a hierarchy in views, and Ms. Levin stated that there is.

 

Planning Commission Attorney Ballin stated that nowhere in the General Plan does it state that all views are equal. The only place there is a subtle difference in views is in the “findings” for Standards Modification, where it mentions that the Standards Modification will not significantly impair a primary or a distant view from a public street or right of way. Attorney Ballin noted that he asked Attorney Levin about what she meant by “hierarchy” and she did not expressed there was a definite view hierarchy, but affirmed what he noted in the findings regarding views. He stated ultimately it is up to the Planning Commission and City Council to determine what views are protected. As long as it is consistent with the General Plan there is no problem.

 

Commissioner Grebbien noted that there is a definition for “View Corridor”, but there is not mention of it in the “Findings”.

                      

Chairman Black opened the Public Hearing.

 

Stephen Blagden stated that he wouldn’t get rid of “View Corridor” because he thought it was elsewhere in the Code. Mr. Blagden gave a Power Point presentation of what different views look like. Mr. Blagden stated that the View Code needs to be changed to: Implement the General Plan; Protect Vacant Lots & Small Homes; protect Local & Distant Views and Protect Views, not spots.

 

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

 

The Commission discussed trees as affecting views and if it was discussed in the code.

 

Several of the Commissioners believed protected view should cover both local and distant views, and that Protection and Preservation do not have the same meaning; also the “View Corridor” should be deleted; and the “View definitions” should be simplify and more clear.

 

The question was raised as to whether the builder’s property rights were being ignored by the View rules. We are now operating under the new Code. The Commission asked for guidance on “rights”.

 

Planning Commission Attorney Ballin answered that in Land Use element number 10 it states the significant Primary Views are protected to the fullest extent from new construction or landscape elements consistent with the property rights of the owner of the site on which the new development is located. Mr. Ballin stated his opinion that the new code does implement the General Plan. It does allocate only one Primary View. It is up to the Planning Commission how to balance the protection of the two rights.

 

The Commission discussed whether the word “Primary” should be removed.

 

City Planner Phung stated that he would put something together on the Definitions and bring it back to the Commission.

 

Commissioner Grebbien asked if we still have the two triggers (size and height) in the Code that define property rights. He stated that if we do not still have those triggers it would be good to bring them back.

 

7.              STATUS OF SOLID FENCING GREATER THAN 6-FEET, WHEREAS THE CODE ONLY ALLOWS THE FIRST 3½ - FEET TO BE SOLID (SECTION 7.18.40.L. FENCES AND WALLS. PG 7-72.)

 

City Planner Phung reported that he talked to the Building Inspector who is also the Code Enforcement Officer. The City does not have a full-time Code Enforcement Officer or the funds to support one. The Building Inspector investigates Code violations when called. At present the City does not have anyone that is certified to issue a Code violation fine. The City hopes to have someone soon that will become certified.

 

Mr. Phung stated that he will report the status of Code Enforcement certification.

 

ITEMS FROM STAFF

 

8.              MONTHLY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT REPORT

 

RECOMMENDATION: Receive and File Report

 

            Chairman Black stated that they would receive and file.

 

ADJOURNMENT

 

9,         ADJOURNMENT OF THE MEETING BY THE CHAIRMAN

 

            Chairman Black adjourned the July 22, 2008 Planning Commission Meeting at 9:40 p.m. to the next Regular Planning Commission Meeting on August 26, 2008.

 

LARRY BLACK, CHAIRMAN

 

ATTEST:

_____________________________

KENNETH PHUNG, CITY PLANNER