Loading...
PC MINS 20160209 Approved 2/23/2016 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 9, 2016 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Nelson at 7:04 p.m.at the Fred Hesse Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Interim Director Rodrigue led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. ATTENDANCE Present: Commissioners Cruikshank, Emenhiser, James, and Chairman Nelson. Vice Chairman Tomblin arrived during agenda item No. 2. Absent: Commissioners Gerstner and Leon were excused. Also present were Interim Community Development Director Rodrigue, Deputy Community Development Director Mihranian, Associate Planner Seeraty, and Assistant City Attorney Burrows. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was unanimously approved as presented. COMMUNICATIONS Deputy Director Mihranian reported that the City Council will consider the Commission's recommendation on the non-residential lighting ordinance at its March 1st meeting. Interim Director Rodrigue introduced himself to the Commission, with a brief description of his background. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda item): None CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Approval of January 26, 2016 Minutes The minutes were unanimously approved as presented. NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. Height Variation and Grading (Case No. ZON2014-00024): 6149 Arrowroot Lane Associate Planner Seeraty presented the staff report, explaining the scope of the project. She noted staff received letters from two neighbors with concerns regarding view impairment, compatibility with the neighborhood, and privacy issues. In regards to view impairment, staff determined 6100 Arrowroot Lane was the only property with any potential view impairment. She noted that staff performed a site visit and determined that due to the small area of impairment and the location of the impairment in the periphery of the view, staff did not feel the proposed addition caused a significant view impairment from the viewing areas of this home. Regarding neighborhood compatibility, she explained that the applicant worked with staff and the neighbors to address their concerns in regards to size, bulk and mass of the house and revised the design accordingly. With these revisions staff believes that the project as currently presented is compatible with the existing character of the neighborhood. She noted an additional condition that staff would like to add, stating that prior to building permit issuance the 24 inch diameter pine tree located in the front yard east of the driveway be trimmed such that the crown, excluding the structural limbs, is raised up above the ocean and Santa Barbara Island view. The owner of the property is responsible for maintaining the foliage such that this view remains unimpaired. She stated that staff feels all of the required findings can be made to approve the proposed height variation and grading permit, and was recommending the project be approved as conditioned in the staff report. Chairman Nelson asked staff if they had a picture of the subject pine tree, and Associate Planner Seeraty displaced a photo. Commissioner James noted that one of the letters from a neighbor who talked about a previous application at 6100 Arrowroot Lane, which was rejected by the Planning Commission. He asked staff if they had any knowledge of that application and what it involved. Associate Planner Seeraty stated she reviewed the file for 6100 Arrowroot Lane, and could find only one old application that may have been submitted back when the City may have had restrictions on the percentage that could be added to a home. She noted the City no longer has such restrictions. Commissioner James noted another question raised by a neighbor concerning setbacks and the determination of a sloping lot versus an upsloping lot, a downsloping lot, and a pad lot, as noted in the Development Code. Deputy Director Mihranian explained that the intent is to reduce the mass and bulk of an upslope lot as viewed from the street, and therefore the area in excess of 16 feet in height is required to be set back one foot to create articulation. He noted that it is not the entire façade of the structure that must be set back, but rather the closest façade to the street Planning Commission Minutes February 9,2016 Page 2 of access. He explained that in regards to the subject project, it has been determined it is a pad lot, even though the structure is not built entirely on the existing pad. This makes the structure subject to the 16'/20' height limit, while a sloping lot is restricted to a 16'/30' height limit, unless a height variation application is submitted. He also noted that a sloping lot would most likely not be before the Commission as it is typically reviewed as a grading application. Commissioner James felt staff was treating a sloping lot and a pad lot as if they are mutually exclusive, and he did not see that in the code. Deputy Director Mihranian clarified that a sloping lot is defined as one which the slope exceeds five percent. He added that, pursuant to the language in the code, the practice has been that if a lot slopes upward from the street or downward from the street and it exceeds an average of five percent, then it is considered a sloping lot. If there is a pad on it, it is considered a pad lot and the structure has to be constructed on the pad. Commissioner James still felt that staff was still treating them as if they are mutually exclusive, and he felt the code looks to be just the opposite of that, and treats it as if there could be at least an overlap. He felt that was the reason for the modifying clause in both sections A and B. Despite the practice of the Department, he felt the Commission must apply the language of the language in the code. Deputy Director Mihranian stated that staff and the city attorney would look into this language while the meeting continues. Chairman Nelson opened the public hearing. Amitha Senaratna (applicant) gave a brief history of how this proposed project progressed, and noted they have made over twenty changes to the original plans based on city requirements and the neighbors' needs. She explained that currently there is a split-level home and that is not going to change. They are proposing to add a bedroom and bathroom, add a balcony, and create some curb appeal. She stated they currently do not have a rear yard, and they are requesting some grading in the rear to create a yard. Sanjaya Senaratna (applicant) explained that he and his wife need extra space for their growing family, noting that his wife also works from home. He stated that he has been very cooperative with the neighbors and has done all they can to comply with all city codes and requirements. He noted that he has exceeded the required setbacks and has dropped the height of the ridgeline to accommodate the neighbors' concerns. He also noted that the tree in question is trimmed every year, so any trimming requirements will be met. He addressed the neighbors' concern with privacy, displaying a photo showing his current view into his neighbor's yard. He also felt the proposed addition was done in a manner that there is not significant view impairment to any of the neighbors. He asked that the Planning Commission approve their project. Planning Commission Minutes February 9, 2016 Page 3 John Dahlin (3151 Barkentine Road) stated he thoroughly reviewed the staff report, and the applicant has done a good job in addressing the neighbors" concerns. He felt that the proposed addition will only improve the neighborhood as well as the property values. Suminda Sellahewa stated he was in favor of the proposed project. He felt the project is compatible with the neighborhood and blends into the character of the neighborhood. He felt the project will increase the values of the homes in the neighborhood, and hoped the Commission will approve the project. Lesli White stated she was looking to buy a home and looked at the home across the street from the subject addition. She stated she was concerned because the house across the street was old and needed updating, and therefore felt that this proposed addition would be a benefit to the neighborhood. Russell LaRose (6111 Arrowroot Lane) stated he and his wife have lived in the next door house for nearly half a century, and this is their first and only home. He was concerned with his privacy, noting the proposal has an expanded second story facing his pool and rear yard area, along with four very large second story windows looking down into the pool area, rear bedroom, and family room. He stated this total destruction of the pool area and backyard privacy is the heart of his objection to this project. He felt the Municipal Code clearly supports his objection with regards to the unreasonable infringement of privacy. He felt this addition caused more than an unreasonable infringement of privacy, as it will cause the complete loss of his remaining privacy. He felt that this egregious infringement of his privacy and detriment to the value of his home completely violates the compatibility and privacy requirements of the Code and is reason alone to deny the project. He discussed the proposed size of the house, noting the proposed addition will more than double the size of the existing house. He felt the size was completely out of character with the others in the neighborhood, and again was reason alone to deny the project. He stated the current home is built on a pad cut into an upslope, with a second story that is over nineteen feet tall, all of which is most likely grandfathered in at this time. He stated the proposed new structure involves the total demolition of the eastern two- thirds of the existing home and replacing it with a second story addition that is much higher and much larger than the existing. He felt that the second story is not set back properly as required by the Code and therefore the proposal design does not comply with the Municipal Code, is not legal, and therefore a permit for this addition must be denied. Vice Chairman Tomblin arrived at this time. Commissioner James asked Mr. LaRose if he would be amenable to any fix on the privacy issues, such as the reduction or elimination of windows or the ability to have a much higher fence behind his pool. Mr. LaRose stated he voted for the incorporation of the City just to prevent something like this from happening. He felt that the job of the Commission, as stewards, is to preserve what we have and to keep this type of development from taking over. He felt there was very little the applicant could do to satisfy his need for privacy. Planning Commission Minutes February 9, 2016 Page 4 Anonymous Speaker displayed a rendering of the topography of the subject lot with the new structure placed on the lot. She discussed the Municipal Code section setting a height measurement from uphill, downhill, or pad properties. She disagreed with the staff report that the property is on a pad lot. She showed a photo of the current view from her property and indicated how much of the ocean view will be lost with the proposed addition. Commissioner Emenhiser noted that staff has added a condition that the large tree that is currently in her view should be trimmed, and asked the speaker if that trimming will address her view concerns. The anonymous speaker stated that unless the tree is removed her view will continue to be obstructed. Kobe Marciano (architect) stated he was available for questions. Vice Chairman Tomblin referred to the elevation page of the plans and asked Mr. Marciano which elevation is affecting the neighbor's property in regards to privacy. Mr. Marciano pointed to the east (right) elevation on the plans. He also noted that it was previously mentioned that the new second story addition was only set back five feet, however he noted this addition is actually set back eight feet. Vice Chairman Tomblin referred to a handout disturbed by Mr. LaRose in late correspondence, and asked Mr. Marciano if he felt that was an accurate representation of the latest proposal. Mr. Marciano stated he has not seen this particular handout, and staff handed Mr. Marciano a copy of the handout. With that, Mr. Marciano answered that he did feel it was accurate. Commissioner Emenhiser asked if the applicant was intending to trim or remove the large tree on the property. Mr. Marciano thought that it was the homeowner's intention to remove the tree. Commissioner Emenhiser asked Mr. Marciano to describe some of the changes made to the plans that were in response to the neighbors' concerns. Mr. Marciano stated he pushed the third story back, reduced the roof height, and added a trellis to the front. Commissioner Cruikshank felt the windows are clearly overlooking the neighbor's backyard, and asked Mr. Marciano what he felt he could do to these windows to address the neighbor's privacy concerns, but still get the views the applicant is looking for. Mr. Marciano stated something can absolutely be done with the bathroom window, and he may be able to create some angles with the other windows so that the view is not down into the neighbor's yard, but more towards Abalone Cove. Planning Commission Minutes February 9,2016 Page 5 Vice Chairman Tomblin explained that he was very concerned with the appearance of the bulk and mass of the proposed home, especially as seen from the neighboring property. He stated he would be much more favorable to a project where the solid wall is modified, since as it is currently designed he did not feel met the bulk and mass criteria of the code. Mr. Senaratna (in rebuttal) stated he was amenable to changes to the windows to help protect his neighbor's privacy, but was concerned about how the house might be revised to meet the Vice Chairman's concern with bulk and mass. He pointed out that the neighbor has lived in his home for over fifty years without change, and change at some point is inevitable. He stated that over the past years he has changed the design of the house and now feels the home meets the requirements of the code. Mrs. Senaratna (in rebuttal) pointed out the positive economic factor of their addition, noting the increase in their taxes as well as the benefits to the neighbors' property values. She also questioned how often the neighbors actually use their pool, noting she has very rarely seen anyone using the pool. Vice Chairman Tomlin understood the Senaratna's comments, however pointed out that he felt this proposed addition was a massive addition on the neighbor's side and was taking away the neighbor's privacy, blue sky, and openness. Mrs. Senaratna pointed out that on Arrowroot Lane their lot is the second largest in the neighborhood and even with an addition of this size they are not close to what they are allowed in terms of lot coverage. However, she understood the Commissioner's concerns and will see what additional changes can be made. Commissioner Cruikshank asked the Senaratnas if they are willing to remove the large pine tree. Mr. Senaratna explained that they have already removed and/or trimmed many trees on their property to satisfy several neighbor's concerns. He explained this particular pine is currently scheduled to be laced and the canopy raised. Chairman Nelson closed the public hearing. Assistant City Attorney Burrows pointed out that Vice Chairman Tomblin arrived after this public hearing had started, and therefore recommended that the Vice Chairman either recuse himself from the vote, or that the item be continued so that the Vice Chairman is able to review the video of the portion of the meeting that he missed. Commissioner Emenhiser commented that the Planning Commission tries to bring forth the best home possible in conjunction with their roles and in conjunction with the neighborhood. He realized it is very frustrating to have the neighbor get a vote in whether or not one can have an addition, but he felt this is one occasion where the neighbor does get a vote. He felt this was a perfect example of a project that skates right down the line in terms of what is technically legal and doesn't quite step over the line. He pointed out that there already is a privacy issue to the neighbor's yard, the home will be 400 to 500 Planning Commission Minutes February 9,2016 Page 6 square feet larger than other homes in the neighborhood, and things haven't changed much over the past 40 to 50 years in the neighborhood. Commissioner Emenhiser moved to approve staff's recommendation, as modified to reflect the bathroom window on the second story has obscure glass and the amendment added by staff regarding the tree trimming, seconded by Chairman Nelson. Vice Chairman Tomblin understood the Assistant City Attorney's comment that he recuse himself from a vote, however in case this item is appealed he requested that he be allowed to have his comments in the record. Assistant City Attorney Burrows recommended the Vice Chairman not join the discussion in regards to the motion that will lead to a vote. Vice Chairman Tomblin disagreed, stating he would like to have his comments on the record. Assistant City Attorney Burrows stated that this decision is ultimately at the discretion of the Chairman. Commissioner Emenhiser felt the Vice Chairman should be allowed to comment, and recommended to the Chairman that he find the Vice Chairman should be allowed to comment. Vice Chairman Tomblin stated that if a decision is made and appealed to the City Council, he will make his comments to the City Council at that time. Chairman Nelson stated that he will allow the Vice Chairman to make his comments, however he noted there was testimony prior to his arrival that the Chairman felt may be relevant. Commissioner James asked to revisit his questions made before the public hearing was opened in regards to the legal interpretation of this project under the applicable ordinances. He asked staff if they had a chance to research the question, and if they had come to a conclusion in regards to the point he raised. Assistant City Attorney Burrows stated that she has looked at the ordinance and has found no direction. However, if it is the will of the Commission, she can research the question and bring it back at a continued public hearing. Commissioner James felt it was important to have an answer to this, and it would not be to anyone's best interest to have a vote before this question was researched. Commissioner James moved to continue the public hearing to address the question of a sloping lot, seconded by Commissioner Cruikshank. Planning Commission Minutes February 9,2016 Page 7 Commissioner Cruikshank added that the applicant seemed amenable to altering the master bedroom and master bathroom windows, and it would be very difficult for him to approve the project without first seeing how the architect is proposing to modify the windows. Commissioner James asked staff what meeting this item will be continued to. Deputy Director Mihranian felt that for the City Attorney to research the question and to give the applicant time to respond, the earliest meeting this item should be continued to would be the March 8th meeting. Commissioner James modified his motion to continue the public hearing to the March 8, 2016 meeting, seconded by Commissioner Cruikshank. Approved, (3-2) with Commissioner Emenhiser and Chairman Nelson dissenting. ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 3. Pre-Agenda for the meeting on February 23, 2016 The pre-agenda was reviewed and approved. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:55 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes February 9,2016 Page 8