Loading...
PC MINS 20160308 Approved April 12, 201 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING MARCH 8, 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 Commissioner Cruickshank led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance. ATTENDANCE Present: Commissioners Cruikshank, Emenhiser, James, Vice Chairman Tomblin, and Chairman Nelson. Absent: Commissioners Bradley 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 informed the Commission that at the March 1st meeting the City Council adopted the Commission's recommendations to the nonresidential lighting ordinance and voted not to initiate a code amendment to allow employee housing of six or fewer people in the City's Residential Zoning District. He also noted that Saturday, March 12th, is Whale-Of-A-Day at Lower Point Vicente Park. Deputy Director Mihranian distributed late correspondence for agenda item No. 2. Chairman Nelson reported on his attendance at the last Council of Homeowner's Association meeting, as well as his attendance at the Mayor's breakfast and the March 1st City Council meeting. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda item): None CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Approval of February 23, 2016 Minutes Commissioner Cruikshank moved to approve the minutes as presented, seconded by Vice Chairman Tomblin. Approved without objection. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. Height Variation and Grading Permit (Case No. ZON2014-00024): 6149 Arrowroot Lane Associate Planner Seeraty presented the staff report, reviewing the Planning Commission direction given at the February 9th public hearing, and explained the modifications made to the proposed plans to address the privacy concerns of the neighbor. She also read several corrections to the Resolution into the record, the first regarding the sliding window in the third floor master bedroom where the text should have read "transparent" rather than "translucent". In addition, after the staff report was distributed staff received a request from the applicant to clarify the foliage analysis condition to more clearly convey the trimming requirements of the pine tree located in the front yard. She also noted that after additional analysis of the existing pine tree, staff has added a condition to lace the tree in addition to raise the crown as reflected in condition of approval No. 27. She noted this language can be found in the late correspondence that was distributed to the Commission this evening. She stated staff has reviewed the revised plans and determined the revised project complies with the Commission's February 9, 2016 direction and all of the required findings can still be made. Assistant City Attorney Burrows addressed the question raised by Commissioner James at the last meeting in regards to the applicability of the setbacks for sloping lots. She explained the City Attorney's opinion is that the most legally consistent approach to this section is to continue to apply Section 17.02.040(B)(2) to uphill sloping lots, and not to lots which contain a building pad. She agreed the code language is unclear, and when a Municipal Code section is unclear she explained the City Attorney looks for rules of statutory interpretation to determine what the intent of the language is and what a legally defensible approach to the language would be. She explained the factors analyzed in the legal opinion, which included the internal consistency of the Municipal Code Section, the original intent of the Municipal Code Section as adopted by the voters in Prop M, and the City's past interpretation of this Municipal Code Section. She also noted staff's and Planning Commission's interpretation and application of this code section, noting for the vast majority of applications City Staff and the Planning Commission have interpreted the setback requirements not to apply to uphill sloping lots with building pads. She stated that, given the contents of the original Prop M, the Height Variation Guidelines, and the City's consistent approach towards these lots, it is the City Attorney's legal opinion that Section 17.02.0406)(2)does not apply to uphill sloping lots on which a building pad exists. However, she noted this language is unclear, and as a result of this discussion and Planning Commission Minutes March 8, 2016 Page 2 analysis, staff will be bringing this code section forward to the City Council to discuss a potential amendment to clarify the intent of this section. Commissioner James asked staff to clarify whether or not the application of this code section has ever been discussed by the Planning Commission in the past. Deputy Director Mihranian answered that the Planning Commission has not discussed this topic in the past. He also noted that at staff level, staff has never discussed applying nor have they ever applied that setback requirement to similar pad lots. Jay Senaratna (property owners) explained the revisions to the plans, comparing the new revised plan to the former plan, and noting how several windows have been eliminated and other changes that were made to help protect the neighbor's privacy. He discussed the trimming of the pine tree, and stated he was willing to trim the tree however he needed clarification on limits set for the trimming to avoid any ambiguity for them as well as the trimming service. He also noted staff has recommended trimming to 16 feet in height, however he would prefer 18 feet and asked to discuss this with staff. Ami Senaratna thanked staff and the Commission for their time and input. She explained that in the last two years they have made many changes to address the neighbors' concerns and have been considerate, compliant, collaborative, and supportive during this process. She stated that she would appreciate the support of the Planning Commission to get their approval this evening. Commissioner Emenhiser stated he was pleased with the changes made to the design and felt the changes address the neighbor's privacy issues. Commissioner James was also pleased with the changes, but corrected the record in that he did not believe the Planning Commission gave any direction at the last meeting, rather they made some suggestions and continued the public hearing. Chairman Nelson discussed the requirement to trim the pine tree. He estimated the tree to be approximately 30 feet tall and noted that if it is trimmed, as suggested, they will be left with a 30 foot tall tree, 24 feet of which will be only trunk. Deputy Director Mlhranian clarified that the tree is approximately 40 feet tall, and staff is proposing raising the crown of the tree, so that when measured from grade to the bottom of the crown, it measures 20 feet. He noted the condition is written so that the structural limbs can remain. Kobe Marciano (architect) stated he was available for questions. Anonymous Speaker (6100 Arrowroot) explained that the tree in question is under a View Restoration Permit from 2012 and the trimming should have nothing to do with the structure. She referred to a photo she showed at the last meeting which she felt demonstrated that a good portion of her view will be blocked by the structure. She Planning Commission Minutes March 8, 2016 Page 3 disagreed with the interpretation that the applicant's lot is a pad lot. She also noted that the City Attorney commented that Section 17.02.040(6)(2) stated that uphill sloping lots can include those with building pads. She stated the applicant's lot does not meet the characteristics of a pad lot as described in Section 17.020.040(B)(1)(c). Finally, she stated that the owners of 6111 Arrowroot have lived on the street since it was formed and have testified that each structure on Arrowroot was individually and specifically step graded into the slope. Russell LaRose (6111 Arrowroot Lane) stated the modest homes on Arrowroot Lane all range from 2,000 to 3,000 square feet in size. He stated that over the years most of the homes have been remodeled, and all the remodels have been done with the blessing and approval of the neighbors, as the remodels have not adversely affected anyone's views or compatibility. He noted this proposed addition will double the size of their home, destroying most of the existing house and adding a massive second and third story that looms over his backyard, garden and pool area that destroys the open atmosphere and any privacy they have. It will also block out the western sky and the afternoon sun. He stated the modified plan now projects out further towards his backyard and will reduce the privacy even more. He noted the new bay windows are shown with obscure glass, but felt there was nothing to prevent the current or future owners from replacing that frosted glass with clear glass. He suggested that if the owners want a much larger home they should move to a neighborhood where there are larger homes rather than not destroy the modest nature of the neighborhood. He asked that the Planning Commission not approve this application. Stella LaRose stated that reasonable arguments against this proposed structure have been submitted, however the Planning Department has turned a deaf ear to these arguments. She felt the proposed addition is in violation of the City law in regards to neighborhood compatibility. She felt that she and her husband will suffer financially if this structure is allowed to be built. She also felt that it will affect the feng shui of their property, as the wall and structure will block out sunlight, fresh air, and ruining the ambiance of what a swimming pool and backyard garden should provide. She stated feng shui is now considered a very important factor in real estate transactions and is of great concern to potential buyers. She felt this bad feng shui will be a disaster in their backyard and their house will be practically unsellable. She felt that this addition will lower their property value by several hundred thousand dollars, which is unacceptable. She felt this application contradicts both the actual law and the spirit of the law, and the Planning Commission should deny the application. Jay Senaratna (in rebuttal) noted that staff analyzed the view obstruction from 6100 Arrowroot in the beginning and determined that there would not be a view impact. He stated the only impact was caused by the tree, and he will be happy to trim the tree. In regards to the frosted windows, he stated it is a condition of approval and he will not be changing the glass. He explained that it has taken two years to get to this point, and during that time he has worked with the neighbors in the design of his home. He understood that change is difficult, but hoped the neighbors would understand that they have a family and need to provide a home for the family. Planning Commission Minutes March 8, 2016 Page 4 Ami Senaratna (in rebuttal) added that they have three children and they plan to live in this home just as long as their neighbors have lived in theirs. She reiterated that they have been going through this process for over two years and have made all of the changes that the City has requested. Vice Chairman Tomblin had questions for the architect. He asked Mr. Marciano if it was correct that the setback on the first floor to the property line was now 10 feet, and the setback on the third story goes back another 8 feet for a total of 18 feet. Mr. Marciano stated that was correct. Vice Chairman Tomblin also noted the bathroom area has been revised in that it has been setback from the property line another 3 feet for a total of 21 feet from the property line. Mr. Marciano stated that was correct. Vice Chairman Tomblin noted that trees were planned to be planted to help obscure the view from the windows to the neighboring property, and that in the pop-out area the two windows are required to be a frosted type glass. Mr. Marciano stated that was also correct. With that, Vice Chairman Tomblin felt this new plan clearly shows a reduction in the bulk and mass as well, as an increased setback distance from the property line to the second story wall of the residence. He explained that he sympathized with the neighbor and their loss of blue sky view, however this new plan is showing only 8 feet of new building area that will take away from the blue sky. Stella LaRose objected once again to this tall structure, noting that it will take away almost all of their sky view from their pool area. Chairman Nelson asked staff if a sky view is a protected view. Deputy Director Mihranian stated that the sky is not a protected view. Chairman Nelson closed the public hearing. Commissioner James asked staff how it was determined that the subject lot is a pad lot. Deputy Director Mihranian explained that one of the first things staff did with this application was to determine what height requirement would apply by looking at the lot and the contours to see if there was a flat portion on the lot, with less than a five percent slope, that would constitute a building pad, and whether or not that structure was partially on that building pad. This would determine whether the structure would be limited to a height limit of 26 feet on a pad lot versus a height limit of 30 feet for a sloping lot that does Planning Commission Minutes March 8, 2016 Page 5 not have a building pad. He pointed out on a site plan the area of the lot that staff felt constituted a building pad. Commissioner James asked if it was staff's position that this is more than a single story building because it was built prior to when the rules for building structure height were passed. Deputy Director Mihranian answered that was correct. He added that this particular residence does not fall under the definition of a typical sloping lot or a typical pad lot. He stated that, in actuality, the residence is four levels which is not even typical for a sloping lot. Commissioner Emenhiser understood that change is difficult, noting it is not the role of the Planning Commission to design projects to help create the perfect project for each and every neighborhood, but rather to analyze and rule on projects that are proposed. He felt that the privacy issue has been more adequately addressed and the articulation and bulk and mass is better in this plan than the previous plan. He stated he was in favor of the staff's recommendation to approve the project with conditions. Vice Chairman Tomblin noted that the code does not protect a blue sky view. He felt the applicant has addressed the issues of bulk and mass by adding articulation and increasing the setback. He noted that there will be some impact to the sky view, but when all is said and done the impact will be minimal. He could therefore support staffs recommendation. Commissioner Cruikshank thanked the applicants for listening to the neighbors and the Planning Commission's comments and felt that they had done a good job of looking at ways to obscure the glass and to minimize the privacy issues. He felt that with his questions regarding the pad versus sloping lot and the privacy issues being addressed that he could support staff's recommendations. Chairman Nelson felt the Code requirements have been met and could support the project. Commissioner Emenhiser moved to approve staff's recommendation to approve the project as conditioned, seconded by Commissioner Cruikshank. Deputy Director Mihranian reiterated to the Commission that they are considering the amended resolution that was handed out as part of the late correspondence, which has revised language pertaining to the tree trimming requirement(condition No. 27). He noted that this condition requires the crown be raised and the tree be laced to open up the view. Commissioner James noted that the following comments were not intended to belittle or support either the applicants' or the opponents' factual positions on this project, but rather were directed towards the legal issue that had arisen. He stated that he was troubled with the non-application of Section 17.02.040(6)(2) in this case and Planning Commission Minutes March 8, 2016 Page 6 disagreed with the City Attorney's analysis. He said that such analysis had been premised upon the idea that he had suggested that the Code language was unclear and had become more unclear with the addition of language in another subsection in 1997. Commissioner James clarified that that had not in fact been his position. To the contrary, he thought that the applicable language was completely clear and that there was nothing internally inconsistent in the Code, and, therefore, no reason to look to extrinsic evidence, and that, if anything, the subsequent amendment to the other subsection without a concomitant amendment to subsection (B)(2) only underscored the correctness of this interpretation. He said that he saw no reason not to apply the basic rule established in (B)(2) which is designed to articulate slopes to pad lots as well as to sloping lots, and that there is no policy reason to provide people who have a pad lot some type of benefit or advantage by not having that rule apply to them. He said that the cases cited by the City Attorney state the basic rule of statutory interpretation: if the language is clear, there is no reason to seek to "interpret" it. Citing one of those cases, he noted that it confirmed the proposition that the words of a statute itself are the best indicator of the drafter's intent. He said that he understood that Staff has been consistent in their interpretation, but he did not think that that interpretation had been correct. He stated that he thought he could make the findings that the Planning Commission is being asked to make in regards to bulk and mass and neighborhood compatibility, although he finds this to be a very close case involving a very large proposed addition. Therefore, the question for him is whether he should vote against the project based on his own understanding of the law, or whether he should base his vote on the City Attorney' opinion letter. The motion to approve the project as conditioned by staff, thereby adopting PC Resolution 2016-04 was approved, (4-1) with Commissioner James dissenting. NEW BUSINESS 3. General Plan Update Chairman Nelson asked if any of the Commissioners had comments on the General Plan update being presented by staff. Commissioner Cruikshank noted that there is no discussion in the noise element in regards to monitoring airplane noise. He recalled that the Community Development Department participates in a program to monitor airplane noise, and asked if this should be included in the document. Deputy Director Mihranian stated that the LAX Roundtable on airplane noise is under the purview of the Community Development Department. He stated that this was not cited in the original General Plan and is therefore not a policy that staff is implementing, but rather attendance and monitoring is an ongoing issue requested by the community and the City Council. Planning Commission Minutes March 8, 2016 Page 7 Commissioner Cruikshank felt that this document was looking at the General Plan and noting things being done to make sure the General Plan is being properly implemented. Therefore, he felt that airport noise was an important piece of information that should be reported on, as he felt airport noise is something that affects all of the residents. He felt that adding that information might be a good bullet point to add to the existing bullet points. Deputy Director Mihranian stated the comments are duly noted and could be reported to the City Council as well. He also clarified that the matter before the Commission is a procedural matter that comes before the Commission annually. It then goes before the City Council who gives the direction to forward the annual report on to the State indicating how the City is implementing all of the policy measures in the General Plan. This document makes no reference to the update to the General Plan, but rather is referencing the existing document and what the City is doing to implement the policies contained in that existing document. Chairman Nelson opened the public hearing. Minas Yerelian referenced the noise element in regards to urban situations. He read from paragraph four, and noted that there is no mention of Point View and the Event Garden owned by Jim York in this statement. He questioned why this was not included in the General Plan update. Deputy Director Mihranian responded that the two projects referenced in the Annual Report are examples of the General Plan policy. He added that the City does regulate the Events Garden, but through a Conditional Use Permit. He noted that this section is specific to what the City does in terms of temporary events and the issuance of a Special Use Permit. The Events Garden is regulated under a Conditional Use Permit, which is a separate and a different type of permit. Chairman Nelson closed the public hearing. Vice Chairman Tomblin referenced the speaker's comments, and asked staff if it would be appropriate to add a section that addresses Conditional Use Permits that address noise issues. Deputy Director Mihranian answered that Conditional Use Permits are addressed under the Land Use discussion, but the discussion can also be added to this section. Vice Chairman Tomblin explained that there is typically a considerable amount of discussion regarding noise and any impact it may have when granting a Conditional Use Permit and the Commission typically puts a restriction on it. He felt it would be consistent that it at least be identified somewhere in the General Plan and has been addressed and documented. Planning Commission Minutes March 8, 2016 Page 8 Deputy Director Mihranian stated that if it is the Commission's desire to include that as another item to list as policy the City is implementing per the General Plan, staff can add that to the document that is presented to the City Council at the March 15th meeting. Chairman Nelson felt it should be added. Commissioner Emenhiser moved to forward the General Plan Update to the City Council with the amendment to add Conditional Use Permits in the discussion regarding noise, seconded by Commissioner James. Approved, (5-0). 4. Housing Annual Update Deputy Director Mihranian presented a brief staff report, explaining this is a procedural matter where annually the Planning Commission reviews the programs that the City is implementing. This is then forwarded to the City Council who will give direction to forward the update to file with the State. Vice Chairman Tomblin requested clarification on the status of some of the projects discussed, which the Deputy Director provided. Commissioner Cruikshank moved to forward the annual report to the City Council, seconded by Commissioner Emenhiser. Approved, (5-0). ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 5. Pre-Agenda for the meeting on March 22, 2016 Chairman Nelson noted there are currently no items on the March 22nd agenda, and asked if there was a motion to cancel the March 22, 2016 meeting. Commissioner Emenhiser moved to cancel the March 22, 2016 Planning Commission meeting, seconded by Commissioner Cruikshank. The motion was unanimously approved. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:50 p.m. to Tuesday, April 12, 2016. Planning Commission Minutes March 8, 2016 Page 9