An unusual set of circumstances caused the city Planning Commission to make an unprecedented decision regarding a proposed housing project that would block the primary view of a neighbor.
The commission decided to disregard existing trees that already block the primary view of the neighbor, which would also be blocked by the proposed home. As a result, the commission, in a 4 to 1 vote on Jan 16, denied the project on Pacific Coast Highway based on potential views that would exist if the trees are removed.
The commission decided to look through the existing trees of the nearby home, which is occupied by a homebound senior citizen who could not trim them at the moment, but plans to do so.
They took into account that the landscaping could be removed and the proposed home would impact the view of the ocean.
But staff, who supported the builder’s project, wanted the commission to consider the area blocked by the trees as a pre-existing impairment, therefore, not a primary view area.
The applicant had already altered plans for the house after the application was denied in the past.
“It’s a difficult site,” said Planning Director Barry Hogan, in defense of the project.
In this case, the variance should override the view impairment factors because “this is the smallest house the owner can build to justify the expense,” said Florencio Signo, assistant planner, who prepared the project report for the commission’s review.
While it is true that a physically smaller house could be built there, staff thought that, with the building costs, it would not be economically feasible, said Hogan.
The structure would require a number of caissons to stabilize the area before construction on the house can take place, he explained. The portion that is blocking the view is under 18 feet in height. Additionally, the owners had reduced the front yard setbacks because they have to provide a turn-around space for fire trucks and two required parking spaces on the property.
But in an effort to avoid a precedent that would allow for variances on projects that would impact the view of a neighbor, the commission denied the building of the home as presented.
“Just because something can be built, it does not mean it should be built,” said Ed Lipnick, commission chair.
“The idea that we have to take into account the economic impact, is to me false,” he said of the homeowner’s complaint of unjustifiable costs of building a smaller house.
David Fox was the only commissioner who gave the green light for the home as proposed because he thought the applicant had mitigated the issues in the best possible manner.
In other matters, the commission continued deliberations about a single-family home on Zumirez Drive because neighbors were concerned that the story poles (wooden poles stuck in the ground to show the exact height and placement of a proposed home’s construction) were misplaced.
Additionally, the house may be composed of more glassy surfaces than the norm in the area, thereby creating a debate as to whether or not it fits in with the rural residential character of the neighborhood.
In yet another gray, zoning code area, the commission decided to continue the application because they wanted to review the code’s requirements for glossy and glass surfaces.
The proposed home would also include a bedroom in the basement area and questions were raised regarding the legality of this use for a basement designation.
Aside from the physical characteristics that make the home a difficult matter for the commission, the property is also located in an environmentally sensitive area where some people claim a rare wildflower [plumber mariposa] exists. But the flower cannot be clearly identified until it blooms in the summer.
However, the commission decided not to wait for the blooming to occur; they continued the case to February in an effort to clarify the story poles placement accuracy and to answer other questions raised based on the zoning code provisions.