CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT. Steve Kawaratani, Applicant Phone (949)

Transcription

1 CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT HEARING DATE: June 28, 2012 TO: BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT/DESIGN REVIEW BOARD CASE: Design Review Variance APPLICANT: LOCATION: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: PREPARED BY: Steve Kawaratani, Applicant Phone (949) Brown Residence 1515 Tahiti Avenue APN In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines, the project is categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15304, Class 4 that allows minor alterations to land. Nancy Csira, Principal Planner (949) REQUESTED ACTION: The applicant requests design review for modifications to a singlefamily dwelling in the R-l zone. Design review is required for modifications to a prior approval, spa relocation, cooling condensers for wine room, elevated decks (44 square-feet), landscaping, grading, retaining walls, railings, lattice screen and chain link fencing. A variance is required to permit an illegally constructed terrace that encroaches into the rear setback [LBMC (C)]. BACKGROUND: This property has an approved landscape plan, administratively approved by the Director of Community Development in 1998 in conjunction with the rebuilding of the single-family residence following the 1993 fire. Special Council-approved processing provisions were in place at that time with respect to landscape approvals for fire rebuilds. In 2005, the property owner obtained design review approval to add a pool and extensively landscape the backyard. The approval included specific landscape maintenance conditions to protect neighbors views (DR ). The property owner subsequently decided not to implement the approved plan and submitted a down-scaled plan, eliminating all new landscape in the backyard. The owner indicated that he was going to keep the existing landscape in place, per the 1998 approved plan (Administrative DR ).

2 .;R &VAR Tahiti Avenue June 28, 2012 Page 2 of3 The owner subsequently installed hardscape and landscape improvements which were not approved. Code enforcement action was initiated in August, 2009 in response to a neighbor complaint. The unpennitted improvements were initially heard by the Design Review Board on October 13, 2011 and continued to December 15, 2011 with direction (minutes attached). The applicant subsequently tabled the matter in order to reconsider the scope of work and possibly request a variance to maintain a built-up play area on the lower portion of the backyard. STAFF ANALYSIS: The spa was not built integral to the pool as originally approved. A separate spa is shown adjacent to the residence in the middle of the site. A cooling condenser has been installed along the north side of the property. The condenser complies with the required setbacks and no noise concerns have been identified. The project plans no longer include keystone walls and terraces adjacent to the pool. New pool coping and 42-inch high glass railings are proposed around elevated deck areas (pool exit platfonns) for safety. The two small decks proposed are 26 square-feet (3'-0" wide x 8'-6" deep) at the east end and 18 square-feet (6'-0" wide x 3'-0"wide) at the west end. These dimensions represent the deck area more than three feet out of grade. A new planter with five-foot high Star Jasmine and a nine-foot lattice screen are proposed to mitigate the privacy concerns for the easterly neighbor. The landscape plan no longer includes Arecastrum and Yucca plants. Maintenance heights have been indicated on the planting legend. The City's landscape plan checker indicates that palms, Schefflera, roses and Strelitzia may not be considered complimentary with adjacent natural hillsides. Proposed site lighting is shown on the landscape plan (Sheet 4 of 5). Three tree lights, four path lights and four stair light fixtures are proposed at a maximum 20 watts each. Green chain link perimeter fencing is proposed. The previously plans included removal of 91 cubic yards of fill that was installed to expand the lower play area. The built-up terrace projects into the rear setback more than allowed and a variance is requested for the terrace (fill) to remain. Requested Variances: The applicant requesting approval of Variance to legalize a terrace that was constructed without pennits. Municipal Code Section (C) pennits only a six-foot projection into the required 20-foot rear setback. The new terrace projects thirteen feet into the required setback. The Design Review Board must make all four findings in order to grant the variance: 1. There are special circumstances applicable to the property involved, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings which cause the strict application of the zoning ordinance to deprive such property ofprivileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification. There are certain special circumstances applicable to the property including topography that is characterized by a relatively steep downward slope over the rear half of the site.

3 vr &VAR Tahiti Avenue June 28,2012 Page 3 of3 However, the site maintains similar characteristics to properties in the immediate neighborhood and the applicant could redesign the terraced play area to meet current code requirements within the allowable development standards. The applicant wishes to proceed with the variance request since the improvements have been constructed. 2. Such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment ofa substantial property right of the applicant, which right is possessed by other property owners under like conditions in the same vicinity and zone. The variance is not necessary for the preservation of a substantial property right of the owners and as such Variance may constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitation upon other property in the vicinity and zone in which the property is located. Staff is not aware of other variances granted in the neighborhood for this same condition. 3. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, convenience and welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity in which the property is located. The granting of Variance may not be detrimental to the public welfare and to the property of other persons located in the vicinity thereof because the proposed terrace does not impact views or privacy. 4. The granting of such a variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the zoning ordinance or the general plan. The new terrace may be consistent with the objectives of the zoning code and the General Plan in that the property will maintain the appearance of a single-family dwelling. COMMUNITY INTEREST: Although no new letters have been received for this hearing, the adjacent neighbors to the east and their representative have made many inquiries at the public counter. It appears that there are still concerns with view impacts by landscaping and privacy impacts by elevated decks. CONCLUSION: Revisions to the project appear consistent with the direction given by the Board at the initial hearing. However, view and privacy concerns for the adjacent neighbor may not be satisfactorily addressed. The new variance request was not discussed at the prior hearing because the plans at that time included removing the installed fill and associated improvements. The Board must make all four findings to grant the variance. ATTACHMENTS: Design Review Board Minutes ( ) 1998 Approved Landscape Plan

4 Mr. Wilkes concurs with Ms. Jllschow and Ms. Zur Schmiede. He s. the specific issue for him is the. cantilevered deck. It does not follow the Hillside Guidelines. The existing home has a lot of articulation> however the new design has less. The two-c r garageicloes not help break up the mass. He suggested proposing! two single car garages or off-setting them to I elp ITe articulation. He did not think the gabled roof needed to be modified. The neighboring homes are larger. r Ms. Liuzzi made a motion, seconded by M. Zur Schmiede, to continue Design Review , Revocable Encroachment Permit at 1480 Terr e ay to the meeting of November 17,2011. The motion carriec;i, unanimously. 1. Motion CL Second RZ Grant Lenschow Y Liuzzi Y Sadler TAHITI A VENUE, APN , CONTINUED TO DECEMBER 15, 2011 DESIGN REVIEW AND A CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION The applicant requests design review for modifications to a single-family dwelling in the R-1 Zone. Design review is required for modifications to a prior approval, spa relocation, cooling condensers for wine room, landscaping, grading and chain link fencing (Code Enforcement). Project Representative: Steve Kawaratani, consultant for the project, said he is seeking approval for a spa, wine cooling condenser, vinyl green fencing and a pool cover. An agreement has been reached with the neighbor at 1533 Tahiti. They have agreed to remove the Queen Palm at the southeast comer and the Yucca Trees. He said measuring from the bottom up twenty-five feet, they have agreed to limit the height of the vegetation to eight feet or less. He passed out a planter exhibit to the Board. In place of the Phoenix Roebeleniis, five IS-gallon Ficus Green Gems are proposed with a maximum growth height of ten feet. In order to eliminate the guard railing, a thirty-inch planter is proposed in front of the pool. Public Testimony: Dave Dyrugas, 1645 Tahiti, said he is in support of the project. Stephanie Fithtlin, 994 Bluebird Canyon, was in support of the project. Tom Simpson, 1605 Tahiti, said he reviewed the landscape changes and he can support the project. Parviz Shoali, 1510 Tahiti, said there are a lot of changes. He said there are an increasing number ofneighbors who are violating the code and a high mandated fee should be placed on the violators. It would decrease the number of offenders and decrease the irritation to the neighbors. Michele Madriz, 1434 Bluebird Canyon, was in suppoli of the project. She thanked the applicant for their efforts in working with the neighbors. The slope is safer and more beautiful. Kathy Anderson, 1509 Tahiti, said she was unaware that the landscape plans were not approved and executed properly. She said her only concern is that the trees are not trimmed as often as she would like. She was in support of the project and was happy with the beautiful landscape plan. Patrick Whitfield, 1509 Tahiti, was in support of the project and thought the landscaping was beautiful and increase property value in the neighborhood. The Browns have created a functional landscaping plan yet have maintained an appropriate sensitivity to the hillside. Amy Hundhausen, 1521 Tahiti, submitted posters showing the view obstruction from the family room and guest extension. The new deck has a finished surface where people can walk and furniture can be placed. It will be impossible to mask the deck without a large privacy barrier that impacts their ocean views. It is placed in a position close to her home. The deck extension will exacerbate the noise and privacy issues that are significant. It does not sol ve the safety drop-off issue. She suggested a five-foot height limit on rear yard planting (except the Canary Island Palm), six to eight-foot privacy barrier along the existing patio, guardrails in place ofterraces to address safety issues and the elimination of the deck extension. Greg Vale said the permit history on this property is incomplete. The issues need to be resolved. Ms. Board ofadjustment/design Review Board Agenda -3- YYl 0- f' October 13,2011

5 Hundhausen presented a chec st of items that they would like to s hanged. The suggestion of Mr. Kawaratani and Mr. Vail meeting to resolve the issues is a good one. It is not hard to resolve issues but clear direction from the Board is necessary. Rebuttal: Mr. Kawaratani said the deck extension is needed for safety reasons. The applicant is willing to compromise and reduce the size ofthe deck. A glass rail is not appropriate and a planter is more attractive. It. will be pulled back and protrude out five feet. It will be camouflaged by planting. It is ludicrous to pose a five foot height limit and a leveled landscaping plan. The largest planting grows to ten feet. The Palm and Phoenix Canary both survived the fire and they wish to maintain them. Board Questions: In response to Ms. Lenschow, staff said a railing is required ifthere is a thirty-inch drop-off. In reply to Mr. Wilkes, Mr. Kawaratani said he would not be in favor of a glass railing at the drop-off. He said currently they are proposing a ten by ten but it could be made six by six as a safe exit from the pool. He said the Phoenix Palm will be maintained on a two-year basis with a ten foot height limit. Ms. Liuzzi asked ifthe railing around the pool was required. Mr. Kawaratani said it was as a Building Division correction because of a safety issue. In response to Mr. Sadler, Mr. Kawaratani said the cover cost was $10,000 and they are not inclined to install an infinity edge to replace it. He said mgldifying the coping and exposing it would not work. Ifhe could find a solution that would satisfy building codes he would do it. He said the steps lead right out to the edge of the pool and it needs protection at the end of the pool. It makes sense to have a pool exit. He said there are down lights and lights illuminating the steps along the pathway. Board Comments: Mr. Wilkes said it is a modification and the description is very clear. There is a spa, condenser equipment, grading wall and planting changes. The most affected neighbor has concerns with the extension ofthe deck and the walls securing the edge ofthe pool and the maintained height ofthe vegetation in the back yard. The neighbors are requesting a vegetation restriction height offive feet and the applicant would like eight feet with the Mediterranean Fan Palm Tree height at no higher than ten feet. The neighbor would like to see the Pigmy Palm privacy barrier at six to eight feet; the applicant is proposing ten feet. He does not have an issue with the spa and condenser. The chain link fence blends in with the hillside. He has an issue with securing the edge ofthe pool. He agrees with the building department. He said modifying the coping will not adequately address pool safety. A fall barrier needs to be provided because it is more than thirty inches. The addition ofthe planter will solve the issue. The applicant is requesting a single five-foot wide planter which will create no more than a thirty-inch drop-off from the pool and a minimal amount of space to egress the pool where the stairs are located. He does not feel they need the entire expanded deck area to exit the pool. It is excessive and does not solve the fall issue. The new fall protection planter needs to wrap the comer to the safety landing. The safety landing could be as small as three by three. He suggested an eight to ten foot hedge for a privacy barrier replacing the existing Pygmy Palm. He does not have an issue with the Mediterranean Fan Palm Tree as long as it is maintained at nine feet. He said the issues that remain are the maximum height of the vegetation in the rear yard, the side privacy barrier, the pool safety barrier and the pool exit landing. Mr. Sadler said he is not comfortable approving the project without a complete plan. He,suggested continuing the project because of its history. He concurs with Mr. Wilkes and thinks the stairs should be relocated. The pool requires a protection device. The neighbors have privacy and view equity issues. A lot of the issues are because ofthe vegetation and now more vegetation is being proposed. He said there were better solutions like an infinity edge, revising the coping around it or a triangle cap on top of it. A fall protection could be provided by creating the planter area with a minimum depth of four feet, limiting the height to a maximum ofeighteen inches. The safety landing at the end of the pool must be minimized. It should be in line with the existing terrace patio surface and made as small as possible. A three-foot square would be appropriate. He said the vegetation in the rear yard should be limited to eight feet in height. The Canary Palm can be maintained at ten feet. He said he is not comfortable with the lighting plan. He would like to see the Mexican Palm Tree eliminated. He said the pool equipment cover creates additional deck space. It is heavily designed and can support furniture and people., Tt could cause privacy and noise issues. Board of Adjustment/Design Review Boa.genda. -4-.'\dV'f. Jr October 13,2011

6 Ms. Liuzzi said the improvements do not match the approved plans and 1, is causing neighbors privacy and " view concerns. She concurs with Mr. Sadler, it is design driven. The planter causes concern because they are,'t proposing more vegetation. She would be in favor of a railing all the way around the pool. The only view it. would impede is someone in the pool. She said wrought iron would be appropriate. The stairs at the end ofthe :"'; pool are situated in the comer in a semicircle. There is a choice ofexiting the pool by going out east or north. A. railing would force them to exit the pool towards the house. The planter is not safe to provide a thirty-inch. drop-off. She does not feel that the decking over the pool equipment causes a privacy issue. However, the deck i- I extension for entering and exiting the pool is a privacy issue. She is not in favor ofthe planters and a retaining r" wall fifty feet long. She does not have an issue with the Ficus Tree and the play equipment. She suggested :.: limiting the vegetation in the rear yard to five feeet. She would be in favor of a continuance. Ms. Lenschow cpncurs with her colleagues. The walking area is not safe. The pool got larger because the spa was removed. It is not that difficult to remove the interior stairs and put interior stairs facing the patio or create an infinity pool. She is not in favor of a maintenance landscape agreements. If there are trees that grow higher than an acceptable heigh, they should be replaced with trees that do not grow tall. There is a privacy issue with the decks. She does not believe what is proposed is sufficient. She said the Palm Trees are not sufficient to provide privacy for the neighbor. She said the Ficus Trees need maintenance and she is not in favor of it. She suggested other hedges that do not grow very high. The Mexican Palm should be removed. She was glad the neighbors agreed on the Canary Palm and the Yucca. She suggested using a natural material to replace the keystone. Ms. Zur Schmiede concurs with her colleagues. The neighbors need to work together and resolve the issues. We need clear documentation for the records. She would like to see a simple, easy to read landscape plan when it returns to the Board. She hopes they comply with the direction of the Board. She is treating this as a new application. She said the neighborhood landscape planting is not what was proposed at the time the original homes were built. All these homes are situated around the ridge ofthe canyon. Ifa plant requires a maintenance agreement, it is better to change out the plant. She suggested looking at plants that grow six to eight feet. She concurs with Mr. Wilkes. The size ofthe deck is not necessary for the exiting ofthe pool. There is a safety issue and a three by three deck in the corner is a good solution. It would not create massing. She is not in favor of terracing or visual intrusions. The pool looks out over the ocean and canyon but detrimental to the neighbors. She agrees there is a need for a pri vacy screening between the neighbors. She suggested a lattice with a trellis over the top and over the length of the patio attached to the house with vines growing on it. It would give privacy to both parties. She suggested a review of the independent plan check list prepared by the consultant. She will approve the vinyl green fence as long as there is plantings on it. The agreement with regard to the canary island palm should be incorporated in the revised plan. She concurs with the Board members that the approved height of the vegetation should apply for all the trees. Mr. Wilkes summarized the issues. He said there is an issue ofmaintaining the landscape between five feet or eight feet in the rear yard. The maximum height should pertain to all trees or they should be removed. Ms. Zur Schmiede suggested a lattice fence or trellis with vines on it as an alternate for privacy issues. The Mexican Palm should be removed. It is in the view corridor. He said one of the most difficult issues is the edge protection for the pool. He thinks installing a fence could be problematic for the neighbor. He thinks vegetation can resolve a lot of the issues. He thinks terrace walls are a good solution. It is a typical method for dealing with this situation. The Board Members concurred on a height limit of eight feet maximum for all vegetation and a privacy trellis screen that extends all the way to the comer of the house. The privacy screen and any proposed pool railing needs to be staked prior to returning to the Board.. Mr. Sadler made a motion, seconded by Ms. Liuzzi to continue Design Review at 1515 Tahiti Avenue to the meeting of December 15, The motion carried unanimously. Motion KS Second CL Grant Deny Cont 12/15 Unan. Y Lenschow Y Liuzzi Y Sadler Y Wilkes Y Zur Schrniede Y Board of Adjustment/Design Review Board Agenda -5- October 13,2011

7 i I 0 \ f1. ". :\ ;1\ -J f I > %i i J\ ( "... > I I It r i (...(! r 0)'" f -1? II i oj /i 1:0 1:0 g/, ;; F i' c,..., j " '"