PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT APRIL 7, 2016

Transcription

1 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT APRIL 7, 2016 TO: FROM: Members of the Planning Commission Talyn Mirzakhanian, Senior Planner FILE NO.: PROPOSAL: APPLICANT: RECOMMENDATION: A request for a Variance to construct two, open-lattice patio covers within 50-feet of a significant ridgeline and in the rear yard of an existing single-family residence located at 3433 Cordova Drive in the Residential, Single-family (RS) zoning district. Aqua Blue Pools Adopt Planning Commission Resolution and approve File No STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No , approving File No , a request for a Variance to construct two, open-lattice patio covers within 50- feet of a significant ridgeline and in the rear yard of an existing single-family residence located at 3433 Cordova Drive. REVIEW AUTHORITY: The Planning Commission is reviewing this project pursuant to Calabasas Municipal Code (CMC) Section , which stipulates that Variance applications shall be reviewed and decided upon by the Planning Commission at a noticed public hearing. BACKGROUND: The subject property is located within Calabasas Park Estates Homeowners Association at 3433 Cordova Drive. On January 12, 2017, the applicant s representative submitted an application for a Variance to construct a 174 square-foot open-lattice trellis

2 Page 2 and a 367 square-foot open-lattice trellis in the rear yard of and attached to an existing single-family residence and within 50-feet of a significant ridgeline. The proposed trellis structures have a proposed height of 8 8 and are similar to those found in the rear yards of surrounding properties in the neighborhood. The proposed trellises are part of a larger rear-yard improvement project, the other components of which were approved separately via a Zoning Clearance and were exempt from the ridgeline setback requirement. Calabasas Park Estates is a residential subdivision that was approved in 1990 by the County of Los Angeles prior to the City s incorporation. The subdivision was approved with parcels that included building pads that traverse ridgelines, and whose impacts were analyzed and mitigated in the adopted environmental document for that project. Furthermore, individual lots traversing ridgelines were approved with building pads designed to accommodate large homes and appurtenant structures. In 2010, the City of Calabasas adopted hillside and ridgeline development standards, which apply to development proposed on lots with slopes greater than ten percent or that include a significant ridgeline. The ridgeline policies aim to maintain the natural appearance of the ridge. Mapping of the significant ridgelines was accomplished using USGS topographic maps, which did not reflect graded and altered hillside conditions that resulted from recent development of various subdivisions throughout the City, including Calabasas Park Estates. Nonetheless, the code shall be applied to all mapped ridgelines. Accordingly, the subject project includes a variance application because Section (C)(3) of the Development Code stipulates that a variance shall be sought where a proposed structure cannot meet the 50-foot ridgeline setback standards provided in Section (C)(2). The project cannot possibly meet the established ridgeline setback standard because the house was built on the mapped ridgeline prior to the City s incorporation, and prior to the adoption of this Code. The proposed project, therefore, requires a variance from the City s standards for Hillside and Ridgeline Development (Chapter ) to permit construction of the trellis structures within 50-feet of the significant ridgeline. Chapter of the City s Land Use and Development Code allows for the granting of a variance from the development standards of the code when, because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, the strict application of the Code denies the property owner privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity and in identical zoning districts. Absent the ridgeline setback requirement discussed above, the proposed structures could otherwise have been permitted by Staff via a non-discretionary Zoning Clearance. The proposed project was reviewed by the Development Review Committee (DRC) on February 2, There were no major comments identified by DRC, and a letter of incompleteness was sent to the applicant seeking additional information on the submitted plans. The applicant resubmitted plans addressing all of the issues identified

3 Page 3 in the incompleteness letter. On February 26, 2016, the Architectural Review Panel (ARP) reviewed the proposal and unanimously recommended approval of the project with no changes. On March 7, 2016, the applicant installed story poles to depict the impact of the proposed trellis structures on views from surrounding roadways. The application was deemed complete on March 7, STAFF ANALYSIS: The key issues related to this project are discussed below: A. Site Design/Building Layout: The existing, two-story residence is located on an 11,286 square-foot lot within the Calabasas Park Estates community. The subject property is located on a significant ridgeline, which passes through the northeast corner of the subject site and across HOA-owned common area and open space. In the aerial image below, the orange lines delineate the designated significant ridgelines. The subject property is outlined in green. Upon installation of the story poles, staff drove through the streets within the subdivision to confirm visibility of the proposed trellises. Only the westernmost trellis would be visible from a short segment of Cordova Drive south of the subject residence and as you are headed north because there is a 423-foot stretch of common area with no structures. Additionally, the trellises would be only partially visible from Earl s Court because existing landscape blocks the majority of views. Existing trellises in the rear yards of other homes were also visible from Earl s Court. The proposed trellises would not be visible from other roadways. Subject Property Mapped Significant Ridgeline

4 Page 4 The proposed project complies with all applicable setback standards, as the trellises maintain a minimum 7.5-foot side setback and a minimum 42.1-foot rear setback. Additionally, the project complies with applicable pervious surface and site coverage requirements. B. Architecture: The proposed open-lattice trellises, composed of wood with a stone base, are designed to be compatible with the architecture of the existing residence. The Architectural Review Panel reviewed the project On February 26, 2016, and unanimously recommended approval of the project with no changes. C. Variance: Pursuant to CMC Section (C)(2) (Hillside and Ridgeline Development), the highest points of any proposed structure shall be located fifty vertical feet and fifty horizontal feet from a significant ridgeline. The applicant is requesting a variance to be able to construct two open-lattice trellises in the rear yard of an existing lot, improved with a two-story single-family residence, located along a mapped significant ridgeline as identified in the Open Space Element of the General Plan (Figure III-4), and less than 50 horizontal and vertical feet from the ridgeline. The project cannot possibly meet the established ridgeline setbacks because the existing home was constructed directly on the natural ridgeline (e.g. with a zero-setback). The project site presents several unique characteristics that justify a variance. Firstly, the project site is part of a residential master plan subdivision approved by the County of Los Angeles prior to the incorporation of the City. The subdivision was approved to have large residences built along a significant ridgeline. The proposed project s graded and certified building pad was included in this approval, and its anticipated use (single-family residence and appurtenant accessory structures) analyzed as part of those approvals. Second, most of the homes built along the subject ridgeline have pools/spas and other accessory structures which are similar to those proposed by the applicant. The vast majority of these accessory structures received land use entitlements prior to the adoption of the 2030 General Plan, and the updated Land Use and Development Code, which stipulates that the highest points of any proposed structure shall be located fifty vertical feet and fifty horizontal feet from a significant ridgeline. Furthermore, several of these rear-yard accessory structures built on the significant ridgeline received non-discretionary approvals and were approved prior to the adoption of the variance requirement in Yet another unique characteristic that allows for consideration of a variance relates to the existing conditions of the 11,286 square-foot lot, improved with a two-story single-family residence. The rear-yard, where the trellises are proposed to be located, is relatively flat. The original ridge (at an approximate elevation of

5 Page amsl) was significantly altered to construct the pads for this subdivision. The elevation of the pad on which the home is located is 1446 above mean sea level (amsl). In order to comply with the strict application of the Code, the trellises would have to be placed at an elevation no higher than 1387 amsl (50 vertical feet plus height of trellis). Because the property is located within the interior of a developed subdivision, the applicant cannot feasibly place the trellises elsewhere and in compliance with the ridgeline setback requirement. Therefore, strict application of the Code, which stipulates that the highest point of any structure that requires a permit shall be located at least fifty vertical feet and fifty horizontal feet from a significant ridgeline would deny the property owner rights and privileges enjoyed by other property owners located on the same ridgeline, as well as properties located within the same zoning district. The five general findings for a variance (per CMC (E)) can be made and are contained within Planning Commission Resolution Additionally, Section (C)(3) of the Municipal Code allows for a variance from this ridgeline setback siting standard if the following additional two findings can be made: a. Alternative sites within the property or project have been considered and eliminated from consideration based on physical infeasibility or the potential for substantial habitat damage or destruction if any such alternative site is used and that the siting principles outlined under subsection (C)(4) have been applied; and b. The proposed project maintains the maximum view of the applicable significant ridgeline through the use of design features for the project including minimized grading, reduced structural height, clustered structures, shape, materials, and color that allow the structures to blend with the natural setting, and use of native landscaping for concealment of the project. The proposed project meets the two additional findings because the home is sited on an already developed flat pad (requiring no additional grading for the proposed improvements), and is surrounded by existing two-story, single-family homes. The project is designed to maintain the maximum view of the significant ridgeline because the proposed open-lattice trellises would be visible only from the interior streets of the existing development and very minimally. The trellises will be compatible with the existing residence, and will be 8 8 in height. Existing landscaping and vegetation will remain to help the project blend in with the natural setting. Additionally and most importantly, for a home such as this one, there is no feasible alternative site for the proposed trellises. The proposed trellis structures will incorporate wood and stone materials that will

6 Page 6 blend in with the surrounding built and natural environment. Building on the existing relatively flat rear-yard makes the most sense from an environmental impact standpoint because it would significantly limit grading compared to what would be required to grade down approximately 59-feet to the rear-yard. Additionally, this option is infeasible because the new rear-yard pad would require adjacent HOA-owned common area to be altered in order for the newly formed rear-yard pad to comply with compaction and certification standards. Furthermore, the Architectural Review Panel reviewed the proposed trellises and considered the project consistent with the hillside and ridgeline development stipulated in CMC Section Consequently, the Architectural Review Panel recommended approval of the design to the Planning Commission. REQUIRED FINDINGS: The findings required in Section (E) for a Variance are contained in resolution attached as Exhibit A. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: This project is Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in accordance with Section of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and Section 15301(e) (Existing Facilities) and Section (New Construction Or Conversion Of Small Structures) of the CEQA Guidelines. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: See conditions contained in Resolution attached as Exhibit A. PREVIOUS REVIEWS: Development Review Committee (DRC): February 2, 2016 Architectural Review Panel (ARP): February 26, 2016 No major comments. The Panel unanimously recommended approval of the design without changes.

7 Page 7 ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A: Planning Commission Resolution No Exhibit B: Project Site Plan and Elevation Exhibit C: Story Pole Photos TECHNICAL APPENDIX Surrounding Properties: Existing Land Use Zoning General Plan Designation Site Single-Family Residence RS West Single-Family Residence RS East Open Space OS-DR North Single-Family Residence RS Open Space Development Restricted South Single-Family Residential OS and RS Open Space and Residential-Single Family (R-SF) Residential-Single Family (R-SF) Open Space- Resource Protection (OS- RP) Residential-Single Family (R-SF) Open Space (OS)/ Residential-Single Family (R-SF)