Venice Neighborhood Council PO Box 550, Venice, CA / Phone:

Transcription

1 Case No: CEQA Case No: LAND USE AND PLANNING COMMITTEE STAFF REPORT Submitted to the VNC Board for its October 21, 2014 Meeting ZA F ENV CE Address of Project: 1235 E. Vienna Way, Venice, CA Property Owner: Owner s Rep: City Hearing: Specific Plan: Jay McDonald 1235 E. Vienna Way Venice, CA (310) J. Geofrey Collins P.O. Box 1341 Topanga, CA (310) October 23, 2014, 1:30 pm. West Los Angeles Municipal Building Second Floor Hearing Room 1645 Corinth Avenue, L.A., CA Los Angeles Coastal Transportation Corridor LUPC STAFF: Gabriel Ruspini MOTION: The LUPC recommends that the VNC Board recommends denial of the project, based on it being out of character with the neighborhood, as the comps/precedent provided were determined to be not applicable, as no unique hardship or extraordinary circumstances were found, and as over-height fences and walls diminish safety and hinder law enforcement duties. MADE BY: Gabriel Ruspini SECONDED BY APPROVAL VOTE: Mark Kleiman DATE: October 10, 2014

2 OTHER CASE INFORMATION: Size of Parcel: 10,891 sq. ft. Size of (N) S.F.D.: Not Available (In Construction) Number of Stories: Fully sprinklered two (2) story SFD with attached garage. Size of Project: Approximately Linear Feet Zone: R1-1VLD RECOMMENDATION: LUPC recommends that the VNC recommends denial of the project as presented on the following basis: -No extraordinary or site specific extenuating circumstances were presented. -Precedent Case presented not applicable to subject property. Precedent presented is not in immediate vicinity and is smaller in scale. -Venice NC impact statement regarding Frontage Barriers/Fences & Hedges supports LAMC regulations limiting them to 42 in height. The Owner s representative described in the Action Requested an Increase Height of Front Yard Fence By 20% From 3-6 to 4-2 Typically with Increased Accents of 7-11 H.. A LUPC staff study of the proposed improvements shows that portions of the wall with an indicated height of 4-2 constituted only 53% of the wall length along the front property line. Along either side property lines portion of the wall with an indicated height of 4-2 constituted only 40% of the wall length. In total, less than 50% of the proposed elements have an indicated height of 4-2. More than 50% are taller than 4-2. The proposed wall/pilasters/gates/portal, more than half of which are taller than 4-2, cannot be accurately described as being typically 4-2 H. with Increased Accents up to 7-11 H. The proposed improvements are actually typically higher than 4-2, in contrast to what the Owner s representative stated. Justification for approval of a request cannot be based solely on historical entitlement requests, like the 2005 over height fence request for 2137 Glyndon Avenue. While this example can help to frame the application and conditions for the current request, it ultimately must be considered as a unique case. As an argument that a precedent exists, the 2137 Glyndon Avenue example is not viable, as it differs significantly in its smaller development scale, neighborhood impact and greater street traffic than the property at 1235 E. Vienna Way. The approval in 2006 Page 2 of 6

3 occurred at a time when over height fence requests were a far less contentious and divisive issue. It is unlikely that the same request would be approved today. The Case Findings appear in general not to justify their adoption, in part on account of: 1. The Owner s representative claims that the proposed wall fits with the style of the Venice area, and that the neighboring properties have front yard fences higher than 3-6. However there are no other properties on either side of the street with a similar fence, and no properties on either side of the street for the entire block with a by-right over in height fence. 2. The Owner s representative claims a need to protect the neighborhood from their dogs, and themselves from theft and vandalism. The justification presented is a condition that is no different from any other home in the neighborhood. The findings do not cite a hardship faced exclusively by this property. The Owner has claimed to be improving the property with the intention of occupying it, and the Owner s dogs have been described as being a medium sized Terrier mix, and a larger hairy Labrador Retriever mix, which are in general smaller, mild tempered and non-aggressive breeds, especially when compared to those which are larger and have a reputation of being more problematic, like Presa Canario or Akita for example. Furthermore, reasonable evidence that an over in height fence statistically translates into increased security for a property is markedly absent from the Findings. 3. The Owner s representative cites the Venice Coastal Zone Specific Plan s intent to offer a friendly face with the proposed wall. However the project is not in the Specific Plan Area, and this is a Zoning Administrator Adjustment request, a discretionary case, not a Specific Plan Project Permit compliance review. COMMUNITY IMPACT STATEMENT: Most importantly, the project is located in an area governed by the VENICE COMMUNITY PLAN. Venice Neighborhood Council s COMMUNITY IMPACT STATEMENT in regards to FRONTAGE BARRIERS / FENCES and HEDGES reads: The Venice Neighborhood Council supports LAMC regulations limiting frontage barriers (fences, walls and hedges) to 42 inches in height, absent extenuating circumstances, Fence Height Districts (unavailable in the Coastal Zone), or specific zoning allowances. Frontage barriers define property borders, public versus private space, and establish safety barriers. However, because over height frontage barriers threaten neighborhood character, affect community, openness, space and light, diminish safety and hinder law enforcement duties, the VNC supports the LAMC's 42 inch height limitation. Page 3 of 6

4 PROPOSED PROJECT: Project Description per the Submitted Master Land Use Application Form: Build Solid Fence, Gate Front Yard Periphery w/a Max. of Increase Height of Front Yard Fence By 20% From 3-6 to 4-2 Typically with Increased Accents of 7-11 H. REQUESTED ACTION: Pursuant to the provisions of Section X.7 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code, a Zoning Administrators Adjustment to permit the construction, use and maintenance of a front yard wall, pilasters, a driveway gate, a pedestrian gate with a gate portal with a minimum height of 4-2 and a maximum height of 7-11 in lieu of the maximum allowed height of 3-6, in conjunction with the occupancy of a Single Family Dwelling on a 10,891 sq. ft. lot in the R1-1VLD Zone. DISCUSSION: Fence Height: The proposed development is not located in any Subarea of the Venice Coastal Zone Specific Plan. According to Section C20(f(2) of the Los Angeles Municipal Code (Mistakenly cited as Section c.1.g by the Owner s representative): Front Yards. (Amended by Ord. No. 173,754, Eff. 3/5/01.) In the R Zones, fences, walls, and landscape architectural features of guard railing around depressed ramps, not more than three and one-half feet in height above the natural ground level adjacent to the feature, railing or ramp, may be located and maintained in any required front yard. In the A Zones (including the RA Zone), a fence or wall not more than six feet in height may be located and maintained in the required front yard. In both the A and R Zones, a fence Page 4 of 6

5 or wall not more than eight feet in height may be located and maintained in the required front yard when authorized by a Zoning Administrator pursuant to Section X.7. The property currently contains a permitted Two (2) Story Single Family Dwelling with an Two (2) Car Attached Garage, a 32'X12' Pool, a 7 X7 Spa, and a Pool Bar area, all of which are currently under construction on a 10,891 sq. ft.lot. The Owner s representative proposes to build a Solid Front Yard Wall, Pilasters, a Sliding Driveway Gate and a Pedestrian Gate with a Gate Portal within the required front yard, one (1) foot setback from the front property line and along either side property lines. Along the front yard property line the portion of the proposed solid wall to be 4-2 H. is approximately 22 linear feet. Along the front yard property line the proposed sliding driveway gate to be 4-2 H. is approximately 12 linear feet. Along the front yard property line each of the two (2) proposed pilasters to be 4-6 H. and located on either side of the sliding driveway gate are approximately 2 linear feet. Along the front yard property line the portion of the proposed solid wall to be of varied height from 4-6 H. up to 6-0 H. are approximately 20 linear feet. Along the front yard property line the portion of the proposed pedestrian gate and gate portal of varied height from 7-0 H. up to 7-11 H. are approximately 7 linear feet. Along either side property lines the portion of the proposed solid wall to be 4-2 H. is approximately 9.5 linear feet. Along either side property lines the portion of the proposed solid wall to be 4-9 H. is approximately 10 linear feet. Along either side property lines the portion of the proposed solid wall to be 5-4 H. is approximately 4.5 linear feet. The proposal calls for solid walls, pilasters, a driveway gate, a pedestrian gate and a gate portal, of varied heights of between 4-2 H. and 7-11 H. and all of the proposed elements are in the required front yard. The elements as presented depict structures which encroach on the maximum allowed height of 3-6 within the required front yard, and that are therefore over in height. The Owner s representative wishes to obtain a Zoning Administrator s Adjustment to permit the construction, use and maintenance of a front yard wall, pilasters, a driveway gate, a pedestrian gate and gate arch with a minimum height of 4-2 and a maximum height of 7-11 in lieu of the maximum allowed height of 3-6 in order to obtain approval of the proposed improvements in the configuration as they have been presented with the submittal request. PRIOR CASES: Page 5 of 6

6 One case which contained a request which is not similar in scope and character, which is not in the same area/street, but which was granted was cited by the Owner s representative in the submittal: CASE NO: ZA (ZAD): On May 18, 2006 the Zoning Administrator approved a Zoning Administrator's Determination to permit the construction, use and maintenance of a variable height solid wall not to exceed 5 feet 6 inches in height and an 8-foot high portal gate in lieu of the maximum height of 3 feet 6 inches within the front yard setback area for the property located at 2137 Glyndon Avenue. It should be noted that the front yard property line of 2137 Glyndon Avenue is 43-0 in length, whereas the front yard property line of 1235 E. Vienna Way is 62-7 in length, nearly twenty (20) feet longer. While similar in style to the request approved in ZA (ZAD) for 2137 Glyndon Avenue, the elements proposed for 1235 E. Vienna Way are not similar in scope and character on account of its significantly larger lot size and frontage. Furthermore the lot at 2137 Glyndon Avenue is nearly two (2) blocks away from the subject property, not (1) block away as claimed by the Owner s representative. The approved request is not on the same block or in the same area. Other examples were presented by the Owner s representative in the submittal in an attempt to prove a precedent. All of those examples presented conditions which were not similar in scope and character, and that were either located on another street/area, depicted different by-right conditions, or that do not exist by-right: 1. A side yard fence at 2000 Walnut Ave., allowed by-right to be over 3-6 H. 2. A construction fence at 2001 Walnut Ave., Temporary. 3. A 5-0 front accent wall at 1227 E. Vienna Way, no evidence of by-right use. 4. Several examples of walls along the Alley NE of E. Vienna Way, in the rear yard of lots shown and allowed by-right to be over 3-6 H. No addresses provided. 5. Over in height plantings at 1240 Palms Blvd., no evidence of by-right use. 6. Several examples of over in height solid walls in front yards, claimed to be nearby but nevertheless not on the same street. No evidence of by-right use. No addresses provided. COMMUNITY OUTREACH: Community meeting was held at 5:30pm on October 7, 2014 at the property. The meeting was attended by LUPC Staff and an Owner s representative. No testimony either in support or opposed to the request was presented at the Community meeting, as there were no concerned parties or stakeholders who attended. Page 6 of 6