Loading...
RPVCCA_CC_SR_2014_11_04_02_Appeal_PC_Fence_Wall_Permit_DecisionCITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PUBLIC HEARING Date: November 4, 2014 Subject:· Appeal of Planning Commission's Fence/Wall Permit Decision (Case No. ZON2014-00202) Subject Property: 29023 Sprucegrove Drive 1. Declare the Hearing Open: Mayor Duhovic 2. Report of Notice Given: City Clerk Morreale 3. Staff Report & Recommendation: Senior Planner Kim 4. Public Testimony: Applicant: Mr. and Mrs. Hesser Appellant: Mr. and Mrs. Shahbazian 5. Council Questions: 6. Rebuttal: 7. Declare Hearing Closed: Mayor Duhovic 8. Council Deliberation: 9. Council Action: 2-1 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: HONORABLE MAYOR JOEL ROJAS, COMMUN! NOVEMBER 4, 2014 NCIL MEMBERS EVELOPMENT DIRECTOR APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S FENCE/WALL PERMIT DECISION (CASE NO. ZON2014-00202); PROJECT ADDRESS - 29023 SPRUCEGROVE DRIVE (APPLICANT: MR. & MRS. HESSER I APPELLANT: MR. & MRS. SHAHBAZIAN) REVIEWED: CAROLYNN PETRU, ACTING CITY MANAGER© Staff Coordinator: So Kim, Senior Planner~ RECOMMENDATION Refer the matter back to the Planning Commission for further review and consideration. BACKGROUND On May 7, 2014, the applicant (Hesser-29023 Sprucegrove Dr.) submitted a Fence/Wall Permit site inspection fee of $202 and a plan in order for Staff to determine the type of application process required for the installation of a solid wood barrier on top of an existing retaining wall along the south side property line located between his residence at 29023 Sprucegrove Drive (Hesser) and the abutting residence at 29029' Sprucegrove Drive (Shahbazian). The entire wall consists of four separate parts, sections A, B, C and D, as shown in the diagram on the following page. Sections A and B represent the area in the side yard, extending from the edge of the front yard setback line to the applicant's rear building fa9ade. Section C represents the area from the applicant's rear building fa9ade to the top of slope and Section D follows the descending slope in the rear yard. Proposed Wall Sections A and B Based on a few site visits, Staff determined that while proposed wall sections A and B would cause no view impacts, portions of proposed wall sections C and D could impair a view from the viewing area of the abutting property at 29029 Sprucegrove Drive 30940 HAWTHORNE BLVD. / RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 90275-5391 PLANNING & CODE ENFORCEMENT DIVISION (310) 544-5228 I BUILDING & SAFETY DIVISION (310) 265-7800 / DEPT FAX (310) 544-5293 E-MAIL: PLANNING@RPVCOM I WWWPALOSVERDES.COM/RPV 2-2 (Shahbazian). As such, pursuant to recently amended Municipal Code Section 17.76.030.B, a Staff level approval was granted for wall sections A and B (ZON2014- 00180) under a shortened review process, while sections C and D required the approval of ~ Fence/Wall Permit under the full review process. Following the approval of sections A and B, Staff mailed a letter to the neighbor (Shahbazian) informing them of this approval. Proposed Wall Sections C and D As described in the first paragraph, Staff informed the applicant that the proposed wood wall in section C and a portion of section D would cause view impacts and thus a formal Fence/Wall Permit would need to be processed. The applicant submitted a Fence/Wall Permit, Staff conducted site visits to the neighbor's property (Shahbazian) and determined that a solid barrier up to 4' in height would not significantly impair a view. However, the applicant requested a taller barrier (up to 6.5' in height) as security fencing for his dogs. As such, the Director approved a solid barrier up to 4' topped with a 2.5' tall transparent acrylic panel as measured from the grade of the upslope property (Shahbazian) to be installed on top of an existing 1.5' tall retaining wall on the applicant's property. The neighbor (Shahbazian) disagreed with this decision as they felt that the approved wall significantly impaired their view and appealed the Director's decision to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission upheld the Director's decision and approved the wall. Subsequently, the same neighbor (Shahbazian) appealed the Planning Commission's decision to the City Council, which has been scheduled for tonight's hearing. DISCUSSION In reviewing the process for approving wall sections A and B, it has come to Staff's attention that the new procedural requirements of Section 17.76.030 of the Code pertaining to the processing of a Fence/Wall Permit were not completely followed. More specifically, while the Code requires the submittal of an application along with the site inspection fee, Staff considered the submittal of a fee and plans to function as the application, while a completed application form was not submitted. Additionally, the Code allows an adjacent property owner to appeal the Director's decision to the Planning Commission. Staff's letter sent to the adjacent property owner (Shahbazian) advising them of the approval of wall sections A and B did not indicate the process for filing an appeal. As a result, pursuant to Municipal Code Section 17.86.060 (Suspension or Revocation of Permits), the approval for sections A and B was revoked as it was issued contrary to the provisions of the Municipal 2-3 Code. The applicant accepted the revocation. Following the revocation, the applicant was given the option to either remove the solid wood barrier comprised of sections A and B within 30 days or submit a new Fence/Wall Permit application to allow said solid wood wall to remain. In response, the applicant submitted a new Fence/Wall Permit application which Staff is processing. The abutting neighbor (Shahbazian) verbally informed the Director that he intends to appeal the upcoming decision for wall sections A & B. Since the pending appeal of wall sections C and D is an extension of the same wall, Staff believes that the entire side wall (sections A, B, C and D) should be assessed as a single unit. As such, Staff is recommending that the City Council refer the appeal of the Planning Commission's decision on wall sections C and D back to the Planning Commission so that the entire side wall can be reviewed by the Planning Commission as a single structure once the appeal of the approval of sections A and B is made. Once the Planning Commission-considers the entirety of said wall (sections A, B, C and D), the matter will be forwarded back to the City Council for its consideration given the appeal of the Planning Commission's decision on wall sections C and D. Staff's recommendation has been discussed with both the applicant (Hesser) and the appellant (Shahbazian). CONCLUSION Based on the discussion above, Staff recommends that the City Council refer the matter back to the Planning Commission so that the entire side wall be evaluated as a single structure. FISCAL ANALYSIS There are no fiscal impacts related to this request. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Since Staff's recommendation is to referthe matter back to the Planning Commission, the entirety of the record related to this matter is not attached to this Staff Report. The entirety of the record will be provided to the City Council when this item is brought back to the City Council after the Planning Commission reconsiders the item. 2-4