PC RES 2005-006 R.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2005-06
RESOLUTION F THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO PALOSVERDES APPROVING CASE NO. ZON2004-00654,
HEIGHT VARIATION PERMIT AND GRADINGPERMIT FOR THE
DEMOLITION EXISTING - T Y RESIDENCE
CONSTRUCTION EW 8,578 SQUAREFOOT TWO-STORY
RESIDENCE, T 924 CUBIC YARDS OF GRADING
PAD LOT LOCATED AT 3046 CROWNVIEWDRIVE.
WHEREAS, on August 24, 2004, the Planning Commission denied without prejudice
Case No. ZON2004-00140, a Height Variation and Grading Permit for a 9,030 square foot
two-story residence and 924 cubic yards of grading. The project was denied without
prejudice because the Planning Commission concluded that the proposed residence was
not compatible with the immediate neighborhood, and to allow the applicant another
opportunity to address the concerns raised by the Planning Commission while not being
constrained by a deadline to submit a redesigned project; and,
WHEREAS, on December 13,2004, Jerry Rodin, representing property owners Allen
and Charlotte Ginsburg, submitted a Height Variation application and Grading Permit
application (hereinafter referred to as ZON2004-00654), requesting approval for the
construction of a new 8,578 square foot two-story residence with an overall height of 26-
feet, and 924 cubic yards of grading, for property located at 3046 Crownview Drive; and
WHEREAS, on December 16, 2004, the application was deemed generally complete
for processing; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act,
Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et. seq. ("CEQA"), the State's CEQA Guidelines,
California Code of Regulation, Title 14, Section 15000 et. seq., the City's Local CEQA
Guidelines, and Government Code Section 65962.5(f)(Hazardous Waste and Substances
Statement), Staff found no evidence that ZON2004-00654 would have a significant effect
on the environment and, therefore, the proposed project has been found to be categorically
exempt under Class 3 (Section 15303) since the project involves the construction of one
new single-family residential structure; and,
WHEREAS, after notice issued pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos
Verdes Development Code,the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on
January 25, 2005, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard
and present evidence;
NOW, THEREFORE,THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS
VERDES DOES HERESY FIND, DETERMINE, AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: When the project was originally submitted to the City in 2004, the
applicant was successful in obtaining the necessary number of signatures, and the
previously submitted signatures were utilized for this new project. Nonetheless, the
applicant obtained acknowledgement signatures from 77.7% of the property owners within
100-feet of the subject property and 36.1% of the property owners within 500-feet of the
subject property, who have reviewed the plans prior to filing the application with the City.
Section 2: The proposed two-story addition does not significantly impair a view
from public property which has been identified in the City's General flan or Coastal Specific
Plan as a City-designated viewing area because there are no such areas that overlook the
subject property.
Section 3; The property is not located on a ridge or promontory as there are other
adjacent parcels with varying pad elevations that were terraced when initially constructed.
Section 4: The proposed two-story residence that is above sixteen feet in height,
when considered exclusive of foliage, does not significantly impair a view from the viewing
area of another parcel. During the initial application, Staff conducted view analyses from
the viewing areas of properties at 3087 and 3105 Crownview Drive and properties located
at 29647, 29635, 29624 and 29636 Grand Point Lane and due to the topography,
development in the area, and the location of the new residence in relation to the views, the
new two-story residence will not significantly impair views from other properties. Further,
the proposed project continues to be a two-story structure and the proposed design
changes would not increase the ridgeline of the residence nor be evident from surrounding
properties.
Section 5: As indicated and concluded above and on August 24, 2004, the view
impairment will not be significant; but due to the topography and development of the area,
compounded with the location of the subject property, the proposed structure is designed
and situated in such a manner as to reasonably minimize impairment of a view.
Section6: There is no significant cumulative view impairment caused by granting
the application due to the topography and development in the area. The adjacent property
to the north is already improved with a two-story structure; however, the property is at a
lower pad elevation. Further, the other abutting properties and other properties within four
parcels adjacent to the subject property are either at substantially higher pad elevations or
substantially lower pad elevations whereby if these lots were developed with similar
projects it would not result in significant view impairment to any primary views from the
viewing areas of the properties mentioned above.
Section 7e The proposed structure complies with all other Code requirements in
that all the development standards of the RS-2 Zoning District are met and the minimum
setback requirements are exceeded.
Section 8® The addition and resulting appearance will not significantly change the
appearance of the immediate neighborhood and the residence will be compatible with the
immediate neighborhood. The architectural style, roofing material, exterior finishes,
number of stories and building materials will be consistent with other homes in the
neighborhood. Furthermore, although the proposed structure size (8,578 square feet) is
significantly larger than the structure sizes that exist in the immediate neighborhood, it is
P.C. Resolution No. 2005-06
Page 2
Staff's understanding that the Commission's primary concern with the previous project was
with the mass and bulk of the new residence. The Commission and Staff have approved
new residences in the past that are much larger than the average structure size of the
immediate neighborhood when applicant's have successfully demonstrated that the
apparent bulk and mass of a new residence would not be readily apparent from the public
street or neighboring properties. Since the size of the previous proposed residence did not
appear to be a point of contention and since the previous bulk and mass issues have been
addressed, the proposed structure size is compatible with the immediate neighborhood.
Section 9: The proposed structure does not create an unreasonable infringement
on the privacy of the occupants of abutting residences due to the development patterns and
topography of the area and on the abutting properties.
Section 10A The proposed grading does not exceed that which is necessary for the
permitted primary use of the lot. The majority of the grading is under the building footprint
and for the driveway access, which are the primary use of the lot; thus, the proposed
grading is considered necessary and not excessive.
Section 11: The grading and related construction will not significantly adversely
affect the visual relationships nor the views from neighboring properties since the grading
will be conducted to create a crawlspace under the building footprint, and the building pad
will not be raised.
Section 12® The grading minimizes disturbance to the natural contours since the
proposed grading is to create a crawlspace under the building footprint that is not visible,
and to create adequate vehicular turnaround from the garage that is also not visible.
Section 13: The grading will not be visible from any properties since the grading
will be conducted under the footprint and a proposed retaining wall will be located
downslope of the street and also not visible. The area that will be excavated is limited to
the building pad area, while the remaining portions of the property, which include the
slopes, will not be modified.
Section 14: The proposed residence is compatible with the immediate
neighborhood character, and is consistent with the mix of homes in the neighborhood.
Section 15: The grading application is consistent with the purpose and intent of the
Section 17.76.040.A, since it provides for the reasonable development of the parcel with a
residential structure.
Section 16: For the foregoing reasons and based on the information and findings
included in the Staff Report, Minutes and other records of proceedings, the Planning
Commission of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby approves Case No. ZON2004-
00654 for a Height Variation application and Grading Permit application, thereby allowing
for the demolition of an existing one-story residence and construction of a new 8,578
square foot two-story residence up to 26-feet in height and conduct 924 cubic yards of
P.C. Resolution No. 2005-06
Page 3
grading, subject to the conditions contained in Exhibit"A"attached hereto and made a part
hereof, which are necessary to protect the public health, safety, and welfare.
Section 17: Any interested person aggrieved by this decision or by any portion of
this decision may appeal to the City Council. Pursuant to Section 17.80 of the Rancho
Palos Verdes Municipal Code, any such appeal must be filed with the City, in writing and
with the appropriate appeal fee, no later than February 9, 2005.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 25th day of January 2005, by the following
vote:
AYES: Gerstner, Karp, Perestam
NOES: Tetrault, Knight
ABSTENTIONS: 0
ABSENT: Mueller
Craig Mueller
Planning Commission Chairman
Veleto)'aS, At )g'
ire r of PI W�n Building and
C Enforcement; and, Secretary
to the Planning Commission
P.C. Resolution No. 2005-06
Wage4-
Exhibit "A"
Conditions of Approval
Case No. 2 4-00 5
(Height Variation & GradingPermit)
1. Prior to the submittal of plans into Building and Safety plan check, the applicant and/or
property owner shall submit to the City a statement, in writing, that they have read,
understand and agree to all conditions of approval contained in this approval. Failure to
provide said written statement within ninety(90)days following the date of this approval
shall render this approval null and void.
2. The approval shall become null and void after one year from the date of approval unless
the approved plans are submitted to the Building and Safety Division to initiate the"plan
check" review process.
3. Approval is for the demolition of an existing one-story residence and construction of a
new 8,578 square foot two-story residence up to 26-feet in height and conduct 924
cubic yards of grading.
4. The following minimum setbacks shall be maintained:
Front yard: 27'-0" minimum/379-0" for second story over the garage
Side yard: 5'-0" minimum
Rear yard: 20'-0" minimum
SUBJECT T VIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE BUILDINGFFI I L, SETBACK
CERTIFICATION IS REQUIRED Y A LICENSED LAND SURVEYORENGINEER
PRIOR TO THE POURING F FOOTINGS.
5. The maximum overall height of the structure shall not exceed 26-feet, as measured
from the highest ridgeline of the structure to the lowest finish grade elevation covered
by the structure. SUBJECT TO REVIEWAPPROVAL BY THE BUILDING
OFFICIAL, A RIDGEHEIGHT TIFI TI IS REQUIREDY A LICENSED
LAND SURVEYORI E R PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF ROOF
MATERIALS.
6. The maximum structure size of the residence, including garage, shall be limited to a
total area of 8,578 square feet. Specifically, the first floor is limited to 4,965 square feet
(including the 4-car garage), while the second floor is limited to 3,613 square feet.
SUBJECT T IEW AND APPROVAL BY THE BUILDINGFFI I L,
STRUCTURE I E CERTIFICATION IS REQUIREDY A LICENSED U VEY ,
ENGINEER OR ARC IT CT IMMEDIATELY AFTER FRAMING T CTU .
7. A minimum three-car garage shall be maintained, with each space being individually
accessed and each maintaining a minimum unobstructed dimension of 9-feet-wide by
20-feet-deep by 7-feet-vertical clearance.
P.C. Resolution No. 2005-06
Page 5
8. All development and grading shall be limited to the pad area only. No development,
grading, improvements, etc. are approved or allowed on the transitional slopes of the
subject property.
9. A maximum total of 924 cubic yards of grading (cumulative cut and fill) is approved with
this permit.
10.The underfloor area under the building footprint shall be used for the sole purpose of
accommodating all mechanical equipment, plumbing, wiring and ducting, and for
storage. The area shall not be utilized or converted to habitable area. Further, the
interior height of the area shall not exceed 6-6f9.
11.Construction of the project shall substantially conform to the plans stamped as
approved by the Planning Department with the effective date of this approval.
12.Due to the subject property's location in the RS-2 zoning district, a maximum of forty
(40%) percent lot coverage shall be allowed on the lot (proposed: 30.8%).
13.In the event that a Planning requirement and a Building & Safety requirement are in
conflict with one another, the stricter standard shall apply.
14.The hours of construction shall be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., Monday through
Saturday. No construction shall be permitted on Sundays or on legal holidays.
15.The construction site and all adjacent private and public property shall be kept free of all
loose materials resembling trash and debris in excess of that material used for
immediate construction purposes. Such excess material may include, but is not limited
to: the accumulation of debris, garbage, lumber, scrap metal, concrete, asphalt, piles of
earth, salvage materials, abandoned or discarded furniture, appliances or other
household fixtures.
16.The maximum eave projection allowed into the required setback areas shall not exceed
6-inches for each 1-foot of required setback.
17.The construction site shall be temporarily enclosed with a six(6'-0")foot high chain-link
fence during the length of construction of the residential structure.
18.The Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement is authorized to make minor
modifications to the approved plans or any of the conditions if such modifications shall
achieve substantially the same results as would strict compliance with said plans and
conditions.
P.C. Resolution No. 2005-06
Page 6