Loading...
PC RES 2007-061 P.C. RESOLUTION NO, 200761 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES EC MMENDIN THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND APPROVE THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, ZONE CHANGE, HEIGHT VARIATION, AND SITE PLAN REVIEW (CASE NO, ZON200700134) FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3324 SEACLAIRE DRIVE® WHEREAS, on March 22, 2007, the property owners at 3324 Seaclaire Drive submitted a General Plan Amendment Initiation Request (GPAIR) and Zone Change Initiation Request to relocate the General Plan and Zoning land use designation boundary line on their property; and, WHEREAS, on April 16, 2007, the applications for a General Plan Amendment Initiation Request (GPAIR) and Zone Change Initiation Request were deemed complete; and, WHEREAS, on May 15, 2007, the City Council conducted a public hearing on a GPAIR for the subject property and allowed the applicant to submit the necessary applications and proceed through the review process for a proposed change in the General Plan Land Use and Zoning Designation for a portion of the subject site; and WHEREAS, on June 19, 2007, the applicants submitted applications for a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Environmental Assessment, Height Variation and Site Plan Review requesting to relocate the existing boundary line that separates two distinct General Plan land use and Zoning designation and to replace the existing 2,721ft2 single-story residence with a 3,720ft2 two-story residence; and, WHEREAS, on July 11, 2007, the applications for a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Height Variation, and Site Plan Review was deemed complete; and, WHEREAS, on August 14, 2007, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Environmental Assessment, Height Variation and Site Plan Review and continued the meeting to September 25, 2007 based on concerns in regards to silhouette accuracy, unclear horizon line and compatibility; 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 Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et seq., the City's Local CEQA Guidelines, and Government Code Section 65962.5(f) (Hazardous Waste and Substances Statement), the City of Rancho Palos Verdes has prepared an Initial Study and determined that there is no substantial evidence that the approval for the General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Height Variation and Site Plan Review would result in a significant adverse effect on the environment and, therefore, a Negative Declaration has been prepared and notice of same was given in the manner required by law; and, WHEREAS, after notices were issued pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on September 25, 2007, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence. Resolution No. 2007-61 Page 1 of 6 NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1 a That the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the proposed Negative Declaration, the public comments, and other evidence and finds that the Negative Declaration is prepared in a manner required by law, that there is no substantial evidence that the approval of the General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Height Variation and Site Plan Review would have significant effect on the environment, and that no mitigation measures are necessary to eliminate significant environmental effects of the proposed project. Section 2: That the proposed change in the General Plan land use designation is warranted since the proposed amendment is internally consistent with the General Plan. Further, the surrounding area is a fully developed residential tract and thus the proposed change from Natural Environment/Hazard to Residential is consistent with the surrounding properties. Section 3: That the proposed change in the General Plan is warranted since the proposed amendment is in the public's interest because it would further differentiate the pad area of the property that is already developed from the canyon slope. Section 4: That the proposed Zone change is warranted since it is consistent with the General Plan. With the change in the General Plan land use designation from Natural Environment/Hazard to Residential, the change in zoning from Open Space Hazard (OH) to Single Family Residential (RS-3) is required to keep the zoning consistent with the General Plan. Section 5: That the Height Variation is warranted since the applicant has complied with the early neighbor consultation process established by the city by obtaining 25% of the signatures within a 500' radius and 75% of the signatures within a 100' radius of the project site. Section 6- That the Height Variation is warranted since the proposed addition that is above 16' in height does not significantly impair a view from public property (i.e. parks, major thoroughfares, bike ways, walkways or equestrian trails) which has been identified in the city's general plan or coastal specific plan, as city designated viewing areas. There is a pedestrian walkway along Palos Verdes Drive East located approximately 660' from the northeast corner of the subject property's property line. Due to its proximity and 100' elevation difference (PVDE is higher); the proposed project does not impact any views from public properties, as identified in the city's general plan. Section 7: That the Height Variation is warranted since the proposed additions are not located on a ridge or a promontory. The subject property is located within a fully developed single-family residential tract that is not located on a ridge or a promontory, as defined in the Development Code. Section 8: That the Height Variation is warranted since the proposed addition to the existing structure that is above 16' in height, when considered exclusive of existing foliage, does not significantly impair a view from the viewing area of another parcel. The residents in the immediate neighborhood currently have a view of the ocean and Catalina Island in the southerly direction. The only property whose views would be affected by the proposed residence is 31316 Eaglehaven Circle (Ms. Jody). Ms. Jody's building pad is located approximately 35' higher than the subject property. The patio area, immediately outside Ms. Jody's living room Resolution No. 2007-61 Page 2 of 6 has the best and most important view. The amount of ocean view that would be blocked by the proposed new residence is minimal and does not significantly impair the view from her viewing area. Section 9: That the Height Variation is warranted since the proposed new structure that is above 16' in height is designed and situated in such a manner as to reasonable minimize the impairment of a view. The applicant is proposing a modest sized second floor addition that is significantly smaller than the second floors of other existing two-story residences in the neighborhood. Additionally, the applicant has lowered the height voluntarily to further minimize view impairment. Section 10: That the Height Variation is warranted since there is no significant cumulative view impairment caused by granting the application. Specifically, since the residences along Seaclaire Drive in proximity of the subject property are two-story homes, there is no potential for any cumulative significant view impairment. Section 11: That the Height Variation is warranted since the proposed additions comply with all other code requirements of Title 17 of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code. Section 12: That the Height Variation is warranted since the proposed additions are compatible with the immediate neighborhood character. Based on the analysis of the area, it is found that the proposed resulting structure is consistent with the immediate neighborhood in regards to architectural style, mass and bulk, number of stories, roof design, orientation, setbacks, open space, texture, color, and building materials. Although the proposed home will be the largest in the immediate neighborhood, it will be not out of scale. The reasons are as follows: 1) Most of the square footage is on the first floor; 2) The 250ft2 second floor is approximately a third of the size of the second story on other two-story homes; and 3) The multiple roof planes and setbacks minimizes the apparent bulk and mass of the residence. Section 13: That the Height Variation is warranted since the addition to the existing structure that is above 16' in height does not result in an unreasonable infringement of the privacy of the occupants of abutting residences. The proposed second floor addition is an octagonal shaped loft with a window on each side, totaling 8 windows. There is also a small balcony proposed to the rear of the loft. Since the applicants are proposing a modest 250ft2 addition at the center of the residence which is setback significantly from all property lines, there would not be any unreasonable infringement on privacy caused by the proposal. Due to the large second floor setback from the rear facade of the proposed 1st floor, the rear yards of the abutting neighbors would not be readily visible from the new balcony at the rear of the loft. Additionally, the windows facing the front and the side of the residence would only afford the applicants a view of the neighbors° front yard and roof tops where privacy is not expected. Section 14: That the proposed single-story addition that not exceed 16' in height complies with the Development standards in Title 17 of the Municipal Code. Section 15: The Planning Commission action on this matter is advisory only; with the final action on the matter being taken by the City Council at a future duly noticed public hearing. Nonetheless, any interested person aggrieved by this decision or any portion of this decision may appeal it to the City Council. The appeal shall set forth the grounds for appeal and any specific action being requested by the appellant. Any appeal letter must be filed within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of this decision, or by 5:30 PM on Wednesday, October 10, 2007. Resolution No. 2007-61 Page 3 of 6 A $1,344.00 appeal fee must accompany any appeal letter. If no appeal is filed timely, the Planning Commission's decision will be final at 5:30 PM on October 10, 2007. Section 16: For the foregoing reasons and based on the information and findings included in the Staff Report, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby recommends that the City Council; a) Adopt the Negative Declaration, b) Approve the General Plan Amendment, thereby relocating the boundary line from the front of the property to the top of the slope in the rear yard and thus modifying the General Plan land use from Natural Environment/Hazard to Residential, c) Approve the Zone Change, thereby relocating the boundary line from the front of the property to the top of the slope in the rear yard and thus rezoning from Open Space Hazard (OH)to Single Family Residential (RS-3), d) Conditionally approve the Height Variation and Site Plan Review, thereby allowing the construction of a new 3,720ft2 two-story single family residence to replace the existing one-story home with a maximum height of 24.75', as measured from the lowest finished grade adjacent to the foundation/slab to the highest ridgeline and in compliance with the conditions of approval as shown in attached Exhibit "A." PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 25th day of September 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner Karp, Knight, Lewis, Ruttenberg, Tetreault, Vice Chairman Perestam NOES: None ABSTENTIONS: None RECUSALS: None ABSENT: Chairman Gerster F°11/ Bill Gerstner, Chairman Joel 'ojas, A ICP Dire.'or of ' anning, Bui ding and ode E forceme , and, Secreta • the Planning Commission Resolution No. 2007- 61 Page 4 of 6 Exhibit"A" Conditions of Approval Case No, ZGN2007-00134 (GPA, ZC, HV &SPR) 3324 Seaclalre Drive General 1. Approval of this General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Height Variation and Site Plan Review shall not be construed to mean any waiver of applicable and appropriate zoning regulations, or any Federal, State, County, and City laws and regulations. Unless otherwise expressly specified, all other requirements of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code shall apply. 2. The approval shall become null and void after 1 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, pursuant to Section 17.86.070 of the City's Development Code. This approval shall become null and void if, after initiating the "plan check" review process, or receiving a building permit to begin construction, said, "plan check" or permit is allowed to expire or is withdrawn by the applicant. 3. The applicant/property owner shall submit to the City a statement, in writing that they have read, understand and agree to all conditions of approval listed below. Said statement shall be submitted to the Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement prior to submittal of plans to "plan check" or within ninety (90) days of the effective date of approval, which ever occurs first. Failure to provide said written statement shall render this approval null and void. 4. The Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement is authorized to approve minor modifications to the conditions of approval and/or the approved plans, provided such modifications will achieve substantially the same results as would strict compliance with the original plans or conditions. 5. Permitted hours of construction are 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday. No work is permitted on Sundays or legal holidays. Trucks and other construction vehicles shall not park, queue and/or idle at the project site or in the adjoining public rights-of-way before 7:00 AM, Monday through Saturday, in accordance with the permitted hours of construction stated above. 6. The project shall substantially conform to the plans stamped, and dated the effective date of this approval, approved by the Planning Department. 7. The construction site, adjacent public and private properties 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 not be 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. 8. In the event that a Planning requirement and a Building & Safety requirement are in conflict with one another, the stricter standard shall apply. Resolution No. 2007-61 Page 5of6 S. 9. Prior to the commencement of construction, the applicant shall obtain all applicable permits as required by the Building and Safety Division. Height Variation and Site Plan Review 10. This Height Variation and Site Plan Review allow the construction of a 3,720ft2 (3,470ft2 first floor & 250fta second floor) two-story residence as a replace of the existing single- story residence. 11. The height of the additions shall not exceed the measurements shown on the stamped plans, approved by the Planning Department. The maximum height shall not exceed 24.75', as measured from the point where the lowest foundation or slab meets the finished grade, to the ridgeline or highest point of the structure. BUILDING HEIGHT CERTIFICATION IS REQUIRED. A LICENSED CIVIL ENGINEER OR SURVEYOR SHALL PREPARE THE CERTIFICATION. CERTIFICATION SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE CITY'S BUILDING OFFICIAL FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL PRIOR TO ROOF FRAMING/SHEETING INSPECTION. 12. The approved project shall maintain the setbacks depicted on the stamped approved plans, but in no case shall minimum setbacks be less than the following: 20' front, 15' rear, and 5' sides. SETBACK CERTIFICATION IS REQUIRED. A LICENSED CIVIL ENGINEER OR SURVEYOR SHALL PREPARE THE CERTIFICATION. CERTIFICATION SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE CITY'S BUILDING OFFICIAL FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL PRIOR TO THE POURING OF FOUNDATIONS. 13. The garage shall maintain a minimum interior clearance of 18' (width) by 20' (depth). 14. The approved project shall maintain 31%, but in no case shall exceed 45% maximum lot coverage. 15. A foliage analysis conducted by staff revealed no existing foliage that significantly impairs the protected view form any surrounding properties. 16. No outdoor lighting shall be permitted where the light source is directed toward or results in direct illumination of a parcel of property or properties other than that upon which such light source is physically located. No single lighting fixture may exceed 150 W incandescent (or equivalent). Resolution No. 2007-61 Page 6 of 6