Loading...
PC RES 2013-025 P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2013-25 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DENYING, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REVISION, MAJOR GRADING PERMIT AND MINOR EXCEPTION PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 10,656FT2 SPLIT-STORY RESIDENCE, A 948FT2 DETACHED GARAGE, A 178FT2 DETACHED POOL RESTROOM, A SWIMMING POOL, 2,990YD3 OF RELATED GRADING, CONSTRUCTION OF COMBINATION WALL UP TO 8' IN HEIGHT, RETAINING WALLS UP TO 17' IN HEIGHT AND A 8' TALL ENTRY FENCING/GATES WITHINTHE FRONT PROPERTY LINE OF 2902 VISTA DEL MAR. WHEREAS, on July 12, 1977, the Planning Commission approved Conditional Use Permit No. 23, establishing a residential planned development (RPD) comprising of Tract Nos. 32574, 32991 and 34834; and, WHEREAS, on September 9, 1986, the Planning Commission adopted the Seacliff Hills Development Guidelines (attached) in recognition of the need for greater sensitivity and design flexibility in the construction of these custom homes. The Guidelines were supplemented on August 23, 1989; and, WHEREAS, on November 25, 2008, the Planning Commission adopted P.C. Resolution No. 2008-48, approving a tract amendment for the adjustment of a "Restricted Use Area" and a Conditional Use Permit Revision (CUP) and Grading Permit (GR) for a new 9,225ft2, two-story, single-family residence with 2,000yd3 of grading for the subject property located at 2902 Vista Del Mar and, WHEREAS, the applicant (Mr. DlDominicantonio) submitted plans for plan check review, which expired on November 2010 due to inactivity; and, WHEREAS, on February 14, 2013, a different property owner with the same previous architect (AGA Design Group representing Jia Zhang) submitted a new CUP Revision, GP and MEP applications, requesting approval for a new 10,656ft2, two-story, single-family residence, 852ft2 detached garage, 178ft2 detached pool restroom, a swimming pool, construction of walls and entry gate with 5,312yd3 of related grading for the subject property; and, WHEREAS, on March 6, 2013, the project was deemed incomplete based on insufficient information; and,. WHEREAS, on September 5, 2013, the project was deemed complete After a series of submittals of additional information, 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 Planning Commission found no evidence that Case No. ZON2013-00063 will have a significant effect on the environment and, therefore, the proposed project has been found to be categorically exempt under Class 3 (Section 15303); and, P.C. Resolution No. 2013-25 Page 1 of 4 WHEREAS, a notice was published on September 5, 2013, pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code; and, WHEREAS, on September 24, 2013, the applicant agreed to a 90-day extension to the decision deadline and the Planning Commission continued the public hearing to November 12, 2013; thereby allowing the applicant additional time to address concerns related to lot coverage, driveway entry gate, grading plan and neighborhood compatibility-, and, WHEREAS, on November 12, 2013, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing, 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 HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: The proposed project is a request for the following: A. 2,990yd' of grading (2,430yd' of cut and 560yd' of fill) on a vacant lot for a new house and accessory structures. B. Construct a new 11,782ft2 split-story residence with a below-grade basement and a detached three-car garage: a. 4,088ft2 first floor b. 3,31 9ft2 second floor c. 3,249ft2 basement d. 948ft2detached garage C. 178ft' detached pool restroom and a swimming pool in the rear yard. D. Combination wall (retaining walls with guardrails on top) up to 8' in height and retaining walls up to 17' in height around the residence and rear patio area as a result of grading. E. 8' tall entry gates/fencing within the front yard setback, where the Code restricts the height to 3.5' maximum, Section 2: Approval of a Major Grading Permit is not warranted because: A. The grading exceeds that which is necessary for the permitted primary use of the lot. More specifically, the Planning Commission adopted P.C. Resolution No. 2008-48, thereby allowing a 9,225ft' residence with 1,850yd' of grading for the subject lot. This resulted in the largest approved residence in the neighborhood. The approved structure size and grading quantity were based on reductions to address the Commission's concerns related to neighborhood compatibility. The proposed project is now requesting a larger residence measuring 11,782ft' in size with 2,990yd 3 of grading. This proposal is significantly larger in size, altering more areas of the lot to accommodate more intensive project. The additional basement area which was once eliminated in the prior approval based on neighborhood compatibility concerns and a significantly enlarged rear yard area results in excessive grading than what is necessary for the economic development of the lot. P.C. Resolution No. 2013-25 Page 2 of 4 B. The nature of the grading does not minimize disturbances to the natural contours and finished contours are not reasonably natural. More specifically, while the previously approved project altered approximately half of the lot, the proposed project alters what appears to be two-thirds of the lot. Additionally, the proposed basement addition, which was eliminated in the previously approved project and the expansive rear yard patio improvements result in excessive grading that does not minimize disturbance to the existing contours. C. The grading does not take into account the preservation of natural topographic features and appearances. More specifically, nearly two-thirds of the lot will be altered as a result of the proposed project, while the previously approved project was limited to what appeared to be half for the largest residence in the neighborhood, The proposed grading quantity and area is excessive for the reasonable development of the lot. D. The grading and/or related construction is not compatible with the immediate neighborhood character. More specifically, the average structure size is 6,751 ft2, with the largest as 9,225W. The largest structure size of 9,225ft2 was granted for the subject property in 2008, but was never constructed. The structure size of 9,225ft2 was a result of reducing the original structure size of 11,760fe based on Planning Commission's concerns with neighborhood compatibility by eliminating the basement area entirely. The proposed project is generally the same as the previous proposal except that it re- added the basement (3,249ft2) and a new detached pool restroom; resulting in a total structure size of 11,782ft2, Re-adding the basement results in a structure size which is nearly double the average and is 28% larger than the largest approved structure size of 9,225ft2, which is not compatible with the neighborhood character. Additionally, while the previous proposal was for 1,850yd' of grading to alter nearly half the lot, the proposed project involves 2,990yd' of grading to grade nearly two-thirds of the lot and an increase in lot coverage of 7%. E, The grading does not conform nor can a finding can be made that supports the proposed deviations exceeding the maximum 5' depth of cut; retaining walls in excess of 8' upslope, 3.5' downslope and 5' next to the driveway. Section 3: Approval of a Minor Exception Permit is not warranted because there are no practical difficulties, unnecessary hardships or necessity to avoid inconsistencies with the general intent of the General Code. More specifically, the proposed grading beyond what was granted in 2008 is excessive. The 2008 approval allowed for 1,850yd' of grading for the largest two-story residence in the neighborhood, a detached garage and a pool area in the rear yard with minimal pool deck area, which resulted in altering what appeared to be half the lot. The proposed project increases the total structure size by 2,557ft2 and a substantially larger rear yard area. The proposed rear yard area includes a large patio, detached pool restroom, swimming pool, with additional decking and planters beyond. The proposed improvements appear to alter nearly two-thirds of the lot. Because of the requested fill necessary for the rear yard improvements, series of retaining walls are proposed, one of which requires a 3.8' tall guardrail on, top. Since the proposed grading which includes the rear yard improvements is excessive, there are no practical difficulties, unnecessary hardships or necessity to avoid inconsistencies with the general intent of the General Code to warrant combination walls in excess of 6' in height. Section 4: Any interested person aggrieved by this decision or any portion of this decision may appeal to the City Council. The appeal shall set forth the grounds for appeal and P.C. Resolution No. 2013-25 Page 3 of 4 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, November 27, 2013. A $2,275.00 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 November 27, 2013. Section 5: 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 denies, without prejudice, a Conditional Use Permit Revision, Major Grading Permit and Minor Exception Permit applications for property located at 2902 Vista Del Mar (Case No. ZON2013-00063). PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 12'h day of November 2013, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Gerstner, Nelson, Tetreault, Chairman Emenhiser NOES: Vice Chairman Leon ABSTENTIONS: None RECUSALS: None ABSENT: Commissioners Lewis, 'Tomblin David ffme"nhiser Chairman Joel Roj ICP Comm ity ?,evelopmen! D rector; and, Secret of the Plannin mmission P.C. Resolution No. 2013- Page 4 of 4