Loading...
PC RES 2014-007 P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2014-07 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DENYING, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, A HEIGHT VARIATION, GRADING AND EXTREME SLOPE FOR A NEW 5,203 SQUARE FOOT, TWO-STORY SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE, WITH A TOTAL OF 466 CUBIC YARDS OF GRADING, ON AN EXISTING VACANT LOT (APN 7566-006-018) (CASE NO. ZON2011- 00280). WHEREAS, on April 21, 1965, Tract Map 27142 was recorded with the County of Los Angeles, thereby creating the subject property along with the other properties within the Miralesle Hills community ; and, WHEREAS, on October 10, 2011, an application was submitted requesting Height Variation, Grading and Site Plan Review approval for the construction of a new 6,105 square foot, 2-story single-family residence and garage on the existing vacant lot, including 762 cubic yards of grading; and, WHEREAS, on October 31, 2011, the application was deemed incomplete; and, WHEREAS, on November 4, 2013, Staff deemed the project complete after the submittal of additional information and revised plans reducing the scale of the project and proposed grading on October 29, 2013 and November 1, 2013; 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 ZON2011-00280 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 a new residence on a legally subdivided lot; and, WHEREAS, on November 7, 2013, a notice was published and mailed pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code; and, WHEREAS, on December 10, 2013, the applicant agreed to a 90-day extension to the decision deadline and the Planning Commission continued the public hearing to February 11, 2014; thereby allowing the applicant additional time to address concerns related to bulk and mass, grading and neighborhood compatibility; and, WHEREAS, on February 11, 2014, 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: P.C. 'Resolution No. 2014-07 Page 1 of 4 Section 1: The proposed project is a request to construct a new 5,203 square foot, 24story residence, including a 649 square foot 3-car garage, involving a total of 466 cubic yards of grading (106 CY of cut and 360 CY of fill) for the construction of a new driveway and motor court providing access directly off Knoll View Drive, leveling of the property, a new pool and spa in the rear yard, and retaining walls connecting a created small pad area to a new 454 square foot deck over an extreme slope in the front yard area. Section 2: The proposed grading is excessive for what is necessary for the lot, as fill is proposed on an existing extreme slope in the front yard area for a new driveway and motor court in the front yard area that is not commonly found in the surrounding area when there is sufficient usable flat area in the rear yard of the subject property and the availability of an existing driveway that provides access to the subject lot. Section 3: The proposed grading does not minimize disturbances to the natural contours and finished contours are not reasonably natural, as the multiple retaining walls proposed for the new driveway, motor court and grading in the front yard area interrupt the natural contours of the front yard slope, which do not look to blend with the existing slope nor appear not to be similar to any other properties in the area. Section 4: The proposed grading does not take into account the preservation of natural topographic features, as the excessive amount of grade being added results in retaining walls that do not appear to be natural nor can be found on any of the neighboring properties with similar site conditions. Section 5: The proposed grading is not compatible with the immediate neighborhood character, as there is an existing driveway which currently provides access to the pad level of the subject lot that would not require the construction of a new driveway and motor court, which were not found on any of the other similar lots along Knoll View Drive. Section 6: The proposed grading does not conform to the City's standards for grading on slopes, as the project would result in a maximum depth of fill over five feet in depth, grading on slopes over 50% steepness, more than one upslope retaining wall, a wall taller than 3.5' in the side yard, and more than one retaining wall adjacent to the driveway. The proposed grading cannot deviate from these criteria, as the proposed grading is not harmonious with the adjacent lands and does not maintain the visual continuity of the hillside community. Further, as there is an existing driveway that is able to provide access to the subject lot, the new driveway and motor court are not features commonly seen among other similar properties in the vicinity, which would be a grant of special privilege. Section 7: The applicant has complied with the Early Neighborhood Consultation process established by the City, and as directed by the Community Development Director, by mailing reduced copies of the project plans and a notice to all landowners within 500 feet of the subject property via registered mail. Section 8- The Height Variation is warranted since the portions of the proposed new residence which exceed sixteen feet in height does not significantly impair a view from public property (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 due to the topography in the area and the location of the subject property, P.C. Resolution No. 2014-07 Page 2 of 4 Section 9: The Height Variation is warranted since the proposed new residence is not located on a ridge or promontory. The subject property is located within a hillside community, on an existing pad lot and does not overlook any other single-family residences. The residence is not located on a ridge or a promontory, as defined in the Municipal Code. Section 10: The Height Variation is warranted because the portions of the new residence which exceed sixteen feet in height, when considered exclusive of existing foliage, will not significantly impair City-protected views from the viewing areas of neighboring properties. Specifically, properties in the neighborhood which overlook the subject property are at a significantly higher elevation than the pad level of the subject lot, allowing protected viewing areas to continue to have unobstructed views over the proposed new residence and will only block the views of residences or buildings and foliage located down the hillside, which are not protected views. Section 11: The Height Variation is warranted because proposed portions of the new residence that exceed sixteen feet in height are designed to minimize the impairment of a view, as the proposed residence is situated as close to the front of the lot as possible with the current design and at a significantly lower elevation, which allows a better angle over the proposed residence from the upslope neighboring properties Section 12: The Height Variation is warranted because granting the application would not cause significant cumulative view impairment, as the adjacent parcels located on the same downslope side as the subject parcel have also been constructed with 2-story residences on a pad level that appears to be at the relatively same elevation as the subject lot. Section 13: The Height Variation is warranted as the proposed addition complies with all other Code requirements, including the RS-2 zoning district development standards with respect to lot coverage, property line setbacks, landscaping, and the required garage size for single-family residences that exceed five thousand (5,000) square feet in size. Section 14: The Height Variation is not warranted because the proposed new residence design and location is not compatible with the character of the immediate neighborhood. More specifically, the size and scale of the proposed 2-story residence appears much larger than the other sizes of residences in the immediate neighborhood, resulting in what appears to be a bulky and massive structure that is not compatible as seen from Knoll View Drive. Section 15: The Height Variation is warranted because the portion of the structure above 16 feet will not result in unreasonable infringement of privacy of the abutting residences. Specifically, the adjacent parcel's privacy will not be impacted any differently than what is already experienced, as each of the properties can be seen from Knoll View Drive over the currently vacant subject lot and the view onto the adjacent lots from proposed 2nd-story windows, balconies and decks the will not be different from what is currently observed from the street. Section 8: 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 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 February 26, 2014, A $2,275 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 February 26, 2014. P.C. Resolution No. 2014-07 Page 3 of 4 Section 9: For the foregoing reasons and based on the information and findings included in the Staff Reports, Minutes and other records of proceedings, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby denies, without prejudice, Case No. ZON2011-00280 for a Height Variation, Grading and Extreme Slope Permit. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 1111 day of February 2014, by the following vote.. AYES: Commissioners Lewis and Tetreault, Vice Chairman Leon NOES: Commissioner Nelson RECUSALS: None ABSTENTIONS: None ABSENT: Commissioners Gerstner and Tomblin, Chairman Emenhiser David Emenhiser, Chairman Joel Rojas, P Communt D ve lo pmer�zi rector; and, N Secretary of e Planning Commission 5C P.C. Resolution No. 2014-07 Page 4 of 4