PC RES 2001-032 RESOLUTION NO. 2001-032
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES APPROVING, WITH
CONDITIONS, VARIANCE NO. 475, GRADING PERMIT NO.
2228, MINOR EXCEPTION PERMIT NO. 572, SITE PLAN
REVIEW NO. 8808 REVISION 'A', AND COASTAL PERMIT NO.
161 REVISION 'A' TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 3,925
SQUARE FOOT ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENCE, A NEW SWIMMING POOL AND SPA, THE
RELOCATION OF A 480 SQUARE FOOT GUEST HOUSE
PARTIALLY OVER THE EXISTING SECOND UNIT AT A HEIGHT
OF 24', A 27 SQUARE FEET ADDITION WITHIN THE COASTAL
STRUCTURE SETBACK ZONE, A NEW 6' HIGH FENCE ALONG
THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE, AND 829 CUBIC YARDS OF
ASSOCIATED GRADING. SAID APPROVALS ARE LOCATED
WITHIN THE APPEALABLE AREA OF THE CITY'S COASTAL
DISTRICT ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 33 MARGUERITE
DRIVE.
WHEREAS, on May 31, 2000, City Staff administratively approved Site
Plan Review No. 8808 and Coastal Permit No. 161 to allow the construction of a
2,106 square foot addition to an existing single-family residence in the form of
three detached structures; and,
WHEREAS, soon after building permits were issued for the
aforementioned improvements, the property owners contacted Staff requesting
modifications to the approved plans; and,
WHEREAS, on July 12, 2001 the subject applications, Variance No. 475,
Grading Permit No. 2228, Height Variation No. 913, Minor Exception Permit No.
572, Site Plan Review No. 8808 Revision `A' and Coastal Permit No. 161
Revision 'A' were submitted to the Planning Department by the property owners,
Mr. Alex Kozinski and Ms. Marcy Tiffany of 33 Marguerite Drive, to allow the
construction of a 3,925 square foot addition to an existing single-family residence
with a new swimming pool/spa, the relocation of a 480 square foot guest house
partially over an existing second unit, 829 cubic yards of associated grading, and
a 6' high fence along the front property line within the City's designated
Appealable Coastal District; and,
WHEREAS, on August 13, 2001 the City's Geotechnical Engineer
reviewed and conditionally approved the applicants' geotechnical reports and
studies; and,
P.C. Resolution No.2001-032
Page 1 of 7
WHEREAS, after several meetings attended by Staff and the property
owners and their architect, revised plans were submitted and deemed complete
for processing on August 30, 2001; and,
WHEREAS, on September 6, 2001, the required public notices for the
September 25, 2001 Planning Commission meeting were mailed to property
owners within a 500 foot radius of the subject property, and a notice was
published in the Peninsula News on September 8, 2001; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the California Quality Act,
Public Resources Code Section 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), Staff found no evidence that
Variance No. 475, Grading Permit No. 2228, Minor Exception Permit No. 572,
Site Plan Review No. 8808 Revision 'A' and Coastal Permit No. 161 Revision 'A',
would have a significant effect on the environment and, therefore the proposed
project has been found to be categorically exempt (Class 1); and,
WHEREAS, after notices issued pursuant to the requirements of Rancho
Palos Verdes Development Code, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed
public hearing on September 25, 2001, at which all interested parties were given
the 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 Planning Commission finds that the subject property
does warrant a variance for relief from City's requirements pertaining to
development within the Coastal Structure Setback Zone and the maximum
permitted height for a detached guest house because of exceptional and
extraordinary circumstances that have resulted from the topographic restrictions
imposed on the property. At the time the City adopted the Coastal Specific Plan,
the existing residence, which was developed in 1955, became a non-conforming
structure in that when the Coastal Setback Line was plotted it placed the majority
of the existing residence seaward of the designated Coastal Structure Setback
Zone. Furthermore, coupled with topographic limitations and the Development
Code's restrictions on lot coverage, the subject property cannot be developed in
a manner similar to other residences. Therefore, in order to construct the
requested approvals in a reasonable manner to the immediate neighborhood,
relief from the Development Code's strict interpretation pertaining to the Coastal
Zone and the height limitations to detached guest houses is warranted.
Section 2: The Planning Commission finds that a variance is necessary
to allow development rights possessed by other property owners in the same
zoning district. Most of the neighboring properties are developed in compliance
P.C. Resolution No.2001-032
Page 2 of 7
with the City's development criteria, but are not similar to the subject property in
that the neighboring lots do not have equivalent site and topographic restrictions
that limit the area of development. In order for the property owner of the subject
property to exercise their right to improve their property in a manner similar to
other lots in the same zoning district, an encroachment into the Coastal Structure
Setback Zone as well as a deviation in the height limitation for detached
accessory structures is necessary.
Section 3: The Planning Commission finds that granting the variance to
allow a 27 square foot addition within the Coastal Structure Setback Zone and to
allow the guest house to be constructed at a height of 24', as opposed to the 12'
height requirement, will not be materially detrimental to the public's welfare or
injurious to property within the area in that the properties to the north and south
consist of extreme slopes between the building pads and the ocean below that
cannot accommodate development. Furthermore, the neighboring properties on
the inland side of Marguerite Drive are located at a significantly higher elevation
than the subject property with views laterally over the subject development.
Therefore, granting the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public
welfare or injurious to neighboring property.
Section 4: The variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the
General Plan or the policies and requirements of the Coastal Specific Plan in that
the subject property is developed with a single-family residence that is consistent
with similar residences within the City's designated Subregion 1 of the Coastal
Zone and that the proposed development complies with the goals and objectives
of the General Plan and is consistent with the Residential 1 dwelling units per
acre General Plan Land Use Designation.
Section 5: The grading does not exceed that which is necessary for the
permitted primary use of the lot in that the proposed 829 cubic yards of
associated grading is necessary to prepare the project site for the construction of
an addition to an existing single-family residence, which is considered the
permitted primary use of the property. The applicants' grading request consists
of 634 cubic yards of cut for the proposed basement and 195 cubic yards of cut
for the expansion of the motor courtyard. Since the grading request for the
basement will occur entirely below the building footprint, the only visible earth
movement is limited to the 195 cubic yards of cut for the expansion of the
driveway motor courtyard. Therefore, the Planning Commission finds that the
proposed grading is not excessive for the permitted primary use of the lot.
Section 6: The grading and/or related construction does not
significantly adversely affect visual relationships nor the views from neighboring
properties since the proposed grading will not raise the height of the existing
building pad, but rather cut into portions of the existing building pad to
accommodate a basement and an expanded driveway motor courtyard. Since
the building pad for the subject property is located approximately 20 feet lower
than the street elevation coupled with the fact that the neighboring properties on
P.C. Resolution No.2001-032
Page 3 of 7
the inland side of Marguerite Drive are located significantly higher in elevation
with views of the ocean laterally over the subject property, the proposed grading
will not be visible from the street or neighboring properties. Furthermore, the
Planning Commission finds that since a majority of the earth movement will occur
entirely below the building footprint in the form of a basement this finding can be
made.
Section 7: The nature of grading minimizes disturbance to the natural
contours and finished contours are reasonably natural in that the proposed
grading is to occur on a portion of the project site that was previously graded to
accommodate the existing residence. The proposed grading improvements will
occur on a defined building pad that is relatively flat and will not require further
disturbance to the site's natural contours or finished contours, which are
considered reasonably natural. As proposed, the majority of the grading will be
conducted entirely below the building footprint and will not significantly impact
any natural or finished contours. Furthermore, the amount of visible grading
proposed is limited to approximately 195 cubic yards, which is considered minor
in nature because it will not drastically alter the topography of the site, but rather
will further improve the existing contours, and no proposed grading will occur
within natural undeveloped areas of the site. Therefore, the Planning
Commission finds that the nature of the proposed grading minimizes the
disturbance of the natural and finished contours and therefore makes this finding.
Section 8: The grading takes into account the preservation of natural
topographic features and appearances so as to blend any man-made or
manufactured slopes into the natural topography in that the majority of the
grading requested will be conducted under the existing building footprint to create
a basement. The remaining amount of earth movement, approximately 195
cubic yards of cut, which is considered minor in nature will accommodate an
expansion to the driveway motor courtyard. Furthermore, the Planning
Commission finds that the proposed grading does not include any modification to
the natural topographic features, such as the bluff, so that land sculpturing is not
required and therefore makes this finding.
Section 9: The grading will not cause excessive and unnecessary
disturbance of the natural landscape or wildlife habitat through removal of
vegetation in that the proposed grading will be located on a lot that was disturbed
at the time of the development of the original tract when the original residence
was created on this lot, and is therefore devoid of native vegetation. In addition
this project will not impact the bluff where native vegetation may exist.
Therefore, the proposed grading will not significantly impact any natural
vegetation or wildlife habitat.
Section 10: The grading conforms with the Development Code's
standards pertaining to grading on slopes, height of cut/fill and retaining walls in
that the grading requested is necessary for the development of the subject
property and complies with the Development Code's criteria in that no earth
P.C. Resolution No.2001-032
Page 4 of 7
movement will occur on slopes equal to or greater than 35% nor will the grading
result in slopes exceeding a 50% gradient. In regards to the depth of cut or fill,
other than the excavation required for the proposed cellar, no cut or fill on the lot
will exceed a height of three (3) feet. With regards to the excavation required to
create the basement, which will exceed a height of five (5) feet, Section
17.76.040(E)(9)(c) of the Development Code exempts the earth excavation for a
basement or cellar from the depth of cut or fill requirements.
Section 11: The Minor Exception Permit is necessary to avoid
inconsistencies with the general intent of the Development Code in that fence
heights within the required front yard area are limited to a height of 42 inches and
the applicants desire to construct a 6 foot high fence along the front property line
similar to other fences and walls located on the seaward side of Marguerite
Drive. Although the intent of this code requirement is to prevent the fortification
of residential neighborhoods, to regulate the aesthetic value of walls or fences,
as seen from the right-of-way, and to maintain a feeling of openness between the
front yard and the residence, the Planning Commission has determined that the
subject lot, which is located on a "bluff top", is similar to the other "bluff top" lots
in this neighborhood because they are larger and deeper, which allows
development to occur further away from the right-of-way, than the other lots that
are located on the landward side of the street. Because of the unique lot depth,
many of the homes on the seaward side of Marguerite Drive are setback greater
than 20 feet from the street. In order to physically identify the property lines while
maintaining a level of security, many of these lots are enclosed with 6 foot high
fences or walls along the front property line. As proposed, a 6' high combination
fence/wall will replace an existing 42" high wall along the front property line. The
proposed combination fence/wall will not exceed the Development Code's height
limit of 6 feet and will be 80% open/permeable to allow light and air to penetrate.
Section 12: The height of the proposed fence will not be detrimental to
the public's safety or welfare in that it will be located along the front property line
and will be aligned with other walls and fences located on Marguerite Drive. As
for the public's safety or welfare, the subject property is not located on a corner
lot where the proposed fence would impair the line of sight of on-coming vehicles
nor will the proposed fence obstruct the flow of pedestrian traffic since a side
walk does not exist along this side of the street and the street is at an adequate
width to safely accommodate vehicular movement and parking. Furthermore, the
applicants propose to landscape the area adjacent to the proposed fence to
soften the overall appearance of the fence from the public's perspective.
Section 13: The line of sight over or through the fence is adequate for
safety and does not significantly impair a view from the viewing area of an
adjacent parcel in that the proposed fence creates harmonious connection with
other fences along Marguerite Drive, conforming to the appearances of other
existing fences and walls. Furthermore, in regards to potential view impairments
from surrounding properties, these views are laterally over the subject property
and will not be impaired by the proposed fence since the lots to the immediate
P.C. Resolution No.2001-032
Page 5 of 7
east are higher in elevation and maintain views laterally over the subject
property.
Section 14: The proposed addition at 3,925 square feet is compatible
with the character of the immediate neighborhood in that the largest home on
Marguerite Drive is 9,561 square feet (excluding the garage) and that the subject
residence's total structure size, with the addition, will be 7,332 square feet
(excluding the garage), which is 2,229 square feet smaller than the largest home
(37 Marguerite Drive). Additionally the average square footage of the ten (10)
closest homes within the immediate neighborhood is 7,036 square feet and the
final structure will be 296 square feet larger than the average structure size. The
design of the addition utilizes design elements that reduce the mass and bulk of
the structure. Such elements include the use of similar materials and colors,
varying the outline of the roof eaves and articulating the building facades.
Furthermore, the proposed addition will be constructed at a 71' front yard
setback, which exceeds the 20' requirement set forth in the Development Code
and is consistent with the character of the immediate neighborhood.
Section 15: The proposed project complies with the Residential
Development Guidelines for the RS-1 zoning district in that the required setbacks
for the front, rear and side yards are adhered to, and that the proposed lot
coverage, at 25%, is maximum permitted under the requirements set forth in the
Development Code. Additionally, the Development Code requires that structures
with habitable floor area exceeding 5,000 square feet maintain a minimum of a
three (3) car garage, and according to the plans, a four (4) car garage will be
constructed. As proposed, the interior dimensions of the garage comply with the
Development Code's minimum 9' x 20' per parking stall requirement.
Section 16: As proposed, the improvements requested by the applicants
are consistent with the Coastal Specific Plan land use designation of residential
since the majority of the proposed addition will be attached to the existing
residence and will not alter the existing primary residential use of the property.
Section 17: The proposed project complies with the policies of the
Coastal Act in that the project site does not nor will ever be required to provide
public access to the shoreline or to recreational areas because of the extreme
slope that exists between the top and toe of the bluff. Furthermore, the property
does not extend to the coast, but is separated by adjacent privately owned
property.
Section 18: Any interested party may appeal this decision or any portion
of this decision to the City Council. If upon the filing of an appeal the City Council
upholds the Planning Commission decision, an appeal may be filed with the
California Coastal Commission. Pursuant to Section 17.72.100 of the Rancho
Palos Verdes Municipal Code, any such appeal must be filed no later than ten
(10) days following the final date of the City's action.
P.C. Resolution No.2001-032
Page 6 of 7
Section 19: 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
Variance No. 475, Grading Permit No. 2228, Minor Exception Permit No. 572,
Site Plan Review No. 8808 Revision 'A', and Coastal Permit No. 161 Revision
'A', thereby approving the construction of a 3,925 square foot addition to an
existing single-family residence consisting of 1,431 square foot basement, a
1,467 square foot addition to the main residence level and a 1,027 square foot
attached four-car garage at a height of 14'-6", as measured from the highest
existing grade covered by structure (170.38') to the top of the highest roof
ridgeline (185'), and 16'-6", as measured from the lowest finished grade covered
by structure (168.38') to the top of the highest roof ridgeline (185'). Furthermore,
said approvals include the construction of a new swimming pool and spa, the
relocation of a 480 square foot guest house partially over an existing second unit
at a height of 24', a 27 square foot addition within the Coastal Structure Setback
Zone, 829 cubic yards of associated grading and the construction of a 6' fence
along the front property line, subject to the conditions of approval in Exhibit"A".
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 25th day of September, 2001, by
the following vote:
AYES:chairman Lyon, Vice-Chairman Clark, Commissioners Cartwright, Paulson,
Mueller, Long, and Vannorsdall
NOES: None
ABSTENTIONS: None
ABSENT: None
Frank Lyon
Chairman
Jlel Ro =s, AICP
D ecto► of Planni •, B (ding
an• •de Enforce e , and,
Secretary to the Planning Commission
P.C. Resolution No.2001-032
Page 7 of 7
EXHIBIT 'A'
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
VARIANCE NO. 475, GRADING PERMIT NO. 2228, MINOR EXCEPTION PERMIT
NO. 572, SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 8808 REVISION 'A' AND
COASTAL PERMIT NO. 161 REVISION 'A'
General
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 (1) year from the date of
approval by the City, or final action by the California Coastal Commission, if
appealed, unless the approved plans are submitted to the Building and Safety
Division to initiate the "plan check" review process.
3. This approval shall not become valid until ten (10) working days following the
final action, provided no appeal has been filed to the California Coastal
Commission.
4. The proposed project shall be constructed in substantial compliance with the
plans approved and stamped by the Planning Department with the effective date
of this approval.
5. 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 achieve substantially the same results as would strict compliance
with said plans and conditions.
6. The proposed project shall be conducted in full compliance with the conditions
set forth herein.
7. In the event that a Planning requirement and a Building & Safety requirement are
in conflict with one another, the stricter standard shall apply.
8. 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.
9. The construction site 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
Exhibit"A'
Resolution No.2001-032
Page 1 of 4
debris, garbage, lumber, scrap metal, concrete, asphalt, piles of earth, salvage
materials, abandoned or discarded furniture, appliances or other household
fixtures.
VARIANCE
10. This approval shall allow the construction of a 27 square foot addition within the
Coastal Structure Setback Zone.
11. This approval shall permit the relocated guest house to be constructed at a
height of 24', as measured from the lowest adjacent finished grade covered by
structure (171.33)to the top of the highest roof ridgeline (195.25').
GRADING PERMIT
12. The proposed grading shall not exceed 829 cubic yards of earth movement, as
shown on the stamped and approved grading plans. Of the proposed grading,
634 cubic yards of cut will be for the basement entirely under the building
footprint and 195 cubic yards of cut shall be for the expanded motor courtyard.
13. The maximum depth of cut/fill shall not exceed 5' in height, except for the
excavation required for the basement.
14. The retaining wall for the motor courtyard shall not exceed three (3) feet in
height, as measured from the lowest finished grade.
15. The City's Geotechnical Consultant shall review the project in the "plan check"
stage to determine whether further reports and investigation shall be required
prior to issuance of building permits.
MINOR EXCEPTION
16. The combination fence/wall located along the front property line shall not exceed
six (6) feet in height, as measured from the lowest finished grade adjacent to the
wall and shall be eighty (80) percent open/permeable to light and air.
17. No architectural elements or lights shall be permitted on the fence that exceed
the permitted height of six (6)feet, as defined in the above condition.
18. The area located immediately adjacent to the fence may be landscaped with
vegetation that does not exceed 42" in height.
SITE PLAN REVIEW
19. The project shall allow the construction of a 3,925 square foot addition to an
existing single-family residence in the form of a 1,431 square foot basement, a
Exhibit"A'
Resolution No.2001-032
Page 2 of 4
•
1,467 square foot addition to the main residence level, and a 1,027 square foot
attached four-car garage. The relocated guest house shall not exceed 480
square feet.
20. A square footage certification shall be required prior to issuance of a Certificate
of Occupancy by Building and Safety, verifying that the proposed project adheres
to the permitted square footages indicated herein.
21. The permitted addition to the main residence shall not exceed a height of 14'-6",
as measured from the highest existing grade covered by structure (170.30`) to
the top of the highest roof ridgeline (185'), and 16'-6", as measured from the
lowest finished grade covered by structure (168.38') to the top of the highest roof
ridgeline (185'). A Building Height Certification shall be required.
22. The Lot Coverage requirement for the subject property located in the RS-1
zoning district shall not exceed 25%. The proposed lot coverage is 25%.
23. The following minimum setbacks shall be maintained for the proposed addition:
Front Yard: 20'-0" minimum (71' proposed)
Side Yard: 5'-0" minimum (10-6" proposed)
Rear Yard: 15'-0" minimum (26' from top of slope)
24. A fully enclosed and operable four-car garage (minimum interior dimension of 9'
x 20' per parking stall) shall be maintained on the subject property at all times.
25. The proposed guest house shall not contain any food preparation facilities, such
as a oven or stove top. A second unit covenant shall be required to be recorded
on the property by the applicants prior to issuance of building permits.
26. A twenty-five (25) foot turning radius shall be constructed in front of the proposed
detached garage.
27. This approval shall allow the construction of a pool and spa with mechanical
equipment.
28. The proposed pool and spa area shall be enclosed with a minimum 5' high fence,
with a self-closing device and a self-latching device located no closer than 4'
above the ground.
29. The proposed pool and spa equipment shall be no closer than three (3) feet from
the interior side property line (proposed 9') and shall not exceed 6' in height. The
pool/spa equipment shall be adequately screened from the neighboring
properties and the right of way.
30. The proposed paving, around the pool and spa shall not exceed 30" in height, as
measured from adjacent finished grade.
Exhibit"A'
Resolution No.2001-032
Page 3 of 4
•
31. Approvals and permits shall be obtained from the Department of Building and
Safety for the approval contained herein.
32. A on-site drainage plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of
Building and Safety. All appropriate approvals and permits shall also be obtained
from the Department of Public Works.
33. Approvals and permits shall be obtained from the Department of Building and
Safety and the Department of Public Works for the connection to the City's public
sewer system.
M:1VariancelVARIANCE 4751CONDITIONS.doc
Exhibit"A'
Resolution No.2001-032
Page 4 of 4