Loading...
PC RES 2004-032P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2004-32 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DENYING, WITH PREJUDICE, A REVISION TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 23 AND GRADING PERMIT (CASE NO. ZON2004-00215), FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2930 VISTA DEL MAR. WHEREAS, on July 12, 1977, the Planning Commission adopted P.C. Resolution No. 77-13, approving Conditional Use Permit No 23 This Conditional Use Permit allowed the Residential Planned Development, which set forth the development standards for the Seacliff Hills community; and, WHEREAS, on April 8, 2003, the Planning Commission adopted P.C. Resolution No 2003-12, thereby approving a Revision to Conditional Use Permit No 23 and a Grading Permit (Case No ZON2002-00368) for the subject property This approval allows the construction of a 7,204 square foot single-family residential dwelling unit, 561 cubic yards of grading, and a 7% deviation in the maximum allowable lot coverage (allowable is 30%), and, WHEREAS, on April 27, 2004, the applicant submitted an application for a revision to Conditional Use Permit No 23 and Grading Permit, requesting to increase the grading and increase the lot coverage for the subject property. On April 30, 2004, staff completed the initial review of the proposed project and deemed the application incomplete due to missing information on the applications and plans. The applicant submitted the additional information to the City on May 27, 2004, and, WHEREAS, the Revision to Conditional Use Permit No 23 and a Grading Permit application was deemed complete by staff on June 15, 2004; 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), Staff found no evidence that the Revision to Conditional Use Permit No 23 and a Grading Permit 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), and, WHEREAS, after notice was issued pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on August 10, 2004, at which time all interested parties were given opportunities to be heard and present evidence; and, NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS Section 1: The revision to Conditional Use Permit No 23 is not warranted since the site is not adequate in size and shape to accommodate the proposed use and for all the yards, setbacks, walls, fences, landscaping, and other features required by the Development Code or by conditions imposed to integrate said use with those on adjacent land and within the neighborhood Inasmuch as the resulting construction from the increase in lot coverage will P C Resolution No 2004-32 Page 1 of 3 have a negative aesthetic impact to the neighboring properties, the lot is not of sufficient size and shape to accommodate the use Section 2: The revision to Conditional Use Permit No 23 is not warranted since the subject use at the specific location, will cause a significant adverse effect on adjacent property or the permitted use thereof The three proposed retaining walls in the rear yard, in lieu of one, and the requested 7'-6" high combination wall along the driveway, in lieu of a 2'-5" high retaining wall causes a negative aesthetic impact to the surrounding properties. Section 3: The revision to Conditional Use Permit No 23 is not warranted since the proposed use is contrary to the General Plan It is the goal of the General Plan of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes to preserve and enhance the community's quality living environment, to enhance the visual character and physical quality of existing neighborhoods, and to encourage the development of housing in a manner, which adequately serves the needs of all present and future residents of the community Inasmuch as it is found that the proposed revision will create a negative aesthetic impact to the neighboring properties, the proposed revision will be contrary to this goal of the General Plan Section 4: The revision to Conditional Use Permit No 23 is not warranted since the proposed use does not comply with all applicable requirements of the Urban Appearance Overlay Control District (OC -3), which has eight performance criteria for any development within this overlay district. After a review of the performance criteria it is found that the requested revision to the Conditional Use Permit does not meet all of the criteria. Specifically, the project will result geometrically terraced building sites that are contrary to the natural landforms and would create a significant visual impact. Section 5: The grading and related construction does significantly adversely affect the visual relationships with neighboring properties. It is found that the three proposed retaining walls in the rear yard and the proposed 7'-6" high combination wall along the driveway will cause a negative aesthetic impact to the surrounding properties Section 6: The nature of the grading does not minimize disturbances to the natural contours and finished contours will not be reasonably natural. The proposed three retaining walls will give the rear yard a terraced appearance, which does not minimize the disturbance to the natural contours of the lot Section 7: The grading does not take into account the preservation of natural topographical features and appearances by means of land sculpturing so as to blend any man- made or manufactured slope into natural topography The construction of three retaining walls in the rear yard will give the property a terraced appearance Furthermore, the use of multiple retaining wails does not take into account the preservation of the natural topography of the lot and does not utilize land sculpting to blend the manufactured slopes into the natural topography of the lot Section 8: The grading does not conform to the standards for grading on slopes and the heights of retaining walls The proposal includes grading over slopes greater than a 35% gradient, includes three downslope retaining walls (only one is permitted), and includes a 7'-6" tall retaining wall adjacent to the driveway (5' is maximum allowable height) Furthermore, deviations to these standards are not warranted since P C Resolution No 2004-32 Page 2 of 3 a) The first eight criteria of Municipal Code Section No. 17 76 040 have not been satisfied; and, b) The approval is not consistent with the purpose of Municipal Code Section No 17 76 040, because the grading and resulting retaining walls will cause a significant adverse aesthetic impact to the neighboring properties; and, c) Departure of the standards will constitute a special privilege with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity, because the other homes on Vista Del Mar were constructed without being granted deviations for the height and number of retaining walls. Section 9: Any interested person aggrieved by this decision or any portion of this decision may appeal to the City Council. Pursuant to Sections 17 02.040, 17.76.040(H) and 17 80 070 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 August 25, 2004 Section 10: For the foregoing reasons and based on the information and findings included in the Staff Report, Minutes and other records of proceedings (dated July 13, 2004), the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby denies Revision to Conditional Use Permit No 23 and a Grading Permit, with prejudice, (Case No. ZON2004- 00215) PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 10th day of August 2004, by the following vote. AYES. KARP, KNIGHT, TETREAULT, MUELLER NOES. GERSTNER ABSTENTIONS. NONE ABSENT- NONE Craig Mueller, Chairman �_C)r #el �Rkoia , AIP) 9 rye for of PlaWinci, Building and Code Enforcement, and, Secretary to the Planning Commission P.C. Resolution No 2004-32 Page 3 of 3