CC RES 2005-043RESOLUTION NO. 2005-43
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS
VERDES DENYING THE APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE PLANNING
COMMISSION'S DECISION OF APPROVAL, WITH CONDITIONS, OF CASE
NO. ZON2004 -00219 FOR A HEIGHT VARIATION AND MINOR EXCEPTION
PERMIT FOR A 1,647 SQUARE FOOT TWO -STORY ADDITION MEASURING
25 -FEET IN OVERALL HEIGHT ALONG THE NORTH SIDE OF THE EXISTING
TWO -STORY RESIDENCE WITH A 16 -FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK, FOR
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 30101 MIRALESTE DRIVE.
WHEREAS, on April 30, 2004, the property owner John Okorocha, submitted
Case No. ZON2004- 00219, a Height Variation application for an 1,818 square foot two -
story addition measuring 31 -feet in overall height; and,
WHEREAS, on May 13, 2004, the application was deemed incomplete pending
submittal of additional information and the construction of the temporary silhouette; and,
WHEREAS, on December 23, 2004, a revised project was submitted, including a
Minor Exception Permit for the 16 -foot front yard setback; and,
WHEREAS, upon the construction of the temporary silhouette and submittal of
the silhouette certification form, the case was deemed complete by Staff on January 22,
2005; 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 Case No. ZON2004 -00219
would have a significant effect on the environment and, therefore, the proposed project
has been found to be categorically exempt under Class 1 (Existing Facilities) since the
project involves an addition to an existing residence; and,
WHEREAS, after notice issued pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho
Palos Verdes Development Code, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public
hearing on March 8, 2005, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity
to be heard and present evidence.
WHEREAS, on March 8, 2005, the Planning Commission conditionally approved
Case No. 2004 - 00219, and a Notice of Decision was prepared and distributed to all
interested parties; and,
WHEREAS, on March 23, 2005, within fifteen (15) days following the Planning
Commission's decision, the adjacent property owner to the north, Jacqua Rumery filed
an appeal to the City Council requesting that the City Council overturn the Planning
Commission's conditional approval of Case No. ZON2004 -00219 based upon the belief
that the addition is massive and out of character with the neighborhood, and is not
compatible with the immediate neighborhood; and,
WHEREAS, after notice issued pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho
Palos Verdes Development Code, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on
May 3, 2005, 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: As indicated in the Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated
March 8, 2005 and in the Planning Commission Resolution No. 2005 -13, incorporated
herein by reference, the proposed project complies with the requirements and findings
set forth in the Development Code for Height Variation and Minor Exception Permit
applications.
Section 2: The City Council hereby upholds the Planning Commission's
conditional approval of Case No. ZON2004- 00219, and finds as follows:
a) The applicant has complied with the Early Neighborhood Consultation
process established by the City by obtaining acknowledgement signatures
from 75% of the property owners within 100 -feet of the subject property
and 34.7% of the property owners within 500 -feet of the subject property,
who have reviewed the plans prior to filing the application with the City.
b) The proposed new second -story addition does not significantly impair a
view from public property which has been identified in the City's General
Plan or Coastal Specific Plan as a City- designated viewing area because
there are no such areas that overlook the subject property.
c) A ridge is defined as an elongated crest or linear series of crests of hills,
bluffs, or highlands, while a promontory is defined as a prominent mass of
land, large enough to support development which overlooks or projects
onto a lowland or body of water on at least two sides. The property is not
located on a ridge or promontory as there are other adjacent parcels with
varying pad elevations that were terraced when initially constructed.
d) The proposed second story addition that is above sixteen feet in height,
when considered exclusive of foliage, does not significantly impair a view
from the viewing area of another parcel. There are no residences to the
rear of the subject property, while the residences on either side and
across the street are not oriented towards the subject property. Thus,
since there are no views in the direction of the subject property, there will
be no view impairment as a result of the two -story addition
Resolution No. 2005 -43
Page 2 of 4
e) There is no view impairment, as there are no properties with views from
the viewing area in the direction of the subject property, or properties with
views from the viewing area over the subject property due to the
topography and physical development of the area.
f) There is no significant cumulative view impairment caused by granting the
application since there is no view impairment created from the proposed
new second story addition.
g) The proposed structure complies with all other Code requirements in that
all the development standards of the RS -3 Zoning District are met. The
resulting lot coverage will be 34.3 %, which is less than the 45% maximum
permissible by the RS -3 zoning district. Although the two -story addition
will be constructed outside of any side or rear yard setbacks, the reduction
in the front yard setback is justified through approval of the Minor
Exception Permit.
h) The addition and resulting appearance will not significantly change the
appearance of the immediate neighborhood and the residence will be
compatible with the immediate neighborhood. The architectural style,
roofing material, exterior finishes, number of stories and building materials
will be consistent with the existing residence and will not introduce new
materials into the immediate neighborhood. The design' continues to
maintain a two -story element on one side of the residence and a one -story
element on the other side of the residence. Further, the resulting size of
the residence does not deviate from the characteristics in the immediate
neighborhood and its appearance will not be readily visible from the street
due to the proximity of the addition from the roadway and due to the
topography of the area. With regards to setbacks, although the two- story,
addition will maintain a 16 -foot front yard setback, the setback will not
deviate from an established front yard setback since the subject property
already contains a 12 -foot setback, while the adjacent property to the
north contains a 3 -foot front yard setback for the first story and -
approximately a 10 -foot front yard setback for the two -story portion.
Lastly, with regards to the side yard setback, although the existing 27 -foot
north side yard setback will be reduced to 5 -feet to accommodate the
addition, other residences in the immediate neighborhood, including the
adjacent property to the north, contain similar setbacks.
i) The proposed structure does not create an unreasonable infringement on
the privacy of the occupants of abutting residences due to a condition that
requires the two bedroom windows along the northern fagade of the
second s #ory to maintain either translucent glazing or that the windows be
changed to clearstory.
The minor exception is warranted by practical difficulties that exist on the
property, which is the slope at the rear of the property and by the "flood
hazard area ", which prohibits development towards the rear of the
Resolution No. 2005 -43
Page 3 of 4
property. These constraints result in the north side of the property as the
only location to add to the residence. Further, the minor exception will not
create an inconsistency with the general intent of Title 17 since the 16 -foot
front yard setback is mitigated by the distance of the structure to the
roadway being 40 -feet, and by the topography of the area. Further, the
adjacent property to the north already maintains an existing 3 -foot front
yard setback, which does not make the proposed reduction on the subject
property apparent.
Section 3: The time within which the judicial review of the decision reflected in
this Resolution, if available, must be sought is governed by Section 1094.6 of the
California Code of Civil Procedure and other applicable short periods of limitation.
Section 4: For the foregoing reasons, and based on the information and
findings included in the Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated March 8, 20057
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2005 -13, the Memorandum to the City Council
dated May 3, 2005, Minutes and other records of proceedings, the City Council of the
City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby denies the appeal, thereby upholding the Planning
Commission's conditional approval of Case No. ZON2004 -00219 and all the conditions
of approval as stated in the attached Exhibit "A ".
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 3rd day of May 2005, by the following vote:
ayor
Attest:
A 7'. zz .
State of California )
County of Los Angeles ) ss
City of Rancho Palos Verdes )
I, Carolynn Petru, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, do hereby certify that
the above Resolution No. 2005 -43 was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the
said City Council at a regular meeting held on May 3, 2005.
v
s
ReSOILItion No. 2005 -43
Page 4of4
Resolution No. 2005 -43 Exhibit "A"
Conditions of Approval
Case No. ZON2004 -00219
(Height Variation & Minor Exception Permit)
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 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.
3. Approval is for a new 1,647 square foot two - story addition along the north side of the
existing two -story residence, resulting in a total structure size of 4,182 square feet
(including garage). Specifically, the first floor will be expanded by a total of 811
square feet, which includes a 200 square foot expansion to the garage; while the
second floor will be expanded by 836 square feet, over the first story expansion.
SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE BUILDING OFFICIAL, A SIZE
CERTIFICATION FOR THE TWO -STORY ADDITION IS REQUIRED BY A
LICENSED LAND SURVEYOR OR ENGINEER IMMEDIATELY AFTER FRAMING
INSPECTION OF THE STRUCTURE.
4. The following minimum setbacks shall be maintained:
• Front yard: 16' -0" minimum (proposed: 16-2 ")
• Side yard: 5' -0" minimum (proposed: 5' -0" north side)
• Rear yard: 15' -0" minimum (proposed: no change to existing)
SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE BUILDING OFFICIAL, A
FRONT AND NORTH SIDE SETBACK CERTIFICATION IS REQUIRED BY A
LICENSED LAND SURVEYOR OR ENGINEER PRIOR TO THE POURING OF
FOOTINGS.
5. The maximum height of the two -story addition shall be limited to 20.71 -feet as
measured from the highest grade covered by structure (located at the south east
corner of the existing garage) to the ridgeline of the addition, and maintain a
maximum overall height of 25 -feet as measured from the lowest finish grade covered
by structure (located at the northwest corner of the existing footprint) to the ridgeline
of the addition. SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE BUILDING
OFFICIAL, A RIDGE HEIGHT CERTIFICATION IS REQUIRED BY A LICENSED
Resolution No. 2005 -43
Exhibit A
Page 1 of 3
LAND SURVEYOR OR ENGINEER PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF ROOF
MATERIALS.
6. The second story windows along the northern fagade shall contain frosted or
translucent glass, or shall be designed to be clearstory windows.
7. A minimum of two enclosed garage spaces shall be maintained, with each space
being individually accessed and each maintaining a minimum unobstructed
dimension of 9- feet -wide by 20- feet -deep by 7- feet - vertical clearance.
8. Construction of the project shall substantially conform to the plans stamped as
approved by the Planning Department with the effective date of this approval.
However, the project shall not include the bay window along the eastern fagade of
the second story and the gable roof plane shall be continuous throughout the width
of the addition.
9. Due to the subject property's location in the RS -3 zoning district, a maximum of forty -
five percent (45 %) lot coverage shall be allowed on the lot (proposed: 34.3 %).
10. In the event that a Planning requirement and a Building & Safety requirement are in
conflict with one another, the stricter standard shall apply.
11. The applicant shall obtain all Public Works permits for the expanded driveway within
the Miraleste Drive right -of -way. Further, the improvements in the public right -of-
way shall be limited to hardscape measuring no more than 6- inches in height.
12. 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.
13. The construction site and all adjacent private and public property 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 debris, garbage, lumber, scrap metal, concrete,
asphalt, piles of earth, salvage materials, abandoned or discarded furniture,
appliances or other household fixtures.
14. The maximum eave projection along the north side of the addition shall be limited to
1 -foot, thereby resulting in a minimum 4 -foot setback from the northern property line
for the eaves.
15. At least 50% of the existing interior and exterior walls or existing square footage of
the structure shall be retained by the approved project. Otherwise, any
nonconformities existing at the time of Planning approval shall be corrected as a part
Resolution No. 2005 -43
Exhibit A
Page 2of3
of the project.
16. The construction site shall be temporarily enclosed with a six -foot (6' -0 ") high chain -
link fence during the length of construction of the residential structure.
17. 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 shall achieve substantially the same results as would strict compliance
with said plans and conditions.
Resolution No. 2005 -43
Exhibit A
Page 3of3