Loading...
CC RES 1999-070 RESOLUTION NO. 99-70 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES GRANTING THE APPEAL, THEREBY MODIFYING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF VARIANCE NO. 450, HEIGHT VARIATION NO. 883, AND SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 8563 FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A 2,687 SQUARE FOOT 1ST AND 2ND STORY ADDITION WITH A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 20'10", WHICH EXCEEDS THE MAXIMUM STRUCTURE SIZE BY 25%, REDUCES THE NON-CONFORMING LOT COVERAGE FROM 58.1% TO 56%, AND INCLUDES TWO ROOF DECKS ON PROPERTY, LOCATED AT 2 STALLION ROAD. WHEREAS, on March 18, 1999, the applicants, Mr. & Mrs. Carl Mosher submitted applications for Variance No. 450, Height Variation No. 883, and Site Plan Review No. 8563 for approval of additions totaling 2,687 square feet consisting of a 1,067 square foot first story addition and a 1,620 square foot second story addition with a proposed height in excess of sixteen (16'0") feet to the existing 1,793 square foot one- story residence located at 2 Stallion Road, which would exceed the maximum structure size by 25%, reduce the already substandard open space lot coverage by 2%, and permit two roof decks; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the California Quality Act, Public Resource 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. 450, Height Variation No. 883, and Site Plan Review No. 8563 would have a significant effect on the environment and, therefore the proposed project has been found to be categorically exempt (Class 1, Section 15301 (e)(1)); and, WHEREAS, on June 22, 1999, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the applicant's request, and adopted P.C. Resolution No. 99-21, approving Variance No. 450, Height Variation No. 883, and Site Plan Review No. 8563, subject to conditions of approval in Exhibit "A" based upon the necessary findings o fact, to wit that the additions meets all four findings for approvalof a variance set forth in RPVDC Section 17.64.050, and all nine findings for approval of a height variation set forth in RPVDC Section 17.02.040.C.1.e.; and, WHEREAS, on July 7, 1999, within the fifteen days following the Planning Commission's decision, the appellant, Dennis Juett, filed a timely appeal to the City Council, requesting that the Council overturn the Planning Commission's approval of the structure's height for Variance No. 450, Height Variation No. 883, and Site Plan Review No. 8563; and, WHEREAS, after notices issued pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on August 17,1999, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence; and, WHEREAS, on August 17, 1999, at the duly noticed public hearing to consider the appellant's request, the City Council determined that the overall structure height should be lowered to 20'10", to enhance the view. Therefore, the Council granted the appellant's request that the structure's height be lowered 1'0", and voted to approve Variance No. 450, Height Variation No. 883, and Site Plan Review No. 8563, and directed Staff to prepare the necessary resolutions. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: The project site has exceptional and extraordinary circumstances since the property has several physical constraints that other properties in this tract do not have including that the lot abuts two private roads, has very limited usable area due to the steep transitional slope along Mustang Road, and has limited outdoor storage area. As a result, the existing condition of limited usable storage area on this property is exceptional and extraordinary in that other properties in the area typically have greater opportunity and flexibility in areas for outdoor storage that are not readily visible from the streets. The variance to allow the additional the maximum structure size is warranted and the overall structure size will not appear massive and bulky due to the various architectural variations and orientation of the second story addition, and will still be within permissible range if the other property owners in the area were to expand up to the maximum structure size, based upon the original footprint. Section 2: The project site has exceptional and extraordinary circumstances that justify the reduction of the minimum open space requirement from 58.1% to 56% since the subject site is significantly smaller than other properties in the area, and has two frontages dedicated to private streets which makes the subject property unique and different from other lots. Also, the subject property has a more unique situation than other properties since the property is a downslope lot with a steep transitional slope along the entire (Mustang Road) street-side yard area. As a result, the limited amount of usable space on the lot, and the large area dedicated to paved streets warrants approval of the Variance for reduction of the open space requirement. Resolution No. 99-70 Page 2 of 8 Section 3: The Variance to allow the proposed roof decks is warranted since roof decks are considered architectural features that break up the mass of the structure, thereby reducing the bulkiness of the structure. Also, if roofs were approved in lieu of roof decks, the overall structure size and mass would increase which may result in a significant view impairment. The unique situation of competing interests between building articulation and minimizing view impairment warrant the variance for roof decks in this case. Section 4: The project site is currently developed with a single family residence which is the primary use in the RS-2 zone. A Variance is warranted to allow additional maximum structure size because the size of the structure is within the permissible range if the other property owners in the area were to expand up to their respective maximum structure sizes, based upon the original footprints which are larger than that of the subject property Also, the re-design will not appear massive or bulky due to the variations to the façade, and the height of the second story addition will not create a significant view impairment from protected views of adjacent properties. The maximum ridge height will be 20'10" to preserve minimize any protected view impairment to the property at 2 Surrey Lane. Section 5: The Variance to allow the reduction of the open space can be granted since this small lot with large areas dedicated to two private streets is unique disadvantaged in that the property owners cannot improve the lot without further reducing the open space, whereas other owners in the area possess this substantial property existing structures. Section 6: The Variance is warranted for the two roof decks since the elimination would impose a hardship to the applicants who would be unable to alleviate the flat facades by adding articulation to the structure which would result in a burden to the property owner and an unintended consequence of the roof deck ordinance. Section 7: The requested Variance to exceed the maximum structure size would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property and improvements in the area since the proposed addition will not create a significant and cumulative view impairment, or infringement of privacy to the adjacent neighbors. The additional view of San Pedro from the appellant's home, is not a "protected view" per the City's Development Code because that view is not the best and most important view from the appellant's property. Furthermore, the project has been conditioned to require the applicants to remove the existing 50'0" high Monterey Pine tree located in the front yard area, and to lower the maximum height of the structure by additional 1'0" to 20'10", which will enhance and restore the adjacent property owner's view. Resolution No. 99-70 Page 3 of 8 Furthermore, the proposed addition will not be architecturally out of character with the neighborhood, and the maximum height will be 20'10". Section 8: The Variance is necessary to allow for the additional lot coverage since this lot is smaller than other lots in the vicinity with the additional hardship of having two street frontages. It would not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property in the area because the variance will allow improvement on this lot which is a smaller size than other lots in the vicinity, and the structure will largely maintain setbacks from the front and street-side while articulating these facades. Section 9: The Variance is also necessary for the two roof decks since they would create variations to the façade, so that the structure will not appear massive and bulky. The roof decks will enhance the appearance of the structure, and therefore will not be detrimental or injurious to the property in the area. Section 10: The requested Variance to allow the residence to exceed the maximum structure size will be consistent with the goals and objectives of the General Plan since the structure size will be within the range permissible within the surrounding area, and will not be out of character in size since the structure will not appear bulky or massive due to the various architectural features that will be implemented to the façade. Section 11: The reduction of the open space can be granted since it is only a minimal reduction in the open space requirement given the uniqueness of the lot which is not inconsistent with the General Plan. Also, the project consists of improvements that are routinely permitted in residential zones and are consistent with the General Plan. Section 12: The General Plan does not identify goals or objectives that prohibit roof decks, therefore the City Council finds that the granting of the variance for the two roof decks in this case is not contrary to the City's General Plan. Section 13: The applicant has complied with the Early Neighbor Consultation process established by the City by obtaining acknowledgement signatures from 60% of the property owners within the 500' of the subject property. Section 14: The proposed addition does not significantly impair a view from a viewing area from any public property identified in the City's General Plan, and the property is not located within the Coastal Specific Plan area, therefore the proposed structure does not significantly impair a view from public property. Section 15: The proposed structure is not located on a ridge or promontory since the property is located below the highest ridge in the tract which lies to the west of Resolution No. 99-70 Page 4 of 8 the site. Also, there are no canyons located adjacent to this neighborhood and the property is not situated along the coastal bluffs. Section 16: The proposed second story addition, when considered exclusive of foliage, does not significantly impair a primary view since the proposed project is designed and situated in such a manner as to minimize view impairment, and due to the significant difference in elevation of the adjacent lots, as discussed below: 1 Surrey Lane - Located to the northeast of the project site, the property owners currently enjoy a view of the city basin and portions of the harbor. The City Council determined that the proposed addition will not significantly impair the primary view from the viewing area which has been determined to be the living room, as opposed to the dining area since the living room is the main gathering area. Therefore, the proposed addition will not impact any protected views from this adjacent property. 2 Surrey Lane - Located directly across Mustang Road from the project site (west), the City Council determined that the re-design would no longer result in a significant view impairment since the proposed project is designed and situated in such a manner as to minimize view impairment. The City Council also determined that the primary viewing area is the dining room in the living room, as opposed to the living room and bedrooms, since the dining room has the best and most important view in the residence. The proposed second story addition is also re-situated in such a manner as to minimize view impairment and the City Council directed that the overall height of the structure shall not exceed 20'10", which is 4'8" lower than the original request. Furthermore, due to the significant difference between the pad elevations, the protected view will not be impacted, and City Council determined that the proposed re-design would not create a significant view impairment since a large portion of the harbor view will be protected from this property. 1 Stallion Road — Located to the north of the project site, the proposed addition will not impair a view from this location since the view is primarily to the east and will not be impacted by the proposed addition which is to the southeast. 4 Stallion Road - Located to the east of the project site, the proposed addition will not impair a view form this location since the residence is a downslope lot and is below the building pad of the applicant's property. The view of the City's basin and harbor are primarily to the east, and will not be impacted by the proposed addition which is to the west of this residence. Therefore, the proposed project will not impact any protected view from this property. 6 Mustang Road - Located to the south of the project site, the proposed addition will Resolution No. 99-70 Page 5 of 8 not impair a view from this location since the view is primarily to the east and will not be impacted by the proposed addition which is to the north. Also, the proposed addition will not be visible from the primary viewing area which is the family room of this residence. Therefore, the proposed addition will not impact any protected view from this property. 2 Rockinghorse - Located to the northeast of the project site, the proposed addition will not impair a view from this location since the view is primarily to the southeast and will not be impacted by the proposed addition which is to the northeast and not visible from the viewing area due to the orientation of the residence on the lot. The City Council determined that the proposed addition will not impair a view from this location since the addition will not be visible from the interior family room. The City Council determined that the primary viewing area is the family room, as opposed to the backyard area, since the family room is the primary living space. This determination was made in accordance with the Height Variation Guidelines since the guidelines indicate that an interior view has a greater level of importance than an exterior view, unless no view is taken from within the primary structure. Therefore, the City Council determined that the proposed second story addition will have no impact to this property. Section 17: No cumulative view impairment will result from granting the applicant's request since no primary protected views are impacted by the proposed addition. Section 18: No primary protected views from the surrounding properties would be significantly impacted by the proposed project as the project is designed and situated in such a manner as to minimize view impairment since the height of the structure is designed with a roof pitch of 2' in 12', which is the lowest pitched roof before a flat roof, and the overall height of the structure has been reduced to 20'10". Therefore, the project is designed and situated in such a way to minimize view impairment. Section 19: The proposed structure will be constructed in accordance with the residential development guidelines of the City's Municipal Code, because the Variance is granted. Since the proposal does comply with all other Code requirements, and the findings related to the Variance can be made, the proposed project complies with the intent of this finding. Furthermore, the proposed addition will also be required to comply with all safety standards of the Uniform Building Codes, and be reviewed, inspected and approved by the Building and Safety Division. Section 20: The proposed structure is compatible with the residences along Stallion Road and Surrey Lane since the total bulk and mass is comparable to existing Resolution No. 99-70 Page 6 of 8 two-story residence sizes. Also, the apparent mass of the structure will be compatible with the surrounding residences, and with the existing two-story residences along Surrey Lane. Section 21: The proposed addition will not infringe on the privacy of the occupants of the abutting residence to the south at 6 Mustang Road since the property is a downslope lot and the one-story residence is below the building pad of the applicant's property. Also, the proposed addition is situated 26'0" from the rear property line and the existing vegetation and trees on the transitional slope provide privacy. Further, the addition will not infringe on the privacy to the west at 4 Stallion Road since the property is a downslope lot and the second story addition is approximately 32'0" from the side property line. Also, the one-story residence is below the building pad of the applicant's property and there is existing vegetation on the neigboring property's transitional slope that provides privacy. Therefore, the proposed addition will not afford the subject property a view into the outdoor gathering area or private interior area of the neighboring residences, and the proposed addition will not create unreasonable infringement to the interior or outdoor privacy on any abutting residences. Section 22: The Site Plan Review for the first story addition can be granted, since the requirements for the Variance are also being approved, and since the proposed structure conforms to the Development Code except in these areas for which a variance has been formed appropriate as discussed in earlier sections of this resolution. Section 23: The time within which judicial review of the decision reflected in this Resolution must be sought, if available, is governed by Section 1094.6 of the California Code of Civil Procedure, or other applicable short periods of limitation. Section 24: For the foregoing reasons based on the information and findings included in the Staff Report, Minutes, and other record of proceeding, and P.C. Resolution No. 99-21, which are attached hereto by reference, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes grants the appeal, thereby approving Variance No. 450, to exceed the maximum structure size by 25%, reduce the minimum open space requirement from 58.1% to 56%, and permit two roof decks; and approving Height Variation No. 883, and Site Plan Review No. 8563, thereby approving a 1,067 square foot one story addition, a 1,620 square foot second story addition which totals 2,687 square feet, with a proposed height of 20'10", as measured from the highest existing grade covered by structure (elevation of 93.23') to the proposed ridgeline (elevation of 114.06'), to an existing 1,793 square foot one-story residence, for the property located at 2 Stallion Road, subject to the conditions contained in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and made a part hereof, which are necessary to protect the public health, safety and welfare in the area. Resolution No. 99-70 Page 7 of 8 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 7th day September Se tember 1999. /)///iP g Mayor ATTEST: .„ Ci Y Clerk State of California ) County of Los Angeles ) SS City of Rancho Palos Verdes ) I, JO PURCELL, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, hereby certify that the above Resolution No. 99-7o was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City Council at regular meeting thereof on September 7, 1999. 4 City ri erk City ! Rancho Palos Verdes Resolution No. 99-70 Page8of8 EXHIBIT "A" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL VARIANCE NO. 450, HEIGHT VARIATION NO. 883 AND SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 8563 GENERAL 1. Prior to the submittal of plans into Building and Safety "plan check", the applicant shall submit to the City a statement, that they have read, understand and agree to all the conditions of approval contained in this resolution. Failure to provide said written statement within ninety (90) days of approval shall render this approval null and void. 2. The approval shall be null and void after one (1) 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, pursuant to Section 17.86.070 of the City's Development Code. This approval shall become null and void after initiating the "plan check" review process, or receiving a building permit to begin construction, if said "plan check" or permit is allowed to expire or is withdrawn by the applicant. 3. The Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement is authorized to make minor modifications to the approved preliminary plans or any of the conditions if such modifications shall achieve substantially the same results as would strict compliance with said plans and conditions. 4. The abandonment or non-use of this approval after a period of one year shall terminate the approval and any privileges hereunder shall become null and void. VARIANCE NO. 450 AND HEIGHT VARIATION NO. 883 5. The proposed addition shall not exceed a total of 2,684 square feet in area (which includes a 1,064 square foot addition to the first story and a 1,620 square foot second story addition) and twenty feet ten inches (20'10") in height, measured from highest existing grade covered by structure (elevation of 93.23') to the proposed ridgeline (elevation of 114.06'), resulting in a maximum total structure size of 4,480 square feet. 6. The proposed roof decks (2) shall not exceed a total of 203 square feet in area, and the proposed balconies (3) shall not exceed a total of 204 square feet in area. Resolution No. 99-70 Exhibit "A" Page 1 of 3 • 7. The applicant shall provide to the Building and Safety a certification that the proposed ridgeline does not exceed twenty feet ten inches from the highest existing grade, as measured from elevation of 93.23' to the proposed ridgeline (elevation of 114.06'). RIDGE HEIGHT CERTIFICATION REQUIRED. 8. The proposed height increase of the covered eastern veranda ridgeline shall not exceed 18'8" feet in height, as measured from elevation 94.23' to the ridge (elevation of 112.89). RIDGE HEIGHT CERTIFICATION REQUIRED. SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 8563 9. The verandas and covered colonnades located on the first level shall not exceed a total of 250 square feet in area. No trellises are permitted with this approval. 10. The applicant shall demolish 224 square feet of the 360 square foot non- permitted structure that is located at the rear of the property. No portion of this structure shall encroach into the minimum 15'0" rear yard setback. 11. The proposed water fountain located in the front yard area shall not exceed forty-two (42") inches in height (proposed: 42"). MICELLANEOUS 12. The minimum setbacks shall conform to the approved plans, but in no case shall be less than: Front: 20'0" Sides: 5' /Street-side: 10' Rear: 15' 13. Prior to submittal of plans to "plan check" in the Building and Safety Division, the applicant shall submit a geology report and a trust deposit to be reviewed by the City's Geotechnical Consultant. 14. The applicant shall replace the existing septic tank to a larger capacity if required by the Building and Safety Department. Upon replacement, the applicant must obtain approval from the Planning Department. Resolution No. 99-70 Exhibit "A" Page 2 of 3 15. The existing hedges located within the 60'0" intersection visibility triangle, shall be cut down to the maximum height of thirty (30") inches. 16. The applicant shall permanently remove the existing 50'0" high Monterey Pine tree that is located in the front yard area during the time of construction. 17. A minimum of fifty-six (56%) percent of open space shall be maintained on the property (proposed: 56%). 18. The appearance of the exterior finishes of the proposed addition must be compatible on both new and existing portions of the structure. 19. No grading and skylights are approved in conjunction with the construction of this project. 20. 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. 21. 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 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. 22. The construction of the 2,684 square foot additions shall conform to the approved plans submitted to the Department of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement stamp dated on June 9, 1999. Resolution No. 99-70 Exhibit "A" Page 3 of 3