Loading...
CC RES 1997-115RESOLUTION NO. 97 -115 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES UPHOLDING THE APPEAL AND APPROVING HEIGHT VARIATION NO. 750 - REVISION "C" TO ALLOW AN EXISTING 562.772 SQUARE FOOT UTILITY/STORAGE ROOM ON THE SECOND FLOOR AND TO ALLOW THE COMPLETION OF THE GARAGE AT 3558 BENDIGO DRIVE WHEREAS, on May 4, 1992, the landowners, Earl and Sharon Gantz, filed an application for Height Variation No. 750 with the City for a second story addition to the existing single story residence located at 3558 Bendigo Drive; and, WHEREAS, on September 8, 1992, the Director of the (then) Environmental Services Department approved an application for Height Variation No. 750 for a new 1,622 square foot second story addition, which would measure 26-0" in overall height and included a 167 square foot second story balcony; and, WHEREAS, on March 23, 1993, the Planning Commission adopted-P.C.- Resolution No. 93 -7, thereby approving the application for Variance No. 350 to allow a 210 square foot addition to the existing 462 square foot garage (total garage area 672 square feet) which involved the conversion of the indirect access, two car garage to a direct access, three car garage and a maximum 5' -9" encroachment into the required 20' -0" front yard setback area (resulting in a minimum front yard setback area of 14' -3 "). The plans which were approved by the Planning Commission included a roof height over the garage of 24' -0 "; and, WHEREAS, on September 13, 1993, the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement approved the application for Height Variation No. 750 - Revision ( "A "). The revision application was submitted to the City after some unapproved construction had commenced over the garage area and was detected during a routine inspection of the property by the City's Building and Safety Division Staff. The Director's approval was for a 528 square foot storage room over the garage, which was conditioned with a maximum height of 24' -0 "; and, WHEREAS, on November 23, 1993, as the result of an appeal of the Director's decision by the adjacent neighbors, the Planning Commission determined that the revised project would not be compatible with the character of the surrounding neighborhood due to its mass and two story appearance. Therefore, on December 14, 1993, the Planning Commission adopted P.C. Resolution No. 93 -43, upholding the appeal, denying the proposed revision to the project and requiring the landowners to construct the garage pursuant to the March 23, 1993 plans previously approved by the Commission; and, WHEREAS, on January 10, 1994, as the result of an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision by the landowners, the City Council adopting Resolution No. 94 -4 thereby denying the landowner's a pp eal, upholding the Planning Commission's denial of the proposed revision to the project and requiring the landowners to construct the garage pursuant to the March 23, 1993 plans previously approved by the Planning Commission; and, WHEREAS, on March 15, 1994, the landowners requested that the City Council clarify its previous January 10, 1994 action and determine whether or not revised plans submitted by the landowners were consistent with the prior action. The revised plans were submitted after the landowners indicated to Staff that the project could not be built to the March 23, 1993 plans, since the garage foundation slab had been constructed 2'- 0" higher than had been approved. As an alternative to demolishing the entire garage structure, including the foundation slab, the landowners were offered an opportunity to develop revised plan that satisfied the intent of the Council's action. The City Council passed a motion providing the landowners with direction to further modify the submitted plans to be consistent with the Council's prior action on January 10, 1994; and, WHEREAS, the landowners did not resubmit revised plans based on the Council's direction on March 15, 1994 and subsequently filed a lawsuit against the City in 1994, in which the City prevailed in 1996. Then, in September 1996, the applicants filed applications for Height Variation No. 750 - Revision "B" and Variance No. 350 - Revision "A" to the City for a revised project that differed from the Council's previous direction; and, WHEREAS, on March 4, 1997, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 97 -15, denying Height Variation No. 750 - Revision "B ", without prejudice, for approval of existing additional square footage that had been added to the second story of the residence and to complete the construction of the garage, including a storage area over the garage. In denying the application without prejudice, the Council directed that any subsequent applications for revisions to the original approvals would be required to follow the normal application process. On February 25, 1997, in light of the City Council's preliminary action regarding the height variation revision, the Planning Commission adopted P.C. Resolution No. 97 -11 denying Variance No. 350 - Revision "A", without prejudice, for an existing, additional 9 inch encroachment into the required front yard setback area; and, WHEREAS, on June 10 and June 24, 1997, respectively, the applicants submitted applications for Variance No. 350 - Revision "B" and Height Variation No. 750 - Revision "C" for approval of additional existing square footage on the second story of the residence which was not originally approved by the Staff as part of Height Variation No. 750, as well as completion of a partially constructed garage on the Resolution No. 97 -115 Page 2 of 8 property that was constructed 9 inches closer to the front property line than was approved by the Planning Commission through Variance No. 350. WHEREAS, after conducting, a public hearing August 26, September 21 and September 23, 1997, the Planning Commission adopted P.C. Resolution No. 97 -47 approving Height Variation No. 750 - Revision "C ", subject to conditions of approval and adopted P.C. Resolution No. 97 -48 approving Variance No. 350 - Revision "B "; and, WHEREAS, on October 8, 1997, a group of thirty -seven property owners identifying themselves as the "Concerned Bendigo Neighbors" filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision within the fifteen day appeal period; and, WHEREAS, after notice issued pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code, the City Council held a public hearing on November 18, December 2 and December 16, 1997, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and, WHEREAS, during the public hearing on the appeal on November 18, 1997, the appellants and the applicant reached a conceptual agreement about the design of the front of the house and the roof over the garage. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: The applicant has complied with the early neighbor consultation process established by the City by providing the City with reduced -size project plans and an updated mailing list for the property owners within a 500 radius of the subject property. A notice was sent, along with the reduced -size plans, to the surrounding landowners on June 24, 1997. Of the 72 packages sent out by certified mail, the City received confirmation that 67 were accepted by the landowners and 5 were returned to the City as undeliverable. Therefore, 93% of the landowners within a 500 foot radius of the subject property were provided with early neighbor notification of the height variation revision application, thereby adequately satisfying the requirement for early neighbor consultation requirement. Section 2: The structure does not significantly impair a view from public property (parks, major thoroughfares, bike -ways, walk -ways, equestrian trails) which has been identified in the City's General Plan, Coastal Specific Plan, or City designated viewing areas since the subject property does not lie within or around any public property areas. Resolution No. 97 -115 Page 3of8 Section 3: That the proposed structure is not located on a ridge or promontory, as defined in the adopted Height Variation Guidelines. Section 4: That the structure is designed and situated in such a manner as to minimize impairment of a view since, due to the subject lot's location relative to the other properties along Bendigo Drive and portions of Ganado Drive, the second story addition (which has been subsequently constructed) was designed and situated in such a manner to minimize view impairment. Therefore, since the ridge line of the existing utility /storage room and the proposed storage area over the garage are lower than the ridge line over the main portion of the residence, the revision to Height Variation No. 750 is also designed and situated in a manner to minimize view impairment. Section 5: That there is no significant cumulative view impairment caused by granting the application, since the proposed project has no potential causing any view impairment (and there has never been a claim made by an adjacent property owner or other interested party that any portion of the second story addition would create any view impairment), the possibility for significant cumulative view impairment does not exist. Section 6: That the proposed structure, when considered exclusive of existing foliage, does not significantly impair a view from the viewing area of another parcel located in a portion of the structure which was constructed without a Height Variation or a Variance, or which would not have required a Height Variation or a Variance when originally constructed had this section as approved by the voters on November 7, 1989, been in effect at the time the structure was constructed, since as discussed in Section 5 above, the proposed storage area will not significantly impair views from another parcel given the location of the subject property relative to the other properties in the area. Homes on the "non- view" side of Bendigo Drive do not have any potential views of the ocean blocked by structures on the "view" side of the street at a height of 16 feet. Section 7: That the proposed structure complies with all other Municipal Code requirements since, with the exception of the additionally reduced front yard setback area, which was approved pursuant Resolution No. 97- (Variance No. 350 - Revision "B "), the existing residence complies with all minimum Development Code setback requirements. The minimum open space requirement in the RS -3 zoning district is 55% The footprint of the residence (2,683.813 square foot lower level and 719.125 square foot garage) and the driveway (475 square feet) are counted as lot coverage on the property. Given a lot size of 8,900.39, as verified by the City Engineer in 1996, the total amount of open space on the lot after construction would be 56.43 %. Resolution No. 97 -115 Page 4 of 8 Section 8: The proposed structure, as modified after further discussions between the appellants and the applicants, is compatible with the neighborhood since the design of the roofs over the garage and the utility room have been modified to reduce the apparent bulk and mass of these two areas. The majority of the bulk of the original second story addition is located at the rear of the residence and cannot be readily ascertained from the street. The design of the roof over the garage has been modified to incorporate a 4:12 pitch rather than an 8:12 pitch. This change to the garage will reduce the overall height of the garage ridgeline and reduce the apparent bulk and mass of this portion of the structure, while incorporating a gable roof design which is found on many other homes on Bendigo Drive. Further, the ridgeline over the utility room will be eliminated, with the exception of a small clerestory roof over the closet to maintain head room inside this storage area and accommodate the existing utilities in this area. The remaining roof over this portion of the residence will be re- built to match the 4:12 roof pitch over the second story portion of the residence. These changes to the roofs over the utility room and the garage will reduce the apparent bulk and mass of the structure, will substantially reduce the storage areas over the garage and within the utility room over what was actually constructed by the property owner and will restore, to the extent reasonably feasible, the design of the original addition. Section 9: The proposed structure does not result in an unreasonable infringement of the privacy of the occupants of abutting residences since, as currently proposed the storage area over the garage would not have any windows. Likewise, the storage rooms already constructed over the main portion of the residence do not include any windows that could overlook abutting residences and the bottom of the windows included as part of the clerestory roof over the closet will be approximately six feet above the height of the floor, thereby substantially reducing the likelihood of overlooking into abutting residences. Section 10: 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. Section 11: The adoption of this Resolution is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303. Section 12: For the foregoing reasons, and based on the information and findings contained in the public record, including staff reports, minutes, records of proceeding and evidence presented at the public hearing, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby upholds the appeal and approves Height Variation No. 750 - Revision "C" to allow a 562.772 square foot utility /storage room (consisting of the 377.283 square foot heater room and the two storage rooms of 98.005 square feet on the west and 87.484 square feet on the east, respectively, and completion of the Resolution No. 97 -115 Page 5of8 garage, as depicted on the plans submitted to the City on December 11, 1997 on the property located at 3558 Bendigo Drive, subject to the conditions of approval contained in the attached Exhibit "A" which are necessary to protect and preserve the public health safety and welfare. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 16th day of December 1997. f ATTEST: CI CL Rf: 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. 97 -117 was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on December 16,1997. City Cler City of R cho Palos Verdes Resolution No. 97 -115 Page 6 of 8 EXHIBIT "A" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL HEIGHT VARIATION NO. 750 - REVISION "C" 3558 BENDIGO DRIVE 1. The project shall be constructed is substantial conformance with the plans stamped as received by the Department of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement on December 11, 1997, identified as "Earl Gantz, 3558 Bendigo Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes" prepared by J.M. Negrete and Associates and labeled as prepared on December 11, 1997. 2. The maximum ridge height of the garage shall not exceed an elevation of 118.56, which translates to 14 feet, 3 inches, as measured pursuant to Development Code Section 17.02.040 (i.e. from pad elevation 104.3) and 16 feet, 5 and 5/8 inches, as measured from the finished floor of the garage (i.e. elevation 102.1). CERTIFICATION REQUIRED. 3. The pitch of the garage roof shall be 4:12 with a "gable" roof design as shown on the approved plans referenced in Condition No. 1. 4. Access to the storage area over the garage shall only be from a pull -down stairway inside the garage. No access from the second story of the house shall be permitted. 5. The maximum ridge height of the clerestory roof over the utility room shall not exceed an elevation of 126.7, which translates to 22 feet 5 inches, as measured pursuant to Development Code Section 17.02.040 (i.e. from pad elevation 104.3) and 24 feet 8 inches as measured from the finished floor of the garage (i.e. 102.1). CERTIFICATION REQUIRED. 6. The roofing material on the clerestory area shall be a decorative tile to match in texture, design and color the roofing material on the remainder of the residence subject to the review and final approval of the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement prior to the issuance of building permit final. 7. The utility room and storage areas located behind the garage and over the living room shall not exceed 562.772 square feet in size (consisting of the 377.283 square foot heater room and the two storage rooms of 98.005 square feet on the west and 87.484 square feet on the east, respectively). The storage area over the garage shall not exceed 359.4 square feet in size. Resolution No. 97 -115 Page 7of8 8. This approval of Height Variation No. 750 - Revision "B" is subject to the approval of Variance No. 350 - Revision "B" by the City Council for the additional 9 inch encroachment of the garage into the required front yard setback area. 9. The applicant has agreed to the appellants' request to record a covenant against the subject property precluding the renting of room(s) to non - family members. Proof of recordation of this covenant shall be submitted to the City prior to the issuance of a building permit. N:I GROUPIPLANNINGIRESOSICC \HV750REV.0 Resolution No. 97 -115 Page 8of8