Loading...
CC RES 1997-116RESOLUTION NO. 97 -116 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DENYING THE APPEAL AND APPROVING VARIANCE NO. 350 - REVISION "B" FOR AFTER - THE -FACT APPROVAL OF A GARAGE TO ENCROACH AN ADDITIONAL 9 INCHES INTO THE REQUIRED FRONT YARD SETBACK AREA FROM THE PREVIOUS APPROVAL GRANTED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION IN 1993 AT 3558 BENDIGO DRIVE WHEREAS, on March 23, 1993, the Planning Commission adopted P.C. Resolution No. 93 -7, thereby approving Variance No. 350 to allow a two car, indirect access garage to be enlarged to the three car, direct access garage, which would be 672 square feet in size and located a minimum of 14 feet 3 inches from the front property line on the property located at 3558 Bendigo Drive; and, WHEREAS, in the course of reviewing an application for Height Variation No. 750 - Revision "B" for proposed modifications to portions of the second story addition to the residence, which had been built without prior approval from the City, Staff determined that the garage had been built 9 inches closer to the front property line and was 63.18 square feet larger than had been approved by the Planning Commission in 1993. In addition, the landowners had previously disclosed that the garage floor had been constructed 2 feet higher than had been originally approved by the City and the building elevations submitted in conjunction with the current application indicate that there would be columns applied to the front facade of the garage that would encroach an additional 9 to 18 inches into the required front yard setback; and, WHEREAS, on February 25, 1997, the Planning Commission adopted P.C. Resolution No. 97 -11 denying Variance No. 350 - Revision "A" since the City Council has previously taken action to tentatively deny the related application for Height Variation No. 750 - Revision "B ". The Council memorialized its action in adopting Resolution No. 97 -15 on March 4,1997; 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 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, 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: There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved, or to the intended use of the property, which do not apply generally to other property in the same zoning district. In 1993, the City Council found that the buildable area on the subject lot, similar to the other lots on Bendigo Drive, was restricted due to the rear yard transitional slope. The reduced buildable area, in addition to the fact that the lot size was 4,000 square feet smaller than would be required for a newly created lot in the RS -3 zoning district, created an exceptional condition on the property. Without the ability to reduce the front yard setback area to accommodate the re- orientation of the garage, the Commission found the applicant's ability to make reasonable improvements to the property would be unduly limited. With regards to the current request, the City Council finds that requiring the applicant to demolish and re -build the garage to remove the additional 9 inch encroachment and reduce the height of the foundation would not serve any real purpose, since any impacts associated with these changes to the project would either be inconsequential as compared to the original approval or will be mitigated through other changes to the project. Therefore, in addition to the findings made in 1993, the City Council finds that the unnecessary burden associated with demolishing and rebuilding the garage constitutes an extraordinary circumstance that warrants the approval of the revision to the existing variance. Resolution No. 97 -116 Page 2 of 4 Section 2: Such Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, which right is possessed by other property owners under like conditions in the same zoning district. In 1993, the City Council found that the property right in question was the applicants' ability to further develop the lot. In order to preserve this right in this case, the variance was necessary due to the physical constraints on the lot discussed in the first finding above. At that time, Staff determined that of the six homes within the Bendigo Drive cul -de -sac with direct access driveways, five had garages which encroached into the required front yard setback area. Therefore, the Commission found that the applicants were not requesting a special privilege, and that the privilege of a reduced front yard setback was already possessed by other property owners in the area. The City Council finds that the circumstances that were in place in 1993 relative to this finding are still valid today. Section 3: The granting of the Variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property and improvements in the area in which the property is located. The previous Planning Commission found that the additional square footage proposed to be added to the existing garage and the conversion from an indirect access driveway /garage to a direct access driveway /garage would not result in any adverse impacts to the surrounding neighborhood. Instead, the Commission found that the additional enclosed garage space would improve the parking in the congested cul -de -sac by providing a vehicle storage area for a car that would otherwise be parked in the driveway or on the street. In addition, because of the width of the right of way in this area and the fact that the sidewalk abuts the curb, there will be more than 18 feet from the garage to the sidewalk so that a vehicle parked in the driveway will not overhang the sidewalk. The City Council finds that the findings made by the Planning Commission in 1993 relative to the impacts of the project on surrounding properties are still valid. Section 4: The granting of such a Variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the General Plan or the policies and requirements of the Coastal Specific Plan. The General Plan encourages development within the City that maintains and enhances the visual qualities of existing neighborhoods without creating adverse impacts to the surrounding area. In 1993, the Planning Commission found that the proposed variance was in conformance with this objective. The City Council finds that the current design of the garage is also consistent with this finding since the applicants have designed it to resemble, as closely as possible given the changes that have occurred to the height and location of the foundation, the project that was previously approved by the Commission. In the current proposal, the garage will have the appearance of a one story structure with a pitched roof. The subject property is not subject to the policies and requirements of the Coastal Specific Plan, since the lot is not located within the City's Coastal Zone (all areas seaward of Palos Verdes Drive). Resolution No. 97 -116 Page 3 of 4 Section 5: The adoption of this Resolution is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303. Section 6: 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 7: For the foregoing reasons and based on the information and findings included in the Staff Report, Minutes and other records of proceedings, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby approves Variance No. 350 - Revision "A ", subject to the approval of Height Variation No. 750 - Revision "C ", for the as -built garage at 3558 Bendigo Drive to encroach an additional 9 inches into the required front yard setback area at the northwest corner of the structure. Therefore, the existing garage shall be a minimum of 13' -6" at its closest point from the front property line. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 16th day of December 1997. MAYOR ATTEST: Y f / Jet CITY: ' LERK 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 -116 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 ncho Palos Verdes N: \GROUPIPLANNINGIRESOSICCIVAR350 .RVB Resolution No. 97 -116 Page 4of4