CC RES 1992-060RESOLUTION NO. 92 -60
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DENYING THE
APPEAL OF VARIANCE NO, 325, THEREBY UPHOLDING
THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO DENY
THE REQUEST TO ALLOW THE CONVERSION OF AN
INDIRECT ACCESS GARAGE /DRIVEWAY INTO A DIRECT
ACCESS GARAGE /DRIVEWAY AT 28105 GOLDEN MEADOW
DRIVE.
WHEREAS, the applicant, Dr. Gary Rinzler, has requested
approval of Variance No. 325, to allow the conversion of the
existing indirect access garage /driveway into a direct access
garage /driveway (with the resulting direct access driveway
being ten feet (10,1-011) in length) ; and
WHEREAS, after public notice issued pursuant to the
City's Development Code, the Planning Commission held a
public hearing on the merits of the project on April 15, 1992
at which time the item was continued; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a hearing on the
project on April 28, 1992 at which time the project was
denied; and
WHEREAS, on May 14, 1992, within the fifteen ( day
appeal period, the applicant appealed the Commission's
decision to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, on June 16, 1992, the City Council held a duly
noticed public hearing, at which time all interested parties
were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
PALOS VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINED, AND RESOLVE AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1: That there are no exceptional or
extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to
the property involved, or to the intended use of the
property, which in not apply generally to other property
in the same zoning district n that all of the lots along
the west side of Golden Meadow Drive are generally 9,000
square feet in area with approximately 2,000 square feet
that is not usable due to the rear yard transitional
slope (therefore the buildable area of these lots are
essentially identical). All of the lots including that
of the applicants, were originally developed with single
story, 2,000 sq. ft. (approx.) homes situated on the
lots in such a manner to allow for garage approaches of
both direct and indirect access. Due to several
additions which the applicant has recently obtained
approval for, (SPR #5773/681 sq. ft. single story
addition, HV #697/874 sq, ft. second story addition, SPR
#6881/107 sq, ft. patio cover extension) , much of the
usable, flat portion of the lot has been covered by new
structures (the lot has essentially been built out)
creating a self imposed hardship that does not constitute
an exceptional condition and does not warrant the
granting of the Variance.
Section 2: That the Variance is not necessary for
the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property
i
right of the applicant, nor is it a right that s
possessed by other property owners under like conditions
in the same zoning district since the direct access
garages /driveways were not established as a result of
requests for Code exceptions. The mix of indirect and
direct access garages /driveways in this particular
neighborhood was originally constructed when the tracts
were established and thus the conditions are not similar
to those that the applicant has created on the subject
lot (reduction in usable yard area to accommodate
building additions). As a result of the tracts being
established prior to the City's incorporation, all of the
garages exist as legal nonconformities due to the less
than required (according to the City's current Code
requirements) distance between the structure and the
front property line. The applicant is seeking to
increase the degree of nonconformity of the garage
structure b also allowing direct access (ten feet (101-
y
0 ) less than standard driveway length)*
Section 3: That the granting of the Variance could
be materially detrimental to the public welfare and
injurious to property and improvements in the area in
which the subject property located in that if the request
were granted, it would result in only ten feet (101-011)
between the garage door and the sidewalk which does not
allow sufficient space for a vehicle to be parked on the
driveway and allow un- interrupted pedestrian flow on the
sidewalks. As a result, vehicles may extend over the
sidewalks and possibly into the street, therefore not
allowing safe passage for pedestrians, including children
on bicycles, skateboards, etc.
Section 4: That the granting of the Variance will
be contrary to the objectives of the General Plan since
it would allow the applicant to enclose.the property and
interrupt the visual relief afforded by the existing
layout of the residence and the tract. Although granting
the applicant's request might not have a significant
adverse affect on the visual appearance of the street, if
other resident's were granted similar requests, the
cumulative impact may adversely effect the neighborhood
character and the feeling of open space along the street.
Resolution No. 92 -60
Page 2 of 3
The General Plan promotes development within the City
that preserves and enhances the community's quality
living environment, including maintaining the open and
semi -rural atmosphere found throughout the City and
surrounding Peninsula and enhancing the visual character
and physical quality of existing neighborhoods.
Section 5: For the foregoing reasons and based on
information and findings included in the Staff reports,
minutes, records of proceeding, and evidence presented at the
public hearings, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos
Verdes hereby denies the appeal of Variance No. 325, thereby
upholding the Planning Commission's decision to deny the
request.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 16th day of June,
1992.
ATTEST:
STArfE 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. 92 -60
was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the -said City
Council at a regular meeting held on June 16, 1� 92.
CITY CLERK, CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
Resolution No, 92 -60
Page 3 of 3