CC RES 1991-017RESOLUTION NO j.' 91 -1 i = E a t r G
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO - PALOS VERDES DENYING THE APPEAM.0fl -1 - -=-
HEIGHT VARIATION NO. 695: THEREBY APPROVING
THE PROJECT AT 29835 WARNICK RD.
WHEREAS, October 31,:1990" the-Director of Environmental
Services approved Height. Variation No. 695 for first and second
story additions (to a ' maximum height ' of 21' -2") at_: -19 51W&i _nick
Road; and
WHEREAS, on November 14y 1990, his . ' Gr- a.ce Chang , et al.' filed
an appeal within 15 ,days of the decision of the- -Director of
Environmental Service's-to the Planning - Commission; - and
.WHEREAS, on `Janua.ry 22, 1991., ,the Planning = Commission denied
the appeal, thereby approving the pro j,ect , with modified
conditions; and
WHEREAS, on Febru &r ''4, - 1991, Reso l,ution No. 916 � was
adopted; and v
WHEREAS , : on February 18,-1991, Ms . , Grace Chang, et .. a l , f i 1 ed
an .appeal within 15 days of the adoption of-the Plainni- n
Commission resolution to the Oi-ty ; Counc l * and
WHEREAS- f ' ..`after notloce - pursuant to the City's Development:
Code, on April 15, 1991, the City Council held -a. public hearing,
at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to
be heard and present evidence.
NOW, THERRFORE , . THE CITY- COUNCIL 0,F-THE CITY of RANCHO PALOS
VERDES DOES . HBREDY FIND , EiETERMI`NE AID - ESOLVE AS FOLLOWS
Mien 1 ::: That pur'auant to, Section -1? `t} .840 of the
Devea�peut code the applicant ha =s copl led with pr�osions set
forth for -. 'early neighborhood consultation, in that he discussed
the proposed project with-the neighbors -at 4- open house
and- obtAlined signatures . f rout tho" -who attehd6d, - -
Section 2: That the applicant has constructed a, temporary
.pace frame of the outline of the proposed add ":*Lt .fight
and location of which were verified by Staff y .,
Section 3: That the structure does not significantly impair a
vier or vista from public property (parks, major thoroughfare,
bikeway, walkway, equestrian trail, etc.) which has been
identified in the City's General Plan, Coastal Specific Plan or
City approved viewing area.
Section-4: That the 4 proposedr structure is not located on a
ridge or promontory.
Section 5: That there. is.-no signif icar t :cumulative view
impact caused by . granting the - „.application -. si.nce .views from the
residences on the east side of -Warnick Road already are impaired
by the existing homes on the west side of the street and it has
been determined that views from the properties on the west side of
the street would be impaired by structures' at. 1.6 feet
Section:-,6:-That the proposed structure has been designed and
situated in such a manner as to minimize view obstruction i,n that
the applicant has utilized the level, buildable area of the rear
yard and will not encroach into any of the rminimumi- regui.redf.,.
setbacks*. The a;ppl cant's..intention for the second story addition
is to expand the existing master bedroom and create a- master
bedroom suite. In that the master bedroom is located at the rear
of the house, . there is no other alternative .location for. ;expansion
other than what.has been proposed
Section 7: That based upon view analyses performed by Staff,
the portion 1of the proposed structure under 16 feet, when
considered exclusive of existing foliage, would significantly
impair a primary view from the viewing areas at 29031 Warnick
Road and 29441,Warnick Road.. However, thesetviews are unprotected
by the Development Code. Since• . the views will be mpai.red. by; : the
structure under 16 feet there is no justification fication in denying ; the
applicant's request with respect to view impairment because the
proposed, second story addition -will not - exacurbate the-:.-view,
impairment that would be.caused by the portion of the proposal
under 16 ;feet.
Section 8.
now
That based upon analysis of the surrounding
vicinity, -the, proposed structure will., * be compatible Wwith the .:
neighborhood.. AV.-The addit�i:o.n i11 take place -at the. rear of- the-
property and will not be seen by passersby on -the street. In that
the residence will appear - as. if. ;it ha :s not been:. modiff iodlodcat the
square .footage. after. development will only al ightl :y-” exceeds the
average square- footage of area,, and mater3.als ,.used throughout{ the
neighborhood wi l 1 , -be, uti l i zed in the a.ppl Ica•nt I s. proposal , the
City Council finds that the . proj-ect will be compatible with= the
immediate neighborhood character.
Seat 110-ft 9 :t - That; :-the proposed project ,compI ies with. all other
Development Code requ i,rements
nC).E oo2
Resolution No. 91-17
Page 2
Section 10: For the foregoing reasons and based on
information and findings included in the Staff report and evidence
presented at the public hearing, the City Council of the City of
Rancho Palos Verdes hereby denies the appeal of Height Variation
No. 695, thereby upholding the Planning Commission ;s approval of
the f irst.4nd second story additions at 29035 Warnick Road,
.subject to the Conditions contained in Exhibit "A ".
- s
MAYOR
ATTEST
Purce 1.
S,*ty Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES } ss
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES 3
I, JO PURCELL, City Clerk of the City Council of the City of
Rancho Palos Verdes, hereby Certify that the above Resolution No.
91 -17 was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City
Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 16th day of April
19910
CITY CLERK
CIT OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
Resolution No. 91 -17
Page 3
Conditions of Approval for
Height Variation No* 6 9 5
1) Maximum ; height of addition shall not exceed a height of-
211-2"0
2) A covenant to protect views shall be completed, notarized,
and submitted prior to the issuance of building permits.
3) Minimum rear and. side yard setbacks must be maintained:
5' -0 "; sideard, 15' --0 "; rear yard.
4) Maximum allowable eave projections shall not exceed 4" for
each V-0" of required setback,
5) The applicant shall be allowed windows on the north and south
elevations of the second story addition.to be reviewed and
approved by the Department of Environmental Services.
s
r.
A
Resolution No. 91 -17
Page 4