CC RES 1991-044RESOLUTION 91-44
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DENYING THE APPEAL OF
HEIGHT VARIATION NO* 697, THEREBY APPROVING
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST FOR A SECOND STORY
ADDITION AT 28105 GOLDEN MEADOW DRIVE*
WHEREAS, on March 11, 1991, the applicant, Dr* Gary Rinzler,
received administrative approval from the Director of
Environmental Services for an 874 square foot second story
addition to his home at 28105 Golden Meadow Drive which will
measure 211-3" above existing, adjacent grade; and
81
WHEREAS, on March 25, 1991, within the 15 day appeal period,
adjacent property owner's to the immediate south of the subject
property, Mr. and Mrs* Richard van der Weyde, appealed the
Director's decision to the Planning Commission* and
WHEREAS, after notice issued pursuant to the provisions of
the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code, a public hearing before
the Planning Commission was held on May 14, 1991, at which time
after hearing evidence presented by all interested parties, the
Commission unanimously voted to deny the appeal, thereby approving
the project; and
WHEREAS, on May 29, 1991, within the 15 day appeal' period,
the same appellants filed a written appeal of the Planning
Commission1g,decision to the City Council; and
WHEREAS,, on July 2, 1991, after notice pursuant to the
provisions of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code, the City
Council held a public hearing at which time all interested 'parties
were given the opportunity to be heard and present evidence; and
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS
VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1* That pursuant to Section 17.02.040 6f-the
Development Code guidelines, the applicant has complied with the
provisions set forth for early neighborhood consultation, in that
he had obtaine&a'sufficient number of signatures on the Early
Neighborhood Consultation form supplied by the City to satisfy
this requirement.
% Section 2: That the applicant constructed a temporary space
frame of the outline-of the proposed addition,*�the.height and
location of which were verified by Staff.
Section 3.* That the structure does not significantly impair a
view 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 proposed structure is not located on a
ridge or promontory..
Section 5: That there is no significant cumulative impact
caused by granting the application since those properties which
have been identified as enjoying ocean views of which could be
affected by the applicant's proposal, (7002 and 7003 Brookford
Drive), would completely lose those views if the neighbors to the
immediate west and downslope from both of these properties were to
legally develop their properties per the City's Development Code
with 16 foot structures. Therefore, the adverse effects of the
applicant's proposal on these views would be immaterial. It has
also been determined, as a result of additional view analyses from
properties on Ambergate Drive, that views from these properties
will not be cumulatively impaired since a significant portion of
the ocean views will remain if similar additions are constructed
to other homes in the vicinity.
Section 6.# That the proposed structure has been designed and
situated in such a manner as to minimize view obstruction since
the applicant has situated the second story addition centrally on
the lot (a significant distance from both the front and rear yard
property lines) and has significantly reduced the size and scale
of the original second story addition proposal.
Section 7.* That based upon view analyses, the applicant's
proposal will not significantly impair views enjoyed by
surrounding properties. Those properties identified above which
do enjoy ocean views, will not be adversely affected by thel
applicant's proposal.
Section 8; That based upon analysis of the-surrounding;
vicinity, the proposed structure will be compatible with the
neighborhood. Although the existing residence is larger in terms
of total square footage when compared with other homes in the
area, it complies with all of the applicable criteria in the
Development Code for development (i.e. open space, setbacks, and
height). The second story addition will utilize common
architectural features and/or materials that are consistent with
those found throughout the area and it is Staff's opinion that the
addition is not excessively bulky nor will it create a massive
structure.
Section 9: That the proposed project complies with all other
Development code requirements*
Resolution No. 91-44
Rage 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. 697, thereby upholding the Planning Commission's decision to
approve the second story addition at 28105 Golden Meadow Drive
subject to the conditions in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made
a part hereof, said conditions being necessary to preserve the
public health, safety, and general welfare.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 2nd day of July, 1991.
ATTEST
City Clerk
y
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
It JO PURCELL, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes,
hereby certify that the above Resolution No. 91-44 was duly and
regularly passed and adopted by the said City Council at a regular
meeting thereof held on the 2nd day of July, 1991.
CITY CLERK
CITY F RANCHO PALOS VERDES
Resolution No. 91-44
- Page 3
Exhibit "A"
Conditions of Approval for
Height Variation No. 697
Maximum height of the addition shall not exceed a height of
21'-3" As measured from 'adjacent'. existing grade,
2) Required setbacks for the second story addition shall be
maintained: 521-011, front yard* 9'-0" and 271-0"
441.011 rear yard. I I side yard;
3) Maximum eave—projections shall not exceed 4" for each l;' --0" of
required setback.
4) The applicant shall obtain all necessary permits from the
City's Building and Safety Division,
5) The deck overhang shall be modified so as to move the guard
railing back to a line above the rear wall of the house below.
Any extension beyond the rear wall of the house shall not be
accessible for deck purposes,
Resolution No. 91-44
Page 4