PC RES 2006-049 P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 6-4
RESOLUTION F THE PLANNINGCOMMISSION OFTHI
CITY OF RANCHO PALOSVERDE ENYI WITHOUT
PREJUDICE A HEI T VARIATION AND SITE PLA
REVIEW(PLANNING N2 5-00610)FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION 2® UARE-F T 1 ST-FLOOR
ADDITIONS AND 1,292-SQUARE-FOOT 2ND-STORY
ADDITIONS TO AN EXISTING 1-STORY SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENCE, LOCATED T 5437 MIDDLECREST ROAD
WHEREAS, on November 18, 2005, the applicants, Charles and Carmela Bonello,
submitted an application for Planning Case No. ZON2005-00610 for a height variation and
site plan review to allow 1St- and 2" -floor additions to their existing 1-story single-family
residence on a flag lot on Middlecrest Road in the Ridgecrest community; and,
WHEREAS, on July 28, 2006, the application for Planning Case
No. ZON2005-00610 was deemed complete by Staff; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act,
Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et. seq. ("CEQA"), the State's CEQA Guidelines,
California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et. seq., the City's Local CEQA
Guidelines, and Government Code Section 65962.5(f)(Hazardous Waste and Substances
Statement), Staff found no evidence that the approval of the requested height variation and
site plan review would have a significant effect on the environment and, therefore, the
proposed project has been found to be categorically exempt (Section 15301); and,
WHEREAS, after notice issued pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos
Verdes Development Code, the Planning Commission held a duly-noticed public hearing
on September 12, 2006, and September 26, 2006, at which time all interested parties were
given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence.
NOW, THEREFONE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION DOES HEREBY FIND,
DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: The Planning Commission makes the following findings of fact with
respect to the application for a height variation to allow the construction of a 1,292-square-
foot 2nd-story addition to the existing 1-story single-family residence on the subject
property:
A. The applicant has complied with the Early Neighbor Consultation process
established by the City by obtaining property owners' acknowledgement signatures
from 51% of the property owners within a 500-foot radius of the subject property
and 86% of the property owners within a 100-foot radius of the subject property.
B. The proposed structure that is above sixteen feet in height does not significantly
impair a view from public property(parks, major thoroughfares, bikeways,walkways
or equestrian trails), which has been identified in the City's General Plan or Coastal
Specific Plan, as City-designated viewing area. Although Figure 41 of the General
Plan identifies a view from Crenshaw Boulevard and Crest Road over the entirety of
the Ridgecr-est community, there is no point along either of these thoroughfares
where the proposed project is visible within the views.
C. The proposed structure is not located on a ridge or promontory; rather, the subject
property is a graded flag lot surrounded by similar pad lots that were all created
when the neighborhood was originally graded and developed in the late 1950s.
D. The proposed new structure that is above sixteen feet in height, when considered
exclusive of existing foliage, does not significantly impair a view from the viewing
area of another parcel due to the orientation and relative elevations of nearby
residences. The subject property is located at the highest point in the immediate
neighborhood. The subject property is visible from properties at the northerly
terminus of Crestridge Road, but these properties are located near one-quarter mile
away and the impact of the proposed project upon their views in negligible.
E. The portion of the proposed project that is above sixteen feet (16'-0") in height
results in no view impairment and, therefore, cannot contribute to cumulative view
impacts as a result of similar additions to nearby residences.
F. The proposed structure complies with all other Code requirements, including the
RS-2 zoning district development standards with respect to lot coverage and
setbacks, and the off-street parking requirements for single-family residences.
G. The proposed structure is not compatible with the immediate neighborhood
character in terms of the scale of surrounding residences, including total square
footage and lot coverage of the residence; architectural styles, including facade
treatments, structure height, open space between structures, roof design, the
apparent bulk or mass of the structure, number of stories, and building materials;
and front-, side-, and rear-yard setbacks. The 2nd-floor addition has not been
designed and situated in a manner that integrates it with the overall design of the
house and minimizes the creation of unbroken 2-story facades. In addition, the
addition is not designed so that it appears similar to the surrounding 1-story
residences in the immediate neighborhood.
H. The proposed structure does not result in an unreasonable infringement of privacy
of the occupants of abutting residences at 5435 Middlecrest Road and 5441
Middlecrest Road. There are no 2nd-floor windows facing toward 5435 Middlecrest
Road and a 5Y2-foot-tall privacy screen wall for a 2nd-floor deck will be provided.
There is one (1) small 2nd-floor bathroom window facing toward 5441 Middlecrest
P.C. Resolution No. 2006-49
Page 2 of 4
Road, but it is fixed and translucent glazing will be required for this window. In
addition, a 5'/-foot-tall privacy screen wall for a 2nd-floor balcony will be provided.
Section 2® The Planning Commission finds that, although the proposed 962-
square-foot-1s'-floor additions to the existing 1-story single-family residence are consistent
with the development standards of the RS-2 zoning district and other relevant provisions of
the City's Development Code, the additions are an integral part of the proposed 2nd-story
addition, and thus the requested site plan review application is denied as well.
Section ® Any interested person aggrieved by this decision or by any portion of
this decision may appeal to the City Council. Pursuant to Sections 17.02.040(C)(1)(g)and
17.80.070(A)of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code, any such appeal must be filed
with the City, in writing, setting forth the grounds of the appeal and any specific actions
requested by the appellant, and accompanied by the appropriate appeal fee, no later than
fifteen (15) days following September 26, 2006, the date of the Planning Commission's
final action.
action 4n For the foregoing reasons and based on the information and findings
included in the Staff Report, Minutes and other records of proceedings, the Planning
Commission of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby denies without prejudice a height
variation and site plan review(Planning Case No. ZON2005-00610)for the construction of
962-square-foot 1 St-floor additions and 1,292-square-foot 2nd-story additions to an existing
1-story single-family residence, located at 5437 Middlecrest Road.
P.C. Resolution No. 2006-49
Page 3of4
PASSED,APPROVED,AND ADOPTED this26 t"day of September 2006, by the following
vote:
AYES: Commissioners Karp- and Lewis, Vice Chairman Gerstner and
Chairman Knight
NOES: Commissioners Perestam, Ruttenberg and Tetreault
ABSTENTIONS: none
ABSENT: none
J' K .i. t,
hair
Joelo s, ACCP
Dire for of Planning Bui ding
and a Enforcer , and,
Secretary to the Planning Commission
P.C. Resolution No. 2006-49
Page 4 of 4