Loading...
PC RES 2007-001 P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2007-01 RESOLUTION THE PLANNING ISI F THE CITY OF RANCHO PALPALOS VERDES CONDITIONALLY APPROVING I CE AND GRADINGPERMIT (PLANNING CASE NO. N200 -0 11) FOR AFTER-THE- FACT TE -THE®F CT APPROVAL OF T (2) UPSLOPE RETAINING WALLS IN THE E YARD ONE (1) DOWNSLOPE RETAINING ALL WITH 3-FOOT-TALL BALUSTRADE I THE FRONT YARD OF AN EXISTINGI L -F IL RESIDENCE, LOCATED T 3 042 AVENIDA TRANQUILA WHEREAS, on May 8, 2003, the City received a complaint about non-permitted construction of two (2) upslope retaining walls in the rear yard of an existing single-family residence at 30042 Avenida Tranquila; and, WHEREAS, upon further investigation, on July 13, 2003, the City determined that the existing retaining wall and balustrade in the front yard was also non-permitted; and, WHEREAS, on November 12, 2003,the applicant, Shapour Razipour, submitted an after-the-fact grading permit application (Planning Case No. ZON2003-00611) to the Department of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement, requesting after-the-fact approval of all three (3) existing retaining walls; and, WHEREAS, on December 10,2003,the applicant was advised that an after-the-fact variance would be required for the front retaining wall and balustrade because their combined height exceeded the 42-inch height limit; and, WHEREAS,the applicant submitted the required after-the-fact variance application on August 2, 2006; and, WHEREAS, the application for Planning Case No. ZON2003-00611 was deemed complete for processing on October 20, 2006; and, WHEREAS, on December 12, 2006,the City and the applicant mutually agreed to a 30-day extension of the decision deadline for this application, pursuant to Government Code Section 65957; 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 variance and grading permit would have a significant effect on the environment and, therefore, the proposed project has been found to be categorically exempt (Section 15303); 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 December 12, 2006, and January 9, 2007, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence. NOW, THEREFORE, 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 variance for a combination retaining wall and balustrade with a maximum 11 Y2-foot overall height in the front yard area of the subject property: A. 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. The applicant asserts that the increased combined height of the retaining wall and balustrade is warranted out of concern for his family's safety, and that this constitutes an exceptional or extraordinary circumstance. He correctly notes that his house is built on an upslope lot, which limits the useable yard area at the rear, and necessitates the use of the side- and front-yard areas as the primary outdoor living areas. This differs from most of the other, deeper upslope lots on Avenida Tranquila, which have more useable rear yard area behind the homes. B. 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. The applicant again asserts that the increased combined height of the retaining wall and balustrade is warranted out of concern for his family's safety, and that he is otherwise deprived of this basic property right without the approval of the requested variance. He states that removing the balustrade would expose his family and guests to a safety hazard. Although the City's Building Code does not require the balustrade, its removal could expose residents and guests to a potentially hazardous condition, and relocating it further back from the face of the retaining wall reduces the applicant's useable outdoor living area. This would deprive the property owner of the right of safe use and enjoyment of his yard, which is a right enjoyed by other similarly-situated property owners. C. Granting 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. Although it is not clear exactly when the existing retaining wall was extended to it current configuration, the action that triggered the need for the variance was the applicant's addition of the balustrade atop it. The Planning Commission finds that the wall and balustrade are not detrimental to public health, safety and welfare. In P.C. Resolution No. 2007-01 Page 2 of 10 addition,foliage will be provided in front of the retaining wall to screen and soften its appearance as viewed from the street. D. Granting the 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 land use designation for the subject property is Residential 2-4 IDU/acre. The development and improvement of single-family residences and related accessory structures—such as the proposed wall and balustrade—are among the primary permitted uses within this land use designation. This is also reflected in Housing Activity Policy No. 3 of the General Plan (p. 78), which calls upon the City to "[encourage] and assist in the maintenance and improvement of all existing residential neighborhoods so as to maintain optimum local standards of housing quality and design." The Planning Commission finds that the proposed project implements this policy. The property is not located within the City's coastal zone. Section 2A The Planning Commission considers the following criteria with respect to the application for a grading approval for two (2) upslope retaining walls in the rear yard area and one (1) downslope retaining wall in the front yard area of the subject property: A. The grading does not exceed that which is necessary for the permitted primary use of the lot. Based upon the underlying RS-3 zoning designation, the primary permitted use of the property is for single-family residential development. The construction of retaining walls is commonly associated with residences on sloped lots, such as the subject property. It is estimated-that only one hundred eighty-four cubic yards (184 CY) of grading—mostly fill—has been conducted for the construction of all three (3) retaining walls. B. The proposed grading and/or related construction does not significantly adversely affect the visual relationships with nor the views from the "viewing area" of neighboring properties. The retaining walls do not affect the height of the existing structures, nor do they alter the grade of the property in such as way as to alter the measure of the height of the house. The retaining walls themselves are not visible from the viewing area of any upslope property. C. The nature of the grading minimizes disturbance to the natural contours and finished contours are reasonably natural. The pre-existing "natural"contours of the project site were largely the result of past grading for the development of the Monte Verde neighborhood and the construction of the existing residence. Although the former slope at the northwesterly corner of the property has been partially altered by the front-yard retaining wall, a sloped lawn area remains below the wall that separates it from the sidewalk by at least ten feet (10'-0"). The rear-yard retaining walls are only visible from the subject property. P.C. Resolution No. 2007-01 Page 3 of 10 D. The grading takes into account the preservation of natural topographic features and appearances by means of land sculpturing so as to blend any man-made or manufactured slope into the natural topography. As mentioned above, the pre- existing "natural" contours of the project site were largely the result of human alteration in the past. There is no evidence of any significant natural topographic features that have been disturbed by the grading. E. Since the proposed project is not a new single-family residence,the required finding that, for new single-family residences, the grading and/or related construction is compatible with the immediate neighborhood character, is not applicable to the proposed project. F. Since the proposed project is not a new residential tract,the required finding that, in new residential tracts, the grading includes provisions for the preservation and introduction of plant materials so as to protect slopes from soil erosion and slippage and minimize the visual effects of grading and construction on hillside areas, is not applicable to the proposed project. G. Since the proposed project does not involve modifications to streets or other public infrastructure, the required finding that the grading utilizes street designs and improvements which serve to minimize grading alternatives and harmonize with the natural contours and character of the hillside, is not applicable to the proposed project. H. Since there is no evidence of natural landscape or wildlife habitat on the subject property, the required finding that the grading would not cause excessive and unnecessary disturbance of the natural landscape or wildlife habitat through removal of vegetation, is not applicable to the proposed project. I. The grading conforms to certain City standards for grading on slopes, creation of new slopes, depths of cut and fill, and maximum driveway steepness. Specifically, new slopes will not exceed 35-percent steepness; grading has not occurred on slopes steeper than 50-percent steepness, the depths of cut and fill have not exceeded five feet (F-O"); and the maximum driveway slope will not be changed. J. Deviations from certain City standards for the number and height of up- and downslope retaining walls are warranted. Specifically, two (2) upslope retaining walls—one 5-foot-tall and one 6Y2-foot-tall—are proposed in the rear yard and one (1) 81/2-foot-tall downslope retaining wall is proposed in the front yard area. These deviations are warranted because: L The criteria of subsections (E)(1) through (E)(8) of RPVDC Section 17.76.040(E) are satisfied. P.C. Resolution No. 2007-01 Page 4 of 10 ii. The approval is consistent with the purposes set forth in subsection A of the City's grading regulations, which stated purpose is to "[permit] reasonable development of land..."; to "[ensure] that the development of each parcel of land...occurs in a manner harmonious with adjacent lands..."; and to "[ensure] that each project complies with the goals and polices of the General Plan...." The proposed grading and retaining walls are consistent with these purposes because they will allow reasonable use of the property, will not adversely affect surrounding properties, and will be consistent with the Residential 2-4 DU/acre land use designation for the area. iii. Departure from the standards in subsection (E)(9)will not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity. Two (2)upslope retaining walls are proposed behind the house, although neither of these walls exceeds the maximum 8-foot height standard for upslope retaining walls. These walls will only be visible from the subject property. The front-yard retaining wall exceeds the 3Y2-foot height standard for downslope walls by five feet (5'-0") at its tallest point. However, the height of this wall tapers down to only six inches (6") above the 3Y2-foot height standard near the driveway and front entry steps. This shorter portion of the wall is the original planter wall that was constructed with the house in 1969. Although there are no other homes on the upslope lots on this side of Avenida Tranquila with retaining walls of the height proposed by the applicant, there are a few instances of retaining walls and/or planters that appear to exceed the 3Y2-foot height standard for downslope walls. iv. Departure from the standards of subsection (E)(9)will not be detrimental to the public safety nor to other property. The City's geotechnical consultant reviewed but has not yet approved a preliminary report for the proposed retaining walls. The City's building inspectors also unofficially "inspected" these walls several times when the Code Enforcement case for the property was still open. Additional review and analysis by the City's geotechnical consultant and Building Official will be required before building permits are issued for these walls. In addition, the Planning Commission is concerned about the aesthetic impacts of the tall front retaining wall upon the streetscape of Avenida Tranquila, and conditions its approval to require the planting of shrubs and/or vines to screen and soften its appearance. Section 3: Any interested person aggrieved by this decision or by any portion of this decision may appeal to the City Council. Pursuant to Sections 17.64.060 and 17.76.040(H)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, no later than fifteen (15) days following January 9, 2007, the date of the Planning Commission's final action. P.C. Resolution No. 2007-01 Page 5 of 10 Section 4: 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 conditionally approves a variance and grading approval (Planning Case No. ZON2003-0061 1)for after-the-fact approval of two(2) upslope retaining walls in the rear yard and one (1)downslope retaining wall with a 3-foot-tall balustrade in the front yard of an existing single-family residence, located at 30042 Avenida Tranquila, subject to the conditions of approval contained in the attached Exhibit 'A', attached hereto and made a part hereof, which are necessary to protect the public health, safety, and welfare. P.C. Resolution No. 2007-01 Page 6 of 10 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this fit" day of January 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Karp, Perestam., Ruttenberg and Tetreault, Vice Chairman Gerstner and Chairman Knight NOES: Commissioner Lewis ABSTENTIONS: none ABSENT: none im K Chair an JoelAICP Dire to of Plan i Building and C de Enforcement; and, Sec9ary to the Planning Commission P.C. Resolution No. 2007-01 Page 7 of 10 EXHIBITW CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR PLANNING CASE NO. ZON2003-00611 (Razipour, 30042 Avenida Tranquila) General Conditions: I Prior to the submittal of plans into Building and Safety plan check,the applicant and the property owner shall submit to the City a statement, in writing, that they have read, understand, and agree to all conditions of approval contained in this Resolution. Failure to provide said written statement within ninety (90) days following date of this approval shall render this approval null and void. 2. Approval of this permit shall not be construed as a waiver of applicable and appropriate zoning regulations, or any Federal, State, County and/or City laws and regulations. Unless otherwise expressly specified,all other requirements of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code shall apply. 3. This approval is for after-the-fact approval of two(2)upslope and one(1)downslope retaining walls and 184 cubic yards of related grading. Also approved is a 3-foot-tall balustrade atop of the downslope retaining wall. The Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement is authorized to make minor modifications to the approved plans and any of the conditions of approval if such modifications will achieve substantially the same results as would strict compliance with the approved plans and conditions. Otherwise, any substantive change to the project shall require approval of a revision to the variance and/or grading approval by the Planning Commission and shall require new and separate environmental review. 4. All project development on the site shall conform to the specific standards contained in these conditions of approval or, if not addressed herein, in the RS-3 district development standards of the City®s Municipal Code. 5. Failure to comply with and adhere to all of these conditions of approval may be cause to revoke the approval of the project by the Planning Commission after conducting a public hearing on the matter. 6. If the project has not been established (i.e., building permits obtained) within one year of the final effective date of this Resolution, or if construction has not commenced within one hundred eighty (180) days of the issuance of building permits, approval of the project shall expire and be of no further effect unless, prior to expiration, a written request for extension is filed with the Department of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement and approved by the Director. P.C. Resolution No. 2007-01 Page 8 of 10 Otherwise, a variance and/or grading approval revision must be approved prior to further development. 7. In the event that any of these conditions conflict with the recommendations and/or requirements of another permitting agency or City department,the stricter standard shall apply. 8. Unless otherwise designated in these conditions,all construction shall be completed in substantial conformance with the plans stamped APPROVED by the City with the effective date of this Resolution. 9. The construction site and adjacent public and private properties and streets shall be kept free of all loose materials resembling trash and debris in excess of that material used for immediate construction purposes. Such excess material may include, but not be limited to: the accumulation of debris, garbage, lumber, scrap metal, concrete asphalt, piles of earth, salvage materials, abandoned or discarded furniture, appliances or other household fixtures. 10. Permitted hours and days for construction activity are 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM, Monday through Saturday,with no construction activity permitted on Sundays or on the legal holidays specified in Section 17.96.920 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code. Trucks and other construction vehicles shall not park, queue and/or idle at the project site or in the adjoining public rights-of-way before 7:00 AM, Monday through Saturday, in accordance with the permitted hours of construction stated above. Variance Conditions: 11. The balustrade atop the front-yard retaining wall shall not exceed a maximum height of forty-two inches (42") above grade, including light fixtures. Grading Approval Conditions: 12. The permitted grading quantities shall be as follows: Area Cut Fill Total Earth Net Earth Movement Movement House Footprint 0 CY 0 CY 0 CY 0 CY Outside Foot rint 28 CY 156 CY 184 CY 128 CY Total 28 CY _J 156 CY 184 CY 128 CY P.C. Resolution No. 2007-01 Page 9 of 10 13. The maximum height of the two (2) upslope retaining walls in the rear yard shall not exceed 5 and 6'/ feet in height. The maximum height of the downslope retaining wall in the front yard area shall not exceed 8"/2 feet in height at its highest point. 14. Priorto the issuance of a grading permit by the City's Building Official, the applicant shall obtain final approval of the grading plan from the City's geotechnical consultant. The applicant shall be responsible for the preparation and submittal all soil engineering and/or geology reports required by the City's geotechnical consultant in order to grant such final approval. 15. Within ninety (90) days of the date of the City's final action in this matter, the applicant shall plant shrubs and/or vines in front of the front-yard retaining wall so as to screen and soften its appearance from the street, to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement. 16. Within ninety (90) days of the date of the City's final action in this matter, the applicant shall submit the necessary plans and reports to the City's Building Official to obtain building permits for the three (3)retaining walls permitted by this approval. Failure to do so shall cause this matter to referred back to the City's Code Enforcement Division. M:\Projects\ZON2003-00611 (Razipour,30042 Avenida Tranquila)\PC Resolution 2007-01.doc P.C. Resolution No. 2007-01 Page 10 of 10