Loading...
PC RES 2007-015 P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2007-15 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OFT E CITY OF RANCHO PALPALOS VE DES APPROVING THE VARIANCE, GRADING, D SITE PLAN REVIEW (ZO 2006-00509) TOCONDUCT 525.6 CUBIC YARDS OF GRADING TO ACCOMMODATE A 1408.4 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION (UPPER FLOOR, LOWER FLOOR, AND CABANA LEVEL) AND RETAININGALL IN THE REAR YARD AT 4204 I ALESTE DRIVE. WHEREAS, on September 21, 2006, the applicant submitted an application for a Variance, Grading Permit, and Site Plan Review (Case No. ZON2006-00509), a request to conduct 525.6 cubic yards of grading to accommodate a 1,408.4 square-foot addition and retaining walls in the rear yard; and, WHEREAS, on February 5, 2007, the applications for Variance, Grading Permit, and Site Plan Review were 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 Variance, Grading Permit, and Site Plan Review will have a significant effect on the environment and, therefore, the proposed project has been found to be categorically exempt under Class 3 (Section 15303); and, WHEREAS, after noticed issued on February 7, 2007 pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on March 13, 2007, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: That the approved project includes 525.6 cubic yards of grading to accommodate retaining walls and a 1,408.4 square foot addition to the upper, lower, and cabana level in the rear yard of the existing 2-story residence. Section 2: That the Variance is warranted since the existing overall height of the subject property exceeds 30' and thus presents an exceptional circumstance to the property that is usually not common in other properties in the same zoning district. The overall height of the existing two-story residence as measured from the point where the lowest foundation or slab meets finished grade, to the ridgeline is 31.84'. Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 17.02.040, the maximum height allowed for sloping lots is 30' as measured from the point where the lowest foundation or slab meets finished grade, to the ridgeline. Since the existing overall height already exceeds 30', any proposed addition to the property will require a Variance to exceed 30'. Section 3: That the Variance is warranted since there are other homes within the 20- closest that exceed 30' in overall height, as measured from the point where the lowest foundation meets finished grade, to the ridgeline of the existing structure. Most notably, the P.C. Resolution No. 2007-15 Page 1 of 6 immediate abutting neighbor located south of the subject property has a split level home with an overall height of 34'. All of the 20-closest properties are down sloping lots, many of which are split level homes like the subject residence. As such, given that there are other properties within the 20-closest homes that have an overall height that is exceeding 30', the proposed project is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, which right is possessed by other property owners in the immediate neighborhood. Section 4: That the Variance is warranted since the granting of the variance will be an improvement to the subject property and will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property and improvements in the area in which the property is located. The proposed improvements are located in the rear yard of the property which would not be visible from the public right-of-way. Additionally, if approved, Building permits will be required to address geology or building related issues with the proposed project. Section 5® That the Variance is warranted since the resulting appearance of the proposed project will enhance and improve the housing quality and design. In the General Plan, Urban Environment Policy No. 3 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." Given that the 31.84' height is an existing condition, any proposed addition to the residence will require a Variance due to the overall height. In essence, the subject property owner will not have an option to enlarge their residence if a Variance was not to be granted. Since the proposed addition is an improvement to the existing residence and enhances the overall design of the structure, it is consistent with the general plan. Section 6: That the Grading Permit is warranted since the proposed project does not exceed that which is necessary for the permitted primary use of the lot. Per Section 17.96.2180, "use" is defined as "the purpose for which land or buildings are or may be arranged, designed, intended, occupied or maintained." The proposed project is in a RS-3 zoning district, in which the primary use of the lot is a residential structure. The proposed additions and grading are an ancillary use, directly related and dependent on the primary use; therefore does not exceed what is necessary for the permitted use of the lot. Section 7: That the Grading Permit is warranted since the proposed grading and/or related construction does not significantly adversely affect the visual relationships with, nor the views form the viewing area of neighboring properties. Miraleste Drive runs in the north-south direction with rectangular lots that are placed perpendicular to the street. The properties on Miraleste Drive have a view of the Harbor and as far as Dana Point on a clear day in the easterly direction from the rear of their homes. Since the neighboring properties are located either north or south of the subject property, the proposed addition is not in the general viewing direction of the properties on Miraleste Drive. Section 8e That the Grading Permit is warranted since the nature of the grading minimizes disturbance to the natural contours and finished contours are reasonably natural. The applicant is proposing to grade approximately 45 linear feet of the existing downslope which is 145 linear feet in total length. The remaining 100 linear feet is proposed to be left in its natural state. The proposed area of grading follows the existing contours while creating a gentler, smoother slope. Section 9- That the Grading Permit is warranted since the grading takes into account the preservation of natural topographic features and appearances by means of land sculpturing P.C. Resolution No. 2007-15 Page 2of6 so as to blend any man-made or manufactured slope into the natural topography. The applicant is following the natural contours of the existing terrain. Additionally, on the eastern edge of the proposed grading area, a 5' tall retaining wall is proposed. The applicant has proposed 2 garden walls (retaining walls with less than 3' of retention) that are 3 feet apart on the east side of the proposed 5' tall retaining wall to relieve the drastic appearance the resulting project could have if the proposed 5' tall retaining wall was constructed alone without the garden walls. Section 10: That the Grading Permit is warranted since the subject property does not have natural landscape or wildlife habitat as described in the General Plan or City's NCCP Natural Vegetation Map and only a third of the existing foliage is to be removed. Section 11: That the Grading Permit is warranted since grading is not on a slope greater than 35% or create slopes greater than 35%. Additionally, the cut does not exceed a maximum height of 5'. Section 12: That the grading exceeds criteria (E)(9)(e) because the retaining wall is proposed at 5' tall, however, the Planning Commission grants the grading permit for development in excess of that permissible under criterion (E)(9) upon finding that: 1) the first 8 criteria have been satisfied; 2) granting the proposed Grading Permit will enhance the quality of the existing residence as it is an improvement. Additionally, the proposed area of grading is located in the rear yard and is minimal in regards to the 110 linear feet of the remaining sloping rear yard to be left untouched; 3) granting the Grading Permit does not constitute a grant of special privileges since most of the 20-closest properties which have similar slopes in the rear yard include swimming pools, tennis courts, flat yard areas, and detached structures. The subject property is one of the few properties that do not have an improved rear yard; and 4) the retaining wall will not be detrimental to the public safety nor to other property, given that the proposed 5' tall retaining wall is to be located in the rear yard of the subject property and cannot be seen from the public right-of-way. Additionally, the applicant will be required to obtain all necessary building permits through the Building and Safety department to ensure that the project would comply with all current codes Section 13: That the proposed project achieves neighborhood compatibility since the proposed addition is consistent with the existing house in regards to style, color, and building material and it will also blend in with the immediate neighborhood. The new addition is proposed at a maximum height of 20.44' instead of matching the existing height of 31.84' to break up the mass and create a tiered appearance. Balconies are also proposed on the east and south side of the addition to visually break the mass even further. Although the proposed project will be the largest in the neighborhood, the resulting structure would not appear massive, bulky, or out of scale in comparison to the 20-closest homes since the articulated design elements will create a visually layered structure. The proposed garage expansion in the front yard will only extend out to the extent of the existing covered porch. As such, there is no change to the front yard setback with the proposed garage expansion. The northern side yard setback is to be reduced from 10' to 5' which meets the minimum required setback and is not inconsistent with the immediate neighborhood. The proposed rear setback is 110', which is more than adequate and is similar to the existing rear yard setbacks of other residences in the immediate neighborhood. Given that 110 linear feet of the rear yard will be left open, the resulting lot coverage is 34.33%, which is consistent with the neighboring properties with similar layouts. As such, the proposed project achieves neighborhood compatibility. P.C. Resolution No. 2007-15 Page 3 of 6 Section 14: Any interested person aggrieved by this decision or any portion of this decision may appeal to the City Council. The appeal shall set forth the grounds for appeal and any specific action being requested by the appellant. Any appeal letter must be filed within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of this decision, or by 5:30 PM on Wednesday, March 28, 2007. A $1,222.00 appeal fee must accompany any appeal letter. If no appeal is filed timely, the Planning Commission's decision will be final at 5:30 PM on March 28, 2007. Section 15: For the foregoing reasons and based on the information and findings included in the Staff Reports, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby approves the Variance, Grading Permit, and Site Plan Review for the construction of 525.6 cubic yards of grading to accommodate retaining walls and a 1,604.5 square foot addition in the rear yard (Case No. ZON2006-00509). PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 13th day of March 2007, by the following vote: AYES: gommissioners Karp, Knight, Lewis, Ruttenberg, Tetreault, Vice Chairman Perestam, Chairman Gerstner NOES: Done ABSTENTIONS: Ione ABSENT: None Bill Gerstner, Chairman JoQCos, AICD Dirf Plan ng, uilding anEnfor ent; and, Seof the Planning Commission P.C. Resolution No. 2007-15 Page 4 of 6 Exhibit"A" Conditions of Approval Case No. 200600509 (Variance, Grading Permit, and Site PianReview) 4204 Miraleste Drive General 1. Approval of this Variance, Grading Permit, and Site Plan Review shall not be construed to mean any waiver of applicable and appropriate zoning regulations, or any Federal, State, County, and City laws and regulations. Unless otherwise expressly specified, all other requirements of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code shall apply. 2. The approval shall become null and void after 180 days from the date of approval unless the approved plans are submitted to the Building and Safety Division to initiate the "plan check" review process, pursuant to Section 17.86.070 of the City's Development Code. This approval shall become null and void if, after initiating the "plan check" review process, or receiving a building permit to begin construction, said, "plan check" or permit is allowed to expire or is withdrawn by the applicant. 3. The applicant/property owner shall submit to the City a statement, in writing that they have read, understand and agree to all conditions of approval listed below. Said statement shall be submitted to the Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement prior to submittal of plans to "plan check" or within ninety (90) days of the effective date of approval, which ever occurs first. Failure to provide said written statement shall render this approval null and void. 4. The Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement is authorized to approve minor modifications to the conditions of approval and/or the approved plans, provided such modifications will achieve substantially the same results as would strict compliance with the original plans or conditions. 5. Permitted hours of construction are 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday. No work is permitted on Sundays or legal holidays. 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. 6. The project shall substantially conform to the plans stamped, and dated the effective date of this approval, approved by the Planning Department. 7. The construction site, adjacent public and private properties 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. 8. In the event that a Planning requirement and a Building & Safety requirement are in conflict with one another, the stricter standard shall apply. P.C. Resolution No. 2007-15 Page 5 of 6 9. Prior to the commencement of construction, the applicant shall obtain all applicable permits as required by the Building and Safety Division. Variance and Site Plan Review 10. This Variance, Grading Permit, and Site Plan Review allow 525.5 cubic yards of grading to accommodate retaining walls and 1,408.4 square foot addition in the rear yard of an existing 2-story residence. 11. The height of the addition and retaining walls shall not exceed the measurements shown on the stamped plans, approved by the Planning Commission. The maximum height of the addition shall not exceed 31.84", as measured from the point where the lowest foundation or slab meets the finished grade, to the ridgeline or highest point of the structure. The height of the combination wall shall not exceed 5' for the retaining wall and 3' for the guardrail at top. The garden walls shall be set 3' apart and shall be less than 3' in height. BUILDING HEIGHT CERTIFICATION 1S REQUIRED. A LICENSED CIVIL ENGINEER OR SURVEYOR SHALL PREPARE THE CERTIFICATION. CERTIFICATION SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE CITY'S BUILDING OFFICIAL FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL PRIOR TO ROOF FRAMING/SHEETING INSPECTION. 12. The approved project shall maintain the setbacks depicted on the stamped approved plans, but in no case shall minimum setbacks be less than the following: 20' front, 5' rear, and 5' sides. SETBACK CERTIFICATION IS REQUIRED. A LICENSED CIVIL ENGINEER OR SURVEYOR SHALL PREPARE THE CERTIFICATION. CERTIFICATION SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE CITY'S BUILDING OFFICIAL FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL PRIOR TO THE POURING OF FOUNDATIONS. 13. The approved project shall maintain 34.33%, but in no case shall exceed 45% maximum lot coverage. 14. A foliage analysis conducted by staff revealed no existing foliage that significantly impairs the protected view form any surrounding properties. P.C. Resolution No. 2007-15 Page 6 of 6