Loading...
PC RES 2007-035 P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2007-3 RESOLUTION F THE PLANNING I I F THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES CONDITIONALLY APPROVING ST L PERMIT AND VARIANCE (PLANNING a 07a 0012) FOR AFTER-THE- FACT APPROVAL OF A 5-FOOT-4-1 NC H-TALLCOMBI- NATION T CC -T LA -STE L WALL AN 6- FOOT-TALL - F T-T LL PILASTERS IN THE STREET-SIDESETBACK AREA OF A CORNER LOT, LOCATED AT 30 PACIFICAL MAR WHEREAS, on March 25, 2003, the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement approved a fence, wall and hedge permit (Planning Case No. ZON2003- 00001) to allow miscellaneous interior side and rear property line walls and fences on sixteen (16) lots in Tract No. 46628, including the subject property at 30 Pacifica del Mar, but specifically excluded a proposed 5-foot-4-inch-tall fence/wall segment depicted in the street side setback area of the lot unless it was approved through a separate discretionary approval; and, WHEREAS, on June 24, 2003, the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement approved a minor exception permit(Planning Case No. ZON2003-00237)to allow a fence consisting of 6-foot-tall pilasters and 5-foot-4-inch-tall tubular steel panels within the street-side setback area of the property at 30 Pacifica del Mar, which was subsequently constructed by the developer, Warmington Homes; and, WHEREAS, on April 4, 2006, the City received a complaint that the approved tubular-steel fence panels along the street-side property line at 30 Pacifica del Mar had been replaced with a solid, 6-foot-tall wall, in violation of the conditions of approval for Planning Case No. ZON2003-00237; and, WHEREAS, on April 17, 2006, the applicant, Robert Critelli, submitted a coastal permit and variance application (Planning Case No.ZON2006-00218)to the Department of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement, requesting after-the-fact approval of the existing 6-foot-tall wall in the street-side setback area of the property; and, WHEREAS, the application for Planning Case No.ZON2006-00218 was ultimately denied without prejudice by the Planning Commission on June 13, 2006, and the applicant's appeal of this decision was denied by the City Council on November 7, 2006; and, WHEREAS, on January 8, 2007, the applicant submitted a revised coastal permit and variance application (Planning Case No. ZON2007-00012) to the Department of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement, requesting after-the-fact approval of a 5-foot-4- inch-tall combination stucco-and-tubular-steel wall with 6-foot-tall pilasters in the street-side setback area of the property; and, WHEREAS, the application for Planning Case No. ZON2007-00012 was deemed complete for processing on March 23, 2007; 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 coastal permit and variance would have a significant effect on the environment and, therefore, the proposed project has been found to be categorically exempt (Section 15303(e)); 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 May 8, 2007, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION DOES HERESY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: The Planning Commission makes the following findings of fact with respect to the requested coastal permit for new development within the appealable portion of the City's coastal zone: A. The proposed development is consistent with the Coastal Specific Plan. The original 1992 approval of the Oceanfront project included Coastal Permit No. 94. In approving Coastal Permit No. 94, the City Council found that the entire project was consistent with the Coastal Specific Plan and with the coastal access and recreation policies of the Coastal Act. The construction of a freestanding wall is a permanent but ancillary use of property related to the development of new single-family residences. The revised wall will not interfere with any visual corridors identified in the Coastal Specific Plan, nor will it conflict with existing public coastal access and recreational amenities of the Oceanfront community. B. The proposed development,when located between the sea and the first public road, is consistent with applicable public access and recreation policies of the Coastal Act. As mentioned above, the original approval of the Oceanfront project provided for public coastal access facilities, including a public bluff-top loop road, off-street bicycle path and pedestrian trail system. The scale of the proposed project does not warrant the exaction of new, additional public access facilities, nor does it conflict with or restrict public access to the existing coastal resources in the Oceanfront community. P.C. Resolution No. 2007-35 Page 2 of 8 Section 2: The Planning Commission makes the following findings of fact with respect to the application for a variance for a 5-foot-4-inch-tall combination stucco-and- tubular-steel wall with 6-foot-tall pilasters in the street-side setback 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 his property is unique in that it is the only "Plan 1" residence in The Enclave at Oceanfront where the side courtyard—a main outdoor living area—is directly exposed to the street. In fact, the applicant's home in one of only eight(8) "Plan 1" residences in the community, it is the only"Plan V residence on a corner lot, and it is the only"Plan V residence that is oriented with the side courtyard facing a street. By contrast, the other corner lot in the community at 9 Calle Viento was developed with a "Plan 2" residence (one of twelve (12) in the community), which features an enclosed interior courtyard as a main outdoor living area. The combination of the home's floor plan, its orientation on the lot and the fact that it is located on one of only two(2)corner lots in the immediate neighborhood constitutes an exceptional or extraordinary physical circumstance or condition that applies to the applicant's property but not generally to other nearby properties. Furthermore,overall height of the revised wall will be the same as the previously approved fence, and the tubular steel portion of the wall will match the existing fencing elsewhere in the neighborhood. 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 asserts that,without the revised wall, he is deprived of the security and privacy of his property in a manner that does not apply to other homes in the immediate neighborhood. From a security standpoint, there is little or no difference between the fence that was previously approved for this corner lot and the revised wall that the applicant would construct on the subject property. However,with respect to privacy in the rear yard, the subject property does not enjoy the same level of privacy with a fence along the street-side as does the other corner-lot home at 9 Calle Viento,which is located at a much higher elevation than the adjacent street and sidewalk. 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. The applicant states that, to the best of his knowledge, the wall will not impair protected views from surrounding homes or otherwise adversely affect the general public health, safety and welfare. The intent of limiting the wall height between the structure and the street side property lines is to maintain a positive aesthetic environment in the neighborhood. In this case, however,there is an approved solid P.C. Resolution No. 2007-35 Page 3 of 8 wall along the rear property line that is at least partially visible from the street, and the solid portion of the revised wall will be merely an extension of this approved wall. 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, <1 DU/acre. The development and improvement of single-family residences and related accessory structures—such as the proposed wall—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 revised project implements this policy. The property is located within the City's coastal zone and its consistency with the policies and requirements of the Coastal Specific Plan is discussed above. Section a 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 17.72.1 00(5)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 May 8, 2007, the date of the Planning Commission's final action. Pursuant to Section 17.72.100(E), no appeal fee shall be assessed by the City. 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 coastal permit and variance (Planning Case No. ZON2007-00012)for after-the-fact approval of a 5-foot-4-inch-tall combination stucco-and-tubular-steel wall and 6-foot-tall pilasters in the street-side setback area of a corner lot, located at 30 Pacifica del Mar, subject to the conditions of approval in the attached Exhibits 'A' and `5'. P.C. Resolution No. 2007-35 Page 4 of 8 PASSED, APPROVE®, AND ADOPTED this 8 th day of May 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Knights Ruttenberg and Tetreault, Vice Chairman Perestam NOES: Commissioner Lewis ABSTENTIONS: none ASSENT: none Pay, -SiRdertsner Chairman Joeoe IC Dirlan ' g, Building anforcement; and, Secretary to the Planning Commission P.C. Resolution No. 2007-35 Page 5 of 8 EXHIBIT 'A' CONDITIONS APPROVAL FOR PLANNING CASE NO. ZON2007-00012 (Critelli, 30 Pacifica delMar) General Conditions: 1. 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 a 5-foot-4-inch-tall combination stucco-and-tubular-steel wall with 6-foot-tall pilasters in the street-side setback area of a corner lot in The Enclave at Oceanfront community. 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 coastal permit and/or variance 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-1 district development standards of the City's Municipal Code,and the conditions of approval for Tract Map No. 46628 and Conditional Use Permit No. 158. 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 P.C. Resolution No. 2007-35 Page 6 of 8 Planning, Building and Code Enforcement and approved by the Director. Otherwise, a coastal permit and variance 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. Coastal Permit Conditions: 11. During construction and installation of the revised wall, the applicant shall take reasonable steps to ensure that existing public and private coastal access and recreational facilities are not restricted or otherwise impinged upon, to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement. Variance Conditions: 12. The wall along the street-side property line shall be consistent with the revised detail in the attached Exhibit `B'. Vines and shrubs shall not be allowed to obstruct the passage of light and air through the tubular steel fence portion of the wall approved by this permit. P.C. Resolution No. 2007-35 Page 7 of 8 XHI IT REVISED ALL DETAIL FOR PLANNING E NO. Z 2007-00012 (Critelli, 30 Pacifica delMar) --- f 1. ''IL - PTL. METAL FENCE P1LA::*)TER/TUBULAR 5"HEOEL FENCE 56ALE- 1/ " I` " (NOT TO SCALE) M:\Projects\ZON2007-00012(Critelli,30 Pacifica del Mar)\PC Resolution 2007-35.doc P.C. Resolution No. 2007-35 Page 8 of 8