Loading...
PC RES 2007-041 P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2007-41 RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES APPROVING HEIGHT VARIATION, VARIANCE, GRADING AND SITE PLAN REVIEW (Z 2006-00522) TO CONSTRUCT A 2,221 FT2 LOWER LEVEL ADDITION, 2,098YD' O GRADING, IMPROVEMENTS OVER AN EXTREME SLOPE, AND A NEW SWIMMING POOL IN THE REAR YARD T 3444 GULFCREST DRIVE. WHEREAS, on September 29, 2006, the applicant submitted an application for a Height Variation, Variance, Grading, and Site Plan Review, requesting 2,482yd3 of grading to accommodate a 2,221.16ft2 addition as a lower level in the rear yard of an existing single-story residence. Additionally, a portion of the addition is proposed over an extreme slope and a new swimming pool is proposed; and, WHEREAS, on January 4, 2007, staff deemed the Height Variation, Variance, Grading and Site Plan Review application complete; 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 Height Variation, Variance, Grading, 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 1 (Section 15301); and, WHEREAS, after noticed issued on January 20, 2007 pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on February 27, 2007, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence; and, WHEREAS, on February 27, 2007, the Planning Commission continued the proposed project to the May 22, 2007 meeting, in order to allow the applicant additional time to modify the proposal to address concerns expressed by the Planning Commission. WHEREAS, on May 22, 2007, the Planning Commission approved the modified project which included a reduction in the quantity of grading in the proposed children's play area, provided that improvements over the extreme slope be eliminated with exception to a portion (33ft2) of the proposed addition and directed staff to return with a revised resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1n That the proposed project includes the construction of a 2,221ft2 addition as a lower level in the rear yard of an existing single-story residence. The proposed height is 26', as measured from the point where the lowest foundation meets finished grade, to the ridgeline. Additionally, a portion (33ft2) of the requested addition is proposed over an extreme slope in the side yard (north). Moreover, 2,098yd3 of grading is proposed to accommodate the new addition, pool, pool deck, and children's play area in the rear yard. P.C. Resolution No. 2007-41 Page 1 of 6 Section 2: That the Variance is warranted since there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances/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. Although there is a portion of flat area at the south side of the property available to accommodate an addition, any construction in that area would impair or block the neighbors' view. Additionally, constructing a second floor over the existing first floor would also impair the neighbors' view. As such, the most considerate and reasonable area to accommodate an improvement is to add on a lower floor. Furthermore, although the subject lot is nearly three times larger than the average parcel in the immediate neighborhood, most of the flat area is already improved while the remainder is a slope. Section 3m That the Variance is warranted since it is a right possessed by other property owners under like conditions in the same zoning district. Properties within the immediate neighborhood have a lot coverage which is significantly higher than the proposed project due to the difference in lot size. By not granting the Variance to allow a minimal portion of the addition would be limiting the use of the unusually large lot, while other property owners in the same neighborhood are allowed to take more advantage of their smaller lot. Section 4: That the Variance is warranted since it 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 addition is an improvement located in the rear yard, tucked in the existing slope, away from public view. Building permits will be required to address any geology or building issues on the extreme slope. Section 5: That the Variance is warranted since it will not be contrary to the objectives of the General Plan. In the General Plan, Urban Environmental Policy No. 11 calls upon the city to "Control the alteration of natural terrain." The proposed addition will be located under the existing deck, of which only 33ft2 is proposed over the extreme slope. Considering that the only proposed grading over the extreme slope is to accommodate a minimal amount of the addition, most of the existing extreme slope will remain untouched. Section 6m That the Grading is warranted since it does not exceed what is necessary for the permitted primary use of the lot. The proposed project is in a RS-3 zoning district, in which the primary use of the lot is a residential structure. The proposed addition is 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 is warranted since it does not significantly adversely affect the visual relationships with, nor the views from the viewing area of neighboring properties. The proposed addition is to be placed underneath the existing rear deck, tucked in the existing slope. The current ridgeline will not change. Due to the creation of a lower level, most of the proposed addition cannot be seen from the public right-of-way and would not significantly affect the views from the neighboring properties' viewing area. Section 8: That the Grading is warranted since it minimizes disturbance to the natural contours and finished contours are reasonable natural. The proposed addition only takes up approximately a fifth of the rear yard. The remainder of the existing slope will be re- graded through a minimal amount of fill that will follow the existing contours. Section 9. That the Grading is warranted since it takes into account the preservation of natural topographic features and appearances by means of land sculpturing so as to blend P.C. Resolution No. 2007-41 Page 2of6 any man-made or manufactured slope into the natural topography. Only a fifth of the existing rear yard would be excavated to accommodate the proposed addition and a minimal amount of fill is proposed in the remainder of the rear yard that would closely follow the existing contours. Section 10p That the Grading is warranted since the grading would not cause excessive and unnecessary disturbance of the natural landscape or wildlife habitat through removal of vegetation. The rear yard is mostly barren with some weeds and shrubbery that does not constitute as protected wildlife habitat or natural landscape as described in the General Plan. Section 11: That the Grading is warranted since the grading on slopes equal to or exceeding 35% does not threaten the public health, safety, and welfare; and, 12'-7" of cut to accommodate the addition and pool deck is reasonable and necessary due to unusual topography, soil conditions, previous grading, and other circumstances. Section 12: That the Height Variation is warranted since the applicant has complied with the early neighbor consultation process established by the city by obtaining 27% of the signatures within a 500' radius and 71% of the signatures within a 100' radius of the project site. Section 13: That the Height Variation is warranted since the proposed addition that is above 16' in height does not significantly impair a view from public property (i.e. parks, major thoroughfares, bike ways, walkways or equestrian trails) which has been identified in the city's general plan or coastal specific plan, as city designated viewing areas. There is no public property near the subject site that is city-designated viewing areas. Section 14: That the Height Variation is warranted since the proposed additions are not located on a ridge or a promontory. The subject property is located within a fully developed single-family residential tract that is not located on a ridge or a promontory, as defined in the Development Code. Section 15: That the Height Variation is warranted since the proposed addition to the existing structure that is above 16' in height, when considered exclusive of existing foliage, does not significantly impair a view from the viewing area of another parcel. The only view impacts caused by the proposed project are at the properties on Vigilance Drive. However, given the vast panoramic view the residents on Vigilance Drive currently have, the view impairment caused by the proposed project is minimal and therefore not significant. Section 16: That the Height Variation is warranted since there is no significant cumulative view impairment caused by granting the application. If comparable parcels on Gulfcrest Drive proposed similar additions in the rear yard as a lower level, only the Vigilance properties' views would be impacted. Given the panoramic view the residents on Vigilance Drive currently enjoy, the cumulative view impairment would not be significant. Section 17: That the Height Variation is warranted since the proposed additions comply with all other code requirements of Title 17 of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code. Section 18: That the Height Variation is warranted since the proposed additions are compatible with the immediate neighborhood character. Based on the analysis of the area, it is found that the proposed resulting structure is consistent with the immediate neighborhood in P.C. Resolution No. 2007-41 Page 3 of 6 regards to architectural style, mass and bulk, number of stories, roof design, scale, orientation, setbacks, open space, texture, color, and building materials. Section 1 : That the Height Variation is warranted since the addition to the existing structure that is above 16' in height does not result in an unreasonable infringement of the privacy of the occupants of abutting residences. The subject property currently has an existing deck in the rear yard in which the applicant is proposing an addition underneath. As such, the proposed improvement will not result in any further infringement than what exists today. Section 20: 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, June 27, 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 June 27, 2007. Section 21: 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 Height Variation, Variance, Grading and Site Plan Review for the construction of a 2,221.16ft2 lower level addition in the rear yard, 2,098yd3 of grading, and a swimming pool (Case No. ZON2006-00522). PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 12th day of June 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Vommissioners Karp, Ruttenberg, Vice Chairman Ferestam, Chairman Gerstner NOES: Commissioners Knight, Lewis ABSTENTIONS: Commissioner Tetreanla. ABSENT: None Bill Gerstner, Chairman Z Joel Roj ICP Director f PI nning, B it ing and Cod E forcemen , and, Secretary of the Planning Commission P.C. Resolution No. 2007-41 Page 4 of 6 Exhibit"A" Conditions of Approval Case No. Z 2006-00240 (Variance, Grading, Height Variation and Site PlanReview) 3444 Gulfcrest Drive General 1. Approval of this Variance, Grading, Height Variation 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 1 year 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. 2007-41 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, Height Variation and Site Plan Review 10. This Variance, Height Variation and Site Plan Review allow the construction of a 2,221ft2 lower level addition underneath the existing rear deck. Only 33ft2 of the addition shall be allowed on the existing extreme slope in the side yard (north) and no other improvements shall be allowed. No other development shall be permitted on extreme slopes (i.e., 35% steepness or greater). Additionally, a new swimming pool and pool deck area is allowed in the rear yard, beyond the addition. Pool enclosure consisting of 5' to 6' tall fence or wall with a self- closing, self-latching gate is required. 11. The height of the additions shall not exceed the measurements shown on the stamped plans, approved by the Planning Department. The maximum height of the addition shall not exceed 26', as measured from the point where the lowest foundation or slab meets the finished grade, to the ridgeline or highest point of the structure. BUILDING HEIGHT 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 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, 15' 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. Grading Permit 13. A total of 2,098yd3 of grading is permitted by this approval, consisting of 1,610yd3 of cut and 488yd3 of fill to accommodate the addition, patio/pool deck, and children's play area. The maximum depth of cut shall be 12.7' and the maximum depth of fill shall be 8.8'. 14. Prior to building permit issuance and/or commencement of grading, whichever occurs first, the applicant shall obtain approval of a haul route from the Director of Public Works. 15. The approved project shall maintain 20%, but in no case shall exceed 45% maximum lot coverage. 16. A foliage analysis conducted by staff revealed no existing foliage that significantly impairs the protected view form any surrounding properties. P.C. Resolution No. 2007-41 Page 6 of 6