Loading...
PC RES 2010-025 P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2010-25 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DENYING, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, A HEIGHT VARIATION, GRADING PERMIT, MINOR EXCEPTION PERMIT, VARIANCE, AND REVISION TO GRADING PERMIT NO. 1844 (CASE NO. ZON2009-00400) TO CONDUCT 4,650YD3 OF GRADING TO ACCOMMODATE A NEW TWO-STORY 7,626FT2 RESIDENCE ON A VACANT LOT LOCATED AT 5903 CLINT PLACE. WHEREAS, on November 26, 1996, the Planning Commission approved a subdivision (Parcel Map No. 24297), creating two separate parcels: 5901 and 5903 Clint Place. More specifically, 5901 Clint Place was split into two separate lots, creating 5903 Clint Place (subject property). A grading permit was also approved to permit 340yd3 of grading to create a larger building pad and a driveway access on the subject property. A 7' tall retaining wall was also approved along the side property line, directly adjacent to the proposed driveway; and, WHEREAS, as a result of the Parcel Map No. 24297, 5903 Clint Place was created meeting the Development Code's required minimum lot size (8,000ft2), lot width (65), lot depth (100'), and building pad area (3,00oft2). It was determined that the subject lot was physically suitable for the type and density of development allowed in an RS-5 zoning district. The pre- existing slope easement on the downslope portion of the lot, intended for the potential expansion of Mossbank Drive, was relocated so that future development on the site will not conflict with the easement; and WHEREAS, on October 12, 2009, an application (Case No. ZON2009-00400) for a Height Variation, Grading Permit, Minor Exception Permit, Variance, and a revision to Grading Permit no. 1844 was submitted, requesting to conduct grading and construct a new residence on a vacant lot located at 5903 Clint Place was submitted; and, WHEREAS, on October 26, 2009, the project was deemed incomplete based on insufficient information, which at that time, staff expressed concerns to the applicant regarding the structure size, bulk/mass, quantity of grading, as well as construction over extreme slopes; and, WHEREAS, on June 25, 2010, the property owner submitted additional information and the project was deemed 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), the Planning Commission found no evidence that Case No. ZON2009-00400 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, a public notice was mailed to all property owners within a 500' radius from the subject property and published in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News on July 1, 2010 pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code; and, P.C. Resolution No. 2010-25 Page 1 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on August 10, 2010, 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: The proposed project involves the construction of a new 26' tall, 7,626ft2 two-story residence on a vacant lot located at 5903 Clint Place. A total of 4,650yd3 (3,650yd3 of cut & 1,000yd3 of fill) of grading is proposed on 3/ of the lot. The proposed excavation is primarily to create a larger building pad to accommodate the proposed residence, pool, and spa. The proposed fill is mostly to accommodate a new wrap around driveway on the lower portion of the lot. A portion of the proposed residence, the entire pool, spa, and driveway is proposed over an extreme slope area (grade of 35% or greater). The proposal also includes a 14.5' tall upsloping retaining wall to the west property line shared with the abutting neighbor located at 5901 Clint Place to create a small front yard with a reduced setback of 10'. Three additional retaining walls measuring up to 7.5' are proposed adjacent to the new driveway towards the rear of the property. One of these retaining walls is proposed with a 42" high guardrail resulting in a combination wall measuring 11' in height. A revision to the approved Grading Permit No. 1844 is proposed to allow for a driveway gradient in excess of 16.7%, up to 20% as allowed by the current Development Code. Lastly, two separate walls measuring up to 10.5' in height are proposed on both sides along the access easement on the abutting property located at 5901 Clint Place. Section 2: The applicant has complied with the early neighbor consultation process established by the city by providing signatures from 71% of the total number of landowners within 100' radius and 41% of the total number of landowners within a 500' radius of the subject property, including the Homeowner's Association. Section 3: The new structure that is above 16' in height does not significantly impair a view from public property (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 because the proposed residence does not exceed 16' in height, as measured from the preconstruction (existing) grade at the highest elevation of the existing building pad area covered by the structure to the ridgeline. Section 4: The proposed new structure is not located on a ridge or a promontory, as defined in the Development Code. Section 5: The area of a proposed new 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 because the proposed residence does not exceed 16' in height, as measured from the preconstruction (existing) grade at the highest elevation of the existing building pad area covered by the structure to the ridgeline. Section 6: There is no significant cumulative view impairment caused by granting the application. Cumulative view impairment shall be determined by: (a) considering the amount of view impairment that would be caused by the proposed new structure that is above 16' in height; and (b) considering the amount of view impairment that would be caused by the construction on other parcels of similar new structures or additions that exceed 16' in height because the proposed residence does not exceed 16' in height, as measured from the P.C. Resolution No. 2010-25 Page 2 preconstruction (existing) grade at the highest elevation of the existing building pad area covered by the structure to the ridgeline. Section 7: Approval of the Height Variation is not warranted because the proposed structure does not comply with all other code requirements. More specifically, the proposed structure does not meet the required front yard setback and involves construction over extremes slopes. Although a Variance was requested for these deviations, said Variance cannot be approved as discussed in Section nos. 19-22 of this Resolution. Section 8: Approval of the Height Variation is not warranted because the proposed structure is not compatible with the immediate neighborhood character based on structure size, bulk/mass and setbacks. More specifically, the proposed project measures 7,626ft2 in size, while the neighborhood average is 2,833ft2, ranging between 1,650ft2 and 4,552ft2. The proposed structure is over double the average (2,833ft2) and is more than 1.5 times the size of the largest home in the neighborhood. Additionally, the proposed south wing (garage, master bathroom & master suite) proposed over the extreme slope appears bulky and massive from the southerly neighbor's property located at 5827 Finecrest Drive. Specifically, the proposed two- story mass of the new residence is very apparent from this neighbor's kitchen, living room, office, bedroom, and rear yard. Furthermore, while there are two separate properties (5888 Mossbank Dr. & 5901 Waukesha PI.) with City granted reductions to existing setbacks, the remaining homes within the immediate neighborhood comply with the minimum required setbacks and therefore the proposed reduced front yard setback is not compatible with the neighborhood. Furthermore, the subject property was created with a building pad that complies with the RS-5 development guidelines that includes 3,000ft2 of buildable area outside of all setbacks and extreme slope areas to allow for development which could be compatible with the size of the neighboring homes and would not necessitate reduction of required setbacks. Section 9: The new construction that is above 16' in height does not result in an unreasonable infringement of the privacy of the occupants of abutting residences because the proposed residence does not exceed 16' in height, as measured from the preconstruction (existing) grade at the highest elevation of the existing building pad area covered by the structure to the ridgeline. Section 10: Approval of the Grading Permit is not warranted because the grading exceeds that which is necessary for the permitted primary use of the lot. Specifically, the lot was created with adequate building pad area for development of a residence and a driveway. Despite the existing building pad area available for development, the proposed project is excessive in that it involves 4,650yd3 of grading to lower the existing grade to create a larger building pad for the new residence, a wrap-around driveway over the extreme slope area, and improvements (residence, pool & spa) over the extreme slope area. Further, the proposed grading is excessive as the applicant is proposing to alter(grade) 3/of the entire lot. Section 11: 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 because the proposed grading results in a lower finished grade under the building footprint such that the height of the proposed structure is lower than a structure that would have been built in the same location on the lot if measured from preconstruction (existing) grade. More specifically, the new residence will be 5' above the pre-construction grade at the highest elevation of the existing building pad area covered by the structure to the ridgeline. P.C. Resolution No. 2010-25 Page 3 Section 12: Approval of the Grading Permit is not warranted because the nature of the grading does not minimize disturbance to the natural contours and finished contours are not reasonably natural since the proposed project alters approximately % of the lot when there is sufficient area for development without the need for large quantity of grading. More specifically, the lot was created with a building pad of at least 3,000ft2 outside of all required setbacks and extreme slopes to accommodate future development of a residence and a driveway. The proposed project involves maximizing development potential of the lot by enlarging the building pad through excavation, constructing structures over extreme slopes and constructing a wrap- around driveway over the extreme slope areas of the lot, all of which does not minimize disturbances to existing natural contours. Section 13: Approval of the Grading Permit is not warranted because the grading does not take 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. More specifically, the proposed project involves altering approximately 3% of the lot and construction of structures over extreme slopes that does not involve land sculpturing. Section 14: Approval of the Grading Permit is not warranted because the grading and related construction is not compatible with the immediate character since alteration of approximately % of the lot is proposed to accommodate new development over extreme slopes and to enlarge the building pad. Additionally, the overall structure size, scale, setbacks and bulk/mass are not compatible with the neighborhood character. Section 15: The grading would not cause excessive and unnecessary disturbance of the natural landscape or wildlife habitat through removal of vegetation because there is no natural landscape or wildlife habitat existing on the proposed grading area. Section 16: Approval of the Grading Permit is not warranted because the only one of five grading criterions found in RPVMC §17.76.040(E)9 can be made. The proposed project deviates from four of the requirements because it includes grading on slopes over 35% gradient, maximum depth of cut/fill over 5', grading on slopes over 50% gradient, and constructing retaining walls that exceed height limitations. Additionally, the Planning Commission may not grant a request in excess of that permissible under subsection (E)9 because not all of the findings within subsection (E)10 can be met. Specifically, while the findings within subsection (E)10 requires that all grading criteria be satisfied, finding nos. (E)3-(E)5 cannot be met. Section 17: The revision to Grading Permit No. 1844 (P.C. Resolution No. 96-41) to increase the driveway slope from a maximum of 16.7% to 20% can be warranted because the current Code allows for driveways up to 20% slope. Section 18: Approval of the Minor Exception Permit is not warranted because there are no practical difficulties, unnecessary hardships or inconsistencies with the General Intent of the Code for the proposed combination wall over 8' in height adjacent to the proposed wrap- around driveway over the extreme slope area. More specifically, there is adequate building pad area for the development of a residence and driveway that does not necessitate high retaining walls or grading quantities as proposed. Additionally, the height of the combination wall exceeds the grading limits set forth in the Grading Permit criteria. Section 19: The applicant is requesting a 50% reduction the required front yard setback of 20' and construction over extreme slopes because according to the applicant, the existing building footprint does not provide adequate space for development. The proposed P.C. Resolution No. 2010-25 Page 4 project also includes a wall in excess of 6' in height to accommodate a steeper wrap-around driveway over the slope easement. Approval of the Variance is not warranted because there are no 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. Specifically, based on the prior approval of Parcel Map No. 24297, the buildable area is adequate for development with over 3,000ft2 in size, outside of all setbacks, extreme slopes and restricted use areas for the development of a residence and a driveway that would not necessitate a reduction in the front yard setback, construction over extreme slopes, or walls exceeding 6' in height. Section 20: Approval of the Variance is not warranted because it is not 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. More specifically, inadequate space resulting from an ambitious 7,626ft2 residence involving grading on approximately % of the entire lot that is not compatible with the neighborhood character and developing beyond the existing building pad area sufficient for development of a residence and driveway is not necessary to enjoy a substantial property right of a property owner. Limiting development on the existing building pad would result in a compatible structure under like conditions in the same zoning district. Section 21: Approval of the Variance is not warranted because granting the Variance will be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property and improvements in the area in which the property is located. Specifically, the proposed construction over extreme slopes results in impairment of the Queen's Necklace, coastline, and city lights view from multiple neighboring properties. The portion of the proposed structure over extreme slopes also appears bulky/massive from an abutting property, impairing half their view frame, sense of openness, and privacy. Although view and privacy impact is not subject to analysis as part of this application, constructing a portion of the structure over the extreme slope is materially detrimental to the public welfare related to enjoyment of scenic views and privacy that is reasonably expected by neighboring residents. Section 22: Approval of the Variance is not warranted because it will be contrary to the following policies of the General Plan: Policy No. 11 — "Control the alternation of natural terrain" and Policy No. 14 — "Prohibit encroachment on existing scenic views reasonably expected by neighboring residents". More specifically, maximizing the lot by improving and altering approximately % of the lot area, grading for a wrap-around driveway and constructing over the extreme slope areas, some of which are within the restricted slope easement is unnecessary for the development of the lot and is inconsistent with the Urban Environment Policy No. 11. The proposed construction over extreme slopes creates a two-story structure that encroaches into existing scenic views of the Queen's Necklace, coastline, and/or city lights view of five neighboring properties which result in adverse view impacts that are reasonably expected by neighboring residents and thus inconsistent with Urban Environment Policy No. 14. Section 23: Any interested person aggrieved by this decision or any portion of this decision may appeal to the City Council. The appeal shall set forth in writing, 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, August 25, 2010. A $2,255.00 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 August 25, 2010. P.C. Resolution No. 2010-25 Page 5 Section 24: 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, Case No. ZON2009-00400, for a request to conduct 4,650yd3 of grading to accommodate a 7,626ft2 two- story residence measuring 26' in height. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 10th day of August 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Emenh ser, Knight, Leon, Chairivan: Gerstner NOES: Commissioner Lewis ABSTENTIONS: Nome RECUSALS: None ABSENT: Commissioner Tetreault, Vice Chairman T 1c9/lcs Bill Gerstner, Chairman Joel RUnit AICP CommDevelop tDirector and Secretf the Planning Commission P.C. Resolution No. 2010-25 Page—6