PC RES 1990-052P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 90-52
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES UPHOLDING THE APPEAL
OF HEIGHT VARIATION NO. 66$ THEREBY APPROVING THE
PROJECT AT 4115 MIRALESTE.
WHEREAS, on May 11, 1990, the Director of Environmental
Services denied Height Variation No. 668 for a two story addition
to a maximum height of 23'0" at 4115 Miraleste based on Staff's
findings that there would be a significant "far" view impairment
for the proposed addition.
WHEREAS, on May 15, 1990, the applicants, Mr. and Mrs. Gary
Chaffin, filed an appeal of the Director's decision to the
Planning Commission within 15 days of the decision of the Director
of Environmental Services; and
WHEREAS, on August 14, 1990, the Planning Commission held a
public hearing and directed the applicant to redesign the second
story to minimize the view impairment to 6533 Via Lorenzo and to
bring the redesign back to the Commission within 60 days.
WHEREAS, the applicant constructed an auxiliary space frame
in addition to the frame of the proposed project at a height of
16' over the entire existing single story structure.
WHEREAS, on August 25, 1990, Staff conducted another view
analysis from the view windows at 6533 Via Lorenzo, 6537 Via
Lorenzo and 4004 Via Vico using both the frame at 23 feet and the
auxiliary frame and found that the view would be completely
eliminated if the structure were proposed at or slightly below 16
feet, which would be allowed per the City's Development Code.
WHEREAS, The applicant has chosen not to redesign the
project.
WHEREAS, after notice pursuant to the City's Development
Code, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on October 9,
1990, 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 pursuant to Section 17.02.040 of the
Development Code guidelines, the applicants have complied with the
provisions set for early neighborhood consultation, in that they
discussed the proposed project with the residents of each of the
immediately adjacent lots and written notice of the application
was mailed to the 91 residences within a 500 foot radius of the
0 01
site on March 21, 1990, with two of the notices being returned.
The Homeowners Association for this portion of the City was also
notified of the project.
Section 2: That the applicant constructed a temporary space
frame of the outline of the proposed addition, the height and
location of which were verified by staff.
Section 3_: That the structure does not significantly impair
a view or vista from public property (parks, major thoroughfare,
bikeway, walkway, equestrian trial, etc.) which has been
identified in the City's General Plan, Coastal Specific Plan, or
City -approved viewing area.
Section 4: That the proposed structure is not located on a
ridge or promontory.
Section 5: That the proposed structure is designed and
situated in such a manner as to minimize view obstruction in that
there is no significant view impairment.
Section 6: That the portion of the proposed addition over 16
feet in height does not significantly impair the views from the
viewing areas of 6533 Via Lorenzo, 6537 Via Lorenzo or 4004 Via
Vico which were identified as having "far" views over the subject
residence from the bedroom, laving room, and kitchen as set forth
in the City's Development Code.
Section 7_: That based upon photographic analysis of the
vicinity, the proposed structure is compatible with the character
of the immediate neighborhood in the front yard setbacks and
architectural style and materials are consistent with the
surrounding neighborhood.
Section 8: That there would be no significant cumulative
impact caused by granting the application since the only isolated
"far" views are impaired by the proposal.
Section 9: That based upon an analysis set forth in the
accompanying staff reports, the proposed structure, when
considered exclusive of existing foliage, does not significantly
impair any view from residences in the vicinity.
Section 10: For the foregoing reasons and based on
information and findings included in the staff report, minutes,
and evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning
Commission hereby upholds the appeal of Height Variation No. 668,
overturning the Director's of Environmental Services decision to
deny the second story addition to the residence, thereby approving
the project.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 9th day of October 1990.
P.C. Resolution No. 90-52
Page 2
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 9t. da if be -ober. 990.
Cobert McN t/
Chairman
/d./[4:1'
ob rt enar
Director of Environmenta Services
and Secretary to the Commission
P.C. Resolution No. 90-52
Paae 3
EXHIBIT "A"
1. A City Landscape Covenant to maintain property to protect
views shall be recorded prior to permit .issuance.
2. The maximum height of the project shall not exceed the
APPROVED HEIGHT OF 23'-0".
3. No change to the existing foot print of the residence is
approved. THIS CLEARANCE IS NOT INTENDED FOR A TEAR DOWN RE-
BUILD OF EXISTING RESIDENCE.
4. Planning Clearance shall be void 180 days after the approval
date, unless a request for extension is submitted prior to
expiration.
P.C. Resolution No. 90-52
Page 4