Loading...
PC RES 1990-061 411 411 RESOLUTION NO. 90-61 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES APPROVING THE APPEAL OF HEIGHT VARIATION NO. 652 THEREBY APPROVING THE PROJECT AT 4048 ADMIRABLE. WHEREAS, the Director of Environmental Services denied Height Variation No. 652 for a 26' high, two story addition at 4048 Admirable; and WHEREAS, on April 26, 1990 Mr. and Mrs. Dickran Hampikian 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 June 12, 1990, the Planning Commission upheld the appeal thereby denying the 26' high second story addition; and WHEREAS, on June 27, 1990, Mr. and Mrs. Hampikian, the property owners at 4048 Admirable, filed an appeal of the Planning Commission' s decision to the City Council within 15 days of the decision; and WHEREAS, the applicant substantially redesigned the addition at a reduced ridge height of 20' -6" and the interested parties were sent a re-noticed 30 days prior to the City Council hearing and the temporary frame was re-built at the revised height; and WHEREAS, on October 2, 1990, at a hearing of the City Council the Council moved to direct the applicant to take the redesigned addition back to the Planning Commission for review and comment; and WHEREAS, after notice pursuant to the City's Development Code, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on November 13, 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 forth for early neighborhood consultation, in that they discussed the proposed project with the neighbors within the vicinity and written notice of the application was mailed to the area' s Home Owner's Association and to the residences above the subject addition who have been identified as the interested parties for this application. None of these notices were returned. 111 Section 2: That the applicant constructed a revised temporary space frame of the outline of the proposed addition on August 29, 1990, 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 since the addition has been reduced in height from 26 feet to 20 feet 6 inches and would be built only over the front portion of the residence allowing the rear of the residence to remain a single story structure. As a condition of approval , the landowner must eliminate any vegetation which is blocking a view and sign a Covenant agreement to maintain the height of vegetation to protect views. Section 6: That granting approval for the revised project would not cause a significant cumulative impact since the proposed project would not be seen as any higher that the single story residences adjacent to the subject property from the viewing area of any property in the area and similar additions, with ridge heights designed at a similar height would not cause cumulative view impact. Section 7: That any view impairment for the portion of the proposed addition over 16 feet high does not significantly impair the view from a viewing area of any of the properties in the area which were identified as having a view as set forth in the City' s Development Code. The proposed ridgeline of the residence would not significantly intrude into the distant view of ocean channel . Section 8: 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 a view from a viewing area of another parcel . Section 9: That the proposed addition complies with all other Code requirements. Section 10: That based upon photographic analysis of the vicinity, the proposed structure is compatible with the character of the immediate neighborhood. The architectural style and building materials are consistent with existing structures. The proposed two story residence conforms with the required front yard setback and is similar in scale and square footage to other two story dwellings in the vicinity. P.C. Resolution No. 90-61 Page 2 III III Section 11: 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 of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby approves the appeal of Height Variation No. 652, thereby overturning the June 12, 1990, decision of the Planning Commission to deny the second story addition to the residence and approving the redesigned second story addition subject to the conditions contained in Exhibit "A" . APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 27th day o Nyem%er, 1p90. / , , , ye A. , ..../ • .bert Mc ult / ' // hairper-on 71(ilA .J1 "451 / ' ‘ I e t Benar , Director Environmental Services and Secretary to the Commission EXHIBIT "A" P.C. Resolution No. 90-61 Page 3 !II 1. All vegetation on the subject property higher than the approved ridgeline shall be removed prior to permit issuance. In addition, 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 20'-6" . CERTIFICATION REQUIRED. 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. 5. All setbacks shall conform to approved plans. 6. A final re-stamp is required prior to issuance of building permits to allow staff to assure compliance with all planning conditions and code provisions. P.C. Resolution No. 90-61 Page 4