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