PC RES 1992-0050 1 0
P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 92- 5
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES UPHOLDING
THE APPEAL OF HEIGHT VARIATION NO. 712; AND
APPROVING VARIANCE NO. 296; AND GRADING PERMIT
NO. 1493 FOR A NEW TWO-STORY STRUCTURE AT
5888 MOSSBANK DRIVE WHICH WILL ENCROACH
INTO THE REAR YARD SETBACK.
WHEREAS, the Director of Environmental Services denied Height
Variation No. 712 on September 25, 1991; and
WHEREAS, the applicants, Mr. and Mrs. Delbert Hodge, appealed
Staff's denial during the fifteen (15) day appeal period, and
requested Variance No. 296 and Grading Permit No. 1493 to allow
construction of a new two-story structure, a portion of which
would encroach a maximum 15 feet into the rear yard setback; and
WHEREAS, after notice pursuant to the provisions of the
Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code, a public hearing was held on
January 28, 1992, 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 the applicant has complied with the early
neighbor consultation process established by the City by
submitting an Early Neighbor Consultation form with signatures of
12 property owners within the 500 -foot required radius of their
property.
Section 2: That the structure does not significantly impair
a view from public property (parks, major thoroughfares, bikeways,
walkways, equestrian trials) which has been identified in the
City's General Plan or a City designated viewing area.
Section 3: That the proposed structure is not located on a
ridge or a promontory.
Section 4: That the structure is designed and situated in
such a manner as to minimize impairment of a view in that the
structure is located at a lower elevation than the properties from
which view impairment would be expected.
Section 5: That there is no significant cumulative view
impairment caused by granting the application due to the hilly
nature of the area, and the structure's location on a pad which is
at a lower level than the properties from which view impairment
would be expected.
Section 6: The proposed structure, when considered exclusive
of existing foliage, does not significantly impair a view from the
viewing area of,another parcel, located in a portion of a
structure which was constructed without a height variation or
variance, or which would not have required a height variation or
variance when originally constructed had this section as approved
by the voters on November 7, 1989, been in effect at the time the
structure was constructed.
I
.Section 7: That the proposed structure complies with all
other Code requirements, except that it encroaches into the rear
yard setback; however, the findings can be made to grant the
variance (see Sections 9-12 below), and therefore the structure
meets the intent of the Code.
Section 8: That the proposed structure, as conditioned by
i
the Planning Commission, s compatible with the immediate
neighborhood character in that the size and shape of the lot and
its buildable area warrant construction of the size and
configuration proposed by the applicant.
Section 9: That there are exceptional or extraordinary
circumstances or conditions applicable to the property which do
not apply generally to other properties in the same zoning
district, in that the applicants' lot is significantly larger than
the neighboring properties in the RS -5 Zone, and the buildable pad
area on this approximately 24,000 square foot lot is limited to
approximately 5,000 square feet.
Section 10: That a variance is necessary for the
preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the
applicants, and said right is enjoyed by other property owners
under like conditions due to the substandard size of the buildable
area of the lot and other unique features such as the average 50%
slope of the topography.
Section 11: That the granting of a Variance will not be
materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to
property and improvements in the area in which the property is
located since the project will not result in any significant view
impairment and the structure is removed from the public view due
to the location of the lot at the end of a cul-de-sac.
Section 12: That the granting of a Variance will not be
contrary to the objectives of the General Plan nor the goals and
policies of the Coastal Specific Plan since the residential use of
the property will not be altered as a result of the construction
of this two story residence.
Resolution No. 92 - 5.
Page 2
Section 13: For the foregoing reasons and based on the
information and findings included in the Staff Report and records
of the proceedings, the Planning Commission hereby upholds the
appeal of this project, thereby approving Height Variation No.
712, and approves Variance No. 296 and Grading Permit No. 1493,
subject to the conditions contained in Exhibit "All attached hereto
and made a part hereof, which are necessary to preserve the public
health, safety, and general welfare in the area.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THIS 5th day of February, 1992.
TXZM�- go & �1
Carolynn P*tru, Acting Director
of Environmental Services and
Secretary to the Commission
Robert Katherman
Chairman
Resolution No. 92 - 5.
Page 3
ep
a
411
Exhibit "A"
Conditions of Approval
Height Variation No. 712, Variance No. 296,
Grading Permit No. 1493
1. The applicants shall modify the proposed plans to reflect a
reduction of the garage from four cars to three cars, with a
minimum 15-foot side yard setback on the west side, and
submit the new plans to the Department of Environmental
Services for clearance.
2 . The maximum allowable encroachment into the 15-foot required
rear yard setback shall not exceed 15 feet at its closest
point to the rear property line as designated on the plans.
3 . The maximum• ridgeline height of the structure shall not
exceed an elevation of 1113. 6 feet. CRITICAL --RIDGELINE
CERTIFICATION REQUIRED.
4. Maximum driveway slope shall not exceed 20%.
5. Decks extending beyond the "Restricted Use Boundary" shall
not be permitted. No enlargement of the footprint beyond
that designated in the plans on file shall be permitted.
6. The property owner shall complete, notarize, and submit a
Covenant to Protect Views to the Environmental Services
Department prior to the issuance of final building permits.
P.C. Resolution No.92-5
Exhibit A
Page 4