Loading...
PC RES 1992-030 P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 92-30 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES APPROVING VARIANCE NO. 313 AND GRADING NO. 1591-APPEAL THEREBY APPROVING THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST TO ALLOW AN OVERALL HEIGHT OF 36'-6" AND A REAR YARD SETBACK ENCROACHMENT OF 4'-0" AND 500 CUBIC YARDS OF GRADING AND DENYING MINOR EXCEPTION PERMIT NO. 431-APPEAL AT 6000 WOODFERN. WHEREAS, Mr. and Mrs. Chuo Song have requested a Variance to allow an overall height of 36'-6" for an addition and for reduction of the required 15'-0" rear yard setback to allow a balcony projection; and WHEREAS, the applicants have appealed the Acting Director's decision to require a reduced scope Grading Permit (rather than the requested 500 cubic yards of cut) to accommodate a semi- subterranean garage/gym/sauna; and WHEREAS, the applicants have appealed the Acting Director's decision to deny Minor Exception Permit No. 431 to allow up to six foot (6'-0") fencing/pilasters/gates within the front yard setback; and WHEREAS, after notice issued pursuant to the provisions of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code, a public hearing was held on March 24, April 15, and April 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 there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved, and to the intended use of the property, which do not apply generally to other property in the same zoning district in that the subject property is unique in its existing topography and configuration. Because of the sloping nature of the lot and the north-south distance (length) of eastern side of the property, that portion of the property where the additions are to be located, is at a considerably higher elevation than the point at which the lowest foundation (from which the height is measured) is situated. Because of this significant distance (90+ feet) , the proposed ridge height will be in excess of the thirty (30) foot downslope height limitation. If, however, the height was measured adjacent grade from the proposed structure, it would measure only thirteen (13) feet in height. The ridge height for the proposed additions will only be eighteen (18) inches above the maximum ridge height of the existing structure. Section 2 : That the Variance is 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 in that although not all sloping lots require Variances to meet the height restrictions stipulated by the Development Code, the Commission has reviewed and approved such requests in the past for lots with similar restrictive and unique topography as that of the applicant's. In that the addition, including the balcony, will not be readily visible from adjacent properties, nor from the public right-of- way, there will be no adverse aesthetic impact to other residences within the vicinity. Section 3 : That the granting of the 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 upon conducting a view analysis of the area, since the addition will not cause any view impairment from any of the properties immediately to the south (behind) the subject property and since the applicant has made modifications to the finished appearance of the project (new roofing material along the south side of the residence that will be consistent throughout and relocation of the solar panel system) so that it will be more visually pleasing to those properties behind the subject lot (on Via Sonoma) . Section 4: That the granting of such a Variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the General Plan or the policies and requirements of the Coastal Specific Plan since the General Plan promotes improvements to existing residences as long as optimum local standards of housing quality and design are maintained. The property is not located within the Coastal District. Section 5: That the grading is not excessive beyond that necessary for the permitted primary use of the lot since the scope of the work would involve excavation of earth to accommodate the lower level of the proposed addition and will provide additional enclosed parking spaces on the subject property. Section 6: That the grading and/or construction does not significantly adversely affect the visual relationships with, nor the views from, neighboring sites since a large portion of the addition will be semi-subterranean and the portion of the addition above existing grade will only measure eighteen inches (18") above the existing ridge height. In addition, much of the addition will be screened from view by the properties immediately adjacent to the subject property by existing vegetation. The views of the Los Angeles Basin, Long Beach Harbor, Vincent Thomas Bridge, and Pacific ocean are enjoyedby these adjacent properties above the ridge height of the existing structure. P.C. Resolution No. 92-30 Page 2 Section 7 : That there are no practical difficulties or unecessary hardships present on the site to warrant the granting of the Minor Exception Permit since there is available level land at the front of the property to place the requested fencing and gates at least twenty feet from the front property line. There are no similar situations (walls/fences within the front yard setback in excess of 42") in the surrounding area, therefore the project would be incompatible with the existing neighborhood character. Section 8: For the foregoing reasons and based on information and findings included in the Staff Report and minutes, as well as public testimony at the public hearing, the Planninc Commission of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby approves Variance No. 313 and Grading Permit No. 1591-Appeal subject to the conditions of approval contained in the attached Exhibit "A", which are necessary to protect the public health, safety, and welfare and denies the appeal of Minor Exception Permit No. 431, thereby upholding the Acting Director's decision to deny Minor Exception Permit No. 431. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 28th day of April, 1992 . 42...)// Aiiilb.- Ro•er Ka erman Chairman Caro ynn Pe ru, Actinc Director of Environmental Services P.C. Resolution No. 92-30 Page 3 EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of Approval for Var. No. 313 and Grading Permit No. 1591 (6000 Woodfern) 1) The maximum ridge height of the addition shall not exceed 36'- 6" or a maximum ridge elevation of 138. 0' (as measured from elevation 101.5' ) . 2) Applicant shall obtain permission from County of Los Angeles to build over the Road and Public Utilities easement that runs parallel with the applicant's easterly property line. 3) Maximum eave projections into required setback areas shall not exceed four (4) inches for each one (1) foot of required setback. 4) Maximum encroachment of the balcony at the eastern end of the addition shall not exceed four feet (4'-0") into the required fifteen foot (15'-0") rear yard setback. 5) A Covenant to Protect Views shall be completed, notarized, and submitted by the applicant to the Environmental Services Department for recording prior to the issuance of final building permits. 6) A Second Unit Covenant shall be completed, notarized, and recorded to the satisfaction of the City Attorney prior to the issuance of final building permits. 7) Maximum grading shall not exceed 500 cubic yards; 500 cu. yds. : cut 0 cu. yds. : fill 8) The addition's roof, along with the roof on the existing structure facing south (facing the properties to the south of the subject lot) , shall incorporate the same lightweight tile finished material to be reviewed and approved by the Director of Environmental Services. 9) The solar panels and plumbing situated on the existing roof shall be relocated onto the roof of the new addition as approved by the Director of Environmental Services. 10) The applicant has not been permitted to erect the requested fencing/gates as per M.E.P. No. 431. P.C. Resolution No. 92-30 Page 4