PC RES 1992-058P. C. RESOLUTION NO. 92-58
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DENYING VARIANCE
NO. 342 REQUESTING A 20% OPEN SPACE REDUCTION
WITHIN THE FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR DRIVEWAY AND
PARKING AREAS, AND FOR PILASTERS IN THE FRONT
YARD SETBACK EXCEEDING THE 421# HEIGHT
LIMITATION AT 42 SANTA CATALINA DRIVE.
WHEREAS, the applicants, Erwin and Renata Heindl, have
requested a Variance for an after -the -fact approval for driveway
hardscaping which exceeds the 50% allowable lot coverage for front
yard setbacks, as well as for pilasters which exceed the City's
4211 height limitation for structures within the front yard
setback; and
WHEREAS, after notice pursuant to the provisions of the
Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code, a public hearing was held on
September 8, 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 no exceptional or extraordinary
circumstances or conditions apply to the property which do not
apply generally to other properties in the same zoning district,
since the property is rectangular in shape and has a large pad
area. In addition, the applicants were the original owners and
designed the house and driveway areas in such a manner that they
did not meet the minimum open space requirements of the Code;
therefore, any hardship is self-imposed.
Section 2: That such a Variance is not necessary for the
preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the
applicants, because this same right does not extend to other
property owners under like conditions. Other homeowners within
this same tract (Island View) have complied with the setback
requirement without difficulty, and other properties in the same
zoning district with lots smaller than the one at hand routinely
conform to the open space requirements.
Section 3: That the granting of the Variance is considered
to be detrimental to property and improvements in the area in
which the property is located since it could set a precedent for
systematically reducing the open space requirements and exceeding
the height standards specified in the Code for properties where no
hardship exists. The cumulative impacts would have a detrimental
•
•
impact by changing the open, landscaped and rural character of the
surrounding neighborhood.
Section 4: That the granting of such a Variance will be
contrary to the objectives of the General Plan since the proposed
project would not preserve or enhance the community's quality
living environment. The property is not located within the
Coastal Zone.
Section 5: 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 denies Variance
No. 342.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 22nd day of September, 1992.
Robert Ka
Chairman
Dudley o9derdonk, Director of
Environmental Services and
Secretary to the Commission
Resolution No. 92-58
Page 2