PC RES 1993-001P. C. RESOLUTION NO.93-1
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES UPHOLDING
THE APPEAL OF HEIGHT VARIATION NO. 743, AND
APPROVING VARIANCE NO. 323, AND GRADING NO.
1617, FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION AT
6 HEADLAND DRIVE.
WHEREAS, the applicants, Helen and David Engel, have
requested a Height Variation, Variance, and Grading Permit for a
second story addition which would require an 11 -foot deep cut for
a new garage, and would exceed the City's 30 -foot maximum height
limitation by 3 feet 6 inches, for an existing residence located
at 6 Headland Drive; and
WHEREAS, on July 21, 1992, the Director of Environmental
Services denied the Height Variation and the applicants filed an
appeal of this decision to the Planning Commission within the
fifteen day appeal period; and
WHEREAS, after notice pursuant to the provisions of the
Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code, public hearings were held on
September 22, 1992, November 24, 1992 and December 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 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 project would involve the construction of a
three -car garage underneath an existing paddle tennis court which
is adjacent to the existing structure. Therefore, since the top
of the garage would be at the pad level of the house, the overall
maximum height of the liveable areas will not exceed 30 feet when
measured from the buildable pad area.
Section 2: That such 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, since the residence will appear as a 25 -
foot height, two story structure from the public street and
surrounding properties, similar to other two story structure in
the neighborhood.
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 the geology for the proposed project will be
reviewed and approved by the City's Geologist and the proposed
addition will not disrupt the visual character of the street.
Section 4: That the granting of such 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 additions and
the property is not located within the Coastal Zone.
Section 5: That the applicant has complied with the early
neighbor consultation process established by the City by
submitting an Early Neighbor Consultation form with a sufficient
number of signatures of property owners within the 500 -foot radius
as part of their original Height Variation application.
Section 6: That the redesigned two-story structure does not
significantly impair a view from public property (parks, major
thoroughfares, bikeways, walkways, equestrian trails) which has
been identified in the City's General Plan, Coastal Specific Plan,
or City designated viewing areas.
Section 7: That the proposed structure is not located on a
ridge or a promontory, as it would be located on a buildable pad
area which is not considered to be a ridge or promontory.
Section 8: That the redesigned structure is designed and
situated in such a manner as to minimize impairment of a view.
Section 9: That there is no significant cumulative view
impairment caused by granting a Height Variation for the
redesigned project.
Section 10: That 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.
Section 11: That the proposed structure complies with all
other code requirements in that Variance and Grading applications
have been reviewed and approved for the height in excess of the
City's 30 -foot height limitation, and grading for the underground
garage.
Resolution No. 93-1_,,_'
Page 2 -
Section 12: That the proposed structure is compatible with
the immediate neighborhood character in that the size of home
falls within the range of the square footages of the ten closest
residences to the project, and is therefore in accordance with the
City's Guidelines and Procedures for Preservation of Views where
Structures are Involved.
Section 13: That the grading is not excessive beyond that
necessary for the permitted primary use of the lot because the
grading for the requested garage, planters, and accessory
structures are all consistent with a residential land use.
Section 14: That the grading and/or construction does not
significantly adversely affect the visual relationships with, nor
the views from, neighboring sites since the graded portions of
the proposal are in keeping with the neighborhood character and
are considered to be improvements.
Section 15: That the nature of the grading minimizes
disturbance to the natural contours; finished grades are
reasonably natural as the majority of the grading will be for the
relocation of the garage to a space below the existing paddle
tennis court, and therefore does not disrupt existing contours.
Section 16: 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 approves Height
Variation No. 743 (Appeal), Variance No. 323, and Grading No.
1617, 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 12th day of January, 1993.
Dudley Trfdeirdong-, Director of
EnvironAental Services and
Secretary to the Commission
Robert Katherman
Chairman
Resolution No. , 93-1
Page 3
Exhibit "All
Conditions of Approval
Height Variation No. 71,43 (Appeal)
Variance No. 323
Grading No. 1617
1. The maximum ridgeline height of the residential structure
shall be 137.85 feet. Critical -k,Ridaeline Certification
Reauired.
2. The maximum height of the game room, gazebo, and any other
accessory structures shall require building permits and may
not exceed 12 feet in overall height.
3. A second unit covenant must be submitted to the Director of
Environmental Services prior to the issuance of building
permits to ensure that the lame room will not be converted to
a second unit without approval of a Conditional Use Permit by
the Planning Commission.
4. A Covenant to Maintain Property To Protect Views shall be
submitted to the Environmental Ser'vices Department prior to
issuance of building permits. This shall allow Staff to
conduct a view analysis every 3 to 5 years to determine the
extent of tree trimming required to maintain existing views.
This process shall only be initiated after the three to five
year period from the date of this approval (January 12,
1993), has been exhausted and a request by any surrounding
property owner has been filed.
After staff has conducted a
view analysis and all trees have been trimmed to restore any
views, photographs will be taken which will be used as a
standard for future view considerations. The view analysis
shall occur at a date determined by Staff after the
expiration of the appeal period (January 27, 1993).
5. Maximum allowable grading shall not exceed the following:
Depth of cut: 11 feet
Cubic yards of cut: 427
Cubic yards of fill: 350:,-1
A dump deposit shall be required.
6. The final plans for the project shall substantially conform
to the plans submitted to the Planning Commission on January
12, 1992, which bear a date of Jan'uary 5, 1993.
Resolution No. 93-1—
Page 4