Loading...
PC RES 1994-050• P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 94-50 0- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DENYING VARIANCE NO. 367 -REVISION AND GRADING PERMIT NO. 1714 -REVISION, THEREBY DENYING THE REDESIGNED PROJECT FOR A 2,729 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION TO THE EXISTING RESIDENCE AND THE CONCURRENT GRADING PERMIT NO. 1714 -REVISION FOR THE 435 CUBIC YARDS OF GRADING ASSOCIATED WITH THE ADDITIONS AT 5503 GRAYLOG STREET WHEREAS, on January 11, 1994, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed project, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence, and the Planning Commission adopted P.0 Resolution No 94-3 denying the request, and, WHEREAS, on January 21, 1994, Mr. and Mrs Milan Veteska filed a written appeal with the appropriate filing fee, within fifteen (15) days of the Planning Commission's action, and, WHEREAS, the applicants appealed Variance No 367 and Grading Permit No. 1714, for the previously proposed project to allow a portion of the proposed 3,823 sq ft addition to the existing single family residence to be placed into an extreme slope, and, WHEREAS, the applicants submitted redesigned plans for review by the City Council on June 28, 1994, and, WHEREAS, on September 6, 1994, the City Council remanded the revised project to the Planning Commission for consideration, and WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, (CEQA) and local CEQA guidelines, the proposed project has been found to be categorically exempt (Class I and V), and, WHEREAS, after notice issued pursuant to the provisions of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on September 27, 1994, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING CONMSSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS. 0 . 0 Section 1: That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved, or to the intended use of the property, which do not apply generally to other property in the same zoning district in that all of the remaining undeveloped areas of the applicant's lot are severely sloping in nature (greater than 35%), without any other level areas available for improvements. Due to the sloping topography (greater than 35%) found on the majority of the lot and the configuration of the existing residence, the applicants cannot further improve the property without the granting of a Variance. It is the Planning Commission's position, therefore, that without the granting of the Variance, the applicants are limited on making improvements to the property that are typically permitted on other developed residential lots in the RS -5 zoning district, due to the constraining physical features of the lot. Section 2: That such Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, in that the property right in question is the applicant's ability to make a reasonable addition to the existing residence In order to preserve this right, which is enjoyed by other properties in the RS -5 zoning district, a Variance is necessary due to the constraining physical elements of the lot as mentioned in the finding, above. 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 applicants have redesigned the project to address the previous issue of significant view impairment, such that that portion of the previous addition, over the eastern end of the house, that would have blocked the property owner's view at 5502 Graylog Street, has been eliminated from the current plan It is the Commission's position that, while standing in the neighbor's (5502 Graylog Street) living room, the redesigned ridgeline will be below the Los Angeles basin views, and, as a result, that view will be preserved Additionally, the passive use of the roof -top deck, even with the inclusion of temporary patio -like furniture, will not significantly impair the neighbor's City views Section 4: That the granting of such a Variance will be contrary to the policies and objectives of the General Plan since the General Plan encourages development within the City, that maintains and enhances the visual qualities of existing neighborhoods without creating adverse impacts to the surrounding area It is the Commission's position that the overall design and uncommon support practices that would be required in the construction of the proposed project would not be common to the area, nor would it appear as though it was consistent with other homes in the area With regard to the construction over the extreme slope, although the proposed additional floor space would be supported by caissons drilled into the extreme slope to minimize the disturbance to the slope, Section 17 40 060 of the City's Development Code prohibits construction and/or the location of structures into an extreme slope The subject property is located in two Resource Management (RM) Districts as established by the General Plan (see Figure 14 on Page 43). The Natural Environment Element is a composite of those areas requiring considerations of public health and safety, and those areas requiring preservation of PC Resolution No 94-50 2 of 3 i natural resources Each district is made up of various factors with associated degrees of capability or suitability for development. The RM Factors associated with the subject property are RM -3 (High Slope) and RM -9 (Natural Vegetation). It is the Commission's opinion that the supported and cantilevered construction methods associated with the project would not be appropriate on the sloping topography of the lot The subject property is not located within the Coastal Zone Therefore, the policies and requirements of the City's Local Coastal Program do not apply to the subject property. Section 5: For the foregoing reasons, even though three of the four findings can be made to grant the requested Variance, and based on the records of the proceedings, the Planning Commission hereby demes Variance No 367 -Revision and Grading Permit No 1714 -Revision, thereby denying the additions to the residence located at 5503 Graylog Street. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 11th day of October 1994 Gilbert Alberto, Chairman Bret B/BerIiard, MCP Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement; and, Secretary to the Planning Commission dsk11/var367cre PC Resolution No 94- 50 3 of 3