PC RES 1994-058— ` r
P. C. RESOLUTION NO. 94- 58
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES APPROVING VARIANCE
Nit). 382 TO ALLOW (AFTER-TH&FACT) AN EXISTING, NON-
CONFORMING, ONE -CAR GARAGE TO BE CONVERTED TO
A BEDROOM; AND, ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW
NON -CONFORMING ONE -CAR GARAGE WHICH WOULD
ENCROACH 10 FEET INTO THE REQUIRED 20 FOOT FRONT
YARD SETBACK AREA FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT
2059 JAYBROOK DRIVE
WHEREAS, on October 11, 1994, the applicant submitted Variance No. 382 to the City, and on
October 24, 1994, the application was deemed complete for the request to allow (after -the -fact) an
existing, non -conforming, one -car garage to be converted to a bedroom, and to, allow the construction
of a new non -conforming one -car garage which would encroach 10 feet into the required 20 foot front
yard setback area; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, Public
Resources Code Sections 2100 et. seq. ("CEQA"), the State's CEQA guidelines, California Code of
Regulation, Title 14, Section 15000 et.seq., the City's Local CEQA Guidelines, and Government Code
Section 65952.5(e) (Hazardous Waste and Substances Statement), there was no evidence that Variance
No. 382 would have a significant effect on the environment Accordingly, the proposed project has been
found to be categorically exempt (Class I), and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to the requirements of the City's Development Code, the Planning
Commission of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes held a public hearing on December 13, 1994, 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 HEREBY FINDS, DETERMINES, AND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
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 when compared with other properties in the RS -4 zoning district,
since the subject property is substandard in size, and has a restricted developable area due to the fact that
a canyon begins along the rear portion of the lot.
Section 2: That such a Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial
property right, which right is possessed by other property owners under like conditions in the same
zoning district since other homes along Jaybrook Drive and within the immediate neighborhood have been
constructed with garages which encroach similarly into the front yard setback
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 proposed addition will not result in any view impairment from any surrounding property, and since
the encroachment request into the front yard setback would make the footprint of the residence consistent
with other homes along the same street, and would be in line with the character of the neighborhood
the encroachment into the front yard setback would make the home consistent with other homes along
the same street and would be in line with the character of the neighborhood. Although the addition would
encroach 10 feet into the front setback, it would still be 22 feet from the curb line, and would not visually
appear to be an encroachment into the setback. In addition, the proposal would not impair view from
adjacent properties; and would not result in parking and traffic impacts to the neighborhood since there
would still be adequate room (22 feet to the curb) to park an automobile in the driveway.
Section 4: That the granting of such a Variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the
General Plan since the subject property will continue to be developed with a single family residential land
use. Furthermore, 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.
The Planning Commission finds that the proposed project is consistent with the many other improvements
made to residences along Jaybrook Drive, and that the granting of this Variance would further this
General Plan objective.
Section 5: That the time within which judicial review of the decision reflected in this Resolution,
if available, must be sought, is governed by Section 1094 6 of the California Code of Civil Procedure.
Section 6: For the foregoing reasons and based on the information and findings contained in the
Staff Report and records of the proceedings, the Planning Commission hereby approves Variance No.
382 to allow (after -the -fact) an existing, non -conforming, one -car garage to be converted to a bedroom;
and to, allow the construction of a new non -conforming one -car garage which would encroach 10 feet
into the required 20 foot front yard setback area, subject to the conditions listed in the attached Exhibit
"A" which are necessary to protect the public health, safety, and welfare.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 13th day of December 1994.
4;
,
V.
Bret B. rnard AICP Director
of Planning, B ilding, d Code
Enforcement; and, Secretary to the
Planning Commission
Attachment:
Exhibit "A" (Conditions of Approval)
Gilbert Alberio
Chairman
P C. Resolution No 94-58
Page 2 of 3
EXHIBIT "A"
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
VARIANCE NO 382
2059 JAYBROOK DRIVE
1 Construction of the project shall substantially conform to the plans stamped as received by the
City on October 11, 1994
2 Setbacks for the new construction shall be maintained as follows
Front: 10'-0"
West Side: 6'-6"
Rear- 67'-0"
3 The ridgeline height of the new addition shall be 11'-6", as shown on the plans stamped as
received by the City on October 11, 1994
4 The fence at the rear property which separates the pad area from the steep canyon slope shall be
repaired prior to the issuance of the final building permit.
5 Prior to submittal of plans to the Division of Building and Safety for plan check, the owners shall
either request a Site Vegetation Inspection, or submit to the City a Covenant to Maintain Property
to Protect Views
DJ34: VAR382.RES
P C Resolution No 94- 58
Page 3 of 3