Loading...
PC RES 1995-008P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 95-8 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES APPROVING VARIANCE NO. 387, THEREBY APPROVING A 2,887 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION TO THE EXISTING MULTI- LEVEL RESIDENCE, PORTIONS OF WHICH WOULD BE CANTILEVERED OVER AN EXTREME SLOPE AT 5503 GRAYLOG STREET WHEREAS, on February 6, 1995, the applicants, Mr and Mrs Milan Veteska, submitted Variance No. 387, an application to allow a 2,887 square foot addition to the existing multi-level residence, portions of which would be cantilevered over an extreme slope, 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), Staff found no evidence that Variance No. 387would have a significant effect on the environment Accordingly, 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 March 14, 1995, 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, or to the intended use of the property, which do not apply generally to other property in the same zoning district in that, other than the small building pad and driveway area created to accommodate the original residential structure, 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. With the exception of the original construction of the residence on the lot, there have not been any previous improvements to the residence that have increased the footprint of the structure Therefore, this is not a situation where the hardships are self- imposed Therefore, without the granting of the Variance, the applicants are restricted from 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 subject lot. Section 2: That such a 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 Although the proposed additions would result in a home that would be larger than the average home size in the area, the subject lot is more than twice the size of the average lot size in the area This being the case, the open space on the subject property, after development, would substantially exceed the minimum Code requirement for the zoning district (47 5 % in an RS -5 zoning district) and would be consistent with the existing open space of the smaller lots found throughout the area Thus, in order to allow the applicant the opportunity to make a reasonable addition to the existing home that would be consistent with the lot coverage and open space found throughout the area, a fight 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 Section 1, 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 project has been designed to elimmate the possibility of significant view impairment The current plan would not project into the neighbor's (5502 Graylog Street) protected view of the Los Angeles Basin. While standing in the neighbor's (5502 Graylog Street) living room, the 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 protected views The project will also not impair the Los Angeles Basin views from the property at 5506 Graylog Street since the views are enjoyed directly towards the north, wherein the subject property is located north-east of this neighbor's residence (and viewing area). The project would not have any impacts with regard to invasion of privacy. The roof top terrace will be at an elevation that is lower than the pad elevation of the adjacent lot (5502 Graylog Street) and therefore the applicants will not be able to directly look into the neighbor's residence Windows along the south elevation of the addition are set high on the wall and are small in size such that viewing towards the neighbor's lot will be difficult. With regard to the construction methods used with the current plan, there will be no construction onto/into the extreme slope, since portions of the proposed additional floor space will be cantilevered over the slope without the need for a support system to be graded into the slope. Instead, the foundation would be entirely located on the existing building pad. As with all other construction of this nature, the project will receive complete review by the City's Building and Safety Division, as well as the City's consulting geological and geotechnical Staff, prior to any construction to assure that the project will not be materially detrimental to property and residents throughout the area or to the public health and safety. Section 4: That the granting of such a Variance will not be contrary to the policies and objectives of the General Plan since the General Plan encourages development within the City, such as the proposed project, that maintains and enhances the visual qualities of existing neighborhoods without creating adverse impacts to the surrounding area The subject property is located in two Resource Management (RM) Districts as established by the General Plan (see Figure 14 on Page 43). The PC Resolution No 95-8 Page 2 of 6 Natural Environment Element is a composite of those areas requiring considerations of public health and safety, and those areas requiring preservation of 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) The proposed project would retain the existing character of the hills, natural drainage courses, and natural outcrops and the grading will respect the natural topography by avoiding sharp geometric planes resulting from terracing and padding. Additionally, the City's natural vegetation will be retained since, again, there will be no construction or grading activity in the extreme slope. The proposed project would be consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan, since Policy No 1 (page 78) encourages the maintenance of a variety of housing types in the City, which suggests that compatibility does not require all residential structures to be identical, and does not preclude multi-level homes, such as the proposed project, where there is no significant impact to views and the home maintains the same general proportion to the size of the lot. Policy No 3 (page 78) encourages the maintenance and improvement of all existing residential neighborhoods, so as to maintain optimum local standards of housing quality and design. The proposed project would help to further this goal since the addition would constitute a substantial improvement to the existing residence and upgrade the quality of the neighborhood. Policy No 11 (Page 11) of the General Plan states that there shall be no alteration of the natural terrain. The proposed project would accomplish this goal since none of the construction or grading activity would occur on the sloping areas 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: The time within which the 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 included in the Staff Report, and all other records of the proceedings, the Planning Commission hereby grants Variance No 387, thereby approving the additions to the residence located at 5503 Graylog Street, subject to the conditions contained in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and made a part hereof, which are necessary to preserve the public health, safety, and general welfare in the area. P C Resolution No 95-8 Page 3 of 6 LI • PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 28th day of March 1995, by the following vote AYES Commissioners Alberio, Ferraro, Vannorsdal-1, Wang, Whiteneck, and Vice Chair Hayes, and Chairman Mowlds NOES NONE ABSTENTIONS NONE Enforcement, and, Secretary to the Planning Commission P C Resolution No. 95- 08 Page 4 of 6 EXHIBIT "A" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR VARIANCE NO 387 (5503 Graylog Street) 1) The maximum downslope height of the project shall not exceed 30'-0" (a maximum ridge elevation of 690 0', as measured from pad elevation 660 0'). The maximum upslope height shall not exceed 13'-5" (a maximum ridge elevation of 690 0', as measured from pad elevation 676.5'). Ridgeline height is CRITICAL and certification shall be required 2) A 5'-0" minimum side yard setback shall be maintained 3) A 10'-0" minimum front yard setback shall be maintained. 4) The maximum grade of the new driveway shall not exceed 20% 5) The handrail material around the rooftop deck shall be constructed of transparent material only, no patio furniture, other decorative devices, or similar accessory structures are permitted on the roof -top deck which exceed the handrail height 6) No portion of the additions shall be constructed onto/into the extreme slope (greater than 35% in steepness), all portions over the slope shall be cantilevered. The foundation layout shall be certified to assure compliance with this condition. If, in the course of construction, it is recognized that the foundation wall(s) must be moved away from the top of the slope, a proportional increase in the cantilever distance shall be permitted 7) The approval does not include any pools/jacuzzies or other similar structures 8) In the event that a PIanning requirement and Building & Safety requirement are in conflict with one another, the stricter standard shall apply 9) The construction site shall be kept free of all loose materials resembling trash and debris in excess of that material used for immediate construction purposes Such excess material may include, but is not limited to. the accumulation of debris, garbage, lumber, scrap metal, concrete, asphalt, piles of earth, salvage materials, abandoned or discarded furniture, appliances or other household fixtures 10) The maximum quantity of grading associated with the project shall not exceed 197 cubic yards PC Resolution No 95-8 Page 5 of 6 0 6 11) The existing retaining wall along the southerly property line shall be replaced by a wall of the exact height 12) A completed and notarized Covenant to Protect Views shall be submitted to the Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement Division prior to the submittal of the approved plans into the Building and Safety Divisions's Plan Check Process. 13) No foliage shall be planted and/or allowed to grow to a height that will exceed the height of the deck's handrail in the area adjacent to 5502 Graylog Street &kI2Ivu387re P.C. Resolution No 95-8 Page 6 of 6