Loading...
PC RES 1996-007P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 96-07 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DENYING THE APPEAL OF HEIGHT VARIATION NO. 814, THEREBY APPROVING THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT A NEW 1,700 SQUARE FOOT SECOND STORY ADDITION THAT WILL MEASURE 26 FEET IN OVERALL HEIGHT AT 5925 CLINT PLACE WHEREAS, the applicant, Mr Kevin Rehm, submitted an application for height Variation No 814, to allow a 1,700 square foot second story addition to the existing single story home on March 13, 1995, 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 Height Variation No 814 would not have a significant effect on the environment. Accordingly, the proposed project has been deemed to be categorically exempt (Class I and III), and, WHEREAS, after notice issued pursuant to the provisions of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code, on October 31, 1995, the Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement approved the applicant's request, subject to conditions, and, WHEREAS, on December 14, 1995, within the 15 day appeal period, Mr Danny Lajeunesse, representing himself and other neighbors in the area, filed a written appeal of Staffs decision, 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 January 23, 1996, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence, and, WHEREAS, at the January 23, 1996 meeting, the Planning Commission continued the matter to the applicant and the concerned neighbors an opportunity to address the issues that were raised at the meeting, and, WHEREAS, after a revised notice was issued by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes to all property owners within 500 feet of the subject property, the Planning Commission continued the public hearing on February 13, 1996, 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 the applicant has complied with the early neighbor consultation process established by the City since out of the 85 residences that are located within 500 feet of the subject property, the applicant was able to contact and obtain signatures from 54 of the landowners in the area (64%), thereby satisfying the 60% minimum requirement. Section 2: That the proposed structure does not significantly impair a view from public property (parks, major thoroughfares, bike -ways, walkways, equestrian trails) which has been identified in the City's General Plan, Coastal Specific Plan or City designated viewing areas, since there are no such features in the subject area Section 3: That the proposed structure is not located on a ridge or promontory since the subject lot is part of a terraced residential subdivision and does not qualify as either of these topographical features Section 4: That the proposed structure is designed and situated in such a manner as to minimize impairment of a view in that, due to the topographic differences between the applicant's lot and those in the surrounding area, the views of the ocean that are currently enjoyed over the applicant's existing single story house would be impaired by a 16 foot addition, which is the height that is allowed by right by the City's Municipal Code. In addition, the distant mountain views above the 16 foot height measurement are not protected by the City's Municipal Code Section 5: That there is no significant cumulative view impairment caused by granting the application since, for the same reasons stated in Section 4 of this P C Resolution, if similar additions were built on surrounding properties (as that proposed by the applicant), cumulative view impairment would not result since the views of the ocean under the 16 foot height limit and the distant mountain views over the 16 foot height limit are not protected views, as defined by the City's Municipal Code. Section 6: 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 Variance or Height Variation, or which would have required a Variance or Height Variation when originally constructed. View analyses were conducted from several homes in the area, and it was determined that the views enjoyed by some of the residents along Clint Place would be impaired by a 16 foot structure on the applicant's lot, and that the distant mountain views above the 16 foot height measurement, as well as views from the second story of other homes on the street, are not protected by the Municipal Code Section 7: That the proposed structure complies with all other Code requirements such as satisfying (and/or exceeding) the Code's minimum setback and open space requirements. P C Resolution No 96-07 Page 2 of 6 Section 8: That the proposed structure is compatible with the immediate neighborhood character in that, although the living area of the proposed home (3,506 square feet) would be 1,278 square feet larger than the average home in the surveyed area (2,228 square feet), and 633 square feet larger than the largest home (2,873 square feet) in the area, the manner in which the second story addition would be placed on the lower level would create a home with significant facade articulation, especially as seen from the street elevation This would be accomplished with the use of dormer type windows, and varying roof lines and heights The second story addition would appear as though it was an integral part of the design of the home, and not a "pop up" addition, with little or no forethought. The proposed house would respect the same setbacks, and retain a similar amount of open space as compared to the other homes in the area In addition, the subject residence would utilize building materials similar to those already found along Clint Place The layout of many of the homes along Clint Place utilize an "L" configuration, with an indirect access garage being located closed to the street. The proposed residence would continue to use an "L" layout, but the garage would be converted to direct access, which is also found along the street. Therefore, the proposed residence with its new second story addition would be compatible with the character of the existing neighborhood Section 9: 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 10: For the foregoing reasons and based on the information and findings included in the Staff Report, Minutes, and all other records of the proceedings, the Planning Commission hereby Denies the Appeal of Height Variation No 814, thereby Approving the construction of a 1,700 square foot second story addition on the property located at 5925 Clint Place, subject to the Conditions of Approval contained in the attached Exhibit "A", which are necessary for the public's general health, safety, and welfare P C Resolution No 96-07 Page 3 of 6 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 13th day of February 1996, by the following vote - AYES Commissioners Alberio, Cartwright, Franklin, Nq, Whiteneck, Vice -Chair Vannorsdall, and Chairman Clark NOES ABSTENTIONS - 0 Bret B Pernlird, AlCf Direct at of P anninyBuilding, and Code Enforcement; and, Secretary to the Planning Commission Lawrence E Clark, Chairman P C Resolution No 96-07 Page 4 of 6 s EXHIBIT "A" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR HEIGHT VARIATION NO. 814 (5925 Clint Place/Rehm) a) The maximum height of the two story structure shall not exceed, including roofing materials, 26'-0" (or a ridge elevation of 127.1' as measured from pad elevation 101 1'). The height of the garage, including the guardrail around the deck over the garage, shall not exceed 12'-0" (el - 112 0', as measured from datum point 100 0') RIDGE HEIGHT AND GUARDRAIL HEIGHT CERTIFICATION REQUIRED. b) The following minimum setbacks shall be maintained • 20'-0" front yard 0 15'-0" rear yard 0 5'-0" side yards c) A minimum of 47 5% open space shall be maintained on the property. d) Construction of the project shall substantially conform to plans stamped as received by the City on March 13, 1995. e) In the event that a Planning requirement and Building & Safety requirement are in conflict with one another, the stricter standard shall apply. f) 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 g) A completed and notarized City of Rancho Palos Verdes "Covenant to Protect Views" form shall be submitted to the Planning Department prior to the submittal of the approved plans into the Building and Safety Division's Plan Check process h) This permit is contingent upon full compliance with the Conditions of Approval for Grading Permit No 1805 for the grading that has been approved in conjunction with the project. i) The maximum eave projection allowed into the required setback areas shall not exceed 4 inches for each 1 foot of required setback Page 5 of 6 J) A minimum two car garage with a minimum interior dimension of 18 feet in width and 20 feet in depth, shall be provided on the site and shall be maintained for the storage of vehicles only. k) The bathroom window on the east side of the addition shall incorporate translucent material The bedroom window on the east side of the addition shall incorporate some sort of window covering to protect the privacy in the rear yard of the property to the east 1) No furniture or similar items shall be allowed on the garage -top deck that exceeds the height of the safety railing around the perimeter of the deck m) The depth of the deck along the rear of the house on either end shall be reduced to 4 feet n) The roof top area (of the house) shall not be used as a deck for viewing or recreational purposes Said area shall only be used as a location for roof mounted equipment, such as for solar heating, which do not exceed the height of the parapet wall o) The applicant shall submit a landscaping plan to the Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement for review prior to the issuance of a Building Permit to screen and soften the appearance of the structure as viewed from the street. At least 50% of the front yard setback area (20 feet) shall be maintained as landscaping M IUSERSWABIODIWPWIN60\RESOLUTN1HV814RE WPCs • C. Resolution N• 96-07 Page 6 of 4