Loading...
PC RES 1997-01602 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES APPROVING HEIGHT VARIATION NO. 831, THEREBY APPROVING A 305 - SQUARE -FOOT, 2 -STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE ON AN UPWARD SLOPING LOT, WITH A 22% -FOOT UPSLOPE BUILDING HEIGHT, LOCATED AT 4225 MIRALESTE DRIVE WHEREAS, on January 14, 1997, the applicants, Hugh and Sylvia Kienberger, submitted an application for Height Variation No 831 to allow a 2 -story addition to their existing 3 -story, single-family residence in the Miraleste area, and, WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Sections 21000 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 65962 5(f) (Hazardous Waste and Substances Statement), Staff found no evidence that Height Variation No. 831 would have a significant effect on the environment and, therefore, the proposed project has been found to be categorically exempt (Class 1, Section 15301(e)(1)), and, WHEREAS, after notice issued pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on April 8, 1997, 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: The applicant has complied with the Early Neighbor Consultation process established by the City by obtaining acknowledgement signatures from seventy- seven percent (77%) of the property owners within a 100 -foot radius and twenty-five percent (25%) of the property owners within a 500 -foot radius of the subject property Section 2: The structure does not significantly impair a view from public property which has been identified in the City's General plan or Coastal Specific Plan as City - designated viewing areas because there are no City -designated public viewing areas upslope from the subject property which would be affected by the proposed project, the residences on the downslope side of Via Lorenzo completely block any view of the proposed project from the right-of-way of Via Lorenzo; and the subject property is not located within the Coastal Specific Plan area. Section 3: The proposed structure is not located on a ridge or promontory because it is located on the eastern slope of San Pedro Hill and is not visually -prominent Section 4: The proposed structure, when considered exclusive of foliage, does not significantly impair a view from the viewing area of another parcel because, although all three upslope properties on Via Lorenzo have narrow view corridors through the side - yards between subject property and 4229 Miraleste Drive, which are part of the best or most important view from these properties, the extent of the view impairment is minor and the views above the ridgeline would remain unaffected by the proposed addition Section 5: There is no significant cumulative view impairment caused by granting the application because the only nearby residence with the potential for a similar type of addition is the neighboring house at 4229 Miraleste Drive, a similar addition at 4229 Miraleste Drive might further narrow the view corridor between the two houses but Art Jury setback requirements may restrict the ability of this residence to expand into the view corridor, and other homes along this block Miraleste Drive have lower ridgelines, thereby minimizing their potential to contribute to any adverse cumulative effects Section 6: The structure is designed and situated in such a manner as to minimize impairment of a view because the profile of the addition is relatively narrow as viewed from the rear; the proposed addition matches but does not exceed the existing ridgeline; and the 10 foot side -yard setback proposed allows for the maintenance of a view corridor between the subject property and the adjacent residence at 4229 Miraleste Drive Section 7: The proposed structure complies with all other Code requirements because, with the exception of the variance request for the downslope height which has been approved pursuant to P C. Resolution No 97-17, the proposed project complies with all the development standards of the RS -3 district, the second -floor step -back requirements of RPVDC Section 17 02 040(B)(2), and the development standards of the Art Jury of the Palos Verdes Homes Association. Section 8: The proposed structure is compatible with the immediate neighborhood character because the architectural style, bulk and mass, overall square footage and general design theme are consistent with other single-family residences in the 4200 (odd) block of Miraleste Drive, and the design has been approved by the Art Jury of the Palos Verdes Homes Association Section 9: The proposed structure does not result in an unreasonable infringement of privacy of the occupants of abutting residences because the proposed addition will be set back ten feet (10'0") from the property line with the adjacent residence; and there will be no additional windows in the addition which would impinge upon the privacy of the yard or residence at 4229 Miraleste Drive Section 10: Any interested person aggrieved by this decision or by any portion of this decision may appeal to the City Council Pursuant to Section 17 02 040(C)(1)0) of the P.0 Resolution No 97-16 Page 2 of 5 Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code, any such appeal must be filed with the City, in writing, and with the appropriate appeal fee, no later than fifteen (15) days following April 8, 1997, the date of the Planning Commission's final action. Section 11: For the foregoing reasons and based on the information and findings included in the Staff Report, Minutes and other records of proceedings, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby approves Height Variation No. 831, subject to the concurrent approval of Variance No. 421, thereby approving a 305- square-foot, 2-story addition to an existing single-family residence on an upward sloping lot, with a 221/2-foot upslope building height, located at 4225 Miraleste Drive, subject to the conditions contained in Exhibit 'A', attached hereto and made a part hereof, which are necessary to protect the public health, safety and welfare in the area. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 8th day of April 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Al beri o, Cartwright, Clark, Sl ayden, Vice Chairman Whiteneck, and Chairman Vannorsdal l NOES: ABSTENTIONS: ABSENT: Commissioner Ng 4,4 Donald . Vannorsdall Chairman Oloa Carolynn Pelru Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement; and, Secretary to the Planning Commission P.C. Resolution No. 97- 16 Page 3 of 5 EXHIBIT 'A' CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR HEIGHT VARIATION NO. 831 (4225 Miraleste Drive) A. General Conditions: 1) Within thirty (30) days following adoption of this Resolution, the applicant and the property owner shall submit to the City a statement, in writing, that they have read, understand, and agree to all conditions of approval contained in this Resolution Failure to provide said written statement shall render this approval null and void. 2) This approval is for a 305 -square -foot, 2 -story addition to be constructed at 4225 Miraleste Drive The maximum height of the addition shall be twenty- two feet six inches (276") on the upslope side The maximum ridgeline elevation of the addition shall be 122 5' as measured from a reference elevation of 100 0' at the southwest corner of the addition. The minimum setback from the side property line is ten feet (10'0"), with a bow window in the dining room at nine feet (9'0") and the chimney and eaves at eight feet (60"). Any change shall require approval of a revision to Height Variation No 831 by the Planning Commission and shall require a new and separate environmental review 3) All protect development on the site shall conform to the specific standards contained in these conditions of approval or, if not addressed herein, in the RS -3 district development standards of the City's Municipal Code 4) Failure to comply with and adhere to all of these conditions of approval may be cause to revoke the approval of the project by the Planning Commission after conducting a public hearing on the matter. 5) If the addition has not been established (i.e, building permits obtained) within two (2) years of the effective date of this Resolution, or if construction has not been completed within two (2) years of the issuance of building permits, approval of protect shall expire and be of no further effect unless, prior to expiration, a written request for extension is filed with the Department of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement and approved by the Planning Commission Otherwise, a height variation revision must be approved prior to further development. P.C. Resolution No 97-16 Page 4 of 5 6) In the event that any of these conditions conflict with the recommendations and/or requirements of another permitting agency or City department, the stricter standard shall apply. 7) Unless otherwise designated in these conditions, all construction shall be completed in substantial conformance with the plans submitted to the City on February 21, 1997 8) The hours of construction shall be limited to 7 00 AM to 7.00 PM, Monday through Saturday No construction shall be permitted on Sundays or on legal holidays. B. Prior to issuance of Building Permits: 9) Pursuant to Section 17 02 040(B)(4) of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code, the applicant shall remove, trim or thin any foliage which impairs a protected view from the viewing area of another residence Specific offending foliage shall be identified by the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement during the Planning plan check process and prior to issuance of a Planning clearance to enter Building plan check C. Prior to Building Permit final: 10) The applicant shall provide certification that the ridge height of the addition matches the existing ridgelme and is no more than twenty-two feet six inches (22'6") above the highest point of the site covered by the structure (t e., the southwest corner of the addition) The maximum ridge height permitted is 122 5' M \USERSUCITF\WPWIN60\PROJECTS\HVB31\HV831 RES P C. Resolution No 97-16 Page 5of5