Loading...
PC RES 1997-047A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES APPROVING HEIGHT VARIATION NO. 750 - REVISION "C" TO ALLOW AN EXISTING 562.772 SQUARE FOOT UTILITY/STORAGE ROOM ON THE SECOND FLOOR AND TO ALLOW A 239.57 SQUARE FOOT STORAGE AREA TO BE CONSTRUCTED OVER THE GARAGE AT 3558 BENDIGO DRIVE WHEREAS, on May 4, 1992, the landowners, Earl and Sharon Gantz, filed an application for Height Variation No 750 with the City for a second story addition to the existing single story residence located at 3558 Bendigo Drive, and, WHEREAS, on September 8, 1992, the Director of the (then) Environmental Services Department approved an application for Height Variation No 750 for a new 1,622 square foot second story addition, which would measure 26-0" in overall height and included a 167 square foot second story balcony, and, WHEREAS, on March 23, 1993, the Planning Commission adopted P.0 Resolution No. 93-7, thereby approving the application for Variance No. 350 to allow a 210 square foot addition to the existing 462 square foot garage (total garage area 672 square feet) which involved the conversion of the indirect access garage to a direct access garage and a maximum 5-9" encroachment into the required 20'-0" front yard setback area (resulting in a minimum front yard setback area of 14'-3") The plans which were approved by the Planning Commission included a roof height over the garage of 24'-0" and, WHEREAS, on September 13, 1993, the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement approved the application for Height Variation No 750 - Revision ("A") The revision application was submitted to the City after some unapproved construction had commenced over the garage area and was detected during a routine inspection of the property by the City's Building and Safety Division Staff The Director's approval was for a 528 square foot storage room over the garage, which was conditioned with a maximum height of 24'-0", and, WHEREAS, on November 23, 1993, as the result of an appeal of the Director's decision by the adjacent neighbors, the Planning Commission determined that the revised project would not be compatible with the character of the surrounding neighborhood due to its mass and two story appearance Therefore, on December 14, 1993, the Planning Commission adopted P.C. Resolution No 93-43, upholding the appeal, denying the proposed revision to the project and requiring the landowners to construct the garage pursuant to the March 23, 1993 plans previously approved by the Commission; and, WHEREAS, on January 10, 1994, as the result of an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision by the landowners, the City Council adopting Resolution No. 94-4, thereby denying the landowner's appeal, upholding the Planning Commission's denial of the proposed revision to the protect and requiring the landowners to construct the garage pursuant to the March 23, 1993 plans previously approved by the Planning Commission, and, WHEREAS, on March 15, 1994, the landowners requested that the City Council clarify its previous January 10, 1994 action and determine whether or not revised plans submitted by the landowners were consistent with the prior action The revised plans were submitted after the landowners indicated to Staff that the protect could not be built to the March 23, 1993 plans, since the garage foundation slab had been constructed 2'- 0" higher than had been approved As an alternative to demolishing the entire garage structure, including the foundation slab, the landowners were offered an opportunity to develop revised plan that satisfied the intent of the Council's action. The City Council passed a motion providing the landowners with direction to further modify the submitted plans to be consistent with the Council's prior action on January 10, 1994; and, WHEREAS, the landowners did not resubmit revised plans based on the Council's direction on March 15, 1994 and subsequently filed a lawsuit against the City in 1994, in which the City prevailed in 1996 Then, in September 1996, the applicants filed applications for Height Variation No. 750 - Revision "B" and Variance No 350 - Revision "A" to the City for a revised protect that differed from the Council's previous direction; and, WHEREAS, on March 4, 1997, the City Council adopted Resolution No 97-15, denying Height Variation No. 750 - Revision "B", without prejudice, for approval of existing additional square footage that had been added to the second story of the residence and to complete the construction of the garage, including a storage area over the garage In denying the application without prejudice, the Council directed that any subsequent applications for revisions to the original approvals would be required to follow the normal application process. 4n February 25, 1997, in light of the City Council's preliminary action regarding the height variation revision, the Planning Commission adopted P.C. Resolution No 97-11 denying Variance No 350 - Revision "A", without prejudice, for an existing, additional 9 inch encroachment into the required front yard setback area; and, WHEREAS, on June 10 and June 24, 1997, respectively, the applicants submitted applications for Variance No. 350 - Revision 'B" and Height Variation No 750 - Revision "C" for approval of additional existing square footage on the second story of the residence which was not originally approved by the Staff as part of Height Variation No. 750, as well as completion of a partially constructed garage on the P C Resolution No 97-47 Page 2 of 9 property that was constructed 9 inches closer to the front property line than was approved by the Planning Commission through Variance No 350. WHEREAS, after notice issued pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on August 26, 1997, September 21, 1997 and September 23, 1997, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and to 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 providing the City with reduced -size project plans and an updated mailing list for the property owners within a 500 radius of the subject property A notice was sent, along with the reduced -size plans, to the surrounding landowners on June 24, 1997. Of the 72 packages sent out by certified mail, the City received confirmation that 67 were accepted by the landowners and 5 were returned to the City as undeliverable Therefore, 93% of the landowners within a 500 foot radius of the subject property were provided with early neighbor notification of the height variation revision application, thereby adequately satisfying the requirement for early neighbor consultation requirement. Section 2 The structure does not significantly impair a view from public property (parks, major thoroughfares, bike -ways, walk -ways, equestrian trails) which has been identified in the City's General Plan, Coastal Specific Plan, or City designated viewing areas since the subject property does not lie within or around any public property areas Section 3. That the proposed structure is not located on a ridge or promontory, as defined in the adopted Height Variation Guidelines. Section 4. That the structure is designed and situated in such a manner as to minimize impairment of a view since, due to the subject lot's location relative to the other properties along Bendigo Drive and portions of Ganado Drive, the second story addition (which has been subsequently constructed) was designed and situated in such a manner to minimize view impairment. Therefore, since the ridge line of the existing utility/storage room and the proposed storage area over the garage are lower than the ridge line over the main portion of the residence, the revision to Height Variation No. 750 is also designed and situated in a manner to minimize view impairment. P C Resolution No 97-47 Page 3of9 Section 5 That there is no significant cumulative view impairment caused by granting the application, since the proposed project has no potential causing any view impairment (and there has never been a claim made by an adjacent property owner or other interested party that any portion of the second story addition would create any view impairment), the possibility for significant cumulative view impairment does not exist. 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 the structure which was constructed without a Height Variation or a Variance, or which would not have required a Height Variation or a Variance when originally constructed had this section as approved by the voters on November 7, 1989, been in effect at the time the structure was constructed, since as discussed in Section 5 above, the proposed storage area will not significantly impair views from another parcel given the location of the subject property relative to the other properties in the area Homes on the "non -view" side of Bendigo Drive have any potential views of the ocean blocked by structures on the "view" side of the street at a height of 16 feet Section 7- That the proposed structure complies with all other Municipal Code requirements since, with the exception of the additionally reduced front yard setback area, which was approved pursuant P C Resolution No. 97- (Variance No. 350 - Revision "B"), the existing residence complies with all minimum Development Code setback requirements The minimum open space requirement in the RS -3 zoning district is 55% The footprint of the residence (2,683 813 square foot lower level and 719.125 square foot garage) and the driveway (475 square feet) are counted as lot coverage on the property Given a lot size of 8,900.39, as verified by the City Engineer in 1996, the total amount of open space on the lot after construction would be 56 43% Section 8- Neighborhood character is defined in the Height Variation Guidelines to consider the existing characteristics of an area, including 1) scale of surrounding residences, including square footage and lot coverage, 2) architectural styles, including facade treatments, structure height, open space between structures, roof design, the apparent bulk or mass of the structure, and building materials, and, 3) front yard setbacks With regards to scale, based on a field survey and permit record search of the 20 existing residences along Bendigo Drive (excluding the flag lots which are not visible from the street and the applicants' lot) the subject residence is almost 2,000 square feet larger than the average home in the area and almost 1,700 square feet larger than the largest homes surveyed By square footage alone, the subject residence is much larger in scale than the other homes and, therefore, could be considered inconsistent with the scale of the surrounding homes in the area However, the Planning P C Resolution No 97-47 Page 4 of 9 f 0 Commission finds that, at this point in time, it would be impractical to require the applicants to demolish and re -build the garage and a large portion of the second story addition, which would be necessary in order for the applicant to construct the project in compliance with the March 23, 1993 approved plans. In fact, it has been acknowledged since the stop work order was issued on the project in 1994 that the March 23, 1993 plans were so poorly drawn that it would be impossible to actually build to those plans. Instead, the Planning Commission finds that the architectural style of the revised project, as discussed below, with a few additional modification required through the conditions of approval, will reduce the apparent bulk and mass of the structure, making it more compatible with the character of the 1993 plans and, therefore, making the revised project compatible with the surrounding neighborhood With regards to architectural style, the apparent bulk and mass of the proposed structure is directly related to the overall scale and location of the structure as viewed from the street. It was the City's determination on the original height variation application that the resulting home would not appear too "bulky or massive" as a result of the placement of the second story addition over the rear portion of the house, even though the house would become the largest along the street The Director made this initial determination based on the fact that additional square footage would not be apparent from the street, since it would have been screened by a pitched roof. The proposed garage would very closely match the design of the original garage approval in terms of building width, garage door placement and roof pitch (8 in 12) However, as proposed, the architectural style of the remaining existing portion of the residence would still be different from the other homes in the neighborhood The utility room and storage room that are visible from the street still create the appearance of a second story addition across the entire width of the residence and the gable roof over the utility room would create a third ridge line on the residence s as viewed from the street Although it is not impossible to remove the utility and storage areas that have been added to the residence since the original plans were approved by the City, it would require substantial demolition and reconstruction of the existing roof over the second story portion of the residence In addition, the floor plan of the habitable area on the second floor would also need to be modified since the originally proposed pitch of the roof at the front of the second story would not have provided sufficient head room to comply with minimum Uniform Building Code requirements, as shown on Sheet 6 of the submitted plans. In order to make the existing second story portion of the residence look more like the residence that was approved in 1993, while taking into consideration the difficulties associated with rebuilding the existing roof over the second story portion of the P C Resolution No. 97-47 Page 5 of 9 residence, the Planning Commission has conditioned the project to required the applicant to extend the roof line over the entry and living room at an 8 in 12 pitch to form a porch at the front of the residence. This modification would make the front facade of the existing residence have a similar appearance and character as the facade approved through the original height variation Therefore, the revised project would be compatible with the neighborhood in terms of architectural style. With regards to the front yard setback, the garage has been redesigned such that no portion of the structure over 16 feet in height would encroach into the required front yard setback area. The wall of the utility room behind the garage is located well behind the front yard setback and the porch required to screen the utility and storage room wall above the entry and living room would also respect the minimum front yard setback. Therefore, the revised project would be compatible with the neighborhood in terms of front yard setback With the additional modifications to the proposed project described above and contained in the attached Exhibit "A", the Planning Commission finds that the completed facade will adequately camouflage the square footage of the building (as was the case in the original approval) and will create a building facade that will be architecturally, compatible with the other homes in the neighborhood Section 9: The proposed structure does not result in an unreasonable infringement of the privacy of the occupants of abutting residences since, as currently proposed the storage area over the garage would not have any windows. Likewise, the utility room and storage rooms already constructed over the main portion of the residence do not include any windows that could overlook abutting residences Section 10. 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 11. The adoption of this Resolution is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 P C Resolution No 97-47 Page 6of9 Section 12. For the foregoing reasons, and based on the information and findings contained in the public record, including staff reports, minutes, records of proceeding and evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby approves Height Variation No 750 - Revision "C" to allow a 562.772 square foot utility/storage room (consisting of the 377.283 square foot heater room and the two storage rooms of 98 005 square feet on the west and 87 484 square feet on the east, respectively), and a proposed 239 57 square foot storage area over the garage, as depicted on the plans submitted to the City on May 9, 1997 (Sheet Nos. 1 and 2 only) and June 11, 1997 (Sheet Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6), on the property located at 3558 Bendigo Drive, subject to the conditions of approval contained in the attached Exhibit "A"which are necessary to protect and preserve the public health safety and welfare PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 23th day of September 1997 by the following vote AYES- Commissioners Cartwright, Clark, Ng, Slayden, Vice Chairman Whiteneck and Chairman Vannorsdall NOES. Commissioner Alberio ABSTENTIONS. None. ABSENT- None. Carolynn Petru, AICP Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement and Secretary to the Planning Commission Donald E. Vannorsdall Chairman P.C. Resolution No 97-47 Page 7 of 9 EXHIBIT "A" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL HEIGHT VARIATION NO 750 - REVISION "C" 3558 BENDIGO DRIVE The project shall be constructed is substantial conformance with the plans stamped as received by the Department of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement on May 9, 1997 (Sheet Nos 1 and 2 only) and June 11, 1997 (Sheet Nos 3, 4, 5 and 6), identified as "Earl Gantz, 3558 Bendigo Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes" prepared by J.M. Negrete and Associates and labeled as prepared on May 5, 1997 2 The maximum ridge height of the garage shall not exceed an elevation of 123.5, which translates to 19'-2 1/2", as measured pursuant to Development Code Section 17.02.040 (1 a from pad elevation 104 3) and 21'-5" as measured from the finished floor of the garage (i a elevation 102.1). CERTIFICATION REQUIRED. 3. The storage area over the garage shall not exceed 239 57 square feet in total area. 4 The pitch of the garage roof shall be 8 12 5. Access to the storage area over the garage shall only be from a pull-down stairway inside the garage. No access from the second story of the house shall be permitted 6. The maximum ridge height of the utility room behind the garage shall not exceed an elevation of 126 7, which translates to 22'-5", as measured pursuant to Development Code Section 17.02.040 (i.e. from pad elevation 104.3) and 24'-8" feet as measured from the finished floor of the garage (i e 102 1) CERTIFICATION REQUIRED. 7 The utility room and storage areas located behind the garage and over the living room shall not exceed 562 772 square feet in size (consisting of the 377 283 square foot heater room and the two storage rooms of 98.005 square feet on the west and 87.484 square feet on the east, respectively) P C Resolution No 97-47 Page 8of9 i 8 The roof over the living room and entry shall be extended northward with a pitch of 8 12 to form a porch at the front of the residence in substantial conformance with the plans identified as P-5 and P-6 and stamped as received by the Department of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement on August 14, 1997, identified as "Earl Gantz, 3558 Bendigo Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes" prepared by J.M. Negrete and Associates and labeled as prepared on June 30, 1997 9 This approval of Height Variation No. 750 - Revision "B" is subject to the approval of Variance No. 350 - Revision "B" by the Planning Commission for the additional 9 inch encroachment of the garage into the required front yard setback area M IUSERSCARolYNN\WPWIN60\RESOSWV750REV C P C Resolution No 97-47 Page 9 of 9