Loading...
PC RES 1997-062P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 97-62 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES TO UPHOLD THE APPEAL OF THE DIRECTOR'S DECISION, THEREBY REVOKING SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 7900 AND GRADING PERMIT NO. 1929 FOR THE DEMOLITION AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE, LOCATED AT 6 MOONMIST DRIVE WHEREAS, on August 8, 1996, the applicant, Mr Walt Muzychenko, originally received approval of Site Plan Review No 7900 to remodel and add an addition to an existing single family residence, including demolition of a 621 square foot garage and approximately 1,160 square feet of the residence, with 3 exterior walls and approximately 1,554 square feet of the residence to remain The new residence would consist of 3,012 square feet for the ground floor and double garages and 2,433 square feet for second - story with two roof decks A related application, Grading Permit No 1929, was approved on April 24, 1997, for 305 cubic yards of earth movement for the residence parking area (auto court), 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 Regulations, Tale 14, Section 15000 et seq., the City's Local CEQA Guidelines, and Government Code Section 65962 5(f) (Hazardous Waste and Substances Statement), Staff determined that Site Plan Review No 7900, on August 8, 1996, and Grading Permit No 1929, on April 24, 1997, would have no significant effect on the environment and, therefore, the proposed project had been found to be categorically exempt (Class 1, Section 15301(e)(1)); and, WHEREAS, on September 10, 1997, the Planning Division and Building & Safety Division verified that the applicant had completely demolished the entire residence, thereby violating the project description and scope of work approved under Site Plan Review No. 7900, and, WHEREAS, on September 16, 1997, Staff confirmed that the proposed project, with a complete demolition rather than a partial demolition, will not alter the determination of the protect to be categorically exempt (Class 1, Section 15301(e)(1)), 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 Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et seq, the City's Local CEQA Guidelines, and Government Code Section 65962 5(f) (Hazardous Waste and Substances Statement) WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Section 17.86.060, Suspension or Revocation of Permits, the Director, upon meeting with the applicant and City Attorney to consider the original project approval and complete demolition activity, made the decision on September 23, 1997, not to revoke Site Plan Review No 7900 or suspend Grading Permit No 1929 based on the following analysis - Since the previous residence conformed to all the Single Family Residential Development Standards, a complete demolition of the residence rather than a partial demolition did not result in the elimination of any legal nonconformities on the property 2 Had the applicant originally applied for a complete demolition of the residence and construction of a new residence, the project would have been processed under the same Site Plan Review application, subject to the exact same Planning Division review criteria, the Single Family Residential Development Standards, and would have been approved by the Director 3 Although the three exterior walls of existing residence that were to remain will now be replaced with new construction, the finished project will still result in the residence maintaining the same architectural design, structure footprint, property line setbacks, minimum required open space and building height, as originally approved under S P R No 7900 4 Requiring the applicant to file for a Height Variation Permit application would result in a minimum 90 day delay before the project could be resubmitted to the Building & Safety Division Given the fact that the completed structure would have the same physical appearance and configuration as the previously approved project and with the pending on -set of the Winter rains, this seemed like an unreasonable and unnecessary delay for the applicant The Director's decision required that the applicant file for a revision to Site Plan Review No 7900 for a new single family residence and provide a new topographic survey to verify that the approved 16'0" building height shall be maintained Further, the applicant is required to receive a new building permit from the Building & Safety Division, subject to the appropriate fees, geologic and structural analysis for a new residential structure; and, WHEREAS, on October 8, 1997, Jim Robinson of 40 Oceanaire Drive, adjacent property owner to the south of the project site, filed within the required 15 -day appeal period, an appeal to the Director's Decision not to revoke Site Plan Review No 7900 or suspend Grading Permit No. 1929 to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission, 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 P C. Resolution No 97 - 62 Page 2 of 4 on October 28, 1997, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence, and, NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS Section 1: The Planning Commission concurred with the Director and City Attorney's determination that, under the circumstances of this particular case, a decision- making body of the City (the Director, Planning Commission or City Council) has full discretion to 1) to revoke or suspend a planning permit under Section 17 86.060, Suspension or Revocation of Permits, or to allow revisions to an approved planning permit pursuant to Section 17 78 040, Amendment to Approved Applications, and 2) require an approved planning permit that has been violated due to substantial modifications pursuant to Section 17 86 060, Suspension and Revocation of a Permit, to comply with the requirements of the current Development Code Section 2. The Planning Commission determined from testimony of the applicant, that the applicant chose to demolish the entire residence with full knowledge that he had failed to receive the appropriate Planning Division and Building & Safety Division clearances) Further, the applicant, a national contractor for hotel renovations, is familiar to the processes and regulations that are required to construct or remodel any building in compliance with a local municipality's planning and building department requirements Section 3: The Planning Commission determined from testimony of the surrounding property owners that the proposed protect should be required to comply with the current Development Code in order to provide a forum for the neighborhood to comment on the proposed project Therefore, the protect as currently designed would be subject to a Height Variation application, with public notification to the surrounding property owners, to ensure that neighborhood concerns with the proposed protect are considered in the appropriate planning review process pursuant to Section 17 02 040 C (Height Variation Application Procedures) Section 4: Gwen the findings in Sections 2 and 3 above, the Planning Commission determined that the original permits should be revoked, rather than amended or suspended as requested by the property owner. In order to process an application for a new single family residence at 6 Moonmist Drive, the property owner may. 1) apply for a Height Variation application to process the current proposed, two-story design for the new residence, or 2) re -design the new residence to be single -story and within the 160" building height which would be subject to a new Site Plan Review application Either application would be processed at Staff level and a decision made by the Director, without the requirement for a public hearing, subject to the appropriate appeal procedures pursuant to Section 17 02 040(C)(g) and 17 80 030, respectively Any new applications P C. Resolution No. 97 - 62 Page 3 of 4 shall be subject to all current planning and building permit requirements, including, but not limited to, a new topographic survey of the lot, a geology and/or soils report, adequate drainage plan, required structural information and necessary fees Section 5: Any interested person aggrieved by this decision or by any portion of this decision may appeal to the City Council. Pursuant to Section 17 80 070 A of the 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 November 11, 1997, the date of the Planning Commission's final action. Section 6: 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 upholds the appeal, thereby revoking Site Plan Review No 7900 and Grading Permit No. 1929 which were previously issued for the property located at 6 Moonmist Drive PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 11 th day of November 1997, by the following vote. AYES Albeno, Whiteneck, Ng, Clam., Cartwright, and Slayden NOES none ABSTENTIONS. none ABSENT- Vannorsdall T-on�aldE. Chairman Carolynn etru, AICP, Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement, and, Secretary to the Planning Commission P C Resolution No. 97 - 62 Page 4 of 4