Loading...
PC RES 2001-003P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2001-03 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CONDITIONALLY APPROVING GRADING PERMIT NO. 1950 -REVISION `A' FOR SIXTY-FIVE CUBIC YARDS (65 YD 3) OF ADDITIONAL GRADING, MINOR EXCEPTION PERMIT NO. 563 FOR 5 - FOOT -TALL SWIMMING POOL FENCING WITH 6 -FOOT - TALL PILASTERS IN THE FRONT- AND STREET -SIDE SETBACK AREAS AND 6 -FOOT -TALL VEHICLE GATES AT THE DRIVEWAY, AND SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 8310 FOR A SWIMMING POOL FOR AN UNDER -CONSTRUCTION SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE IN THE CRESTMOUNT COMMUNITY, LOCATED AT 3434 NEWRIDGE DRIVE WHEREAS, on February 17, 1998, the City Council approved (on appeal) Grading Permit No 1950 for a new, 5,800 -square -foot single-family residence in the Crestmount community, subject to conditions of approval limiting the total quantity of grading, limiting the height and number of retaining walls and fences, and requiring separate site plan review approval for any future swimming pool, and, WHEREAS, on May 18, 2000, the applicants, Gene and Leonna Price, submitted applications for Grading Permit No. 1950 -Revision 'A', Minor Exception Permit No 563 and Site Plan Review No 8310 to allow four hundred sixty-two cubic yards (462 yd 3) of additional grading for new and modified retaining walls, 5 -foot -tall fencing and 6 -foot -tall vehicle gates in the front- and street -side setback areas, and a swimming pool, and, WHEREAS, on January 26, 2001, the applications for Grading Permit No 1950 - Revision `A', Minor Exception Permit No 563 and Site Plan Review No. 8310 were deemed complete by Staff; 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 Grading Permit No 1950 -Revision `A', Minor Exception Permit No. 563 and Site Plan Review No. 8310 would have a significant effect on the environment and, therefore, the proposed project has been found to be categorically exempt (Class 3, Section 15303(x)); 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 February 27, 2001, 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 Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings of fact with respect to the portion of the application for Grading Permit No. 1950 -Revision 'A' for sixty-five cubic yards (65 yd 3) of additional grading to increase the height of the previously - approved upslope retaining wall A. The grading does not exceed that which is necessary for the permitted primary use of the lot, as defined in Section 17.96.2210 of the Development Code, because it will support both the house under construction on the subject property and the adjoining properties to the north and west B The grading and/or related construction does not significantly adversely affect the visual relationships with, nor the views from, neighboring properties because the additional grading will not alter the approved height of the structure on the subject property. C. The nature of the grading minimizes disturbance to the natural contours, and finished contours are reasonably natural because the additional 65 -cubic -yard cut on the upslope side of the house will be largely masked by the house itself and will not significantly alter the appearance of the site contours as viewed from adjacent properties and rights-of-way. D. The required finding that the grading takes into account the preservation of natural topographic features and appearances by means of land sculpting so as to blend any man-made or manufactured slope into the natural topography, is not applicable to the proposed project. E. The required finding that, in new residential tracts, the grading includes provisions for the preservation and introduction of plant materials so as to protect slopes from soil erosion and slippage, and minimize visual effects of grading and construction on hillside areas, is not applicable to the proposed project F. The required finding that the grading utilizes street designs and improvements which serve to minimize grading alternatives and harmonize with the natural contours and character of the hillside, is not applicable to the proposed project G. The required finding that the grading would not cause excessive and unnecessary disturbance of natural landscape or wildlife habitat through removal of vegetation, is not applicable to the proposed project. P.0 Resolution No 2001-03 Page 2 of 9 H The grading conforms with the minimum standards for finished slope, depth of cut and/or fill, retaining wall location and height, and driveway slope established under Section 17.76.040(E)(8) of the Development Code because the proposed grading revisions would increase the height of portions of the approved rear- and side -yard retaining walls to six feet (60"), which is two feet (2'0") lower than the maximum 8 - foot standard height for upslope retaining walls that is allowed by the Development Code. Section 2: The Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings of fact with respect to the portion of the application for Grading Permit No 1950 -Revision 'A' far three hundred ninety-seven cubic yards (397 yd 3) of additional grading to construct a 5- to 6 -foot -tall retaining wall at the toe of the slope along Newridge Drive: A. The grading exceeds that which is necessary for the permitted primary use of the lot, as defined in Section 17.96 2210 of the Development Code because this additional grading appears to primarily support the expansion of the street side -yard area of the lot, which is not strictly necessary for the development of the house on the subject property B The nature of the grading does not minimize the disturbance to the natural contours, and finished contours are not reasonably natural because the additional grading at the toe of the slope will be highly visible from surrounding properties and rights-of- way, and will constitute a significant departure from the existing topography of the site. C. The grading does not conform with the minimum standards for finished slope, depth of cut and/or fill, retaining wall location and height, and driveway slope established under Section 17 76 040(E)(8) of the Development Code because this grading would occur on an extreme slope area and would result in the creation of slopes in excess of thirty-five percent (35%), and these characteristics are inconsistent with the City's grading standards and are contrary to the assumptions under which the original approval of Grading Permit No 1950 was granted. Section 3: The Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings of fact with respect to the portion of the application for Minor Exception Permit No. 563 for 5 -foot - tall swimming pool fencing in the front- and street -side setback areas: A The requested minor exception for the fence is necessary to avoid inconsistencies with the City's pool fencing requirements. The proposed swimming pool requires a minimum 5 -foot -tall enclosure, and due to the configuration of this lot, portions of this enclosure would need to be located within the front- and street -side setback areas Requiring a lower fence would not provide the necessary safety enclosure. P.C. Resolution No 2001-03 Page 3 of 9 B The Planning Commission makes the following additional findings with respect to the request for increased fence height - 1 . The height of the fence will not be detrimental to the public safety or welfare. 2. The line of sight over or through the fence is adequate for safety and does not significantly impair a view from the viewing area of an adjacent parcel. 3 The required finding that, on corner lots, intersection visibility is not obstructed, is not applicable to this project because the subject property is not a corner lot 4 The required finding that the height of any retaining wall portion does not exceed the grading limits set forth in RPVDC Section 17.76.040, is not applicable to this project because no additional grading or retaining walls are required for the installation of the proposed pool fencing. Section 4: The Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings of fact with respect to the portion of the application for Minor Exception Permit No. 563 for 6 -foot - tall vehicles gates at the driveway: A. The requested minor exception for the vehicle gates is necessary to avoid practical difficulties and unnecessary hardships The proposed 6 -foot -tall gates would be more in keeping with the style and scale of the house on the property. In addition, a lower gate would be visually inconsistent with the existing 7 -foot -tall wall on the adjacent property, which directly abuts the location of the proposed gates B. The Planning Commission makes the following additional findings with respect to the request for increased gate height: The height of the gates will not be detrimental to the public safety or welfare. 2. The line of sight over or through the gates is adequate for safety and does not significantly impair a view from the viewing area of an adjacent parcel. 3. The required finding that, on corner lots, intersection visibility is not obstructed, is not applicable to this project because the subject property is not a corner lot 4. The required finding that the height of any retaining wall portion does not exceed the grading limits set forth in RPVDC Section 17.76.040, is not applicable to this project because no additional grading or retaining walls are required for the installation of the proposed gates. P.0 Resolution No 2001-03 Page 4 of 9 Section 5: The Planning Commission finds that the application for Site Plan Review No 8310 for a swimming pool and related equipment is consistent with the original approval of Grading Permit No 1950, with the development standards of the RS -2 zoning district, and with other applicable provisions of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code. Section 6: Any interested person aggrieved by this decision or by any portion of this decision may appeal to the City Council. Pursuant to Sections 17 66 060 and 17 76 040(H) 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 February 27, 2001, the date of the Planning Commission's final action. Section 7: 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 conditionally approves Grading Permit No. 1950 -Revision `A' far sixty-five cubic yards (65 yd 3) of additional grading, Minor Exception Permit No. 563 for 5 -foot -tall swimming pool fencing with 6 -foot -tall pilasters in the front- and street -side setback areas and 6 -foot -tall vehicle gates at the driveway, and Site Plan Review No. 8310 for a swimming pool for an under -construction single-family residence in the Crestmount community, located at 3434 Newridge Drive, subject to the conditions contained in Exhibit W, attached hereto and made a part hereof, which are necessary to protect the public health, safety and welfare in the area. P C. Resolution No. 2001-03 Page 5 of 9 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 27th day of February 2001, by the following vote. AYES Chairman Lyon, Vice Chairman Clark, Commissioners Cartwright, Long, Mueller, Paulson and Vannorsdall NOES: none ABSTENTIONS- none ABSENT: none el R has, AICP Irect r of Plannig, uilding and Coe Enforcement, and, Secretary to the Planning Commission 7'4z1IJd4Z22I- Frank Lyon Chairman P C Resolution No. 2001-03 Page 6 of 9 EXHIBIT 'A' CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR GRADING PERMIT NO. 1950-REVISION'A9, MINOR EXCEPTION PERMIT NO. 563 AND SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 8310 (3434 Newridge Drive) General 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 to allow sixty-five cubic yards (65 yd 3) of additional grading, 5 -foot - tall swimming pool fencing with 6 -foot -tall pilasters in the front -and street -side setback areas and 6 -foot -tall vehicle gates at the driveway, and a new swimming pool and equipment for an under -construction single-family residence in the Crestmount community, located at 3434 Newridge Drive. The request for three hundred ninety-seven cubic yards (397 yd 3) of additional grading at the toe of the slope along Newridge Drive is not approved by this action. The Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement is authorized to make minor modifications to the approved plans and any of the conditions of approval if such modifications will achieve substantially the same results as would strict compliance with the approved plans and conditions Otherwise, any substantive change to the project shall require approval of a revision to Grading Permit No. 1950 -Revision W, Minor Exception Permit No. 563 and/or Site Plan Review No 831 by the Planning Commission and shall require new and separate environmental review. 3. All project development on the site shall conform to the specific standards contained in these conditions of approval or, if not addressed herein, in the RS -2 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 project has not been established (i.e , grading and/or building permits obtained) within one year of the effective date of this Resolution, or if construction has not been commenced within one hundred eighty (180) days of the issuance of grading and/or building permits, approval of the project 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 grading permit revision, minor exception permit • C. Resolution No. 2001-03 Page 7 of • 0 0 revision and/or site plan review revision must be approved prior to further development. 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 stamped APPROVED by the City with the effective date of this Resolution 8 Unless otherwise designated in these conditions, the approved project shall be subject to all of the conditions of approval for Grading Permit No 1950, as adopted by the City Council on February 17, 1998 Said conditions of approval are incorporated herein by this reference Grading Permit No. 1950 -Revision 'A' 9 A total of sixty-five cubic yards (65 yd 3) of additional grading is allowed under this permit, consisting entirely of cut and no fill The maximum depth of cut shall be six feet (6'0") 10 Interior side- and rear -yard retaining walls shall not exceed an individual or combined height of six feet (6'0") There shall not be more than one retaining wall per interior side- or rear -yard area 11 The applicants shall be responsible for repairing any portion of the existing drainage swale and chain-link fence that has been undermined by the excavation of the upslope retaining wall 12 All grading and compaction shall be conducted in compliance with the recommendations of the City's geotechnical consultant, and the requirements of the City's Building Official Minor Exception Permit No. 563 13 The maximum height of the portion of the pool fencing within the front- and street - side setback areas shall be five feet (60"), measured from the outside ground level at a point one foot horizontal from the base of the fence The maximum height of the pilasters shall be six feet (6'0") The material of the fence and the size and spacing of the pilasters shall allow for 80 -percent passage of light and/or air through the fence, subject to the review and approval of the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement. Chain-link fence is prohibited P C Resolution No 2001-03 Page 8 of 9 14. The fence shall be located out of the public right-of-way and set back at least seven feet (7'0") from the edge of the pavement on Newridge Drive so as to allow for the parking of vehicles along the frontage of the lot Any proposed landscape or hardscape within the public right-of-way of Newridge Drive requires the approval of an encroachment permit by the Director of Public Works 15. No grading shall be permitted in conjunction with the approved pool fencing, except for the excavation of footings for the pilasters 16 The maximum height of the vehicle gates at the driveway shall be six feet (60"). The gates shall be equipped with an automatic opener and shall swing inward to the property. 17. The location, configuration and appearance of the approved pool fencing and vehicles gates shall be consistent with the exhibits distributed to the Planning Commission by the applicant's architect at the public hearing on February 27, 2001 No lighting fixtures are depicted on these exhibits and none are approved by this action The above-mentioned exhibits shall be maintained in the City's file for this property. Site Plan Review No 8310 18. The pool is required to have a 5 -foot -tall enclosure with a self-closing and self - latching gate(s) 19. The pool equipment enclosure may encroach a maximum of six feet (60") beyond the top of slope, must be less than fifty square feet (<50 ft) in area, and must be screened from view from surrounding properties and the public right-of-way of Newridge Drive, to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement 20 The pool shall be constructed in compliance with the recommendations of the City's geotechnical consultant, and the requirements of the City's Building Official 21. No grading shall be permitted in conjunction with the approved pool, except for the excavation of the pool itself M \Projects\GR 1950 -Rev. 'A'—MEP 563—SPR 8310 (Price)\20010227_Reso_PC doc P C Resolution No 2001-03 Page 9of9