Loading...
PC RES 2015-008 P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2015-08 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES CONDITIONALLY APPROVING A VARIANCE FOR A REDUCED EASTERLY SIDE YARD SETBACK OF 2.23' FOR AN EXISITNG GARAGE AT 30506 PALOS VERDES DRIVE WEST. WHEREAS, in 2003, the City approved a new attached garage in the side yard and the conversion of an existing garage into habitable space; 50yd3 of grading for the construction of a retaining wall along the east side of the property, measuring 8' in total height; and a reduction of a hillside setback allowing the new garage to be placed 12' from the toe of the adjacent 2:1 upslope on the side of the property (Case Nos. ZON2003-00308, ZON2003-00355, and BLD2003-00641); and, WHEREAS, on September 1, 2011, the City received a complaint that the property owners of 30506 Palos Verdes Drive West (hereafter referred to as Davoodians') constructed a retaining wall on their neighbor's property (hereafter referred to as `Haddads') located at 30504 Palos Verdes Drive West. On September 6, 2011, the Code Enforcement Staff conducted a site visit and noted that a portion of the retaining wall appears to be built on the Haddads' property; and, WHEREAS, based on surveys submitted by both the Davoodians and Haddads, the Community Development Director found that the City-granted approvals to the Davoodians were based on erroneous plans and on November 23, 2011, revoked Case Nos. ZON2003-00308, ZON2003-00355, and BLD2003-00641; and, WHEREAS, the City directed the Davoodians to remove the portion of the retaining wall on the Haddad's property and restore the slope back to its original condition. As such, the Davoodians submitted plans on February 3, 2012 to the Planning Division for review (Case No. ZON2012-00049). After preliminary review, the project was deemed incomplete on February 8, 2012 based on insufficient information. On February 15, 2012, the City received a letter from the Haddads granting the Davoodians limited access to their property for the sole purpose of removing the retaining wall and restoring the slope; and, WHEREAS, in 2012, the City was notified that private litigation between the Haddads and the Davoodians was pending. As such, on March 28, 2012, the City decided to temporarily place the enforcement case against the Davoodians in abeyance until a judgment is made in their case so that the City can proceed with the appropriate action based on the outcome of the lawsuit; and, WHEREAS, despite the pending litigation between the Davoodians and the Haddads, on July 3, 2012, the City Council directed Staff to continue enforcement against the Davoodians and continue processing case no. ZON2012-00049; and, WHEREAS, on May 14, 2013, the Community Development Director approved Case No. 2012-00049; thereby allowing the following: 1) remove the existing retaining wall and foundation located on the adjoining property at 30504 Palos Verdes Drive West (Haddad's property) and restore the slope back to its original condition; 2) re-approve the portion of the existing retaining wall that was approved in 2003 and revoked in 2011 which will remain on the Davoodians property; 3) demolish a portion of the existing garage so that the setback to the easterly interior P.C. Resolution No. 2015-08 Page 1 of 5 side property line increases from the existing 2.23' to the code compliant 5'; 4) construct a 6' tall barrier (retaining) wall along the east side property line; and, 5) re-approve the conversion of a previous garage to habitable space that was permitted in 2003 (ZON2003-00308) and revoked in 2011. The Davoodians obtained building permits but did not begin any work as the litigation between them and the Haddads was still pending; and, WHEREAS, on February 17, 2015, the Haddads submitted a letter with a copy of the Settlement Agreement, informing the City that the lawsuit between them and the Davoodians has been settled. Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, in exchange for a $50,000 settlement payment, the Davoodians acquired an easement over portions of Haddads' property and the Haddads agreed to dismiss any and all of the claims asserted against the Davoodians. Additionally, as a condition of the Settlement Agreement, the Haddads agree to fully support, and not object to, a variance application requesting approval from the City to maintain the garage in its current location and configuration with a reduced side yard setback; and, WHEREAS, on March 13, 2015, the Davoodians submitted a Variance application (ZON2015-00144) requesting to legalize their garage at a reduced 2.23' interior side yard setback. The application package was deemed complete on April 13, 2015; and, WHEREAS, on April 16, 2015, a notice of the pending application was sent to all property owners within 500' radius of the subject site and published in the Peninsula News; 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, Title 14, Section 15000 et. seq., the City's Local CEQA Guidelines, and Government Code Section 65962.5(f) (Hazardous Waste and Substances Statement), the City of Rancho Palos Verdes determined that the proposed project is exempt from the provisions of CEQA pursuant to section 15305 — Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on May 12, 2015, 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 proposed variance is to legalize the garage at a 2.23' reduced interior side yard setback on a property located at 30506 Palos Verdes Drive West and reinstatement of Case Nos. ZON2003-00308, ZON2003-00355, and BLD2003-00641. Section 2: Approval of a Variance is warranted because: A. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved, or to the intended use of the property, which do not apply generally to other property in the same zoning district. More specifically, the applicants were granted City approvals to construct improvements over their property and their neighbor's property, albeit based on incorrect plans. The City approved improvements were constructed and finaled in 2005. These improvements remained approved until 2011, when the abutting neighbor (Haddads) submitted a survey disputing the accuracy of the originally approved plans. The Haddads allegations P.C. Resolution No. 2015-08 Page 2 of 5 were found to be correct and thus the City revoked the applicants' approvals the same year. With the revocation of the City issued entitlements, the applicants' improvements were considered unpermitted. Soon after, the City learned that the Haddads filed a lawsuit against the applicant and private litigation was pending between the two parties. While the litigation with their neighbor was pending, the applicant obtained City approvals to demolish and restore all improvements back to its original condition. After obtaining City approvals, the two parties settled, with the applicant acquiring an easement over portions of the Haddads' property, thereby agreeing to leave all improvements as is. More specifically, the recorded easement (attached) includes the right for the applicant to keep in place, maintain, construct, repair, and reconstruct existing structures and improvements over a portion of Haddads' property. The easement also includes the nonexclusive right to use, enjoy, maintain, landscape, traverse, and to have ingress to and egress in all areas up to the retaining wall. Given this unique situation, the easement area on the Haddads' property serves the same purpose of a setback by providing a buffer between the usable portions of the Haddads' and Davoodians' properties. Furthermore, the easement that has been granted has a similar affect as if the property line would have been moved further away from the Davoodians' residence. The circumstances in which this matter has been progressed and resolved by means of acquiring an easement over a portion of Haddads' property, which provides the buffer between properties, is extraordinary and is unique to this property and do not apply generally to other properties. B. Such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, which right is possessed by other property owners under like conditions in the same zoning district. In 2003, the applicant submitted a site plan depicting incorrect boundary locations on the project plans. Based on these plans, the City approved improvements which were constructed and finaled. These improvements legally remained on the applicants' property for a period of 6 years until the neighbor questioned the accuracy of the City approved plans. The neighbor's allegations were proven true and as a result, the City approvals were revoked and the improvements were considered unpermitted. After approximately 3 years of private litigation between the two neighbors, the once legal improvements which were made illegal, can remain legal again based on a recorded easement across a portion of Haddads' property as a result of a Settlement Agreement, provided that a variance is obtained for a reduced site yard setback for the garage. Given the circumstance between the two parties and the manner in which this issue was resolved by means of acquiring an easement over a portion of Haddads' property to leave all improvements as is and gaining a nonexclusive right by the applicant to use that portion of land, the variance for a reduced setback for the existing garage is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. C. Granting the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property and improvements in the area in which the property is located because the existing garage with the reduced setbacks were inspected for Code compliance and obtained building permit final by the Building & Safety Division in 2005 and it's not visible from adjacent properties or from the public streets; and the garage with its reduced setback is only readily visible and accessible by the applicant. P.C. Resolution No. 2015-08 Page 3 of 5 D. Granting the variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the general pan or the policies and requirements of the coastal specific plan. The General Plan includes the following goal, "It is the goal of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes to preserve and enhance the community's quality living environment; to enhance the visual character and physical quality of existing neighborhoods; and to encourage the development of housing in a manner which adequately serves the needs of all present and future residents of the community" In 2003, when the garage was originally approved, it was to replace an existing garage that was converted to habitable space for more living area for the applicants. Additionally, the reduced setback for the garage does not create any adverse impacts to the visual character or physical quality of the existing neighborhood, while it serves the need of the applicant because it cannot be seen from other properties. Therefore, granting a reduced side yard setback for a side façade of a garage will not be contrary to the objectives of the General Plan and the Coastal Specific Plan does not apply as the subject lot is not located within the coastal zone of the City. Section 3: Any interested person aggrieved by this decision or any portion of this decision may appeal to the City Council. The appeal shall set forth the grounds for appeal and any specific action being requested by the appellant. Any appeal letter must be filed within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of this decision, or by 5:30 PM on Wednesday, May 27, 2015. A $2,275.00 appeal fee must accompany any appeal letter. If no appeal is filed timely, the Planning Commission's decision will be final at 5:30 PM on May 27, 2015. Section 4: 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 a Variance to allow a garage to remain at a 2.23' reduced side yard setback at 30506 Palos Verdes Drive West (ZON2015-00144) and the reinstatement of Case Nos. ZON2003-00308, ZON2003- 00355, and BLD2003-00641. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 12th day of May 2015, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Cruikshank, Gerstner, James, Leon, Chairman Nelson NOES: None ABSTENTIONS: None RECUSALS: None ABSENT: Commissioners Emenhiser, Vice Chai . Tom► in Bob Nelson, Chairman Joel Rojas £i•- Commun. y D- elopme ' rector; and, Secretary - e Planning Commission P.C. Resolution No. 2015- Page 4 of 5 EXHIBIT 'A' CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR CASE NO. ZON2015-00144 30506 Palos Verdes Drive West 1. This variance approval allows for the legalization of a 2.23' reduced side yard setback to the garage at 30506 Palos Verdes Drive West (Z0N2015-00144) and the reinstatement of Case Nos. ZON2003-00308, ZON2003-00355, and BLD2003-00641. 2. 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 within ninety (90) days following the date of this approval shall render this approval null and void. 3. Approval of this permit shall not be construed as a waiver of applicable and appropriate zoning regulations, or any Federal, State, County and/or City laws and regulations. Unless otherwise expressly specified, all other requirements of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code shall apply. 4. The Community Development Director 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 by the final body that approved the original project, which may require new and separate environmental review. 5. Failure to comply with and adhere to all of these conditions of approval may be cause to revoke the approval of the project pursuant to the revocation procedures contained in Section 17.86.060 of the City's Municipal Code. 6. 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. 7. This approval is only for the items described within these conditions and identified on the stamped APPROVED plans and is not an approval of any existing illegal or legal non- conforming structures on the property, unless the approval of such illegal or legal non- conforming structure is specifically identified within these conditions or on the stamped APPROVED plans. P.C. Resolution No. 2015-08 Page 5 of 5