|Back To Agenda||Print Page|
P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2007-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES APPROVING A VARIANCE, HEIGHT VARIATION AND SITE PLAN REVIEW (ZON2006-00549) TO CONSTUCT A 461.5FT² SINGLE-STORY ADDITION TO THE REAR YARD WITH A 3.25’ SIDE YARD SETBACK, LOCATED AT 2049 JAYBROOK DRIVE.
WHEREAS, on October 16, 2006, the applicant submitted an application for a Variance, Height Variation and Site Plan Review (Case No. ZON2006-00549), a request to construct an 461.5ft² single-story addition and 354ft² patio/deck extension to the rear with a 3.25’ side yard setback.
WHEREAS, on May 7, 2007, the applications for Variance, Height Variation and Site Plan Review 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 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), Staff found no evidence that the Variance, Height Variation and Site Plan Review, will have a significant effect on the environment and, therefore, the proposed project has been found to be categorically exempt under Class 1 (Section 15301); and,
WHEREAS, after noticed issued on May 7, 2007 pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on June 12, 2007, 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: That the approved project includes the construction of 461.5ft² single-story addition and a 354ft² patio/deck extension to the rear with a 3.25’ side yard (east) setback and a covered porch in the front of an existing single-story residence. The proposed structure height is 16.25’, as measured from the pre-construction grade at the highest elevation of the existing building pad area covered by the structure to the ridgeline; and 25.9’, as measured from the point where the lowest foundation meets finished grade, to the ridgeline.
Section 2: That the Variance is warranted because there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstance/condition applicable to the property involved, which do not apply generally to other property in the same zoning district. The applicant is proposing to place the addition over an existing deck and flush with the existing residence, which currently has a side (east) setback of 3’-3”. The subject property along with others on Jaybrook Drive were originally constructed with lesser setbacks than what the current Development Code requires. In fact, it is estimated that nearly a third of the properties within the immediate neighborhood have non-conforming setbacks, which is generally not the case with other properties in the same RS-4 zoning district. Furthermore, requiring the addition to be built to the required 5’ setback would create an awkward design given that the existing structure has a non-conforming side yard setback.
Section 4: That the Variance is warranted because it will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property/improvements in the area in which the property is located. The side setback will remain 3’-3”, with the only difference being that the existing deck will be replaced by a structure. The current residence as well as the deck has a side yard setback of 3’-3”. If the addition were designed in a manner that complies with the 5’ side yard setback, the side façade of the home will not be flush; instead it will be offset, resulting in an awkward design. Additionally, the proposed addition is located in the rear yard of the property which would not be visible from the public right-of-way. Furthermore, if approved, Building permits will be required to address geology or building related issues with the proposed project.
Section 5: That the Variance is warranted because it will not be contrary to the objectives of the general plan/policies and requirements of the coastal plan. The proposed project is maintaining the existing setback, while improving the quality of the existing residence by enlarging and remodeling which is consistent with the General Plan’s policy to “Encourage and assist in the maintenance and improvement of all existing residential neighborhoods so as to maintain optimum local standards of housing quality and design.”
Section 6: That the Height Variation is warranted because the applicant has complied with the early neighbor consultation process established by the city. The applicant collected a total of 47 (39%) landowner signatures within the 500’ radius, of which 14 (93%) are within the 100’ radius. The applicant also submitted a letter from Mira Vista Homeowners Association with a positive response in regards to the proposed project, which is sufficient proof that the local home owner’s association was notified.
Section 7: That the Height Variation is warranted because the addition to an existing structure that is above 16’ in height 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. There is no public property near the subject parcel which is designated as city-designated viewing area per the General Plan or Coastal Specific Plan.
Section 8: That the Height Variation is warranted because the proposed new structure is not located on a ridge or a promontory. The subject property is located within a fully developed single-family residential tract.
Section 9: That the Height Variation is warranted because the area of a proposed addition to an existing structure that is above 16’ in height, when considered exclusive of existing foliage, does not significantly impair a view from the viewing area of another parcel. Views in the area are generally of the city lights in the northerly direction. The properties located to the south of the subject lot are at the same building pad elevation level and they do not have a view that would be affected by the proposed project. The properties to the north are located significantly lower than the subject property and thus are not impacted by the proposed project. The existing structure footprints of the abutting neighbors to the east and west extend out further than the proposed addition; and therefore, the view is not affected by the new addition.
Section 11: That the Height Variation is warranted because the proposed structure complies with all other code requirements, but not limited to lot coverage and height with exception to enclosed parking space and side yard setback. The constructed residence contains two non-conformities. The existing residence does not have a garage, since a conversion of a garage to a habitable space and a construction of a carport as a replacement was been permitted through Los Angeles County. Additionally, the structure has been built with a 3’-3” side yard setback, where a 5’ setback is required. Because the applicant is not proposing to demolish 50% or more of the existing (interior & exterior) walls, the noon-conformities may remain. Furthermore, the maximum height of the addition (25.9’) can be permitted through an approval of a Height Variation.
Section 12: That the Height Variation is warranted because the proposed structure is compatible with the immediate neighborhood character. The resulting structure size is well below the average structure size and within the scale of the immediate neighborhood. The changes in design and material are consistent with the existing neighboring California Ranch architectural style residences, easily blending in with the immediate neighborhood. The setbacks and open space are also consistent with comparable parcels in the area.
Section 13: That the Height Variation is warranted because the proposed new structure that is above 16’ in height or addition to an existing structure that is above 16’ in height does not result in an unreasonable infringement of the privacy of the occupants of abutting residences. The proposed building footprint would not go beyond the existing building footprint of the abutting neighbors. Additionally, the proposed addition is to be located on the existing rear deck which already affords the subject residents a small view of the east neighbors’ side/rear yard. As such, there is no further infringement of the privacy of the occupants than what currently exists.
Section 14: 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, June 27, 2007. A $1,222.00 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 June 27, 2007.
Section 15: For the foregoing reasons and based on the information and findings included in the Staff Report, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby approves the Variance, Height Variation and Site Plan Review to allow the construction of an 461.5ft² single-story addition to the rear with a 3.25’ side yard (east) setback and a covered porch in the front of single-story residence (Case No. ZON2006-00549); 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 12th day of June 2007, by the following vote: