coastal permit, grading permit & site plan review (case no ...
C~OF
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
MEMORANDUM TO:
CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM:
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR~\~~
DATE:
SEPTEMBER 11, 2012
SUBJECT:
COASTAL PERMIT, GRADING PERMIT & SITE PLAN REVIEW (CASE NO. ZON2012-00141); PROJECT ADDRESS: 3344 PALSO VERDES DRIVE WEST; APPLICANT: KHOSLA
Staff Coordinator: Leza Mikhail, Associate Planner RECOMMENDATION 1) Review Staff's additional analysis and the applicant's revised design to determine whether the modifications and additional information address the Commission's concerns with the proposed project; and 2) If the Commission's concerns have been addressed then close the public hearing, approve the subject application (Case No. ZON2012-00141), and direct Staff to return to the next meeting with a Resolution for approval for the Commission's consideration and adoption. BACKGROUND On August 14, 2012, the Planning Commission considered the above-referenced case for a new single-family residence on a vacant lot located in the City's Coastal Zone. Staff's recommendation at the time was to open the public hearing, discuss the merits of the project, and direct the applicant to slightly redesign the project. As noted in the August 14, 2012 Staff Report (attached), Staff felt that the mandatory findings for the Coastal Permit could be made if the ridgeline of the residence was reduced by 1'-9", to the height that was previously approved by the Planning Commission (elevation 275.75'). Additionally, Staff felt that the quantity of grading in the rear yard was excessive and could be reduced through a slight redesign of the project. After hearing the public testimony and discussing the various aspects of the project, the Planning Commission questioned the merits of reducing the ridgeline by 1'-9" and how the grading quantity would be affected by said reduction. Additionally, the Planning
1
Site Plan Review, Grading Permit & Coastal Permit Planning Case No. ZON2012-00141 Page 2
Commission requested further clarification on Staff's position on the overall quantity of grading within the rear yard, and asked the applicant to provide Staff with an opinion of what quantity of grading would be required to completely lower the ridgeline of the residence to the top of the existing curb along the southbound lanes of Palos Verdes Drive West (elevation of 268.0'). After identifying these concerns, the Planning Commission continued the public hearing to September 11, 2012. DISSCUSSION
In response to the concerns identified by Staff in the August 14, 2012 Planning Commission Staff Report, on September 4,2012, after discussing revisions with the home owner, the applicant provided Staff with a revised project design. Below, Staff has provided a discussion of the Planning Commissions comments and the revised project that was submitted by the applicant. Analvsis of Potential Ridgeline Reduction
As noted in the August 14, 2012 Staff Report, the subject property is located within Subregion 1 of the Coastal Specific Plan (CSP), however is not located within a specific visual corridor. The CSP provides a guideline for properties not located within a visual corridor by noting that proposed buildings should not project into a zone measured 2° down-arc from a horizontal plane, as measured from a "viewing station." As discussed in the August 14th report, the residence would not meet this guideline with a ridgeline elevation of 277.45'. However, Staff had noted that the Planning Commission previously approved a residence on this property at a maximum 275.75' ridgeline elevation. Taking into consideration the previous decision, Staff recommended that the Planning Commission direct the applicant to reduce the ridgeline of the residence to the previously approved height. While discussing the merits of reducing the ridgeline elevation from 277.45' to 275.75' (1 '9" reduction), the Planning Commission questioned whether requiring the applicant to reduce the ridgeline would increase any ocean views as seen from Palos Verdes Drive West. As such, the Planning Commission directed Staff to analyze the benefits of reducing the ridge line by 1'-9". In order to conduct this analysis, the applicant volunteered to provide a red-colored string of flags on the existing silhouette to depict a difference in ridgeline elevations between 277.45' and 275.75'. After the flags were installed, Staff observed the different ridgeline elevations as seen from PVDW, northbound and southbound. Ultimately, Staff determined that a reduction in the ridgeline by 1'-9" does not create a discernable gain in ocean view from northbound or southbound PVDW. In light of this additional research, Staff opines that a residence at an elevation of either 277.45' or 275.75' would not make a difference in terms of ocean views as seen from Palos Verdes Drive West. Furthermore, the Development Code requires the height of a downsloping lot to be 16'-0" as measured from the average elevation of the setback line
2
Site Plan Review, Grading Permit & Coastal Permit Planning Case No. ZON2012-00141 Page 3
(263.0'), which would allow a residence to be constructed "by-right" with a ridgeline of 279.0'. Due to the fact that the residence would be slightly lower than the height of a similar residence that could be built "by-right" in the same location, and requiring the applicant to reduce the ridgeline to 275.75' would not create a benefit to the community in terms of ocean views from PVDW, Staff would recommend that the Planning Commission approve the revised project with a ridge elevation of 276.73'. Applicant's Redesigned Project and Further Grading Analysis
Notwithstanding the fact that a reduction of the ridgeline to 275.75' would not create a noticeable increase in ocean views from PVDW, the applicant decided to slightly relocate and redesign the residence to address some of Staff's previous comments. After discussing potential modifications that would not impact the neighbor to the south, the applicant decided to increase the front yard setback by 10'-0". In addition, the applicant reduced the plate height of the upper floor level, resulting in a ridgeline reduction from 277.45' to 276.73'. As a result of relocating the residence further back on the property, the square footage of the residence was reduced by 127 square feet and the overall grading quantity was reduced by 772 cubic yards. In analyzing the revised design, Staff is of the opinion that the increased setback, ridgeline reduction and square footage reduction would not create any new impacts. As noted in the August 14 th Staff Report, Staff was able to support the 2,512 cubic yards grading related to the construction of the residence, driveway and nominal amount of grading in the front yard area. As a result of the redesigned residence proposed by the applicant, the overall grading quantity in these areas has been reduced by 237 cubic yards (2,275 cubic yards proposed) and Staff can still support the grading in these areas. Previously, Staff had a concern with the overall quantity of grading (1,450 cubic yards) proposed to create a level rear yard area. Although Staff was able to make the findings for the retaining walls associated with the rear yard grading, Staff felt that the grading quantity was extensive and could be further reduced. In order to reduce the overall rear yard grading, the applicant moved the structure 10' to the west, thereby reducing the overall square footage of the rear yard. In addition, the applicant reduced the depth of cut in the rear yard by 6 inches and reduced the depth of fill by 1'-0". As a result of these changes, the overall quantity of fill in the rear yard was reduced from 148 cubic yards to 104 cubic yards, and the overall quantity of cut was reduced from 1,302 cubic yards to 827 cubic yards. Additionally, the associated garden walls surrounding the rear yard follow the natural contours, with the exception of one small area where a retaining wall was reduced from 4'6" to 3'-6". By reducing the yard area and depths of grading, the revised grading now minimizes disturbances to the natural contours, and would not exceed that which is necessary for the primary use of the lot. As such, based on the revised design of the residence and grading, Staff can support the project in its entirety. Grading Quantity Associated with reducing the Ridgeline to the Curb Elevation
At the August 14th public hearing, there was a request by a neighbor to require the applicant to reduce the overall ridgeline to the elevation of the adjacent curb (elevation
3
Site Plan Review, Grading Permit & Coastal Permit Planning Case No. ZON2012-00141 Page 4
268.0'). As the discussion ensued, the Planning Commission questioned whether requiring the applicant to reduce the ridgeline from 277.75' to 268.0' would render the proposed project infeasible. The Planning Commission did not direct the applicant to redesign the project to lower the ridgeline to an elevation of 268.0', but questioned how much grading would be involved in such a request. The Planning Commission asked the applicant to estimate any increase in the quantity of grading that would result from lowering the proposed home by over 9 feet. In speaking with the applicant, the additional grading beneath the home would increase by 3,456 cubic yards, not including any other grading outside of the residence footprint, and would not be feasible to construct. Additionally, Staff is of the opinion that an increase in grading by this amount, on top of what is already proposed (3,206 cubic yards), would not meet the grading criterion and would be considered excessive grading. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Additional Landscaping Requirement During the August 14th public hearing, Commissioner Tomblin requested that Staff research the landscaping requirements of Oceanfront Estates to determine if any landscaping requirements from the residential tract could be applied to the proposed development. Staff found the following conditions of approval related to landscaping heights at Oceanfront Estates: •
The shrubs and foliage along Palos Verdes Drive West shall be maintained so as not to exceed one foot (1'-0") in height.
•
All landscaping (including parkway trees) shall be selected and maintained so that no trees or group of trees obstructs views from the public right-of-way or adjacent properties consistent with the City Council policy regarding street trees.
•
Landscaping within all open space areas shall be planted in such a manner so that views from adjacent properties and any public right-of-way are not affected and so that solar access to all dwelling units is protected.
It is important to note that the abovementioned conditions of approval were imposed on the areas outside of the residential lots (common area) as part of the creation and approval of a residential tract under a Planned Residential Development (RPD). When applying for a new subdivision through an RPD, the City may impose specific development standards that are applicable to that specific tract and are different than the requirements of the City's Development Code. The subject property that is part of this public hearing is a single-family residential lot that does not belong to the Oceanfront Estates RPD and is not subject to the abovementioned landscaping conditions. The property that is part of this application is subject to the requirements and rights of the City's Development Code, which allows all property owners to install hedges in their front yard up to a maximum height of 42" (30" in an intersection visibility triangle). As such, the Planning Commission is not able to restrict the front yard hedges close to PVDW beyond what the Development Code allows the
4
Site Plan Review, Grading Permit & Coastal Permit Planning Case No. ZON2012-00141 Page 5
property owner "by-right." It is important to note, however that the both the subject lot and the residential lots in Oceanfront Estates are both subject to Proposition M which restricts the height oftrees on residential lots. More specifically, Proposition M restricts trees to 16'0" or the top of the ridgeline of the primary home, whichever is lower. The proposed project is subject Chapter 15.34 of the RPV Municipal Code and will be required to submit a Water Efficient Landscape Plan to be reviewed and approved by the Director prior to issuance of a Building Permit. At that time, Staff will ensure that all proposed trees can thrive at heights limited by Proposition M. CONCLUSION
Based on the above analysis and the applicant's revised project, Staff is able to support the applicant's request for a Site Plan Review, Grading Permit and Coastal Permit (Case No. ZON2012-00141). The revised project would reduce the grading quantities by 722 cubic yards, increase the front yard setback by 10'-0" and reduce the overall ridgeline of the residence from 277.45' to 276.73'. Furthermore, it is Staff's opinion that requiring the applicant to grade down to an elevation of 268.0' would create a need for an extensive amount of grading that could not be supported by Staff. Therefore, Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review the modifications and additional information submitted by the applicant to determine if the additional information addresses the Commission's concerns, approve the project and direct Staff to bring the appropriate Resolution to the September 25,2012 Planning Commission meeting. ALTERNATIVES
The following alternatives are available for the Planning Commission to consider: 1.
Identify any additional issues of concern with the proposed project, provide Staff and/or the applicant with direction in modifying the project, and continue the public hearing to a date certain.
2.
Deny, without prejudice, the Site Plan Review, Grading Permit and Coastal Permit (Case No. ZON2012-00141) and direct Staff to return to the next meeting with the appropriate Resolution.
Attachments:
• • •
August 14, 2012 P.C. Staff Report o Correspondence Letters August 14, 2012 Late Correspondence Revised Project Plans
5
P.C. Staff Report (August 14, 2012)
6
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT TO:
CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMIS~N
!,
-j--
FROM:
COMMUNITY DEVELO DIRECTOR
DATE:
AUGUST 14, 2012
SUBJECT:
COASTAL PERMIT, GRADING PERMIT & SITE PLAN REVIEW (CASE NO. ZON2012-00141)
PROJECT ADDRESS:
I
--t
E T
3344 PALOS VERDES DRIVE WEST
APPLICANT:
TOMARO ARCHITECTURE 2617 N. SEPULVEDA BLVD. MANHATTAN BEACH, CA 90216
LANDOWNER:
RAVI KHOSLA
,
~
STAFF LEZA MIKHAIL COORDINATOR: ASSOCIATE PLANN~V~ THOMAS GUIDE PAGE 822/F-2 REQUESTED ACTION:
RECOMMENDATION:
A REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT A NEW 10,509 SQUARE FOOT, TWO-STORY RESIDENCE WITH A 1,027 SQUARE FOOT GARAGE ON A 43,484 SQUARE FOOT DOWNSLOPING VACANT LOT. THE PROJECT ALSO INCLUDES A TOTAL OF 3,680 CUBIC YARDS OF CUT, 298 CUBIC YARDS OF FILL, AND FOUR (4) ASSOCIATED RETAINING WALLS. OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING, DISCUSS THE MERITS OF THE PROJECT, DIRECT THE APPLICANT TO REDESIGN THE PROJECT TO REDUCE THE OVERALL RIDGELINE OF THE RESIDENCE TO 275.75' AND REAR YARD GRADING, AND CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO SEPTEMBER 11, 2012.
REFERENCES: ZONING:
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL - RS-1
LAND USE:
SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
CODE SECTIONS:
17.02,17.48,17.72, & 17.76
GENERAL PLAN:
RESIDENTIAL~
1 DUiACRE
7
PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 14,2012 PAGE 2
~TAFF
REPORT - (CASE NO. ZON2012-00141)
TRAILS PLAN:
CHRISTMAS TREE COVE SEGMENT (CATEGORY III)
SPECIFIC PLAN:
COASTAL (SUBREGION 1)
CEQA:
CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 1)
ACTION DEADLINE:
SEPTEMBER 7, 2012
PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS RESIDING WITHIN 500' OF SUBJECT PROPERTY: NONE
BACKGROUND
In January 1999, the Planning Commission approved Variance No. 437, Coastal Permit No. 148 and Grading Permit No. 2051, thereby approving a 9,697 square foot singlestory residence with a maximum ridgeline of 275.75', and 354 cubic yards of grading. The project was revised from the originally designed 16,082 square foot residence with a maximum ridgeline of 281.33' and 4,320 cubic yards of grading. The approved residence was never constructed. On April 24, 2012, the applicant submitted a Coastal Permit, Grading Permit and Site Plan Review application to the Community Development Department for review and processing. The applicant is requesting approval to construct a two-story residence on a downsloping, vacant lot located at 3344 Palos Verdes Drive West. On May 14, 2012, Staff completed the initial review of the application, at which time the application was deemed incomplete due to missing information on the project plans. The applicant submitted revisions on June 18, 2012 and June 28, 2012. After a site inspection of the silhouette, Staff deemed the application complete on July 9, 2012. On July 9, 2012, Staff mailed notices to 56 property owners within a 500-foot radius from the subject property, providing a 15-day time period for the submittal of comments and concerns. In addition, a Public Notice was published in the Peninsula News on July 12, 2012. Staff received two (2) comment letters (attached) in support of the proposed project from the property owners located at 3400 Palos Verdes Drive West and 3333 Palos Verdes Drive West. SITE DESCRIPTION
The subject lot is a 43,546 square foot vacant lot located on the seaward side of Palos Verdes Drive West, adjacent to the Lunada Pointe community, in the RS-1 zoning district. The lot was created prior to the City's incorporation and is considered a downsloping lot which allows a residence to be constructed within a 16'/30' building height envelope "by-right." The site is surrounded by existing single-family residences to the east, west and south, and an open space common area owned and maintained by the Lunada Pointe community.
8
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (CASE NO. ZON2012-00141) AUGUST 14, 2012 PAGE 3
PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant is proposing to construct a 10,509 square foot two-story residence with a 1,027 square foot garage, new pool and other minor ancillary improvements throughout the property. The new residence would be located on a downsloping, vacant lot and would maintain all required setbacks for City created lots. When combined, the footprint of the new residence and garage (8,137 square feet), covered entry (100 square feet), and driveway/parking area (2,616 square feet) would yield a total lot coverage of 10,853 square feet, or 24.9% of the 43,546 square foot lot. Given the fact that the property is a downsloping lot, the applicant is permitted to construct a home within a 16'/30' building height envelope. As designed, the residence will have a maximum height of 24'-6)1,", as measured from the lowest grade adjacent to the building foundation/slab (elev. 252.86') to the highest ridgeline of the residence (elev. 277.45'), and 14'-5Yz", as measured from the average elevation of the setback line abutting the street (avg. elev. 263.0') to the highest ridgeline of the residence (elev. 277.45'). As required by the Development Code, the proposed residence has provided an 8-foot step within the footprint of the residence, between the first floor level and the second floor level. The project proposes 3,978 cubic yards of grading (3,680 cubic yards of cut and 298 cubic yards of fill). Specifically, 1,531 cubic yards of excavation is proposed beneath the residence. The remaining excavation (2,149 cubic yards) and fill (298 cubic yards) is proposed throughout the remaining portions of the property to accommodate a new driveway, and level front and rear yard areas. The grading would also accommodate a 4'-6" tall downslope retaining wall in the rear yard, a 5'-0" upslope retaining wall adjacent to the proposed driveway, a 3'-6" tall upslope retaining wall to accommodate the landscaped front courtyard and walkways to access the residence, and a 5'-0" tall upslope retaining wall along the south side of the property. Table 1: Project Statistics: EXISTING RESIDENCE 43,546
RESIDENCE WITH ADDITION
Lot Size
CODE REQUIREMENT 20,000 s.f.
Structure Size
N/A
vacant
11,536 s.f.
Setbacks Front: 1Sl floor Side (north) Side (south) Rear
20'-0" 5'_on 5'_on 15'-0"
N/A N/A N/A N/A
42'-0"
Lot Coveraqe (%)
25%
N/A
24.9%
CRITERIA
No change
25'-0" to residence 10'-9" 92'-0"
9
PLANNING COMMISSION :sTAFF REPORT - (CASE NO. ZON2012-00141) AUGUST 14, 2012 PAGE 4
CRITERIA (square feet)
CODE REQUIREMENT (10,886.5 s.f.)
EXISTING RESIDENCE
RESIDENCE WITH ADDITION (10,853 s.f.)
Enclosed Parkinq Outdoor Parkinq
3 spaces 3 spaces
N/A N/A
4 spaces 3+ spaces
16'
N/A
14'-5%"
30'
N/A
24'-6%"
Structure Heiqht Average elevation of the front yard setback line to the highest ridgeline. Lowest grade adjacent to the building foundation/slab.
CODE CONSIDERATION AND ANALYSIS Site Plan Review As described in Table 1 under the Project Description section of this report, Staff has determined that the proposed 10,509 square foot new residence, 1,027 square foot garage, pool/spa and other ancillary improvements within the rear yard (trellis, firepit, BBQ, covered entry structure) would comply with the required residential setback standards, lot coverage and the maximum allowable heights as presented in the Development Code for the RS-1 zone. Specifically, the new residence has been designed to provide larger setbacks that far-exceed the minimum required 20-foot front yard setback, 5-foot side yard setbacks and 15-foot rear yard setback. Further, the main residence would not exceed the 16'/30' "by right" building envelope and will meet the maximum allowable lot coverage of 25% (24.9% proposed). As the project meets all the required development standards for a single-family residence on a downsloping residential lot, provided the Planning Commission finds the new residence to be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood as discussed under Grading Criterion NO.5 below, Staff would recommend approval of the Site Plan Review. Grading Permit In order to approve the Grading Permit, the Planning Commission must determine that the request meets all nine criteria as set forth in Municipal Code Section No. 17.76.040. These criteria are listed below in bold type, with staff's analysis of each criterion in normal type. 1. The grading does not exceed that which is necessary for the permitted primary use of the lot, as defined in Chapter 17.96 of the Municipal Code.
10
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (CASE NO. ZON2012-00141) AUGUST 14, 2012 PAGES
Municipal Code Section No. 17.96 defines the permitted primary use in the RS-1 zone as single-family residential. Staff believes that the proposed grading related to the construction of the residence is necessary to accommodate the proposed residence on the vacant lot in the most ideal location to minimize impacts to adjacent neighbors to the south (3400 Palos Verdes Drive West) and directly across the street (3333 Palos Verdes Drive West). The applicant explored different designs and locations of the proposed residence by working with neighbors. The proposed location of the home was the most desired as it would avoid potential view impacts from the neighbor located to the south and would appear as a single-story residence from the street. As a result, a considerable amount of grading is being proposed because the residence will be sited closer to the street where the slope of the lot is steeper and adequate driveway access will be required. A total of 2,344 cubic yards of grading is necessary to accommodate the residence at its proposed location and vehicular access to the garage. More specifically, the applicant is excavating 1,531 cubic yards beneath the entirety of the new residence to lower the finished floor area of the residence and provide the required 8-foot step on downsloping homes. Outside of the residence footprint, but related to the construction of the residence, 813 cubic yards of grading (cut and fill) is necessary for the construction of a driveway. In addition to the construction related to the development of the residence, 1,618 cubic yards of grading is proposed for the construction of flat front and rear yard areas. Given that the grading proposed within the front yard is minimal (168 cubic yards), Staff is able to support the front yard grading. However, Staff is unable to support the 1,450 cubic yards of grading proposed to create an extensive level rear yard area. Although it appears that a majority of the nearby lots utilize excavation and retaining walls to accommodate a home and useable rear yard area, Staff believes that given the size of the proposed level yard area, the quantity of grading needed to create the rear yard is excessive and not necessary for the primary use of the lot. Staff discussed this concern with the applicant who noted that they would be amendable to redesigning the landscaping in the rear yard to limit the quantity of grading outside of the construction of the home. Therefore, Staff is of the opinion that the proposed grading does not exceed that which is necessary for the permitted primary use of the lot for the construction of the residence, but that the grading within the rear yard is excessive and should be reduced. As such, as currently designed, this criterion can be met. 2. The proposed grading and/or related construction does not significantly adversely affect the visual relationships with nor the views from the viewing area of neighboring properties. In cases where grading is proposed for a new residence or an addition to an existing residence, this finding shall be satisfied when the proposed grading results in a lower finished grade under the building footprint such that the height of the proposed structure, as measured pursuant to Section 17.02.040(8), is lower than a structure that
11
PLANNING COMMISSION ",TAFF REPORT - (CASE NO. ZON2012-00141) AUGUST 14, 2012 PAGE 6
could have been built in the same location on the lot if measured from preconstruction (existing grade). A total of four (4) retaining walls are proposed around the property. Three (3) of the retaining walls will be upslope retaining walls and will not be easily visible from other properties or the public right-of-way. A fourth retaining wall will be 4'-6" in height at the rear of the property. Although Staff would consider the height of the retaining walls to be minimal in terms of visual impacts, a condition of approval has been added to provide landscaping along the west side of the wall to adequately screen the appearance of the retaining wall residences within the Lunada Point community. The Development Code requires the height of a downsloping lot to be 16'-0" as measured from the average elevation of the setback line. The average elevation of the setback line is 263.0'. This would allow a residence to be constructed "by-right" with a ridgeline of 279.0'. The applicant is proposing to lower a majority of the finished grade beneath the residence, thereby resulting in a home that is 14'-5W' tall with a maximum ridgeline of 277.45'. As such, the height of the residence will be slightly lower than the height of a similar residence that could have been built "byright" in the same location. Thus, this criterion can be met. 3. The nature of the grading minimizes disturbances to the natural contours and finished contours are reasonably natural. The majority of the applicant's requested grading is for excavation to accommodate the new residence, driveway and useable rear yard area. The applicant is also proposing to construct four retaining walls: 1) a 4'-6" tall downslope retaining wall in the rear yard, 2) a 5'-0" upslope retaining wall adjacent to the proposed driveway, 3) a 3'-6" tall upslope retaining wall to accommodate the landscaped front courtyard, and 4) a 5'-0" tall upslope retaining wall along the south side of the property. Any disturbances to the existing contours are relatively minor and are necessary to allow for construction of a new residence and vehicular access. Outside of the grading required for the construction of the residence, the contours of the driveway, front yard and rear yard will generally follow the existing contours found on the property. More specifically, the majority of the driveway will be graded to follow the existing contours with the exception of the last 1/3 of the driveway providing access to the garage. The majority of the rear yard has a slight slope. In order to create a flat yard area, the applicant is proposing to grade the rear yard whereby the proposed retaining walls will generally follow the existing contours with the exception of a small area north and south of the pool where a small 4'-6" tall downslope retaining wall is proposed. Although Staff does not have a concern with the height of the proposed retaining walls as the majority of the naturally sloping rear yard area would be graded to be level, Staff believes that this finding cannot be made for the entirety of the proposed grading. As such, this criterion cannot be met. 4. The grading takes into account the preservation of natural topographical features and appearances by means of land sculpturing so as to blend any man-made or manufactured slope into natural topography.
12
PLANNING COMMISSION", TAFF REPORT - (CASE NO. ZON2012-00141) AUGUST 14, 2012 PAGE 7
As noted previously, the majority of the proposed grading will accommodate a new single-family residence, driveway and usable rear yard area. Four (4) retaining walls are proposed around all sides of the residence and yard area. The grade elevations and natural topographical contours surrounding the retaining walls will be maintained to blend the appearance of the new improvements. The only proposed man-made slope is located adjacent to the semi-circular driveway. There is an existing extreme slope (greater than 35%) that will be re-contoured to accommodate the new driveway and slope surrounding the driveway. The new contours will continue to follow the natural appearance of the existing sloping lot. As such, Staff feels that this criterion has been met. 5. For new single-family residences, the grading and/or related construction is compatible with the immediate neighborhood character, as defined in Chapter
17.02. Municipal Code Section 17.02.030(8)(1)(a) requires a Neighborhood Compatibility analysis whenever a new residence is proposed to be developed on a vacant lot. As such, a Neighborhood Compatibility analysis was completed. The Municipal Code defines neighborhood character to include: a) the scale of surrounding residences, b) architectural styles and materials of the surrounding area, and c) the front, side, and rear yard setbacks. Pursuant to RPVDC Section 17.02.040(A)(6), "neighborhood character" is defined as encompassing the following three project characteristics (RPVDC language is boldface, followed by Staffs analysis in normal type): a.
Scale of surrounding residences, including total square footage and lot coverage of the residence and all ancillary structures.
Compatibility with neighborhood character is based on a comparison to the other structures in the immediate neighborhood, which is comprised of the twenty (20) nearest properties. The table below summarizes the properties and structures that comprise the immediate neighborhood, which serve as the basis for the neighborhood compatibility analysis. Table 2: Neighborhood Compatibility and Analysis Matrix
ADDRESS 3400 Palos Verdes Drive West 3300 Palos Verdes Drive West 30319 Palos Verdes Drive West 30335 Palos Verdes Drive West 6 Marouerite Drive 7 Marauerite Drive
LOT SIZE
STRUCTURE SIZE
44,188 48,684 43,760 46,448 50,565 87,126
5,005" 12,819" 3,654 6,653 11,318 8,760
NUMBER OF STORIES 1 2 1 2 2 2
13
PLANNING COMMISSION:> fAFF REPORT - (CASE NO. ZON2012-00141) AUGUST 14,2012 PAGE 8
24 57 63 67 71 75 79 83 73 77 85 89 93 97
Marauerite Drive Marauerite Drive Marauerite Drive Marauerite Drive Marauerite Drive Marauerite Drive Marnuerite Drive Marnuerite Drive Laurel Drive Laurel Drive Laurel Drive Laurel Drive Laurel Drive Laurel Drive
Averaae 3344 Palos Verdes Drive West
41,353 43,899 43,642 43,658 55,080 58,185 50,310 46,664 26,981 22,207 21,456 20,613 20,395 29,557
8,853* 5,350 8,478 7,364 6,936 6,678 7,039 7,097* 7,100 10,360 9,100 7,826 5,624 7,664
42,238
7,494
Existina Proposed
43,546
1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2
0
vacant
11,536
2
* The square footage for lhis residential property was documented from Assessor's information as there was no information available in the building permit file in the Community Development Department. A 360 square foot garage was assigned to residences under 5,000 square feet in livable area and a 540 square foot garage was assigned to residences above 5,000 square feet in livable area.
As noted in the table above, the homes in the neighborhood range in size from 3,654 square feet to 12,819 square feet, with the average home size being 7,494 square feet (habitable plus non-habitable square footage). While the square footage of the proposed new residence is considerably larger than the average of the 20 closest homes, the square footage of the new residence (11,536 square feet) will not exceed the largest existing home (12,819 square feet) and will be just above the second largest home in the neighborhood (11,318 square feet). Therefore, although large, Staff is of the opinion that the new residence is within the range of neighboring residences, therefore keeping with the character, style and setting of the neighborhood.
b.
Architectural styles, including facade treatments, structure height, open space between structures, roof design, the apparent bulk or mass of the structure, number of stories, and building materials.
The bulk and mass of the proposed improvements would not be significant, due to the single-story configuration of the proposed home as seen from Palos Verdes Drive West and a typical two-story elevation as seen from the east side Marguerite Drive. As such, the orientation, configuration and scale of the new home would be in-line with the other residences in the neighborhood. Furthermore, the architectural styles of homes found in the immediate neighborhood, especially along Marguerite
14
PLANNING COMMISSION;:, rAFF REPORT - (CASE NO. ZON2012-00141) AUGUST 14, 2012 PAGE 9
Drive, are eclectic. Although the neighborhood does not reflect one consistent architectural type/style, Staff feels the proposed architecture and materials proposed would be consistent with the existing character of the immediate neighborhood. For example, the applicant is proposing to utilize Spanish-mission clay tile as the roof material and a smooth stucco finish across the structure fagade. The applicant has also included a number of architectural accents in order to break up the appearance of the bulk and mass of the new structure. More specifically, The residence was designed with multiple roof lines, undulating facades, arches, balconies, wrought iron balustrades, decorative clay tiles and first and second story accent molding. The majority of the homes in the neighborhood also display clay roof materials and stucco siding with various accents to break up the appearance of bulk and mass. c.
Front-, side-, and rear-yard setbacks.
As noted above, the proposed residence will provide large setbacks from the front, sides and rear property lines and would therefore maintain the integrity of setbacks observed throughout the surrounding neighborhood. Based on the above analysis, Staff concludes that the construction of a new 10,509 square foot residence with a 1,027 square foot garage would produce a residence that is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. 6. 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 the visual effects of grading and construction on hillsides areas. This proposal is not a new residential tract; therefore, this criterion does not apply. 7. The grading utilizes street designs and improvements, which serve to minimize grading alternatives and harmonize with the natural contours and character of the hillside. This proposal does not include any grading for streets or other public improvements, therefore, this criterion does not apply. 8. The grading would not cause excessive and unnecessary disturbance of the natural landscape or wildlife habitat through removal of vegetation. Natural landscape is usually considered wild flowers, low coastal sage scrub, chaparral, and grasslands. Based on the City's NCCP vegetation maps, there is no evidence of natural landscape or sensitive wildlife habitat on the subject property, which is a developed lot in a single-family residential neighborhood. As such, the proposed project would not result in excessive or unnecessary removal of sensitive vegetation.
15
PLANNING COMMISSION :sTAFF REPORT - (CASE NO. ZON2012-00141) AUGUST 14, 2012 PAGE 10
9. Grading conforms to the standards for grading on slopes, height of cut and fill, and height of retaining walls. Grading on slopes equal to or exceeding 35% Grading on slopes equal to or exceeding 35% shall be allowed on recorded and legally subdived lots existing as of November 25, 1975, which are not currently zoned open space/hazard. With the exception of a small portion of grading associated with the new driveway, a majority of the grading will not be conducted on an extreme slope. The subject property was legally subdivided prior to November 25, 1975. As such, the proposed grading (cut and fill) is permitted and meets this criterion. Finished slope contours The Municipal Code limits the contours of finished slopes to no greater than 35%. The proposed grading will not significantly alter the contours of the lot. No finished slopes that exceed 35% will be created. In fact, the applicant is re-contouring a small portion of the lot, adjacent to the new driveway, to reduce the slope percentage below 35%. As such, the proposal meets this standard. Cut or fill on a slope exceeds 50% The project does not include any grading on a slope that exceeds 50%. As such, this grading criterion can be met. Excavation exceeding a depth of 5 feet The code states that an excavation shall not exceed a depth of 5 feet except where the Planning Commission determines that certain circumstances make such grading reasonable and necessary. A majority of the proposed grading outside of the structure footprint will not exceed a depth of 5 feet. The construction of the residence, however and the lowering of the finished grade on the downsloping lot will require a maximum cut of 8'-10W in order to accommodate the residence. If the applicant did not provide an 8-foot step in the design of the downslope residence, the applicant would be required to apply for a Variance to deviate from the development code requirement to provide an 8-foot step in the design of the residence. As such, Staff is of the opinion that the proposed excavation that exceeds 5 feet in depth is reasonable, necessary and the best alternative for the construction of a new home that is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, and this grading criterion can be met. Height of retaining walls The Development Code allows one upslope retaining wall not to exceed 8'-0" in height to be located outside of any front and/or street side setback area and one 3'-
16
PLANNING COMMISSION :sTAFF REPORT - (CASE NO. ZON2012-00141) AUGUST 14, 2012 PAGE 11
6" tall downslope retaining wall anywhere on the property. Additionally, the code allows one downslope/upslope retaining wall, not to exceed a maximum height of 5'0", to be located adjacent to a driveway. The project proposal includes one 4'-6" tall downslope retaining wall in the rear yard, a 5'-0" upslope retaining wall adjacent to the proposed driveway, a 3'-6" tall upslope retaining wall to accommodate the landscaped front courtyard and walkways to access the residence, and a 5'-0" tall upslope retaining wall along the south side of the property. The project meets this criterion for the retaining wall located adjacent to the driveway and the 5'-0" tall upslope retaining wall located in the side yard. The 4'-6" tall downslope retaining wall located within the rear yard exceeds the code-allowed height of 3'-6" and therefore does not meet the code criterion for downsloping retaining walls. In addition the grading criterion cannot be met for the second upslope retaining wall that is 3'-6" tall as the code only allows one (1) upslope retaining wall. As noted above, the applicant is proposing two retaining walls that exceed the grading criterion for residential lots. However, the Planning Commission is allowed to approve a Grading Permit that does not conform to these standards, provided that the following four findings can be adopted: a) The first eight criterion in subsection (E)(1) through (E)(8) have been met.
As noted in the discussion above, Staffs opinion is that all eight criteria are being met; therefore, staff feels that this finding can be adopted. b) The second finding is that the request is consistent with the purpose of Municipal Code Section No. 17.76.040. Municipal Code Section No. 17.76.040 states, "the purpose of the chapter is to provide reasonable development of land, ensure the maximum preservation of the scenic character of the area, ensure that the development of properties occurs in a manner harmonious to adjoining properties, and that the project complies with the goals and polices of the General Plan." By allowing the deviations in the grading standards, the applicant is able to provide a downslope retaining wall in the rear yard to support the proposed pool and rear yard area. A majority of the retaining wall will meet the grading criterion for a 3'-6" tall downslope retaining wall, with the exception of one small area north of the proposed pool which will be 4'-6" in height. Although a majority of the proposed retaining wall will be consistent with the Development Code, Staff has added a condition of approval requiring the applicant to plant and maintain small shrubs in front of the retaining wall to adequately screen the visibility of the downsloping retaining wall. In addition, allowing deviations in the grading standards allows the applicant to construct a 3'-6" tall upslope retaining wall to accommodate a small, level courtyard at the front of house. Some of the other properties in the
17
PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 14, 2012 PAGE 12
~TAFF
REPORT - (CASE NO. ZON2012-00141)
neighborhood also exhibit short retaining walls to support planting areas, courtyards and useable front/rear yards while supporting the slopes that exist behind them. Further, the scenic character of the neighborhood would not be altered, as the new retaining wall would not be easily seen from the public rightof-way or neighboring properties. As such, Staff believes this finding can be adopted. c) The third finding is that approval of the grading permit will not constitute a special privilege with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity. The surrounding neighborhood is inundated with hillside properties that grade to utilize retaining walls that support slopes and planting areas. The subject property is a hillside property with a gentle slope that descends from the public right-of-way to the rear yard. With the exception of the new driveway, the applicant has limited the grading and retaining walls to areas on the property that do not have an extreme slope (35% or greater). As retaining walls are typically found throughout the neighborhood, and the proposed retaining walls that deviate from the grading criterion will support the construction of a new residence and useable yard areas, Staff feels this finding can be adopted. d) The final finding is that departures from the standards will not be detrimental to the public safety, nor to other property. The City's geotechnical consultant has reviewed and approved a preliminary soil engineering report for the grading and retaining walls. The applicant will be required to obtain final approval of the soil engineering report prior to issuance of a building/grading permit. Furthermore, the City, prior to issuance of building permits, will be required that the structure and all retaining walls be engineered to meet the requirements of the building code. These aforementioned requirements are placed on all structures, regardless of the deviations in the grading standards. Further, deviation from the standards would allow the property owner the ability to stabilize the property surrounding the new residence. As such, deviating from the standards does not alter the City's review of the structural aspect of the structure and the retaining walls. With these provisions the proposed deviations will not cause a detrimental impact to public safety and/or other properties in the vicinity of the project; therefore Staff feels that this finding can be adopted. e) Notice of such decision shall be given to the applicant and to all owners of property adjacent to the subject property. If the Planning Commission approved the proposed project and deviations from the grading standards, Staff will be sending a copy of the Notice of Decision and associated Resolution to the following property owners: 1) Stiassni Family /3400
18
PLANNING COMMISSION :;TAFF REPORT - (CASE NO. ZON2012-00141) AUGUST 14, 2012 PAGE 13
Palos Verdes Drive West, 2) Marcel & Irma Bont 1 3333 Palos Verdes Drive West, and 3) Lunada Point HOA 160 Laurel Ave. Ultimately, all four findings can be made and the proposed project, which is in excess of that normally permissible under subsection (E)(9) of Municipal Code Section No. 17.76.040, can be approved.
Coastal Permit The subject property is located within the non-appealable area of the City's Coastal Zone. The proposed project does not meet the established criteria to be exempt from obtaining a Coastal Permit; thus, a permit is required. In considering a Coastal Permit application, Section 17.72.090 of the Municipal Code requires that the Planning Commission make two findings (Development Code language is boldface, followed by Staffs analysis in normal type): 1.
That the proposed development is consistent with the coastal specific plan.
The subject property is located within Subregion 1 of the Coastal Specific Plan, which contains Policy No.8 (pg. S1-11) that "[requires] proposed developments on land affected by view corridors to maintain the resource." The Corridor Element of the Coastal Specific Plan does not identify the subject property within a specific visual corridor. However, the Coastal Specific Plan states that in order to protect the visual relationship between Palos Verdes Drive West and the ocean, for sites which are not within a visual corridor, proposed buildings should not project into a zone measured 2° down-arc from horizontal as measured from the viewing station (PVDW). According to the applicant's plans, the top of the existing curb along the southbound lanes of Palos Verdes Drive West, adjacent to the applicant's lot, is at an average elevation of 268.0'. For purposes of implementing the Coastal Specific Plan, Staff has determined the "viewing station" to be the eye level of a pedestrian standing on the area adjacent to PVDW which has an average grade elevation of 268.0'. This happens to be the location of the City's Coastal Trail which is discussed in more detail under "Additional Information." Assuming the average eye level is approximately 5 feet above the 268.0' grade elevation, the horizontal plane that is to be used to calculate the 2° down-arc is at an elevation of 273.0'. When calculating the 2° down-arc from the viewing station, the 2° down-arc drops approximately 2'-0" for every 50'-0" as one gets closer to the proposed residence. The ridgeline of the residence, as currently proposed, is approximately 118'0" from the viewing station. At the proposed residence's current location, the 2° downarc would be 4.3' below the 273.0' horizontal plane. This would limit the residence to a ridge line elevation of 268.75', which would be 9" above the curb level. The new residence is proposed to have a ridgeline elevation of 277.45', which is above the horizontal plane and down-arc from the viewing level along Palos Verdes Drive West. Thus, the proposed project would not comply with the 2° down-arc guideline of the Coastal Specific Plan.
19
PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 14, 2012 PAGE 14
~TAFF
REPORT - (CASE NO. ZON2012-00141)
It is important note, the Corridor Element Policy (p. C-16) "require[s] development proposals within areas which might impact corridors to analyze the site conditions in order to mitigate impacts ... " As noted in the grading analysis, the applicant has been working with neighbors when designing the home and its location and orientation on the existing lot. In reviewing the previous approval on the subject property in 1999, Staff found that the Planning Commission previously approved the maximum ridgeline elevation of the then proposed residence at a maximum 275.75' elevation. Although this elevation would still result in a building over the 2° down-arc guideline of the Coastal Specific Plan, the Planning Commission felt in 1999 that a residence at the 275.75' maximum ridgeline would reduce the intrusion into the ocean and Catalina views that are observed from Palos Verdes Drive West. Considering this previous Planning Commission determination, Staff would recommend that the applicant slightly redesign the ridgeline of the project to be no higher than 275.75' elevation. Staff believes that directing the applicant to lower the ridgeline to meet the 268.75' elevation dictated by the Coastal Specific Plan guideline would either increase the grading, which Staff believes is already excessive, or move the house to be lower on the lot which could create impacts to the neighbors which the current design seeks to avoid. This concern has been discussed with the applicant and they are amenable to redesigning the ridgeline of the residence to be more in line with the ridgeline that was previously approved. 2.
That the proposed development, when located between the sea and the first public road, is consistent with applicable public access and recreation policies of the Coastal Act.
The subject property is not located between the sea and the first public road paralleling the sea (Marguerite Drive), in this area. Therefore, this finding is not applicable to this project. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Foliage Analysis: As the additions would create more than 120 square feet of viewing or gathering area, a foliage analysis was triggered. After conducting a foliage analysis of the subject project, Staff found that there are no trees are located on the subject property that would impair a view from the viewing area of another property. Environmental Analysis: Staff has determined that the proposed project is Categorically Exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), under Article 19, Section 15303(a)(new construction; single-family residence) of the California Guidelines for Implementation of the CEQA. Specifically, the project includes the construction of a 10,509 square foot single-family residence and 1,027 square foot garage in a residential
20
PLANNING COMMISSION::. fAFF REPORT - (CASE NO. ZON2012-00,41) AUGUST 14, 2012 PAGE 15
zone. As such, this project has been determined not to have a significant impact on the environment. Conceptual Trails Plan: The subject property is located adjacent to Palos Verdes Drive West. According to the City's Conceptual Trails Plan, a portion of the Palos Verdes Loop Trail is located within the adjoining right-of-way of Palos Verdes Drive West. The portion of the Palos Verdes Loop Trail that is located in front of the subject property is referred to as the Christmas Tree Cove Segment. The specific course trail segment begins on Palos Verdes Drive West at the City's border with Palos Verdes Estates and continues on the western side of the road to a point just north of the southern boundary of the Lunada Point development. This trail is designated for pedestrian/equestrian use and falls under Category III of the City's Conceptual Trail Plan, meaning the trail is located within the City's PVDW right-of-way. The Conceptual Trail Plan indicates that implementation of this trail segment should be funded with grants or by outside agencies. Coincidently, completion of this trail segment is currently being pursued as part of a recent grant funded by the State of California for completion of the City's Coastal Trail. It is anticipated that the future trail in this area will consist of a decomposed granite trail that will include parkway improvements and signage. As such, the applicant will be prevented from constructing any improvements in the public right-of-way other than the driveway approach, which is a requirement imposed by the Public Works Department. A condition of approval to this affect has been included in the attached Resolution. Overlay Control Districts: The subject property is listed in the Natural Overlay Control District (OC-1), Sociocultural Overlay Control District (OC-2) and Urban appearance Overlay Control District (OC-3) as outlined in the General Plan and Zoning Code. Overlay control districts provide criterion which further reduce potential impacts which could be directly created or indirectly induced by the proposed and existing developments in sensitive areas of the City. These areas have been defined by the general plan and other studies to be sensitive areas due to unique characteristics contributing to the city's form, appearance, natural setting, and historical and cultural heritage. Staff reviewed the proposed project for compliance with the performance criterion listed in Chapter 17.40 and found that the project complies with all related criterion in the Natural Overlay Control District and Socio-Cultural Overlay Control District, but does not comply with the Urban Appearance Overlay Control District as summarized by bullet points below: Natural Overlay Control District (OC-1) •
The project would not affect the land and water areas necessary for the survival of valuable land and marine-based wildlife and vegetation as no protected vegetation or wildlife has been found on the subject property.
•
The project will require review and approval of a drainage plan and NPDES
21
PLANNING COMMISSION :sTAFF REPORT - (CASE NO. ZON2012-00141) AUGUST 14, 2012 PAGE 16
approval, thereby ensuring that storm drainage and erosion control wil[ not affect the water quality of both urban runoff and natural water bodies Socia-Cultural Overlay Control District (OC-2)
•
The subject property was not listed in the City's records to have any significant historical, archaeological or cultural importance and is zoned for residential use.
Urban Overlay Control District (OC-3)
•
For the reasons discussed throughout the analysis of the Grading Permit, the project is located on a [egal, downsloping single-family residential lot which can accommodate the construction of a home within a 16'-30' building height envelope. However, due to the fact that the project is located within the Coastal Zone, although it is not located within a view corridor, the residences should be designed to mitigate impacts to views as seen from the established viewing station (i.e. eye level from the exiting trail). As discussed in the Coastal Permit section of this report, the project as currently designed does not mitigate impacts of views as seen from the viewing station. As such, the height of the project will not preserve, protect or enhance the visual character of the city as seen from Palos Verdes Drive West as currently designed.
Public Notice: As a result of the public notice, Staff received the attached correspondence from the property owner located next door, at 3400 Palos Verdes Drive West and across the street at 3333 Palos Verdes Drive West. Both property owners are in support of the proposed project due to the fact that the design does not exceed the height limitation of the Development Code. The property owner at 3400 Palos Verdes Drive West noted that they agree with the design of the project and welcome the new construction provided they can be assured that the construction will not damage their retaining wall, pool, pool deck and home office as a result. In speaking with the home owner at 3400 Palos Verdes Drive West, the home owner was pleased to hear that the construction of the residence and associated grading would be required to obtain final geology approval, structural review and hydrology approval prior to issuance of a grading or building permit. Permit Streamlining Act: The deadline for the Permit Streamlining Act expires on September 7, 2012. If the Planning Commission agrees to continue the project to September 11, 2012, as recommended by Staff, the Planning Commission will need to request an extension to the Permit Streamlining Act from the applicant for a maximum of ninety (90) days. This would create a new Permit Streamlining Act deadline of December 6,2012.
22
PLANNING COMMISSION :sTAFF REPORT - (CASE NO. ZON2012-00141) AUGUST 14,2012 PAGE 17
CONCLUSION Based on the above analysis, as currently designed, Staff is not able to make the required findings to approve the Grading Permit or Coastal Permit. More specifically, Staff recommends that the Planning Commission direct the applicant to reduce the grading associated with the development of the rear yard area and reduce the overall ridgeline of the residence to 275.75', which is the elevation of the ridgeline previously approved by the Planning Commission. As such, Staff recommends that the Planning Commission open the public hearing, discuss the merits of the proposed project and continue the project to a date certain to allow the applicant time to redesign the residence. ALTERNATIVES In addition to Staff's recommendation, the following alternatives are available for the Planning Commission to act on: 1. Identify any additional issues of concern with the proposed project, provide Staff and/or the applicant with direction in modifying the project, and continue the public hearing to a date certain. 2. Approved the project as currently designed and direct Staff to return to the next meeting with the appropriate Resolution. 3. Deny, without prejudice, the Site Plan Review, Grading Permit and Coastal Permit (Case No. ZON2012-00141) and direct Staff to return to the next meeting with the appropriate Resolution. ATTACHMENTS • •
Correspondence Letters Project Plans
23
Correspondence Letter(s)
24
3344 Palos Verdes Drive, West
Page I of 1
3344 Palos Verdes Drive, West Nicholas Stiassni [[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 20126:31 AM To:
Leza Mikhail
STIASSNI 3400 PALOS VERDES DRiVE, WEST RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 90275 310/544-0849 [email protected]
July 23, 2012
Leza Mikhail City Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes The Planning Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 To Whom It May Concern, I am writing in regards to the proposed structure to be constructed at 3344 Paios Verdes Drive, West. My wife and I have reviewed the architectural plans drawn up by Tomaro Design Group. We welcome the Khosla family to what has been a magical location for our family. We approve the plans and have no suggestions for any revisions. The one concern that we have which has been expressed to Ravi Khosla is the possibility of damage to our retaining wail, pool, pool deck, and home office because of the amount of earth required to be removed. Ravi has assured me that this wiil not be a problem. I trust him but need to voice this concern and would like to receive a structural report with assurances that my property wiil not be compromised. We look forward to your response. We also look forward to working with the Khosla famiiy to make their transition to Rancho Palos Verdes a pleasant one. Sincerely, Nick & Suzie Stiassni Cc: Ravi Khosla
https://owa.rpv.comiowa/?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAAAKp5zhZVCQSqUvcjOG...
25 7/24/2012
Page 1 of2
Leza Mikhail From:
Louie Tomaro [[email protected]]
Sent:
Friday, Juiy 27,20129:28 AM
To:
Leza Mikhail
Subject:
FW: [FWD: Re: Your Neighbour @ 3344 PV Drive]--FYI
Importance: High Leza Hope the summer is going well so far Not sure if these emails can be added to the staff report or not for the project at 3344 PV DR W We have been communicating with many of the neighbors to provide support for the project This is an emaii communication to show support from one of the neighbors Please let me know if these should be sent in to you Thanks Have a good weekend Louie Tomaro, AlA, LEED AP TOMARO ARCHITECTURE 2617 N. Sepulveda Blvd. Suite 100 Manhattan Beach. CA. 90266 310.3188089 x101 3103189400 f www.TOMARO.com
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2012 10:27 AM To: Louie Tomaro Subject: [FWD: Re: Your Neighbour @ 3344 P.V Drive] --FYI Importance: High hi, Received this email from the neighbour in the back Thanks
Ravi Khosla Royal Concepts Incorporated SOLITAIRE - WHITE DIAMONDS- L'AFFAIRE Los Angeies : New York: Dallas: Hong Kong: New Delhi Phone:213-748-5590 Fax: 213-748-5560 Celi: 310-930-5040 > > > > >
-------- Original Message -------Subject: Re: Your Neighbour @ 3344 P.V Drive From: Bont Irma Date: Tue, July 24, 2012 5:57 pm To: [email protected]
>
7/31/2012
26
Page 2 of2
> > Hello Ravi, > > today I was at RPV City Hall to take a look at the plans for your new house and I would like to congratulate you on the remarkable design for an impr,essive home. We do appreciate that fact that you are building within the height limits and see no concerns on our side. We have received a letter from the city pertaining the Augu~t 14, 2012, hearing of the planning commission and I wanted to assure you there wont be any objections on our side.
> > Congratulations on a great design.
> > Irma Bont > -:>:'33 ?VDW > > > On Jun 15, 2012, at 3:37 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> > > > > > >
> >
> > > >
Dear Irma, I hope my mail finds you and Marcel in best. As you may have noticed the work on silhouette at our property 3344 P.V Drive is complete. As per your concern and keeping in mind what you had written in your last mail, we have tried to keep the height within the guiaelines and are not requesting for variances. I totally agree with you concerns and would cooperate with what ever best we can to maintain the view and value' of your property. I assure you if you have any other concern regarding the project I will address that. Please feel free to call me or email it to me.
> Have a great weekend. > > Regards
> >
> Ravi Khosla > Royal Concepts Incorporated > > > > > >
SOLITAIRE - WHITE DIAMONDS- L'AFFAIRE Los Angeles: New York: Dallas: Hong Kong: New Delhi Phone:213-748-5590 Fax: 213-748-5560 Cell: 310-930-5040
.
,
7/31/2012
27
Late Correspondence (August 14, 2012)
28
RE: 3344 Palos Verdes Drive West
Page 1 of2
#/
RE: 3344 Palos Verdes Drive West Leza Mikhail sent: Monday, August 13, 2012 8:08 AM To: Jason Sikola [[email protected]
Hello Jason,
Thank you for the apology, although it is not necessary. I understand your frustration. It is my understanding that Mr. Tomaro attempted to go to your residence shortly after you came in, but was unsuccessful. I didn't have any contact information for him to contact you other than using a phone number listed with the assessor information. Mr. Tomaro's phone number is (310) 318-8089. Ask for him and say it is regarding the Khosla residence.
I will forward your phone number and email to Mr. Tomaro. As for submitting a letter to the Planning Commission, you may still do so. I can either submit the email you sent me (below) or you can submit another one, or both. Please let me know what you would prefer.
Also, the staff report is available online at http://www.palosverdes.com/rov/planning/AGENDAS Current Agendas/PIanningCommission/2012/2012 08 14 Planning Commission Agendal
Click on agenda item #1 to read the staff report that I prepared. You will notice that staff is recommending that the ridgeline height be reduced.
I encourage you to contact Mr. Tomaro and attend the Planning Commission meeting tomorrow evening.
Thank you,
Leza Mikhail Associate Planner
City of'Rff.nd'o Paws 'lIertfes Planning Department
https:llowa.rpv.com/owa/?ae=!tem&t=!PM.Note&id=RgAAAAAKp5zhZV CQSq Uvcj OG...
8/14/2012 29
RE: 3344 Palos Verdes Drive West
Page 2 of2
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.palosverdes.com/rpv/planning/index.cfm. (310) 544-5228 - (310) 544-5293 f [email protected]
From: Jason Sikola [[email protected]
sent: Sunday, August 12, 2012 11:34 PM
To: Leza Mikhail ee: Eric Sikola Subject: 3344 Palos Verdes Drive west Hello Leza, First, I would like to apologize for being somewhat hasty the other day when we met at RPV city hall. I was running on an empty stomach and had way too strong of a coffee for our brief discussion. I would also like to thank you for offering your assistance and being quite helpful. Unfortunately, my attempts to contact the contractor, Louis Tomaro, and discuss the possibility of a ridge-line reduction have been unsuccessful and I have not received a call back. Henceforth, I would like your advice moving forward. May I still submit a letter of complaint to be recognized this Tuesday night based on the info below. Ocean View Infringement of the viewing areas of property residing on 7369 Berry Hill Dr., Rancho Palos Verdes CA, 90275 Size of house 11,000+ sq. ft. is far greater than the average house in nearby areas as well as property's zone. (50% greater than average) Affordability Index - Many vacant houses just south of property in question because of impractical structure sizes and unaffordable housing prices. Please let me know your thoughts when you get a chance Monday Morning.
Jason Sikola Cell (310) 941-7246 Work (310) 373-6326
https://owa.rpv.comlowa/?ae=ltem&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAAAKp5zhZVCQSqUvcjOG...
811412012 30
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
MEMORANDUM TO:
CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM:
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR~\~~
DATE:
SEPTEMBER 11, 2012
SUBJECT:
COASTAL PERMIT, GRADING PERMIT & SITE PLAN REVIEW (CASE NO. ZON2012-00141); PROJECT ADDRESS: 3344 PALSO VERDES DRIVE WEST; APPLICANT: KHOSLA
Staff Coordinator: Leza Mikhail, Associate Planner RECOMMENDATION 1) Review Staff's additional analysis and the applicant's revised design to determine whether the modifications and additional information address the Commission's concerns with the proposed project; and 2) If the Commission's concerns have been addressed then close the public hearing, approve the subject application (Case No. ZON2012-00141), and direct Staff to return to the next meeting with a Resolution for approval for the Commission's consideration and adoption. BACKGROUND On August 14, 2012, the Planning Commission considered the above-referenced case for a new single-family residence on a vacant lot located in the City's Coastal Zone. Staff's recommendation at the time was to open the public hearing, discuss the merits of the project, and direct the applicant to slightly redesign the project. As noted in the August 14, 2012 Staff Report (attached), Staff felt that the mandatory findings for the Coastal Permit could be made if the ridgeline of the residence was reduced by 1'-9", to the height that was previously approved by the Planning Commission (elevation 275.75'). Additionally, Staff felt that the quantity of grading in the rear yard was excessive and could be reduced through a slight redesign of the project. After hearing the public testimony and discussing the various aspects of the project, the Planning Commission questioned the merits of reducing the ridgeline by 1'-9" and how the grading quantity would be affected by said reduction. Additionally, the Planning
1
Site Plan Review, Grading Permit & Coastal Permit Planning Case No. ZON2012-00141 Page 2
Commission requested further clarification on Staff's position on the overall quantity of grading within the rear yard, and asked the applicant to provide Staff with an opinion of what quantity of grading would be required to completely lower the ridgeline of the residence to the top of the existing curb along the southbound lanes of Palos Verdes Drive West (elevation of 268.0'). After identifying these concerns, the Planning Commission continued the public hearing to September 11, 2012. DISSCUSSION
In response to the concerns identified by Staff in the August 14, 2012 Planning Commission Staff Report, on September 4,2012, after discussing revisions with the home owner, the applicant provided Staff with a revised project design. Below, Staff has provided a discussion of the Planning Commissions comments and the revised project that was submitted by the applicant. Analvsis of Potential Ridgeline Reduction
As noted in the August 14, 2012 Staff Report, the subject property is located within Subregion 1 of the Coastal Specific Plan (CSP), however is not located within a specific visual corridor. The CSP provides a guideline for properties not located within a visual corridor by noting that proposed buildings should not project into a zone measured 2° down-arc from a horizontal plane, as measured from a "viewing station." As discussed in the August 14th report, the residence would not meet this guideline with a ridgeline elevation of 277.45'. However, Staff had noted that the Planning Commission previously approved a residence on this property at a maximum 275.75' ridgeline elevation. Taking into consideration the previous decision, Staff recommended that the Planning Commission direct the applicant to reduce the ridgeline of the residence to the previously approved height. While discussing the merits of reducing the ridgeline elevation from 277.45' to 275.75' (1 '9" reduction), the Planning Commission questioned whether requiring the applicant to reduce the ridgeline would increase any ocean views as seen from Palos Verdes Drive West. As such, the Planning Commission directed Staff to analyze the benefits of reducing the ridge line by 1'-9". In order to conduct this analysis, the applicant volunteered to provide a red-colored string of flags on the existing silhouette to depict a difference in ridgeline elevations between 277.45' and 275.75'. After the flags were installed, Staff observed the different ridgeline elevations as seen from PVDW, northbound and southbound. Ultimately, Staff determined that a reduction in the ridgeline by 1'-9" does not create a discernable gain in ocean view from northbound or southbound PVDW. In light of this additional research, Staff opines that a residence at an elevation of either 277.45' or 275.75' would not make a difference in terms of ocean views as seen from Palos Verdes Drive West. Furthermore, the Development Code requires the height of a downsloping lot to be 16'-0" as measured from the average elevation of the setback line
2
Site Plan Review, Grading Permit & Coastal Permit Planning Case No. ZON2012-00141 Page 3
(263.0'), which would allow a residence to be constructed "by-right" with a ridgeline of 279.0'. Due to the fact that the residence would be slightly lower than the height of a similar residence that could be built "by-right" in the same location, and requiring the applicant to reduce the ridgeline to 275.75' would not create a benefit to the community in terms of ocean views from PVDW, Staff would recommend that the Planning Commission approve the revised project with a ridge elevation of 276.73'. Applicant's Redesigned Project and Further Grading Analysis
Notwithstanding the fact that a reduction of the ridgeline to 275.75' would not create a noticeable increase in ocean views from PVDW, the applicant decided to slightly relocate and redesign the residence to address some of Staff's previous comments. After discussing potential modifications that would not impact the neighbor to the south, the applicant decided to increase the front yard setback by 10'-0". In addition, the applicant reduced the plate height of the upper floor level, resulting in a ridgeline reduction from 277.45' to 276.73'. As a result of relocating the residence further back on the property, the square footage of the residence was reduced by 127 square feet and the overall grading quantity was reduced by 772 cubic yards. In analyzing the revised design, Staff is of the opinion that the increased setback, ridgeline reduction and square footage reduction would not create any new impacts. As noted in the August 14 th Staff Report, Staff was able to support the 2,512 cubic yards grading related to the construction of the residence, driveway and nominal amount of grading in the front yard area. As a result of the redesigned residence proposed by the applicant, the overall grading quantity in these areas has been reduced by 237 cubic yards (2,275 cubic yards proposed) and Staff can still support the grading in these areas. Previously, Staff had a concern with the overall quantity of grading (1,450 cubic yards) proposed to create a level rear yard area. Although Staff was able to make the findings for the retaining walls associated with the rear yard grading, Staff felt that the grading quantity was extensive and could be further reduced. In order to reduce the overall rear yard grading, the applicant moved the structure 10' to the west, thereby reducing the overall square footage of the rear yard. In addition, the applicant reduced the depth of cut in the rear yard by 6 inches and reduced the depth of fill by 1'-0". As a result of these changes, the overall quantity of fill in the rear yard was reduced from 148 cubic yards to 104 cubic yards, and the overall quantity of cut was reduced from 1,302 cubic yards to 827 cubic yards. Additionally, the associated garden walls surrounding the rear yard follow the natural contours, with the exception of one small area where a retaining wall was reduced from 4'6" to 3'-6". By reducing the yard area and depths of grading, the revised grading now minimizes disturbances to the natural contours, and would not exceed that which is necessary for the primary use of the lot. As such, based on the revised design of the residence and grading, Staff can support the project in its entirety. Grading Quantity Associated with reducing the Ridgeline to the Curb Elevation
At the August 14th public hearing, there was a request by a neighbor to require the applicant to reduce the overall ridgeline to the elevation of the adjacent curb (elevation
3
Site Plan Review, Grading Permit & Coastal Permit Planning Case No. ZON2012-00141 Page 4
268.0'). As the discussion ensued, the Planning Commission questioned whether requiring the applicant to reduce the ridgeline from 277.75' to 268.0' would render the proposed project infeasible. The Planning Commission did not direct the applicant to redesign the project to lower the ridgeline to an elevation of 268.0', but questioned how much grading would be involved in such a request. The Planning Commission asked the applicant to estimate any increase in the quantity of grading that would result from lowering the proposed home by over 9 feet. In speaking with the applicant, the additional grading beneath the home would increase by 3,456 cubic yards, not including any other grading outside of the residence footprint, and would not be feasible to construct. Additionally, Staff is of the opinion that an increase in grading by this amount, on top of what is already proposed (3,206 cubic yards), would not meet the grading criterion and would be considered excessive grading. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Additional Landscaping Requirement During the August 14th public hearing, Commissioner Tomblin requested that Staff research the landscaping requirements of Oceanfront Estates to determine if any landscaping requirements from the residential tract could be applied to the proposed development. Staff found the following conditions of approval related to landscaping heights at Oceanfront Estates: •
The shrubs and foliage along Palos Verdes Drive West shall be maintained so as not to exceed one foot (1'-0") in height.
•
All landscaping (including parkway trees) shall be selected and maintained so that no trees or group of trees obstructs views from the public right-of-way or adjacent properties consistent with the City Council policy regarding street trees.
•
Landscaping within all open space areas shall be planted in such a manner so that views from adjacent properties and any public right-of-way are not affected and so that solar access to all dwelling units is protected.
It is important to note that the abovementioned conditions of approval were imposed on the areas outside of the residential lots (common area) as part of the creation and approval of a residential tract under a Planned Residential Development (RPD). When applying for a new subdivision through an RPD, the City may impose specific development standards that are applicable to that specific tract and are different than the requirements of the City's Development Code. The subject property that is part of this public hearing is a single-family residential lot that does not belong to the Oceanfront Estates RPD and is not subject to the abovementioned landscaping conditions. The property that is part of this application is subject to the requirements and rights of the City's Development Code, which allows all property owners to install hedges in their front yard up to a maximum height of 42" (30" in an intersection visibility triangle). As such, the Planning Commission is not able to restrict the front yard hedges close to PVDW beyond what the Development Code allows the
4
Site Plan Review, Grading Permit & Coastal Permit Planning Case No. ZON2012-00141 Page 5
property owner "by-right." It is important to note, however that the both the subject lot and the residential lots in Oceanfront Estates are both subject to Proposition M which restricts the height oftrees on residential lots. More specifically, Proposition M restricts trees to 16'0" or the top of the ridgeline of the primary home, whichever is lower. The proposed project is subject Chapter 15.34 of the RPV Municipal Code and will be required to submit a Water Efficient Landscape Plan to be reviewed and approved by the Director prior to issuance of a Building Permit. At that time, Staff will ensure that all proposed trees can thrive at heights limited by Proposition M. CONCLUSION
Based on the above analysis and the applicant's revised project, Staff is able to support the applicant's request for a Site Plan Review, Grading Permit and Coastal Permit (Case No. ZON2012-00141). The revised project would reduce the grading quantities by 722 cubic yards, increase the front yard setback by 10'-0" and reduce the overall ridgeline of the residence from 277.45' to 276.73'. Furthermore, it is Staff's opinion that requiring the applicant to grade down to an elevation of 268.0' would create a need for an extensive amount of grading that could not be supported by Staff. Therefore, Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review the modifications and additional information submitted by the applicant to determine if the additional information addresses the Commission's concerns, approve the project and direct Staff to bring the appropriate Resolution to the September 25,2012 Planning Commission meeting. ALTERNATIVES
The following alternatives are available for the Planning Commission to consider: 1.
Identify any additional issues of concern with the proposed project, provide Staff and/or the applicant with direction in modifying the project, and continue the public hearing to a date certain.
2.
Deny, without prejudice, the Site Plan Review, Grading Permit and Coastal Permit (Case No. ZON2012-00141) and direct Staff to return to the next meeting with the appropriate Resolution.
Attachments:
• • •
August 14, 2012 P.C. Staff Report o Correspondence Letters August 14, 2012 Late Correspondence Revised Project Plans
5
P.C. Staff Report (August 14, 2012)
6
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT TO:
CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMIS~N
!,
-j--
FROM:
COMMUNITY DEVELO DIRECTOR
DATE:
AUGUST 14, 2012
SUBJECT:
COASTAL PERMIT, GRADING PERMIT & SITE PLAN REVIEW (CASE NO. ZON2012-00141)
PROJECT ADDRESS:
I
--t
E T
3344 PALOS VERDES DRIVE WEST
APPLICANT:
TOMARO ARCHITECTURE 2617 N. SEPULVEDA BLVD. MANHATTAN BEACH, CA 90216
LANDOWNER:
RAVI KHOSLA
,
~
STAFF LEZA MIKHAIL COORDINATOR: ASSOCIATE PLANN~V~ THOMAS GUIDE PAGE 822/F-2 REQUESTED ACTION:
RECOMMENDATION:
A REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT A NEW 10,509 SQUARE FOOT, TWO-STORY RESIDENCE WITH A 1,027 SQUARE FOOT GARAGE ON A 43,484 SQUARE FOOT DOWNSLOPING VACANT LOT. THE PROJECT ALSO INCLUDES A TOTAL OF 3,680 CUBIC YARDS OF CUT, 298 CUBIC YARDS OF FILL, AND FOUR (4) ASSOCIATED RETAINING WALLS. OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING, DISCUSS THE MERITS OF THE PROJECT, DIRECT THE APPLICANT TO REDESIGN THE PROJECT TO REDUCE THE OVERALL RIDGELINE OF THE RESIDENCE TO 275.75' AND REAR YARD GRADING, AND CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO SEPTEMBER 11, 2012.
REFERENCES: ZONING:
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL - RS-1
LAND USE:
SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
CODE SECTIONS:
17.02,17.48,17.72, & 17.76
GENERAL PLAN:
RESIDENTIAL~
1 DUiACRE
7
PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 14,2012 PAGE 2
~TAFF
REPORT - (CASE NO. ZON2012-00141)
TRAILS PLAN:
CHRISTMAS TREE COVE SEGMENT (CATEGORY III)
SPECIFIC PLAN:
COASTAL (SUBREGION 1)
CEQA:
CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 1)
ACTION DEADLINE:
SEPTEMBER 7, 2012
PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS RESIDING WITHIN 500' OF SUBJECT PROPERTY: NONE
BACKGROUND
In January 1999, the Planning Commission approved Variance No. 437, Coastal Permit No. 148 and Grading Permit No. 2051, thereby approving a 9,697 square foot singlestory residence with a maximum ridgeline of 275.75', and 354 cubic yards of grading. The project was revised from the originally designed 16,082 square foot residence with a maximum ridgeline of 281.33' and 4,320 cubic yards of grading. The approved residence was never constructed. On April 24, 2012, the applicant submitted a Coastal Permit, Grading Permit and Site Plan Review application to the Community Development Department for review and processing. The applicant is requesting approval to construct a two-story residence on a downsloping, vacant lot located at 3344 Palos Verdes Drive West. On May 14, 2012, Staff completed the initial review of the application, at which time the application was deemed incomplete due to missing information on the project plans. The applicant submitted revisions on June 18, 2012 and June 28, 2012. After a site inspection of the silhouette, Staff deemed the application complete on July 9, 2012. On July 9, 2012, Staff mailed notices to 56 property owners within a 500-foot radius from the subject property, providing a 15-day time period for the submittal of comments and concerns. In addition, a Public Notice was published in the Peninsula News on July 12, 2012. Staff received two (2) comment letters (attached) in support of the proposed project from the property owners located at 3400 Palos Verdes Drive West and 3333 Palos Verdes Drive West. SITE DESCRIPTION
The subject lot is a 43,546 square foot vacant lot located on the seaward side of Palos Verdes Drive West, adjacent to the Lunada Pointe community, in the RS-1 zoning district. The lot was created prior to the City's incorporation and is considered a downsloping lot which allows a residence to be constructed within a 16'/30' building height envelope "by-right." The site is surrounded by existing single-family residences to the east, west and south, and an open space common area owned and maintained by the Lunada Pointe community.
8
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (CASE NO. ZON2012-00141) AUGUST 14, 2012 PAGE 3
PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant is proposing to construct a 10,509 square foot two-story residence with a 1,027 square foot garage, new pool and other minor ancillary improvements throughout the property. The new residence would be located on a downsloping, vacant lot and would maintain all required setbacks for City created lots. When combined, the footprint of the new residence and garage (8,137 square feet), covered entry (100 square feet), and driveway/parking area (2,616 square feet) would yield a total lot coverage of 10,853 square feet, or 24.9% of the 43,546 square foot lot. Given the fact that the property is a downsloping lot, the applicant is permitted to construct a home within a 16'/30' building height envelope. As designed, the residence will have a maximum height of 24'-6)1,", as measured from the lowest grade adjacent to the building foundation/slab (elev. 252.86') to the highest ridgeline of the residence (elev. 277.45'), and 14'-5Yz", as measured from the average elevation of the setback line abutting the street (avg. elev. 263.0') to the highest ridgeline of the residence (elev. 277.45'). As required by the Development Code, the proposed residence has provided an 8-foot step within the footprint of the residence, between the first floor level and the second floor level. The project proposes 3,978 cubic yards of grading (3,680 cubic yards of cut and 298 cubic yards of fill). Specifically, 1,531 cubic yards of excavation is proposed beneath the residence. The remaining excavation (2,149 cubic yards) and fill (298 cubic yards) is proposed throughout the remaining portions of the property to accommodate a new driveway, and level front and rear yard areas. The grading would also accommodate a 4'-6" tall downslope retaining wall in the rear yard, a 5'-0" upslope retaining wall adjacent to the proposed driveway, a 3'-6" tall upslope retaining wall to accommodate the landscaped front courtyard and walkways to access the residence, and a 5'-0" tall upslope retaining wall along the south side of the property. Table 1: Project Statistics: EXISTING RESIDENCE 43,546
RESIDENCE WITH ADDITION
Lot Size
CODE REQUIREMENT 20,000 s.f.
Structure Size
N/A
vacant
11,536 s.f.
Setbacks Front: 1Sl floor Side (north) Side (south) Rear
20'-0" 5'_on 5'_on 15'-0"
N/A N/A N/A N/A
42'-0"
Lot Coveraqe (%)
25%
N/A
24.9%
CRITERIA
No change
25'-0" to residence 10'-9" 92'-0"
9
PLANNING COMMISSION :sTAFF REPORT - (CASE NO. ZON2012-00141) AUGUST 14, 2012 PAGE 4
CRITERIA (square feet)
CODE REQUIREMENT (10,886.5 s.f.)
EXISTING RESIDENCE
RESIDENCE WITH ADDITION (10,853 s.f.)
Enclosed Parkinq Outdoor Parkinq
3 spaces 3 spaces
N/A N/A
4 spaces 3+ spaces
16'
N/A
14'-5%"
30'
N/A
24'-6%"
Structure Heiqht Average elevation of the front yard setback line to the highest ridgeline. Lowest grade adjacent to the building foundation/slab.
CODE CONSIDERATION AND ANALYSIS Site Plan Review As described in Table 1 under the Project Description section of this report, Staff has determined that the proposed 10,509 square foot new residence, 1,027 square foot garage, pool/spa and other ancillary improvements within the rear yard (trellis, firepit, BBQ, covered entry structure) would comply with the required residential setback standards, lot coverage and the maximum allowable heights as presented in the Development Code for the RS-1 zone. Specifically, the new residence has been designed to provide larger setbacks that far-exceed the minimum required 20-foot front yard setback, 5-foot side yard setbacks and 15-foot rear yard setback. Further, the main residence would not exceed the 16'/30' "by right" building envelope and will meet the maximum allowable lot coverage of 25% (24.9% proposed). As the project meets all the required development standards for a single-family residence on a downsloping residential lot, provided the Planning Commission finds the new residence to be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood as discussed under Grading Criterion NO.5 below, Staff would recommend approval of the Site Plan Review. Grading Permit In order to approve the Grading Permit, the Planning Commission must determine that the request meets all nine criteria as set forth in Municipal Code Section No. 17.76.040. These criteria are listed below in bold type, with staff's analysis of each criterion in normal type. 1. The grading does not exceed that which is necessary for the permitted primary use of the lot, as defined in Chapter 17.96 of the Municipal Code.
10
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (CASE NO. ZON2012-00141) AUGUST 14, 2012 PAGES
Municipal Code Section No. 17.96 defines the permitted primary use in the RS-1 zone as single-family residential. Staff believes that the proposed grading related to the construction of the residence is necessary to accommodate the proposed residence on the vacant lot in the most ideal location to minimize impacts to adjacent neighbors to the south (3400 Palos Verdes Drive West) and directly across the street (3333 Palos Verdes Drive West). The applicant explored different designs and locations of the proposed residence by working with neighbors. The proposed location of the home was the most desired as it would avoid potential view impacts from the neighbor located to the south and would appear as a single-story residence from the street. As a result, a considerable amount of grading is being proposed because the residence will be sited closer to the street where the slope of the lot is steeper and adequate driveway access will be required. A total of 2,344 cubic yards of grading is necessary to accommodate the residence at its proposed location and vehicular access to the garage. More specifically, the applicant is excavating 1,531 cubic yards beneath the entirety of the new residence to lower the finished floor area of the residence and provide the required 8-foot step on downsloping homes. Outside of the residence footprint, but related to the construction of the residence, 813 cubic yards of grading (cut and fill) is necessary for the construction of a driveway. In addition to the construction related to the development of the residence, 1,618 cubic yards of grading is proposed for the construction of flat front and rear yard areas. Given that the grading proposed within the front yard is minimal (168 cubic yards), Staff is able to support the front yard grading. However, Staff is unable to support the 1,450 cubic yards of grading proposed to create an extensive level rear yard area. Although it appears that a majority of the nearby lots utilize excavation and retaining walls to accommodate a home and useable rear yard area, Staff believes that given the size of the proposed level yard area, the quantity of grading needed to create the rear yard is excessive and not necessary for the primary use of the lot. Staff discussed this concern with the applicant who noted that they would be amendable to redesigning the landscaping in the rear yard to limit the quantity of grading outside of the construction of the home. Therefore, Staff is of the opinion that the proposed grading does not exceed that which is necessary for the permitted primary use of the lot for the construction of the residence, but that the grading within the rear yard is excessive and should be reduced. As such, as currently designed, this criterion can be met. 2. The proposed grading and/or related construction does not significantly adversely affect the visual relationships with nor the views from the viewing area of neighboring properties. In cases where grading is proposed for a new residence or an addition to an existing residence, this finding shall be satisfied when the proposed grading results in a lower finished grade under the building footprint such that the height of the proposed structure, as measured pursuant to Section 17.02.040(8), is lower than a structure that
11
PLANNING COMMISSION ",TAFF REPORT - (CASE NO. ZON2012-00141) AUGUST 14, 2012 PAGE 6
could have been built in the same location on the lot if measured from preconstruction (existing grade). A total of four (4) retaining walls are proposed around the property. Three (3) of the retaining walls will be upslope retaining walls and will not be easily visible from other properties or the public right-of-way. A fourth retaining wall will be 4'-6" in height at the rear of the property. Although Staff would consider the height of the retaining walls to be minimal in terms of visual impacts, a condition of approval has been added to provide landscaping along the west side of the wall to adequately screen the appearance of the retaining wall residences within the Lunada Point community. The Development Code requires the height of a downsloping lot to be 16'-0" as measured from the average elevation of the setback line. The average elevation of the setback line is 263.0'. This would allow a residence to be constructed "by-right" with a ridgeline of 279.0'. The applicant is proposing to lower a majority of the finished grade beneath the residence, thereby resulting in a home that is 14'-5W' tall with a maximum ridgeline of 277.45'. As such, the height of the residence will be slightly lower than the height of a similar residence that could have been built "byright" in the same location. Thus, this criterion can be met. 3. The nature of the grading minimizes disturbances to the natural contours and finished contours are reasonably natural. The majority of the applicant's requested grading is for excavation to accommodate the new residence, driveway and useable rear yard area. The applicant is also proposing to construct four retaining walls: 1) a 4'-6" tall downslope retaining wall in the rear yard, 2) a 5'-0" upslope retaining wall adjacent to the proposed driveway, 3) a 3'-6" tall upslope retaining wall to accommodate the landscaped front courtyard, and 4) a 5'-0" tall upslope retaining wall along the south side of the property. Any disturbances to the existing contours are relatively minor and are necessary to allow for construction of a new residence and vehicular access. Outside of the grading required for the construction of the residence, the contours of the driveway, front yard and rear yard will generally follow the existing contours found on the property. More specifically, the majority of the driveway will be graded to follow the existing contours with the exception of the last 1/3 of the driveway providing access to the garage. The majority of the rear yard has a slight slope. In order to create a flat yard area, the applicant is proposing to grade the rear yard whereby the proposed retaining walls will generally follow the existing contours with the exception of a small area north and south of the pool where a small 4'-6" tall downslope retaining wall is proposed. Although Staff does not have a concern with the height of the proposed retaining walls as the majority of the naturally sloping rear yard area would be graded to be level, Staff believes that this finding cannot be made for the entirety of the proposed grading. As such, this criterion cannot be met. 4. The grading takes into account the preservation of natural topographical features and appearances by means of land sculpturing so as to blend any man-made or manufactured slope into natural topography.
12
PLANNING COMMISSION", TAFF REPORT - (CASE NO. ZON2012-00141) AUGUST 14, 2012 PAGE 7
As noted previously, the majority of the proposed grading will accommodate a new single-family residence, driveway and usable rear yard area. Four (4) retaining walls are proposed around all sides of the residence and yard area. The grade elevations and natural topographical contours surrounding the retaining walls will be maintained to blend the appearance of the new improvements. The only proposed man-made slope is located adjacent to the semi-circular driveway. There is an existing extreme slope (greater than 35%) that will be re-contoured to accommodate the new driveway and slope surrounding the driveway. The new contours will continue to follow the natural appearance of the existing sloping lot. As such, Staff feels that this criterion has been met. 5. For new single-family residences, the grading and/or related construction is compatible with the immediate neighborhood character, as defined in Chapter
17.02. Municipal Code Section 17.02.030(8)(1)(a) requires a Neighborhood Compatibility analysis whenever a new residence is proposed to be developed on a vacant lot. As such, a Neighborhood Compatibility analysis was completed. The Municipal Code defines neighborhood character to include: a) the scale of surrounding residences, b) architectural styles and materials of the surrounding area, and c) the front, side, and rear yard setbacks. Pursuant to RPVDC Section 17.02.040(A)(6), "neighborhood character" is defined as encompassing the following three project characteristics (RPVDC language is boldface, followed by Staffs analysis in normal type): a.
Scale of surrounding residences, including total square footage and lot coverage of the residence and all ancillary structures.
Compatibility with neighborhood character is based on a comparison to the other structures in the immediate neighborhood, which is comprised of the twenty (20) nearest properties. The table below summarizes the properties and structures that comprise the immediate neighborhood, which serve as the basis for the neighborhood compatibility analysis. Table 2: Neighborhood Compatibility and Analysis Matrix
ADDRESS 3400 Palos Verdes Drive West 3300 Palos Verdes Drive West 30319 Palos Verdes Drive West 30335 Palos Verdes Drive West 6 Marouerite Drive 7 Marauerite Drive
LOT SIZE
STRUCTURE SIZE
44,188 48,684 43,760 46,448 50,565 87,126
5,005" 12,819" 3,654 6,653 11,318 8,760
NUMBER OF STORIES 1 2 1 2 2 2
13
PLANNING COMMISSION:> fAFF REPORT - (CASE NO. ZON2012-00141) AUGUST 14,2012 PAGE 8
24 57 63 67 71 75 79 83 73 77 85 89 93 97
Marauerite Drive Marauerite Drive Marauerite Drive Marauerite Drive Marauerite Drive Marauerite Drive Marnuerite Drive Marnuerite Drive Laurel Drive Laurel Drive Laurel Drive Laurel Drive Laurel Drive Laurel Drive
Averaae 3344 Palos Verdes Drive West
41,353 43,899 43,642 43,658 55,080 58,185 50,310 46,664 26,981 22,207 21,456 20,613 20,395 29,557
8,853* 5,350 8,478 7,364 6,936 6,678 7,039 7,097* 7,100 10,360 9,100 7,826 5,624 7,664
42,238
7,494
Existina Proposed
43,546
1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2
0
vacant
11,536
2
* The square footage for lhis residential property was documented from Assessor's information as there was no information available in the building permit file in the Community Development Department. A 360 square foot garage was assigned to residences under 5,000 square feet in livable area and a 540 square foot garage was assigned to residences above 5,000 square feet in livable area.
As noted in the table above, the homes in the neighborhood range in size from 3,654 square feet to 12,819 square feet, with the average home size being 7,494 square feet (habitable plus non-habitable square footage). While the square footage of the proposed new residence is considerably larger than the average of the 20 closest homes, the square footage of the new residence (11,536 square feet) will not exceed the largest existing home (12,819 square feet) and will be just above the second largest home in the neighborhood (11,318 square feet). Therefore, although large, Staff is of the opinion that the new residence is within the range of neighboring residences, therefore keeping with the character, style and setting of the neighborhood.
b.
Architectural styles, including facade treatments, structure height, open space between structures, roof design, the apparent bulk or mass of the structure, number of stories, and building materials.
The bulk and mass of the proposed improvements would not be significant, due to the single-story configuration of the proposed home as seen from Palos Verdes Drive West and a typical two-story elevation as seen from the east side Marguerite Drive. As such, the orientation, configuration and scale of the new home would be in-line with the other residences in the neighborhood. Furthermore, the architectural styles of homes found in the immediate neighborhood, especially along Marguerite
14
PLANNING COMMISSION;:, rAFF REPORT - (CASE NO. ZON2012-00141) AUGUST 14, 2012 PAGE 9
Drive, are eclectic. Although the neighborhood does not reflect one consistent architectural type/style, Staff feels the proposed architecture and materials proposed would be consistent with the existing character of the immediate neighborhood. For example, the applicant is proposing to utilize Spanish-mission clay tile as the roof material and a smooth stucco finish across the structure fagade. The applicant has also included a number of architectural accents in order to break up the appearance of the bulk and mass of the new structure. More specifically, The residence was designed with multiple roof lines, undulating facades, arches, balconies, wrought iron balustrades, decorative clay tiles and first and second story accent molding. The majority of the homes in the neighborhood also display clay roof materials and stucco siding with various accents to break up the appearance of bulk and mass. c.
Front-, side-, and rear-yard setbacks.
As noted above, the proposed residence will provide large setbacks from the front, sides and rear property lines and would therefore maintain the integrity of setbacks observed throughout the surrounding neighborhood. Based on the above analysis, Staff concludes that the construction of a new 10,509 square foot residence with a 1,027 square foot garage would produce a residence that is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. 6. 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 the visual effects of grading and construction on hillsides areas. This proposal is not a new residential tract; therefore, this criterion does not apply. 7. The grading utilizes street designs and improvements, which serve to minimize grading alternatives and harmonize with the natural contours and character of the hillside. This proposal does not include any grading for streets or other public improvements, therefore, this criterion does not apply. 8. The grading would not cause excessive and unnecessary disturbance of the natural landscape or wildlife habitat through removal of vegetation. Natural landscape is usually considered wild flowers, low coastal sage scrub, chaparral, and grasslands. Based on the City's NCCP vegetation maps, there is no evidence of natural landscape or sensitive wildlife habitat on the subject property, which is a developed lot in a single-family residential neighborhood. As such, the proposed project would not result in excessive or unnecessary removal of sensitive vegetation.
15
PLANNING COMMISSION :sTAFF REPORT - (CASE NO. ZON2012-00141) AUGUST 14, 2012 PAGE 10
9. Grading conforms to the standards for grading on slopes, height of cut and fill, and height of retaining walls. Grading on slopes equal to or exceeding 35% Grading on slopes equal to or exceeding 35% shall be allowed on recorded and legally subdived lots existing as of November 25, 1975, which are not currently zoned open space/hazard. With the exception of a small portion of grading associated with the new driveway, a majority of the grading will not be conducted on an extreme slope. The subject property was legally subdivided prior to November 25, 1975. As such, the proposed grading (cut and fill) is permitted and meets this criterion. Finished slope contours The Municipal Code limits the contours of finished slopes to no greater than 35%. The proposed grading will not significantly alter the contours of the lot. No finished slopes that exceed 35% will be created. In fact, the applicant is re-contouring a small portion of the lot, adjacent to the new driveway, to reduce the slope percentage below 35%. As such, the proposal meets this standard. Cut or fill on a slope exceeds 50% The project does not include any grading on a slope that exceeds 50%. As such, this grading criterion can be met. Excavation exceeding a depth of 5 feet The code states that an excavation shall not exceed a depth of 5 feet except where the Planning Commission determines that certain circumstances make such grading reasonable and necessary. A majority of the proposed grading outside of the structure footprint will not exceed a depth of 5 feet. The construction of the residence, however and the lowering of the finished grade on the downsloping lot will require a maximum cut of 8'-10W in order to accommodate the residence. If the applicant did not provide an 8-foot step in the design of the downslope residence, the applicant would be required to apply for a Variance to deviate from the development code requirement to provide an 8-foot step in the design of the residence. As such, Staff is of the opinion that the proposed excavation that exceeds 5 feet in depth is reasonable, necessary and the best alternative for the construction of a new home that is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, and this grading criterion can be met. Height of retaining walls The Development Code allows one upslope retaining wall not to exceed 8'-0" in height to be located outside of any front and/or street side setback area and one 3'-
16
PLANNING COMMISSION :sTAFF REPORT - (CASE NO. ZON2012-00141) AUGUST 14, 2012 PAGE 11
6" tall downslope retaining wall anywhere on the property. Additionally, the code allows one downslope/upslope retaining wall, not to exceed a maximum height of 5'0", to be located adjacent to a driveway. The project proposal includes one 4'-6" tall downslope retaining wall in the rear yard, a 5'-0" upslope retaining wall adjacent to the proposed driveway, a 3'-6" tall upslope retaining wall to accommodate the landscaped front courtyard and walkways to access the residence, and a 5'-0" tall upslope retaining wall along the south side of the property. The project meets this criterion for the retaining wall located adjacent to the driveway and the 5'-0" tall upslope retaining wall located in the side yard. The 4'-6" tall downslope retaining wall located within the rear yard exceeds the code-allowed height of 3'-6" and therefore does not meet the code criterion for downsloping retaining walls. In addition the grading criterion cannot be met for the second upslope retaining wall that is 3'-6" tall as the code only allows one (1) upslope retaining wall. As noted above, the applicant is proposing two retaining walls that exceed the grading criterion for residential lots. However, the Planning Commission is allowed to approve a Grading Permit that does not conform to these standards, provided that the following four findings can be adopted: a) The first eight criterion in subsection (E)(1) through (E)(8) have been met.
As noted in the discussion above, Staffs opinion is that all eight criteria are being met; therefore, staff feels that this finding can be adopted. b) The second finding is that the request is consistent with the purpose of Municipal Code Section No. 17.76.040. Municipal Code Section No. 17.76.040 states, "the purpose of the chapter is to provide reasonable development of land, ensure the maximum preservation of the scenic character of the area, ensure that the development of properties occurs in a manner harmonious to adjoining properties, and that the project complies with the goals and polices of the General Plan." By allowing the deviations in the grading standards, the applicant is able to provide a downslope retaining wall in the rear yard to support the proposed pool and rear yard area. A majority of the retaining wall will meet the grading criterion for a 3'-6" tall downslope retaining wall, with the exception of one small area north of the proposed pool which will be 4'-6" in height. Although a majority of the proposed retaining wall will be consistent with the Development Code, Staff has added a condition of approval requiring the applicant to plant and maintain small shrubs in front of the retaining wall to adequately screen the visibility of the downsloping retaining wall. In addition, allowing deviations in the grading standards allows the applicant to construct a 3'-6" tall upslope retaining wall to accommodate a small, level courtyard at the front of house. Some of the other properties in the
17
PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 14, 2012 PAGE 12
~TAFF
REPORT - (CASE NO. ZON2012-00141)
neighborhood also exhibit short retaining walls to support planting areas, courtyards and useable front/rear yards while supporting the slopes that exist behind them. Further, the scenic character of the neighborhood would not be altered, as the new retaining wall would not be easily seen from the public rightof-way or neighboring properties. As such, Staff believes this finding can be adopted. c) The third finding is that approval of the grading permit will not constitute a special privilege with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity. The surrounding neighborhood is inundated with hillside properties that grade to utilize retaining walls that support slopes and planting areas. The subject property is a hillside property with a gentle slope that descends from the public right-of-way to the rear yard. With the exception of the new driveway, the applicant has limited the grading and retaining walls to areas on the property that do not have an extreme slope (35% or greater). As retaining walls are typically found throughout the neighborhood, and the proposed retaining walls that deviate from the grading criterion will support the construction of a new residence and useable yard areas, Staff feels this finding can be adopted. d) The final finding is that departures from the standards will not be detrimental to the public safety, nor to other property. The City's geotechnical consultant has reviewed and approved a preliminary soil engineering report for the grading and retaining walls. The applicant will be required to obtain final approval of the soil engineering report prior to issuance of a building/grading permit. Furthermore, the City, prior to issuance of building permits, will be required that the structure and all retaining walls be engineered to meet the requirements of the building code. These aforementioned requirements are placed on all structures, regardless of the deviations in the grading standards. Further, deviation from the standards would allow the property owner the ability to stabilize the property surrounding the new residence. As such, deviating from the standards does not alter the City's review of the structural aspect of the structure and the retaining walls. With these provisions the proposed deviations will not cause a detrimental impact to public safety and/or other properties in the vicinity of the project; therefore Staff feels that this finding can be adopted. e) Notice of such decision shall be given to the applicant and to all owners of property adjacent to the subject property. If the Planning Commission approved the proposed project and deviations from the grading standards, Staff will be sending a copy of the Notice of Decision and associated Resolution to the following property owners: 1) Stiassni Family /3400
18
PLANNING COMMISSION :;TAFF REPORT - (CASE NO. ZON2012-00141) AUGUST 14, 2012 PAGE 13
Palos Verdes Drive West, 2) Marcel & Irma Bont 1 3333 Palos Verdes Drive West, and 3) Lunada Point HOA 160 Laurel Ave. Ultimately, all four findings can be made and the proposed project, which is in excess of that normally permissible under subsection (E)(9) of Municipal Code Section No. 17.76.040, can be approved.
Coastal Permit The subject property is located within the non-appealable area of the City's Coastal Zone. The proposed project does not meet the established criteria to be exempt from obtaining a Coastal Permit; thus, a permit is required. In considering a Coastal Permit application, Section 17.72.090 of the Municipal Code requires that the Planning Commission make two findings (Development Code language is boldface, followed by Staffs analysis in normal type): 1.
That the proposed development is consistent with the coastal specific plan.
The subject property is located within Subregion 1 of the Coastal Specific Plan, which contains Policy No.8 (pg. S1-11) that "[requires] proposed developments on land affected by view corridors to maintain the resource." The Corridor Element of the Coastal Specific Plan does not identify the subject property within a specific visual corridor. However, the Coastal Specific Plan states that in order to protect the visual relationship between Palos Verdes Drive West and the ocean, for sites which are not within a visual corridor, proposed buildings should not project into a zone measured 2° down-arc from horizontal as measured from the viewing station (PVDW). According to the applicant's plans, the top of the existing curb along the southbound lanes of Palos Verdes Drive West, adjacent to the applicant's lot, is at an average elevation of 268.0'. For purposes of implementing the Coastal Specific Plan, Staff has determined the "viewing station" to be the eye level of a pedestrian standing on the area adjacent to PVDW which has an average grade elevation of 268.0'. This happens to be the location of the City's Coastal Trail which is discussed in more detail under "Additional Information." Assuming the average eye level is approximately 5 feet above the 268.0' grade elevation, the horizontal plane that is to be used to calculate the 2° down-arc is at an elevation of 273.0'. When calculating the 2° down-arc from the viewing station, the 2° down-arc drops approximately 2'-0" for every 50'-0" as one gets closer to the proposed residence. The ridgeline of the residence, as currently proposed, is approximately 118'0" from the viewing station. At the proposed residence's current location, the 2° downarc would be 4.3' below the 273.0' horizontal plane. This would limit the residence to a ridge line elevation of 268.75', which would be 9" above the curb level. The new residence is proposed to have a ridgeline elevation of 277.45', which is above the horizontal plane and down-arc from the viewing level along Palos Verdes Drive West. Thus, the proposed project would not comply with the 2° down-arc guideline of the Coastal Specific Plan.
19
PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 14, 2012 PAGE 14
~TAFF
REPORT - (CASE NO. ZON2012-00141)
It is important note, the Corridor Element Policy (p. C-16) "require[s] development proposals within areas which might impact corridors to analyze the site conditions in order to mitigate impacts ... " As noted in the grading analysis, the applicant has been working with neighbors when designing the home and its location and orientation on the existing lot. In reviewing the previous approval on the subject property in 1999, Staff found that the Planning Commission previously approved the maximum ridgeline elevation of the then proposed residence at a maximum 275.75' elevation. Although this elevation would still result in a building over the 2° down-arc guideline of the Coastal Specific Plan, the Planning Commission felt in 1999 that a residence at the 275.75' maximum ridgeline would reduce the intrusion into the ocean and Catalina views that are observed from Palos Verdes Drive West. Considering this previous Planning Commission determination, Staff would recommend that the applicant slightly redesign the ridgeline of the project to be no higher than 275.75' elevation. Staff believes that directing the applicant to lower the ridgeline to meet the 268.75' elevation dictated by the Coastal Specific Plan guideline would either increase the grading, which Staff believes is already excessive, or move the house to be lower on the lot which could create impacts to the neighbors which the current design seeks to avoid. This concern has been discussed with the applicant and they are amenable to redesigning the ridgeline of the residence to be more in line with the ridgeline that was previously approved. 2.
That the proposed development, when located between the sea and the first public road, is consistent with applicable public access and recreation policies of the Coastal Act.
The subject property is not located between the sea and the first public road paralleling the sea (Marguerite Drive), in this area. Therefore, this finding is not applicable to this project. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Foliage Analysis: As the additions would create more than 120 square feet of viewing or gathering area, a foliage analysis was triggered. After conducting a foliage analysis of the subject project, Staff found that there are no trees are located on the subject property that would impair a view from the viewing area of another property. Environmental Analysis: Staff has determined that the proposed project is Categorically Exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), under Article 19, Section 15303(a)(new construction; single-family residence) of the California Guidelines for Implementation of the CEQA. Specifically, the project includes the construction of a 10,509 square foot single-family residence and 1,027 square foot garage in a residential
20
PLANNING COMMISSION::. fAFF REPORT - (CASE NO. ZON2012-00,41) AUGUST 14, 2012 PAGE 15
zone. As such, this project has been determined not to have a significant impact on the environment. Conceptual Trails Plan: The subject property is located adjacent to Palos Verdes Drive West. According to the City's Conceptual Trails Plan, a portion of the Palos Verdes Loop Trail is located within the adjoining right-of-way of Palos Verdes Drive West. The portion of the Palos Verdes Loop Trail that is located in front of the subject property is referred to as the Christmas Tree Cove Segment. The specific course trail segment begins on Palos Verdes Drive West at the City's border with Palos Verdes Estates and continues on the western side of the road to a point just north of the southern boundary of the Lunada Point development. This trail is designated for pedestrian/equestrian use and falls under Category III of the City's Conceptual Trail Plan, meaning the trail is located within the City's PVDW right-of-way. The Conceptual Trail Plan indicates that implementation of this trail segment should be funded with grants or by outside agencies. Coincidently, completion of this trail segment is currently being pursued as part of a recent grant funded by the State of California for completion of the City's Coastal Trail. It is anticipated that the future trail in this area will consist of a decomposed granite trail that will include parkway improvements and signage. As such, the applicant will be prevented from constructing any improvements in the public right-of-way other than the driveway approach, which is a requirement imposed by the Public Works Department. A condition of approval to this affect has been included in the attached Resolution. Overlay Control Districts: The subject property is listed in the Natural Overlay Control District (OC-1), Sociocultural Overlay Control District (OC-2) and Urban appearance Overlay Control District (OC-3) as outlined in the General Plan and Zoning Code. Overlay control districts provide criterion which further reduce potential impacts which could be directly created or indirectly induced by the proposed and existing developments in sensitive areas of the City. These areas have been defined by the general plan and other studies to be sensitive areas due to unique characteristics contributing to the city's form, appearance, natural setting, and historical and cultural heritage. Staff reviewed the proposed project for compliance with the performance criterion listed in Chapter 17.40 and found that the project complies with all related criterion in the Natural Overlay Control District and Socio-Cultural Overlay Control District, but does not comply with the Urban Appearance Overlay Control District as summarized by bullet points below: Natural Overlay Control District (OC-1) •
The project would not affect the land and water areas necessary for the survival of valuable land and marine-based wildlife and vegetation as no protected vegetation or wildlife has been found on the subject property.
•
The project will require review and approval of a drainage plan and NPDES
21
PLANNING COMMISSION :sTAFF REPORT - (CASE NO. ZON2012-00141) AUGUST 14, 2012 PAGE 16
approval, thereby ensuring that storm drainage and erosion control wil[ not affect the water quality of both urban runoff and natural water bodies Socia-Cultural Overlay Control District (OC-2)
•
The subject property was not listed in the City's records to have any significant historical, archaeological or cultural importance and is zoned for residential use.
Urban Overlay Control District (OC-3)
•
For the reasons discussed throughout the analysis of the Grading Permit, the project is located on a [egal, downsloping single-family residential lot which can accommodate the construction of a home within a 16'-30' building height envelope. However, due to the fact that the project is located within the Coastal Zone, although it is not located within a view corridor, the residences should be designed to mitigate impacts to views as seen from the established viewing station (i.e. eye level from the exiting trail). As discussed in the Coastal Permit section of this report, the project as currently designed does not mitigate impacts of views as seen from the viewing station. As such, the height of the project will not preserve, protect or enhance the visual character of the city as seen from Palos Verdes Drive West as currently designed.
Public Notice: As a result of the public notice, Staff received the attached correspondence from the property owner located next door, at 3400 Palos Verdes Drive West and across the street at 3333 Palos Verdes Drive West. Both property owners are in support of the proposed project due to the fact that the design does not exceed the height limitation of the Development Code. The property owner at 3400 Palos Verdes Drive West noted that they agree with the design of the project and welcome the new construction provided they can be assured that the construction will not damage their retaining wall, pool, pool deck and home office as a result. In speaking with the home owner at 3400 Palos Verdes Drive West, the home owner was pleased to hear that the construction of the residence and associated grading would be required to obtain final geology approval, structural review and hydrology approval prior to issuance of a grading or building permit. Permit Streamlining Act: The deadline for the Permit Streamlining Act expires on September 7, 2012. If the Planning Commission agrees to continue the project to September 11, 2012, as recommended by Staff, the Planning Commission will need to request an extension to the Permit Streamlining Act from the applicant for a maximum of ninety (90) days. This would create a new Permit Streamlining Act deadline of December 6,2012.
22
PLANNING COMMISSION :sTAFF REPORT - (CASE NO. ZON2012-00141) AUGUST 14,2012 PAGE 17
CONCLUSION Based on the above analysis, as currently designed, Staff is not able to make the required findings to approve the Grading Permit or Coastal Permit. More specifically, Staff recommends that the Planning Commission direct the applicant to reduce the grading associated with the development of the rear yard area and reduce the overall ridgeline of the residence to 275.75', which is the elevation of the ridgeline previously approved by the Planning Commission. As such, Staff recommends that the Planning Commission open the public hearing, discuss the merits of the proposed project and continue the project to a date certain to allow the applicant time to redesign the residence. ALTERNATIVES In addition to Staff's recommendation, the following alternatives are available for the Planning Commission to act on: 1. Identify any additional issues of concern with the proposed project, provide Staff and/or the applicant with direction in modifying the project, and continue the public hearing to a date certain. 2. Approved the project as currently designed and direct Staff to return to the next meeting with the appropriate Resolution. 3. Deny, without prejudice, the Site Plan Review, Grading Permit and Coastal Permit (Case No. ZON2012-00141) and direct Staff to return to the next meeting with the appropriate Resolution. ATTACHMENTS • •
Correspondence Letters Project Plans
23
Correspondence Letter(s)
24
3344 Palos Verdes Drive, West
Page I of 1
3344 Palos Verdes Drive, West Nicholas Stiassni [[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 20126:31 AM To:
Leza Mikhail
STIASSNI 3400 PALOS VERDES DRiVE, WEST RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 90275 310/544-0849 [email protected]
July 23, 2012
Leza Mikhail City Planner City of Rancho Palos Verdes The Planning Department 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 To Whom It May Concern, I am writing in regards to the proposed structure to be constructed at 3344 Paios Verdes Drive, West. My wife and I have reviewed the architectural plans drawn up by Tomaro Design Group. We welcome the Khosla family to what has been a magical location for our family. We approve the plans and have no suggestions for any revisions. The one concern that we have which has been expressed to Ravi Khosla is the possibility of damage to our retaining wail, pool, pool deck, and home office because of the amount of earth required to be removed. Ravi has assured me that this wiil not be a problem. I trust him but need to voice this concern and would like to receive a structural report with assurances that my property wiil not be compromised. We look forward to your response. We also look forward to working with the Khosla famiiy to make their transition to Rancho Palos Verdes a pleasant one. Sincerely, Nick & Suzie Stiassni Cc: Ravi Khosla
https://owa.rpv.comiowa/?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAAAKp5zhZVCQSqUvcjOG...
25 7/24/2012
Page 1 of2
Leza Mikhail From:
Louie Tomaro [[email protected]]
Sent:
Friday, Juiy 27,20129:28 AM
To:
Leza Mikhail
Subject:
FW: [FWD: Re: Your Neighbour @ 3344 PV Drive]--FYI
Importance: High Leza Hope the summer is going well so far Not sure if these emails can be added to the staff report or not for the project at 3344 PV DR W We have been communicating with many of the neighbors to provide support for the project This is an emaii communication to show support from one of the neighbors Please let me know if these should be sent in to you Thanks Have a good weekend Louie Tomaro, AlA, LEED AP TOMARO ARCHITECTURE 2617 N. Sepulveda Blvd. Suite 100 Manhattan Beach. CA. 90266 310.3188089 x101 3103189400 f www.TOMARO.com
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2012 10:27 AM To: Louie Tomaro Subject: [FWD: Re: Your Neighbour @ 3344 P.V Drive] --FYI Importance: High hi, Received this email from the neighbour in the back Thanks
Ravi Khosla Royal Concepts Incorporated SOLITAIRE - WHITE DIAMONDS- L'AFFAIRE Los Angeies : New York: Dallas: Hong Kong: New Delhi Phone:213-748-5590 Fax: 213-748-5560 Celi: 310-930-5040 > > > > >
-------- Original Message -------Subject: Re: Your Neighbour @ 3344 P.V Drive From: Bont Irma Date: Tue, July 24, 2012 5:57 pm To: [email protected]
>
7/31/2012
26
Page 2 of2
> > Hello Ravi, > > today I was at RPV City Hall to take a look at the plans for your new house and I would like to congratulate you on the remarkable design for an impr,essive home. We do appreciate that fact that you are building within the height limits and see no concerns on our side. We have received a letter from the city pertaining the Augu~t 14, 2012, hearing of the planning commission and I wanted to assure you there wont be any objections on our side.
> > Congratulations on a great design.
> > Irma Bont > -:>:'33 ?VDW > > > On Jun 15, 2012, at 3:37 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> > > > > > >
> >
> > > >
Dear Irma, I hope my mail finds you and Marcel in best. As you may have noticed the work on silhouette at our property 3344 P.V Drive is complete. As per your concern and keeping in mind what you had written in your last mail, we have tried to keep the height within the guiaelines and are not requesting for variances. I totally agree with you concerns and would cooperate with what ever best we can to maintain the view and value' of your property. I assure you if you have any other concern regarding the project I will address that. Please feel free to call me or email it to me.
> Have a great weekend. > > Regards
> >
> Ravi Khosla > Royal Concepts Incorporated > > > > > >
SOLITAIRE - WHITE DIAMONDS- L'AFFAIRE Los Angeles: New York: Dallas: Hong Kong: New Delhi Phone:213-748-5590 Fax: 213-748-5560 Cell: 310-930-5040
.
,
7/31/2012
27
Late Correspondence (August 14, 2012)
28
RE: 3344 Palos Verdes Drive West
Page 1 of2
#/
RE: 3344 Palos Verdes Drive West Leza Mikhail sent: Monday, August 13, 2012 8:08 AM To: Jason Sikola [[email protected]
Hello Jason,
Thank you for the apology, although it is not necessary. I understand your frustration. It is my understanding that Mr. Tomaro attempted to go to your residence shortly after you came in, but was unsuccessful. I didn't have any contact information for him to contact you other than using a phone number listed with the assessor information. Mr. Tomaro's phone number is (310) 318-8089. Ask for him and say it is regarding the Khosla residence.
I will forward your phone number and email to Mr. Tomaro. As for submitting a letter to the Planning Commission, you may still do so. I can either submit the email you sent me (below) or you can submit another one, or both. Please let me know what you would prefer.
Also, the staff report is available online at http://www.palosverdes.com/rov/planning/AGENDAS Current Agendas/PIanningCommission/2012/2012 08 14 Planning Commission Agendal
Click on agenda item #1 to read the staff report that I prepared. You will notice that staff is recommending that the ridgeline height be reduced.
I encourage you to contact Mr. Tomaro and attend the Planning Commission meeting tomorrow evening.
Thank you,
Leza Mikhail Associate Planner
City of'Rff.nd'o Paws 'lIertfes Planning Department
https:llowa.rpv.com/owa/?ae=!tem&t=!PM.Note&id=RgAAAAAKp5zhZV CQSq Uvcj OG...
8/14/2012 29
RE: 3344 Palos Verdes Drive West
Page 2 of2
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 www.palosverdes.com/rpv/planning/index.cfm. (310) 544-5228 - (310) 544-5293 f [email protected]
From: Jason Sikola [[email protected]
sent: Sunday, August 12, 2012 11:34 PM
To: Leza Mikhail ee: Eric Sikola Subject: 3344 Palos Verdes Drive west Hello Leza, First, I would like to apologize for being somewhat hasty the other day when we met at RPV city hall. I was running on an empty stomach and had way too strong of a coffee for our brief discussion. I would also like to thank you for offering your assistance and being quite helpful. Unfortunately, my attempts to contact the contractor, Louis Tomaro, and discuss the possibility of a ridge-line reduction have been unsuccessful and I have not received a call back. Henceforth, I would like your advice moving forward. May I still submit a letter of complaint to be recognized this Tuesday night based on the info below. Ocean View Infringement of the viewing areas of property residing on 7369 Berry Hill Dr., Rancho Palos Verdes CA, 90275 Size of house 11,000+ sq. ft. is far greater than the average house in nearby areas as well as property's zone. (50% greater than average) Affordability Index - Many vacant houses just south of property in question because of impractical structure sizes and unaffordable housing prices. Please let me know your thoughts when you get a chance Monday Morning.
Jason Sikola Cell (310) 941-7246 Work (310) 373-6326
https://owa.rpv.comlowa/?ae=ltem&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAAAKp5zhZVCQSqUvcjOG...
811412012 30
