STAFF REPORT
CllY OF PLANNING, BUILDING, & CODE ENFORCEMENT
STAFF REPORT TO:
CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM:
COMMUNITY DIRECTOR
DATE:
MAY 25,2010
SUBJECT:
HEIGHT VARIATION (CASE NO. ZON2008-000656)
PROJECT ADDRESS:
6752 EDDINGHILL DRIVE
DEVELOPMENT,.\~~ \41 ~'+t 1\
JOHN HORI APPLICANT: TIMOTHY ALAN LANDOWNER:
THOMAS GUIDE PAGE 792/H-7
STAFF COORDINATOR:
LEZA MIKHAIL ASSOCIATE PLANNER
(pJ
REQUESTED ACTION:
A REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT A NEW 587 SQUARE FOOT SECOND STORY ADDITION AND BALCONY TO THE REAR OF THE EXISTING 2,723 SQUARE FOOT RESIDENCE. THE PROPOSED RESIDENCE MEASURES 22'-2" IN HEIGHT, AS MEASURED FROM THE LOWEST FINISHED GRADE ADJACENT TO THE FOUNDATION/SLAB (ELEV. 102.9') TO THE HIGHEST RIDGELINE OF THE RESIDENCE (ELEV. 125.0')
RECOMMENDATION:
ADOPT P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2010-_; THEREBY CONDITIONALLY APPROVING THE HEIGHT VARIATION (CASE NO. ZON2008-00656).
REFERENCES: ZONING:
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL - RS-4
LAND USE:
SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
CODE SECTIONS:
17.02,17.48,17.66,17.80, & 17.96
GENERAL PLAN:
RESIDENTIAL - 2-4 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
TRAILS PLAN:
N/A
30940 HAWTHORNE BLVD. / RANCHO PALOS VERDES,
CA 90275-5391
1
PLANNING/CODE ENFORCEMENT (310) 544-5228/ BUILDING (310) 265-7800/ DEPT. FAX (310) 544-5293/ E-MAIL [email protected]
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (CASE NO. ZON2008-00656) MAY 25,2010 PAGE 2 SPECIFIC PLAN:
N/A
CEQA:
CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 1)
ACTION DEADLINE:
JUNE 18, 2010
PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS RESIDING WITHIN 500' OF SUBJECT PROPERTY: NONE
BACKGROUND On December 23, 2008, the applicant submitted a Height Variation application to the Community Development Department for review and processing. The applicant's request is to construct a 587 square foot second-story addition to the existing residence. On January 21, 2009, 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 multiple occasions. Staff deemed the application complete on April 19, 2010. On April 22, 2010, Staff mailed notices to 95 property owners within a 500-foot radius from the subject property, providing a 30-day time period for the submittal of comments and concerns. In addition, a Public Notice was published in the Peninsula News on April 22, 2010. Staff received the attached comment letters from four neighbors. Their concerns are addressed throughout this report. SITE DESCRIPTION The project site is a 9,300 square foot pad lot located on the west side of Eddinghill Drive, west of Plainfield Drive and east of Cedarbluff Drive. A majority of the property is relatively flat, with transitional slopes along each side property line. A slope also descends beyond the rear property line approximately 25 feet to the downslope neighbor. The subject property is currently improved with a 2,723 square foot single-story residence (including garage). The Development Code specifies lot coverage to include any building or structure, decks over 30 inches in height and parking areas or driveways, courtyards and impervious surfaces. The existing driveway encompasses 1,338 square feet. The existing lot coverage totals 4,061 square feet, or 53.72% of the 7,560 square foot lot and is therefore non-conforming. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant is proposing to construct a new 587 square foot square foot 2-story addition at the rear of the existing residence. The new addition would accommodate a new master bedroom on the second floor with a new 116 square foot second story balcony.
2
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (CASE NO. ZON2008-00656) MAY 25,2010 PAGE 3
The applicant is proposing to remove an existing 220 square foot enclosed patio in the location of the new addition and balcony. The applicant is also proposing to reduce the square footage of the existing driveway by 213 square feet. When combined, the new residence and garage (2,648 square feet) and driveway/parking area (1,125 square feet) would yield a total lot coverage of 3,773 square feet, or 49.9% of the 7,560 square foot lot. The residence will have a maximum height of 22'-2" as measured from the lowest grade adjacent to the building foundation/slab (elevation 102.9') to the highest ridgeline (elevation 125.00') of the residence. Table 1: Project Statistics:
Structure Size
Enclosed Parkin Structure Hei ht Highest elevation of existing building pad covered by structure to highest ridge of buildin . Lowest grade adjacent to the building foundation/slab.
N/A
2,723 s.f.
3,090 s.f.
20'-0" 5'-0" 5'-0" 15'-0" N/A
12'-4" 5'-11" 5'-8" 20'-6" N/A
No Change No Chan e No Chan e 21'-6" N/A
2 s aces
2 s aces
No Chan e
16'
13'-8"
21'-2"
20'
14'-7"
22'-2"
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Staff has determined that the proposed project is Categorically Exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), under Article 19, Section
3
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (CASE NO. ZON2008-00656) MAY 25,2010 PAGE 4
15303(e)(2)(additions) of the California Guidelines for Implementation of the CEQA. Specifically, the project includes an addition that will not result in a structure that exceeds 10,000 square feet. Further, the project is in an area where all public services and facilities are available and the project is not located in an environmentally sensitive area. As such, this project has been determined not to have a significant impact on the environment. CODE CONSIDERATION AND ANALYSIS
Height Variation Since the proposed two-story structure exceeds the 16'/20' "by right" building envelope, a Height Variation is required for this request. Pursuant to Municipal Code Section No. 17.02.040(C)(1)(a), the Community Development Director is required to refer the application to the Planning Commission for consideration whenever the Director determines that any portion of the residence that exceeds 16'-0" in height may potentially impair a view from a neighboring property. Municipal Code Section No. 17.02.040(C)(1)(e) sets forth the findings required in order for the Planning Commission to approve a Height Variation. A discussion of these findings (in bold type) follows: 1. The applicant has complied with the early neighborhood consultation process established by the city. The City of Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code requires the applicant to take all necessary steps to consult with the property owners within 500 feet of the project site. The City has established the following guidelines to conform with this requirement, "[applicant must obtain] the signatures of at least 60% of the landowners within 500 feet; or 70% of the landowners within 100 feet and 25% of the total number of landowners within 500 feet (including those within 100 feet) is obtained." With exception to the project site, there are 9 properties within 100 feet and 95 parcels within 500 feet of the site. The applicant obtained 57 signatures from properties within 500 feet (60%). As such, the applicant has met the requirement to notify a minimum of 60% of the landowners within 500 feet, thereby complying with the early notification consultation process. Thus, this finding can be adopted. 2. The proposed new structure that is above sixteen feet in height or addition to an existing structure that is above sixteen feet in height does not significantly impair a view from public property (parks, major thoroughfares, bike ways, walkways or equestrian trails) which has been identified in the city's general plan or coastal specific plan, as city-designated viewing areas. The Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan, adopted June 26, 1975, identifies viewing
4
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (CASE NO. ZON2008-00656) MAY 25,2010 PAGES
points (turnouts along vehicular corridors for the purposes of viewing) and viewing sites (public site areas, which due to their physical locations on the Peninsula, provide a significant viewing vantage) within the City. Due to the location of the property and the topography in the immediate area, the proposed structure does not impair a view from a public viewing area or viewing site, as defined by the General Plan. Additionally, the subject property is not located within the City's Coastal Specific Plan. As such, the proposed structure will not impair a view, which has been defined in the City's General Plan, or Coastal Specific Plan. Therefore, Staff feels that this finding can be adopted.
3. The proposed structure is not located on a ridge or promontory. A ridge is defined as, "an elongated crest or a linear series of crests of hills, bluffs, or highlands" (Section 17.96.1610 of the Municipal Code). A promontory is defined as, "a prominent mass of land, large enough to support development, which overlooks or projects onto a lowland or body of water on at least two sides" (Section 17.96.1480 of the Municipal Code). The proposed residence would be located on an existing building pad, similar to other lots within the developed area, and is not located on a prominent mass of land that overlooks or projects onto a lowland or body of water on two sides. As such, Staff feels that this finding can be adopted.
4. The area of a proposed new structure that is above sixteen feet in height or an addition to an existing structure that is above sixteen feet in height, as defined in Section 17.02.040(8) of the Development Code, when considered exclusive of existing foliage, does not significantly impair a view from the viewing area of another parcel. Most residences surrounding the subject property have direct, distant views of the Pacific Ocean. The views are orientated to west and the proposed addition would not impair any ocean views for the neighboring views to the north or south. Further, the subject property is sited approximately 25 feet above the properties to the west, above Cedarbluff Drive. As views are to the west, the proposed addition would not impair any views to the property to the west or below the subject property. Staff did visit some properties to the east of the subject site as the neighboring properties to the east are located approximately 30 feet above the subject property and have expansive views of the Pacific Ocean. As a result of the construction of the silhouette and the public notice, Staff was contacted by the property owners to the east at 28349 Plainfield (the Ringe's) and 28355 Plainfield (the Gau's) regarding concerns with view impairment caused by the proposed addition. After visiting the properties, Staff determined that the proposed addition would not significantly impair a view from the viewing area of the abovementioned properties. The kitchen, dining room and living room of both properties share the same west-facing fa9ade and view of the ocean. Staff analyzed the views from all three rooms in both residences. The view from 28349 Plainfield would only be obstructed by the proposed addition by less than 10%. The proposed addition would barely be visible from the liVing room
5
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (CASE NO. ZON2008-00656) MAY 25,2010 PAGE 6
and is blocked by foliage at the top of the slope of 28349 Plainfield. Even if the foliage were to be removed by the Ringe's, the view impacts of the proposed addition would be minimal (less than 10% of the entire ocean view). Staff also visited the Gau's property (28355 Plainfield) and considered view impacts from all three rooms. Although the proposed addition could be seen in all three rooms, the impairment is less than significant. The addition would impair less than 10% of the expansive ocean view as seen from the Gau's living room, dining room and/or kitchen. While out on the site visit, Staff also visited the property at 28339 Plainfield and noted that there were no view impacts. As such, Staff is of the opinion that the proposed new addition that is above 16'-0" in height would not significantly impair a view from the viewing area of another parcel and this finding can be made. 5. If view impairment exists from the viewing area of another parcel but it is determined not to be significant, as described in Finding No.4, the proposed new structure that is above sixteen feet in height or addition to an existing structure that is above sixteen feet in height is designed and situated in such a manner as to reasonably minimize the impairment of a view.
Although the proposed project would not significantly impair a view, it does appear in the view. It should be noted that the applicant did slightly redesign the project during the initial review by lowering the ridgeline of the addition by 1'-0" in order to address some of the neighbors' concerns discussed above. As such, Staff feels that the applicant did design the structure in a manner that reasonably minimizes view impairment. 6. There is no significant cumulative view impairment caused by granting the application. Cumulative view impairment shall be determined by: (a) considering the amount of view impairment that would be caused by the proposed new structure that is above sixteen feet in height or addition to a structure that is above sixteen feet in height; and (b) considering the amount of view impairment that would be caused by the construction on other parcels of similar new structures or additions that exceed sixteen feet in height.
As indicated above, there will be no significant view impairment for portions of the addition which exceed 16'-0" in height as seen from the viewing area of another parcel. The Height Variation Guidelines state, "The Planning Commission will determine which other nearby parcels within the viewshed from a particular property...may be developed [with a second story}... which would further impair a view." The view shed, as seen from the neighboring properties along Plainfield Drive, is orientated toward the west, above the subject property and Eddinghill Drive. The majority of the homes in the immediate neighborhood, and along Eddinghill Drive are currently developed with two-story homes. More specifically, with the exception of 6758 Eddinghill, the five closest homes on either side of the project are developed as two-story structures and would not create further view impairments.
6
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (CASE NO. ZON2008-00656) MAY 25,2010 PAGE 7
Although 6758 Eddinhill Dr. is currently a single-story residence, if the property owners decided to construct a second story addition, the addition would not likely create further view impairment to the neighbors along Plainfield. This is due to the fact that 6758 is located 5 feet below the subject property and 35-40 feet below the neighbors along Plainfield. As such, any potential view impairment from the construction of a second story at 6758 Eddinghill would be less impairing that the subject addition which does not cause a significant view impairment. Furthermore, Eddinghill Drive is located approximately 30 feet below the homes along Plainfield and continues to descend as one drives north on Eddinghill. 7. The proposed structure complies with all other code requirements. The existing residence complies with the City's Development Code standards with regard to lot coverage and parking (also see project statistics above). The lot coverage for the subject property considering the proposed project would include 3,773 square feet, or 49.9% of the 7,560 square foot pad lot. The proposed addition will be well outside the required 20-foot front yard setback, as it will be located at the rear of the residence and will maintain the existing 5'-11" north side yard setback. The rear yard setback would be 21'-6", outside of the required 15-foot rear yard setback. As such, this finding can be made. 8. The proposed structure is compatible with the immediate neighborhood character. Pursuant to Section 17.02.040.A.6. of the Municipal Code, "Neighborhood Character" is defined to consider the existing physical characteristics of an area. The factors to be analyzed per the code language are boldface, and Staff's analysis is in normal type. (1)
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) closest properties. The table below illustrates the 20 properties and structures that comprise the immediate neighborhood and serve as the basis for neighborhood compatibility. The homes analyzed, along with the lot size, structure size, and number of stories, are listed below in the Neighborhood Compatibility Table.
28349 Plainfield 28355 Plainfield 28361 Plainfield
10,707 10,533 10,555
2,676 2,789 2,837
2 2 2
7
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (CASE NO. ZON200S-00656) MAY 25,2010 PAGES
6820 Eddinghill 6812 Eddinghill 6804 Eddinghill 6778 Eddinghill 6770 Eddinghill 6758 Eddinghill 6742 Eddinghill 6736 Eddinghill 6728 Eddinghill 6722 Eddinghill 6716 Eddinghill 6708 Eddinghill 6702 Eddinghill 6678 Eddinghill 28440 Cedarbluff 28450 Cedarbluff 28456 Cedarbluff
13,252 11,568 9,023 10,134 10,518 7,658 7,561 7,453 7,236 7,242 7,243 7,238 7,242 7,124 12,180 11,279 10,252
2,837 2,837 2,837 2,837 2,837 2,390 2,960 2,837 2,837 2,922 2,800* 2,837 3,081 2,789 2,390 2,642 2,376*
Averaae
9,300
2,787
7,560
2,723 3,090
6752 Eddinghill
Existing Proposed
2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 1
1 2
* The square footage for this residential property was documented from Assessor's information as there was no information available in the bUilding permit file in the Community Development Department.
As noted in the table above, the immediate neighborhood is comprised of a majority of two-story homes. The homes range in size from 2,376 square feet to 3,081 square feet. The average home size for all of the 20 closest homes is 2,787 square feet. The proposed residence will yield a 3,090 square foot residence. While the size of the new residence is larger than the average of the 20 closest homes, the square footage of the subject residence would only exceed the largest home in the neighborhood by 9 square feet. Additionally, the proposed lot coverage (49.9%) is below the maximum allowable lot coverage in the RS-4 zone and appears to be consistent with the lot coverage in the surrounding neighborhood. As such, the proposed additions would not create an anomaly, in terms of scale, and would thereby be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. (2)
Architectural styles, including fa~ade treatments, structure height, open space between structures, roof design, the apparent bulk or mass of the structure, number of stories, and building materials.
The architectural style of the proposed residence would include a low-pitched gabled roof, evenly proportioned windows along the front fa9ade of the addition, a composition shingle roof to match the existing roof and a stucco exterior to match the existing fa9ade. The proposed second story is located at the rear of the residence and offers relief from potential bulk and mass impacts by offering multiple
8
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (CASE NO. ZON2008-00656) MAY 25,2010 PAGE 9
roof lines as seen from the north, south and east facades. The west (rear) fagade will not be easily visible from the properties to the west as they are located approximately 25 feet below the subject property. After surveying the 20 closest homes in the neighborhood, Staff concluded that the immediate area is comprised of a diverse sense of architectural styles and materials that accent the residences. The surrounding materials range from stucco to wood siding with either shingle or mission tile roof materials. Although most of the surrounding residences are split-level and reminiscent of architecture from the early 1970's, other two-story residences have a Neo-Colonial Revival style of architecture. The proposed architecture would appear to be similar in design to the existing, splitlevel residence, but would incorporate the use of stucco, instead of wood siding. It is important to note that stucco is also found on other residences found within the neighborhood. As such, Staff has concluded that the materials and treatments proposed for the residence are compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. As proposed, the residence will have a maximum height of 22'-2", as measured from the lowest grade adjacent to the building foundation/slab (elev. 102.9') to the highest ridgeline of the residence (elev. 125.0'), and 21'_2", as measured from the highest elevation of existing building pad covered by structure (elev. 103.82') to the highest ridge line of the residence (elev. 125.0'). Staff believes that the location of the proposed additions, the materials proposed, and the retention of the existing setbacks and structure height would create a new addition that is compatible with the existing residence and the current character of the immediate neighborhood. (3)
Front, side, and rear yard setbacks
According to the Development Code, structures shall maintain the following minimum setbacks: 20-foot front yard setback, 5-foot side yard setback, and 15-foot rear yard .setbacks. The proposed project meets the required 5-foot side yard setbacks and 15-foot rear yard setbacks. Although the existing residence has a nonconforming 12'-4" front yard setback, the addition would be located well-outside the required 20-front yard setback as it will be located at the rear of the residence. As stated above, with the exception of the existing non-conforming front yard setback, this project will meet all the minimum setback requirements for the lot and the proposed setbacks are consistent with other setbacks in the immediate neighborhood. Based on the analysis above, it is staff's opinion that the proposed "scale, architectural style and materials, and front, side, and rear yard setbacks" are consistent with the character of the immediate neighborhood. As such, Staff feels that this finding can be adopted. 9. The proposed new structure that is above sixteen feet in height or addition to an existing structure that is above sixteen feet does not result in an
9
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (CASE NO. ZON2008-00656) MAY 25,2010 PAGE 10
unreasonable infringement of the privacy of the occupants of abutting residences. The Municipal Code defines privacy as, "reasonable protection from intrusive visual observation." The Height Variation Guidelines state, "Given the variety and number of options which are available to preserve indoor privacy, greater weight generally will be given to protecting outdoor privacy than to protecting indoor privacy." The proposed second-floor is located at the rear and north side of the existing residence. The applicant is proposing a window along the north fac;ade of the proposed addition which would be located 5'-11" from the north side property line. Due to the close proximity of the second story addition to the neighboring property to the north and the fact that the neighbor to the north (6755 Eddinghill Drive) submitted a letter with concerns of privacy impacts from the window along the north fac;ade, Staff has added a condition of approval requiring the window along this second-story fac;ade to be clerestory. According to Section 17.02.030.0.4 of the Municipal Code, a permitted roof deck shall not create an infringement of privacy onto any abutting properties. The applicant is proposing a balcony/roof deck located behind and proposed twostory portion of the residence. Although the balcony/deck would typically cause a privacy impairment, there is existing foliage along the north side property line that would obstruct any views from the deck onto the north, neighboring property. The foliage is on the north neighbor's property at 6758 Eddinghill. As such, there would not be any privacy impacts from the balcony/deck. Therefore, as mitigated, Staff feels that this finding can be adopted. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Foliage Analysis: As the additions would create more than 120 square feet of viewing or gathering area, a foliage analysis was triggered. Staff conducted a site visit in October 2009 and May 2010 and concluded that the subject property does not have any trees that significantly impair a view from the viewing area of a neighboring property. Public Notice: As a result of the public notice, Staff received the attached correspondence from the four property owners: 1) Mr. Shao-I Hu, property owner at 28389 Plainfield, 2) Lucy Chen and Peter Zheng, property owners at 6758 Eddinghill, 3) Mr. and Mrs. Gau, property owners at 28355 Plainfield, and 4) Mr. and Mrs. Ringe, property owners at 28349 Plainfield. The neighbors at 28355 Plainfield and 28349 Plainfield expressed concerns with view impairment, the neighbor at 6758 Eddinghill had privacy concerns, and the neighbor at 28389 only requested notification of the project.
10
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (CASE NO. ZON2008-00656) MAY 25,2010 PAGE 11
In regards to the concerns of view impairment from the neighbors, as noted earlier Staff conducted a view analysis from the neighbor's primary viewing area (living room, dining room and kitchen combined). Staff concluded that although the proposed addition does impair a portion of the Pacific Ocean as seen from the viewing area of 28355 Plainfield and 28349 Plainfield, the impairment is less than significant. Both property owners have an expansive view of the ocean from all three rooms and the addition would only impair less than 10% of their view. Further, there would be no cumulative view impairment as a majority of the homes in the neighborhood are two-story. It is important to note that the applicant did respond to the neighbors' concerns by lowering the ridgeline of the addition by 1'-0" while maintaining an addition that was compatible with the neighborhood. Additionally, a flat roof would not be compatible with the neighborhood as there are no flat roofs in the immediate neighborhood. The applicant at 6758 had concerns with privacy impacts that would result from the second story addition, specifically the proposed window along the north fayade. As noted in Finding #9 above, Staff has added a condition of approval requiring the window along the north fayade to be clerestory. The neighbor did not stress concerns of privacy from the balcony/deck due to the fact that there is existing foliage on their property (6758 Eddinghill) that would block the view of the balcony/deck. CONCLUSION Based on the above analysis, Staff concludes that all of the required findings can be adopted to conditionally approve the Height Variation for the proposed 587 square foot two-story addition. More specifically, Staff is concluding that the proposed project, as conditioned, does not create view impairment, is compatible with the neighborhood, and does not create privacy impacts. As such, Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission approve, with conditions, the Height Variation (Case No. ZON2008-00656). ALTERNATIVES . In addition to Staff's recommendation, the following alternatives are available for the Planning Commission to act on: 1. Approve the Height Variation (Case No. ZON2008-00656), as submitted. 2. Deny, without prejudice, the Height Variation (Case No. ZON2008-00656). 3. Identify any 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. ATTACHMENTS •
Draft Planning Commission Resolution No. 2010-_
11
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (CASE NO. ZON2008-00656) MAY 25,2010 PAGE 12
• • •
Exhibit B Correspondence Letters Project Plans
12
P.C. Resolution No. 2010(Exhibit "8")
13
P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2010A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES CONDITIONALLY APPROVING A HEIGHT VARIATION FOR A 587 SQUARE FOOT SECOND-STORY ADDITION TO THE EXISTING RESIDENCE (CASE NO. ZON200800656) LOCATED AT 6752 EDDINGHILL DRIVE. WHEREAS, on December 23, 2008, the property owner, Mr. Alon, submitted a Height Variation application to the Community Development Department for review and processing requesting approval to construct a new 587 square foot addition to the existing single-story residence. On January 21,2009, Staff completed the initial review of the application, at which time the application was deemed incomplete due to missing information on the project plans; and, WHEREAS, Staff deemed the application complete on April 19, 2010; and, WHEREAS, on April 22, 2010, Staff mailed notices to 95 property owners within a 500-foot radius from the subject property, providing a 30-day time period for the submittal of comments and concerns. In addition, a Public Notice was published in the Peninsula News on April 22, 2010; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et. seq. ("CEQA"), the State's CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et. seq., the City's Local CEQA Guidelines, and Government Code Section 65962.5(f) (Hazardous Waste and Substances Statement), Staff found no evidence that the approval of the requested Height Variation would have a significant effect on the environment and, therefore, the proposed project has been found to be categorically exempt (Section 15303(e)(2»; and, WHEREAS, after notice issued pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code, the Planning Commission held a duly-noticed pUblic hearing on May 25, 2010, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence; and, NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: With respect to the application for a Height Variation to allow the construction of a 587 square foot second-story addition to the existing residence:
A.
The applicant has complied with the Early Neighbor Consultation process established by the City by obtaining property owners' acknowledgement signatures from 60% of the property owners within a 500-foot radius of the subject property.
B.
The Height Variation is warranted since the proposed two-story addition which exceeds sixteen feet in height does not significantly impair a view from public property (parks, major thoroughfares, bike ways, walkways or equestrian trails), which has been identified in the City's General Plan or Coastal Specific Plan, as there are no City-designated viewing areas due to the topography in the area and the location of the sUbject property.
C.
The Height Variation is warranted since the proposed two-story addition that exceeds sixteen feet in height is not located on a ridge or promontory. The subject property is located within a fully developed single-family residential neighborhood, on an existing pad lot. The
14
residence is not located on a ridge or a promontory, as defined in the Municipal Code. D.
The Height Variation is warranted because the portions of the new residence which exceed sixteen feet in height, when considered exclusive of existing foliage, do not significantly impair views from the viewing area of another parcel due to the surrounding topography and configuration of the proposed residence. Specifically, Staff noted that the proposed addition would impair less than 10% of the expansive ocean views from 28349 and 28355 Plainfield; however the impairment would be less than significant as 90% of the existing view as seen from these residences' living room, kitchen and dining room (same view) would be maintained.
E.
The Height Variation is warranted since there is no significant cumulative view impairment caused by granting the application. Cumulative view impairment shall be determined by: (a) considering the amount of view impairment that would be caused by the proposed new structure that is above sixteen feet in height or addition to a structure that is above sixteen feet in height; and (b) considering the amount of view impairment that would be caused by the construction on other parcels of similar new structures or additions that exceed sixteen feet in height. Specifically, the view shed, as seen from the neighboring properties along Plainfield Drive are orientated toward the west, above the subject property and a majority of the homes along Eddinghill Dr. are already two-story residences. With the exception of 6758 Eddinghill, the five closest homes on either side of the project are developed as two-story structures and would not create further view impairments. Due to the fact that 6758 is located 5 feet below the subject property and 35-40 feet below the neighbors along Plainfield, any potential view impairment from the construction of a second story at 6758 Eddinghill would be less impairing that the subject addition which does not cause a significant view impairment. Further, Eddinghill is located over 30 feet below Plainfield and continues to descend toward the north which would lessen the potential for cumulative view impairment as seen from the neighbors along Plainfield.
F.
The Height Variation is warranted as the proposed addition, with the exception of the existing non-conforming front yard setback which would not be affected by the proposed project, complies with all other Code requirements, including the RS-4 zoning district development standards with respect to lot coverage and setbacks, and the off-street parking requirements for single-family residences.
G.
The Height Variation is warranted as the proposed structure is compatible with the immediate neighborhood character in terms of the scale of surrounding residences, architectural style and bulk and mass. The square footage, proposed lot coverage and setbacks, are consistent with those of the surrounding properties. Specifically, the proposed residence and new addition would only be 9 square feet above the largest home in the neighborhood. Further, the architectural style of the proposed residence would utilize similar architectural materials and styles found in the immediate neighborhood with low-pitched roofs, stucco siding and evenly proportioned windows along the front fac.;:ade.
H.
The Height Variation is warranted since the new residence, as conditioned, would not create an unreasonable infringement of the privacy of the occupants of abutting residences as the applicant will be required to provide clerestory windows in the north side second-story facade.
P.C. Resolution No. 2010Page 2 of 6
15
Section 2: Any interested person aggrieved by this decision or by any portion of this decision may appeal to the City Council. Pursuant to Sections 17.02.040(C)(1)(g) of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code, any such appeal must be filed with the City, in writing, setting forth the grounds of the appeal and any specific actions requested by the appellant, and accompanied by the appropriate appeal fee, no later than fifteen (15) days following May 25, 2010, the date of the Planning Commission's final action. Section 4: For the foregoing reasons and based on the information and findings included in the Staff Report, Minutes and other records of proceedings, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby conditionally approves a Height Variation (Case No. ZON200800656) for the construction of a new 587 square foot second-story addition to the existing residence, located at 6752 Eddinghill Dr., subject to the conditions of approval in the attached Exhibit 'A'. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 25th day of May 2010, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTENTIONS: ABSENT:
Bill Gerstner Chairman
Joel Rojas, AICP Community Development Director
P.C. Resolution No. 2010Page 3 of6
16
EXHIBIT 'A' CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR PLANNING CASE NO. ZON2008-00656 (Alan, 6752 Eddinghill Dr.) General Conditions: 1.
Prior to the submittal of plans into Building and Safety plan check, the applicant and the property owner shall submit to the City a statement, in writing, that they have read, understand and agree to all conditions of approval listed below. Failure to provide said written statement within ninety (90) days following the date of this approval shall render this approval null and void.
2.
Prior to the submittal of plans into Building and Safety plan check, the applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from the Director of Public Works for any curb cuts, dumpsters in the street or any other temporary or permanent improvements within the public rights-of-way.
3.
Approval of this permit shall not be construed as a waiver of applicable and appropriate zoning regulations, or any Federal, State, County and/or City laws and regulations. Unless otherwise expressly specified, all other requirements of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code shall apply.
4.
The project development on the site shall conform to the specific standards contained in these conditions of approval or, if not addressed herein, shall conform to the residential development standards of the City's Municipal Code, including but not limited to height, setback and lot coverage standards. .
5.
Failure to comply with and adhere to all of these conditions of approval may be cause to revoke the approval of the project pursuant to the revocation procedures contained in Section 17.86.060 of the City's Municipal Code.
6.
If the applicant has not submitted an application for a building permit for the approved project or not commenced the approved project as described in Section 17.86.070 of the City's Municipal Code within one year of the final effective date of the Notice of Decision, approval of the project shall expire and be of no further effect unless, prior to expiration, a written request for extension is filed with the Department of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement and approved by the Director.
7.
In the event that any of these conditions conflict with the recommendations and/or requirements of another permitting agency or City department, the stricter standard shall apply.
8.
Unless otherwise designated in these conditions, all construction shall be completed in substantial conformance with the plans stamped APPROVED by the City with the effective date of the Notice of Decision.
9.
The construction site and adjacent public and private properties and streets shall be kept free of all loose materials resembling trash and debris in excess of that material used for immediate construction purposes. Such excess material may include, but not be limited to:
P.C. Resolution No. 2010Page 4 of6
17
the accumulation of debris, garbage, lumber, scrap metal, concrete asphalt, piles of earth, salvage materials, abandoned or discarded furniture, appliances or other household fixtures. 10.
Permitted hours and days for construction activity are 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM, Monday through Saturday, with no construction activity permitted on Sundays or on the legal holidays specified in Section 17.96.920 ofthe Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code. Trucks shall not park, queue and/or idle at the project site or in the adjoining public rights-of-way before 7:00 AM, Monday through Saturday, in accordance with the permitted hours of construction stated in this condition.
11.
Unless modified by the approval of future planning applications, the approved project shall maintain a maximum of 50% lot coverage (49.9% proposed) and the following setbacks from the applicable property lines: Front North Side West Side Rear
20 feet (12'-4" existing, no change) 5'-0" feet (5'-11" existing and proposed) 5 feet (5'-8" existing, no change) 15 feet (20'-6" proposed)
12.
Maximum hardscape coverage within the 20-foot front-yard setback area shall not exceed 50%.
13.
A minimum 2-car garage shall be provided, with each required parking space being individually accessible and maintaining minimum unobstructed dimensions of 9 feet in width and 20 feet in depth, with a minimum of 7 feet of vertical clearance.
14.
Exterior residential lighting shall be in compliance with the standards of Section 17.56.030 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code. No outdoor lighting is permitted where the light source is directed toward or results in direct illumination of a parcel of property or properties other than that upon which such light source is physically located.
15.
All landscaping and construction activities shall exercise effective dust control techniques, either through screening and/or watering.
16.
All construction sites shall be maintained in a secure, safe, neat and orderly manner. Temporary portable bathrooms shall be provided on a construction site if required by the City's Building Official. Said portable bathrooms shall be subject to the approval of the City's BUilding Official and shall be placed in a location that will minimize disturbance to the surrounding property owners.
17.
All applicable permits required by the Building and Safety Division shall be obtained by the applicant prior to the commencement of construction.
Height Variation Conditions: 18.
This approval is for the construction of a new 587 square foot two-story addition to the existing residence. Upon completion of the proposed addition, the square footage of the residence would be 3,090 square feet, including the garage.
p.e.
Resolution No. 2010Page 5 of 6
18
19.
The new residence shall maintain a maximum height of 22'-2", as measured from the lowest finished grade adjacent to the building foundation/slab (elevation 102.9') to the highest ridgeline (elevation 125.0'). BUILDING HEIGHT CERTIFICATION IS REQUIRED. A LICENSED CIVIL ENGINEER OR SURVEYOR SHALL PREPARE THE CERTIFICATION. CERTIFICATION SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE CITY'S BUILDING OFFICIAL FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL PRIOR TO ROOF FRAMING/SHEETING INSPECTION.
20.
Other than the required spark arrestors, there shall not be any decorative/architectural features on the tops of the chimneys. Since a spark arrestor is required for every chimney, the spark arrestor shall be considered part of the chimney. Therefore, the proposed chimneys shall not be any higher than the minimum height required by the Uniform Building Code. The spark arrestors on the chimneys shall be the shortest spark arrestor required by the manufacturers specifications for the type of fireplace installed.
21.
The windows along north facing facade of the second-story addition shall be clerestory windows. Prior to submittal of plans into Building and Safety Division Plan Check, the Applicant shall revise the plans so that the window is shown as clerestory.
p.e. Resolution No. 2010Page 6 of6
19
Correspondence Letters
20
Page 1 of 1
Leza Mikhail From:
HU [[email protected]]
Sent:
Wednesday, April 14, 2010 12:14 AM
To:
[email protected]
Subject: your case # ZON2008-00656
Hi, Ms. Leza Mikhail, This is Mr. SHAO-I HU. My house locate at 28389 Plainfield Drive Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Above the property 6752 Eddinghill Drive Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 your case # ZON2008-00656 Would you put me in your mailing notify list on this particular case? Also, my email [email protected] Thank you for your consideration.
4/15/2010
SHAO-I
21
RECEi\lED MAY 11 2010 PLANNING, BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT
5/9/2010
Leza Mikhail Associate Planner Planning, Building, & Code Enforcement City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Dear Leza, We have received notice from your office regarding CASE NO. ZON2008-00656. We are the next-door neighbors of the property. We do not have any problem for the property adding a new second story addition except we would like to request that the windows of the new second story addition facing our backyard being above eye lever to maintain the privacy we are current enjoying and having in our backyard. I have included some pictures with this letter for your reference. Right now, the property is not able to see our backyard from any angle. With the new added second story, they are able to see our backyard in some angles. However, that is not the worst case since the most part of the addition would be behind a tree between two properties. Our major concern is with addition story, the owner or future owner might ask us to cut down the tree in order to see more ocean view, and then our backyard would be totally exposed opening for viewing as well. Please give consideration during your approval evaluation process. Having the windows facing our backyard above eye lever would maintain the current privacy level we are having. Thank you very much for your attention. Sincerely,
Lucy Chen and Peter Zheng Residence of 6755 Eddinghill Dr. Rancho Palos Verds, CA 90275 Tel: 310.265.9630 Fax: 310.868.2892
22
23
24
Mr. Tim Alon 6752 Eddinghill Dr., Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 December 15,2009 Re: Proposed second floor addition to 6752 Eddinghill Dr., Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275. Dear Mr. Alon, We appreciate your attempt in taking into considerations of your neighbors' concerns. In your previous (undated) correspondence, you stated you revised your plan by having your architect reduce the overall height ofthe proposed addition by a foot. Unfortunately, after analyzing the revised plan, the revised second story addition still directly infringes on our view. We are hoping for your architect to consider a design that focuses on expanding your home as a one story or a design that does not require having to build upwards. ' The upward and protruding addition of the second story is out of character of the Eddinghill neighborhood. The second floor addition will significantly impede our home's scenic and unadulterated view, from all perspectives (specifically from the center perspective of our home and as a panoramic whole). The blockage of our pristine view will detrimentally affect the value of our home and quiet enjoyment greatly. Further, the second story addition plan will create a precedent within the neighborhood, encouraging others that they too, may create an addition to their home that would infringe the views of other neighbors, thereby changing the landscape and unreasonably redistributing the values of every neighbor's home. As a homeowner, we have purchased our property with the reasonable assumption that our view would not be infringed by another neighbor. Each homeowner has knowingly taken the risk when purchasing their home that they would have certain and specific limitations on how they would be able to expand and/or design their home, whether it is according to codes, regulations, and neighborhood cohesiveness. In sum, we would like you to enjoy your home and to continue to revise your design that would expand your home without being an impingement to your neighbors. Sincerely, Gwa Guan Gau and Yueh Hsueh Gau 28355 Plainfield Dr., Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
cc:
Leza Mikhail Planning Department City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd., Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
REceIVED DEC 18 20D9 P~NlNG,
BUILDING AND
ODE ENFORCEMENT
25
RECEIVED October 15, 2009
OCT 16 2009 PLANNING, BUILDING AND
To Planners, Building Inspectors and Code Enforcement Deportment: CODe ENFORCEMENT
RE: Add 2 nd Floor on 6752 Eddinghill Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
The remodel of this particular property will greatly affect our view and quiet enjoyment of the house while standing up or sitting down from every angle. When we purchased the house, we did not expect or foresee that neighbors will attempt to remodel and block our pristine view; thereby significantly reducing our house value and enjoyment. The neighbors down there, on the other hand, did assume the risk that they might not have a possibility to remodel upwards, and they received a fair purchase price for it. By allowing them to remodel, they will not only negatively affect us, but also our neighbors and surrounding neighborhood, creating a bad precedent. Furthermore, by allowing them to remodel sets a bad precedent for the neighborhood because others will feel incline that they are in title to allow to remodel and block other neighbors view. Lastly, the remodel is out of the neighborhood norm/context because we have unobstructed view of the coastline and with this specific remodel, it will greatly impede our main perspective right in the center point of our scenery. Thank you very much for your attention and consideration.
Gwa Guan Gau Yush Hsueh Gau 28355 Plainfield Drive Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
26
JOHN F. RINDGE 26349 PLAINFIELD DRIVE RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CALIFORNIA 90275-3145 OFFICE 377-6670 • RESIDENCE 377-7799 • FAX 377-6670 AREA CODE 310 E-MAIL:
[email protected]
RECEIVED APR 26
April 23, 2010
2Cj~
PLANNING. BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT
Planning Commission City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275-5391 Re: Case No. lON2008-00656 6752 Eddinghill Drive - Proposed 2nd story addition Rancho Palos Verdes Dear Planning Commission,
We have received notice of the public hearing for the above matter scheduled for 7:00 PM on Tuesday, May 25, 2010, at Hesse Park. We are enclosing the following information in response to said notice: (1) Letter to Planning Department dated November 12, 2009. (2) Letter to Mr. Tim Alon dated December 2, 2009 with copy of letter from Mr. Alon. (3) Photo - View from our property of proposed addition. (4) Photo - View from our kitchen window of proposed addition (5) Photo - View from our back yard of proposed addition We remain strongly opposed to this project for all of the reasons provided in the accompanying documents. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely,
~a.~g) anneA:RIndge )
27
JOHN F. RINDGE 28349 PLAINFIELD DRIVE RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CALIFORNIA 90275-3145 OFFICE 377-6670 • RESIDENCE 377-7799 • FAX 377-6670
RECEIVED DEC 03 2009 PLANNING, BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT
AREA CODE 310 E-MAIL:
[email protected]
December 2, 2009 Mr. Tim Alon 6752 Eddinghill Drive Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Re: Proposed second floor addition - 6752 Eddinghill Drive, RPV Dear Mr. Alon, We recently received an undated form letter (copy enclosed) stating that the proposed second floor addition height had been reduced. We do not see any significant change in the proposed addition. Have you considered a one story addition? Our next door neighbor is currently constructing a beautiful one story addition that does not interfere with his neighbors views, unlike the addition you are proposing. The flag outline of your proposed addition is visible from every room in our home. It infringes on our view and is unacceptable for all of the reasons we have previously stated in our letter to the City dated November 12, 2009. We urge you to be a good neighbor and withdraw the plan for a second floor addition. . Sincerely,
';/" ,?,
Leza Mikhail V'/cc: , Planning Department
City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
28
" ..
Dear Neighbor, We were recently advised that there have been some concerns raised by our neighbors regarding our second floor addition plans. In consideration ofthose concerns, I I asked our architect to work on lowering the height ofour ~econd floor addition. There I are really only two places where we can reduce the height. The options are to reduce the :height ofeach floor and/or reduce the pitch ofthe roof. Either can be done to a limit. :Exceeding those limits would not be appealing or useful. Our architect was able to reduce the overall height by over a foot. I'm sure you
have noticed by now the lower second set of flags (the ridge flag which is over a foot lower is missing). This is our revised plan. I'm hoping to find that balance between addressing our neighbors' concerns and our second floor plans.
i
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to reach me at 310.877.6410 or [email protected]. Thanks
)
-J
.'
29
JOHN F. RINDGE 26349 PLAINFIELD DRIVE
RECEI'v'ED NOV 1 32009
RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CALIFORNIA 90275-3145
November 12, 2009
OFFICE 377-6670 • RESIDENCE 377-7799 • FAX 377·6670
PLANNING. BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT
AREA CODE 310
Planning Department E-MAIL: [email protected] City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275-5391 RE: 6752 Eddinghill Drive, - Proposed 2nd story addition Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Dear Planning Department, We are located at 28349 Plainfield Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes on the street above the proposed 2nd story addition. We have lived here for 45 years, enjoying a pristine panoramic view from our home. We did not expect that a neighbor below us would infringe on that view in our old age. We strongly object to this proposed addition. The street below us, Eddinghill Drive, consists of one and two story homes. These homes were designed so that the roof tops gradually descend with the down sloping street when viewed from above. The proposed addition at 6752 Eddinghill Drive rises to a height which appears to be as high or higher than the 2 story home adjacent to it located at 6742 Eddinghill Drive, even though 6752 Eddinghill Drive is built on ground lower than that home. The proposed 2nd story addition protrudes vertically upward. It is out of character with the adjoining homes. If completed as proposed, it will look like what it is....an "add on", rather than being an integral part of the neighborhood. We have no objection to a neighbor enlarging their home as long as it is done with respect for their neighbors. In fact, next door to us at 28339 Plainfield Drive, the property owner is currently building a beautiful one-story addition so as not to interfere with the view of the neighbors above and behind us. He had a choice of attempting a second story addition, but was respectful of his neighbors' views. The proposed 2nd story addition at 6752 Eddinghill Drive will set a bad precedent. If successful, it will encourage similar additions and destroy nearby view properties. It will effect our view. It will lower our property value because of its effect on the view we enjoy. We respectfully request that the proposed 2nd story additon at 6752 Eddinghill Drive be denied. Sincerely,
~ohn!'f.
Rindge
>U~~a.~ F
Maryie' A. Rindge
30
.
! ~
View from our property (28349 Plainfield Dr.) on October 5, 2009
31
Views from our kitchen window '/'l,. 28349 Plainfield Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes
32
33
Observations of photos on reverse: Proposed 2nd story addition to 6752 Eddinghill Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA TOP: Profile flags of proposed addition appear to rise to a height as high or higher than the roof line of the 2 story home on the left (located next door at 6742 Eddinghill), even though the home at 6752 Eddinghiliis built on a lower grade. The proposed addition rises way above the home on the right located next door at 6758 Eddinghill Drive. BOTTOM: Home on the left (6758 Eddinghill lis the same home as the one on the right in the top photo above. Notice the character of the nelghborhood....one and two story homes with roof tops that gradually descend with the down slope of the street. None of these have an excessively steep height protrusion as does the proposed addition at 6752 Eddinghill Drive.
34
-
35
Views from our back yard 2/2 28349 Plainfield Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes
36
STAFF REPORT TO:
CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM:
COMMUNITY DIRECTOR
DATE:
MAY 25,2010
SUBJECT:
HEIGHT VARIATION (CASE NO. ZON2008-000656)
PROJECT ADDRESS:
6752 EDDINGHILL DRIVE
DEVELOPMENT,.\~~ \41 ~'+t 1\
JOHN HORI APPLICANT: TIMOTHY ALAN LANDOWNER:
THOMAS GUIDE PAGE 792/H-7
STAFF COORDINATOR:
LEZA MIKHAIL ASSOCIATE PLANNER
(pJ
REQUESTED ACTION:
A REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT A NEW 587 SQUARE FOOT SECOND STORY ADDITION AND BALCONY TO THE REAR OF THE EXISTING 2,723 SQUARE FOOT RESIDENCE. THE PROPOSED RESIDENCE MEASURES 22'-2" IN HEIGHT, AS MEASURED FROM THE LOWEST FINISHED GRADE ADJACENT TO THE FOUNDATION/SLAB (ELEV. 102.9') TO THE HIGHEST RIDGELINE OF THE RESIDENCE (ELEV. 125.0')
RECOMMENDATION:
ADOPT P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2010-_; THEREBY CONDITIONALLY APPROVING THE HEIGHT VARIATION (CASE NO. ZON2008-00656).
REFERENCES: ZONING:
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL - RS-4
LAND USE:
SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
CODE SECTIONS:
17.02,17.48,17.66,17.80, & 17.96
GENERAL PLAN:
RESIDENTIAL - 2-4 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE
TRAILS PLAN:
N/A
30940 HAWTHORNE BLVD. / RANCHO PALOS VERDES,
CA 90275-5391
1
PLANNING/CODE ENFORCEMENT (310) 544-5228/ BUILDING (310) 265-7800/ DEPT. FAX (310) 544-5293/ E-MAIL [email protected]
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (CASE NO. ZON2008-00656) MAY 25,2010 PAGE 2 SPECIFIC PLAN:
N/A
CEQA:
CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 1)
ACTION DEADLINE:
JUNE 18, 2010
PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS RESIDING WITHIN 500' OF SUBJECT PROPERTY: NONE
BACKGROUND On December 23, 2008, the applicant submitted a Height Variation application to the Community Development Department for review and processing. The applicant's request is to construct a 587 square foot second-story addition to the existing residence. On January 21, 2009, 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 multiple occasions. Staff deemed the application complete on April 19, 2010. On April 22, 2010, Staff mailed notices to 95 property owners within a 500-foot radius from the subject property, providing a 30-day time period for the submittal of comments and concerns. In addition, a Public Notice was published in the Peninsula News on April 22, 2010. Staff received the attached comment letters from four neighbors. Their concerns are addressed throughout this report. SITE DESCRIPTION The project site is a 9,300 square foot pad lot located on the west side of Eddinghill Drive, west of Plainfield Drive and east of Cedarbluff Drive. A majority of the property is relatively flat, with transitional slopes along each side property line. A slope also descends beyond the rear property line approximately 25 feet to the downslope neighbor. The subject property is currently improved with a 2,723 square foot single-story residence (including garage). The Development Code specifies lot coverage to include any building or structure, decks over 30 inches in height and parking areas or driveways, courtyards and impervious surfaces. The existing driveway encompasses 1,338 square feet. The existing lot coverage totals 4,061 square feet, or 53.72% of the 7,560 square foot lot and is therefore non-conforming. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant is proposing to construct a new 587 square foot square foot 2-story addition at the rear of the existing residence. The new addition would accommodate a new master bedroom on the second floor with a new 116 square foot second story balcony.
2
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (CASE NO. ZON2008-00656) MAY 25,2010 PAGE 3
The applicant is proposing to remove an existing 220 square foot enclosed patio in the location of the new addition and balcony. The applicant is also proposing to reduce the square footage of the existing driveway by 213 square feet. When combined, the new residence and garage (2,648 square feet) and driveway/parking area (1,125 square feet) would yield a total lot coverage of 3,773 square feet, or 49.9% of the 7,560 square foot lot. The residence will have a maximum height of 22'-2" as measured from the lowest grade adjacent to the building foundation/slab (elevation 102.9') to the highest ridgeline (elevation 125.00') of the residence. Table 1: Project Statistics:
Structure Size
Enclosed Parkin Structure Hei ht Highest elevation of existing building pad covered by structure to highest ridge of buildin . Lowest grade adjacent to the building foundation/slab.
N/A
2,723 s.f.
3,090 s.f.
20'-0" 5'-0" 5'-0" 15'-0" N/A
12'-4" 5'-11" 5'-8" 20'-6" N/A
No Change No Chan e No Chan e 21'-6" N/A
2 s aces
2 s aces
No Chan e
16'
13'-8"
21'-2"
20'
14'-7"
22'-2"
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Staff has determined that the proposed project is Categorically Exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), under Article 19, Section
3
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (CASE NO. ZON2008-00656) MAY 25,2010 PAGE 4
15303(e)(2)(additions) of the California Guidelines for Implementation of the CEQA. Specifically, the project includes an addition that will not result in a structure that exceeds 10,000 square feet. Further, the project is in an area where all public services and facilities are available and the project is not located in an environmentally sensitive area. As such, this project has been determined not to have a significant impact on the environment. CODE CONSIDERATION AND ANALYSIS
Height Variation Since the proposed two-story structure exceeds the 16'/20' "by right" building envelope, a Height Variation is required for this request. Pursuant to Municipal Code Section No. 17.02.040(C)(1)(a), the Community Development Director is required to refer the application to the Planning Commission for consideration whenever the Director determines that any portion of the residence that exceeds 16'-0" in height may potentially impair a view from a neighboring property. Municipal Code Section No. 17.02.040(C)(1)(e) sets forth the findings required in order for the Planning Commission to approve a Height Variation. A discussion of these findings (in bold type) follows: 1. The applicant has complied with the early neighborhood consultation process established by the city. The City of Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code requires the applicant to take all necessary steps to consult with the property owners within 500 feet of the project site. The City has established the following guidelines to conform with this requirement, "[applicant must obtain] the signatures of at least 60% of the landowners within 500 feet; or 70% of the landowners within 100 feet and 25% of the total number of landowners within 500 feet (including those within 100 feet) is obtained." With exception to the project site, there are 9 properties within 100 feet and 95 parcels within 500 feet of the site. The applicant obtained 57 signatures from properties within 500 feet (60%). As such, the applicant has met the requirement to notify a minimum of 60% of the landowners within 500 feet, thereby complying with the early notification consultation process. Thus, this finding can be adopted. 2. The proposed new structure that is above sixteen feet in height or addition to an existing structure that is above sixteen feet in height does not significantly impair a view from public property (parks, major thoroughfares, bike ways, walkways or equestrian trails) which has been identified in the city's general plan or coastal specific plan, as city-designated viewing areas. The Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan, adopted June 26, 1975, identifies viewing
4
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (CASE NO. ZON2008-00656) MAY 25,2010 PAGES
points (turnouts along vehicular corridors for the purposes of viewing) and viewing sites (public site areas, which due to their physical locations on the Peninsula, provide a significant viewing vantage) within the City. Due to the location of the property and the topography in the immediate area, the proposed structure does not impair a view from a public viewing area or viewing site, as defined by the General Plan. Additionally, the subject property is not located within the City's Coastal Specific Plan. As such, the proposed structure will not impair a view, which has been defined in the City's General Plan, or Coastal Specific Plan. Therefore, Staff feels that this finding can be adopted.
3. The proposed structure is not located on a ridge or promontory. A ridge is defined as, "an elongated crest or a linear series of crests of hills, bluffs, or highlands" (Section 17.96.1610 of the Municipal Code). A promontory is defined as, "a prominent mass of land, large enough to support development, which overlooks or projects onto a lowland or body of water on at least two sides" (Section 17.96.1480 of the Municipal Code). The proposed residence would be located on an existing building pad, similar to other lots within the developed area, and is not located on a prominent mass of land that overlooks or projects onto a lowland or body of water on two sides. As such, Staff feels that this finding can be adopted.
4. The area of a proposed new structure that is above sixteen feet in height or an addition to an existing structure that is above sixteen feet in height, as defined in Section 17.02.040(8) of the Development Code, when considered exclusive of existing foliage, does not significantly impair a view from the viewing area of another parcel. Most residences surrounding the subject property have direct, distant views of the Pacific Ocean. The views are orientated to west and the proposed addition would not impair any ocean views for the neighboring views to the north or south. Further, the subject property is sited approximately 25 feet above the properties to the west, above Cedarbluff Drive. As views are to the west, the proposed addition would not impair any views to the property to the west or below the subject property. Staff did visit some properties to the east of the subject site as the neighboring properties to the east are located approximately 30 feet above the subject property and have expansive views of the Pacific Ocean. As a result of the construction of the silhouette and the public notice, Staff was contacted by the property owners to the east at 28349 Plainfield (the Ringe's) and 28355 Plainfield (the Gau's) regarding concerns with view impairment caused by the proposed addition. After visiting the properties, Staff determined that the proposed addition would not significantly impair a view from the viewing area of the abovementioned properties. The kitchen, dining room and living room of both properties share the same west-facing fa9ade and view of the ocean. Staff analyzed the views from all three rooms in both residences. The view from 28349 Plainfield would only be obstructed by the proposed addition by less than 10%. The proposed addition would barely be visible from the liVing room
5
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (CASE NO. ZON2008-00656) MAY 25,2010 PAGE 6
and is blocked by foliage at the top of the slope of 28349 Plainfield. Even if the foliage were to be removed by the Ringe's, the view impacts of the proposed addition would be minimal (less than 10% of the entire ocean view). Staff also visited the Gau's property (28355 Plainfield) and considered view impacts from all three rooms. Although the proposed addition could be seen in all three rooms, the impairment is less than significant. The addition would impair less than 10% of the expansive ocean view as seen from the Gau's living room, dining room and/or kitchen. While out on the site visit, Staff also visited the property at 28339 Plainfield and noted that there were no view impacts. As such, Staff is of the opinion that the proposed new addition that is above 16'-0" in height would not significantly impair a view from the viewing area of another parcel and this finding can be made. 5. If view impairment exists from the viewing area of another parcel but it is determined not to be significant, as described in Finding No.4, the proposed new structure that is above sixteen feet in height or addition to an existing structure that is above sixteen feet in height is designed and situated in such a manner as to reasonably minimize the impairment of a view.
Although the proposed project would not significantly impair a view, it does appear in the view. It should be noted that the applicant did slightly redesign the project during the initial review by lowering the ridgeline of the addition by 1'-0" in order to address some of the neighbors' concerns discussed above. As such, Staff feels that the applicant did design the structure in a manner that reasonably minimizes view impairment. 6. There is no significant cumulative view impairment caused by granting the application. Cumulative view impairment shall be determined by: (a) considering the amount of view impairment that would be caused by the proposed new structure that is above sixteen feet in height or addition to a structure that is above sixteen feet in height; and (b) considering the amount of view impairment that would be caused by the construction on other parcels of similar new structures or additions that exceed sixteen feet in height.
As indicated above, there will be no significant view impairment for portions of the addition which exceed 16'-0" in height as seen from the viewing area of another parcel. The Height Variation Guidelines state, "The Planning Commission will determine which other nearby parcels within the viewshed from a particular property...may be developed [with a second story}... which would further impair a view." The view shed, as seen from the neighboring properties along Plainfield Drive, is orientated toward the west, above the subject property and Eddinghill Drive. The majority of the homes in the immediate neighborhood, and along Eddinghill Drive are currently developed with two-story homes. More specifically, with the exception of 6758 Eddinghill, the five closest homes on either side of the project are developed as two-story structures and would not create further view impairments.
6
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (CASE NO. ZON2008-00656) MAY 25,2010 PAGE 7
Although 6758 Eddinhill Dr. is currently a single-story residence, if the property owners decided to construct a second story addition, the addition would not likely create further view impairment to the neighbors along Plainfield. This is due to the fact that 6758 is located 5 feet below the subject property and 35-40 feet below the neighbors along Plainfield. As such, any potential view impairment from the construction of a second story at 6758 Eddinghill would be less impairing that the subject addition which does not cause a significant view impairment. Furthermore, Eddinghill Drive is located approximately 30 feet below the homes along Plainfield and continues to descend as one drives north on Eddinghill. 7. The proposed structure complies with all other code requirements. The existing residence complies with the City's Development Code standards with regard to lot coverage and parking (also see project statistics above). The lot coverage for the subject property considering the proposed project would include 3,773 square feet, or 49.9% of the 7,560 square foot pad lot. The proposed addition will be well outside the required 20-foot front yard setback, as it will be located at the rear of the residence and will maintain the existing 5'-11" north side yard setback. The rear yard setback would be 21'-6", outside of the required 15-foot rear yard setback. As such, this finding can be made. 8. The proposed structure is compatible with the immediate neighborhood character. Pursuant to Section 17.02.040.A.6. of the Municipal Code, "Neighborhood Character" is defined to consider the existing physical characteristics of an area. The factors to be analyzed per the code language are boldface, and Staff's analysis is in normal type. (1)
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) closest properties. The table below illustrates the 20 properties and structures that comprise the immediate neighborhood and serve as the basis for neighborhood compatibility. The homes analyzed, along with the lot size, structure size, and number of stories, are listed below in the Neighborhood Compatibility Table.
28349 Plainfield 28355 Plainfield 28361 Plainfield
10,707 10,533 10,555
2,676 2,789 2,837
2 2 2
7
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (CASE NO. ZON200S-00656) MAY 25,2010 PAGES
6820 Eddinghill 6812 Eddinghill 6804 Eddinghill 6778 Eddinghill 6770 Eddinghill 6758 Eddinghill 6742 Eddinghill 6736 Eddinghill 6728 Eddinghill 6722 Eddinghill 6716 Eddinghill 6708 Eddinghill 6702 Eddinghill 6678 Eddinghill 28440 Cedarbluff 28450 Cedarbluff 28456 Cedarbluff
13,252 11,568 9,023 10,134 10,518 7,658 7,561 7,453 7,236 7,242 7,243 7,238 7,242 7,124 12,180 11,279 10,252
2,837 2,837 2,837 2,837 2,837 2,390 2,960 2,837 2,837 2,922 2,800* 2,837 3,081 2,789 2,390 2,642 2,376*
Averaae
9,300
2,787
7,560
2,723 3,090
6752 Eddinghill
Existing Proposed
2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 1
1 2
* The square footage for this residential property was documented from Assessor's information as there was no information available in the bUilding permit file in the Community Development Department.
As noted in the table above, the immediate neighborhood is comprised of a majority of two-story homes. The homes range in size from 2,376 square feet to 3,081 square feet. The average home size for all of the 20 closest homes is 2,787 square feet. The proposed residence will yield a 3,090 square foot residence. While the size of the new residence is larger than the average of the 20 closest homes, the square footage of the subject residence would only exceed the largest home in the neighborhood by 9 square feet. Additionally, the proposed lot coverage (49.9%) is below the maximum allowable lot coverage in the RS-4 zone and appears to be consistent with the lot coverage in the surrounding neighborhood. As such, the proposed additions would not create an anomaly, in terms of scale, and would thereby be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. (2)
Architectural styles, including fa~ade treatments, structure height, open space between structures, roof design, the apparent bulk or mass of the structure, number of stories, and building materials.
The architectural style of the proposed residence would include a low-pitched gabled roof, evenly proportioned windows along the front fa9ade of the addition, a composition shingle roof to match the existing roof and a stucco exterior to match the existing fa9ade. The proposed second story is located at the rear of the residence and offers relief from potential bulk and mass impacts by offering multiple
8
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (CASE NO. ZON2008-00656) MAY 25,2010 PAGE 9
roof lines as seen from the north, south and east facades. The west (rear) fagade will not be easily visible from the properties to the west as they are located approximately 25 feet below the subject property. After surveying the 20 closest homes in the neighborhood, Staff concluded that the immediate area is comprised of a diverse sense of architectural styles and materials that accent the residences. The surrounding materials range from stucco to wood siding with either shingle or mission tile roof materials. Although most of the surrounding residences are split-level and reminiscent of architecture from the early 1970's, other two-story residences have a Neo-Colonial Revival style of architecture. The proposed architecture would appear to be similar in design to the existing, splitlevel residence, but would incorporate the use of stucco, instead of wood siding. It is important to note that stucco is also found on other residences found within the neighborhood. As such, Staff has concluded that the materials and treatments proposed for the residence are compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. As proposed, the residence will have a maximum height of 22'-2", as measured from the lowest grade adjacent to the building foundation/slab (elev. 102.9') to the highest ridgeline of the residence (elev. 125.0'), and 21'_2", as measured from the highest elevation of existing building pad covered by structure (elev. 103.82') to the highest ridge line of the residence (elev. 125.0'). Staff believes that the location of the proposed additions, the materials proposed, and the retention of the existing setbacks and structure height would create a new addition that is compatible with the existing residence and the current character of the immediate neighborhood. (3)
Front, side, and rear yard setbacks
According to the Development Code, structures shall maintain the following minimum setbacks: 20-foot front yard setback, 5-foot side yard setback, and 15-foot rear yard .setbacks. The proposed project meets the required 5-foot side yard setbacks and 15-foot rear yard setbacks. Although the existing residence has a nonconforming 12'-4" front yard setback, the addition would be located well-outside the required 20-front yard setback as it will be located at the rear of the residence. As stated above, with the exception of the existing non-conforming front yard setback, this project will meet all the minimum setback requirements for the lot and the proposed setbacks are consistent with other setbacks in the immediate neighborhood. Based on the analysis above, it is staff's opinion that the proposed "scale, architectural style and materials, and front, side, and rear yard setbacks" are consistent with the character of the immediate neighborhood. As such, Staff feels that this finding can be adopted. 9. The proposed new structure that is above sixteen feet in height or addition to an existing structure that is above sixteen feet does not result in an
9
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (CASE NO. ZON2008-00656) MAY 25,2010 PAGE 10
unreasonable infringement of the privacy of the occupants of abutting residences. The Municipal Code defines privacy as, "reasonable protection from intrusive visual observation." The Height Variation Guidelines state, "Given the variety and number of options which are available to preserve indoor privacy, greater weight generally will be given to protecting outdoor privacy than to protecting indoor privacy." The proposed second-floor is located at the rear and north side of the existing residence. The applicant is proposing a window along the north fac;ade of the proposed addition which would be located 5'-11" from the north side property line. Due to the close proximity of the second story addition to the neighboring property to the north and the fact that the neighbor to the north (6755 Eddinghill Drive) submitted a letter with concerns of privacy impacts from the window along the north fac;ade, Staff has added a condition of approval requiring the window along this second-story fac;ade to be clerestory. According to Section 17.02.030.0.4 of the Municipal Code, a permitted roof deck shall not create an infringement of privacy onto any abutting properties. The applicant is proposing a balcony/roof deck located behind and proposed twostory portion of the residence. Although the balcony/deck would typically cause a privacy impairment, there is existing foliage along the north side property line that would obstruct any views from the deck onto the north, neighboring property. The foliage is on the north neighbor's property at 6758 Eddinghill. As such, there would not be any privacy impacts from the balcony/deck. Therefore, as mitigated, Staff feels that this finding can be adopted. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Foliage Analysis: As the additions would create more than 120 square feet of viewing or gathering area, a foliage analysis was triggered. Staff conducted a site visit in October 2009 and May 2010 and concluded that the subject property does not have any trees that significantly impair a view from the viewing area of a neighboring property. Public Notice: As a result of the public notice, Staff received the attached correspondence from the four property owners: 1) Mr. Shao-I Hu, property owner at 28389 Plainfield, 2) Lucy Chen and Peter Zheng, property owners at 6758 Eddinghill, 3) Mr. and Mrs. Gau, property owners at 28355 Plainfield, and 4) Mr. and Mrs. Ringe, property owners at 28349 Plainfield. The neighbors at 28355 Plainfield and 28349 Plainfield expressed concerns with view impairment, the neighbor at 6758 Eddinghill had privacy concerns, and the neighbor at 28389 only requested notification of the project.
10
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (CASE NO. ZON2008-00656) MAY 25,2010 PAGE 11
In regards to the concerns of view impairment from the neighbors, as noted earlier Staff conducted a view analysis from the neighbor's primary viewing area (living room, dining room and kitchen combined). Staff concluded that although the proposed addition does impair a portion of the Pacific Ocean as seen from the viewing area of 28355 Plainfield and 28349 Plainfield, the impairment is less than significant. Both property owners have an expansive view of the ocean from all three rooms and the addition would only impair less than 10% of their view. Further, there would be no cumulative view impairment as a majority of the homes in the neighborhood are two-story. It is important to note that the applicant did respond to the neighbors' concerns by lowering the ridgeline of the addition by 1'-0" while maintaining an addition that was compatible with the neighborhood. Additionally, a flat roof would not be compatible with the neighborhood as there are no flat roofs in the immediate neighborhood. The applicant at 6758 had concerns with privacy impacts that would result from the second story addition, specifically the proposed window along the north fayade. As noted in Finding #9 above, Staff has added a condition of approval requiring the window along the north fayade to be clerestory. The neighbor did not stress concerns of privacy from the balcony/deck due to the fact that there is existing foliage on their property (6758 Eddinghill) that would block the view of the balcony/deck. CONCLUSION Based on the above analysis, Staff concludes that all of the required findings can be adopted to conditionally approve the Height Variation for the proposed 587 square foot two-story addition. More specifically, Staff is concluding that the proposed project, as conditioned, does not create view impairment, is compatible with the neighborhood, and does not create privacy impacts. As such, Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission approve, with conditions, the Height Variation (Case No. ZON2008-00656). ALTERNATIVES . In addition to Staff's recommendation, the following alternatives are available for the Planning Commission to act on: 1. Approve the Height Variation (Case No. ZON2008-00656), as submitted. 2. Deny, without prejudice, the Height Variation (Case No. ZON2008-00656). 3. Identify any 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. ATTACHMENTS •
Draft Planning Commission Resolution No. 2010-_
11
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - (CASE NO. ZON2008-00656) MAY 25,2010 PAGE 12
• • •
Exhibit B Correspondence Letters Project Plans
12
P.C. Resolution No. 2010(Exhibit "8")
13
P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2010A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES CONDITIONALLY APPROVING A HEIGHT VARIATION FOR A 587 SQUARE FOOT SECOND-STORY ADDITION TO THE EXISTING RESIDENCE (CASE NO. ZON200800656) LOCATED AT 6752 EDDINGHILL DRIVE. WHEREAS, on December 23, 2008, the property owner, Mr. Alon, submitted a Height Variation application to the Community Development Department for review and processing requesting approval to construct a new 587 square foot addition to the existing single-story residence. On January 21,2009, Staff completed the initial review of the application, at which time the application was deemed incomplete due to missing information on the project plans; and, WHEREAS, Staff deemed the application complete on April 19, 2010; and, WHEREAS, on April 22, 2010, Staff mailed notices to 95 property owners within a 500-foot radius from the subject property, providing a 30-day time period for the submittal of comments and concerns. In addition, a Public Notice was published in the Peninsula News on April 22, 2010; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et. seq. ("CEQA"), the State's CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et. seq., the City's Local CEQA Guidelines, and Government Code Section 65962.5(f) (Hazardous Waste and Substances Statement), Staff found no evidence that the approval of the requested Height Variation would have a significant effect on the environment and, therefore, the proposed project has been found to be categorically exempt (Section 15303(e)(2»; and, WHEREAS, after notice issued pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code, the Planning Commission held a duly-noticed pUblic hearing on May 25, 2010, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence; and, NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: With respect to the application for a Height Variation to allow the construction of a 587 square foot second-story addition to the existing residence:
A.
The applicant has complied with the Early Neighbor Consultation process established by the City by obtaining property owners' acknowledgement signatures from 60% of the property owners within a 500-foot radius of the subject property.
B.
The Height Variation is warranted since the proposed two-story addition which exceeds sixteen feet in height does not significantly impair a view from public property (parks, major thoroughfares, bike ways, walkways or equestrian trails), which has been identified in the City's General Plan or Coastal Specific Plan, as there are no City-designated viewing areas due to the topography in the area and the location of the sUbject property.
C.
The Height Variation is warranted since the proposed two-story addition that exceeds sixteen feet in height is not located on a ridge or promontory. The subject property is located within a fully developed single-family residential neighborhood, on an existing pad lot. The
14
residence is not located on a ridge or a promontory, as defined in the Municipal Code. D.
The Height Variation is warranted because the portions of the new residence which exceed sixteen feet in height, when considered exclusive of existing foliage, do not significantly impair views from the viewing area of another parcel due to the surrounding topography and configuration of the proposed residence. Specifically, Staff noted that the proposed addition would impair less than 10% of the expansive ocean views from 28349 and 28355 Plainfield; however the impairment would be less than significant as 90% of the existing view as seen from these residences' living room, kitchen and dining room (same view) would be maintained.
E.
The Height Variation is warranted since there is no significant cumulative view impairment caused by granting the application. Cumulative view impairment shall be determined by: (a) considering the amount of view impairment that would be caused by the proposed new structure that is above sixteen feet in height or addition to a structure that is above sixteen feet in height; and (b) considering the amount of view impairment that would be caused by the construction on other parcels of similar new structures or additions that exceed sixteen feet in height. Specifically, the view shed, as seen from the neighboring properties along Plainfield Drive are orientated toward the west, above the subject property and a majority of the homes along Eddinghill Dr. are already two-story residences. With the exception of 6758 Eddinghill, the five closest homes on either side of the project are developed as two-story structures and would not create further view impairments. Due to the fact that 6758 is located 5 feet below the subject property and 35-40 feet below the neighbors along Plainfield, any potential view impairment from the construction of a second story at 6758 Eddinghill would be less impairing that the subject addition which does not cause a significant view impairment. Further, Eddinghill is located over 30 feet below Plainfield and continues to descend toward the north which would lessen the potential for cumulative view impairment as seen from the neighbors along Plainfield.
F.
The Height Variation is warranted as the proposed addition, with the exception of the existing non-conforming front yard setback which would not be affected by the proposed project, complies with all other Code requirements, including the RS-4 zoning district development standards with respect to lot coverage and setbacks, and the off-street parking requirements for single-family residences.
G.
The Height Variation is warranted as the proposed structure is compatible with the immediate neighborhood character in terms of the scale of surrounding residences, architectural style and bulk and mass. The square footage, proposed lot coverage and setbacks, are consistent with those of the surrounding properties. Specifically, the proposed residence and new addition would only be 9 square feet above the largest home in the neighborhood. Further, the architectural style of the proposed residence would utilize similar architectural materials and styles found in the immediate neighborhood with low-pitched roofs, stucco siding and evenly proportioned windows along the front fac.;:ade.
H.
The Height Variation is warranted since the new residence, as conditioned, would not create an unreasonable infringement of the privacy of the occupants of abutting residences as the applicant will be required to provide clerestory windows in the north side second-story facade.
P.C. Resolution No. 2010Page 2 of 6
15
Section 2: Any interested person aggrieved by this decision or by any portion of this decision may appeal to the City Council. Pursuant to Sections 17.02.040(C)(1)(g) of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code, any such appeal must be filed with the City, in writing, setting forth the grounds of the appeal and any specific actions requested by the appellant, and accompanied by the appropriate appeal fee, no later than fifteen (15) days following May 25, 2010, the date of the Planning Commission's final action. Section 4: For the foregoing reasons and based on the information and findings included in the Staff Report, Minutes and other records of proceedings, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby conditionally approves a Height Variation (Case No. ZON200800656) for the construction of a new 587 square foot second-story addition to the existing residence, located at 6752 Eddinghill Dr., subject to the conditions of approval in the attached Exhibit 'A'. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 25th day of May 2010, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTENTIONS: ABSENT:
Bill Gerstner Chairman
Joel Rojas, AICP Community Development Director
P.C. Resolution No. 2010Page 3 of6
16
EXHIBIT 'A' CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR PLANNING CASE NO. ZON2008-00656 (Alan, 6752 Eddinghill Dr.) General Conditions: 1.
Prior to the submittal of plans into Building and Safety plan check, the applicant and the property owner shall submit to the City a statement, in writing, that they have read, understand and agree to all conditions of approval listed below. Failure to provide said written statement within ninety (90) days following the date of this approval shall render this approval null and void.
2.
Prior to the submittal of plans into Building and Safety plan check, the applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from the Director of Public Works for any curb cuts, dumpsters in the street or any other temporary or permanent improvements within the public rights-of-way.
3.
Approval of this permit shall not be construed as a waiver of applicable and appropriate zoning regulations, or any Federal, State, County and/or City laws and regulations. Unless otherwise expressly specified, all other requirements of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code shall apply.
4.
The project development on the site shall conform to the specific standards contained in these conditions of approval or, if not addressed herein, shall conform to the residential development standards of the City's Municipal Code, including but not limited to height, setback and lot coverage standards. .
5.
Failure to comply with and adhere to all of these conditions of approval may be cause to revoke the approval of the project pursuant to the revocation procedures contained in Section 17.86.060 of the City's Municipal Code.
6.
If the applicant has not submitted an application for a building permit for the approved project or not commenced the approved project as described in Section 17.86.070 of the City's Municipal Code within one year of the final effective date of the Notice of Decision, approval of the project shall expire and be of no further effect unless, prior to expiration, a written request for extension is filed with the Department of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement and approved by the Director.
7.
In the event that any of these conditions conflict with the recommendations and/or requirements of another permitting agency or City department, the stricter standard shall apply.
8.
Unless otherwise designated in these conditions, all construction shall be completed in substantial conformance with the plans stamped APPROVED by the City with the effective date of the Notice of Decision.
9.
The construction site and adjacent public and private properties and streets shall be kept free of all loose materials resembling trash and debris in excess of that material used for immediate construction purposes. Such excess material may include, but not be limited to:
P.C. Resolution No. 2010Page 4 of6
17
the accumulation of debris, garbage, lumber, scrap metal, concrete asphalt, piles of earth, salvage materials, abandoned or discarded furniture, appliances or other household fixtures. 10.
Permitted hours and days for construction activity are 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM, Monday through Saturday, with no construction activity permitted on Sundays or on the legal holidays specified in Section 17.96.920 ofthe Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code. Trucks shall not park, queue and/or idle at the project site or in the adjoining public rights-of-way before 7:00 AM, Monday through Saturday, in accordance with the permitted hours of construction stated in this condition.
11.
Unless modified by the approval of future planning applications, the approved project shall maintain a maximum of 50% lot coverage (49.9% proposed) and the following setbacks from the applicable property lines: Front North Side West Side Rear
20 feet (12'-4" existing, no change) 5'-0" feet (5'-11" existing and proposed) 5 feet (5'-8" existing, no change) 15 feet (20'-6" proposed)
12.
Maximum hardscape coverage within the 20-foot front-yard setback area shall not exceed 50%.
13.
A minimum 2-car garage shall be provided, with each required parking space being individually accessible and maintaining minimum unobstructed dimensions of 9 feet in width and 20 feet in depth, with a minimum of 7 feet of vertical clearance.
14.
Exterior residential lighting shall be in compliance with the standards of Section 17.56.030 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code. No outdoor lighting is permitted where the light source is directed toward or results in direct illumination of a parcel of property or properties other than that upon which such light source is physically located.
15.
All landscaping and construction activities shall exercise effective dust control techniques, either through screening and/or watering.
16.
All construction sites shall be maintained in a secure, safe, neat and orderly manner. Temporary portable bathrooms shall be provided on a construction site if required by the City's Building Official. Said portable bathrooms shall be subject to the approval of the City's BUilding Official and shall be placed in a location that will minimize disturbance to the surrounding property owners.
17.
All applicable permits required by the Building and Safety Division shall be obtained by the applicant prior to the commencement of construction.
Height Variation Conditions: 18.
This approval is for the construction of a new 587 square foot two-story addition to the existing residence. Upon completion of the proposed addition, the square footage of the residence would be 3,090 square feet, including the garage.
p.e.
Resolution No. 2010Page 5 of 6
18
19.
The new residence shall maintain a maximum height of 22'-2", as measured from the lowest finished grade adjacent to the building foundation/slab (elevation 102.9') to the highest ridgeline (elevation 125.0'). BUILDING HEIGHT CERTIFICATION IS REQUIRED. A LICENSED CIVIL ENGINEER OR SURVEYOR SHALL PREPARE THE CERTIFICATION. CERTIFICATION SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE CITY'S BUILDING OFFICIAL FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL PRIOR TO ROOF FRAMING/SHEETING INSPECTION.
20.
Other than the required spark arrestors, there shall not be any decorative/architectural features on the tops of the chimneys. Since a spark arrestor is required for every chimney, the spark arrestor shall be considered part of the chimney. Therefore, the proposed chimneys shall not be any higher than the minimum height required by the Uniform Building Code. The spark arrestors on the chimneys shall be the shortest spark arrestor required by the manufacturers specifications for the type of fireplace installed.
21.
The windows along north facing facade of the second-story addition shall be clerestory windows. Prior to submittal of plans into Building and Safety Division Plan Check, the Applicant shall revise the plans so that the window is shown as clerestory.
p.e. Resolution No. 2010Page 6 of6
19
Correspondence Letters
20
Page 1 of 1
Leza Mikhail From:
HU [[email protected]]
Sent:
Wednesday, April 14, 2010 12:14 AM
To:
[email protected]
Subject: your case # ZON2008-00656
Hi, Ms. Leza Mikhail, This is Mr. SHAO-I HU. My house locate at 28389 Plainfield Drive Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Above the property 6752 Eddinghill Drive Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 your case # ZON2008-00656 Would you put me in your mailing notify list on this particular case? Also, my email [email protected] Thank you for your consideration.
4/15/2010
SHAO-I
21
RECEi\lED MAY 11 2010 PLANNING, BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT
5/9/2010
Leza Mikhail Associate Planner Planning, Building, & Code Enforcement City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Dear Leza, We have received notice from your office regarding CASE NO. ZON2008-00656. We are the next-door neighbors of the property. We do not have any problem for the property adding a new second story addition except we would like to request that the windows of the new second story addition facing our backyard being above eye lever to maintain the privacy we are current enjoying and having in our backyard. I have included some pictures with this letter for your reference. Right now, the property is not able to see our backyard from any angle. With the new added second story, they are able to see our backyard in some angles. However, that is not the worst case since the most part of the addition would be behind a tree between two properties. Our major concern is with addition story, the owner or future owner might ask us to cut down the tree in order to see more ocean view, and then our backyard would be totally exposed opening for viewing as well. Please give consideration during your approval evaluation process. Having the windows facing our backyard above eye lever would maintain the current privacy level we are having. Thank you very much for your attention. Sincerely,
Lucy Chen and Peter Zheng Residence of 6755 Eddinghill Dr. Rancho Palos Verds, CA 90275 Tel: 310.265.9630 Fax: 310.868.2892
22
23
24
Mr. Tim Alon 6752 Eddinghill Dr., Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 December 15,2009 Re: Proposed second floor addition to 6752 Eddinghill Dr., Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275. Dear Mr. Alon, We appreciate your attempt in taking into considerations of your neighbors' concerns. In your previous (undated) correspondence, you stated you revised your plan by having your architect reduce the overall height ofthe proposed addition by a foot. Unfortunately, after analyzing the revised plan, the revised second story addition still directly infringes on our view. We are hoping for your architect to consider a design that focuses on expanding your home as a one story or a design that does not require having to build upwards. ' The upward and protruding addition of the second story is out of character of the Eddinghill neighborhood. The second floor addition will significantly impede our home's scenic and unadulterated view, from all perspectives (specifically from the center perspective of our home and as a panoramic whole). The blockage of our pristine view will detrimentally affect the value of our home and quiet enjoyment greatly. Further, the second story addition plan will create a precedent within the neighborhood, encouraging others that they too, may create an addition to their home that would infringe the views of other neighbors, thereby changing the landscape and unreasonably redistributing the values of every neighbor's home. As a homeowner, we have purchased our property with the reasonable assumption that our view would not be infringed by another neighbor. Each homeowner has knowingly taken the risk when purchasing their home that they would have certain and specific limitations on how they would be able to expand and/or design their home, whether it is according to codes, regulations, and neighborhood cohesiveness. In sum, we would like you to enjoy your home and to continue to revise your design that would expand your home without being an impingement to your neighbors. Sincerely, Gwa Guan Gau and Yueh Hsueh Gau 28355 Plainfield Dr., Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
cc:
Leza Mikhail Planning Department City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd., Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
REceIVED DEC 18 20D9 P~NlNG,
BUILDING AND
ODE ENFORCEMENT
25
RECEIVED October 15, 2009
OCT 16 2009 PLANNING, BUILDING AND
To Planners, Building Inspectors and Code Enforcement Deportment: CODe ENFORCEMENT
RE: Add 2 nd Floor on 6752 Eddinghill Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
The remodel of this particular property will greatly affect our view and quiet enjoyment of the house while standing up or sitting down from every angle. When we purchased the house, we did not expect or foresee that neighbors will attempt to remodel and block our pristine view; thereby significantly reducing our house value and enjoyment. The neighbors down there, on the other hand, did assume the risk that they might not have a possibility to remodel upwards, and they received a fair purchase price for it. By allowing them to remodel, they will not only negatively affect us, but also our neighbors and surrounding neighborhood, creating a bad precedent. Furthermore, by allowing them to remodel sets a bad precedent for the neighborhood because others will feel incline that they are in title to allow to remodel and block other neighbors view. Lastly, the remodel is out of the neighborhood norm/context because we have unobstructed view of the coastline and with this specific remodel, it will greatly impede our main perspective right in the center point of our scenery. Thank you very much for your attention and consideration.
Gwa Guan Gau Yush Hsueh Gau 28355 Plainfield Drive Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
26
JOHN F. RINDGE 26349 PLAINFIELD DRIVE RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CALIFORNIA 90275-3145 OFFICE 377-6670 • RESIDENCE 377-7799 • FAX 377-6670 AREA CODE 310 E-MAIL:
[email protected]
RECEIVED APR 26
April 23, 2010
2Cj~
PLANNING. BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT
Planning Commission City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275-5391 Re: Case No. lON2008-00656 6752 Eddinghill Drive - Proposed 2nd story addition Rancho Palos Verdes Dear Planning Commission,
We have received notice of the public hearing for the above matter scheduled for 7:00 PM on Tuesday, May 25, 2010, at Hesse Park. We are enclosing the following information in response to said notice: (1) Letter to Planning Department dated November 12, 2009. (2) Letter to Mr. Tim Alon dated December 2, 2009 with copy of letter from Mr. Alon. (3) Photo - View from our property of proposed addition. (4) Photo - View from our kitchen window of proposed addition (5) Photo - View from our back yard of proposed addition We remain strongly opposed to this project for all of the reasons provided in the accompanying documents. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely,
~a.~g) anneA:RIndge )
27
JOHN F. RINDGE 28349 PLAINFIELD DRIVE RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CALIFORNIA 90275-3145 OFFICE 377-6670 • RESIDENCE 377-7799 • FAX 377-6670
RECEIVED DEC 03 2009 PLANNING, BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT
AREA CODE 310 E-MAIL:
[email protected]
December 2, 2009 Mr. Tim Alon 6752 Eddinghill Drive Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Re: Proposed second floor addition - 6752 Eddinghill Drive, RPV Dear Mr. Alon, We recently received an undated form letter (copy enclosed) stating that the proposed second floor addition height had been reduced. We do not see any significant change in the proposed addition. Have you considered a one story addition? Our next door neighbor is currently constructing a beautiful one story addition that does not interfere with his neighbors views, unlike the addition you are proposing. The flag outline of your proposed addition is visible from every room in our home. It infringes on our view and is unacceptable for all of the reasons we have previously stated in our letter to the City dated November 12, 2009. We urge you to be a good neighbor and withdraw the plan for a second floor addition. . Sincerely,
';/" ,?,
Leza Mikhail V'/cc: , Planning Department
City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
28
" ..
Dear Neighbor, We were recently advised that there have been some concerns raised by our neighbors regarding our second floor addition plans. In consideration ofthose concerns, I I asked our architect to work on lowering the height ofour ~econd floor addition. There I are really only two places where we can reduce the height. The options are to reduce the :height ofeach floor and/or reduce the pitch ofthe roof. Either can be done to a limit. :Exceeding those limits would not be appealing or useful. Our architect was able to reduce the overall height by over a foot. I'm sure you
have noticed by now the lower second set of flags (the ridge flag which is over a foot lower is missing). This is our revised plan. I'm hoping to find that balance between addressing our neighbors' concerns and our second floor plans.
i
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to reach me at 310.877.6410 or [email protected]. Thanks
)
-J
.'
29
JOHN F. RINDGE 26349 PLAINFIELD DRIVE
RECEI'v'ED NOV 1 32009
RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CALIFORNIA 90275-3145
November 12, 2009
OFFICE 377-6670 • RESIDENCE 377-7799 • FAX 377·6670
PLANNING. BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT
AREA CODE 310
Planning Department E-MAIL: [email protected] City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275-5391 RE: 6752 Eddinghill Drive, - Proposed 2nd story addition Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Dear Planning Department, We are located at 28349 Plainfield Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes on the street above the proposed 2nd story addition. We have lived here for 45 years, enjoying a pristine panoramic view from our home. We did not expect that a neighbor below us would infringe on that view in our old age. We strongly object to this proposed addition. The street below us, Eddinghill Drive, consists of one and two story homes. These homes were designed so that the roof tops gradually descend with the down sloping street when viewed from above. The proposed addition at 6752 Eddinghill Drive rises to a height which appears to be as high or higher than the 2 story home adjacent to it located at 6742 Eddinghill Drive, even though 6752 Eddinghill Drive is built on ground lower than that home. The proposed 2nd story addition protrudes vertically upward. It is out of character with the adjoining homes. If completed as proposed, it will look like what it is....an "add on", rather than being an integral part of the neighborhood. We have no objection to a neighbor enlarging their home as long as it is done with respect for their neighbors. In fact, next door to us at 28339 Plainfield Drive, the property owner is currently building a beautiful one-story addition so as not to interfere with the view of the neighbors above and behind us. He had a choice of attempting a second story addition, but was respectful of his neighbors' views. The proposed 2nd story addition at 6752 Eddinghill Drive will set a bad precedent. If successful, it will encourage similar additions and destroy nearby view properties. It will effect our view. It will lower our property value because of its effect on the view we enjoy. We respectfully request that the proposed 2nd story additon at 6752 Eddinghill Drive be denied. Sincerely,
~ohn!'f.
Rindge
>U~~a.~ F
Maryie' A. Rindge
30
.
! ~
View from our property (28349 Plainfield Dr.) on October 5, 2009
31
Views from our kitchen window '/'l,. 28349 Plainfield Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes
32
33
Observations of photos on reverse: Proposed 2nd story addition to 6752 Eddinghill Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA TOP: Profile flags of proposed addition appear to rise to a height as high or higher than the roof line of the 2 story home on the left (located next door at 6742 Eddinghill), even though the home at 6752 Eddinghiliis built on a lower grade. The proposed addition rises way above the home on the right located next door at 6758 Eddinghill Drive. BOTTOM: Home on the left (6758 Eddinghill lis the same home as the one on the right in the top photo above. Notice the character of the nelghborhood....one and two story homes with roof tops that gradually descend with the down slope of the street. None of these have an excessively steep height protrusion as does the proposed addition at 6752 Eddinghill Drive.
34
-
35
Views from our back yard 2/2 28349 Plainfield Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes
36
