MAY 3, 2005 APPEAL OF CASE NO. ZON2004-00219 (Height Variation&Minor Exception Permit; Land Owner: John&Jill Okorocha, represented by Jerry Rodin; Appellant: Jacqua Rumery; Subject Property: 30101 Miraleste Drive (Thomas Guide Page 823, H-4). MAY 3, 2005 APPEAL OF CASE NO. ZON2004-00219 (Height Variation&Minor Exception Permit; Land Owner: John&Jill Okorocha, represented by Jerry Rodin; Appellant: Jacqua Rumery; Subject Property: 30101 Miraleste Drive (Thomas Guide Page 823, H-4).

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM: DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT

DATE: MAY 3, 2005

SUBJECT: APPEAL OF CASE NO. ZON2004-00219 (Height Variation & Minor Exception Permit; Land Owner: John & Jill Okorocha, represented by Jerry Rodin; Appellant: Jacqua Rumery; Subject Property: 30101 Miraleste Drive (Thomas Guide Page 823, H-4).

Staff Coordinator: Eduardo Schonborn, AICP, Associate Planner

RECOMMENDATION

Adopt Resolution No. 2005-__, denying the appeal and upholding the Planning Commission’s conditional approval of Case No. ZON2004-00219 for a Height Variation and Minor Exception Permit.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

On March 8, 2005, the Planning Commission approved a two-story addition to an existing two-story residence at 30101 Miraleste Drive, with conditions to address the neighbor’s concerns with the project’s bulk and mass. The neighbor at 4465 Miraleste Drive was not satisfied with the Commission’s action and, therefore, filed an appeal of the Commission’s decision on March 23, 2005. The appellant raises several issues, but primarily believes the two-story addition is not compatible, and is massive and out of character with the neighborhood. As a result, the appellant is seeking that the City Council overturn the Planning Commission decision and address the appellant’s concerns. Thus, the appeal is before the City Council for consideration.

BACKGROUND

On April 30, 2004, a Height Variation application (hereafter referred to as Case No. ZON2004-00219) was submitted to the Planning, Building and Code Enforcement Department for processing. The application requested a 1,818 square foot two-story addition to the side of the existing two-story residence, resulting in a 4,781 square foot two-story residence (garage included), up to 31-feet in overall height. The case was deemed incomplete by Staff on May 13, 2004, pending the submittal of additional information. At that time, Staff also raised a concern with the resulting height of the proposed addition, its 10-foot proposed front yard setback, and with the appearance of the proposed project in relation to the existing residence. The applicant retained a new architect, who redesigned the proposed project by reducing the height and size, and increasing the proposed front yard setback. Thus, upon construction of the project silhouette and submittal of revised plans and a Minor Exception Permit application, Staff deemed the project complete on January 22, 2005.

On March 8, 2005, the Planning Commission considered the item at a public hearing and after hearing public testimony approved the project with additional conditions to help mitigate the impacts raised by the neighbor. The Planning Commission voted 4-1-1, with Commissioner Karp dissenting and Commissioner Tetreault recused. The approved project consists of a new 1,647 square foot two-story addition along the north side of the existing two-story residence, resulting in a total structure size of 4,182 square feet (including garage). Specifically, the Planning Commission approved project includes an 811 square foot addition to the first floor, which includes a 200 square foot expansion to the garage; and an 836 square foot addition to the second floor. Further, the Planning Commission approved a Minor Exception Permit, which would allow the addition to maintain a reduced 16-foot front yard setback, rather than the Development Code required 20-foot minimum setback.

On March 23, 2005, the adjacent property owner to the north (Jacqua Rumery) filed an appeal to the Planning Commission’s approval of Case No. ZON2004-00219, indicating that the addition is massive and out of character with the neighborhood. On April 1, 2005, the City mailed public hearing notices to 74 property owners within a 500-foot radius from the subject property. The notice was also published in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News on April 2, 2005.

DISCUSSION

The Planning Commission Staff Report dated March 8, 2005 (attached) contains a detailed analysis of the proposed project. In addition, excerpts of the March 8, 2005 Planning Commission Minutes are attached, which describe the Commission’s consideration of the project. Lastly, the adopted Planning Commission Resolution is attached, which summarizes the Planning Commission’s findings. Therefore, Staff discussion is focused on the issues raised on the appellant’s letter of appeal.

In her letter of appeal (attached), Ms. Rumery, property owner at 4465 Miraleste Drive, reiterates her position that the addition is not compatible, and is massive and out of character with the neighborhood. As evidenced in the attached Staff Report (dated March 8, 2005) and Planning Commission Resolution No. 2005-13, the Planning Commission found that the proposed addition is compatible with the immediate neighborhood. Specifically, the Commission found that the architectural style, roofing material, exterior finishes, number of stories and building materials are consistent with the existing residence and will not introduce new materials into the immediate neighborhood. Further, the design continues to maintain a two-story element on one side of the residence and a one-story element on the other side of the residence. Furthermore, the resulting size of the residence does not deviate from the characteristics in the immediate neighborhood and its appearance will not be readily visible from the street due to the proximity of the addition from the roadway and due to the topography of the area.

With regards to the Minor Exception Permit, which allows the approved addition to maintain a 16-foot front setback instead of the required 20-foot setback, the Planning Commission found that the minor exception is warranted by practical difficulties that exist on the property. These difficulties include an existing extreme slope and “flood hazard area”; both of which prohibit development towards the rear of the property. These constraints leave the north side of the property as the only location to add to the residence. Further, the Commission found that the minor exception will not create an inconsistency with the general intent of Title 17 since the proposed reduced 16-foot front yard setback is mitigated by the 40-foot distance between the structure and the roadway, and by the topography of the area. Further, the adjacent property to the north already maintains an existing 3-foot front yard setback that was approved through a Variance during the 1980s, and does not make the proposed reduction on the subject property readily apparent.

Staff does not believe any new information has been presented by the appellant that what was presented at the March 8, 2005 Planning Commission meeting. Therefore, as evidenced by the attached Staff Report and Resolution, Staff recommends that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2005-__, denying the appeal and upholding the Planning Commission’s conditional approval of Case No. ZON2004-00219 for a Height Variation and Minor Exception Permit.

FISCAL IMPACT

Should the City Council uphold the appeal, all appeal fees ($940.00) shall be refunded to the appellant. However, if the appeal is denied, then the fee shall not be refunded.

ALTERNATIVES

In addition to Staff’s recommendation, the following alternatives are available for the City Council’s consideration:

1) Uphold the appeal, thereby overturning the Planning Commission’s decision to conditionally approve Case No. ZON2004-00219, and direct Staff to prepare the appropriate Resolution for consideration at the next scheduled City Council meeting; or

2) 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.

Respectfully submitted:

Joel Rojas, AICP,
Director of Planning,
Building and Code Enforcement

Reviewed:

Les Evans
City Manager

Attachments:

Resolution
Exhibit B – Staff Report to the Planning Commission, dated March 8, 2005
Exhibit C – P.C. Resolution No. 2005-13
Exhibit D – Draft Minutes of the March 8, 2005 Planning Commission meeting (excerpt)
Exhibit E – Letter of appeal and supporting documents (from appellant)

RESOLUTION NO. 2005-

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DENYING THE APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S DECISION OF APPROVAL, WITH CONDITIONS, OF CASE NO. ZON2004-00219 FOR A HEIGHT VARIATION AND MINOR EXCEPTION PERMIT FOR A 1,647 SQUARE FOOT TWO-STORY ADDITION MEASURING 25-FEET IN OVERALL HEIGHT ALONG THE NORTH SIDE OF THE EXISTING TWO-STORY RESIDENCE WITH A 16-FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 30101 MIRALESTE DRIVE.

WHEREAS, on April 30, 2004, the property owner John Okorocha, submitted Case No. ZON2004-00219, a Height Variation application for an 1,818 square foot two-story addition measuring 31-feet in overall height; and,

WHEREAS, on May 13, 2004, the application was deemed incomplete pending submittal of additional information and the construction of the temporary silhouette; and,

WHEREAS, on December 23, 2004, a revised project was submitted, including a Minor Exception Permit for the 16-foot front yard setback; and,

WHEREAS, upon the construction of the temporary silhouette and submittal of the silhouette certification form, the case was deemed complete by Staff on January 22, 2005; and,

WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et. seq. ("CEQA"), the State's CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulation, Title 14, Section 15000 et. seq., the City's Local CEQA Guidelines, and Government Code Section 65962.5(f) (Hazardous Waste and Substances Statement), Staff found no evidence that Case No. ZON2004-00219 would have a significant effect on the environment and, therefore, the proposed project has been found to be categorically exempt under Class 1 (Existing Facilities) since the project involves an addition to an existing residence; 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 March 8, 2005, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence.

WHEREAS, on March 8, 2005, the Planning Commission conditionally approved Case No. 2004-00219, and a Notice of Decision was prepared and distributed to all interested parties; and,

WHEREAS, on March 23, 2005, within fifteen (15) days following the Planning Commission’s decision, the adjacent property owner to the north, Jacqua Rumery filed an appeal to the City Council requesting that the City Council overturn the Planning Commission’s conditional approval of Case No. ZON2004-00219 based upon the belief that the addition is massive and out of character with the neighborhood, and is not compatible with the immediate neighborhood; and,

WHEREAS, after notice issued pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on May 3, 2005, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1: As indicated in the Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated March 8, 2005 and in the Planning Commission Resolution No. 2005-13, incorporated herein by reference, the proposed project complies with the requirements and findings set forth in the Development Code for Height Variation and Minor Exception Permit applications.

Section 2: The City Council hereby upholds the Planning Commission’s conditional approval of Case No. ZON2004-00219, and finds as follows:

a) The applicant has complied with the Early Neighborhood Consultation process established by the City by obtaining acknowledgement signatures from 75% of the property owners within 100-feet of the subject property and 34.7% of the property owners within 500-feet of the subject property, who have reviewed the plans prior to filing the application with the City.

b) The proposed new second-story addition does not significantly impair a view from public property which has been identified in the City’s General Plan or Coastal Specific Plan as a City-designated viewing area because there are no such areas that overlook the subject property.

c) A ridge is defined as an elongated crest or linear series of crests of hills, bluffs, or highlands, while 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. The property is not located on a ridge or promontory as there are other adjacent parcels with varying pad elevations that were terraced when initially constructed.

d) The proposed second story addition that is above sixteen feet in height, when considered exclusive of foliage, does not significantly impair a view from the viewing area of another parcel. There are no residences to the rear of the subject property, while the residences on either side and across the street are not oriented towards the subject property. Thus, since there are no views in the direction of the subject property, there will be no view impairment as a result of the two-story addition

e) There is no view impairment, as there are no properties with views from the viewing area in the direction of the subject property, or properties with views from the viewing area over the subject property due to the topography and physical development of the area.

f) There is no significant cumulative view impairment caused by granting the application since there is no view impairment created from the proposed new second story addition.

g) The proposed structure complies with all other Code requirements in that all the development standards of the RS-3 Zoning District are met. The resulting lot coverage will be 34.3%, which is less than the 45% maximum permissible by the RS-3 zoning district. Although the two-story addition will be constructed outside of any side or rear yard setbacks, the reduction in the front yard setback is justified through approval of the Minor Exception Permit.

h) The addition and resulting appearance will not significantly change the appearance of the immediate neighborhood and the residence will be compatible with the immediate neighborhood. The architectural style, roofing material, exterior finishes, number of stories and building materials will be consistent with the existing residence and will not introduce new materials into the immediate neighborhood. The design continues to maintain a two-story element on one side of the residence and a one-story element on the other side of the residence. Further, the resulting size of the residence does not deviate from the characteristics in the immediate neighborhood and its appearance will not be readily visible from the street due to the proximity of the addition from the roadway and due to the topography of the area. With regards to setbacks, although the two-story addition will maintain a 16-foot front yard setback, the setback will not deviate from an established front yard setback since the subject property already contains a 12-foot setback, while the adjacent property to the north contains a 3-foot front yard setback for the first story and approximately a 10-foot front yard setback for the two-story portion. Lastly, with regards to the side yard setback, although the existing 27-foot north side yard setback will be reduced to 5-feet to accommodate the addition, other residences in the immediate neighborhood, including the adjacent property to the north, contain similar setbacks.

i) The proposed structure does not create an unreasonable infringement on the privacy of the occupants of abutting residences due to a condition that requires the two bedroom windows along the northern façade of the second story to maintain either translucent glazing or that the windows be changed to clearstory.

j) The minor exception is warranted by practical difficulties that exist on the property, which is the slope at the rear of the property and by the “flood hazard area”, which prohibits development towards the rear of the property. These constraints result in the north side of the property as the only location to add to the residence. Further, the minor exception will not create an inconsistency with the general intent of Title 17 since the 16-foot front yard setback is mitigated by the distance of the structure to the roadway being 40-feet, and by the topography of the area. Further, the adjacent property to the north already maintains an existing 3-foot front yard setback, which does not make the proposed reduction on the subject property apparent.

Section 3: For the foregoing reasons, and based on the information and findings included in the Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated March 8, 2005, Planning Commission Resolution No. 2005-13, the Memorandum to the City Council dated May 3, 2005, Minutes and other records of proceedings, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby denies the appeal, thereby upholding the Planning Commission’s conditional approval of Case No. ZON2004-00219 and all the conditions of approval as stated in the attached Exhibit “A”.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 3rd day of May 2005, by the following vote:

Mayor

ATTEST:

CITY CLERK

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES )

I, Carolynn Petru, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, do hereby certify that the above Resolution No. 2005-__ was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City Council at a regular meeting held on May 3, 2005.

 

City Clerk
Exhibit “A”
Conditions of Approval
Case No. ZON2004-00219
(Height Variation & Minor Exception Permit)

1. Prior to the submittal of plans into Building and Safety plan check, the applicant and/or property owner shall submit to the City a statement, in writing, that they have read, understand and agree to all conditions of approval contained in this approval. Failure to provide said written statement within ninety (90) days following the date of this approval shall render this approval null and void.

2. The approval shall become null and void after one year from the date of approval unless the approved plans are submitted to the Building and Safety Division to initiate the "plan check" review process.

3. Approval is for a new 1,647 square foot two-story addition along the north side of the existing two-story residence, resulting in a total structure size of 4,182 square feet (including garage). Specifically, the first floor will be expanded by a total of 811 square feet, which includes a 200 square foot expansion to the garage; while the second floor will be expanded by 836 square feet, over the first story expansion. SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE BUILDING OFFICIAL, A SIZE CERTIFICATION FOR THE TWO-STORY ADDITION IS REQUIRED BY A LICENSED LAND SURVEYOR OR ENGINEER IMMEDIATELY AFTER FRAMING INSPECTION OF THE STRUCTURE.

4. The following minimum setbacks shall be maintained:

Front yard: 16’-0” minimum (proposed: 16’-2”)
Side yard: 5’-0” minimum (proposed: 5’-0” north side)
Rear yard: 15’-0" minimum (proposed: no change to existing)

SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE BUILDING OFFICIAL, A FRONT AND NORTH SIDE SETBACK CERTIFICATION IS REQUIRED BY A LICENSED LAND SURVEYOR OR ENGINEER PRIOR TO THE POURING OF FOOTINGS.

5. The maximum height of the two-story addition shall be limited to 20.71-feet as measured from the highest grade covered by structure (located at the south east corner of the existing garage) to the ridgeline of the addition, and maintain a maximum overall height of 25-feet as measured from the lowest finish grade covered by structure (located at the northwest corner of the existing footprint) to the ridgeline of the addition. SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE BUILDING OFFICIAL, A RIDGE HEIGHT CERTIFICATION IS REQUIRED BY A LICENSED LAND SURVEYOR OR ENGINEER PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF ROOF MATERIALS.

6. The second story windows along the northern façade shall contain frosted or translucent glass, or shall be designed to be clearstory windows.

7. A minimum of two enclosed garage spaces shall be maintained, with each space being individually accessed and each maintaining a minimum unobstructed dimension of 9-feet-wide by 20-feet-deep by 7-feet-vertical clearance.

8. Construction of the project shall substantially conform to the plans stamped as approved by the Planning Department with the effective date of this approval. However, the project shall not include the bay window along the eastern façade of the second story and the gable roof plane shall be continuous throughout the width of the addition.

9. Due to the subject property's location in the RS-3 zoning district, a maximum of forty-five percent (45%) lot coverage shall be allowed on the lot (proposed: 34.3%).

10. In the event that a Planning requirement and a Building & Safety requirement are in conflict with one another, the stricter standard shall apply.

11. The applicant shall obtain all Public Works permits for the expanded driveway within the Miraleste Drive right-of-way. Further, the improvements in the public right-of-way shall be limited to hardscape measuring no more than 6-inches in height.

12. The hours of construction shall be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday. No construction shall be permitted on Sundays or on legal holidays.

13. The construction site and all adjacent private and public property 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 is not limited to: the accumulation of debris, garbage, lumber, scrap metal, concrete, asphalt, piles of earth, salvage materials, abandoned or discarded furniture, appliances or other household fixtures.

14. The maximum eave projection along the north side of the addition shall be limited to 1-foot, thereby resulting in a minimum 4-foot setback from the northern property line for the eaves.

15. At least 50% of the existing interior and exterior walls or existing square footage of the structure shall be retained by the approved project. Otherwise, any nonconformities existing at the time of Planning approval shall be corrected as a part of the project.

16. The construction site shall be temporarily enclosed with a six-foot (6'-0") high chain-link fence during the length of construction of the residential structure.

17. The Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement is authorized to make minor modifications to the approved plans or any of the conditions if such modifications shall achieve substantially the same results as would strict compliance with said plans and conditions.
STAFF
REPORT



TO:CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION

FROM:DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT

DATE:MARCH 8, 2005

SUBJECT:CASE NO. ZON2004-00219
(HEIGHT VARIATION & MINOR EXCEPTION PERMIT)

PROJECT ADDRESS:30101 MIRALESTE DRIVE
(THOMAS GUIDE PAGE 823, H-4)

APPLICANT:JERRY RODIN, ARCHITECT
29000 WESTERN AVE., #408
RANCHO PV, CA 90275

PHONE: (310) 832-3135

LANDOWNER: JOHN & JILL OKOROCHA
30101 MIRALESTE DRIVE
RPV, CA 90275

PHONE: (310) 833-8005

_________________________________________________
THOMAS GUIDE PAGE 823, COORDINATE: H-4

STAFF COORDINATOR: EDUARDO SCHONBORN, AICP, ASSOCIATE PLANNER

REQUESTED ACTION: ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 1,647 SQUARE FOOT TWO-STORY ADDITION ALONG THE NORTH SIDE OF AN EXISTING TWO-STORY RESIDENCE. SPECIFICALLY, AN 811 SQUARE FOOT EXPANSION TO THE FIRST FLOOR AND AN 836 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION ABOVE, RESULTING IN A 4,182 SQUARE FOOT STRUCTURE (GARAGE INCLUDED). THE ADDITION WILL BE LOWER THAN THE EXISTING RIDGELINE, AND WILL BE 20.71-FEET HIGH AS MEASURED FROM HIGHEST GRADE COVERED BY STRUCTURE (ALONG THE FRONT) TO RIDGELINE OF THE ADDITION AND 25’-0” IN OVERALL HEIGHT AS MEASURED FROM LOWEST GRAGE COVERED BY STRUCTURE (ALONG THE REAR) TO THE RIDGELINE OF THE ADDITION. LASTLY, THE ADDITION WILL MAINTAIN A 16-FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK, WHERE THE CITY’S DEVELOPMENT CODE REQUIRES A 20-FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK.

RECOMMENDATION: ADOPT P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2005-__, CONDITIONALLY APPROVING CASE NO. ZON2004-00219 (HEIGHT VARIATION, MINOR EXCEPTION PERMIT & SITE PLAN REVIEW).

REFERENCES:

ZONING: RS-3

LAND USE: SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE

CODE SECTIONS: 17.02, 17.66

GENERAL PLAN: RESIDENTIAL 2-4 DU/ACRE

TRAILS PLAN: N/A

SPECIFIC PLAN: N/A

CEQA STATUS: EXEMPT (CLASS 1)

ACTION DEADLINE: MARCH 23, 2005

P.C. MEMBERS
WITHIN 500’ RADIUS: NONE

BACKGROUND

On April 30, 2004, a Height Variation application (hereafter referred to as Case No. ZON2004-00219) was submitted to the Planning, Building and Code Enforcement Department for processing. The applications requested a 1,818 square foot two-story addition to the side of the existing two-story residence, resulting in a 4,781 square foot two-story residence (garage included), up to 31-feet in overall height. The case was deemed incomplete on May 13, 2004, pending the submittal of additional information. However, Staff raised issues of concern with the resulting height of the proposed addition, its 10-foot proposed front yard setback, and with the appearance of the proposed project in relation to the existing residence. The applicant redesigned the proposed project by reducing the height and size, and increasing the proposed front yard setback. Thus, upon submittal of the silhouette certification form, and revised plans and applications, Staff deemed the project complete on January 22, 2005. On February 4, 2005, the City mailed notices to 74 property owners within a 500-foot radius from the subject property. Subsequently, the notice was published in the Peninsula News on February 5, 2005. Staff received one letter in opposition to the proposed project from the adjacent neighbor on the north side, at 4465 Miraleste Drive.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

In accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Staff has determined this project to be categorically exempt under Class 1 – Existing Facilities; therefore, no further environmental review is required.

Class 1 exempts projects that consist of alterations to existing structures from the preparation of environmental documents. The proposed project does not involve significant expansion of use beyond that previously existing. Staff has made this determination because the site is developed with a single-family residence and the proposed project consists of a minor alteration to the existing structure on the subject lot, with no additional site disturbance.

SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The subject property is a pad lot located at 30101 Miraleste Drive. The property measures 11,147 square feet in area and is zoned RS-3 (Single-Family Residential). The property is currently improved with a 2,535 square foot two-story residence, located towards the front of the property, since the rear half of the subject property contains a “flood hazard area” designation.

The applicant is proposing a 1,647 square foot two-story addition along the north side of the existing residence. Specifically, the first floor will be expanded by a total of 811 square feet, which includes a 200 square foot expansion to the garage; while the second floor will be expanded by 836 square feet, over the first story expansion. The total additions will result in a 4,182 square foot structure size (garage included). Lastly, since the subject property contains a “flood hazard area”, the additions will be conducted towards the front of the property, with a proposed front yard setback of 16-feet from the front property line.

CODE CONSIDERATION AND ANALYSIS

Height Variation:

The RS-3 zoning district standards, in conjunction with the development standards for lots with a building pad, regulate building height. The maximum allowable height is sixteen feet, as measured from the preconstruction (existing) grade at the highest point on the lot covered by the structure to the ridge line of the structure; and twenty feet high, as measured from the point where the lowest foundation meets finished grade. This establishes a 16'/20' building envelope for pad lots. However, pursuant to Section 17.02.040.C.1 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code, a property owner may request approval of a height variation to exceed the sixteen (16') foot height limit, up to a 26-foot maximum overall height. The applicant is proposing a two-story addition, which will maintain a height of 20.71-feet as measured from the highest grade covered by structure to the ridgeline of the addition at the front of the residence, and maintain a maximum overall height of 26-feet as measured from the lowest finish grade covered by structure to the ridgeline of the addition located at the rear of the residence. Therefore, since a two-story addition is proposed with a maximum height of 25-feet, the project is subject to a Height Variation application. Lastly, the Height Variation application requires review by the Planning Commission since the project includes a second story over the entire garage.

In considering a Height Variation application, Section 17.02.040.C.1.e of the Municipal Code requires the Planning Commission to make nine findings in reference to the subject property and the project under consideration (Development Code language is boldface, followed by Staff's analysis in normal type):

1. The applicant has complied with the Early Neighbor Consultation process established by the City.

The applicant was successful in obtaining the necessary number of signatures to satisfy this criterion through the initial door-to-door contact method. The Development Code requires owner signatures from at least 25% of the property owners within a 500-foot radius of the subject property and the signatures of at least 70% of the property owners within a 100-foot radius of the subject property. The applicant obtained 34.7% and 75% of the owner signatures within 500’ and 100’, respectively, thereby complying with this requirement. As such, 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, bikeways, walkways or equestrian trails), which has been identified in the City's General Plan or Coastal Specific Plan, as City-designated viewing areas.

The subject property is not overlooked by any park, major thoroughfare, bikeway, walkway, or equestrian trail identified in the City's General Plan. In addition, the property is not located in the Coastal Zone. Therefore, the proposed project on the subject property cannot significantly impair a view from any of these public properties, and this finding can be adopted.

3. The proposed structure is not located on a ridge or promontory.

According to the Development Code, a ridge is defined as an elongated crest or linear series of crests of hills, bluffs, or highlands, while 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. The subject property is located on a graded pad lot that was created when the surrounding neighborhood was developed in a terraced manner and is therefore not on a ridge or promontory. Therefore, Staff believes that this finding can be made.

4. The proposed new structure that is above sixteen feet in height, when considered exclusive of existing foliage, does not significantly impair a view from the viewing area of another parcel.

The proposed project does not significantly impair a view from the viewing area of another parcel. There are no residences to the rear of the subject property, while the residences on either side and across the street are not oriented towards the subject property. Thus, since there are no views in the direction of the subject property, there will be no view impairment as a result of the two-story addition, 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, the proposed new structure that is above sixteen feet in height is designed and situated in such a manner as to reasonably minimize impairment of a view.

As indicated and concluded above, due to the orientation of the residences in the area, there are no views in the direction of the subject property. Thus, since there is no evidence of view impairment, this finding does not apply.

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; and (b) considering the amount of view impairment that would be caused by the construction on other parcels of similar new structures that exceed sixteen feet in height.

As indicated above, there will be no view impairment from the viewing area of another parcel due to the orientation of other residences in the area, and there is no evidence of significant cumulative view impairment. As such, this finding can be made and adopted.

7. The proposed structure complies with all other Code requirements.

The proposed addition meets or exceeds the minimum Development Code standards with regards to lot coverage and setbacks. The two-story addition will be constructed outside of any side or rear yard setbacks, and as indicated below, Staff believes the reduction in the front yard setback is justified through approval of the Minor Exception Permit. Lastly, the resulting lot coverage will be 34.3%, which is less than the 45% maximum permissible by the RS-3 zoning district. Therefore, since the proposal complies with or exceeds the standards of the City’s Development Code, Staff believes that the proposal complies with all other Development Code standards and this finding can be made and adopted.

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 closest properties. Table No. 1 below illustrates the twenty properties and structures that comprise the immediate neighborhood, which serves as the basis for the neighborhood compatibility analysis.

Table No. 1

Address

Lot Size

Structure Size

No. of Stories

6604 Via Colinita

12,040 sq.ft.

2,078 sq.ft.

2

6610 Via Colinita

10,598 sq.ft.

2,744 sq.ft.

2

6616 Via Colinita

6,059 sq.ft.

3,454 sq.ft.

2

30121 Miraleste

13,973 sq.ft.

2,930 sq.ft.

2

30221 Kingsridge

8,000 sq.ft.

2,090 sq.ft.

1

30129 Kingsridge

10,220 sq.ft.

2,820 sq.ft.

1

30175 Kingsridge

6,410 sq.ft.

1,890 sq.ft.

1

30203 Kingsridge

7,560 sq.ft.

3,015 sq.ft.

2

30211 Kingsridge

8,000 sq.ft.

2,640 sq.ft.

2

4400 Miraleste

17,842 sq.ft.

3,110 sq.ft.

1

30100 Miraleste

11,761 sq.ft.

2,960 sq.ft.

2

4450 Miraleste

20,473 sq.ft.

2,887 sq.ft.

1

4375 Miraleste

9,159 sq.ft.

2,614 sq.ft.

1

4465 Miraleste

9,090 sq.ft.

4,803 sq.ft.

1

4500 Maine Road

19,040 sq.ft.

3,109 sq.ft.

2

6600 Via Colinita

10,960 sq.ft.

3,376 sq.ft.

2

4236 Kingsridge

19,170 sq.ft.

3,162 sq.ft.

1

4351 Miraleste

7,570 sq.ft.

2,240 sq.ft.

1

4357 Miraleste

10,120 sq.ft.

2,340 sq.ft.

1

4363 Miraleste

7,231 sq.ft.

2,340 sq.ft.

1

Average

11,264 sq.ft.

2,830 sq.ft.

--

Subject Site-Existing

11,147 sq.ft.

2,535 sq.ft.

2

Subject Site-Proposed

4,182 sq.ft.

2


Note: The structure sizes include garages, and were obtained from building permits on file in the Department of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement.

Staff received one correspondence from Jacqua Rumery, owner of adjacent property to the north (4465 Miraleste Drive). Ms. Rumery is in opposition to the project and raises concern with the resulting structure size. Staff conducted an analysis of the immediate neighborhood, and found that the immediate neighborhood is comprised of a mixture of one-story and two-story residential structures. The structures range in size from 1,890 square feet to 4,803 square feet, with an average structure size of 2,830 square feet for the immediate neighborhood. The addition will result in a 4,182 square foot structure size, which is 1,352 square feet larger than the average but 621 square feet smaller than the largest structure in the immediate neighborhood. Staff acknowledges that the resulting structure size is larger than the neighborhood average; however, Staff believes that it is not significantly larger and it is not made apparent due to the proposed layout and location of the proposed two-story addition. Although the addition is proposed with a 16-foot front yard setback, the addition will be setback farther than the existing residence and setback farther than the adjacent property to the north. As such, Staff believes that the resulting structure size will not be out of character with the immediate neighborhood.

Ms. Rumery also raises concern with the resulting lot coverage, indicating that the project will consume the entire lot. Lot coverage includes the building footprint, driveways and parking areas, covered patios and trellises, decks greater than 30-inches in height, and courtyards. The project will enlarge the footprint, thereby increasing lot coverage from 28% to 34.3%, which Staff believes is not a substantial increase to the existing lot coverage and continues to be significantly less than the 45% maximum permitted for the RS-3 Zoning District

(2) Architectural styles, including facade treatments, structure height, open space between structures, roof design, the apparent bulk or mass of the structure, number of stories, and building materials.

The immediate neighborhood is comprised of one-story and two-story residences. Further, some of the two-story residences contain a split-level appearance where one side of the residence contains a one-story element and the other side of the residence contains a two-story element. Since the project entails expanding the two-story element of the residence, while maintaining the one-story element, the project will not introduce a new element to the neighborhood.

The exterior finish of the existing residence contains smooth stucco, trimmed windows, and tile roof material. Further, the existing residence contains gable roof designs with a contemporary architectural style. The proposed addition will incorporate the existing exterior finish materials, including a gable roof element and a contemporary architectural style; thus, the addition will not introduce new elements to the immediate neighborhood, nor deviate from an established style.

The apparent bulk or mass of a structure is related to the location of the proposed two-story structure, from where it is viewed and the articulation provided. The existing residence contains a two-story configuration similar to other two-story residences, whereby the two-story element is concentrated on one side of the residence. The addition will maintain this configuration by expanding the side of the residence that already contains a two-story element, thereby maintaining the existing configuration. Further, the new two-story addition will be setback 16-feet from the front property line, which is greater than the existing 12-foot setback that the existing two-story element maintains. Thus, the front façade of the overall structure will be articulated so that the front façade does not maintain a solid faced plane along the most visible portion of the structure and thereby reducing the bulk and mass.

The bulk and mass of the structure is further reduced due to the location of the structure in relation to the street, and due to the topography of the area. With regards to the proximity, the physical roadway of Miraleste Drive is located 40-feet from the addition, which reduces the apparentness of the structure from the roadway. With regards to the topography of the area, the subject property is located 5-feet lower than the roadway, which also reduces the apparentness of the structure from the roadway. Therefore, Staff believes that the design provides for sufficient articulation of the structure and reduces the bulk and mass of the structure, while the location and topography in relation to the roadway reduces the bulk and mass of the structure. As such, Staff believes that this finding can be made.

Ms. Rumery is also concerned with the open space between structures, and does not believe the project provides for adequate open space, which blocks natural light and circulation. With regards to sunlight and circulation, the City’s Development Code does not include the protection of sunlight and circulation as a protected feature when analyzing a height variation.

(3) Front, side, and rear yard setbacks.

According to the Development Code, structures shall maintain a minimum of 20-foot, 5-foot and 15-foot setback from the front, interior side and rear property lines, respectively; however, the Development Code allows for a reduced front yard setback by up to 10-feet for sloping lots with a . Although the two-story addition will maintain a 16-foot front yard setback, the setback will not deviate from an established front yard setback since the subject property already contains a 12-foot setback, while the adjacent property to the north contains a 3-foot front yard setback for the first story and approximately a 10-foot front yard setback for the two-story portion. Further, with regards to the side yard setback, although the existing 27-foot north side yard setback will be reduced to 5-feet to accommodate the addition, other residences in the immediate neighborhood contain similar setbacks. Therefore, Staff does not believe that the addition will deviate from an established setback. As such, this finding can be made and adopted.

Therefore, for the reasons noted above, Staff believes that the revised project will be compatible with the immediate neighborhood, and this finding can be made.

9. The proposed structure does not result in an unreasonable infringement of privacy of the occupants of abutting residences.

The proposed two-story structure will not infringe upon the privacy of the abutting property on the south side, and there are no abutting residences to the rear. The property to the north contains a garage with a second story above, which contains windows along the south side elevation that will face the new two-story addition. The new addition will contain four windows along the north elevation of the second story; one at a bathroom that will contain frosted glass, one at a closet, and two at the bedroom. Staff believes that the two bedroom windows will create an infringement of privacy. However, Staff believes that the issue can be mitigated by conditioning the windows at the bedroom to either contain frosted glass, or include clearstory windows so that direct observation is not allowed. Therefore, with appropriate conditions, Staff believes that this finding can be made and adopted.

Minor Exception Permit:

Section 17.66 of the City’s Development Code allows minor exceptions to the Development Code standards by the Planning Commission or Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement. The Section allows the Planning Commission or Director to grant a minor exception permit authorizing, among other improvements, a reduction in the minimum setback requirement by up to twenty percent (20%). In reviewing minor exception permits, the Development Code allows the Planning Commission or Director to grant a minor exception permit upon making one of the following three findings:

 The requested minor exception is warranted by practical difficulties; or
 The requested minor exception is warranted by an unnecessary hardship; or
 The requested minor exception is necessary to avoid inconsistencies with the general intent of this title (Title 17).

Staff believes that the minor exception is warranted by practical difficulties that exist on the property. Expansion to the existing residence is constrained by the slope at the rear of the property and by the “flood hazard area”, which prohibits development towards the rear of the property. These constraints result in the north side of the property as the only location to add to the residence. Although the minor exception is not specifically necessary to avoid inconsistencies with the general intent of Title 17, the proposed encroachment will not create an inconsistency. Minimum setback standards are incorporated into the Development Code to provide for distance from the street so that structures do not dominate the streetscape. The reduced front yard setback in this case, however, is mitigated by the proximity of the structure to the roadway and by the topography of the area. Further, the adjacent property to the north already maintains an existing 3-foot front yard setback, which does not make the proposed reduction apparent. Therefore, Staff believes that there are practical difficulties with the property, and a minor exception permit is warranted. Further, approval of the minor exception will not result in any inconsistencies with the intent of Title 17 (Zoning) in comparison to the existing physical development of the neighborhood.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

During the comment period, Ms. Rumery, owner of the adjacent property to the north, expressed opposition to the project based upon structure size, lot coverage and open space. For the reasons stated above, Staff believes that the project is compatible with the immediate neighborhood and believes that the appropriate findings can be made and adopted.

CONCLUSION

Based upon the above analysis, Staff has determined that all of the required findings for a Height Variation and Minor Exception Permit can be made in a positive manner to warrant approval of the proposed two-story addition. Therefore, based upon the proposal as submitted, Staff recommends that the Planning Commission conditionally approve Case No. ZON2004-00219 for a Height Variation and Minor Exception Permit.

ALTERNATIVES

In addition to Staff’s Recommendation, the following alternatives are available for the Planning Commission’s consideration:

1. Identify any issues or concerns with the proposed project and require that the applicant revise the plans accordingly, provided that the applicant submits a time extension; or,

2. Deny Case No. ZON2004-00219 as designed, and direct Staff to prepare the appropriate Resolution and conditions for consideration at the next scheduled Planning Commission meeting.

Please note that in the event that this item is continued beyond the March 23, 2005 action deadline, the applicant must agree to a one time 90-day extension of the processing deadline imposed by the State’s Permit Streamlining Act.

Attachments:

P.C. Resolution No. 2005 - __
Letters in response to notice

P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2005-13

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES APPROVING CASE NO. ZON2004-00219, A HEIGHT VARIATION AND MINOR EXCEPTION PERMIT FOR A 1,647 SQUARE FOOT TWO-STORY ADDITION MEASURING 25-FEET IN OVERALL HEIGHT ALONG THE NORTH SIDE OF THE EXISTING TWO-STORY RESIDENCE WITH A 16-FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 30101 MIRALESTE DRIVE.

WHEREAS, on April 30, 2004, the property owner John Okorocha, submitted Case No. ZON2004-00219, a Height Variation application for an 1,818 square foot two-story addition measuring 31-feet in overall height; and,

WHEREAS, on May 13, 2004, the application was deemed incomplete pending submittal of additional information and the construction of the temporary silhouette; and,

WHEREAS, on December 23, 2004, a revised project was submitted, including a Minor Exception Permit for the 16-foot front yard setback; and,

WHEREAS, upon the construction of the temporary silhouette and submittal of the silhouette certification form, the case was deemed complete by Staff on January 22, 2005; and,

WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et. seq. ("CEQA"), the State's CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulation, Title 14, Section 15000 et. seq., the City's Local CEQA Guidelines, and Government Code Section 65962.5(f) (Hazardous Waste and Substances Statement), Staff found no evidence that Case No. ZON2004-00219 would have a significant effect on the environment and, therefore, the proposed project has been found to be categorically exempt under Class 1 (Existing Facilities) since the project involves an addition to an existing residence; 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 March 8, 2005, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1: The applicant has complied with the Early Neighborhood Consultation process established by the City by obtaining acknowledgement signatures from 75% of the property owners within 100-feet of the subject property and 34.7% of the property owners within 500-feet of the subject property, who have reviewed the plans prior to filing the application with the City.

Section 2: The proposed new second-story addition does not significantly impair a view from public property which has been identified in the City’s General Plan or Coastal Specific Plan as a City-designated viewing area because there are no such areas that overlook the subject property.

Section 3: The property is not located on a ridge or promontory as there are other adjacent parcels with varying pad elevations that were terraced when initially constructed.

Section 4: The proposed second story addition that is above sixteen feet in height, when considered exclusive of foliage, does not significantly impair a view from the viewing area of another parcel. There are no residences to the rear of the subject property, while the residences on either side and across the street are not oriented towards the subject property. Thus, since there are no views in the direction of the subject property, there will be no view impairment as a result of the two-story addition

Section 5: There is no view impairment, as there are no properties with views from the viewing area in the direction of the subject property, or properties with views from the viewing area over the subject property due to the topography and physical development of the area.

Section 6: There is no significant cumulative view impairment caused by granting the application since there is no view impairment created from the proposed new second story addition.

Section 7: The proposed structure complies with all other Code requirements in that all the development standards of the RS-3 Zoning District are met. Although the two-story addition will be constructed outside of any side or rear yard setbacks, the reduction in the front yard setback is justified through approval of the Minor Exception Permit.

Section 8: The addition and resulting appearance will not significantly change the appearance of the immediate neighborhood and the residence will be compatible with the immediate neighborhood. The architectural style, roofing material, exterior finishes, number of stories and building materials will be consistent with the existing residence and will not introduce new materials into the immediate neighborhood. Further, the design continues to maintain a two-story element on one side of the residence and a one-story element on the other side of the residence. Furthermore, the resulting size of the residence does not deviate from the characteristics in the immediate neighborhood and its appearance will not be readily visible from the street due to the proximity of the addition from the roadway and due to the topography of the area.

Section 9: The proposed structure does not create an unreasonable infringement on the privacy of the occupants of abutting residences due to a condition that requires the two bedroom windows along the northern façade of the second story to maintain either translucent glazing or that the windows be changed to clearstory.

Section 10: The minor exception is warranted by practical difficulties that exist on the property, which is the slope at the rear of the property and by the “flood hazard area”, which prohibits development towards the rear of the property. These constraints result in the north side of the property as the only location to add to the residence. Further, the minor exception will not create an inconsistency with the general intent of Title 17 since the 16-foot front yard setback is mitigated by the distance of the structure to the roadway being 40-feet, and by the topography of the area. Further, the adjacent property to the north already maintains an existing 3-foot front yard setback, which does not make the proposed reduction on the subject property apparent.

Section 11: 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 approves Case No. ZON2004-00219 for a Height Variation and Minor Exception Permit, thereby allowing a new 1,647 square foot two-story addition on the north side of the existing two-story residence up to a maximum overall height of 25-feet and resulting in a 4,182 square foot structure (garage included), subject to the conditions contained in Exhibit “A” attached hereto and made a part hereof, which are necessary to protect the public health, safety, and welfare.

Section 12: Any interested person aggrieved by this decision or by any portion of this decision may appeal to the City Council. Pursuant to Section 17.80 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code, any such appeal must be filed with the City, in writing and with the appropriate appeal fee, no later than March 23, 2005.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 8th day of March 2005, by the following vote:

AYES: Gerstner, Knight, Mueller, Perestam

NOES: Karp

ABSTENTIONS: Tetreault

ABSENT: None


/s/ Jim Knight
Planning Commission Vice-Chairman

 

/s/ Joel Rojas, AICP
Director of Planning, Building and
Code Enforcement; and, Secretary
to the Planning Commission
Exhibit “A”
Conditions of Approval
Case No. ZON2004-00219
(Height Variation & Minor Exception Permit)

1. Prior to the submittal of plans into Building and Safety plan check, the applicant and/or property owner shall submit to the City a statement, in writing, that they have read, understand and agree to all conditions of approval contained in this approval. Failure to provide said written statement within ninety (90) days following the date of this approval shall render this approval null and void.

2. The approval shall become null and void after one year from the date of approval unless the approved plans are submitted to the Building and Safety Division to initiate the "plan check" review process.

3. Approval is for a new 1,647 square foot two-story addition along the north side of the existing two-story residence, resulting in a total structure size of 4,182 square feet (including garage). Specifically, the first floor will be expanded by a total of 811 square feet, which includes a 200 square foot expansion to the garage; while the second floor will be expanded by 836 square feet, over the first story expansion. SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE BUILDING OFFICIAL, A SIZE CERTIFICATION FOR THE TWO-STORY ADDITION IS REQUIRED BY A LICENSED LAND SURVEYOR OR ENGINEER IMMEDIATELY AFTER FRAMING INSPECTION OF THE STRUCTURE.

4. The following minimum setbacks shall be maintained:

Front yard: 16’-0” minimum (proposed: 16’-2”)
Side yard: 5’-0” minimum (proposed: 5’-0” north side)
Rear yard: 15’-0" minimum (proposed: no change to existing)

SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE BUILDING OFFICIAL, A FRONT AND NORTH SIDE SETBACK CERTIFICATION IS REQUIRED BY A LICENSED LAND SURVEYOR OR ENGINEER PRIOR TO THE POURING OF FOOTINGS.

5. The maximum height of the two-story addition shall be limited to 20.71-feet as measured from the highest grade covered by structure (located at the south east corner of the existing garage) to the ridgeline of the addition, and maintain a maximum overall height of 25-feet as measured from the lowest finish grade covered by structure (located at the northwest corner of the existing footprint) to the ridgeline of the addition. SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE BUILDING OFFICIAL, A RIDGE HEIGHT CERTIFICATION IS REQUIRED BY A LICENSED LAND SURVEYOR OR ENGINEER PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF ROOF MATERIALS.

6. The second story windows along the northern façade shall contain frosted or translucent glass, or shall be designed to be clearstory windows.

7. A minimum of two enclosed garage spaces shall be maintained, with each space being individually accessed and each maintaining a minimum unobstructed dimension of 9-feet-wide by 20-feet-deep by 7-feet-vertical clearance.

8. Construction of the project shall substantially conform to the plans stamped as approved by the Planning Department with the effective date of this approval. However, the project shall not include the bay window along the eastern façade of the second story and the gable roof plane shall be continuous throughout the width of the addition.

9. Due to the subject property's location in the RS-3 zoning district, a maximum of forty-five percent (45%) lot coverage shall be allowed on the lot (proposed: 34.3%).

10. In the event that a Planning requirement and a Building & Safety requirement are in conflict with one another, the stricter standard shall apply.

11. The applicant shall obtain all Public Works permits for the expanded driveway within the Miraleste Drive right-of-way. Further, the improvements in the public right-of-way shall be limited to hardscape measuring no more than 6-inches in height.

12. The hours of construction shall be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday. No construction shall be permitted on Sundays or on legal holidays.

13. The construction site and all adjacent private and public property 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 is not limited to: the accumulation of debris, garbage, lumber, scrap metal, concrete, asphalt, piles of earth, salvage materials, abandoned or discarded furniture, appliances or other household fixtures.

14. The maximum eave projection along the north side of the addition shall be limited to 1-foot, thereby resulting in a minimum 4-foot setback from the northern property line for the eaves.

15. At least 50% of the existing interior and exterior walls or existing square footage of the structure shall be retained by the approved project. Otherwise, any nonconformities existing at the time of Planning approval shall be corrected as a part of the project.

16. The construction site shall be temporarily enclosed with a six-foot (6'-0") high chain-link fence during the length of construction of the residential structure.

17. The Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement is authorized to make minor modifications to the approved plans or any of the conditions if such modifications shall achieve substantially the same results as would strict compliance with said plans and conditions.