MAY 31, 2005 APPEAL OF CASE NO. ZON2004-00174 (Site Plan Review); Land Owner & Appellant: Lenee Barden; Subject Property: 6311 Tarragon Road (Thomas Guide Page 822, J-4). MAY 31, 2005 APPEAL OF CASE NO. ZON2004-00174 (Site Plan Review); Land Owner & Appellant: Lenee Barden; Subject Property: 6311 Tarragon Road (Thomas Guide Page 822, J-4).

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FROM: DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT

DATE: MAY 31, 2005

SUBJECT: APPEAL OF CASE NO. ZON2004-00174 (Site Plan Review); Land Owner & Appellant: Lenee Barden; Subject Property: 6311 Tarragon Road (Thomas Guide Page 822, J-4).

Staff Coordinator: Eduardo Schonborn, aicp, Associate Planner

RECOMMENDATION

Adopt Resolution No. 2005-__, denying the appeal and upholding the Planning Commissionís denial of Case No. ZON2004-00174 for a Site Plan Review.

DISCUSSION

On May 17, 2005, the City Council considered the above referenced case. After discussion of the item, the City Council denied the appeal of Case No. ZON2004-00174, thereby upholding the denial of a Site Plan Review application for an after-the-fact balcony enclosure that was constructed atop an upper level balcony at the front of the residence located at 6311 Tarragon Road.

At the May 17th meeting, the City Attorney requested that the Resolution be adopted at the May 31, 2005 City Council meeting in order to make revisions to the Draft Resolution that was attached to the May 17th Staff Report. Thus, to formalize the action taken on May 17, 2005, attached is a resolution for the City Councilís adoption.

Respectfully submitted:

Joel Rojas, aicp,

Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement

Reviewed:

Les Evans

City Manager

Attachments

Resolution 2005-__

RESOLUTION NO. 2005-

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DENYING THE APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSIONíS DENIAL OF CASE NO. ZON2004-00174, AN APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF A SITE PLAN TO LEGALIZE AN UNPERMITTED 240 SQUARE FOOT PATIO ENCLOSURE CONSTRUCTED ON A BALCONY THAT WAS RECONSTRUCTED WITHOUT PERMITS, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6311 TARRAGON ROAD.

WHEREAS, in 1982, the City approved the construction of an unenclosed balcony on the front of the second story of a single family residence located at 6311 Tarragon Road; and

WHEREAS, on May 21, 2003, a code enforcement complaint was received by Staff regarding the reconstruction of the balcony and the addition of a 240 square-foot enclosure thereon without required permits, and City Staff advised the property owner, Lenee Barden, of this violation on May 22, 2003; and,

WHEREAS, on April 8, 2004, the property owner, Lenee Barden, submitted a Height Variation application (as Case No. ZON2004-00174) requesting legalization of the unpermitted patio enclosure on a second story balcony that was reconstructed without permits; and,

WHEREAS, on April 27, 2004, the Height Variation application was deemed incomplete pending the submittal of additional information; and,

WHEREAS, on June 30, 2004, City Staff determined that the project only required a Site Plan Review application along with a Neighborhood Compatibility assessment, due to clarifications to the Development Code approved by the City Council that took effect in early June 2004; the amended Development Code does not require a Height Variation but does require a neighborhood compatibility analysis because the 240 square-foot patio enclosure is considered an addition to a second story; and,

WHEREAS, on September 22, 2004, after submittal of the required information, Case No. ZON2004-00174 was deemed complete by City Staff; and,

WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et. seq. ("CEQA"), the State's CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et. seq., the City's Local CEQA Guidelines, and Government Code Section 65962.5(f) (Hazardous Waste and Substances Statement), Staff found no evidence that Case No. ZON2004-00174 would have a significant effect on the environment and, therefore, the project has been found to be categorically exempt under Class 1 (Section 15301) because the property currently is developed with a single-family residence; and,

WHEREAS, on November 18, 2004, the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement reviewed Case No. ZON2004-00174 and denied said application, and a Notice of Decision was prepared and distributed to all interested parties; and,

WHEREAS, on November 29, 2004, within fifteen (15) days following the Directorís Notice of Decision, the landowner and appellant, Lanee Barden, filed an appeal to the Planning Commission requesting that the Planning Commission overturn the Directorís denial of Case No. ZON2004-00174 based upon her belief that the enclosure is a great improvement to the home and that other homes have similar improvements; 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 January 25, 2005, at which time the Planning Commission considered the application and denied the appeal, thereby upholding the Directorís denial of Case No. ZON2004-00174, and a Notice of Decision was prepared and distributed to all interested parties; and,

WHEREAS, on February 4, 2005, within fifteen (15) days following the Planning Commissionís decision, the landowner and appellant, Lenee Barden, filed an appeal to the City Council requesting that the City Council overturn the Planning Commissionís denial of Case No. ZON2004-00174, based upon her belief that the addition is not out of character with the 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 17, 2005, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence.

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

Section 1: As stated in the Memorandum from Staff to the Director dated November 17, 2004; the Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated January 25, 2005; Planning Commission Resolution No. 2005-05; the Staff report that was prepared for the City Council, and the evidence and testimony that was presented to the City Council, all of which are incorporated herein by reference, the City Council hereby finds that the enclosure that was constructed upon the balcony does not comply with the requirements and findings set forth in the Development Code for Neighborhood Compatibility. Site visits to the surrounding residential neighborhood demonstrate that other residences in the neighborhood do have balconies over the driveway and garage entries, which are consistent with the balcony that previously existed on the subject property. However, the patio enclosure that was constructed upon this balcony at the subject property without permits is a new feature that is not present in the immediate neighborhood. None of the residences in the neighborhood have an enclosed patio over such balcony areas or contain an enclosed upper level that projects beyond the first-story façade. Furthermore, this enclosure on the front of the second story of the residence is made even more apparent due to its visibility from Barkentine Road and Tarragon Road.

Section 2: The City Council hereby upholds the Planning Commissionís denial of Case No. ZON2004-00174, and finds as follows:

The style and location and design of the after-the-fact patio enclosure does not integrate with design of the residential structures in the immediate neighborhood and deviates from the established character of the neighborhood. The after-the-fact patio enclosure is not compatible with the immediate neighborhood character based upon its architectural style and its bulk and mass, because:

a) The patio enclosure over the balcony at the subject property is a new feature that is not present on other residential structures in the immediate neighborhood. Although some of the surrounding residences do have unenclosed balconies, none of the residences in the neighborhood have an enclosed patio over a balcony area or have an enclosed upper level that projects beyond the first-story façade into the front yard.

b) This second story enclosure is made even more apparent due to its proximity to, and visibility from, Barkentine Road and Tarragon Road.

Section 3: For the foregoing reasons, and based on the information and findings included in the Memorandum to the Director dated November 17, 2004; the Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated January 25, 2005; Planning Commission Resolution No. 2005-05; the Staff report prepared for the City Council, and the evidence and testimony that was presented to the City Council in connection with this application, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby denies the appeal, thereby upholding the Planning Commissionís denial of Case No. ZON2004-00174 for a Site Plan Review application for the unpermitted patio enclosure because it is not compatible with character of the immediate residential neighborhood. However, this determination is without prejudice to the applicantís ability to seek approval for the reconstruction of the unenclosed balcony that previously existed at the property, which was approved by the City in 1982.

Section 4: The time within which judicial review of the decision reflected in this Resolution, if available, must be sought is governed by Section 1094.6 of the California Code of Civil Procedure and other applicable short periods of limitation.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 31st 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 31, 2005.

________________________

City Clerk