none, Construct fireplace 10 ft high, Staff Reports.. h
• • ti
City `,eo tins JUL
AGENDA ITEM 3-A
MEETING DATE 3/22/93
INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274
(310) 377-1521
FAX: (310) 377-7288
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
ATTENTION: CRAIG R. NEALIS, CITY MANAGER
FROM: LOLA M. UNGAR, PRINCIPAL PLANNER
SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 474A
Mr. and Mrs. Moon Kim, 73 Crest Road East
(Lot 69-E-2-MS)
RESOLUTION NO. 93-13: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DENYING A
REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPROVAL TO
CONSTRUCT A DETACHED GARAGE AFTER A REHEARING BY THE
COMMISSION IN ZONING CASE NO. 474A.
BACKGROUND
1. Attached is the subject Resolution of denial which the
Planning Commission approved on March 16, 1993 citing the
creation of a large, prominent structural improvement that is
not compatible with the General Plan and overdevelopment of
the building pad.
2. The applicants requested a Conditional Use Permit to
construct a detached garage and to convert an existing
attached garage to residential living space.
3. Previously, on November 17, 1992, the Planning Commission
denied a request for a Conditional Use Permit to construct a
detached garage, convert an existing attached garage to
residential living space, and increase the size of the
existing building pad. That denial was appealed to the City
Council, whereupon the applicants withdrew their original
request.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council receive and file Resolution
No. 93-13.
Printed on Recycled Paper.
RESOLUTION NO. 93-13
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DENYING A
REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPROVAL
TO CONSTRUCT A DETACHED GARAGE AFTER A
REHEARING BY THE COMMISSION IN ZONING CASE
NO. 474A.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES
HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. An application was duly filed by Mr. and Mrs. Moon
Kim with respect to real property located at 73 Crest Road East,
Rolling Hills (Lot 69-E-2-MS), requesting a Conditional Use Permit
to construct a detached garage and to convert an existing attached
garage to residential living space.
Section 2. In February, 1992, application was made for a
Conditional Use Permit to construct a detached garage, convert an
existing attached garage to residential living space, and increase
the size of the existing building pad. On November 17, 1992, the
project was denied by the Planning Commission for the applicants to
construct a 650 square foot detached garage, convert an existing
740 square foot attached garage to residential living space, and
increase the size of the existing building pad by 1,205 square
feet. The applicants appealed the decision to the City Council on
January 25, 1993. At the hearing, the applicants asked to modify
the project and the Council referred the case back to the Planning
Commission.
Section 3. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed
public hearing to reconsider the application for the Conditional
Use Permit on February 16, 1993. Evidence was heard and presented
from all persons interested in affecting said proposal, from all
persons protesting the same, and from members of the City staff and
the Planning Commission having reviewed, analyzed and studied said
proposal.
Section 4. The Planning Commission finds that the project is
categorically exempt from environmental review under the California
Environmental Quality Act pursuant to a Class 3 exemption provided
by Section 15303 of the State CEQA Guidelines.
Section 5. The applicant has submitted plans for the
construction of a 600 square foot garage and the conversion of a
740 square foot garage to residential living space as shown in
Exhibit A. Section 17.16.012.K of the Municipal Code provides for
the discretion of the Planning Commission to grant a Conditional
Use Permit for a detached garage under certain conditions.
• •
RESOLUTION NO. 93-13
PAGE 2
Section 6. With respect to the request for a Conditional Use
Permit for a detached garage, the Planning Commission makes the
following findings:
A. The project proposed is a 600 square foot detached garage,
the conversion of a 740 square foot attached garage to residential
living space, and a future 450 square foot stable. The residential
area proposed is 5,043 square feet. The structural lot coverage
proposed is 5,643 square feet or 5.2% and the total lot coverage
proposed is 12,371 square feet or 11.4%. The building pad coverage
proposed is 33.6%.
B. The granting of the request for the Conditional Use Permit
would not be consistent with the purposes and objectives of the
Zoning Ordinance and General Plan. The garage would be located at
the easternmost portion of the building pad, 35 feet from the east
setback line, 67 feet from the front easement line, and 112 feet
from the residence, thereby creating a prominent large structural
improvement on this hillside lot, which is not compatible with the
General Plan goals of maintaining low -profile residential
development patterns in the community.
C. The proposed project would not be desirable to the public
convenience and welfare because the project causes overdevelopment
of the building pad. The proposed project would create a building
pad coverage of 33.6%. This is a higher building pad coverage than
appropriate under the existing development, pattern of the City.
This overdevelopment of the building pad leaves little open space.
It also makes the garage structure more visually prominent than
appropriate under the development pattern of the City.
Section 7. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning
Commission hereby denies the request for a Conditional Use Permit
approval for the construction of a detached garage in Zoning Case
No. 474A.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THISDAY OF MARCH, 1993.
•
ALLAN ROBERTS, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
MARILYN KERN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK
RESOLUTION NO. 93-13
PAGE 3
The foregoing Resolution No. 93-13 entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DENYING A
REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPROVAL
TO CONSTRUCT A DETACHED GARAGE AFTER A
REHEARING BY THE COMMISSION IN ZONING CASE
NO. 474A.
was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission on March 16, 1993 by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
DEPUTY CITY CLERK
•
C11
ol ie0ii ff INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274
(310) 377-1521
FAX: (310) 377-7288
AGENDA ITEM c—A
MEETING DATE 1/25/93
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
ATTENTION: CRAIG R. NEALIS, CITY MANAGER
FROM: LOLA M. UNGAR, PRINCIPAL PLANNER
SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 474
AN APPEAL OF RESOLUTION NO. 92-31: A RESOLUTION OF
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
DENYING A REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT A DETACHED GARAGE.
MR. AND MRS. MOON KIM, 73 CREST ROAD EAST
(LOT 69-E-2-MS)
BACKGROUND
1. The applicant is appealing Resolution No. 92-31 of the Planning
Commission which denied a request for a Conditional Use Permit
for a detached garage on December 15, 1992.
2. The Planning Commission found that the Conditional Use Permit
creates a prominent large structural improvement on this
hillside lot, which is not compatible with the. General Plan
goals of maintaining low -profile residential development
patterns in the community; the project causes overdevelopment
of the building pad (31.98%); and the project would not be
consistent with the General Plan requirement to maintain strict
grading practices to preserve the community's natural terrain.
3. Attached is a statement from the applicant and Resolution No.
92-31.
4. The project proposed is a 650 square foot detached garage, the
conversion of a 740 square foot attached garage to residential
living space, and a future 450 square foot stable. The
residential area proposed is 5,043 square feet. The structural
lot coverage proposedis 6,143 square feet or 5.7% and the
total lot coverage proposed is 13,576 square feet or 12.6%.
The building pad coverage proposed is 31.98%.
5. Those who have voiced opposition to this project are: Mr. and
Mrs. A. E. Esser, 71 Crest Road East; Dr. & Mrs. Leo
Schleissner, 77 Crest Road East; Mr. & Mrs. Bill Stringfellow,
85 Crest Road East; Mr. Joe McLaughlin, 83 Crest Road East;
�M•
Printed on Recycled Paper.
ZONING CASE NO. 474
PAGE 2
Mr. and Mrs. William Lennartz, 63 Crest Road East; and Mr. and
Mrs. Fred Ripley, 91 Crest Road East (latest letter attached).
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council review the documents, the
proposed plans and take public testimony.
DDD• JULwiEglattsqj
JAN 0 8 1993
£!i1io/ ie/[Ln, J /! (NCORP anq 4H
•
'y
REQUEST FOR APPEAL
APPLICATION FILE NO. ZONING CASE NO. 474
PROPERTY ADDRESS:
73 CREST ROAD EAST
ROLLING HILLS
OWNER: MR. AND MRS. MOON KIM
NO.2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90271
(213) 377.1521
FAX (213) 377-7288
I hereby request appeal of the decision of the Planning Commission
on the above referenced application(s) for the following reasons:
SEE ATTACHMENT A
SIGNED
DATE: v •/fr/
5
FEE: / 0717)
(Two-thitds of original application fee)
•
ATTACHMENT A:
The Planning Commission decision is founded upon three issues. As discussed
hereafter, the decision is not supported by the evidence and is erroneous and/or an abuse
of discretion.
1. The Planning Commission objects to the building pad coverage of 31.98 % as
it causes "over -development of the building pad" and "is a higher building pad coverage
than appropriate under the existing development pattern of the City". However, the City
has oftentimes approved projects with building pad coverage of 40 or 45 %, particularly
when the total lot coverage is relatively small, as is the case here, with total lot
coverage of only 12.6%. (City code allows total lot coverage of up to 35%).
The commission states: "This over -development of the building pad leaves
little open space". It is difficult to fathom how a total lot coverage of only 12.6% which
includes structures and hard-scape constitutes "little open space".
2. The Planning Commission states that the permit would be inconsistent "with
the purpose and objectives of the zoning ordinance and general plan", because it creates
"a prominent large structural improvement on this hillside, which is not compatible with
the general plan goals of maintaining low -profile residential development patterns in
the City."
a Firstly, the proposed detached garage is 650 sq. ft., is not a
"prominently large structure" and , in fact, is not dissimilar to the minimum stable
requirements of the City of 450 sq. ft. If this proposed garage is such a "prominent large
structural improvement" as to be incompatible with the zoning ordinance and general
plan, then the City would have to likewise deny a permit for the construction of the
stable at this property, or for stables at any other property.
b. This proposed detached garage is indeed "low -profile" as it cannot be
seen from within the homes of any neighboring residences or from the
street. In fact only the Essers at 71 Crest Road have any ability to see this structure,
and at that, will see only the roof of the structure and only if they walk out of their
home to the edge of their yard.
3. The Commission objects to 185 cu. yds. of cut and fill. However, the
proposed cut and fill is very minimal.
a. The Commission states that "extension of the building pad would create
a further detrimental visual impact due to the prominence and, unique location of the
site". This is inaccurate as highlighted by the plot plan and the fact that this is a very
private site, as discussed above and visual impact is deminimis.
b. The Commission states that "the proposed development is not
harmonious in scale and mass with the site, the natural terrain and surrounding
residences". This, again, is inaccurate, recalling that the proposal seeks to add only a
650 sq. ft. detached garage, bringing total lot coverage to only 12.6% on a very private
lot location.
It is respectfully requested that the City Council grant Zoning Case No. 474.
•
RESOLUTION NO. 92-31
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF ROLLING HILLS DENYING A REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT A DETACHED GARAGE
IN ZONING CASE NO. 474.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES
HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. An application was duly filed by Mr. and Mrs. Moon
Kim with respect to real property located at 73 Crest Road East,
Rolling Hills (Lot 69-E-2-MS), requesting a Conditional Use Permit
to construct a detached garage, convert an existing attached garage
to residential living space, and increase the size of the existing
building pad.
Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed
public hearing to consider the application for the Conditional Use
Permit on April 20, 1992, May 19, 1992, June 16, 1992, July 31,
1992, August 18, 1992, September 15, 1992, October 20, 1992, and
November 17, 1992, and at a field trip visit on September 3, 1992.
Section 3. The Planning Commission finds that the project is
categorically exempt from environmental review under the California
Environmental Quality Act pursuant to a Class 3 exemption provided
by Section 15303 of the State CEQA Guidelines.
Section 4. The applicant has submitted plans for the
construction of a 650 square foot garage and the conversion of a
740 square foot garage to residential living space as shown in
Exhibit A. Section 17.16.012.K of the Municipal Code provides for
the discretion of the Planning Commission to grant a Conditional
Use Permit for a detached garage under certain conditions.
Section 5. With respect to the request for a Conditional Use
Permit for a detached garage, the Planning Commission makes the
following findings:
A. The project proposed is a 650 square foot detached
garage, the conversion of a 740 square foot attached garage to
residential living space, and a future 450 square foot stable. The
residential area proposed is 5,043 square feet. The structural lot
coverage proposed is 6,143 square feet or 5.7% and the total lot
coverage proposed is 13,576 square feet or 12.6%. The building pad
coverage proposed is 31.98%.
' B. The granting of the request for the Conditional Use Permit
would not be consistent with the purposes and objectives of the
Zoning Ordinance. and General Plan. The garage would be located at
the easternmost portion of the building pad, 20 feet from the east
setback line,•29 feet from the front easement line, and 133 feet
from the residence, thereby creating a prominent large structural
improvement on this hillside lot, which is not compatible with the
RESOLUTION NO. 92-31
PAGE 2
General Plan goals of maintaining low -profile residential
development patterns in the community.
C. The proposed project would not be desirable to the public
convenience and welfare because the project causes overdevelopment
of the building pad. The proposed project would create a building
pad coverage of 31.98%. This is a higher building pad coverage
than appropriate under the existing development pattern of the
City. This overdevelopment of the building pad leaves little open
space. It also makes the garage structure more visually prominent
than appropriate under the development pattern of the City.
D. The project would not be consistent with the General Plan
requirement to maintain strict grading practices to preserve the
community's natural terrain. The proposed project requires a cut
of 185 cubic yards and a fill of 185 cubic yards. There is
evidence that drainage problems could occur if there is further
disruption of large expanses of soil for grading and more
overcovering of property with non -porous surfaces. The lot has
already been graded for a building pad and the additional grading
proposed is not necessary for development of a garage structure and
extension of the building pad which would create a further
detrimental visual impact due to the prominence and unique location
of the site. For these reasons, the proposed development is not
harmonious in scale and mass with the site, the natural terrain and
surrounding residences. As previously indicated, the building pad
coverage is excessive.
Section 6. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning
Commission hereby denies the request for a Conditional Use Permit
approval for the construction of a detached garage in Zoning Case
No. 474.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS ADM OF DECEMBER, 1992.
ALLAN ROBERTS, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
MARILYN KER , DEPUTY CITY CLERK
RESOLUTION NO. 92-31
PAGE 3
The foregoing Resolution No. 92-31 entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF ROLLING HILLS DENYING A REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT A'DETACHED GARAGE IN
ZONING CASE NO. 474.
was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the
Planning Commission on December 15, 1992 by the following
roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Frost, Hankins, Lay, Raine and Chairman Roberts
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
k�rh,►
DEPUTY CITT CLERK
410
71 Crest At East idx4"wq
Rolling Hills, CA 90274 OCT 2 0 1992
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
October 20, 1992
To: Planning Commission, City of Rolling Hills
From: A. E. Esser
Re: Any subsequent revisions of Zoning Case 474 at 73
Crest Road East
BY... ....._ ..................-......_
Honorable Chairman, Commissioners:
I regret I was not able to attend tonight's
meeting, but have taken Lola's suggestion to write as the
next best choice.
All 4 uphill neighbors (including vacant lot
owner) plus 2 nearby long-term residents still insist on
the total mass of the existing cut bank between 71 and 73
Crest be maintained unaltered fortheir overall support,
as presented in writing at the September 15th public
hearing.(1)
In spite of what many other professional people
may claim, to suit their particular job's space require-
ments, most building codes encourage, and common engi-
neering practice dictates, that most support is obtained
from the total mass of natural undisturbed ground, cut to
specified slopes, that are properly toed at the base, as
was done with this bank. After proven, stable perfor-
mance this past decade(1), that toe base should never be
disturbed, to insure continued minimal risk of maximum
support.
Before my retirement, thishad been our first
preference at Parsons Corp., given adequate topography,
and especia,y in areas of critical stability history,
such as our southern slope of the Palos Verdes Peninsula.
This conservative practice has been successful on local,
national, and world-wide Parsons projects ranging in size
from relatively small to mega projects, costing billions
of dollars, and requiring decades to complete.
The only reason the mass of this cut bank was ever
reduced, in the original subdivision design was to give
73 Crest the necessary driveway access to the existing
attached garage and shop. a other reasons, such as
,furnishing dirt to expand the existing building pad, or
backfillina behind anv new retaijna walls should be
approved or tolerated.
-1-
• •
If the Kims have more than the minimum quarter
acre pad, fine! But stay away from the toe of this cut
bank, except for the county specified planting of ground
cover and its maintenance.
To some extent, we are asking the Planning Commis-
sion to make a iudaement call on our southern water shed,
based upon, what can sometimes be, an inexact science.
My lifetime experience, both in residential construction
and at work, would dictate denial of this application as
the safest course for our City to follow.
Rather than circumstantial evidence, this opinion
is based upon the following landslide damage already
sustained by the southern part of our City during the
last decade(2):
(a) 7 residences destroyed.
(b) 6 residences severely damaged, annual repair
$100,000.
(c) 23 residences placed on eye beam foundation
piers with hydraulic jacks.
(d) Annual road repair $50,000.
(e) Value of property destroyed $3,400,000.
(f) Damages $1,000,000.
(g) 23 - 2 acre lots abandoned.
(h) 4 - 2 acre lots stand vacant.
Again, thanks for your consideration of this
important item.
Very truly yours,
�oaw aer.g.4+z
Reinette Esser/A. E. Esser
cc: Nancy & Bill Lennartz
Ann & Bill Stringfellow
Joe McLaughlin
Fred & Lucille Ripley
Emily & Leo Schleissner
References: (1) AEE/RE to Rolling Hills Planning
Commission 9/15/92, 5 pages..
(2) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers L.A.
District, Rancho Palos Verdes & Rolling
Hills Calif. Reconnaissance Study,
Final Report - May 1992, page 17
-2-
• •
��•. '�9� City o/ /eo`>Cini i�fo
INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274
(310) 377.1521
FAX: (310) 377-7288
Agenda Item No: 2-A
Mtg. Date: 1/11/93 '
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CRAIG R. NEALIS, CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 460A: AN APPEAL OF A REQUEST FOR A
VARIANCE TO PERMIT THE ENCROACHMENT OF A STABLE IN THE
FRONT YARD AND A REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A
PROPOSED NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE. OWNER: DR. JAMES
SCHARFFENBERGER, 3 APPALOOSA LANE (LOT 106-D-RH).
DATE: JANUARY 11, 1993
BACKGROUND
On November 23, 1992, the City Council took jurisdiction of the subject case because of the
large area of grading shown on the plot plan and scheduled a Public Hearing for December
14, 1992.
After hearing public testimony on December 14, 1992, the City Council continued the Public
Hearing to January 11, 1993 to conduct a field inspection. Attached is a report outlining
the history of this case.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council view the proposed site and continue the Public
Hearing to the Regularly scheduled meeting of the City Council at 7:30 P.M. this evening.
CRN:mlk
corres.cc\zc460a.sta
Printed on Recycled Paper.
411
City ol leo/tiny
INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274
(310) 377-1521
FAX: (310) 377-7288
AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE 12/14/92
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
ATTENTION: CRAIG R. NEALIS, CITY MANAGER
FROM: LOLA M. UNGAR, PRINCIPAL PLANNER
SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 460A
Dr. James Scharffenberger, 3 Appaloosa Lane (Lot
106-D-RH)
An appeal of a request for a Variance to permit the
encroachment of a stable and corral in the front
yard and a request for Site Plan Review for a
proposed new single family residence and attached
three -car garage.
1. The City Council took jurisdiction of the subject case on
November 23, 1992 because of the large area of grading shown on
the plot plan.
2. The Planning Commission approved the attached Resolution No.
92-27 on November 21, 1992.
3. Previously, on February 10, 1992, this case was remanded back
to the Planning Commission by the City Council to address the
two issues of (1) The necessity to provide a title report for
3 Appaloosa Lane (Lot 106-D-RH) which shows that there is an
easement for roadway purposes across property known as 2
Appaloosa Lane (Lot 106-C-RH) and across Lot 246-MS, and (2)
The approval by the Traffic Commission of the proposed
accessway to the subject .site off Appaloosa Lane.
4. Essential documents for the easement for roadway purposes were
accepted at the Planning Commission meeting on October 20,
1992, and the Traffic Commission reviewed the accessway on
November 20, 1992.
5. The Planning Commission approved a Variance to permit the
construction of a 450 square foot stable and a 550 square foot
corral in the front yard and Site Plan Review to construct a
proposed new 4,550 square foot residence, an attached 600
square foot garage and a 450 square foot pool.
Printed on Recycled Paper.
•
ZONING CASE NO. 460A
PAGE 2
6. Grading for the project site will require 1,592 cubic yards of
cut soil and 1,592 cubic yards of fill soil.
7. Access to the proposed project will be from the northeast
portion of the lot off Appaloosa Lane.
8. The structural lot coverage proposed is 6,050 square feet or
6.9% and the total lot coverage proposed is 16,010 or 18.3%.
9. The building pad coverage proposed is 30.9%.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council review the proposed plans
and take public testimony.
RESOLUTION NO. 92-27
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF ROLLING HILLS APPROVING A VARIANCE TO PERMIT AN
ENCROACHMENT INTO THE FRONT YARD TO CONSTRUCT A STABLE
AND CORRAL, APPROVING A SITE PLAN REVIEW, AND REPEALING
RESOLUTION NO. 92-10 IN ZONING CASE NO. 460A.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES
HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Applications were duly filed by Dr. James
Scharffenberger with respect to real property located at 3
Appaloosa Lane, Rolling Hills (Lot 106-D-RH) requesting: (1) A
Variance to permit encroachment into the front yard to construct a
stable and corral, and (2) Site Plan Review of a proposed new
residence. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public
hearing to consider the applications on December 17, 1991 and
January 21, 1992, and at a field trip visit on January 11, 1992.
Section 2. The Commission approved Resolution No. 92-10 in
Zoning Case No. 460 on February 1, 1992. The City Council took the
subject zoning case under jurisdiction on February 10, 1992 and
conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the appeal of
the applications on February 24, 1992. The City Council remanded
the subject case back to the Planning Commission to address the two
issues of: (1) The necessity to provide a title report for 3
Appaloosa Lane (Lot 106-D-RH) which shows that there is an easement
for roadway purposes across property known as 2 Appaloosa Lane (Lot
106-C-RH) and across Lot 246-MS, and (2) The approval by the
Traffic Commission of the proposed accessway to the subject site.
Section 3. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed
public hearing to consider the applications on March 17, 1992,
April 28, 1992, May 19, 1992, June 16, 1992, and July 21, 1992
while awaiting the title report. Under Section 65957 of the
Government Code the applicant requested an 90 day extension of time
on August 17, 1992 and the Planning Commission conducted a duly
noticed public hearing to consider the applications on August 18,
1992, September 15, 1992, and October 20, 1992.
Section 4. The Planning Commission finds that the project is
categorically exempt from environmental review under the California
Environmental Quality Act pursuant to a Class 3 exemption provided
by Section 15303 of the State CEQA Guidelines.
•
RESOLUTION NO. 92-27
PAGE 2
Section 5. Sections 17.32.010 through 17.32.030 permit
approval of a Variance from the standards and requirements of the
Zoning Ordinance when exceptional or extraordinary circumstances
applicable to the property and not applicable to other similar
properties in the same zone prevent the owner from making use of a
parcel of property to the same extent enjoyed by similar
properties. A Variance to Sections 17.16.011.H is required because
this section states that corrals or pens may not be located in the
front yard. The applicant is requesting a Variance to encroach up
to 110 feet into the 230 foot irregular front yard setback to
construct a 450 square foot stable and a 550 square foot corral.
With respect to this request, the Planning Commission finds as
follows:
A. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances and
conditions applicable to the property and the intended use that do
not apply generally to the other property in the same vicinity and
zone. The Variance for the stable and corral is necessary because
the topography of the site prevents the construction of a stable.
corral, and retaining walls in the rear yard. The proper and
logical location for the stable and corral is below the proposed
building pad because of the topographical nature of the lot. The
proposed building pad for the residence will be located at the
southwest portion of the lot where the ground is mostly level. The
northwest side yard slopes down to the canyon which precludes the
creation of a flat area for a stable and corral in the rear yard.
The area proposed for the stable and corral is the only place
available on this property.
B. The Variance is necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other
property in the same vicinity and zone, but which is denied the
property in question. The Variance is necessary because the
General Plan encourages and the Zoning Ordinance requires the
delineation of stables and corrals on properties in the City of
Rolling Hills and a stable and corral could not be feasibly located
in the rear yard.
C. The granting of the Variance will not be materially
detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or
improvements in the vicinity and zone in which the property is
located. The Variance will permit the construction of a stable and
corral which will not impact the street or neighboring properties
because they will be nestled into the hillside. Also, the building
pad for the stable is located down a long driveway so that it will
not be visible from the street.
RESOLUTION NO. 92-27
PAGE 3
Section 6. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning
Commission hereby approves the Variance to permit the construction
of a 450 square foot stable and a 550 square foot corral, subject
to the conditions specified in 'Section 10.
Section 7. Section 17.34.010 requires a development plan to
be submitted for site plan review and approval before any building
or structure may be constructed or any, expansion, addition,
alteration or repair to existing buildings may be made which
involve changes to grading or an increase to the size of the
building or structure by more than twenty-five percent (25%) in any
thirty-six month period.
Section 8. With respect to the Site Plan Review application,
the Planning Commission makes the following findings of fact:
A. The proposed development is compatible with the General
Plan, the Zoning Ordinance and surrounding uses because the
proposed structure complies with the General, Plan requirement of
low profile, low density residential development with sufficient
open space between surrounding structures. The project conforms to
Zoning Code setback and lot coverage requirements. The lot has a
net square foot area of 87,152 square feet. The proposed residence
(4,550 sq.ft.), garage (.600 sq.ft.), swimming pool (450 sq.ft.),
and future stable (450 sq.ft.) will have 6,050 square feet which
constitutes 6.9% of the lot which is within the maximum 20%
structural lot coverage requirement. The total lot coverage
including paved areas and driveway will be 16,010 square feet which
equals 18.3% of the lot, which is within the 35% maximum overall
lot coverage requirement. The proposed project is on a relatively
large lot with most of the proposed structures located away from
the road so as to reduce the visual impact of the development. The
pad is similar in size to several neighboring developments.
B. The proposed development preserves and integrates into
the site design, to the maximum extent feasible, existing natural
topographic features of the lot including surrounding native
vegetation, mature trees, drainage courses, and land forms (such as
hillsides and knolls) because a minimum amount of grading is
proposed and will only be done to provide approved drainage that
will flow away from the proposed residence and existing neighboring
residences.
C. The proposed development preserves and integrates into
the site design, to the maximum extent feasible, existing natural
topographic features of the lot including surrounding native
vegetation, mature trees, drainage courses, and land forms (such as
hillsides and knolls) because grading will only be done to provide
approved drainage that will flow away from the proposed residence
and existing neighboring residences.
RESOLUTION NO. 92-27
PAGE 4
D. The development plan follows natural contours of the
site to minimize grading and the natural drainage courses will
continue to the canyons at the north side of this lot.
E. The development plan incorporates existing large trees
and native vegetation to the maximum extent feasible and, with the
conditions attached to this approval, supplements it with
landscaping that is compatible with and enhances the rural
character of the community.
F. The development plan substantially preserves the natural
and undeveloped state of the lot by minimizing building coverage
because the new structures will not cause the structural and total
lot coverage to be exceeded. Further, the proposed project will
have a buildable pad coverage of 28.6%.' Significant portions of
the lot will be left undeveloped so as to maintain trail access
near the western property line and scenic vistas across the
northerly portions of the property.
G. The proposed development is harmonious in scale and mass
with the site, the natural terrain and surrounding residences.
As indicated in Paragraph A, the lot coverage maximum will not be
exceeded and the proposed project is consistent with the scale of
the neighborhood. Grading shall be permitted only to restore the
natural slope of the property. The ratio of the proposed structure
to lot coverage is similar to the ratio found on several properties
in the vicinity.
H. The proposed development is sensitive and not
detrimental to convenience and safety of circulation for
pedestrians and vehicles because the proposed project will utilize
Appaloosa Lane for access. Also, the proposed driveway is near the
end of a cul-de-sac street which will therefore create little
interference with traffic.
I. The project conforms with the requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act and is categorically exempt
from environmental review.
Section 9. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning
Commission hereby approves the Site Plan Review application for
Zoning Case No. 460A for a proposed residential development as
indicated on the development plan incorporated herein as Exhibit A
and subject to the conditions contained in Section 9.
Section 10. The Variance to permit the construction of a
stable, corral, and retaining walls that will encroach into the
front yard approved in Section 5, and the Site Plan Review for
residential development approved in Section 8 are subject to the
following conditions:
RESOLUTION 41, 2-27
PAGE 5
A. The Variance shall expire unless used within one year
from the effective date of approval as defined in Section 17.32.110
of the Municipal Code. The Site Plan Review approval shall expire
within one year from the effective date of approval as defined in
Section 17.34.080.A.
B. It is declared and made a condition of the Variance and
the Site Plan Review approval, that if any conditions thereof are
violated, the Permit shall be suspended and the privileges granted
thereunder shall lapse; provided that the applicant has been given
written notice to cease such violation and has failed to do so for
a period of thirty (30) days.
C. All requirements of the Building and Construction
Ordinance, the Zoning Ordinance, and of the zone in which the
subject property is located must be complied with unless otherwise
approved by Variance.
D. The lot shall be developed and maintained in substantial
conformance with the site plan on file marked Exhibit A except as
otherwise provided in these conditions.
E. All retaining walls incorporated into the project shall
not be greater than 5 feet in height at any one point.
F. The driveway access apron shall be twenty-four (24) feet
wide.
G. The driveway access apron shall b'e roughened to assist
equestrian crossing.
H. To minimize the visibility of buildings on the pad, the
structures, driveway, graded slopes and retaining walls shall be
screened and shielded from view with native drought -resistant
vegetation and other vegetation that is compatible with the
surrounding vegetation of the community. Special emphasis shall be
incorporated into the landscaping plan to obscure the house from
riders on the Glory Trail at the western property line by way of
large native plants or plants that are compatible with the
surrounding vegetation of the community.
I. A landscape plan must be submitted to and approved by
the City of Rolling Hills Planning Department staff prior to the
issuance of any grading and building permit. The landscaping plan
submitted must comply with the purpose and intent of the Site Plan
Review Ordinance, shall incorporate existing mature trees and
native vegetation, and shall utilize to the maximum extent
feasible, plants that are native to the area and/or consistent with
the rural character of the community.
RESOLUTION NO. 92-27
PAGE 6
A bond in the amount of the cost estimate of the implementation of
the landscaping plan plus 15% shall be required to be posted prior
to issuance of a grading and building permit and shall be retained
with the City for not less than two years after landscape
installation. The retained bond will be released by the City
Manager after the City Manager determines that the landscaping was
installed pursuant to the landscaping plan as approved, and that
such landscaping is properly established and in good condition.
H. Prior to the submittal of an applicable final grading
plan to the County of Los Angeles for plan check, a detailed
grading and drainage plan with related geology, soils and hydrology
reports that conform to the development plan as approved by the
Planning Commission must be submitted to the Rolling Hills Planning
Department staff for their review. Cut and fill slopes must
conform to the City of Rolling Hills standard of 2 to 1 slope
ratio.
I. The project must be reviewed and approved by the Rolling
Hills Community Association Architectural Review Committee prior to
the issuance of any building or grading permit.
J. The working drawings submitted to the County Department
of Building and Safety for plan check review and must conform to
the development plan approved with this application.
K. The building pad coverage shall not exceed 30.9%.
L. The applicant shall execute an Affidavit of Acceptance
of all conditions of this Variance, pursuant to Section 17.32.087,
or the approval shall not be effective.
M. All conditions of this Variance and Site Plan Review
approval must be complied with prior to the issuance of a building
or grading permit from the County of Los Angeles.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 111 DAY OF of 4eit, 1992.
1L_J4
ALLAN ROBERTS, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
MARILYN KERN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK
RESOLUTION NO. 92-27
PAGE 7
The foregoing Resolution No. 92-27 entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF ROLLING HILLS APPROVING A VARIANCE TO PERMIT AN
ENCROACHMENT INTO THE FRONT YARD TO CONSTRUCT A STABLE
AND CORRAL, APPROVING A SITE PLAN REVIEW, AND REPEALING
RESOLUTION NO. 92-10 IN ZONING CASE NO. 460A.
was approved and adopted at a regular adjourned meeting of the
Planning Commission on November 21, , 1992 by the
following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Frost, Lay, Raine and Chairman Roberts
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Hankins
ABSTAIN: None
ram.
DEPUTY CITY CLERK