435, Construct new SFR, pool, guest, Staff ReportsMEMORANDUM
July 9,1991
TO: Lola Ungar, Principal Planner
ATTENTION: Craig Nealis, City Manager
FROM: Julie Heinsheime
SUBJECT: Landscape Review for:
Zoning Case No.: 435
Boyd Residence
5 Williamsburg Lane
The proposed plan uses native vegetation and existing mature trees to advantage.
Graded slopes will be planted with drought tolerant material and new trees are
consistent with the area. Cost estimate appears reasonable. Plan approved.
• •
June 4, 1991
TO:
Ci1 0/ leole 9,Aff,
JULIE HEINSHEIMER
7 JOHNS CANYON
ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274
ATTENTION: CRAIG NEALIS, CITY MANAGER
FROM: LOLA UNGAR, PRINCIPAL PLANNER
INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274
(213) 377-1521
FAX: (213) 377-7288
SUBJECT: LANDSCAPE REVIEW FOR ZONING CASE NO. 435
BOYD RESIDENCE
5 WILLIAMSBURG LANE NORTH
Here is another project. Enclosed are the landscape plan, the
estimate and Resolution No. 90-35. I have marked Section 7,
Paragraphs D that pertains to landscape plan approval on the
resolution.
Please review the information and let us know whether you can
approve the plans and estimate as proposed. If you are not
comfortable with any aspect of the plan, please make a note of your
concerns and we will forward them to the applicant.
RESOLUTION NO. 90-35
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A VARIANCE
TO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK AND SITE PLAN REVIEW
APPROVAL IN ZONING CASE NO. 435
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. & Mrs.
Mike Boyd with respect to real property located at 5 Williamsburg
Lane North, Rolling Hills (Lot 35-RH) requesting a variance to the
front yard setback requirement to construct a new residence and a
retaining wall and Site Plan Review approval for the new residential
redevelopment on the site and a detached stable.
Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted a duly
noticed public hearing to consider the application on July 17, 1990,
August 21, 1990 and October 16, 1990; and conducted a field review on
August 4, 1990.
Section 3. 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 other similar properties in the same zone prevent the
owner from making use of the property to the same extent enjoyed
by similar properties. Section 17.16.060 requires a front yard
setback in the RAS - 1 Zone to be 50 feet from the front easement
line. The applicant is requesting that a new residence be
constructed to encroach a maximum of 25 feet into the front yard
setback and a new retaining wall to be constructed to encroach a
maximum of 45 feet into the front yard. Pursuant to these Sections,
the Planning Commission finds that:
A. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or
conditions applicable to the property or to the intended
use that do not apply generally to the other property or
class of use in the same vicinity and zone because there
exists topographical and property development constraints
that justify the proposed residence and retaining wall
within the front yard setback because a large portion of
the buildable pad area is within the required front yard.
This resulted in the development of the existing
nonconforming residence, and the proposed house will
thereby have a narrow front setback.
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 to the property in question because due to the
existing development pattern and the physical setting of
the property, the residence cannot be expanded
significantly within the side and rear yards due to the
larger 25 foot wide perimeter easements and the sloping
grade at the rear. Further, the development of the
proposed residence will be compatible with the front of
setbacks of the surrounding properties.
C. The granting of the variance would not be materially
detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the
property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which
the property is located because the proposed project will
be consistent with other developments within this unique
area of the Community on Williamsburg Lane.
Section 4. Based upon the foregoing findings, the
Commission hereby approves the Variance for Zoning Case No. 435 to
permit the construction of a new residence encroaching 25 feet within
the 50 foot front yard setback and a retaining wall to encroach a
maximum of 45 feet into the front yard, as indicated in the
Development Plan submitted with this application and incorporated
herein by reference as Exhibit A, and subject to the conditions
outlined in Section 7 of this Resolution.
Section 5. 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 (25%) percent in any thirty-six
(36) month period.
Section 6. The 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 lot coverage
requirements. The lot has a net square foot area of
35,801.64 square feet. The residential structure, garage,
and future pool and stable will have 6,286.5 square feet
which constitutes 17.5% of the lot, which is within the
maximum 20% structural lot requirement. The total lot
coverage including paved areas and driveway will be 11,153
square feet which equals 31.1% of the lot, which is within
the 35% maximum overall lot coverage requirement. The
proposed project is similar and compatible with neighboring
development patterns.
•
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 minimal grading for the project is required,
thereby preserving the natural terrain and mature
vegetation and not lowering the site contours.
C. The development plan follows natural contours of the
site to minimize grading and the existing drainage courses
will continue to the front and rear of the site.
D. The development plan incorporates large existing trees
to the extent feasible along with surrounding native
vegetation and supplements it with landscaping that is
compatible with and enhances the rural character of the
community.
E. The development plan substantially preserves the
natural and undeveloped state of the lot by minimizing
structure coverage because the new structures will not
cause the structural and total lot coverages to be
exceeded. Further, the proposed project will have a
buildable pad coverage of 31.8%, which is within the City's
policy of 40% maximum pad coverage.
F. The proposed development is harmonious in scale and
mass with the site, the natural terrain and surrounding
residences because the proposed project is of consistent
scale and setback with the neighborhood, thereby requiring
minimal grading.
G. The proposed development is sensitive and not
detrimental to the convenience and safety of circulation
for pedestrians and vehicles because the proposed project
will utilize an existing vehicular access, thereby having
no further impact on the roadway.
H. The project conforms with the requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act and is categorically
exempt from the environmental review.
Section 7. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning
Commission hereby approves the site plan review application for a
proposed residence to the property located at 5 Williamsburg Lane as
indicated on the development plan attached hereto as "Exhibit A" and
subject to the following conditions:
A. The variance approval shall expire if not used within
one year from the effective date of approval as defined and
specified in Section 17.32.110 of the Municipal Code.
B. The proposed building plan must be approved by the
Rolling Hills Community Association Architectural Committee
before the applicant receives a building or grading permit
from the County of Los Angeles.
C. Prior to the submittal of a final grading plan to the
County of Los Angeles, the grading plan shall be submitted
to the Rolling Hills Planning Department staff for their
review, along with related geology, soils and hydrology
reports. This grading plan must conform to the development
plan as approved by the Planning Commission. Cut and fill
slopes must conform to the City standard 2 to 1 slope
ratio.
D. A landscape plan must be submitted to the City of
Rolling Hills Planning Department staff for approval. The
landscaping plan submitted must comply with the purpose and
intent of the Site Plan Review Ordinance. The landscaping
plan shall incorporate existing mature trees and native
vegetation. A bond in the amount of the cost estimate of
the landscaping plus 15% is required to be posted and
retained with the City for not less than two years after
landscape installation. The retained bond will be released
by the City after the City Manager (or the Landscape
Committee of the Rolling Hills Community Association, if
appointed to act for this purpose in the place of the City
Manager) determines that the landscaping was installed
pursuant the landscaping plan as approved, and that such
landscaping is property established and in good condition.
E. The working drawings submitted to the County
Department of Building and Safety for plan check must
conform to the development plan approved with this site
plan review. The height of the proposed residence shall be
restricted to one-story only.
F. Any modifications to the development plans approved by
the Planning Commission shall require the filing of an
application for modification of the development plan and
must be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission
pursuant to Section 17.43.070 of the Rolling Hills
Municipal Code.
G. The applicant shall execute an affidavit of acceptance
of all conditions pursuant to Section 17.32.087 or this
variance and site plan review approval shall not be
effective.
e •
H. 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 AN ADOPTED this
1990.
ATTEST:
Deputy City Cle
3rd day of November
Allan Roberts, Chairman
DATE: OCTOBER 9, 1990
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: STAFF
SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 435; 5 Williamsburg Lane; Owner: Boyd
DISCUSSION
This application was continued from the August meeting to allow time for
the applicant and his design professional to consider revisions to the
originally submitted plans for a two-story residence, two-story guest
house andstable. The applicant is ready to submit for the Commission's
consideration a revised plan with major amendments as follows:
1. The proposed residence calls for a one-story only with a small
basement.
2. The guest house has been removed from the project.
3. Minor changes to the house floor plan have been made, but does not
modify the lot and pad coverages, which comply with City requirements.
4. Previous project requests that remain include variances to encroach
into the front yard setback to construct the residence and a retaining
wall; and site plan review for the residence and stable.
The revised project now appears to be more compatible with the site and
surrounding properties. As indicated at previous meeting, the subject
RAS-1 zoned lot has a 25 foot perimeter easement, and front yard setbacks
of other properties'on the street are nonconforming and similar. Proposed
grading calls for a balance cut/fill of 657 cubic yards. The applicant
desires to maintain the stable as initially proposed on an existing pad
area down the slope. This portion of the project would require grading to
create the vehicular access to follow the contours due to the somewhat
steep grade.
RECOMMENDATION
The applicant has made great effort to revise the plans according to the
suggestions of the staff and Commission. Staff notes that the revised
project is more compatible to the site and surrounding properties, and is
of the opinion that findings can be determined to support approval of the
variances and site plan review.
zc435#3
STAFF REPORT
**** •
DATE: AUGUST 14, 1990
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: STAFF
SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 435; Request for Variances to encroach into the
front yard to construct a new residence, to permit a two-story
residence and two-story guest house, and to encroach into the
front yard setback to construct a retaining wall; Request for a
Conditional Use Permit for a guest house; Request for Site Plan
Review for a new residence, guest house and stable; 5
Williamsburg Lane, Lot 35-RH; Owner: Boyd
DISCUSSION
This matter was continued from the regular meeting of July 17, 1990 to the
August 4 field inspection. At the field meeting, the Commission, staff,
property owner and project architect discussed the project details for the
new residential redevelopment on the site. In evaluating the project, the
applicant indicated that the scope of the project could be reduced to omit
the guest house and further limit grading. Issues to be addressed from
the previous meetings are as follows:
1. Front yard encroachment of the new residence and proposed retaining
wall. The applicant has provided documentation that the proposed reduced
setback for the residence is generally consistent with other developments
on the street. The property also has existing concrete retaining walls
within the front yard.
2. Second story development. The applicant suggests that the
"Williamsburg" architecture can accomodate a second story without
impacting a one story configuration and appearance. The applicant's
architect has further suggested that the dormer features could be removed.
It was noted that other second story conditions have appeared to exist.
3. Grading. It was noted at the field meeting that alternatives should
be looked at for access to the stable, thereby reducing grading impacts
and quantity.
4. Guest house development. Due to overall development considerations,
the applicant has indicated that the guest house can be omitted from the
project.
5. General property development. Landscaping requirements regarding
retention and/or replacement of vegetation must be addressed.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Commission closely evaluate the proposed project
and potential impacts inaccordance with zoning requirements and City
policy addressing yard and "height" standards and development
compatibility. Before a variance , conditional use permit and site plan
review can be approved, required affirmative findings must be determined.
zc435t2
STAFF REPORT
****•
DATE: JULY 9, 1990
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
APPLICATION NO.:
SITE LOCATION:
ZONING:
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
PUBLISHED:
PRIOR CITY ACTIONS:
PROPERTY SIZE/
CONFIGURATION:
PRESENT DEVELOPMENT:
REQUEST:
ZONING CASE 435
5 Williamsburg Lane, Lot 35-RH
RAS-1
Mr. Michael Boyd
Roy Bayer, Architect
July 7, 1990
1.019 acres gross, Irregular shape
Single family residence with attached garage
Request for Variances: to encroach into the front yard
setback to construct a new residence, to permit a two-story
residence and two-story guest house, to encroach into the front
yard setback to construct a retaining wall; Request for a
Conditional Use Permit for a guest house; Request for Site Plan
Review for new residence, guest house and stable
REVIEW AND EVALUATION OF ISSUES
In reviewing the applicant's request under Title 17 (Zoning), staff would
identify the following issues for evaluation:
1. The extent of the applicant's request involves numerous
variances, a conditional use permit, and site plan review for the proposed
new residence and accessory development. Theproject site involves the
unique "Williamsburg" section of the City and its special architectural
standards. An existing nonconforming residence will be demolished and the
site graded to modify the buildable pad area. Development of the new
residence requires a variance to encroach 25 feet into the required 50
foot front yard setback.
2. Clarification of the buildable pad area consistent with the
applicable ordinance and City policy should be discussed. Lot coverage
calculations are within the maximum standards (19.2% structure, 31.1%
total) .
3. Proposed grading must be balanced from the site. A retaining
wall in the front yard and requiring a variance is proposed in developing
the pad. Potential impacts of grading to the natural terrain, vegetation
and drainage must be evaluated.
4. Height limitation of residential and accessory structures is
restricted to one story, with the exception of a stable and loft. The
applicant is proposing a second story for the residence and guest house.
This is requested, based upon the architectural design of a "Williamsburg"
house with a high pitched roof and dormer features.
5. Site compatibility must be reviewed for the proposed guest
house. Standard conditions for such development include the separation
from any parking area or vehicular access by a distance of 50 feet.
•**** STAFF REPORT
Zoning Case No. 435
page 2
6. Development of a new stable will be accomodated upon an existing
lower level pad. A new unpaved access and trail paths are proposed.
7. Landscaping requirements regarding retention and/or replacement
of vegetation should be addressed.
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission must closely examine the proposed project and
potential impacts in accordance to zoning requirements and City policy
addressing yard and height standards and development compatibility.
Before a variance, conditional use permit and site plan review can be
approved, required findings must be determined. The Commission should
receive public testimony and continue the matter to the next field
inspection meeting.
zc435rh