667, Construct a cabana, Resolutions & Approval Conditions• •
RESOLUTION NO. 2003-18
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF ROLLING HILLS DENYING A REQUEST FOR A SITE PLAN
REVIEW FOR GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION OF A CABANA,
POOL/SPA AND SPORTS COURT, AND DENYING A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR THE CABANA AND
SPORTS COURT AT AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
LOCATED AT 7 QUAIL RIDGE ROAD SOUTH, (LOT 7A-RH), IN
ZONING CASE NO. 667. (SHOEMAKER).
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Application was duly filed by Mr. and Mrs. Price Shoemaker
with respect to real property located at 7 Quail Ridge Road South (Lot 7A-RH),
Rolling Hills, requesting a Site Plan Review and Conditional Use Permit to grade
and construct a cabana, pool/spa and a sports court at an existing residence.
Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public
hearing to consider the requests on July 15, 2003, August 18, 2003, September 16,
2003 and at a field trip visit on August 5, 2003. The applicants were notified of
the hearings in writing by first class mail. 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. The applicants and the
applicants' representatives were in attendance at the hearings.
Section 3. Several neighbors testified at the hearings expressing
concerns over landslide issues and instability of an area in the City of Rancho
Palos Verdes, which is adjacent to subject property. The neighbors also expressed
objections to the project based on the potential noise pollution from the open
court, obstruction of views by the proposed cabana and by the potential
vegetation, which would be required to screen the sports court and drainage
issues.
Section 4. Section 17.16.097 allows the Planning Commission to utilize
a guideline in determining whether the proportion of the proposed construction
to the size of the building pad that is proposed for development is appropriate.
The Planning Commission's guideline for building pad coverage is 30%.
Section 5. The Planning Commission finds that the project qualifies as
a Class 1 Exemption [State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15301(e)] and is therefore
categorically exempt from environmental review under the California
Environmental Quality Act.
Section 6. At the October 21, 2003 Planning Commission meeting, the
applicants' representative submitted a revised plan. The public hearing was duly
Resolution 2003-18
Shoemaker 1
noticed and re -opened by the Planning Commission. Evidence was heard and
presented from all persons interested in affecting said revised proposal, from all
persons protesting the same, and from members of the City staff and the
Planning Commission having reviewed, analyzed and studied the revised
proposal. The Planning Commission found that the revised proposal does not
meet the City's Site Plan Review and Conditional Use Permit criteria and denied
the revised project based on the same findings and for the same reasons as the
original application.
Section 7. Section 17.46.020 requires a development plan to be
submitted for site plan review and approval before any grading, 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 at least 1,000 square feet and has the
effect of increasing the size of the building by more than twenty-five percent
(25%) in any thirty-six (36) month period. The applicants submitted a Site Plan
application for grading and construction of an 800 square foot cabana with 360
square foot porch, 2,952 square foot sports court and 552 square foot swimming
pool/spa and a future stable.
With respect to the Site Plan Review application to construct a cabana, sports
court and a swimming pool/spa combination, the Planning Commission makes
the following findings of fact:
A. The proposed development is to construct an 800 square foot
cabana with 360 square foot porch; 2,952 square foot sports court a 552 square
foot swimming pool/spa and a future stable. Grading for this project is proposed
at 177 cubic yards of cut and 177 cubic yards of fill. The subject lot is irregular in
shape and it slopes in a southwesterly direction. The proposed development is
not compatible with the General Plan, the Zoning Ordinance and surrounding
uses because the proposed structures do not comply with the General Plan
requirement of low profile, low -density residential development with sufficient
open space between surrounding structures. The proposed development is
crowding the upper level, of the property. Four building pads are proposed on
the property, and all, except where the future stable is proposed, would exceed
the building pad coverage guidelines of 30%. The existing residential building
pad is 6,908 square feet with structural coverage of 61.2%; the proposed cabana
and swimming pool building pad coverage would be 61.4%; the proposed sports
court building pad coverage would be 61.8%, and the structural pad coverage on
the future stable pad would be 23.4%.
B. The development plan does not substantially preserves the natural
and undeveloped state of the lot because the new structures will cause the lot to
look overdeveloped. Although large portion of the lot will be left undeveloped,
the pads visible to neighbors and from a scenic passive area will look crowded.
The nature, condition, and development of adjacent uses, buildings, and
structures and the topography of the lot have been considered, and the
construction of the new cabana, sports court and swimming pool and future
stable will adversely affect or be materially detrimental to the adjacent uses,
Resolution 2003-18
Shoemaker 2
•
•
buildings, or structures because the proposed structures will be constructed on a
portion of the' lot which is the most intrusive to surrounding properties.
C. The granting of the request for the Site Plan Review would not be
consistent with the purposes and objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and
General Plan. The additional construction on this lot exceeds the maximum
building pad coverage guideline, which is not compatible with the General Plan
goals of maintaining low profile, low -density residential development pattern in
the community. Specifically, three of the four building pads would have a
coverage of over 60.0%, which is in excess of the Planning Commission's general
guideline and thus, will cause overdevelopment of the building pads.
D. The development plan does not substantially preserve the natural
and undeveloped state of the lot by minimizing building pad coverage. Building
pad coverage requirements are regarded as maximums. The project will establish
maximum building pads coverage of over 60.0%, which the Planning
Commission finds to be excessive and not consistent with most new
development in the City.
E. The project is not harmonious in scale and mass with the site and
the natural terrain. The degree and area of structural coverage is large and is
particularly inconsistent with the City's development pattern because of the
prominent location of the proposed structures.
Section 8. Section 17.16.210(A) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code
permits approval of a cabana and a sports court under certain conditions,
provided a Conditional Use Permit for such uses is approved by the Planning
Commission. The applicants are requesting to construct an 800 square foot
cabana with 360 square foot porch and a 2,952 square foot sports court. Such
cabana will be located between the upper and lower building pads and the
sports court will be located on a lower pad. With respect to this request for a
Conditional Use Permit, the Planning Commission finds as follows:
A. The granting of a Conditional Use Permit for the construction of a
cabana and the sports court would not be consistent with the purposes and
objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan and will not be desirable
for the public convenience and welfare because the use is inconsistent with
similar uses in the community, and the area proposed for the cabana and the
sports court would be located in an area on the property where such uses will
change the existing configuration of structures on the lot.
B. The nature, condition, and development of adjacent uses, buildings,
and structures have been considered, and the proposed construction will
adversely affect or be materially detrimental to these adjacent uses, buildings, or
structures because the proposed cabana and sports court will impact the views or
privacy of surrounding neighbors.
C. The project is not harmonious in scale and mass with the site, the
natural terrain, and surrounding residences because proposed construction will
Resolution 2003-18
Shoemaker 3
r
•
•
not comply with the low profile residential development pattern of the
community.
D. The proposed conditional uses are consistent with the portions of
the Los Angeles County Hazardous Waste Management Plan relating to siting
and siting criteria for hazardous waste facilities because the project site is not
listed on the current State of California Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites
List.
E. The proposed conditional uses do not observe the spirit and intent
of Title 17 of the Zoning Code because it will make the lot seem overdeveloped.
Section 9. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning
Commission hereby denies the Site Plan Review and Conditional Use Permit
application in Zoning Case No. 667 for grading and construction of a cabana,
sports court and a pool/spa combination.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 21st DAY OF OCTOBER 2003.
ATTEST:
MARILYN K RN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK
Resolution 2003-18
Shoemaker 4
ROGER SOMMER, VICE-CHAIRMAN
•
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS)
I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2003-18 entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ROLLING HILLS DENYING A REQUEST FOR A SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR
GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION OF A CABANA, POOL/SPA AND SPORTS
COURT, AND DENYING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR THE
CABANA AND SPORTS COURT AT AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENCE LOCATED AT 7 QUAIL RIDGE ROAD SOUTH, (LOT 7A-RH), IN
ZONING CASE NO. 667. (SHOEMAKER).
was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on
October 21, 2003 by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners DeRoy, Hankins and Vice Chair Sommer.
NOES: Commissioner Margeta.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: Chairman Witte.
and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following:
Administrative Offices.
DE UTY CITY CLERK
Resolution 2003-18
Shoemaker 5