The URL can be used to link to this page

2500 Planning - Consideration of Density of Developed LotsITEMS FOR DISCUSSION CONSIDERATION OF DENSITY OF DEVELOPED LOTS. CONSIDERATION OF GRADING VERSUS PAD COVERAGE. cc,fPc. Jot 1.t• Mk) 3,11lo‘ Mayor Pro Tern Lay indicated that these two items are similar and could be discussed at the same time. He explained that the first staff report provides information relative to the size of residential developments approved by the Planning Commission in 2002 through 2005, and in 1992 through 1995 compared to the size of the legal lot and the second report provides information relative to the Site Plan Review cases approved by the Planning Commission in terms of grading quantities, pad coverage and structural development in 2002 through 2005 as well as 1992 through 1995. He commented on the statistics outlined in the staff reports and provided a comparison between the years. He noted that when certain extreme cases are not considered, the comparisons show that the amount of grading has increased substantially between these two decades. Mayor Pro Tern Lay explained the pad coverage regulations that had been developed over the years. He indicated that he feels that this has forced applicants to increase the size of their pad to meet the 30% pad coverage guideline of the Planning Commission and that he feels that this tends to lead to increased grading and that perhaps the Commission could be sensitive to reviewing a greater pad coverage percentage in cases where it would lead to a decrease in grading if the overall project is in keeping with the other land general land use provisions. Commissioner Witte commented on the pad sizes in the RAS-1 and RAS `2 Zones. Councilmembers and Planning Commissioners reviewed the staff report and comments offered by Mayor Pro Tern Lay and concurred that the Planning Commission would continue to evaluate applications on a case -by -case basis and carefully review the relationship between structures, pad size and grading. Ra &se, qe INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX (310) 377-7288 JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DISCUSSION PAPER AGENDA ITEM NO. 4D NOVEMBER 1, 2016 SUBJECT: SHOULD THE CITY CONSIDER REGULATING THE MAXIMUM SIZE OF NEW RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS ISSUE Commissioner Gray requested that this topic be agendized for discussion with the City Council. The issue of whether the size of homes should be regulated was discussed numerous times in the past. The trend through the decades has been to construct bigger and bigger size homes. The last time this topic was considered was at a joint meeting of the City Council and Planning Commission in July 2009. In the previous years this topic was normally discussed in relationship to lot disturbance and grading, as the size of homes affect the size of the building pad, which in turn affect grading quantities and disturbance of the lot. At a joint meeting in May of 2010, the Planning Commission and City Council discussed a related topic, the mass and scale of neighboring properties in relationship to proposed new and larger developments, and whether the sizes of neighboring properties should be considered in the review of a larger new home. In both instances the City Council and the Planning Commission concluded to not to regulate the size of homes. It was determined that the existing development standards (structural coverage -20%; total coverage - 35%; disturbance - 40% w/adjustments allowed; setbacks, slope gradients, etc.), together with the unique sizes and characteristics of each lot and the Planning Commission's diligent review of each case on its own merit, are adequate controls. In addition, it was recognized that the housing stock in the City is at an age where the homes are in need of repair, renovation or demolition and that in older communities it is very difficult to establish compatibility, as the homes in the vicinity of the new development are older and most likely smaller than those proposed. It would be very easy to determine that the proposed construction is not compatible with the neighborhood. However, were those older homes redeveloped, they too would most likely be expanded in size. As a result of the joint meetings in the past, certain development standards were revised with the goal of promoting better and orderly developments, but not to regulate the size of homes. BACKGROUND As stated, City records indicate that the topic of larger homes was discussed numerous times going back to the late 1980s. In 1988 a consultant, the Keith Companies, prepared a "Residential Trend Analysis" study for the City. The study was to analyze and compare the General Plan goals and policies set by the City to the actual development trends in the City, specifically between 1985 and August of 1988. The findings of the study, and the then requests for certain size homes with large quantities of grading, led the City to amend the Zoning Code to require a Site Plan Review by the Planning Commission for new residences, additions greater than 999 square feet and for grading. Prior to November 1988, (adoption of the SPR Ordinance), City staff was authorized to administratively approve all construction when it met the Zoning Code requirements for setbacks and lot coverage. Only Variances and Conditional Use Permit requests went before the Planning Commission. The 1988 "Residential Trend Analysis" study concluded that records for the 3 -year period of the study indicate a significant change in residential growth pattern in the City. For example, the study found that between 1985 and 1988 there have been a total of 18 tear downs and rebuilds in the City; that the size of homes prior to 1985 ranged typically from 2,358 square feet to 6,565 square feet with a median size of 3,500 square feet; whereas, based on 10 random cases of newer homes built between 1985 and 1988, the study contents that the building sizes were in the range of 7,200 square feet. (Staff cannot substantiate these statistics). Comparing these 3 -years in residential development to any other time line, this was a very unusual trend in the City. General Plan goals Following the study and the adoption of the Site Plan Review requirements, the City embarked on updating its General Plan. In 1990, a consultant, Cotton/Belland Associates Inc. completed the update of the General Plan, including the Land Use Element. The goals and policies of the 1990 Land Use Element of the General Plan which pertain to development can be summarized as follows: • Maintain the City's rural character • Maintain the City's one and two acres minimum lot sizes • Maintain the City's one story height limitation and existing low -profile ranch style architecture • Maintain and provide regulations for sufficient setbacks and easements to provide buffer between residences • Maintain strict grading practices to preserve the community's natural terrain 2 Public/YS/General/Joint CC, PC mtgs 2016/Size of homes rprt. s Construction trends To demonstrate the trend of development of home sizes in the City for the 2009 joint City Council and Planning Commission meeting, staff compiled a list of homes built since the 1980's, which is attached. Staff researched a sample of 11 new homes that were approved in the 1980's and 12 new homes that were approved in the 1990's. For the 2000 to 2009 time period, statistics for all new/reconstructed homes were analyzed, (27). The average sizes are shown below. 1980's Average size of homes Average size of garage 1990's Average size of homes Average size of garage 2000-2009 Average size of homes Average size of garage 5,607 sq.ft 775 sq.ft. 6,129 sq.ft. 1,148 sq.ft. 6,496 sq.ft. 1,003 sq.ft. The study for the above years also shows that basements were constructed, which range in size between 835 square feet and 7,530 square feet, averaging 3,430 square feet. For tonight's meeting, to continue showing the trend in development, staff compiled a list and sizes of new homes approved by the City between 2010-2016. The following averages were found, (table attached); 2010-2016 Average size of homes Average size of garage Average size of basements DISCUSSION 7,013 sq.ft. 994 sq.ft. 4,599 sq.ft. As can be seen from the figures above, through the years the size of homes in the City became larger; from an average of 5,607 square feet in 1980's, 6,129 square feet in 1990's, 6,496 square feet in the 2000's to 7,013 square feet in the past six years. The garages became smaller, but the basements increased in size from an average of 3,430 square feet to 4,599 square feet. Currently, fewer and fewer lots are available for development. The lots that are being developed are either lots with difficult topography or have other constraints and were not able to be developed in the past or lots that were previously developed and are ripe for redevelopment. Not including the vacant lots in the Flying Triangle area of the City, there are 20 vacant lots that could potentially be developed (2 with proposed 3 P. blic/YS/General/Joint CC, PC mtgs 2016/Size of homes rprt. developments). Some of them have extreme slopes and may never be develop and several of the lots are smaller than one acre. Since a large home would not "fit" on some of the smaller vacant lots, they may not be developed for a while. There are 692 homes total in the City. With most of the homes in the City over 40 years old, (507 homes were built prior to 1969), more and more homes are ready for replacement. The current trend is to build larger homes. The character of the population in the City is changing and younger persons/families are moving in. Their desires and needs are different than those of the prior generation. Staff receives many inquires from potential buyers about large additions and/or reconstruction of homes and how large could they be. In the past, recognizing that there is a desire to build larger homes, the City Council adopted an ordinance defining basements and allowing a story to be located above a basement, (1983). Through the years the basements have evolved from a storage room to fully habitable and recreational quarters. The intent was to satisfy the desire for additional space within a residence without allowing a second story and to maintain and preserve the character of the residences in the neighborhoods. Most cities do not place size restrictions on homes. The size of a home, as in the City of Rolling Hills, is dictated by the rules and regulations related to setbacks and lot coverage, or what is sometimes called the floor to area ratio. Due to the fact that most cities allow 2-3 stories single family homes, the footprint of the homes are potentially smaller than those in Rolling Hills, however, the actual habitable area is not. Homes that are 15,000 to 24,000 square feet are not unheard of in other Peninsula cities. When analyzing a project, the Planning Commission looks for whether the project meets City's development standards, "fits" the lot, retains to the maximum extent practicable the natural terrain of the property and whether it meets the criteria for a the Site Plan Review, enclosed. QUESTION As can be seen from the attached charts, there is a definite trend to construct larger homes in the City. The question before you is whether the City should regulate the size of developments. To come to that conclusion, studies would need to be conducted to further analyze the trend, the reasons for the trend and could include studying the effects the development of large homes has on grading and disruption of natural terrain, disturbed area and other developmental issues, such as building pad coverage and setbacks. In addition, any restriction on size should be tied to the goals and policies in the General Plan and it may become necessary to amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan to reflect those desires. Depending on the scope of review, analysis and potential amendments staff recommends that a consultant be hired to conduct the necessary studies and analysis and provide recommendation to the City. 4 P ic/YS/General/Joint CC, PC mtgs 2016/Size of homes rprt. ITEM 4D: DISCUSSION PAPER - SIZE OF HOMES, NOVEMBER 1, 2016 INFORMATIOIN SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION AT A JOINT MEETING IN JULY 2009 SAMPLE OF APPROVED NEW HOMES IN THE 1980's and 1990's and NEW HOMES AND SUBSTANTIAL ADDITIONS APPROVED BETWEEN 2000 AND 2009 Address Year approved Size: house + garage-sq.ft. Net Lot Area sq.ft. Comments 1980's 10 Chesterfield 1981 3,461; 567 169,884 28 Caballeros 1981 4,753; 960 57,760 73 Crest Rd. E. 1983 4,303; 740 104,108 30 Caballeros 1984 4,487; 480 67,387 2942 Pv. Dr. N. 1985 7,832; 170,750 Garage size not available 10 Poppy Trail Rd. 1985 6,246; 660 180,000 25 Chuckwagon 1985 5,487; 780 49,820 5 Crest Rd. W. 1985 10,074; 1,328 127,234 5 Chuckwagon 1987 6,128; 687 90,256 86 Saddleback 1989 3,800; 65,340 Garage size not available 2 Packsaddle Rd. W. 1989 5,112; 44,849 Garage size not available 1980's AVERAGE 5,607 sq.ft.-homes 775 sq.ft.-garages Net Lot Area 103,638 1990's 6 Eastfield • 1990 6,621; 630 62,860 24 Outrider 1991 5,032; 726 103,629. 16 Crest Rd. W. 1991 7,742; 1,600 88,678 4 Buggy Whip (not constructed) 1992 7,150; 1,040 133,163 ".: Originally proposed 10,546 s.f. hs. 17 Southfield 1992 5,990; 1,175 91,610 22 Eastfield 1993 4,627; 816 49,704 5 Appaloosa 1994 5,615; 875 75,318 12 Outrider 1995 3,287; 457 85,377 1 Buggy Whip 1995 9,333; 2,265 291,758 18 Eastfield 1996 5,079; 1,192 59,705 5 L. Blackwater Cny 1998 5,167; 1,408 194,713 91 Crest Rd. E. 1999 7,910; 1,600 147,610 1990's AVERAGE 6,129 sq.ft.-homes 1,148 sq.ft-garages Net lot area 115,343 Address Year approved Size: house + garage in sq.ft. Net Lot Area sq.ft. Comments 2000 - 2009 14 Outrider 2000 4,350; 610 116,182 12 U. Blackwater 2000 7,614; 1,008 161,019 10 Portuguese Bend 2001 5,624; 740 57,007 4 Pine Tree Ln. 2001 5,840; 1,428 190,680 23 Portuguese Bend 2001 5,200; 600 105,280 Not constructed 1 Sagebrush Ln. 2002 7,472; 920 73,335 20 Eastfield 2002 4,458; 693 46,040 56 Eastfield 2002 5,147; 803 42,240 18 Portuguese Bend 2003 5,040; 810 89,280 3 Appaloosa Lane 2003/2008 8,990; 2,050 357,192 18 Crest Rd. E. 2003 6,700; 1,520 132,240 3 Eucalyptus 2004 5,530; 973 72,744 8 Possum Ridge 2004 4,620; 640 181,073 22 Crest Rd. E. 2004 10,367; 1,234 183,360 18 Pine Tree Lane 2004 7,214; 1,253 123,710 Not constructed 12 Southfield '2004 . 5,080; 748 38,173 40 Portuguese ,- Bend x 2005,, •: ` " 9,490; 1,776 185,208 44 Portuguese Bend 2005 8,402; 1,605 163,520 17 Crest Rd. E. 2005 8,900; 1008 395,524 6 Sagebrush 2006 5,846; 960 105,420 0 Chestnut 2007 4,320; 805 89,940 22 Middleridge 2007 4,374; 832 30,237 Application withdrawn 9 Eastfield 2007 5,000; 704 138,030 40 Eastfield 2007 4,075; 600 39,664 3 Packsaddle Rd.E 2008 6,230; 781 45,981 8 Maverick 2009 7,103; 865 110,320 2 Appaloosa 2008 8,318; 669 179,000 0 Pine Tree 2009 9,590; 1,460 138,081 2000-2009 AVERAGE 6,496 sq.ft.-homes 1,003 sq.ft.-garage Net lot area 128,895 The above do not include basements or other accessory structures. Many of the homes approved in the 2000's also have a basement, ranging from 835 square feet to 7,530 square feet, averaging 3,430 square feet. New nomes and Over The Counter Large Additions Approved 2010-2016 Address House Sq. Ft. Garage Sq. Ft. Basement Sq. Ft. New Homes 1 11 Upper Blackwater 10,175 1,566 8,900 4,639 2 8 Crest Road E: 12,927 1,349 3 17 Crest Road E. 8,796 702 1,139 4 77 Crest Road E. 6,631 1,308 0 5 11 Saddleback Road 4,745 659 342 6 6 Portuguese Bend Road 4,527 1,007 0 7 5 Pine Tree Ln. 5,250 1,115 5,250 8 10 Bowie Road 5,270 844 6,000 9 23 Crest Road E. (proposed) 11,100 1,540 11,100 10 3 Packsaddle Road E. 6,230 781 4,940 11 2 Middleridge S. 4,980 980 0 12 38 Saddleback 5,017 762 3,646 13 5 Johns Cyn Road 9,387 1,187 0 14 46 Saddleback Road 7,117 704 1,638 15 3 Meadowlark 3,045 410 3,000 ,+" .,c. /, '$ > $Ns 4 {� �9 '� 3 �,L q+ r� �, � 5 �'�'� �k 1�1Average S`q•Ft JewZHo es) i,!.G...�7we ,3. /:"a�e'4 X, c"'Y'- �'.,�`Y%'r° E ».., d:Yl7rn :Y:P'.,✓: �"�✓` � � ',fT '^/$ c,.Y Iza �i�✓ � CIIrke13 �:i'/'/ti�� R%it 3,.� 'K 3 � � % .G.�-.e...� Y r oa�'j� 994 ,,.�7.,�, f+,�s R' "Z ti � 1b Y fy 4 599' tY3.-."�w, u�� ).c.' OTC Large Additions 1 15 Crest Road W. 8,378 858 0 2 2864 Palos Verdes Dr. North 6,234 935 2,921 3 29 Crest Road E. 4,301 604 0 4 3 Lower Blackwater 3,944 441 0 5 44 Portuguese Bend Road 6,083 1,354 0 6 49 Eastfield Drive 3,261 948 1,196 7 67 Eastfield Drive 3,535 628 0 8 5 Buggy Whip 4,734 1,008 0 9 26 Eastfleld Drive 3,146 926 0 10 26 Georgeff 4,552 441 0 11 5 Open Brand 3,068 465 0 12 8 Williamsburg 5,006 712 0 13 22 Saddleback 4,100 700 0 14 10 Cinchring 3,632 529 0 15 7 Middleridge Road S. 4,197 440 0 16 71 Crest Road E. 3,109 420 0 17 46 Eastfield 4,000 420 0 18 1 Pine Tree 6,516 1,335 0 19 23 Middleridge N. e A�raj eyS �.��. g 3,837 479 349 Idiitons J 10/27/16 Public/Yolanta/Statistics/Size New Homes and Large Additions Approved 2010-2016 ITEM 4D: DISCUSSION PAPER, NOVEMBER 1, 2016 SITE PLAN REVIEW CRITERIA 17.46.010 Purpose. The site plan review process is established to provide discretionary review of certain development projects in the City for the purposes of ensuring that the proposed project is consistent with the City's General Plan; incorporates environmentally and aesthetically sensitive grading practices; preserves existing mature vegetation; is compatible and consistent with the scale, massing and development pattern in the immediate project vicinity; and otherwise preserves and protects the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Rolling Hills. 17.46.050 Required findings. A. The Commission shall be required to make findings in acting to approve, conditionally approve, or deny a site plan review application. B. No project which requires site plan review approval shall be approved by the Commission, or by the City Council on appeal, unless the following findings can be made: 1. The project complies with and is consistent with the goals and policies of the general plan and all requirements of the zoning ordinance; 2. The project substantially preserves the natural and undeveloped state of the lot by minimizing building coverage. Lot coverage requirements are regarded as maximums, and the actual amount of lot coverage permitted depends upon the existing buildable area of the lot; 3. The project is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, the natural terrain and surrounding residences; 4. The project preserves and integrates into the site design, to the greatest extent possible, existing topographic features of the site, including surrounding native vegetation, mature trees, drainage courses and land forms (such as hillsides and knolls); 5. Grading has been designed to follow natural contours of the site and to minimize the amount of grading required to create the building area; 6. Grading will not modify existing drainage channels nor redirect drainage flow, unless such flow is redirected into an existing drainage course; 7. The project preserves surrounding native vegetation and mature trees and supplements these elements with drought -tolerant landscaping which is compatible with and enhances the rural character of the community, and landscaping provides a buffer or transition area between private and public areas; 8. The project is sensitive and not detrimental to the convenient and safe movement of pedestrians and vehicles; and 9. The project conforms to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. Agenda Item No: 3-A Mtg. Date: 03-27-06 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL HONORABLE CHAIRWOMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: CRAIG R. NEALIS, CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF DENSITY OF DEVELOPED LOTS DATE: MARCH 27, 2006 BACKGROUND Mayor Pro Tem Allen Lay has requested that this item be included on this evening's agenda. Attached to this staff report is information relative to the size of residential developments approved by the Planning Commission in 2002 through 2005, as well as approvals in 1992 through 1995 compared to the size of the legal lot. This survey includes both new homes on undeveloped properties and substantial rebuilds which included virtual tear down of existing homes. On the average: • the size of the lot (net lot area) of the lots developed or substantially rebuilt between 1992-1995 is 24,990* square feet smaller than lots developed between 2002-2005, • the size of the homes is 858 square foot smaller for the years between 1992-1995 than between 2002-2005, • the structural lot coverage is 1.9% less between 1992-1995 than between 2002- 2005, • the total lot coverage is 2.4% less between 1992-1995 than between 2002-2005, • the residential building pad coverage is 1.4% greater for developments between 1992-1995 than between 2002-2005, the grading quantities are 34 cubic yards cut/fill (for a total of 68 cubic yards of dirt movement) less for developments that required grading between 1992-1995 than between 2002-2005: *(Prior to November 1996, net lot area calculations did not include deduction of the 10' area perpendicular to the roadway easement, and therefore, were the net lot area for cases reported between 1992-1995 calculated now, the net lot area would be smaller.) .The table below shows these averages. Detailed information is also attached. AVERAGE Net Lot Area Sq.ft. Size of House Sq.ft. Structural Lot Coverage % Total Lot Coverage % Res. Bldg. Pad % Grading Quantities Cubic Yards 1992-1995 105,534 5,344 8.9 18.1 34.9 2,147 cut 2,147 fill 2002-2005 130,524 6,202 10.8 20.5 33.5 2,181 cut 2,181 fill RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that members of the City Council and Planning Commission discuss this staff report and provide appropriate direction to staff. CRN:mlk 03-27-06density-sta. d oc 4 City op !? FF,.S JUL INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 E-mail: cityofrh@aol.com Agenda Item No: 3-A Mtg. Date: 03-27-06 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL HONORABLE CHAIRWOMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: CRAIG R. NEALIS, CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF DENSITY OF DEVELOPED LOTS DATE: MARCH 27, 2006 BACKGROUND Mayor Pro Tem Allen Lay has requested that this item be included on this evening's agenda. Attached to this staff report is information relative to the size of residential developments approved by the Planning Commission in 2002 through 2005, as well as approvals in 1992 through 1995 compared to the size of the legal lot. This survey includes both new homes on undeveloped properties and substantial rebuilds which included virtual tear down of existing homes. On the average: • the size of the lot (net lot area) of the lots developed or substantially rebuilt between 1992-1995 is 24,990* square feet smaller than lots developed between 2002-2005, • the size of the homes is 858 square foot smaller for the years between 1992-1995 than between 2002-2005, • the structural lot coverage is 1.9% less between 1992-1995 than between 2002- 2005, • the total lot coverage is 2.4% less between 1992-1995 than between 2002-2005, • the residential building pad coverage is 1.4% greater for developments between 1992-1995 than between 2002-2005, • the grading quantities are 34 cubic yards cut/ fill (for a total of 68 cubic yards of dirt movement) less for developments that required grading between 1992-1995 than between 2002-2005. *(Prior to November 1996, net lot area calculations did not include deduction of the 10' area perpendicular to the roadway easement, and therefore, were the net lot area for cases reported between 1992-1995 calculated now, the net lot area would be smaller.) @Printed on Hec:yr-.Iud roper. The table below shows these averages. Detailed information is also attached. AVERAGE Net Lot Area Sq.ft. Size of House Sq.ft. Structural Lot Coverage % Total Lot Coverage % Res. Bldg. Pad % Grading Quantities Cubic Yards 1992-1995 105,534 5,344 8.9 18.1 34.9 2,147 cut 2,147 fill 2002-2005 130,524 6,202 10.8 20.5 33.5 2,181 cut 2,181 fill RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that members of the City Council and Planning Commission discuss this staff report and provide appropriate direction to staff. CRN:mlk 03-27-06d en si ty-sta. d oc NEW CONSTRUCTION AND SUBSTANTIAL ADDITIONS BETWEEN 1992-1995 1992-1995 Address Date Net Lot Area sq.ft. SIZE sq.ft. Structural Coverage Total Coverage Res. Bldg. Pad Coverage % Grading Quantities Disturbed Area of the House; Garage; approved other structure(s) % % cubic yards Net Lot % 7 Packsaddle 77,892 4500, 600 8.1 15.3 33.7 188 cut Road E. 2/1992 650 pool, 450 future stable 188 fill 17 Southfield 91,610 5990, 1175 9.6 15.8 28.3 2,950 cut 5/1992 775 pool, 750 future stable 2,950 fill 7 Lower 247,111 7096, 721 6.6 13.5 31.9 133 cut Blackwater 6/1992 314 spa, 6600 exst. court, 1440 exst. garage/stable 133 fill 9 Wagon Ln. 78,529 4689, 1200 9.5 15.0 54.6 No grading 6/1992 594 pool, 550 future stable 10 Upper 89,724 3566, 650 5.3 9.1 22.5 2,410 cut Blackwater 450 future stable 2,410 fill 9/1992 10 Crest Road 4596, 482 W. 45,196 450 future stable 13.3 27.8 37.2 135 cut 10/1993 135 fill ♦ 1992-1995 continued Address Date approved Net Lot Area sq.ft. SIZE sq.ft. Structural Coverage % Total Coverage % Res. Bldg. Pad Coverage % Grading Quantities Cubic Yards Disturbed Area of the Net Lot % House, Garage; Other Structure(s) 1 Lower Blackwater 11/1992 165,794 8545 inc.garage 500 pool; 450 future stable 6.0 11.3 20.7 3,800 cut 3,800 fill 2 Quailridge South 1/1993 26,622 4641, 703 700 pool; 312 court; 450 future stable 15.4 28.6 26.2 145 cut 145 fill 1 Bowie Road 4/1993 34,064 2925, 462 450 future stable 11.6 19.1 90.0 No grading 22 Eastfield 5/1993 49,702 4496, 706 880 stable; 50 spa 12.5 30.8 43.0 No grading 10 Southfield 7/1993 42,692 4640, 630 511 pool; 450 future stable 15.1 25.6 32.3 730 cut 730 fill 5 Appaloosa 8/1993 87,152 5615, 630 1560 bsmnt, 308 pool; 450 future stable 8.4 19.8 35.0 1,590 cut 1,590 fill 0 Chestnut 5/1994 87,120 1674, 350 450 future stable 2.9. 13.2 17.7 2,000 cut 2,000 fill 2 1992-1995 continued Address Date approved . Net Lot Area sq.ft. SIZE sq.ft. Structural Coverage % Total Coverage % Res. Bldg. Pad Coverage % Grading Quantities Cubic Yards Disturbed Area of the Net Lot % House, Garage; Other Structure(s) 12 Outrider 11/1994 5/95 amended & sports court 85,277 2987, 760 300 exst. stable, 100 pool house, 500 pool court 5.3 12.0 44.4 No grading 49 Saddleback 12/1994 86,046 4960, 704 625 gst. house, 400 pool, 640 exst. stable 10.45 30.5 32.9 110 cut 110 fill 5 Sagebrush 1/1995 88,764 7860, 900 720 pool, 450 future stable 10.5 16.8 29.8 Grading done previously 7 Lower Blackwater 2/1995-(1992 approval expired) 247,111 7705, 719 1400 stable 625 cabana, 1964 pool, 1355 animal shelter 5.6 13.2 23.8 120 cut 120 fill 23 Portuguese Bend Road 9/ 1995 109,400 6223, 640 1210 exst. stable 7.5 20.0 33.5 1,622 cut 1,622 fill 6 Meadowlark 9/1995 63,163 3655, 589 800 gst. house, 530 pool, 450 future stable 9.7 17.9 37.4 920 cut 920 fill 3 1992-1995 continued Address Date approved Net Lot Area sq.ft. SIZE sq.ft. Structural Coverage % Total Coverage % Res. Bldg. Pad Coverage % Grading Quantities cubic yards Disturbed Area of the Net Lot % House, Garage; other structure(s) 1 Buggy Whip 10/1995 (several modifications followed -this represents final approval in 1997) 277,844 9333, 2265 1310 pool, 1200 stable, 800 gst. house, 13210 bsmnt. inc. 7200 tennis court 7.7 13.8 24.7 15,354 cut 15,354 fill (includes excavation for underground tennis court) 39.7% 20 Portuguese Bend 12/1995 178,085 6528, 1,1 13 garage/gst. house, 650 pool, 161 covered patio, 1000 stable 5.3 11.3 32.6 No grading 18.9 AVERAGE 105,534 sq.ft. House only 5,344 sq.ft. 8.9 18.1 34.9 2,147 cut * 2,147 fill 1992-1995 * REPRESENTS AN AVERAGE OF THOSE CASES WHERE GRADING WAS NECESSARY DISTURBED AREA: requirements for disturbed area became effective on 9/14/95. Therefore, those cases that were approved prior to 9/14/95 were not required to show disturbed area. NET LOT AREA: Prior to November 1996, net lot area calculations did not include deduction of the 10' area perpendicular to the roadway easement, and therefore, were the net lot area for cases reported between 1992-1995 calculated now, the net lot area would be smaller. 4 NEW CONSTRUCTION AND SUBSTANTIAL ADDITIONS BETWEEN 2002-2005 2002-2005 Address Date approved Net Lot Area sq.ft. SIZE sq.ft. Structural Coverage % Total Coverage % Res. Bldg. Pad Coverage % Grading Quantities cubic yards Disturbed Area of the Net Lot % House, Garage, other structure(s) 1 Sagebrush 1/2002 73,335 7272, 920 5814 bsmnt, 315 pool, 450 future stable 12.2 32.8 28.5 1,485 cut 1,485 fill 40.0 56 Eastfield 6/2002 42,240 5147, 803 3400 bsmnt, 450 future stable 15.4 25.3 28.4 1,070 cut 1,070 fill 36.0 1 Johns Canyon 7/2002 75,496 5661, 770 976 pool, 558 exs. stable, 7264 exs. tennis court 20.0 35.0 27.8 475 cut 475 fill 50.8 20 Eastfield 9/2002 5/2005 46,040 4458, 693, 1440 bsmnt, 960 pool, 880 stable 16.3 25.3 41.4 1,728 cut 1,728 fill 48.6 63 Crest Rd. E 9/2002 227,411 5841, 626 (w/pre- exs. 1050 s.f second story), 389 cabana, 1397 bsmnt, exs. 1771 stable, 6923 court & 20,000 riding ring 7.1 13.7 28.2 1,100 cut 1,100 fill 28.7 5 2002-2005 Continued Address Date approved Net Lot Area sq.ft. SIZE sq.ft. Structural Coverage % Total Coverage % Res. Bldg. Pad Coverage % Grading Quantities cubic yards Disturbed Area of the Net Lot % House, Garage, other structure(s) 18 Portuguese Bend Rd. 4/2003 89,280 5040, 720 480 pool, 1968 bsmnt, 450 stable 7.6 15.8 29.7 2,345 cut 2,345 fill 39.2 40 Eastfield 5/2003 11/2005 39,666 3021, 596 800 gst. hs, 442 pool, 450 future stable 18.1 34.3 40.8 784 cut 784 fill 60.0 3 Appaloosa 10/2003 357,280 8990, 2050 5500 bsmnt, 880 pool, 1671 stable 3.8 6.8 29.3 9,420 cut 9,420 fill inc. repair of slope) 30.6 18 Crest Rd. E 10/2003 132,240 6700, 1520 1120 pool, 720 gst. hs, 450 future stable 8.0 17.2 30.0 3,682 cut 3,682 fill 37.7 14 Portuguese Bend Rd. 1/2004 51,835 4065, 558 exst. 918 stable, 2261 court, 310 gst. hs 16.9 27.9 37.4 No grading 32.2 8 Possum Ridge Road 2/2004 181,073 4620, 640 2818 bsmnt, 390 pool, 450 future stable 3.4 6.5 29.4 1,707 cut 1,707 fi l l 21.5 6 2002-2005 continued Address Date approved Net Lot Area sq.ft. SIZE sq.ft. Structural Coverage % Total Coverage % Res. Bldg. Pad Coverage % Grading Quantities cubic yards Disturbed Area of the Net Lot % House, Garage, other structure(s) 20 Crest E. 3/2004 183,360 10367, 1234 1600 bsmnt, 65 spa, 675 exst. stable 6.8 14.4 20.6 1,858 cut 1,858 fill 35.4 18 Pine Tree Lane 4/2004 123,710 7214,1253 6613 bsmnt, 700 pool, 450 future stable 7.9 17.1 29.8 3,525 cut 3,525 fill 39.6 3 Eucalyptus 5/2004 72,744 5530, 973 2640 bsmnt, 800 pool, 450 future stable 10.8 18.6 29.5 1,935 cut 1,935 fill 39.5 6 Caballeros 35,165 4316,542 exst. 427 pool, 384 stable, 486 trellis 18.1 33.75 60.2 (prior —54.4) 195 c.y. import 39.7 •12 Southfield 11/2004 38,173 5080, 748 3480 bsmnt, 450 future stable, exst. 820 pool, 63 spa 19.0 32.8 28.9 1,232 cut 1,232 fill 48.8 44 Portuguese Bend Rd. 4/2005 163,520 8402, 1605 1048 bsmnt. 1385 porches, 738 gst. hs, 805 pool, 1107 exst. stable 8.6 19.4 25.1 1,010 cut 1,010 fill 34.8 7 2002-2005 continued Address Date approved Net Lot Area sq.ft. SIZE sq.ft. Structural Coverage % Total Coverage % Res. Bldg. Pad Coverage % Grading Quantities cubic yards Disturbed Area of the Net Lot % House, Garage, other structure(s) 40 Portuguese Bend Rd. 6/2005 185,208 9490, 1776 6640 bsmnt, 1160 pool, 575 stable, 2404 coy. porches, 1016 trellis 8.9 18.8 27.8 3,404 cut 3,404 fill 35.7 7 Packsaddle E. 7/2005 37,198 3252, 672 exst. 646 pool, 159 cabana, 400 stable 7.0 12.0 75.2 (prior — 61.0) No grading 18.0 17 Crest Rd. E 7/2005 395,524 8960, 1008 7350 bsmnt, exst. 320 pool, 2720 stable, 7200 turnout 4.4 9.4 26.3 2,994 excavation for basement 2,994 fill 20.4 1 Crest Rd. E 9/2005 98,960 6706, 1320 976 bsmnt. 744 gst. hs. 583 pool, 416 porte cochere, 192 deck 10.9 21.7 28.2 445 cut 445 fill 36.9 25 Portuguese Bend Rd. 12/2005 222,080 6316, 875 835 bsmnt, 733 gst. hs, 7072 court, 1112 pool/spa, 450 future stable 7.7 13.0 24.6 624 cut 624 fill 18.4 AVERAGE 130,524 House only; 6,202 sq.ft. 10.8 20.5 33.5 2,181 cut 2,181 fill 36.0 8