Planning Commission Adjourned Regular Meeting 09-20-2016CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL AND POSTING
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
ss
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
1 am a citizen of the United States. 1 am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the
within proceeding; my business address is 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California.
On the l6'" day of September 2016, I serve the within
Planning Commission Meeting Agenda
Adjourned Regular Meeting - 09/20/2016
E -MAILED MAILED DropBox
• Interested Asst. City Attorney
RH Web site IistSery Parties
Interested parties
DELIVERED
City Manager
Planning Commissioners
Also posted at City Hall, at www.Rolling-Hills.org and PDF's in DropBox.
1 declare under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on the 16`" day of September, 2016 at Rolling Hills, California.
Ewa Nikodem
Administrative Assistant
ear al Ram ge
INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274
(310) 377-1521
FAX (310) 377-7288
AGENDA
ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
7:30 AM
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 20, 2016
MEET AT 85 CREST ROAD EAST
1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
3. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
4. FIELD TRIPS
A. ZONING CASE NO. 910. Request for a Site Plan Review for room addition and
to reconstruct an existing garage, for a swimming pool, new driveway and grading and
request for a Variance to exceed the maximum permitted disturbance of the lot in Zoning Case
No. 910, at 85 Crest Road East, (Lot 69 C -1 -MS), Rolling Hills, CA (Zee). The project has been
determined to be categorically exempt (Class 3) pursuant to the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Section 15303.
B. ZONING CASE NO. 911. Request for a Site Plan Review to legalize a 140 square
foot addition and to construct a 565 square feet of attached covered porches to main residence
on a property with a restrictive development condition and a Variance for one of the covered
porches to be located in the front yard setback at 3 Poppy Trail (Lot 8 -PT) Rolling Hills, CA,
(Jonas). The project has been determined to be categorically exempt (Class 3) pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Section 15303.
5. ADJOURNMENT
Documents pertaining to an agenda item received after the posting of the agenda are available for
review in the City Clerk's office or at the meeting at which the item will be considered.
-1-
Agenda Item: 4A
Mtg. Date: 09/20/16
MEMORANDUM TO RECUSE
TO: Honorable Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Yolanta Schwartz, Planning Director
SUBJECT: Zoning Case No. 910 - 85 Crest Road East
DATE: September 20, 2016 Field Trip
Due to the proximity of his property to the subject property, Chairman Chelf should
recuse himself from consideration of Zoning Case No. 910 at 85 Crest Road East. He
may however, participate as a resident.
INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
TO:
FROM:
APPLICATION NO.
SITE LOCATION:
ZONING AND SIZE:
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
PUBLISHED:
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274
(310) 377-1521
FAX (310) 377-7288
Agenda Item No.: 4-A FT
Mtg. Date: 9-20-16
HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION
YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR
ZONING CASE NO. 910
85 CREST ROAD E. (LOT 69 -C -1 -MS)
RA -S-2, 3.13 (EXCL. ROAD EASEMENT)
MR. ZEE
ALAN MCGREGOR, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT
AUGUST 4, 2016
REQUEST AND RECOMMENDATION
1. The Planning Commission reviewed this case at their August 16, 2016 meeting and
scheduled a field visit to view the project on September 20 2016.
2. The applicant, Mr. Zee requests a Site Plan Review to construct a 1,500 square foot
swimming pool, pool equipment area, 135 square foot attached trellis, a 383 square foot
room addition, to demolish an existing 792 square foot garage and construct a new 960
square foot garage attached to the main residence by a 510 square foot breezeway, and
associated structures, a new driveway that requires grading and 1,024 square feet of pool
decking. Grading, including for the new driveway, is proposed at 2,296 cubic yards of dirt,
of which 388 cubic yards will be exported, and portion used in the rear to enlarge the
existing building pad for the pool area. A Variance is requested to exceed the maximum
permitted disturbance of the net lot, from the existing 32.7% to 55.1%.
3. A 588 square foot swimming pool currently is located at the side of the residence
and will be filled in. The applicant proposes to abandon the existing driveway and
construct a new one off of Crest Road East. Currently access to the property is taken from
a common driveway apron mostly located on the adjacent property at 63 Crest Rd. E. and
partially on 85 Crest Rd. E. This driveway apron flares out into driveways to several
ZC NO. 910
properties to the south. The driveway to the subject property turns to the east of the
common apron and is then located entirely on 85 Crest E. The existing driveway ranges in
width from 10'45' and it travels along and around the entire rear property before
accessing the existing garage. The new driveway will be constructed on the subject
property, adjacent to the common apron, and will follow along the front (north) and east
side of the lot. The new driveway will have a 30' wide apron where it meets the improved
roadway and will then narrow down to 20' in width. The apron must be roughened and
the first 20' of the apron/driveway must be no steeper than 7%.
The existing driveway will be closed off at the property line, leaving the shared apron of
off Crest Road East intact for use by the properties to the south. The applicant proposes to
retain the existing driveway but demolish the asphalt and change the surface to
decomposed granite, which is considered softscape surface (pervious). Concerns were
expressed by the resident at 63 Crest Road East regarding the shared driveway and the
existing driveway that is proposed to be abandoned and the portion of the driveway that
exists on the applicant's property that will be converted to decomposed granite. The
specific concern is drainage, erosion from the decomposed granite and location of the
driveway.
The Traffic Commission reviewed the new driveway apron at their July 28, 2016 meeting
and recommended approval. A letter was received from the neighbor at 87 Crest Road
East expressing concerns about the proximity of the proposed driveway to their residence.
The applicants have responded by presenting an alternative driveway configuration,
further from the eastern property line, if desired by the Planning Commission. However,
the applicant's representatives met with the resident at 87 Crest Road and they state that
his concerns were adequately addressed and the alternate driveway is no longer needed.
Enclosed with this report is the correspondence received from the neighbors.
4. It is recommended that the Planning Commission review the staff report, view the
project in the field, take brief public testimony and continue the meeting to the evening
meeting, or provide other direction to staff.
BACKGROUND
5. The property is zoned RAS-2 and the gross lot area is 3.13 acres. The net lot area is
2.82. acres, as calculated for development purposes.
6. The property is currently developed with a 4,685 square foot residence, a 792
square foot garage, a 586 square foot swimming pool, a 32 square foot pool equipment
area, a 458 square foot stable, a 492 square foot breezeway, a 408 square foot shed, 22
square foot shed and a 418 square foot service yard. The garage and swimming pool will
be demolished and a new 960 square foot garage, and a 1,500 square foot swimming pool
constructed. A 383 square foot addition to the residence is also being proposed.
ZC NO. 910
7. Records indicate that in 1969 a variance was approved to build a 458 square foot
stable with a 698 square foot corral in the front yard.
MUNICIPAL CODE COMPLIANCE
8. The project's disturbed area is currently 32.7%. The proposed disturbed area will
increase due to the dishirhanre for the new driveway, the pool, and yard areas to 67,694
square feet or 55.1% of the net lot area, which requires a variance. The cut for the
driveway will be 968 cubic yards, and 374 cubic yards will be generated from the pool/spa
excavation; 954 cubic yards of the fill will be used to flatten out a portion of the rear slope,
with 388 cubic yards to be exported.
The applicant's agents advise that the proposed residential addition and garage
demolition/construction will be on a previously constructed pad where little to no
grading will be required. The existing pool will be demolished and will be filled in and
become a grass and landscaped area. The proposed pool will be located partially on a
previously disturbed area and partially on a newly disturbed area and will require some
grading and excavation for the pool. A 3' high wall to enclose a 45 square foot pool
equipment area is also proposed in hillside near the pool.
9. The structural coverage on the lot will be 8,937 square feet or 7.3% and the total
coverage (structures and hardscape) will be 24,196 square feet or 19.7%, both in
compliance with the code.
10. The 383 square foot addition to the existing 4,685 square foot residence will result in
a 5,068 square foot house. The residential building pad will increase by 1,908 square feet
and with the addition the coverage on this pad will be 8,937 square feet or 21.5%.
11. All of the existing and proposed structures will be located outside of setbacks. As
disturbance exceeds 40%, a variance is needed but otherwise all are compliant with the
Municipal Code. The project does not qualify for allowance for greater disturbance, as
more than half of the slopes (mostly for the driveway) will be steeper than 3:1 gradient.
12. The existing driveway will be relocated and the new driveway will be 20' wide to
comply with Fire Department requirements. 3' high maximum retaining wall is proposed
along the perimeter of the driveway leading to a 3,000 square foot motor court area. The
Traffic Commission recommended approval of the driveway apron on July 28, 2016.
13. Rolling Hills Community Association will review this project at a later date.
14. When reviewing a development application the Planning Commission must
consider whether the proposed project meets the criteria for a Site Plan Review, and
Variance and must find that the proposed uses are consistent with the General Plan and
ZC NO. 910
development standards of the City, including provision for open space and maintaining a
rural environment and that the uses will not adversely affect adjacent properties.
15. In justifying the variance, the applicant's agent states that much of the grading and
disturbance is for the driveway, which will be much safer than what is there now. The
existing driveway does not meet Fire Dept. requirements and is very long and winding.
In order to minimize export of dirt, thus limit the number of trucks on site and in the City,
some of the dirt will be placed in the rear on an existing gently sloping area to create a
slightly larger flat area for use by the pool. The resulting slope will not exceed 6:1
gradient.
16. This project will be required to comply with all zoning requirements, including
undergrounding of utility lines, Health Department requirements for a septic system, Fire
Department for access and fuel modification and others.
17. The project has been determined to be categorically exempt pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Class 3.
ZC 910 NEARBY PROPERTIES
(For information only)
Address
House size in sq.ft.
(built/add or remodel)
Lot Area sq.ft. (excl.
roadway easements)
83 Crest Road East
5,920 (11)*
87,832
87 Crest Road East
4,222 (03)*
83,200
17 Wideloop Road
3,576 (01)*
47,045
86 Crest Road East
3,191 (13)*
26,015
62 Crest Road East
7,905 (91)*
122,360
63 Crest Road East
6,058 (82)
252,648
67 Crest Road East
4,289 (90)
169,448
Average
5,023
112,650
85 Crest
Proposed 5,068
122,743
NOTE: The above do not include garages, basements and other accessory
structures.
SOURCES: Assessors' records
* City Records
ZC NO. 910
0
ZONING CASE NO. 910
SITE PLAN REVIEW/ VR
EXISTING
PROPOSED
RA -S- 2 ZONE SETBACKS
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE,
GARAGE, STABLE, SHED
ADDITION TO RESIDENCE,
NEW GARAGE, POOL, POOL
EQUIPMENT, SERVICE YARD,
ADDITION TO BREEZEWAY,
COVERED PORCH & DRWY
Front: 50 ft. from front easement line
Side: 35 ft from side property line
Rear: 50 ft. from rear property line
SPR required for grading, pool, and
Residence
Garage
Swimming Pool
Pool equip.
Stable
Service yard
Breezeway
Attch porches
Attached trellis
Shed
Shed
4,685 sq.ft.
792 sq.ft.
586 sq.ft..
32 sq.ft
458 sq.ft.
418 sq.ft
492 sq.ft.
0 sq.ft.
0 sq.ft.
22 sq.ft.
408 sq. ft.
Residence
Garage
Swimming Pool
Pool equip.
Stable
Service yard
Breezeway
Attch porches
Attached trellis
Shed
Shed
5,068 sq.ft.
960 sq.ft.
1,500 sq.ft.
45 sq.ft.
458 sq.ft.
96 sq.ft
510 sq.ft.
165 sq.ft.
135 sq.ft.
0 sq.ft.
0 sq.ft.
driveway.
Variance is required for exceeding
disturbed area.
TOTAL
7,893 sq.ft.
TOTAL
8,937 sq.ft
GRADING
N/A
1,342 c.y. cut & 954 c.y. fill
388 c.y. to be exported
Site Plan Review required if
excavation and/or fill or combination
thereof that is more than 3 feet in
depth and covers more than 2,000 sf.
STRUCTURAL LOT COVERAGE
6.08%
7.3% of 122,743 s.f. net lot area
(20% maximum)
TOTAL LOT COVERAGE
21.6 %
19.7% of 122,743 s.f. net lot area
(less, due to changing out asphalt
to D.G.)
(35% maximum)
BUILDING PAD COVERAGE (30%
18.83% of 39,630.ft. pad
21.5% of 41,538 sq.ft. pad
maximum -guideline)
Residential
DISTURBED AREA
27.06% or 40,178 sq. ft.
(122,743 sq. ft. net lot area)
55.1% or 67,694 sq.ft
(122,743 sq. ft. net lot area)
(40% maximum; any graded building
pad area, any remedial grading any
graded slopes and building pad areas,
and any nongraded area where
impervious surfaces exist.)
STABLE (min. 450 SQ.FT.
458 sq.ft. existing w/corral
458 sq.ft. existing w/corral
& 550 SO.FT. CORRAL)
STABLE ACCESS
Existing
Existing
ROADWAY ACCESS
Existing driveway approach
New 20' wide drwy
VIEWS
N/A
Planning Commission review
PLANTS AND ANIMALS
N/A
Planning Commission review
ZC NO. 910
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.
CRITERIA FOR VARIANCES
17.38.050 Required findings. In granting a variance, the Commission (and Council on appeal)
must make the following findings:
A. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to
the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same vicinity and zone;
B. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial
property rights possessed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone but which is denied
the property in question;
ZC NO. 910
C. That the granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public
welfare or injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity;
D. That in granting the variance, the spirit and intent of this title will be observed;
E. That the variance does not grant special privilege to the applicant;
F. That the variance is consistent with the portions of the County of Los Angeles
Hazardous Waste Management Plan relating to siting and siting criteria for hazardous waste
facilities; and
G. That the variance request is consistent with the general plan of the City of Rolling
Hills..
SOURCE: City of Rolling Hills Zoning Ordinance
ZC NO. 910
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
RLUEINEIFI
JUL 2 5 2016
City of Rolling Hills
By
/C) Ed— )1°
TA„,/,/,
at.nic6oksaivn ap2(
Arzte_tioc4 ,ade_:1,
icodfAt ,ct a kr
7 kC
L9 amevL7VLA- 0_, g BAG ° C.
frt-0A-tu 71:€0a-r-rvt. gar atie- 0-nt
iE Pi g �� Bu. Ts ,
(Jai .A,„;
sa-,640%,„ -ZV
414
a 3/a - � a1
Tuesday, August 9, 2016: :03:47 AM Pacific Daylight Time
Subject: 85 Crest East
Date: Tuesday, August 9, 2016 at 9:00:52 AM Pacific Daylight Time
From: Nina Ritter
To: Wendy Starks
CC: Yolanta Schwartz, Rhca Kristen Raig -
Wendy, Yolanta asked me to address my letter to the Planning Commission and said she would be out of
the office today but that my letter needed to be received today and to send it to you.
9/ 1(, — I QM -rake -key /-u
Q/C-5R.
In addition to this letter there are several attachments I would ask that you include:
i) Zee's plans which I was sent
ii) color coded copy of my survey showing the corner where 63 Crest and 85 crest meet
iii) 3 aerial photographs of area under discussion
Dear Planning Commission:
I am writing to you about the proposed project at 85 Crest Rd. East. I have been out of town since mid -
June and was not aware of this project (though I am sent all my mail) until the beginning of this week. It's
taken me a few days to attempt to educate myself so excuse me if I've not properly understood something.
I will not be back in town until Sept. so cannot attend any of the meetings myself.
I will try to make my concerns brief.
1) as I understand it, the Stringbergs (87 Crest E.) objected to the new proposed driveway at 85 Crest E.
being close to their property so the Zees moved the entrance to the west side of the property. While I
sympathize with the Strindberg's concerns (and appreciate the Zee's cooperation) we currently have 8
families (and all the attendant cars and trucks) entering and exiting from the access road situated at the
western side of the Zees' property at an angle that can be dangerous enough as it is. Currently, these cars
are funneled onto one road before entering onto the faster flowing Crest Rd. Adding yet a separate
driveway onto Crest Rd.-- right next to this access road exit for 7 homes-- is questionable in my mind. Has
the Commission considering asking the Zees to more appropriately move the driveway to the center of
their property to maximize safety for all the neighbors concerned? This is an unusual situation where
there are not just 2 neighbors flanking a third, but in fact in the present case, 8 homes total flank 85 Crest
Rd. E. This unusual situation deserves more than the usual scrutiny as to safety.
2) Another important concern is the original driveway. Neither the original driveway nor the topographical
aspects appear on the plan I was given (see below). In my experience plans submitted for approval always
include proposed improvements superimposed on the current "as builts" with topographical references
included.
The Zees appear to propose the removal from the site of tons of asphalt currently used to pave the
present, steep driveway and replace it with decomposed granite. While I appreciate this will lower their
hardscape numbers I find the details of how this is to be achieved, crucial to both my property and the
access road of my neighbors. The (original & present) 85 Crest E. asphalt driveway is very long. It's on
steep grade leading down onto an asphalt apron at the property line of 85 Crest E. & 63 Crest E. and then
onto the asphalt access road which runs along the 63 Crest Rd. property and which is used as a common
entrance and exit for all the properties to the south of us, out onto Crest Rd. Without retaining walls or
asphalt to hold it back, that prevents thousands of tons of new decomposed granite from running down
the hillside onto the access road/apron, and/or down my own driveway/hillside and/or into Crest Rd: -
Page 1 of 2
either when it starts raining or settling over the years?
While Yolanta explained that engineering issues come after the Planning Commission process, in this
particular case why would that would be so? For example, the safety issues involved in moving the
driveway were examined before the Planning Commission vote of approval, I am not clear why such an
important issue as removing tons of asphalt from a site and the question of the retainment and drainage of
an entire hillside affecting many neighbors would not also be part of Planning Commission's consideration
of safety before approval?
Furthermore, I assume your approval of this project rests on consideration of the balance of
hardscape/improvement on the property. How can you approve a new motor court and larger pool area
(i.e. increase the hardscape elsewhere on the property) without considering that the Zee's may be
seriously ignoring a vital part of the equation they are proposing to you? How can you safely consider this
project without considering the realities and practicalities of how it is actually going to be achieved on the
property since it's not addressed on the plans? This is a long driveway which circles the steepest grade of
the property which is at the highest point of Rolling Hills. I'm not an engineer but I have to assume this
asphalt driveway girdles the hillside to some important extent. The wisdom of replacing it with sand on a
steep hillside in an area such as ours —without further investigation-- would appear to defy common
sense. Even aside from asking for engineering at this stage: Where is the decomposed granite beginning and
ending exactly both in length and width? Retaining walls? Aprons? needed to hold in the decomposed granite to
keep it from liquifying flowing downwards? Would these structures be considered hordscape were they to be
properly included in your consideration?
Moreover, if you approve this plan and it is later decided due to engineering issues the driveway/asphalt
should not be removed, then what happens to the increased hardscape you have already approved on the
property? Do the Zee's get to proceed even though they will have doubly maxed the hardscape on their
property? Do they have to go back to the drawing board and completely redo their plans for a Motorcourt
and larger pool area? Wouldn't it be better for all involved to tackle this issue head on, now?
That is a very long driveway. That is a steep, large hillside important to several RH homes. That is a lot of
asphalt. That could be a lot of grading, drainage, soils engineering. I don't see the wisdom of pretending it
will go away somewhere between Planning Commission and the Building Department.
I thank you for your consideration, and as always, the great staff of Rolling Hills who are helping us puzzle
this all out.
Respectfully,
Nina Ritter
63 Crest E.
310-283-5125
0
Page 2 of 2
\ If
$+"'4•-
•-1' •
- - _mss
Int
I •
•
14101 01101
slit SAD
7
/
Sten
Sian
C•
nC et, N•
-r ,Ip..ppM.RM711•
AS
OlY
tar HMS
{A
0
Map Satellite
ri%e/ 1 lY'Eisry nr` i
.�.
6q 2016 Mirau:wli Curpuraiion � FiulcmhB9briti% cy0'h2ii16 FP- uutetorrnitre
85 Crest East Proposed driveway
I
aG Croat fsri RoposedHmetva>=
j'�
fr
y r
' at "+ " •• ` 'rim atn.•w.. v :. _ wig? ,
',•i Y 1•+-
„
Why not more safely `1` "
7 families use this Access Road i_ new
have to turn out here. They are coming
locate
driveway
1 I
the center of approx.
.4' here?
up a grade and cannot see oncoming traffic
RECEIVED
AU6 15 2016
City of Rolling Hills
By
ZC No. 910
85 Crest Road East
On 8/15/16, 2:13 PM, "Tony Wang" <wangtonyk@gmail.com> wrote:
I have few questions on the construction of a new driveway of the subject
property:
1. Is the new driveway replacing the existing riding frail leading to the
stable? What will happen to the stable and the frail?
2. Will the grading change to accommodate the new driveway affect the
rain drain towards the Crest Road East?
3. What will happen to Crest Road's traffic during construction? Will one
of the lane on Crest Road East be closed?
Thank you for your help!
Tony Wang (86 Crest Road East) 310-989-7878
RECEIVED
From: Tony Wang <wangtonyk@gmail.com>
Date: Wednesday, September 14, 2016 1:47 PM
To: Yolanta Schwartz
Subject: Objection to the proposed new driveway and the new grading of 85 Crest
Road East
Dear Planning Commission Members and Yolanda,
SEP 14 2016
City of Rolling Hills
By
We are the owners of the house at 86 Crest Road East, right across from 85 Crest Road
East. We oppose the proposed new driveway and the new grading of 85 Crest Road
East. The new driveway will affect our view from our front entry door and the front
yard tremendously. Currently, we have a view of rural green pasture scenery which is
the reason that we move to RH in the first place. With the proposed change, we will be
looking at a long driveway and a long stretch of retaining wall. The proposed new
driveway no doubt will enhance the property value of 85 Crest Road East, but will be at
a very big expense of our home at 86 Crest Road East.
We would like to invite the Planning Commission and all interested parties to take a
look at the silhouette from the front yard and the front entry door of our house
during your upcoming field visit on September 20. When you take a look from the side
of our property, you will understand our viewpoint. Please feel free to walk around our
front yard, even we'll be out of town on the 20th.
Thank you in advance to take a look on this matter.
Sincerely,
Vivian & Tony Wang
86 Crest Road East
8(4 al Rasest9 gad
INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
TO:
FROM:
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274
(310) 377-1521
FAX (310) 377-7288
Agenda Item No.: 4A -FT
Mtg. Date: 09-20-16
HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION
YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR
APPLICATION NO.
SITE LOCATION:
ZONING AND SIZE:
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
DATE PUBLISHED:
ZONING CASE NO. 911
3 POPPY TRAIL (8 -PT)
RA -S-2, 2.7 ACRES (GROSS)
MR. ROBERT JONAS
TAVISHA NICHOLSON, ENGINEER
ANTHONY INFERRERA, ARCHITECT
SEPTEMBER 8, 2016
REQUEST AND RECOMMENDATION
1. The applicant requests a Site Plan Review, due to a restrictive development
condition placed on the property, to legalize a 140 square foot addition and to construct
two, for a total of 565 square feet attached covered porches to the residence. The applicant
also requests a Variance as one of the porches consisting of 455 square feet is proposed to
be located in the front yard setback.
2. It is recommended that the Planning Commission view the project in the field,
open the public hearing, take brief public testimony and continue the meeting to the
evening meeting of the Planning Commission or provide other direction to staff.
BACKGROUND
3. The property is zoned RAS-2 and consists of 2.7 acres (117,612 square feet) gross
and 2.18 acres (95,160 sq.ft.) net lot area for development purposes. With this proposal a
previously constructed addition of 140 square feet with a flat roof at the rear of the
residence will be legalized and the roof reconfigured to match the existing residence. The
entire roof will be raised by 12". As part of this application, regardless if the variance for
Z.C. No. 911
the porch is granted or not, it will be a requirement that a building permit be obtained for
this addition, a new roof be constructed and utility lines be undergrounded to the
property.
4. In November, 2009 the applicant was granted a CUP and a SPR to construct an 800
square foot recreation room and access thereto, that required grading and a retaining wall
along the access way. A "No further development" restriction without Planning
Commission review was placed on the property. Therefore, any new construction
requires a discretionary review by the Planning Commission.
5. Currently the property is developed with a 3,598 square foot residence, (including
the 140 sq.ft. non -permitted addition), 462 square foot garage, a 720 square foot
swimming pool/spa, 802 square foot pool decking, 48 square foot pool equipment, 270
square foot cabana, 660 square foot stable, 96 square foot service yard, and an 800 square
foot recreation room with 396 square foot covered porch.
6. Over 40% of the existing residence is located in the front yard setback, and is legal
non -conforming. At the worst condition, (north-west corner), the house encroaches 37'
into the required 50' front yard setback. The proposed 455 square foot porch at the front
of the house would encroach additional 6' into the front setback; up to 41' at the north
west corner and up to 34' at the north east corner and requires a Variance. No grading or
further disturbance is proposed with this project.
MUNICIPAL CODE COMPLIANCE
7. Pursuant to Section 17.16.140 of the Zoning Code, architectural features (which
include porches) may project 4' into the required front setback. With the house already
projecting more than 4', the proposed covered porch would project even further into the
setback.
8. The net lot area of the lot is 95,160 square feet. The structural lot coverage is
proposed at 7,615 square feet or 8.00% of the net lot area, which includes all of the
structures, (20% permitted). The total lot coverage proposed, including structures and
flatwork is 12,296 square feet or 12.9% of the net lot area, (35% permitted). 29,440 square
feet of the net lot, or 30.94% is disturbed. No additional disturbance is proposed. (40%
max. permitted).
9. There are 3 building pads on the property. The Zoning Code sets a guideline for
each building pad coverage at 30%. The residential pad is 4,480 square feet, outside of
setbacks, and will have coverage of 119.5% (due to the fact that over 40% of the house
plus the covered porch would be located in the front setback; area of which is not
included in the building pad area calculations). The stable pad is 3,360 square feet and
has coverage of 19.6%, and the recreation room pad is 3,600 square feet with 31.0%
coverage, with allowed deduction.
Z.C. No. 911
3 Poppy Trail
10. The residential "as built" addition and attached porches will not impact drainage
on the lot. No change to the drainage pattern is proposed.
11. All of the development standards are being met except for the requirement that no
development occurs in a setback. The 455 square foot attached porch encroaches in its
entirety into the front yard setback.
12. In response to justification for the Variance request the applicant notes that the
entire front of the house is in the front setback and they are requesting to further encroach
by 6'. Due to the topography of the lot there is no space to construct covered porches in
the rear of the house. The proposed porches will not result in any additional disturbance.
CONCLUSION
13. This proposal would legalize a 140 square foot as -built addition. Section 17.24.020
of the Municipal Code requires that illegal uses or structures be legalized in conjunction
with any discretionary review application. Therefore, approval by the Planning
Commission, the Rolling Hills Community Association, and a building permit is required
as part of the consideration for the proposed attached porches and for the "as built"
residential addition.
Pursuant to the current zoning ordinance, only one accessory structure greater than 200
square feet and used for recreation, guest house, hobby shop or storage room is
permitted. The 800 square foot recreation room approved in 2009 pre -dates the current
requirement, which went into effect in 2011 (Ordinance No. 324).
14. When reviewing a development application the Planning Commission should
consider whether 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. In addition, the
Commission must determine if the project meets the Variance criteria enclosed with this
report.
15. In reviewing this application, the Commission should consider the topography of
the property, the previously graded pads, the configuration of the exiting development
and the general size of the lot.
16. The project has been determined to be categorically exempt pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
17. The Rolling Hills Community Association Architectural Committee will review the
project for architectural elements and design at a later date.
Z.C. No. 911
3 Poppy Trail
ZONING CASE NO. 911
SITE PLAN REVIEW/VARIANCE
EXISTING
PROPOSED
RA -S-2 ZONE SETBACKS
SF Residence & accessory
structures
Legalize addition and add
covered porches to residence
Front 50 ft. from road easement
line
Side: 35 ft. from property line
Rear: 50 ft. from property line
STRUCTURES
Residence
Garage
Pool/spa
Pool equip
Cabana
Stable
Att.porch
Service yd
Rec Room
3458 sq.ft
462 sq.ft.
720 sq.ft
48 sq.ft.
270 sq.ft
660 sq.ft
396 sq.ft.
96 sq.ft.
800 sq. ft
Residence
Garage
Pool/spa
Pool equip
Cabana
Stable
Att. porch
Service yd
Rec Room
3598 sq.ft
462 sq.ft
720 sq.ft.
48 sq.ft
270 sq.ft.
660 sq.ft.
961 sq.ft
96 sq.ft.
800 sq. ft.
- Site Plan Review required on
properties with a Restricted
Development Condition.
- Variance for structures in
setbacks.
TOTAL
6,910 sq.ft.
TOTAL
7,615 sq.ft
STRUCTURAL LOT COVERAGE
7.3%
8.0% of 95,160 sq.ft. net lot
area
(20% maximum)
TOTAL LOT COVERAGE
12.2%
12.92% of 95,160 sq.ft. net lot
area
(35% maximum)
BUILDING PAD COVERAGE
Residence= 112.8% of
4,480 sq.ft. pad
Stable=19.6% of 3,360
sq.ft. pad
Rec room=31% of 3,600
sq.ft pad
Residence=119.5% of 4,480
sq.ft. pad
Stable=19.6% of 3,360 sq.ft.
pad
Rec room=31% of 3,600 sq.ft
pad
RESIDENTIAL
(30% maximum guideline)
GRADING
N/A
NONE
Site plan review required if
grading is triggered
DISTURBED AREA
29,440 sq.ft. - 30.9% of lot
29,440 sq.ft. - 30.9% of lot -
was previously disturbed
(40% maximum; any graded
building pad area, any remedial
grading (temporary disturbance),
any graded slopes and building
pad areas, and any nongraded
area where impervious surfaces
exist.)
STABLE (minimum 450 sq. ft) and
660 sq.ft
1,050 sq.ft.
660 sq. ft.
1,050 sq.ft.
CORRAL (minimum 550 sq. ft.)
STABLE ACCESS
From Poppy Trail
ACCESSWAY
Existing from Poppy
Trail
Existing from Poppy Trail
VIEWS
N/A
Planning Commission review
PLANTS AND ANIMALS
N/A
Planning Commission review
Z.C. No. 911
3 Poppy Trail
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.
CRITERIA FOR VARIANCES
17.38.050 Required findings. In granting a variance, the Commission (and Council on appeal) must make
the following findings:
A. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the
property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same vicinity and zone;
B. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial
property rights possessed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone but which is
denied the property in question;
C. That the granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public
welfare or injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity;
D. That in granting the variance, the spirit and intent of this,title will be observed;
E. That the variance does not grant special privilege to the applicant;
Z.C. No. 911
3 Poppy Trail
F. That the variance is consistent with the portions of the County of Los Angeles Hazardous
Waste Management Plan relating to siting and siting criteria for hazardous waste
facilities; and
G. That the variance request is consistent with the general plan of the City of Rolling Hills.
a
Z.C. No. 911
3 Poppy Trail