Loading...
Planning Commission Meeting 02-16-2016MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS FEBRUARY 16, 2016 CALL MEETING TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Rolling Hills was called to order by Chairman Chelf at 6:32 p.m. on Tuesday, February 16, 2016 in the City Council Chamber, at City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Commissioners Absent: Others Present: Cardenas, Gray, Kirkpatrick, Smith and Chairman Chelf. None. Yolanta Schwartz, Planning Director. Natalie Karpeles, Assistant City Attorney. Heidi Luce, City Clerk. Wendy Starks, Associate Planner. Dave Dennee, 1 Lower Blackwater Canyon Road. Ben Cauthen, Cauthen Design Group. Tavisha Nicholson, Bolton Engineering. Tony Inferrera, Architect. Geoff Sumich, Designer. Andy and Sarah Elkin, 2 Hillside Lane. Scott Martin, Landscape Architect, The (W)orkshop. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA Approved as presented. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON MINUTES AND ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA None. APPROVAL OF MINUTES January 19, 2016, Adjourned Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission Commissioner Smith moved that the Planning Commission approve the minutes of the adjourned regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on January 19, 2016. Vice Chairman Gray seconded the motion, which carried without objection. January 19, 2016, Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission Commissioner Smith noted a typographical error in the minutes. Vice Chairman Gray moved that the Planning Commission approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on January 19, 2016 as corrected. Commissioner Smith seconded the motion, which carried without objection. RESOLUTIONS RESOLUTION NO. 2016-03. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A REQUEST TO REMOVE RESTRICTIVE DEVELOPMENT CONDITION FROM RESOLUTION NO. 2010-03 IN ZONING CASE NO 776 AT 1 LOWER BLACKWATER CANYON ROAD, (LOT 46-RH) (DENNEE). Minutes Planning Commission Regular Meeting 02-16-16 47 Commissioner Cardenas recused himself from consideration of this item due to the proximity of his property to the subject property and left the dais. Chairman Chelf introduced the item and asked for staff's comments. Planning Director Schwartz reviewed the applicant's request to remove the restrictive development condition from Resolution 2010-03 in Zoning Case No. 776 at I Lower Blackwater Canyon Road. She stated that at its last meeting the Planning Commission directed staff to prepare a resolution granting approval of the applicant's request and the Resolution is presented for consideration. Chairman Chelf called for public comment. Hearing none, he asked for comments from the Planning Commission. Vice Chairman Gray moved that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2016-03 granting approval of the applicant's request to remove the restrictive development condition from Resolution No. 2010-03 in Zoning Case No. 776 at 1 Lower Blackwater Canyon Road. Commissioner Kirkpatrick seconded the motion, which carried without objection. Commissioner Cardenas returned to the dais. RESOLUTION NO. 2016-04. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL FOR A SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A DETACHED GARAGE, GRADING AND RETAINING WALLS; A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A DETACHED GARAGE; AND VARIANCES TO CONSTRUCT AN ADDITION TO THE RESIDENCE IN THE FRONT SETBACK, A ONE -CAR PARKING PAD LESS THAN 30 FEET FROM THE ROADWAY EASEMENT LINE, FOR GARAGE AND WALL ENCROACHMENT INTO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK, FOR OUT OF GRADE CONDITION OF THE GARAGE, WALLS THAT DO NOT AVERAGE OUT TO 2.5 - FEET, TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED STRUCTURAL AND TOTAL COVERAGE AND THE DISTURBED AREA OF THE LOT, IN ZONING CASE NO. 892, AT 3 EASTFIELD DRIVE, (LOT 58-EF), (BENNETT). PROJECT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA). Chairman Chelf introduced the item and asked for staffs comments. Planning Director Schwartz reviewed the applicant's request in Zoning Case No. 892 at 3 Eastfield Drive. She stated that during the site visit prior to the last meeting, it was noticed that there was an existing out of grade condition near the corner of the garage that will remain with the new garage which was not shown on the original plan nor was it advertised as requiring a variance. She further stated that at its last meeting following discussion regarding the out of grade condition, the Planning Commission directed staff to prepare a resolution granting approval of the applicant's request as revised to address the Planning Commission's concerns regarding the out of grade condition of the garage. She reviewed the revised plan, which shows only 5 ft. of exposed wall and included the required 4 ft. walkway around the structure. She stated that the Resolution of Approval is presented for consideration. Chairman Chelf called for public comment. Ben Cauthen, Cauthen Design Group addressed the Planning Commission to express concem on behalf of the applicant regarding the fuel modification condition. Hearing no further public comment, Chairman Chelf asked for comments from the Planning Commission. Commissioner Smith expressed concern regarding the project stating that while she understands the constraints on the lot, she still feels the lot is overdeveloped and the location for the future stable and corral is not feasible. Following brief discussion, Vice Chairman Gray moved that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2016-04 granting approval of the applicant's request in Zoning Case No. 892 at 3 Eastfield Drive. Commissioner Cardenas seconded the motion, which carried with Commissioner Smith abstaining. ZONING CASE NO. 896-A. THE APPLICANT REQUESTED CONTINUANCE OF THIS CASE TO THE MARCH 15, 2016 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Request for a Lot Line Adjustment of two lots at 11 Saddleback Road (Lots 48-RH 1 and 48-RH-2), (Warren). Minutes Planning Commission Regular Meeting 02-16-16 ZONING CASE NO. 896. THE APPLICANT REQUESTED CONTINUANCE OF THIS CASE TO THE MARCH 15, 2016 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. Request for a Conditional Use Permit, Site Plan Review and Variances at 11 Saddleback Road (Lots 48-RH I and 48-RH-2), (Warren). At the request of the applicant, consideration of this item was continued to the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission scheduled to be held on Tuesday, March 15, 2016 beginning at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chamber at Rolling Hills City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California. RESOLUTION NO. 2016-02. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL OF A SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A SUBSTANTIAL ADDITION, GRADING, SWIMMING POOL, PORCH, AND WALLS AND VARIANCES FOR ENCROACHMENT WITH PORTIONS OF THE ADDITIONS, WALLS AND A LIGHTWELL INTO SETBACKS, TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED DISTURBED AREA OF THE LOT AND TO EXCEED 2.5' AVERAGE HEIGHT OF WALLS IN ZONING CASE NO. 888 AT 17 MIDDLERIDGE LANE NORTH, (LOT 5 -MR), EN THE OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICT-OZD-1, (POST). PROJECT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA). Chairman Chelf introduced the item and asked for staffs comments. Planning Director Schwartz reviewed the applicant's request in Zoning Case No. 888 at 17 Middleridge Lane North. She stated that at its October meeting after visiting the site and discussing the project the Planning Commission asked the applicant to revise the project to move one of the additions out of the setback as much as possible to meet the line of the existing encroachment so that the wall is not in the easement and to address the issue at the rear of the property where there were proposed three step down walls to the lower pad for the pool. She further stated that at its last meeting the Planning Commission directed staff to prepare a resolution granting approval of the applicant's request subject to the modifications to address the Planning Commission's concerns. She further reviewed the applicant's revised request and stated that the Resolution of Approval based on the revised application is presented for consideration. Chairman Chelf called for public comment. Tavisha Nicholson, Bolton Engineering addresscd the Planning Commission offering to answer any questions the Planning Commission may have. Hearing no further public comment, Chairman Chelf asked for comments from the Planning Commission. Commissioner Kirkpatrick and Commissioner Cardenas commented that they are appreciative to the applicant for making the suggested revisions and they are okay with the current proposal. Commissioner Cardenas further commented that he feels the project is consistent with the other development on the street. Vice Chairman Gray stated for the record that he listened to the audio recording from the previous meeting and visited the site again. He stated that he is not comfortable with the further encroachment into the front yard setback and he feels there is too much on the building site. Discussion ensued concerning the front yard encroachment and the constraints on that particular street. Planning Director Schwartz provided again the aerial photograph showing the encroachment of the other properties on the street. Vice Chairman Gray expressed further concern regarding the number of variances requested. Commissioner Smith stated that she is concerned about the lot coverage, disturbance and the development over the canyon. She further stated that she does not feel the project is harmonious in scale with the site. Following discussion, Commissioner Kirkpatrick moved that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2016-02 granting approval of the applicant's request in Zoning Case No. 888 at 17 Middleridge Lane North. Commissioner Cardenas seconded the motion, which carried with Commissioner Smith and Vice Chairman Gray opposed. Minutes Planning Commission Regular Meeting 02-16-16 PUBLIC HEARINGS ON ITEMS CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS MEETING ZONING CASE NO. 895. THE APPLICANT REQUESTED CONTINUANCE OF THIS CASE TO THE MARCH 15, 2016 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. Request for a Site Plan Review to construct a new residence and Variances in Zoning Case No. 895, at 10 Bowie Road, (Lot 4-CRA), Rolling Hills, CA (Pang Jui Yiu). At the request of the applicant, consideration of this item was continued to an adjourned regular meeting of the Planning Commission scheduled to be held on Tuesday, March 15, 2016 beginning at approximately 8:00 a.m. for the purpose of conducting a site visit to 10 Bowie Road. ZONING CASE NO. 893. Request for a Conditional Usc Permit (CUP), Site Plan Review and Variances for a new 475 square foot cabana, grading, above grade deck, walls, swimming pool and related structures and for encroachment with a portion of the deck, walls, pool equipment area and fire place into the rear yard setback; to retain two existing sheds, trellis and barbcque in the rear yard setback; to exceed the maximum permitted disturbance of the lot; to exceed the maximum permitted total coverage of the lot and to set aside an area for a future stable and corral in the front yard area of the lot in Zoning Case No. 893, at 66 Eastfield Drive, (Lot 107-EF), Rolling Hills, CA, (Thomas). The project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303, Class 3 exemption Guidelines. Chairman Chelf introduced the item and asked for staffs comments. Planning Director Schwartz reviewed the applicant's request as revised since the last meeting to address the Planning Commission's concerns. She stated that the applicant is also requesting to retain two existing sheds, which are located in the easement as well as a trellis and barbcque in the rear yard setback. Chairman Chelf called for public comment. Tavisha Nicholson, Bolton Engineering addressed the Planning Commission to further explain the applicant's request. Hearing no further public comment, Chairman Chelf asked for comments from the Planning Commission. Commissioner Cardenas commented that he is not comfortable approving anything in an easement but given that the neighbors have not raised any issues, he would be inclined to approve it. He further stated that otherwise, he is satisfied with changes that the applicant made and feels as though the concerns raised have been addressed. Commissioner Smith commented that she appreciates the modifications that the applicant made and she feels that this is a very difficult lot. Commissioner Kirkpatrick commented that he too appreciates the modifications that the applicant made and feels that the concerns have been mitigated. Vice Chairman Gray commented that he is concerned with the project because of the number of variances being requested. He stated that he feels the concerns regarding the cabana have been addressed but he objects to the sheds in the easement. Discussion ensued concerning the sheds. Chairman Chelf commented that it was his understanding that the Rolling Hills Community Association approved the location of the sheds with a stipulation that the sheds be removed if the applicant were to move from this property. Further discussion ensued concerning the sheds. Following discussion, Commissioner Smith moved that the Planning Commission direct staff to prepare a Resolution granting approval of the applicant's request in Zoning Case No. 893 at 66 Eastfield Drive with the standard findings of fact and conditions of approval. Commissioner Kirkpatrick seconded the motion, which carried without objection. The Planning Commission directed staff to confirm the Rolling Hills Community Association's action with regard to the sheds. Minutes Planning Commission Regular Meeting 02-16-16 ZONING CASE NO. 898. Request for a Site Plan Review to construct an 1,835 square foot addition and a raised deck, and Variances to encroach with 150 square feet of the addition 10 feet into the front yard setback, to retain a shed and service yard in side setback, for a wall that does not average out to 2.5' in height and to exceed the maximum permitted disturbed area of the lot at 46 Eastfield, (Lot 97-EF), Rolling Hills, CA (Miller). The project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301, Class 1 exemption Guidelines. Chairman Chelf introduced the item and asked for staffs comments. Planning Director Schwartz reviewed the applicant's request for an 1,835 sq. ft addition at 46 Eastfield Drive and stated that the Planning Commission visited the site earlier in they day. She stated that the applicant originally submitted plans to include a raised deck and has since removed that part of the request. She further stated that the encroachment of the addition has been recalculated and it is approximately 80 sq. ft. She further reviewed the applicant's request and the conditions observed in the field. She stated that there will be no grading since the raised deck has been eliminated but the applicant will submit revised numbers. She further stated that the lot coverages on this project are all within the requirements, but the building pad coverage is proposed at 54.8%. She commented that at the field trip, concern was expressed about the height of the structure. Anthony Inferrera, Architect addressed the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicant to address the ridge height issue as well as the other issues raised. Vice Chairman Gray commented that he does not feel the addition is in keeping with the rest of the house. Commissioner Kirkpatrick commented that he is concerned about the massing but he feels that the architectural features are outside the Planning Commission's purview. Commissioner Smith commented that it struck her as a lot of mass and she is concerned that it does not meet the intent of the General Plan to keep things open and rural. Commissioner Cardenas commented that he is concerned about the excessive building pad coverage. Following discussion the applicant was asked to submit a revised plan to address the Planning Commission's concerns regarding the massing, the height and the ridgeline; as well as the other issues raised in the field. ZONING CASE NO. 894. Request for a Site Plan Review to construct a new 6,631 square foot single family residence, 1,308 square foot garage, 1,781 square feet covered porches, 950 square foot swimming pool/spa, covered koi pond, various heights, but not to exceed 5' high retaining walls and other miscellaneous accessory structures; grading for the new development and modification to a previously approved corral area; and request for a Variance to encroach with 325 square feet of the new residence and covered patios into the side yard setback at 77 Crest Road East, (Lot 69 -Al -MS), Rolling Hills, CA, (Jankovich). The project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303, Class 3 exemption Guidelines. Chairman Chelf introduced the item and asked for staffs comments. Planning Director Schwartz reviewed the applicant's request and stated that the Planning Commission visited the site earlier today. She stated that the project consists of a new 6,631 sq. ft. residence with two garages, a swimming pool, and covered koi pond. She reviewed the configuration of the lot and setbacks stating that the applicant is requesting a variance to encroach into the side yard setback with 325 sq. ft. of the residence and a portion of the covered patio. She noted that the existing home also encroaches into the side yard setback. She further stated that the Planning Commission previously approved a stable in the front yard arca and as part of this application, the applicant proposes to move a portion of the wall that was part of that project further to the East to provide more room around the stable. She stated that during the field trip, the neighbor's architect requested that the pool equipment be moved and the engineer for this project has submitted a revised plan to show the pool equipment being removed from the southern side and moved to the eastern side to address the neighbor's concerns. She further reviewed the drainage plan, which includes a biofiltration unit to collect and dissipate the water from the site based on the stormwater management requirements. She further reviewed the coverages and proposed grading as well as the proposed driveway and turnaround. Chairman Chelf called for public comment. Minutes Planning Commission Regular Meeting 02-16-16 Tavisha Nicholson, Bolton Engineering addressed the Planning Commission to further explain the revisions that were made. Geoff Sumich addressed the Planning Commission offering to answer any questions Hearing no further public comment, Chairman Chelf asked for comments from the Planning Commission. Following brief discussion, Commissioner Cardenas moved that the Planning Commission direct staff to prepare a Resolution granting approval of the applicant's request in Zoning Case No. 894 at 77 Crest Road East with the standard findings of fact and conditions of approval. Commissioner Kirkpatrick seconded the motion, which carried without objection. NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS ZONING CASE NO. 897. Request for a Sitc Plan Review for grading, retaining walls over 3 feet in height, swimming pool and miscellaneous structures; Conditional Use Permit for a pool house, and Variances to locate the pool and pool house in the front yard of the lot, and to exceed maximum disturbance of the lot in Zoning Case No. 897 at 2 Hillside Lane, (Lot 60-RH), Rolling Hills, CA (Elkin). The project has been determined to be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Section 15303. Chairman Chelf introduced the item and asked for staff's comments. Planning Director Schwartz reviewed the applicant's request in Zoning Case No. 897 at 2 Hillside Lane. She reviewed the configuration of the lot and stated that the applicant proposes an 800 sq. ft. addition to the rear of the residence; a 470 sq. ft. cabana; a 680 sq. ft. swimming pool and 72 sq. ft. spa with a trellis and decking and walls that flank thc pool area. She stated that a variance is also being requested to locate the pool and other structures in thc front yard area. She stated that there currently exists on the property a two- story stable where the second story is being used as livable area, which will have to be converted back to a stable per the requirements of the Stable Ordinance. She further reviewed the proposed grading, disturbance and structural coverage. She stated that an adjacent property owner has expressed concern regarding the widening of the driveway and staff will be working with the applicant's representative to confirm the location of the property line. Chairman Chelf called for public comment. Andy Elkin, 2 Hillside Lane (property owner) addressed the Planning Commission to introduce himself and his wife Sarah and further explain their request. Scott Martin, Landscape Architect, The (W)orkshop addressed the Planning Commission to further explain the applicant's request. Following staff's presentation and public testimony, the members of the Planning Commission determined that a site visit should be scheduled to provide the members of the Planning Commission with further understanding of the applicant's request in Zoning Case No. 897 at 2 Hillside Lane. The public hearing was continued. SCHEDULE OF FIELD TRIPS The Planning Commission scheduled a field trip to the following properties to be conducted on Tuesday, March 15, 2016 beginning at 7:30 a.m. 2 Hillside Lane 10 Bowie Road ITEMS FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION None. Minutes Planning Commission Regular Meeting 02-16-16 ITEMS FROM STAFF Planning Director Schwartz reviewed the status of the View Ordinance amendment, Measure B Interpretation, and the appeal of the CTV resolution, which are currently before the City Council. ADJOURNMENT Hearing no further business before the Commission, Chairman Chelf adjourned the meeting at 8:36 p.m. to an adjourned regular meeting of the Planning Commission scheduled to be held on Tuesday, March 15, 2016 beginning at 7:30 a.m. for the purpose of conducting field trips to 2 Hillside Lane and 10 Bowie Road. The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission is scheduled to be held on Tuesday, March 15, 2016 beginning at 6:30 p.m. in the City Council Chamber, Rolling Hills City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California. Respectfully submitted, Heidi Luce City Clerk Minutes Planning Commission Regular Meeting 02-16-16 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL AND POSTING STATE OF CALIFORNIA ss COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES I am a citizen of the United States. I 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 13' day of February, 2016,1 serve the within Planning Commission Meeting Agenda Regular Meeting - 02/16/2016 a copy of which is annexed hereto and made a part hereof, on the person, or persons, named below by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid, in the United States mail at Rolling Hills, California addressed as follows: Emailed MAILED DROPBOX DELIVERED Assistant City Manager RH ListSery NONE City Attorney Planning Commission Also posted at City Hall and at www.Rolling-Hills.org I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on the 13' day of February 2016 at Rolling Hills, California. EWA NIKODEM ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT O Rdlle4 Beek INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 • AGENDA NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX (310) 377-7288 REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF ROLLING HILLS 6:30 PM TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 2016 ROLLING HILLS CITY HALL 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD, ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON MINUTES AND ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. January 19, 2016, Adjourned Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission B. January 19, 2016, Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission 6. RESOLUTIONS A. RESOLUTION NO. 2016-03. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A REQUEST TO REMOVE RESTRICTIVE DEVELOPMENT CONDITION FROM RESOLUTION NO. 2010-03 IN ZONING CASE NO 776 AT 1 LOWER BLACKWATER CANYON ROAD, (LOT 46-RH) (DENNEE). B. RESOLUTION NO. 2016-04. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL FOR A SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A DETACHED GARAGE, GRADING AND RETAINING WALLS; A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A DETACHED GARAGE; AND VARIANCES TO CONSTRUCT AN ADDITION TO THE RESIDENCE IN THE FRONT SETBACK, A ONE - CAR PARKING PAD LESS THAN 30 FEET FROM THE ROADWAY EASEMENT LINE, FOR -1- GARAGE AND WALL ENCROACHMENT INTO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK, FOR OUT OF GRADE CONDITION OF THE GARAGE, WALLS THAT DO NOT AVERAGE OUT TO 2.5 -FEET, TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED STRUCTURAL AND TOTAL COVERAGE AND THE DISTURBED AREA OF THE LOT, IN ZONING CASE NO. 892, AT 3 EASTFIELD DRIVE, (LOT 58-EF), (BENNETT). PROJECT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA). C. (1) ZONING CASE NO. 896-A. THE APPLICANT REQUESTED CONTINUANCE OF THIS CASE TO THE MARCH 15, 2016 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Request for a Lot Line Adjustment of two lots at 11 Saddleback Road (Lots 48-RH 1 and 48-RH-2), (Warren). C. (2). ZONING CASE NO. 896. THE APPLICANT REQUESTED CONTINUANCE OF THIS CASE TO THE MARCH 15, 2016 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. Request for a Conditional Use Permit, Site Plan Review and Variances at 11 Saddleback Road (Lots 48-RH 1 and 48-RH-2), (Warren). D. RESOLUTION NO. 2016-02. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL OF A SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A SUBSTANTIAL ADDITION, GRADING, SWIMMING POOL, PORCH, AND WALLS AND VARIANCES FOR ENCROACHMENT WITH PORTIONS OF THE ADDITIONS, WALLS AND A LIGHTWELL INTO SETBACKS, TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED DISTURBED AREA OF THE LOT AND TO EXCEED 2.5' AVERAGE HEIGHT OF WALLS IN ZONING CASE NO. 888 AT 17 MIDDLERIDGE LANE NORTH, (LOT 5 - MR), IN THE OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICT-OZD-1, (POST). PROJECT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA). 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS ON ITEMS CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS MEETING A. ZONING CASE NO. 895. THE APPLICANT REQUESTED CONTINUANCE OF THIS CASE TO THE MARCH 15, 2016 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. Request for a Site Plan Review to construct a new residence and Variances in Zoning Case No. 895, at 10 Bowie Road, (Lot 4-CRA), Rolling Hills, CA (Pang Jui Yiu). B. ZONING CASE NO. 893. Request for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP), Site Plan Review and Variances for a new 475 square foot cabana, grading, above grade deck, walls, • swimming pool and related structures and for encroachment with a portion of the deck, walls, pool equipment area and fire place into the rear yard setback; to retain two existing sheds, trellis and barbeque in the rear yard setback; to exceed the maximum permitted disturbance of the lot; to exceed the maximum permitted total coverage of the lot and to set aside an area for a future stable and corral in the front yard area of the lot in Zoning Case No. 893, at 66 Eastfield Drive, (Lot 107-EF), Rolling Hills, CA, (Thomas). The project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303, Class 3 exemption Guidelines. -2- C. ZONING CASE NO. 898. Request for a Site Plan Review to construct an 1,835 square foot addition and a raised deck, and Variances to encroach with 150 square feet of the addition 10 feet into the front yard setback, to retain a shed and service yard in side setback, for wall that does not average out to 2.5' in height and to exceed the maximum permitted disturbed area of the lot at 46 Eastfield, (Lot 97-EF), Rolling Hills, CA (Miller). The project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301, Class 1 exemption Guidelines. D. ZONING CASE NO. 894. Request for a Site Plan Review to construct a new 6,631 square foot single family residence, 1,308 square foot garage, 1,781 square feet covered porches, 950 square foot swimming pool/spa, covered koi pond, various heights, but not to exceed 5' high retaining walls and other miscellaneous accessory structures; grading for the new development and modification to a previously approved corral area; and request for a Variance to encroach with 325 square feet of the new residence and covered patios into the side yard setback at 77 Crest Road East, (Lot 69 -A1 -MS), Rolling Hills, CA, (Jankovich). The project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303, Class 3 exemption Guidelines. 8. NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS A. ZONING CASE NO. 897. Request for a Site Plan Review for grading, retaining walls over 3 feet in height, swimming pool and miscellaneous structures; Conditional Use Permit for a pool house, and Variances to locate the pool and pool house in the front yard of the lot, and to exceed maximum disturbance of the lot in Zoning Case No. 897 at 2 Hillside Lane, (Lot 60-RH), Rolling Hills, CA (Elkin). The project has been determined to be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Section 15303. 9. SCHEDULE OF FIELD TRIPS (March 15, 2016) 2 Hillside Lane 10 Bowie Road 10. ITEMS FROM STAFF 11. ITEMS FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION 12. ADJOURNMENT In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting due to your disability, please contact the City Clerk at (310) 377-1521 at least 48 hours prior to the meeting to enable the Cihj to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility and accommodation for your review of this agenda and attendance at this meeting. 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. -3- Agenda Item No: 5A Mtg. Date: 02-16-16 MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 19, 2016 PRESENT: Chairman Chelf, Commissioners Smith, Kirkpatrick, Gray and Cardenas Raymond Cruz, City Manager Yolanta Schwartz, Planning Director Wendy Starks, Associate Planner FIELD TRIP Chairman Chelf called the meeting to order at 7:30 a.m. at 3 Eastfield Drive. A. ZONING CASE NO. 892. Request for a Site Plan Review for a detached garage, grading, and a 5' high retaining wall; Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to construct a 704 square foot detached garage; and Variances to construct a 61 sq. ft. addition to the residence in the front setback, a new one -car parking pad to be located closer than 30 feet from the roadway easement line, to locate the garage partially within the front yard setback, to exceed the maximum permitted structural and total coverage of the lot and the disturbed area of the lot, and to locate a 5' high retaining wall in the front setback in Zoning Case No. 892, at 3 Eastfield Drive (Lot 58-EF), Rolling Hills, CA (Bennett). The project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301, Class 1 exemption Guidelines. Also present for this field trip were: Ben Cauthen, project designer Luigi Ciappa, representative Jim Aichele, resident Planning Director Schwartz reviewed the applicant's request and pointed out the proposed 704 square foot detached garage and its new configuration (with direct access from the driveway), the new one -car parking pad proposed to be located closer than 30 feet to the roadway easement line, the 61 square foot addition to the residence, and advised that the permitted structural and total coverage of the lot and disturbed area of the lot will be exceeded due in large part to the existing tennis court at the rear of the property. Director Schwartz also pointed out the existing 3' retaining wall that will be demolished, the area behind it graded out and a 5' high retaining wall constructed in the front setback, before all present proceeded to the rear of the residence to view the addition at the rear of the lot, and the proposed garage. Director Schwartz illustrated where the proposed stable set -aside area is adjacent to the existing tennis court. Discussion ensued about the existing out of grade condition at the northeastern side of the garage. The project designer stated that the proposed garage will be constructed within the footprint of the existing garage and therefore this condition will remain. Director Schwartz stated that elevation plan for this condition must be submitted and if the out of grade height does not meet the code requirement a variance would be required. Commissioner Gray suggested that the applicant soften the appearance of the exposed side of the garage and construct terraced walls with planting in between. The Commission then discussed the terraced walls and how best to blend them with the surrounding area and provide a minimum of 4' wide walking path around the structure. B. ZONING CASE NO. 895. Request for a Site Plan Review to construct a new 6,269 square foot single family residence with a 6,000 square foot basement, 848 square foot garage and ancillary structures, swimming pool, several not to exceed 5' in height retaining walls, grading of 8,248 cubic yards of cut and fill, and a new driveway; and Variances for: 1) portion of the house, service yard and two light wells to encroach into the rear setback; 2) a future stable and corral location in the front yard; 3) to exceed the maximum permitted total lot coverage and the disturbed area of the lot; 4) construction of retaining walls that encroach into the front and rear setbacks and that exceed an average height of 2.5 feet and 5) to exceed the maximum permitted coverage of the front setback with a driveway in Zoning Case No. 895, at 10 Bowie Road, (Lot 4-CRA), Rolling Hills, CA (Pang Jui Yiu). The project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303, Class 3 exemption Guidelines. Per the request of the project representatives the field trip was cancelled. C. (1). ZONING CASE NO. 896-A. Request for a Lot Line Adjustment to merge two existing parcels, having an APN: 7569-004-22 and 7569-004-23, into one parcel, which will result in a lot having 3.25 acres gross and 2.258 acres net, in the RAS-1 Zoning District, at 11 Saddleback Road, Rolling Hills, CA, (Warren). Project has been determined to be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15305(a) (Lot line adjustment). (2). ZONING CASE NO. 896. Request for a Conditional Use Permit to construct a 13,860 square foot dressage arena, 2,415 square foot stable with a 625 square foot loft and 1,685 square foot corral; Site Plan Review for a 4,745 square foot residence, 659 square foot garage and ancillary structures, grading of 9,300 cubic yards cut and fill, various walls, and swimming pool; and Variances to locate portions of the equestrian facilities in the front yard area of the lot and/or in setbacks and to exceed the maximum permitted lot disturbance at 11 Saddleback Road (Lots 48-RH 1 and 48-RH-2), (Warren). The project has been determined to be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303 (New construction of single family residence and accessory structures), and Section 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption) of the CEQA Guidelines. Also present for this field trip were: Tavisha Nicholson, engineer Matt Schneider, architect Gregg Keenan, contractor Carol Hoffman, resident Eddy Delgado, resident Jim Aichele, resident Planning Director Schwartz reviewed the request for a Lot Line Adjustment to merge two existing parcels into one parcel, resulting in a lot having 3.25 acres gross and 2.258 acres net, and gave an overview of the request for a Conditional Use Permit to construct a 13,860 square foot dressage arena, 2,415 square foot stable with a 625 square foot loft and 1,685 square foot corral; Site Plan Review for a 4,745 square foot residence, 659 square foot garage and ancillary structures, grading of 9,300 cubic yards cut and fill, various walls, and swimming pool; and Variances to locate portions of the equestrian facilities in the front yard area of the lot and/or in setbacks and to exceed the maximum permitted lot disturbance. The field trip commenced at the driveway portion of the lot where Planning Director Schwartz stated that the existing detached garage is proposed to be converted to a portion of the stable with additional square footage added for the stable and discussion about the driveway access to the proposed stable ensued as the code requires that access to the stable not be all impervious. Planning Director Schwartz showed the 3 - foot wide decomposed granite or grasscrete inlay on the driveway the applicant proposes to satisfy the code requirement. In response, Chairman Chelf requested that the surfaces leading to the stable be pervious and Tavisha Nicholson advised that if that were what the Commission requires, the applicant would comply. Carol Hoffman commented that access to the dressage arena should be provided for very occasional heavy truck delivery of sand and other materials to maintain the arena. The engineer pointed out the secondary roadway access to the west of the primary driveway access that will serve to accommodate this function. In response to Director Schwartz's comment that a second driveway could require a Conditional Use permit, Chairman Chelf suggested that the access to the arena be taken off of the primary driveway. Carol Hoffman also inquired about the proposed three-foot wall along the horse access trail from the stable to the dressage area, to be located between the trail and the pool area. Ms. Nicholson discussed how the wall goes upwards to the residential building pad and that there is adequate separation between the horse riders and the pool area. Everyone proceeded to the proposed stable/corral area where discussion about the proposed 2:1 grading and the cut and benching grading ensued. All present viewed the silhouette of the proposed stable and discussed the existing corrals, which will be demolished. Ms. Nicholson advised the group that the intention is to retain the garage and residence as much as possible and to complete a "major remodel." However, for the purpose of planning review the project is being considered new construction. The group then walked the proposed trail to the proposed residence, pool and deck area where Planning Director Schwartz pointed out the new house, two trellises areas - one by the residence and the other overlooking the dressage arena, the pool and decking. A question was asked about how much grass area would remain and Ms. Nicholson advised there would be little grass area left after construction. Most surfaces would be a combination of decking/landscape. The group proceeded to the proposed dressage arena and Gregg Keenan indicated where the existing So Cal Edison easement is and Planning Director Schwartz advised that a condition of approval will be for So Cal Edison to sign off on that easement or provide writ -ten permission for the easement to remain with the dressage arena located over the easement. Discussion ensued regarding grading and limits of grading and whether the dressage arena could be moved further back on the lot so that it does not encroach into the front setback. Tavisha Nicholson indicated how that would be challenging, as the rear portion of the lot is very steep and would require more disturbance to accommodate a regulation size dressage arena, unless retaining walls are constructed. Chairman Chelf asked if the applicant would consider altering the proposed accessway of the dressage arena from the existing driveway via a gate and Ms. Nicholson agreed to explore the access further. There being no further discussion, the public hearing was continued to the evening meeting of the Planning Commission beginning at 6:30 PM. Respectfully Submitted, Yolanta Schwartz Date Planning Director Approved: Brad Chelf, Chairman Date DRAFT Agenda Item No. 5-B Meeting Date: 02-16-16 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS JANUARY 19, 2016 CALL MEETING TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Rolling Hills was called to order by Chairman Chelf at 6:35 p.m. on Tuesday, January 19, 2016 in the City Council Chamber, at City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Commissioners Absent: Others Present: Cardenas, Gray, Kirkpatrick, Smith and Chairman Chelf. None. Yolanta Schwartz, Planning Director. Raymond Cruz, City Manager. Natalie Karpeles, Assistant City Attorney. Heidi Luce, City Clerk. Dave Dennee, 1 Lower Blackwater Canyon Road. Ben Cauthen, Cauthen Design Group. Terry McDonald and Cecelia, 10 Bowie Road (tenants). Jack Ng, 10 Bowie Road (applicant's representative). Tavisha Nicholson, Bolton Engineering. Greg Keenan, Keenan Development. Tony Inferrera, Architect. Geoff Sumich, Designer. Cathy Nichols, 14 Crest Road West. Jim Aichele, 14 Crest Road West. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA Approved as presented. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON MINUTES AND ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA City Manager Cruz introduced the City's new Assistant City Attorney, Natalie Karpeles. Minutes Planning Commission Regular Meeting 01-19-16 0 DRAFT APPROVAL OF MINUTES December 15, 2015, Adjourned Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission Vice Chairman Gray moved that the Planning Commission approve the minutes of the adjourned regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on December 15, 2015. Commissioner Kirkpatrick seconded the motion, which carried without objection. December 15, 2015, Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission Commissioner Smith noted two typographical errors in the minutes. Commissioner Smith moved that the Planning Commission approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on December 15, 2015 as corrected. Vice Chairman Gray seconded the motion, which carried without objection. NEW BUSINESS Request to amend Resolution No. 2010-03 to remove a condition of "no further development without Planning Commission review" at 1 Lower Blackwater Canyon Road, (Dennee). Commissioner Cardenas recused himself from consideration of this item due to the proximity of his property to the subject property and left the dais. Chairman Chelf introduced the item and asked for staff's comments. Planning Director Schwartz reviewed the applicant's request to have the "no further development without Planning Commission review" condition removed from Resolution No. 2010-03 in a project previously approved with certain conditions at 1 Lower Blackwater Canyon Road. She reviewed the constraints on the property as well as the background regarding why the "no further development" condition was originally placed on the Resolution, stating that the previously approved project was not constructed and the entitlement has since expired. She stated that the applicant currently proposes to construct a 108 sq. ft. addition to the residence, which could be approved administratively if not for the "no further development" condition. Chairman Chelf called for public comment. Dave Dennee, 1 Lower Blackwater Canyon Road addressed the Planning Commission to further explain the request. He stated that he feels that if the entitlement expired then the "no further development" condition should have also expired. Following brief discussion, Vice Chairman Gray moved that the Planning Commission direct staff to prepare a REVISED Resolution to remove the "No further development without Planning Commission review" condition on Resolution No. 2010-03 at 1 Lower Blackwater Canyon Road. Commissioner Smith seconded the motion, which carried without objection. Commissioner Cardenas returned to the dais. RESOLUTIONS None. Minutes Planning Commission Regular Meeting 01-19-16 0 DRAFT PUBLIC HEARINGS ON ITEMS CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS MEETING ZONING CASE NO. 892. Request for a Site Plan Review for a detached garage, grading and a 5' high retaining wall; Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to construct a 704 square foot detached garage; and Variances to construct 61 sq. ft. addition to the residence in the front setback, a new one -car parking pad to be located closer than 30 feet from the roadway easement line, to locate the garage partially within the front yard setback, to exceed the maximum permitted structural and total coverage of the lot and the disturbed area of the lot, and to locate a 5' high retaining wall in the front setback in Zoning Case No. 892, at 3 Eastfield Drive (Lot 58-EF), Rolling Hills, CA (Bennett). The project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301, Class 1 exemption Guidelines. Chairman Chelf introduced the item and asked for staff's comments. Planning Director Schwartz briefly reviewed the applicant's request in Zoning Case No. 892 at 3 Eastfield Drive and stated that the Planning Commission visited the site earlier in the day. She reviewed the proposed lot coverage stating that the existing lot coverage exceeds the maximums and with the proposed improvements, the numbers will increase. She stated that during the site visit, it was discovered that a portion of the garage is currently constructed out of grade and with the improvements, will be exposed by more than 5 ft. which requires a variance and will need to be re -advertised and noticed. Chairman Chelf called for public comment. Ben Cauthen, Cauthen Design Group addressed the Planning Commission to further explain the applicant's request stating that he feels the out of grade condition of the garage can be addressed with a planter. Discussion ensued concerning the out -of -grade condition and ways to soften the appearance without impacting the existing Pine tree. Commissioner Cardenas commented that he feels the proposed project is an improvement but that the out -of -grade condition needs to be addressed. Commissioner Smith commented that she feels the property is crowded and overbuilt and does not meet the intent of the General Plan in that it does not feel "open and rural." Vice Chairman Gray commented that he feels the lot probably has too much development as it exists but since the improvements to the garage are being made in the existing footprint, it doesn't make it any more crowded. He stated that his only concern is the out of grade situation. Commissioner Kirkpatrick commented that he feels the proposed changes improve access to the property and minimizes the visual impact from the street. Chairman Chelf commented that he too feels the proposed changes improve access and safety as well as visual impact from the street. He commented that he would like to see the out of grade condition softened. Minutes Planning Commission Regular Meeting 01-19-16 DRAFT Following discussion, Vice Chairman Gray moved that the Planning Commission direct staff to prepare a Resolution granting approval of the applicant's request in Zoning Case No. 892 at 3 Eastfield Drive as amended to address the out of grade condition with the standard findings of fact and conditions of approval plus a condition that there be no further development without Planning Commission review. Commissioner Cardenas seconded the motion, which carried without objection. ZONING CASE NO. 895. Request for a Site Plan Review to construct a new 6,269 square foot single family residence with 6,000 square foot basement, 848 square foot garage and ancillary structures, swimming pool, several not to exceed 5' in height retaining walls, grading of 8,248 cubic yards of cut and fill, and a new driveway; and Variances for: 1) portion of the house, service yard and two light wells to encroach into the rear setback; 2) a future stable and corral location in the front yard; 3) to exceed the maximum permitted total lot coverage and the disturbed area of the lot; 4) construction of retaining walls that encroach into the front and rear setbacks and that exceed an average height of 2.5 feet and 5) to exceed the maximum permitted coverage of the front setback with a driveway in Zoning Case No. 895, at 10 Bowie Road, (Lot 4-CRA), Rolling Hills, CA (Pang Jui Yiu). The project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303, Class 3 exemption Guidelines. Planning Director Schwartz stated that the applicant has requested that consideration of this matter be continued. Recognizing that the item is on the published agenda, Chairman Chelf called for public comment. Terry McDonald and Cecelia, 10 Bowie Road (tenants) addressed the Planning Commission to request that the Planning Commission delay consideration of this case until their lease is up in May. In response to Mr. McDonald's request, Chairman Chelf commented that the Planning Commission has certain timelines that it must follow based on State law and as such, is not able to delay the proceedings. He further suggested that Mr. McDonald express their concerns to the property owner. Jack Ng addressed the Planning Commission on behalf of the property owner to apologize that the property was not staked for the previously scheduled field trip stating that they will work with the realtors that are handling the lease to ensure that any issues with the tenants are resolved prior to rescheduling the field trip. Consideration of this item was continued to an adjoumed regular meeting of the Planning Commission scheduled to be held on Tuesday, February 16, 2016 beginning at 7:30 a.m. for the purpose of conducting a site visit to 10 Bowie Road. ZONING CASE NO. 896-A. Request for a Lot Line Adjustment to merge two existing parcels, having an APN: 7569-004-22 and 7569-004-23, into one parcel, which will result in a lot having 3.25 acres gross and 2.258 acres net, as calculated by the City for development purposes in the RAS-1 Zoning District, at 11 Saddleback Road, Rolling Hills, CA, (Warren). Project has been determined to be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15305(a) (Lot line adjustment). Minutes Planning Commission Regular Meeting 01-19-16 0 DRAFT ZONING CASE NO. 896. Request for a Conditional Use Permit to construct a 13,860 square foot dressage arena, 2,415 square foot stable with a 625 square foot loft and 1,685 square foot corral; Site Plan Review for a 4,745 square foot residence, 659 square foot garage and 324 square foot wine cellar, 9,300 cubic yards of grading, various walls, pool patio and pool deck, and swimming pool; and Variances to locate the equestrian facilities in the front yard area of the lot and/or in setbacks and to exceed the maximum permitted lot disturbance at 11 Saddleback Road (Lots 48-RH 1 and 48-RH-2), (Warren). The project has been determined to be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303 (New construction of single family residence and accessory structures), and Section 15061(6)(3) (Common Sense Exemption) of the CEQA Guidelines. Chairman Chelf introduced the item and asked for staffs comments. Planning Director Schwartz briefly reviewed the applicant's request in Zoning Case No. 896 and 896-A at 11 Saddleback Road and stated that the Planning Commission visited the site earlier in the day. She stated that first request is for a Lot Line Adjustment to merge two lots and the second is for development of the merged lots. In response to Chairman Chelf, Planning Director Schwartz stated that although they are two separate requests, they should be considered together. Ms. Schwartz further reviewed the proposed Lot Line Adjustment and the development, which includes a new house, garage and pool as well as a stable and corral. She stated that the applicant is also requesting a variance to retain the existing access to the proposed stable. She stated that the proposed stable meets the Zoning Code requirements for stables. She further reviewed the proposed dressage arena stating that variances are requested for it to be partially located in the front setback as well as to exceed the maximum disturbance. She then reviewed the proposed grading and other miscellaneous amenities proposed. Chairman Chelf called for public comment. Tavisha Nicholson, Bolton Engineering addressed the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicant to further explain the applicant's request. She expressed the applicant's willingness to work with the Planning Commission to address the concem raised in the field regarding stable access. Brief discussion ensued concerning the access to the arena and stable. Commissioner Kirkpatrick commented that he is fine with the lot line adjustment and the proposed development; and his only concern would be the visual impact of the dressage arena from the road but he feels it is justifiable. Vice Chairman Gray commented that he is concemed about the topography that will result from merging the two lots and he does not feel that it meets the intent of the General Plan given that there are 2:1 slopes around almost two-thirds of the property. He expressed further concern regarding the water flow from the property and suggested that the access path between the stable and the dressage arena be constructed with DG to eliminate the additional slopes. Commissioner Smith commented that she is delighted to see a property designed for equestrian use, but she is also concerned about the slopes and the grading. She too expressed concern regarding the access path between the stable and the dressage arena. Minutes Planning Commission Regular Meeting 01-19-16 DRAFT Commissioner Cardenas commented that his biggest concern is the driveway to the stable and stated that he would prefer to see the entire surface be porous. He commented that he feels the grading will look very natural once it is complete. Chairman Chelf commented that he likes the project noting that the applicant loses an acre of the usable area because the street goes entirely around the property. He commented also that much of the grading is due to dressage arena and if not for the lot merger, that area could be developed with a house if it were left as two lots. Following discussion, two motions were made: Commissioner Smith moved that the Planning Commission direct staff to prepare a Resolution granting approval of the applicant's request in Zoning Case No. 896 at 11 Saddleback Road as amended to soften the access to the stable and provided that the applicant addresses the issues related to SCE easement and the Los Angeles County restriction with the standard findings of fact and conditions of approval. Commissioner Kirkpatrick seconded the motion, which carried with Vice Chairman Gray opposed. Commissioner Smith moved that the Planning Commission direct staff to prepare a Resolution recommending that the City Council approve the applicant's request for a Lot Line Adjustment to merge two existing parcels in Zoning Case No. 896-A at 11 Saddleback Road with the standard findings of fact and conditions of approval. Commissioner Cardenas seconded the motion, which carried without objection. ZONING CASE NO. 888. Request for a Site Plan Review for 1,055 square foot addition, grading, and retaining walls and request for Variances to encroach with 585 sq.ft. of the addition, with a light well and retaining walls into the required front and side yard setbacks; for higher than allowed average height retaining walls and to exceed the maximum permitted disturbance of the lot, on a property with a restricted development condition, in Zoning Case No. 888, at 17 Middleridge Lane North, (Lot 5 -MR), Rolling Hills, CA, (Post). The project is located in the RAS-1 Overlay Zone. The project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301, Class 1 exemption. Chairman Chelf introduced the item and disclosed for the record that he had a conversation with the applicant encouraging him to not encroach into the easements. He then asked for staff's comments. Planning Director Schwartz stated that since the agenda packet was delivered, an e-mail in support of the project was received and has been placed on the dais. She stated also that an amended site plan was received just before the meeting. She reviewed the original request as well as the Planning Commission's prior action in this case. She stated that the plan originally submitted for consideration tonight did not address all of the concerns that the Planning Commission raised the last time the matter was discussed; but after further consideration, the applicant submitted a revised plan just today that addresses the Planning Commission's concerns and shows that the wall originally proposed in the easement is no longer in the easement. She further reviewed the revised plan. Chairman Chelf called for public comment. Minutes Planning Commission Regular Meeting 01-19-16 DRAFT Tavisha Nicholson, Bolton Engineering addressed the Planning Commission to further explain the revisions. She stated the three walls previously proposed at the rear of the property were reduced to two walls and the walkway between was eliminated to address the Planning Commission's concern regarding massing and crowding. Regarding the addition, she explained that it was revised to be in line with the rest of the addition and the wall was moved out of the easement while still maintaining the 4 ft. walkway around the structure. Chairman Chelf expressed the Commission's appreciation to the applicant for addressing the Planning Commission's concerns and for moving the wall out of the easement. Commissioner Kirkpatrick commented that his primary concern was the wall in the easement and since that issue was addressed, he is okay with the rest of the project. Commissioner Cardenas commented that this was a difficult project where there was a lot of healthy debate but he respects the applicant for doing what was necessary to address the Commission's concerns. He stated that he is satisfied with the result. Commissioner Smith commented that she is still concerned about the steepness of the rear slope and the walls that are necessary to increase the pad to accommodate the pool. She stated that she still feels that the project does not maintain the natural topography. Vice Chairman Gray commented that he feels it was wise to move the wall out of the easement, but since he was not at the last meeting where this matter was discussed to hear the discussion and concerns, he will abstain from voting on this item. Commissioner Kirkpatrick moved that the Planning Commission direct staff to prepare a Resolution granting approval of the applicant's request as amended per the plan submitted at the meeting in Zoning Case No. 888 at 17 Middleridge Lane North with the standard findings of fact and conditions of approval. Commissioner Cardenas seconded the motion, which carried with Commissioner Smith opposed and Vice Chairman Gray abstaining. City Clerk Luce stated that she would provide the audio recording of the previous meeting so that Vice Chairman Gray can listen to the previous discussion. ZONING CASE NO. 893. THE APPLICANT REQUESTED CONTINUANCE OF THIS CASE TO THE FEBRUARY 16, 2016 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. (Request for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP), Site Plan Review and Variances at 66 Eastfield Drive, Thomas.) At the request of the applicant, consideration of this item was continued to the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission scheduled to be held on Tuesday, February 16, 2016 beginning at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chamber at City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California. NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS ZONING CASE NO. 898. Request for a Site Plan Review to construct an 1,835 square foot addition and a raised deck, and a Variance to encroach with 150 square feet of the addition 10 feet into the front yard setback, to retain a shed in side setback and to exceed the maximum Minutes Planning Commission Regular Meeting 01-19-16 DRAFT permitted disturbed area of the lot at 46 Eastfield Drive, (Lot 97-EF), Rolling Hills, CA (Miller). The project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301, Class 1 exemption Guidelines. Chairman Chelf introduced the item and asked for staffs comments. Planning Director Schwartz reviewed the applicant's request to construct at 11,835 sq. ft. addition, 150 sq. ft. of which encroaches into the front yard setback and raised deck in Zoning Case No. 898 at 46 Eastfield Drive. She reviewed the existing site plan and structures on the lot stating that there is currently a code enforcement matter on the property that will have to be addressed as well. She reviewed the development standards stating that the structural lot coverage is proposed at 11.9% and the total lot coverage is proposed at 21%. She reviewed building pad and stated that there is no grading required for the addition and slight grading only for the deck. She stated that building pad coverage is proposed at 54.8%. She reviewed the disturbance stating that is currently non -conforming at 40.3% and will increase to 42.2% with the grading required for the deck, which requires a Variance. She reviewed the set aside area and access for a future stable and corral. Brief discussion ensued concerning the size of the garage. Chairman Chelf called for public comment. Anthony Inferrera, Architect addressed the Planning Commission to further explain the applicant's request. Following staffs presentation and public testimony, the members of the Planning Commission determined that a site visit should be scheduled to provide the members of the Planning Commission with further understanding of the applicant's request in Zoning Case No. 898 at 46 Eastfield Drive. The public hearing was continued. ZONING CASE NO. 894. Request for a Site Plan Review to construct a new 6,631 square foot single family residence, 1,308 square foot garage, 1,781 square feet covered porches, 950 square foot swimming pool/spa, covered koi pond, various heights, but not to exceed 5' high retaining walls and other miscellaneous accessory structures; grading for the new development and modification to a previously approved corral area; and request for a Variance to encroach with 325 square feet of the new residence and covered patio into the side yard setback at 77 Crest Road East, (Lot 69 -A1 -MS), Rolling Hills, CA, (Jankovich). The project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303, Class 3 exemption Guidelines. Chairman Chelf introduced the item and asked for staffs comments. Planning Director Schwartz reviewed the applicant's request to construct a new 6,631 sq. ft. residence in Zoning Case No. 894 at 77 Crest Road East. She reviewed the configuration of the lot stating the Planning Commission previously approved a lot line adjustment merging two lots, which resulted in the existing lot; and also approved a stable to be constructed in the front yard setback. She further reviewed the applicant's request, which also includes two garages, covered porches as well as a swimming pool, spa and koi pond. She stated that the applicant proposes to retain an island of landscaping that currently exists in front of the house. She reviewed the proposed driveway as well a proposed modification of the walls in the area around the Minutes Planning Commission Regular Meeting 01-19-16 DRAFT stable. She further stated that this project will be subject to the City's Low Impact Development Ordinance (LID) which requires retention of the water on site and reviewed the proposed plan. She stated that the total lot coverage is proposed at 8.8% and the structural lot coverage is proposed at 3.8% on the nearly 10 -acre lot. She stated that the building pad area is proposed at 39,800 sq. ft. and with the stable, coverage is proposed at 38.2%. She further reviewed the proposed covered porches one of which is proposed to be located in the setback. She stated that to date, there have been no objections expressed. Brief discussion ensued concerning the portion of the covered porch that encroaches into the setback and the proposed driveway. Chairman Chelf called for public comment. Tavisha Nicholson, Bolton Engineering addressed the Planning Commission to explain the applicant's request. Geoff Sumich, Designer addressed the Planning Commission to further explain the applicant's request and presented a model of the proposed house. Following staff's presentation and public testimony, the members of the Planning Commission determined that a site visit should be scheduled to provide the members of the Planning Commission with further understanding of the applicant's request in Zoning Case No. 894 at 77 Crest Road East. The public hearing was continued. SCHEDULE OF FIELD TRIPS The Planning Commission scheduled a field trip to the following properties to be conducted on Tuesday, February 16, 2016 beginning at 7:30 a.m. 10 Bowie Road 46 Eastfield Drive 77 Crest Road East NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS (CONTINUED) ZONING CASE NO. 899 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENT NO. 2016-01. Consideration of a Zoning Code amendment relating to prohibiting medical marijuana cultivation, delivery, distributing and dispensaries within the City by amending Sections 17.08.050 and 17.16.020, and adding Chapter 17.29 to Title 17 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code (RHMC). It has been determined that the project would not have a significant effect on the environment pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). AND Consideration to adopt Resolution No. 2016-01. A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Rolling Hills recommending that the City Council amend Title 17 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code by amending Sections 17.08.050 and 17.16.020 and adding Chapter 17.29 in order to impose an express ban on medical marijuana cultivation, delivery and dispensaries within the City. Minutes Planning Commission Regular Meeting 01-19-16 DRAFT Chairman Chelf introduced the item and asked for staff's comments. Planning Director Schwartz stated that before the Planning Commission for consideration is a proposed Zoning Code amendment that would ban cultivation, delivery, dispensing and other activities related to medical marijuana within the City boundaries. She stated that this proposed amendment is before the Planning Commission in response to recent legislation, collectively referred to as the Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act (MIv1RSA), adopted by the State legislature that requires cities wishing to regulate medical marijuana activities within their jurisdiction to adopt specific regulations doing so by March 1st otherwise, the State regulations which are much more permissive would apply. City Manager Cruz stated that both Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer and Councilmember Mirsch suggested that this matter be considered by the Planning Commission recognizing that there is a narrow window of time for the City to take action. Discussion ensued concerning why this matter is before the Planning Commission rather than directly before the City Council. In response to Chairman Chelf, Assistant City Attorney Karpeles stated that if the City does not act in regard to this matter, the State will be the sole licensing authority with regard to the cultivation of medical marijuana in the City of Rolling Hills. She stated that the amendment as proposed by the City Attorney's office represents the most restrictive regulations, but could be amended at a later date to be more permissive. Chairman Chelf called for public comment. Cathy Nichols, 14 Crest Road West addressed the City Council in opposition to the proposed regulations pertaining to restrictions on medical marijuana in the City stating that she feels it takes away people's rights granted under the compassionate use act. She stated that she does not feel there should be any restrictions on legally prescribed medical marijuana for personal use. Jim Aichele, 14 Crest Road West addressed the City Council in opposition to the proposed ordinance pertaining to restrictions on medical marijuana in the City. He stated that he also does not feel there should be any restrictions on legally prescribed medical marijuana for personal use. Discussion ensued concerning the effect this regulation would have on individuals in the City who are qualified patients and have a legal right to obtain medical marijuana. Ms. Karpeles clarified that this regulation would not prevent qualified patients from obtaining medial marijuana from fixed location dispensaries or qualified delivery services. She stated that the primary objective of the regulation is to ban mobile medical marijuana dispensaries from coming into the City to dispense medical marijuana. Further discussion ensued regarding personal cultivation. Ms. Karpeles clarified that the proposed regulation prohibits commercial cultivation and personal cultivation to the extent that such cultivation it is not preempted by State law. The Planning Commissioners collectively expressed concern that they were not given enough time to give this matter due diligence. Further discussion ensued regarding the delivery mechanisms available to qualified patients. Vice Chairman Gray expressed concern that the term "commercial transfer" is not clearly defined. Ms. Karpeles provided an explanation of the term "commercial transfer." Minutes Planning Commission Regular Meeting 01-19-16 DRAFT Following further discussion and recognizing the time constraints, Commissioner Kirkpatrick moved that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2016-01 recommending that the City Council amend Title 17 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code by amending Sections 17.08.050 and 17.16.020 and adding Chapter 17.29 in order to impose an express ban on medical marijuana cultivation, delivery and dispensaries within the City as amended to (1) provide a definition for the term "commercial transfer" and (2) provide for a delivery mechanism into the City for patients who need medical marijuana but cannot procure it for themselves. Commissioner Smith seconded the motion, which carried without objection. ITEMS FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION None. ITEMS FROM STAFF None. ADJOURNMENT Hearing no further business before the Commission, Chairman Chelf adjourned the meeting at 9:52 p.m. to an adjourned regular meeting of the Planning Commission scheduled to be held on Tuesday, February 16, 2016 beginning at 7:30 a.m. for the purpose of conducting field trips to 10 Bowie Road, 46 Eastfield Drive and 77 Crest Road East. The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission is scheduled to be held on Tuesday, February 16, 2016 beginning at 6:30 p.m. in the City Council Chamber, Rolling Hills City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California. Respectfully submitted, Heidi Luce City Clerk Approved, Brad Chelf Chairman Minutes Planning Commission Regular Meeting 01-19-16 �1� Agenda Item No: 6-A Mtg. Date: 02/16/16 MEMORANDUM TO RECUSE TO: Honorable Chair and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Heidi Luce, City Clerk SUBJECT: Zoning Case No. 776 -1 Lower Blackwater Canyon Road DATE: February 16, 2016 Due to the proximity of his property to the subject property, Commissioner Cardenas should recuse himself from consideration of Zoning Case No. 776 at 1 Lower Blackwater Canyon Road. He may however, take a seat in the audience and participate as a resident. ear al Raffaf qd6 INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 TO: FROM: APPLICATION NO. SITE LOCATION: ZONING AND SIZE: NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX (310) 377-7288 Agenda Item: 6A Mtg. Date: 2/16/16 HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR ZONING CASE NO. 776 1 LOWER BLACKWATER CANYON (Lot 46-RH) RA -S-1 - 4.5 ACRES (GROSS) REQUEST AND PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION 1. The property owner of 1 Lower Blackwater Canyon Road, Mr. David Denee, submitted a request asking the Planning Commission to consider removing a "Restricted Development" condition from his property. 2. The Planning Commission at their January 19, 2016 hearing by a 4-1-0 vote directed staff to prepare a Resolution of approval of this request (Commissioner Cardenas recused himself from deliberating of this case). Resolution 2016-03 amends Section 11 of Resolution No. 2010-03, dated January 19, 2010 by removing Paragraph K from the conditions of approval, which reads as follows: "K. Notwithstanding Sections 17.46.020 and 17.46.070 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, any modification to the property, which would constitute grading or structural development, shall require the filing of a new application for approval by the Planning Commission". 3. It is recommended that the Planning Commission review and consider the attached resolution for adoption. ZC No. 776 1 Lower Blackwater Canyon THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK oz RESOLUTION NO. 2016-03 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A REQUEST TO REMOVE RESTRICTIVE DEVELOPMENT CONDITION FROM RESOLUTION NO. 2010-03 IN ZONING CASE NO 776 AT 1 LOWER BLACKWATER CANYON ROAD, (LOT 46-RH) (DENNEE). 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. David Dennee with respect to real property located at 1 Lower Blackwater Canyon Road (Lot 46-RH) requesting the removal of a condition placed on his property in Resolution No. 2010 -03, a request for a Conditional Use Permit to convert an existing stable into a recreation room and to set aside an area for a future stable and corral elsewhere on the lot. Section 2. In April of 2008 by Resolution 2008-06, the Planning Commission approved a 1,172 square foot addition to the main residence with a variance for encroachment into the setbacks with the addition and a trellis. A condition was placed on the property that any future development or grading would require a discretionary review by the Planning Commission, ("a no further development condition"). The project was not constructed and the entitlement expired. Section 3. In January 2010, then in October 2012 by Resolution Nos. 2010-03 and 2012-21 respectively, the Planning Commission granted a CUP and a SPR to convert the existing stable into a recreation room and to construct a raised deck and a SPR for a 364 square foot addition to the residence. The "no further development" condition was carried over to both of these approvals. The applicant has not constructed the 364 square foot addition and the 2012 approval expired. The 2010 request for the recreation room and a deck is currently being implemented, where the condition exists that the Planning Commission reviews any further development. Section 4. The Commission considered this item at a meeting on January 19, 2016 at which time information was presented indicating that the previously proposed development for which the condition was first imposed, was not implemented and expired, and therefore the "no further development" condition is no longer warranted. Section 5. Based upon information and evidence submitted, the Planning Commission does hereby amend Section 11 of Resolution No. 2010-03, dated January 19, 2010 by removing Paragraph K from the conditions of approval, which reads as follows: "K. Notwithstanding Sections 17.46.020 and 17.46.070 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, any modification to the property, which would constitute grading or structural development, shall require the filing of a new application for approval by the Planning Commission". Section 6. Except as herein amended, the provisions and conditions of Resolution No. 2010-03 shall continue to be in full force and effect. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 16th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016. BRAD CHELF, CHAIRMAN ATTEST: HEIDI LUCE, CITY CLERK STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES) §§ CITY OF ROLLING HILLS) I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2016-03 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A REQUEST TO REMOVE RESTRICTIVE DEVELOPMENT CONDITION FROM RESOLUTION NO. 2010-03 IN ZONING CASE NO 776 AT 1 LOWER BLACKWATER CANYON ROAD, (LOT 46-RH) (DENNEE). Was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on February 16, 2016 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: And in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following: Administrative Offices CITY CLERK TO: FROM: APPLICATION NO. SITE LOCATION: ZONING AND SIZE: OWNER: REPRESENTATIVE: PUBLISHED: City o//eolliny INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 3771521 FAX: (310) 3777288 Agenda Item No.: 6B Mtg. Date: 02/16/16 HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR WENDY STARKS, ASSOCIATE PLANNER ZONING CASE NO. 892 3 EASTFIELD DRIVE (LOT 58-EF) RA -S-1, 1.4 ACRES (GROSS) MR. AND MRS. BENNETT BEN CAUTHEN, PROJECT DESIGNER DECEMBER 3, 2015 FEBRUARY 4, 2016 REQUEST AND RECOMMENDATION 1. The property owners Mr. and Mrs. Bennett, request a Site Plan Review for minor grading to widen the existing driveway and create a one car parking pad and up to 5' high retaining wall and a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for replacement of the existing detached 672 square foot garage with a new 704 square foot detached garage and multiple variances. The variances requested include: to construct a 195 sq. ft. addition to the' main residence of which 61 square feet encroach 6'3" into the front setback, to provide a new one -car parking pad, less than 30 feet from the roadway easement line and a 5' high retaining wall in the front setback, to encroach 18' into the front yard setback with the detached garage, to exceed the maximum permitted structural and total coverage of the lot and the disturbed area of the lot, to reconstruct the garage with an out of grade condition along the northeast side of the garage and a retaining wall in the front that will not average out to 2.5' in height. 2. At the January 19, 2016 Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Commission directed staff to prepare a Resolution approving the project subject to a revised design to address the out -of -grade condition at the side and rear of the proposed garage, to provide a 4 foot access path around the garage, and to submit a plan to retain the large pine tree at the front of the property in the easement, adjacent to the newly proposed retaining wall. ZC NO. 892 3 Eastfield Road Printed on Recycled Paper 3. The applicants submitted a revised plan complying with the Planning Commission's requests to address the out -of -grade condition by screening it with two retaining corner walls (54' long total) that will be a maximum of 5 -feet high, which will straddle the corner of the garage and will average out to 2.5 feet; planting to screen the condition; providing a 4 -foot planter/access path, and confirmed that a concerted effort will be made to retain the pine tree in the front. A "no further development without Planning Commission review" condition is included in the resolution. 4. It is recommended that the Planning Commission review and consider the attached Resolution No. 2016-04 for adoption. ZC NO. 892 3 Eastfield Road RESOLUTION NO. 2016-04 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL FOR A SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A DETACHED GARAGE, GRADING AND RETAINING WALLS; A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A DETACHED GARAGE; AND VARIANCES TO CONSTRUCT AN ADDITION TO THE RESIDENCE IN THE FRONT SETBACK, A ONE -CAR PARKING PAD LESS THAN 30 FEET FROM THE ROADWAY EASEMENT LINE, GARAGE AND WALL ENCROACHMENT INTO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK, OUT OF GRADE CONDITION OF THE GARAGE, WALL THAT DOES NOT AVERAGE OUT TO 2.5 -FEET, TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED STRUCTURAL AND TOTAL COVERAGE AND THE DISTURBED AREA OF THE LOT, IN ZONING CASE NO. 892, AT 3 EASTFIELD DRIVE, (LOT 58-EF), (BENNETT). THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. An application was duly filed by Mr. and Mrs. Bennett with respect to real property located at 3 Eastfield Drive, Rolling Hills (Lot 58-EF) requesting a Site Plan Review for grading (21 c.y.) to widen the existing driveway and create a one car parking pad and up to 5' high retaining walls and a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for replacement of the existing detached 672 square foot garage with a new 704 square foot detached garage and variances that include: 1) to construct a 195 square foot addition to the main residence of which 61 sq. ft. would encroach 6'3" into the front setback, 2) to provide a new one -car parking pad, less than 30 feet from the roadway easement line, 3) to encroach 18' into the front yard setback with the detached garage, 4) to exceed the maximum permitted structural and total coverage of the lot and the disturbed area of the lot, 6) to locate 5' high retaining wall in the front setback, that will not average out to 2.5' in height and 7) to reconstruct the garage with an out of grade condition. Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted duly noticed public hearings to consider the application at a regular meeting on December 15, 2015 and January 19, 2016 and at a field trip to the property on January 19, 2016. Several neighbors were present at the meetings, and one neighbor was present at the field trip. The applicant was notified of the public hearings in writing by first class mail. Evidence was heard and presented from all persons interested in affecting said proposal and from members of the City staff and the Planning Commission having reviewed, analyzed and studied said proposal. The applicant's representative was in attendance at the hearings. Section 3. The property is zoned RAS-1 and consists of 1.4 acres gross (60,984 sq. ft.) and 44,413 sq. ft. net lot area for development purposes. The property is located on the north side of Eastfield Drive. The property is almost square shaped. The property is characterized by a steep slope, descending from the southwest corner (front) diagonally to northeast corner Reso. 2016-04 3 Eastfield Drive (rear). The topography in the front yard between the road edge and house front wall has a drop of 18 feet, or a 69% downslope. This project site is developed with a single family residence and detached garage built in 1956. In 1963 the Planning Commission granted a front yard variance for an addition, waiving the then required 30 foot front setback in favor of 23 -feet, in recognition of the constraints of the steep terrain and fact that the detached garage already encroached 7 feet into the 30' setback. In 1971 the Planning Commission granted a variance for a tennis court, allowing the court to encroach into the side yard. Section 4. The Planning Commission finds that the project qualifies as a Class 3 Exemption, and is therefore categorically exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act. Sect -ion 5. Section 17.46.030 requires a development plan to be submitted for Site Plan Review and approval before any grading requiring a grading permit or 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 999 square feet in any thirty-six (36) month period. With respect to the Site Plan Review application requesting grading and construction of a new detached garage, grading, and retaining walls, the Planning Commission makes the following findings of fact: A. The proposed development is compatible with the General Plan, the Zoning Ordinance and surrounding uses because the proposed structures comply with the General Plan requirement of low profile, low -density residential development with sufficient open space between surrounding structures. The homes in the neighborhood are similar in size to the proposed home on smaller lots. As existing the site has nonconforming structural coverage and existing total coverage already and with the proposal the increase for both will be minimal. The proposed grading and retaining walls will be minor in amount and degree and will not alter the existing character and residential use on the property or of the surrounding neighborhood, nor will existing contours of the property be significantly altered. Existing landscaping will be preserved including one large pine tree in the front yard, and all otherwise native vegetation on the property will be preserved and the walls screened. B. The development plan substantially preserves the natural and undeveloped state of the lot by minimizing building coverage because the new structure will not cause the lot to look overdeveloped. Significant portions of the lot will be left undeveloped so as to maintain open space on the property. The proposed motor court, while within the front yard setback, will be screened behind and at the bottom of a slope, which is consistent with the natural topography. The proposed retaining wall in the front yard will blend with the existing topography. The encroachment of the garage into the front setback will be less than the existing garage encroachment and is constrained by the location of the existing house and building pad, which, in turn is constrained by the steep topography both at the front and towards the rear of the building pad. The amount of new living area being added within the Reso. 2016-04 3 Eastfield Drive 2 front setback will not create any adverse visual bulk impacts because it will be a relatively small area, is under an existing overhang and will not be visible from the street at the lot front. C. The proposed development, as conditioned, is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, the natural terrain and surrounding residences. The lot and house are similar to adjacent lots and residences and the garage will be screened via a retaining wall and landscaping on the side and rear. D. The development plan incorporates existing trees and is screened from other properties and the road by existing vegetation, which will be preserved. Every attempt will be made to retain a large existing pine tree in the front sethark close in proximity to the proposed retaining wall. E. The development plan follows to the maximum extent practicable contours of the site to minimize grading and retain the natural drainage courses. The proposed grading and retaining walls will be minor in amount. The dirt from the excavation of the small parking pad will be utilized to construct the retaining wall surrounding the new garage, so that grading will be balanced on site. The graded areas will be landscaped. F. The proposed development is sensitive and not detrimental to the convenience and safety of circulation for pedestrians and vehicles because the existing driveway will be utilized and the new driveway configurationwill promote safety as it will allow residents to drive directly into the garage from the street. The proposed parking pad and space will allow more parking on -site as the site is currently constrained for on -site parking. G. The project conforms to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and is exempt. Section 6. Section 17.16.210(A)(4) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code permits approval of a detached garage under certain conditions, provided the Planning Commission approves a Conditional Use Permit. The applicant is requesting to construct a 704 square foot detached garage. 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 construction of the garage structure would be consistent with the purposes and objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan because the use is consistent with similar uses in the community and is a permitted use with a CUP. The area proposed for such structure would not require substantial grading, and such use will not make the lot overdeveloped. The proposed detached garage is in the same location as the existing detached garage and in a location best suited for the garage, as there is no other area to place a garage. The proposed location will not interfere with the location of the residence. B. The nature, condition, and development of adjacent uses, buildings, and structures have been considered, and the detached structure will not adversely affect or be Reso. 2016-04 3 Eastfield Drive 3 materially detrimental to these adjacent uses, buildings, or structures because the side and rear portions of proposed use will be partially screened from view by a retaining wall and landscaping and is of sufficient distance from nearby residences so that the structure will not impact the view or privacy of surrounding neighbors. The out -of -grade condition of the proposed garage will be buffered with a retaining wall and landscaping to soften the impact. C. The project is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, the natural terrain, and surrounding residences because the detached garage structure will comply with the low profile residential development pattern of the community, there is adequate area on the property to construct such a 450 square foot stable, and the project would not take away an area for equestrian development in the future. D. The proposed conditional use complies with all applicable development standards of the zone district as approved by this Resolution, because it is a permitted use under the Municipal Code. Section 7. Sections 17.38.010 through 17.38.050 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code permit approval of a Variance granting relief from the standards and requirements of the Zoning Ordinance when exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applicable to the property prevent the owner from making use of a parcel of property to the same extent enjoyed by similar properties in the same vicinity or zone. A Variance is required from RHMC Sections 17.16.190F, 17.16.080 and 17.16.060 because the project exceeds the allowed maximum average of wall height of 2.5 -feet of both the free standing wall and the walls of the proposed garage and the front parking pad wall, portion of the residence addition and portion of the detached garage would be located in setbacks. A Variance to Section 17.060.070 is also required because the maximum disturbed area is not to exceed 40% and this project is proposed to exceed maximum disturbance with 43.4%, and the proposed total structural and total lot coverage area would exceed the allowed amounts with an increase from 24.1% to 25.9% where 20% maximum is allowed for structural coverage, and an increase from 36.7% to 41.1% where 35% maximum total lot coverage is allowed. With respect to the aforementioned requests for Variances, the Planning Commission finds as follows: A. There are exceptional circumstances and conditions on the subject property as follows: Regarding requested variance relating to the height and encroachment into the setback for the proposed retaining wall: the proposed 5 -foot retaining wall in the front yard will match the upward slope and will blend in with the natural slope and will not be seen from the street. The sloping condition at the front of the lot in this area makes a retaining wall necessary to protect the proposed new outdoor car -port. The addition, of which 61 square feet will encroach into the front setback is minimal, given that almost half of the residence and most of the existing garage encroach into the front setback due to the configuration and steepness of the lot. The addition will be almost entirely under an exiting roof line and not visible from the street. The encroachment of the proposed garage will follow the same footprint as the existing Reso. 2016-04 3 Eastfield Drive 4 <J garage, but 7 feet less and will provide safer ingress and egress onto the property. The out of grade condition of the proposed garage will be within the footprint of the existing garage and will not be exacerbated by the new construction. The steepness and configuration of the lot makes it impossible to meet the code requirement and provide for a garage on the lot. The visual impact of the out of grade condition of the garage will be mitigated by the construction of a terraced wall and landscaping in front of this condition. Regarding the requested variances from Section 17.16.070, relating to maximum structural and total lot coverage limits and disturbance of the lot: the property is uniquely constrained by an existing tennis court on the property, and by the steep topography both at the front and the rear of the building pad. The lot coverage is relatively small compared to the amount of coverage that is associated with the improvements, specifically the existing 6,433 square foot sports court. The proposed additional disturbance to provide more on -site parking, and to widen the driveway is minimal and will result in better vehicle access. To the maximum extent practicable the proposed development works within and follows the existing conditions on the lot. B. The variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property owners in the same vicinity and zone but which is denied to the property in question by strict application of the code. The property right which otherwise would be enjoyed is the ability to utilize a portion of the front yard for on -site parking, and superior access and entry/exit to the garage than currently exists. C. The granting of the Variance would not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the properties or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the property is located in that the proposed on -site parking space and reconfigured garage access increases safety to the residents and neighborhood as it allows for direct access from the street. Further, the increased on -site parking is necessary as parking on Eastfield Drive is greatly needed and constrained on this stretch of the road. Additionally, the improvements to the property (additional parking space, retaining wall, residential addition, and garage) will not be easily viewed from adjacent properties, and the street and visual impacts are minor. To the maximum extent practicable the proposed development works within and follows the existing conditions on the lot and therefore will not be materially or otherwise detrimental to the public. D. In granting of the Variance the spirit and intent of the Zoning Ordinance will be observed in that the proposed parking pad, retaining wall, and garage, and small residential addition construction will be orderly, attractive, and while the garage has an out -of -grade condition, it will be buffered and mediated with landscaping and a wall to ensure it will not affect the rural character of the community. The subject property retains a suitable stable and corral set -aside area and the proposed garage and addition will not impact use of these existing structures. E. The Variance request is consistent with the General Plan of the City of Rolling Hills because the proposed structures comply with the General Plan requirement of low Reso. 2016-04 3 Eastfield Drive 5 profile, low -density residential development with sufficient open space between surrounding structures. F. The Variance is consistent with the portions of the County of Los Angeles Hazardous Waster Management Plan relating to siting and siting criteria for hazardous waste facilities. Section 8. Based upon the foregoing findings in Sections 5, 6, and 7, the Planning Commission hereby approves the Site Plan Review application, Conditional Use Permit and Variances in Zoning Case No. 892 for minor grading and construction of a residence addition, a detached garage, a new one -car parking space, and retaining walls as shown on the Site Plan dated January 29, 2016 subject to the following conditions: A. The conditions of approval specified herein shall be printed on all construction plans and shall be at all times available at the construction site. B. The Site Plan Review, Conditional Use Permit and Variance approvals shall expire within two years from the effective date of approval if construction pursuant to this approval has not commenced within that time period, as required by Sections 17.46.080(A), 17.42.070(A) and 17.38.070(A) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, or the approval granted is otherwise extended pursuant to the requirements of those sections. C. It is declared and made a condition of the approval, that if any conditions thereof are violated, this approval shall be suspended and the privileges granted hereunder shall lapse; provided that the applicants have been given written notice to cease such violation, the opportunity for a hearing has been provided, and if requested, has been held, and thereafter the applicant fails to correct the violation within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of the City's determination. D. All requirements of the Building and Construction Code, the Zoning Code, and of the zone in which the subject property is located must be complied with, including the Outdoor Lighting Ordinance, unless otherwise set forth in this approval, or shown otherwise on an approved plan. All existing overhead utility lines serving the subject property shall be undergrounded pursuant to Section 17.27.030. E. The lot shall be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the site plan on file dated January 29, 2016 F. The working drawings submitted to the Department of Building and Safety for plan check and construction review must conform to the development plan approved with this application. In addition, prior to submittal of final plans to the Building Department for issuance of building permits, the plans for the project shall be submitted to staff for verification that the final plans are in compliance with the plans approved by the Planning Commission. The licensed professional preparing construction plans for this project for Building Department review shall execute a Certificate affirming that the plans conform in all Reso. 2016-04 3 Eastfield Drive 6 @ respects to this Resolution approving this project and all of the conditions set forth therein and the City's Building Code and Zoning Ordinance. Further, the person obtaining a building and/ or grading permit for this project shall execute a Certificate of Construction stating that the project will be constructed according to this Resolution and any plans approved therewith. G. Grading shall not exceed a total of 21 cubic yard of cut and fill, which includes the creation of a one -car motor court, to widen the driveway, and to mediate the out -of -grade condition of the garage, and shall be balanced on site. Cut and fill slopes shall not exceed steepness as shown on the development plan dated January 29, 2016. Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, a landscaping plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department H. Structural lot coverage shall not exceed 11,574 square feet or 25.9% of the net lot area, (excluding 76 sq.ft. allowed ancillary detached structures). I Total lot coverage of structures and paved areas shall not exceed 18,241 square feet, including the widened driveway and the motor court or 41.1% of net lot area (with deductions). J. The retaining wall along the motor court and driveway may not exceed 5 feet in height at any one point from the finished grade. The retaining walls flanking the detached garage may not exceed 5 feet in height, sloping to 0 feet, with 2.5 feet average, for approximately 54 feet in length total. K. The disturbance of the net lot shall not exceed 19,260 square feet of surface area or 43.4%. L. Residential building pad coverage on the 5,908 square feet residential building pad shall not exceed 85.8%. The stable/sports court building pad shall remain at 7,790 square feet with coverage or 82.6%, which includes the sports court. M. A minimum of four -foot level path and/or walkway, which does not have to be paved, shall be provided around the entire perimeter of the garage. N. There shall be no sleeping quarters, temporary occupancy or . any cooking facilities in the detached garage. The detached garage shall not exceed 704 square feet as measured from the outside walls, and may contain a toilet and a sink. O. ' Should the detached garage as specified on the approved plan be converted to another use, without required approvals, the permit granting the detached garage may be revoked, pursuant to Chapter 17.58, and the structure may have to be removed at the cost of the property owner. Reso. 2016-04 3 Eastfield Drive 7 P. A fuel modification plan, a landscape plan, and an irrigation plan prepared by a registered landscape architect, landscape designer, landscape contractor, or an individual with expertise acceptable to the forestry division of the fire department shall be submitted and approved by the City, including for screening of the north eastern portions of the detached garage. Q. All graded areas shall be vegetated utilizing to the greatest extent feasible mature native and drought resistant plants. Plants shall be utilized, which are consistent with the rural character of the community and meet the fire department requirements for fire resistant plants. Any trees and shrubs used in the landscaping scheme for this project shall be planted in a way that will not result in a hedge like screening and as not to impair views of neighboring properties but to screen the project site. R. Every effort will be made to retain the large existing pine tree at the front of the property that is shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department on January 29, 2016. S. The property owners shall be required to conform to the City of Rolling Hills and RHCA roofing material standards, Outdoor Lighting Standards, as well as all other requirements of the Municipal Code. T. Minimum of 50% of the construction material spoils shall be recycled and diverted. The hauler must be licensed by the City, must have the appropriate insurance and must provide the appropriate documentation to the City. U. There shall be no dumping of any debris, trash, soil spoils, construction materials or any other matter into the canyons. V. The property lines, easement lines and setbacks, where possible, in the vicinity of the areas of construction, shall be delineated during the entire duration of the construction and no grading, construction or storage of any objects including building materials shall take place in the easement, unless approved by the RHCA. W. During construction, the property owners shall be required to schedule and regulate construction and related traffic noise throughout the day between the hours of 7 AM and 6 PM, Monday through Saturday only, when construction and mechanical equipment noise is permitted, so as not to interfere with the quiet residential environment of the City of Rolling Hills. X. During grading and construction operations, trucks shall not park, queue and/or idle at the project site or in the adjoining right-of-way before or after the permitted hours of operations. To the maximum extent possible, staging of equipment and parking of vehicles during construction shall be on site. Y. The contractors and subcontractors are to encourage their employees to car-pool into the City. Reso. 2016-04 3 Eastfield Drive 8 e Z The applicant shall comply with requirements for bonding for grading and all other requirements resulting from the review of the soils and geology reports. AA. No drainage device may be located in such a manner as to contribute to erosion or in any way affect an easement, trail or adjacent properties. AB. During construction, conformance with the air quality management district requirements shall be complied with, so that people or property are not exposed to undue vehicle trips, noise, dust, and objectionable odors. The grading activities shall be watered on a daily basis, or more often, if necessary. AC. The property owners shall be required to conform to the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Public Works Department Best Management Practices (BMPs) related to solid waste and storm management, including post construction maintenance of stormwater facilities. AD. An Erosion Control Plan, if required by the building department, shall be prepared to minimize erosion and to protect slopes and channels to control storm water pollution as required by the Code. AE. The property owner and/or his/her contractor/applicant shall be responsible for compliance with the no -smoking provisions in the Municipal Code. AF. The contractor shall not use tools that could produce a spark, including for clearing and grubbing, during red flag warning conditions. Weather conditions can be found at: http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/lox/main.php?suite=safety&page=hazard definitions#FIRE. It is the sole responsibility of the property owner and/or his/her contractor to monitor the red flag warning conditions. AG. Until the applicants execute and record an Affidavit of Acceptance of all conditions of this Site Plan Review, Conditional Use Permit and Variance approvals, as required by the Municipal Code, the approvals shall not be effective. AH. All conditions of the Site Plan, Conditional Use Permit and Variance approvals, that apply, shall be complied with prior to the issuance of grading or building permit. AI. Notwithstanding Sections 17.46.020 and 17.46.070 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, any future modifications to the property or to this project, which would constitute additional grading, height or any structural development shall require the filing of a new application for approval by the Planning Commission. Reso. 2016-04 3 Eastfield Drive 9 AJ. Any action challenging the final decision of the City made as a result of the public hearing on this application must be filed within the time limits set forth in Section 17.54.070 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code and Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 16th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016. BRAD CHELF, CHAIRMAN ATTEST: HEIDI LUCE, CITY CLERK Reso. 2016-04 3 Eastfield Drive STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§ CITY OF ROLLING HILLS I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2016-04 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL FOR A SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A DETACHED GARAGE, GRADING AND RETAINING WALLS; A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A DETACHED GARAGE; AND VARIANCES TO CONSTRUCT AN ADDITION TO THE RESIDENCE IN THE FRONT SETBACK, A ONE -CAR PARKING PAD LESS THAN 30 FEET FROM THE ROADWAY EASEMENT LINE, GARAGE AND WALL ENCROACHMENT INTO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK, OUT OF GRADE CONDITION OF THE GARAGE, WALL THAT DOES NOT AVERAGE OUT TO 2.5 -FEET, TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED STRUCTURAL AND TOTAL COVERAGE AND THE DISTURBED AREA OF THE LOT, IN ZONING CASE NO. 892, AT 3 EASTFIELD DRIVE, (LOT 58-EF), (BENNETT). was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on February 16, 2016 the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following: Administrative Offices. HEIDI LUCE, CITY CLERK Reso. 2016-04 3 Eastfield Drive 11 City O//eliny„4UL INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 3777288 Agenda Item No.: 6D Mtg. Date: 0W16/16 TO: HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR APPLICATION NO. SITE LOCATION: ZONING AND SIZE: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PUBLISHED: ZONING CASE NO. 888 (RESOLUTION NO. 2016- 02) 17 MIDDLERIDGE LANE NORTH (LOT 5 -MR) RA -S-1, 1.28 ACRES (GROSS) MR. AND MRS. JOHN POST BOLTON ENGINEERING SEPTEMBER 3, 2015 REQUEST AND RECOMMENDATION 1. The applicants, Mr. and Mrs. John Post request a Site Plan Review for a 1,055 square foot addition with 1,260 square foot basement, varying heights, but not to exceed 5' high retaining walls, 492 square foot swimming pool with a spa, 100 square foot covered porch, 180 square foot trellis; all of which require 1,510 cubic yards of grading (incl. 150 c.y. for future stable and excavation from pool and basement); and Variances to encroach with the entire front addition (395 sq.ft.) into the front 30' setback, with 120 sq.ft. of the 660 sq. foot side addition into the side yard setback, including with the basement below, with 125 sq.ft. new basement proposed under a portion of the existing residence; to encroach with the walls and basement light well into the side setback; to exceed. the 2.5'required average height of retaining walls and to exceed the maximum permitted disturbance of the lot. Additionally, stairs and not to exceed 3' high wall along the stairs will be constructed in the south side yard setback to gain access into the rear of the pool area, construction of which is compliant with the Zoning Ordinance and is allowed in setbacks. The property received a condition with past approvals that any additional construction or grading on the lot be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission. 2. At the October 20, 2015 Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Commission directed staff to prepare a Resolution approving the project subject to t: Printed on Recycled Paper removal of the stairs and wall from the north easement area and also suggested that the applicant reduce the encroachment of the new addition along the north side of the house to match the footprint of the existing encroachment. 3. The applicants submitted a revised plan complying with the Planning Commission's request to remove the stairs and wall from the north easement area and the encroachment of the new addition along the north side of the house now matches the footprint of the existing encroachment. A " no further development without Planning Commission review" condition is included in the resolution. 4. It is recommended that the Planning Commission review and consider the attached Resolution No. 2016-02 for adoption. cJ RESOLUTION NO. 2016-02 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL OF A SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A SUBSTANTIAL ADDITION, GRADING, SWIMMING POOL, PORCH, TRELLIS, AND WALLS AND VARIANCES FOR ENCROACHMENT WITH PORTIONS OF THE ADDITIONS, WALLS AND A LIGHTWELL INTO SETBACKS, TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED DISTURBED AREA OF THE LOT AND TO EXCEED 2.5' AVERAGE HEIGHT OF WALLS IN ZONING CASE NO. 888 AT 17 MIDDLERIDGE LANE NORTH, (LOT 5 -MR), IN THE OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICT-OZD-1, (POST). THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. An application was duly filed by Mr. and Mrs. John Post for a Site Plan Review for a 1,055 square foot addition with 1,260 square foot basement, varying heights, but not to exceed 5' high retaining walls, 492 square foot swimming pool with a spa, 100 square foot covered porch, 180 square foot trellis; 1,510 cubic yards of grading (incl. 150 c.y. for future stable and excavation from the pool and basement); and Variances to encroach with the front addition (395 sq.ft.) into the front 30' setback, with 120 sq.ft. of the 660 sq. foot side addition into the side yard setback, including with the basement below, with 125 sq.ft. basement proposed under a portion of the existing residence; to encroach with the walls and basement light well into the side setbacks; to exceed the 2.5'required average height of retaining walls and to exceed the maximum permitted disturbance of the lot. Additionally, stairs and not to exceed 3' high wall along the stairs will be constructed in the south side yard setback to gain access into the rear of the pool area, construction of which is compliant with the Zoning Ordinance. The property received a condition with past approvals that any additional construction or grading on the lot be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission. Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted duly noticed public hearings to consider the application on September 15, 2015, and at a field trip and at their regular meeting on October 20, 2015, and on January 19, 2016. The applicants were notified of the public hearings in writing by first class mail. Evidence was heard from all persons interested in affecting said proposal and from members of the City staff. The Planning Commission reviewed, analyzed and studied said proposal. The applicants and their representatives were in attendance at the meetings of the Planning Commission. Several neighbors testified in support of the project. Section 3. The property is located in the RAS-1 Overlay Zoning District (OZD-1) of the City. The OZD-1 was established within the RAS-1 Zoning District to ZC No. 888 allow modernization, reconstruction, or enlargement of homes located on unique lots generally characterized by steep terrain, smaller than typical lots in the City, smaller than typical homes in the City, lots that are divided by a road and lots where redevelopment of the existing home is difficult due to setback requirements. Properties in the OZD-1 are allowed a reduced front yard setback for locating primary structures including attached garages to 30' from the roadway easement line. In addition, an existing encroachment of not more than 10' into the side setback may be reconstructed; however, any new construction must comply with the 20' side yard setback requirement. Section 4. The Planning Commission finds that the project qualifies as a Class 3 Exemption, pursuant to Section 15303 of the CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) Guidelines and is therefore categorically exempt from environmental review. Section 5. Section 17.46.030 of the Zoning Ordinance requires a development plan to be submitted for Site Plan Review and approval before any structure, (with exceptions), may be constructed. Section 17.46.020.A of the Municipal Code requires a Site Plan Review for an addition exceeding 999 square feet, for grading, and walls higher than 3 feet. With respect to the Site Plan Review applications for the improvements subject to the requirements of the above listed Section, the Planning Commission makes the following findings of fact: A. The proposed development is compatible with the General Plan and surrounding uses because the proposed project complies with the General Plan requirement of low profile, low -density residential development with sufficient open space between surrounding structures. The construction of the additions will occur in an area previously graded and disturbed and new earthwork will be confined to creating a larger pad for the construction of the pool and related retaining walls to accommodate the building pad and access thereto. The lot size is adequate to accommodate the new addition and related walls and the pool and not look overdeveloped. B. The development plan substantially preserves the natural and undeveloped state of the lot because minimal grading is required for the pad to construct the swimming pool and related terraced areas and the additions will utilize the existing level area of the lot. Significant portions of the lot will be left undeveloped so as to maintain open space on the property. The nature, condition, and development of adjacent uses, buildings, and structures and the topography of the lot have been considered, and the construction will not adversely affect or be materially detrimental to the adjacent uses, buildings, or structures because the proposed improvements will be constructed on a portion of the lot which is least intrusive to surrounding properties, will be screened and landscaped with shrubs and trees and is of sufficient distance from nearby ZC No. 888 2 ® residences so that the proposed project will not impact the view or privacy of surrounding neighbors. C. The proposed development, as conditioned, is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, the natural terrain and surrounding residences. The proposed project is consistent with the scale of homes in the surrounding RA -S-1, OZD-1 similarly zoned neighborhood. The proposed project entails additions to the living area with a basement, a trellis, swimming pool, pool equipment area, and terraced walls, all of which are common improvements throughout the City. The project site, with the development, will be within the allowed structural coverage (17% proposed, max. permitted 20%) and total coverage of the lot (32% proposed/35% maximum permitted). D. The development plan generally follows natural contours of the site to the maximum extend practicable to accomplish groomed and usable areas of the lot. Natural drainage courses will not be affected by the project. Minimal grading is proposed and therefore existing drainage channels are not anticipated to be impacted. The project construction will not be located in a canyon or on existing slopes that exceed 25%. E. The proposed development is sensitive and not detrimental to the convenience and safety of circulation for pedestrians and vehicles because the proposed development will utilize the existing driveway approach. F. The project conforms to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and is exempt pursuant to Section 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines. G. The project preserves much of the existing vegetation including trees and will supplement these elements with drought -tolerant landscaping. A landscaping plan will be filed with the City. Section 6. Sections 17.38.010 through 17.38.050 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code permit approval of a Variance from the standards and requirements of the Zoning Ordinance when exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applicable to the property and not applicable to other similar properties in the same zone prevent the owner from making use of a parcel of property to the same extent enjoyed by similar properties in the same vicinity. A Variance is required from RHMC Sections 17.16.190F and 17.16.060(B) because the project exceeds the allowed maximum average of wall height of 2.5 -feet and the walls and basement light well would be located in side yard setback. Additionally, a Variance to Section 17.17.030 is required because it states that every lot in the RAS-1, OZD-1 zone shall have a front setback of not less than 30 feet from the roadway easement and for new construction, 20 feet from the side property line. The applicants request a Variance to construct an 395 square foot addition that would encroach into the front 30' setback; 120 square feet of the 660 square foot addition to ZC No. 888 30 encroach into the side setback, including the basement, and in addition, 125 square feet of the basement proposed under a portion of the existing residence would encroach into the side setback. A Variance to Section 17.060.070B is also required because the maximum disturbed area is not to exceed 40% and this project is proposed to exceed maximum disturbance with 50.41%. With respect to this request for Variances, the Planning Commission finds as follows: A. There are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances and conditions applicable to this property that do not apply generally to the other properties in the same zone. The lots along Middleridge are narrow and are divided by the road, leaving very small building pads for construction. For development purposes the road easement plus additional 10' parallel to the road is deducted from the size of the lot; and for Middleridge Lane properties that condition exists on both sides of the road, leaving a smaller net lot area than lots where the road does not intersect the properties. Therefore the disturbed area of the lot is measured against a smaller portion of the lot. The exceedance of disturbance of the lot will result from future construction of the stable and corral and is not related to the current project. The property is exceptional in that the existing rear slope of the property is very steep, up to 1.5:1 slope, and in order to gain flat area in the rear, retaining walls must be used, as typical grading methods would not work in this condition. Additionally, in order to gain some back yard and to "catch" the steep slope, the terraced walks with planters and retaining walls are necessary. Otherwise a very tall wall would be required. B. The Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone, but which is denied to the property in question. Strict application of the Zoning Ordinance would deprive the property owner of the right and benefits enjoyed by similarly situated properties in the same zone. The encroachment permits the use of the lot to the extent allowed for other properties with similar lot configurations. The side encroachment will be along the line of the current encroachment of the residence. The property is located in the Overlay District of the City, where it has been determined the lots are difficult to develop due to their configuration, size or steepness, and therefore the front setbacks were reduced and side setback encroachment with existing structures could remain and/or be reconstructed. The new addition along the line of the existing encroachment will not be more intrusive or make the side look overdeveloped than exists. C. The granting of the Variance would not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the properties or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the property is located. Development in the front setback is in line with some of the other properties along Middleridge Lane North and is in line with the existing ZC No. 888 4 side setback encroachment. The structural lot coverage and the total impervious lot coverage are within the requirements of the City. The area of additions or pool would not impair views. D. In granting of the Variance the spirit and intent of the Zoning Ordinance will be observed in that the proposed additions, pool and walls to create a patio area will be orderly, attractive and shall protect the rural character of the community. The proposed project will not encroach into potentially future equestrian uses on the property. A suitable stable and corral area exists on the site. E. The Variance request is consistent with the General Plan of the City of Rolling Hills because the proposed structures comply with the General Plan requirement of low profile, low -density residential development with sufficient open space between surrounding structures. The structural lot coverage and the total impervious lot coverage are within the requirements of the City. F. 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. Section 7. Based upon the foregoing findings the Planning Commission hereby approves the Site Plan Review and Variance application in Zoning Case No. 888 for a 1,055 square foot addition with a 1,260 square foot basement, varying heights, but not to exceed 5' high retaining walls, 492 square foot swimming pool with spa, 100 square foot covered porch, and trellis; all of which require 1,510 cubic yards of grading; and Variances to encroach with the front addition (395 square feet), into the front 30' setback, with 120 square feet of the 660 square foot new addition and new basement, and 125 square foot basement addition, under the existing residence; to encroach with the walls and basement light well into the side setback; to exceed the 2.5' required average height of the retaining walls and to exceed the maximum permitted disturbance of the lot. Additionally, stairs and not to exceed 3' wall along the stairs will be constructed in the south side yard setback to gain access into the rear of the pool area, construct -ion of which is compliant with the Zoning Ordinance. A. The conditions of approval specified herein shall be printed on all construction plans and shall be available at the construction site at all times. B. The Site Plan Review and Variances approvals shall expire within two years from the effective date of approval if construction pursuant to this approval has not commenced within that time period, as required by Sections 17.46.080(A) and 17.38.070(A) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, or the approval granted is otherwise extended pursuant to the requirements of those sections. ZC No. 888 5® C. It is declared and made a condition of the approval, that if any conditions thereof are violated, this approval shall be suspended and the privileges granted hereunder shall lapse; provided that the applicants have been given written notice to cease such violation, the opportunity for a hearing has been provided, and if requested, has been held, and thereafter the applicant fails to correct the violation within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of the City's determination. D. All requirements of the Building and Construction Code, the Zoning Code, and of the zone in which the subject property is located must be complied with, including the Outdoor Lighting Ordinance, unless otherwise set forth in this approval, or shown otherwise on an approved plan. All existing overhead utility lines serving the subject property shall be undergrounded pursuant to Section 17.27.030. E. The lot shall be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the site plan on file dated February 2nd, 2016. Prior to submittal of final working drawings to the Building and Safety Department for issuance of grading and/or building permits, the plans for the project shall be submitted to City staff for verification that the final plans are in compliance with the plans approved by the Planning Commission. F. The licensed professional preparing construction plans for this project for Building Department review shall execute a Certificate affirming that the plans conform in all respects to this Resolution approving this project and all of the conditions set forth therein and the City's Building Code and Zoning Ordinance. Further, the person obtaining a building and/ or grading permit for this project shall execute a Certificate of Construction stating that the project will be constructed according to this Resolution and any plans approved therewith. G. The project must be reviewed and approved by the Rolling Hills Community Association (RHCA). H. Grading for the project shall not exceed a total of 1,510 cubic yards of cut and fill, which includes future grading for a stable. No grading at this time shall be conducted in the area set aside for a future stable. 585 cubic yards of dirt may be exported from the excavation of the pool and basement. The resulting slopes shall not exceed 2:1 gradient. I. The proposed basement shall not exceed 1,260 square feet and shall meet all requirements of the Los Angeles County Building Code for basements, including exit doors and provision for light and ventilation. ZC No. 888 6 ® A minimum of four -foot path and/or walkway, which does not have to be paved, shall be provided around the entire perimeter of the structure, including the basement. The basement light well wall shall not be exposed more than 5' above grade. J. Structural lot coverage shall not exceed 6,388 square feet or 17.3% of the net lot area, in conformance with the zoning ordinance limit of 20%. Total lot coverage of structures and paved areas shall not exceed 11,850 square feet, or 32.1%, which is in conformance with the zoning ordinance limit of 35%. K. The new infinity pool and spa shall not exceed 492 square feet in total area. The pool equipment shall be screened; if by a solid wall, the wall shall not exceed 4 feet in height at any point from finished grade. Sound attenuating equipment shall be installed to dampen the sound. The swimming pool and the spillway shall utilize the most quiet and technologically advanced equipment to dampen the sound. L. The disturbance of the net lot area shall not exceed 18,623 square feet of surface area or 50.4%. M. Residential building pad coverage on the new 7,920 square foot residential building pad shall not exceed 5,758 square feet or 72.7%, which includes the encroachment into the reduced front yard setback. N. Should 5,000 square feet or more of existing landscaping be altered or new landscaping introduced, the applicant shall be required to conform to the City of Rolling Hills Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance, Chapter 13.18 of the Municipal Code. O. The applicant shall submit to the City two copies of a landscaping and irrigation plan prior to obtaining grading permit. All backfilled and graded areas as well as the slope between the walls shall be vegetated utilizing to the greatest extent feasible medium to large size native and drought resistant plants. Plants shall be utilized, which are consistent with the rural character of the community and meet the fire department requirements for fire resistant plants. Any trees and shrubs used in the landscaping scheme for this project shall be planted in a way that will not result in a hedge like screening and as not to impair views of neighboring properties but to screen the project site. P. Pursuant to Section 17.17.030, 60% of the remaining front yard area shall be landscaped, as defined in Section 17.12.250 of the Zoning Ordinance and such area shall be shown on the plans as landscaped area. Q. Minimum of 50% of the construction material spoils shall be recycled and diverted. The hauler shall provide the appropriate documentation to the City. ZC No. 888 7C R. There shall be no dumping of any debris, trash, soil spoils, construction materials or any other matter anywhere on the property. Further, perimeter easements and trails, if any, shall remain free and clear of any improvements including, but not be limited to, driveways, fences -including construction fences, grading, stairs, landscaping, irrigation and drainage devices, play equipment, parked vehicles, building materials, debris and equipment, except if permitted by the Rolling Hills Community Association. S. During construction, the property owners shall be required to schedule and regulate construction and related traffic noise throughout the day between the hours of 7 AM and 6 PM, Monday through Saturday only, when construction and mechanical equipment noise is permitted, so as not to interfere with the quiet residential environment of the City of Rolling Hills. T. During construction, trucks shall not park, queue and/ or idle at the project site or in the adjoining right-of-way before or after the permitted hours of operations. To the maximum extent possible, staging of equipment and parking of vehicles during construction shall be on site. U. If required by the City's drainage engineer, the applicant shall submit a detailed drainage plan. This project may be subject to the requirements of the City's Low Impact Development portion of the Storm Water Management and Pollution Control ordinance triggered where 10,000 square feet or more of impervious surface is reconstructed or added and/ or the project is deemed hillside development. V. No drainage device may be located in such a manner as to contribute to erosion or in any way affect an easement, trail or adjacent properties. The energy dissipaters, if required, shall be designed in such a manner as to not cross over any equestrian trails or easements. The drainage system(s) shall not discharge water onto a trail, shall incorporate earth tone colors, including in the design of the dissipater and shall be screened from any trail and neighbors views to the maximum extent practicable, without impairing the function of the drainage system. W. The property owners shall be required to conform to the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Public Works Department requirements for the installation and post construction maintenance of stormwater drainage facilities, and their Best Management Practices (BMP's) related to solid waste and storm water management, including erosion control measures. X. The property owners shall comply with the LA County Public Health Department requirements pertaining to septic sewer systems. ZC No. 888 Y. During construction, conformance with the air quality management district requirements shall be complied with, so that people or property are not exposed to undue vehicle trips, noise, dust, and objectionable odors. Z. The property owner and/or his/her contractor/applicant shall be responsible for compliance with the no -smoking provisions in the Municipal Code. AA. The contractor shall not use tools that could produce a spark, including for clearing and grubbing, during red flag warning conditions. Weather conditions can be found at: http;//www.wrh.noaa.gov/lox/main.php?suite=safety&page=hazard definitions#FIR E. It is the sole responsibility of the property owner and/or his/her contractor to monitor the red flag warning conditions. AB. The property on which the project is located shall contain a stable and corral or a set aside area to provide an area meeting all standards for a stable, corral with access thereto. AC. Notwithstanding Sections 17.46.020 and 17.46.070 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, any modifications to the property or this project, which would constitute additional grading, height or structural development shall require the filing of a new application for approval by the Planning Commission. AD. Until the applicants execute and record an Affidavit of Acceptance of all conditions of this Site Plan Review and Variances approvals, as required by the Municipal Code, the approvals shall not be effective. AE. All conditions of the Site Plan Review and Variance approvals, that apply, shall be complied with prior to the issuance of building permit. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 16 DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016. BRAD CHELF, CHAIRMAN ATTEST: HEIDI LUCE, CITY CLERK Any action challenging the final decision of the City made as a result of the public hearing on this application must be filed within the time limits set forth in Section 17.54.070 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code and Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6 ZC No. 888 9 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§ CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ) I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2016-02 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL OF A SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A SUBSTANTIAL ADDITION, GRADING, SWIMMING POOL, PORCH, TRELLIS, AND WALLS AND VARIANCES FOR ENCROACHMENT WITH PORTIONS OF THE ADDITIONS, WALLS AND A LIGHTWELL INTO SETBACKS, TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED DISTURBED AREA OF THE LOT AND TO EXCEED 2.5' AVERAGE HEIGHT OF WALLS IN ZONING CASE NO. 888 AT 17 MIDDLERIDGE LANE NORTH, (LOT 5 -MR), IN THE OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICT-OZD-1, (POST). was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on February 16, 2016 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following: Administrative Offices. HEIDI LUCE CITY CLERK ZC No. 888 TO: City oiled/hi INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 FROM: APPLICATION NO: SITE LOCATION: ZONING/LOT SIZE: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PUBLISHED: NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 Agenda Item No.: 7B Mtg. Date: 2/16/16 HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR ZONING CASE NO. 893 66 EASTFIELD DRIVE (LOT 107-EF) RA -S-1,1.3 ACRES GROSS TOM AND DEBI THOMAS TAVISHA NICHOLSON, BOLTON ENGINEERING NOVEMBER 5, 2015 AND FEBRUARY 4, 2016 REQUEST AND RECOMMENDATION 1. The Planning Commission visited the site on December 15, 2015 and held a public hearing in the evening. The Planning Commission expressed concerns with the proposed development and recommended that the applicant restudy the height of the cabana, direction of the roof ridge and the elevation of the cabana and pool. They suggested that the applicant "drop down"' the project, possibly scale it down, and provide a landscaping plan to show how the massing of project on one side of the lot will be handled. Several of the Commissioners expressed concerns with the various encroachments into the rear setback. 2. The applicants submitted same scope of the project with modifications to the roof line, height of cabana, height of walls and building pad elevation. The applicants request 1) Conditional Use Permit to construct a 475 square foot cabana; 2) Site Plan Review for the cabana, for 1,450 square foot pool deck, for higher that 3' retaining walls and grading consisting of 565 cubic yards of dirt, plus additional 180 cubic yards if a stable is constructed in the future; 3) Variances to encroach with a portion (310 sq.ft.) of the raised deck, retaining walls, pool equipment area and fire place into the rear yard setback; to retain two previously constructed sheds, a portion of a trellis and barbeque in the rear yard setback; to exceed the maximum permitted disturbance of the lot; to exceed the maximum permitted total coverage of the lot and to set aside an area for a future stable and corral in the front yard area of the lot. ZC No. 893 0 Printed on Recycled Paper Also proposed is a 632 square foot swimming pool with 100 square foot spa. Although the pool and spa would not require a discretionary permit and could be approved administratively, the grading for the location requires a SPR. The revised site plan addresses the Commissioners concerns as follows: The height of the cabana has decreased from 13'10. 5" in height with a proposed out -of -grade condition of 5' to a revised 12'10" in height with the out -of -grade condition now 4' maximum at the northwest corner, with an average of less than 2.5' in height. The roofline has been revised from a shed roof to a gable roof The pool pad has been "dropped down" by 6" over the entire site, thus reducing the height of retaining walls, and allowing the overall height of the cabana to be reduced. - A planter is proposed beyond the cabana to soften the visual impact of the cabana. 3. It is recommended that the Planning Commission review the staff report take public testimony and provide direction to staff BACKGROUND 4. The subject property, zoned RA -S-1, contains 1.3 acres gross and 44,563 square feet (1.02 acres) of net lot area. The Building Permits indicate that the subject property was originally developed in 1952 with additions approved and constructed in 1985 and in 1999. Extensive interior remodel was done in 1999 as well as in 2011. 5. None of the previous approvals show an approved set aside area for a stable and corral. (Set aside is not required for a remodel.) Pursuant to Section 17.18.020 every lot in the City is required to have a developed stable and corral or set aside area for a future stable and corral and such requirement is triggered when a proposal is submitted for a new residence, addition, accessory structures requiring a CUP, or a pool. The applicants propose a set aside area for a future stable and corral in the front yard area of the lot, which requires a Variance. The house is situated in such as way that there is no room for a stable and corral in the rear or side of the house, that would meet the setback and distance requirements. 6. The property is developed with a 5,850 square foot residence with 680 square foot garage, 86 square foot entryway, water feature, 766 square foot detached trellis, barbeque, two -100 square foot each sheds and a service yard. The trellis, BBQ and sheds are non -permitted and 251 square foot of the trellis, the BBQ and sheds are located in the rear yard setback. The applicants wish to keep those structures on the property. ZC No. 893 Most of the garage and approximately 1,060 square feet of the residence is located in the rear yard setback, and are legal non -conforming. MUNICIPAL CODE REQUIREMENTS 7. A Conditional Use Permit is required for the proposed 475 square foot cabana, which will be enclosed on three sides and have one side open facing the pool. At the north end of the cabana, due to the lot configuration, an out of grade condition is proposed where the cabana would be 4'out of grade, but not exceeding the average of 2.5' out of grade, which is permitted. The height of the cabana is now proposed to be 12'-10" and is buffered with a 4' maximum retaining wall. 8. Section 17.16.210 A2 of the Zoning Ordinance allows cabanas greater than 200 square feet with a CUP as follows: 2. Cabana, pool house or recreation room providing that the following conditions are met: a. Shall not exceed eight hundred square feet. b. Shall not be located in the front yard or any setback. c. A kitchenette and sanitary facility consisting of a shower, sink and toilet may be permitted. d. No sleeping quarters or renting of the structure shall be permitted. 9. The proposed swimming pool does not require discretionary review but the grading does. It will be located on the side of the house and have an infinity edge with 66 square foot water overflow catchment basin, with a not to exceed 3.5' high wall behind it. The pool equipment area and a gas fireplace are proposed to be located in the rear setback, which require a Variance. 10. A new 1,450 square foot pool deck is proposed, of which 650 square feet would be between 6" and 4 feet above grade, and of that 310 square feet would be located in the rear setback, which requires a Variance. The area underneath the raised deck will be filled and straddled by up to 4' high retaining wall, which will extend along the deck and the pool pad, and connect to the cabana. The retaining wall will range in height from a curb to 4', which on the average will be 2.5'. 11. A 766 square foot detached trellis was constructed without permission or permits by other than the current owners, of which 251 square feet is located in the rear setback. Also in the rear setback are located two, 100 -square feet each sheds, 21 square foot BBQ and a service yard, which were also not permitted. The applicants would like to retain these structures on the lot and have therefore applied for a Variance. If approved, the applicant will be required to obtain building permits for the BBQ. ZC No. 893 C3 12. A Variance is requested to allow a 1,000 square foot set aside area for a stable and corral in the front yard area of the lot. As stated earlier, the location and configuration of the existing residence is such that there is no room to set aside an area for a stable and corral in the rear or side of the residence and meet the setbacks and distance requirements. 13. Grading for this project will consist of 320 cubic yards of cut, including 220 cubic yards from excavation of the pool; and 245 cubic yards of fill, for a total of 565 cubic yards of dirt, of which 75 will be exported from the pool excavation and 100 cubic yards will be for overexcavation and recompaction. 180 cubic yards of dirt will be required for the future stable and corral area, when constructed. The grading will result in 2:1 slopes behind the pool and cabana, with a small area north of the cabana being 3:1 slopes. The grading for the future stable shows the resulting slopes at 3:1. Currently the disturbed area of the lot is 54.5%, which is legal non -conforming; (max. permitted is 40%); and with the proposed grading for the cabana, pool and future stable and corral, the disturbance is proposed to be 68.3% of the net lot area, which requires a Variance. Should the stable and corral be developed, the slope would result in 3:1 gradient. However, the project does not currently qualify for reduction in disturbance, as it exceeds the threshold for reduction. 14. With the proposed structures and future stable, the structural coverage on the net lot would be 9,506 square feet or 21.3%; which exceeds the maximum permitted 20%. However, pursuant to Section 17.16.070 of the Zoning Ordinance, deductions of up to 800 sq.ft. for detached miscellaneous structures (not in setbacks) are allowed. Therefore, with the deductions of portion of the trellis and water feature, the structural net lot coverage would be 8,893 square feet or 19.96%. 15. The total lot coverage (structures and hardscape) would be 19,263 square feet or 43.2% of the net lot area, which requires a Variance. Currently the total lot coverage is 36.02%, which slightly exceeds the maximum permitted of 35%. 16. The residential building pad will be 21,660 square feet, and the coverage on the pad would be 8,433 square feet or 39%; whereas currently the coverage is 37.5%, which exceeds the 30% coverage guideline. A second building pad will be created at the time a stable and corral are constructed. 17. Responding to the criteria to be satisfied for granting the CUP and Site Plan Review, the applicants' representative state in part that the proposed cabana will be compatible with the uses on other properties, it meets all of the City's development standards and will be built per building codes and will not have an impact on traffic or pedestrian circulation. The revised cabana will appear less massive and will be lowered. The Site Plan Review is required for the structures, walls and grading. The applicants' representative states that the house is in the rear setback and with the long driveway ZC No. 893 there isn't other area on the lot to place the proposed improvements. The pool and most of the deck are not in setbacks, and therefore meet all of the City's requirements. The disturbance and total coverage on the lot already exceed the maximum permitted, therefore any improvements would trigger a variance. The previous owners constructed the trellis and other small structures, and the current owner demolished one of the trellises already. The cabana and pool are proposed to be located in an area of the lot that would not cause extensive grading and are proposed in an area that was partially disturbed previously. Responding to the criteria to be satisfied for granting of the Variances, the applicants' representative state in part that the current conditions on the property prevent any other improvements without having to apply for a Variance for setback encroachment or for front yard encroachment. Any development in the front yard would be visible from Eastfield Drive, which the applicants are trying to avoid. The deck and wall in the rear setback would follow the line of the existing house in the rear setback and not be more intrusive, as the deck will remain as open space. She states that by locating the pool equipment in the rear setback, it makes it most distant to any neighbors. Previous owners constructed the trellis, sheds and BBQ and the current owner would like to keep those structures and legalize them and obtain building permits. They are located in the most logical place on the property for distance from neighbors and functionality. As for the request for Variance for disturbance and total lot coverage, she states that the lot in its existing condition exceeds these development standards and that any improvement, including a stable, which is required by the City to be included in the calculations, whether proposed to be constructed or not, would trigger exceedance of disturbance and total lot coverage. The slopes for the future stable, if constructed, would result in a 3:1 grade and blend into the existing terrain; and there will be a small area of the resulting slope from grading for the cabana that would also be at 3:1 grade. Therefore, to the maximum extent practicable the grading would not result in steep slopes. As for the stable and corral set aside located in the front yard, she states that due to the location and configuration of the existing residence, there is no other area on the lot to locate the set aside. 18. RHCA review and approval of the project will be required. 19. The project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303, Class 3 exemption Guidelines. 20. In reviewing a CUP the Planning Commission must find that the use is consistent with the General Plan and development standards of the City, including provision for open space and maintaining rural environment and that the use will not adversely affect adjacent properties. When reviewing a development application for a Site Plan Review the Planning Commission should consider whether the proposed project is consistent with the City's General Plan; and for Variances if there are ZC No. 893 extraordinary circumstances and hardships that warrant the granting of the variances. The criteria for making findings are listed below. ZONING CASE NO. 893 SITE PLAN REVIEW & VARIANCE EXISTING PROPOSED RA -S- 1 SETBACKS SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE, GARAGE & miscl. improvements CABANA, POOL, DECK, GRADING, RETAINING WALLS, & miscl. improvements Front: 50 ft. from rd. easmnt. line Side: 20 ft. from side property line Rear: 50 ft. from rear property line SPR -new structures, grading, deck and walls; Variance - encroachment into setbacks, to exceed max. permitted disturbance & total lot coverage; and set aside for future stable & corral in the front yard; CUP- cabana Residence Garages Cabana Pool/spa Pool equip. Stable Entry- Service yard Trellis BBQ Sheds Water ftr. Fireplace 5850 sq.ft. 680 sq.ft. 0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft. 0 sq.ft. 0 sq.ft. 86 sq.ft. 90 sq.ft. 766 sq.ft. 21 sq.ft. 200 sq.ft. 32 sq.ft. 0 sq.ft. Residence Garages Cabana Pool/spa Pool equip. Stable -future Entry Service yard Trellis BBQ Sheds Water ftr. Fireplace 5850 sq.ft. 680 sq.ft. 475 sq.ft. 732 sq.ft. 48 sq.ft. 450 sq.ft. 86 sq.ft. 90 sq.ft 766 sq.ft 21 sq.ft. 200 sq.ft. 98 sq.ft. 10 sq.ft. TOTAL 7,725 sq.ft. TOTAL 9,506 sq. ft. GRADING N/A Total of 565 cy of cut and fill, incl. 140 cy excavation for pool, to be exported. 180 cy total for future stable. 75 cy over excavation and compaction Site Plan Review required. Must be balanced on -site, except for excavated material STRUCTURAL LOT 16.11%; with deductions 19.96% or 8,893 of 44,563 s.f. net lot area; w/ allowances COVERAGE (20% maximum) TOTAL LOT COVERAGE 36.2% w/allowances 43.2% or 19,263 sq.ft. of 44,563 sq.ft. net lot area; with allowances (35% maximum) BUILDING PAD COVERAGE 19,160 sq.ft. pad w/37.5% coverage 21,480 sq.ft. pad w/ 8,433 sq.ft. or 39% coverage 450.sq.ft pad w/100% coverage (30% maximum -guideline) Residential Stable -future DISTURBED AREA 54.5% previously disturbed 68.3% proposed - Variance requested (40% maximum; any graded building pad area, any remedial grading (temporary disturbance), any graded slopes and building pad areas, and any non -graded ZC No. 893 area where impervious surfaces exist.) STABLE (min. 450 SQ.FT. N/A Future 450 sq.ft. and corral in front yard & 550 SQ.FT. CORRAL) STABLE ACCESS N/A Future ROADWAY ACCESS Existing driveway Existing driveway VIEWS N/A Planning Commission review PLANTS AND ANIMALS N/A • Planning Commission review VARIANCE REQUIRED 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; and 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; and 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; and D. That in granting the variance, the spirit and intent of this title will be observed; and E. That the variance does not grant special privilege; 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. SITE PLAN REVIEW CRITERIA 1146.010 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. ZC No. 893 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 APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT: 17.42.050 Basis for approval or denial of conditional use permit. The Commission (and Council on appeal), in acting to approve a conditional use permit application, may impose conditions as are reasonably necessary to ensure the project is consistent with the General Plan, compatible with surrounding land use, and meets the provisions and intent of this title. In making such a determination, the hearing body shall find that the proposed use is in general accord with the following principles and standards: A. That the proposed conditional use is consistent with the General Plan; B. That the nature, condition and development of adjacent uses, buildings and structures have been considered, and that the use will not adversely affect or be materially detrimental to these adjacent uses, building or structures; C. That the site for the proposed conditional use is of adequate size and shape to accommodate the use and buildings proposed; D. That the proposed conditional use complies with all applicable development standards of the zone district; E. That the proposed use is consistent with the portions of the Los Angeles County Hazardous Waste Management Plan relating to siting and siting criteria for hazardous waste facilities; F. That the proposed conditional uses observes the spirit and intent of this title. ZC No. 893 INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX (310) 377-7288 Agenda Item No. 7C Mtg. Date: 02-16-16 TO: HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR WENDY STARKS, ASSOCIATE PLANNER APPLICATION NO. SITE LOCATION: ZONING A.ND SIZE: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: DATE PUBLISHED: ZONING CASE NO. 898 46 EASTFIELD DRIVE (LOT 97-EF) RA -S-1, 1.8 ACRES (EXCL. ROADWAY EASEMENT) MR. AND MRS. ROBERT MILLER TONY INFERRERA, ARCHITECT JANUARY 7, 2016 REQUEST AND RECOMMENDATION 1. The Planning Commission opened the public hearing in this case on January 19, 2016 and viewed the project in the field earlier in the day on February 16, 2016 and continued the hearing to the evening meeting on February 16, 2016. 2. The applicants, Mr. and Mrs. Robert Miller, request a Site Plan Review and Variances to construct improvements on their property at 46 Eastfield Drive. The construction consists of: a 1,835 square foot addition to their existing residence for a total of 4,078 square feet residence, and a 375 square foot raised deck with stairs leading down to it from the house pad and grading of total of 700 cubic yards of dirt. The variances are requested for: 1) the proposed deck wall does not meet the requirement of 2.5' high wall average and will be close to 5' average, 2) 150 square foot portion of the proposed addition encroaches into the front yard setback, 3) request to retain an existing wood shed and service yard in the side setback, and 4) exceed the maximum permitted disturbed area of the lot. 3. It is recommended that the Planning Commission reconvene the meeting, review the staff report, take public testimony and provide direction to staff. ZC NO. 898 46 Eastfield. BACKGROUND 4. The property is zoned RAS-1 and the lot area excluding the roadway easement is 1.8 acres. For development purposes the net lot area of the lot is 65,880 square feet or 1.51 acres. Records indicate that the residence was constructed in 1955. Through the years several additions were made to the residence. Grading for a corral area was approved in 1960 and a stable/tack room was also constructed in 1960. The pool was constructed in 1959 and in 1961 a pool shelter/guest house was constructed. The pool shelter/guest house was subject to a code enforcement issue in 2007, as a previous owner renovated the structure, constructed a flat roof with a deck and outdoor barbeque without permits. Following code enforcement action, the owner obtained the required permissions and building permits, but has not corrected the roof configuration. The RHCA Architectural Committee is enforcing the slope of the roof. 5. Currently the lot is developed with a 2,243 square foot residence, 420 square foot garage, 465 square foot swimming pool, 680 square foot guest house, several trellises, sheds, and other amenities. One of the sheds and the service yard are located in side setbacks and require a variance or must be removed. The pool equipment area is located in the side setback as well. Since there are records of permits for the pool from 1959, the equipment area would have been constructed at the same time and is considered legal -nonconforming. MUNICIPAL CODE COMPLIANCE 6. The 375 raised deck is greater than 12" above grade and is proposed to be 5' out of grade on the downhill side. The deck and associated walls do not meet the requirement of 2.5' high wall average, and will be close to 5' average. This condition requires a variance. 7. The proposed addition of 1,835 contains a 150 square foot portion that encroaches into the required 50 -foot front yard setback by 10 feet, leaving a 40 -foot front yard setback, which requires a variance. 8. The lot currently is nonconforming for disturbed area (maximum 40% of net lot area permitted). There is a total existing disturbed area of 26,600 square feet (40.38% of the net lot area), which is proposed to be increased due to the deck construction to 27,800 square feet; an increase of 1,200 square feet, to 42.20%, which requires a variance. The architect states that the proposed disturbance follows the boundary of the existing block walls and stairway. Grading for this project will entail 100 cubic yards cut, 100 cubic yards fill, plus over -excavation of 250 cubic yards and recompaction of 250 cubic yards, for a total of 700 cubic yards of dirt. 9. The applicants request to retain a 100 square foot shed and 96 square foot service yard in the west side yard setback, which also require a variance. ZC No. 898 46 Eastfield Dr. 10. The residential building pad (outside of setbacks) will not be increased and will remain at 9,950 square feet. The coverage on this pad is proposed at 62.56%, which includes all of the structures on this pad. With the allowed deductions the building pad coverage will be 54.81%. This is an increase from 33.16% from the existing condition. The code provides a guideline of 30% maximum coverage. There is an existing building pad of 2,840 square feet where a pool and guest house is located. The total building pad coverage on this pad remains at 41.55%. No changes are being proposed to this building pad. The future stable and corral are proposed to be set aside on an existing stable building pad, which is 3,375 square feet in area. The coverage on this pad with a future 450 - square foot stable and an existing shed of 185 square feet will be 15.26%. No changes are being proposed to this future building pad. A fourth pad comprised of the 375 square foot deck is proposed with a total building pad coverage of 100%. 11. The structural lot coverage proposed, with allowed deductions, will be 7,854 square feet or 11.9% net lot coverage. The total lot coverage will be 13,916 square feet or 21.1% net lot coverage. 12. The architect states that 150 square feet of the proposed 1,835 additions will encroach 10 feet into the front setback. He advises that while the lot is larger than those in the direct vicinity of the property, the majority of it is sloped and unbuildable. By utilizing a portion of the existing flat space, be it in the front setback, it allows for less grading and less overall disturbance of the lot. The addition remains within the existing retaining wall and flat area on the site, and the total size of the residence will be in line with other newer homes in the neighborhood. 13. The proposed raised deck is to be located between two existing walls and will not be obtrusive, is located on the side of the addition and not in setbacks. 14. The Rolling Hills Community Association will review this project at a later date. 15. The project will be required to comply with storm water management requirements and all other Zoning Code requirements, including undergrounding of utility lines. 16. When reviewing a development application the Planning Commission must consider whether the proposed project meets the criteria for a Site Plan Review and Variances and must find that the proposed uses are consistent with the General Plan and development standards of the City (except as related to the variances), including provision for open space and maintaining rural environment and that the uses will not adversely affect adjacent properties. ZC No. 898 \ 3 46 Eastfield Dr. 17. The project has been determined to be categorically exempt pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as a Class 1 exemption in that the project is an addition. ZC NO. 898 NEARBY PROPERTIES For information onl Address House size in sq.ft. (built/add or remodel) Lot Area sq.ft. (exd. roadway easements) 13 Openbrand 3,700 (1955/1961 216,057 24 Outrider Road 5,551 (1993/1994) 112,820 48 Eastfield Dr. 2,898 (1956/1966) 78,410 45 Eastfield Dr. 5,820 (1954/1959) 93,650 44 Eastfield Dr. 3,186 (2007) 35,720 50 Eastfield Dr. 5,325 (1999) 50,530 46 Eastfield Proposed 4,078 77,970 NOTE:The above do not include garages, basements and other accessory structures. SOURCES: Assessors' records SITE PLAN REVIEW EXISTING PROPOSED RA -S- 1 ZONE SETBACKS SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH GARAGE , POOL, GUEST HOUSE, GAZEBO, NEW RESIDENCE WITH BASEMENT, POOL, OUTDOOR KITCHEN, SET -ASIDE STABLE/CORRAL LOCATION Front 50 ft. from front easement line Side: 20 ft. from property line Rear: 50 ft. from rear easement line STRUCTURES Residence Garage Swimming Pool Pool Equipment Guest House Att/cov porches Entryway Att trellis garage Shed/stable pad Barbecue Kitchen Shed Service yard 2243 sq.ft. 420 sq.ft 465 sq.ft. 35 sq. ft. 680 sq. ft. 300 sq. ft 465 sq. ft. 325 sq. ft. 185 sq. ft. 25 sq. ft. 300 sq. ft 100 sq.ft. 96 sq.ft. Residence Garage Swimming Pool Pool Equipment Guest House Att/cov porches Entryway Att trellis garage Shed/stable pad Barbecue Kitchen Shed Service yard Raised deck Stable (set -aside) 4078 sq.ft. 420 sq.ft. 465 sq.ft. 35 sq.ft. 680sq.ft. 300 sq.ft. 465 sq.ft 325 sq.ft. 185 sq.ft. 25 sq.ft. 300 sq.ft. 100 sq.ft. 96 sq.ft. 375 sq.ft. 450 sq.ft. (Site Plan Review required for new residence and if size of structure increases by more than 999 s.f. in a 36 -month period). TOTAL 5,639 sq. ft. TOTAL 8,288 sq.ft. STRUCTURAL LOT COVERAGE 7.9% w/allowed deductions 7,854 sq.ft. w/ allowed deductions or 11.9% of 65,880 sq. ft. net lot area (20% maximum) TOTAL LOT COVERAGE 17.2% with exclusions/allowances 13,916 sq.ft or 21.1% of 65,880 sq ft. net lot w/allowances (35% maximum) ZC No. 898 46 Eastfield Dr. BUILDING PADS (30% guideline) 33.16% 41.55% 0.00% 0.00% 54.81 % of 9,950 sq.ft. residential pad 41.55% of 2,840 15.3% sq.ft. of 3,375 sq. ft. 100% of 375 sq.ft. Residence Pool Stable (min. 450 sq. ft. stable) Deck GRADING N/A 100 c.y. cut for house, 250 c.y. overexcavation for house = 350 c.y. total cut 100 c.y. fill for deck, 250 c.y. recompaction = 350 c.y. total fill SUM = 700 c.y. 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 sq.ft.) must be balanced on site (except basement) DISTURBED AREA 40.38% 42.20% 27,800 sq.ft. of net lot area (40% max; 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 (min. 450 SQ.FT. N/A 450 sq. ft. future proposed 550 sq. ft future corral & 550 SQ.FT. CORRAL) STABLE ACCESS N/A Off main private driveway ROADWAY ACCESS Existing driveway approach Existing driveway approach VIEWS N/A Planning Commission review PLANTS AND ANIMALS N/A Planning Commission review 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; ZC No. 898 46 Eastfield Dr. 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; 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. ZC No. 898 46 Eastfield Dr. INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX (310) 377-7288 Agenda Item No. 7D Mtg. Date: 02-16-16 TO: HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR APPLICATION NO. SITE LOCATION: ZONING AND SIZE: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: DATE PUBLISHED: ZONING CASE NO. 894 77 CREST ROAD EAST (LOT 69 -A -1 -MS) RA -S-2, 10.35 ACRES MR. AND MRS. TOM JANKOVICH BOLTON ENGINEERING JANUARY 7, 2016 REQUEST AND RECOMMENDATION 1. The Planning Commission opened the public hearing in this case on January 19, 2016 and viewed the project in the field earlier in the day on February 16, 2016 and continued the hearing to the evening meeting on February 16, 2016. 2. The applicants Mr. and Mrs. Jankovich request a Site Plan Review for the construction of a new 6,631 square foot single-family residence, 2 new garage(s) for a total of 1,308 square feet, a new pool (900 square feet) and spa (86 square feet) with a 140 square foot catchment basin, 1,910 square feet of attached covered porches, a 1,070 square foot pond, a 245 square foot koi pond gazebo, new driveway and turnaround access and site retaining walls that exceed 3 feet in height. A variance is requested as 325 square feet of the residence and 3 covered patios are proposed to be located in the side yard setback. Two of the covered porches will encroach between 0' to 7' into the side setback and a third porch, (130 square feet) will encroach in its entirety into the side setback, beyond the residence encroachment. The applicants also request slight modification to the previously approved corral and wall in the front yard. ZC NO. 894, 77 Crest E. 3. It is recommended that the Planning Commission review the staff report, view the project in the field, take public testimony and continue the meeting to the evening meeting of the Planning Commission. BACKGROUND 4. The property is zoned RAS-2 and the gross lot area is 10.35 acres. The net lot area is 9.56 acres or 416,381 square feet. However, much of the lot is undevelopable due to the steep eastern and southern slope, and the flag lot shape further constrains the lot. The lot is located south of Crest Road East and south of a shared driveway. 5. The property is currently developed with a 3,275 square foot residence, a 591 square foot garage, and a 96 square foot service yard. A 3,456 square foot stable with a loft was recently approved (Resolution 2015-07). 6. In July 2015 the Planning Commission approved a request for a Site Plan Review, Conditional Use Permit, and a Variance to construct a stable with corral that required grading and to allow the stable and corral in the front yard area. The approved proposed stable would contain 3,691 square feet, which includes 3,456 square feet on the ground floor plus a 235 square foot loft. The approved corral area is proposed to be 2,000 square feet. Concurrently, the Planning Commission approved a lot line adjustment that removed the existing lot line between 77 Crest Road East (Lot 1, Tract 27526) and the adjoining vacant lot to the north (Lot 2, Tract 27526), merging the two lots, both zoned RAS-2, into the current single parcel containing 450,811 gross square feet, or 10.35 acres. MUNICIPAL CODE COMPLIANCE 7. With the previously approved stable, the disturbed area was approved at 11.88% of the net lot area. The proposed disturbed area will be 14.29%, below the maximum allowed disturbance of 40% (Municipal Code 17.16.070B). The grading will consist of 2,645 cubic yards of cut (for the stable, pond, corral, driveways, yard areas, pool/spa excavation, and over -excavation), and 2,395 cubic yards of fill (for the stable, corral, driveways, yard areas, and recompaction) with a total export of 250 cubic yards from the pool and spa. 8. The new residence is proposed in the same general location as the current residence and will range from 14.7' to 17.3' plus chimneys in height at the highest ridge. 9. The property drains to the south/southeast and will be collected in two on -site underground dissipaters and one 360 square foot biofiltration unit that will receive and treat the stormwater from the site. The biofiltration unit is proposed in the side yard setback with walls not to exceed 3 feet in height. The walls for this unit are allowed in the setback (Section 17.16.150G), as they are associated with "a drainage device." This ZC NO. 894, 77 Crest E. project is subject to the City's Low Impact Development Ordinance, due to land development activities for construction of a new single-family residence where one acre or more of land is disturbed and where the project adds 10,000 square feet or more of impervious surface. (Chapter 8.32 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code). 10. The applicants will continue to utilize the existing driveway approach to the residence. Per the Fire Department requirement, the driveway will be widened to 20 feet and will be moved slightly to the east, outside the side setback. The existing primary driveway is 10,330 square feet and will be enlarged by 930 square feet for a total of 11,260 square feet. 750 square feet of asphalt Guest Parking is proposed to be integrated into, but adjacent to the circular driveway and will accommodate 3 parking spaces. A landscaped island will be retained around the circular driveway. The applicants also plan to preserve the large Oak Trees inside the island. 11. A 245 square foot Koi Pond Gazebo is proposed on a bridge spanning over the 1,070 square foot Koi Pond. 12. The applicants propose to substantially utilize the existing 34,815 square foot building pad for the new construction, and enlarge it by 4,985 square feet on the flat space to the south and west of the existing residence to 39,800 square feet. The total building coverage on this pad will be 15,194 square feet or 38.2%, which includes all of the structures including the stable, but excludes the permissible deductions of a portion of the attached porch, the gazebo and the fireplace. 13. The structural net lot coverage is proposed at 15,857 square feet or 3.8%, (20% max. permitted); and the total lot coverage proposed will be 36,547 square feet or 8.8%, (35% max. permitted) excluding allowable deductions. 14. The applicant proposes a retaining wall that would border the lower portion of the building pad, and which would range from a curb to 5' in height, with an average height of 2.5'. A 4' to 5' wide D.G. walkway is proposed behind the retaining wall and for access to the pool equipment area. 15. The applicant is also proposing to relocate a portion of the previously approved 3' high wall closer to the front yard setback line to create a wider corral area to the north of the stable. 16. In describing the application the applicants' agent states, in part, that the site already has a graded pad, driveway and an area for a stable and corral, which will remain and will be re -used to minimize impact on the lot. The grading will consist of re- grading of existing areas, and new grading will be minimal with a total cut of 2,645 cubic yards, total fill of 2,395 cubic yards, and 250 cubic yards to be exported. The driveway is designed to allow for emergency vehicles turnaround. 325 square feet of the residence and 3 attached porches will encroach into the side setback and the ZC NO. 894, 77 Crest E. applicant advises this is due to the "flag lot" shape and the dramatic slope that makes much of the lot undevelopable without creating additional disturbance. 17. The applicant's agent further states that the project will utilize the existing common driveway and the proposed residence is over 250 linear feet from the termination of the common driveway off of Crest Road East and a new fire department driveway and turnaround access is being provided on the property only. Therefore, the access to the properties above will not be affected. There are 3 large trees in the center of the property that are being preserved subject to the fire department and Fuel Mod Unit approval of their location in the driveway turnaround area. 18. Rolling Hills Community Association will review this project at a later date. 19. 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 development standards of the City, including provision for open space and maintaining rural environment and that the uses will not adversely affect adjacent properties. 20. This project is subject to the City's Water Efficient Landscape ordinance and landscaping plans and certifications of water conservation will be required. Fuel modification review and approval from the Fire Department is also required. 21. The project will be required to comply with storm water management requirements, and all other zoning requirements, including undergrounding of utility lines and a new septic tank. 22. The project has been determined to be categorically exempt pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Class 3. ZC 894 NEARBY PROPERTIES (For information onl Address House size in sq.ft. (built/add or remodel) Lot Area (excl. roadway easements) 73 Crest Road E. 4,375 (1983/1985) 2.78 71 Crest Road E. *3,109 (recently approved)_ 2.35 67 Crest Road E. 4,289 (1977/1990) 3.89 83 Crest Road E. 5,723 (1977/1984) 2.36 85 Crest Road E. 4,685 (1951/1954) 3.13 87 Crest Road E. 3,969 (1968/1973) 1.91 91 Crest Road E. 5,156 (2004) 3.90 AVERAGE 4,472 2.9 77 Crest Road E. Existing 3,275 6,631 Proposed 9.56 ZC NO. 894, 77 Crest E. NOTE: The above do not include garages, basements and other accessory structures. SOURCES: Assessors' records * City records ZC. NO. 894 SITE PLAN REVIEW EXISTING PROPOSED RA -S- 2 ZONE SETBACKS SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH GARAGE TO BE DEMOLISHED NEW RESIDENCE WITH GARAGE(S), POOL/SPA, STABLE, ACCESSORY STRUCTURES Front 50 ft. from front easement line Side: 35 ft. from property line Rear: 50 ft. from rear property line STRUCTURES Residence Garage Pool + spa Pool equipment Stable Att.Cov. Porches Entryway Koi House Koi Pond Fireplace Service yard 3275 sq.ft. 591 sq.ft. 0 sq.ft. 0 sq.ft 3456 sq.ft. 0 sq.ft. 0 sq.ft. 0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 96 sq.ft. Residence Garages Pool + spa Pool equipment Stable Att. Cov. Porches Entryway Koi House Koi Pond Fireplace Service yard 6631 sq.ft. 1308 sq.ft. 1126 sq.ft. 40 sq.ft. 3456 sq.ft. 1910 sq.ft. 95 sq.ft. 245 sq.ft 1070 sq.ft 50 sq.ft 96 sq.ft (Site Plan Review required if size of structure increases by more than 999 s.f. in a 36 -month period). TOTAL 7,418 sq.ft. TOTAL 16,027 sq.ft STRUCTURAL LOT COVERAGE 0.88% 15,857 sq.ft. w/allowances or 3.8% of 416,381 sq.ft. net lot area (20% maximum) TOTAL LOT COVERAGE 4.39% 36,547 sq.ft. w/ allowances or 8.8% of 416,381.ft. net lot area (35% maximum) BUILDING PADS (30% guideline) 21.31% 38.18% of 39,800 sq.ft. pad GRADING N/A 2,645 cubic yards of cut and 2,395 cubic yards of fill = 250 cubic yards of export 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 sq.ft.) must be balanced on site. DISTURBED AREA 11.88% 14.3% of the net lot area (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 (min. 450 SQ.FT. N/A 3,456 sq.ft, 215 sq.ft. loft, , 2,000 sq.ft. corral approved & 550 SQ.FT. CORRAL) STABLE ACCESS N/A approved ROADWAY ACCESS Existing driveway approach Existing driveway approach VIEWS N/A Planning Commission review PLANTS AND ANIMALS N/A Planning Commission review ZC NO. 894, 77 Crest E. 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. 894, 77 Crest E. 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. ZC NO. 894, 77 Crest E. eery Ra(1419 rice¢ INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX (310) 377-7288 Agenda Item No.:8A Mtg. Date: 2-16-16 TO: HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR WENDY STARKS, ASSOCIATE PLANNER APPLICATION NO. ZONING CASE NO. 897 SITE LOCATION: 2 HILLSIDE LANE (LOT 60-RH) ZONING AND SIZE: RA -S-1, 1.97 ACRES (EXCL. ROAD EASEMENT) APPLICANT: MS. SARAH ELKIN REPRESENTATIVE: THE (W)ORKSHOP & BOLTON ENGINEERING CORP. PUBLISHED: FEBRUARY 4, 2016 REQUEST AND RECOMMENDATION 1. The applicant, Ms. Elkin, requests a Site Plan Review for the construction of retaining walls that will have a maximum height of 5 feet and an average height of no more than 2.5 feet in height, 1,525 cubic yards of grading for a new building pad where the applicant proposes a 680 square foot pool, and a 72 square foot spa along with a 470 square foot pool house, 225 square foot attached trellis, and 1,610 square feet of pool decking. 125 cubic yards of dirt will be exported from the pool. A Conditional Use Permit is requested for the 470 square foot pool house, and Variances are requested to locate all of the accessory structures, including various walls in the front yard area of the lot, (pursuant to City's Zoning Ordinance, no structures are permitted in front of the leading edge of the residence) and to exceed the maximum permitted disturbance of the lot, from the existing 52.33% to 55.9%. Also proposed is an 800 square foot addition to the existing 2,450 square foot single-family residence, 525 square feet of new paved walkways leading from the house to the pool pad, and the removal of both 390 square feet of concrete for the corral and 275 square feet for the access to the stable to be replaced with decomposed granite or similar material. These improvements could be approved administratively and do not require Planning ZC NO. 897 2 Hillside Lane Commission action. The driveway will be widened to 20 feet from an existing 16 feet. The Traffic Commission will review the driveway apron at their March 24, 2016 meeting. 2. It is recommended that the Planning Commission review the staff report, open the public hearing, take public testimony and schedule a field visit to the site. BACKGROUND 3. The property is zoned RAS-1 and the gross lot area is 1.97 acres. The net lot area is 1.45 acres or 63,160 square feet. The existing property was developed primarily towards the rear of the lot with most of the garage, and all of a small shed, and a two-story tack house in the rear setback. 4. The property is currently developed with a 2,450 square foot residence, a 535 square foot garage, a 52 square foot shed, a 96 square foot service yard, and a previously permitted 751 square foot two story stable/tack house, of which the second story has been converted to a guest house (375 square foot stable on the first story, and a 376 square foot guest house on the second story). A nonconforming 25 square foot wood stove has been demolished. The applicant proposes to convert the guesthouse portion to a stable/storage use. As part of this application process the Planning Commission will visit the stable/guest house structure to verify that it can be converted to a stable use and place such a condition on the development. 5. Records indicate that the residence was constructed in the late 1930's, early 1940's. A permit for a tool house/tack house was approved in 1941, and a permit for a workshop was approved in 1944. In 1969 a variance was approved to build a tennis court in the front yard, which was not constructed. MUNICIPAL CODE COMPLIANCE 6. The project's disturbed area is currently 52.33% and above the allowed 40%. The proposed disturbed area will increase due to the disturbance for the pool pad for a total of 55.9% disturbance. The applicant's agent advises that the slopes for this pad will be 3:1 for at least 50% of the grading and the project is allowed 50% disturbance (Section 17.16.070B.A.2). The increase to 55.9% will require a variance. The cut for the pool pad will be 725 cubic yards; the fill will be 600 cubic yards, with 125 cubic yards to be exported. The applicant's agents advise that the proposed residential addition will be on a previously constructed pad where little to no grading will be required. The pool pad will be located largely on a previously disturbed area as well but will require some grading. Not to exceed 5 foot high retaining walls and 3:1 slopes for the new building pad will minimize the development impact on the property. The remaining 50% of the grading will have 2:1 slopes to blend with existing contours. ZC NO. 897 2 Hillside Lane 7. The structural coverage on the lot will be 6,405 square feet or 10.14% and the total coverage (structures and hardscape) will be 18,749 square feet or 29.7%, both in compliance with the code. 8. The 800 square foot addition to the existing 2,450 square foot residence will result in a 3,250 square foot house. The adjacent homes are 5,168 square feet (to the north), 4,473 square feet (to the south), and 5,534 square feet (to the east) and the proposed house will be compatible in size. The residential addition will be at least 35 feet from the stable to comply with the Municipal Code (17.18.040.5c). The residential building pad will increase by 771 square feet and with the addition the coverage on this pad will be 4,532 square feet or 28.5%; and with the allowed deductions, 4,131square feet or 26%. 9. The 680 square foot pool, 72 square foot spa, 470 square foot pool house, 50 square feet of pool equipment, 225 square foot attached trellis, and 1,610 square foot decking are proposed to be located in the front yard of the residence, not in a setback. As the proposed pool/spa and structures are located in the front yard, a variance is needed but otherwise all are compliant with the Municipal Code. The pool house is proposed to be 13.3' high. The pool pad improvements are located 170 feet away from Saddleback Road. The new pool building pad will be 3,245 square feet and will have coverage of 1,152 (with deductions) or 35.5%. 10. The existing 16' driveway is proposed to be widened to 20' to comply with Fire Department requirements. 18 -inch maximum curb walls are proposed along the perimeter of the driveway leading to the 32' radius Fire Department Turn -around area. The Traffic Commission will review the driveway apron on March 24, 2016. 11. Proposed is approximately 9-10 foot difference in elevation between the residential building pad and the proposed accessory structures on the second pad. Stairs and various walls will connect the building pads. A 3 -foot high maximum wall screens the pool and deck area from the front yard area to the north. A 5 -foot maximum wall screens the pool house and attached trellis from the front setback area to the north and wraps around this structure to the east. A 4 -foot high retaining wall is proposed between the pool house and the pool equipment directly south of the pool house in 2:1 slope. Two 4 -foot maximum height walls with 3:1 slope between separate the lawn area behind the residence and the pool deck. 12. The 751 square foot two-story existing structure in the southeast portion of the site, and in the rear and side yard setbacks has a stable on the first floor and a guest house on the second floor and will be converted entirely into a two-story stable as a condition of approval. Pursuant to Section 17.18.060(D) the first story of the stable must conform with the requirements of an agricultural space including entry doors and access to the stable. Pursuant to Section 17.18.060(C), the tack room space cannot be used for sleeping. ZC NO. 897 2 Hillside Lane The applicant has set aside a 1,150 square feet corral outside of the setbacks. A condition of approval will be to remove the concrete from the proposed corral area and replace it with decomposed granite. The stable access is concrete. However, 275 square feet of concrete will be removed and replaced with a 3 foot wide strip of decomposed granite running the length of the access to the stable to comply with Municipal Code 17.18.030.A. The existing stable pad (not in setback) is 660 square feet and has coverage of 64.85%. 13. A 52 square foot shed in the southeast portion of the site is in the side setback and a condition of approval will be for the applicant to relocate the shed outside of the setback or remove it. 14. A wood stove was built into the retaining wall between the residence and the stable, adjacent to the proposed corral area. A condition of approval will be to fully remove what remains of the stove. 15. Rolling Hills Community Association will review this project at a later date. 16. When reviewing a development application the Planning Commission must consider whether the proposed project meets the criteria for a Site Plan Review, Conditional Use Permit, and Variance and must find that the proposed uses are consistent with the General Plan and 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. 17 Fuel modification review and approval from the Fire Department is also required. 18. This project will be required to comply with all zoning requirements, including undergrounding of utility lines and Health Department requirements for a septic system. 19. The project has been determined to be categorically exempt pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Class 3. ZC 897 NEARBY PROPERTIES For information onl Address House size in sq.ft. (built/add or remodel) Lot Area sq.ft. (excl. roadway easements) 4 Hillside Lane 4,473 ((1999)* 92,350 49 Saddleback Road 5,534 (1998) 75,790 48 Saddleback Road 5,168 (1972/1976) 38,770 46 Saddleback Road 7,832 (2013)* 105,420 3 Hillside Lane 2,634 (1938/1950) 98,710 93 Saddleback Road 4,441 (1949) 255,262 ZC NO. 897 2 Hillside Lane 20 Portuguese Bend 4,193 (1939/1947) 192,100 Road 2 Hillside Lane Proposed 3,250 85,760 NOTE: The above do not include garages, basements and other accessory structures. SOURCES: Assessors' records * City Records ZONING CASE NO. 897 SITE PLAN REVIEW/CUP/VR EXISTING PROPOSED RA -S- 1 ZONE SETBACKS SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE, GARAGE, GUEST HOUSE/STABLE, SHED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE, GARAGE, SWIMMING POOL/SPA, POOL HOUSE, STABLE Front: 50 ft. from front easement line Side: 20 ft. from side property line Rear: 50 ft. from rear property line CUP required for pool house in the Residence Garage Swimming Pool Spa Pool House Pool equip. Stable/Guest h. Shed Service yard Attch porches Entryway Attached trellis 2450 sq.ft. 535 sq.ft. 0 sq.ft. 0 sq.ft. 0 sq.ft. 0 sq.ft 376 sq.ft. 52 sq.ft 96 sq.ft. 198 sq.ft. 250 sq.ft. 203 sq.ft. Residence Garage Swimming Pool Spa Pool House Pool equip. Stable Shed Service yard Attch porches Entryway Attached Trellis 3250 sq.ft. 535 sq.ft. 680 sq.ft. 72 sq.ft. 470 sq.ft. 50 sq.ft. 376 sq.ft. 52 sq.ft 96 sq.ft. 198 sq.ft. 250 sq.ft. 428 sq.ft front yard; SPR required for grading, pool, spa, pool house, new decking„ and retaining walls. Variance is required for locating the structures in the. front yard (pool, spa, pool equipment, and pool house), and for exceeding disturbed area. TOTAL 4,160 sq.ft. TOTAL 6,457 sq.ft GRADING N/A 725 c.y. cut & 600 c.y. fill 125 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 sq. ft.) STRUCTURAL LOT COVERAGE 6.5% 10.14% of 63,160 s.f. net lot area (6,405 s.f. excl/allowances) (20% maximum) TOTAL LOT COVERAGE 21.62 % 29.7% of 63,160 s.f. net lot area (18,749 s.f. excl/allowances) (35% maximum) BUILDING PAD COVERAGE (30% 22.02% of 15,129 sq.ft. pad n/a 64.85% of 660 sq.ft. pad 26.0% of 15,900 sq.ft. pad 35.50% of 3,245 sq.ft. pad 64.85% of 660 sq.ft. pad maximum -guideline) Residential Pool pad Stable pad DISTURBED AREA 52.33% or 33,052 sq. ft. (63,160 sq. ft. net lot area) 55.89% or 35,302 sq.ft. (63,160 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 ZC NO. 897 2 Hillside Lane impervious surfaces exist.) STABLE (min. 450 SQ.FT. 375 sq.ft. existing 0 sq ft. corral 751 sq.ft. proposed 2 -story 550 s.f. corral & 550 SQ.FT. CORRAL) STABLE ACCESS Existing Existing ROADWAY ACCESS Existing driveway approach Existing driveway approach with widened driveway to 20' from 16' VIEWS N/A Planning Commission review PLANTS AND ANIMALS N/A Planning Commission review 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; ZC NO. 897 2 Hillside Lane 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 APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT: 17.42.050 Basis for approval or denial of conditional use permit. The Commission (and Council on appeal), in acting to approve a conditional use permit application, may impose conditions as are reasonably necessary to ensure the project is consistent with the General Plan, compatible with surrounding land use, and meets the provisions and intent of this title. In making such a determination, the hearing body shall find that the proposed use is in general accord with the following principles and standards: A. That the proposed conditional use is consistent with the General Plan; B. That the nature, condition and development of adjacent uses, buildings and structures have been considered, and that the use will not adversely affect or be materially detrimental to these adjacent uses, building or structures; C. That the site for the proposed conditional use is of adequate size and shape to accommodate the use and buildings proposed; D. That the proposed conditional use complies with all applicable development standards of the zone district; E. That the proposed use is consistent with the portions of the Los Angeles County Hazardous Waste Management Plan relating to siting and siting criteria for hazardous waste facilities; F. That the proposed conditional use observes the spirit and intent of this title. SOURCE: City of Rolling Hills Zoning Ordinance 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; 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.. ZC NO. 897 2 Hillside Lane