The URL can be used to link to this page

Planning Commission Meeting 09-20-2016CITY 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 16ih day of September 2016,1 serve the within Planning Commission Meeting Agenda Regular Meeting - 09/20/2016 E -MAILED MAILED DropBox DELIVERED Interested Asst. City Attorney City Manager RH Web site IistSery Parties Planning Commissioners Interested parties Also posted at City Hall, at www.Rolling-Hills.org and PDF's in DropBox. I declare under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on the 16ih day of September, 2016 at Rolling Hills, California. Ewa Nikodem Administrative Assistant Rae", qat INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 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, SEPTEMBER 20, 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. August 16, 2016, Adjourned Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission B. August 16, 2016, Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission 6. RESOLUTIONS (See 7A) 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS ON ITEMS CONTINUED FROM A PREVIOUS MEETING A. ZONING CASE NO. 909. Request for a Site Plan Review to construct a 700 square foot covered porch with an out -of -grade condition and accessory structures and for a Variance to encroach with a set aside area for a stable and corral into the side setback, including with an existing shed that is part of the area for the stable set aside in Zoning Case No. 909 at 7 Southfield Drive (Lot 4 -SF) Rolling Hills, CA, (Klerman). The project has been determined to be categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Section 15303. AND CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION NO. 2016-21. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL -1- OF A SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A COVERED PORCH WITH AN OUT -OF -GRADE CONDITION AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURES, AND A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH WITH A SET ASIDE AREA FOR A STABLE AND CORRAL INTO THE SIDE SETBACK, INCLUDING WITH A PORTION OF AN EXISTING SHED IN ZONING CASE NO. 909 AT 7 SOUTHFIELD DRIVE, (LOT 4 -SF), ROLLING HILLS, CA (KLERMAN). B. ZONING CASE NO. 910. Request for a Site Plan Review for room addition and to reconstruct an existing garage, for a swimming pool, new driveway and grading and request for a Variance to exceed the maximum permitted disturbance of the lot in Zoning Case No. 910, at 85 Crest Road East, (Lot 69 C -1 -MS), Rolling Hills, CA (Zee). The project has been determined to be categorically exempt (Class 3) pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Section 15303. C. ZONING CASE NO. 911. Request for a Site Plan Review to legalize a 140 square foot addition and to construct a 565 square feet of attached covered porches to main residence on a property with a restrictive development condition and a Variance for one of the covered porches to be located in the front yard setback at 3 Poppy Trail (Lot 8 -PT) Rolling Hills, CA, (Jonas). The project has been determined to be categorically exempt (Class 3) pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Section 15303. 8. NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS NONE 9. SCHEDULE OF FIELD TRIPS (OCTOBER 18, 2016) 1. 10,12 & 14 Pine Tree Lane (Lot Line Adjustment) 2. 2950 Palos Verdes Drive North (slope repair) 10. ITEMS FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION 11. ITEMS FROM STAFF 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 Cihy 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. -2- Agenda Item No: 5A Mtg. Date: 09-20-16 MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 16, 2016 FIELD TRIP PRESENT: Chairman Chelf, Commissioners Cardenas, Gray, and Kirkpatrick Commissioner Kirkpatrick recused himself due to proximity of his residence to subject site Raymond Cruz, City Manager Yolanta Schwartz, Planning Director Wendy Starks, Associate Planner ZONING CASE NO. 909. Request for a Site Plan Review to construct a 630 square foot covered porch with an out -of -grade condition, with a trellis and accessory structures, and a Variance from the requirement to provide a set -aside area for a stable and corral at 7 Southfield Drive (Lot 4 -SF) Rolling Hills, CA, (Klerman). Also present at this field trip were: Mr. Klerman, Property Owner Criss Gunderson, Architect Leah Mirsch, Resident Carole Hoffman, Resident Jack Smith, Resident Planning Director Yolanta Schwartz reviewed the applicant's proposal including the request for a variance to not to set aside an area for a future stable and corral. She also stated that following submittal of the application, staff noticed the storage shed on the property, that was not depicted on the plans and that building permit would be required for the structure. Everyone present toured the project. Criss Gunderson explained the proposed construction of the trellis and the patio area. In response to questions about the proposed 2.5' high wall at the above grade deck and the architect explained that caissons will likely be required, that soils and geology testing were done and it was determined to be safe, that an engineering firm will be brought on board as the Civil Engineer and that the proposed project will in fact make the hillside safer than it is now as caissons will stabilize the hillside. Mr. Gunderson pointed out that the proposed project will not take away area that could otherwise be used for equestrian uses because the project is proposed adjacent to the house and equestrian uses must be at least 35' from living areas. The group discussed options for the placement of a stable/corral, rather than requesting a variance. Questions were raised about the existing shed near the north setback, and whether that area could be set aside for the stable and corral. Director Schwartz stated that the area considered would be in the side setback and it is not clear at this time if the shed is in setback or not. Chairman Chelf indicated that encroachment into the easement is not preferred, but a Variance to encroach into the setback is an option that can be discussed at the evening meeting along with allowance to provide less than 1,000 square feet for stable/corral if it is not possible to provide 1,000 square feet on this steep lot. Discussion ensued about options for the existing storage shed and its possible use as a stable/corral. Mr. Gunderson explained that the applicants considered different locations for a stable and corral set aside but that access to a stable would be very challenging on this lot and unsafe for hay deliveries due to the steep and curving driveway and that retaining walls would be required. Mr. Gunderson and Mr. Klerman said they would consider merging the adjacent lot north of the shed area that Mr. Klerman also owns if that is determined to be necessary. In response to Jack Smith Director Schwartz stated that in the past 15 years variances to waive the requirement for a stable and corral were granted for 3 or 4 properties. Chairman Chelf and Leah Mirsch advised there are a few lots in the city that are not compatible with equestrian uses. Mr. Gunderson reminded the group that if a stable was to be constructed, not only will they have to comply with City zoning requirements and Rolling Hills Community Association requirements, but also with the County's requirements for stables which may be even more prohibitive. Planning Director Schwartz advised that if a set aside area for the stable and corral is proposed to be located in the setback, a new public hearing needs to be held and a notice for the variance published and neighbors notified. 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: 09-20-16 MINUTES OF A' REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS AUGUST 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 6:30 p.m. on Tuesday, August 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, Kirkpatrick, Gray and Chairman Chelf. None. Yolanta Schwartz, Planning Director. Raymond R. Cruz, City Manager Natalie Karpeles, Assistant City Attorney. Wendy Starks, Associate Planner. Heidi Luce, City Clerk. Tavisha Nicholson, Bolton Engineering. Gordon Schaye, 58 Portuguese Bend Road. Charlie Raine, 4 Pinto Road. Jim Partridge, 67 Portuguese Bend Road. Criss Gunderson, Architect. Carole Hoffman, 3 Hillside Lane. Alan McGregor, Landscape Architect. Tony Wang, 86 Crest Road East. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA Approved as presented. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON MINUTES AND ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA None. Minutes Planning Commission Regular Meeting 08-16-16 DRAFT APPROVAL OF MINUTES July 19, 2016, Adjourned Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission Commissioner Cardenas moved that the Planning Commission approve the minutes of the adjourned regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on July 19, 2016 as presented. Vice Chairman Gray seconded the motion, which carried without objection. July 19, 2016, Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission Vice Chairman Gray moved that the Planning Commission approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on July 19, 2016 as presented. Commissioner Cardenas seconded the motion, which carried without objection. RESOLUTIONS RESOLUTION NO. 2016-19. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL FOR A SITE PLAN REVIEW, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCE FOR GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION OF A STABLE WITH COVERED PORCHES, CORRAL, AND A RIDING RING, TO ENCROACH WITH THE RIDING RING INTO THE FRONT SETBACK, AND TO EXCEED THE PERMITTED DISTURBANCE OF THE LOT IN ZONING CASE NO. 904 AT 34 SADDLEBACK ROAD, (DELGADO). THE PROJECT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, (CEQA) PURSUANT TO SECTION 15303 OF THE CEQA GUIDELINES. Chairman Chelf introduced the item and asked for staff's comments. Associate Planner Starks reviewed the applicant's request to construct a 1,140 sq. ft. stable, con -al and riding ring in Zoning Case No. 904 at 34 Saddleback Road and stated that at it last meeting, the Planning Commission reviewed the revised project, visited the site and directed staff to prepare a Resolution granting approval of the project. Chairman Chelf called for public comment. Hearing none, he asked for comments from the Planning Commission. Following brief discussion, Commissioner Cardenas moved that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2016-19 granting approval of the applicant's request in Zoning Case No. 904 at 34 Saddleback Road. Commissioner Kirkpatrick seconded the motion, which carried without objection. RESOLUTION NO. 2016-20. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL FOR A SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW RESIDENCE WITH BASEMENT, GARAGES, COVERED PORCHES, SWIMMING POOL WITH A SPA, RETAINING WALLS AND NEW DRIVEWAY; AND REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A GUEST HOUSE AND STABLE WITH LOFT AND CORRAL IN ZONING CASE NO. 902 AT 23 CREST ROAD EAST, (LOT 132A -MS), (HYNES). THE PROJECT IS Minutes Planning Commission Regular Meeting 08-16-16 DRAFT 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 residence and other ancillary structures in Zoning Case No. 902 at 23 Crest Road East stating that at its last meeting, after several public hearings and field trips, the Planning Commission directed staff to prepare a Resolution granting approval of the applicant's request. She stated that included with the staff report are the two correspondences that were received at the last meeting. She reviewed the conditions of approval including that the Los Angeles County be the reviewing agency for this project, that landscaping be planted in an offset manner so as not to create a screen along Crest Road that would obstruct views. She stated that after agenda packet was distributed, staff added a condition that requires that any trees and shrubs that are planted, do not block the view of the ocean for pedestrians and equestrians traveling along Crest Road. Discussion ensued concerning the added condition with the Commission expressing support for the intent of the condition; but concern that the way the condition is phrased, it may not accomplish the objective. Further discussion ensued concerning the ridge height of the house compared to the street and options for wording the condition that may better achieve the intent of the condition that the views not be blocked from Crest Road. Chairman Chelf called for public comment. Tavisha Nicholson, Bolton Engineering addressed the Planning Commission stating that the ridge height is at 1338 and the center of the road is at 1335. She provided a brief overview of the proposal stating that the project includes four cisterns for stormwater management, that are designed for the 25 year and up to 100 year storms. Ms. Nicholson offered to answer any questions. Gordon Schaye, 58 Portuguese Bend Road addressed the Planning Commission to ask for an explanation as to how the water will be discharged from the proposed cisterns. Charlie Raine, 4 Pinto Road addressed the Planning Commission in objection to the project expressing concern regarding the size of the project and it's proximity to the fragile landslide area below. Jim Partridge addressed the Planning Commission stating that he just purchased a property below the proposed project.. He expressed concern regarding the water that travels through the adjacent storm drains on Crest Road down to the landslide area. Criss Gunderson, Architect addressed the Planning Commission in response to the Planning Commission's discussion regarding the condition to protect the views from Crest Road suggesting that the Commission might consider establishing a data point 3 ft. above Crest Road and projecting a sight line down the highest ridge. Ms. Nicholson addressed the Planning Commission in response to Dr. Schaye's comments regarding discharge of the water from the cisterns. She explained that cisterns are designed to collect the water from around the site and has surge tanks that can handle the 100 year storm with any excess water going out through the dissipaters and with the water in the tanks being held until the storm passes to be used for irrigation or other measures. In response to Commissioner Kirkpatrick, Ms. Nicholson further Minutes Planning Commission Regular Meeting 08-16-16 DRAFT explained the discharge process stating that the proposed system will be reviewed by the County Building Dept. for compliance with the requirements for stormwater management. Hearing no further public comments, Chairman Chelf closed the public hearing. He commented that the Planning Commission has diligently reviewed this project and several modifications have been made to the project since it was originally proposed to address the concerns raised. The Planning Commission concurred with Chairman Chelf's comments. Further discussion ensued concerning the language of the condition that the views not be blocked from Crest Road that will achieve the intent of the condition and incorporating Mr. Gunderson's suggestion in the wording of the condition` _t f s*:r- Following discussion, Commissioner Kirkpatrick moved that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2016-20 granting approval of the applicant's request in Zoning Case No. 902 at 23 Crest Road East as amended to add the following to condition S on page 7 of Resolution: In order to preserve the sightline of the view from Crest Road, the height of any landscaping planted on the property along the Crest Road roadway easement shall be maintained so as not to exceed three (3) feet from the road elevation. Commissioner Cardenas seconded the motion, which carried by roll call vote without objection. PUBLIC HEARINGS ON ITEMS CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS MEETING ZONING CASE NO. 909. Request for a Site Plan Review to construct a 630 square foot covered porch with an out -of -grade condition, with a trellis and accessory structures, and a Variance from the requirement to provide a set -aside area for a stable and corral at 7 Southfield Drive (Lot 4 -SF) Rolling Hills, CA, (Klerman). The project has been determined to be categorically exempt (Class 3) pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Section 15303. Commissioner Kirkpatrick recused himself from consideration of this case 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 in Zoning Case No. 909 at 7 Southfield Drive stating that the Planning Commission visited the site earlier in the day. She stated that the applicant proposes a 630 sq. ft. deck of which a portion is out of grade and requires a Variance and that the applicant is also requesting a Variance from the requirement to provide a set -aside area for a stable and corral. She stated that during the site visit it was noticed that there is an existing structure on the side of the driveway that was not shown on the site plan and after discussion, it was determined that it could possibly be a stable but would need to be permitted. Following further research of the Rolling Hills Community Association's records, it was determined that a stable was approved in that location in 1968. She stated that at the field trip, the Planning Commission discussed rather than granting a Variance from the requirement to provide a set -aside area for a stable and corral, would it be possible to work with the existing structure and use the area around it for the stable/corral area. She stated that if the applicant wishes to pursue that option, the applicant will have to request a Variance to locate the stable and corral in the side -yard setback which would have to be readvertised and publicly noticed. Chairman Chelf called for public comment. Minutes Planning Commission Regular Meeting 08-16-16 DRAFT Criss Gunderson, Architect addressed the Planning Commission to confirm his client's intent to proceed with the project to include a set aside area for the stable and corral in the side -yard setback and provided a site plan showing the proposed set aside area. Charlie Raine, 4 Pinto Road addressed the Planning Commission stating that he has no objections to the project. Carole Hoffman, 3 Hillside Lane addressed the Planning Commission in support of the project given that it now will have a set aside area for a stable and corral. Gregg Kirkpatrick, 11 Southfield Drive addressed the Planning Commission in support of the project in that it will stabilize the area and improve drainage. 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. 909 at 7 Southfield Drive as modified to eliminate the Variance from the requirement to provide a set -aside area for a stable and corral and include a Variance to locate the set aside area for the stable and corral in the side -yard setback with the standard findings of fact and conditions of approval. Vice Chairman Gray seconded the motion, which carried without objection. The public hearing was continued. Commissioner Kirkpatrick returned to the dais. NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS ZONING CASE NO. 910. Request for a Site Plan Review for room addition and to reconstruct an existing garage, for a swimming pool, new driveway and grading and request for a Variance to exceed the maximum permitted disturbance of the lot in Zoning Case No. 910, at 85 Crest Road East, (Lot 69 C -1 -MS), Rolling Hills, CA (Zee). The project has been determined to be categorically exempt (Class 3) pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Section 15303. • Chairman Chelf recused himself from consideration of this case due to the proximity of his property to the subject property, turned the gavel over to Vice Chairman Gray and left the dais. Vice Chairman Gray introduced the item and asked for staff's comments. Planning Director Schwartz reviewed the applicant's request in Zoning Case No. 910 at 85 Crest Road East. She reviewed the layout and current development on the property stating that the applicant proposes to construct a new swimming pool to replace the existing swimming pool currently located in the front yard area of the property. She stated the applicant also proposes to demolish and reconfigure the existing garage as well as construct a new 20 ft. wide driveway and eliminate the access from the current shared driveway that servers several properties below this property. She stated that the Traffic Commission reviewed and recommended approval of the new proposed driveway apron. She further stated that the proposed driveway goes along the front of the property and also proposes a new parking pad. She stated that grading is proposed at 2,296 cu. yds. with a small amount being exported. Planning Director Schwartz stated that included with the staff report is correspondence from neighboring properties, including one from the resident at 63 Crest Road East expressing concern Minutes Planning Commission Regular Meeting 08-16-16 DRAFT regarding the visibility from the proposed driveway due to its proximity to the existing driveway as well as the drainage and slope stability; and another expressing concern regarding the look of the area. She further reviewed the other concerns raised by neighboring property owners including the impact of the trash trucks on the new driveway. Ms. Schwartz further reviewed the development standards and stated that the applicant is also requesting a variance for the grading. Vice Chairman Gray called for public comment. Alan McGregor, Landscape Architect addressed the Planning Commission to further explain the applicant's request and to briefly address the concerns raised regarding the driveway and drainage. He suggested that the Planning Commission and those expressing concern, drive the existing driveway to see the challenges associated with the existing driveway that led to the new proposed driveway. Tony Wang, 86 Crest Road East addressed the Planning Commission to ask for clarification on the applicant's request. Mr. McGregor provided clarification. Brad Chelf, 59 Crest Road East addressed the Planning Commission in support of the project. 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 revised request in Zoning Case No. 910 at 85 Crest Road East. The public hearing was continued. Chairman Chelf returned to the dais. SCHEDULE OF FIELD TRIPS The Planning Commission scheduled a field trip to the following properties to be conducted on Tuesday, September 20, 2016 beginning at 7:30 a.m. 85 Crest Road East 3 Poppy Trail (porch addition in setback) ITEMS FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION None. . ITEMS FROM STAFF City Clerk Luce reported that the proposed dates for the joint meeting between the Planning Commission and City Council are November 1"' and 2nd at 6:30 p.m. and asked the Commissioners to let her know their availability for those dates. Planning Director Schwartz reported that Wendy Starks is leaving the City to accept another position in Rancho Santa Margarita. Minutes Planning Commission Regular Meeting 08-16-16 DRAFT City Manager Cruz reported that the City Council Personnel Committee is interviewing candidates for the current Planning Commission vacancy and will be making a recommendation to the City Council at its August 22' meeting to fill that vacancy so that the new Commissioner will be in place for the September Planning Commission meeting. ADJOURNMENT Hearing no further business before the Commission, Chairman Chelf adjourned the meeting at 8:02 p.m. to an adjourned regular meeting of the Planning Commission scheduled to be held on Tuesday, September 20, 2016 beginning at 7:30 a.m. for the purpose of conducting field trips to 85 Crest Road East; 3 Poppy Trail (porch addition in setback) and 10 Pine Tree Lane (Lot Lines Adjustment/grading). The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission is scheduled to be held on Tuesday, September 20, 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 08-16-16 Agenda Item: 7A Mtg. Date: 09/20/16 MEMORANDUM TO RECUSE TO: Honorable Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Yolanta Schwartz, Planning Director SUBJECT: Zoning Case No. 907, 7 Southfield Drive DATE: September 20, 2016 Due to the proximity of his property to the subject property, Commissioner Kirkpatrick should recuse himself from consideration of Zoning Case No. 907 at 7 Southfield Drive. He may however, take a seat in the audience and participate as a resident. INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 TO: FROM: NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX (310) 377-7288 Agenda Item No.: 7A Mtg. Date: 9-20-16 HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR APPLICATION NO. SITE LOCATION: ZONING AND SIZE: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: DATE PUBLISHED: ZONING CASE NO. 909 7 SOUTHFIELD DRIVE (4 -SF) RA -S-1, 2.6 ACRES (GROSS) MR. & MRS. KLERMAN CRISS GUNDERSON, ARCHITECT AUGUST 4, 2016 AND SEPTEMBER 8, 2016 REQUEST AND PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION 1. The Planning Commission visited the project in the field in the morning of August 16, 2016 and reviewed the project at their evening meeting on August 16, 2016. 2. Originally, the applicant requested a Site Plan Review to construct a 630 square foot deck, 380 square feet of which would be above ground by 2.5' in height and a variance to waive the requirement for a stable and corral set aside. He is now requesting a 700 square foot covered porch and a variance to locate the set aside area for a 450 square foot stable and a 550 square foot corral in the side yard setback and to retain a very small portion of an existing shed in the side setback. In addition, a 232 square foot attached trellis, 34 square foot barbecue, and a 36 square foot water feature will be constructed which could be approved administratively. 3. At the field trip on August 16, 2016 following discussion, the Planning Commission suggested that the applicant propose a location for the stable and corral in the vicinity of the location of the existing storage shed, rather than apply for a variance to not to set aside an area for the equestrian uses. It was noted that the area under discussion would be in the side yard setback, and a new hearing for a variance to locate a Z.C. No. 909 set aside area for a stable and corral in the setback would have to be held and properly noticed. 4. It was also noted that the 200 square foot shed was built without building permits and in order to retain the structure the owners would be required to obtain a building permit. In addition, a very small portion of the shed (6 inches) is located in the side yard setback, which requires a variance. 5. Following discussion regarding this project and the possibility for a set aside area for a stable and corral and legalizing the shed; the Planning Commission at the evening meeting on August 16, 2016 directed staff to prepare a Resolution of approval for the out of grade condition of the covered porch, subject to the applicant withdrawing the variance request to waive the requirement for a set aside and submitting a new variance request to locate the stable and corral area in the side setback and to comply with the building code for the shed. 6. The applicant submitted a request for a variance to locate a 1,000 square foot set aside area for a stable and corral in the side setback and to retain the shed a portion of which is located in the side setback. The request was properly noticed and neighbors within 1,000 -foot radius of the subject property were notified. 7. The applicant has discovered that in order to legalize the 200 square foot storage shed and obtain a building permit, soils report would be required and caissons constructed to shore up the structure. He has therefore decided to reduce the size of the shed to two smaller sheds, in which case a building permit would not be required. He is proposing to cut the existing shed into a 49 square foot shed and a 118 square foot shed for a total of 167 square feet, separated by a 3' wide trellis. Pursuant to the zoning code, administrative approval may be granted for up to 2 sheds, each not exceeding 120 s.f. and not in setbacks. (A variance is requested for a small portion of one of them to remain in the side setback). The RHCA Architectural Committee approved the shed modification. 8. Since the last submittal the applicant has corrected a few calculations and is also requesting a 700 square foot covered patio, rather than 630 square feet previously requested. The out of grade condition of 2.5' above the grade and the proposed 30" retaining wall will not be affected as only the overhang of the porch would be longer. BACKGROUND 9. The property is zoned RAS-1 and consists of 2.6 acres gross (113,256 sq. ft.) and 100,726 sq.ft. net lot area for development purposes. The property is accessed through a property on Ringbit Road W., and has a long steep driveway that bisects the lot, and overall steep topography that does not lend itself easily to equestrian amenities. Z.C. No. 909 7 Southfield Dr. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to provide a stable and corral set aside in the flattest portion of the lot, which is mostly in the northern side setback. Other locations were studied and found not to be feasible for a stable and corral area. The property slopes downwards from Southfield Drive from 1,100 -foot elevation to 970 elevation at the building pad, and then to 920 elevation at the rear property line. 10. In August 2010, the applicant was approved for a lot line adjustment to move the common property line between 7 Southfield and 5 Ringbit West where 11,168 square feet of northerly portion of 5 Ringbit Road was transferred to 7 Southfield Drive increasing the size of the lot from 90,912 square feet to 102,080 square feet, 2.34 acres net (100,726 square feet for development purposes). 11. Currently the property is developed with a 3,113 square foot residence, 440 square foot garage, a 60 square foot spa, 390 square feet of breezeway, and a 96 square foot service yard on an 11,924 square foot building pad area, and the disturbed area is 17.3% of the net lot, (40% max.). 12. No changes are proposed to the existing configuration of the lot or the structures, except for the 700 square foot deck, 380 square feet of which would be above ground by 2.5' in height. A not to exceed 30" high retaining wall will be constructed along the edge of the deck for its support, together with caissons. The caissons will be constructed below ground and arc not part of the visible portion of the retaining wall. 13. Pursuant to the Zoning Ordinance, any addition, new residence or construction of a pool or other accessory structure, or when a discretionary review of a project is required a stable/corral must be either constructed or an area for a future stable/corral set -aside on the property. Due to the location of the residence, in the rear of the lot and the topography, the only area for a future stable/corral that could be set aside is in the side yard area, which requires a Variance. The applicant has no plans at this time to construct a stable, nor wishes to grade the natural terrain of the lot to create a pad for a future stable. MUNICIPAL CODE COMPLIANCE 14. The net lot area of the lot is 100,726 square feet. The structural lot coverage is proposed at 5,382 square feet or 5.3% of the net lot area, which includes all of the structures and permissible deductions, (20% permitted). The total lot coverage proposed, including structures and flatwork is 15,097 square feet or 15.0% of the net lot area, (35% permitted). The driveway is over 7,770 square feet in area, which contributes to the total lot coverage. The applicant proposes to add approximately 790 square foot of hardscape. 15. The residential building pad is 11,924 square feet. Coverage on this building pad will be 5,776 square feet or 43.4%, including the stable. Currently the building pad Z.C. No. 909 7 Southfield Dr. coverage is 39.8%. The building pad will be enlarged by 474 square feet for the out -of - grade porch. 16. The property slopes in a westerly direction and all of the drainage is carried down - slope. No change to the drainage pattern is proposed. 17. In response for justification for the Variance request for the stable and corral, the applicant's agent states that due to the slope and configuration of the lot and the location of the building pad towards the rear of the lot, there is no available reasonably sloped area elsewhere to set aside or construct a stable and corral. CONCLUSION 18. This is a unique lot in that it has a driveway that is very long on steep topography. The building pad and the residence sits in the rear, with no area further back for a stable and corral. The front of the lot is undisturbed, other than for the driveway and if a stable was to be constructed, it would have to be constructed in the front, which requires a Variance and the front is too steep to accommodate equestrian facilities. 19. When reviewing a development application the Planning Commission should consider whether the proposed project is consistent with the City's General Plan; incorporates environmentally and aesthetically sensitive grading practices; preserves existing mature vegetation; is compatible and consistent with the scale, massing and development pattern in the immediate project vicinity; and otherwise preserves and protects the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Rolling Hills. In addition, the Commission must determine if the project meets the Variance criteria. 20. In reviewing this application, the Commission should consider the topography of the property, the previously graded pad located at the rear of the property, which necessitated a very long driveway and the general size of the lot. 21. The project has been determined to be categorically exempt pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Z.C. No. 909 7 Southfield Dr. ZONING CASE NO. 909 SITE PLAN REVIEW EXISTING PROPOSED Covered porch, attached trellis, BBQ, water feature RA -S- ZONE SETBACKS Front: 50 ft. from front easement line Side: 20 ft. from property line Rear: 50 ft. from property line STRUCTURES (Site Plan Review required for new structures and if size of structure increases by more than 999 sq. ft. in a 36 -month period), swimming pool, out of grade deck and others). STRUCTURAL LOT COVERAGE (20% maximum) SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE Residence Garage Spa Breezeway Service yd Cov. porch BBQ Att. Trellis Water feat. Shed TOTAL 4.3% 3113 sq.ft 440 sq.ft. 60 sq.ft 390 sq.ft. 96 sq.ft 0 sq.ft 0 sq.ft. 0 sq.ft. 0 sq. ft 200 sq.ft. 4,299 sq.ft. ABOVE GRADE DECK & VARIANCE FOR STABLE/CORRAL LOCATION Residence Garage Spa Breezeway Service yd. Cov. porch BBQ Att. Trellis Water featr. Sheds Stable/future TOTAL 3113 sq.ft 440 sq.ft 60 sq.ft. 390 sq.ft 96 sq.ft. 700 sq.ft. 34 sq.ft 232 sq.ft. 36 sq. ft. 167 sq.ft. 450 sq.ft. 5,684 sq.ft 5. 6% of 100,726 sq.ft. net lot area; with allowed deductions 5.3% 15.0% of 100,726 sq.ft. net lot area w/deductions 43.4% of 11,924 sq.ft. pad TOTAL LOT COVERAGE (35% maximum) BUILDING PAD COVERAGE RESIDENTIAL (30% maximum guideline) GRADING Site plan review required if excavation and/or fill or combination thereof is more than 3 feet and covers more than 2,000 sq. ft., must be balanced on site DISTURBED 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.) 13.1% 39.8% of 11,450 sq.ft. pad N/A NONE 17,250 sq.ft. — 17.1% of 17,450 sq.ft. — 17.3% of lot STABLE (minimum 450 sq. ft.) and Future in side setback CORRAL (minimum 550 sq. ft.) STABLE ACCESS Future from exst. drwy ACCESSWAY Existing from Ringbit W. Existing from Ringbit W. VIEWS N/A Planning Commission review PLANTS AND ANIMALS N/A Planning Commission review Z.C. No. 909 7 Southfield Dr. SITE PLAN REVIEW CRITERIA 17.46.010 Purpose. The site plan review process is established to provide discretionary review of certain development projects in the City for the purposes of ensuring that the proposed project is consistent with the City's General Plan; incorporates environmentally and aesthetically sensitive grading practices; preserves existing mature vegetation; is compatible and consistent with the scale, massing and development pattern in the immediate project vicinity; and otherwise preserves and protects the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Rolling Hills. 17.46.050 Required findings. A. The Commission shall be required to make findings in acting to approve, conditionally approve, or deny a site plan review application. B. No project which requires site plan review approval shall be approved by the Commission, or by the City Council on appeal, unless the following findings can be made: 1. The project complies with and is consistent with the goals and policies of the general plan and all requirements of the zoning ordinance; 2. The project substantially preserves the natural and undeveloped state of the lot by minimizing building coverage. Lot coverage requirements are regarded as maximums, and the actual amount of lot coverage permitted depends upon the existing buildable area of the lot; 3. The project is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, the natural terrain and surrounding residences; 4. The project preserves and integrates into the site design, to the greatest extent possible, existing topographic features of the site, including surrounding native vegetation, mature trees, drainage courses and land forms (such as hillsides and knolls); 5. Grading has been designed to follow natural contours of the site and to minimize the amount of grading required to create the building area; 6. Grading will not modify existing drainage channels nor redirect drainage flow, unless such flow is redirected into an existing drainage course; 7. The project preserves surrounding native vegetation and mature trees and supplements these elements with drought -tolerant landscaping which is compatible with and enhances the rural character of the community, and landscaping provides a buffer or transition area between private and public areas; 8. The project is sensitive and not detrimental to the convenient and safe movement of pedestrians and vehicles; and 9. The project conforms to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. CRITERIA FOR VARIANCES 17.38.050 Required findings. In granting a variance, the Commission (and Council on appeal) must make the following findings: A. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same vicinity and zone; B. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights possessed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone but which is denied the property in question; C. That the granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; Z.C. No. 909 7 Southfield Dr. 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. Z.C. No. 909 7 Southfield Dr. THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK RESOLUTION NO. 2016-21 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL OF A SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A COVERED PORCH WITH AN OUT -OF -GRADE CONDITION AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURES, AND A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH WITH A SET ASIDE AREA FOR A STABLE AND CORRAL INTO THE SIDE SETBACK, INCLUDING WITH A PORTION OF AN EXISTING SHED IN ZONING CASE NO. 909 AT 7 SOUTHFIELD DRIVE, (LOT 4 - SF), ROLLING HILLS, CA (KLERMAN). 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. Klerman for a 700 square foot deck, 380 square feet of which would be above ground by 2.5' in height, and for a Variance to retain a portion of an existing shed in the side yard setback and to set aside a 1,000 square foot area for a future stable and corral in the side yard setback. Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted duly noticed public hearings to consider the application on August 16, 2016 at a field trip and an evening meeting on the same day and on September 20, 2016 at their regular meeting. The applicants were 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 applicants' representative was in attendance at the public hearings. Section 3. The property is zoned RAS-1 and consists of 2.6 acres gross (113,256 sq. ft.) and 100,726 sq.ft. net lot area for development purposes. The property is accessed through a property on Ringbit Road W., and has a long steep driveway that bisects the lot, and overall steep topography that does not lend itself easily to equestrian amenities. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to provide a stable and corral set aside in the fltest portionof the lot, whci would be in the side yard setback. The property slopes downwards from Southfield Drive from 1,100 foot elevation to 970 elevation at the building pad, and then to 920 elevation at the rear property line. In August 2010, the applicant was approved for a lot line adjustment to move the common property line between 7 Southfield and 5 Ringbit West where 11,168 square feet of northerly portion of 5 Ringbit Road was transferred to 7 Southfield Drive increasing the size of the lot from 90,912 square feet to 102,080 square feet, 2.34 acres net (100,726 square feet for development purposes). Section 4. The project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303, Class 3 exemption Guidelines. Reso. 2016-21 7 Southfield Section 5. Sections 17.46.020 requires a development plan to be submitted for Site Plan Review for decks with an out -of -grade condition of more than 12". With respect to the Site Plan Review application for the 700 square foot deck, 380 square feet of which will be above ground by 2.5', 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 requirement of low profile, low -density residential development with sufficient open space between surrounding structures. The project conforms with all development standard requirements for lot coverage and disturbance of the Zoning Ordinance. There is no grading required. The deck will be located behind the residence and slopes will maintain their natural terrain. The out -of -grade condition of 2.5' will not be seen by surrounding properties. A 30" retaining wall and caissons will be constructed at the edge of the deck for its support. The wall will be screened by landscaping so as to reduce the visual impact of the development. The deck will be located in a flat area behind the house on a portion of the property away from any other residence and street and while it may be visible from the property across the canyon, with landscaping and its low profile, it will not be obtrusive. B. The development plan substantially preserves the natural and undeveloped state of the lot because the new improvements will not cause the lot to look overdeveloped. The proposed development will be located on an area that is already flat and to the rear of the residence. Significant portions of the 2.6 acre lot will be left undeveloped so as to maintain open space on the property and the natural rolling hill terrain. The nature, condition, and development of adjacent uses, buildings, and structures and the topography of the lot have been considered, and the constnirtinn 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 plants and shrubs, is of sufficient distance from nearby 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 the neighborhood, as it is on a large lot. The lot coverage maximums set forth in the Zoning Code will not be exceeded. D. The development plan 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. Grading will not modify existing drainage channels nor redirect drainage flow. The project is not located in a canyon or on existing slopes that exceed 25%. Reso. 2016-21 7 Southfield 2 10 E. The project preserves much of the existing vegetation elsewhere on the lot and will introduce drought -tolerant landscaping, which is compatible with and enhances the rural character of the community, and the landscaping will provide a buffer or transition area between private and public areas. A landscaping plan will be filed with the City. F. 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. Section 6. 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. In requesting relief from Section 17.18.060, stables and corrals are not to be located in setbacks; the applicant advises that the property "has no abilities to support a pad for a stable and corral elsewhere on the property." In addition a very small portion of an existing shed that will otherwise be brought to compliance with the zoning code, encroaches into the yard area set aside for the stable. A. With respect to the aforementioned requests for Variance, the Planning Commission finds that there are exceptional circumstances and conditions on the subject property due to the steep topography there is no ability to grade and create a pad for the stable/corral elsewhere 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. To the steep topography of the lot and the already developed building pad, the property is not compatible with the requirement for horse facilities that could be located in a conforming location. The set aside includes a very small portion of an existing 200 square foot shed that will be retrofitted to a 118 square foot shed to comply with the building code requirements. 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, as the site identification for a stable and corral in the side setback will not affect others in the city. Currently, the applicants have no plans to construct said equestrian facilities. The small shed has been on the property for many years and is not intrusive or takes away from the equestrian area, but is a part thereof. D. The Variance request is consistent with the General Plan of the City of Rolling Hills because the property complies with the General Plan requirement of low Reso. 2016-21 3 i 7 Southfield profile, low -density residential development with sufficient open space between surrounding structures. The property is located on the edge of a canyon to the rear of the lot and due to the large size of the properties and sloped conditions there is large open space between any structures on subject property and the adjacent properties. E. 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 in Zoning Case No. 909 for new a 700 square foot deck, 380 square feet of which would be above ground by 2.5' in height, and a variance to provide a set aside area for a 450 square foot stable and a 550 square foot corral in the side yard setback as well as to retain an existing shed partially in the side setback, subject to the conditions specified below. A 232 square foot attached trellis, 34 square foot barbecue, and a 36 square foot water feature will be approved administratively. A. The Site Plan 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 Section 17.38.070 and 17.46.080 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, or the approval granted is otherwise extended pursuant to the requirements of these sections. B. 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 thereunder shall lapse; provided that the City has given the applicants written notice lu cease such violation, the opporhinity 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. C. All requirements of the Building and Construction Ordinance, the Zoning Ordinance, LA County Building Code and of the zone in which the subject property is located must be complied with unless otherwise set forth in the Permit, or shown otherwise on an approved plan. D. The lot shall be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the site plan on file dated September 9, 2016, except as otherwise provided in these conditions. E. The working drawings submitted to the Department of Building and Safety for plan check review must conform with the development plan approved with this application. A copy of the conditions of this Resolution shall be printed on plans Reso. 2016-21 7 Southfield 4 approved when a building permit is issued and a copy of such approved plans, including conditions of approval, shall be available on the building site at all times. F. Prior to obtaining a building permit a landscaping plan shall be submitted for the screening of the retaining wall to the Planning Department. G. If landscaping of 5,000 square foot area or greater is introduced or redeveloped, the landscaping shall be subject to the requirements of the City's Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. Any plants introduced for this project shall not grow into a hedge but be offset. The landscaping plan shall utilize to the maximum extent feasible, plants that are native to the area and are consistent with the rural character of the community. H. A drainage plan, if required, shall be prepared and submitted to the City's Building Department for review and approval, and the project shall comply with their requirements. The applicants, at all times, shall maintain the drainage devices in good working condition and free of debris and vegetation. I. A licensed professional preparing construction plans for this project for Building Department review shall execute a Certificate affirming that the plans conform in all respects with this Resolution approving this project and including conformance with all of the conditions set forth therein and the City's Building Code and Zoning Ordinance. Further, the person obtaining a building 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. J. There shall be no grading for this project, however excavation for caissons and footings shall be allowed. K. Structural lot coverage shall not exceed 5,684 square feet, or 5.6% and with allowable deductions, 5,382 sq.ft. or 5.3%. Total lot coverage shall not exceed 15.0% or 15,097 square feet, as approved by this Variance. Building Pad coverage on the 11,924 square foot residential pad shall not exceed 43.4%, with allowable deductions, and includes the future stable (450 sq.ft.) L. Disturbance for the residence, garage, spa, breezeway, service yard, covered porch and other structures will not exceed 17,450 square feet or 17.3% M. The unpermitted shed on the property shall be retrofitted to be in compliance with the zoning and building department requirements and the small portion of the shed in the setback may remain, as per the variance approval. Reso. 2016-21 7 Southfield N. The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the Lighting Ordinance of the City of Rolling Hills (RHMC 17.16.190 E), pertaining to lighting on said property, roofing and material requirements of properties in the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. O. Should the existing electrical panel be upgraded or relocated, pursuant to Section 17.27.030 of the zoning ordinance, all utility lines shall be placed underground. P. During construction, conformance with the air quality management district requirements, stormwater pollution prevention practices, county and local ordinances and engineering practices so that people or property are not exposed to undue vehicle trips, noise, dust, and objectionable odors shall be required. Q. During and after construction, all parking shall take place on the project site and there shall be no parking on the common driveway. During construction, to maximum extend feasible, employees of the contractor shall car-pool into the City. R. 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. S. The property owners shall be required to conform with the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Public Works Department Best Management Practices (BMP's) requirements related to solid waste, drainage and storm water management. T. A minimum of 50% of the construction material spoils shall be recycled and diverted. The hauler shall provide the appropriate documentation to the City. U. The project must be reviewed and approved by the Rolling Hills Community Association (RI-ICA) Architectural Review Committee prior to the issuance of building permit. Perimeter easements and, trails, if any, shall remain free and clear of any improvements including, but not be limited to fences -including construction fences, any hardscape, driveways, landscaping, irrigation and drainage devices, except as otherwise approved by the RHCA. V. 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. Should a red flag warning be declared and if work is to Reso. 2016-21 7 Southfield 6 tµ be conducted on the property, the contractor shall have readily available fire distinguisher. W. Until the applicants execute an Affidavit of Acceptance of all conditions of this approval, the approvals shall not be effective. Such affidavit shall be recorded together with the resolution. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 20 DAY OF SEPTEMBER 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. Reso. 2016-21 7 Southfield 7 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§ CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ) I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2016-21 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL OF A SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A COVERED PORCH WITH AN OUT -OF -GRADE CONDITION AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURES, AND A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH WITH A SET ASIDE AREA FOR A STABLE AND CORRAL INTO THE SIDE SETBACK, INCLUDING WITH A PORTION OF AN EXISTING SHED IN ZONING CASE NO. 909 AT 7 SOUTHFIELD DRIVE, (LOT 4 -SF), ROLLING HILLS, CA (KLERMAN). was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on September 20, 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 Reso. 2016-21 7 Southfield 8 Agenda Item No: 7B Mtg. Date: 09/20/16 MEMORANDUM TO RECUSE TO: Honorable Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Yolanta Schwartz, Planning Director SUBJECT: Zoning Case No. 910 - 85 Crest Road East DATE: September 20, 2016 Due to the proximity of his property to the subject property, Chairman Chelf should recuse himself from consideration of Zoning Case No. 910 at 85 Crest Road East. He may however, take a seat in the audience and participate as a resident. ger, al Rasa, gee& INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 TO: FROM: APPLICATION NO. SITE LOCATION: ZONING AND SIZE: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PUBLISHED: NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX (310) 377-7288 Agenda Item No.: 7-B Mtg. Date: 9-20-16 HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR ZONING CASE NO. 910 85 CREST ROAD E. (LOT 69 -C -1 -MS) RA -S-2, 3.13 (EXCL. ROAD EASEMENT) MR. ZEE ALAN MCGREGOR, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT AUGUST 4, 2016 REQUEST AND RECOMMENDATION 1. The Planning Commission visited the site earlier in the day on September 20 2016. 2. The applicant, Mr. Zee requests a Site Plan Review to construct a 1,500 square foot swimming pool, pool equipment area, 135 square foot attached trellis, a 383 square foot room addition, to demolish an existing 792 square foot garage and construct a new 960 square foot garage attached to the main residence by a 510 square foot breezeway, and associated structures, a new driveway that requires grading and 1,024 square feet of pool decking. Grading, including for the new driveway, is proposed at 2,296 cubic yards of dirt, of which 388 cubic yards will be exported, and portion used in the rear to enlarge the existing building pad for the pool area. A Variance is requested to exceed the maximum permitted disturbance of the net lot, from the existing 32.7% to 55.1%. 3. A 588 square foot swimming pool currently is located at the side of the residence and will be filled in. The applicant proposes to abandon the existing driveway and construct a new one off of Crest Road East. Currently access to the property is taken from a common driveway apron mostly located on the adjacent property at 63 Crest Rd. E. and partially on 85 Crest Rd. E. This driveway apron flares out into driveways to several properties to the south. The driveway to the subject property turns to the east of the ZC NO. 910 common apron and is then located entirely on 85 Crest E. The existing driveway ranges in width from 10'45' and it travels along and around the entire rear property before accessing the existing garage. The new driveway will be constructed on the subject property, adjacent to the common apron, and will follow along the front (north) and east side of the lot. The new driveway will have a 30' wide apron where it meets the improved roadway and will then narrow down to 20' in width. The apron must be roughened and the first 20' of the apron/driveway must be no steeper than 7%. The existing driveway will be closed off at the property line, leaving the shared apron of off Crest Road East intact for use by the properties to the south. The applicant proposes to retain the existing driveway but demolish the asphalt and change the surface to decomposed granite, which is considered softscape surface (pervious). Concerns were expressed by the resident at 63 Crest Road East regarding the shared driveway and the existing driveway that is proposed to be abandoned and the portion of the driveway that exists on the applicant's property that will be converted to decomposed granite. The specific concern is erosion from the decomposed granite. The Traffic Commission reviewed the new driveway apron at their July 28, 2016 meeting and recommended approval. A letter was received from the neighbor at 87 Crest Road East expressing concerns about the proximity of the proposed driveway to their residence. The applicants have responded by presenting an alternative driveway configuration, further from the eastern property line, if desired by the Planning Commission. However, the applicant's representatives met with the resident at 87 Crest Road and they state that his concerns were adequately addressed and the alternate driveway is no longer needed. Enclosed with this report is the correspondence received from the neighbors. 4. It is recommended that the Planning Commission reconvene the public hearing, and provide direction to staff. BACKGROUND 5. The property is zoned RAS-2 and the gross lot area is 3.13 acres. The net lot area is 2.82. acres, as calculated for development purposes. 6. The property is currently developed with a 4,685 square foot residence, a 792 square foot garage, a 586 square foot swimming pool, a 32 square foot pool equipment area, a 458 square foot stable, a 492 square foot breezeway, a 408 square foot shed, 22 square foot shed and a 418 square foot service yard. The garage and swimming pool will be demolished and a new 960 square foot garage, and a 1,500 square foot swimming pool will be constructed. A 383 square foot addition to the residence is also being proposed. 7. Records indicate that in 1969 a variance was approved to build a 458 square foot stable with a 698 square foot corral in the front yard. ZC NO. 910 MUNICIPAL CODE COMPLIANCE 8. The project's disturbed area is currently 32.7%. The proposed disturbed area will increase due to the disturbance for the new driveway, the pool, and yard areas to 67,694 square feet or 55.1% of the net lot area, which requires a variance. The cut for the driveway will be 968 cubic yards, and 374 cubic yards will be generated from the pool/spa excavation; 954 cubic yards of the fill will be used to flatten out a portion of the rear slope, with 388 cubic yards to be exported. The applicant's agents advise that the proposed residential addition and garage demolition/construction will be on a previously constructed pad where little to no grading will be required. The existing pool will be demolished and will be filled in and become a grass and landscaped area. The proposed pool will be located partially on a previously disturbed area and partially on a newly disturbed area and will require some grading and excavation for the pool. A 3' high wall to enclose a 45 square foot pool equipment area is also proposed in hillside near the pool. 9. The structural coverage on the lot will be 8,937 square feet or 7.3% and the total coverage (structures and hardscape) will be 24,196 square feet or 19.7%, both in compliance with the code. 10. The 383 square foot addition to the existing 4,685 square foot residence will result in a 5,068 square foot house. The residential building pad will increase by 1,908 square feet and with the addition the coverage on this pad will be 8,937 square feet or 21.5%. 11. All of the existing and proposed structures will be located outside of setbacks. As disturbance exceeds 40%, a variance is needed but otherwise all are compliant with the Municipal Code. The project does not qualify for allowance for greater disturbance, as more than half of the slopes (mostly for the driveway) will be steeper than 3:1 gradient. 12. The existing driveway will be relocated and the new driveway will be 20' wide to comply with Fire Department requirements. 3' high maximum retaining wall is proposed along the perimeter of the driveway leading to a 3,000 square foot motor court area. The Traffic Commission recommended approval of the driveway apron on July 28, 2016. 13. Rolling Hills Community Association will review this project at a later date. 14. When reviewing a development application the Planning Commission must consider whether the proposed project meets the criteria for a Site Plan Review, and Variance and must find that the proposed uses are consistent with the General Plan and 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. ZC NO. 910 15. In justifying the variance, the applicant's agent states that much of the grading and disturbance is for the driveway, which will be much safer than what is there now. The existing driveway does not meet Fire Dept. requirements and is very long and winding. In order to minimize export of dirt, thus limit the number of trucks on site and in the City, some of the dirt will be placed in the rear on an existing gently sloping area to create a slightly larger flat area for use by the pool. The resulting slope will not exceed 6:1 gradient. 16. This project will be required to comply with all zoning requirements, including undergrounding of utility lines, Health Department requirements for a septic system, Fire Department for access and fuel modification and others. 17. The project has been determined to be categorically exempt pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Class 3. ZC 910 NEARBY PROPERTIES (For information only) Address House size in sq.ft. (built/add or remodel) Lot Area sq.ft. (excl. roadway easements) 83 Crest Road East 5,920 (11)* 87,832 87 Crest Road East 4,222 (03)* 83,200 17 Wideloop Road 3,576 (01)* 47,045 86 Crest Road East 3,191 (13)* 26,015 62 Crest Road East 7,905 (91)* 122,360 63 Crest Road East 6,058 (82) 252,648 67 Crest Road East 4,289 (90) 169,448 Average 5,023 112,650 85 Crest Proposed 5,068 122,743 NOTE: The above do not include garages, basements and other accessory structures. SOURCES: Assessors' records * City Records ZC N0. 910 ZONING CASE NO. 910 SITE PLAN REVIEW/ VR EXISTING PROPOSED RA -S- 2 ZONE SETBACKS SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE, GARAGE, STABLE, POOL ADDITION TO RESIDENCE, NEW GARAGE, POOL, POOL EQUIPMENT, SERVICE YARD, ADDITION TO BREEZEWAY, COVERED PORCH & DRWY Front. 50 ft. from front easement line Side: 35 ft. from side property line Rear: 50 ft. from rear property line SPR required for grading, pool, and Residence Garage Swimming Pool Pool equip. Stable Service yard Breezeway Attch porches Attached trellis Shed Shed 4,685 sq.ft. 792 sq.ft. 586 sq.ft.. 32 sq.ft 458 sq.ft. 418 sq.ft 492 sq.ft. 0 sq.ft. 0 sq.ft. 22 sq.ft. 408 sq. ft. Residence Garage Swimming Pool Pool equip. Stable Service yard Breezeway Attch porches Attached trellis Shed Shed 5,068 sq.ft. 960 sq.ft. 1,500 sq.ft 45 sq.ft. 458 sq.ft. 96 sq.ft 510 sq.ft. 165 sq.ft. 135 sq.ft. 0 sq.ft. 0 sq.ft. driveway. Variance is required for exceeding disturbed area. TOTAL 7,893 sq.ft. TOTAL 8,937 sq.ft GRADING N/ A 1,342 c.y. cut & 954 c.y. fill 388 c.y. to be exported Site Plan Review required if excavation and/or fill or combination thereof that is more than 3 feet in depth and covers more than 2,000 sf. STRUCTURAL LOT COVERAGE 6.08% 7.3% of 122,743 s.f. net lot area (20% maximum) TOTAL LOT COVERAGE 21.6 % 19.7% of 122,743 s.f. net lot area (less, due to changing out asphalt to D.G.) (35% maximum) BUILDING PAD COVERAGE (30% 18.83% of 39,630.ft. pad 21.5% of 41,538 sq.ft. pad maximum -guideline) Residential DISTURBED AREA 27.06% or 40,178 sq. ft. (122,743 sq. ft. net lot area) 55.1% or 67,694 sq.ft. (122,743 sq. ft. net lot area) (40% maximum; any graded building pad area, any remedial grading any graded slopes and building pad areas, and any nongraded area where impervious surfaces exist) STABLE (min. 450 SQ.FT. 458 sq.ft. existing w/corral 458 sq.ft. existing w/corral & 550 SQ.FT. CORRAL) STABLE ACCESS Existing Existing ROADWAY ACCESS Existing driveway approach New 20' wide drwy VIEWS N/ A Planning Commission review PLANTS AND ANIMALS N/A Planning Commission review ZC NO. 910 SITE PLAN REVIEW CRITERIA 17.46.010 Purpose. The site plan review process is established to provide discretionary review of certain development projects in the City for the purposes of ensuring that the proposed project is consistent with the City's General Plan; incorporates environmentally and aesthetically sensitive grading practices; preserves existing mature vegetation; is compatible and consistent with the scale, massing and development pattern in the immediate project vicinity; and otherwise preserves and protects the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Rolling Hills. 17.46.050 Required findings. A. The Commission shall be required to make findings in acting to approve, conditionally approve, or deny a site plan review application. B. No project which requires site plan review approval shall be approved by the Commission, or by the City Council on appeal, unless the following findings can be made: 1. The project complies with and is consistent with the goals and policies of the general plan and all requirements of the zoning ordinance; 2. The project substantially preserves the natural and undeveloped state of the lot by minimizing building coverage. Lot coverage requirements are regarded as maximums, and the actual amount of lot coverage permitted depends upon the existing buildable area of the lot; 3. The project is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, the natural terrain and surrounding residences; 4. The project preserves and integrates into the site design, to the greatest extent possible, existing topographic features of the site, including surrounding native vegetation, mature trees, drainage courses and land forms (such as hillsides and knolls); 5. Grading has been designed to follow natural contours of the site and to minimize the amount of grading required to create the building area; 6. Grading will not modify existing drainage channels nor redirect drainage flow, unless such flow is redirected into an existing drainage course; 7. The project preserves surrounding native vegetation and mature trees and supplements these elements with drought -tolerant landscaping which is compatible with and enhances the rural character of the community, and landscaping provides a buffer or transition area between private and public areas; 8. The project is sensitive and not detrimental to the convenient and safe movement of pedestrians and vehicles; and 9. The project conforms to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. CRITERIA FOR VARIANCES 17.38.050 Required findings. In granting a variance, the Commission (and Council on appeal) must make the following findings: A. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same vicinity and zone; B. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights possessed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone but which is denied the property in question; ZC NO. 910 C. That the granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; D. That in granting the variance, the spirit and intent of this title will be observed; E. That the variance does not grant special privilege to the applicant; F. That the variance is consistent with the portions of the County of Los Angeles Hazardous Waste Management Plan relating to siting and siting criteria for hazardous waste facilities; and G. That the variance request is consistent with the general plan of the City of Rolling Hills.. SOURCE: City of Rolling Hills Zoning Ordinance ZC NO. 910 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK RECEIVEP JUL 2 5 2016 City of Rolling Hills iP÷ , :r/t. 4 3 0, .LAge-e-L--t-L tee aric 6„k s„,,i,,,,2H ,$)4 Attack 21-t-etze-:r g,,Qm„, 4k, , c‘ rh-t-,,,.6, 1_,,,, a kr 1) nt , aetrA- f}caral cut -TT c' �:ficenvt git nn z� ark, (Q, c cz a Ce a ce- ./ r be, a A>icTstex /4e,at, sate', -ZV 3a 62)r - « air Tuesday, August 9, 2016: :03:47 AM Pacific Daylight Time Subject: 85 Crest East Date: Tuesday, August 9, 2016 at 9:00:52 AM Pacific Daylight Time From: Nina Ritter To: Wendy Starks CC: Yolanta Schwartz, Rhca Kristen Raig - `6/(v1(.- 1 GF .kta /-u C -5R. Wendy, Yolanta asked me to address my letter to the Planning Commission and said she would be out of the office today but that my letter needed to be received today and to send it to you. In addition to this letter there are several attachments I would ask that you include: i) Zee's plans which I was sent ii) color coded copy of my survey showing the corner where 63 Crest and 85 crest meet iii) 3 aerial photographs of area under discussion Dear Planning Commission: I am writing to you about the proposed project at 85 Crest Rd. East. I have been out of town since mid - June and was not aware of this project (though I am sent all my mail) until the beginning of this week. It's taken me a few days to attempt to educate myself so excuse me if I've not properly understood something. I will not be back in town until Sept. so cannot attend any of the meetings myself. I will try to make my concerns brief. 1) as I understand it, the Stringbergs (87 Crest E.) objected to the new proposed driveway at 85 Crest E. being close to their property so the Zees moved the entrance to the west side of the property. While I sympathize with the Strindberg's concerns (and appreciate the Zee's cooperation) we currently have 8 families (and all the attendant cars and trucks) entering and exiting from the access road situated at the western side of the Zees' property at an angle that can be dangerous enough as it is. Currently, these cars are funneled onto one road before entering onto the faster flowing Crest Rd. Adding yet a separate driveway onto Crest Rd.-- right next to this access road exit for 7 homes-- is questionable in my mind. Has the Commission considering asking the Zees to more appropriately move the driveway to the center of their property to maximize safety for all the neighbors concerned? This is an unusual situation where there are not just 2 neighbors flanking a third, but in fact in the present case, 8 homes total flank 85 Crest Rd. E. This unusual situation deserves more than the usual scrutiny as to safety. 2) Another important concern is the original driveway. Neither the original driveway nor the topographical aspects appear on the plan I was given (see below). In my experience plans submitted for approval always include proposed improvements superimposed on the current "as builts" with topographical references included. The Zees appear to propose the removal from the site of tons of asphalt currently used to pave the present, steep driveway and replace it with decomposed granite. While I appreciate this will lower their hardscape numbers I find the details of how this is to be achieved, crucial to both my property and the access road of my neighbors. The (original & present) 85 Crest E. asphalt driveway is very long. It's on steep grade leading down onto an asphalt apron at the property line of 85 Crest E. & 63 Crest E. and then onto the asphalt access road which runs along the 63 Crest Rd. property and which is used as a common entrance and exit for all the properties to the south of us, out onto Crest Rd. Without retaining walls or asphalt to hold it back, that prevents thousands of tons of new decomposed granite from running down the hillside onto the access road/apron, and/or down my own driveway/hillside and/or into Crest Rd: - Page 1 of 2 either when it starts raining or settling over the years? While Yolanta explained that engineering issues come after the Planning Commission process, in this particular case why would that would be so? For example, the safety issues involved in moving the driveway were examined before the Planning Commission vote of approval, I am not clear why such an important issue as removing tons of asphalt from a site and the question of the retainment and drainage of an entire hillside affecting many neighbors would not also be part of Planning Commission's consideration of safety before approval? Furthermore, I assume your approval of this project rests on consideration of the balance of hardscape/improvement on the property. How can you approve a new motor court and larger pool area (i.e. increase the hardscape elsewhere on the property) without considering that the Zee's may be seriously ignoring a vital part of the equation they are proposing to you? How can you safely consider this project without considering the realities and practicalities of how it is actually going to be achieved on the property since it's not addressed on the plans? This is a long driveway which circles the steepest grade of the property which is at the highest point of Rolling Hills. I'm not an engineer but I have to assume this asphalt driveway girdles the hillside to some important extent. The wisdom of replacing it with sand on a steep hillside in an area such as ours —without further investigation-- would appear to defy common sense. Even aside from asking for engineering at this stage: Where is the decomposed granite beginning and ending exactly both in length and width? Retaining walls? Aprons? needed to hold in the decomposed granite to keep it from liquifying flowing downwards? Would these structures be considered hardscape were they to be properly included in your consideration? Moreover, if you approve this plan and it is later decided due to engineering issues the driveway/asphalt should not be removed, then what happens to the increased hardscape you have already approved on the property? Do the Zee's get to proceed even though they will have doubly maxed the hardscape on their property? Do they have to go back to the drawing board and completely redo their plans for a Motorcourt and larger pool area? Wouldn't it be better for all involved to tackle this issue head on, now? That is a very long driveway. That is a steep, large hillside important to several RH homes. That is a lot of asphalt. That could be a lot of grading, drainage, soils engineering. I don't see the wisdom of pretending it will go away somewhere between Planning Commission and the Building Department. I thank you for your consideration, and as always, the great staff of Rolling Hills who are helping us puzzle this all out. Respectfully, Nina Ritter 63 Crest E. 310-283-5125 Page 2 of 2 i 0 P o pis 85 Crest East Proposed driveway Why not more safely locate new driveway to the center of approx. here? : r:>{ 7 families use this Access Road & have to turn out here. They are coming up a grade and cannot see oncoming traffic RECEIVED AUB 15 2016 City of Rolling Hills By ZC No. 910 85 Crest Road East On 8/15/16, 2:13 PM, "Tony Wang" <wangtonyk@gmail.com> wrote: I have few questions on the construction of a new driveway of the subject property: 1. Is the new driveway replacing the existing riding frail leading to the stable? What will happen to the stable and the trail? 2. Will the grading change to accommodate the new driveway affect the rain drain towards the Crest Road East? 3. What will happen to Crest Road's traffic during construction? Will one of the lane on Crest Road East be closed? Thank you for your help! Tony Wang (86 Crest Road East) 310-989-7878 RECEIVED From: Tony Wang <wangtonyk@,gmail.coi i> Date: Wednesday, September 14, 2016 1:47 PM To: Yolanta Schwartz Subject: Objection to the proposed new driveway Road East SEP 14 2016 City of Rolling Hills By and the new grading of 85 Crest Dear Planning Commission Members and Yolanda, We are the owners of the house at 86 Crest Road East, right across from 85 Crest Road East. We oppose the proposed new driveway and the new grading of 85 Crest Road East. The new driveway will affect our view from our front entry door and the front yard tremendously. Currently, we have a view of rural green pasture scenery which is the reason that we move to RH in the first place. With the proposed change, we will be looking at a long driveway and a long stretch of retaining wall. The proposed new driveway no doubt will enhance the property value of 85 Crest Road East, but will be at a very big expense of ow home at 86 Crest Road East. We would like to invite the Planning Commission and all interested parties to take a look at the silhouette from the front yard and the front entry door of our house during your upcoming field visit on September 20. When you take a look from the side of our property, you will understand our viewpoint. Please feel free to walk around our front yard, even we'll be out of town on the 20th. Thank you in advance to take a look on this matter. Sincerely, Vivian & Tony Wang 86 Crest Road East test sel Rosso qeela INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 TO: FROM: NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX (310) 377-7288 Agenda Item No.: 7C Mtg. Date: 09-20-16 HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR APPLICATION NO. SITE LOCATION: ZONING AND SIZE: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: DATE PUBLISHED: ZONING CASE NO. 911 3 POPPY TRAIL (8 -PT) RA -S-2, 2.7 ACRES (GROSS) MR. ROBERT JONAS TAVISHA NICHOLSON, ENGINEER ANTHONY INFERRERA, ARCHITECT SEPTEMBER 8, 2016 REQUEST AND RECOMMENDATION 1. The Planning Commission held a public hearing in the field on the site earlier in the morning on September 20, 2016 and viewed the silhouette for the proposed project. 2. The applicant requests a Site Plan Review, due to a restrictive development condition placed on the property, to legalize a 140 square foot addition and to construct two, for a total of 565 square feet attached covered porches to the residence. The applicant also requests a Variance as one of the porches consisting of 455 square feet is proposed to be located in the front yard setback. 3. It is recommended that the Planning Commission reconvene the public hearing, discuss the request and provide direction to staff. BACKGROUND 4. The property is zoned RAS-2 and consists of 2.7 acres (117,612 square feet) gross and 2.18 acres (95,160 sq.ft.) net lot area for development purposes. With this proposal a previously constructed addition of 140 square feet with a flat roof at the rear of the Z.C. No. 911 residence will be legalized and the roof reconfigured to match the existing residence. The entire roof will be raised by 12". As part of this application, regardless if the variance for the porch is granted or not, it will be a requirement that a building permit be obtained for this addition, a new roof be constructed and utility lines be undergrounded to the property. 5. In November, 2009 the applicant was granted a CUP and a SPR to construct an 800 square foot recreation room and access thereto, that required grading and a retaining wall along the access way. A "No further development" restriction without Planning Commission review was placed on the property. Therefore, any new construction requires a discretionary review by the Planning Commission. 6. Currently the property is developed with a 3,598 square foot residence, (including the 140 sq.ft. non -permitted addition), 462 square foot garage, a 720 square foot swimming pool/spa, 802 square foot pool decking, 48 square foot pool equipment, 270 square foot cabana, 660 square foot stable, 96 square foot service yard, and an 800 square foot recreation room with 396 square foot covered porch. 7. Over 40% of the existing residence is located in the front yard setback, and is legal non -conforming. At the worst condition, (north-west corner), the house encroaches 37' into the required 50' front yard setback. The proposed 455 square foot porch at the front of the house would encroach additional 6' into the front setback; up to 41' at the north west corner and up to 34' at the north east corner and requires a Variance. No grading or further disturbance is proposed with this project. MUNICIPAL CODE COMPLIANCE 8. Pursuant to Section 17.16.140 of the Zoning Code, architectural features (which include porches) may project 4' into the required front setback. With the house already projecting more than 4', the proposed covered porch would project even further into the setback. 9. The net lot area of the lot is 95,160 square feet. The structural lot coverage is proposed at 7,615 square feet or 8.00% of the net lot area, which includes all of the structures, (20% permitted). The total lot coverage proposed, including structures and flatwork is 12,296 square feet or 12.9% of the net lot area, (35% permitted). 29,440 square feet of the net lot, or 30.94% is disturbed. No additional disturbance is proposed. (40% max. permitted). 10. There are 3 building pads on the property. The Zoning Code sets a guideline for each building pad coverage at 30%. The residential pad is 4,480 square feet, outside of setbacks, and will have coverage of 119.5% (due to the fact that over 40% of the house plus the covered porch would be located in the front setback; area of which is not included in the building pad area calculations). The stable pad is 3,360 square feet and Z.C. No. 911 3 Poppy Trail has coverage of 19.6%, and the recreation room pad is 3,600 square feet with 31.0% coverage, with allowed deduction. 11. The residential "as built" addition and attached porches will not impact drainage on the lot. No change to the drainage pattern is proposed. 12. All of the development standards are being met except for the requirement that no development occurs in a setback. The 455 square foot attached porch encroaches in its entirety into the front yard setback. 13. In response to justification for the Variance request the applicant notes that the entire front of the house is in the front setback and they are requesting to further encroach by 6'. Due to the topography of the lot there is no space to construct covered porches in the rear of the house. The proposed porches will not result in any additional disturbance. CONCLUSION 14. This proposal would legalize a 140 square foot as -built addition. Section 17.24.020 of the Municipal Code requires that illegal uses or structures be legalized in conjunction with any discretionary review application. Therefore, approval by the Planning Commission, the Rolling Hills Community Association, and a building permit is required as part of the consideration for the proposed attached porches and for the "as built" residential addition. Pursuant to the current zoning ordinance, only one accessory structure greater than 200 square feet and used for recreation, guest house, hobby shop or storage room is permitted. The 800 square foot recreation room approved in 2009 pre -dates the current requirement, which went into effect in 2011 (Ordinance No. 324). 15. When reviewing a development application the Planning Commission should consider whether the proposed project is consistent with the City's General Plan; incorporates environmentally and aesthetically sensitive grading practices; preserves existing mature vegetation; is compatible and consistent with the scale, massing and development pattern in the immediate project vicinity; and otherwise preserves and protects the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Rolling Hills. In addition, the Commission must determine if the project meets the Variance criteria enclosed with this report. 16. In reviewing this application, the Commission should consider the topography of the property, the previously graded pads, the configuration of the exiting development and the general size of the lot. 17. The project has been determined to be categorically exempt pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Z.C. No. 911 3 Poppy Trail 18. The Rolling Hills Community Association Architectural Committee will review the project for architectural elements and design at a later date. ZONING CASE NO. 911 SITE PLAN REVIEW/VARIANCE EXISTING PROPOSED RA -S-2 ZONE SETBACKS SF Residence & accessory structures Legalize addition and add covered porches to residence Front: 50 ft. from road easement line Side: 35 ft. from property line Rear: 50 ft. from property line STRUCTURES Residence Garage Pool/spa Pool equip Cabana Stable Att.porch Service yd Rec Room 3458 sq.ft 462 sq.ft. 720 sq.ft 48 sq.ft. 270 sq.ft 660 sq.ft 396 sq.ft. 96 sq.ft. 800 sq. ft Residence Garage Pool/spa Pool equip Cabana Stable Att. porch Service yd Rec Room 3598 sq.ft 462 sq.ft 720 sq.ft. 48 sq.ft 270 sq.ft. 660 sq.ft. 961 sq.ft 96 sq.ft. 800 sq. ft. - Site Plan Review required on properties with a Restricted Development Condition. - Variance for structures in setbacks. TOTAL 6,910 sq.ft. TOTAL 7,615 sq.ft STRUCTURAL LOT COVERAGE 7.3% 8.0% of 95,160 sq.ft. net lot area (20% maximum) TOTAL T..OT COVERAGE 12.2% 12.92% of 95,160 sq.ft. net lot area (35% maximum) BUILDING PAD COVERAGE Residence= 112.8% of 4,480 sq.ft. pad Stable=19.6% of 3,360 sq.ft. pad Rec room=31 % of 3,600 sq.ft pad Residence=119.5% of 4,480 sq.ft. pad Stable=19.6% of 3,360 sq.ft. pad Rec room=31% of 3,600 sq.ft pad RESIDENTIAL (30% maximum guideline) GRADING N/ A NONE Site plan review required if grading is triggered DISTURBED AREA 29,440 sq.ft. - 30.9% of lot 29,440 sq.ft. - 30.9% of lot - was previously disturbed (40% maximum; any graded building pad area, any remedial grading (temporary disturbance), any graded slopes and building pad areas, and any nongraded area where impervious surfaces exist.) STABLE (minimum 450 sq. ft.) and 660 sq.ft 1,050 sq.ft. 660 sq. ft. 1,050 sq.ft. CORRAL (minimum 550 sq. ft.) Z.C. No. 911 3 Poppy Trail STABLE ACCESS From Poppy Trail ACCESSWAY Existing from Poppy Trail Existing from Poppy Trail VIEWS N/A Planning Commission review PLANTS AND ANIMALS N/A Planning Commission review 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: Z.C. No. 911 3 Poppy Trail 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. Z.C. No. 911 3 Poppy Trail