Loading...
Planning Commission Meeting 10-18-2016CITY OF ROLLING HILLS PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL AND POSTING STATE OF CALIFORNIA ss COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 1 am a citizen of the United States. 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 14'" day of October 2016, I serve the within Planning Commission Meeting Agenda Regular Meeting -10/18/2016 E -MAILED MAILED DropBox DELIVERED Interested Asst. City Attorney City Manager RH Web site listSery 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 146 day of October, 2016 at Rolling Hills, California. Ewa Nikodem Administrative Assistant 64 ail Ram qereei 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, OCTOBER 18, 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. September 20, 2016, Adjourned Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission B. September 20, 2016, Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission 6. RESOLUTIONS A. RESOLUTION NO. 2016-22. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL OF A SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO A RESIDENCE WITH RESTRICTED DEVELOPMENT CONDITION, INCLUDING AN AS -BUILT ADDITION AND CONSTRUCTION OF ATTACHED COVERED PORCHES AND A 5 -FOOT MAXIMUM HEIGHT WALL TO ACCOMMODATE A 4 -FOOT WIDE WALKWAY ALONG THE REAR OF THE HOME AND A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH WITH NEW COVERED PORCHES INTO THE FRONT SETBACK, IN ZONING CASE NO. 911 AT 3 POPPYTRAIL, (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. -1- B. RESOLUTION NO. 2016-23. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL OF A SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR GRADING, HOUSE AND GARAGE ENLAGEMENT, A SWIMMING POOL AND NEW DRIVEWAY 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. 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS ON ITEMS CONTINUED FROM A PREVIOUS MEETING A. ZONING CASE NO. 907. APPLICANTS REQUESTED CONTINUANCE TO A FIELD TRIP ON NOVEMBER 15, 2016. Request for a Certificate of Compliance for Lot Line Adjustments between three parcels of land and a Variance for a less than the minimum required width along a portion of two of the parcels. Parcel 1 at 10 Pine Tree Lane, APN: 7569-013-016, is developed with a single- family residence and accessory structures; Parcel 2, APN: 7569-013-017 is vacant and Parcel 3, APN: 7569-013-018 is also vacant, located in the RAS-2 Zoning District, in Zoning Case No. 907, (Hassoldt). The project has been determined to be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, (CEQA) under the Class 5 Exemption, Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations. NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS 8. NONE 9. SCHEDULE OF FIELD TRIPS (NOVEMBER 15, 2016) (TENTATIVE) 3 Chuckwagon 5 El Concho 10 Crest Rd. W 10 Pine Tree Lane 10. ITEMS FROM STAFF A. Joint meeting with the City Council. 11. ITEMS FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION 12. ADJOURNMENT In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting due to your disability, please contact the City Clerk at (310) 377-1521 at least 48 hours prior to the meeting to enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibilihj 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: 10-18-16 MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 20, 2016 FIELD TRIP PRESENT: Chairman Chelf, Commissioners Cardenas, Gray, Kirkpatrick and Seaburn Yolanta Schwartz, Planning Director A. ZONING CASE NO. 910. Request for a Site Plan Review to reconstruct and add to an existing living area and 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. Also present at this field trip were: John Mackenbach, contractor Leah Mirsch, Resident James Aichele, Resident Phil Steinberg, Neighbor - 87 Crest Rd. E. Nina Ritter, Neighbor - 63 Crest Rd. E. Chairman Chelf recused himself due to proximity of his residence to subject site Planning Director Schwartz reviewed the applicant's proposal including the request for a variance to exceed the disturbed area of the lot due to the additional grading for the new driveway and pool area. Everyone present toured the project starting with the proposed garage and addition under the existing breezeway. John Mackenbach pointed out the ridgeline of the proposed project and the limits of the garage and motor court. In response to Mr. Steinberg, Planning Director Schwartz pointed out the distance between his house and the proposed driveway and Mr. Mackenbach explained the location of the property line and the 10' easement lines on both properties. Ms. Ritter expressed concerns about the removal of the existing asphalt driveway and the absence of topographic map of the area west of the existing driveway. She questioned the drainage and stability of the area once the asphalt driveway is removed. Ms. Ritter also expressed concerns about the new driveway exiting very close to the common.driveway on Crest Road that serves 5 other properties, and asked if it can be moved further east. In response, John Mackenbach stated that any other location would require additional 0 grading and the driveway would not meet City's requirement for steepness. Several Commissioners stated that to their knowledge the drainage would be improved with the removal of the asphalt driveway as there would be more surface area for infiltration of the run-off. It was also stated that the project would be engineered and the City's drainage and grading engineer would review the project. The group then walked over to the pool area and John Mackenbach pointed to the finished elevation of the pool and pool area. In response to a letter from the property owner at 86 Crest Road E., in which he expresses objection to the location of the proposed driveway along the front of the property at 85 Crest Road E., the Commissioners visited 86 Crest Road E. Discussion ensued regarding the elevation of the driveway and the proposed 3' high wall along the driveway and screening the front of the lot. Director Schwartz stated that landscaping of the graded areas is required and that with the permission of the RHCA, taller than ground cover plants could be planted. Vice-chairman Gray stated that this would be discussed at the evening meeting of the Planning Commission. B. ZONING CASE NO. 911. Request for a Site Plan Review to legalize a 140 square foot addition and to construct a 565 square feet of attached covered porches to main residence on a property with a restrictive development condition and a Variance for one of the covered porches to be located in the front yard setback at 3 Poppy Trail (Lot 8 -PT) Rolling Hills, CA, (Jonas). The project has been determined to be categorically exempt (Class 3) pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Section 15303. Also present at this field trip were: Anthony Inferrera, Architect Leah Mirsch, Resident James Aichele, Resident Planning Director Schwartz reviewed the applicant's proposal including the request for a variance to locate a covered porch along the front of the property in the front setback and to legalize previously constructed addition to the house. She pointed out the front setback and stated that almost 40% of the existing house is located in the front setback. Everyone present toured the project starting with the proposed porch. The architect explained the elevation of the porch and proposed ridgeline of the house, including the unpermitted portion of the house. All present visited the inside of the residence to view the unpermitted portion and also viewed it from the rear. Discussion ensued about the required 4' walkway around the property. It was stated that since the unpermitted addition needs to meet current standards, a 4' -walkway is required. All present walked around the rear of the unpermitted addition and the architect explained how the addition will be modified to meet the current standards and that a 4' -wide walkway could 0 iN be provided. Chairman Chelf stated that this would be addressed and discussed at the evening meeting. 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: 10-18-16 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS SEPTEMBER 20, 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, September 20, 2016 in the City Council Chamber, at City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California. Chairman Chelf introduced and welcomed the new Planning Commissioner, Matt Seaburn who was recently appointed to replace Jill Smith who stepped down. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Commissioners Absent: Others Present: Cardenas, Gray, Kirkpatrick, Seaburn and Chairman Chelf. None. Yolanta Schwartz, Planning Director. Natalie Karpeles, Assistant City Attorney. Heidi Luce, City Clerk. Criss Gunderson, Architect. Alan McGregor, Landscape Architect. Tony Inferrera, Architect. Leah Mirsch, 4 Cinchring Road. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA Approved as presented. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON MINUTES AND ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA None. APPROVAL OF MINUTES August 16, 2016, Adjourned Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission Minutes Planning Commission Regular Meeting 09-20-16 DRAFT 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. August 16, 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 Kirkpatrick seconded the motion, which carried without objection. RESOLUTIONS See Item Below PUBLIC HEARINGS ON ITEMS CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS MEETING 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 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). 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 to construct a 700 sq. ft. covered porch with an out of grade condition and accessory structures in Zoning Case No. 909 at 7 Southfield Drive. She stated that this case began with a field trip to the site in August at which time it was noted that there were some conditions present that required this case to be renoticed and readvertised. She further stated that since the last meeting, at the Planning Commission's suggestion, the applicant has withdrawn their request for a variance to be relieved from the requirement to have a setaside area for a future stable and corral. She stated that there is an existing flat area in the side setback that is now proposed as the setaside area for a future stable and corral. She noted that a shed currently exits in that area. She stated that the area next to the proposed setaside area, which is also owned by the Klermans, is very steep and unlikely to be developed. Minutes Planning Commission Regular Meeting 09-20-16 .62) DRAFT She stated that at the last meeting, pending all of the modification to the project, the Planning Commission directed staff to prepare a Resolution granting approval of the applicant's request as modified and a Resolution has been prepared for the Planning Commission's consideration. Chairman Chelf called for public comment. Criss Gunderson, Architect addressed the Planning Commission offering to answer any questions. Hearing no further public comment, Chairman Chelf asked for comments from the Planning Commission. Vice Chairman Gray commented that he is pleased that the applicant eliminated the variance request to not have a stable and he does not have any objections to the project. Commissioner Cardenas concurred. Commissioner Cardenas moved that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2016-21 granting approval of the applicant's request in Zoning Case No. 909 at 7 Southfield Drive. Vice Chairman Gray seconded the motion, which carried without objection and with Commissioner Seabum abstaining. Commissioner Kirkpatrick returned to the dais. 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 stated that the applicant is requesting a site plan review for 2,296 cu. yds. of grading and to construct a 1,300 square foot swimming pool, a pool equipment area, a 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 and 1,024 square feet of pool decking. She stated that a Variance is requested to exceed the maximum permitted disturbance of the net lot, from the existing 32.7% to 55.1%. She further stated that the applicant currently take access to the property through the rear of the property via a common driveway that serves five other properties and the applicant is proposing to construct a new 20 ft. wide driveway along the front of the property to serve only this property with a wall along a portion of the front side of the driveway. Ms. Schwartz stated that the Planning Commission visited this site earlier in the day and at that time, there were some concerns expressed by neighbors, which were expressed previously and that correspondence is included with the staff report. She noted that the resident at 87 Crest Road East expressed concern regarding the proximity of the driveway to his property and upon explanation, the property owner seemed satisfied. She further commented that the neighbor across the street expressed concern regarding aesthetics of the driveway and the Planning Commission visited the property to view Minutes Planning Commission Regular Meeting 09-20-16 O DRAFT the concern and found that issue may be resolved with some screening subject to Rolling Hills Community Association approval of planting in the roadway easement. She stated that the resident at 63 Crest Road East also expressed concern regarding the stability of the existing driveway area should the asphalt be removed. In response to that concern, she reviewed the applicant's proposal for that area and stated that the entire lot will be studied for hydrology and reviewed by the City's engineer and any issues found will have to be addressed with site -specific hydrology design. She stated that the other development standards for this project are all within the Zoning Code requirements. Alan McGregor, Architect addressed the Planning Commission offering to answer any questions. Hearing no further public comment, Chairman Chelf asked for comments from the Planning Commission. In response to Vice Chairman Gray, Mr. McGregor commented that the applicant would be willing to work with the neighbor and the Rolling Hills Community Association to screen the wall along the driveway. Also in response to Vice Chairman Gray with regard to the issue raised about the proximity of the driveway to the property to the east, Mr. McGregor commented that there is landscaping proposed in that area to buffer the noise. Brad Chelf, 59 Crest Road East addressed the Planning Commission in support of the project, including the new driveway. Vice Chairman Gray asked for comments from the Planning Commission. In response to Commissioner Cardenas, if the Planning Commission were to suggest screening of the wall along the driveway, Planning Director Schwartz responded that any planting would be subject to RHCA approval. Discussion ensued concerning the impact of the driveway on the property to the east. The Planning Commission concurred that the issue would be best addressed through cooperation by the two neighbors and it would be desirable for both neighbors to come to an agreement. 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. 910 at 85 Crest Road East with the standard findings of fact and conditions of approval plus a condition that a landscaping plan be submitted showing how the driveway and the retaining wall will be screened from Crest Road E. and that any landscaping in an easement be approved by the RHCA. Commissioner Kirkpatrick seconded the motion, which carried without objection. Chairman Chelf returned to the dais. 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. Minutes Planning Commission Regular Meeting 09-20-16 DRAFT Chairman Chelf introduced the item and asked for staff's comments. Planning Director Schwartz reviewed the applicant's request for a Site Plan Review to legalize a 140 square foot addition and to construct two attached covered porches totaling 705 square feet. She stated that the applicant is also requesting a Variance for one of them to be located in the front yard setback. She noted that this project is before the Planning Commission because there is a restrictive development condition on this property that any further development be brought before the Planning Commission for review. She noted that the applicant submitted revised plans today to accurately depict the proposal and what was seen at the field trip. She further commented that the applicant would also need to provide a 4ft. walkway around the new addition and the applicant's representatives have determined that it can be done within the existing condition of the area. She stated that the other development standards for this project are all within the Zoning Code requirements. Chairman Chelf called for public comment. Tony Inferrera, Architect addressed the Planning Commission stating that he spoke to he applicant and they are willing to include a 4 ft. walkway around the addition. Leah Mirsch, 4 Cinchring Road addressed the Planning Commission to ask for clarification with regard to the required 4 ft. walkway. In response, Planning Director Schwartz stated that the 4 ft. is measured from the wall of the house. Vice Chairman Gray expressed his support for the project and commented that he believes the proposal is a good solution on a difficult lot. The other Planning Commissioners concurred. 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. 911 at 3 Poppy Trail with the standard findings of fact and conditions of approval plus a condition that a 4 ft. walkway be provided around the house and if a wall is necessary that it be constructed no higher than 5 ft. Vice Chairman Gray seconded the motion, which carried without objection. NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS None. SCHEDULE OF FIELD TRIPS The Planning Commission scheduled a field trip to the following properties to be conducted on Tuesday, October 18, 2016 beginning at 7:30 a.m. 10, 12 & 14 Pine Tree Lane (Lot Line Adjustment) 2950 Palos Verdes Drive North (slope repair) ITEMS FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION None. Minutes Planning Commission Regular Meeting 09-20-16 DRAFT ITEMS FROM STAFF Planning Director Schwartz reported that the City Council took Zoning Case No. 902 at 23 Crest Road East under jurisdiction and scheduled a field trip for October 4th. ADJOURNMENT Hearing no further business before the Commission, Chairman Chelf adjourned the meeting at 7:11 p.m. to an adjourned regular meeting of the Planning Commission scheduled to be held on Tuesday, October 18, 2016 beginning at 7:30 a.m. for the purpose of conducting field trips to 10 Pine Tree Lane (Lot Lines Adjustment) and 2950 Palos Verdes Drive North (slope repair.) The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission is scheduled to be held on Tuesday, October 18, 2016 beginning at 6:30 p.m. in the City Council Chamber, Rolling Hills City Hall, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, Califomia. Respectfully submitted, Heidi Luce City Clerk Approved, Brad Chelf Chairman Minutes Planning Commission Regular Meeting 09-20-16 ter, Ra& gceei INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX (310) 377-7288 Agenda Item No.: 6A Mtg. Date: 10-18-16 TO: HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR APPLICATION NO. SITE LOCATION: ZONING AND SIZE: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: DATE PUBLISHED: ZONING CASE NO. 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 September 20, 2016 and at the evening meeting on the same day. At the field trip it was noted that a covered porch is also proposed along the northwest side of the residence and that the walking path behind the unauthorized addition is less than the required 4' wide for access around it. 2. The applicants' agent submitted revised calculations at the evening meeting for the project and stated that a minimum of 4' wide walkway could be provided behind the addition, which would require an up to 4' high retaining wall. At the meeting, following a brief discussion, the Planning Commission directed staff to prepare a Resolution of approval of the project, based on the new information, and approving an up to 5' wall, which is maximum permitted under a Site Plan Review. 3. The applicant requests a Site Plan Review, due to a restrictive development condition placed on the property, to legalize a 375 square foot addition, to construct a not to exceed 5' high retaining wall behind the addition and to construct a total of 705 square Z.C. No. 911 feet attached covered porches to the residence. The applicant also requests a Variance as 595 square feet of the porches would be located in the front yard setback. 4. It is recommended that the Planning Commission review the staff report and adopt Resolution No. 2016-22 for the project, with standard findings and conditions, as well as conditions specific to this case such as: • provide a not less than 4' wide walkway around the residence • the retaining wall, to accommodate the construction of the walkway, shall not exceed 5' in height • • obtain building permits for the rear addition and retrofit the addition to comply with building code requirements • the exterior walls of the residence that encroach into the front setback shall not be demolished; however the windows may be replaced within the existing openings. 5. Below is an updated development chart, showing the corrected size of the covered porch. ZONING CASE NO. 911 SITE PLAN REVIEW/VARIANCE EXISTING PROPOSED RA -S-2 ZONE SETBACKS SF Residence & accessory structures Legalize addition, construct a retaining wall and add covered porches to residence Front: 50 ft from road easmnt. 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. 1101 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 7,755 sq.ft STRUCTURAL LOT COVERAGE 7.3% 8.1% of 95,160 sq.ft. net lot area (20% maximum) TOTAL LOT COVERAGE 12.2% 13.1% 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=122.6% 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) Z.C. No. 911 3 Poppy Trail GRADING N/ A NONE Site plan review required if grading is triggered DISTURBED AREA 29,440 sq.ft. - 30.9% of lot 29,440 sq.ft. - 30.9% of lot - was previously disturbed . (40% maximum; any graded building pad area, any remedial grading (temporary disturbance), any graded slopes and building pad areas, and any nongraded area where impervious surfaces exist.) STABLE (minimum 450 sq. ft) and 660 sq.ft 1,050 sq.ft. 660 sq. ft. 1,050 sq.ft. CORRAL (minimum 550 sq. ft.) STABLE ACCESS From Poppy Trail ACCESSWAY Existing from Poppy Trail Existing from Poppy Trail • r i VIEWS N/A N/A . PLANTS AND ANIMALS N/A - .. N/A. - Z.C. No. 911 3 Poppy Trail THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK et RESOLUTION NO. 2016-22 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL OF A SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO A RESIDENCE WITH RESTRICTED DEVELOPMENT CONDITION, INCLUDING AN AS -BUILT ADDITION AND CONSTRUCTION OF ATTACHED COVERED PORCHES AND A 5 -FOOT MAXIMUM HEIGHT WALL TO ACCOMMODATE A 4 -FOOT WIDE WALKWAY ALONG THE REAR OF THE HOME AND A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH WITH NEW COVERED PORCHES INTO THE FRONT SETBACK, IN ZONING CASE NO. 911 AT 3 POPPY TRAIL, (LOT 8 -PT), ROLLING HILLS, CA (JONAS). 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. Robert Jonas requesting a Site Plan Review approving a 375 square foot as -built living area and three covered porches, totalling 705 square feet. In addition, the applicant, subject to a condition of approval applied by the Planning Commission in the public hearing, proposes to construct a maximum 5 -foot tall wall at the rear of the residence to accommodate a 4 -foot wide walkway along the home perimeter contiguous to the as -built living area. The applicant also requests a Variance to locate two of the three proposed covered porches within the front yard setback. Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted duly noticed public hearings to consider the application on September 20, 2016 including a morning field trip and an evening 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. During the September 20, 2016 field visit a concern was expressed by a resident and discussed regarding the need for a walkway to provide access around the residence perimeter at the rear, which may involve constructing a new retaining wall up to 5 feet in height. This concern has been addressed through the conditions of approval. Section 3. The property is zoned RAS-2 and the gross lot area is 2.7 acres. The net lot area is 2.18 acres or 95,160 square feet. The lot, with the exception of three graded building pads (main home, stable and acccessory recreation room) has a steep descending slope, rear to front. Due to the location of the residential pad within the front setback, over 40% of the residence is nonconforming in that it lies within the front setback. Reso. 2016-22 3 Poppy Trail 1 Section 4. On March 17, 2009 the applicant was granted a Conditional Use Permit and a Site Plan Review that allowed the construction of an 800 square foot recreation room and access thereto. A "No further development" restriction (condition AF) was imposed on the property, requiring any future structural modifications to be reviewed by the Planning Commission in a Site Plan Review public hearing. Section 5. The property, including a 375 square foot as -built living area being legalized by this approval, is currently developed with a 3,598 square foot residence, 462 square foot garage, 96 square foot service yard, 720 square foot swimming pool, 48 square foot pool equipment enclosure, 270 square foot detached cabana, 800 square foot accessory recreation room with a 396 square feet attached covered porch, and a 660 square foot stable. With this approval, an additional 705 square feet total of covered porches will be constructed, of which 595 square feet is attached to the front and side of the residence within the front setback and 110 square feet at the rear. The entire roof will be remodeled and the portion above the as -built area will be modified to match the main roof. Section 6. The project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303, Class 3 exemption Guidelines. Section 7. Section 17.16.190F requires a Site Plan Review for walls over 3 feet in height. A not to exceed 5 -feet tall wall is anticipated to be required in order to construct a 4 -foot wide walkway along the rear perimeter of the residence as a condition of approval. In addition, the project improvements are subject to a Site Plan Review in that the site is a "restricted development" as noted in Section 4 of this Resolution. With respect to the Site Plan Review application for the walkway wall and other structural improvements to the home, 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 to development standard requirements for lot coverage and disturbance of the Zoning Ordinance and no grading is proposed. A new wall up to 5 feet in height is required to accommodate construction of a 4 -foot access walkway at the rear of the home, adjacent to as as -built living area that is legalized with this approval. The new wall will be located at the rear of the home, away from any other residence and street and will not be visible or obtrusive to neighbors. At the front of the home, 595 square feet of two proposed attached covered porches will have an open design and will add visual interest without adding significant additional building mass. Reso. 2016-22 3 Poppy Trail 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 a graded pad. Significant portions of the 2.7 -acre lot will be left undeveloped so as to maintain open space on the property. The nature, condition, and development of adjacent uses, buildings, and structures and the topography of the lot have been considered, and the construction will not adversely affect or be materially detrimental to the adjacent uses, buildings, or structures because the changes to the existing building including proposed porches, and roof replacement, are relatively minor changes. The proposed project is not expected to 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, utilizing existing groomed and usable areas of the lot. Natural drainage courses will not be affected by the project. No grading is proposed and existing drainage channels will not be modified. The project is not located in a canyon or on existing slopes that exceed 25%. E. The project preserves much of the existing vegetation elsewhere on the lot and any new landscaping to be introduced will be required to be drought -tolerant, which is compatible with and enhances the rural character of the community. 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 8. 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 proposing to encroach in the front setback with 705 square feet of covered attached porches, a Variance is required to grant relief from Section 17.12.190 of the Zoning Ordinance (setback definitions requiring that setbacks be free of structures). With respect to the aforementioned request for a Variance from Zoning Ordinance Section 17.16.150, the Planning Commission finds as follows: Reso. 2016-22 3 Poppy Trail 3 A. There are exceptional circumstances and conditions on the subject property, including the natural slope, location of the building pad and the shape of the lot, all of which constrain development. The lot has a relatively steep natural downward slope from rear to front. Due to this constraint, the main building pad was originally created at the front of the lot, with a considerable portion of the pad (and 40% of the existing residence) located within the 50 -foot wide front yard setback. This leaves little area suitable for covered porches at the rear of the building, outside of the setback area. Also the lot has a relatively long frontage (435.5 lineal feet) along Poppy Trail, which exacerbates the amount of the lot while being suitable, is also restricted to development due to a long front setback. B. The variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property owners in the same vicinity and zone but which is denied to the property in question by strict application of the code. The proposed porches are common to residences in Rolling Hills and encouraged by the Architectural Committee to maintain the ranch style type of development, and this approval permits the applicants to enjoy the same amenities. The porches, although in setback are not intrusive or massive. C. The granting of the Variance would not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the properties or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the property is located in that the increase in nonconformity for the front setback will be relatively minor, being a further encroachment of only 6 feet and comprised of an open element (porch) and not enclosed living area. D. In granting of the Variance the spirit and intent of the Zoning Ordinance will be observed in that the proposed porches will be orderly, attractive, and will not detrimentally affect the rural character of the community. E. The Variance request is consistent with the General Plan of the City of Rolling Hills because the proposed structures comply with the General Plan requirement of low profile, low -density residential development with sufficient open space between surrounding structures. The proposed porch additions are to be located along and parallel to the exterior building line of the residence and will not alter the existing configuration of the lot, including existing sloped conditions and large amount of open space between structures. F. The Variance is consistent with the portions of the County of Los Angeles Hazardous Waste Management Plan relating to siting and siting criteria for hazardous waste facilities. Section 9. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves the Variance and Site Plan Review in Zoning Case No. 911 for 705 Reso. 2016-22 3 Poppy Trail 4 square feet total of three attached covered porches of which 595 square feet, for two porches, is within the front yard setback and approval of an as -built living area (375 square feet) and maximum 5 -foot tall retaining wall to create a 4 -foot walkway along the rear of the home adjacent to an as -built living area, subject to the following conditions: A. This approval shall expire within two years from the effective date of approval if construction pursuant to this approval has not commenced within that time period, as required by Sections 17.38.070 and 17.46.080 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, or the approval granted is otherwise extended pursuant to the requirements of this section. B. If any condition of this resolution is violated, the entitlement granted by this resolution shall be suspended and the privileges granted hereunder shall lapse and upon receipt of written notice from the City, all construction work being performed on the subject property shall immediately cease, other than work determined by the City Manager or his/her designee required to cure the violation. The suspension and stop work order will be lifted once the Applicant cures the violation to the satisfaction of the City Manager or his/her designee. In the event that the Applicant disputes the City Manager or his/her designee's determination that a violation exists or disputes how the violation must be cured, the Applicant may request a hearing before the City Council. The hearing shall be scheduled at the next regular meeting of the City Council for which the agenda has not yet been posted, the Applicant shall be provided written notice of the hearing. The stop work order shall remain in effect during the pendency of the hearing. The City Council shall make a determination as to whether a violation of this Resolution has occurred. If the Council determines that a violation has not occurred or has been cured by the time of the hearing, the Council will lift the suspension and the stop work order. If the Council determines that a violation has occurred and has not yet been cured, the Council shall provide the Applicant with a deadline to cure the violation; no construction work shall be performed on the property until and unless the violation is cured by the deadline, other than work designated by the Council to accomplish the cure. If the violation is not cured by the deadline, the Council may either extend the deadline at the Applicant's request or schedule a hearing for the revocation of the entitlements granted by this Resolution pursuant to Chapter 17.58 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code (RHMC). 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. Reso. 2016-22 3 Poppy Trail 5 D. The lot shall be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the site plan on file dated September 20, 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 to the development plan approved with this application. A copy of the conditions of this Resolution shall be printed on plans 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. 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 to 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. G. Structural lot coverage shall not exceed 7,755 square feet, or 8.15% (with allowable deductions). Total lot coverage shall not exceed 13.07% or 12,436 square feet. Building Pad coverage on the 4,480 square foot residential pad (pad area does not include portion within front setback) shall not exceed 122.6% (existing condition). H. The disturbed area of the lot shall not exceed 30.94% (of net lot area), which includes the existing stable and corral area. No further disturbance is proposed. I. A minimum of four -foot level path and/ or walkway, which does not have to be paved, shall be provided along the rear of the home, to allow passage around the home. A retaining wall is permitted at a height of 5 -feet maximum (measured from finished grade) as needed to accommodate the path/walkway. J. All existing house walls that are in the front yard setback shall remain structurally intact and not be demolished. Windows may be replaced "in -kind" meanirig of the same size opening as existing. K. Notwithstanding Sections 17.46.020 and 17.46.070 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, any modification to this project or to the property, which would constitute additional strcutural development, grading, excavation of dirt and any modification including, but not be limited to retaining walls, drainage devices, pad elevation and any other deviation from the approved plan, shall require the filing of a new application for approval by the Planning Commission. Reso. 2016-22 3 Poppy Trail 6 L. 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. M. During and after construction, all parking shall take place on the project site. During construction, to maximum extent feasible, employees of the contractor shall car-pool into the City. N. 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. 0. 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. P. A minimum of 50% of the construction material spoils shall be recycled and diverted. The hauler shall secure a "Construction and Demolition Permit" from the City of Rolling Hills, and provide the required documentation. Q. The project must be reviewed and approved by the Rolling Hills Community Association (RHCA) 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 RICA. R. 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 be conducted on the property, the contractor shall have readily available fire distinguisher. S. All utility lines to the residence shall be placed underground. T. Prior to finaling of the project, an "as constructed" plans and certifications shall be provided to the Planning Department and the Building Reso. 2016-22 3 Poppy Trail 7 II Department to ascertain that the completed project is in compliance with the approved plans. In addition, any modifications made to the project during construction, shall be depicted "as built/as graded". U. 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 18th DAY OF OCTOBER, 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. 2016-22 3 Poppy Trail 8 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§ CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ) I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2016-22 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL OF A SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO A RESIDENCE WITH RESTRICTED DEVELOPMENT CONDITION, INCLUDING AN AS -BUILT ADDITION AND CONSTRUCTION OF ATTACHED COVERED PORCHES AND A 5 -FOOT MAXIMUM HEIGHT WALL TO ACCOMMODATE A 4 -FOOT WIDE WALKWAY ALONG THE HOME PERIMETER AND A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH WITH NEW COVERED PORCHES INTO THE FRONT SETBACK, IN ZONING CASE NO. 911 AT 3 POPPY TRAIL, (LOT 8 -PT), ROLLING HILLS, CA (JONAS). was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on October 18, 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. 2016-22 3 Poppy Trail 9 13 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.: 6B Mtg. Date: 10-18-16 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 on September 20, 2016 and held an evening meeting on the same day. At the evening meeting, the Planning Commission directed staff to prepare a Resolution of approval for this project. 2. The applicant, Mr. Zee requests a Site Plan Review to construct a 1,300 square foot swimming pool, pool equipment area, 135 square foot attached trellis, a 396 square foot additions, demolish the 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 from excavation of the pool, 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%. A 588 square foot swimming pool currently is located at the side of the residence and will be filed 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 ZC NO. 910 partially on 85 Crest Rd. E. This driveway apron flares out into driveways to several . properties to the south. The new driveway will be constructed on the subject property, adjacent to the common apron, and will follow along the front 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 Traffic Commission reviewed the new .driveway apron at their July 28, 2016 meeting and recommended approval. 3. At the field trip, the Commissioners reviewed and discussed neighbors' concerns and determined that they can be mitigated with conditions of approval. The attached resolution contains standard finding of facts and conditions as well as conditions specific to this case, as directed by the Planning Commission, including: • The applicant shall vegetate all graded areas for erosion control; in addition • The driveway and the driveway, wall shall be screened from view from the property across the street (86 Crest Road East). The applicants shall show and obtain input from the neighbor at 86 Crest Rd. E . to review and comment on the landscaping plan for screening the driveway and retaining wall • The portion of the driveway along the east side of the property adjacent to 87 Crest Road East shall also be screened • Any proposed planting in the RHCA easement shall be approve by RHCA • Plants shall not be planted so that their growth would result in a hedge like plant wall, but must be offset • A drainage plan shall be prepared for the entire site, not just for the construction areas; and be reviewed and approved by Building Department engineers • A curb or a rubble wall shall be constructed across the existing access onto the subject site from the shared driveway • The existing driveway shall be demolished; and the northern portion, as shown on the Site Plan, shall be landscaped and the remaining resurfaced with D.G. or gravel. 4. It is recommended that the Planning Commission review the staff report and adopt Resolution No. 2016-23 for the project. ZC NO. 910 RESOLUTION NO. 2016-23 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL OF A SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A SWIMMING POOL, POOL EQUIPMENT AREA, DECKING AND TRELLIS, ROOM ADDITION, GARAGE AND BREEZEWAY AND NEW DRIVEWAY AND MOTOR COURT WITH RELATED GRADING/RETAINING WALLS AND A VARIANCE REQUEST TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMI I I ED DISTURBED AREA IN ZONING CASE NO. 910, AT 85 CREST ROAD EAST, (LOT 69 -C -1 -MS), ROLLING HILLS, CA (ZEE). 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. Tien Zee with respect to real property located at 85 Crest Road East, Rolling Hills (Lot 69 -C -1 -MS) requesting a Site Plan Review to construct a 396 square foot living area addition, new 960 square foot garage connected to the existing home via a new 510 square foot breezeway, 135 square foot attached trellis, new 1,300 square foot swimming pool, 45 square foot pool equipment enclosure and 1,024 square feet pool decking, new 20 -foot wide driveway along the lot front and 3,000 square foot motor court and a total 2,296 cubic yards of grading to accommodate the new driveway and pool, and including 388 cubic yards to be exported. New maximum 3 -foot high retaining walls are proposed in the area of the new pool equipment enclosure and along the new driveway. An existing 792 square foot garage and existing connecting breezeway will be demolished, and the existing 586 square foot pool and driveway accessed from a common apron will be abandoned (i.e. pool filled in/landscaped and driveway converted to decomposed granite path). A Variance is requested to exceed the maximum' permitted disturbed area in that proposal will increase this area from 32.7% existing disturbance to 55.1% (maximum permitted 40%). Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted duly noticed public hearings to consider the application at their regular meetings on August 16 and September 20, including a field visit also on September 20th. Neighbors within 1,000 -foot radius were notified of the public hearings and notices were published in the Peninsula News on September 8, 2016. The applicant and his agents were notified of the public hearings in writing by first class mail and the applicant's agents were in attendance at the hearings. Evidence was heard and presented from all persons interested in affecting said proposal, and from members of the City staff. The Planning Commission has reviewed, analyzed and studied said proposal. During the public hearings neighbors expressed concerns regarding screening of the proposed driveway wall, visible from Crest Road, drainage of the lot, proximity of the proposed driveway apron to the existing shared driveway apron, stability of the slope once the asphalt driveway is removed and converted to D.G. surface, erosion control and drainage of the D.G. 85 Crest Rd E. ZC 910 surface. The concerns have been addressed by conditions of approval incorporated into this Resolution. Section 3. The property is zoned RAS-2. The gross lot area excluding the roadway easement is 3.3 acres and for development purposes the net lot area is 122,743 square feet or 2.81 acres. Section 4. The request for new driveway apron coming off Crest Road E. was reviewed and recommended by the Rolling Hills Traffic Commission at its meeting of July 28, 2016. Neighbor concerns expressed at public meetings regarding possible visual impacts of new walls proposed for the new driveway have been satisfactorily addressed during the public hearing conducted by the Planning Commission through incorporation of a condition of approval for new landscaping.. Section 5. The Planning Commission finds that the project qualifies as a Class 3 Exemption (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15303) in in that the project is a proposed construction of minor addition and alteration of an existing single-family residence, and is therefore categorically exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Section 6. Rolling Hills Municipal Code Section Chapter 17.46 contains Site Plan Review regulations. Under Section 17.46.020, a development plan shall be submitted for Site Plan Review for the proposed swimming pool and grading and addition of over 999 square feet. With respect to the Site Plan Review application for these improvements, the Planning Commission makes the following findings of fact: A. The proposed development is compatible with the General Plan, the Zoning Ordinance and surrounding uses because the proposed structures comply with the General Plan requirement of low profile, low -density residential development with sufficient open space between surrounding structures and maintaining sufficient setbacks and proposed landscaping to provide buffers between residential uses. The project is situated on a large, but topographically constrained site; with the added development, however, the lot would not appear to be overdeveloped. The existing driveway presents significant access challenges due to a number of physical factors including reliance on a common driveway apron located on the adjacent property and shared with other properties, narrow width (10 to 15 feet), steep slope, and unusual length, . wrapping around approximately two-thirds of the property from Crest Road to the private garage. The proposed new driveway, while requiring new grading mainly at the front of the lot, has several positive and mitigating results in that it will eliminate reliance upon a shared apron, be widened to meet Fire Department standards, will comply with all current zoning standards and its location, following Crest Road at the lot front has a significantly shorter and more efficient travel distance to the garage and proposed motor court. In addition, new landscaping will be added to screen the view from Crest Road of a maximum 3 -foot tall retaining wall that supports the new driveway. The existing driveway will be closed off at the apron, asphalt removed and replaced with a pervious, decomposed granite (D.G.) material 85 Crest Rd E. ZC 910 and a portion will be replaced with landscaping. Concerns about potential erosion due to the existing driveway conversion and location of the new driveway have been addressed by a condition that requires submittal of a site -wide drainage plan for review and approval concurrent with checking of construction plans for building permit plan -check. The proposed swimming pool requires minor grading at the rear of the lot and will require a modest expansion of disturbed lot area. The location at the rear is suitable in that it will be shielded by the home on one side and hillside on other sides. The location of the pool equipment is also suitable in that it will be outside of the side and rear setbacks, and will be recessed into the hillside which will assist in buffering sound if any, emanating from it. B. The project substantially preserves the natural and modestly developed condition of the lot in that the addition to the existing enclosed building area will be relatively small, thereby minimizing building coverage. The topography and the configuration ofthe lot, have been considered, and it was determined that the proposed development will not adversely affect or be materially detrimental to adjacent uses, buildings, or structures, because the proposed project will be constructed largely on an existing building pad, will be the least intrusive to surrounding properties, will be screened and landscaped with vegetation, is of sufficient distance from nearby residences so that it will not impact the view or privacy of surrounding neighbors, and will permit the owners to enjoy their property without deleterious infringement on the rights of surrounding property owners. The lot will not be built up or raised to accommodate the development (except a minor amount for the proposed pool), but will utilize to the maximum extent practicable the existing topography. The grading for the driveway, while modifying the existing topography at the front of the lot, requires modest height (3 -feet maximum) retaining walls, the view of which will be mitigated by new landscaping. C. The proposed development, as conditioned, is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, and is consistent with the scale of the neighborhood when compared to new residences in the vicinity of said lot. Significant portions of the lot will be left undeveloped and some areas will have existing improvements abandoned or converted to more passive uses (existing pool to be filled in and landscaped and existing driveway to be converted to pathway with pervious surface). The proposed driveway will be screened at the front from Crest Road by new landscaping, and the new pool will be screened at the rear by the existing residence and rear hillside. D. The development plan will introduce additional 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. E. The proposed development is sensitive and not detrimental to the convenience and safety of circulation for pedestrians and vehicles because the project will capture all resident and visitor parking on -site with guest parking spaces accommodated in the proposed motor court and in the new 4 -car garage. The new driveway and apron will conform to all the existing standards including, but not necessarily limited to width and slope and will decrease 85 Crest Rd E. ZC 910 the number of properties relying upon the existing shared apron, thereby enhancing public safety. Section 7. Chapter 17.38 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code contains regulations authorizing approval of Variances, for the purpose of 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. The project requests a Variance from Rolling Hills Municipal Code Section 17.16.070 in that the disturbed area of the lot is proposed to be increased from 32.7% to 55.1%, in excess of 40% permitted disturbance. With respect to the Variance, the Planning Commission finds as follows: A. There are exceptional circumstances and conditions on the subject property as follows: The property is uniquely constrained by the steep topography especially at the lot's front and east side, and this in turn has an influence on siting the proposed driveway and new apron. The proposed additional disturbance to provide a slightly larger building pad for the pool and to a larger degree, to construct the new driveway, is warranted because of the significant improvement in resulting site access. To the maximum extent practicable, given topography and existing degree of disturbance (32.7%) the proposed development blends with existing conditions. B. The variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property owners in the same vicinity and zone but which is denied to the property in question by strict application of the code. The property right which would otherwise not be enjoyed is the ability to efficiently and safely access one's property, while complying with all applicable fire, and building codes and without substantially changing the existing topography and configuration of the lot. C. The granting of the Variances would not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the properties or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the property is located in that the proposed reconfigured driveway access increases safety to the property. Additionally, the improvements to the property will not be easily viewed from adjacent properties, and the street and visual impacts are minor given the addition of screening vegetation to new walls. To the maximum extent practicable the proposed development works within and follows the existing conditions on the lot and therefore will not be materially or otherwise detrimental to the public. The project is not expected to negatively impact property values in that neighboring views would not be affected. D. In granting the Variance the spirit and intent of the Zoning Ordinance will be observed in that the proposed driveway, retaining walls, and the new residential construction will be orderly, attractive, and will be buffered with landscaping and a wall of a relatively low height, to ensure it will not affect the rural character of the community. The subject property 85 Crest Rd E. ZC 910 maintains a suitable stable and corral, which will not be affected by the proposed development. E. The Variance request is consistent with the General Plan of the City of Rolling Hills because the proposed structures comply with the General Plan requirement of low profile, low -density residential development with sufficient open space between surrounding structures. 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 provide a new driveway approach, that will comply with the Fire Code requirements so as to better accommodate emergency vehicles. Further the construction of a new motor court and garage will accommodate site visitors on private property without need for cars to park in the roadway easements. G. The Variance is consistent with the portions of the County of Los Angeles Hazardous Waster Management Plan relating to siting and siting criteria for hazardous waste facilities. Section 8. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves Zoning Case No. 910 requesting a Site Plan Review for living area and garage additions, breezeway, trellis, swimming pool and pool equipment enclosure, pool decking, new driveway along the lot front, motor court and grading to accommodate a new driveway and pool and a Variance, allowing the applicant to exceed the maximum permitted disturbed area from 32.7% to 55.1%, subject to the following conditions: A. The Site Plan and Variance approvals shall expire within two years from the effective date of approval as defined in Sections 17.46.080 and 17.38.070, unless otherwise extended pursuant to the requirements of this section. B. It is declared and made a condition of this approval that if any condition of this Resolution is violated, the entitlement granted by this Resolution shall be suspended and the privileges granted hereunder shall lapse and upon receipt of written notice from the City, all construction work being performed on the subject property shall immediately cease, other than work determined by the City Manager or his/her designee required to cure the violation. The suspension and stop work order will be lifted once the Applicant cures the violation to the satisfaction of the City Manager or his/her designee. In the event that the Applicant disputes the City Manager or his/her designee's determination that a violation exists or disputes how the violation must be cured, the Applicant may request a hearing before the City Council. The hearing shall be scheduled at the next regular meeting of the City Council for which the agenda has not yet been posted. The Applicant shall be provided written notice of the hearing. The stop work notice shall remain in effect during the pendency of the hearing. The City Council shall make a determination as to whether a violation of this Resolution has occurred. If the Council determines that a violation has not occurred or has been cured by the time of the hearing, the Council will lift the suspension and the stop work order. If the Council determines that a violation has occurred and has not been cured, the Council shall provide the Applicant 85 Crest Rd E. ZC 910 5 3 with a deadline by which to cure the violation; no construction work shall be performed on the property until and unless the violation is cured by the deadline, other than work designated by the Council to accomplish the cure. If the violation is not cured by the deadline, the Council may either extend the deadline at the Applicant's request or schedule a hearing for the revocation of the entitlements granted by the resolution pursuant to Chapter 17.58 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code (RHMC). C. All requirements of the Buildings and Construction Ordinance, the Zoning Ordinance, and of the zone in which the subject property is located must be complied with unless otherwise set forth in this 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 August 10, 2016 except as otherwise provided in these conditions. The working drawings submitted to the Department of Building and Safety for plan check review shall conform to the approved development plan. All conditions of the Site Plan Review and Variance approvals shall be incorporated into the building permit working drawings and where applicable complied with prior to issuance of a grading or building• permit from the building department. The conditions of approval of this Resolution shall be printed onto building plans submitted to the Building Department for review and shall be kept on site at all times. E. Prior to submittal of final working drawings to the Building and Safety Department for issuance of building permits, the plans for the project shall be submitted to City staff for verification that the final plans are in compliance with the plans approved by the Planning Commission. F. 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 to this Resolution approving this project and all of the conditions set forth therein and the City's Building Code and Zoning Ordinance. Further, the person obtaining a building and/or grading permit for this project shall execute a Certificate of Construction stating that the project will be constructed according to this Resolution and any plans approved therewith. Certificate forms for both plan preparation and construction work compliance may be obtained from the City of Rolling Hills. G. Structural lot coverage of the lot shall not exceed 8,750 square feet or 7.13% of the net lot area in conformance with lot coverage limitations (20% maximum). The total lot coverage proposed, including structures and flatwork, including new driveway and motor court, shall not exceed 24,009 square feet or 19.6% of the net lot area. H. Grading for this project shall consist of 2,296 cubic yards (cy) total, including 1,342 cy of cut, 954 cy fill and 388 cy to be exported. The disturbed area of the lot, shall not exceed 55.1 % as proposed. 85 Crest Rd E. ZC 910 6(3 I. The residential building pad shall be 41,538 square feet and will have coverage not to exceed 8,615 square feet, or 20.7%. J. The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the Lighting Ordinance of the City of Rolling Hills (RI -11\4C 17.16.190 E), pertaining to lighting on said property, roofing and material requirements of properties in the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. K. All utility lines to the development shall be placed underground, subject to all applicable standards and requirements. L. A drainage plan shall be prepared for the entire site (not just construction areas) and approved by City Engineer prior to issuance of a construction permit. Such drainage plan shall be subject to LA County Code requirements. M. Prior to obtaining a grading permit a landscaping plan shall be submitted to the City that shall provide as follows: a) Planting of new vegetation on all graded slopes in conformance with Fire Department Fuel Modification requirements and for erosion control; b) Planting of new vegetation to screen the view of the new driveway along the site front including the retaining wall from view of the neighbor across at 86 Crest Rd. E. and the Applicant shall provide an opportunity for said neighbor to review the plan and provide constructive input in advance of submittal to the City; c) Planting of new vegetation to screen the view of the new driveway along the east side from the adjoining residence; d) Planting for the new pool and pool equipment area with landscape screening; e) As shown on the approved Site Plan, demolition of the existing asphalt driveway and improvement of the northern section with landscaping with vegetation with the remaining section to be resurfaced with decomposed granite, gravel or similar pervious/decorative material; f) Construction of a rubble wall across the accessway from the shared driveway onto the subject site (thereby blocking car access to the area of the former driveway that in the past relied on a shared driveway); g) Any trees and shrubs shall be planted in an offset manner, such that they do not form a hedge like screen and shall be of a height, which shall not at any time grow into other nearby residents' views; h) To the maximum extent feasible, plants shall be utilized that are native to the area and are consistent with the rural character of the community. N. If landscaping of 5,000 square foot area or greater is introduced or redeveloped as part of the subject project, the landscaping plan shall be subject to the requirements of the City's Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. O. Any proposed landscaping within the Rolling Hills Community Association (RHCA) easement shall be reviewed and approved by the RHCA. 85 Crest Rd E. ZC 910 P. Per the Los Angeles County Building Code, a pool barrier/fencing shall be required. The swimming pool equipment shall utilize the most quiet and technologically advanced equipment to dampen the sound. Q. The entire roadway easement line and the east side setback line in the vicinity of the construction for this project shall remain staked throughout the construction. A construction fence may be required. R. The project must be reviewed and approved by the Rolling Hills Community Association (RHCA) 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 RHCA. S. A minimum of 50% of any construction materials must be recycled or diverted from landfills. The hauler of the materials shall obtain from the City a "Construction and Demolition Permit" prior to start of work, and provide the appropriate documentation to the City. T. 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. U. 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: httpWwww.wrh.noaa.gov/Iox/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 be conducted on the property, the contractor shall have readily available fire distinguisher. V. During construction, all parking shall take place on the project site and, if necessary, any overflow parking shall take place within nearby unimproved roadway easement adjacent to subject site. There shall be no blocking of adjacent driveways or of the roadway easement for passage of pedestrians and equestrians. During construction a flagmen shall be used to direct traffic when it is anticipated that a lane may be impeded. W. 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 and comply with the City's Low Impact development Ordinance (LID) as applicable. Further the 85 Crest Rd E. ZC 910 8 QO • property owners shall be required to conform to the County Health Department requirements for a septic system. X. Prior to final inspection of the project, "as graded" and "as constructed" plans and certifications shall be provided to the Planning Department and the Building Department to ascertain that the completed project is in compliance with the Planning Commission approved plans. In addition, any modifications made to the project during construction, shall be depicted on the "as built/as graded" plan. Y. The applicant shall execute an Affidavit of Acceptance of all conditions of this permit pursuant to Zoning Ordinance, or the approval shall not be effective. The affidavit shall be recorded together with the resolution. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 18TH DAY OF OCTOBER 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. 85 Crest Rd E. ZC 910 9 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§ CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ) I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2016-23 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL OF A SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A SWIMMING POOL, POOL EQUIPMENT AREA, DECKING AND TRELLIS, ROOM ADDITION, GARAGE AND BREEZEWAY AND NEW DRIVEWAY AND MOTOR COURT WITH RELATED GRADING/RETAINING WALLS AND A VARIANCE REQUEST TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED DISTURBED AREA IN ZONING CASE NO. 910, AT 85 CREST ROAD EAST, (LOT 69 -C -1 -MS), ROLLING HILLS, CA (ZEE). was approved and adopted at regular meeting of the Planning Commission on October 18, 2016 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following: Administrative Offices HEIDI LUCE, CITY CLERK 85 Crest Rd E. ZC 910 10 City v/Kvl ing Agenda Item No: 10-A Mtg. Date: 10/18/16 INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 3771521 FAX: (310) 3777288 MEMORANDUM TO: HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR THRU: RAYMOND R. CRUZ, CITY MANGER SUBJECT: JOINT PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL MEETING - TOPICS FOR DISCUSSION DATE: OCTOBER 18, 2016 The joint meeting of the City Council and the Planning Commission will be held on Tuesday, November 1, 2016 at 6:30 PM. Mayor Dieringer suggested that the topic of variances be discussed. Staff queried members of the City Council and Planning Commission what other topics they would like to discuss and/or clarify. In addition to the discussion on variances, the following topics were mentioned: 1. The size and uses of stables 2. What level of review should be given to set aside areas for a future stable and corral on a property and should the area be realistically usable? 3. Should the City consider regulating the maximum size of new residential developments? 4. Should the topography of a lot be considered when calculating lot coverage and disturbance; in other words, on a lot with extreme slopes and canyons -where no construction can take place, or a lot that is divided by a road where one side is very steep, should those limiting developable areas not be included in the calculations of the net lot area for development purposes? Thus, limiting the size of developments. 5. Should the maximum permitted hardscape coverage of the lot be amended due to the Fire Dept. requirements for "all weather surface", 20' wide driveways and turn around areas on the lot, and should the requirement for coverage of driveways in the front setback be amended Printed on Recycled Paper 6. Should there be a requirement to provide more than one building pad or certain distance requirement between structures if there are several accessory structures proposed, so that the development creates more of an open feel. Although these are all very timely topics, they cannot be discussed in one meeting. Staff therefore recommends that the following interrelated matters be discussed at the November 1st meeting, and if necessary additional meetings be held: a. Variance requests and approvals b. The size and uses of stables c. What level of review should be given to set, aside areas for a future stable and corral on a property and should the area be realistically usable? d. Should the City consider regulating the maximum size of new residential developments? Staff, in the near future, is planning to bring to the Planning Commission (then to City Council) amendments to the Zoning Ordinance of provisions that need to be amended due to either conflicts within the ordinance, to clarify certain provisions or to be in concert with other agencies' requirements; such as with the Fire Department requirements for driveways, turn around areas and passage around the structures, as well as with RHCA regulations. For the November 1, 2016 meeting, staff will prepare background information and short report on each topic. This memo was also provided to the City Council.