600 CC-PC Joint Meeting 11-01-2016 - City Council -Planning Commission Joint MeetinggerRaga, P h INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD •
ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274
(310).377-1521
FAX (310) 377-7288
Agenda Item No: 10A
Mtg. Date: 11/15/16
TO: HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION
FROM: YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: SYNOPSIS OF CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION
JOINT MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 1, 2016, AND NEXT STEPS
WITH REGARD TO DIRECTION RECEVIED FROM THE CITY
COUNCIL.
DATE: NOVEMBER 15, 2016
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Planning Commission review the discussion of the joint
meeting of the City Council and Planning Commission on November 1 and determine
how it would like to proceed in addressing the direction it received from the City
Council regarding the stables.
DISCUSSION
At its meeting of November 1, 2106, the City Council and Planning Commission
discussed, in general, the application of variances in zoning cases, the recent trend to
construct large stables, the set aside areas for future stables and corrals, and the recent
trend to construct larger homes. In summary, the following discussion took place and
direction given:
A. VARIANCE REQUESTS AND APPROVALS
1. Recognizing that the City's lots are very unique in size, topography,
configuration and that each lot is different from another, and specific circumstances are
attributable to a specific property, not to an entire neighborhood, members of the City
Council and Planning Commission feel that granting of variances are warranted. It was
stated that ultimately it is important to look at the finished outcome and what is best for
the City. Discussion ensued regarding what makes a good project for the City. It was
stated that smaller garages should be encouraged with basements utilizing lifts to
accommodate more cars; that larger basements should be encouraged to reduce the size
of the house above it; that structures should be spread out on the lot to allow for
openness of the lot; to critically review grading and to encourage less than the
maximum permitted 2:1 slopes, even if it means grading and disturbing more than the
maximum permitted.
B. SIZE AND USES OF STABLES AND FEASIBILITY OF SET ASIDE AREA
1. Discussion ensued regarding the size of stables and location and feasibility of set
aside area for future stable and corrals. It was stated that the Planning Commission
determines in the field whether or not a location for future equestrian facilities is
feasible and if it is not the Commissioners could require a different location. As for the
size of stables, it was recognized that larger stables, with lofts and center isles have been
constructed in the past five years that add to the massing of structures on the lot.
Members of the City Council were not interested in limiting the size of stables, rather
they directed the Planning Commission to evaluate the entire lot and the relationship of
the stable to the other structures on the lot and their size, as well as assure that there is
adequate area for horses, such as corrals and turn outs, so that the equestrian facilities
provide an open feel of the property.
2. The City Council directed the Planning Commission to study this issue in
consultation with members of the Caballeros group, and develop guidelines of what
makes a working stable and what is the appropriate size and uses within the stable.
C. SHOULD THE CITY CONSIDER REGULATING THE MAXIMUM SIZE OF
NEW RFSIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS
1. Members of the City Council and the Planning Commission reviewed the
material provided by staff and recognized that in the past 6 years the average size of
homes and basements approved and/or constructed were larger than in any previous
time period, for which statistics were provided in the staff report. It was stated that the
sizes of homes should not be regulated, as the existing development standards and lot
size dictate the size of a homes. Members of the City Council reiterated that the
Planning Commission should review proposed developments on a case -by -case basis
recognizing the goals of the City to remain an equestrian and rural community and to
maintain the character envisioned by the founders of the City. They have also stated
that a development could look less massive by constructing smaller garages and
utilizing basements as garages with a lift for cars; spreading the structures on a building
pad to create more open areas between structures, and providing gentler slopes.
2. Staff was directed to discuss with an engineer the feasibility of constructing
basements that would extend beyond the footprint of the house, such as under
driveways. •
CONCLUSION
While there were many valuable points made at the meeting (which will be included in
the meeting minutes), the items herein represent the action items identified by staff as
being generated from the discussion. The Planning Commission is requested to
determine how it would like to proceed on these matters.
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL AND POSTING
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
ss
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
I am a citizen of the United States. I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the
within proceeding; my business address is 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California.
On the 28'" day of October, 2016, I serve the within
City Council / Planning Commission Joint Meeting / Study Session - 11/1/12016
a copy of which is annexed hereto and made a part hereof, and the person, or persons, named
below were emailed or mailed the agenda:
E -MAILED
MAILED DropBox
None
RH Web site listSery
Interested parties
City Attorney
CouncilMembers
Dieringer, Pieper,
Black, Mirsch and Wilson
Assistant City Attorney
DELIVERED
City Manager
City Council
Planning Commission
Also posted at City Hall, at www.Rolling-Hills.org and PDF's in DropBox.
declare under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on the 28'h day of October, 2016 at Rolling Hills, California.
Ewa Nikodem
Administrative Assistant
Mr zee?, gez
INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274
(310) 377-1521
FAX (310) 377-7288ROLLING
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
CITY COUNCIL/ PLANNING COMMISSION
JOINT MEETING/STUDY SESSION
AGENDA
CITY HALL
2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD — ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 1, 2016
6:30 P.M.
PARTICIPANTS:
City Council Planning Commission
1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
3. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA
4. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION
A. Variance requests and approvals
B. Should the City consider regulating 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?
5. ADJOURNMENT
Documents pertaining to an agenda item received after the posting of the agenda are available for review in the City
Clerk's office or at the meeting at which the item will be considered.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), ((you need special assistance to participate in this
meeting due to your disability, please contact the Deputy City Clerk at (3 l0) 377-1521 at least 48 hours prior to the
meeting to enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility, and accommodation for your
review of this agenda and attendance at this meeting.
INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274
(310) 377-1521
FAX (310) 377-7288ROLLING
Agenda Item No: 4
Mtg. Date: 11/01/16
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION
FROM: YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR j...0
THRU: RAYMOND R. CRUZ, CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: JOINT MEETING DISCUSSION TOPICS
DATE: NOVEMBER 1, 2016
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council and the Planning Commission discuss the
agendized items for the purpose of determining if certain development standards or
policy issues regarding development in the City are of concern and to provide direction
to the Planning Commission and staff.
BACKGROUND
Mayor Dieringer requested that a joint meeting be held between the Planning
Commission and members of the City Council to discuss the frequency and type of
variances being granted. Members of the Planning Commission have also requested
that a meeting be held with members of the City Council to discuss certain
development matters that are of concern to them and to clarify and get direction from
the City Council on other issues.
The items for discussion at tonight's meeting are substantial and overlap in some areas.
If it becomes necessary, another meeting could be scheduled to finish up the discussion.
Attached are Discussion Papers that describe the topics and issues mutually identified.
The joint meeting is intended for the City Council to give direction to the Planning
Commission and staff for action for developing strategies that respond to the issues
identified and implementation of City Council's goals.
-1-
City fidh
INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274
(310) 3771521
FAX: (310) 3777288
JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
DISCUSSION PAPER
AGENDA ITEM NO. 4A
NOVEMBER 1, 2016
SUBJECT: VARIANCE REQUESTS AND APPROVALS
ISSUE
Mayor Dieringer requested that this topic be discussed at a joint meeting with
the Planning Commission, as she is concern that there are many variances being
requested for developments in the City. In the past couple of years several of the
Commissioners expressed similar concerns.
WHAT IS A VARIANCE AND MAKING FINDINGS
A variance is a deviation or a waiver from the set of rules a municipality applies
to land use and land development. It is usually a request to deviate from current
zoning requirements, and if granted, it permits the applicant to use his/her land
in a way that is ordinarily not permitted by the zoning ordinance.
Development regulations like zoning standards apply equally to all properties.
But sometimes the strict application of such regulations creates a hardship for the
owner to develop the property. Under the state law the statutes authorize the
local Planning Commissions (or other semi -judicial body charged with reviewing
development applications in a municipality) to grant a variance from the rules in
special cases. The statue requires that the applicant prove and the semi -judicial
governing body find that there exist certain conditions on the property to
warrant a variance. Those conditions include, and it must be found that:
• Strict application of the zoning regulations would deprive property of the
uses enjoyed by nearby lands in the same zone
• The hardship results from conditions that are peculiar to the property
• The hardship is not a self-created hardship
• Restrictions have been imposed to ensure that the variance will not be a
grant of special privilege.
1
Public/YS/General/Joint CC, PC mtgs 2016/Variances
0
Printed on Recycled Paper
Typically, variances are considered when the physical characteristics of the
property make it difficult to use. For instance, in a situation where the rear half of
a lot is a steep slope, a variance might be approved to allow a house to be built
closer to the street than usually allowed.
A variance is not an appropriate remedy for a condition or hardship that is
shared by the neighborhood or the community as a whole. For example, when an
entire neighborhood has narrow lots, and it is consistently found that this
condition creates a hardship for additions to the homes in that neighborhood or
Citywide, a variance would not be appropriate. Such conditions should be
addressed through an ordinance amendment.
City's zoning ordinance lists the findings the governing body must make before
it grants a variance. Said list is provided to the Planning Commission and City
Council with the staff reports for each variance request, and is attached.
BACKGROUND
In the past, when certain common conditions on properties consistently came
before the Planning Commission/City Council for variances, and the variances
were granted, the City's zoning ordinance was amended to reflect that such
conditions are common to most properties in the City, and are not particular to
few properties.
In the most recent past, Planning Commission and City Council discussed the
topic of variances several times, and different aspects of developments that
consistently were granted variances were analyzed. For example, in 2012 Overlay
Zones over the RAS-1 zoning district were created for certain neighborhoods of
the City where the lots were developed to the pre -1981 front yard setback
requirements (which was 30' from the roadway easement line), and any addition
and renovation of the homes did not meet the then standards and required a
variance. (The Overlay Zones were also created due to the conditions of the lots
such as: steep rear slopes, already developed building pad in the front area of the
lots, lots are divided by a road, homes are relatively small and older, which are
in need, or desired by owners, to be enlarged or reconstructed). At that time it
was reported by staff that since 1961, 282 variances were granted for side and
front yard setback reduction on 202 properties, which means that through the
years some properties were granted numerous variances for setback reduction.
As of 2012, 130 of the 282 variances for setback reduction were granted after
1981; (when the front yard setback requirement changed from 30' to 50' from the
roadway easement). In addition to the overlay zones, the zoning ordinance was
amended to allow reduction in setbacks for properties having 1.25 acres or less in
size in the RAS-1 zoning district.
2
Public/YS/General/Joint CC, PC mtgs 2016/Variances
In 2013 the Planning Commission and the City Council discussed grading trends
in the City and how it relates to the desire for large building pads, which then
lead to requests for variances to exceed the maximum permitted disturbance of
the lots. Per the City's zoning regulations, at that time, maximum permitted
disturbance was 40% of the net lot area. There was a concern that grading of lots
in the City resulted in very unnatural looking slopes eliminating the knolls and
hills of the lots and that in order to meet the 40% maximum disturbance criteria,
steep slopes were necessary and were created around the building pad.
The requirement that disturbance of a lot (net lot) could not exceed 40% was
codified in 1995. Since most of the City was developed prior to 1995, many of the
lots were graded to more than 40%. For many of those lots any additional
development requires the granting of a Variance from the already exceeded
disturbance.
To promote and encourage less steep slopes and to retain the knolls and hills of
the property and to hopefully reduce the number of variances requested for
exceedance of disturbance, the zoning ordinance was amended in 2013 to allow
for greater disturbance on lots, providing the resulting slopes are less than the
maximum permitted of 2:lgradient. The provision allows up to 50% disturbance
of a lot if half of the resulting slopes are 3:1 or less and 60% disturbance if 100%
of the resulting slopes are 3:1 or less. Since this provision became effective in
2013, only two properties took advantage of this allowance.
In speaking with a local engineer, staff found that there are several reasons why
more developments do not avail themselves of this provision; much of them are
technical and are not achievable due to the existing slopes and terrain of a lot,
and the desire by their clients of a large building pad. Briefly, and without
thorough examination of the issue, the engineer thinks the following:
1. Most of the properties in the City already exceed 40% disturbance, so
any expansion that disturb any amount is going to trigger a variance. For
these, he states, given that they (the engineers/consultants) are trying to
disturb as little additional area as possible, using 2: 1 slopes is the only
thing that makes sense.
2. Typically a client wants as big of a pad as possible. This often means
going out to the limit of where existing slopes become steeper than 2:1,
and starting there with the new grading. Here, doing less than 2:1 slopes
results in a smaller pad.
In addition, grading further out to achieve a shallower slope results in
greater slope height, which necessitates, per the building code,
intermediate benches (flat areas) and drainage swales.
(If in the future, members of the Council and Planning Commission would
like to study this concept further, the engineer would be available to
discuss it).
3
Public/YS/GeneraUJoint CC, PC mtgs 2016/Variances
3. It is expensive for the client to contemplate several designs before
submitting to the City, not knowing which will be approved, so they opt
for the variance.
DISCUSSION
Attached to this discussion paper is a table listing variances granted in the past 5
years (2011-2016). The right column lists the variances that were granted and the
column before it shows the scope of the project, as applied for to the City. As can
be seen a variety of variances were granted in the past 5 years. The City is very
unique in that almost every lot is different from another, and therefore the
findings can be made for the variances.
Below is a breakdown of the 68 cases where a single or multiple variances were
granted in the past five years:
• Variance to exceed the disturbed area of the lot: 26
• Variance where the walls did not average out to 2.5' in height: 10
• Variance for structures, (other than equestrian) incl. walls, in setbacks: 36
• Variance for structures (other than equestrian) in the front yard area of
the lot: 7
• Variance for equestrian facilities in setbacks: 5
• Variance for equestrian facilities in the front yard area, (incl. 2 dressage
arenas): 8
• Variance to waive stable/corral set aside requirement: 3
• Variance to exceed structural coverage and/or total coverage of the lot: 7
• Variance to exceed wall height: 5
• Variance to export dirt: 3
• Variance to exceed grading for tennis court: 2
Other variances granted, one each for:
• More than one driveway
• Plate height for a stable
• Less than required frontage of a lot (Lot line adjs)
• Parking pad in front, (less than 30 from roadway easement)
• Coverage of front setback with driveway (more than 20%)
In the same time period (2011-2016) a total of 96 discretionary development cases
came before the Planning Commission/City Council, of which as shown above,
68 cases included one or multiple requests for variances (70.8%).
k
It is important to note that prior to an application for a case being deemed
completed by staff and taken through the public hearing process, staff works
with the applicants and/or their agents and advises and encourages them to
submit a project with as few variations from the zoning code as possible. In
4
Public/YS/General/Joint CC, PC nags 2016/Variances
addition, during the Planning Commission review process, the Planning
Commission advises the applicant and at times suggests changes that eliminate
certain aspects of the project to reduce the number and scope of variance
requests.
QUESTION
The question for discussion at tonight's meeting is whether the numerous
requests and granting of variances is of concern, given the unique characteristics
of the land forms and lot configurations in the City. And if yes, provide direction
to staff of what areas (types) of variances should be explored further and
brought back to the Commission/Council for evaluation and direction for a
change.
5
Public/YS/General/Join! CC, PC mtgs 2016/Variances
VARIANCES APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND/OR THE CITY COUNCIL
JANUARY 2011- OCTOBER 2016
Date
Address
Type of Land Use and Variance Requested
Type of Variance Approved
February 15, 2011 (PC)
29 Middleridge
Lane South
New 2,160 s.f. stable with 800 sf loft w grading;
VR to be located in front yard setback.
Variance to permit stable in front yard
setback (38' into the 50' foot setback).
January 18, 2011 (PC)
July 1 1, 2011 (CC
jurisdiction)
2 Appaloosa Lane
Grading of 19,000 s.f. for erosion control; VR to
exceed disturbance of the lot (55%).
Variance to exceed disturbance to 55%
of the lot.
May 17, 2011 (PC)
2 Pheasant Lane
Retain legal nonconforming 1,260 s.f.
stable/recreation room in side yard setback and .
allow existing pavement adjacent to it to remain.
Variance to permit a stable to remain in
side yard setback. Applicant withdrew
request to retain existing pavement.
May 17, 2011 (PC)
16 Pine Tree Lane
To construct a tennis court & addition; VR to
encroach with an addition to the residence into
the side yard setback, VR to exceed maximum
permitted grading quantities and maximum
permitted grading area for a tennis court.
Variance for 145 sf of 762 sf addition
to encroach 8' into side yard setback;
to cut and fill 1,430 c.y. of dirt for
tennis court and grade an area of
11,240 s.f.
July 19, 2011 (PC)
3 Packsaddle Road
East
Modification to previous approval - Single
family residence and infinity pool; Variances for
export of soil, and to set aside future stable and
corral in front yard.
Variances for export of dirt and
stable/corral set aside in front yard.
November 15, 2011
(PC)
January 9, 2012 (CC
jurisdiction)
17 Crest Road East
8,796 square foot new residence, other accessory
structures, grading; Variance to exceed max
permitted grading quantities for a sports court.
Variance for 3,632 c.y. grading for the
sports court.
December 20, 2011
(PC)
2864 Palos Verdes
Drive North
To construct a new 652 s.f. swimming pool/spa,
other structures, grading, an addition to
residence; Variance to encroach into north side
yard setback with a wall, to exceed structural lot
coverage, to exceed maximum permitted
disturbed area, to waive requirement to set aside
area for stable/corral.
Variance for portion of 5' high wall to
encroach into side yard setback, for
60% disturbance, for 21.1% structural
coverage, for 40.8% total lot coverage,
and to waive set aside area for
stable/corral.
December 20, 2011
(PC)
March 12, 2012 (CC
5 Buggy Whip
890 s.f. stable, 1,050 s.f. corral, and 640 s.f.
guesthouse; Variance to exceed max
disturbance, to encroach into side setback with a
Variance for disturbance at 55.5%, to
encroach 12' into the side setback with
5' high wall.
1
VARIANCES APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND/OR THE CITY COUNCIL
JANUARY 2011- OCTOBER 2016
Date
Address
Type of Land Use and Variance Requested
Type of Variance Approved
jurisdiction; guest house
withdrawn)
5' high wall
December 20, 2011
(PC)
11 Outrider Road
To construct 190 s.f. outdoor kitchen and other
structures that encroach into side and front
setbacks, and to exceed max permitted
disturbance
Variance to encroach into side yard and
front yard setbacks for outdoor
amenities. Disturbance increasing to ,
54.1% from 54%.
January 17, 2012 (PC)
7 Ringbit Road East
Retain a 255 s.f. guest room (CUP), and
variance to exceed disturbance if a stable/corral
are constructed in the future.
Variance for disturbance at 43.1% if
stable/corral is constructed in the future
February 21, 2012 (PC)
0 Chestnut Lane
To construct a 324.5 s.f. addition to house, 896
s.f. swimming pool and spa, pool equipment
area, 312 s.f. detached trellis and outdoor
kitchen; Variance to exceed disturbance and to
locate pool & amenities in front yard.
Variance for disturbance at 55.5% and
to locate trellis, outdoor kitchen and
pool in front yard area of the lot.
June 19, 2012 (PC)
24 Caballeros
Construct 242 s.f. trellis, of which 72 sf.
encroaches into front.
Variance to encroach 4' with trellis
into front setback.
June 19. 2012 (PC)
5 Hillside Lane
To retain a partially completed stable consisting
of 1,800 sq.ft. main story and a 1,400 sq.ft. loft
and a Variance to allow the loft plate height to
be retained at 7.5 feet
Variance to retain existing 7.5' high
plate height.
July 17 2012 (PC)
38 Saddleback Road
New 5,017 square foot residence and other
structures; Variance to encroach with residence.
Variance to allow 147 s.f. of the new
residence to encroach into the front
yard setback.
July 17, 2012 (PC)
9 Portuguese Bend
Road
Construct 497 s.f. addition; Variance to encroach
with portion of addition and to retain a shed in
rear setback.
Variance to construct a 497 s.f.
addition, 155 s.f. of which encroaches
27 - 30 feet into the rear yard setback
and to retain a 72 s.f. shed in the rear
setback
August 21, 2012 (PC) •
5 Johns Canyon
Road
Construct a new 9,387 s.f. residence and other
structures; Variance to exceed max disturbance,
to located pool, stable/corral in front yard.
VR for disturbance at 73.5%, and
swimming pool and the area for a
future stable and corral in the front. •
2
VARIANCES APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND/OR THE CITY COUNCIL
JANUARY 2011- OCTOBER 2016
Date
Address
Type of Land Use and Variance Requested
Type of Variance Approved
August 21, 2012 (PC)
8 Maverick Lane.
To construct a 43 s.f. barbecue that encroaches
into side setback.
Variance for a 43 s.f. barbeque, of
which 30 s.f. encroaches into the side
yard setback
August 21, 2012 (PC)
November 26, 2012 (CC
jurisdiction)
40 Eastfield Drive
Modification to previous approval to construct
residence and grading; Variances to exceed
disturbance, to encroach, and to construct higher
than allowed walls.
Variance for disturbance at 49.6%,
construct up to 5' high retaining walls
along the driveways in the front
setback, exceed 2.5' average height,
construct 750 s.f. pool/spa in front
yard, locate 2 driveways on a property
with less than required separation.
January 15, 2013 (PC)
49 Eastfield Drive
Construct a 600 s.f. stable, 200 s.f. porch, corral
4,500 s.f.; variance to exceed max. permitted
disturbance.
Variance for disturbance at 71.6% of
the lot.
April 16, 2013 (PC)
28 Eastfield Drive
136.5 s.f. addition to residence; variance to
encroach
Variance to construct a 136.5 s.f
addition of which 66 s.f. encroaches
into the front and side yard setbacks.
May 21, 2013 (PC)
0 Chestnut Lane
Construct a 900 square foot stable with 192
square foot covered porch and a 3,008 square
foot corral; Variance to encroach w/corral.
Variance for 1,850 s.f of the corral
located 10 feet from the rear property
line.
May 21, 2013 (PC)
July 8, 2013 (CC
jurisdiction)
6 Portuguese Bend
Road
To construct a 4,527 square foot residence with
other structures; variance to encroach with
residence and short wall
Variance to allow the new residence to
encroach 20 -feet into the front yard
setback & short wall into front setback.
June 18, 2013 (PC)
2864 Palos Verdes
Dr. North
Modification: 56 s.f. elevator addition; Variance
to exceed structural and total lot coverage
Variance for structural net lot coverage
exceed to 21.3% and total structural
coverage to 41.1%
August 20, 2013 (PC)
16 Georgeff Road
To construct a 1,483 square foot basement a
portion would encroach into setbacks under the
footprint of existing house.
Variance for 215 s.f. to encroach into
the front setback and 10 s.f. into the
side setback.
November 19, 2013
(PC)
12 Johns Canyon
Road
To construct 1,200 s.f. stable and 1,200 s.f.
corral; Variance to exceed disturbance.
Variance for disturbance at 82.8%.
3
VARIANCES APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND/OR THE CITY COUNCIL
JANUARY 2011- OCTOBER 2016
Date
Address
Type of Land Use and Variance Requested
Type of Variance Approved
November 19, 2013
(PC)
26 Cinchring
•
To construct a 629 s.f. above grade deck, several
walls ranging in height from a curb to 5,
reconfigure and enlarge the 933 s.f. pool and
spa, reconstruct the rear patio and enlarge the
turn around at the end of the driveway; Variance
to export 340 c.y of dirt, to exceed disturbance
and walls that do not average out to 2.5' in
height.
Variances to export 340 c.y. of dirt, to
exceed disturbance at 42%, a portion of
the rear walls to exceed on the average
2.5 feet in height.
January 21, 2014 (PC)
9 Chuckwagon
To construct a 1,296 s.f. stable with 792 s.f. loft
and 1,000 s.f. corral; Variance to exceed
disturbance.
Variance for disturbance at 50.0%.
January 21, 2014 (PC)
2 Middleridge Lane
South
To construct a 4,980 square feet residence with
980 s.f. garage; Variance to encroach into side
setback and rear yard setback.
Variance to encroach 361 s.f. of
residence into rear yard; and future
stable/corral set aside into side setback.
February 18, 2014 (PC)
38 Portuguese Bend
Road
Construct an approximately 192' long, 5' high
retaining wall and to construct an 860 s.f.
covered patio and other structures; Variance
retaining wall will not average out to 2.5' in
height.
Variance for entire wall not to average
out to 2.5' height.
February 18, 2014 (PC)
0 Buggy Whip Drive
and 25 Crest Road
West
Lot line adjustment; Variance to retain lots that
are less than 2 acres net in size, to allow less
than 150' frontage at 0 Buggy Whip, and to
exceed the structural coverage at 25 Crest Road.
Variance for 2 lots line adjustment; less
than 2 acres, non -conforming frontage,
and structural coverage at 25 Crest at
20.29%.
February 18, 2014 (PC)
85 Eastfield
Residential addition and trellis; Variance to
encroach and waive stable/corral requirement.
Variances to encroach with 140 sq. ft.
addition into the rear setback, with 30
sq.ft. attached trellis, with 78 sq.ft.
addition into the side and rear setbacks.
VR to waive stable/corral requirement.
May 20, 2014 (PC)
4 Buckboard Lane
To construct a 76 sq.ft. spa and 122 sq.ft.
outdoor kitchen; Variance to locate them in front
yard area and setback.
Variance to locate a spa in the front
yard setback and BBQ in the front yard
area of the lot.
4
VARIANCES APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND/OR THE CITY COUNCIL
JANUARY 2011- OCTOBER 2016
Date
Address
•
Type of Land Use and Variance Requested
Type of Variance Approved
May 20, 2014 (PC)
May 11, 2015 (CC
jurisdiction — extension)
6 Portuguese Bend
Road
Construct a 450 s.f. stable and 550 s.f. corral;
Variance to locate short planter wall in front
setback.
Max. 3' high wall along the side and
front of the residence in front setback.
May 20, 2014 (PC)
8 Williamsburg
Lane
To retain a 256 square foot hobby shop;
Variance to encroach into side setback.
Variance to encroaches up to 9.5 -feet
into the side yard setback.
June 17, 2014 (PC)
29 Crest Road East
To construct a 1,671 s.f. pool/spa, walls,
trellises, garage/recreation room, detached
garage; Variances to locate all structures in front
yard area of lot, higher than permitted walls
(some do not average to 2.5' high) and walls in
setbacks, and other miscellaneous structures.
Variance for all to be in the front yard
area (exst.residence is far in the rear of
the lot). Walls (8.5' max. for new
electrical equipment, higher than 5'
and average 2.5' for pool equipment;
higher than 3' at driveway, walls in
front yard).
October 21, 2014 (PC)
2 Middleridge Lane
South
To construct an 800 s.f. swimming pool, 58 s.f.
spa, 2,910 s.f. of on -grade decking and related
stairs, retaining walls and planter; Variance to
exceed max. permitted disturbance.
Variance for disturbed area, including
the stable and corral at 41.65%.
November 18, 2014
(PC)
4 Hackamore Road
Grading of 21.5 cubic yards of dirt and
construction of 504 s.f. decks above -grade;
Variance to encroach.
Variance to encroach with 60 s.f.
addition and 98 s.f. porch into the front
setback
December 16, 2014
(PC)
March 23, 2015 (CC
jurisdiction —
October 12, 2015 (CC
jurisdiction — approval
of items deferred from
previous approval)
40 Eastfield
Modification to previously approved project
(additional grading, lowering of driveway and
the basement area of the garage, depression of
the basement floor for a wine cellar, etc.;
Variance to further exceed disturbance and for a
wall extension.
Variance to further exceed the
disturbed area up to -80.4%; which
includes the future access to the stable
and the modified slopes below and
above the residence, higher than
permitted grade of the slope below the
residence, which is to be restored to
1.5:1 grade, basement electrical room
outside the footprint of the first story,
and an extension of a previously
approved retaining wall not to exceed
3' high in the side yard setback.
5
VARIANCES APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND/OR THE CITY COUNCIL
JANUARY 2011- OCTOBER 2016
Date
Address
Type of Land Use and Variance Requested
Type of Variance Approved
December 16, 2014
(PC)
February 23, 2015 (CC
jurisdiction)
38 Portuguese Bend
Road
Modification to previous approval for
construction 3' high stairways and related
retaining walls; Variance to retain the "as built"
retaining walls that exceed 5 in height.
Variance for 7'7" wall at the back of
the patio level and 8' wall at the back
of the water feature level.
December 16, 2014
(PC)
10 Crest Road West
Construction of a stable consisting of 735 sq.ft.
first story and 453 sq.ft. Kay loft, for a total of
1,188 sq.ft., 234 sq.ft. covered porch, and 2,700
sq.ft. corral; Variance to locate structures in
front yard and setbacks, retain trellis in rear
setback, and exceed disturbance.
Variances to locate the stable and
corral in the "front yard" and corral in
the front setback; to locate swimming
pools and 5' retaining wall up to 40`
within the 50' rear yard setback; to
retain two existing non -permitted and
noncompliant structures (barbeque and
trellis) within the rear yard setback;
and disturbed area increase from 56.3%
to 64.6%
January 20, 2015 (PC)
_
1 Pine Tree Lane
To construct a 794 s.f. garage, (aggregate total
of additions exceed the scope allowed under
administrative approval within a 3 -year period),
and to construct 3,021 s.f. of above grade decks
and planter walls which exceed 3' in height;
Variance for garage that exceeds max permitted
out -of -grade condition
Variance for planter walls exceed the
allowed 2.5 -foot average height
(proposed 2.5 to 4.3') and the garage
wall to exceed both the maximum
height of 5' above the adjoining ground
level (proposed 7') and maximum 2.5'
average differential height between
grade/wall.
March 17, 2015 (PC)
5 Lower Blackwater
Canyon Rd.
To convert an existing 265 s.f. cabana with 169
s.f. attached covered porch into a guest house
and enclose the covered porch, so that the total
s,f, of the guest house would be 434 s.f;
Variance to encroach into side yard.
Variance to encroach 3 feet into the 35'
north side yard setback with the
enclosed portion of the guest house,
March 17 2015 (PC)
1 Buckboard Lane, 1
and 3 Georgeff Road
and 8 Crest Road E
Certificate of Compliance for lot line
adjustment; Variance for less than 150' frontage
along a street.
Variance for reduced lot frontage to
45' along Georgeff Road.
6
VARIANCES APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND/OR THE CITY COUNCIL
JANUARY 2011- OCTOBER 2016
Date
Address
Type of Land Use and Variance Requested
Type of Variance Approved
April 21, 2015 (PC)
77 Crest Road East
To construct a 3,691 s.f. stable; Variance to
allow the stable and corral to be located in the
"front yard" on a property
Variance to locate stable/corral in front
yard area of the lot
April 21, 2015 (PC)
23 Middleridge
Lane North
To construct a 1,389 sq.ft. residence addition, of
which 349 sqlt. has been previously constructed
in setback, but is unpermitted, a 349 sq.ft.
basement in setback, legalize unpermitted
previously constructed above grade deck and
new infinity pool wall not to exceed 4'9.
Variances to encroach with portions of
the additions and basement into the
side and front yard setbacks and with a
198 sq.ft. trellis into the rear yard
setback. A portion of the "as built"
unpermitted addition encroaches 4.5'
into the side setback and I7'9" into the
rear setback.
July 7, 2015 (PC)
63 Crest Road East
To construct a 1,540 sq.ft. infinity swimming
pool with a spa, that encroach into side setback;
reconstruct the existing pool deck and add 945
sq.ft. of new decking of which 350 sq.ft. would
be above grade and construct not to exceed 4'
high retaining wall in setback.
Variances to encroach with 182 sq.f.t
of the pool, portion of the out of grade
deck and the retaining walls (one 3'
high by 91.5' long and one 4' high by
17' long) into the side yard setback.
July 21, 2015 (PC)
6 Maverick Lane
Variances to enclose 65 s.f. of an existing
covered porch located in the front yard setback,
and to maintain a 140 s.f. pond in its as -built
condition, located within the 20 -foot side yard
setback.
Variance to encroach 8 feet with the
pond into side yard setback and with
12 -feet addition into front setback.
August 8, 2015 (PC)
15 Caballeros Road
To construct a 686 square foot raised deck with
supporting retaining walls; Variances to
encroach with a wall & above grade deck into
setback; to exceed structural and total lot
coverage.
Variance to encroach 6.5 feet into the
20 -foot side yard setback with a new
raised deck and 3.75 -foot tall retaining
wall; exceedance of structural and total
lot coverage area of 26.78% and
44.22% respectively.
August 18, 2015 (PC)
29 Crest Road East
Modify a previously approved project for drwy
location; Variance to exceed disturbance.
Variance for distrbance increased by
0.22% (from 39.8% to 40.02%)
7
VARIANCES APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND/OR THE CITY COUNCIL
JANUARY 2011- OCTOBER 2016
Date
Address
Type of Land Use and Variance Requested
Type of Variance Approved
August 15, 2015 (PC)
5 Buggy Whip Drive
To reconstruct a wall and retain outdoor
accessory amenities; Variance to retain
unpermitted outdoor accessory amenities and a
reconstructed retaining wall in the front and side
setbacks.
VR to reconstruct an unpermitted 265'
long, up to 4.2' retaining wall and "as
built" outdoor unpermitted structures
(89 s.f. BBQ, 355 s.f. trellis -of which
59 s.f. encroach into front yard setback,
81 s.f. fire place, of which 55 s.f.
encroaches into side yard setback.
November 17, 2015
(PC)
1 Middle Ridge
Lane South
To construct a regulation size dressage arena and
retain gazebo; Variance to encroach into front
yard w/arena
Variances to construct the arena and
ring in the front yard of the lot and to
retain an "as -built" gazebo in the front
yard.
December 15, 2015
(PC)
13 Outrider
To construct a 245 s.f. addition, a 96 s.f. pool
equipment area (restricted development
condition); variance to locate pool equipment in
front yard & exceed disturbance
Variance to locate the equipment
enclosure in front yard area, locate 3'
retaining wall in side yard setback,
exceed disturbance to 51.4%
February 16, 2016 (PC)
17 Middleridge
Lane North
To construct a 1,055 s.f. addition with 1,260 s.f.
basement, walls, swimming pool, and other
structures; Variance for encroachment, exceed
disturbance, and walls over 2.5' average
Variances to encroach with addition
(395 sf) into front setback, with 120 s.f.
into side yard setback including
basement below; to encroach with the
walls and basement light wells into
side setbacks; to exceed 2.5' average
retaining walls; exceed disturbance at
50.41%.
February 16, 2016 (PC)
3 Eastfield Drive
For grading (21 c.y.) to widen the existing
driveway and create a one car parking pad and
up to 5' high retaining walls and new 704 square
foot detached garage; Variances to encroach, to
exceed structural and total coverage and
disturbance, and out -of -grade condition.
Variances to construct a 195 s.f.
addition of which 61 sq. ft. would
encroach 6'3" into the front setback; to
provide a new one -car parking pad, less
than 30 feet from the roadway
easement line; to encroach 18' into the
front yard setback with the detached
8
VARIANCES APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND/OR THE CITY COUNCIL
JANUARY 2011- OCTOBER 2016
Date
Address
Type of Land Use and Variance Requested
Type of Variance Approved
garage; for 43.4% disturbance, for
4.1% structural coverage, and 41.1%
total lot coverage; to locate"5' high
retaining wall in the front setback, that
will not average out to 2.5' in height
and to reconstruct the garage with an
out of grade condition.
March 15, 2016 (PC)
77 Crest Road East
To construct 6,631 s.f. residence, 1,308 s,f,
garage(s), 986 s.f. pool/spa, 1,910 s.f. of
attached covered porches, a 1,070 s.f. pond, a
245 s.f. koi pond gazebo, new driveway and
walls over 3' feet; Variance for 325 s.f. of
residence and 3 covered patios in side yard
setback; encroachment of porches.
Variances for 325 s.fi of the residence
and 3 covered patios to encroach into
the side yard setback.
March 15, 2016
66 Eastfield Drive
To construct a 475 s.f. cabana, 1,450 s.f. deck,
walls higher than 3', grading; Variances to
encroach and retain previously constructed
sheds, to exceed disturbance, set aside
stable/corral in front yard.
Variances to encroach 310 s.f. of raised
deck, the retaining walls, pool
equipment, and fireplace into the rear
yard setback; to retain 2 sheds, a
portion of the trellis and barbecue in
the rear yard setback, the height of the
proposed deck —greater than 12" above
grade, and supporting retaining wall
greater than 3', and to exceed
disturbance at 68.3%, and total lot
coverage at 43.2%. Variance to locate
future stable and corral in the front
yard.
March 15, 2016 (PC)
I 1 Saddleback Road
To construct 4,745 s.f residence, basement/wine
cellar, garage, patio, swimming pool/spa,
Variances to locate stable in the front
setback/front yard (exst. garage
9
VARIANCES APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND/OR THE CITY COUNCIL
JANUARY 2011- OCTOBER 2016
Date
Address
Type of Land Use and Variance Requested
Type of Variance Approved
convert existing garage to 2,415 s.f. stable with
loft, and other accessory structures; Variances to
encroach and exceed disturbance.
conversion into stable); to exceed
disturbance from 42% to 83% to
accommodate proposed dressage arena.
April 19, 2016 (PC)
46 Eastfield
To construct a 1,757 s.f. addition to residence
for a total of 4,000 square feet, and grading of
total of 700 cy's of dirt; Variance to encroach
with addition and existing shed.
Variance for 85 s.f. portion of addition
to encroach between 8-10 feet into
front yard setback, and to retain an
existing wood shed in the side setback.
May 17, 2016 (PC)
2 Hillside Lane
To construct 705 s.f. recreation room, pool/spa,
walls, accessory structures; Variances to locate
all of the accessory structures, including several
walls in the front yard area of the lot, where the
walls would not average out to 2.5' in height,
and to exceed disturbance.
Variance for proposed structures in
front yard area of the lot; to exceed
disturbance from 48.1% to 64.3%
May 17, 2016 (PC)
71 Crest Road East
Variance to locate pool/trellis in the rear yard
setback and to exceed total lot coverage.
Variance for 375 s.f. pool with infinity
edge walls and a 288 s.f. attached
trellis entirely in the rear yard setback
and to exceed total lot coverage to
35.7%
June 21, 2016 (PC)
August 2016 (CC)
5 Pine Tree Lane
New residence and accessory structures (5,250
s.f. residence, with a 5,250 s.f. basement, 1,115
s.f. of detached garages 1,445 s.f. covered
porches, swimming pool/spa, pool equipment,
service yard, entryway, retaining walls, new
driveway, outdoor kitchen, and grading;)
Variance to exceed average height of retaining
walls and disturbance.
Variance for walls that exceed 2.5' on
the average; & lot disturbance at
45.2%.
10
VARIANCES APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND/OR THE CITY COUNCIL
JANUARY 2011- OCTOBER 2016
Date
Address
Type of Land Use and Variance Requested
Type of Variance Approved
July 19, 2016 (PC)
27 Crest Road West
To construct a 1,375 s.f. pool, several terraced
retaining walls ranging from 1' to 4'8" high for
pool area, associated grading totaling 388 c.y.,
64 s.f. of pool equipment enclosed with 5' high
maximum wall, and a 5' high wall to enclose a
master bath courtyard for privacy; Variance to
exceed 2.5' average wall height.
Variance for - 2 maximum 5' high
walls that will not average out to 2.5'
height
September 15, 2015
(PC)
August 22, 2016 (CC)
15 Portuguese Bend
Rd.
300 s.f. addition of which 61 sq.ft. encroaches
into the side setback; less than 4' walkway
Variances for addition, for up to 7'high
retaining wall in setback & for wall
that exceeds average of 2.5' in height
July 19, 2016 (PC)
10 Bowie Road
To construct a 5,270 s.f. residence, 844 s.f.
garage, 550 s.f. covered porches, 98 s.f.
entryway, 6,000 s.f. basement, 640 s.f.
swimming pool/spa, various outdoor amenities
and walls, new 400' long by 20' wide driveway
and grading of 8,946 c.y.of dirt, of which 8,360
c.y will be exported; Variance to encroach with
portion of home into rear setback, to exceed max
lot coverage and disturbed area, for walls, to
export dirt 7 coverage with drwy of the front
setback.
VR to encroach with the residence,
basement, two light wells, service yard,
several of the walls over 3' in height
into the required setbacks; to locate a
portion of the swimming pool, pool
equipment area, the set aside area for a
stable and portion of the corral in front
yard; to exceed total lot coverage to
37.6% and disturbed area to 94%; to
construct walls that do not average out
to 2.5' in height, to exceed the
coverage with a driveway of the front
setback (21.2%) and to export dirt.
August 16, 2016 (PC)
34 Saddleback Road
To construct a 1,140 s.f. stable with 1,032 s.f. of
covered porches with 1,950 s.f. corral, and 5,500
s.f. riding ring, 400 cubic yards of grading;
Variance to encroach and exceed disturbance.
Variance for 5,500 s.f. riding ring in
the front yard, 2,150 square feet in the
front setback; disturbance increasing
from 63.3% to 68.8.
September 20, 2016
(PC)
7 Southfield
To construct 700 sq.ft. partially out of grade,
covered porch and a variance to locate the
set aside area for a stable/corral in the side
Variance for the set aside and shed in
side setback.
11
VARIANCES APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND/OR THE CITY COUNCIL
JANUARY 2011- OCTOBER 2016
Date
Address
Type of Land Use and Variance Requested
Type of Variance Approved
yard setback and to retain a very small
portion of an existing shed in the side
setback.
October 18. 2016 (PC)
85 Crest Rd. E
Addition, reconstruct garage, new drwy, new
swimming pool, grading and other miscl.
structures. Variance to exceed disturbance of the
lot.
Variance to exceed disturbance of the
lot - 55.1%.
October 18, 2016 (PC)
3 Poppy Trail
Variance to encroach w/covered porches into
front setback
Variance to encroach w/covered
porches into front setback
Public: YOLANTA:General:Joini CC, PC mtgs 1016: VariuncesGrantedl0l 11016Report.docx
12
ITEM 4A: DISCUSSION PAPER, NOVEMBER 1, 2016
CRITERIA FOR VARIANCES
17.38.050 Required findings. In granting a variance, the Commission (and Council on
appeal) must make the following findings:
A. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions
applicable to the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same
vicinity and zone;
B. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of
substantial property rights possessed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone
but which is denied the property in question;
C. That the granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the
public welfare or injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity;
D. That in granting the variance, the spirit and intent of this title will be
observed;
E. That the variance does not grant special privilege to the applicant;
F. That the variance is consistent with the portions of the County of Los Angeles
Hazardous Waste Management Plan relating to siting and siting criteria for hazardous
waste facilities; and
G. That the variance request is consistent with the general plan of the City of
Rolling Hills.
City o/&? J/ing fi/h
INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274
(310) 377-1521
JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 377-7288
DISCUSSION PAPER
AGENDA ITEM NO. 4B
NOVEMBER 1, 2016
SUBJECT: SIZE AND USES OF STABLES
ISSUE
The Planning Commission requested that the topic of the recent trend to
construct large stables in the City be discussed with the City Council and should
it be of concern.
BACKGROUND
Prior to 2010, the Municipal Code provided a narrow definition for the
permissible uses of stables - a definition that was out of step with common
practice among horse owners and non -horse -owners alike. "Keeping of animals,
tack and feed" were the only permissible uses for stables. In using stables for
other, non -permissible uses, was a violation of the Municipal Code. Through the
years, as fewer families desired stables, many older stables were converted
without appropriate permits to other than the permissible uses.
Recognizing that there were stables in the City, which were not used for animal
keeping, the City in 2010, with minor amendments in 2011 and then in 2013
adopted new provisions for stables that provide a wider range of uses within a
stable structure, which were considered reasonable and acceptable but hold that
a stable must remain viable for future horse and other animals keeping activities.
The goals of the 2010-13 stable provisions amendments were:
1. To preserve the equestrian character of the City, upholding stables and
animal keeping as a cornerstone of the community's development.
2. To clarify and broaden the permissible uses of a stable, insuring stables can be
used for animal keeping, storage and other "passive uses" but not as living space
for humans.
1
O
Public/YS/Genera!/Joint CC PC nags 2016/stables
Printed on Recycled Paper
3. To encourage residents to have their existing stables inspected and properly
permitted by the City for compliance with the Building Code and with the new
provisions of the Municipal Code.
The amendment also included the requirement that a stable greater than 200
sq.ft. require a Conditional Use Permit. Prior to these amendments stables of any
size were approvable administratively by staff, (except if grading exceeded
certain threshold).
WHAT ARE THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR STABLES?
For the purpose of defining design standards and the permitted and non -
permitted uses for stables, and broaden the permissible uses, the zoning code
requirements differentiate between the area established for a tack room and the
agricultural space as follows:
17.12.200 "T" words, terms and phrases.
"Tack room" means a room, building or structure, in conjunction with an
established stable or corral, utilized primarily for storage of saddles, bridles,
other horse equipment and similar equestrian or horticultural related items, as
well as the storage of tools, furniture and other general households items. Tack
rooms may contain a kitchenette and sanitary facility consisting of a sink, toilet
and shower. Tack room may be used for passive activities but shall not at any
time be rented out or be used as sleeping quarters for humans. For the purpose
of this definition, all activities that are loud, raucous, annoying, or that produce
unusual noises, lighting or other impacts that offend the peace and quiet of
persons or ordinary sensibilities and interferes with the comfortable enjoyment
of life or property of any neighboring property are prohibited and are not
considered "passive activities".
17.18. 060A Sr C Tack Room
Permitted Design Standards/Uses:
• Not to exceed 800 sq. ft. and not to exceed 40% of the total size of the
stable structure
• Finished floors, walls and ceilings and glazed windows
• Standard size doors
• Air conditioning/heating/electrical and phone outlets
• Sink, countertops, cabinets, shelves
• Shower, sink and toilet
• Microwave, warming plate, refrigerator
• Storage for tack and related equipment
• Storage of general household items and equipment
• Furniture, except bed
• Loft plate not to exceed 7'; loft may be used as tack room
2
Public/YS/General/Joint CC PC mtgs 2016/stables
• May be detached from the stable
Prohibited Design Standards/Uses:
• Habitation: beds or sleeping quarters of any kind
• Stove, oven, bathtub
• Only one tact room per property allowed
17.12.010 "A" words, terms and phrases
Agricultural Space in the Stable - "Agricultural space" means an area within
a stable designed and constructed to house permitted domestic animals, farm
implements, hay, grain, or other horticultural products and equipment. It
may also include storage of vehicles and storage of household items. Such
space shall not be a place for human habitation or be used as sleeping
quarters.
17.16.060A & D Agricultural Space
Permitted Design Standards/Uses:
• Must be at least 60% of total size of the stable.
• Adequate open ventilation for hay storage and horses (per Bldg. Code)
• Minimum 4 ft. wide and 7'6" high door openings
• Exterior doors must look like stable doors
• Stalls, hay storage, wash rack, grooming area, farm equipment
• Storage of vehicles and other general household items
• Electrical outlets allowed, but must be out of reach of horses
• Glazed windows if used for storage
Prohibited Design Standards/Uses:
• Glazed windows, electrical outlets/switches within horses reach if used
for horses
• Overhead or roll up doors
• All other uses listed as permitted for tack room
17.12.120 "L" words, terms and phrases
"Loft" means an area above a stable utilized for storage of feed and hay, saddles,
bridles, other horse equipment and similar equestrian or agricultural related
items, or tack room uses, but excludes sleeping quarters.
17.16.060E Loft
Permitted Design Standards/Uses
• Permitted above stable structure
• Could be used as either agricultural space or "tack room" space;
depending on its design
• May not be used as a tack room, if another tack room exists on property
3
Public/YS/General/Joint CC PC mlgs 2016/stables
• If used as tack room may have a bathroom
• Plate height not to exceed 7'
• If used as agricultural space, no glazed openings are allowed; if used as
storage or tack room glazed openings are allowed
• No parking of vehicles is permitted adjacent to he loft, other than delivery
of hay and agricultural items (if loft is design that access is taken adjacent
thereto)
• Area immediately adjacent to a loft may not be paved, but may be porous
If the stable loft is used for hay or other storage, it must meet the requirements
of "agricultural space." If a stable loft is not used for storage it is considered a
"tack room space." An existing legally constructed loft may retain its current
uses if it is not over 800 sq. ft. and was modified with building permits.
OTHER REQUIREMENTS FOR STABLES:
17.18.060A, 17.18.030 General Requirements and Uses/Access and Driveway
Exterior appearance of stables and areas immediately adjacent thereto:
• Whether or not the stable is used for keeping permitted domestic
animals, the exterior of the stable structure shall continue to appear as
a stable.
• Not for sleeping purposes
• Areas adjacent to the agricultural space entrance/exit of a stable may
have a porous, roughened surface but may not be paved. It shall
remain such or may be covered with grass or other low growing
ground cover during the time when the agricultural space is not used
for keeping of horses or other animals.
• A porous surface (not paved) may be provided by the access to the
tack room space of the stable
• The surface area of a corral, pen, paddock, turnout or riding ring shall
be covered with dirt or sand surface. It shall remain such or be planted
with grass or other low growing ground cover during the time when
the stable structure is not used for keeping of horses or other animals
• No less than a six-foot wide roughened surface or dirt vehicular
accessway to the stable and corral area for delivery of feed and
removal of waste shall be provided. Such accessway shall not exceed a
slope of twenty-five percent. This accessway shall not be entirely
paved.
DISCUSSION
Since the adoption of the amendments to the stable ordinance, in the past 5 years
16 stables have been proposed and/or constructed; and are shown below.
4
Public/YS/General/Joint CC PC mtgs 2016/stables
STABLES 2011-2016
Location
Square Feet/ No. of
Vehicle or equipment
No. of horse
Stories
storage designation
stalls
11 Blackwater Cyn. Rd.
890 sq. ft. one story
N/ A -concept only
3
5 Buggy Whip
890 sq. ft. one story
201 sq.ft.
3
0 Chestnut
900 sq. ft. one story
120 sq.ft.
2
9 Chuckwagon Rd.
1,296 sq. ft. first floor &
792 sq. ft. loft
2,088 sq.ft. total
None
3
10 Crest Rd. W.
735 sq. ft. first floor & 453
sq. ft. loft
1,188 sq.ft. total
195 sq.ft.
2
49 Eastfield
600 sq. ft. one story
None
2
12 Johns Cyn. Rd.
735 sq. ft. one story
None
3
3 Meadowlark
480 sf. first floor & 360 sf.
loft
840 sq.ft. total
None
2
29 Middleridge Rd. S.
2,160 sq. ft. first floor &
800 sf. loft with center
aisle; 2,960 sq.ft. total
936 sq.ft.
4
6 Portuguese Bend Rd.
450 sq. ft. one story
None
1
77 Crest Rd. E
3,456 sq. ft. first floor &
235 sq.ft. loft with center
isle; 3,691 sq.ft. total
200 sq.ft.
5
1 Pine Tree Lane
2,976 sq. ft. one story
1,248 sq.ft.
6
11 Saddleback
2,415 sq. ft. and 625 sq. ft.
loft with center isle;
3,040 sq.ft. total
Not specifically
designated; but 500
sq.ft. is shown as open
area w/two barn like
garage doors, marked
feed room
4
34 Saddleback Rd.
1,300 sq.ft. - one story
None
3
5 Pine Tree Lane
1,810sq.ft. & 611 sq.ft. loft
2,421 sq.ft. total
Not specifically
designated; but 120
sq.ft. is shown as open
area in the loft with
feed area
5
23 Crest Road E.
Proposed
1300 sq.ft. & 792 sq.ft. loft
2,092 sq.ft. total
345 sq.ft.
2
It appears that the recent trend has been to construct large stables including lofts.
They also contain many stalls as well as areas for vehicle or equipment storage,
5
Public/YS/GeneraUJaint CC PC mtgs 2016/stables
which is considered agricultural space. The trend to construct stables is keeping
with the spirit and goals of the City to promote equestrian uses and should not
be discouraged. However, the size and massing of the structures is what the
Planning Commissioners are concern about. The lofts and the center isle
construction contribute to the height and massing of the structures.
In addition, staff is concerned with the future of such large structures on
properties should the use as a stable be discontinued. Such structures, if not used
as stables, would not be easily convertible to other uses because; 1) only stables
are allowed to have a loft; 2) only stables are allowed to encroach into the rear
setback; 3) as accessory structures, only stables and detached garages are allowed
to be greater than 800 sq.ft. Of the 16 stables listed above, 8 have a loft and 6 are
either located in the rear setback, (which is permitted) or in the front yard of the
lot -for which variances were granted.
As stated above, vehicle and equipment storage is allowed in stables. Out of the
16 stables listed above, 9 have a space designated for storage of vehicles or other
equipment and most have 3 or more stalls.
The City's zoning ordinance allows for a Conditional Use Permit for mixed use
structures and for detached garages. Prior to the stable ordinance amendments,
those property owners wishing to have extra garage spaces would apply for a
CUP for a mixed use structure or detached garage. There is no provision in the
zoning ordinance for how large a garage could be, however other detached uses,
such as recreation room, storage room, guest house and similar uses my not
exceed 800 square feet, nor could there be more than one such structure on the
lot, in addition to garages and stable. In a mixed -use structure, for example, a
garage could be any size, but the other use, (i.e. recreation room), may not exceed
800 sq.ft.
Recently, the RHCA adopted regulations where a detached garage may not
exceed 25% of the size of the residence. However, given that a stable is not
considered a detached garage, the size of the area for vehicle storage is not
regulated by the RHCA's new provision. One could therefore, have a detached
garage not exceeding 25% of the size of the residence, and additional area for
storage of vehicles in the stable.
One of the draw -back of using the stable for vehicle storage is that the area
immediately adjacent to the stable may not be impervious and access to the
stable may not be entirely paved. Therefore, it is unlikely that the vehicles stored
within the stable structure would be used for everyday transportation.
The RHCA Architectural Committee and Board had also expressed concerns
about the recent development of large stables. They held a couple of meetings
discussing whether to limit the size of the stables to a certain square footage.
6
0 Public/YS/General/Joint CC PC mtgs 2016/stables
However, they have not made a decision, and according to the RHCA staff
members of the Caballeros expressed concerns with limiting the size of stables.
RHCA regulations stipulate that a stable may not cover more than 70% of the
stable building pad.
QUESTION
The question for discussion at tonight's meeting is whether the current trend to
construct large stables is of concern and should the size and uses within the
stable be further regulated.
7
Public/YS/General/Joint CC PC mtgs 2016/stables
eity opeoffin, fidt
INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274
(310) 3771521
JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION MEeTI R 377 7288
DISCUSSION PAPER
AGENDA ITEM NO. 4C
NOVEMBER 1, 2016
SUBJECT: STABLE AND CORRAL - FEASIBILITY OF SET ASIDE
AREA AND ACCESS
ISSUE
Commissioner Cardenas requested that the Commission and the City Council
discuss the requirements for the set aside area for a stable and corral and
expressed concern that in some instances the set aside area for a future stable and
corral may not be practical or realistically suitable or usable for that purpose. The
rest of the Commissioners also posed a question whether a previously approved
set aside area could be deemed not usable and require that the applicants
provide a new area.
BACKGROUND
The Planning Commission discussed this issue in April 2012. At that time the
Commissioners came to the conclusion that the practice of requiring a set aside
and staking of the set aside is adequate, but also discussed the need to better
stake the area in the field. They also concluded that the issue does not need to be
further addressed, but that future discussions should be held, and the
Commission should review the set aside areas for "usability" on a case -by -case
basis.
Pursuant to Section 17.18.170 "Every lot or parcel in the RA -S zone for which a
discretionary or administrative approval is required by this title in connection
with the construction of a new single-family residence, the addition to an
existing single-family residence, the construction of an accessory structure
including but not be limited to recreation room, guest house, hobby shop and
similar accessory structure, and the construction of a pool shall have an area
developed with or set aside and usable for a stable, contiguous corral and access
thereto that complies with the criteria set forth in Chapter 17.18 of this title."
1
Public/YS/General/Joint CC, PC nags 20/6/Stable set aside, feasibility
:J.4
Printed on Recycled Paper
Chapter 17.18 specifies that such set aside should be at a minimum of 1,000
square feet; 450 square feet for a stable and 550 square feet for a corral; that
access to the stable be minimum 6' wide, be no greater than 25% in slope and that
it may riot be entirely paved.
HISTORICAL REQUIREMENTS
Ordinance No. 137 in 1976 is the first ordinance in the City that refers to
requirement for a stable. The requirement was that a minimum of 200 square feet
for a future stable be included in the structural coverage calculations. It also
allowed for stables to be located up to 25' in the rear setback. A corral area or
access was not mentioned or that the area be shown on development plans.
Some of the earlier plans show a 200 sq.ft. stable set aside and some do not.
Ordinance No. 230 in 1991 established the requirement for a minimum
1,000 square foot set aside for the construction of a stable and corral "for every
lot developed with a single family home for which a site plan review is
approved". This Ordinance also amended the 200 sq.ft. stable requirement to
require a 450 square foot stable and 550 square foot corral and it also allowed for
stables to be located up to 25' in the rear setback. A ,provision regarding slopes
was added as follows: "The stable and corral shall be located only on a portion of
the lot having a slope of no greater than 4:1". This is the first time that the code
references a slope or type of area where a stable and corral could be located.
(Please note that a SPR was not required prior to 1988 for new residences and
large additions. Those were approved over-the-counter, except if a Variance or a
CUP was requested as part of the development).
Ordinance No. 252 in 1995 added several other provisions to the stable
and corral requirements including the requirement for a not to exceed 25%
sloped accessway to a stable and codified the distance requirements from
residential structures and to property lines.
Ordinance No. 295 in 2004 added provisions that a stable and corral set
aside is required when any discretionary permit is considered and when a pool is
constructed (administratively or by the Planning Commission). The provision
that the set aside area be "usable" for a stable and corral was also added.
Prior to 2010 all stables/corrals, regardless of size, were approved over-
the-counter, (except if grading exceeded certain threshold). With the 2010
amendments, (Ordinance No. 311), any stable over 200 square feet and corral
over 550 square feet require a Conditional Use Permit, which is a discretionary
review where a field trip is held and a silhouette is required to be erected.
2
Public/YS/General/Joint CC, PC mtgs 2016/Stable set aside, feasibility
DISCUSSION
It appears that prior to 2001 when a development application was submitted, it
was required that a set aside area be shown on the plan, and staff reviewed it for
the distances in relationship to property lines (setbacks) and the residence, as
well as the steepness of the slope, coverage and disturbance of the lot. As long as
the set aside area met the code requirements for coverage, disturbance -future,
size, slope and distances, no other issues were raised. This applied to those
applications that were reviewed over the counter and those that required
Planning Commission review. It also appears that a silhouette for a future stable
and corral was not being consistently erected for Planning Commission field
trips and while in the field, the Commission would only briefly visit the area of
the set aside for a future stable and corral.
Since approximately 2001 to 2010, staff has been requiring that the area of the
future stable and corral be taped off and at least a rudimentary silhouette erected
for the field trips. However since 2010, following the amended ordinance, staff is
requiring that a realistic silhouette, including the height, loft, corral and access be
erected/delineated for the field trips. There has been some push back from the
developers, as erecting an accurate depiction is time consuming and quite
expensive. They feel that it serves no purpose in instances where the applicants
have no desire to construct a stable and corral; and if anyone would like to
construct such uses it would have to go through the City's CUP process.
There are some challenges in constructing a silhouette or even delineating corrals
and access on steep and/or densely vegetated properties. In those cases the
applicants place a tape on top and through the trees and brush to the best of their
ability, and sometimes place a few stakes where they can to depict the height. In
those instances it is difficult for the Planning Commission to visualize the
finished product.
In densely vegetated areas, it is not practical or desirable to have to remove
vegetation so that a silhouette could be constructed or corral delineated,
especially if the applicants are not planning to build. In addition, to minimize
grading and to retain to a maximum extend practicable the natural terrain of a
property, the City has not allowed grading prior to the project being approved
and construction permits issued. Although a graded or denuded pad would
provide the Commission with a better visual aid of whether or not the area is
feasible and usable for a stable and corral, it would be contrary to City's goal of
minimizing grading and leaving areas in natural state.
As stated earlier, prior to 1991 very few plans show a set aside area for a stable
and corral. Since 1991 it became a practice to show it for a Site Plan Review
3
Public/YS/General/Joint CC, PC mlgs 2016/Stable set aside, feasibility
al
applications (but not CUPs or Variances). Many of the depictions do not provide
for access to the set aside areas.
There is an expectation on the part of the property owners that since the set aside
area was shown and approved in the past, if they were to construct such a
stable/corral or currently need to show it for a proposed project, the previously
designated set aside area would be feasible and proper for such use and would
be approved with the new project. However, there may be instances where
when in the field, the Commissioners/Councilmembers may not agree that the
previously designated area is feasible or usable for a stable/corral, especially
because access to the area was previously not designed, and it becomes obvious
from the visit that it could not be accomplished, short of large amount of grading
required.
For projects that are reviewed over-the-counter it is still required that a set aside
area and access be shown on the plan meeting the setbacks, distances and slope
requirements.
QUESTIONS
The questions for discussion at tonight's meeting are:
a. Should the current process of requiring silhouette and delineation
for a stable, corral and access; (both, for future or present construction), be
changed and "usable" area further defined? If, yes, then what should that be?
b. If the set aside area is steep and vegetated, what instruction should
be given to the property owner to properly depict the set aside area?
c. If the previously set aside area is deemed not feasible or usable,
could the Planning Commission require the applicant to show a different area?
4 Public/YS/Genera!/Joins CC, PC mtgs 2016/Stable set aside, feasibility
ge , `"p Rae eYt
INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274
(310) 377-1521
FAX (310) 377-7288
JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
DISCUSSION PAPER
AGENDA ITEM NO. 4D
NOVEMBER 1, 2016
SUBJECT: SHOULD THE CITY CONSIDER REGULATING THE
MAXIMUM SIZE OF NEW RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS
ISSUE
Commissioner Gray requested that this topic be agendized for discussion with the City
Council. The issue of whether the size of homes should be regulated was discussed
numerous times in the past. The trend through the decades has been to construct bigger
and bigger size homes. The last time this topic was considered was at a joint meeting of
the City Council and Planning Commission in July 2009. In the previous years this topic
was normally discussed in relationship to lot disturbance and grading, as the size of
homes affect the size of the building pad, which in turn affect grading quantities and
disturbance of the lot. At a joint meeting in May of 2010, the Planning Commission and
City Council discussed a related topic, the mass and scale of neighboring properties in
relationship to proposed new and larger developments, and whether the sizes of
neighboring properties should be considered in the review of a larger new home.
In both instances the City Council and the Planning Commission concluded to not to
regulate the size of homes. It was determined that the existing development standards
(structural coverage -20%; total coverage - 35%; disturbance - 40% w/ adjustments
allowed; setbacks, slope gradients, etc.), together with the unique sizes and
characteristics of each lot and the Planning Commission's diligent review of each case
on its own merit, are adequate controls. In addition, it was recognized that the housing
stock in the City is at an age where the homes are in need of repair, renovation or
demolition and that in older communities it is very difficult to establish compatibility,
as the homes in the vicinity of the new development are older and most likely smaller
than those proposed. It would be very easy to determine that the proposed construction
is not compatible with the neighborhood. However, were those older homes
redeveloped, they too would most likely be expanded in size.
O.J
As a result of the joint meetings in the past, certain development standards were
revised with the goal of promoting better and orderly developments, but not to regulate
the size of homes.
BACKGROUND
As stated, City records indicate that the topic of larger homes was discussed numerous
times going back to the late 1980s. In 1988 a consultant, the Keith Companies, prepared
a "Residential Trend Analysis" study for the City. The study was to analyze and
compare the General Plan goals and policies set by the City to the actual development
trends in the City, specifically between 1985 and August of 1988. The findings of the
study, and the then requests for certain size homes with large quantities of grading, led
the City to amend the Zoning Code to require a Site Plan Review by the Planning
Commission for new residences, additions greater than 999 square feet and for grading.
Prior to November 1988, (adoption of the SPR Ordinance), City staff was authorized to
administratively approve all construction when it met the Zoning Code requirements
for setbacks and lot coverage. Only Variances and Conditional Use Permit requests
went before the Planning Commission.
The 1988 "Residential Trend Analysis" study concluded that records for the 3 -year
period of the study indicate a significant change in residential growth pattern in the
City. For example, the study found that between 1985 and 1988 there have been a total
of 18 tear downs and rebuilds in the City; that the size of homes prior to 1985 ranged
typically from 2,358 square feet to 6,565 square feet with a median size of 3,500 square
feet; whereas, based on 10 random cases of newer homes built between 1985 and 1988,
the study contents that the building sizes were in the range of 7,200 square feet. (Staff
cannot substantiate these statistics). Comparing these 3 -years in residential
development to any other time line, this was a very unusual trend in the City.
General Plan goals
Following the study and the adoption of the Site Plan Review requirements, the City
embarked on updating its General Plan. In 1990, a consultant, Cotton/Belland
Associates Inc. completed the update of the General Plan, including the Land Use
Element. The goals and policies of the 1990 Land Use Element of the General Plan
which pertain to development can be summarized as follows:
• Maintain the City's rural character
• Maintain the City's one and two acres minimum lot sizes
• Maintain the City's one story height (imitation and existing low -profile ranch
style architecture
• Maintain and provide regulations for sufficient setbacks and easements to
provide buffer between residences
• Maintain strict grading practices to preserve the community's natural terrain
2 Public/YS/General/joint CC, PC nitgs 2016/Size of homes rprt.
Construction trends
To demonstrate the trend of development of home sizes in the City for the 2009 joint
City Council and Planning Commission meeting, staff compiled a list of homes built
since the 1980's, which is attached. Staff researched a sample of 11 new homes that were
approved in the 1980's and 12 new homes that were approved in the 1990's. For the
2000 to 2009 time period, statistics for all new/reconstructed homes were analyzed, (27).
The average sizes are shown below.
1980's
Average size of homes
Average size of garage
1990's
Average size of homes
Average size of garage
2000-2009
Average size of homes
Average size of garage
5,607 sq.ft
775 sq.ft.
6,129 sq.ft.
1,148 sq.ft.
6,496 sq.ft.
1,003 sq.ft.
The study for the above years also shows that basements were constructed, which range
in size between 835 square feet and 7,530 square feet, averaging 3,430 square feet.
For tonight's meeting, to continue showing the trend in development, staff compiled a
list and sizes of new homes approved by the City between 2010-2016. The following
averages were found, (table attached);
2010-2016
Average size of homes
Average size of garage
Average size of basements
DISCUSSION
7,013 sq.ft.
994 sq.ft.
4,599 sq.ft.
As can be seen from the figures above, through the years the size of homes in the City
became larger; from an average of 5,607 square feet in 1980's, 6,129 square feet in 1990's,
6,496 square feet in the 2000's to 7,013 square feet in the past six years. The garages
became smaller, but the basements increased in size from an average of 3,430 square
feet to 4,599 square feet.
Currently, fewer and fewer lots are available for development. The lots that are being
developed are either lots with difficult topography or have other constraints and were
not able to be developed in the past or lots that were previously developed and are ripe
for redevelopment. Not including the vacant lots in the Flying Triangle area of the City,
there are 20 vacant lots that could potentially be developed (2 with proposed
3 P blic/YS/Genernl/Joint CC, PC mtgs 2016/Size of (tomes rprt.
developments). Some of them have extreme slopes and may never be develop and
several of the lots are smaller than one acre. Since a large home would not "fit" on some
of the smaller vacant lots, they may not be developed for a while. There are 692 homes
total in the City. With most of the homes in the city over 40 years old, (507 homes were
built prior to 1969), more and more homes are ready for replacement. The current trend
is to build larger homes. The character of the population in the City is changing and
younger persons/families are moving in. Their desires and needs are different than
those of the prior generation. Staff receives many inquires from potential buyers about
large additions and/ or reconstruction of homes and how large could they be.
In the past, recognizing that there is a desire to build larger homes, the City Council
adopted an ordinance defining basements and allowing a story to be located above a
basement, (1983). Through the years the basements have evolved from a storage room
to fully habitable and recreational quarters. The intent was to satisfy the desire for
additional space within a residence without allowing a second story and to maintain
and preserve the character of the residences in the neighborhoods.
Most cities do not place size restrictions on homes. The size of a home, as in the City of
Rolling Hills, is dictated by the rules and regulations related to setbacks and lot
coverage, or what is sometimes called the floor to area ratio. Due to the fact that most
cities allow 2-3 stories single family homes, the footprint of the homes are potentially
smaller than those in Rolling Hills, however, the actual habitable area is not. Homes
that are 15,000 to 24,000 square feet are not unheard of in other Peninsula cities.
When analyzing a project, the Planning Commission looks for whether the project
meets City's development standards, "fits" the lot, retains to the maximum extent
practicable the natural terrain of the property and whether it meets the criteria for a the
Site Plan Review, enclosed.
QUESTION
As can be seen from the attached charts, there is a definite trend to construct larger
homes in the City. The question before you is whether the City should regulate the size
of developments. To come to that conclusion, studies would need to be conducted to
further analyze the trend, the reasons for the trend and could include studying the
effects the development of large homes has on grading and disruption of natural
terrain, disturbed area and other developmental issues, such as building pad coverage
and setbacks. In addition, any restriction on size should be t-ied to the goals and policies
in the General Plan and it may become necessary to amend the Land Use Element of the
General Plan to reflect those desires. Depending on the scope of review, analysis and
potential amendments staff recommends that a consultant be hired to conduct the
necessary studies and analysis and provide recommendation to the City.
4
O Plic/YS/General//oint CC, PC mtgs 2016/Size of homes rprt.
ITEM 4D: DISCUSSION PAPER - SIZE OF HOMES, NOVEMBER 1, 2016
INFORMATIOIN SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AND
PLANNING COMMISSION AT A JOINT MEETING IN JULY 2009
SAMPLE OF APPROVED NEW HOMES IN THE 1980's and 1990's and NEW
HOMES AND SUBSTANTIAL ADDITIONS APPROVED BETWEEN 2000
AND 2009
Address
Year
approved
Size: house +
garage-sq.ft.
Net Lot Area
sq.ft.
Comments
1980's
10 Chesterfield
1981
3,461; 567
169,884
28 Caballeros
1981
4,753; 960
57,760
73 Crest Rd. E.
1983
4,303; 740
104,108
30 Caballeros
1984
4,487; 480
67,387
2942 Pv. Dr. N.
1985
7,832;
170,750
Garage size
not available
10 Poppy Trail Rd.
1985
6,246; 660
180,000
25 Chuckwagon
1985
5,487; 780
49,820
5 Crest Rd. W.
1985
10,074; 1,328
127,234
5 Chuckwagon
1987
6,128; 687
90,256
86 Saddleback
1989
3,800;
65,340
Garage size
not available
2 Packsaddle Rd.
W.
1989
5,112;
44,849
Garage size
not available
1980's AVERAGE
5,607 sq.ft.-homes
775 sq.ft.-garages
Net Lot Area
103,638
1990's
6 Eastfield
1990
6,621; 630
62,860
24 Outrider
1991
5,032; 726
103,629
16 Crest Rd. W.
1991
7,742; 1,600
88,678
4 Buggy Whip
(not constructed)
1992
7,150; 1,040
133,163
Originally
proposed
10,546 s.f. hs.
17 Southfield
1992
5,990; 1,175
91,610
22 Eastfield
1993
4,627; 816
49,704
5 Appaloosa
1994
5,615; 875
75,318
12 Outrider
1995
3,287; 457
85,377
1 Buggy Whip
1995
9,333; 2,265
291,758
18 Eastfield
1996
5,079; 1,192
59,705
5 L. Blackwater
Cny
1998
5,167; 1,408
194,713
91 Crest Rd. E.
1999
7,910; 1,600
147,610
1990's AVERAGE
6,129 sq.ft.-homes
1,148 sq.ft-garages
Net lot area
115,343
Address
Year
approved
Size: house +
garage in sq.ft.
Net Lot Area
sq.ft.
Comments
2000 - 2009
14 Outrider
2000
4,350; 610
116,182
12 U. Blackwater
2000.
7,614; 1,008
161,019
10 Portuguese
Bend
2001
:.
5,624; 740
57,007
4 Pine Tree Ln.
2001, .7:
5,840; 1,428
190,680
23 Portuguese
Bend
2001
5,200; 600
105,280
Not
constructed
1 Sagebrush Ln.
2002
7,472; 920
73,335
20 Eastfield
2002
4,458; 693
46,040
56 Eastfield
2002
5,147; 803
42,240
18 Portuguese
Bend
2003
5,040; 810
89,280
3 Appaloosa Lane
2003/2008
8,990; 2,050
357,192
18 Crest Rd. E.
2003
6,700; 1,520
132,240
3 Eucalyptus
2004
5,530; 973
72,744
8 Possum Ridge
2004
4,620; 640
181,073
22 Crest Rd. E.
2004
10,367; 1,234
183,360
18 Pine Tree Lane
2004 -
'' •
7,214; 1,253
123,710
Not
constructed
12 Southfield
2004 w *
5,080; 748
38,173
40 Portuguese
Bend
2005..
9,490; 1,776
185,208
44 Portuguese
Bend
2005
8,402; 1,605
163,520
17 Crest Rd. E.
2005
8,900; 1008
395,524
6 Sagebrush
2006
5,846; 960
105,420
0 Chestnut
2007
4,320; 805
89,940
22 Middleridge
2007
4,374; 832
30,237
Application
withdrawn
9 Eastfield
2007
5,000; 704
138,030
40 Eastfield
2007
4,075; 600
39,664
3 Packsaddle Rd.E
2008
6,230; 781
45,981
8 Maverick
2009
7,103; 865
110,320
2 Appaloosa
2008
8,318; 669
179,000
0 Pine Tree
2009
9,590; 1,460
138,081
2000-2009
AVERAGE
6,496 sq.ft.-homes
1,003 sq.ft.-garage
Net lot area
128,895
S
The above do not include basements or other accessory structures. Many of the
homes approved in the 2000's also have a basement, ranging from 835 square feet
to 7,530 square feet, averaging 3;430 square feet.
New Homes and Over The Counter Large Additions
Approved 2010-2016
Address
House
Sq. Ft.
Garage
Sq. Ft.
Basement
Sq. Ft.
New Homes
1
11 Upper Blackwater
10,175
1,566
8,900
4,639
2
8 Crest Road E.
12,927
1,349
3
17 Crest Road E.
8,796
702
1,139
4
77 Crest Road E.
6,631
1,308
0
5
11 Saddleback Road
4,745
659
342
6
6 Portuguese Bend Road
4,527
1,007
0
7
5 Pine Tree Ln.
5,250
1,115
5,250
8
10 Bowie Road
5,270
844
6,000
9
23 Crest Road E. (proposed)
11,100
1,540
11,100
10
3 Packsaddle Road E.
6,230
781
4,940
11
2 Middleridge S.
4,980
' 980
0
12
38 Saddleback
5,017
762
3,646
13
5 Johns Cyn Road
9,387
1,187
0
14
46 Saddleback Road •
7,117
704
1,638
15
3 Meadowlark
3,045
410
3,000
Average SgtNew Homes." r
:-
7,013 994
'•
4;599;
OTC Large Additions
1
15 Crest Road W.
8,378
858
0
2
2864 Palos Verdes Dr. North
6,234
935
2,921
3
29 Crest Road E.
4,301
604
0
4
3 Lower Blackwater
3,944
441
0
5
44 Portuguese Bend Road
6,083
1,354
0
6
49 Eastfield Drive
3,261
948
1,196
7
67 Eastfield Drive
3,535
628
0
8
5 Buggy Whip
4,734
1,008
0
9
26 Eastfleld Drive
3;146
926
0
10
26 Georgeff
4,552
441
0
11
5 Open Brand
3,068
465
0
12
8 Williamsburg
5,006
712
0
13
22 Saddleback
4,100
700
0
14
10 Cinchring
3,632
529
0
15
7 Middleridge Road S.
4,197
440
0
16
71 Crest Road E.
3,109
420
0
17
46 Eastfield
4,000
420
0
18
1 Pine Tree .
6,516
1,335
0
19
23 Middleridge N.
3,837
479
349
Average Sq '.Ft:'Large_Additions',
t :: "--' -,4,507
,:'718
1;488
10/27/16
Public/Yolanta/Statistics/Size New Homes and Large Additions Approved 2010-2016
ITEM 4D: DISCUSSION PAPER, NOVEMBER 1, 2016
SITE PLAN REVIEW CRITERIA
17.46.010 Purpose.
The site plan review process is established to provide discretionary review of
certain development projects in the City for the purposes of ensuring that the proposed
project is consistent with the City's General Plan; incorporates environmentally and
aesthetically sensitive grading practices; preserves existing mature vegetation; is
compatible and consistent with the scale, massing and development pattern in the
immediate project vicinity; and otherwise preserves and protects the health, safety and
welfare of the citizens of Rolling Hills.
17.46.050 Required findings.
A. The Commission shall be required to make findings in acting to approve,
conditionally approve, or deny a site plan review application.
B. No project which requires site plan review approval shall be approved by
the Commission, or by the City Council on appeal, unless the following findings can be
made:
1. The project complies with and is consistent with the goals
and policies of. the general plan and all requirements of the zoning ordinance;
2. The project substantially preserves the natural and
undeveloped state of the lot by minimizing building coverage. Lot coverage
requirements are regarded as maximums, and the actual amount of lot coverage
permitted depends upon the existing buildable area of the lot;
3. The project is harmonious in scale and mass with the site,
the natural terrain and surrounding residences;
4. The project preserves and integrates into the site design, to
the greatest extent possible, existing topographic features of the site, including
surrounding native vegetation, mature trees, drainage courses and land forms (such as
hillsides and knolls);
5. Grading has been designed to follow natural contours of
the site and to minimize the amount of grading required to create the building area;
6. Grading will not modify existing drainage channels nor
redirect drainage flow, unless such flow is redirected into an existing drainage course;
7. The project preserves surrounding native vegetation and
mature trees and supplements these elements with drought -tolerant landscaping which
is compatible with and enhances the rural character of the community, and landscaping
provides a buffer or transition area between private and public areas;
8. The project is sensitive and not detrimental to the
convenient and safe movement of pedestrians and vehicles; and
9. The project conforms to the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act.