Loading...
472, Extensive remodel to existing , Staff Reports• • City o/ RJ/L4 Jhfl MEETING DATE: FEBRUARY 16, 1993 TO: INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: LOLA UNGAR, PRINCIPAL PLANNER SUBJECT: BACKGROUND REQUEST FOR ONE-YEAR TIME EXTENSION ZONING CASE NO. 472, DR. & MRS. PAUL M. STRAUB 7 PACKSADDLE ROAD EAST (LOT 27-SF) Attached is a request from Mr. Richard Huddleson for a one year extension for a previously approved Variance to permit encroachment into the front year setback to reconstruct and add to an existing attached garage, a previously approved Variance to encroach into the front yard for a retaining wall, and a previously approved Site Plan Review for reconstruction of a single family residence. Planning Commission Resolution No. 92-12 was approved on February 18, 1992. Mr. Huddleson says that the extension of time is necessary to obtain adequate financing for the project. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission review the request. sp Printed on Recycled Paper. • RI=11 • R HUDDLESON ARCHITECT January 19. 1993 City of Rolling Hills No. 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA_ 90274 _. . Attn: Lola Unger, Principal Planner Subject: Expiration of Approvals Resolution No. 472 Zoning Case No. 472 Dear Lola, pan JAN 2 1993 CITY OF ROWNG HILLS By Dr. and Mrs. Straub have requested that I apply to the planning commission on their behalf for an extension of time of one year on the subject approvals. The difficulty in obtaining adequate financing for the project at this time have necessitated this request. Please call me if you have any questions. Very truly yours, Richard Huddleson Architect 24050 MADISON STREET • SUITE 102 • TORRANCE CALIFORNIA 90505 • 213 375 0606 RESOLUTION NO. 92-12 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH INTO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK TO RECONSTRUCT AND ADD TO AN EXISTING ATTACHED GARAGE, GRANTING A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH INTO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR A RETAINING WALL, AND GRANTING SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL FOR RECONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IN ZONING CASE NO. 472. THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Applications were duly filed by Dr. Paul M. Straub with respect to real property located at 7 Packsaddle Road East, Rolling Hills (Lot 27-SF) requesting: (1) a Variance to the front yard setback to reconstruct and add to an existing attached garage, (2) a Variance to encroach into the front yard setback for a retaining wall, and (3) Site Plan Review for reconstruction of a single family residence to replace an existing single family residence. Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the application for a Variance and a Conditional Use Permit on December 17, 1991, January 21, 1992, February 1, 1992, February 18, 1992 and at a field trip on January 11, 1992. Section 3. The Planning Commission finds that the project is categorically exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to a Class 3 exemption provided by Section 15303 of the State CEQA Guidelines. Section 4. Sections 17.32.010 through 17.32.030 permit approval of a Variance from the standards and requirements of the Zoning Ordinance when exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applicable to the property and not applicable to other similar properties in the same zone prevent the owner from making use of a parcel of property to the same extent enjoyed by similar properties. A Variance to Section 17.16.060 is required to construct additions in the fifty (50) foot front yard setback. The applicant is requesting to make substantial additions to the existing garage which already encroaches 28 feet into the front yard setback. The Planning Commission finds: A. There are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances and conditions applicable to the property and the intended use . that do not apply generally to the other property in the same vicinity and zone. The Variance is necessary because the existing legal nonconforming residence was built within the front yard setback and the building pad is located close to the street and adjacent residences. The Variance is necessary so as to permit the use ofthis property to a similar extent as used on adjacent parcels. 92- 5'71'780 RESOLUTION NO. 92-12 PAGE 2 B. This Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone, but which is denied to the property in question. The Variance is necessary because the existing development pattern on the lot precludes the requested additions from being built into the rear yard. The building pad is located close to a cul-de-sac and adjacent residences. C. The proposed plans involve the reconstruction and addition of an existing 2-car garage into a 3-car garage. The existing 2-car garage encroaches 28 feet into the front yard setback. The structural additions will not occur in the setback. However, due to the fact that these structural additions will substantially alter the size of the garage, it loses its nonconforming status and is required by law, to be brought into conformance with the Rolling Hills Municipal Code requirements. Therefore, a Variance is necessary to permit the continued encroachment of this garage structure into the front yard setback. However, the portion of the garage to be added will not occur in the front yard setback, and, this Variance will not permit any greater incursion than already exists. D. The granting of this Variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity or zone in which the property is located. Development on the pad will allow a substantial portion of the lot to remain undeveloped. The existing development pattern on the lot and the sloping rear portion precludes construction towards that area on the lot. Section 5. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves the Variance to encroach into the front yard setback to a maximum of 28 feet as indicated on the Development Plan attached hereto as Exhibit A subject to the conditions contained in Section 11. Section 6. A Variance to Section 17.16.060 is requested to construct a 110 foot retaining wall that will not be more than 3 feet in height that will encroach up to a maximum of 30 feet into the frontyard setback. With regard to this request, the Planning Commission makes the following findings: A. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances and conditions applicable to the property and the intended use that do not apply generally to the other property in the same vicinity and zone. The sloping topography of the subject site and the existing location of the driveway necessitate construction of a retaining wall within the front yard setback in order to support proposed hillside cuts and slopes. $ B. The Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone, but which is denied the property in question. The Variance is necessary because the proposed development pattern on the lot and the topography of the site require a retaining wall. Construction of such wall in the front yard setback will create a safer accessway and will also improve the appearance of the existing driveway. 92- 571 !p0 RESOLUTION NO. 92-12 PAGE 3 C. The granting of the Variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which the property is located. The Variance will help to improve the geologic stability of the slope and will not be visible to surrounding properties due to the distances between the driveway and other adjacent residences. Section 7. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves the Variance to encroach up to a maximum of 40 feet into the front yard setback to construct a retaining wall not to exceed 3 feet in height at any one point along the driveway as indicated on the Development Plan attached hereto as Exhibit A, subject to the conditions specified in Section 11 below. Section 8. Section 17.34.010 requires a development plan to be submitted for site plan review and approval before any building or structure may be constructed or any expansion, addition. alteration or repair to existing buildings may be made which involve changes to grading or an increase to the size of the building or structure by more than twenty-five percent (25%) in any thirty-six month period. Section 9. 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 structure complies with the General Plan requirement of low profile, low density residential development with sufficient open space between surrounding structures. The project conforms to Zoning Code setback and lot coverage requirements. The lot has a net square foot area of 77,89.2 square feet. The proposed residence (4,500 sq.ft.), garage (600 sq.ft.), a swimming pool (680 sq.ft.), a service yard. (96 sq.ft.), and astable (450 sq.ft.), will have 6,326 square feet which constitutes 8.1% of the lot which is within the maximum 20% structural lot coverage requirement. The total lot coverage including paved areas and driveway will be 11,930 square feet which equals 15.3% of the lot, which is within the 35% maximum overall lot coverage requirement. The proposed project is on a relatively large lot with most of the proposed additions located away from the road so as to reduce the visual impact of the development and is similar and compatible with several neighboring developments. B. The proposed development preserves and integrates into the site design, to the maximum extent feasible, existing natural topographic features of the lot including surrounding native vegetation, mature trees, drainage courses, and land forms (such as hillsides and knolls) and grading will be minimal to minimize building coverage on the building pad itself. C. The development plan follows natural contours of the site to minimize grading and the natural drainage courses will continue to the canyons at the rear of this lot. D. The development plan incorporates existing large trees and native vegetation to the maximum extent feasible and supplements it with landscaping that is compatible with and enhances the rural character of the community. 92- 571780 • 5 RESOLUTION NO. 92-12 PAGE 4 E. The development plan substantially preserves the natural and undeveloped state of the lot by minimizing building coverage because the new structures will not cause the structural and total lot coverage to be exceeded. Significant portions of the lot, .will be left undeveloped so as to minimize the impact of development. F. The proposed development is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, the natural terrain and surrounding residences because as indicated in Paragraph A, lot coverage maximum will not be exceeded and the proposed project is of consistent scale with the neighborhood, thereby grading will be required only to restore the natural slope of the property. The ratio of the proposed structure to lot coverage is similar to the ratio found on several properties in the vicinity. The residence will be similar in size to existing homes on Packsaddle Road East. G. The proposed development is sensitive and not detrimental to convenience and safety of circulation for pedestrians and vehicles because the proposed project will utilize the existing vehicular access, thereby having no further impact on the roadway. H. The project conforms with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and is categorically exempt from environmental review. Section 10. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves the Site Plan Review for a proposed new single family residence as indicated on the Development Plan attached hereto as Exhibit A subject to the conditions contained in Section 11. Section 11. The Variance to the front yard setback approved in Sections 5, the Variance to the front yard setback for the retaining wall approved in Section 7, and the Site Plan Review for a proposed new residence approved in Section 11 as indicated on the Development Plan attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A, are subject to the following conditions: A. The Variance shall expire unless used within one year from the effective date of approval as defined in Section 17.32.110 of the Municipal Code. The Site Plan Review approval shall expire within one year from the effective date of approval as defined in Section 17.34.080.A. B. It is declared and made a condition of the Variance and the Site Plan Review approval, that if any conditions thereof are violated, the Permit shall be suspended and the privileges granted thereunder shall lapse; provided that the applicant has been given written notice to cease such violation and has failed to do so for a period of thirty (30) days. 92= 571780 RESOLUTION NO. 92-12 PAGE 5 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 the Permit, or shown otherwise on an approved plan. D. The lot shall be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the site plan on file marked Exhibit A except as otherwise provided in these conditions. E. To minimize the building on the pad, the structures, driveway, graded slopes and retaining walls shall be screened and shielded from view with native drought -resistant vegetation that is compatible with the surrounding vegetation of the community. F. All retaining walls incorporated into the project shall not be greater than 3 feet in height. G. A landscape plan must be submitted to and approved by the City of Rolling Hills Planning Department staff prior to the issuance of any grading and building permit. The landscaping plan submitted must comply with the purpose and intent of the Site Plan Review Ordinance, shall incorporate existing mature trees and native vegetation, and shall utilize to the maximum extent feasible, plants that are native to the area and/or consistent with the rural character of the community. A bond in the amount of the cost estimate of the implementation of the landscaping plan plus 15% shall be required to be posted prior to issuance of a grading and building permit and shall be retained .with the City•for not less than two years after landscape installation. The retained bond will be released by the City Manager after the City Manager determines that the landscaping was installed pursuant to the landscaping plan as approved, and that such landscaping is properly established and in good condition. H. Prior to the submittal of an applicable final grading plan to the County of Los Angeles for plan check, a detailed grading and drainage plan with related geology, soils and hydrology reports that conform 'to the development plan as approved by the Planning Commission must be submitted to the Rolling Hills Planning Department staff for their review. Cut .and fill slopes must conform to the City of Rolling Hills standard of 2 to 1 slope ratio. I. The project must be reviewed and approved by the Rolling Hills Community Association Architectural Review Committee prior to the issuance of any building or grading permit. J. .The building pad coverage shall not exceed 33.7%. 92= 5'71780 RESOLUTION NO. •92-12 PAGE 6 • K. The applicant shall execute an Affidavit of Acceptance of all conditions of this Variance, pursuant to Section 17.32.087, or the approval shall not be effective. L. Conditions A. C, D. E, F. G. H, I. J, and K of this Variance and Site Plan Review approval must be complied with prior to the issuance of a building or grading permit from the County of Los Angeles. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 1992. Ikr EVIE HANKYNS, ACTING CHAIRMAN ATTEST: CLLAbfir 69-6.---0 tAPIANE SAWYER, DEPUTY CITY CLERK The foregoing Resolution No. 92-9 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH INTO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK TO RECONSTRUCT AND ADD TO AN EXISTING ATTACHED GARAGE, GRANTING A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH INTO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR A RETAINING WALL, AND GRANTING SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL FOR RECONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IN ZONING CASE NO. 472. was approved and adopted at a regular adjourned meeting of the Planning Commission on February 18, 1992 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Lay, Paine and Acting Chairman Kanrins NOES: None ABSENT: Chairman Poberts ABSTAIN: Commissioner Frost DEPUTY CITY CLERK 92= 571780 RESOLUTION NO. 93-8 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS APPROVING AN EXTENSION TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED VARIANCE TO PERMIT ENCROACHMENT INTO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK TO RECONSTRUCT AND ADD TO AN EXISTING ATTACHED GARAGE, APPROVING AN EXTENSION TO A PREVIOUSLY •APPROVED VARIANCE TO ENCROACH INTO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR A RETAINING WALL, AND APPROVING AN EXTENSION TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR RECONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IN ZONING CASE NO. 472. THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. A request has been filed by Dr. & Mrs. Paul M. Straub with respect to real property located at 7 Packsaddle Road East (Lot 27-SF), Rolling Hills requesting an extension to a previously approved Variance to permit encroachment into the front yard setback to reconstruct and add to an existing attached garage, requesting an extension to a previously approved Variance to encroach into the front yard setback for a retaining wall, and requesting an extension to a previously approved Site Plan Review for reconstruction of a single family residence. Section 2. The Commission considered this item at a meeting on February 16, 1993 at which time information was presented indicating that the extension of time is necessary to obtain adequate financing for the project. Section 3.. Based upon information and evidence submitted the Planning Commission does hereby amend Paragraph A, Section 11 of Resolution No. 92-12, dated February 18, 1992, to read as follows: "A. The Variance and Site Plan Review approvals shall expire within two years of the approval of this Resolution." Section 4. Except as herein amended, the provisions of Resolution No. 92-12 shall continue to be in full force and effect. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 16th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 1993. ALLAN ROBERTS, CHAIRMAN ATTEST: MARILYN L. KERN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK TO: • City (Pelting JM6 • AGENDA ITEM 3A MEETING DATE 2/24/92 INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (213) 377-1521 FAX (213) 377-7288 HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL ATTENTION: CRAIG R. NEALIS, CITY MANAGER FROM: LOLA M. UNGAR, PRINCIPAL PLANNER SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 472, 7 PACKSADDLE ROAD EAST (LOT 27-SF) OWNER: DR. PAUL M. STRAUB RESOLUTION NO. 92-12: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH INTO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK TO RECONSTRUCT AND ADD TO AN EXISTING ATTACHED GARAGE, GRANTING A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH INTO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR A RETAINING WALL, AND GRANTING SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL FOR RECONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IN ZONING CASE NO. 472. BACKGROUND 1. The subject Resolution No. 92-12 was approved by the Planning Commission on February 18, 1992. 2. The applicant requests a Variance to permit the construction of a 3-car garage that will encroach up to 28 feet into the front yard setback. This will involve the reconstruction and addition of an existing 2-car garage into a 3-car garage. The existing 2-car garage encroaches 28 feet into the front yard setback. The structural additions will not occur in the setback. However, due to the fact that these structural additions will substantially alter the size of the garage, it loses its nonconforming status and is required by law, to be brought into conformance with the Rolling Hills Municipal Code requirements. Therefore, a Variance is necessary to permit the continued encroachment of this garage structure into the front yard setback. However, the portion of the garage to be added will not occur in the front yard setback, and, this Variance will not permit any greater incursion than already exists. 3. The applicant also requests a Variance to construct a 110 foot retaining wall that will not be more than 3 feet in height that will encroach up to a maximum of 30 feet into the front yard setback. 4. The applicant requests Site Plan Review for a proposed 4,500 square foot single family residence to replace an existing 2,118 square foot single family residence. 5. Access to the property from Packsaddle Road will remain the same. • • • ZONING CASE NO. 472 PAGE 2 6. Grading for the project will require 180 cubic yards of cut and 180 cubic yards of fill soil. 7. The structural lot coverage proposed is 6,326 square feet or 8.1% and the total lot coverage proposed is 11,930 square feet or 15.3%. 8. The building pad coverage proposed is 33.7%. • 9. The project has been determined to be categorically exempt pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council receive and file Resolution No. 92-12. RESOLUTION NO. 92-12 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH INTO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK TO RECONSTRUCT AND ADD TO AN EXISTING ATTACHED GARAGE, GRANTING A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH INTO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR A RETAINING WALL, AND GRANTING SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL FOR RECONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IN ZONING CASE NO. 472. THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Applications were duly filed by Dr. Paul M. Straub with respect to real property located at 7 Packsaddle Road East, Rolling Hills (Lot 27-SF) requesting: (1) a Variance to the front yard setback to reconstruct and add to an existing attached garage, (2) a Variance to encroach into the front yard setback for a retaining wall, and (3) Site Plan Review for reconstruction of' a single family residence to replace an existing single family residence. Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the application for a Variance and a Conditional Use Permit on December 17, 1991, January 21, 1992, February 1, 1992, February 18, 1992 and at a field trip on January 11, 1992. Section 3. The Planning Commission finds that the project is categorically exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to a Class 3 exemption provided by Section 15303 of the State CEQA Guidelines. Section 4. Sections 17.32.010 through 17.32.030 permit approval of a Variance from the standards and requirements of the Zoning Ordinance when exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applicable to the property and not applicable to other similar properties in the same zone prevent the owner from making use of a parcel of property to the same extent enjoyed by similar properties. A Variance to Section 17.16.060 is required to construct additions in the fifty (50) foot front yard setback. The applicant is requesting to make substantial additions to the existing garage which already encroaches 28 feet into the front yard setback. The Planning Commission finds: A. There are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances and conditions applicable to the property and the intended use that do not apply generally to the other property in the .same vicinity and zone. The Variance is necessary because the existing legal nonconforming residence was built within the front yard setback and the building pad is located close to the street and adjacent residences. The Variance is necessary so as to permit the use of this property to a similar extent as used on adjacent parcels. • • RESOLUTION NO. 92-12 PAGE 2 B. This Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone, but which is denied to the property in question. The Variance is necessary because the existing development pattern on the lot precludes the requested additions from being built into the rear yard. The building pad is located close to a cul-de-sac and adjacent residences. C. The proposed plans involve the reconstruction and addition of an existing 2-car garage into a 3-car garage. The existing 2-car garage encroaches 28 feet into the front yard setback. The structural additions will not occur in the setback. However, due to the fact that . these structural additions will substantially alter the size of the garage, it loses its nonconforming status and is required by law, to be brought into conformance with the Rolling Hills Municipal Code requirements. Therefore, a Variance is necessary to permit the continued encroachment of this garage structure into the front yard setback. However, the portion of the garage to be added will not occur in the front yard setback, and, this Variance will not permit any greater incursion than already exists. D. The granting of this Variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the 'property or improvements in the vicinity or zone in which the property is located. Development on the pad will allow a substantial portion of the lot to remain undeveloped. The existing development pattern on the lot and the sloping rear portion precludes construction towards that area on the lot. Section 5. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves the Variance to encroach into the front yard setback to a maximum of 28 feet as indicated on the Development Plan attached hereto as Exhibit A subject to the conditions contained in Section 11. Section 6. A Variance to Section 17.16.060 is requested to construct a 110 foot retaining wall that will not be more than 3 feet in height that will encroach up to a maximum of 30 feet into the front yard setback. With regard to this request, the Planning Commission makes the following findings: A. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances and conditions applicable to the property and the intended use that do not apply generally to the other property in the same vicinity and zone. The sloping topography of the subject site and the existing location of the driveway necessitate construction of a retaining wall within the front yard setback in order to support proposed hillside cuts and slopes. B. The Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone, but which is denied the property in question. The Variance is necessary because the proposed development pattern on the lot and the topography of' the site require a retaining wall. Construction of such wall in the front yard setback will create a safer accessway and will also improve the appearance of the existing driveway. • • • RESOLUTION NO. 92-12 PAGE 3 C. The granting of the Variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which the property is located. The Variance will help to improve the geologic stability of the slope and will not be visible to surrounding properties due to the distances between the driveway and other adjacent residences. Section 7. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves the Variance to encroach up to a maximum of 40 feet into the front yard setback to construct a retaining wall not to exceed 3 feet in height at any one point along the driveway as indicated on the Development Plan attached hereto as Exhibit A, subject to the conditions specified in Section 11 below. Section 8. Section 17.34.010 requires a development plan to be submitted for site plan review and approval before any building or structure may be constructed or any expansion, addition, alteration or repair to existing buildings may be made which involve changes to grading or an increase to the size of the building or structure by more than twenty-five percent (25%) in any thirty-six month period. Section 9. 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 structure complies with the General Plan requirement of low profile, low density residential development with sufficient open space between surrounding structures. The project conforms to Zoning Code setback and lot coverage requirements. The lot has a net square foot area of 77,892 square feet. The proposed residence (4,500 sq.ft.), garage (600 sq.ft.), a swimming pool (680 sq.ft.), a service yard (96 sq.ft.), and a stable (450 sq.ft.), will have 6,326 square feet which constitutes 8.1% of the lot which is within the maximum 20% structural lot coverage requirement. The total lot coverage including paved areas and driveway will be 11,930 square feet which equals 15.3% of the lot, which is within the 35% maximum overall lot coverage requirement. The proposed project is on a relatively large lot with most of the proposed additions located away from the road so as to reduce the visual impact of the development and is similar and compatible with several neighboring developments. B. The proposed development preserves and integrates into the site design, to the maximum extent feasible, existing natural topographic features of the lot including surrounding native vegetation. mature trees, drainage courses, and land forms (such as hillsides and knolls) and grading will be minimal to minimize building coverage on the building pad itself. C. The development plan follows natural contours of the site to minimize grading and the natural drainage courses will continue to the canyons at the rear of this lot. D. The development plan incorporates existing large trees and native vegetation to the maximum extent feasible and supplements it with landscaping that is compatible with and enhances the rural character of the community. • • • RESOLUTION NO. 92-12 PAGE 4 E. The development plan substantially preserves the natural and undeveloped state of the lot by minimizing building coverage because the new structures will not cause the structural and total lot coverage to be exceeded. Significant portions of the lot, will be left undeveloped so as to minimize the impact of development. F. The proposed development is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, the natural terrain and surrounding residences because as indicated in Paragraph A, lot coverage maximum will not be exceeded and the proposed project is of consistent scale with the neighborhood, thereby grading will be required only to restore the natural slope of the property. The ratio of the proposed structure to lot coverage is similar to the ratio found on several properties in the vicinity. The residence will be similar in size to existing homes on Packsaddle Road East. G. The proposed development is sensitive and not detrimental to convenience and safety of circulation for pedestrians and vehicles because the proposed project will utilize the existing vehicular access, thereby having no further impact on the roadway. H. The project conforms with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and is categorically exempt from environmental review. Section 10. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves the Site Plan Review for a proposed new single family residence as indicated on the Development Plan attached hereto as Exhibit A subject to the conditions contained in Section 11. Section 11. The Variance to the front yard setback approved in Sections 5, the Variance to the front yard setback for the retaining wall approved in Section 7, and the Site Plan Review for a proposed new residence approved in Section 11 as indicated on the Development Plan attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A, are subject to the following conditions: A. The Variance shall expire unless used within one year from the effective date of approval as defined in Section 17.32.110 of the Municipal Code. The Site Plan Review approval shall expire within one year from the effective date of approval as defined in Section 17.34.080.A. B. It is declared and made a condition of the Variance and the Site Plan Review approval, that if any conditions thereof are violated, the Permit shall be suspended and the privileges granted thereunder shall lapse; provided that the applicant has been given written notice to cease such violation and has failed to do so for a period of thirty (30) days. • • RESOLUTION NO. 92-12 PAGE 5 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 the Permit, or shown otherwise on an approved plan. D. The lot shall be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the site plan on file marked Exhibit A except as otherwise provided in these conditions. E. To minimize the building on the pad, the structures, driveway, graded slopes and retaining walls shall be screened and shielded from view with native drought -resistant vegetation that is compatible with the surrounding vegetation of the community. F. All retaining walls incorporated into the project shall not be greater than 3 feet in height. G. A landscape plan must be submitted to and approved by the City of Rolling Hills Planning Department staff prior to the issuance of any grading and building permit. The landscaping plan submitted must comply with the purpose and intent of the Site Plan Review Ordinance. shall incorporate, existing mature trees and native vegetation, and shall utilize to the maximum extent feasible, plants that are native to the area and/or consistent with the rural character of the community. A bond in the amount of the cost estimate of the implementation of the landscaping plan plus 15% shall be required to be posted prior to issuance of a grading and building permit and shall be retained with the City for not less than two years after landscape installation. The retained bond will be released by the City Manager after the City Manager determines that the landscaping was installed pursuant to the landscaping plan as approved, and that such landscaping is properly established and in good condition. H. Prior to the submittal of an applicable final grading plan to the County of Los Angeles for plan check, a detailed grading and drainage plan with related geology, soils and hydrology reports that conform 'to the development plan as approved by the Planning Commission must be submitted to the Rolling Hills Planning Department staff for their review. Cut and fill slopes must conform to the City of Rolling Hills standard of 2 to 1 slope ratio. I. The project must be reviewed and approved by the Rolling Hills Community Association Architectural Review Committee prior to the issuance of any building or grading permit. J. The building pad coverage shall not exceed 33.7%. • • • RESOLUTION NO. 92-12 PAGE 6 K. The applicant shall execute an Affidavit of Acceptance of all conditions of this Variance, pursuant to Section 17.32.087, or the approval shall not be effective. L. Conditions A. C, D. E, F. G. H. I. J. and K of this Variance and Site Plan Review approval must be complied with prior to the issuance of a building or grading permit from the County of Los Angeles. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 1992. EVIE HANK'N S, ACTING CHAIRMAN ATTEST: c�t� 44c l L Ca IANE SAWYER, DEPUTY CITY .CLERK The foregoing Resolution No. 92-9 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH INTO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK TO RECONSTRUCT AND ADD TO AN EXISTING ATTACHED GARAGE, GRANTING A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH INTO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR A RETAINING WALL, AND GRANTING SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL FOR RECONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IN ZONING CASE NO. 472. was approved and adopted at a regular adjourned meeting of the Planning Commission on February 18, 1992 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners I.,a'', Paine anri r,cting Chairman Fanrins NOES: None ABSENT: Chairman P.oberts ABSTAIN: Commissioner Frost &L f �/ 1/ \ h DEPUTY CITY CLERK l j J • • HEARING DATE: TO: FROM: APPLICATION NO. SITE LOCATION: ZONING & SIZE: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PUBLISHED: REQUEST C1iy 0/ leoefin9 _Afro FEBRUARY 18, 1992 PLANNING COMMISSION LOLA UNGAR. PRINCIPAL PLANNER INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (213) 377-1521 FAX: (213) 377.7288 ZONING CASE NO. 472 7 PACKSADDLE ROAD EAST (LOT 27-SF) RAS-1, 2.12 ACRES DR. PAUL M. STRAUB MR. DOUGLAS MCHATTIE, SOUTH BAY ENGINEERING DECEMBER 7, 1991 The applicant requests a Variance to permit the construction of a 3-car garage and room additions that will encroach into the front yard setback and the construction of a waterfall and pond within the front yard setback, requests a Variance to permit the construction of a waterfall that will encroach into the side yard setback, requests a Variance to permit the construction of' a retaining wall within the side yard setback, requests a Variance to permit the construction of a driveway that exceeds the maximum width, and requests Site Plan Review for the reconstruction of an existing single family residence. BACKGROUND 1. Staff reviewed revised plans that were submitted on January 21, 1992. The applicant has withdrawn requests for Variances for room additions that will encroach into the front yard setback, construction of a waterfall and pond within the front and side yard setbacks, a retaining wall in the side yard setback, and the construction of a driveway that exceeds the maximum width. 2. The applicant requests a Variance to permit the construction of a 3-car garage that will encroach up to 28 feet into the front yard setback. The existing garage is currently legal nonconforming. The applicant proposes the alteration of a 2-car garage to a 3-car garage. The applicant also requests a Variance to construct a 110 foot retaining wall that will not be more than 5 feet in height that will encroach up to a maximum of 30 feet into the front yard setback. 3. The applicant requests Site Plan Review for a proposed 4,500 square foot new single family residence to replace an existing 2,118 square foot single family residence. 4. Access to the property from Packsaddle Road will remain the same. 5. Grading for the project will require 180 cubic yards of cut and 180 cubic yards of fill soil. 6. The structural lot coverage proposed is 6,326 square feet or 8.1% and the total lot coverage proposed is 11,930 square feet or 15.3%. 48 • • ZONING CASE NO. 472 PAGE 2 7. The building pad coverage proposed is 33.7%. 8. The project has been determined to be categorically exempt pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission review the proposed plans and take public testimony. RESOLUTION NO. 92-12 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH INTO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR AN ATTACHED 3-CAR GARAGE, GRANTING A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH INTO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR A RETAINING WALL, AND GRANTING SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL FOR A PROPOSED NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IN ZONING CASE NO. 472. THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Applications were duly filed by Dr. Paul M. Straub with respect to real property located at 7 Packsaddle Road East, Rolling Hills (Lot 27-SF) requesting: (1) a Variance to the front yard setback to construct a 3-car garage and (2) Site Plan Review for a proposed new single family residence to replace an existing single family residence. Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the application for a Variance and a Conditional Use Permit on December 17. 1991. January 21. 1992. February 1. 1992. February 18, 1992 and at a field trip on January 11. 1992. Section 3. The Planning Commission finds that the project is categorically exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to a Class 3 exemption provided by Section 15303 of the State CEQA Guidelines. Section 4. Sections 17.32.010 through 17.32.030 permit approval of a Variance from the standards and requirements of the Zoning Ordinance when exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applicable to the property and not applicable to other similar properties in the same zone prevent the owner from making use of a parcel of property to the same extent enjoyed by similar properties. A Variance to Section 17.16.060 is required to construct additions in the fifty (50) foot front yard setback. The applicant is requesting a garage addition which will encroach 28 feet into the front yard setback. The Planning Commission finds: A. There are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances and conditions applicable to the property and the intended use that do not apply generally to the other property in the same vicinity and zone. The Variance is necessary because the existing legal nonconforming residence was built within the front yard setback and the building pad is located close to the street and adjacent residences. The Variance is necessary so as to permit the use of this property to a similar extent as used on adjacent parcels. RESOLUTION NO. 92-12 PAGE 2 B. This Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone, but which is denied to the property in question. The Variance is necessary because the existing development pattern on the lot precludes the requested additions from being built into the rear yard. The building pad is located close to a cul-de-sac and adjacent residences. The Variance will also not permit any greater incursion into the front yard than already exists. C. The granting of this Variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity or zone in which the property is located. Development on the pad will allow a substantial portion of the lot to remain undeveloped. The existing development pattern on the lot and the sloping rear portion precludes construction towards that area on the lot. Section 5. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves the Variance to encroach into the front yard setback to a maximum of 28 feet as indicated on the Development Plan attached hereto as Exhibit A subject to the conditions contained in Section 11. Section 6. A Variance to Section 17.16.060 is requested to construct a 110 foot retaining wall that will not be more than 5 feet in height that will encroach up to a maximum of 30 feet into the front yard setback. With regard to this request, the Planning Commission makes the following findings: A. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances and conditions applicable to the property and the intended use that do not apply generally to the other property in the same vicinity and zone. The sloping topography of the subject site and the existing location of the driveway necessitate construction of a retaining wall within the front yard setback in order to support proposed hillside cuts and slopes. B. The Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone, but which is denied the property in question. The Variance is necessary because the proposed development pattern on the lot and the topography of the site require a retaining wall. Construction of such wall in the front yard setback will create a safer accessway and will also improve the appearance of the existing driveway. C. The granting of' the Variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which the property is located. The Variance will help to improve the geologic stability of the slope and will not be visible to surrounding properties due to the distances between the driveway and other adjacent residences. RESOLUTION NO. 92-12 PAGE 3 Section 7. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves the Variance to encroach ' up to a maximum of 40 feet into the front yard setback to construct a retaining wall not to exceed 5 feet in height at any one. point along the driveway as indicated on the Development Plan attached hereto as Exhibit A, subject to the conditions specified in Section 11 below. Section 8. Section 17.34.010 requires a development plan to be submitted for site plan review and approval before any building or structure may be constructed or any expansion, addition, alteration or repair to existing buildings may be made which involve changes to grading or an increase to the size of the building or structure by more than twenty-five percent (25%) in any thirty-six month period. Section 9. 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 structure complies with the General Plan requirement of low profile, low density residential development with sufficient open space between surrounding structures. The project conforms to Zoning Code setback and lot coverage requirements. The lot has a net square foot area of 77,892 square feet. The proposed residence (4,500 sq.ft.), garage (600 sq.ft.), a swimming pool (680 sq.ft.), a service yard (96 sq.ft.), and a stable (450 sq.ft.), will have 6,326 square feet which constitutes 8.1% of the lot which is within the maximum 20% structural lot coverage requirement. The total lot coverage including paved areas and driveway will be 11,930 square feet which equals 15.3% of the lot, which is within the 35% maximum overall lot coverage requirement. The proposed project is on a relatively large lot with most of the proposed additions located away from the road so as to reduce the visual impact of the development and is similar and compatible with several neighboring developments. B. The proposed development preserves and integrates into the site design, to the maximum extent feasible, existing natural topographic features of the lot including surrounding native vegetation, mature trees, drainage courses, and land forms (such as hillsides and knolls) and grading will be minimal to minimize building coverage on the building pad itself. C. The development plan follows natural contours of the site to minimize grading and the natural drainage courses will continue to the canyons at the rear of this lot. D. The development plan incorporates existing large trees and native vegetation to the maximum extent feasible and supplements it with landscaping that is compatible with and enhances the rural character of the community. RESOLUTION NO. 92-12 PAGE 4 E. The development plan substantially preserves the natural and undeveloped state of the lot by minimizing building coverage because the new structures will not cause the structural and total lot coverage to be exceeded. Significant portions of the lot, will be left undeveloped so as to minimize the impact of development. F. The proposed development is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, the natural terrain and surrounding residences because as indicated in Paragraph A, lot coverage maximum will not be exceeded and the proposed project is of consistent scale with the neighborhood, thereby grading will be required only to restore the natural slope of the property. The ratio of the proposed structure to lot coverage is similar to the ratio found on several properties in the vicinity. The residence will be similar in size to existing homes on Packsaddle Road East. G. The proposed development is sensitive and not detrimental to convenience and safety of circulation for pedestrians and vehicles because the proposed project will utilize the existing vehicular access, thereby having no further impact on the roadway. H. The project conforms with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and is categorically exempt from environmental review. Section 10. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves the Site Plan Review for a proposed new single family residence as indicated on the Development Plan attached hereto as Exhibit A subject to the conditions contained in Section 11. Section 11. The Variance to the front yard setback approved in Sections 5, the Variance to the front yard setback for the retaining wall approved in Section 7, and the Site Plan Review for a proposed new residence approved in Section 11 as indicated on the Development Plan attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A, are subject to the following conditions: A. The Variance shall expire unless used within one year from the effective date of approval as defined in Section 17.32.110 of the Municipal Code. The Site Plan Review approval shall expire within one year from the effective date of approval as defined in Section 17.34.080.A. B. It is declared and made a condition of the Variance and the Site Plan Review approval, that if any conditions thereof are violated, the Permit shall be suspended and the privileges granted thereunder shall lapse; provided that the applicant has been given written notice to cease such violation and has failed to do so for a period of thirty (30) days. RESOLUTION NO. 92-12 PAGE 5 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 the Permit, or shown otherwise on an approved plan. D. The lot shall be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the site plan on file marked Exhibit A except as otherwise provided in these conditions. E. To minimize the building on the pad, the structures, driveway, graded slopes and retaining walls shall be screened and shielded from view with native drought -resistant vegetation that is compatible with the surrounding vegetation of the community. F. All retaining walls incorporated into the project shall not be greater than 5 feet in height. G. A landscape plan must be submitted to and approved by the City of Rolling Hills Planning Department staff prior to the issuance of any grading and building permit. The landscaping plan submitted must comply with the purpose and intent of the Site Plan Review Ordinance, shall incorporate existing mature trees and native vegetation, and shall utilize to the maximum extent feasible, plants that are native to the area and/or consistent with the rural character of the community. A bond in the amount of the cost estimate of the implementation of the landscaping plan plus 15% shall be required to be posted prior to issuance of a grading and building permit and shall be retained with the City for not less than two years after landscape installation. The retained bond will be released by the City Manager after the City Manager determines that the landscaping was installed pursuant to the landscaping plan as approved, and that such landscaping is properly established and in good condition. H. Prior to the submittal of an applicable final grading plan to the County of Los Angeles for plan check, a detailed grading and drainage plan with related geology, soils and hydrology reports that conform to the development plan as approved by the Planning Commission must be submitted to the Rolling Hills Planning Department staff for their review. Cut and fill slopes must conform to the City of Rolling Hills standard of' 2 to 1 slope ratio. I. The project must be reviewed and approved by the Rolling Hills Community Association Architectural Review Committee prior to the issuance of any building or grading permit. J. The building pad coverage shall not exceed 33.7%. RESOLUTION NO. 92-12 PAGE 6 K. The applicant shall execute an Affidavit of Acceptance of all conditions of this Variance, pursuant to Section 17.32.087, or the approval shall not be effective. L. Conditions A, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, and K of this Variance and Site Plan Review approval must he complied with prior to the issuance of a building or grading permit from the County of Los Angeles. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 1992. EVIE HANKINS. ACTING CHAIRMAN ATTEST: DIANE SAWYER. DEPUTY CITY CLERK The foregoing Resolution No. 92-9 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH INTO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR AN ATTACHED 3-CAR GARAGE AND GRANTING SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL FOR A PROPOSED NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IN ZONING CASE NO. 472. was approved and adopted at a regular adjourned meeting of the Planning Commission on February 18, 1992 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: DEPUTY CITY CLERK • Ciiy _AIL HEARING DATE: TO: FROM: APPLICATION NO. SITE LOCATION: ZONING & SIZE: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PUBLISHED: REQUEST INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (213) 377-1521 FAX: (213) 377-7288 DECEMBER 17, 1991 PLANNING COMMISSION LOLA UNGAR, PRINCIPAL PLANNER ZONING CASE NO. 472 7 PACKSADDLE ROAD EAST (LOT 27-SF) RAS-1, 2.12 ACRES DR. PAUL M. STRAUB MR. DOUGLAS MCHATTIE, SOUTH BAY ENGINEERING DECEMBER 7, 1991 The applicant requests a Variance to permit the construction of a 3-car garage and room additions that will encroach into the front yard setback and the construction of a waterfall and pond within the front yard setback, requests a Variance to permit the construction of a waterfall that will encroach into the side yard setback, requests a Variance to permit the construction of a retaining wall within the side yard setback, requests a Variance to permit the construction of a driveway that exceeds the maximum width, and requests Site Plan Review for the reconstruction of an existing single family residence. DISCUSSION In reviewing the applicant's request under Title 17 (Zoning), staff would identify the following issues for evaluation: 1. The applicant is requesting a Variance to permit the construction of a garage and room additions that will encroach up to 19 feet into the front yard setback. The existing residence encroaches up to 28 feet into the 50 foot front yard setback. Also proposed is a 2 foot high waterfall and an 18 inch deep pond encroaching up to 48 feet within the front yard setback and encroaching up to 10 feet into the side yard setback. (A County building permit would not be required for the waterfall and pond, just an electrical permit). A Variance will also be required for a new 3-foot high retaining wall encroaching up to 4 feet into the side yard setback. 2. The applicant also requests a Variance to permit the construction of a driveway that exceeds the maximum width of 15 feet. The existing accessway will be closed and a new driveway at the southeast off Packsaddle Road East is proposed. 4D ZONING CASE NO. 472 PAGE 2 3. In addition, the applicants request Site Plan Review to permit 2,582 square feet of additions to the residence and 250 square feet of additions to the garage which will then result in a 4,700 square foot residence and a 650 square foot garage. 4. The existing house and attached garage were built in 1952. A pool was added in 1958, and 588 square feet was added to the residence. 5. Grading will not be required for the project. 6. The structural lot coverage proposed is 6,639 square feet or 8.5% (20% permitted) and the total lot coverage proposed is 9,807 square feet or 12.6% (35% permitted). 7. The building pad coverage proposed is 46.9%. 8. The project has been determined to be categorically exempt pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission review the proposed plans and take public testimony.