Loading...
474A, Construct a detached 3-car gar, Resolutions & Approval ConditionsRESOLUTION NO. 93-13 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DENYING A REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT A DETACHED GARAGE AFTER A REHEARING BY THE COMMISSION IN ZONING CASE NO. 474A. THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. An application was duly filed by Mr. and Mrs. Moon Kim with respect to real property located at 73 Crest Road East, Rolling Hills (Lot 69-E-2-MS), requesting a Conditional Use Permit to construct a detached garage and to convert an existing attached garage to residential living space. Section 2. In February, 1992, application was made for a Conditional Use Permit to construct a detached garage, convert an existing attached garage to residential living space, and increase the size of the existing building pad. On November 17, 1992, the project was denied by the Planning Commission for the applicants to construct a 650 square foot detached garage, convert an existing 740 square foot attached garage to residential living space, and increase the size of the existing building pad by 1,205 square feet. The applicants appealed the decision to the City Council on January 25, 1993. At the hearing, the applicants asked to modify the project and the Council referred the case back to the Planning Commission. Section 3. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to reconsider the application for the Conditional Use Permit on February 16, 1993. Evidence was heard and presented from all persons interested in affecting said proposal, from all persons protesting the same, and from members of the City staff and the Planning Commission having reviewed, analyzed and studied said proposal. Section 4. 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 5. The applicant has submitted plans for the construction of a 600 square foot garage and the conversion of a 740 square foot garage to residential living space as shown in Exhibit A. Section 17.16.012.K of the Municipal Code provides for the discretion of the Planning Commission to grant a Conditional Use Permit for a detached garage under certain conditions. RESOLUTION NO. 93-13 PAGE 2 Section 6. With respect to the request for a Conditional Use Permit for a detached garage, the Planning Commission makes the following findings: A. The project proposed is a 600 square foot detached garage, the conversion of a 740 square foot attached garage to residential living space, and a future 450 square foot stable. The residential area proposed is 5,043 square feet. The structural lot coverage proposed is 5,643 square feet or 5.2% and the total lot coverage proposed is 12,371 square feet or 11.4%. The building pad coverage proposed is 33.6%. B. The granting of the request for the Conditional Use Permit would not be consistent with the purposes and objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan. The garage would be located at the easternmost portion of the building pad, 35 feet from the east setback line, 67 feet from the front easement line, and 112 feet from the residence, thereby creating a prominent large structural improvement on this hillside lot, which is not compatible with the General Plan goals of maintaining low -profile residential development patterns in the community. C. The proposed project would not be desirable to the public convenience and welfare because the project causes overdevelopment of the building pad. The proposed project would create a building pad coverage of 33.6%. This is a higher building pad coverage than appropriate under the existing development pattern of the City. This overdevelopment of the building pad leaves little open space. It also makes the garage structure more visually prominent than appropriate under the development pattern of the City. Section 7. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby denies the request for a Conditional Use Permit approval for the construction of a detached garage in Zoning Case No. 474A. PASSED,APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS DAY OF MARCH, 1993. ALLAN ROBERTS, CHAIRMAN ATTEST: MARILYN KERN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK RESOLUTION NO. 93-13 PAGE 3 The foregoing Resolution No. 93-13 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DENYING A REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT A DETACHED GARAGE AFTER A REHEARING BY THE COMMISSION IN ZONING CASE NO. 474A. was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on March 16, 1993 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Commissioners Frost, Hankins, Raine and Chairman Roberts Commissioner Lay h-J.cvu-- k DEPUTY CIT CLERK • RESOLUTION NO. 92-31- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DENYING A REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPROVAL. TO CONSTRUCT A DETACHED GARAGE IN ZONING CASE NO. 474. THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. An application was duly filed by Mr. and Mrs. Moon Kim with respect to real property located at 73 Crest Road East, Rolling Hills (Lot 69-E-2-MS), requesting a Conditional Use Permit to construct a detached garage, convert an existing attached garage to residential living space, and increase the size of the existing building pad. Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the application for the Conditional Use Permit on April 20, 1992, May 19, 1992, June 16, 1992, July 31, 1992, August 18, 1992, September 15, 19924 October 20, 1992, and November 17, 1992, and at a field trip visit on September 3, 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. The applicant has submitted plans for the construction of a 650 square foot garage and the conversion of a 740 square foot garage to residential living space as shown in Exhibit A. Section 17.16.012.K of the Municipal Code provides for the discretion of the Planning Commission to grant a Conditional Use Permit for a detached garage under certain conditions.. Section 5. With respect to the request for a Conditional Use Permit for a detached garage, the Planning Commission makes the following findings: A. The project proposed is a 650 square foot detached garage, the conversion of a 740 square foot attached garage to residential living space, and a future 450 square foot stable. The residential area proposed is 5,043 square feet. The structural lot coverage proposed is 6,143 square feet or 5.7% and the total lot coverage proposed is 13,576 square feet or 12.6%. The building pad coverage proposed is 31.98%. B. The granting of the request for the Conditional Use Permit would not be consistent with the purposes and objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan. The garage would be located at the easternmost portion of the building pad, 20 feet from the east setback line, 29 feet from the front easement line, and 133 feet from the residence, thereby creating a prominent large structural improvement on this hillside lot, which is not compatible with the • RESOLUTION NO. 92-31 PAGE 2 General Plan goals of • maintaining low -profile residential development patterns in the community. C. The proposed project would not be desirable to the public convenience and welfare because the project causes overdevelopment of the building pad. The proposed project would create a building pad coverage of 31.98%. This is a higher building pad coverage than appropriate under the existing development pattern of the City. This overdevelopment of the building pad leaves little open space. It also makes the garage structure more visually prominent than appropriate under the development pattern of the City. D. The project would not be consistent with the General Plan requirement to maintain strict. grading practices to preserve the community's natural terrain. The proposed project requires a cut of 185 cubic yards and a fill of 185 cubic yards. There is evidence that drainage problems could occur if there is further disruption of large expanses of soil for grading and more overcovering of property with non -porous surfaces. The lot has already been graded for a building pad and the additional grading proposed is not necessary for development of a garage structure and extension of the building pad which would create a further detrimental visual impact due to the prominence and unique location of the site. For these reasons, the proposed development is not harmonious in scale and mass with the site, the naturalterrain and surrounding residences. As previously indicated, the building pad coverage is excessive. Section 6. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby denies the request for a Conditional Use Permit approval for the construction of a detached garage in Zoning Case No. 474. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THISDj OF DECEMBER, 1992. ALLAN ROBERTS, CHAIRMAN ATTEST: MARILYN KER , DEPUTY CITY CLERK • • RESOLUTION NO. 92-31 PAGE 3 The foregoing Resolution No. 92-31 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DENYING A REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT A DETACHED GARAGE IN ZONING CASE NO. 474. was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on December 15, 1992 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Commissioners Frost, Hankins, Lay, Raine and Chairman Roberts None None None 1'� t LAJI h fv► DEPUTY CITY CLERK OCEM 71 Crest Road East Rolling Hills, CA 90274 OCT 2 01992 October 20, 1992 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS To: Planning Commission, City of Rolling Hills From: A. E. Esser Re: Any subsequent revisions of Zoning Case 474 at 73 Crest Road East Honorable Chairman, Commissioners: I regret I was not able to attend tonight's meeting, but have taken Lola's suggestion to write as the next best choice. All 4 uphill neighbors (including vacant lot owner) plus 2 nearby long-term residents still insist on the total mass of the existing cut bank between 71 and 73 Crest be maintained unaltered for their overall support, as presented in writing at the September 15th public hearing.(1) In spite of what many other professional people may claim, to suit their particular job's space require- ments, most building codes encourage, and common engi- neering practice dictates, that most support is obtained from the total mass of natural undisturbed ground, cut to specified slopes, that are properly toed at the base, as was done with this bank. After proven, stable perfor- mance this past decade(1), that toe base should peyer be disturbed, to insure continued minimal risk of maximum support. Before my retirement, this had been our first preference at Parsons Corp., given adequate topography, and esnecially in areas of critical stability history, such as our southern slope of the Palos Verdes Peninsula. This conservative practice has been successful on local, national, and world-wide Parsons projects ranging.in size from relatively small to mega projects, costing billions of dollars, and requiring decades to complete. The only reason the mass of this cut bank was ever reduced, in the original subdivision design was to give 73 Crest the necessary driveway access to the existing attached garage and shop. Ho other reasons, such. as 'furnishing dirt to expand the existing building pad, or backfillinq behind any new retainina walls should be approved or tolerated. -1- • • If the Kims have more than the minimum quarter acre pad, fine! But stay away from the toe of this cut bank, except for the county specified planting of ground cover and its maintenance. To some extent, we are asking the Planning Commis- sion to make a iudaement call on our southern water shed, based upon, what can sometimes be, an inexact science. My lifetime experience, both in residential construction and at work, would dictate denial of this application as the safest course for our City to follow. Rather than circumstantial evidence, this opinion is based upon the following landslide damaae already sustained by the southern part of our City during the last decade(2): (a) 7 residences destroyed. (b) 6 residences severely damaged, annual repair $100,000. (c) 23 residences placed on eye beam foundation piers with hydraulic jacks. (d) Annual road repair $50,000. (e) Value of property destroyed $3,400,000. (f) Damages $1,000,000. (g) 23 - 2 acre lots abandoned. (h) 4 - 2 acre lots stand vacant. Again, thanks for your consideration of this important item. Very truly yours, eA,„„ Reinette Esser/A. E. Esser cc: Nancy & Bill Lennartz Ann & Bill Stringfellow Joe McLaughlin Fred & Lucille Ripley Emily & Leo Schleissner References: (1) AEE/RE to Rolling Hills Planning Commission 9/15/92, 5 pages. (2) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers L.A. District, Rancho Palos Verdes & Rolling Hills Calif. Reconnaissance Study, Final Report - May 1992, page 17 -2-