Loading...
798, Fireplace addition to SFR, Resolutions & Approval ConditionsThis page is part of your document - DO NOT DISCARD II i i 20110349100 i II i 1111 III III i i i 0 1111 Recorded/Fi ed In Offc al Records Recorder's Offce, Los Angeles County, California 0000385006 iu u 003196088 SEQ: 01 03/07/11 AT 04:23PM IIi DAR - Mail (Hard Copy) III 111111111 II III III IIIIIIH II IIIIllhIIII IlI IIIII mimio1i11111iouiimmium11mimiu1iimmmi THIS FORM IS NOT TO BE DUPLICATED P0009 FEES: 39.00 TAXES: 0.00 OTHER: 0.00 PAID: 39.00 i £330907 c' • • Name typed or printe1 RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND MAIL TO: CITY OF ROLLING HILLS PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2 PORTUGUESE BEND RD. ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310) 377-1521 (310) 377-7288 FAX 13/ 17/2011 *2011034;100* T RECORDER'S USE ONLY THE REGISTRAR -RECORDER'S OFFICE REQUIRES THAT THE FORM BE NOTARIZED BEFORE RECORDATION. AFFIDAVIT OF ACCEPTANCE FORM STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§ CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ZONING CASE NO. 798 XX SITE PLAN REVIEW XX VARIANCE I (We) the undersigned state am (We are) the owner(s) of the real property described as follows: 16 CREST ROAD WEST, ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (LOT 74-A-MS) This property is the subject of the above numbered case and conditions of approval I am (We are) aware of, and accept, all the stated conditions in said ZONING CASE NO. 798 XX SITE PLAN REVIEW XX VARIANCE I (Wg)'c (cy- eclare) under the penalty of perjury that the for goi) is true and c4trect. Signature / n) Sig ) Ro l-c r f Svc. c I h o u/_j.. h Ju %� e. Al � b trf ,// Name typed or printed! L Crt_c+ 1`-d v./L (d'c-34 ti6L W Address �/ n R 6 Outs 1-1 (tic (4 �L� 1 1`o it tit 14-, (ft, ('H 1 N Z7-y City/State ` City/State J Address • • Signatures must be acknowledged by a notary public. See Attached Exhibit "A", RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL NO. 2010-29 State of California ) County of Los Angeles ) On 7d1.c eA,� ! 4' as « before me, Z / SAP: loll z Personally appeared 2Dgee2F- Ase,e6 e u r_ J / A-6.e /f-Fo cJ( who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) jai are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that-hef-she/ they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies) and that by his/ her /their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS by hand and official seal. 1 `'' 9MNMIyyyyyy��y�yti Signature of Notary ,.0 n-v►a/rt.�,c�-,.•�. ( Seal) IBRUNO SARTINI COMM. /S1889753 NOTARY PUBLIC • CALIFORNIA LOSANGELES COUNTY Commission Expires MAY 17, 2014 • • EkHi6ir A RESOLUTION NO. 2010-29 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR ADDITION TO THE RESIDENCE TO CONSTRUCT A FIRE PLACE ON A LOT THAT CONTAINS A CONDITION THAT ANY FURTHER DEVELOPMENT BE REVIEWED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND A VARIANCE TO EXCEED THE STRUCTURAL LOT COVERAGE ON A LOT DEVELOPED WITH A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURES IN ZONING CASE NO. 798, AT 16 CREST ROAD WEST, (LOT 74-A-MS), (NAGELHOUT). THE PROJECT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE EXEMPT PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA). Section 1. An application was duly filed by Mr. and Mrs. Robert Nagelhout with respect to real property located at 16 Crest Road West, Rolling Hills (Lot 74-A-MS) requesting a Site Plan Review to construct a 32 square foot fire place, which would increase the footprint of the residence by that amount on a lot with condition that any further development be submitted to the Planning Commission for review and approval and a Variance to exceed the maximum permitted structural lot coverage by 0.74%. Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted duly noticed public hearings to consider the application at a regular meeting on November 16 and at a field trip to the property on November 16, 2010. The applicants were notified of the public hearings in writing by first class mail. Evidence was heard and presented from all persons interested in affecting said proposal and from members of the City staff and the Planning Commission having reviewed, analyzed and studied said proposal. The applicant and his representative were in attendance at the hearings. Section 3. In March 1991 in Zoning Case No. 438, the Planning Commission granted to the previous property owner a Site Plan Review for the construction of a new 7,742 square foot single family residence with a 1600 square foot semi -subterranean garage, a 630 square foot swimming pool, pool equipment a 4,108 square foot basement and a Variance to construct a 5- foot wall in the front yard setback. A request for a CUP for a cabana was denied at that time. A 1,000 square foot set aside area for a future stable and corral was also designated on the plan. The then existing house was demolished. With the 1991 proposal it was not required to call out the porches, trellises or other architectural elements on the plans or include them in the calculations. Section 4. In March 1999 in Zoning Case No. 593, the Planning Commission approved a Conditional Use Permit and a Site Plan Review for a 7,000 square foot tennis court on the property with 8-foot fencing, and in March 2003, the Planning Commission granted a modification to allow a 10-foot screening (4' wall and 6' court fencing). In January of 2010 the Planning Commission granted a Site Plan approval for an outdoor kitchen, outdoor fireplace and gazebo, and Variances to exceed the structural lot coverage by 0.7% and to allow the fireplace to be taller than permitted by code. ZC NO. 798 Reso. 2010-29 1 • • Section 5. No grading or additional disturbance is required for this project. A set aside area for a future stable and corral remains on the lot. The disturbed area of the lot is 34,239 square feet or 38.6% and will remain the same. An adequate access to the future stable is provided. Section 6. The lot is 2.32 acres or 101,240 square feet gross (excluding the roadway easement) and 88,674 square feet net for development purposes. With the adjusted calculations for including the entryway and the on -grade covered porch in the calculations, the structural coverage of the net lot is proposed at 20.74%, which requires a Variance. Section 7. The Planning Commission finds that the project qualifies as a Class 1 Exemption, Existing Facilities, and is therefore categorically exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act. Section 8. Sections 17.38.010 through 17.38.050 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code 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 in the same vicinity. A Variance from Section 17.16.070 is required because it states the maximum permitted structural coverage shall not exceed 20% of the net lot area. The applicant is requesting a Variance to exceed the structural net lot coverage by 0.74%, which is 0.04% greater than the Variance approved in 2009. With respect to this request for a Variance, the Planning Commission finds as follows: A. There are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances and conditions applicable to the property that do not apply generally to the other properties or class of use in the same vicinity and zone. With the 1999 and 1991 approvals it was not necessary to show on the plans or include in the structural coverage calculations for the porches. With the additional porches, the maximum permitted structural coverage would exceed 20%. These circumstances currently exist and the proposed project adds a very small amount of structural coverage. 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 to the property in question. The fireplace would add to amenities of the residence. The family room is very small and a basement is located beneath the family. It would be infeasible to place the fireplace inside the house due to construction constraints. The structure is well hidden from the street and neighbors and does not look overbuilt. The proposed 32 sq.ft. addition would blend into the existing residence and be well screened from the street and adjacent properties. The overage is not significant and the property owner should not be denied the privilege of the fireplace. C. The granting of the Variance would not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the property is located. The variance will permit the owners to enjoy their property without deleterious infringement on the rights of surrounding property owners. A minor increase in the overall percentage of coverage on the lot will have no effect on the public welfare or on property or improvements in the vicinity. ZC NO.798 Reso. 2010-29 2 te D. In granting the variance, the spirit and intent of the Zoning Ordinance will be observed. The purpose of the Zoning Ordinance is to regulate development in an orderly fashion and in a manner consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan. Approval of the variance will not impede any goals of the Zoning Ordinance or the General Plan. Rather, the variance will allow the property owner to enjoy the same rights and privileges afforded to other property owners in the vicinity. The overage requested is not substantial and does not undermine the spirit or intent of the Zoning Ordinance. E. The variance does not grant special privileges to the applicant. Unique circumstances applicable to the subject property make it infeasible for the property owner to comply with Section 17.16.070. When the previous approvals were granted for the residence and the tennis court, no calculations were required for the porches to show that structures do or do not meet the structural lot coverage requirements. F. The project conforms to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and the Los Angeles County Hazardous Waste Management Plan. Section 9. Pursuant to Section 17.46.040 the Planning Commission may condition an approval to require site plan review for any future construction on the property, regardless of whether site plan review would ordinarily be applicable to such construction. With respect to the Site Plan Review application due to the restriction placed on this property in 1999 and 2009 by the Planning Commission on any future development on subject property, the Planning Commission makes the following findings of fact: A. The proposed development is compatible with the General Plan, and surrounding uses because the proposed project complies with the General Plan requirement of low profile, low -density residential development with sufficient open space between surrounding structures, and equestrian uses. The project will not require grading nor exceed the disturbed area of the lot. B. The project substantially preserves the natural and undeveloped state of the lot. The proposed structures will be constructed on existing building pads. The project is of sufficient distance from nearby residences so that the fireplace will not impact the view or privacy of surrounding neighbors, and will permit the owners to enjoy their property without deleterious infringement on the rights of surrounding property owners. C. The proposed development, as conditioned, is harmonious in scale and mass with the site. The proposed project is consistent with the scale of the neighborhood when compared to properties in the vicinity. D. The project will not cause the lot to look overdeveloped. Significant portions of the lot will be left undeveloped so as to maintain open space. E. The proposed development is sensitive and not detrimental to the convenience and safety of circulation for pedestrians and vehicles because the proposed project will not change the existing circulation pattern and will utilize an existing driveway. ZC NO. 798 Reso. 2010-29 3 • 1-• Section 10. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves the Site Plan Review and Variance in Zoning Case No. 798, to add a 32 sq.ft. to the footprint of the existing residence for a fireplace and to exceed the structural lot coverage by 0.74% subject to the following conditions: A. The Site Plan Review and Variances approvals shall expire within two years from the effective date of approval if construction pursuant to this approval has not commenced within that time period, as required by Sections 17.46.080(A) and 17.38.070(A) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, or the approval granted is otherwise extended pursuant to the requirements of these sections. B. It is declared and made a condition of the approval, that if any conditions thereof are violated, this approval shall be suspended and the privileges granted hereunder shall lapse; provided that the applicants have been given written notice to cease such violation, the opportunity for a hearing has been provided, and if requested, has been held, and thereafter the applicant fails to correct the violation within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of the City's determination. C. All requirements of the Building and Construction Ordinance, the Zoning Ordinance, and of the zone in which the subject property is located must be complied with unless otherwise set forth in this approval, or shown otherwise on an approved plan. D. The lot shall be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the site plan on file in the Planning Department dated November 02, 2010, as approved by the Planning Commission. E. The working drawings submitted to the Department of Building and Safety for plan check review must conform to the development plan approved with this application. In addition, prior to submittal of final plans to the Building Department for issuance of building permit, the plans for the project shall be submitted to staff for verification that the final plans are in compliance with the plans approved by the Planning Commission. F. The property on which the project is located shall contain a set aside area to provide an area meeting all standards for a stable, corral with access thereto. G. There shall be no grading for this project. The disturbed area of the lot shall remain at 38.6%, as previously approved. H. Structural lot coverage shall not exceed 20.74% (18,375 sq.ft.) of the net lot area in conformance with the Variance for lot coverage. I. Total lot coverage of structures and paved areas shall not exceed 29,903 square feet or 33.72% of the net lot area in conformance with lot coverage limitations. J. The property owners shall comply with the requirements of the Lighting Ordinance, pertaining to lighting on said property. ZC NO. 798 Reso. 2010-29 4 • • • • K. The property owners shall comply with the roof covering requirements. L. Residential building pad shall not exceed 61.7%, not including the covered porch and miscellaneous structures. M. During and after construction, all parking shall take place on the project site and, if necessary, any overflow parking shall take place within nearby roadway easements. N. The project must be reviewed and approved by the Rolling Hills Community Association. O. During construction, the property owners shall be required to schedule and regulate construction and related traffic noise throughout the day between the hours of 7 AM and 6 PM, Monday through Saturday only, when construction and mechanical equipment noise is permitted, so as not to interfere with the quiet residential environment of the City of Rolling Hills. P. Notwithstanding Sections 17.46.020 and 17.46.070 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, any future grading or structural development on the property may be approved with Planning Commission review and approval. Q. All conditions of previous approvals on this property and Resolutions pertainint thereto shall be in full force and effect and are not negated by this approval. R. The applicant shall execute an Affidavit of Acceptance of all conditions of this approval pursuant to Section 17.38.060, or the approval shall not be effective. S. All conditions of the Variance and Site Plan approval, that apply, must be complied with prior to the issuance of a building permit from the Building Department. T. Any action challenging the final decision of the city made as a result of the public hearing on this application must be filed within the time limits set forth in Section 17.54.070 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code and Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6. U. A minimum of 50% of the demolition and construction material must be recycled or diverted from landfills pursuant to the City's Construction and Demolition Ordinance. V. The conditions of approval specified herein shall be printed on the plans submitted to RHCA and to Building and Safety Department for plan check and on all subsequent plans. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 21St DAY of December 2010. ATTEST: Oatt HEIDI LUCE, DEPUTY CITY CLERK ZC NO.798 Reso. 2010-29 5 L v 1, . SMITH, CHAIRPERSON STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§ CITY OF ROLLING HILLS) ' • I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2010-29 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR ADDITION TO THE RESIDENCE TO CONSTRUCT A FIRE PLACE ON A LOT THAT CONTAINS A CONDITION THAT ANY FURTHER DEVELOPMENT BE REVIEWED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND A VARIANCE TO EXCEED THE STRUCTURAL LOT COVERAGE ON A LOT DEVELOPED WITH A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURES IN ZONING CASE NO. 798, AT 16 CREST ROAD WEST, (LOT 74-A-MS), (NAGELHOUT). THE PROJECT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE EXEMPT PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA). was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on December 21, 2010 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Chelf, DeRoy, Pieper and Chairperson Smith. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Henke (recused). ABSTAIN: None. and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following: Administrative Offices. ZC NO. 798 Reso. 2010-29 cikike6 DEPUTY CITY CLERK 6 • RECEIVED MAR 16 2011 City of Rolling Hills By • • eirey 06 Rae, qt.& DATE: JANUARY 10, 2011 TO: INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX (310) 377-7288 Agenda Item No. 4A Mtg. Date: 01-10-11 HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR THROUGH: ANTON DAHLERBRUCH, CITY MANAGER p SUBJECT: RESOLUTION NO. 2010-29. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR ADDITION TO THE RESIDENCE TO CONSTRUCT 'A FIRE PLACE ON A LOT THAT CONTAINS A CONDITION THAT ANY FURTHER DEVELOPMENT BE REVIEWED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND A VARIANCE TO EXCEED THE STRUCTURAL LOT COVERAGE ON A LOT DEVELOPED WITH A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURES IN ZONING CASE NO. 798, AT 16 CREST ROAD WEST, (LOT 74-A- MS), (NAGELHOUT). THE PROJECT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE EXEMPT PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA). RECOMMENDATION 1. It is recommended that the City Council receive and file this report or provide other direction to staff. REQUEST AND PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION 2. The property owners requested a Site Plan Review to construct a 32 square foot fire place on a lot that contains a condition that any further development must be reviewed by the Planning Commission and a Variance to exceed the maximum permitted structural coverage. The property is developed with a single family residence and accessory structures. The Planning Commission approved the project by a 4-1 vote. Commissioner Henke abstained, due to proximity of his property to subject site. The Commission approved this ZC NO. 798 . project with standard findings of facts and conditions of approval and with the following additional conditions: • That any further development on the lot may be permitted with Planning Commission review • All conditions of previous approvals on this property shall be in full force and effect and are not negated by this approval BACKGROUND 3. In December 2009, the Planning Commission approved a Site Plan and a Variance to enlarge a 465 square foot covered porch over the garage by 750 square feet and construct a 400 square foot detached trellis, 38 square foot fire place and 138 square foot outdoor kitchen. The Variance was for exceedance of the maximum permitted structural coverage by 0.7%. With the current proposal to construct a 32 sq.ft. fire place the maximum permitted structural coverage (20% max.), would exceed by 0.74% 4. In March 1991 in Zoning Case No. 438, the Planning Commission granted to the previous property owner a Site Plan Review for the construction of a new 7,742 square foot single family residence with a 1600 square foot semi -subterranean garage, a 630 square foot swimming pool, pool equipment a 4,108 square foot basement and a Variance to construct a 5-foot wall in the front yard setback. A request for a CUP for a cabana was denied at that time. A 1,000 square foot set 'aside area for a future stable and corral was also designated on the plan. The then existing house was demolished. With the 1991 proposal it was not required to call out the porches, trellises or other architectural elements on the plans or include them in the calculations. 5. In March 1999 in Zoning Case No. 593, the Planning Commission approved a Conditional Use Permit and a Site Plan Review for a 7,000 square foot tennis court on the property. Although there wasn't a provision for height of tennis court fence in the Zoning Ordinance, the Commission placed a condition that together with the 4' block wall for the tennis court the total height of fencing may not exceed 8 feet. Prior to finaling the project staff noticed posts for the fence at 10 feet and required that the applicant request permission from the Planning Commission for a 10-foot fence. In March 2003, the Planning Commission granted a modification to allow a 10-foot screening (4' wall and 6' court fencing). 6. With the residence a 465 square foot covered porch over the garage was constructed. Also constructed was a 555 square foot entryway and 220 square foot on grade covered porch. At that time it was not required to show or calculate those structures for coverage purposes. Not including the porches the structural coverage approved was 19.75%, (which included the tennis court); the total coverage including the structures and flatwork was approved at 33.75 and the disturbed area at 38.6%. 7. Currently subterranean or semi -subterranean garages are not permitted. ZC NO. 798 16 Crest Rd. W. • • MUNICIPAL CODE COMPLIANCE 8. The applicant proposes to add 32 square feet to the footprint of the 7,742 square foot residence to construct a fireplace that would protrude from the family room. 9. No grading or additional disturbance is required for this project. A set aside area for a future stable and corral remains on the lot. The disturbed area of the lot is 34,239 square feet or 38.6% and will remain the same. An adequate access to the future stable is provided. 10. The lot is 2.32 acres or 101,240 square feet gross (excluding the roadway easement) and 88,674 square feet net for development purposes. With the 32 square foot addition, the structural coverage of the net lot is proposed at 20.74%, which requires a Variance, (currently 20.7%). The total coverage (structures and flatwork) is proposed at 33.72%, which is within the 35% maximum permitted, (currently 33.68%). The detached trellis. of 400 sq.ft. is not included in these calculations. 11. In response for justification for the Variance request for exceeding the structural coverage the applicant's agent states that the family room, where the fireplace is proposed, does not have a fireplace and it is not feasible to construct within the foot print of the residence because of the basement configuration below. It would be extremely expensive and impractical to construct a fireplace above the basement area. 12. There are two building pads on the lot. The residential building pad coverage will be at 61.7%, (currently 61.5%) and the tennis court pad coverage will remain at 81.87%, which was previously approved. 13. The project has been determined to be categorically exempt pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). CONCLUSION 14. The increase in the structural coverage and the total coverage are minimal, however a Variance is required for the structural coverage. The structural coverage will increase from 20.7% to 20.74% and the total coverage will increase from 33.68% to 33.72%. No changes are proposed to the disturbance of the lot. 15. The lot is mostly developed and the addition is miscellaneous in nature, however, it adds to the massing of the structures on the lot and exceeds the maximum permitted coverage. 16. When reviewing a site plan review application the Planning Commission considers the required findings including whether the proposed project is consistent with the City's General Plan; incorporates environmentally and aesthetically sensitive ZC NO. 798 16 Crest Rd. W. • • 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. In considering the request for Variances, the Commission considered the criteria for granting of a Variance. 18. The project provides for construction of a future stable, corral and access. OTHER AGENCIES REVIEW 19. The Rolling Hills Community Association Architectural Committee approved this project. ZONING CASE NO. 798 SITE PLAN REVIEW RA-S-2 ZONE SETBACKS Front: 50 ft. from front easement line Side: 35 ft. from property line Rear: 50 ft. from property line STRUCTURES (Site Plan Review required if size of structure increases by at least 1,000 sq. ft. and has the effect of increasing the size of the structure by more than 25% in a 36-month period). STRUCTURAL LOT COVERAGE (20% maximum) TOTAL LOT COVERAGE (35% maximum) BUILDING PAD COVERAGE RESIDENTIAL COVERAGE (30% max) TENNIS COURT ZC NO. 798 16 Crest Rd. W. EXISTING Single family residence and accessory structures Residence Porch Garage Entry Stable -future Service yd Pool Pool equip. Det.Trellis Bbq/fire place Outdoor kitchen Tennis Court Basement TOTAL 20.7% (w/allowances) 33.68% 7422 sq.ft. 220 sq.ft. 1600 sq.ft. 555 sq.ft. 450 sq.ft. 96 sq.ft. 630 sq.ft. 50 sq.ft. 400 sq.ft. 38 sq.ft. 138 sq.ft. 7000 sq.ft. 4108 sq.ft. 18,343 sq.ft 61.5% (w/allowances) 81.87% of 8,550 sq.ft. pad PROPOSED Minor addition that requires a Variance. Residence Porch Garage Entry Stable -future Service Yd. Pool Pool eq. Det.Trellis Bbq/fire place Outdoor Kitchen Tennis court 7000 sq.ft. Basement 4108 sq.ft. TOTAL 18,375 sq.ft 20.74% w/allowances of 88,678 sq.ft. net lot area 7454 sq.ft 220 sq.ft. 1600 sq.ft 555 sq.ft. 450 sq.ft. 96 sq.ft 630 sq.ft. 50 sq.ft. 400 sq.ft. 385 sq.ft. 138 sq.ft. 33.72% w/allowance of 88,678 sq.ft. net lot area 61.7% w/allowances of the 16,451 sq.ft. residential building pad 81.87% of the 8,550 sq.ft. pad GRADING N/A Site plan review required if excavation and/or fill or combination thereof is more than 3 feet in depth and covers more than 2,000 sq. ft.,/balanced on site. DISTURBED AREA 38.6% (40% maximum; STABLE (minimum 450 sa. ft.) a Future CORRAL (minimum 550 sa. ft.) STABLE ACCESS ACCESSWAY VIEWS PLANTS AND ANIMALS Future Existing from Crest Road W. N/A N/A SITE PLAN REVIEW CRITERIA None 38.6% including future stable Future Future Existing from Crest Rd. W. Planning Commission condition Planning Commission condition 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); ZC NO. 798 16 Crest Rd. W. • • 5. Grading has been designed to follow natural contours of the site and to . minimize the amount of grading required to create the building area; 6. Grading will not modify existing drainage channels nor redirect drainage flow, unless such flow is redirected into an existing drainage course; 7. The project preserves surrounding native vegetation and mature trees and supplements these elements with drought -tolerant landscaping which is compatible with and enhances the rural character of the community, and landscaping provides a buffer or transition area between private and public areas; 8. The project is sensitive and not detrimental to the convenient and safe movement of pedestrians and vehicles; and 9. The project conforms to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. CRITERIA FOR VARIANCES 17.38.050 Required findings. In granting a variance, the Commission (and Council on appeal) must make the following findings: A. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same vicinity and zone; B. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights possessed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone but which is denied the property in question; C. That the granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; D. That in granting the variance, the spirit and intent of this title will be observed; E. That the variance does not grant special privilege to the applicant; F. That the variance is consistent with the portions of the County of Los Angeles Hazardous Waste Management Plan relating to siting and siting criteria for hazardous waste facilities; and G. That the variance request is consistent with the general plan of the City of Rolling Hills. SOURCE: City of Rolling Hills Zoning Ordinance ZC NO. 798 16 Crest Rd. W. • • RESOLUTION NO. 2010-29 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR ADDITION TO THE RESIDENCE TO CONSTRUCT A FIRE PLACE ON A LOT THAT CONTAINS A CONDITION THAT ANY FURTHER DEVELOPMENT BE REVIEWED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND A VARIANCE TO EXCEED THE STRUCTURAL LOT COVERAGE ON A LOT DEVELOPED WITH A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURES IN ZONING CASE NO. 798, AT 16 CREST ROAD WEST, (LOT 74-A-MS), (NAGELHOUT). THE PROJECT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE EXEMPT PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA). Section 1. An application was duly filed by Mr. and Mrs. Robert Nagelhout with respect to real property located at 16 Crest Road West, Rolling Hills (Lot 74-A-MS) requesting a Site Plan Review to construct a 32 square foot fire place, which would increase the footprint of the residence by that amount on a lot with condition that any further development be submitted to the Planning Commission for review and approval and a Variance to exceed the maximum permitted structural lot coverage by 0.74%. Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted duly noticed public hearings to consider the application at a regular meeting on November 16 and at a field trip to the property on November 16, 2010. The applicants were notified of the public hearings in writing by first class mail. Evidence was heard and presented from all persons interested in affecting said proposal and from members of the City staff and the Planning Commission having reviewed, analyzed and studied said proposal. The applicant and his representative were in attendance at the hearings. Section 3. In March 1991 in Zoning Case No. 438, the Planning Commission granted to the previous property owner a Site Plan Review for the construction of a new 7,742 square foot single family residence with a 1600 square foot semi -subterranean garage, a 630 square foot swimming pool, pool equipment a 4,108 square foot basement and a Variance to construct a 5- foot wall in the front yard setback. A request for a CUP for a cabana was denied at that time. A 1,000 square foot set aside area for a future stable and corral was also designated on the plan. The then existing house was demolished. With the 1991 proposal it was not required to call out the porches, trellises or other architectural elements on the plans or include them in the calculations. Section 4. In March 1999 in Zoning Case No. 593, the Planning Commission approved a Conditional Use Permit and a Site Plan Review for a 7,000 square foot tennis court on the property with 8-foot fencing, and in March 2003, the Planning Commission granted a modification to allow a 10-foot screening (4' wall and 6' court fencing). In January of 2010 the Planning Commission granted a Site Plan approval for an outdoor kitchen, outdoor fireplace and gazebo, and Variances to exceed the structural lot coverage by 0.7% and to allow the fireplace to be taller than permitted by code. ZC NO. 798 Reso. 2010-29 1 • • Section 5. No grading or additional disturbance is required for this project. A set aside area for a future stable and corral remains on the lot. The disturbed area of the lot is 34,239 square feet or 38.6% and will remain the same. An adequate access to the future stable is provided. Section 6. The lot is 2.32 acres or 101,240 square feet gross (excluding the roadway easement) and 88,674 square feet net for development purposes. With the adjusted calculations for including the entryway and the on -grade covered porch in the calculations, the structural coverage of the net lot is proposed at 20.74%, which requires a Variance. Section 7. The Planning Commission finds that the project qualifies as a Class 1 Exemption, Existing Facilities, and is therefore categorically exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act. Section 8. Sections 17.38.010 through 17.38.050 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code 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 in the same vicinity. A Variance from Section 17.16.070 is required because it states the maximum permitted structural coverage shall not exceed 20% of the net lot area. The applicant is requesting a Variance to exceed the structural net lot coverage by 0.74%, which is 0.04% greater than the Variance approved in 2009. With respect to this request for a Variance, the Planning Commission finds as follows: A. There are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances and conditions applicable to the property that do not apply generally to the other properties or class of use in the same vicinity and zone. With the 1999 and 1991 approvals it was not necessary to show on the plans or include in the structural coverage calculations for the porches. With the additional porches, the maximum permitted structural coverage would exceed 20%. These circumstances currently exist and the proposed project adds a very small amount of structural coverage. 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 to the property in question. The fireplace would add to amenities of the residence. The family room is very small and a basement is located beneath the family. It would be infeasible to place the fireplace inside the house due to construction constraints. The structure is well hidden from the street and neighbors and does not look overbuilt. The proposed 32 sq.ft. addition would blend into the existing residence and be well screened from the street and adjacent properties. The overage is not significant and the property owner should not be denied the privilege of the fireplace. C. The granting of the Variance would not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the property is located. The variance will permit the owners to enjoy their property without deleterious infringement on the rights of surrounding property owners. A minor increase in the overall percentage of coverage on the lot will have no effect on the public welfare or on property or improvements in the vicinity. ZC NO.798 Reso. 2010-29 • • D. In granting the variance, the spirit and intent of the Zoning Ordinance will be observed. The purpose of the Zoning Ordinance is to regulate development in an orderly fashion and in a manner consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan. Approval of the variance will not impede any goals of the Zoning Ordinance or the General Plan. Rather, the variance will allow the property owner to enjoy the same rights and privileges afforded to other property owners in the vicinity. The overage requested is not substantial and does not undermine the spirit or intent of the Zoning Ordinance. E. The variance does not grant special privileges to the applicant. Unique circumstances applicable to the subject property make it infeasible for the property owner to comply with Section 17.16.070. When the previous approvals were granted for the residence and the tennis court, no calculations were required for the porches to show that structures do or do not meet the structural lot coverage requirements. F. The project conforms to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and the Los Angeles County Hazardous Waste Management Plan. Section 9. Pursuant to Section 17.46.040 the Planning Commission may condition an approval to require site plan review for any future construction on the property, regardless of whether site plan review would ordinarily be applicable to such construction. With respect to the Site Plan Review application due to the restriction placed on this property in 1999 and 2009 by the Planning Commission on any future development on subject property, the Planning Commission makes the following findings of fact: A. The proposed development is compatible with the General Plan, and surrounding uses because the proposed project complies with the General Plan requirement of low profile, low -density residential development with sufficient open space between surrounding structures, and equestrian uses. The project will not require grading nor exceed the disturbed area of the lot. B. The project substantially preserves the natural and undeveloped state of the lot. The proposed structures will be constructed on existing building pads. The project is of sufficient distance from nearby residences so that the fireplace will not impact the view or privacy of surrounding neighbors, and will permit the owners to enjoy their property without deleterious infringement on the rights of surrounding property owners. C. The proposed development, as conditioned, is harmonious in scale and mass with the site. The proposed project is consistent with the scale of the neighborhood when compared to properties in the vicinity. D. The project will not cause the lot to look overdeveloped. Significant portions of the lot will be left undeveloped so as to maintain open space. E. The proposed development is sensitive and not detrimental to the convenience and safety of circulation for pedestrians and vehicles because the proposed project will not change the existing circulation pattern and will utilize an existing driveway. ZC NO.798 Reso. 2010-29 3 • • Section 10. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves the Site Plan Review and Variance in Zoning Case No. 798, to add a 32 sq.ft. to the footprint of the existing residence for a fireplace and to exceed the structural lot coverage by 0.74% subject to the following conditions: A. The Site Plan Review and Variances approvals shall expire within two years from the effective date of approval if construction pursuant to this approval has not commenced within that time period, as required by Sections 17.46.080(A) and 17.38.070(A) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, or the approval granted is otherwise extended pursuant to the requirements of these sections. B. It is declared and made a condition of the approval, that if any conditions thereof are violated, this approval shall be suspended and the privileges granted hereunder shall lapse; provided that the applicants have been given written notice to cease such violation, the opportunity for a hearing has been provided, and if requested, has been held, and thereafter the applicant fails to correct the violation. within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of the City's determination. C. All requirements of the Building and Construction Ordinance, the Zoning Ordinance, and of the zone in which the subject property is located must be complied with unless otherwise set forth in this approval, or shown otherwise on an approved plan. D. The lot shall be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the site plan on file in the Planning Department dated November 02, 2010, as approved by the Planning Commission. E. The working drawings submitted to the Department of Building and Safety for plan check review must conform to the development plan approved with this application. In addition, prior to submittal of final plans to the Building Department for issuance of building permit, the plans for the project shall be submitted to staff for verification that the final plans are in compliance with the plans approved by the Planning Commission. F. The property on which the project is located shall contain a set aside area to provide an area meeting all standards for a stable, corral with access thereto. G. There shall be no grading for this project. The disturbed area of the lot shall remain at 38.6%, as previously approved. H. Structural lot coverage shall not exceed 20.74% (18,375 sq.ft.) of the net lot area in conformance with the Variance for lot coverage. I. Total lot coverage of structures and paved areas shall not exceed 29,903 square feet or 33.72% of the net lot area in conformance with lot coverage limitations. J. The property owners shall comply with the requirements of the Lighting Ordinance, pertaining to lighting on said property. ZC NO. 798 Reso. 2010-29 4 • • K. The property owners shall comply with the roof covering requirements. L. Residential building pad shall not exceed 61.7%, not including the covered porch and miscellaneous structures. M. During and after construction, all parking shall take place on the project site and, if necessary, any overflow parking shall take place within nearby roadway easements. N. The project must be reviewed and approved by the Rolling Hills Community Association. O. During construction, the property owners shall be required to schedule and regulate construction and related traffic noise throughout the day between the hours of 7 AM and 6 PM, Monday through Saturday only, when construction and mechanical equipment noise is permitted, so as not to interfere with the quiet residential environment of the City of Rolling Hills. P. Notwithstanding Sections 17.46.020 and 17.46.070 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, any future grading or structural development on the property may be approved with Planning Commission review and approval. Q. All conditions of previous approvals on this property and Resolutions pertainint thereto shall be in full force and effect and are not negated by this approval. R. The applicant shall execute an Affidavit of Acceptance of all conditions of this approval pursuant to Section 17.38.060, or the approval shall not be effective. S. All conditions of the Variance and Site Plan approval, that apply, must be complied with prior to the issuance of a building permit from the Building Department. T. Any action challenging the final decision of the city made as a result of the public hearing on this application must be filed within the time limits set forth in Section 17.54.070 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code and Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6. U. A minimum of 50% of the demolition and construction material must be recycled or diverted from landfills pursuant to the City's Construction and Demolition Ordinance. V. The conditions of approval specified herein shall be printed on the plans submitted to RHCA and to Building and Safety Department for plan check and on all subsequent plans. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 215t DAY of December 2010. 41A.4111, V. SMITH, CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: �Gul��i uv HEIDI LUCE, DEPUTY CITY CLERK ZC NO.798 Reso. 2010-29 s CI • • STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ) ) §§ I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2010-29 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR ADDITION TO THE RESIDENCE TO CONSTRUCT A FIRE PLACE ON A LOT THAT CONTAINS A CONDITION THAT ANY FURTHER DEVELOPMENT BE REVIEWED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND A VARIANCE TO EXCEED THE STRUCTURAL LOT COVERAGE ON A LOT DEVELOPED WITH A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURES IN ZONING CASE NO. 798, AT 16 CREST ROAD WEST, (LOT 74-A-MS), (NAGELHOUT). THE PROJECT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE EXEMPT PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA). was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on December 21, 2010 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Chelf, DeRoy, Pieper and Chairperson Smith. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Henke (recused). ABSTAIN: None. and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following: Administrative Offices. chtac666 DEPUTY CITY CLERK ZC NO. 798 Reso. 2010-29 MEMO: DECEMBER 21, 2010 ZONING CASE NO. 798, 16 CREST ROAD WEST (NAGELHOUT) DUE TO PROXIMITY OF COMMISSIONER HENKE'S PROPERTY TO SUBJECT SITE, (WITHIN 500 FEET), COMMISSIONER HENKE SHOULD ABSTAIN FROM VOTING IN ZONING CASE NO. 798. TO: FROM: • • ea", Reeei/49 qieed INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX (310) 377-7288 Mtg. Date: 12-21-10 Agenda Item. 5A HONORABLE CHAIRPERSON AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR SUBJECT: RESOLUTION NO. 2010-29. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR ADDITION TO THE RESIDENCE TO CONSTRUCT A FIRE PLACE ON A LOT THAT CONTAINS A CONDITION THAT ANY FURTHER DEVELOPMENT BE REVIEWED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND A VARIANCE TO EXCEED THE STRUCTURAL LOT COVERAGE ON A LOT DEVELOPED WITH A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURES IN ZONING CASE NO. 778, AT 16 CREST ROAD WEST, (LOT 74-A-MS), (NAGELHOUT). THE PROJECT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE EXEMPT PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA). DATE: DECEMBER 21, 2010 REQUEST AND RECOMMENDATION 1. The property owners requested a Site Plan Review to construct a 32 square foot fire place that would enlarge the footprint of the residence on a lot that contains a condition that any further development be reviewed by the Planning Commission and a Variance to exceed the maximum permitted structural coverage by 0.74%, on a lot developed with a single family residence and accessory structures. 2. It is recommended that the Planning Commission review and approve Resolution No. 2010-29. BACKGROUND 3. A public hearing was held at the site in the morning on November 16, 2010 and the Planning Commission continued the meeting to the Regular Planning Commission meeting in the evening of November 16, 2010. • • i 4. At the regular meeting of the Planning Commission on November 16 the Commission directed staff to prepare a Resolution of approval with standard findings, facts and conditions including: • That any further development on the lot may be permitted with Planning Commission review • All conditions of previous approvals on this property shall be in full force and effect and are not negated by this approval • Construction and Demolition permit to be obtained and a minimum of 50% of the demolition and construction material be diverted and proof provided to the City. ZC NO. 798 C2D r • • RESOLUTION NO. 2010-29 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR ADDITION TO THE RESIDENCE TO CONSTRUCT A FIRE PLACE ON A LOT THAT CONTAINS A CONDITION THAT ANY FURTHER DEVELOPMENT BE REVIEWED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND A VARIANCE TO EXCEED THE STRUCTURAL LOT COVERAGE ON A LOT DEVELOPED WITH A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURES IN ZONING CASE NO. 778, AT 16 CREST ROAD WEST, (LOT 74-A-MS), (NAGELHOUT). THE PROJECT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE EXEMPT PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA). Section 1. An application was duly filed by Mr. and Mrs. Robert Nagelhout with respect to real property located at 16 Crest Road West, Rolling Hills (Lot 74-A-MS) requesting a Site Plan Review to construct a 32 square foot fire place, which would increase the footprint of the residence by that amount on a lot with condition that any further development be submitted to the Planning Commission for review and approval and a Variance to exceed the maximum permitted structural lot coverage by 0.74%. Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted duly noticed public hearings to consider the application at a regular meeting on November 16 and at a field trip to the property on November 16, 2010. The applicants were notified of the public hearings in writing by first class mail. Evidence was heard and presented from all persons interested in affecting said proposal and from members of the City staff and the Planning Commission having reviewed, analyzed and studied said proposal. The applicant and his representative were in attendance at the hearings. Section 3. In March 1991 in Zoning Case No. 438, the Planning Commission granted to the previous property owner a Site Plan Review for the construction of a new 7,742 square foot single family residence with a 1600 square foot semi -subterranean garage, a 630 square foot swimming pool, pool equipment a 4,108 square foot basement and a Variance to construct a 5- foot wall in the front yard setback. A request for a CUP for a cabana was denied at that time. A 1,000 square foot set aside area for a future stable and corral was also designated on the plan. The then existing house was demolished. With the 1991 proposal it was not required to call out the porches, trellises or other architectural elements on the plans or include them in the calculations. Section 4. In March 1999 in Zoning Case No. 593, the Planning Commission approved a Conditional Use Permit and a Site Plan Review for a 7,000 square foot tennis court on the property with 8-foot fencing, and in March 2003, the Planning Commission granted a modification to allow a 10-foot screening (4' wall and 6' court fencing). In January of 2010 the Planning Commission granted a Site Plan approval for an outdoor kitchen, outdoor fireplace and gazebo, and Variances to exceed the structural lot coverage by 0.7% and to allow the fireplace to be taller than permitted by code. ZC NO. 798 Reso. 2010-29 • • Section 5. No grading or additional disturbance is required for this project. A set aside area for a future stable and corral remains on the lot. The disturbed area of the lot is 34,239 square feet or 38.6% and will remain the same. An adequate access to the future stable is provided. Section 6. The lot is 2.32 acres or 101,240 square feet gross (excluding the roadway easement) and 88,674 square feet net for development purposes. With the adjusted calculations for including the entryway and the on -grade covered porch in the calculations, the structural coverage of the net lot is proposed at 20.74%, which requires a Variance. Section 7. The Planning Commission finds that the project qualifies as a Class 1 Exemption, Existing Facilities, and is therefore categorically exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act. Section 8. Sections 17.38.010 through 17.38.050 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code 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 in the same vicinity. A Variance from Section 17.16.070 is required because it states the maximum permitted structural coverage shall not exceed 20% of the net lot area. The applicant is requesting a Variance to exceed the structural net lot coverage by 0.74%, which is 0.04% greater than the Variance approved in 2009. With respect to this request for a Variance, the Planning Commission finds as follows: A. There are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances and conditions applicable to the property that do not apply generally to the other properties or class of use in the same vicinity and zone. With the 1999 and 1991 approvals it was not necessary to show on the plans or include in the structural coverage calculations for the porches. With the additional porches, the maximum permitted structural coverage would exceed 20%. These circumstances currently exist and the proposed project adds a very small amount of structural coverage. 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 to the property in question. The fireplace would add to amenities of the residence. The family room is very small and a basement is located beneath the family. It would be infeasible to place the fireplace inside the house due to construction constraints. The structure is well hidden from the street and neighbors and does not look overbuilt. The proposed 32 sq.ft. addition would blend into the existing residence and be well screened from the street and adjacent properties. The overage is not significant and the property owner should not be denied the privilege of the fireplace. C. The granting of the Variance would not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the property is located. The variance will permit the owners to enjoy their property without deleterious infringement on the rights of surrounding property owners. A minor increase in the overall percentage of coverage on the lot will have no effect on the public welfare or on property or improvements in the vicinity. ZC NO. 798 Reso. 2010-29 2 of 1 • • D. In granting the variance, the spirit and intent of the Zoning Ordinance will be observed. The purpose of the Zoning Ordinance is to regulate development in an orderly fashion and in a manner consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan. Approval of the variance will not impede any goals of the Zoning Ordinance or the General Plan. Rather, the variance will allow the property owner to enjoy the same rights and privileges afforded to other property owners in the vicinity. The overage requested is not substantial and does not undermine the spirit or intent of the Zoning Ordinance. E. The variance does not grant special privileges to the applicant. Unique circumstances applicable to the subject property make it infeasible for the property owner to comply with Section 17.16.070. When the previous approvals were granted for the residence and the tennis court, no calculations were required for the porches to show that structures do or do not meet the structural lot coverage requirements. F. The project conforms to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and the Los Angeles County Hazardous Waste Management Plan. Section 9. Pursuant to Section 17.46.040 the Planning Commission may condition an approval to require site plan review for any future construction on the property, regardless of whether site plan review would ordinarily be applicable to such construction. With respect to the Site Plan Review application due to the restriction placed on this property in 1999 and 2009 by the Planning Commission on any future development on subject property, the Planning Commission makes the following findings of fact: A. The proposed development is compatible with the General Plan, and surrounding uses because the proposed project complies with the General Plan requirement of low profile, low -density residential development with sufficient open space between surrounding structures, and equestrian uses. The project will not require grading nor exceed the disturbed area of the lot. B. The project substantially preserves the natural and undeveloped state of the lot. The proposed structures will be constructed on existing building pads. The project is of sufficient distance from nearby residences so that the fireplace will not impact the view or privacy of surrounding neighbors, and will permit the owners to enjoy their property without deleterious infringement on the rights of surrounding property owners. C. The proposed development, as conditioned, is harmonious in scale and mass with the site. The proposed project is consistent with the scale of the neighborhood when compared to properties in the vicinity. D. The project will not cause the lot to look overdeveloped. Significant portions of the lot will be left undeveloped so as to maintain open space. E. The proposed development is sensitive and not detrimental to the convenience and safety of circulation for pedestrians and vehicles because the proposed project will not change the existing circulation pattern and will utilize an existing driveway. ZC NO. 798 Reso. 2010-29 • • Section 10. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves the Site Plan Review and Variance in Zoning Case No. 798, to add a 32 sq.ft. to the footprint of the existing residence for a fireplace and to exceed the structural lot coverage by 0.74% subject to the following conditions: A. The Site Plan Review and Variances approvals shall expire within two years from the effective date of approval if construction pursuant to this approval has not commenced within that time period, as required by Sections 17.46.080(A) and 17.38.070(A) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, or the approval granted is otherwise extended pursuant to the requirements of these sections. B. It is declared and made a condition of the approval, that if any conditions thereof are violated, this approval shall be suspended and the privileges granted hereunder shall lapse; provided that the applicants have been given written notice to cease such violation, the opportunity for a hearing has been provided, and if requested, has been held, and thereafter the applicant fails to correct the violation within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of the City's determination. C. All requirements of the Building and Construction Ordinance, the Zoning Ordinance, and of the zone in which the subject property is located must be complied with unless otherwise set forth in this approval, or shown otherwise on an approved plan. D. The lot shall be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the site plan on file in the Planning Department dated November 02, 2010, as approved by the Planning Commission. E. The working drawings submitted to the Department of Building and Safety for plan check review must conform to the development plan approved with this application. In addition, prior to submittal of final plans to the Building Department for issuance of building permit, the plans for the project shall be submitted to staff for verification that the final plans are in compliance with the plans approved by the Planning Commission. F. The property on which the project is located shall contain a set aside area to provide an area meeting all standards for a stable, corral with access thereto. G. There shall be no grading for this project. The disturbed area of the lot shall remain at 38.6%, as previously approved. H. Structural lot coverage shall not exceed 20.74% (18,375 sq.ft.) of the net lot area in conformance with the Variance for lot coverage. I. Total lot coverage of structures and paved areas shall not exceed 29,903 square feet or 33.72% of the net lot area in conformance with lot coverage limitations. J. The property owners shall comply with the requirements of the Lighting Ordinance, pertaining to lighting on said property. ZC NO. 798 Reso. 2010-29 1 • • K. The property owners shall comply with the roof covering requirements. L. Residential building pad shall not exceed 61.7%, not including the covered porch and miscellaneous structures. M. During and after construction, all parking shall take place on the project site and, if necessary, any overflow parking shall take place within nearby roadway easements. N. The project must be reviewed and approved by the Rolling Hills Community Association. O. During construction, the property owners shall be required to schedule and regulate construction and related traffic noise throughout the day between the hours of 7 AM and 6 PM, Monday through Saturday only, when construction and mechanical equipment noise is permitted, so as not to interfere with the quiet residential environment of the City of Rolling Hills. P. Notwithstanding Sections 17.46.020 and 17.46.070 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, any future grading or structural development on the property may be approved with Planning Commission review and approval. Q. All conditions of previous approvals on this property and Resolutions pertainint thereto shall be in full force and effect and are not negated by this approval. R. The applicant shall execute an Affidavit of Acceptance of all conditions of this approval pursuant to Section 17.38.060, or the approval shall not be effective. S. All conditions of the Variance and Site Plan approval, that apply, must be complied with prior to the issuance of a building permit from the Building Department. T. Any action challenging the final decision of the city made as a result of the public hearing on this application must be filed within the time limits set forth in Section 17.54.070 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code and Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6. U. A minimum of 50% of the demolition and construction material must be recycled or diverted from landfills pursuant to the City's Construction and Demolition Ordinance. V. The conditions of approval specified herein shall be printed on the plans submitted to RHCA and to Building and Safety Department for plan check and on all subsequent plans. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 21s1 DAY of December 2010. JILL SMITH, VICE -CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: HEIDI LUCE, DEPUTY CITY CLERK ZC NO.798 Reso. 2010-29 • • STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ) §§ I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2010-29 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR ADDITION TO THE RESIDENCE TO CONSTRUCT A FIRE PLACE ON A LOT THAT CONTAINS A CONDITION THAT ANY FURTHER DEVELOPMENT BE REVIEWED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND A VARIANCE TO EXCEED THE STRUCTURAL LOT COVERAGE ON A LOT DEVELOPED WITH A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURES IN ZONING CASE NO. 778, AT 16 CREST ROAD WEST, (LOT 74-A-MS), (NAGELHOUT). THE PROJECT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE EXEMPT PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA). was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on December 21, 2010 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following: Administrative Offices. DEPUTY CITY CLERK ZC NO.798 Reso. 2010-29 / TO: FROM: erre/ 4 Reda, qieed INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX (310) 377-7288 Mtg. Date: 11-16-10 Agenda Item No: 6C HONORABLE CHAIRPERSON AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR APPLICATION NO. SITE LOCATION: ZONING AND SIZE: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PUBLISHED: DATE: RECOMMENDATION ZONING CASE NO. 798 16 CREST ROAD WEST (LOT 74-A-MS) RA-S-2, 2.32 ACRES (GROSS, EXCLUDING ROAD) MR. AND MRS. ROBERT NAGELHOUT CRISS GUNDERSON, ARCHITECT NOVEMBER 4, 2010 NOVEMBER 16, 2010 It is recommended that the Planning Commission review the staff report, continue the public hearing, take public testimony and provide direction to staff. The Planning Commission viewed the project in the field on November 16, 2010 in the morning. REQUEST 1. The property owners request a Site Plan Review to construct a 32 square foot fire place on a lot that contains a condition that any further development must be reviewed by the Planning Commission and a Variance to exceed the maximum permitted structural coverage, on a lot developed with a single family residence and accessory structures. BACKGROUND 2. In December 2009, the Planning Commission approved a Site Plan and a Variance to A • • enlarge a 465 square foot covered porch over the garage by 750 square feet and construct a 400 square foot detached trellis, 38 square foot fire place and 138 square foot outdoor kitchen. The Variance was for exceedance of the maximum permitted structural coverage by 0.7%. With the current proposal to construct a 32 sq.ft. fire place the maximum permitted structural coverage (20% max.), would exceed by 0.74% 3. In March 1991 in Zoning Case No. 438, the Planning Commission granted to the previous property owner a Site Plan Review for the construction of a new 7,742 square foot single family residence with a 1600 square foot semi -subterranean garage, a 630 square foot swimming pool, pool equipment a 4,108 square foot basement and a Variance to construct a 5-foot wall in the front yard setback. A request for a CUP for a cabana was denied at that time. A 1,000 square foot set aside area for a future stable and corral was also designated on the plan. The then existing house was demolished. With the 1991 proposal it was not required to call out the porches, trellises or other architectural elements on the plans or include them in the calculations. 4. In March 1999 in Zoning Case No. 593, the Planning Commission approved a Conditional Use Permit and a Site Plan Review for a 7,000 square foot tennis court on the property. Although there wasn't a provision for height of tennis court fence in the Zoning Ordinance, the Commission placed a condition that together with the 4' block wall for the tennis court the total height of fencing may not exceed 8 feet. Prior to finaling the project staff noticed posts for the fence at 10 feet and required that the applicant request permission from the Planning Commission for a 10-foot fence. In March 2003, the Planning Commission granted a modification to allow a 10-foot screening (4' wall and 6' court fencing). 5. With the residence a 465 square foot covered porch over the garage was constructed. Also constructed was a 555 square foot entryway and 220 square foot on grade covered porch. At that time it was not required to show or calculate those structures for coverage purposes. Not including the porches the structural coverage approved was 19.75%, (which included the tennis court); the total coverage including the structures and flatwork was approved at 33.75 and the disturbed area at 38.6%. 6. Currently subterranean or semi -subterranean garages are not permitted. MUNICIPAL CODE COMPLIANCE 7. The applicant proposes to add 32 square feet to the footprint of the 7,742 square foot residence to construct a fire place that would protrude from the family room. 8. No grading or additional disturbance is required for this project. A set aside area for a future stable and corral remains on the lot. The disturbed area of the lot is 34,239 square feet or 38.6% and will remain the same. An adequate access to the future stable is provided. ZC NO. 798 9. The lot is 2.32 acres or 101,240 square feet gross (excluding the roadway easement) and 88,674 square feet net for development purposes. With the 32 square foot addition, the structural coverage of the net lot is proposed at 20.74%, which requires a Variance, (currently 20.7%). The total coverage (structures and flatwork) is proposed at 33.72%, which is within the 35% maximum permitted, (currently 33.68%). The detached trellis of 400 sq.ft. is not included in these calculations. 10. In response for justification for the Variance request for exceeding the structural coverage the applicant's agent states that the family room, where the fire place is proposed, does not have a fire place and one cannot be constructed within the foot print of the residence because of the basement configuration below. It would be extremely expensive and impractical to construct a fire place above the basement. A Variance in this application as well as the one prior for the structural coverage is requested due to the change in the way structural coverage was calculated when the residence was originally constructed. 11. There are two building pads on the lot. The residential building pad coverage will be at 61.7%, (currently 61.5%) and the tennis court pad coverage will remain at 81.87%, which was previously approved. 12. The project has been determined to be categorically exempt pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). CONCLUSION 13. The increase in the structural coverage and the total coverage are minimal, however a Variance is required for the structural coverage. The structural coverage will increase from 20.7% to 20.74% and the total coverage will increase from 33.68% to 33.72%. No changes are proposed to the disturbance of the lot. 14. The lot is mostly developed and the addition is miscellaneous in nature, however, it adds to the massing of the structures on the lot and exceeds the maximum permitted coverage. 15. When reviewing a site plan review application the Planning Commission should consider the required findings including whether the proposed project is consistent with the City's General Plan; incorporates environmentally and aesthetically sensitive grading practices; preserves existing mature vegetation; is compatible and consistent with the scale, massing and development pattern in the immediate project vicinity; and otherwise preserves and protects the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Rolling Hills. 16. In considering the request for Variances, the Commission should consider the criteria for granting of a Variance. 17. The project provides for construction of a future stable, corral and access. ZC NO. 798 e • • OTHER AGENCIES REVIEW 18. The Rolling Hills Community Association Architectural Committee will review the project at a later time. ZONING CASE NO. 798 SITE PLAN REVIEW RA-S-2 ZONE SETBACKS Front: 50 ft. from front easement line Side: 35 ft. from property line Rear: 50 ft. from property line STRUCTURES (Site Plan Review required if size of structure increases by at least 1,000 sq. ft. and has the effect of increasing the size of the structure by more than 25% in a 36-month period). STRUCTURAL LOT COVERAGE (20% maximum) TOTAL LOT COVERAGE (35% maximum) BUILDING PAD COVERAGE RESIDENTIAL COVERAGE (30% max) TENNIS COURT GRADING Site plan review required if excavation and/or fill or combination thereof is more than 3 feet in depth and covers more than 2,000 sq. ft.,/balanced on site. DISTURBED AREA (40% maximum; STABLE (minimum 450 sa. ft.) a CORRAL (minimum 550 sq. ft.) STABLE ACCESS ACCESSWAY VIEWS PLANTS AND ANIMALS ZC NO.798 EXISTING Single family residence and accessory structures Residence Porch Garage Entry Stable -future Service yd Pool Pool equip. Det.Trellis Bbq/fire place Outdoor kitchen Tennis Court Basement TOTAL 7422 sq.ft. 220 sq.ft. 1600 sq.ft. 555 sq.ft. 450 sq.ft. 96 sq.ft. 630 sq.ft. 50 sq.ft. 400 sq.ft. 38 sq.ft. 138 sq.ft. 7000 sq.ft. 4108 sq.ft. 18,343 sq.ft 20.7% (w/allowances) 33.68% 61.5% (w/allowances) 81.87% of 8,550 sq.ft. pad N/A 38.6% Future Future Existing from Crest Road W. N/A N/A PROPOSED Minor addition that requires a Variance. Residence Porch Garage Entry Stable -future Service Yd. Pool Pool eq. Det.Trellis Bbq/fire place Outdoor Kitchen Tennis court Basement TOTAL 7454 sq.ft 220 sq.ft. 1600 sq.ft 555 sq.ft. 450 sq.ft. 96 sq.ft 630 sq.ft. 50 sq.ft. 400 sq.ft. 385 sq.ft. 138 sq.ft. 7000 sq.ft. 4108 sq.ft. 18,375 sq.ft 20.74% w/allowances of 88,678 sq.ft. net lot area 33.72% % w/allowance of 88,678 sq.ft. net lot area 61.7% w/allowances of the 16,451 sq.ft. residential building pad 81.87% of the 8,550 sq.ft. pad None 38.6% including future stable Future Future Existing from Crest Rd. W. Planning Commission review Planning Commission review SITE PLAN REVIEW CRITERIA 17.46.010 Purpose. The site plan review process is established to provide discretionary review of certain development projects in the City for the purposes of ensuring that the proposed project is consistent with the City's General Plan; incorporates environmentally and aesthetically sensitive grading practices; preserves existing mature vegetation; is compatible and consistent with the scale, massing and development pattern in the immediate project vicinity; and otherwise preserves and protects the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Rolling Hills. 17.46.050 Required findings. A. The Commission shall be required to make findings in acting to approve, conditionally approve, or deny a site plan review application. B. No project which requires site plan review approval shall be approved by the Commission, or by the City Council on appeal, unless the following findings can be made: 1. The project complies with and is consistent with the goals and policies of the general plan and all requirements of the zoning ordinance; 2. The project substantially preserves the natural and undeveloped state of the lot by minimizing building coverage. Lot coverage requirements are regarded as maximums, and the actual amount of lot coverage permitted depends upon the existing buildable area of the lot; 3. The project is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, the natural terrain and surrounding residences; 4. The project preserves and integrates into the site design, to the greatest extent possible, existing topographic features of the site, including surrounding native vegetation, mature trees, drainage courses and land forms (such as hillsides and knolls); 5. Grading has been designed to follow natural contours of the site and to minimize the amount of grading required to create the building area; 6. Grading will not modify existing drainage channels nor redirect drainage flow, unless such flow is redirected into an existing drainage course; 7. The project preserves surrounding native vegetation and mature trees and supplements these elements with drought -tolerant landscaping which is compatible with and enhances the rural character of the community, and landscaping provides a buffer or transition area between private and public areas; 8. The project is sensitive and not detrimental to the convenient and safe movement of pedestrians and vehicles; and 9. The project conforms to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. ZC NO. 798 • • 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. SOURCE: City of Rolling Hills Zoning Ordinance ZC NO. 798