Loading...
775, Enlarge Porch, construct outdo, Staff Reports.1 eC4 C O€€C4t9 ' 'c€ 4 INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310)377-1521 FAX (310) 377-7288 Agenda Item No.: 4-A Mtg. Date: 1-25-10 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR THROUGH: ANTON DAHLERBRUCH, CITY MANAGER k9 SUBJECT: RESOLUTION NO. 2010-01. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A SITE PLAN REVIEW TO ENLARGE A PORCH LOCATED ABOVE A GARAGE ON A LOT THAT CONTAINS A CONDITION THAT ANY FURTHER DEVELOPMENT MUST BE REVIEWED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION; VARIANCES TO EXCEED THE STRUCTURAL LOT COVERAGE AND FOR A NEW OUTDOOR FIRE PLACE CHIMNEY TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM 12 FOOT HEIGHT BY 4 FEET, ON A LOT DEVELOPED WITH A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURES IN ZONING CASE NO. 775, 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: JANUARY 25, 2010 RECOMMENDATION 1. It is recommended that the City Council receive and file this report or provide other direction to staff. REOUEST AND PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL 2 . Request for a Site Plan Review to enlarge an existing porch by 750 square feet located above the garage, for a total of 1,215 square foot covered porch; Variances to exceed the structural lot coverage, by 0.7% and to exceed the permitted height of a chimney by 4 feet, on a lot which has a condition that any further development be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission. Also proposed is a 400 square foot trellis, outdoor kitchen and a fire place. A Variance for the structural coverage is requested due to the change in the way structural coverage is calculated. • • r •7 3. The Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2010-01, which is attached, on January 19, 2010 at the regular meeting granting approval in Zoning Case No. 775. The vote was unanimous by those Commissioners voting. Commissioner Henke was excused because he lives in proximity to subject project and Chairperson DeRoy was absent and excused. However, at the meeting when the Commission directed staff to prepare a resolution of approval, Chairperson DeRoy concurred to prepare the resolution. 4. The attached resolution contains standard findings of facts and conditions including, that any further development on the property, may be approved with Planning Commission review • only. BACKGROUND: 5. 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 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. 6. 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). 7. With the residence a 465 square foot covered porch over the garage was constructed. Also constructed was a 555 square foot entryway way and 220 square foot on grade covered porch. As stated earlier it was not a requirement 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%. 8. Currently subterranean or semi -subterranean garages are not permitted. MUNICIPAL CODE COMPLIANCE 9. The applicants propose to enlarge the porch over the garage by 750 square feet for a total porch of 1,215 square feet in that location, to construct a 138 square foot outdoor kitchen adjacent to the expanded porch, a 38 square foot fire place, attached to the expanded porch, ZC No 775 City Council where the chimney would exceed the permitted height by 4 feet and which would protrude through the roof of the porch, and a 400 square foot detached trellis by the tennis court. 10. 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. The trellis would be located over an existing patio area adjacent to the tennis court. The architect proposes to relocate the existing stairs to the tennis court approximately 20 feet to the east. 11. 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 20.68%, which requires a Variance, (currently 19.75%). The total coverage (structures and flatwork) is proposed at 33.68%, which is within the 35% maximum permitted, (currently 32.75%). The detached proposed trellis of 400 sq.ft. is not included in the calculations, as per the zoning code, up to 800 sq.ft. of miscellaneous detached structures are not counted towards coverage. In addition, staff is not including the covered porch over the garage in these calculations (1,215 square feet). The architect argued that since we are already counting the garage as a structure, counting the porch above it would be double counting for structural coverage. The Assistant City Attorney opinioned that the garage is a nonconforming structure, already counted towards the structural coverage, and since the applicants are not adding to the nonconformity (garage) the structural coverage will remain the same. 12. In response for justification for the variance request for exceeding the fire place chimney by 4 feet (12 feet maximum allowed), the applicant's representative states that "the chimney penetrates the proposed porch roof and is required by code to be 2 feet above the highest point of the roof within a 10 foot radius, thus resulting in a 16 foot chimney". He states that this is a building code requirement for all attached fireplaces and detached ones within 10 feet of a roof structure. Staff confirmed this information with the City's Building Official. 13. There are two building pads on the lot. The residential building pad coverage will remain at 61.5% (since the additional structures are not calculated towards coverage) and the tennis court coverage will also remain at 81.87% previously approved, because the 400 square foot trellis is exempt from the pad calculations. 14. The project has been determined to be categorically exempt pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). CONCLUSION 15. Other than the increased structural coverage from 19.75% to 20.7%, due to the covered on grade porch and the entryway, which were not required to be counted previously, no changes are proposed to the coverage calculations or disturbance of the lot. ZC No 775 City Council • • 16. When reviewing a site plan review application the Planning Commission considered 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. 17. In considering the request for Variances, the Commission considered the criteria for granting of a Variance. 18. The lot is mostly developed and the additions are miscellaneous in nature, however, they add to the massing of the structures on the lot. 19. The project provides for construction of a future stable, corral and access. OTHER AGENCIES REVIEW 20. The Rolling Hills Community Association Architectural Committee reviewed the project and approved it in concept. 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 arid mass with the site, the natural terrain and surrounding residences; ZC No 775 City Council 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. VARIANCE REQUIRED 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; and 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; and 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; and D. That in granting the variance, the spirit and intent of this title will be observed; and E. That the variance does not grant special privilege; 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 775 City Council • THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK I • • 'RESOLUTION NO. 2010-01 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A SITE PLAN REVIEW TO ENLARGE A PORCH LOCATED ABOVE A GARAGE ON A LOT THAT CONTAINS A CONDITION THAT ANY FURTHER DEVELOPMENT MUST BE REVIEWED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION; VARIANCES TO EXCEED THE STRUCTURAL LOT COVERAGE AND FOR A NEW OUTDOOR FIRE PLACE CHIMNEY TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM 12 FOOT HEIGHT BY 4 FEET, ON A LOT DEVELOPED WITH A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURES IN ZONING CASE NO. 775, AT 16 CREST ROAD NEST, (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 enlarge an existing porch by 750 square feet located above the garage, for a total of 1,215 square foot covered porch; Variances to exceed the structural lot coverage, by 0.7% and to exceed the permitted height of a chimney by 4 feet, on a lot which has a condition that any further development be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission. Also proposed is a 400 square foot trellis, outdoor kitchen and a fire place. Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted duly noticed public hearings to consider the application at a regular meeting on November 19 and December 15, 2009 and at a field trip to the property on December 15, 2009. The applicants were notified of the public hearings in writing by first class mail. Evidence was heard and presented from all persons interested in affecting said proposal and from members of the City staff and the Planning Commission having reviewed, analyzed and studied said proposal. The applicants and their representatives were in attendance at the hearings. Section 3. At the field visit to the property, the Planning Commission directed staff to prepare a Resolution of approval for consideration at the January 19, 2010 meeting. Section 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. Section 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 ZC NO. 775 Reso. 2010-01 • • lI 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). Section 6. 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. The trellis would be located over an existing patio area adjacent to the tennis court. Section 7. 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 20.68%, which requires a Variance. Section 8. 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 9. 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 0.7%. 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 prior approvals it was not necessary to show on the plans or include in the structural coverage calculations 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 existing porch is located in an area of where the sun is the hottest during afternoon hours, where the family enjoys the outdoors the most. The existing porch does not provide adequate screening from the sun. The structure is well hidden from the street and neighbors and does not look overbuilt. The proposed '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 porch. 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 ZC NO. 775 Reso. 2010-01 2 i 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. 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. G. The variance request is consistent with the General Plan. The proposed project, together with the variance, will be compatible with the objectives, policies, general land uses, and programs specified in the General Plan. Section 10. 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 17.16.200(J)(1) is required because it states that the maximum permitted chimney of a detached fire place shall not exceed 12 feet. The applicant is requesting a Variance to exceed that requirement by 4 feet. 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. The exceedance is necessary due to building code requirements for keeping a certain distance between roofed structures and fire places. 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 structure is well hidden from the street and neighbors and does not look overbuilt. The proposed 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 fire place. ZC NO. 775 Reso. 2010-01 • • 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 height of the chimney will have no effect on the public welfare or on property or improvements in the vicinity. 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. The overage requested is not substantial and does not undermine the spirit or intent of the Zoning Ordinance. E. The project conforms to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and the Los Angeles County Hazardous Waste Management Plan. F. The variance request is consistent with the General Plan. The proposed project, together with the variance, will be compatible with the objectives, policies, general land uses, and programs specified in the General Plan. Section II. 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 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 porch and trellis and miscellaneous structures 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. In addition, the immediately adjacent property owners were in attendance at the public hearings and did not object to the project. 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. ZC NO. 775 Reso. 2010-01 • • 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. F. The project is exempt from the requirements of the California Section 12. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves the Site Plan Review and Variances in Zoning Case No. 775, to construct additional 750 square foot covered porch over the garage, to construct a fire place, with not to exceed 16 foot high chimney as measured from the finished floor of the patio, to construct a 400 square foot detached trellis by the tennis court and to exceed the structural lot coverage by 0.7% 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 11, 2009, 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, 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. ZC NO. 775 Reso. 2010-01 5 I� • • 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 20.68% (18,343 sq.ft.) of the net lot area in conformance with the Variance for lot coverage. The chimney of the fire place shall not exceed 16 feet from the finished grade of the patio. I. Total lot coverage of structures and paved areas shall not exceed 29,871. square feet or 33.68% 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. K. The property owners shall comply with the roof covering requirements for the new porch. L. Residential building pad shall remain at 61.5%, not including the covered porch and miscellaneous structures. The tennis court pad shall also remain the same, at 81.8%, not including the proposed 400 square foot trellis. M. Perimeter easements and trails shall remain free and clear of any improvements including, but not be limited to, fences -including construction fences, grading (both cut and fill), landscaping, irrigation and drainage devices, play equipment, parked vehicles, building materials, debris and equipment, unless otherwise approved by the Rolling Hills Community Association. N. 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. O. The project must be reviewed and approved by the Rolling Hills Community Association. P. If new landscaping is introduced for this project, the landscaping shall include water efficient irrigation that incorporates low gallonage irrigation system, utilizes automatic. controllers, incorporates an irrigation design using "hydrozones," considers slope factors and climate conditions in design, and utilizes means to reduce water waste resulting from runoff and overspray. Further, landscaping shall be designed using mature trees and shrubs so as not to obstruct views of neighboring properties but to screen the project. If new trees or shrubs are planned in conjunction with this project, at maturity, they shall not be higher than the ridge height of the structures they are screening. Any new planting, at maturity, may not form a hedge like screen. Q. 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. ZC NO. 775 Reso. 2010-01 6 g. • • R. If a construction fence is erected during construction, it shall not be located in easement or cross over trails, if any. S. 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. T. 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 only with Planning Commission review and approval. U. 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. V. All conditions of the Variances approval, that apply, must be complied with prior to the issuance of a building permit from the Building Department. W. 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. X. 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. A final inspection shall not be granted until the contractor provides all documentation to the City. Y. 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 19th DAY OF JANUARY 2010. I SMITH, VICE -CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: HEIDI LUCE, DEPUTY CITY CLERK zC NO. 775 7 13 Reso. 2010-01 • • STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ) ) §§ I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2010-01 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A SITE PLAN REVIEW TO ENLARGE A PORCH LOCATED ABOVE A GARAGE ON A LOT THAT CONTAINS A CONDITION THAT ANY FURTHER DEVELOPMENT MUST BE REVIEWED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION; VARIANCES TO EXCEED THE STRUCTURAL LOT COVERAGE AND FOR A NEW OUTDOOR FIRE PLACE CHIMNEY TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM 12 FOOT HEIGHT BY 4 FEET, ON A LOT DEVELOPED WITH A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURES IN ZONING CASE NO. 775, 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 January 19, 2010 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Pieper, Witte and Vice Chairperson Smith. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Henke (recused) and Chairperson DeRoy. ABSTAIN: None. and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following: Administrative Offices. Ett) DEPUTY CITY CLERK ZC NO. 775 Reso. 2010-01 Existing Covered Porch to be Enlarged r. • • South -East Elevation • • • J Ci-t-A ,w 41. Sot - " 4 ,1/4.•••4, e • • '" -- •1/4 • Z 1/4 Entry Elevation Elevation I, .• 111.M.11111P 11 1 cA-t -I kAA4- • • I(0 Cle.si-- South - West Side Yard • eerey Reeebit9 gad INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO.2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX (310) 377-7288 TO:. HONORABLE CHAIRPERSON AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR APPLICATION NO. SITE LOCATION: ZONING AND SIZE: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PUBLISHED: DATE: ZONING CASE NO. 775 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 5, 2009 JANUARY 19, 2010 RECOMMENDATION AND REQUEST: It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2010-01. The property owners request a. Site Plan Review to enlarge a 465 square foot covered porch over a garage by 750 square feet and construct a 400 square foot detached trellis, 38 square foot fire place and 138 square foot outdoor kitchen on a lot that contains a condition that any further development must be reviewed by the Planning Commission. The applicants also request Variances to exceed the structural lot coverage by 0.7% and for a new outdoor fireplace chimney to exceed the maximum permitted 12-foot height by 4 feet, on a lot developed with a single family residence and accessory structures. BACKGROUND At the December 15, 2009 field visit to the site, after viewing the project and discussion, the Planning Commission directed staff to prepare a resolution of approval for consideration at tonight's meeting. The attached resolution contains standard findings of facts and conditions including: • that any further development may be approved with Planning Commission review. • • RESOLUTION NO. 2010-01 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A SITE PLAN REVIEW TO ENLARGE A PORCH LOCATED ABOVE A GARAGE ON A LOT THAT CONTAINS A CONDITION THAT ANY FURTHER DEVELOPMENT MUST BE REVIEWED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION; VARIANCES TO EXCEED THE STRUCTURAL LOT COVERAGE AND FOR A NEW OUTDOOR FIRE PLACE CHIMNEY TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM 12 FOOT HEIGHT BY 4 FEET, ON A LOT DEVELOPED WITH A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURES IN ZONING CASE NO. 775, 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 enlarge an existing porch by 750 square feet located above the garage, for a total of 1,215 square foot covered porch; Variances to exceed the structural lot coverage, by 0.7% and to exceed the permitted height of a chimney by 4 feet, on a lot which has a condition that any further development be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission. Also proposed is a 400 square foot trellis, outdoor kitchen and a fire place. Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted duly noticed public hearings to consider the application at a regular meeting on November 19 and December 15, 2009 and at a field trip to the property. on December 15, 2009. The applicants were notified of the public hearings in writing by first class mail. Evidence was heard and presented from all persons interested in affecting said proposal and from members of the City staff and the Planning Commission having reviewed, analyzed and studied said proposal. The applicants and their representatives were in attendance at the hearings. Section 3. At the field visit to the property, the Planning Commission directed staff to prepare a Resolution of approval for consideration at the January 19, 2010 meeting. Section 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. Section 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 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). Section 6. 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. The trellis would be located over an existing patio area adjacent to the tennis court. Section 7. 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 20.68%, which requires a Variance. Section 8. 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 9. 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 0.7%. 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 prior approvals it was not necessary to show on the plans or include in the structural coverage calculations 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 existing porch is located in an area of where the sunis the hottest during afternoon hours, where the family enjoys the outdoors the most. The existing porch does not provide adequate screening from the sun. The structure is well hidden from the street and neighbors and does not look overbuilt. The proposed 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 porch. 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. 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. G. The variance request is consistent with the General Plan. The proposed project, together with the variance, will be compatible with the objectives, policies, general land uses, and programs specified in the General Plan. Section 10. 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 17.16.200(J)(1) is required because it states that the maximum permitted chimney of a detached fire place shall not exceed 12 feet. The applicant is requesting a Variance to exceed that requirement by 4 feet. 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. The exceedance is necessary due to building code requirements for keeping a certain distance between roofed structures and fire places. 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 structure is well hidden from the street and neighbors and does not look overbuilt. The proposed 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 fire place. • • 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 height of the chimney will have no effect on the public welfare or on property or improvements in the vicinity. 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. The overage requested is not substantial and does not undermine the spirit or intent of the Zoning Ordinance. E. The project conforms to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and the Los Angeles County Hazardous Waste Management Plan. F. The variance request is consistent with the General Plan. The proposed project, together with the variance, will be compatible with the objectives, policies, general land uses, and programs specified in the General Plan. Section 11. 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 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 pool 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 porch and trellis and miscellaneous structures 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. In addition, the immediately adjacent property owners were in attendance at the public hearings and did not object to the project. 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. F. The project is exempt from the requirements of the California Section 12. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves the Site Plan Review and Variances in Zoning Case No. 775, to construct additional 750 square foot covered porch over the garage, to construct a fire place, with not to exceed 16 foot high chimney as measured from the finished floor of the patio, to construct a 400 square foot detached trellis by the tennis court and to exceed the structural lot coverage by 0.7% 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 11, 2009, 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, 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. t 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 20.68% (18,343 sq.ft.) of the net lot area in conformance with the Variance forlot coverage. The chimney of the fire place shall not exceed 16 feet from the finished grade of the patio. I. Total lot coverage of structures and paved areas shall not exceed 29,871 square feet or 33.68% 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. K. The property owners shall comply with the roof covering requirements for the new porch. . L. Residential building pad shall not remain at 61.5%, not including . the covered porch and miscellaneous structures. The tennis court pad shall also remain the same, at 81.8%, not including the proposed 400 square foot trellis. M. Perimeter easements and trails shall remain free and clear of any improvements including, but not be limited to, fences -including construction fences, grading (both cut and fill), landscaping, irrigation and drainage devices, play equipment, parked vehicles, building materials, debris and equipment, unless otherwise approved by the Rolling Hills Community Association. N. 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. O. The project must be reviewed and approved by the Rolling Hills Community Association. P. If new landscaping is introduced for this project, the landscaping shall include water efficient irrigation that incorporates low gallonage irrigation system, utilizes automatic controllers, incorporates an irrigation design using "hydrozones," considers slope factors and climate conditions in design, and utilizes means to reduce water waste resulting from runoff and overspray. Further, landscaping shall be designed using mature trees and shrubs so as not to obstruct views of neighboring properties but to screen the project. If new trees or shrubs are planned in conjunction with this project, at maturity, they shall not be higher than the ridge height of the structures they are screening. Any new planting, at maturity, may not form a hedge like screen. Q. 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. A • R. If a construction fence is erected during construction, it shall not be located in easement or cross over trails, if any. S. 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. T. 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 only with Planning Commission review and approval. U. 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. V. All conditions of the Variances approval, that apply, must be complied with prior to the issuance of a building permit from the Building Department. W. 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. X. 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. A final inspection shall not be granted until the contractor provides all documentation to the City. Y. 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 19th DAY OF JANUARY 2010. JILL SMITH, VICE -CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: HEIDI LUCE, DEPUTY CITY CLERK • STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ) ) §§ I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2010-01 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A SITE PLAN REVIEW TO ENLARGE' A PORCH LOCATED ABOVE A GARAGE ON A LOT THAT CONTAINS A CONDITION THAT ANY FURTHER DEVELOPMENT MUST BE REVIEWED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION; VARIANCES TO EXCEED THE STRUCTURAL LOT COVERAGE AND FOR A NEW OUTDOOR FIRE PLACE CHIMNEY TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM 12 FOOT HEIGHT BY 4 FEET, ON A LOT DEVELOPED WITH A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURES IN ZONING CASE NO. 775, 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 January 19, 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 • MEMORANDUM: DECEMBER 15, 2009 ZONING CASE NO. 775 16 CREST ROAD WEST (NAGELHOUT) DUE TO PROXIMITY OF COMMISSIONER HENKE PROPERTY TO THE SUBJECT SITE, (WITHIN 500-FEET), COMMISSIONER HENKE SHOULD ABSTAIN FROM DELIBERATING AND VOTING IN ZONING CASE NO. 775. COMMISSIONER HENKE MAY PARTICIPATE AS A RESIDENT. r TO: FROM: • eite, 01 Reee&t9 gad • INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX (310) 377-7288 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. 775 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 5, 2009 DECEMBER 15, 2009 It is recommended that the Planning Commission review the staff report, continue the public hearing and provide direction to staff. REQUEST 1. The property owners request a Site Plan Review to enlarge a 465 square foot covered porch over a garage by 750 square feet and construct a 400 square foot detached trellis, 38 square foot fire place and 138 square foot outdoor kitchen on a lot that contains a condition that any further development must be reviewed by the Planning Commission. The applicants also request Variances to exceed the structural lot coverage by 0.7% and for a new outdoor fireplace chimney to exceed the maximum permitted 12-foot height by 4 feet, on a lot developed with a single family residence and accessory structures. A Variance for the structural coverage is requested due to the change in the way structural coverage is calculated. BACKGROUND 2. The Planning Commission viewed the project in the field in the morning of December 15, 2009. -1- • • P 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 way and 220 square foot on grade covered porch. As stated earlier it was not a requirement 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 applicants propose to enlarge the porch over the garage by 750 square feet for a total porch of 1,215 square feet in that location, to construct a 138 square foot outdoor kitchen adjacent to the expanded porch; a 38 square foot fire place, attached to the expanded porch, where the chimney would exceed the permitted height by 4 feet and which would protrude through the roof of the porch, and a 400 square foot detached trellis by the tennis court. 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. The trellis would be located over an existing patio area adjacent to the tennis court. The architect proposes to relocate the existing stairs to the tennis court approximately 20 feet to the east. ZC NO. 775 -2- 0 • • 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 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 20.68%, which requires a Variance, (currently 19.75%). The total coverage (structures and flatwork) is proposed at 33.68%, which is within the 35% maximum permitted, (currently 32.75%). The detached proposed trellis of 400 sq.ft. is not included in the calculations, as per the zoning code, up to 800 sq.ft. of miscellaneous detached structures are not counted towards coverage. In addition, staff is not including the covered porch over the garage in these calculations (1,215 square feet). The architect argued that since we are already counting the garage as a structure, counting the porch above it would be double counting for structural coverage. The Assistant City Attorney opinioned that the garage is a nonconforming structure, already counted towards the structural coverage, and since they are not adding to the nonconformity (garage) the structural coverage will remain the same. 10. In response for justification for the variance request for exceeding the fire place chimney by 4 feet (12 feet maximum allowed), the applicant's representative states that "the chimney penetrates the proposed porch roof and is required by code to be 2 feet above the highest point of the roof within a 10 foot radius, thus resulting in a 16 foot chimney". He states that this is a building code requirement for all attached fireplaces and detached ones within 10 feet of a roof structure. Staff confirmed this information with the City's Building Official. A Variance for the structural coverage is requested due to the change in the way structural coverage is currently calculated. 11. There are two building pads on the lot. The residential building pad coverage will remain at 61.5% (since the additional structures are not calculated towards coverage) and the tennis court coverage will also remain at 81.87% previously approved, because the 400 square foot trellis is exempt from the pad calculations. 12. The project has been determined to be categorically exempt pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). CONCLUSION 13. Other than the increased structural coverage from 19.75% to 20.7%, due to the covered on grade porch and the entryway, which were not required to be counted previously, no changes are proposed to the coverage calculations or disturbance of the lot. 14. 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 ZC NO. 775 -3- • • p 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. 15. In considering the request for Variances, the Commission should consider the criteria for granting of a Variance. 16. The lot is mostly developed and the additions are miscellaneous in nature, however, they add to the massing of the structures on the lot. 17. Except for the requested Variances, the project will meet City's development standards. 18. The project provides for construction of a future stable, corral and access. OTHER AGENCIES REVIEW 19. The Rolling Hills Community Association Architectural Committee reviewed the project and approved it in concept. 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; ZC NO. 775 • • 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. VARIANCE REQUIRED 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; and 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; and 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; and D. That in granting the variance, the spirit and intent of this title will be observed; and E. That the variance does not grant special privilege; 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. 775 MEMORANDUM: • NOVEMBER 17, 2009 ZONING CASE NO. 775 16 CREST ROAD WEST (NAGELHOUT) DUE TO PROXIMITY OF COMMISSIONER HENKE PROPERTY TO THE SUBJECT SITE, (WITHIN 500-FEET), COMMISSIONER HENKE SHOULD ABSTAIN FROM DELIBERATING AND VOTING IN ZONING CASE NO. 775. COMMISSIONER HENKE MAY PARTICIPATE AS A RESIDENT. • eat, 06 Roag., qieed • INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310)377-1521 FAX (310) 377-7288 TO: HONORABLE CHAIRPERSON AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR APPLICATION NO. SITE LOCATION: ZONING AND SIZE: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PUBLISHED: DATE: RECOMMENDATION ZONING CASE NO. 775 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 5, 2009 NOVEMBER 17, 2009 It is recommended that the Planning Commission review the staff report, open the public hearing, take public testimony, schedule a field visit or provide other direction to staff. REQUEST 1. The property owners request a Site Plan Review to enlarge a 465 square foot covered porch over a garage by 750 square feet and construct a 400 square foot detached trellis, 38 square foot fire place and 138 square foot outdoor kitchen on a lot that contains a • condition that any further development must be reviewed by the Planning Commission. The applicants also request Variances to exceed the structural lot coverage by 0.7% and for a new outdoor fireplace chimney to exceed the maximum permitted 12-foot height by 4 feet, on a lot developed with a single family residence and accessory structures. BACKGROUND , 2. In March 1991 in Zoning Case No. 438, the Planning Commission approved 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 -1- • • square foot set aside area for a future stable and corral was also designated on the plan. The then existing house was demolished. At that time it was not required to call out any porches, trellises or other architectural elements on the plans or include them in the calculations. 3. 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. The applicants constructed a 6-foot fence on top of the 4' block wall for a total of 10 feet. Prior to issuing a final inspection of the tennis court, staff required that the applicant request permission from the Planning Commission for the 10-foot fence. In March 2003, the Planning Commission granted a modification to allow a 10-foot screening (4' wall and 6' court fencing). 4. With the residence a 465 square foot covered porch over the garage was constructed. Also constructed was a 555 square foot entryway way and 220 square foot on grade covered porch. These structures were not shown on the plans nor were they calculated into the structural coverages for the lot. 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%. 5. Currently subterranean or semi -subterranean garages are not permitted. MUNICIPAL CODE COMPLIANCE 6. The applicants propose to enlarge the porch over the garage by 750 square feet for a total porch of 1,215 square feet in that location, to construct a 138 square foot outdoor kitchen adjacent to the expanded porch, a 38 square foot fire place, attached to the expanded porch, where the chimney would exceed the permitted height by 4 feet and which would protrude through the roof of the porch, and a 400 square foot detached trellis by the tennis court. 7. No grading or additional disturbance is required for this project. A set aside 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. There is a horse trail on the property and adequate access to the future stable is provided. The trellis would be located over an existing patio area adjacent to the tennis court. The architect proposes to relocate the existing stairs to the tennis court approximately 20 feet to the east. 8. 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 20.68%, which requires a Variance, (currently ZC NO. 775 • • 19.75%). The total coverage (structures and flatwork) is proposed at 33.68%, which is within the 35% maximum permitted, (currently 32.75%). The detached proposed trellis of 400 sq.ft. is not included in the calculations, as per the zoning code, up to 800 sq.ft. of miscellaneous detached structures are not counted toward the coverage. In addition, staff is not including the covered porch over the garage in these calculations (1,215 square feet). The architect argued that since we are already counting the garage as a structure, counting the porch above it would be double counting for structural coverage. The Assistant City Attorney opinioned that the garage is a nonconforming structure, already counted towards the structural coverage, and since they are not adding to the nonconformity (garage) the structural coverage will remain the same. 9. In response for justification for the variance request for exceeding the fire place chimney by 4 feet (12 feet maximum allowed), the applicant's representative states that "the chimney penetrates the proposed porch roof and is required by code to be 2 feet above the highest point of the roof within a 10 foot radius, thus resulting in a 16 foot chimney". He states that this is a building code requirement for all attached fireplaces and detached ones within 10 feet of a roof structure. Staff confirmed this code item with the staff at LA County Building and Safety. A Variance for the structural coverage is requested due to the change in the way structural coverage is calculated. 10. There are two building pads on the lot. The residential building pad coverage will remain at 61.5% (since the additional structures are not calculated towards coverage) and the tennis court coverage will also remain at 81.87% previously approved, because the 400 square foot trellis is exempt from the pad calculations. 11. The project has been determined to be categorically exempt pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). CONCLUSION 12. Other than the increased structural coverage from 19.75% to 20.7%, due to the covered on grade porch and the entryway, which were not counted previously, no changes are proposed to the coverage calculations or disturbance of the lot. 13. 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. 14. In considering the request for Variances, the Commission should consider the criteria for granting of a Variance. ZC NO. 775 }O 15. The lot is mostly developed and the additions are miscellaneous in nature, however, they add to the massing of the structures on the lot. 16. Except for the requested Variances, the project will meet City's development standards. 17. The project provides for construction of a future stable, corral and access. OTHER AGENCIES REVIEW 18. The Rolling Hills Community Association Architectural Committee reviewed the project and approved it in concept. ZC NO. 775 -4- 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. SOURCE: City of Rolling Hills Zoning Ordinance ZC NO. 775 -5- VARIANCE REQUIRED FINDINGS A. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property that donot apply generally to other properties in the same vicinity and zone; and 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; and 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; and D. That in granting the variance, the spirit and intent of this title will be observed; and E. That the variance does not grant special privilege; 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. ZC NO. 775 6.0 4r. - . If" - • ' • -' • • "• °•# 12t- ,,:111.4...• '4 • !*. ",i .4.:fteskr , "•,t's.V:171r..* 4\1-'4'; L • 1, v4" ! * . P:44- • . ' fr . r ---- ., •:::, 4,,,,,......... f Trelli; . oio .10F e` • • Ex ti: Co :ve;ed Pca).11 to b �d r Iilrt2'c w • • IDr 4. a? .t ..„ -,-,.... Z''',--, -, -.1--...1.445e. At•-•e/ ••••"""4.•• . wt.. --- • 1,....,..........,,,,.....: , ' r .1- ......0.1.1.60..., , r. , ar ..... ....-' r A ":4 ..... , __,.. • r f•ii-'= • . . „ , ' V ''. -'..-' -- .. '51,...,,, ,--....... - . . --- ' '''•:-,,,‘ e *Ay< ,...m6L tr.• 4(1017.1 . • -• , - . • — „ " • V141,- 9 • • L17-Zzr'1, I. ,i .....1: ,fitr,.. ...... -.• . , _ t...1%..„ , ,. .---'°"Xt .4.."1").- - • -0,.. -4.A, 4" ''''' ••-..--, 4i. _ # .,,,,- -'-, - - -,- -.,,,::::- .:•.; <-2e, .......x,.-4.!;1;a141-,..,:sr 4-147.4 —42.-- ."*At „;,,,,;_ '• , .. . - • • , South -Eat Elevation • iSet • 412 '4( r";'.414r-iak4 • 4: 4 West Elevation • • South - VIP:{ Sid13:C'1 • , .0-- • / • „ • • 4.7.-41: • " ," A • - • • . • . , • Or A?... • ' .f. 0....:. • .: , •, ".-- ^ .'"111+Eak.7:fg:41., --,541.,. .. _;447--Iii.'-‘,. *. -•••• , s — ' ----t-'4k- ,,WIr...,,,...-t—tX.,4441.4rZAIr'. .4'1;71:1'",:ifilijk.s. '''-V7.•...X4,1 kill ---`' . • .,,,,7-,.....%:',:sr-,.: ',, — • - 2, -,t.:-. --.-,-,,,,,.... •".'M.,;., A.:`,.,,Z.7..,;,,,,,-,1,....-la ''''•*„....• r.,s,„„ ••- • • .....,.c.t., •;..:A. ."7 North East Elevation If 1 . , • • .serrosuargartrearakfti/NOWILim "1" kiftwommilk - • 'VP? 117-- -.141.."----4=1' 4 -,:w1---- '‘Ii:4,ir " :, -, • 4", -••,,tez, . ,--, q ., pt. :,,,,,Z,,,,, As .0.,, . 9"VW • i'''c'Z'''' 4. 7 E T . ' • r44 " ' ,,, ,•;',- -,:jr:r.'15 •,. 4!•:-,24-•••;:.-e-, ' -*.t1.0.•:,l'-:,'..1, ;:•T':-.-'•;•x-rt • ',...k= ..;!:t ,. e* •-......-•gt • 1,1