Loading...
501, Addition to SFR w/Encroachment, Staff ReportsDATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Cuff opeoeen9JdPF INCORPORATED JANUARY August 5, 1994 CRAIG 1t' NEALIS, CITY MANAGER LOLA M. UNGAR, PRINCIPAL PLANNER ILLEGAL CONSTRUCTION AT 10 CREST ROAD WEST MR. AND MRS. KARL FRYKMAN 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 On Tuesday, August 2, 1994, when staff learned that construction was taking place at the subject property without a building permit we had Inspector George Woods issue a "Stop Work Order." He told the workers to stop work and to discuss the matter with Planning staff at City Hall. We spoke by telephone with the architect, Richard Linde, about the need for a building permit. On Thursday, when more work was being done at the site, staff spoke with the workers; the architect, Richard Linde; the contractor, Bill Howe; and the property owner, Mr. Karl Frykman; about the need for a building permit to do construction work. Everyone said they were in the process of getting permits, but the permits were not forthcoming. District Engineering Associate Ed Acosta issued a second "Stop Work Order." Mrs. Helen Frykman visited City Hall today to apologize and assured staff that work would not take place until a building permit was obtained. Senior Building Engineering Inspector Rafael Bernal will be checking the site again today. cc: Members of the City Council :a Printed can Recycled Paper. City ofieo llinq �ue� INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 AGENDA ITEM 4-A FAX: (310) 377.7288 MEETING DATE 11/8/93 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL ATTN: CRAIG R. NEALIS, CITY MANAGER FROM: LOLA M. UNGAR, PRINCIPAL PLANNER SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 501, Mr. and Mrs. Karl Frykman, 10 Crest Road West (Lot 2-CH) RESOLUTION NO. 93-31: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS APPROVING A VARIANCE TO THE REAR YARD SETBACK FOR THE ENCROACHMENT OF ROOM ADDITIONS, APPROVING A VARIANCE TO PERMIT AN ENCROACHMENT INTO THE FRONT YARD TO CONSTRUCT A STABLE AND CORRAL, .AND APPROVING SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR SUBSTANTIAL ADDITIONS IN ZONING CASE NO. 501. BACKGROUND 1. The Planning Commission approved the subject resolution on October 26, 1993. 2. A previous application was approved in 1991, and later was extended in 1992, but approvals expired on July 13, 1993. And, according to Section 17.46.080(B)(3) of the Zoning Code, no extension period can be granted beyond the second anniversary of the original project approval unless a new public hearing is held. And, any extension granted beyond the second anniversary may only be granted or denied in the same manner and based upon the same criteria as required for approval of the original project. 3. At this time, the applicants are in the Plan Check process with the similar plans to those previously submitted in 1991 for 1,516 square feet of residential additions to an existing 2,812.5 square foot residence. The current status of the plans require approval for soils and geology. 4. The applicants are requesting a Variance to permit the encroachment of room additions into the rear yard setback, requesting a Variance to permit the encroachment into the front yard to construct a future stable and corral, and requesting Site Plan Review for substantial additions. : Printed on Recycled Paper • • ZONING CASE NO. 501 PAGE 2 5. The Variance to encroach into the rear yard setback to construct two separate residential additions, one at the southwest wing and one at the southeast wing, will encroach up 15 feet at the southwest wing and will encroach up to 16 feet at the southeast wing into the 50 foot rear yard setback. 6. The structural coverage will be 13.3% and total coverage will be 27.8%. 7. The residential building pad coverage proposed is 37.2%. 8. Grading for the project will not be required. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council receive and file Resolution No. 93-31. • • RESOLUTION NO. 93-31 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS APPROVING A VARIANCE TO THE REAR YARD SETBACK FOR THE ENCROACHMENT OF ROOM ADDITIONS, APPROVING A VARIANCE TO PERMIT AN ENCROACHMENT INTO THE FRONT YARD TO CONSTRUCT A STABLE AND CORRAL, AND APPROVING SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR SUBSTANTIAL ADDITIONS IN ZONING CASE NO. 501. THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Applications were duly filed by Mr. and Mrs. Karl Frykman with respect to real property located at 10 Crest Road West, Rolling Hills (Lot 2-CH) requesting a Variance to permit the encroachment of, room additions into the rear yard setback, requesting a'variance to permit the encroachment into the front yard to construct a future stable and corral, and requesting Site Plan Review for substantial additions. Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the applications for a modification to a previously approved Site Plan Review and for a Variance to the rear yard setback on May 21, 1991 and June 25, 1991, and at a field trip visit on May 30, 1991. Section 3. The Commission approved Resolution No. 91-16 in Zoning Case No. 436 on July 13, 1991. The Commission approved Resolution No. 92-24 to extend the approval for a second year on July 21, 1992. Section 4. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the further extension of applications on August 17, 1993 and September 21, 1993. Section 5. The Planning Commission finds that the project is categorically exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to a Class 3 exemption provided by Section 15303 of the State CEQA Guidelines. Section 6. Sections 17.38.010 through 17.38.050 permit approval of a Variance from the standards and requirements of the Zoning Ordinance when exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applicable to the property and not applicable to other similar properties in the same zone prevent the owner from making use of a parcel of property to the same extent enjoyed by similar properties. .A Variance to Section 17.16.130(1) is required to construct a living room addition in the fifty (50) foot rear yard setback. The applicant is requesting two separate residential additions, one at the southwest wing and one at the southeast wing of the residence. The southwest wing will encroach a maximum of 15 feet and the southeast wing will encroach a maximum of 16 feet into the 50 foot rear yard setback. The Planning Commission finds: • • RESOLUTION NO. 93-31 PAGE 2 A. There are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances and conditions applicable to the property and the intended use that do not apply generally to the other property in the same vicinity and zone. The Variance is necessary because of the unique typography of the lot which is very steep at the front but gently sloping at the rear. The residence is set well back from the street and there is a spacious open feel to the property. There are no residences close by to be affected. B. This Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone, but which is denied to the property in question. The Variance is necessary because the existing development pattern on the lot precludes the requested additions from being built into the front yard. C. The granting of this Variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity or zone in 'which the property is located. Development on the pad will allow a substantial portion of the lot to remain undeveloped. Section 7. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves the Variance to encroach into the rear yard setback for room additions to a maximum of 16 feet as indicated on the Development Plan attached hereto as Exhibit A subject to the conditions contained in. Section 13. Section 8. A Variance to Section 17.16.170(8)(2) is required because this section states that corrals or pens may not be located in the front yard. The applicant is requesting a Variance to encroach to a maximum of 53 feet into the front yard to construct a 450 square foot stable and a 550 square foot corral. With respect to this request, the Planning Commission finds as follows: A. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances and conditions applicable to the property and the intended use that do not apply generally to the other property in the same vicinity and zone. The Variance for the stable and corral is necessary because the topography of the site prevents the construction of a stable and corral in the rear yard. The proper and logical location for the stable and corral is below the proposed building pad because of the topographical nature of the lot. The existing building pad for the residence is located at the southern portion of the lot where the ground is mostly level. The residence is built close to side yard setbacks to the west and to the east which precludes the creation of a flat area for a stable and corral in the rear yard. The area proposed for the stable and corral is the only place available on this property. RESOLUTION NO. 93-31 PAGE 3 B. The Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone, but which is denied the property in question. . The Variance is necessary because the General Plan encourages and the Zoning Ordinance requires the delineation of stables and corrals on properties in the City of Rolling Hills and a stable and corral could not be feasibly located in the rear yard. C. The granting of the Variance will not be materially detrimental.to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which the property is located.' The Variance will permit the construction of a stable and corral which will not impact the street or neighboring properties because other properties in the vicinity have corrals in the front yard. Section 9. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves the Variance to permit the construction of a 450 square foot stable and a 550 square foot corral, subject to the conditions specified in Section 13. Section 10. Section 17.46.010 requires a development plan to be submitted for site plan review and approval before any building or structure may be constructed or any expansion, addition, alteration or repair to existing buildings may be made which involve changes to grading or an increase to the size of the building or structure by more than twenty-five percent (25%) in any thirty-six month period. Section 17.46.080(B)(3) requires that no extension period for Site Plan Review be granted for a period of more than one year unless a new public hearing is •held. Any extension granted beyond the second anniversary of original approval may only be granted or denied in the same manner and based upon the same criteria as required for approval of the original project. Section 11. The Commission makes the following findings of fact: A. The proposed development is compatible with the General Plan, the Zoning Ordinance and surrounding uses because the proposed structure complies with the General Plan requirement of low profile, low density residential development with sufficient open space between surrounding structures. The project conforms to lot coverage requirements. The lot has a net square foot area of 45,196 square feet. The residential structure, garage, and future stable will have 5,078 square feet which constitutes 13.3% of the lot, which is within the maximum 20% structural lot requirement. The total lot coverage including paved areas and driveway will be 12,485 square feet which equals 27.8% of the lot, which is within the 35% maximum overall lot coverage requirement. The proposed RESOLUTION NO. 93-31 PAGE 4 project is similar and compatible with neighboring development patterns. B. The proposed development preserves and integrates into the site design, to the maximum extent feasible, existing natural topographic features of the lot including surrounding native vegetation, mature trees, drainage courses, and land forms (such as hillsides and knolls) because minimal grading for the project is required, thereby preserving most of the existing slope and mature vegetation. C. The development plan follows natural contours of the site to minimize grading and the natural drainage courses will continue to the canyons at the rear of this lot. D. The development plan incorporates existing large trees and native vegetation to the maximum extent feasible and supplements it with landscaping that is compatible with and enhances the rural character of the community. E. The development plan substantially preserves the natural and undeveloped state of the lot by minimizing building coverage because the new structures will not cause the structural and total lot coverage to be exceeded. Further, although the proposed project will have a buildable pad coverage of 37.2% the pad is contiguous to gently sloping areas and significant portions of the lot will be left undeveloped. F. The proposed development is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, the natural terrain and surrounding residences because as indicated in Paragraph A, lot coverage maximum will not be exceeded and the proposed project is of consistent scale with the neighborhood, thereby grading will be required only to restore the natural slope of the property. The ratio of the proposed structure to lot coverage is similar to the ratio found on several properties in the vicinity. G. The proposed development is sensitive and not detrimental to the convenience and safety of circulation for pedestrians and vehicles because the proposed project will utilize the existing vehicular access, thereby having no further impact on the roadway. H. The project conforms with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and is categorically exempt from environmental review. Section 12. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves the Site Plan Review for residential additions, as indicated on the Development Plan attached hereto as Exhibit A subject to the conditions contained in Section 13. • • RESOLUTION NO. 93-31 PAGE 5 Section 13. The Variance to the rear yard setback approved in Section 6, the Variance to the front yard approved in Section 8, and Site Plan Review for residential additions approved in Section 11 as indicated on the Development Plan attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A, are subject to the following conditions: A. The Variances shall expire unless used within one year from the effective date of approval as defined in Section 17.38.070(A)(1) of the Municipal Code. The Site Plan Review approval shall expire within one year from the effective date of approval as defined in Section 17.46.080. B. It is declared and made a condition of the Variances and the Site Plan Review approval, that if any conditions thereof are violated, the Permit shall be suspended and the privileges granted thereunder shall lapse; provided that the applicant has been given written notice to cease such violation and has failed to do so for a period of thirty (30) days. 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 approved by Variance. D. The lot shall be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the site plan on file marked Exhibit A except as otherwise provided in these conditions.' E. The building pad coverage shall not exceed 37.2%. F. A landscape plan must be submitted to and approved by the City of Rolling Hills Planning Department staff prior to the issuance of any grading and building permit. The landscaping plan submitted must comply with the purpose and intent of the Site Plan Review Ordinance, shall incorporate existing mature trees and native vegetation, and shall utilize to the maximum extent feasible, plants that are native to the area and/or consistent with the rural character of the community. A bond in the amount of the cost estimate of the implementation of the landscaping plan plus 15% shall be required to be posted prior to issuance of a grading and building permit and shall be retained with the City for not less than two years after landscape installation. The retained bond will be released by the City Manager after the City Manager determines that the landscaping was installed pursuant to the landscaping plan as approved, and that such landscaping is properly established and in good condition. • • RESOLUTION NO. 93-31 PAGE 6 G. Prior to the submittal of an applicable final grading plan to the County of Los Angeles for plan check, a detailed grading and drainage plan with related geology, soils and hydrology reports that conform to the development plan as approved by the Planning Commission must be submitted to the Rolling Hills Planning Department staff for their review. Cut and fill slopes must conform to the City of Rolling Hills standard of 2 to 1 slope ratio. J. The project must be reviewed and approved by the Rolling Hills Community Association Architectural Review Committee prior to the issuance of any building or grading permit. H. The working drawings submitted to the County Department of Building and Safety for plan check review must conform to the development plan approved with this application. I. Any modifications to the project which would constitute a modification to the development plan as approved by the Planning Commission shall require the filing of an application for modification of the Zoning Case pursuant to Section 17.46.070 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code. K. The applicant shall execute an Affidavit of Acceptance of all conditions of these Variances and Site Plan Review or the approvals shall not be effective. L. All conditions of these Variances and Site Plan Review. approvals must be complied with prior to the issuance of a building or grading permit from the County of Los Angeles. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 26TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 1993. 5-r-ffilLec' ALLAN ROBERTSU CHAIRMAN ATTEST: MARILYN KERN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK • • RESOLUTION NO. 93-31 PAGE 7 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ss I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 93-31 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS APPROVING A VARIANCE TO THE REAR YARD SETBACK FOR THE ENCROACHMENT OF ROOM ADDITIONS, APPROVING A VARIANCE TO PERMIT AN ENCROACHMENT INTO THE FRONT YARD TO CONSTRUCT A STABLE AND CORRAL, AND APPROVING SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR SUBSTANTIAL ADDITIONS IN ZONING CASE NO. 501. was approved and adopted at an adjourned regular meeting of the Planning Commission on October 26, 1993 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Frost, Raine and Chairman Roberts NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Lay ABSTAIN: Commissioner Hankins and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following: Administrative Offices DEPUTY CITY CLERK • City ofieollin9 HEARING DATE: TO: FROM: APPLICATION NO. SITE LOCATION: ZONING & SIZE: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PUBLISHED: REQUEST SEPTEMBER 21, 1993 PLANNING COMMISSION LOLA UNGAR, PRINCIPAL PLANNER ZONING CASE NO. 501 10 CREST ROAD WEST (LOT 2-CH) RA-S-1, 1.353 ACRES MR. AND MRS. KARL FRYKMAN MR. RICHARD LINDE, ARCHITECT SEPTEMBER 11, 1993 INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 , • FAX: (310) 377-7288 The applicants request a Variance to encroach into the front yard for a future stable and corral, request a Variance to encroach into the rear yard setback to construct residential additions and request Site Plan Review for substantial residential additions. DISCUSSION In reviewing the applicant's request under Title 17 (Zoning), staff would identify the following issues for evaluation: 1. A previous application was approved in 1991, and later was extended in 1992, but approvals expired on July 13, 1993. And, according to Section 17.46.080(B)(3) of the Zoning Code, no extension period can be granted beyond the second anniversary of the original project approval unless a new public hearing is held. And, any extension granted beyond the second anniversary may only be granted or denied in the same manner and based upon the same criteria as required for approval of the original project. 2. At this time, the applicants are in the Plan Check process with the similar plans to those previously submitted in 1991 for 1,516 square feet of residential additions. The current status of the plans require approval for soils and geology as noted in the attached letter from Mr. Linde, Architect. 3. The applicants are requesting a Variance to encroach approximately 53 feet into the front yard for a future 450 square foot stable and 550 square foot corral. 4. The applicants also request a Variance to encroach into the rear yard setback to construct two separate residential additions, one at the southwest wing and one at the southeast wing. The southwest wing will encroach up 15 feet and the southeast wing will encroach up to 16 feet into the 50 foot Printed on Recycled Pap ZONING CASE NO. 501 PAGE 2 rear yard setback. 5. In 1990, the Planning Commission granted a Variance to encroach into the rear yard setback and Site Plan Review to permit 1,242 square feet of residential additions at the subject site. Then, in 1991, the Planning Commission approved a modification to the request to permit 164 additional square feet of residential additions (1,406 square feet) to the existing 2,812.5 residence for a total of 4,218.5 square feet of residential space. The present request includes an additional 110 square feet for a total of 4,328.5 square feet. 6. The structural coverage will be 13.3% and total coverage will be 27.8%. 7. The residential building pad coverage proposed is 37.2%. 8. Grading for the project will not be required. 9. The project has been determined to be categorically exempt pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission review the proposed plans and take public testimony if any. City 0/ leffiny HEARING DATE: TO: FROM: APPLICATION NO. SITE LOCATION: ZONING & SIZE: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PUBLISHED: REOUEST INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, AUGUST 17, 1993 PLANNING COMMISSION LOLA UNGAR, PRINCIPAL PLANNER ZONING CASE NO. 501 10 CREST ROAD WEST (LOT 2-CH) RA-S-1, 1.353 ACRES MR. AND MRS. KARL FRYKMAN MR. RICHARD LINDE, ARCHITECT AUGUST 7, 1993 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD' ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 The applicants request a Variance to encroach into the front yard for a future stable and corral, request a Variance to encroach into the rear yard setback to construct residential additions and request Site Plan Review for substantial residential additions. DISCUSSION In reviewing the applicant's request under Title 17 (Zoning), staff would identify the following issues for evaluation: 1. A previous application was approved in 1991, and later was extended in 1992, but approvals expired on July 13, 1993. And, according to Section 17.46.080(B)(3) of the Zoning Code, no extension period can be granted beyond the second anniversary of the original project approval unless a new public hearing is held. And, any extension granted beyond the second anniversary may only be granted or denied in the same manner and based upon the same criteria as required for approval of the original project. 2. At this time, the applicants are in the Plan Check process with the same plans previously submitted in 1991. The current status of the plans require approval for soils and geology as noted in the attached letter from Mr. Linde, Architect. 3. The applicants are requesting a Variance to encroach approximately 53 feet into the front yard for a future 450 square foot stable and 550 square foot corral. 4. The applicants also request a Variance to encroach into the rear yard setback to construct two separate residential additions, one at the southwest wing and one at the southeast wing. The southwest wing will encroach up 15 feet and the southeast wing will encroach up to 16 feet into the 50 foot rear yard setback. Printed on Recycled Paper. ZONING CASE NO. 501 PAGE 2 5. In 1990, the Planning Commission granted a Variance to encroach into the rear yard setback and Site Plan Review to permit 1,242 square feet of residential additions at the subject site. Then, in 1991, the Planning Commission approved a modification to the request to permit 164 additional square feet of residential additions to the existing 2,812.5 residence for a total of 4,328.5 square feet of residential space (a 64.9% increase). 6. The structural coverage will be 13.3% and total coverage will be 27.8%. 7. The residential building pad coverage proposed is 37.2%. 8. Grading for the project will not be required. 9. The project has been determined to be categorically exempt pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission review the proposed plans and take public testimony if any. csimi RICHARD M. LINDE AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 2200 AMAPOLA COURT, SUITE 200 City of Rolling Hills 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 • TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA 90501 a. i. a. architect • [310) 320-8052 August 3, 1993 qglailyIE AUG 0 4 1993 Att: Mr. Craig Nealis CITY OF ROLLING HILLS City Manager gy �. Re: Frykman Residence Addition - Zoning Case No. 436 Building Permit Status Update Dear Craig: As per your request, we are submitting a update on the status of obtaining a building permit for the above referenced project. As was indicated in my previous letter of July 20, 1993, we were ready to obtain a building permit, however, upon a site review by the L.A. County field inspector a soils and geology report was requested. Our soils and geology consultants are in the process of their field and laboratory work and have indicated the finished report will be available within ten (10) days. We will then hand carry this re- port to the L.A. County for their review and approval, in which case, we will then obtain the building report. If any further information is necessary, please call me. Thanks again for your help. RML:g11 Sincerely, Richard M. iinde AIA RESOLUTION NO. 92-24 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS APPROVING A MODIFICATION TO RESOLUTION NO. 91-16 GRANTING A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH INTO THE REAR YARD SETBACK TO PERMIT A LIVING ROOM ADDITION IN ZONING CASE NO. 436. THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. A request has been filed by Mr. and Mrs. Karl Frykman with respect to real property located at 10 Crest Road West, Rolling Hills (Lot 2-CH) requesting a modification to a previously approved site plan and a Variance to, permit the encroachment of a living room addition into the rear yard setback. The modification requested is to extend the allowable time period for the residential additions.:, Section 2. The Commission considered this item at its meeting on July 21, 1992 at which time information was presented indicating that the extension of time is necessary for the applicants to accumulate funds for building construction. Section 3. Based upon information and evidence submitted, the Planning Commission does hereby amend Paragraph A, Section 5 of Resolution No. 91-21 to read as follows: "A. The Variance and Site Plan Review approvals shall expire within two years of the approval of this Resolution." Section Resolution No PASSED, 4. Except as herein amended, the provisions of . 91-16 shall continue to be in full force and effect. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 21ST DAY OF JULY, 1992. ALLAN ROBERTS, CHAIRMAN ATTEST: Qw DIANE SAWYER, DEPUTY CYTY CLERK 1 • RESOLUTION NO. 92-24 PAGE 2 The foregoing Resolution No. 92-24 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS APPROVING A MODIFICATION TO RESOLUTION NO. 91-16 GRANTING A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH INTO THE REAR YARD SETBACK TO PERMIT A LIVING ROOM ADDITION IN ZONING CASE NO. 436. was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on July 21, 1992 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Frost, Hankins, Lay and Chairman Roberts NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Raine ABSTAIN: None DEPUTY ITY CLERK RESOLUTION NO. 91-16 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS APPROVING A MODIFICATION TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE PLAN AND GRANTING A VARIANCE TO THE REAR YARD SETBACK FOR THE ENCROACHMENT OF A LIVING ROOM ADDITION IN ZONING CASE NO. 436. THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Applications were duly filed by Mr. and Mrs. Karl Frykman with respect to real property located at 10 Crest Road West, Rolling Hills (Lot 2-CH) requesting a modification to a previously approved site plan and requesting a Variance to permit the encroachment of a living room addition into the rear yard setback. Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the applications for a modification to a previously approved Site Plan Review and for a Variance to the rear yard setback on May 21, and June 25, 1991, and at a field trip visit on May 30, 1991. Section 3. Sections 17.32.010 through 17.32.030 permit approval of a Variance from the standards and requirements of the Zoning Ordinance when exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applicable to the property and not applicable to other similar properties in the same zone prevent the owner from making use of a parcel of property to the same extent enjoyed by similar properties. A Variance to Section 17.16.080 is required to construct a living room addition in the fifty (50) foot rear yard setback. The applicant is requesting an addition that will encroach a maximum of sixteen (16) feet into the rear yard setback. The Planning Commission finds: A. There are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances and conditions applicable to the property and the intended use that do not apply generally to the other property in the same vicinity and zone. The Variance is necessary because of the unique typography of the lot which is very steep at the front but gently sloping at the rear. The residence is set well back from the street and there is a spacious open feel to the property. There are no residences close by to be effected. B. This Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone, but which is denied to the property in question. The Variance is necessary because the existing development pattern on the lot precludes the requested additions from being built into the front yard. • • RESOLUTION NO. 91-16 PAGE 2 C. The granting of this Variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity or zone in which the property is located. Development on the pad will allow a substantial portion of the lot to remain undeveloped. Section 4. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves the Variance to encroach into the rear yard setback to enlarge a living room to a maximum of 16 feet as indicated on the Development Plan attached hereto as Exhibit A subject to the conditions contained in Section 8. The Planning Commission also finds that the project conforms with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and is categorically exempt from environmental review. Section 5. Section 17.34.070 provides for a subsequent modification after a site plan review application has been approved. Modification of the approved plans and/or any conditions imposed including additions or deletions, may be considered. The decision on the modification of plans and/or conditions shall be in the same manner as set forth in Sections 17.32.030 and 17.34.040 of the Municipal Code. Section 6. The Commission makes the following findings of fact: A. The proposed development is compatible with the General Plan, the Zoning Ordinance and surrounding uses because the proposed structure complies with the General Plan requirement of low profile, low density residential development with sufficient open space between surrounding structures. The project conforms to lot coverage requirements. The lot has a net square foot area of 45,196 square feet. The residential structure, garage, and future stable will have 5,528 square feet which constitutes 12.1% of the lot, which is within the maximum 20% structural lot requirement. The total lot coverage including paved areas and driveway will be 11,933 square feet which equals 26.4% of the lot, which is within the 35% maximum overall lot coverage requirement. The proposed project is similar and compatible with neighboring development patterns. B. The proposed development preserves and integrates into the site design, to the maximum extent feasible, existing natural topographic features of the lot including surrounding native vegetation, mature trees, drainage courses, and land forms (such as hillsides and knolls) because minimal grading for the project is required, thereby preserving most of the existing slope and mature vegetation. • • RESOLUTION NO. 91-16 PAGE 3 C. The development plan follows natural contours of the site to minimize grading and the natural drainage courses will continue to the canyons at the rear of this lot. D. The development plan incorporates existing large trees and native vegetation to the maximum extent feasible and supplements it with landscaping that is compatible with and enhances the rural character of the community. E. The development plan substantially preserves the natural and undeveloped state of the lot by minimizing building coverage because the new structures will not cause the structural and total lot coverage to be exceeded. Further, although the proposed project will have a buildable pad coverage of 37.2%, the pad is contiguous to gently sloping areas and significant portions of the lot will be left undeveloped. F. The proposed development is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, the natural terrain and surrounding residences because as indicated in Paragraph A, lot coverage maximum will not be exceeded and the proposed project is of consistent scale with the neighborhood, thereby grading will be required only to restore the natural slope of the property. The ratio of the proposed structure to lot coverage is similar to the ratio found on several properties in the vicinity. G. The proposed development is sensitive and not detrimental to the convenience and safety of circulation for pedestrians and vehicles because the proposed project will utilize the existing vehicular access, thereby having no further impact on the roadway. H. The project conforms with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and is categorically exempt from environmental review. Section 7. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves the Site Plan Review for residential additions, as indicated on the Development Plan attached hereto as Exhibit A subject to the conditions contained in Section 8. Section 8. The Variance to the rear yard setback approved in Sections 4 and the Site Plan Review for residential additions approved in Section 7 as indicated on the Development Plan attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A, are subject to the following conditions: • • RESOLUTION NO. 91-16 PAGE 4 A. The Variance shall expire unless used within one year from the effective date of approval as defined in Section 17.32.110 of the Municipal Code. The Site Plan Review approval shall expire within one year from the effective date of approval as defined in Section 17.34.080.A. B. It is declared and made a condition of the Variance and the Site Plan Review approval, that if any conditions thereof are violated, the Permit shall be suspended and the privileges granted thereunder shall lapse; provided that the applicant has been given written notice to cease such violation and has failed to do so for a period of thirty (30) days. C. All requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and of the zone in which the subject property is located must be complied with unless otherwise set forth in the Permit, or shown otherwise on an approved plan. D. The lot shall be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the site plan on file marked Exhibit A except as otherwise provided in these conditions. E. A landscape plan must be submitted to and approved by the City of Rolling Hills Planning Department staff prior to the issuance of any grading and building permit. The landscaping plan submitted must comply with the purpose and intent of the Site Plan Review Ordinance, shall incorporate existing mature trees and native vegetation, and shall utilize to the maximum extent feasible, plants that are native to the area and/or consistent with the rural character of the community. A bond in the amount of the cost estimate of the implementation of the landscaping plan plus 15% shall be required to be posted prior to issuance of a grading and building permit and shall be retained with the City for not less than two years after landscape installation. The retained bond will be released by the City Manager after the City Manager determines that the landscaping was installed pursuant to the landscaping plan as approved, and that such landscaping is properly established and in good condition. F. Prior to the submittal of an applicable final grading plan to the County of Los Angeles for plan check, a detailed grading and drainage plan with related geology, soils and hydrology reports that conform to the development plan as approved by the Planning Commission must be submitted to the Rolling Hills Planning Department staff for their review. Cut and fill slopes must conform to the City of Rolling Hills standard of 2 to 1 slope ratio. RESOLUTION NO. 91-16 PAGE 5 G. The project must be reviewed and approved by the Rolling Hills Community Association Architectural Review Committee prior to the issuance of any building or grading permit. H. The working drawings submitted to the County Department of Building and Safety for plan check review must conform to the development plan approved with this application. I. Any modifications to the project which would constitute a modification to the development plan as approved by the Planning Commission shall require the filing of an application for modification of the Zoning Case pursuant to Section 17.34.070 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code. J. The building pad coverage shall not exceed 37.2%. K. The applicant shall execute an Affidavit of Acceptance of all conditions of this Variance, pursuant to Section 17.32.087, or the approval shall not be effective. L. All conditions of this Variance and Site Plan Review approval must be complied with prior to the issuance of a building or grading permit from the County of Los Angeles. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 13TH DAY OF°JULY, 1991. ALLAN ROBERTS, CHAIRMAN ATTEST: DIANE 'AWYER, DEPUTi CITY CLERK RESOLUTION NO. 91-16 PAGE 6 The foregoing Resolution No. 91-16 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS APPROVING A MODIFICATION TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE PLAN AND GRANTING A VARIANCE TO THE REAR YARD SETBACK FOR THE ENCROACHMENT OF A LIVING ROOM ADDITION IN ZONING CASE NO. 436. was approved and adopted at a regular adjournedmeeting of the Planning Commission on July 13, 1991 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Frost, Lay, Raine and Chairman Roberts NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Commissioner Hankins DEPUTIY CITY CLERC K