Loading...
, Construct a new SFR with garag, Staff ReportsHEARING DATE: TO: FROM: APPLICATION NO. SITE LOCATION: ZONING & SIZE: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PUBLISHED: REQUEST • o/ Ro ee.�ns JUL INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (213) 377-1521 FAX: (213) 377-7288 DECEMBER 17, 1991 PLANNING COMMISSION LOLA UNGAR, PRINCIPAL PLANNER MODIFICATION TO ZONING CASE NO. 403 2864 PALOS VERDES DRIVE NORTH (LOT 992-A-RH) RAS-1, 1.36 ACRES MR. STEVE M. CALHOUN MR. DOUGLAS MCHATTIE, SOUTH BAY ENGINEERING DECEMBER 7, 1991 The applicant requests a Variance to permit the encroachment of a retaining wall into the side yard setback and a request for Site Plan Review for the construction of a new single family residence. DISCUSSION In reviewing the applicant's request under Title 17 (Zoning), staff would identify the following issues for evaluation: 1. The applicant is requesting a modification to Zoning Case No. 403 which was approved by the Planning Commission on November 11, 1989 in Resolution No. 89-27 (attached), and subsequently, extended to November 11, 1991 in Resolution No. 90-30 (attached) when it expired. 2. In early, December, 1991, the applicant requested final approvals for the project after Planning Commission approvals had expired. Section 17.34.080.B of the Zoning Code requires that "Extensions shall not be granted for more than one year unless a public hearing is held and approval granted in the same manner and based upon the same criteria as for the issuance of a new permit." 3. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a Variance to permit the encroachment up to 5 feet into the side yard setback for a retaining wall, and requesting Site Plan Review for a proposed new 4,310 square foot residence, an 800 square foot garage, a 450 square foot future stable, and a 96 square foot service yard. 4. The existing plans are the same as the previously approved plans except for the required addition of a 450 square foot future stable and 550 square foot corral. MODIFICATION TO ZONING CASE NO. 403 PAGE 2 5. Plans show that grading for the project site will require 800 cubic yards of cut and 800 cubic yardsof fill soil. Extensive grading has taken place on the subject lot without benefit of a grading permit and a "stop work order" jas been issued by the County of Los Angeles. 6. The structural lot coverage proposed is 5,656 square feet or 15.4% (20a permitted) and the total lot coverage proposed is 8,424 square feet or 22.9% (35% permitted). 7. The building pad coverage proposed is 27.3%. 8. Access to the project will be from the northeast off a private driveway from Palos Verdes Drive North. 9. The project has been determined to be categorically exempt pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). 10 Planning Commission members may grant approval of this project with or without field inspection, since the project is identical to what was previously approved. A letter from the applicant is attached to this staff report requesting a waiver of all fees for this new application. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission review the proposed plans and take public testimony. Although the time allotted (one year) for a site plan and building permit has lapsed by two weeks, I am requesting my site plan and building permit be approved and stamped. I also request that I am not required to pay any further fees. It is my opinion that one year, the necessary approvals required nine months to approve my grading approval the entire time. Steve Calhoun is not adequate time to obtain by the city. The county took plan, and I was pushing for the fir)1 E • uu DEC 0 5 1991 Bu City Of Rolling Hills RESOLUTION NO. 90-30 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS APPROVING AN EXTENSION OF APPROVAL FOR A VARIANCE TO THE SIDE YARD SETBACK AND FOR A SITE PLAN REVIEW IN ZONING CASE NO. 403 THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. An application was duly filed by Mr. & Mrs. Steve Calhoun with respect to real property located at 2864 Palos Verdes Drive North, Rolling Hills (Lot 992-A-RH) requesting an extension on a variance to construct a portion of a retaining wall into the side yard setback and a site plan review approval for a proposed residential reconstruction on the site. The Variance and Site Plan Review approval have a date of expiration of November 11, 1990. Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the application on September 18, 1990. Section 3. Section 17.32.110 (A) provides for the Planning Commission to grant an extension for up to one year on a Variance approval. Section 17.34.080 (B) provides for an extension for up to one year on a Site Plan Review approval upon application by the property owner, and that a public hearing is to be held and an approval granted in the same manner and based upon the same criteria as for the issuance of a new permit. Section 4. Pursuant to the foregoing Section, the Planning Commission makes the finding that previous findings determined with the approved Resolution No. 89-27, dated November 11, 1989, can be restated. Section 5. Based upon the foregoing Section, the Planning Commission hereby approves the extension of approval for Zoning Case No. 403 to permit a one year extension of the Variance and Site Plan Review approval to November 11, 1991. 1990. ATTEST: PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 6th (A:1 Depbty City C1 k _ day of October. Allan Roberts, Chairman RESOLUTION NO. 89-27 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A VARIANCE TO THE SIDE YARD SETBACK AND SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL IN ZONING CASE NO. 403 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. Steve Calhoun with respect to real property located at 2864 Palos Verdes Drive North, Rolling Hills (Lot 992-A-RH) requesting a variance to construct a portion of the retaining wall into the side yard setback and site plan review approval for a proposed residential reconstruction on the site. Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the application on July 18, 1989, August 15, 1989, September 19, 1989, and October 17, 1989, and conducted a field site review on August 5, 1989. Section 3. Sections 17.32.010 and 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 property to the same extent enjoyed by similar properties. Pursuant to these Sections, the Planning Commission finds that: A. The proposed encroachment involves the construction of a portion of a five-foot high maximum retaining wall which will have 30 linear feet that encroaches four feet into the side yard setback. B. Due to the shape and topography of the property, there exists unique circumstances not generally applicable to other properties in the same zone that justify the encroachment. C The grant of this variance will permit this property to be developed in a manner consistent with the other adjacent prioperties that require retaining walls due to the topography of the area. D. The grant of a variance under these circumstances will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare and will be compatible with surrounding properties and will be consistent with the goals of the Zoning Ordinance. Section 4. Based on the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves the Variance for Case No. 403 to permit the construction of a portion of a retaining wall into the side yard setback as indicated in the Development Plan submitted with this application and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit A, subject to Condition A contained in Section 7 of this resolution. • • Section 5. Section 17.34.010 requires a development plan to be submitted for site plan review and approval before any building or structure may be constructed or any expansion, addition, alteration or repair to existing buildings may be made which involve changes to grading or an increase to the size of the building or structure by more than twenty-five (25%) percent in any thirty-six (36) month period. fact: Section 6. The Commission makes the following findings of A. The proposed residential structure is compatible with the low density, rural character requirements of the General Plan. This project is compatible with the Zoning Ordinance because the project complies with the Zoning Ordinance lot coverage requirements. The net square footage of the lot is is approximately 36,736 square feet. The proposed residential structures including garage equals 5,157 square feet which represents 14.0% structural lot coverage, which is within the 20% maximum coverage that is permitted. The total lot coverage is approximately 8,090 square feet which represents a proposed total lot coverage of 21.3 %. which is within the 35% maximum coverage that is permitted. The proposed project includes a residence, garage, and proposed future stable, which structures are similar to surrounding residential land use patterns. B. The proposed development preserves the natural topographic features of the lot to the maximum extent possible because all construction will occur away from the canyon, on the westerly portion of the property, leaving a large portion of the lot undeveloped. D. The proposed project follows the natural contours of the site to minimize grading to the maximum extent possible. Existing drainage patterns will be preserved so that drainage will be channeled into existing drainage courses and engineered and constructed within the requirements of the building codes. D. The project preserves surrounding native vegetation to the maximum possible, by retaining the mature vegetation along the canyon slope. E. The project substantially preserves the natural and undeveloped state of the lot by minimizing building coverage in that the residential structure will cover only 14.0% of the lot, which is less than the 20% of coverage -2- that is permitted. The total structural lot coverage including driveways, and hard surfaces will equal approximately 21.3% of the lot, which is less than the 35% of coverage that is permitted. F. The project is harmonious in scale and mass with the site as indicated in paragraph E above because the proposed development will be substantially similar to the existing site development. G. The project is sensitive and not convenience and safety of pedestrians vehicles in that the driveway will be adequate separation from other driveways trail. detrimental to the and circulation of located to provide and the equestrian H. The project conforms to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and is categorically exempt from environmental review. Section 7. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Commission hereby approves the site plan review application for a proposed residential reconstruction on the property located at 2864 Palos Verdes Drive North as indicated on the development plan attached hereto as Exhibit A and subject to the following conditions: A. The variance to the side yard shall expire if not used in one year from the effective date of approval as defined and specified in Section 17.32.110 of the Municipal Code. B. The proposed building plan must be approved by the Rolling Hills Community Association Architectural Committee before the applicant receives a grading permit from the County of Los Angeles. C. Prior to the submittal of a final grading and drainage plan to the County of Los Angeles and issuance of building permits, said plan shall be submitted to the Rolling Hills Planning Department Staff for their review, along with related geology, soils and hydrology reports. This grading plan must conform to the development plan as approved by the Planning Commission. D. A landscape plan must be submitted to the City of Rolling Hills Planning Department staff for approval prior to the issuance of a permit. The landscaping plan submitted must comply with the purpose and intent of the Site Plan Review Ordinance. The landscaping plan shall incorporate existing mature trees and native vegetation along the canyon. -3- E. The system for sanitation disposal shall be indicated on the development plan. F. The working drawings submitted to the County Department of Building and Safety for plan check must conform to the Development Plan approved with this site plan review. G. Any modifications to the development plan as approved by the Planning Commission shall require the filing of an application for modification of the development plan and must be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission pursuant to Section 17.34.070 of the Roling Hills Municipal Code. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this llth day of November , 1589. /c/ Allan Rn}hPri'c Chairman ATTEST: Deput, City Clerk STAFF REPORT DATE: SEPTEMBER 18, 1990 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: STAFF SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 403; Request for Extension of approval for a Variance to the side yard setback and Site Plan Review for a new residence; 2864 Palos Verdes Drive North, Lot 992-A-RH; Owner: Calhoun DISCUSSION The City is in receipt of a letter, dated August 8, 1990, from Mr. Richard Linde, architect and representative for Mr. Steve Calhoun, owner of the vacant site located at 2864 Palos Verdes Drive North. The applicant is requesting an extension of approval for the variance and site plan review approved by the Commission on November 11, 1989. The applicant indicates that his absence out of the country for a prolonged period has delayed execution of the project. Sections 17.32.110 and 17.34.080 (B) of the Municipal Code provide for extensions on variance and site plan review approvals subject to expiration. In reviewing the applicant's request, staff would have no objection to accepting the extension request. The additional time would allow the applicant to prepare plans for checking by approriate agencies. RECOMMENDATION Staff would recommend that the Planning Commission approve an extension of one year to an expiration date of November 11, 1991. zc403ext • o STAFF REPORT DATE: October 12, 1989 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: STAFF SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 403; Request for Variance and Site Plan Review for a proposed residence on property located at 2684 Palos Verdes Drive North, Lot 992-A-RH; Owner: Steve Calhoun DISCUSSION The Planning Commission, at their regular meeting of September 19, 1989, continued the above stated application to allow the applicant time to react to the suggestions of the Commission and resubmit revised plans. It was ascertained at the last meeting that retaining walls were required, and may necessitate construction within yard setbacks. The applicant's revised site plan indicates that a retaining wall encroaches into the side yard setback, thus requiring a variance. This application was renoticed to include the variance request for the side yard encroachment. The applicant's revised plans now show that the proposed residence will comply with the required building setbacks, especially the 50 foot front yard setback from the easement. Otherwise, approximately 30 linear feet of retaining wall will encroach about four feet (4') into the required side yard setback. The plans show the drainage directions, which generally occur to the direction of the westerly canyon and the roadway. It is further noted that roof drainage will be captured and directed to the point of discharge at the canyon. The subject site was field inspected by members of the Commission and staff. Staff would note property characteristics of irregular shape and varied topography which includes the presence of the canyon. • • RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission closely examine the proposal for development compatibility, and evaluate potential impacts to the site and surrounding properties. The Commission must determine if the findings set forth in the zoning ordinance are met in order to permit the variance and site plan review. Attachments: Staff reports, 8/15/89; 9/19/89 STAFF REPORT DATE:_ September 6, 1989 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: STAFF SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 403; Request for Variance to encroach into the front yard setback; Request for Site Plan Review to determine compatibility of proposed residence and structures on property located at 2864 Palos Verdes Drive North, Lot 992-A-RH; Owner: Steve Calhoun DISCUSSION The Planning Commission, at their regular meeting of August 15, 1989, continued the above stated application to a scheduled field trip so as to again inspect the site. A number of issues were raised at the meeting as follows: 1. The Commission questioned if the 24,600 square foot graded pad area could accomodate another design, or that the structure size be possibly reduced. Plans identified that the natural drainage course at the rear is a building constraint and is subject to flooding. The proposed residence and garage has a pad coverage of approximately 22 percent. 2. The applicant's engineer indicated that the natural slope will pose a difficulty for garage access should there be any reorientation. 3. A neighbor raised potential drainage impacts, and vehicular maneuverability concerns and equestrian access at the front driveway. 4. Viable alternatives to alleviate or remove the variance were discussed with the applicant, including "roadway" line adjustments, floor area reductions, and structure relocation. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission closely examine the proposal for development compatibility, and evaluate recognizable impacts to the site and surrounding property. The Commission must determine if the findings set forth in the zoning ordinance are met in order to permit the variance and site plan review approval. Attachment: Staff Report, 8/15/89 August 15,. 1989 PROJECT DESCRIPTION APPLICATION NO.: SITE LOCATION: ZONING: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PUBLISHED: PRIOR CITY ACTIONS: PROPERTY SIZE/ CONFIGURATION: PRESENT DEVELOPMENT: STAFF REPORT Zoning Case 403 2864 Palos Verdes Drive North; Lot 992-A-RH RAS-1 Mr. and Mrs. Steve Calhoun Richard M. Linde, Architect 7/8/89 7/18/89 Planning Commission continued 1.36 acres gross, irregular shape Vacant; access from private driveway REOUEST: Site Plan Review to determine compatibility of new residence and garage; Variance to encroach into the setback to construct the new garage. REVIEW AND EVALUATION OF ISSUES: a proposed front yard In reviewing the applicant's request under Ordinance 221 (Site Plan Review) and Title 17 (Zoning), Staff would identify the following issues: 1. The Planning Commission, at their regular meeting of July 18, 1989, continued the matter to allow the applicant time to address concerns raised regarding grading, vegetation removal, drainage, and setback standards for new homes. 2. Staff has conferred with the project engineer regarding the coverage of potential graded pad. The engineer has indicated a pad of approximately 24,600 square feet. Based upon this information, the proposed structures have a pad coverage of 22%. Overall site development will have a total lot coverage of 22% (14.7% structure, 7.3% flatwork). 3. Natural drainage runs northerly to the abutting property (Lot 993-4-RH). Development techniques for this property must be scrutinized so as not to have additional sheet water flow that may be detrimental to the neighbor. Additional drainage flows westerly to the rear of the site that is indicated subject to flood hazard. 4. New home development typically complies with ordinance standards. Section 17.16.060 requires a 50 foot setback from the front easement line. Alternatives presented to the applicant include reducing the size of the structure appropriately (by 20 feet) or relocate the project to incorporate the required setback. Abutting • ZONING CASE 403 Page Two properties include a nonconforming front yard setback to the north (19 feet), and setbacks of well over 50 feet to the east. 5. The requested projet has been reviewed in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (C.E.Q.A.), and determined to be categorically exempt. RECOMMENDATION: Unless the project can be reduced in size or relocated to comply with the required front setback, Staff cannot support the proposed project. Since the required findings set forth in Section 17.32.030 cannot be made, Staff would recommend disapproval of the variance.