Loading...
938, Rebuild a 5 ft high retaining , Staff Reports6(4 atc Ralle:09 get4 INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX (310) 377-7288 Agenda Item No. 8A Mtg. Date: 03-26-18 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, INTERIM CITY MANAGER (f 1 SUBJECT: RESOLUTION NO. 2018-04. A RESOLUTION O THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A SITE PLAN REVIEW AND VARIANCE TO RECONSTRUCT AN EXISTING 5' HIGH, 112' LONG RETAINING WALL WHICH ENCROACHES INTO THE SIDE YARD SETBACK AND WHICH WOULD NOT AVERAGE OUT TO 21/2 FEET, IN ZONING CASE NO. 938, AT 2910 PALOS VERDES DRIVE NORTH, (LOT 993-3-RH) (WONG). APPLICATION NO. SITE LOCATION: ZONING AND SIZE: OWNER: REPRESENTATIVE: PUBLISHED: ZONING CASE NO. 938 2910 PALOS VERDES DRIVE NORTH (LOT 993-3-RH) RA-S-1, 0.9 ACRES (EXCL ROAD) JEAN WONG QUALITY CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION MARCH 8, 2018 PROTECT DESCRIPTION AND PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION 1. It is recommended that the City Council receive and file this report or provide other direction to staff. 2. The applicant, Ms. Wong, submitted an application for a Site Plan Review and Variance to reconstruct an existing 5' high, 112' long retaining wall. A Site Plan Review is required to allow the wall to exceed 3' in height and a Variance is required to keep: the reconstructed wall in the side yard setback, 6' from the side property line (14' encroachment), and to allow the wall not to average out to 2 1/2 feet. The new wall would be in the same location as the existing wall. No grading, except for excavation of the old wall is proposed. 3. The Planning Commission held a field trip public hearing on March 20, 2018 and at the evening meeting on the same day adopted a Resolution approving the project. ZC NO. 938 1 1/13 • • Due to the poor condition of the existing retaining wall, the applicant would like to commence demolition and reconstruction immediately. Therefore, staff and the Planning Commission expedited this project. The Planning Commission found that this wall is necessary to support a slope; it is not obtrusive; there is adequate area around the house for passage (6-9'); the wall already exists but needs to be reconstructed with proper permits and construction method. The Resolution contains standard findings, facts and conditions, including conditions specific to this case such as: - The common driveway approach from PV Dr. North shall be passable at all times and not be impeded by construction vehicles; flagmen to be present when the driveway approach is to be obstructed - Erosion control and storm water management measures shall be implemented BACKGROUND 4. The applicants request a Site Plan Review to permit demolition and reconstruction of a 5' high and 112' long retaining wall. Variance is requested to locate the wall 14' into the side setback and for the wall not to average out to 2 1/2 feet in height. The existing wall is in very poor condition and the slope behind the wall is steep and it needs to be retained. No reconstruction of the slope or grading for the wall is proposed. 5. There are no records on file for the existing wall, and with this application the wall would be legalized and permitted by the Building and Safety Department. The building plan checker deemed the retaining wall necessary, due to the ascending slope and the proximity of the slope to the property line, and the house, which is about 6-9'. 6. The applicant prepared soils report, for the area of the wall and structural plans and submitted to the LA County Building and Safety Department for preliminary review. The plans and soils have been reviewed and the project is ready for issuance of building permit. However, a building permit will not be issued until the Planning Commission/City Council grants approval of this project. 7. Subject property is located in the RA-S-1 Zone and is 0.9 acres in size. It is developed with a single family residence and a swimming pool and is occupied. No other improvements are proposed with this application. Therefore, there are no changes to the lot coverage or disturbance of the lot. Staff did not require that the applicant provide the size of the existing structures, coverage or disturbance information as the reconstruction of the existing wall does not affect the development standards. This is a like for like replacement, except now it will be constructed with the proper approvals, structural plans and building permit. 8. The project was approved by the Rolling Hills Community Association. 9. When reviewing a development application the Planning Commission consider whether the proposed project meets the criteria for a Site Plan Review and Variances, enclosed below. ZC No. 938 2 2/13 10. The project has been determined to be categorically exempt pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). SITE PLAN REVIEW CRITERIA 11.46.010 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. 11.46.050 Required findings. A. The Commission shall be required to make findings in acting to approve, conditionally approve, or deny a site plan review application. B. No project which requires site plan review approval shall be approved by the Commission, or by the City Council on appeal, unless the following findings can be made: 1. The project complies with and is consistent with the goals and policies of the general plan and all requirements of the zoning ordinance; 2. The project substantially preserves the natural and undeveloped state of the lot by minimizing building coverage. Lot coverage requirements are regarded as maximums, and the actual amount of lot coverage permitted depends upon the existing buildable area of, the lot; 3. The project is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, the natural terrain and surrounding residences; 4. The project preserves and integrates into the site design, to the greatest extent possible, existing topographic features of the site, including surrounding native vegetation, mature trees, drainage courses and land forms (such as hillsides and knolls); 5. Grading has been designed to follow natural contours of the site and to minimize the amount of grading required to create the building area; 6. Grading will not modify existing drainage channels nor redirect drainage flow, unless such flow is redirected into an existing drainage course; 7. The project preserves surrounding native vegetation and mature trees and supplements these elements with drought -tolerant landscaping which is compatible with and enhances the rural character of the community, and landscaping provides a buffer or transition area between private and public areas; 8. The project is sensitive and not detrimental to the convenient and safe movement of pedestrians and vehicles; and 9. The project conforms to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. ZC No. 938 3 3/13 CRITERIA FOR VARIANCES 17.38.050 Required findings. In granting a variance, the Commission (and Council on appeal) must make the following findings: A. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same vicinity and zone; B. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights possessed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone but which is denied the property in question; C. That the granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; D. That in granting the variance, the spirit and intent of this title will be observed; E. That the variance does not grant special privilege to the applicant; F. That the variance is consistent with the portions of the County of Los Angeles Hazardous Waste Management Plan relating to siting and siting criteria for hazardous waste facilities; and G. That the variance request is consistent with the general plan of the City of Rolling Hills. SOURCE: City of Rolling Hills Zoning Ordinance ZC No. 938 4 4/13 a 1 • • RESOLUTION NO. 2018-04 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A SITE PLAN REVIEW AND VARIANCE TO RECONSTRUCT AN EXISTING 5' HIGH, 112' LONG RETAINING WALL WHICH ENCROACHES INTO THE SIDE YARD SETBACK AND WHICH WOULD NOT AVERAGE OUT TO 2 1/2 FEET, IN ZONING CASE NO. 938, AT 2910 PALOS VERDES DRIVE NORTH, (LOT 993-3-RH) (WONG). 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 Ms. Jean Wong with respect to real property located at 2910 Palos Verdes Drive North, Rolling Hills, requesting a Site Plan Review and Variance to reconstruct an existing 5' high, 112' long retaining wall. A Site Plan Review is required to allow the wall to exceed 3' in height and a Variance is required to keep the reconstructed wall in the side yard setback, 6' from the side property line (14' encroachment), and to allow the wall not to average out to 21/2 feet. The new wall would be in the same location as the existing wall. No grading, except for excavation of the old wall is proposed. Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted duly noticed public hearings to consider the application on March 20, 2018 in the field and at an evening meeting on March 20, 2018, at which the Resolution of Approval was reviewed by the Planning Commission, and following discussion was adopted. Evidence was heard and presented from all persons interested in affecting said proposal, and from members of the City staff and the Planning Commission having reviewed, analyzed and studied said proposal. The applicant's representative was in attendance at the hearings. No one from the public came forward to address this project. Section 3. The Planning Commission finds that the project is categorically exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act. Section 4. Subject property is located in the RA-S-1 Zone and the existing retaining wall is in very poor condition. There are no records on file permitting the existing wall, which is located in the side setback. The applicant requests to reconstruct the wall in its original location. Section 5. 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. In the subject application, the Applicant Reso. 2018-04 2910 PV DR. N 1 7/13 • • requested Variances to exempt them from strict compliance with Section 17.16.120, requiring a side -yard setback of 20 feet in the RAS-1 zone; and section 17.16.190(F), requiring that walls shall average out to two and one-half feet as measured from the finished grade to the top of the wall. With respect to these requests for Variances, the Planning Commission finds as follows: A. There are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances and conditions applicable to this property that do not generally apply to the other properties in the same vicinity and zone. The existing retaining wall encroaches into the side setback and does not average out to 21/2 feet and the proposed wall will be located in the same location and be of the same height as the existing wall. There is a 2:1 slope behind the wall that needs to be retained; otherwise the slope would slough off and cause damage to the nearby residence. The existing wall was constructed without building permits or to current code standards. The wall is in a very poor condition and is leaning away from the slope, and is therefore in danger of failing down. Its reconstruction is a sound solution to retain the dirt behind it. B. The Variances are necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone, but which would be denied to the property in question absent such variances. With the constraint of the lots' topography and the configuration of the existing residence in close proximity to the retaining wall, it is a challenge to move the wall outside the setback and still leave room for a Fire Department required walkway around the residence. Furthermore, the retaining wall is necessary in order to preserve the ascending slope, which is of even height across the entire length of the existing wall and cannot be averaged out. A variance from the requirements of section 17.16.190(F) would preserve the enjoyment of substantial property rights possessed by other properties by minimizing the amount of construction necessary to achieve an average wall height of 2.5 feet and would help preserve the aesthetics of the property; C. The granting of the Variances would 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 side -yard encroachments 14 feet already existing and no further encroachment is proposed. The wall is not visible from any neighbor, as the face of the wall faces the house on subject property, and it supports a vegetated slope behind it. The encroaching portion of the wall, being located on the south side of the property, will not impair views of neighbors to . the north. Furthermore, a five-foot retaining wall is necessary in order to preserve a four -foot walkway around the perimeter of the home and ensure adequate access to all corners of the property by emergency access vehicles; D. In granting the Variances, the spirit and intent of the Zoning Ordinance will be observed. The proposed improvements will be orderly, attractive, and will not affect the rural character of the community due to their relatively small scope and size. Reso. 2018-04 2910 PV DR. N 2 8/13 • • E. The Variances requested are consistent with the General Plan of the City of Rolling Hills. The proposed improvements will comply with the General Plan requirement of low profile, low -density residential development with sufficient open space between surrounding structures. The structural lot coverage and the total impervious lot coverage are within the requirements of the City. Section 6. Findings for Approval of Site Plan review for a retaining wall that exceeds three feet in height, as required by Section 17.16.190(F). With respect to the modified Site Plan review application, the City Council finds as follows: A. The proposed retaining wall complies with and is consistent with the goals and policies of the general plan and all requirements of the zoning ordinance. A five-foot wide walkway is required by the Fire Department in order to provide sufficient access to the perimeter of the home. The wall serves that function. Furthermore, the wall already exists and is necessary to be reconstructed to continue to support a slope behind it. The slope behind the wall is more than 3 feet and therefore a five-foot wall is necessary; B. • The retaining wall substantially preserves the natural and undeveloped state of the lot by minimizing building coverage. The nature, condition, and development of adjacent uses, buildings, and structures and the topography of the lot have been considered, and the re -construction of a five-foot high retaining wall will not adversely affect or be detrimental to the adjacent uses, buildings or structures because the proposed improvement will be constructed on a portion of the lot which is least intrusive to surrounding properties; C. The Retaining Wall is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, the natural terrain and surrounding residences. The proposed project is consistent with the scale of the home because the length of the proposed retaining wall will not exceed 112 feet and will not exceed '5 in height and is not massive or causes the lot to be overdeveloped; D. The Retaining Wall preserves and integrates into the site design, to the greatest extent possible, existing topographic features of the site, including surrounding vegetation, draining courses and landforms. The proposed height and length of the retaining wall are at the minimum threshold required in order to retain the size of the slope adjacent to the property and allow for a five-foot wide walkway; E. The proposed project will not modify existing drainage channels nor redirect the drainage flow and; F. The construction of the proposed retaining wall conforms to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. Section 7. Based on the foregoing findings and evidence contained within the record, the Planning Commission hereby approves a site plan review for Reso. 2018-04 2910 PV DR. N 3 9/13 • • retaining wall greater than three feet in height and variances to encroach into the required 20-foot side -yard setback with a 5'high retaining wall that does not average out to 2.5 feet in height subject to the following conditions: A. The approval shall expire within one year from the effective date of approval as defined in Sections 17.38.070(A) of the Zoning Ordinance unless otherwise extended pursuant to the requirements of this section. B. If any condition of this resolution is violated, the entitlement granted by this resolution shall be suspended and the privileges granted hereunder shall lapse and upon receipt of written notice from the City, all construction work being performed on the subject property shall immediately cease, other than work determined by the City Manager or his/her designee required to cure the violation. The suspension and stop work order will be lifted once the Applicant cures the violation to the satisfaction of the City Manager or his/her designee. In the event that the Applicant disputes the City Manager or his/her designee's determination that a violation exists or disputes how the violation must be cured, the Applicant may request a hearing before the City Council. The hearing shall be scheduled at the next regular meeting of the City Council for which the agenda has not yet been posted; the Applicant shall be provided written notice of the hearing. The stop work order shall remain in effect during the pendency of the hearing. The City Council shall make a determination as to whether a violation of this Resolution has occurred. If the Council determines that a violation has not occurred or has been cured by the time of the hearing, the Council will lift the suspension and the stop work order. If the Council determines that a violation has occurred and has not yet been cured, the Council shall provide the Applicant with a deadline to cure the violation; no construction work shall be performed on the property other than work designated by the City Council to accomplish the cure, unless and until the violation is cured by the deadline, as determined by the City Manger or his/her designee. If the violation is not cured by the deadline, the Council may either extend the deadline at the Applicant's request or schedule a hearing for the revocation of the entitlements granted by this Resolution pursuant to Chapter 17.58 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code (RHMC). C. All requirements of the Building Code and the Zoning Ordinance must be complied with, unless otherwise set forth in this approval. D. The project shall be developed and maintained in conformance with the site plan on file in the City Planning Department dated March 7, 2018. The conditions of this approval shall be printed onto building and construction plans and be available on site at all times. E. The Applicants shall obtain the required building permits for the retaining wall. Reso. 2018-04 2910 PV DR. N 4 10/13 • • F. This project shall be reviewed and approved by the RHCA. Any deviations to this project shall be submitted for reviewed by the Planning Department. A drainage plan, if required by the Building Department shall be prepared and approved by the grading and drainage engineer. G. The property owners and/or their contractor shall be responsible for compliance with the no -smoking provisions in the Municipal Code. The contractor shall not use tools that could produce a spark, including for clearing and grubbing, during red flag warning conditions. Weather conditions can be found at: http //www.wrh.noaa.gov/lox/main.php?suite=safety&page=hazard_definition s#FIRE It is the sole responsibility of the property owners and/ or their contractor to monitor the red flag warning conditions. Should a red -flag warning be declared, and if work is to be conducted on the property, the contractor shall have readily available fire extinguisher. H. During construction, conformance with local ordinances and engineering practices so that people or property is not exposed to landslides, mudflows, erosion, or land subsidence shall be required and all excavated area for the wall shall be stabilized. I. During construction, conformance with the air quality management district requirements, storm water pollution prevention practices, county and local ordinances and engineering practices so that people or property are not exposed to undue vehicle trips, noise, dust, objectionable odors, landslides, mudflows, erosion, or land subsidence shall be required. J. During and after construction, all parking shall take place on the project site. There shall not be parking on the shared driveway and access to PV DR. North must be available at all time. Flagmen shall be present when the common driveway approach is planned to be obstructed K. 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. L. Perimeter easements and trails, if any, including roadway easements shall remain free and clear of any improvements including, but not be limited to, driveways, fences -including construction fences, landscaping, irrigation and drainage devices, play equipment, parked vehicles, building materials, debris and equipment, except that the Rolling Hills Community Association may approve certain encroachments. Reso. 2018-04 2910 PV DR. N 5 11/13 • • M. Minimum of 65% of the wall materials must be recycled or diverted from landfills. The hauler of the materials shall obtain City's Construction and Demolition permits for waste hauling prior to start of work and provide proper documentation to the City. N. The licensed professional preparing construction plans for this project for Building Department review shall execute a Certificate affirming that the plans conform in all respects to this Resolution approving this project and all of the conditions set forth therein and the City's Building Code and Zoning Ordinance. Further, the person obtaining a building permit for this project shall execute a Certificate of Construction stating that the project will be constructed according to this Resolution and any plans approved therewith. O. The applicants shall execute an Affidavit of Acceptance of all conditions of the Site Plan Review and Variances approval, or the approval shall not be effective. The Affidavit and the Resolution shall be recorded. P. All conditions, when applicable, must be complied with prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit from the Building and Safety Department. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 20th DAY OF MARCH 2018. Brad hel hairmin Ylrette Hall City Clerk 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. Reso. 2018-04 2910 PV DR. N 6 12/13 • • STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ) §§ I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2018-04 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A SITE PLAN REVIEW AND VARIANCE TO RECONSTRUCT AN EXISTING 5' HIGH, 112' LONG RETAINING WALL WHICH ENCROACHES INTO THE SIDE YARD SETBACK AND WHICH WOULD NOT AVERAGE OUT TO 2 l FEET, IN ZONING CASE NO. 938, AT 2910 PALOS VERDES DRIVE NORTH, (LOT 993-3-RH) (WONG). Was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on March 20, 2018 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Cardenas, Cooley, Seaburn, and Chair Chelf. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Kirkpatrick. ABSTAIN: None. and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following: Administrative Offices. -Wok- 1/4k(-6L- YVkTTE HAL CITY CLERK Reso. 2018-04 2910 PV DR. N 7 13/13 gee6 INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX (310) 377-7288 Agenda Item No.: 8A Mtg. Date: 3-20-18 TO: HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, INTERIM CITY MANGER 9 APPLICATION NO. ZONING CASE NO. 938 SITE LOCATION: 2910 PALOS VERDES DRIVE NORTH (LOT 993-3- RH) ZONING AND SIZE: RA-S-1, 0.9 ACRES (EXCL ROAD) OWNER: JEAN WONG REPRESENTATIVE: QUALITY CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION PUBLISHED: MARCH 8, 2018 Attachment: Draft Resolution of Approval REQUEST AND PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION 1. The Planning Commission visited the site earlier today and commenced the public hearing in the field. 2. The applicant, Ms. Wong, submitted an application for a Site Plan Review and Variance to reconstruct an existing 5' high, 112' long retaining wall. A Site Plan Review is required to allow the wall to exceed 3' in height and a Variance is required to keep the reconstructed wall in the side yard setback, 6' from the side property line (14' encroachment), and to allow the wall not to average out to 21/2 feet. The new wall would be in the same location as the existing wall. No grading, except for excavation of the old wall is proposed. 3. It is recommended that the Planning Commission continue the public hearing, take public testimony and consider the Resolution of approval included with this staff report. ZC No. 938 2910 PV Dr. N. • • ti Due to the poor condition of the existing retaining wall, the applicant would like to commence demolition and reconstruction immediately. Therefore, staff prepared a draft Resolution of approval of the project, subject to Planning Commission's discussion and review of the project and the resolution of approval. The Resolution contains standard findings, facts and conditions, including conditions specific to this case such as: - The common driveway approach from PV Dr. North shall be passable at all times and not be impeded by construction vehicles; flagmen to be present when the driveway approach is to be obstructed - Erosion control and storm water management measures shall be implemented BACKGROUND 4. The applicants request a Site Plan Review to permit demolition and reconstruction of a 5' high and 112' long retaining wall. Variance is requested to locate the wall 14' into the side setback and for the wall not to average out to 2 1 feet in height. The existing wall is in very poor condition and the slope behind the wall is steep and it needs to be retained. No reconstruction of the slope or grading for the wall is proposed. 5. There are no records on file for the existing wall, and with this application the wall would be legalized and permitted by the Building and Safety Department. The building plan checker deemed the retaining wall necessary, due to the ascending slope and the proximity of the slope to the property line, and the house which is about 9'. 6. The applicant prepared soils report for the area of the wall and structural plans and submitted to the LA County Building and Safety Department for preliminary review. The plans and soils have been reviewed and the project is ready for issuance of building permit. However, a building permit will not be issued until the Planning Commission grants approval of this project. 7 Subject property is located in the RA-S-1 Zone and is 0.9 acres in size. It is developed with a single family residence and a swimming pool and is occupied. No other improvements are proposed with this application. Therefore, there are no changes to the lot coverage or disturbance of the lot. Staff did not require that the applicant provide the size of the existing structures, coverage or disturbance information as the reconstruction of the existing wall does not affect the development standards. This is a like for like replacement, except now it will be constructed with the proper approvals, structural plans and building permit. 8. The project was approved by the Rolling Hills Community Association. ZC No. 938 2910 PV Dr. N. 2/11 9. When reviewing a development application the Planning Commission must consider whether the proposed project meets the criteria for a Site Plan Review and Variances, enclosed below. 10. The project has been determined to be categorically exempt pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). SITE PLAN REVIEW CRITERIA 11.46.010 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. 11.46.050 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 ZC No. 938 2910 PV Dr. N. 3/11 • • & 9. The project conforms to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. CRITERIA FOR VARIANCES 17.38.050 Required findings. In granting a variance, the Commission (and Council on appeal) must make the following findings: A. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same vicinity and zone; B. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights possessed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone but which is denied the property in question; C. That the granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; D. That in granting the variance, the spirit and intent of this title will be observed; E. That the variance does not grant special privilege to the applicant; F. That the variance is consistent with the portions of the County of Los Angeles Hazardous Waste Management Plan relating to siting and siting criteria for hazardous waste facilities; and G. That the variance request is consistent with the general plan of the City of Rolling Hills. SOURCE: City of Rolling Hills Zoning Ordinance ZC No. 938 2910 PV Dr. N. a 4/11 RESOLUTION NO. 2018-04 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A SITE PLAN REVIEW AND VARIANCE TO RECONSTRUCT AN EXISTING 5' HIGH, 112' LONG RETAINING WALL WHICH ENCROACHES INTO THE SIDE YARD SETBACK AND WHICH WOULD NOT AVERAGE OUT TO 2 1/2 FEET, IN ZONING CASE NO. 938, AT 2910 PALOS VERDES DRIVE NORTH, (LOT 993-3-RH) (WONG). 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 Ms. Jean Wong with respect to real property located at 2910 Palos Verdes Drive North, Rolling Hills, requesting a Site Plan Review and Variance to reconstruct an existing 5' high, 112' long retaining wall. A Site Plan Review is required to allow the wall to exceed 3' in height and a Variance is required to keep the reconstructed wall in the side yard setback, 6' from the side property line (14' encroachment), and to allow the wall not to average out to 21/2 feet. The new wall would be in the same location as the existing wall. No grading, except for excavation of the old wall is proposed. Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted duly noticed public hearings to consider the application on March 20, 2018 in the field and at an evening meeting on March 20, 2018, at which the Resolution of Approval was reviewed by the Planning Commission, and following discussion was adopted. Evidence was heard and presented from all persons interested in affecting said proposal, and from members of the City staff and the Planning Commission having reviewed, analyzed and studied said proposal. The applicant's representative was in attendance at the hearings. No one from the public came forward to address this project. Section 3. The Planning Commission finds that the project is . categorically exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act. Section 4. Subject property is located in the RA-S-1 Zone and the existing retaining wall is in very poor condition. There are no records on file permitting the existing wall, which is located in the side setback. The applicant requests to reconstruct the wall in its original location. Section 5. 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. In the subject application, the Applicant Reso. 2018-04 2910 PV DR. N 1 5/11 • • requested Variances to exempt them from strict compliance with Section 17.16.120, requiring a side -yard setback of 20 feet in the RAS-1 zone; and section 17.16.190(F), requiring that walls shall average out to two and one-half feet as measured from the finished grade to the top of the wall. With respect to these requests for Variances, the Planning Commission finds as follows: A. There are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances and conditions applicable to this property that do not generally apply to the other properties, in the same vicinity and zone. The existing retaining wall encroaches into the side setback and does not average out to 21/2 feet and the proposed wall will be located in the same location and be of the same height as the existing wall. There is a 2:1 slope behind the wall that needs to be retained; otherwise the slope would slough off and cause damage to the nearby residence. The existing wall was constructed without building permits or to current code standards. The wall is in a very poor condition and is leaning away from the slope, and is therefore in danger of falling down. Its reconstruction is a sound solution to retain the dirt behind it. B. The Variances are necessary for the preservationand enjoyment„ of a substantial property right possessed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone, but which would be denied to the property in question absent such variances. With the constraint of the lots' topography and the configuration of the existing residence in close proximity to the retaining wall, it is a challenge to move the wall outside the setback and still leave room for a Fire Department required walkway around the residence. Furthermore, the retaining wall is necessary in order to preserve the ascending slope, which is of even height across the entire length of the existing wall and cannot be averaged out. A variance from the requirements of section 17.16.190(F) would preserve the enjoyment of substantial property rights possessed by other properties by minimizing the amount of construction necessary to achieve an average wall height of 2.5 feet and would help preserve the aesthetics of the property; C. The granting of the Variances would 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 side -yard encroachments 14 feet already existing and no further encroachment is proposed. The wall is not visible from any neighbor, as the face of the wall faces the house on subject property, and it supports a vegetated slope behind it. The encroaching portion of the swan, being located on the south side of the property, will not impair views of neighbors to the north. Furthermore, a five-foot retaining wall is necessary in order to preserve a four -foot walkway around the perimeter of the home and ensure adequate access to all corners of the property by emergency access vehicles; D. In granting the Variances, the spirit and intent of the Zoning Ordinance will be observed. The proposed improvements will be orderly, attractive, and will not affect the rural character of the community due to their relatively small scope and size. Reso. 2018-04 2910 PV DR. N 2 6/11 • • E. The Variances requested are consistent with the General Plan of the City of Rolling Hills. The proposed improvements will comply with the General Plan requirement of low profile, low -density residential development with sufficient open space between surrounding structures. The structural lot coverage and the total impervious lot coverage are within the requirements of the City. Section 6. Findings for Approval of Site Plan review for a retaining wall that exceeds three feet in height, as required by Section 17.16.190(F). With respect to the modified Site Plan review application, the City Council finds as follows: A. The proposed retaining wall complies with and is consistent with the goals and policies of the general plan and all requirements of the zoning ordinance. A five-foot wide walkway is required by the Fire Department in order to provide sufficient access to the perimeter of the home. The wall serves that function. Furthermore, the wall already exists and is necessary to be reconstructed to continue to support a slope behind it. The slope behind the wall is more than 3 feet and therefore a five-foot wall is necessary; B. The retaining wall substantially preserves the natural and undeveloped state of the lot by minimizing building coverage. The nature, condition, and development of adjacent uses, buildings, and structures and the topography of the lot have been considered, and the re -construction of a five-foot high retaining wall will not adversely affect or be detrimental to the adjacent uses, buildings or structures because the proposed improvement will be constructed on a portion of the lot which is least intrusive to surrounding properties; C. The Retaining Wall is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, the natural terrain and surrounding residences. The proposed project is consistent with the scale of the home because the length of the proposed retaining wall will not exceed 112 feet and will not exceed 5 in height and is not massive or causes the lot to be overdeveloped; D. The Retaining Wall preserves and integrates into the site design, to the greatest extent possible, existing topographic features of the site, including surrounding vegetation, draining courses and landforms. The proposed height and length of the retaining wall are at the minimum threshold required in order to retain the size of the slope adjacent to the property and allow for a five-foot wide walkway; E. The proposed project will not modify existing drainage channels nor redirect the drainage flow and; F. The construction of the proposed retaining wall conforms to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. Section 7. Based on the foregoing findings and evidence contained within the record, the Planning Commission hereby approves a site plan review for Reso. 2018-04 2910 PV DR. N 3 7/11 • • retaining wall greater than three feet in height and variances to encroach into the required 20-foot side -yard setback with a 5'high retaining wall that does not average out to 2.5 feet in height subject to the following conditions: A. The approval shall expire within one year from the effective date of approval as defined in Sections 17.38.070(A) of the Zoning Ordinance unless otherwise extended pursuant to the requirements of this section. B. If any condition of this resolution is violated, the entitlement granted by this resolution shall be suspended and the privileges granted hereunder shall lapse and upon receipt of written notice from the City, all construction work being performed on the subject property shall immediately cease, other than work determined by the City Manager or his/her designee required to cure the violation. The suspension and stop work order will be lifted once the Applicant cures the violation to the satisfaction of the City Manager or his/her designee. In the event that the Applicant disputes the City Manager or his/her designee's determination that a violation exists or disputes how the violation must be cured, the Applicant may request a hearing before the City Council. The hearing shall be scheduled at the next regular meeting of the City Council for which the agenda has not yet been posted; the Applicant shall be provided written notice of the hearing. The stop work order shall remain in effect during the pendency of the hearing. The City Council shall make a determination as to whether a violation of this Resolution has occurred. If the Council determines that a violation has not occurred or has been cured by the time of the hearing, the Council will lift the suspension and the stop work order. If the Council determines that a violation has occurred and has not yet been cured, the Council shall provide the Applicant with a deadline to cure the violation; no construction work shall be performed on the property other than work designated by the City Council to accomplish the cure, unless and until the violation is cured by the deadline, as determined by the City Manger or his/her designee. If the violation is not cured by the deadline, the Council may either extend the deadline at the Applicant's request or schedule a hearing for the revocation of the entitlements granted by this Resolution pursuant to Chapter 17.58 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code (RHMC). C. All requirements of the Building Code and the Zoning Ordinance must be complied with, unless otherwise set forth in this approval. D. The project shall be developed and maintained in conformance with the site plan on file in the City Planning Department dated March 7, 2018. The conditions of this approval shall be printed onto building and construction plans and be available on site at all times. E. The Applicants shall obtain the required building permits for the retaining wall. Reso. 2018-04 2910 PV DR. N 4 8/11 • • F. This project shall be reviewed and approved by the RHCA. Any deviations to this project shall be submitted for reviewed by the Planning Department. A drainage plan, if required by the Building Department shall be prepared and approved by the grading and drainage engineer. G. The property owners and/or their contractor shall be responsible for compliance with the no -smoking provisions in the Municipal Code. The contractor shall not use tools that could produce a spark, including for clearing and grubbing, during red flag warning conditions. Weather conditions can be found at: http //www.wrh.noaa.g ov/lox/main.php?suite=safety&page=hazard_definition s#FIRE It is the sole responsibility of the property owners and/or their contractor to monitor the red flag warning conditions. Should a red -flag warning be declared, and if work is to be conducted on the property, the contractor shall have readily available fire extinguisher. H. During construction, conformance with local ordinances and engineering practices so that people or property is not exposed to landslides, mudflows, erosion, or land subsidence shall be required and all excavated area for the wall shall be stabilized. I. During construction, conformance with the air quality management district requirements, storm water pollution prevention practices, county and local ordinances and engineering practices so that people or property are not exposed to undue vehicle trips, noise, dust, objectionable odors, landslides, mudflows, erosion, or land subsidence shall be required. J. During and after construction, all parking shall take place on the project site. There shall not be parking on the shared driveway and access to PV DR. North must be available at all time. Flagmen shall be present when the common driveway approach is planned to be obstructed K. 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. L. Perimeter easements and trails, if any, including roadway easements shall remain free and clear of any improvements including, but not be limited to, driveways, fences -including construction fences, landscaping, irrigation and drainage devices, play equipment, parked vehicles, building materials, debris and equipment, except that the Rolling Hills Community Association may approve certain encroachments. Reso. 2018-04 2910 PV DR. N 5 9/11 • • M. Minimum of 65% of the wall materials must be recycled or diverted from landfills. The hauler of the materials shall obtain City's Construction and Demolition permits for waste hauling prior to start of work and provide proper documentation to the City. N. The licensed professional preparing construction plans for this project for Building Department review shall execute a Certificate affirming that the plans conform in all respects to this Resolution approving this project and all of the conditions set forth therein and the City's Building Code and Zoning Ordinance. Further, the person obtaining a building permit for this project shall execute a Certificate of Construction stating that the project will be constructed according to this Resolution and any plans approved therewith. O. The applicants shall execute an Affidavit of Acceptance of all conditions of the Site Plan Review and Variances approval, or the approval shall not be effective. The Affidavit and the Resolution shall be recorded. P. All conditions, when applicable, must be complied with prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit from the Building and Safety Department. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 20th DAY OF MARCH 2018. Brad Chelf, Chairman Yvette Hall City Clerk 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. Reso. 2018-04 2910 PV DR. N 6 10/11 • • STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ) §§ I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2018-04 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A SITE PLAN REVIEW AND VARIANCE TO RECONSTRUCT AN EXISTING 5' HIGH, 112' LONG RETAINING WALL WHICH ENCROACHES INTO THE SIDE YARD SETBACK AND WHICH WOULD NOT AVERAGE OUT TO 2 1/2 FEET, IN ZONING CASE NO. 938, AT 2910 PALOS VERDES DRIVE NORTH, (LOT 993-3-RH) (WONG). Was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on March 20, 2018 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSFNT: ABSTAIN: and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following: Administrative Offices. YVETTE HALL CITY CLERK Reso. 2018-04 2910 PV DR. N 7 11/11