Loading...
646, Construct a new SFR with modif, Staff Reports• Ci1y apeo ee g JUL INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 E-mail: cityofrh@aol.com DATE: JULY 15, 2003 TO: HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 646, 56 EASIHHELD DRIVE, (LOT 102-EF). REQUEST FOR A ONE-YEAR TIME EXTENSION. BACKGROUND Attached is a request from Dr. and Mrs. Coser, requesting a one-year time extension for a previously approved request for a Site Plan Review for grading and construction of a new single family residence to replace an existing residence in Zoning Case No. 646 that was approved by the Commission by Resolution No. 2002-06 on June 18, 2003. The applicants state that additional time is required to process the proposal through County departments. If the request for extension is approved, the approval will expire on July 18, 2004. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission consider the request and adopt Resolution No. 2003-13 granting the extension. ® 'rnter1 nr Re( June 18, 2003 MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF ROLLING HILLS 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 RE: 56 EASTFIELD Dear Members of the Planning Commission: JUN 2 5 2Qn3 Site Review approval for the subject property will expire in July, 2003. The project has been designed in accordance with all conditions of City approvals and is currently in building plan check with the County of Los Angeles. Unfortunately the approvals process with the various County Agencies cannot be completed prior to such expiration. We therefore respectfully request a six month extension to City approvals in order to be able to complete the process required for the purchase of a building permit. George Sweeney RESOLUTION NO. 2003-13 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS APPROVING A MODIFICATION TO PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2002-06 AND APPROVING AN EXTENSION TO PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE PLAN REVIEW TO PERMIT GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AT 56 EASTFIELD DRIVE, IN ZONING CASE NO. 646. (COSER) 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 Dr. and Mrs. Russell Coser with respect to real property located at 56 Eastfield Drive, Rolling Hills, requesting an extension to previously approved Site Plan to construct a new single family residence to replace an existing residence ' Section 2. The Commission considered this item at a meeting on July 15, 2003, at which time information was presented indicating that additional time is needed to process the development application through the County departments. Section 3. Based upon information and evidence submitted, the Planning Commission does hereby amend Paragraph A, Section 7 of Resolution No. 2002-06, dated June 18, 2003, to read as follows: "A. The Site Plan Review approval shall expire within two years from the effective date of approval as defined in Section 17.46.080(A) of the Zoning Code, unless construction of the structure have commenced within that time period." Section 4. Except as herein amended, the provisions of Resolution No. 2002-06 shall continue to be in full force and effect. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 15th DAY OF JULY 2003. EVIE HANKINS, CHAIRWOMAN ATTEST: MARILYN KERN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK • STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CITY OF ROLLING HILLS § I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2003-13 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS APPROVING A MODIFICATION TO PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2002-06 AND APPROVING AN EXTENSION TO PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE PLAN REVIEW TO PERMIT GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AT 56 EASTFIELD DRIVE, IN. ZONING CASE NO. 646. (COSER) was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on July 15, 2003 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following: Administrative Offices DEPUTY CITY CLERK • • City 0/ Alling JIM i1103P.PC, RATrD JA'NW\R`r 24. 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 E-mail: cityofrh@aol.com Agenda Item No.: 5A Mtg.Date: 6/24/02 DATE: JUNE 24, 2002 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL ATTN: CRAIG R. NEALIS, CITY MANAGER FROM: YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR SUBJECT: RESOLUTION NO. 2002-06. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL TO PERMIT GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE TO REPLACE AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IN ZONING CASE NO. 646, AT 56 EASTFIELD DRIVE, (LOT 102-EF) (COSER). BACKGROUND 1. The Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2002-06, which is attached, on June 18, 2002 at their regular meeting granting a request for a Site Plan,Review for the construction of a new single family residence, garage and a future stable to replace an existing residence. The vote was 3-0. Commissioner Witte was absent and excused. 2. The Planning Commission considered this application request at the February 26, 2002, March 19, 2002 and May 21, 2002 meetings and at a field trip on March 11, 2002. The Commission expressed concern about the exceedence of the 30% buildable pad coverage guideline for the proposed project and suggested that the applicant scale down the project and bring the size of the house closer to the size of the existing homes in the neighborhood. During the March 19, 2002 meeting, the applicant's representative asked for continuance of this application, so that he may confer with the property owners. The hearing was continued to the May meeting. 3. At the May 21, 2002 meeting, the applicants submitted a revised proposal requesting to construct a new 5,147 square foot residence with a 803 square foot garage, a 3,400 square foot basement and a 450 square foot future stable. The revised proposal calls for reduction of the house by 744 square feet and the garage by 142 square feet, for a total of 886 square feet, and an increase of the basement by 720 square feet from the previous request. 4. The existing house, built in 1949, measuring 2,000 square feet with a 462 square foot garage will be demolished. Site Plan Review criteria and a comparison table of nearby residences is attached. 5. In August of 1990, the Planning Commission approved the construction of a new house on subject property measuring 5,590 square feet with 760 square foot garage and a 648 square foot swimming pool. The house was not built. 6. The property is located along a loop of Eastfield Drive. The west portion of the lot adjacent to Eastfield Drive is the front of the property, and the north portion of the lot adjacent to Eastfield Drive, beyond the curve, is the rear yard. The corner location and odd configuration of the lot limit the ability to build on the property. 7. Pursuant to the City's Zoning Ordinance the front yard setback is measured 50 feet from the roadway easement. The rear yard setback is measured 50 feet form the rear lot line, except when a rear yard abuts a street, it shall be considered a front yard, therefore it is measured 50 feet from the roadway easement. 8. Due to the provision in the Zoning Ordinance, which requires that a rear yard which abuts a street be treated like a front yard, the proposed stable would be located in the front yard, and would therefore, require a Variance when constructed. The proposed placement of the residence and the stable would minimize grading on the lot. 9. The applicant is proposing to utilize the existing driveway approach to the property. 10. Grading for the project will require 1,070 cubic yards of cut soil and 1,070 cubic yards of fill soil, mostly for the basement, which will be balanced on site. The majority of the existing building pad will be utilized for construction of the new house. 11. The property is zoned RAS-1, and the gross lot area is 1.54 acres. The net lot area is 42,240 square feet. The residential building pad area is 21,280 square feet, and the future stable pad is 1000 square feet. 12. The structural net lot coverage proposed is 6,496 square feet or 15.4%, which includes the residence, garage, service yard and future stable, (20% permitted); and the total lot coverage proposed including structures and paved areas is proposed at 10,656 square feet or 25.3%, (35% permitted). 13. Building pad coverage on the 21,280 square foot residential building pad is proposed at 6,046 square feet or 28.4%, which is a reduction from 43.3% proposed previously. Building pad coverage on the 1000 square foot future stable pad is 450 square feet or 45%. 14. The disturbed area is proposed to be 15,234 square feet or 36.0%, which includes the future stable, (40% permitted) of the net lot area. Disturbance includes any remedial grading (temporary disturbance), any graded slopes and building pad areas, and any nongraded area where impervious surfaces will remain or will be added. . 15. It will be required that the utilities to the new house be placed underground and that the roof meet the city's and RHCA requirements for Class "A" assembly and Class "A" material. 16. The project has been determined to be categorically exempt pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). V • RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council receive and file Resolution No. 2002-06. 56 Eastfield Drive NEARBY PROPERTIES ADDRESS OWNER 63 Eastfield 54 Eastfield 58 Eastfield 51 Eastfield 52 Eastfield 59 Eastfield 57 Eastfield I1 Hackamore 60 Eastfield 61 Eastfield 64 Eastfield 56 Eastfield Calhoun Bond Sircar Meyer Nourai Heater Moore Grubs Wolfenden Juge Hemmat Coser AVERAGE RESIDENCE (SQ.FT.) 2,813 2,840 2,590 4,187 4,518 2,529 2,290 3,579 5,700(includes existing first story) 6,980 5,940 2,000 (existing) 5,147 (proposed) 4,070 LOT SIZE (NET) 47,916 50,810 45,000 58,300 57,499 82,880 65,830 71,200 133, 320 67,520 75,874 66,890 68,741 NOTE: 1. The net lot areas shown above areas recorded in the assessors' records, without the required City's deductions for net lot calculations; except that private roads are deducted from the assessors' calculations above. 2. The above do not include garages. Zoning Case No. 646 SITE PLAN REVIEW EXISTING RA-S- 1 ZONE SETBACKS Front: 50 ft. from front easement SINGLE FAMILY line RESIDENCE Side: 20 ft. from property line Rear: 50 ft. from property line STRUCTURES (Site Plan Review required if size of structure increases by at least 1,000 sq.ft. and has the effect of increasing the size of the structure by more than 25% in a 36-month period). Residence 2000 sq.ft Garage 462 sq.ft. Stable Service yard 96 sq.ft TOTAL STRUCTURAL LOT COVERAGE 6.1% (20% maximum) TOTAL LOT COVERAGE 15.2% (35% maximum) RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PAD 16.0% COVERAGE (30% maximum- ouideline) STABLE PAD COVERAGE GRADING Site Plan Review required if excavation and/or fill or combination thereof that is more than 3 feet in depth and covers more than 2,000 sq.ft.) must be balanced on site. II PREVIOUSLY PROPOSED 1CROURRENT PPOSAL NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AND FUTURE STABLE Residence Garage Stable(future) Service yard Basement 2558 sq.ft. TOTAL (exc.basement) 17.5% 29.0% NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AND FUTURE STABLE 5891 sq.ft. I Residence 945 sq.ft. Garage 450 sq.ft Stable(future) 96 sq.ft Service yard 2680 sq.ft. 7382 sq.ft. 43.3% of 15,944 sq.ft. building pad 45% of 1000 sq.ft. stable pad 610 cubic yards cut 610 cubic yards fill Basement TOTAL (exc.basement) 15.4% 25.3% 28.4% of 21,280 sq.ft. building pad 45% 1070 cubic yards cut 1070 cubic yards fill 5147 sq.ft 803 sq.ft 450 sq.ft 96 sq.ft. 3400 sq.ft 6496 sq.ft. DISTURBED AREA (40% maximum; any graded building pad area, any remedial grading (temporary disturbance), any graded slopes and building pad areas, and any nongraded area where impervious surfaces exist.) STABLE (min. 450 SQ.FT. & 550 SQ.FT. CORRAL) STABLE ACCESS ROADWAY ACCESS VIEWS PLANTS AND ANIMALS 31.2% 39.0% 36.0% (includes future stable) Existing driveway approach from Eastfield N/A N/A 450 sq.ft. future stable & 550 sq.ft. future corral Future access from Eastfield Existing driveway approach from Eastfield. Planning Commission reviewed. Planning Commission reviewed 450 sq.ft. future stable & 550 sq.ft. future corral Future access from Eastfield Existing driveway approach from Eastfield. Planning Commission reviewed Planning Commission reviewed • • • RESOLUTION NO. 2002-06 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL TO PERMIT GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE TO REPLACE AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IN ZONING CASE NO. 646 AT 56 EASTFIELD DRIVE (LOT 102-EF) (COSER). 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 Dr. and Mrs. Russell Coser with respect to real property located at 56 Eastfield Drive, (Lot 102-EF), Rolling Hills, CA requesting a Site Plan Review to permit grading and construction of a new 5,147 square foot single family residence with 803 square foot garage to replace an existing residence. Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted duly noticed public hearings to consider the application on February 26, 2002, March 19, 2002, and May 21, 2002 and at a field trip visit on March 11, 2002. The applicant was notified of the public hearings in writing by first class mail. Evidence was heard and presented from all persons interested in affecting said proposal and from members of the City staff and the Planning Commission having reviewed, analyzed and studied said proposal. The applicants were in attendance at the hearings. Section 3. The property is located along a loop of Eastfield Drive. Pursuant to Sections 17.12.250(Y) and 17.16.110 Front Yards, of the City of Rolling Hills Zoning Ordinance the front yard setback is measured 50 feet from the roadway easement. The rear yard setback is measured 50 feet form the rear lot line, except when a rear yard abuts a street, it shall be considered a front yard, therefore it is measured 50 feet from the roadway easement. Due to the provision in the Zoning Ordinance, which requires that a rear yard which abuts a street be treated like a front yard, the proposed stable would be located in the front yard, and would therefore, require a Variance when constructed. Due to the size, location, topography and configuration of the lot the proposed location of the stable is most reasonable. The proposed placement of the residence and the stable would minimize grading on the lot. Section 4. The Planning Commission finds that the project qualifies as a Class 3 Exemption (The State of CA Guidelines, Section 15303) and is therefore categorically exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act. Section 5. Section 17.46.030 requires a development plan to be submitted for site plan review and approval before any grading requiring a grading permit or 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 at least 1,000 square feet and has the • • effect of increasing the size of the building by more than twenty-five percent (25%) in any thirty-six (36) month period. With respect to the Site Plan Review application requesting construction of the new house, the Planning 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 structures comply with the General Plan requirement of low profile, low -density residential development with sufficient open space between surrounding structures. The project conforms to Zoning Code setback and lot coverage requirements. The net lot area of the lot is 42,240 square feet. The proposed residence (5,147 sq.ft.), garage (803 sq.ft.), service yard (96 sq.ft.) and a future stable will have 6,496 square feet of structures, which constitutes 15.4% of the net lot which is within the maximum 20% structural lot coverage requirement. A 3,400 square foot basement is proposed for this development The total lot coverage including paved areas and driveway will be 10,656 square feet, which constitutes 25.3% of the net lot which is within the 35% maximum overall net lot coverage requirement. The proposed project is screened from the road so as to reduce the visual impact of the development. The disturbed area of the lot will be 36.0%, which is within the 40% maximum permitted, and includes the future stable. B. The development plan substantially preserves the natural and undeveloped state of the lot by minimizing building coverage because the new structure will not cause the lot to look overdeveloped. Significant portions of the lot will be left undeveloped so as to maintain open space on the property. The existing bushes and trees along Eastfield Drive will remain and will screen the residence from the street. The nature, condition, and development of adjacent uses, buildings, and structures and the topography of the lot have been considered, and the construction of the new house will not adversely affect or be materially detrimental to the adjacent uses, buildings, or structures because the proposed structure will be constructed on a portion of the lot which is the least intrusive to surrounding properties, will be screened and landscaped with trees and shrubs which at maturity will not exceed 25 feet in height, is a sufficient distance from nearby residences so that the proposed structure will not impact the view or privacy of surrounding neighbors, and will substantially utilize the existing building pad for the new construction. C. The proposed development, as conditioned, is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, the natural terrain and surrounding residences. As indicated in Paragraph A, the lot coverage maximum set forth in the Zoning Code will not be exceeded and the proposed project is consistent with the scale of the neighborhood. D. The development plan incorporates existing trees and native vegetation to the maximum extent feasible. Specifically, the development plan preserves dense brush and shrubs and supplements it with landscaping that is compatible with and enhances the rural character of the community. E. The development plan follows natural contours of the site to minimize grading and retain the natural drainage courses. Grading for this project will involve 1,070 cubic yards of cut and 1,070 cubic yards of fill and will be balanced on site. RESOLUTION NO. 2002-06 PAGE 2 • • F. 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 driveway approach at Eastfield Drive. G. The project conforms to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and is exempt. Section 6. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves the Site Plan Review application for Zoning Case No. 646 for grading and for construction of a new residence as shown on the Development Plan dated May 15, 2002, and marked Exhibit A, subject to the conditions contained in Section 7 of this Resolution. Section 7. The Site Plan Review approved in Section 6 of this Resolution is subject to the following conditions: A. The Site Plan Review approval shall expire within one year from the effective date of approval if construction pursuant to this approval has not commenced within that time period, as required by Section 17.46.080(A) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, or the approval granted is otherwise extended pursuant to the requirements of that section. B. It is declared and made a condition of the Site Plan Review approval, that if any conditions thereof are violated, this approval shall be suspended and the privileges granted hereunder shall lapse; provided that the applicants have been given written notice to cease such violation, the opportunity for a hearing has been provided, and if requested, has been held, and thereafter the applicant fails to correct the violation within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of the City's determination. C. All requirements of the Buildings and Construction Ordinance, the Zoning Ordinance, and of the zone in which the subject property is located must be complied with unless otherwise set forth in 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 and dated May 15, 2002, except as otherwise provided in these conditions. E. 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. F. Grading shall not exceed 1,070 cubic yards of cut and 1,070 cubic yards of fill and shall be balanced on site. G. Structural lot coverage shall not exceed 6,496 square feet or 15.4%. H. Total lot coverage of structures and paved areas shall not exceed 10,656 square feet or 25.3% in conformance with lot coverage limitations. RESOLUTION NO. 2002-06 PAGE 3 I. The disturbecirea of the lot shall not exceed 15,21Psquare feet or 36.0% of the net lot area in conformance with lot disturbance limitations. J. Residential building pad coverage on the 21,280 square foot residential building pad shall not exceed 6,046 square feet or 28.4%; coverage on the proposed 1,000 square foot pad shall not exceed 450 square feet or 45.0%. K. The proposed basement shall not exceed 3,400 square feet and shall meet all requirements of the Los Angeles County Building Code and City Zoning Ordinance for basements. L. Landscaping shall include water efficient irrigation, to the maximum extent feasible, that incorporates low gallonage irrigation system, utilizes automatic controllers, incorporates an irrigation design using "hydrozones," considers slope factors and climate conditions in design, and utilizes means to reduce water waste resulting from runoff and overspray in accordance with Section 17.27.020 (Water Efficient Landscaping Requirements) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code. M. A landscaping plan for the graded areas must be submitted for review by the Planning Department prior to issuing grading or building permits. To the maximum extend practicable, native trees and other native plants shall be utilized. If trees are to be used in the landscaping scheme for this project, they shall be mature when planted and which at full maturity shall not exceed 25 feet in height; shrubs shall be planted so as not to obstruct views of neighboring properties but, to obscure the residential structure on site. N. The existing driveway shall serve the new residence. O. The proposed wall along the graded pad shall not exceed an average of 21 /2 feet in height. P. During construction, any soil disturbance shall preserve the existing topography, flora, and natural features to the greatest extent possible. • Q. During construction, conformance with the air quality management district requirements, stormwater pollution prevention practices, county and local ordinances and engineering practices so that people or property are not exposed to undue vehicle trips, noise, dust, and. objectionable odors shall be required. R. During construction, the Erosion Control Plan containing the elements set forth in Section 7010 of the 1998 County of Los Angeles Uniform Building Code shall be followed to minimize erosion and to protect slopes and channels to control stormwater pollution as required by the County of Los Angeles. S. During and after construction, all parking shall take place on the project site and, if necessary, any overflow parking shall take place within nearby roadway easements. RESOLUTION NO. 2002-06 PAGE 4 • • T. 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. U. The property owners shall be required to conform to the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Health Department requirements for the installation and maintenance of septic tanks. V. The property owners shall be required to conform to the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Health Department requirements for the installation and maintenance of stormwater drainage facilities. W. The property owners shall be required to conform to the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Public Works Department Best Management Practices (BMP's) related to solid waste. X. The property owners shall be required to conform to the City of Rolling Hills Outdoor Lighting Standards Ordinance, (Ordinance No. 287). Y. A drainage plan shall be approved by the Planning Department and County District Engineer, to include any water from any site irrigation systems and that all drainage from the site shall be conveyed in an approved manner. Z. All utility lines shall be placed underground. The roof material for the new residence and future stable shall comply with the City of Rolling Hills Building Code requirements. AA. Prior to the submittal of an applicable final building plan to the County of Los Angeles for plan check, a detailed drainage plan with related geology, soils and hydrology reports that conform to the development plan as approved by the Planning Commission shall be submitted to the Rolling Hills Planning Department staff for their review and approval. AB. Notwithstanding Sections 17.46.020 and 17.46.070 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, any modifications to the project which would constitute additional structural development shall require the filing of a new application for approval by the Planning Commission. AC. The project must be reviewed and approved by the Rolling Hills Community Association Architectural Review Committee prior to the issuance of any grading or building permit. AD. The applicant shall pay all of the applicable Los Angeles County Building and Safety and Public Works Department fees, including Parks and Recreation Fees for new residence. RESOLUTION NO. 2002-06 PAGE 5 • • AE. Until the applicants execute an Affidavit of Acceptance of all conditions of this Site Plan Review approval, as required by Section 17.42.070 the approvals shall not be effective. AF. All conditions of the Site Plan approval, that apply, shall be complied with prior to the issuance of a building permit from the County of Los Angeles. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTE,I? THIS 18th DAY OF JUNE 2002. tjL ki6v) EVIE NKINS‘,'VICE-CHAIR ATTEST: MARILYN KERN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK RESOLUTION NO. 2002-06 PAGE 6 • • STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF .LOS ANGELES ) §§ CITY OF ROLLING HILLS I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2002-06 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL TO PERMIT GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE TO REPLACE AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IN ZONING CASE NO. 646 AT 56 EASTFIELD DRIVE (LOT 102-EF) (COSER). was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on June 18, 2002 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Margeta, Sommer and Chairwoman Hankins. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Witte. ABSTAIN: None. and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following: Administrative Offices. DEPUTY CITY CLERK RESOLUTION NO. 2002-06 PAGE 7 DATE: TO: FROM: • • Cry .1) ie0ii4 J�?� INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 E-mail: cityofrh@aol.com JUNE 18, 2002 HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR APPLICATION NO. SITE LOCATION: ZONING AND SIZE: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PUBLISHED: REOUEST ZONING CASE NO. 646 (Revised) 56 EASTFIELD DRIVE (LOT 102-EF) RA-S-1, 1.54 ACRES (GROSS) DR. AND MRS. RUSSELL COSER DOUGLAS McHATTIE, BOLTON ENGINEERING GEORGE SWEENEY, ARCHITECT FEBRUARY 16, 2002 Request for a Site Plan Review to permit grading and construction of a new single family residence, garage and a future stable to replace an existing single family residence. BACKGROUND The Planning Commission at the May 21, 2002, meeting directed staff to prepare a Resolution of approval regarding a Site Plan Review to permit grading and construction of a new single family residence, garage and a future stable to replace an existing single family residence in Zoning Case No. 646. The vote was 5-0. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2002-06, which is attached, approving Zoning Case No. 646. Printed on Recycled Paper. • • RESOLUTION NO. 2002-06 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL TO PERMIT GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE TO REPLACE AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IN ZONING CASE NO. 646 AT 56 EASTFIELD DRIVE (LOT 102-EF) (COSER). 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 Dr. and Mrs. Russell Coser with respect to real property located at 56 Eastfield Drive, (Lot 102-EF), Rolling Hills, CA requesting a Site Plan Review to permit grading and construction of a new 5,147 square foot single family residence with 803 square foot garage to replace an existing residence. Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted duly noticed public hearings to consider the application on February 26, 2002, March 19, 2002, and May 21, 2002 and at a field trip visit on March 11, 2002. The applicant was notified of the public hearings in writing by first class mail. Evidence was heard and presented from all persons interested in affecting said proposal and from members of the City staff and the Planning Commission having reviewed, analyzed and studied said proposal. The applicants were in attendance at the hearings. Section 3. The property is located along a loop of Eastfield Drive. Pursuant to Sections 17.12.250(Y) and 17.16.110 Front Yards, of the City of Rolling Hills Zoning Ordinance the front yard setback is measured 50 feet from the roadway easement. The rear yard setback is measured 50 feet form the rear lot line, except when a rear yard abuts a street, it shall be considered a front yard, therefore it is measured 50 feet from the roadway easement. Due to the provision in the Zoning Ordinance, which requires that a rear yard which abuts a street be treated like a front yard, the proposed stable would be located in the front yard, and would therefore, require a Variance when constructed. Due to the size, location, topography and configuration of the lot the proposed location of the stable is most reasonable. The proposed placement of the residence and the stable would minimize grading on the lot. Section 4. The Planning Commission finds that the project qualifies as a Class 3 Exemption (The State of CA Guidelines, Section 15303) and is therefore categorically exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act. Section 5. Section 17.46.030 requires a development plan to be submitted for site plan review and approval before any grading requiring a grading permit or 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 at least 1,000 square feet and has the • • effect of increasing the size of the building by more than twenty-five percent (25%) in any thirty-six (36) month period. With respect to the Site Plan Review application requesting construction of the new house, the Planning 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 structures comply with the General Plan requirement of low profile, low -density residential development with sufficient open space between surrounding structures. The project conforms to Zoning Code setback and lot coverage requirements. The net lot area of the lot is 42,240 square feet. The proposed residence (5,147.sq.ft.), garage (803 sq.ft.), service yard (96 sq.ft.) and a future stable will have 6,496 square feet of structures, which constitutes 15.4% of the net lot which is within the maximum 20% structural lot coverage requirement. A 3,400 square foot basement is proposed for this development The total lot coverage including paved areas and driveway will be 10,656 square feet, which constitutes 25.3% of the net lot which is within the 35% maximum overall net lot coverage requirement. The proposed project is screened from the road so as to reduce the visual impact of the development. The disturbed area of the lot will be 36.0%, which is within the 40% maximum permitted, and includes the future stable. B. The development plan substantially preserves the natural and undeveloped state of the lot by minimizing building coverage because the new structure will not cause the lot to look overdeveloped. Significant portions of the lot will be left undeveloped so as to maintain open space on the property. The existing bushes and trees along Eastfield Drive will remain and will screen the residence from the street. The nature, condition, and development of adjacent uses, buildings, and structures and the topography of the lot have been considered, and the construction of the new house will not adversely affect or be materially detrimental to the adjacent uses, buildings, or structures because the proposed structure will be constructed on a portion of the lot which is the least intrusive to surrounding properties, will be screened and landscaped with trees and shrubs which at maturity will not exceed 25 feet in height, is a sufficient distance from nearby residences so that the proposed structure will not impact the view or privacy of surrounding neighbors, and will substantially utilize the existing building pad for the new construction. C. The proposed development, as conditioned, is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, the natural terrain and surrounding residences. As indicated in Paragraph A, the lot coverage maximum set forth in the Zoning Code will not be exceeded and the proposed project is consistent with the scale of the neighborhood. D. The development plan incorporates existing trees and native vegetation to the maximum extent feasible. Specifically, the development plan preserves dense brush and shrubs and supplements it with landscaping that is compatible with and enhances the rural character of the community. E. The development plan follows natural contours of the site to minimize grading and retain the natural drainage courses. Grading for this project will involve 1,070 cubic yards of cut and 1,070 cubic yards of fill and will be balanced on site. RESOLUTION NO. 2002-06 PAGE 2 • • F. 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 driveway approach at Eastfield Drive. G. The project conforms to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and is exempt. Section 6. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves the Site Plan Review application for Zoning Case No. 646 for grading and for construction of a new residence as shown on the Development Plan dated May 15, 2002, and marked Exhibit A, subject to the conditions contained in Section 7 of this Resolution. Section 7. The Site Plan Review approved in Section 6 of this Resolution is subject to the following conditions: A. The Site Plan Review approval shall expire within one year from the effective date of approval if construction pursuant to this approval has not commenced within that time period, as required by Section 17.46.080(A) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, or the approval granted is otherwise extended pursuant to the requirements of that section. B. It is declared and made a condition of the Site Plan Review approval, that if any conditions thereof are violated, this approval shall be suspended and the privileges granted hereunder shall lapse; provided that the applicants have been given written notice to cease such violation, the opportunity for a hearing has been provided, and if requested, has been held, and thereafter the applicant fails to correct the violation within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of the City's determination. C. All requirements of the Buildings and Construction Ordinance, the Zoning Ordinance, and of the zone in which the subject property is located must be complied with unless otherwise set forth in 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 and dated May 15, 2002, except as otherwise provided in these conditions. E. 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. F. Grading shall not exceed 1,070 cubic yards of cut and 1,070 cubic yards of fill and shall be balanced on site. G. Structural lot coverage shall not exceed 6,496 square feet or 15.4%. H. Total lot coverage of structures and paved areas shall not exceed 10,656 square feet or 25.3% in conformance with lot coverage limitations. RESOLUTION NO. 2002-06 PAGE 3 • • I. The disturbed area of the lot shall not exceed 15,234 square feet or 36.0% of the net lot area in conformance with lot disturbance limitations. J. Residential building pad coverage on the 21,280 square foot residential building pad shall not exceed 6,046 square feet or 28.4%; coverage on the proposed 1,000 square foot pad shall not exceed 450 square feet or 45.0%. K. The proposed basement shall not exceed 3,400 square feet and shall meet all requirements of the Los Angeles County Building Code and City Zoning Ordinance for basements. L. Landscaping shall include water efficient irrigation, to the maximum extent feasible, that incorporates low gallonage irrigation system, utilizes automatic controllers, incorporates an irrigation design using "hydrozones," considers slope factors and climate conditions in design, and utilizes means to reduce water waste resulting from runoff and overspray in accordance with Section 17.27.020 (Water Efficient Landscaping Requirements) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code. M. A landscaping plan for the graded areas must be submitted for review by the Planning Department prior to issuing grading or building permits. To the maximum extend practicable, native trees and other native plants shall be utilized. If trees are to be used in the landscaping scheme for this project, they shall be mature when planted and which at full maturity shall not exceed 25 feet in height; shrubs shall be planted so as not to obstruct views of neighboring properties but, to obscure the residential structure on site. N. The existing driveway shall serve the new residence. O. The proposed wall along the graded pad shall not exceed an average of 21/2 feet in height. P. During construction, any soil disturbance shall preserve the existing topography, flora, and natural features to the greatest extent possible. Q. During construction, conformance with the air quality management district requirements, stormwater pollution prevention practices, county and local ordinances and engineering practices so that people or property are not exposed to undue vehicle trips, noise, dust, and objectionable odors shall be required. R. During construction, the Erosion Control Plan containing the elements set forth in Section 7010 of the 1998 County of Los Angeles Uniform Building Code shall be followed to minimize erosion and to protect slopes and channels to control stormwater pollution as required by the County of Los Angeles. S. During and after construction, all parking shall take place on the project site and, if necessary, any overflow parking shall take place within nearby roadway easements. RESOLUTION NO. 2002-06 PAGE 4 • • T. 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. U. The property owners shall be required to conform to the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Health Department requirements for the installation and maintenance of septic tanks. V. The property owners shall be required to conform to the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Health Department requirements for the installation and maintenance of stormwater drainage facilities. W. The property owners shall be required to conform to the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Public Works Department Best Management Practices (BMP's) related to solid waste. X. The property owners shall be required to conform to the City of Rolling Hills Outdoor Lighting Standards Ordinance, (Ordinance No. 287). Y. A drainage plan shall be approved by the Planning Department and County District Engineer, to include any water from any site irrigation systems and that all drainage from the site shall be conveyed in an approved manner. Z. All utility lines shall be placed underground. The roof material for the new residence and future stable shall comply with the City of Rolling Hills Building Code requirements. AA. Prior to the submittal of an applicable final building plan to the County of Los Angeles for plan check, a detailed drainage plan with related geology, soils and hydrology reports that conform to the development plan as approved by the Planning Commission shall be submitted to the Rolling Hills Planning Department staff for their review and approval. AB. Notwithstanding Sections 17.46.020 and 17.46.070 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, any modifications to the project which would constitute additional structural development shall require the filing of a new application for approval by the Planning Commission. AC. The project must be reviewed and approved by the Rolling Hills Community Association Architectural Review Committee prior to the issuance of any grading or building permit. AD. The applicant shall pay all of the applicable Los Angeles County Building and Safety and Public Works Department fees, including Parks and Recreation Fees for new residence. RESOLUTION NO. 2002-06 PAGE 5 • • AE. Until the applicants execute an Affidavit of Acceptance of all conditions of this Site Plan Review approval, as required by Section 17.42.070 the approvals shall not be effective. AF. All conditions of the Site Plan approval, that apply, shall be complied with prior to the issuance of a building permit from the County of Los Angeles. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 18th DAY OF JUNE 2002. EVIE HANKINS, VICE -CHAIR ATTEST: MARILYN KERN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK' RESOLUTION NO. 2002-06 PAGE 6 • • STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§ CITY OF ROLLING HILLS I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2002-06 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL TO PERMIT GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE TO REPLACE AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IN ZONING CASE NO. 646 AT 56 EASTFIELD DRIVE (LOT 102-EF) (COSER). was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on June 18, 2002 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following: Administrative Offices. DEPUTY CITY CLERK RESOLUTION NO. 2002-06 PAGE 7 DATE: TO: FROM: 7 .1) Rolling _Afro A INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 E-mail: cityofrh@aol.com MAY 21, 2002 HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR APPLICATION NO. SITE LOCATION: ZONING AND SIZE: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PUBLISHED: ZONING CASE NO. 646 (Revised) 56 EASTFIELD DRIVE (LOT 102-EF) RA-S-1, 1.54 ACRES (GROSS) DR. RUSSELL COSER DOUGLAS McHATTIE, BOLTON ENGINEERING GEORGE SWEENEY, ARCHITECT FEBRUARY 16, 2002 REOUEST Request for a Site Plan Review to permit grading and construction of a new single family residence, garage and a future stable to replace an existing single family residence. BACKGROUND 1. The Planning Commission considered this application request at the February 26, 2002 and March 19, 2002 meetings and at a field trip on March 11, 2002. The Commission expressed concern about the exceedence of the 30% buildable pad coverage guideline for the proposed project and suggested that the applicant scale down the project and bring the size of the house closer to the size of the existing homes in the neighborhood. During the March 19, 2002 meeting, the applicant's representative asked for continuance of this application, so that he may confer with the property owners. Just prior to the April 16, 2002 Planning Commission meeting, the applicants requested continuation of their case to the May meeting. 2. The applicants have revised their proposal and are currently requesting to construct a new 5,147 square foot residence with 803 square foot garage, a 3,400 square foot basement and a 450 square foot future stable. This proposal calls for reduction of the house by 744 square feet and the garage by 142 square feet, for a total of 886 square feet, and an increase of the basement by 720 square feet. In addition, the engineer is proposing to increase the buildable pad by grading a small portion of the lot to 10% slope. A 2-foot retaining wall will be constructed to create the larger pad. Due to the reduction in the size of the house, and elimination of a turn around area by the garage, the disturbed area has decreased. Printed on Recycled Paper. • • 3. Previously the applicant requested a Site Plan Review for grading and construction of a new 5,891 square foot residence with 945 square foot garage and 2,680 square foot basement. The existing house, built in 1949, measuring 2,000 square feet with a 462 square foot garage will be demolished. Site Plan Review criteria and a comparison table of nearby residences is attached. 4. In August of 1990, the Planning Commission approved the construction of a new house on subject property measuring 5,590 square feet with 760 square foot garage and a 648 square foot swimming pool. The approved project was in the same location and fronted the same direction as the currently proposed project. The house was not built. 5. The property is located along a loop of Eastfield Drive. The applicant is showing the west portion of the lot adjacent to Eastfield Drive as the front of the property, and the north portion of the lot adjacent to Eastfield Drive, beyond the curve, as the rear yard. The two interior property lines will form the side lot lines. The corner location and odd configuration of the lot limit the ability to build on the property. 6. Pursuant to the City's Zoning Ordinance the front yard setback is measured 50 feet from the roadway easement. The rear yard setback is measured 50 feet form the rear lot line, except when a rear .yard abuts a street, it shall be considered a front yard, therefore it is measured 50 feet from the roadway easement. Section 17.12.120 defines rear lot line as the lot line opposite and most distant from the front lot line, or in the case of an irregularly shaped lot, a straight line not less than ten feet long, within the lot, and most nearly parallel to and at the maximum distance from the front lot line. 7. Due to the provision in the Zoning Ordinance, which requires that a rear yard which abuts a street be treated like a front yard, the proposed barn would be located in the front yard, and would therefore, require a Variance when constructed. However, if the rear yard did not abut a street, but bordered another property, the barn as proposed would be an allowed use in that location. Due to the size, location, topography and configuration of the lot the proposed location of the barn is most reasonable. The proposed placement of the residence and the barn would minimize grading on the lot. 8. The applicant is proposing to utilize the existing driveway approach to the property. 9 Grading for the project will require 1,070 cubic yards of cut soil and 1,070 cubic yards of fill soil, mostly for the basement, which will be balanced on site. The majority of the existing building pad will be utilized for construction of the new house. 10. The property is zoned RAS-1, and the gross lot area is 1.54 acres. The net lot area is 42,240 square feet. The residential building pad area is 21,280 square feet, and the future barn pad is 1000 square feet. 11. The structural net lot coverage proposed is 6496 square feet or 15.4%, which includes the residence, garage, service yard and future stable, (20% permitted); and the total lot coverage proposed including structures and paved areas is proposed at 10,656 square feet or 25.3%, (35% permitted). 12. Building pad coverage on the 21,280 square foot residential building pad is proposed at 6,046 square feet or 28.4%, which is a reduction from 43.3 % proposed • • previously. Building pad coverage on the 1000 square foot future stable pad is 450 square feet or 45%. 13. The disturbed area is proposed to be 15,234 square feet or 36.0%, which includes the future stable, (40% permitted) of the net lot area. Disturbance includes any remedial grading (temporary disturbance), any graded slopes and building pad areas, and any nongraded area where impervious surfaces will remain or will be added. 14. It will be required that the utilities to the new house be placed underground and that the roof meet the city's and RHCA requirements for Class "A" assembly and material. 15. 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 revised site plan and staff report for the proposed project and direct staff as appropriate. 56 Eastfield Drive NEARBY PROPERTIES ADDRESS OWNER 63 Eastfield 54 Eastfield 58 Eastfield 51 Eastfield 52 Eastfield 59 Eastfield 57 Eastfield 1 Hackamore 60 Eastfield 61 Eastfield 64 Eastfield 56 Eastfield Calhoun Bond Sircar Meyer Nourai Heater Moore Grubs Wolfenden Juge Hemmat Coser AVERAGE RESIDENCE (SQ.FT.) 2,813 2,840 2,590 4,187 4,518 2,529 2,290 3,579 5,700(includes existing first story) 6,980 5,940 2,000 (existing) 5,147 (proposed) 4,070 LOT SIZE (NET) 47,916 50,810 45,000 58,300 57,499 82,880 65,830 71,200 133, 320 67,520 75,874 66,890 68,741 NOTE: 1. The net lot areas shown above are as recorded in the assessors' records, without the required City's deductions for net lot calculations; except that private roads are deducted from the assessors' calculations above. 2. The above do not include garages. Zoning Case No. 646 SITE PLAN REVIEW RA-S- 1 ZONE SETBACKS Front: 50 ft. from front easement SINGLE FAMILY line RESIDENCE Side: 20 ft. from property line Rear: 50 ft. from property line STRUCTURES (Site Plan Review required if size of structure increases by at least 1,000 sq.ft. and has the effect of increasing the size of the structure by more than 25% in a 36-month period). II EXISTING Residence 2000 sq.ft Garage 462 sq.ft. Stable Service yard 96 sq.ft TOTAL STRUCTURAL LOT COVERAGE 6.1% (20% maximum) TOTAL LOT COVERAGE 15.2% (35% maximum) RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PAD 16.0% COVERAGE (30% maximum- auidelinel BARN PAD COVERAGE GRADING Site Plan Review required if excavation and/or fill or combination thereof that is more than 3 feet in depth and covers more than 2,000 sq.ft.) must be balanced on site. II PREVIOUSLY PROPOSED NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AND FUTURE STABLE Residence Garage Stable(future) Service yard Basement 2558 sq.ft. TOTAL (exc.basement) 17.5% 29.0% II PROPOSED 5/21/02 NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AND FUTURE STABLE 5891 sq.ft. Residence 945 sq.ft. Garage 450 sq.ft Stable(future) 96 sq.ft Service yard 2680 sq.ft. 7382 sq.ft. 43.3% of 15,944 sq.ft. building pad 45% of 1000 sq.ft. stable pad 610 cubic yards cut 610 cubic yards fill Basement TOTAL (exc.basement) 15.4% 25.3% 28.4% of 21,280 sq.ft. building pad 45% 1070 cubic yards cut 1070 cubic yards fill 5147 sq.ft 803 sq.ft 450 sq.ft 96 sq.ft. 3400 sq.ft 6496 sq.ft. DISTURBED AREA (40% maximum; any graded building pad area, any remedial grading (temporary disturbance), any graded slopes and building pad areas, and any nongraded area where impervious surfaces exist.) STABLE (min. 450 SQ.FT. & 550 SQ.FT. CORRAL) • STABLE ACCESS ROADWAY ACCESS VIEWS PLANTS AND ANIMALS • 31.2% Existing driveway approach from Eastfield N/A N/A 39.0% 450 sq.ft. future barn & 550 sq.ft. future corral Future access from Eastfield Existing driveway approach from Eastfield. Planning Commission will review. Planning Commission will review. 36.0% (includes future barn) 450 sq.ft. future barn & 550 sq.ft. future corral Future access from Eastfield Existing driveway approach from Eastfield. Planning Commission will review. Planning Commission will review. DATE: TO: FROM: • • 7C ofieoffinf ,Aft, APRIL 16, 2002 INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 E-mail: cityofrh@aol.com HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR APPLICATION NO. ZONING CASE NO. 646 (Revised) SITE LOCATION: 56 EASTFIELD DRIVE (LOT 102-EF) ZONING AND SIZE: RA-S-1, 1.54 ACRES (GROSS) APPLICANT: DR. RUSSELL COSER REPRESENTATIVE: DOUGLAS McHATTIE, BOLTON ENGINEERING PUBLISHED: FEBRUARY 16, 2002 REQUEST Request for a Site Plan Review to permit grading and construction of a new single family residence, garage and a future stable to replace an existing single family residence. BACKGROUND 1. The Planning Commission considered this application request at their February 26, 2002, March 19, 2002 meetings and at a field trip on March 11, 2002. The Commission expressed concern about the exceedence of the 30% buildable pad coverage guideline for the proposed project and suggested that the applicant scale down the project and bring the size of the house closer to the size of the existing homes in the neighborhood. During the March 19, 2002 meeting, the applicant's representative asked for continuance of this application, so that he may confer with the property owners. 2. The applicants have revised their proposal and are currently requesting to construct a new 5,008 square foot residence with a 435 square foot garage, a 2,680 square foot basement and a 450 square foot future stable. The house is proposed to be reduced by 883 square feet and the garage by 510 square feet, for a total of 1,393 square feet. 3. As of the writing of this report, the applicant did not have a revised site plan available for distribution to the Planning Commission. The applicant's representative will present the revised proposal to the Commission at tonight's meeting. 4. Previously the applicant requested a Site Plan Review for grading and construction of a new 5,891 square foot residence with 945 square foot garage and 2,680 square foot basement to replace an existing single family residence. The existing house, %a Printed on Recycled Paper. built in 1949, measuring 2,000 square feet with a 462 square foot garage will be demolished. Site Plan Review criteria and a comparison table of nearby residences is attached. 5. In August of 1990, the Planning Commission approved the construction of a new house on subject property measuring 5,590 square feet with 760 square foot garage and a 648 square foot swimming pool. The approved project was in the same location and fronted the same direction as the currently proposed project. The house was not built. 6. The property is located along a loop of Eastfield Drive. The applicant is showing the west portion of the lot adjacent to Eastfield Drive as the front of the property, and the north portion of the lot adjacent to Eastfield Drive, beyond the curve, as the rear yard. The two interior property lines will form the side lot lines. The corner location and odd configuration of the lot limit the ability to build on the property. Due to the terrain of the lot and the owner's request that the house be in the location and direction as submitted, the applicant's representative requests that the Planning. Commission makes a determination that the setbacks be approved as submitted. 7. Pursuant to the City's Zoning Ordinance the front yard setback is measured 50 feet from the roadway easement. The rear yard setback is measured 50 feet form the rear lot line, except when a rear yard abuts a street, it shall be considered a front yard, therefore it is measured 50 feet from the roadway easement. Section 17.12.120 defines rear lot line as the lot line opposite and most distant from the front lot line, or in the case of an irregularly shaped lot, a straight line not less than ten feet long, within the lot, and most nearly parallel to and at the maximum distance from the front lot line. In addition, the Zoning Code gives the Planning Commission the authority to determine lot lines on irregular lots. 8. Due to the provision in the Zoning Ordinance, which requires that a rear yard which abuts a street be treated like a front yard, the proposed barn would be located in the front yard, and would therefore, require a Variance when constructed. However, if the rear yard did not abut a street, but another property, the barn as proposed would be an allowed use in that location. Due to the size, location, topography and configuration of the lot the proposed location of the barn is most reasonable. The proposed placement of the residence and the barn would minimize grading on the lot. 9. The applicant is proposing to utilize the existing driveway approach to the property. 10. Grading for the project will require 610 cubic yards of cut soil and 610 cubic yards of fill soil, mostly for the basement, which will be balanced on site. The existing building pad will be utilized for construction of the new house. 11. The property is zoned RAS-1, and the gross lot area is 1.54 acres. The net lot area is 42,240 square feet. The residential building pad area is 15,995 square feet, and the future barn pad is 1000 square feet. 12. The structural net lot coverage proposed is 5,989 square feet or 14.2%, which includes the residence, garage, service yard and future stable, (20% permitted); and the total lot coverage proposed including structures and paved areas is proposed at 10,419 square feet or 24.7%, (35% permitted). • • 13. Building pad coverage on the 15,995 square foot residential building pad is proposed at 5,539 square feet or 34.74%, which is a reduction from 43.3 % proposed previously. Building pad coverage on the 1000 square foot future stable pad is 450 square feet or 45%. The applicant's representative will present to the Commission at tonight's meeting the different scenarios, if the 30% building pad coverage was met. 14. The disturbed area is proposed to be 16,501 square feet or 39.0%, which includes the future stable, (40% permitted) of the net lot area. Disturbance includes any remedial grading (temporary disturbance), any graded slopes and building pad areas, and any nongraded area where impervious surfaces will remain or will be added. 15. It will be required that the utilities to the new house be placed underground. 16. 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 revised site plan and staff report for the proposed project and direct staff as appropriate. 63 Eastfield 54 Eastfield 58 Eastfield 51 Eastfield 152 Eastfield 59 Eastfield 57 Eastfield 1 Hackamore 60 Eastfield 56 Eastfield Drive NEARBY PROPERTIES ADDRESS OWNER RESIDENCE (SQ.FT.) Calhoun 2,813 Bond 2,840 Sircar 2,590 Meyer 4,187 Nourai 4,518 Heater 2,529 Moore 2,290 Grubs 3,579 Wolfenden 5,700(includes existing first story) 61 Eastfield Juge 6,980 64 Eastfield Hemmat 5,940 56 Eastfield Coser 2,000 (existing) 5,008 (proposed) AVERAGE 4,070 LOT SIZE (NET) 47,916 50,810 45,000 58,300 57,499 82,880 65,830 71,200 133, 320 67,520 75,874 66,890 68,741 NOTE: 1. The net lot areas shown above are as recorded in the assessors' records, without the required City's deductions for net lot calculations; except that private roads are deducted from the assessors' calculations above. 2. The above do not include garages. Zoning Case No. 646 SITE PLAN REVIEW II EXISTING RA-S- 1 ZONE SETBACKS Front: 50 ft. from front easement SINGLE FAMILY line RESIDENCE Side: 20 ft. from property line Rear: 50 ft. from property line STRUCTURES (Site Plan Review required if size of structure increases by at least 1,000 sq.ft. and has the effect of increasing the size of the structure by more than 25% in a 36-month period). STRUCTURAL LOT COVERAGE (20% maximum) TOTAL LOT COVERAGE (35% maximum) RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PAD 16.0% COVERAGE (30% maximum- auideline) BARN PAD COVERAGE GRADING Site Plan Review required if excavation and/or fill or combination thereof that is more than 3 feet in depth and covers more than 2,000 sq.ft.) must be balanced on site. DISTURBED AREA 31.2% (40% maximum; any graded building pad area, any remedial grading (temporary disturbance), any graded slopes and building pad areas, and any nongraded area where impervious surfaces exist.) Residence Garage Stable Service yard TOTAL 6.1 % 15.2% II PREVIOUSLY PROPOSED NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AND FUTURE STABLE 2000 sq.ft Residence 462 sq.ft. Garage Stable(future) 96 sq.ft Service yard 2558 sq.ft. TOTAL 17.5% 29.0% PROPOSED 4/16/02 NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AND FUTURE STABLE 5891 sq.ft. I Residence 945 sq.ft. Garage 450 sq.ft Stable(future) 96 sq.ft Service yard 7382 sq.ft. TOTAL 14.2% 24.7% 43.3% of 15,944 sq.ft. building pad 45% of 1000 soft. stable pad 610 cubic yards cut 610 cubic yards fill 39.0% 34.74% of 15,944 sq.ft. building pad 45% 610 cubic yards cut 610 cubic yards fill 39.0% 5008 sq.ft 435 sq.ft 450 sq.ft 96 sq.ft. 5989 sq.ft. STABLE (min. 450 SQ.FT. & 550 SQ.FT. CORRAL) STABLE ACCESS ROADWAY ACCESS VIEWS 0 PLANTS AND ANIMALS Existing driveway approach from Eastfield N/A N/A 450 sq.ft. future barn & 550 sq.ft. future corral Future access from Eastfield Existing driveway approach from Eastfield. Planning Commission will review. Planning Commission will review. 450 sq.ft. future barn & 550 sq.ft. future corral Future access from Eastfield Existing driveway approach from Eastfield. Planning Commission will review. Planning Commission will review. 4 4 DATE: TO: FROM: • • C eitf 0/ INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 E-mail: cityofrh@aol.com MARCH 19, 2002 HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR APPLICATION NO. SITE LOCATION: ZONING AND SIZE: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PUBLISHED: ZONING CASE NO. 646 56 EASTFIELD DRIVE (LOT 102-EF) RA-S-1, 1.54 ACRES (GROSS) DR. RUSSELL COSER DOUGLAS McHATTIE, BOLTON ENGINEERING FEBRUARY 16, 2002 REOUEST Request for a Site Plan Review to permit grading and construction of a new single family residence, garage and a future stable to replace an existing single family residence. BACKGROUND 1. The Planning Commission visited the subject property on March 11, 2002. The Planning Commission expressed concern about the project's exceedence of the 30% building pad coverage guideline. The Planning Commission recognized the uniqueness of the property, as it is located on a loop of Eastfield Drive. 2. The applicant is requesting a Site Plan Review for grading and construction of a new 5,891 square foot residence with 945 square foot garage and 2,680 square foot basement to replace an existing single family residence. The existing house, built in 1949, measuring 2,000 square feet with a 462 square foot garage will be demolished. Site Plan Review criteria and a comparison table of nearby residences is attached. 3. In August of 1990, the Planning Commission approved the construction of a new house on subject property measuring 5,590 square feet with 760 square foot garage and a 648 square foot swimming pool. The approved project was in the same location and fronted the same direction as the currently proposed project. The house was not built. 4. The property is located along a loop of Eastfield Drive. The applicant is showing the west portion of the lot adjacent to Eastfield Drive as the front of the property, and the north portion of the lot adjacent to Eastfield Drive, beyond the curve, as the rear yard. The two interior property lines will form the side lot lines. The corner location and odd configuration of the lot limit the ability to build on the property. Due to the terrain Pririted on Recycled Paper. • • of the lot and the owner's request that the house be in the location and direction as submitted, the applicant's representative requests that the Planning Commission makes a determination that the setbacks be approved as submitted. 5. Pursuant to the City's Zoning Ordinance the front yard setback is measured 50 feet from the roadway easement. The rear yard setback is measured 50 feet form the rear lot line, except when a rear yard abuts a street, it shall be considered a front yard, therefore it is measured 50 feet from the roadway easement. Section 17.12.120 defines rear lot line as the lot line opposite and most distant from the front lot line, or in the case of an irregularly shaped lot, a straight line not less than ten feet long, within the lot, and most nearly parallel to and at the maximum distance from the front lot line. In addition, the Zoning Code gives the Planning Commission the authority to determine lot lines on irregular lots. 6. Due to the provision in the Zoning Ordinance, which requires that a rear yard which abuts a street be treated like a front yard, the proposed barn would be located in the front yard, and would therefore, require a Variance when constructed. However, if the rear yard did not abut a street, but another property, the barn as proposed would be an allowed use in that location. Due to the size, location, topography and configuration of the lot the proposed location of the barn is most reasonable. The proposed placement of the residence and the barn would minimize grading on the lot. 7. The applicant is proposing to utilize the existing driveway approach to the property, and therefore, Traffic Commission review is not required. 8. Grading for the project will require 610 cubic yards of cut soil and 610 cubic yards of fill soil, mostly for the basement, which will be balanced on site. The existing building pad will be utilized for construction of the new house. 9. The property is zoned RAS-1, and the gross lot area is 1.54 acres. The net lot area is 42,240 square feet. The residential building pad area is 15,995 square feet, and the future barn pad is 1000 square feet. 10. The structural net lot coverage proposed is 7,382 square feet or 17.5%, which includes the residence, garage, service yard and future stable, (20% permitted); and the total lot coverage proposed including structures and paved areas is proposed at 12,262 square feet or 29.0%, (35% permitted). 11. Building pad coverage on the 15,995 square foot residential building pad is proposed at 6,932 square feet or 43.3 %. Building pad coverage on the 1000 square foot future stable pad is 450 square feet or 45%. The applicant's representative stated that although this coverage exceed the Commission's guideline of 30%, much more grading and lot disturbance would be required on this lot in order to meet the 30% coverage requirement. The existing topography and drainage would be disturbed if a larger building pad were to be created. The proposed location of the house is desirable, as it will be located away from the street frontages and the proposed construction will utilizes the existing building pad. 12. Disturbed area of the lot will be 16,501 or 39.0%, which includes future stable, (40% permitted) of the net lot area. Disturbance includes any remedial grading • • (temporary disturbance), any graded slopes and building pad areas, and any nongraded area where impervious surfaces will remain or are proposed to be added. 13. It will be required that the utilities to the new house be placed underground. 14. The project has been determined to be categorically exempt pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). 15. The applicant has submitted a letter, which is enclosed, explaining the proposal. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission review the site plan and staff report for the proposed project and direct staff as appropriate. Zoning Case No. 646 SITE PLAN REVIEW RA-S- 1 ZONE SETBACKS Front: 50 ft. from front easement line Side: 20 ft. from property line Rear: 50 ft. from property line STRUCTURES (Site Plan Review required if size of structure increases by at least 1,000 sq.ft. and has the effect of increasing the size of. the structure by more than 25% in a 36- month period). STRUCTURAL LOT COVERAGE (20% maximum) TOTAL LOT COVERAGE (35% maximum) RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PAD COVERAGE (30% maximum-auidelinel BARN PAD COVERAGE GRADING Site Plan Review required if excavation and/or fill or combination thereof that is more than 3 feet in depth and covers more than 2,000 sq.ft.) must be balanced on site. DISTURBED AREA (40% maximum; any graded building pad area, any remedial grading (temporary .disturbance), any graded slopes and building pad areas, and any nongraded area where impervious surfaces exist.) STABLE (min. 450 SQ.FT. & 550 SQ.FT. CORRAL) STABLE ACCESS ROADWAY ACCESS VIEWS PLANTS AND ANIMALS EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE Residence Garage Stable Service yard TOTAL 6.1% 15.2% PROPOSED NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AND FUTURE STABLE 2000 sq.ft Residence 5891 sq.ft. 462 sq.ft. Garage 945 sq.ft. Stable(future) 450 sq.ft 96 sq.ft Service yard 96 sq.ft 2558 sq.ft. TOTAL 17.5% 29.0% 7382 sq.ft. 16.0% 43.3% of 15,944 sq.ft. building pad 31.2% Existing driveway approach from Eastfield N/A N/A 45% of 1000 sq.ft. stable pad 610 cubic yards cut 610 cubic yards fill 39.0% 450 sq.ft. future barn & 550 sq.ft. future corral Future access from Eastfield Existing driveway approach from Eastfield. Planning Commission will review. Planning Commission will review. '1 56 Eastfield Drive NEARBY PROPERTIES ADDRESS OWNER 63 Eastfield Calhoun 54 Eastfield Bond 58 Eastfield Sircar 51 Eastfield Meyer 52 Eastfield Nourai 59 Eastfield Heater 57 Eastfield Moore 1 Hackamore Grubs 60 Eastfield Wolfenden 61 Eastfield Juge 64 Eastfield Hemmat 56 Eastfield Coser NOTE: RESIDENCE (SQ.FT.) 2,813 2,840 2,590 4,187 4,518 2,529 2,290 3,579 5,700(includes existing first story) 6,980 5,940 2,000 (existing) 5,891 (proposed) AVERAGE 4,070 LOT SIZE (NET) 47,916 50,810 45,000 58,300 57,499 82,880 65,830 71,200 133, 320 67,520 75,874 66,890 68,741 1. The net lot areas shown above are as recorded in the assessors' records, without the required City's deductions for net lot calculations; except that private roads are deducted from the assessors' calculations above. 2. The above do not include garages. • RUSSELL F. COSER, D.D.S. 4201 TORRANCE BLVD., SUITE 460 TORRANCE, CA 90503 TELEPHONE: (310) 540-5050 (310) 540-7073 FAX March 11, 2002 To the Planning Commissioners, Julie & I moved our family here 3 years ago because we Ioved'the open rural environment, with the dream of building our own special home in which to raise our children and care for our family. To that end we took a risk on a severely challenging piece of property and spent considerable effort to dean it up and enhance the general area for our new neighbors and ourselves. Now it is time to complete our goal and begin a comprehensive rebuilding. We have given our design an incredible amount of work and evaluation so as to fit our needs and fit within the city requirements. We are very proud of our design and feel it fits very well within our property and neighborhood. Although the lot pad guideline has been exceeded, we feel what we proposed is reasonable and justifiable, especially considering we have such an unusual & excessive limitation caused by the encircling road set back and also considering we will be removing our old garage which sits completely with the front yard set back. Our plan will use the existing pad and may require a relatively small grade change in the master bedroom area. It was mentioned at the last meeting that we might consider downsizing our plans. Where as this might seem a simple option, it proved to be not viable and still meet the needs required by our family. If we were to change our plans it would force us to maintain our existing garage in the set back and require seeking further approval to extend and expand into other.front yard setbacks. This would seem to be far less acceptable to the council and to us. Our only other option would be to move elsewhere, leaving it to someone else to find a solution for such a difficult property. In summary, we feel we have made an improvement in our city and that our future plans will fit within requirements and be in harmony with many other homes along our street. Please feel free to call myself or my architect for further assistance or clarification. Respectfully, DATE: TO: FROM: • C ofi2lin q • INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 E-mail: cityofrh@aol.com MARCH 11, 2002 HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR APPLICATION NO. SITE LOCATION: ZONING AND SIZE: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PUBLISHED: ZONING CASE NO. 646 56 EASTFIELD DRIVE (LOT 102-EF) RA-S-1, 1.54 ACRES (GROSS) DR. RUSSELL COSER DOUGLAS McHATTIE, BOLTON ENGINEERING FEBRUARY 16, 2002 REQUEST Request for a Site Plan Review to permit grading and construction of a new single family residence, garage and a future stable to replace an existing single family residence. BACKGROUND 1. The Planning Commission scheduled a field visit to subject property on March 11, 2002. 2. The applicant is requesting a Site Plan Review for grading and construction of a new 5,891 square foot residence with 945 square foot garage and 2,680 square foot basement to replace an existing single family residence. The existing house, built in 1949, measuring 2,000 square feet with a 462 square foot garage will be demolished. Site Plan Review criteria and a comparison table of nearby residences is attached. 3. In August of 1990, the Planning Commission approved the construction of a new house on subject property measuring 5,590 square feet with 760 square foot garage and a 648 square foot swimming pool. The approved project was in the same location and fronted the same direction as the currently proposed project. The house was not built. 4. The property is located along a loop of Eastfield Drive. The applicant is showing the west portion of the lot adjacent to Eastfield Drive as the front of the property, and the north portion of the lot adjacent to Eastfield Drive, beyond the curve, as the rear yard. The two interior property lines will form the side lot lines. The corner location and odd configuration of the lot limit the ability to build on the property. Due to the terrain of the lot and the owner's request that the house be in the location and direction as submitted, the applicant's representative requests that the Planning Commission makes a determination that the setbacks be approved as submitted. Pririted on Recycled Paper. • • 5. Pursuant to the City's Zoning Ordinance the front yard setback is measured 50 feet from the roadway easement. The rear yard setback is measured 50 feet form the rear lot line, except when a rear yard abuts a street, it shall be considered a front yard, therefore it is measured 50 feet from the roadway easement. Section 17.12.120 defines rear lot line as the lot line opposite and most distant from the front lot line, or in the case of an irregularly shaped lot, a straight line not less than ten feet long, within the lot, and most nearly parallel to and at the maximum distance from the front lot line. In addition, the Zoning Code gives the Planning Commission the authority to determine lot lines on irregular lots. 6. Due to the provision in the Zoning Ordinance, which requires that a rear yard which abuts a street be treated like a front yard, the proposed barn would be located in the front yard, and would therefore, require a Variance when constructed. However, if the rear yard did not abut a street, but another property, the barn as proposed would be an allowed use in that location. Due to the size, location, topography and configuration of the lot the proposed location of the barn is most reasonable. The proposed placement of the residence and the barn would minimize grading on the lot. 7. The applicant is proposing to utilize the existing driveway approach to the property, and therefore, Traffic Commission review is not required. 8. Grading for the project will require 610 cubic yards of cut soil and 610 cubic yards of fill soil, mostly for the basement, which will be balanced on site. The existing building pad will be utilized for construction of the new house. 9. The property is zoned RAS-1, and the gross lot area is 1.54 acres. The net lot area is 42,240 square feet. The residential building pad area is 15,995 square feet, and the future barn pad is 1000 square feet. 10. The structural net lot coverage proposed is 7,382 square feet or 17.5%, which includes the residence, garage, service yard and future stable, (20% permitted); and the total lot coverage proposed including structures and paved areas is proposed at 12,262 square feet or 29.0%, (35% permitted). 11. Building pad coverage on the 15,995 square foot residential building pad is proposed at 6,932 square feet or 43.3 %. Building pad coverage on the 1000 square foot future stable pad is 450 square feet or 45%. The applicant's representative stated that although this coverage exceed the Commission's guideline of 30%, much more grading and lot disturbance would be required on this lot in order to meet the 30% coverage requirement. The existing topography and drainage would be disturbed if a larger building pad was to be created. The proposed location of the house is desirable, as it will be located away from the street frontages and the proposed construction will utilizes the existing building pad. 12. Disturbed area of the lot will be 16,501 or 39.0%, which includes future stable, (40% permitted) of the net lot area. Disturbance includes any remedial grading (temporary disturbance), any graded slopes and building pad areas, and any nongraded area where impervious surfaces will remain or are proposed to be added. • • 13. It will be required that the utilities to the new house be placed underground. 14. 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 view the site for the proposed project. Zoning Case No. 646 SITE PLAN REVIEW RA-S- 1 ZONE SETBACKS Front: 50 ft. from front easement line Side: 20 ft. from property line Rear: 50 ft. from property line STRUCTURES (Site Plan Review required if size of structure increases by at least 1,000 sq.ft. and has the effect of increasing the size of the structure by more than 25% in a 36- month period). STRUCTURAL LOT COVERAGE (20% maximum) TOTAL LOT COVERAGE (35% maximum) RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PAD COVERAGE (30% maximum-ouidelinel BARN PAD COVERAGE GRADING Site Plan Review required if excavation and/or fill or combination thereof that is more than 3 feet in depth and covers more than 2,000 sq.ft.) must be balanced on site. DISTURBED AREA (40% maximum; any graded building pad area, any remedial grading (temporary disturbance), any graded slopes and building pad areas, and any nongraded area where impervious surfaces exist.) STABLE (min. 450 SQ.FT. & 550 SQ.FT. CORRAL) STABLE ACCESS ROADWAY ACCESS VIEWS PLANTS AND ANIMALS EXISTING PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AND FUTURE STABLE Residence Garage Stable Service yard TOTAL 6.1% 15.2% 2000 sq.ft Residence 5891 sq.ft. 462 sq.ft. Garage 945 sq.ft. Stable(future) 450 sq.ft 96 sq.ft Service yard 96 sq.ft 2558 sq.ft. TOTAL 17.5% 29.0% 7382 sq.ft. 16.0% 43.3% of 15,944 sq.ft. building pad 31.2% Existing driveway approach from Eastfield N/A N/A 45% of 1000 sq.ft. stable pad 610 cubic yards cut 610 cubic yards fill 39.0% 450 sq.ft. future barn & 550 sq.ft. future corral Future access from Eastfield Existing driveway approach from Eastfield. Planning Commission will review. Planning Commission will review. 56 Eastfield Drive NEARBY PROPERTIES ADDRESS OWNER 63 Eastfield Calhoun 54 Eastfield Bond 58 Eastfield Sircar 51 Eastfield Meyer 52 Eastfield Nourai 59 Eastfield Heater 57 Eastfield Moore 1 Hackamore Grubs 60 Eastfield Wolfenden 61 Eastfield Juge 64 Eastfield Hemmat 56 Eastfield Coser NOTE: RESIDENCE (SQ.FT.) 2,813 2,840 2,590 4,187 4,518 2,529 2,290 3,579 5,700(includes existing first story) 6,980 5,940 2,000 (existing) 5,891 (proposed) AVERAGE 4,070 LOT SIZE (NET) 47,916 50,810 45,000 58,300 57,499 82,880 65,830 71,200 133, 320 67,520 75,874 66,890 68,741 1. The net lot areas shown above are as recorded in the assessors' records, without the required City's deductions for net lot calculations; except that private roads are deducted from the assessors' calculations above. 2. The above do not include garages. DATE: TO: FROM: • City ofieoffinl FEBRUARY 26, 2002 • g 12) INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 E-mail: cityofrh@aol.com HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PRINCIPAL PLANNER APPLICATION NO. SITE LOCATION: ZONING AND SIZE: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PUBLISHED: ZONING CASE NO. 646 56 EASTFIELD DRIVE (LOT 102-EF) RA-S-1, 1.54 ACRES (GROSS) DR. RUSSELL COSER DOUGLAS McHATTIE, BOLTON ENGINEERING FEBRUARY 16, 2002 REOUEST Request for a Site Plan Review to permit grading and construction of a new single family residence, garage and a future stable to replace an existing single family residence. BACKGROUND 1. The applicant is requesting a Site Plan Review for grading and construction of a new 5,891 square foot residence with 945 square foot garage and 2,680 square foot basement to replace an existing single family residence. The existing house, built in 1949, measuring 2,000 square feet with a 462 square foot garage will be demolished. Site Plan Review criteria and a comparison table of nearby residences is attached. 2. In August of 1990, the Planning Commission approved the construction of a new house on subject property measuring 5,590 square feet with 760 square foot garage and a 648 square foot swimming pool. The approved project was in the same location and faced the same direction as the currently proposed project, however it was not built. 3. The property is located along a curved portion of Eastfield Drive. The applicant is showing the west portion of the lot adjacent to Eastfield Drive as the front of the property, and the north portion of the lot adjacent to Eastfield Drive, beyond the curve, as the rear yard. The two interior property lines will form the side lot lines. The corner location and odd configuration of the lot limit the ability to build on the property. Due to the terrain of the lot and the owner's request that the house be in the location and direction as submitted, the applicant's representative requests that the Planning Commission makes a determination that the setbacks be approved as submitted. Pursuant to the City's Zoning Ordinance the front yard setback is measured 50 feet from the roadway easement. The rear yard setback is measured 50 feet form the rear lot line, except when a rear yard abuts a street, it shall be considered a front yard, therefore ZC NO.646 PIng.Comm. 2/26/02 1 %a Printed on Recycled Paper. • • it is measured 50 feet from the roadway easement. Section 17.12.120 defines rear lot line as the lot line opposite and most distant from the front lot line, or in the case of an irregularly shaped lot, a straight line not less than ten feet long, within the lot, and most nearly parallel to and at the maximum distance from the front lot line. In addition, the Zoning Code gives the Planning Commission the authority to determine lot lines on irregular lots. 5. Due to the provision in the Zoning Ordinance, which requires that a rear yard which abuts a street be treated like a front yard, the proposed barn would be located in the front yard, and would therefore, require a Variance when constructed. However, if the rear yard did not abut a street, but another property, the barn as proposed would be an allowed use in that location. Due to the size, location, topography and configuration of the lot the proposed location of the barn is most reasonable. The proposed placement of the residence and the barn would minimize grading on the lot. 6. The applicant is proposing to utilize the existing driveway approach to the property, and therefore, Traffic Commission review is not required. 7. Grading for the project will require 610 cubic yards of cut soil and 610 cubic yards of fill soil, mostly for the basement, which will be balanced on site. The existing building pad will be utilized for construction of the new house. 8. The property is zoned RAS-1, and the gross lot area is 1.54 acres. The net lot area is 42,240 square feet. The residential building pad area is 15,995 square feet, and the future barn pad is 1000 square feet. 9. The structural net lot coverage proposed is 7,382 square feet or 17.5%, which includes the residence, garage, service yard and future stable, (20% permitted); and the total lot coverage proposed including structures and paved areas is proposed at 12,262 square feet or 29.0%, (35(Y0 permitted). 10. Building pad coverage on the 15,995 square foot residential building pad is proposed at 6,932 square feet or 43.3 %. Building pad coverage on the 1000 square foot future stable pad is 450 square feet or 45%. The applicant's representative stated that although this coverage exceed the Commission's guideline of 30%, much more grading and lot disturbance would be required on this lot in order to meet the 30% coverage requirement. The existing topography and drainage would be disturbed if a larger building pad was to be created. The proposed location of the house is desirable, as it will be located away from the street frontages and the proposed construction will utilizes the existing building pad. 11. Disturbed area of the lot will be 16,501 or 39.0%, which includes future stable, (40% permitted) of the net lot area. Disturbance includes any remedial grading (temporary disturbance), any graded slopes and building pad areas, and any nongraded area where impervious surfaces will remain or are proposed to be added. 11. It will be required that the utilities to the new house be placed underground. ZC NO.646 PIng.Comm. 2/26/02 2 12. 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 Site Plan request and take public testimony ZC NO. 646 Plng.Comm. 2/26/02 3 Zoning Case No. 646 SITE PLAN REVIEW RA-S- 1 ZONE SETBACKS Front: 50 ft. from front easement line Side: 20 ft. from property line Rear: 50 ft. from property line STRUCTURES (Site Plan Review required if size of structure increases by at least 1,000 sq.ft. and has the effect of increasing the size of the structure by more than 25% in a 36- month period). STRUCTURAL LOT COVERAGE (20% maximum) TOTAL LOT COVERAGE (35% maximum) RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PAD COVERAGE (30% maximum-auidelinel BARN PAD COVERAGE GRADING Site Plan Review required if excavation and/or fill or combination thereof that is more than 3 feet in depth and covers more than 2,000 sq.ft.) must be balanced on site. DISTURBED AREA (40% maximum; any graded building pad area, any remedial grading (temporary disturbance), any graded slopes and building pad areas, and any nongraded area where impervious surfaces exist.) STABLE (min. 450 SQ.FT. & 550 SQ.FT. CORRAL) STABLE ACCESS ROADWAY ACCESS VIEWS PLANTS AND ANIMALS EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE Residence Garage Stable Service yard TOTAL 6.1% 15.2% PROPOSED NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AND FUTURE STABLE 2000 sq.ft Residence 5891 sq.ft. 462 sq.ft. Garage 945 sq.ft. Stable(future) 450 sq.ft 96 sq.ft Service yard 96 sq.ft 2558 sq.ft. TOTAL 17.5% 29.0% 7382 sq.ft. 16.0% 43.3% of 15,944 sq.ft. building pad 31.2% Existing driveway approach from Eastfield N/A N/A ZC NO. 646 Plng.Comm. 2/26/02 4 45% of 1000 sq.ft. stable pad 610 cubic yards cut 610 cubic yards fill 39.0% 450 sq.ft. future barn & 550 sq.ft. future corral Future access from Eastfield Existing driveway approach from Eastfield. Planning Commission will review. Planning Commission will review. 56 Eastfield Drive NEARBY PROPERTIES ADDRESS OWNER RESIDENCE LOT SIZE (SQ.FT.) (NET) 63 Eastfield Calhoun 2,813 47,916 54 Eastfield Bond 2,840 50,810 58 Eastfield Sircar 2,590 45,000 51 Eastfield Meyer 4,187 58,300 52 Eastfield Nourai 4,518 57,499.2 59 Eastfield Heater 2,529 82,880 57 Eastfield Moore 2,290 65,830 1 Hackamore Grubs 3,579 71,200 56 Eastfield Coser 2,000 (existing) 66,890 5,891 (proposed) AVERAGE 3,168 59,930 NOTE: The net lot areas shown above are as recorded in the assessors' records, without the required City's deductions for net lot calculations; except that private roads are deducted from the assessors' calculations above. The above do not include garages. ZC NO. 646 P1ng.Comm. 2/26/02 5