Loading...
505A, Demo existing SFR & Guest hous, Confidential• • PHILLIP R. NICHOLSON. LAWRENCE TEPLIN RONALD I, SILVERMAN. MARIO CAMARA GEORGE D. CALKINS, II JOHN H. KUHL ARTHUR O. SPAULDING, JR. JEFFP.EY LAPOTA DAVID A. LEIPZIGER JOHN S. MILLER, JR. KENNETH B. BLEY IRA J. WALDMAN JOHN F. NICHOLSON CHARLES E. NONEMAN WILLIAM KAMER MARLENE D. GOODFRIED BARRY P. JABLON JEFFREY D. MASTERS ROBERT D. INFELISE EDWARD G. SHIRLEY TAMAR C. STEIN EDYTHE L. BRONSTON CAROL M. LIFLAND DOUGLAS P. SNYDER GARY A. GLICK LORA LEE MOORE LEWIS G. FELDMAN P. JEROLD WALSH MARK P. MCCLANATHAN JOHN A. KINCANNON STANLEY W. LAMPORT RANDALL W. BLACK W. MCLIN LINES PERRY D. MOCCIARO JESS R. BRESSI GREGORY J. KARNS D. SCOTT TURNER SAMUEL H. GRUENBAUM A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION SANDRA C. STEWART MATHEW A. WYMAN DIANE B. GALFAS RANDY P. ORLIK HERBERT J. KLEIN DONNA J. CHRISTENSEN KENNETH WILLIAMS LAUREL BALLARD BRVAN KATHRYN M. LYDDAN CARLISLE G. PACKARD DAVID S. ROSENBERG CARLA K. RYHAL MICHAEL L. TIDUS LESLIE M. BAKER SUSAN S. DAVIS H. MARK MERSEL LISA A. WEINBERG SCOTT D. BROOKS GARY P. DOWNS VALERIE L. FLORES SHARON L. TAMIYA AMY H. WELLS ROBERT L. BENUN ESTELLE M. BRAAF PRESTON W. BROOKS STATHI G. MARCOPULOS MARK A. REZAC JULIE E. KNIPSTEIN MARK MOORE COLIN C. SWAINSTON PAUL J. TITCHER ADAM B. WEISSBURG TINA R. AXELRAD JOHN A. HENNING, JR. CAMELLIA KUO STEPHANIE A. SCHROEDER MARK T. LAMMAS MARIA K. SARKISIAN COX. CASTLE f NICHOLSON A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS LAWYERS 2049 CENTURY PARK EAST TWENTY-EIGHTH FLOOR LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90067-3284 TELEPHONE (310) 277-4222 FACSIMILE (310) 277-7889 April 18, 1994 Chairman Allan Roberts and Members Planning Commission City of Rolling Hills No. 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, California 90274 Re: Application: Zoning Case No. 505 Location: 1 Buggy Whip Drive Applicant: John Z. Blazevich Dear Chairman Roberts and Members of the Commission: GEORGE M. COX (RETIRED) RICHARD N. CASTLE (1932-1992) OF COUNSEL STEPHEN G. SHAPIRO JAMES E. BARNETT HOWARD GOLDSTEIN EDWARD C. DYGERT KEITH B. BARDELLINI ORANGE COUNTY OFFICE 19800 MACARTHUR BOULEVARD SUITE 600 IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92715-2435 (714) 476-2111 • (310) 284.2187 FACSIMILE (714) 476-0256 OUR FILE NO: 24480 WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL NUMBER (310) 284-2275 We have been retained by the applicant, Mr. John Blazevich, in connection with his application for a site plan and conditional use permit before you. We respectfully request that you approve Mr. Blazevich's application. We have reviewed the tape of your Commission's previous public hearings on Mr. Blazevich's application and the information that has been presented to you. Based on statements at the public hearings, it appears that your Commission's overriding concern has been the size of the residence. This letter addresses the points that have been raised in that regard and presents evidence in response. We have attached some of the evidence as exhibits to this letter. An index immediately precedes the exhibits. At the outset, we note that the size of the proposed residence is not in itself a reason to deny the application. This is an administrative proceeding in which your decision must be based on substantial evidence in the record before you. Your deci- sion is limited to the nine areas of findings set forth in the • Chairman Allan Roberts and Members April18, 1994 Page 2 City's Zoning Ordinance. If there is no substantial evidence to support a conclusion that the application does not meet one of the findings, that decision would be arbitrary, capricious and unlawful. A decision that size alone is a reason to deny the application would be arbitrary and capricious because there is no rational basis for that conclusion other than an arbitrary personal preference that is beyond the scope of your authority. As the following shows, Mr. Blazevich's proposed residence meets all of the criteria for approval. A summary of findings is attached in Exhibit 6. The remainder of this letter discusses the size issue in the context of the findings and concerns you have raised. 1. The Application is Consistent with the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan. The project before you meets all of the requirements in the City's Zoning Ordinance. Exhibit 1 summarizes how the residence meets those standards. As reflected on the table in Exhibit 1, the City's Ordinance specifies a maximum of 20% structural coverage. This project is at 8.7%. The City's Ordinance specifies 35% total lot coverage. This project is at 14.7%. The City's Ordinance also specifies 40% maximum disturbed area. This project is at 38.9%, In addition, construction will only occur on that portion of the lot that is already developed and has already been disturbed by previous grading. As the staff report notes, the new residence, pool and garage will occupy the areas currently occupied by the existing residence, pool, garage and tennis court. The proposed tennis court occupies an area previously disturbed by grading. No construction will occur on the undisturbed slopes on the north and east sides of the lot, which comprise the natural undisturbed area of the property. In short, the project meets all the building envelope requirements set forth in the Zoning Ordinance and maintains the large open space areas on the property as required under the general plan. A more detailed statement of how the project is consistent with the goals and policies of the general plan is set forth in Exhibit 6. 2. The Proiect is Compatible with the Surrounding Area. It is our understanding that there are two general objections to the size of the project. One objection is that the project is allegedly not consistent with the scale and mass of Chairman Allan Roberts and Members April 18, 1994 Page 3 surrounding properties. A second objection is the proposed resi- dence will dwarf surrounding residences. Neither of these concerns is justified for the reasons set forth below. (a) The Scale and Mass the Proposed Residence is Consistent with Surrounding Properties. The concept of scale in this context relates to the proportional relationship between the proposed structure and the lot on which it sits. When you consider the proportional rela- tionship between the size of the proposed residence and the size of the lot and compare it to the properties referenced in the staff report, you will see that the application before you is consistent with the scale of the surrounding properties. Exhibit 2 is a table which summarizes this information. It takes the size of the residences on the surrounding properties referenced in the staff report and summarizes the percentage of the lot which the residence occupies. As reflected on the table, the portion of the lot occupied by most of the surrounding residences exceeds 5%. The proposed Blazevich residence will occupy only 4.9% of the lot. Clearly the project is consistent with the scale of the surrounding properties. The concept of massing relates to the physical arrange- ment of a structure. For example, the massing of a tall building is different than that of a comparable structure that is shorter and spread over a greater area. The issue here is whether the physical arrangement of the structure is consistent with the physical layout of surrounding residences. In this case, all of the residential structures, including the proposed residence, are ranch style architecture, characterized by a one story, sprawling design. (See Exhibit 5 for a discussion of what constitutes ranch style architecture.) Thus, the mass of the proposed structure is consistent with the mass of structures on surrounding properties. (b) The Proposed Residence Does Not Dwarf Sur- roundina Residences. A concern was raised at one of the prior public hearings that the size of the proposed structure would dwarf surrounding properties. This concern in unwarranted for two reasons: (1) the distance between the proposed residence and the existing residences is substantial and (2) the angular design and location of the proposed residence will prevent surrounding properties from seeing the full size of the structure. • • Chairman Allan Roberts and Members April 18, 1994 Page 4 Exhibit 3 is a vicinity map which depicts the distances and elevations of the nearest residences. As you will note, the residences to the south of the property will all be over 400 feet (more than the size of a football field) away from the residence. These residences are all 50 to 70 feet higher than the proposed residence, adding to the physical separation of the properties. Houses to the east will be even further from the proposed residence. The closest house to the north is almost 60 yards away and 50 feet lower. The existing residence is hardly visible from this location, as the photographs in Exhibit 4 illustrate. More- over, the new residence will be set back 10 feet south of the existing structure, which will render the house largely invisible from houses to the north and northeast. The closest house to the west is over 150 feet from the site and is screened by existing landscaping. The applicant will accept a condition to install and maintain additional mature land- scaping along the road to further screen the proposed residence. As reflected in Exhibit 3, to the extent properties to the west could see the structure, they will see only a wing of the house that is comparable in scale to the existing structure at that portion of the property. Dwarfing occurs when, as a result of size and close proximity, one structure overshadows another. Here the proposed structure is not in close proximity to any of the surrounding residences. As a result of the location of the structure on the pad and the angular design, the full size of the structure will not be seen from any location. Thus, the proposed residence will not dwarf surrounding residences. 3. The Proposed Residence is Consistent with the Citv's Ranch Style Architecture. At one of the earlier public hearings, it was suggested that the proposed residence is not a "ranch house". An analogy was made to comparing the Empire State Building to a cottage. This characterization of the proposed residence is inappropriate. The City's general plan and zoning ordinance do not require that a residence be a "ranch house". Instead, the general plan and zoning ordinance call for structures to apply "ranch style architecture". Attached is a declaration from Robert I. Kutner, AIA, a licensed architect which describes what constitutes ranch style architecture. • • Chairman Allan Roberts and Members April 18, 1994 Page 5 As set forth in Mr. Kutner's declaration. ranch style architecture is an architectural form characterized by one story, sprawling structures with low -slope, overhanging roofs, wood siding and covered porches and breezeways. This style of architecture is not determined by size, and there is no maximum size that defines the style. This fact is reflected in your recent approval of a 14,680 square foot residence on Storms Hill Lane. If that struc- ture could fit within the City's general architectural require- ments, there is no reason why the proposed residence cannot also meet that standard. 4. Conclusion. For these reasons, Mr. Blazevich respectfully requests that your Commission approve his site plan and conditional use per- mit applications. Very ty ly yours, SWL/haa Enclosures 144534 cc: Mr. John Z. Blazevich • e LIST OF EXHIBITS 1. Summary of Zoning Compliance 2. Comparison of Residential Lot Coverages 3. Vicinity Map 4. Photographs of Site from the North on Buggy Whip 5. Declaration of Robert I. Kutner, AIA 6. Findings in Support of Project Application SWLAMPOR 24480 144375 1 • • Exhibit 1 • • SUMMARY OF ZONING COMPLIANCE Proposed Blazevich Category Home Permitted Structural lot coverage 8.7% 20% Total lot coverage 14.5% 35% Disturbed area 38.9% 40% SWLAMPOR 24480 144377 1 • MIExhibit 2 • e COMPARISON OF RESIDENTIAL LOT COVERAGES This Table summarizes how large each of the surrounding residences listed in the staff report is in proportion to the size of the lot. It shows that the proportion of the lot occupied by the proposed residence is consistent with those on surrounding properties. Thus, the scale of the proposed resi- dence is consistent with the scale of the residences on the surrounding properties. Address Residence Lot (Sq.Ft) Acres Coverage 0 Buggy Whip Drive (Abdo) 4,523 1.99 5.2% 7 Buggy Whip Drive (Reznick) 3,614 1.53 5.4% 9 Buggy Whip Drive (Crowley) 3,135 2.00 3.5% 25 Crest West (Chandran) 4,320 1.89 5.2% 13 Crest West (Kouri) 6,311 (7,440)* 2.80 5.1% (6.1%)* 11 Crest West (Bemis) 3,534 (5,998)* 2.00 4.0% (6.9%)* 9 Crest West (Pak) 9,159 (11,329)* 3.78 5.5% (6.9%)* 4 North Quail Ridge (Schroeder) 2,440 5.09 1.1 % 1 Buggy Whip Drive (Proposed) 15,950 7.43 4.9% *Information obtained from the Community Association indicates that the residences at these addresses are larger than reflected in the staff report. The square footage and percentages in parenthesis are based on the Community Association figures. SWLAMPOR 24480 144375 1 • • Exhibit 3 _.� JOHN Z ,LAZE VK V,c/N/ TY MAP Ai. EXh;b;t 4 • • Exhibit 5 MEM • • 1 DECLARATION OF ROBERT I. KUTNER, AIA 3 I, Robert I. Kutner, AIA, declare as follows: 4 1. I am an architect licensed by the State of California 5 and am a member of the American Institute of Architects. I 6 received my architectural degree from California Polytechnic 7 State University at San Luis Obispo and have been practicing 8 since 1983. My architectural practice includes residential 9 architecture. 10 2. Ranch -style architecture is a style of residential 11 architecture which draws on themes and motifs out of early 12 California and the southwest. It is characterized by one-story, 13 sprawling structures with low -sloped, overhanging roofs, wood 14 siding and covered porches and breezeways. It became recognized 15 as a style of architecture in the first half of this century when 16 it was used in early residential subdivisions. 17 3. Ranch -style architecture is a style or form of archi- 18 tecture. It is not a fixed design. Ranch -style architecture is 19 not determined by size, and there is no maximum size that defines 20 the style. There is no reason why a 16,000 square foot residen- 21 tial structure that meets the design characteristics of ranch- 22 style architecture (described above) cannot be characterized as 23 such. 24 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the 25 State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. 26 Executed on April 18, 1994 at Los Angeles, California. 27 LAW OFFICES OF O COX, CASTLE & NICHOLSON LOS ANGELES, CA ROBERT I. KUTNER, AIA SWLAMPOR 24480 144376 • • Exhibit 6 • • FINDINGS IN SUPPORT OF PROPOSED APPLICATION The following sets forth the basis for concluding that this projects meets all of the criteria for approval under the City's Site Plan Ordinance. 1. The Protect Is Consistent With the Goals and Policies of the, General Plan and All Requirements of the Zoninc Ordinance. a. General Plan Compliance. The Land Use Element of the City's General Plan sets forth three goals and various policies under each of those goals. This project is consistent with each of the goals and the underlying policies. The first goal is to maintain the City's distinctive rural character. The Land Use Element of the General Plan states that setback requirements and lot sizes as well as topographic constraints on many lots provide significant amounts of open space on developed parcels that give the overall community a sense of openness. (Land Use Element, p. 5.) The Land Use Element also states that the two zoning classifications are designed to ensure that undeveloped properties will be developed at densities that are compatible with existing residential development. (Land Use Element, p. 9.) The proposed residence is well within the building envelope established in the R-S-2 zoning. As reflected in the Land Use Element, these criteria are designed to meet the first goal in the General Plan. The project is also consistent with the policies under the first goal. The lot size (7.43 acres) exceeds the two -acre minimum. (Policy 1.1.) The proposed residence is within the City's one-story height limitation. (Policy 1.2.) The owner agrees to use landscaping that is compatible with the City's rural character. (Policy 1.3.) The structure conforms with the City's existing low profile, ranch style architecture. (Policy 1.4; see Robert Kutner Declaration.) Finally, the owner agrees to comply with the City's exterior lighting requirements. (Policy 1.5.) The second goal in the Land Use Element of the City's General Plan is to accommodate development which is compatible with and complements existing land uses. The proposed residence is consistent with the residential uses in the area and conforms with the style of architecture encouraged by the City. The City's Zoning Ordinance, adopted after the Land Use Element was adopted, reflects the City's determination that the lot coverage standards are the means of determining compatibility with adjacent uses. The City chose not to adopt maximum structure sizes. The project is well within those standards. SWLAMPOR 24480 144537 • • The project also complies with the policies under the City's second land use goal. It complies with the lot coverage standards in the zoning ordinance. (Policy 2.1.) The owner agrees to lighting restrictions that will not adversely affect adjacent residences. The project also complies with the City's setback and easement requirements, which provide buffers between neighboring uses. (Policy 2.3.) Finally, the project maintains existing viewscapes. (Policy 2.4.) As reflected in the initial study, adopted by staff, there are no view impacts associated with the project. The project will occupy only those areas on the site currently occupied by existing structures. The third goal in the Land Use Element of the General Plan is to accommodate development that is sensitive to the natural environment and accounts for environmental hazards. There are no known environmental hazards on this site. Grading will occur primarily on the already developed portions of the site. There will be no construction on the undisturbed natural slopes on the north and east end of the property. The project is also consistent with the policies under the third goal. The residence is not in an active landslide area. (Policy 3.1.) The project complies with the City's grading practices. (Policy 3.2.) The owner agrees to use native, naturally fire resistant landscape materials. (Policy 3.4.) The project is consistent with all building and zoning requirements. (Policy 3.4.) b. The Proiect Complies With All the Requirements of the R-S-2 Zone. The project complies with the one story height limita- tion and all setback requirements. The structural lot coverage, total lot coverage and total disturbed area all comply with the zoning requirements. (See Exhibit 1.) 2. The Proiect Substantially Preserves the Natural and Undeveloped State of the Lot By Minimizing Building Coverage. The structural lot coverage is only 8.7 percent of the entire lot. The total lot coverage is only 14.5 percent. The new residence, garage and pool will occupy areas already occupied by the existing residence, garage, pool and tennis court. The project substantially preserves the existing natural terrain. 3. The Proiect Is Harmonious In Mass and Scale With the Site, the Natural Terrain and Surrounding Residences. The site is large enough to accommodate the residence on the portion of the property that is currently developed. There will be no construction on the natural terrain on the site. The proposed residence is consistent with the scale of surrounding SWLAMPOR 24480 144537 -2- • • residences. (See Exhibit 2.) The style of architecture and massing of the structure is consistent with the architecture and massing of surrounding residences. 4. The Proiect Preserves and Integrates Into the Site Design. to the Greatest Extent Possible, Existina Topographic Features of the Site. Including Surrounding Native Veaetation. Mature Trees. Drainage Courses and Land Forms. The new residence, garage and pool will occupy only those areas already occupied by existing structures and will not occupy any areas not previously disturbed. The slope and native vegetation on the north and east sides of the property will be preserved. No existing drainage courses will be altered. 5. Grading Has Been Desianed to Follow Natural Contours of the Site and to Minimize the Amount of Grading Reauired to Create the Building Area. Grading will comply with natural contours of the site. yards of balance cut and fill produce the minimum amount of building area. City standards and will follow the The project involves 9,700 cubic which has been engineered to grading required to create the 6. Gradina Will Not Modify Existing Drainage Channels Nor Redirect Drainaae Flow. Unless Such Flow is Redirected Into an Existing Drainage Course. Grading will not modify existing drainage channels nor redirect drainage flow. All drainage on the site will continue to flow into preexisting drainage courses. 7. The Proiect 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 Between Private and Public Areas. The project will preserve healthy native vegetation on the site. Grading and construction will primarily be on the areas of the property which are already disturbed and upon which construction is already located. The applicant has agreed to provide additional mature, drought -tolerant landscaping to screen the proposed residence from neighboring properties. 8. The Proiect is Sensitive and Not Detrimental to the Convenient and Safe Movement of Pedestrians and Vehicles. The project will comply with all conditions imposed by the Traffic Commission. There is no evidence that the project will have any detrimental effect on the safe and convenient movement of pedestrians and vehicles. SWLAMPOR 24480 144537 -3- • • 9. The Proiect Conforms With the Reauirements of the California, Environmental Quality Act. After reviewing the Initial Study for the project, it has been determined that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment. Accordingly, a Negative Declaration under CEQA should be adopted. SWLAMPOR 24480 144537 -4-