Loading...
643, Convert existing stable into a, Resolutions & Approval ConditionsRESOLUTION NO. 910 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DENYING A REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO APPROVE AN UNAUTHORIZED CONVERSION OF AN EXISTING STABLE TO A GUESTHOUSE, AND DENYING A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO PERMIT THE PROPOSED GUESTHOUSE TO REMAIN IN THE FRONT YARD AREA AND TO CONTINUE TO ENCROACH INTO THE NORTHEAST SIDE YARD SETBACK AT AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AT 3 JOHNS CANYON ROAD IN ZONING CASE NO 643, (NORRIS). THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. An application was duly filed by Mrs. Harlyne Norris with respect to real property located at 3 Johns Canyon Road, Rolling Hills, (Lot 173- B-MS), requesting a conditional use permit to convert an existing building, which was previously approved for a stable use, but altered without permission during construction, to a guesthouse and requesting a variance to permit the proposed guesthouse to remain in the front yard area and to encroach into the northeast side yard setback, all with respect to a lot developed with an existing single- family residence. Section 2. On May 6, 2000, the Planning Commission approved a Variance to enlarge the then existing 400 square foot stable to 720 square feet by allowing a portion of the enlarged stable to be located in the front yard area and a portion to encroach up to 6 feet into the 35 foot northeast side yard setback. During the course of construction of the addition to the stable pursuant to the approved Variance, it was determined by the Los Angeles County Building Official that the addition was not in compliance with the plans for the approved application for an enlarged stable in that it appeared that the structure was not being constructed to serve as a stable, and a "stop work order" was issued. The only alternatives available to the applicant were to construct the building as a stable in accordance with approvals, or apply to the City for an alternative use of the building. Section 3. In July 2001, the applicant submitted a request for a CUP to convert the already enlarged stable building to a detached garage. During the course of the public hearings the applicant withdrew the request for the detached garage. Afterwards, the applicant submitted a revised request to convert the existing building into a mixed -use structure to be used as a garage and an office. At the October 16, 2001 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission directed staff to prepare a Resolution of denial for the mixed -use structure to be considered by the Planning Commission at its November 20, 2001 meeting. Subsequently, and prior to the November 20`h. Planning Commission meeting, the applicant withdrew the request for the mixed -use structure, and applied for a Conditional Use Permit to convert the existing structure to a guesthouse. At the November 20, 2001 meeting, the Planning Commission directed staff to prepare a Resolution to deny the request for a Conditional Use Permit to convert the altered stable structure into a guesthouse. The Planning Commission on December 18, 2001 adopted a Resolution of denial. Section 4. The Planning Commission's consideration of the various applications described in Section 3 above was conducted at several duly noticed public hearings on July 17, 2001, August 21, 2001, September 18, 2001, October 16, 2001, November 20, 2001. The Commission also conducted a noticed and public field trip visit to the site on August 6, 2001. The applicant was notified of the public hearings in writing by first class mail. On each public hearing date, evidence was presented from all persons interested in the proposal then being Resolution No. 910 -1- considered by the Commission. The applicant's representative was in attendance at the hearings. Section 5. On February 15, 2002, the applicant filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision. The City Council conducted duly noticed public hearings to consider the appeal on January 28, 2002, February 25, 2002 and at a field trip visit on February 5, 2002. Evidence was presented from all persons interested in the appeal, and fully considered by the City Council. The applicant's representative was in attendance at the hearings. Section 6. Section 17.16.040(A) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code allows guesthouses, provided a conditional use permit has been issued and provided that the property is developed with a legally established single family residence and on which provision is made for a legally required and accessible stable and corral area. Therefore, if the applicant was to be issued a conditional use permit and variance for conversion of the stable to a guesthouse, the applicant was also required to provide a suitable area on the parcel for a future stable and corral. Section 7. The applicant has proposed a location of the future barn and corral in front of the proposed guesthouse, which would be located in the front yard area. Pursuant to the City's Zoning Ordinance no accessory structures may be located in the front yard area; therefore, the future construction of a barn and corral in the proposed location would require an approval of a Variance. Section 8. Sections 17.16.210(A)(5) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code permits approval of a guesthouse as a conditional use under certain conditions. The applicant is requesting to convert a previously approved 720 square feet stable to a guesthouse located at the eastern portion of the lot. With respect to this request for a Conditional Use Permit, the City Council finds as follows: A. The proposed conditional use does not comply with all applicable development standards of the zone district in which it is located, because the 720 square foot proposed guesthouse would encroach into the side yard setback and would be located in the front yard of the property. Placement of a guesthouse in the front yard setback is also not consistent with the location of guesthouses on similarly sized parcels in the community. B. The approval of the conditional use permit for the conversion, would necessitate the approval of a future Variance for the construction of a stable and corral which would be located in the front yard area, in that the applicant is unable to identify any other area on the lot for a future stable site. In that the existing structure was constructed to be a stable pursuant to a Variance, allowing the conversion would, in effect, further increase the degree to which the property is developed in a manner inconsistent with Code requirements by crowding more structures into the front and side yard setbacks. C. The nature, condition, and development of adjacent uses, buildings, and structures have been considered, and the conversion to a guesthouse will adversely affect and be materially detrimental to these adjacent uses, buildings, or structures because the proposed guesthouse is relatively close to nearby residences, and is visible from the roadway, which makes it more visually prominent than appropriate under the existing development pattern of the City. Section 9. Sections 17.12.250(Y) and Section 17.16.150 state that front yards and all required yards must be unobstructed and unoccupied, except as otherwise provided in the Zoning Code. In addition, Sections 17.38.010 through 17.38.050 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code permit approval of a Variance from the standards and requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, under certain circumstances. A Variance would be required because the proposed guesthouse would be located in the front yard and encroach into the side yard setback. With respect to this request for the Variances, the City Council finds that there are no special circumstances applicable to the property that deny the property owner of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity. There is other location on the property where such use could be located in compliance with the setback requirements of the Municipal Code. The requested Variance would of necessity Resolution No. 910 -2- 4 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ) I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 910 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DENYING A REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO APPROVE AN UNAUTHORIZED CONVERSION OF AN EXISTING STABLE TO A GUESTHOUSE, AND DENYING A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO PERMIT THE PROPOSED GUESTHOUSE TO REMAIN IN THE FRONT YARD AREA AND TO CONTINUE TO ENCROACH INTO THE NORTHEAST SIDE YARD SETBACK AT AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AT 3 JOHNS CANYON ROAD IN ZONING CASE NO 643, (NORRIS). was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council on March 11, 2002, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Hill, Pernell, Mayor Pro Tem Lay and Mayor Murdock. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: Councilmember FHeinsheimer. and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following: Administrative Offices. J . I< ,) r1-6DEIPLITY CLERK Resolution No. 910 -5- contemplate that both the guesthouse and future stable would be located in the front yard and the required setbacks, rather than just the stable as at present. The Variance is not required for the applicant to make beneficial use of the property; the request would constitute a special privilege to the extent that so much development would be permitted in the front yard and setback areas intended to be free and clear of buildings, serving as a buffer from streets and neighboring properties. Section 10. Based upon the foregoing findings, the City Council hereby denies the Conditional Use Permit and Variances applications for Zoning Case No. 643 for the conversion of a previously approved barn to a guesthouse and to allow the proposed guesthouse to remain in the front yard and continue to encroach into the side yard setback at an existing single family residence. Section 11. The applicant's un-permitted conversion of the previously approved barn to a different use constitutes a Code violation. Staff is directed to require the applicant to bring the structure into compliance with the previously approved Site Plan and Variance for the enlarged barn and meet the requirements of City Code pertaining to stables and corrals. Therefore, the applicant shall undertake the following actions within six months of this Resolution, and prior to receiving a certificate of occupancy from the Los Angeles County Building and Safety Department: A. The conditions of approval of Resolution No. 200010, which among other Variances granted a Variance for the location and enlargement of the barn, shall remain in full force and effect. B. The existing garage doors located on the east and west sides of the "as built" structure, and related garage door opener shall be removed and replaced with one standard stable like door to be located on the west side of the structure only, to the satisfaction of the Rolling Hills Community Association (RHCA). C. All other requirements of the RHCA for the conversion of the "as built" structure to a barn shall be met. D. The carpeting and linoleum in the southern portion of the interior of the structure shall be removed and the floor shall remain bare or be concrete. E. Exterior lighting shall comply with Section 17.16.190 of the City of Rolling Hills Zoning Ordinance. F. The existing dirt roadway leading to the structure shall be landscaped to the satisfaction of City staff. However, a not to exceed 48 inches wide access to the stable shall be provided to accommodate delivery to and removal of waste from the barn. Such path shall not exceed a slope of 25% and may be paved. G. A landscaping plan for the existing dirt roadway and the area northeast thereof, shall be submitted to City staff for review and approval. H. All conditions of the stop work order issued by the Building Official dated 6/25/01 shall be met. I. The stable shall be used for the exclusive purpose of keeping animals only. Commercial uses shall not be permitted. J. No vehicle storage of any kind shall be permitted in the stable. Except that vehicle(s) necessary for keeping of animals and related equestrian equipment may be stored. K. No sleeping facilities shall be permitted. L. No kitchen or other cooking facilities shall be permitted. Resolution No. 910 -3- M. A revised site plan incorporating all of the above requirements for conversion of the "as built" structure to a stable, together with Rolling Hills Community Association's approved plans shall be submitted to City staff for review and approval. Section 12. During the process of public hearings, drainage and hydrology problems were identified on subject property. The property slopes from south to northeast and the existing drainage run-off cause erosion of the northern and eastern slopes of the property and overflows onto the adjacent property. Therefore, the City Council finds that it is necessary to rectify the drainage effect on subject property and the actions to correct said drainage shall incorporate the following measures: A Gutters and downspout system shall be installed on the roof of the barn structure. Such gutters shall discharge to the drainage swale. B. A drainage swale to be located along the southern side of the barn and continuing in a northeasterly direction along the existing unpaved driveway leading into Johns Canyon Road shall be constructed. Such swale shall be sloped away from the adjacent property (to the northeast). If required by the County Building Official, a dissipater or similar collection device shall be constructed in the easement adjacent to Johns Canyon Road in order to control erosion of the easement. C. The run-off from the recently constructed two dissipaters and a drainage pipe on the upper portion of the lot, shall be collected by an additional pipe, which shall be connected to an existing underground drainage pipe located in the easement along the easterly portion of the lot. The applicant shall coordinate with the adjacent property owners and the Rolling Hills Community Association to accomplish said connection. D. The above required drainage devices shall be constructed to the satisfaction of the City and Los Angeles County Building Department and shall be in substantial conformance with the development plan marked "Exhibit A", dated February 25, 2002. Section 13. The City Council further finds that the corrections specified in Section 11 and Section 12 of this Resolution are of great importance and are necessary to promote the health and safety of the residents of Rolling Hills, and therefore, the City Council resolve that said corrections shall be made within six months of the passage of this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 11th DAY OF MARCH 2002. JOD ,LL%lYOR ATTEST: MARILY=, DEPUTY CITY CLERK Resolution No. 910 -4- RESOLUTION NO. 2001-26 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DENYING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONVERT AN EXISTING STABLE TO A GUESTHOUSE, AND DENYING A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO PERMIT THE GUESTHOUSE TO REMAIN IN THE FRONT YARD AREA AND TO CONTINUE TO ENCROACH INTO THE NORTHEAST SIDE YARD SETBACK AT AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AT 3 JOHNS CANYON ROAD IN ZONING CASE NO 643. 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 Mrs. Harlyne Norris with respect to real property located at 3 Johns Canyon Road, Rolling Hills (Lot 173-B MS) requesting a conditional use permit to convert an existing stable to a guesthouse and a request for a variance to permit the guesthouse to remain .in the front yard area and to encroach into the northeast side yard setback, at an existing single family residence. Section 2. On May 6, 2000, the Planning Commission approved a Variance to enlarge the then existing 400 square foot stable to 720 square feet, a portion of which was to be located in the front yard area and approved a Variance to permit encroachment of the enlarged stable of up to 6 feet into the 35 foot northeast side yard setback. During the course of construction, it was noticed that the stable addition was not in accordance with the originally approved application for an enlarged stable. Section 3. In July 2001, the applicant submitted a request for a CUP to convert the existing stable into a detached garage. During the course of the public hearings the applicant withdrew the request for the detached garage. Afterwards, the applicant submitted a revised request to convert the existing stable into a mixed -use structure to be used as a garage and an office. At the October 16, 2001 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission directed staff to prepare a Resolution of denial for the mixed -use structure. Subsequently, and prior to the November 20t' Planning Commission meeting, the applicant withdrew the request for the mixed -use structure, and applied for a Conditional Use Permit to convert the existing structure to a guesthouse. At the November 20, 2001 meeting, the Planning Commission directed staff to prepare a Resolution to deny the request for a Conditional Use Permit to convert the stable into a guesthouse. Section 4. The Planning Commission conducted duly noticed public hearings to consider the various applications on July 17, 2001, August 21, 2001, September 18, 2001, October 16, 2001, November 20, 2001, and at a field trip visit on August 6, 2001. 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 applicant's representative was in attendance at the hearings. Section 5. The Planning Commission finds that the project qualifies as a Class 1 Exemption (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15301) and is therefore categorically exempt from further environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act. . Section 6. Sections 17.16.210(A)(5) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code permits approval of a guesthouse as a conditional use under certain conditions. The applicants are requesting to convert a previously approved 720 square feet stable to a guesthouse located at the eastern portion of the lot. With respect to this request for a Conditional Use Permit, the Planning Commission finds as follows: A. The granting of a Conditional Use Permit for the construction of a guesthouse would not be consistent with the purposes and objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan and will not be desirable for the public convenience and welfare because the use is not consistent with similar uses in the community, and the area proposed for the guesthouse would be located in an area on the property where such use will not be convenient for use as a guest house. The structure is located on a lower ground from the main residence and approximately 150 feet therefrom. The access from the guesthouse to the main residence is limited to a four -foot pathway developed with railroad tie steps. B. The nature, condition, and development of adjacent uses, buildings, and structures have been considered, and the conversion to a guesthouse will adversely affect or be materially detrimental to these adjacent uses, buildings, or structures because the proposed guesthouse is not of sufficient distance from nearby residences and will impact the privacy of surrounding neighbors. C. Although the project is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, the natural terrain, and surrounding residences and is located on a 2.8 acre parcel of property that is adequate in size, shape and topography to accommodate such use, such use will be isolated from the main house and visible from the main street. The potential lights and noise from such use may be detrimental to the neighbors. D. The proposed conditional use does not comply with all applicable development standards of the zone district in which it is located, because the 720 square foot proposed guesthouse would encroach into the side yard setback and would be located in the front yard of the property. E. The proposed conditional use conflicts with the spirit and intent of Title 17 of the Zoning Code because a stable structure and adjacent corral would be located immediately adjacent to the guesthouse. Section 7. Section 17.12.250(Y) states that required yards must be unobstructed and unoccupied, except as otherwise provided in the Zoning Code. In addition, accessory structures may not be located in the front yard .The applicant is requesting a Variance to allow the proposed guesthouse to remain in the front yard area and to continue to encroach into the side yard setback, as was approved by a Variance for the stable. With respect to this request for the Variances, the Planning Commission denies the request for the Variances, as the variances are contingent on the approval of the Conditional Use Permit. Section 8. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby denies the Conditional Use Permit and Variances applications for Zoning Case No. 643 for the conversion of an existing barn to a guesthouse and to allow the proposed guesthouse to remain in the front yard and in the side yard setback at an existing single family residence as shown on the development plan incorporated herein as Exhibit A. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 18'H DAY OF DECEMBER 2001. ALLAN ROBERTS, CHAIRMAN • A 1" 1'hST: . MARILYN KERN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS CITY OF ROLLING HILLS I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2001-26 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DENYING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONVERT AN EXISTING STABLE TO A GUESTHOUSE, AND DENYING A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO PERMIT THE GUESTHOUSE TO REMAIN IN THE FRONT YARD AREA AND TO CONTINUE TO ENCROACH INTO THE NORTHEAST SIDE YARD SETBACK AT AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AT 3 JOHNS CANYON ROAD IN ZONING CASE NO 643. was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission December 18, 2001, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Hankins, Margeta, Sommer and Chairman Roberts. NOES: Commissioner Witte. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following: Administrative Offices. DEPUTY CITY CLERK RESOLUTION NO. 2000-10 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING VARIANCES TO ENCROACH INTO THE EAST SIDE YARD SETBACK TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A TRELLIS AND GARDEN WALLS; TO ENCROACH INTO THE WEST SIDE YARD SETBACK TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A BARBECUE, THE RECONSTRUCTION OF A POOL AND THE RETENTION OF EXISTING RETAINING WALLS; TO ENLARGE A STABLE LOCATED IN THE FRONT YARD; AND TO PERMIT THE ENLARGED STABLE TO ENCROACH INTO THE NORTHEAST SIDE YARD SETBACK AT AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE LOCATED AT 3 JOHNS CANYON ROAD IN ZONING CASE NO. 610. THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Applications were duly filed by Mrs. Harlyne Norris with respect to real property located at 3 Johns Canyon Road (Lot 173-B-MS), Rolling Hills, requesting the following: (1) a Variance to encroach into the east side yard setback to permit the construction of a trellis and garden walls; (2) a Variance to encroach into the west side yard setback to permit the construction of a barbecue, the reconstruction of a pool and the retention of existing retaining walls; (3) a Variance to enlarge a stable located in the front yard; and (4) a Variance to permit the enlarged stable to encroach into the northeast side yard setback at an existing single family residence. Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the applications on March 21, 2000 and April 18, 2000, and at a field trip visit on April 15, 2000. The applicants were notified of the public hearing in writing by first class mail and through the City's newsletter. Evidence was heard and presented from all persons interested in affecting said proposal and from members of the City staff and the Planning Commission having reviewed, analyzed and studied said proposal. The applicant's representative was in attendance at the hearing. Section 3. The Planning Commission finds that the project qualifies as a Class 1 Exemption [State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15301(e)] and is therefore categorically exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act. Section 4. Sections 17.38.010 through 17.38.050 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code permit approval of a Variance from the standards and requirements of the Zoning Ordinance when' exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applicable to the property and not applicable to other similar properties in the same zone prevent the owner from making use of a parcel of property to the same extent enjoyed by similar properties in the same vicinity. RESOLUTION NO. 2000-10 PAGE 1 OF 8 Section 17.16.120 requires a side yard of thirty-five feet (35') from the side property line. The applicant is requesting a Variance to encroach into the south side yard setback to permit the construction of a 195 square foot trellis and 98 feet of garden walls that will be up to 2 feet in height that will encroach a maximum of tWenty-five feet (25') into the thirty-five (35') south side yard setback. With respect to this request for a Variance, the Planning Commission finds as follows: A. There are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances and con itions applicable to the property or to the intended use that do not apply generally to the other property or class of use in the same zone because the lot is irregular in shape and the trellis' and garden walls are located on a hillside slope at the rear of the lot and away from the street and assist in preventing an existing slope from potential collapse, in protecting the hillside from damage due to erosion, and to otherwise ensure that proper and adequate vehicular access onto the site is maintained. B. The Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone, but which is denied to the property in question. The Variance is necessary to stabilize the driveway, protect the hillside from erosion and control drainage on the property. C. The granting of the Variance would not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such' vicinity and zone in which the property is located. The trellis and garden walls will allow drainage on the property to be controlled as it flows to the canyon to the north inside the applicants' property. A substantial portion of the lot will remain undeveloped. In addition, the proposed structures, as conditioned, will be screened with vegetation so as not to be visible from surrounding properties. Section 5. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves the Variance for Zoning Case No. 606 to permit the proposed project to encroach a maximum of twenty-five feet (25') into the thirty-five foot (35') south side yard setback, subject to the conditions specified in Section 12. Section 6. As previously stated, Section 17.16.120 requires a side yard of thirty-five feet (35') from the side property line. The applicant is requesting a Variance to encroach into the west side yard setback to permit the construction of a U-shaped barbecue, the reconstruction of a 490 square foot pool, and a total of 167 feet of straight and curved stone with mortar retaining walls, some of which are existing, that are up to 3 feet in height and that will encroach up to 28.5 feet into the west side yard setback. With respect to this request for a Variance, the Planning Commission finds as follows: A. There are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances and conditions applicable to the property or to the intended use that do not apply generally to the other property or class of use in the same zone because the lot is irregular in shape RESOLUTION NO. 2000-10 PAGE 2 OF 8 and the barbecue, reconstruction of the pool, and previously constructed illegal and proposed retaining walls are located on a hillside slope at the rear of the lot and away from the street and assist in preventing an existing slope from potential collapse and in protecting the hillside from damage due to erosion. B. The Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone, but which is denied to the property in.question. The Variance is necessary because the pool was pre-existing, and because the retaining walls will stabilize the slope, protect the hillside from erosion and control drainage on the property. C. The granting of the Variance would not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the property is located. The barbecue, pool, and existing and proposed retaining walls will allow drainage on the property to be controlled as it flows to the canyon to the north inside the .applicants' property. A substantial portion of the lot will remain undeveloped. In addition, the proposed structures, as conditioned, will be screened with vegetation so as not to be visible from surrounding properties. Section 7. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves the Variance for Zoning Case No. 606 to permit the proposed project to encroach a maximum of twenty-eight and a half feet (28.5') into the thirty- five foot (35') west side yard setback, subject to the conditions specified in Section 12. Section 8. Section 17.16.200(A)(3) states that no corral, pen, stable, barn other similar holding facility shall be permitted in a front yard. The applicant is requesting a Variance to enlarge an existing 400 square foot stable to be a 720 square foot stable that is located in the front yard. With respect to this request for a Variance, the Planning Commission finds as follows: A. There are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances and conditions applicable to the property that do not apply generally to the other property or class of use in the same zone. The Variance request is to enlarge an existing stable. The lot size and irregular configuration, together with the existing development on the lot creates a difficulty in relocating the existing stable as the residence is located at the rear of the lot. B. The Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone, but which is denied to the property in question. The Variance is necessary because there is an existing stable at that location and the existing terrain and development on the lot creates a difficulty in relocating the stable as the residence is located at the rear of the lot. Further, other properties in the vicinity may expand stables under certain conditions while the subject property would be precluded from such expansion. RESOLUTION NO. 2000-10 PAGE 3 OF 8 C. The granting of the Variance would not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the property is located. The stable will be rebuilt in approximately the same location as the existing stable that will be close to the access road and mitigate the necessity for any grading on the hillside. Further, a substantial portion of the lot will remain undeveloped. Section 9. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves the Variance for Zoning Case No. 606 to permit a stable to be located in the front yard, subject to the conditions specified in Section 12. Section 10. As previously stated, Section 17.16.120 requires a side yard of thirty-five feet (35') from the side property line. The applicant is requesting a Variance to encroach into the northeast side yard setback to permit the reconstruction of a 720 square foot stable that will encroach up to six feet (6') into the side yard setback. With respect to this request for a Variance, the Planning Commission finds as follows: A. There are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances and conditions applicable to the property or to the intended use that do not apply generally to the other property or class of use in the same zone because the lot is irregular in shape and the existing stable is located on a hillside slope at the northeast side of the lot and away from the street. Access to the stable exists and grading to create a new pad will not be required. B. The Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone, but which is denied to the property in question. The Variance is necessary because there is an existing stable at that location, and the existing terrain and development on the lot create a difficulty in relocating the stable as the residence is located at the rear of the lot. Access to the stable exists and grading to create a new pad will not be required. C. The granting of the Variance would not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the property is' located. The proposed stable will be located in the same area as the existing stable at the northeast side of the lot which is away from the street. Access to the stable exists and grading to create a new pad will not be required. A substantial portion of the lot will remain undeveloped. Section 11. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves the Variance for Zoning Case No. 606 to permit the proposed stable to encroach a maximum of six feet (6') into the thirty-five foot (35') northeast side yard setback, subject to the conditions specified in Section 12. RESOLUTION NO. 2000-10 PAGE 4 OF 8 Section 12. The Variances regarding encroachments approved in Sections 5, 7, and 11, and the Variance permitting a stable to be located in a front yard approved in Section 9, of this Resolution are subject to the following conditions: A. The Variance approvals shall expire within one year from the effective date of approval as defined in Sections 17.38.070(A) unless otherwise extended pursuant to the requirements of that section. B. It is declared and made a condition of the Variance approvals, that if any conditions thereof are violated, this approval shall be suspended and the privileges granted thereunder 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 February 9, 2000, except as otherwise provided in these conditions. E. The property on which the project is located shall contain an area of sufficient size to also provide an area meeting all standards for a stable and corral with vehicular access thereto in conformance with site plan review limitations. F. There shall be no grading for the project. G. Landscaping shall be designed using native plants or other 'drought - tolerant mature trees and shrubs so as not to exceed the ridge height of the residence nor obstruct views from neighboring properties. H. Landscaping shall include water efficient irrigation, to the maximum extent feasible, that incorporates a 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. I. During construction, dust control measures shall be used to stabilize the soil from wind erosion and reduce dust and objectionable odors generated by construction activities in accordance with South Coast Air Quality Management District, Los Angeles County and local ordinances and engineering practices. RESOLUTION NO. 2000-10 PAGE 5 OF 8 ti J. During construction, conformance with local ordinances and engineering practices so that people or property are not exposed to landslides, mudflows, erosion, or land subsidence shall be required. K. 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, objectionable odors, landslides, mudflows, erosion, or land subsidence shall be required. L. During and after construction, all soil preparation, drainage, and landscape sprinklers shall protect the building pad from erosion and direct surface water to the rear of the lot at the northeast. M. During construction, an approved Erosion Control Plan containing the elements set forth in Section 7010 of the 1996 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. N. 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. O. 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. P. The drainage plan system shall be modified and approved by the Planning Department and City Engineer, to include any water from any site irrigation systems and that all drainage from the site shall be conveyed in an approved manner to the northeast side of the lot. Q. The property owners shall be required to conform with the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Health Department requirements for the installation and maintenance of stormwater drainage facilities. R. The property owners shall be required to conform with the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Public Works Department Best Management Practices (BMP's) related to solid waste. S. A detailed drainage plan that conforms to the development plan as approved by the Planning Commission must be submitted to the Rolling Hills Planning Department staff for their review. RESOLUTION NO. 2000-10 PAGE 6 OF 8 T. The project must be reviewed and approved by the Rolling Hills Community Association Architectural Review Committee prior to the issuance of any drainage, building or grading permit. U. The working drawings submitted to the County Department of Building and Safety for plan check review shall conform to the development plan described in Condition D. V. Any modifications to the project which would constitute additional structural development or grading that require Site Plan Review shall require the filing of an application for approval by the Planning Commission in accordance with Section 17.46 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code. W. 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 must be submitted to the Rolling Hills Planning Department staff for their review. X. The applicants shall execute an Affidavit of Acceptance of all conditions of these Variance approvals, pursuant to Section 17.38.060, or the approval shall not be effective. Y. All conditions of these Variance approvals must be complied with prior to the issuance of a building or grading permit from the County of Los Angeles. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 16TH D AL L'Al ROBERTS, CHAIRMAN ATTEST: MARILYN KERN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK RESOLUTION NO. 2000-10 PAGE 7 OF 8 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§ CITY OF ROLLING HILLS I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2000-10 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING VARIANCES TO ENCROACH INTO THE EAST SIDE YARD SETBACK TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A TRELLIS AND GARDEN WALLS; TO ENCROACH INTO THE WEST SIDE YARD SETBACK TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A BARBECUE, THE RECONSTRUCTION OF A POOL AND THE .RETENTION OF EXISTING RETAINING WALLS; TO ENLARGE A STABLE LOCATED IN THE FRONT YARD; AND TO PERMIT THE ENLARGED STABLE TO ENCROACH INTO THE NORTHEAST SIDE YARD SETBACK AT AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE LOCATED AT 3 JOHNS CANYON ROAD IN ZONING CASE NO. 610. was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on May 16, 2000 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Hankins, Margeta, Witte and Chairman Roberts. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Sommer. ABSTAIN: None. and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following: Administrative Offices. DEPUTY CITY LERK RESOLUTION NO. 2000-10 PAGE 8 OF 8