538, For a previously constructed 1, Resolutions & Approval Conditions•• ••
RESOLUTION NO. 96-11
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A VARIANCE TO PERMIT AN
ENCROACHMENT FOR A PREVIOUSLY CONSTRUCTED ART
STUDIO/HOBBY SHOP INTO THE SIDE YARD SETBACK, GRANTING A
VARIANCE TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED STRUCTURAL LOT
COVERAGE, GRANTING A VARIANCE TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM
PERMITTED DISTURBED AREA, AND APPROVING SITE PLAN REVIEW
TO PERMIT A PREVIOUSLY CONSTRUCTED ART STUDIO/HOBBY SHOP
IN ZONING CASE NO. 538.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES HEREBY
FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Applications were duly filed by Mr. Errol Gordon with respect to real
property located at 15 Eastfield Drive, Rolling Hills (Lot 52-EF) requesting a Variance to
permit an encroachment into the side yard setback for a previously constructed illegal art
studio/hobby shop, requesting a Variance to exceed the maximum structural lot coverage,
and a request for Site Plan Review to permit a previously constructed illegal art
studio/hobby shop structure. During the hearing process, additional requests for a
Variance to permit a previously constructed illegal solid wood fence that encroaches into
the side yard setback and a request to exceed the maximum permitted disturbed area were
introduced. Later the applicant proposed to remove the solid wood fence.
Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to
consider the applications on March 19, 1996, April 16, 1996, May 21, 1996, and at a field trip
visit on March 30, 1996.
Section 3. The Planning Commission finds that the project qualifies as a Class 3
Exemption [State CA 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. A Variance to Sections 17.16.120 and 17.16.150 is required because they state
that every parcel in the RA-S-1 zone shall have a side yard of not less than 20 feet from the
side property line. The applicant is requesting a Variance to permit a previously
constructed 256 square foot art studio/hobby shop that encroaches up to 5.5 feet into the
side yard setback to remain in 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 long and narrow and building
structures are thereby required to be crowded against side lot lines and close to adjacent
residences.
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 these types of
accessory structures are not uncommon in the City, the location of structures along side
setback lines is prevalent in this area of the City, and other adjacent structures already
encroach into the setback. Thus, there will not be any greater incursion into the side
setback than already exists. In addition, this encroachment will not impact the adjacent
bridle trail.
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 Variance is necessary because these types of accessory
structures are not uncommon in the City, the location of structures along side setback
lines is prevalent in this area of the City, and other adjacent structures already encroach
into the setback. Thus, there will not be any greater incursion into the side setback than
already exists. In addition, this encroachment will not impact the adjacent bridle trail.
Section 5. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby
approves a Variance for Zoning Case No. 538 to permit an art studio/hobby shop to
encroach up to 5.5 feet into the side yard setback, subject to the conditions in Section 12.
Section 6. A Variance to Section 17.16.070(A)(1) is required because it states that
coverage by structures shall not be more than 20 percent of the net lot area. The applicant
is requesting a Variance because coverage by structures will cover 21.7% of the net lot area.
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. The Variance for the lot coverage is necessary
because the lot is relatively small and is long and narrow. Building structures are located
within side yards and close to adjacent residences. The lot size and configuration, together
with the existing development on the lot creates a difficulty in meeting this Code
requirement.
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 of the size and shape
of the lot and the lots in the general vicinity that are smaller than other lots in the
surrounding area.
RESOLUTION NO. 96-11
PAGE 2 OF 7
•• ••
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. Development on the pad will be 21.7% which will allow a
substantial portion of the lot to remain undeveloped.
Section 7. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby
approves the Variance for Zoning Case No. 538 to permit coverage by structures of 21.7%,
subject to the conditions specified in Section 12.
Section 8. A Variance to Sections 17.16.070(B) is required because that section
states that the natural conditions on a lot shall be maintained to the greatest degree
possible and that disturbance shall be limited to forty (40) percent of the net lot area. The
applicant is requesting a Variance because 46.2% of the net lot area is "disturbed." 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. The Variance for the disturbed area is necessary
because the lot is relatively small in comparison to most lots in the City. It is also long,
narrow, relatively flat, and building structures are located within side yards and close to
adjacent residences.
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 of the size and shape
of the lot and the lots in the general vicinity that are smaller than other lots in the
surrounding area that make it difficult to develop this lot in a manner consistent with
other homes in the City.
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. Substantial portions of the lot will remain undeveloped.
Section 9. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby
approves the Variance for Zoning Case No. 538 to permit the disturbed area of the lot
(46.2%) to exceed the Code requirement, subject to the conditions specified in Section 12.
Section 10. Section 17.46.030 requires a development plan to be submitted for site
plan review and approval before any building or structure may be constructed or any
expansion, addition, alteration or repair to existing buildings may be made which involve
changes to grading or an increase to the size of the building or structure by 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, the Planning Commission makes the following findings of fact:
RESOLUTION NO. 96-11
PAGE 3 OF 7
•• ••
A. The proposed development is compatible with the General Plan, the Zoning
Ordinance and surrounding uses because the proposed structure complies 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 with the Variances approved in Sections 5 and
7 of this Resolution. The lot has a net square foot area of 55,925 square feet. The residence
(2,405 sq.ft.), garage (610 sq.ft.), swimming pool (740 sq.ft.), tennis court (6,895 sq.ft.), stable
(1,175 sq.ft.), and service yard (96 sq.ft.) will have 12,177 square feet which constitutes 21.7%
of the lot. The total lot coverage including paved areas and driveway will be 19,212 square
feet which equals 34.4% of the lot, which is within the 35% maximum overall lot coverage
requirement. The project is on a relatively large lot with the art studio/hobby shop located
well away from the road so as to reduce the visual impact of the development.
B. The development plan substantially preserves the natural and undeveloped
state of the lot by minimizing building coverage because the existing art studio/hobby shop
structure will not cause the total lot coverage to be exceeded. The proposed residence will
have a buildable pad coverage of 35.6%. Further, no grading will be required. Significant
portions of the lot will be left undeveloped.
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 total lot coverage maximum will not be exceeded and the proposed project is consistent
with the scale of the neighborhood when compared to this small and irregular -shaped lot.
The ratio of the proposed structure to lot coverage is similar to the ratio found on several
properties in the vicinity.
D. The proposed development preserves and integrates into the site design, to
the maximum extent feasible, existing natural topographic features of the lot including
surrounding native vegetation, mature trees, drainage courses, and land forms (such as
hillsides and knolls). No grading will be required.
E. The development plan follows natural contours of the site to minimize
grading and the natural drainage courses will continue to the canyons at the northwest
side (rear) of this lot. Drainage will continue along Eastfield Drive at the east side of the
property.
F. The development plan supplements the existing vegetation with landscaping
that is compatible with and enhances the rural character of the community.
G. The proposed development is sensitive to and not detrimental to the
convenience and safety of circulation for pedestrians and vehicles because the proposed
project will utilize the existing vehicular access, thereby having no further impact on the
roadway.
H. The project conforms with the requirements of the California Environmental
Quality Act and is categorically exempt from environmental review.
RESOLUTION NO. 96-11
PAGE 4 OF 7
•• �•
Section 11. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby
approves the Site Plan Review application for Zoning Case No. 538 for a proposed art
studio/hobby shop as indicated on the development plan incorporated herein as Exhibit A
and subject to the conditions specified in Section 12.
Section 12. The Variance to the side yard setback approved in Section 5, the
Variance to the structural lot coverage approved in Section 7, the Variance to the disturbed
area approved in Section 9, and the Site Plan Review approved in Section 11 of this
Resolution are subject to the following conditions:
A. The Variance and Site Plan Review approvals shall expire within one year
from the effective date of approval as defined in Sections 17.38.070 and 17.48.0080.
B. It is declared and made a condition of the Variance approval, that if any
conditions thereof are violated, this approval shall be suspended and the privileges
granted thereunder shall lapse; provided that the applicant has been given written notice
to cease such violation and has failed to do so for a period of thirty (30) days.
C. The applicant shall obtain all required building, plumbing, electrical and
other Uniform Code Permits for the art studio/hobby shop. In addition, 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 a
lawfully issued building, plumbing, electrical or other Uniform Code Permit.
D. The lot shall be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with
the site plan on file and marked Exhibit A, except as otherwise provided in these
conditions.
E. The existing 6 foot high, 84 foot long solid wood fence at the northwestern
portion of the lot shall be removed within 60 days of the approval of this Resolution.
F. Structural lot coverage shall not exceed 21.7%.
G. Building pad coverage shall not exceed 35.6%.
H. Landscaping shall be maintained to screen structures, but not to obstruct
views of neighboring properties.
I. The proposed ten (10) foot easement instead of the existing twenty-five (25)
foot easement at the rear portion of the lot shall be reviewed and approved by the
Community Association and shall be recorded prior to the issuance of any building permit.
J. The art studio/hobby shop shall be reviewed and approved by the Rolling
Hills Community Association Architectural Review Committee prior to the issuance of
any building permit.
RESOLUTION NO. 96-11
PAGE 5 OF 7
•• •s
K. Building and all other required Uniform Code Permits shall be obtained for
the art studio/hobby shop within one year of the effective date of approval of this
Resolution.
L. Notwithstanding Section 17.46.070 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, any
modifications to the project which would constitute additional development shall require
the filing of a new application for Site Plan Review approval by the Planning
Commission.
M. All conditions of these Variance and Site Plan Review approvals must be
complied with prior to the issuance of a building or grading permit from the County of Los
Angeles.
N. The applicant shall execute an Affidavit of Acceptance of all conditions of
these Variance and Site Plan Review approvals, or the approvals shall not be effective.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 18TH DAY 0�'*'JUNE�1 96
ALLAN ROBERTS, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
MARILYN KERN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK
RESOLUTION NO. 96-11
PAGE 6 OF 7
•• *0
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
)
§§
I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 96-11 entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A VARIANCE TO PERMIT AN
ENCROACHMENT FOR A PREVIOUSLY CONSTRUCTED ART
STUDIO/HOBBY SHOP INTO THE SIDE YARD SETBACK, GRANTING A
VARIANCE TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED STRUCTURAL LOT
COVERAGE, GRANTING A VARIANCE TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM
PERMITTED DISTURBED AREA, AND APPROVING SITE PLAN REVIEW
TO PERMIT A PREVIOUSLY CONSTRUCTED ART STUDIO/HOBBY SHOP
IN ZONING CASE NO. 538.
was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on June 18,
1996 by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Hankins, 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. 96-11
PAGE 7 OF 7
•
ORDINANCE NO. 263
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ESTABLISHING
REVISED STANDARDS FOR NET LOT AREA AND AMENDING TITLE 16
(SUBDIVISIONS) AND TITLE 17 (ZONING) OF THE ROLLING HILLS
MUNICIPAL CODE
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES HEREBY ORDAIN
AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. On March 27, 1996, certain sections of the Subdivision Ordinance were
changed to correspond with the Zoning Code. At that time, issues were raised by the City
Council regarding the application of net lot area requirements related to subdivision and
zoning applications and the Council requested that the Planning Commission further
review the definition.
Section 2. On June 18, 1996 and July 16, 1996, the definition of net lot area was
reviewed by the Planning Commission.. At that time, the Commission reviewed the staff
reports and the matter was set for public hearing on August 20, 1996.
Section 3. On July 23, 1996, Planning staff prepared an initial study for the project.
The initial study found that the project would not have a significant effect on the
environment. Based on this finding, staff prepared a Negative Declaration.
Section 4. On August 20, 1996, the Planning Commission held a public hearing
regarding the proposed ordinance regarding net lot area. The Commission adopted
Resolution No. 96-15, recommending the revision of Paragraph (C) of Section 16.16.010 of
Chapter 16.16 (Design) of the Subdivisions Ordinance and the revision of the definition of
"Lot Area, Net" of Section 17.12.120 of Chapter 17.12 (Definitions) of the Zoning Ordinance.
Section 5. On September 9, 1996 and September 23, 1996, the City Council held
public hearings regarding the proposed ordinance regarding net lot area.
Section 6. The City Council has reviewed the proposed Negative Declaration and
finds that it represents the independent judgment of the City and that it was prepared i n
compliance with CEQA. Based upon these findings, the City Council hereby adopts the
Negative Declaration in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act.
Section 7. Paragraph (C) of Section 16.16.010 (Lot size) of Chapter 16.16 (Design) of
Title 16 (Subdivisions Ordinance) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code is amended to read:
"C. For purposes of this section "net lot area" means the total area included
within the lot lines of a lot or parcel of property, exclusive of: (a) the entire area within a
recorded roadway easement plus the area within ten (10) feet measured perpendicular to
the edge of the roadway easement; (b) the ten (10) foot perimeter of the lot perpendicular to
the property lines; (c) any private drive or driveway that provides access to any other lot or
parcel; and (d) the access strip portion of a flag lot."
Section 8. The definition of "Lot Area, Net" of Section 17.12.120 of Chapter 17.12
(Definitions) of Title 17 of the Zoning Ordinance is amended to read:
"Lot Area, Net. "Net lot area" means the total area included within the lot lines of a
lot or parcel of property, exclusive of: (a) the entire area within a recorded roadway
easement plus the area within ten (10) feet measured perpendicular to the edge of the
roadway easement; (b) the ten (10) foot perimeter of the lot perpendicular to the property
lines; (c) any private drive or driveway that provides access to any other lot or parcel; and
(d) the access strip portion of a flag lot."
Section 9. Except as herein amended, Chapters 16.04 through 16.40 of Title 16
(Subdivisions) and Chapters 17.04 through 17.58 of Title 17 (Zoning) of the Rolling Hills
Municipal Code shall remain in full force and effect.
PASSED AND ADOPTED ON THE 12th DAY OF November, 1996.
G:OTiFl
JODY MLPRDOC
MAYOR
Ordinance No. 263 -1-
ozi4