697, An addition of 208 sq ft to an, Resolutions & Approval ConditionsRESOLUTION NO. 2005-10
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL FOR
VARIANCES TO CONSTRUCT AN ADDITION TO A STABLE,
WHICH WOULD ENCROACH INTO THE FRONT YARD AND
TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED STRUCTURAL AND
TOTAL NET LOT COVERAGE; DENYING A VARIANCE TO
RETAIN AN EXISTING HORSE SHELTER, WHICH
ENCROACHES INTO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK; AND
APPROVING A SITE PLAN REVIEW ON A PROPERTY THAT
REQUIRES PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW, DUE TO
EXISTING STRUCTURAL DEVELOPMENT APPROVED IN
NOVEMBER 2003, AT AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENCE IN ZONING CASE NO. 697 AT 15 EASTFIELD
DRIVE, (LOT 52-EF), (GORDON).
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. An application has been filed by Mr. and Mrs. Errol Gordon
with respect to real property located at 15 Eastfield Drive, (Lot 52-EF), Rolling
Hills, requesting Variances to retain an existing 140 square foot horse shelter,
which encroaches into the front yard setback; to construct a 208 square foot
addition to a stable, which would encroach into the front yard; and to exceed the
maximum permitted structural and total net lot coverage. The existing stable is
legal nonconforming structure located in the front yard. A Site Plan Review is
also being sought due to a condition that was placed on a previously approved
application requiring Planning Commission review of any further development
on subject property.
Section 2. In August of 2000, the Planning Commission approved a 212
square -foot residential addition, which triggered a Variance to exceed the
maximum permitted structural lot coverage. The approval contained a condition
requiring that any new construction on subject property be subject to review by
the Planning Commission. The 212 square foot addition was completed in July
2001. In September of 2003, the Planning Commission in Zoning Case No. 664,
approved construction of 762 square foot addition to the residence and 141 square
foot covered porch, both of which required approvals of Variances to exceed the
maximum permitted structural and total net lot coverage. This approval also
contained a condition requiring that any new construction on subject property be
subject to review before the Planning Commission and requiring the removal of
the 140 square foot equestrian shelter located in the front setback before receiving
building permits for construction of the additions.
Section 3. In October of 2003, the City Council took Zoning Case No. 664
under jurisdiction, and in November of 2003 unanimously upheld the Planning
Commission's approval.
2005-10 1
(nrrl nn
Section 4. The construction of the 762 square foot addition approved in
Zoning Case No. 664 has not commenced. In November of 2004, the City Council
considered and approved a one-year time extension in Zoning Case No. 664 to
November of 2005.
Section 5. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public
hearings to consider the request in Zoning Case No. 697 for Variances and Site
Plan Review on November 16, 2004, December 21, 2004, January 18, 2005,
February 15, 2005 and at a field trip visit on December 4, 2004. At the December
21, 2004 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission by a vote of 2-1-1-1
(Commissioner DeRoy abstained and Commissioner Hankins was absent)
directed staff to prepare a resolution to deny the Variance requests to be
presented to the Commission for a final consideration and vote at the January 18,
2005 meeting. The applicants were notified of the hearings in writing by first
class mail. Evidence was heard and presented from all persons interested in said
proposal. The Planning Commission heard a report from the City staff and
reviewed, analyzed and studied the proposal. The applicants and the applicants'
representative were in attendance at the hearings.
Section 6. At the January 18, 2005 Planning Commission meeting, the
Commission further deliberated, considered the draft resolution denying the
project and ultimately directed staff to prepare a resolution conditionally
approving the entire project to be presented to the Commission for a final
consideration and vote at the February 15, 2005 meeting.
Section 7. The February 15, 2005 meeting was re -noticed in the local
newspaper and notices were mailed to property owners within 1,000 feet of
subject property. At the February 15, 2005 Planning Commission meeting, the
Commission further deliberated, considered the draft resolution approving the
entire project and ultimately directed staff to prepare a resolution conditionally
approving the Variances for the stable addition, and exceedance of the structural
and total lot area coverage and denying the Variance to retain the existing horse
shelter in the front yard to be presented to the Commission for a final
consideration and vote at the March 15, 2005 meeting. The applicants were
notified of the hearing in writing by first class mail. Evidence was heard and
presented from all persons interested in said proposal. The Planning
Commission heard a report from the City staff and reviewed, analyzed and
studied the proposal. The applicants and the applicants' representative were in
attendance at the hearing.
Section 8. 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.
Section 17.16.070(A)(1) states that coverage by structures shall not be more than
20 percent of the net lot area. The applicants are requesting a Variance because
2005-10 2
C�nrrinn
their proposal would result in coverage by structures of 24.05% of the net lot
area, (excluding the 140 s.f. horse shelter, which is denied). Section
17.16.070(A)(2) states that coverage by all impervious surfaces (structures and
paved areas) shall not cover more than 35 percent of the net lot area. The
applicants are requesting a Variance because their proposal would result in
coverage by impervious surfaces of 36.8% of the net lot area, (excluding the 140
s.f. horse shelter, which is- denied). In regards to the Variance application the
Planning Commission makes the following findings of fact:
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 for the structural lot
coverage and the Variance for the total lot coverage are necessary because the lot
is 1.63 acres, however net lot area is 1.3 acres, and the lot is long and narrow and
irregular in shape. The lot size and configuration, together with the existing
development on the lot creates difficulty in meeting this Code requirement.
B. The Variances are 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
Variances are necessary because the property is developed with a modest home,
and the remaining of the property is used for equestrian purposes, which
enhances the rural environment of the City and meets the goals of the City to
encourage retention of equestrian uses.
C. The granting of the Variances 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. All development will
occur substantial distance from the road and will be adequately screened to
prevent adverse visual impact to surrounding properties. Development on the
site will be limited to 24.05% and the total impervious surfaces including the
structures will be limited to 36.8%, which will allow a substantial portion of the
lot to remain undeveloped.
Section 9. 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.
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 applicants are requesting
to add 208 square feet to an existing stable, which is located in the front yard.
With respect to the request for a Variance to add to the existing stable, 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
2005-10 3
C.nrrdnn
property or class of use in the same zone. The lot size and configuration, together
with the existing development on the lot creates difficulty in meeting the front
yard requirements. The stable was previously constructed in the front yard and
the addition of 208 square feet, which will be open on two'sides, would not cause
the lot to be overbuilt. The existing residence was built towards the rear of the
property not leaving adequate space for other accessory structures, except on the
flat portion in the front yard area.
B. The Variances are 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 Variances are
necessary because the property is developed with a modest home, and the
remaining of the property is used for equestrian purposes, which enhances the
rural environment of the City and meets the goals of the City to encourage
retention of equestrian uses.
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 screened
from the roadway, and no additional grading will be required. The proposed
structure will not alter the use of the property and will enhance the property for
equestrian purposes.
Section 10. 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.
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 applicants are requesting
to retain the existing horse shelter, which is located in the front yard, and which
was built without the benefits of City review or building permit. With respect to
the request for a Variance to retain the 140 square foot horse shelter in the front
setback, the Planning Commission finds as follows:
A. There are no 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 is not justified because
the existing horse structure was built without permits and encroaches into the
setback, in violation of the Zoning Code. The property already possesses a 1,175
square foot stable and with the 208 square foot addition to the stable, adequate
facility will exist to accommodate the horses kept on the property. Permission to
retain the horse shelter would serve to expand an existing nonconforming
structure and cause greater encroachment into the front yard, as well as further
exceed the maximum permitted structural and total net lot coverage.
B. The Variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment
of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity
2005-10 4
(nrd nn
and zone. The applicants enjoy the encroachment benefits approved in previous
applications and in this application with the addition to the stable, and further
structural development and encroachment on the property would cause
overdevelopment on the parcel. The development pattern on this property is
already greater and more intense than the development patterns on surrounding
properties. The property already enjoys an existing corral and stable for
equestrian uses.
C. The granting of the Variance for the horse shelter would be
materially detrimental to the public welfare and injurious to the property or
improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the property is located because
the proposed project does not minimize structural and total coverage of the lot
and worsens current encroachments with structures, leaves little open space
between property lines and would result in overdevelopment of the parcel.
Section 1.1 Section 17.46.030 requires a development plan to be
submitted for site plan review and approval before any development 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, the proposed
development would normally not require a Site Plan Review. However, due to
the restriction placed in Resolution No. 946 granted on November 10, 2003 by the
City Council, on any future development on subject property, a Site Plan Review
is required. In regards to the Site Plan Review application the Planning
Commission makes the following findings of fact:
A. The proposed development is compatible with the General Plan,
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, and equestrian uses. The
project does not conform to Zoning Code setbacks. However, these structures are
existing, legal nonconforming, except for the shelter, which was constructed
without building permit and is denied with this application. The existing
residence was built towards the rear of the property not leaving adequate space
for other accessory structures, except on the flat portion in the front yard area.
B. The project substantially preserves the natural and undeveloped
state of the lot. The proposed addition to the stable will be constructed on an
existing building pad and will utilize already existing impervious surfaces. The
project is of sufficient distance from nearby residences so that the addition will
not impact the view or privacy of surrounding neighbors, and will permit the
owners to enjoy their property without deleterious infringement on the rights of
surrounding property owners.
C. The proposed development, as conditioned, is harmonious in scale
and mass with the site. Although the structural lot coverage and the total lot
2005-10 5
C.nrrinn
coverage will exceed the maximum coverage permitted, the proposed project is
consistent with the scale of the neighborhood when compared to properties in
the vicinity. The site was previously disturbed and minimal additional
disturbance will result from the proposed project.
D. The development plan incorporates existing vegetation to the
maximum extent feasible. The development plan substantially preserves the
natural and undeveloped state of the lot and the new additions will not cause the
lot to look overdeveloped. Significant portions of the lot will be left undeveloped
so as to maintain open space.
E. The proposed development is sensitive and not detrimental to the
convenience and safety of circulation for pedestrians and vehicles because the
proposed project will not change the existing circulation pattern and will utilize
an existing driveway.
F. The property on which the project is located contains a stable and
corral area of sufficient size that meets all standards for vehicular access thereto
in conformance with site plan review requirements.
G. The project is exempt from the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act.
Section 12. Based upon the foregoing findings in Section 8, Section 9,
Section 10 and Section 11 of this Resolution, the Planning Commission hereby
approves the Variances and Site Plan Review for Zoning Case No. 697 to
construct a 208 square foot addition to a stable, which would encroach into the
front yard and to exceed the maximum permitted structural and total net lot
coverage, and denies the Variance to retain an existing 140 square foot horse
shelter, which encroaches into the front yard setback subject to the following
conditions:
A. The Site Plan and Variances approvals shall expire within two
years from the effective date of approval if work has not commenced as defined
in Sections 17.38.070(A) and 17.46.080 of the Zoning Ordinance, unless otherwise
extended pursuant to the requirements of these sections.
B. It is declared and made a condition of the approval, that if any
conditions thereof are violated, this approval shall be suspended and the
privileges granted thereunder shall lapse; provided that the City has given the
applicants 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 Building 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. This shall include, but not be limited to, the requirements of
2005-10 6
(nrd nn
the Outdoor Lighting Ordinance, Undergrounding of Utilities Ordinance, Roof
Covering Ordinance and others.
D. The lot shall be developed and maintained in substantial
conformance with the site plan on file marked Exhibit A and dated March 2,
2005, except as otherwise provided in these conditions.
E. The horse shelter shall be removed prior to the applicant obtaining
a building permit for the residential addition approved in November 2003 in
Zoning Case No. 664, or prior to the applicant obtaining a building permit for the
stable addition, whichever occurs first.
F. The entire stable roof shall be changed out to comply with the City
requirements for a Class "A" assembly and Class "A" construction type roof. In
addition, the entire roof of the existing residence and the residential addition,
approved in Zoning Case No. 664, shall be replaced with Class "A" assembly
and Class "A" construction type material as conditioned by City Council
Resolution No. 946 in Zoning Case No. 664 and as specified in the Agreement
between the applicant and the City dated July 10, 2001, regardless of whether or
not any construction takes place on the property. The Rolling Hills Community
Association shall approve the roof material for all structures on the property.
G. Structural lot coverage shall not exceed 13,548 square feet or 24.05%
in conformance with lot coverage limitations approved in Section 8 of this
Resolution.
H. Total lot coverage of structures and paved areas shall not exceed
20,699 square feet or 36.8% in conformance with lot coverage limitations
approved in Section 8 of this Resolution.
I. The disturbed area of the lot shall not exceed 21,510 square feet or
38.2% in conformance with 40% lot disturbance limitations.
J. Residential and total building pad coverage on the 34,166 square
foot building pad shall not exceed 13,548 square feet or 39.65%.
K. There shall be no grading for the project.
L. Landscaping shall be designed using mature trees and shrubs so as
not to obstruct views of neighboring properties, but to screen the structures on the
lot.
M. 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.
2005-10 7
C.nrrl nn
N. The area of the horse shelter, which is to be removed, shall be
landscaped to match the adjacent landscaped areas on the property.
O. 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.
P. 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.
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, objectionable odors, landslides,
mudflows, erosion, or land subsidence shall be required.
R. During and after construction, all soil preparation, drainage, and
landscape sprinklers shall protect the building pad from erosion and direct
surface water in an approved manner.
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.
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 drainage plan system shall be approved by the Planning
Department and the County Drainage Engineer and shall assure that any water
from any site irrigation systems and all drainage from the site shall be conveyed
in an approved manner.
V. An Erosion Control Plan containing the elements set forth in
Section 7010 of the 2001 County of Los Angeles Uniform Building Code shall be
prepared to minimize erosion and to protect slopes and channels to control
stormwater pollution as required by the County of Los Angeles.
W. 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.
2005-10 8
C;nrrinn
X. 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.
Y. The project shall be reviewed and approved by the Rolling Hills
Community Association Architectural Review Committee prior to the issuance
of any permits.
Z. 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.
AA. All conditions of approval in Zoning Case No. 664 shall be in full
force and effect.
AB. Notwithstanding Sections 17.46.020 and 17.46.070 of the Rolling
Hills Municipal Code, any modifications to the property, which would
constitute additional structural development or grading, shall require the
filing of a new application for approval by the Planning Commission.
AC. Prior to the submittal of an applicable final building plan to the
County of Los Angeles for plan check, a detailed drainage plan and, if required
by the Los Angeles County Building Department, 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.
AD. The applicants shall execute an Affidavit of Acceptance of all
conditions of this Site Plan and Variances approvals, pursuant to Sections
17.38.060 and 17.46.065 of the Zoning Ordinance, or the approval shall not be
effective.
AE. All conditions of this Site Plan and Variances approval, which
apply, must be complied with prior to the issuance of a building permit from the
County of Los Angeles.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 15TH DAY OF MARCH, 2005.
ROGER OMMER, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
kt-e.A.A&I
MARILYN L. KERN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK
2005-10 9
(nrrl nn
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS)
I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2005-10 entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL FOR VARIANCES TO CONSTRUCT
AN ADDITION TO A STABLE, WHICH WOULD ENCROACH INTO THE
FRONT YARD AND TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED STRUCTURAL
AND TOTAL NET LOT COVERAGE; DENYING A VARIANCE TO RETAIN AN
EXISTING HORSE SHELTER, WHICH ENCROACHES INTO THE FRONT
YARD SETBACK; AND APPROVING A SITE PLAN REVIEW ON A PROPERTY
THAT REQUIRES PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW, DUE TO EXISTING
STRUCTURAL DEVELOPMENT APPROVED IN NOVEMBER 2003, AT AN
EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IN ZONING CASE NO. 697 AT 15
EASTFIELD DRIVE, (LOT 52-EF), (GORDON).
was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on
March 15, 2005 by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Hankins, Witte and Chairman Sommer.
NOES: Commissioner Margeta.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: Commissioner DeRoy.
and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following:
Administrative Offices.
DEPUTY CITY CLERK
2005-10 10
Gordon
•
RESOLUTION NO. 2005-05
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS APPROVING REQUESTS FOR
VARIANCES TO RETAIN AN EXISTING HORSE SHELTER,
WHICH ENCROACHES INTO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK; TO
CONSTRUCT AN ADDITION TO A STABLE, WHICH WOULD
ENCROACH INTO THE FRONT YARD; AND TO EXCEED THE
MAXIMUM PERMITTED STRUCTURAL AND TOTAL NET LOT
COVERAGE AND APPROVING A SITE PLAN REVIEW ON A
PROPERTY THAT REQUIRES PLANNING COMMISSION
REVIEW, DUE TO EXISTING STRUCTURAL DEVELOPMENT
APPROVED IN NOVEMBER 2003, AT AN EXISTING SINGLE
FAMILY RESIDENCE IN ZONING CASE NO. 697 AT 15
EASTFIELD DRIVE, (LOT 52-EF), (GORDON).
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
•
-\\)fp (.<`75
7A4\po
Section 1. An application has been filed by Mr. and Mrs. Errol Gordon
with respect to real property located at 15 Eastfield Drive, (Lot 52-EF), Rolling
Hills, requesting Variances to retain an existing 140 square foot horse shelter,
which encroaches into the front yard setback; to construct a 208 square foot
addition to a stable, which would encroach into the front yard; and to exceed the
maximum permitted structural and total net lot coverage. The existing stable is
legal nonconforming structure located in the front yard. A Site Plan Review is
also being sought due to a condition that was placed on a previously approved
application requiring Planning Commission review of any further development
on subject property.
Section 2. In August of 2000, the Planning Commission approved a 212
square -foot residential addition, which triggered a Variance to exceed the
maximum permitted structural lot coverage. The approval contained a condition
requiring that any new construction on subject property be subject to review by
the Planning Commission. The 212 square foot addition was completed in July
2001. In September of 2003, the Planning Commission approved a Site Plan
Review to construct a 762 square foot addition to the residence and 141 square
foot covered porch, both of which required approvals of Variances to exceed the
maximum permitted structural and total net lot coverage for the subject property
in Zoning Case No. 664. This approval also contained a condition requiring that
any new construction on subject property be subject to review before the Planning
Commission and requiring the removal of the 140 square foot equestrian shelter
located in the front setback before receiving building permits for construction of
the additions.
Section 3. In October of 2003, the City Council took Zoning Case No. 664
under jurisdiction, and in November of 2003 unanimously upheld the Planning
Commission's approval.
Resolution No. 2005-05
7C NCl h97 1
• •
Section 4. The construction of the 762 square foot addition approved in
Zoning Case No. 664 has not commenced. In November of 2004, the City Council
considered and approved a one-year time extension of Zoning Case No. 664 to
November of 2005.
Section 5. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public
hearing to consider the request in zoning Case No. 697 for Variances and Site
Plan Review on November 16, 2004, December 21, 2004, January 18, 2005 and at a
field trip visit on December 4, 2004. At the December 21, 2004 Planning
Commission meeting, the Commission by a vote of 2-1-1-1 (Commissioner
DeRoy abstained and Commissioner Hankins was absent) directed staff to
prepare a resolution to deny the Variance requests to be presented to the
Commission for a final consideration and vote at the January 18, 2005 meeting.
The applicants were notified of the hearings in writing by first class mail.
Evidence was heard and presented from all persons interested in said proposal.
The Planning Commission heard a report from the City staff and reviewed,
analyzed and studied the proposal. The applicants and the applicants'
representative were in attendance at the hearings.
Section 6. At the January 18, 2005 Planning Commission meeting, the
Commission further deliberated, considered the draft resolution denying the
project and ultimately directed staff to prepare a resolution conditionally
approving the entire project. A duly noticed hearing was held on February 15,
2005, at which the Planning Commission heard a report from City staff, analyzed
and studied the proposal. The applicants were in attendance at the hearing.
Section 7. 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.
Section 17.16.070(A)(1) states that coverage by structures shall not be more than
20 percent of the net lot area. The applicants are requesting a Variance because
their proposal would result in coverage by structures of 24.3% of the net lot area.
Section 17.16.070(A)(2) states that coverage by all impervious surfaces (structures
and paved areas) shall not cover more than 35 percent of the net lot area. The
applicants are requesting a Variance because their proposal would result in
coverage by impervious surfaces of 37.0% of the net lot area. In regards to the
Variance application the Planning Commission makes the following findings of
fact:
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 for the structural lot
coverage and the Variance for the total lot coverage are necessary because the lot
is 1.63 acres, however net lot area is 1.3 acres, and the lot is long and narrow and
Resolution No. 2005-05
7.C' NCl 697 7
• •
irregular in shape. The lot size and configuration, together with the existing
development on the lot creates difficulty in meeting this Code requirement.
B. The Variances are 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
Variances are necessary because the property is developed with a modest home,
and the remaining of the property is used for equestrian purposes, which
enhances the rural environment of the City and meets the goals of the City to
encourage retention of equestrian uses.
Cihe granting of the Variances 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. All development will occur
substantial distance from the road and will be adequately screened to prevent
adverse visual impact to surrounding properties. Development on the site will
be limited to 24.3% and the total impervious surfaces including the structures
will be limited to 37.0%, which will allow a substantial portion of the lot to
remain undeveloped.
Section 8. 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.
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 applicants are requesting a
Variance to retain an existing 140 square foot equestrian shelter and to add 208
square feet to an existing stable, both of which are 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 lot size and configuration, together
with the existing development on the lot creates difficulty in meeting the front
yard requirements. The stable and the shelter structure were previously
constructed in the front yard and the addition of 208 square feet, which will be
open on two sides, would not cause the lot to be overbuilt. The existing residence
was built towards the rear of the property not leaving adequate space for other
accessory structures, except on the flat portion in the front yard area.
B. The Variances are 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 Variances are
necessary because the property is developed with a modest home, and the
remaining of the property is used for equestrian purposes, which enhances the
Resolution No. 2005-05
7.C'N) h97
• •
rural environment of the City and meets the goals of the City to encourage
retention of equestrian uses.
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 and shelter will be
screened from the roadway, and no additional grading will be required. The
proposed structures will not alter the use of the property and will enhance the
property for equestrian purposes.
Section 9. Section 17.46.030 requires a development plan to be
submitted for site plan review and approval before any development 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, the proposed
development would normally not require a Site Plan Review. However, due to
the restriction placed in Resolution No. 946 granted on November 10, 2003 by the
City Council, on any future development on subject property, a Site Plan Review
is required. In regards to the Site Plan Review application the Planning
Commission makes the following findings of fact:
A. The proposed development is compatible with the General Plan,
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, and equestrian uses. The
project does not conform to Zoning Code setbacks. However, these structures are
existing, legal nonconforming, except for the shelter, which was constructed
without building permit. The existing residence was built towards the rear of the
property not leaving adequate space for other accessory structures, except on the
flat portion in the front yard area.
B. The project substantially preserves the natural and undeveloped
state of the lot. The proposed addition to the stable will be constructed on an
existing building pad and will utilize already existing impervious surfaces. The
project is of sufficient distance from nearby residences so that the addition and
the shelter will not impact the view or privacy of surrounding neighbors, and
will permit the owners to enjoy their property without deleterious infringement
on the rights of surrounding property owners.
C. The proposed development, as conditioned, is harmonious in scale
and mass with the site. Although the structural lot coverage and the total lot
coverage will exceed the maximum coverage permitted, the proposed project is
consistent with the scale of the neighborhood when compared to properties in
the vicinity. The site was previously disturbed and minimal additional
disturbance will result from the proposed project.
Resolution No. 2005-05
7C NC) A97 4
• •
D. The development plan incorporates existing vegetation to the
maximum extent feasible. The development plan substantially preserves the
natural and undeveloped state of the lot and the new additions will not cause the
lot to look overdeveloped. Significant portions of the lot will be left undeveloped
so as to maintain open space.
E. The proposed development is sensitive and not detrimental to the
convenience and safety of circulation for pedestrians and vehicles because the
proposed project will not change the existing circulation pattern and will utilize
an existing driveway.
F. The property on which the project is located contains a stable and
corral area of sufficient size that meets all standards for vehicular access thereto
in conformance with site plan review requirements.
G. The project is exempt from the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act.
Section 10. Based upon the foregoing findings in Section 7, Section 8 and
Section 9 of this Resolution, the Planning Commission hereby approves the
Variances and Site Plan Review for Zoning Case No. 697 to retain an existing 140
square foot horse shelter, which encroaches into the front yard setback and to
construct a 208 square foot addition to a stable, which would encroach into the
front yard and to exceed the maximum permitted structural and total net lot
coverage, subject to the following conditions:
A. The Site Plan and Variances approvals shall expire within two
years from the effective date of approval if work has not commenced as defined
in Sections 17.38.070(A) and 17.46.080 of the Zoning Ordinance, unless otherwise
extended pursuant to the requirements of these sections.
B. It is declared and made a condition of the approval, that if any
conditions thereof are violated, this approval shall be suspended and the
privileges granted thereunder shall lapse; provided that the City has given the
applicants 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 Building 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. This shall include, but not be limited to, the requirements of
the Lighting Ordinance, Undergrounding of Utilities Ordinance, Roof Covering
Ordinance and others.
D. The lot shall be developed and maintained in substantial
conformance with the site plan on file marked Exhibit A and dated November 10,
2004, except as otherwise provided in these conditions.
Resolution No. 2005-05
7C NC) AA7
E. At the expense of the applicant, the horse shelter structure shall be
inspected by the Building Official to determine building code compliance, and a
building permit for an "as built structure" shall be obtained, at the same time as
when a building permit is obtained for the stable addition and/ or the residence
addition.
F. The stable roof shall be changed out to comply with the City
requirements for a Class "A" assembly and Class "A" construction type roof. In
addition, the entire roof of the existing residence and the residential addition,
approved in Zoning Case No. 664, shall be replaced with Class "A" assembly
and Class "A" construction type material as conditioned by City Council
Resolution No. 946 in Zoning Case No. 664 and as specified in the Agreement
between the applicant and the City dated July 10, 2001, regardless of whether or
not any construction takes place on the property. The Rolling Hills Community
Association shall approve the roof material for all structures on the property.
G. Structural lot coverage shall not exceed 13,688 square feet or 24.3%
in conformance with lot coverage limitations approved in Section 7 of this
Resolution.
H. Total lot coverage of structures and paved areas shall not exceed
20,839 square feet or 37.0% in conformance with lot coverage limitations
approved in Section 7 of this Resolution.
I. The disturbed area of the lot shall not exceed 21,510 square feet or
38.2% in conformance with 40% lot disturbance limitations.
J. Residential and total building pad coverage on the 34,166 square
foot building pad shall not exceed 13,688 square feet or 40.1%.
K. There shall be no grading for the project.
L. Landscaping shall be designed using mature trees and shrubs so as
not to obstruct views of neighboring properties, but to obscure the structures on
the lot.
M. 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.
N. 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. 2005-05
7r NC) AQ7
• •
O. 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.
P. 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.
Q. During and after construction, all soil preparation, drainage, and
landscape sprinklers shall protect the building pad from erosion and direct
surface water in an approved manner.
RDuring 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.
S. 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.
T. The drainage plan system shall be approved by the Planning
Department and the County Drainage Engineer and shall assure that any water
from any site irrigation systems and all drainage from the site shall be conveyed
in an approved manner.
U. An Erosion Control Plan containing the elements set forth in
Section 7010 of the 2001 County of Los Angeles Uniform Building Code shall be
prepared to minimize, erosion and to protect slopes and channels to control
stormwater pollution as required by the County of Los Angeles.
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 project shall be reviewed and approved by the Rolling Hills
Community Association Architectural Review Committee prior to the issuance
of any permit.
Y. 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.
Resolution No. 2005-05
7C' NCl h97 7
• •
Z. All conditions of approval in Zoning Case No. 664 shall be in full
force and effect, except as provided herein to retain the horse structure.
AA. Notwithstanding Sections 17.46.020 and 17.46.070 of the Rolling
Hills Municipal Code, any modifications to the property, which would
constitute additional structural development or grading, shall require the
filing of a new application for approval by the Planning Commission.
AB. Prior to the submittal of an applicable final building plan to the
County of Los Angeles for plan check, a detailed drainage plan and, if required
by the Los Angeles County Building Department, 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.
AC. The applicants shall execute an Affidavit of Acceptance of all
conditions of this Site Plan and Variances approvals, pursuant to Sections
17.38.060 and 17.46.065 of the Zoning Ordinance, or the approval shall not be
effective.
AD. All conditions of this Site Plan and Variances approval, which
apply, must be complied with prior to the issuance of a building permit from the
County of Los Angeles.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2005.
42.ROSOMMER, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
MARILYN L. KERN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK
Resolution No. 2005-05
7C N( 697 R
• •
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS)
I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2005-05 entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ROLLING HILLS APPROVING REQUESTS FOR VARIANCES TO RETAIN AN
EXISTING HORSE SHELTER, WHICH ENCROACHES INTO THE FRONT
YARD SETBACK; TO CONSTRUCT AN ADDITION TO A STABLE, WHICH
WOULD ENCROACH INTO THE FRONT YARD; AND TO EXCEED THE
MAXIMUM PERMITTED STRUCTURAL AND TOTAL NET LOT COVERAGE
AND APPROVING A SITE PLAN REVIEW ON A PROPERTY THAT REQUIRES
PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW, DUE TO EXISTING STRUCTURAL
DEVELOPMENT APPROVED IN NOVEMBER 2003, AT AN EXISTING SINGLE
FAMILY RESIDENCE IN ZONING CASE NO. 697 AT 15 EASTFIELD DRIVE,
(LOT 52-EF), (GORDON).
was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on
February 15, 2005 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. 2005-05
7C' T\TO h97 9