Loading...
739, Demo existing SFR & garage. C, Staff ReportsCite G 50TH ANNIVERSARY 1957 - 2007 • iffe n }VA INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310)377.1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 Agenda Item No. 4A Mtg. Date: 6/11/07 DATE: JUNE 11, 2007 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR THROUGH: ANTON DAHLERBRUCH, CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: RESOLUTION NO. 2007-06. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL OF A SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE TO REPLACE AN EXISTING RESIDENCE AT 9 EASTFIELD DRIVE, IN ZONING CASE NO. 739 (LOT 55-EF), (MARGOLIS). REQUEST AND RECOMMENDATION 1. The applicants, Dr. and Mrs. Margolis, have requested a Site Plan Review to permit grading of 615 cubic yards of cut and 615 cubic yards of fill and construction of a new 5,000 square foot single family residence, with 704 square foot garage, 1,080 square feet of covered porches, 80 square foot attached trellis, 400 square foot detached trellis on a separate building pad, 48 square foot barbeque area, 120 square foot breezeway and 126 square foot service yard. No basement or variances are proposed. In addition, the applicants propose to widen the driveway and modify the driveway approach. 2. It is recommended that the City Council receive and file this report or provide other direction to staff. BACKGROUND 3. The Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2007-06, which is attached, on May 15, 2007 at the regular meeting granting approval in Zoning Case No. 739. The vote was unanimous. 4. The property is zoned RAS-1 and consists of 4.3 acres gross and 3.17 acres net (138,030 sq.ft.) and is currently developed with a 3,381 square foot residence, 400 square Z.C. NO. 739 9 Eastfield 1 Printed on Recycled Pcper • foot garage and 420 square foot stable with 684 square foot corral. The easements on this property are wider (25 feet) than the required side setbacks (20 feet). 5. Adequate area adjacent to the existing stable is available to construct an addition to the existing 420 square foot stable to meet the minimum requirement of 450 square feet stable. The existing corral meets the minimum requirement for a 550 square foot corral. 6. The applicants propose to demolish the existing residence, but will retain the stable and corral. 7. One wing of the residence, consisting of the garage, a study, a bedroom and a bathroom will be attached to the main residence by a solid roof breezeway. Structures connected by a solid roof are considered attached and are not subject to Conditional Use Permit approval. 8. At the February 20, Planning Commission meeting, Mr. Wallace, property owner at 11 Eastfield Drive submitted a letter explaining his concerns about the proposed development, (see attached). He has requested that during the field trip, the Commission view the proposed project from his property, which they did. 9. At the field trip Mr. Wallace submitted pictures of views from different areas of his property. The applicants agreed to work with Mr. Wallace and prepare a landscaping plan that would provide privacy for each property and afford Mr. Wallace's continued views. In turn, Mr. Wallace also agreed to plant some low shrubs and/or trees on his property to screen the Margolis' new development. The proposed landscaping on both properties would be located in the easement, and therefore, RHCA approval is required. Both property owners are in contact with RHCA concerning this issue. The Resolution of approval contains conditions to that effect, and requires that landscaping plan be submitted for screening of the project. MUNICIPAL CODE COMPLIANCE 10. The application meets the structural and total lot coverage requirements. Not including the 48 square foot barbecue and the 400 square foot detached trellis, the structural coverage on the lot will be 7,700 square feet or 5.6% of the net lot area, (20% permitted), and the total coverage will be 17,262 square feet or 12.5%, (35% permitted). 11. The construction will utilize the existing building pads. The residential building pad is 19,558 square feet. Coverage on this pad is proposed to be 6,530 square feet or 33.4%, not induding the 80 square foot attached trellis and not including 500 square feet of the 1,080 square feet attached porches, (500 sq.ft. of the covered porch is not counted, as it is 10% of the size of the residence). The stable building pad is 7,847 square feet and will have coverage of 545 square feet or 6.9% (not including 45 square feet of he 140 sq.ft. porch).. The detached trellis Will be located on a 1,372 square foot pad. The trellis is not counted towards pad coverage, as it is one of the exempted structures per Section 17.16.200 of the Zoning Code. The Planning Commission imposed a condition that if in the future any portions of the porches were proposed to be enclosed that the Commission review the project. Z.C. NO. 739 9 Eastfield 2 12. Grading for this project is proposed to consist of a cut of 615 cubic yards of soil and 615 cubic yards of fill. This includes widening of the driveway, miscellaneous grading for landscaping and backfill, excavation for footings and for drainage and erosion control. 13. The disturbed area of the lot is proposed at 36,375 square feet or 26.3%, (40.0% maximum permitted). 14. The existing driveway is 12 feet wide. The applicants propose to widen the driveway to 16 feet. Section 16.17.160 states that any driveway shall not exceed 12% grade unless otherwise approved by the Planning Commission and that the first 20 feet have 7% slope. The proposed driveway does not exceed 7% slope for the first 20 feet. However, a 15% slope is proposed for about 146 feet of the driveway and then it slopes to less than 12% as the driveway gets closer to the residence. Additional grading would be required to meet the 12% slope requirement for the entire length of the driveway. The Planning Commission approved the proposed driveway. 15. The applicants propose to drain the site to the north towards the natural drainage course. The drainage plan shows a dissipater partially in the northerly easement and the headwall in the southerly easement. A 3-foot swale is proposed in front of the garage in the easement. All pipes, except for the dissipater and the headwall will be located underground. The Rolling Hills Community Association reviewed the drainage plan and approved the drainage facilities in the easements, as shown on the plan, (see attached). 16. It will be required that all utility lines to the property be placed underground and that the roof material of the residence meets City and RHCA standards for Class "A" roofing material. OTHER AGENCIES REVIEW 17. The applicants propose to modify the existing driveway approach, and move it approximately 3-4 feet to the south, to create a more defined separation between the driveway to 7 Eastfield and subject property. The Traffic Commission at their March 22, 2007 meeting reviewed the plan for the driveway approach and deferred the request to the Traffic Engineer. After visiting the site with staff, the Traffic Engineer recommended approval with a condition that the trees located on the southwestern corner of the driveway be trimmed for better visibility, (see attached). 18. The Rolling Hills Community Association reviewed this project for architectural elements and design and recommended approval with certain corrections. 19. The project has been determined to be categorically exempt pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Z.C. NO.739 9 Eastfield 3 ZONING CASE NO. 739 SITE PLAN REVIEW RA-S-1 ZONE SETBACKS Front: 50 ft. from front roadway easement line Side: 20 ft. from property line Rear: 50 ft. from property line STRUCTURES (Site Plan Review required for new structures and if size of structure increases by at least 1,000 sq. ft. and has the effect of increasing the size of the structure by more than 25% in a 36-month period). STRUCTURAL LOT COVERAGE (20% maximum) TOTAL LOT COVERAGE (35% maximum) BUILDING PAD COVERAGE RESIDENTIAL (30% maximum guideline) Stable coverage Combined coverage GRADING Site plan review required if excavation and/or fill or combination thereof is more than 3 feet in depth and covers more than 2,000 sq. ft., must be balanced on site DISTURBED AREA (40% maximum; any graded building pad area, any remedial grading (temporary disturbance), any graded slopes and building pad areas, and any nongraded area where impervious surfaces exist.) STABLE (minimum 450 so. ft.) and CORRAL (minimum 550 sa. ft.) STABLE ACCESS ACCESSWAY VIEWS PLANTS AND ANIMALS EXISTING - .. SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE TO BE DEMOLISHED Residence 3381 sq.ft Garage 400 sq.ft Stable 420 sq.ft. Covered 140 sq.ft porch. TOTAL 3.2 % 4,241 sq.ft. PROPOSED NEW RESIDENCE Residence 5000 sq.ft Garage 704 sq.ft Stable 450 sq.ft. ServiceYd. 120 sq.ft Porches 1220 sq.ft. Breezeway 126 sq.ft. Att. Trellis 80 sq.ft. Det. Trellis 400 sq.ft. Barbecue 48 sq.ft. Basement 0 8,148 sq.ft. TOTAL 5.6% of 138,030 sq.ft. net lot, not inc. barbecue and detached trellis 7.0% 12.5% of 138,030 sq.ft. net lot area 19.3% 6.9% N/A 23.0% 420 s.f. stable 684 s.f. existing corral Existing from driveway From Eastfield N/A N/A 33.4% of 19,558 sq.ft. pad 6.9% of 7,847 sq.ft. pad 30.0% 615 c.y. cut and 615 c.y. fill 26.3%, 36,375 square feet 450 sq.ft.- future 684 sq.ft.- existing Existing from driveway From Eastfield Planning Commission condition Planning Commission condition Z.C. NO. 739 9 Eastfield 4 NEARBY PROPERTIES For information purposes only ADDRESS 5 Eastfield 7 Eastfield 11 Eastfield. 6 Eastfield. 8 Eastfield 10 Eastfield AVERAGE 9 Eastfield OWNER Banker Surprenant Wallace Haueisen Johnson Butler Margolis RESIDENCE In square feet 2,994 5,352* 3,175* 8,214 4,187 2,906 4,471 Proposed 5,000 LOT AREA (sq.ft.) excl. road 46,740 128,070 91,910 55,740 46,170 51,400 70,005 152,030 YEAR BUILT** 1966 1954/added 2005* 1960/added 2006* 1993 1973/1978 1950/1962 SOURCE: Assessors' Records *City Records The above calculations do not include garages. ** In instances where two dates appear in the Assessor's entries, the first date is "Year Built" and the second "Effective Year Built". The "Year Built" date represents the actual date the original house was built and the "Effective Year Built" date represents the reduced effective age of the -property. This means that sometime between the "Year Built" date and the "Effective Year Built" date the property underwent a major remodel or addition, which reduced the age of the house for re-evaluating purposes. Z.C. NO. 739 9 Eastfield 5 • Michael and Laura Wallace 11 Eastfield Drive ~-t ` l ` i Rolling Hills, California 90274 L E71�.IM� s-- �.1° "` February.19, 2007 FEB 2 0 2007 Ms. Yolanta Schwartz Planning Director City of Rolling Hills 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, California 90274 Re: Margolis New House Construction Project — 9 Eastfield Drive Dear Ms. Schwartz: By CITY OF ROLLING HILLS We have specific concerns about the new house and garage complex proposed by Robert and Lisa Margolis at 9 Eastfield Drive. We reside in the house situated directly to the south of the Margolis' existing house. We do not oppose the concept of a new house being built on the Margolis property. However, we are concerned about certain features of the proposed design that may impact our views, our privacy and our quiet. We have performed a limited review of the plans submitted for the project at the City offices. Based on that review, we have prepared the attached summary of our concerns that we would like the Planning Commission to consider in its evaluation of the proposed project. We have identified in the summary what we believe are a few accommodations that could alleviate our concerns and lead to a mutually beneficial project for both families. It is likely that the Planning Commission, based on its experience with these types of issues, will have additional ideas about how to achieve a mutually beneficial project. We have met with Robert and Lisa Margolis to discuss our concerns. We have agreed in principle to seek mutually beneficial solutions, but have not yet had an opportunity to discuss specific design parameters or changes. To preserve our rights and to ensure that the Planning Commission gives full consideration to our views, we feel compelled to submit our concerns and requested accommodations in writing. Please ensure that this letter and the attached two -page summary are presented to the Planning Commission as a part of its review tomorrow evening at the Planning Commission meeting. We are also planning to attend the meeting and present our ideas at that time. Sincerely, Michael and Laura Wallace Attachment cc: Robert and Lisa Margolis • • Margolis New House Project - 9 Eastfield Drive Areas of Concern & Requested Accommodations By Wallace Family —11 Eastfield Drive (Neighbor to South) Ouestions & Concerns 1) Does the new house and garage need to be so close to our house? Could the new buildings be located further north or reoriented so it would not be so crowded next to our master bedroom and master bathroom? 2) Our most significant concern is the impact the new house and garage will have on our views of the Santa Monica Bay, Santa Monica Mountains and the South Bay (Queen's Necklace). The views that would be impacted by the new house and Garage are OUR ONLY VIEWS of the ocean or city from our house and backyard. We currently have beautiful viewsof these areas from .our backyard, master bedroom and master bathroom that were primary design considerations in our recent remodeling project. We are particularly worried that the new house will eliminate or reduce these views, especially those from our master bedroom porch and other patios in my backyard. This is very important to us. 3) We are concerned that the new house extends further to the west into our view corridor than the existing house (which already somewhat impairs our northward views of the South Bay). Could the house be situated further to the east, or the westernmost room be relocated so the new house extends no further west than the existing house (or even less so)? 4) We are very worried that the extensive roofs of the new house will block the city lights views we have from four windows in our master bedroom and master bathroom. We specifically designed these windows to capture these views as part of our recently completed master suite remodeling project. If the new roofline is any higher than the existing roofline, we will lose these valuable and beautiful views. Could the overall height of the roofline be maintained or even lowered by some combination of the following (or other ideas)? a. lower the elevation of the new house by 3 feet to the same level as the motor court b. use 8 foot walls at areas of the house where our views are most impacted c. use a lower pitch roof (3 in 12) d. use a hip roof design rather than a gable roof design e. consider the location of chimneys to minimize their impact on our views f. other ideas 5) We are concerned that the main entrance to the new house and the breezeway to the study and bedrooms attached to the new garage will be directly under our master bedroom and bathroom window and result in excessive noise in our new master suite. The existing house has its front entrance on the opposite side of our master suite and creates no disturbance in this location. Eliminating the breezeway could enable moving the house eastward out of our view corridor. Connecting the garage to the house would shorten the very long overall east -to -west length of the new house and garage complex (approximately 200 feet of continuous roofline) and create a sound barrier between the front entrance of the new house and our master suite. 1of2 0 targolis New House Project - 9 Eastfielltrive Areas of Concern & Requested Accommodations By Wallace Family —11 Eastfield Drive (Neighbor to South) 6) The size of the new house and garage building seem very large for the space available and exceed the pad coverage guidelines of the City. However, if accommodations could be made to maintain or even improve our views, and to minimize the impact of the close proximity of our houses, we think the Margolis project could be nicely done and a benefit to both properties. 7) Summary of Accommodations Requested a. Do not build any portion of the new house further west than the westernmost point of the existing house to preserve our views of the Santa Monica Bay (Queen's Necklace). b. Move the entire new house further to the east and to the north to preserve our views and maximize space between our houses. c. Lower the pad elevation and rooflines of the new house to preserve our views. d. Design and locate chimneys to preserve our existing views. e. Consider combining main house and garage building to shorten overall east -west length of buildings and to create a sound barrier between new front entrance and our master suite. f. Remove and/or trim many large trees that currently obstruct our valuable views. g. Grant a "view easement" allowing ongoing maintenance of landscaping to maintain our valuable views in the future, regardless of ownership of the property. 8) We request that The City of Rolling Hills pass a Resolution attaching conditions to the approval of the Margolis project, specifically (1) the westernmost point of building construction not extend beyond existing house, (2) the maximum elevation of new roofline not exceed the elevation of the existing roofline in any location, (3) the maximum length of east - west roof run be reduced to some reasonable level (less than the currently proposed 200 feet), and (4) providing tree removal and maintenance conditions for view preservation. 9) We will gladly support the Margolis application if the above accommodations are made. We believe the requested accommodations can be made without impacting the goals the Margolis project attempts to achieve. However, if the proposed design is not modified to address our legitimate concerns, and ultimately leads to an application that blocks our views, infringes our privacy and disturbs our quiet, then we believe the proposed new house and garage complex is inappropriate for the property. It is obviously much too large a home for the space available unless appropriate accommodations are made to address neighborhood concerns. We will oppose the application with the City with all reasonable means unless meaningful efforts are made to address our very limited and reasonable concerns. 2of2 Memorandum To: Yolanta Schwartz, City of Rolling Hills Planning Director Frorn: Julie Roberts, Architectural Inspector and Secretary Date: February 14, 2007 Re: 9 Eastfield Drive, Rolling Hills In regards to clarification of the use of easements on this property, this property does have an unique situation were the easements are 25'wide (larger) than the setback at 20'wide. It has been brought to my attention that the property suffers from a major erosion control and drainage problem due to most of the residences in the Eastfield Drive tract drain through the Margolis Property. The RHCA has reviewed and agreed \vith the proposed drainage plan that will be installed in both side easements. Please let me know if you have any further questions. RH CITY — re:9 Eastfield Drive—2-14-07 W1 LLDAN Serving Public Agencies MEMORANDUM To: Anton Dahlerbruch, City Manager From: Vanessa Munoz, Traffic Engineer Date: March 27, 2007 Subject: #9 EASTFIELD DRIVE DRIVEWAY Based on a field visit on March 22, 2007 to #9 Eastfield Drive, I the recommend the driveway widening be permitted. The following item should be required for the approval: • Trimming of trees located on the southwest corner of the driveway. Trees shall be trimmed behind edge of pavement to allow better visibility when driver is coming out of the driveway. RESOLUTION NO. 2007-06 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL OF A SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE TO REPLACE AN EXISTING RESIDENCE AT 9 EASTFIELD DRIVE, IN ZONING CASE NO. 739 (LOT 55-EF), (MARGOLIS). THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. An application was duly filed by Dr. and Mrs. Robert Margolis with respect to real property located at 9 Eastfield Drive (Lot 55-EF), Rolling Hills, CA requesting a Site Plan Review to permit grading of 615 cubic yards of cut and 615 cubic yards of fill and construction of a new 5,000 square foot single family residence, with 704 square foot garage, 1,080 square feet of covered porches, 80 square foot attached trellis, 400 square foot detached trellis on a separate building pad, 48 square foot barbeque area, 120 square foot breezeway and 126 square foot service yard. No basement is proposed. In addition, the applicants propose to widen the driveway and modify the driveway approach. Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted duly noticed public hearings to consider the application on February 20, 2007, April 17, 2007, and at field trip visit on March 20, 2007. The applicant was notified of the public hearings in writing by first class mail. Evidence was heard and presented from all persons interested in affecting said proposal and from members of the City staff and the Planning Commission having reviewed, analyzed and studied said proposal. The applicants and their representative were in attendance at the hearings. Section 3. The Traffic Engineer reviewed the proposed driveway approach modification and recommended approval with a condition that the plants to the southwest of the driveway approach are trimmed for improved visibility from the driveway. Section 4. During the proceedings, Mr. Wallace, property owner at 11 Eastfield Drive expressed concerns over the possible loss of views from his property by the construction of the new residence and the loss of view from different areas of hisproperty by the existing tall trees on the applicant's property. The applicant and Mr. Wallace agreed to cooperate and work with the RHCA to address removal of certain trees located in the easement and planting other trees in the easement to accomplish mutual concerns of privacy and restoring a view for Mr. Wallace. Section 5. The Planning Commission finds that the project qualifies as a Class 3 Exemption (The State of CA Guidelines, Section 15303) and is therefore Reso. 2007-06 0 Pactf1p1t1 categorically exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act. Section 6. Section 17.46.030 requires a development plan to be submitted for site plan review and approval before any grading requiring a grading permit or any building or structure may be constructed or any expansion, addition, alteration or repair to existing buildings may be made which involve changes to grading or an increase to the size of the building or structure by at least 1,000 square feet and has the effect of increasing the size of the building by more than twenty-five percent (25%) in any thirty-six (36) month period. With respect to the Site Plan Review application requesting grading and construction of the new residence, the Planning Commission makes the following findings of fact: A. The proposed development is compatible with the General Plan, the Zoning Ordinance and surrounding uses because,.the proposed 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 setbacks and lot coverage requirements. Due to the fact that the property has a 25-foot side yard easement, the development will be located further away from the side property line than it would be required under the Zoning requirements of 20 feet setback. The net lot area of the lot is 138,030 square feet, (3.17 acres). The structural coverage is proposed to be 7,700 square feet of structures, which constitutes 5.6% of the net lot, which is within the maximum 20% structural lot coverage requirement. The total lot coverage including all structures, paved areas and driveway is proposed to be 17,262 square feet, which constitutes 12.5% of the net lot which is within the 35% maximum overall net lot coverage requirement. The project is proposed to be screened from adjacent properties. Adequate area adjacent to the existing stable is available to construct an addition to the existing 420 square foot stable to meet the minimum requirement of 450 square feet stable. The existing corral meets the minimum requirement for a 550 square foot corral. The project complies with all other requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, except for the of 30% guideline of building pad coverage. B. The development plan substantially preserves the natural and undeveloped state of the lot by minimizing building coverage because the new structure will not cause the lot to look overdeveloped. Significant portions of the lot will be left undeveloped so as to maintain open space on the property. The nature, condition, and development of adjacent uses, buildings, and structures and the topography of the lot have been considered, and the construction of the new house will not adversely affect or be materially detrimental to the adjacent uses, buildings, or structures because the proposed structure will be constructed on a portion of the lot which is the least intrusive to surrounding properties, will be located on an existing building pad, so that no new grading would be required to enlarge the building pad, will be screened and landscaped with trees and shrubs andis a sufficient distance from nearby residences. With the neighbors' cooperation and request for new landscaping, the proposed structure will not impact the view or privacy of surrounding neighbors. Reso. 2007-06 0 FactfiPIA • • C. The proposed development, as conditioned, is harmonious in scale and mass with the site and adjacent properties. As indicated in Paragraph A, the lot coverage maximum set forth in the Zoning Code will not be exceeded. D. The development plan, with the mitigation measures, which includes a condition to provide .a landscaping plan that would provide privacy for the adjacent property owner and to open up view corridors for the adjacent property owner incorporates existing and new trees and native vegetation. E. The residence will be developed on an existing building pad. Grading for this project will involve 615 cubic yards of cut and 615 cubic yards of fill, and will be balanced on site. The new development will be located on an existing building pad in the same general configuration as the existing residence. F. The proposed development is sensitive and not detrimental to the convenience and safety of circulation for pedestrians and vehicles because access will be taken from an existing road and will utilize the existing driveway. G. The project conforms to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and is exempt. Section 7. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves the Site Plan Review application for Zoning Case No. 739 for grading and construction of a new residence, as shown on the Development Plan dated February 12, 2007, and marked Exhibit A, subject to the following conditions: A. The Site Plan Review approval shall expire within two years from the effective date of approval if construction pursuant to these approvals has not commenced within that time period, as required by Sections 17.38.070 and 17.46.080(A) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, or the approval granted are otherwise extended pursuant to the requirements of these sections. B. It is declared and made a condition of the Site Plan Review and Variance approval, that if any conditions thereof are violated, this approval shall be suspended and the privileges granted hereunder shall lapse; provided that the applicants have been given written notice to cease such violation, the opportunity for a hearing has been provided, and if requested, has been held, and thereafter the applicant fails to correct the violation within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of the City's determination. C. All requirements of the Building Code, 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 12, 2007, except as otherwise provided in these conditions. Reso. 2007-06 Q Pactfalrl • • E. The working drawings submitted to the County Department of Building and Safety for plan check review must conform to the development plan_approved with this application. F. All utility lines to the new development shall be placed underground. G. The development shall at all times comply with City's Lighting Ordinance, roofing material ordinance and all other City's and County's ordinances and codes. H. The property on which the project is located shall contain a set aside area to provide an area meeting all standards for a stable, corral with access thereto. I. Grading shall not exceed. 615 cubic yards of cut and 615 cubic yards of fill and shall be balanced on site. - J. Structural lot coverage shall not exceed 7,700 square feet or 5.6% of the net lot area of the lot, which includes the stable, but excludes the detached trellis and barbecue area. K. Total lot coverage of structures and paved areas shall not exceed 17,262 square feet or 12,5% in conformance with lot coverage limitations. L. The disturbed area shall not exceed 36,375 square feet or 26.3%. The new residence will be located on an already disturbed pad. M. Residential building pad coverage on the 19,558 square foot residential building pad shall not exceed 6,530 square feet or 33.4%. The stable building pad shall have coverage of 6.9%. N. The drainage devices shall be kept clear of vegetation and other debris to allow uninterrupted water flow. A 24-inches below ground drainage pipe shall traverse the property from south side to the north side. The head wall and the dissipater are proposed to be locatedin the easements, and have been approved by the Rolling Hills Community Association. O. The southerly side yard setback line (20 feet from property line) and the 25-foot easement line shall be delineated during the entire duration of the construction and no construction or grading shall take place in the easement or setback. P. The paved portion of the driveway shall be minimum 16 feet wide and shall be tinted in earth tone color or otherwise be constructed of decorative stone, tile or other decorative material. The remainder of the driveway, not to exceed a total of 20 feet in width, shall be decorative and constructed of porous material. Reso. 2007-06 Q Pactflvld • • Q. The driveway approach may be moved to the south, subject to trimming of trees located on the southwestern corner of the driveway for better visibility when driver is coming out of the driveway. An approval for trimming of the trees shall be obtained from the RHCA, as some of the trees may be located in roadway easement. R. A minimum of four -foot level path and/or walkway, which does not have to be paved, shall be provided around the entire perimeter of the residence and garage. S. The property shall be landscaped and screened from adjacent properties. Landscaping shall be designed using trees and shrubs so as not to obstruct views of neighboring properties but to screen the project. Landscaping shall include water efficient irrigation that incorporates low gallonage irrigation system, utilizes automatic controllers, incorporates an irrigation design using "hydrozones," considers slope factors and climate conditions, and utilizes means to reduce water waste resulting from runoff and overspray.'' The proposed landscaping, if approved by the Rolling Hills Community Association, may be located in the southerly easement. Such landscaping shall be developed for the purpose of screening the subject development from 11 Eastfield Drive and to provide for privacy for the subject property and the property to the south. Additionally, the applicant should cooperate with the property owner to the south to trim and/or remove several of the existing trees to restore a view corridor for the property to the south. The areas where the trees are to be removed shall be remediated and planted with ground cover or low growing bushes to prevent erosion of the soil and slopes. T. Prior to the issuance of any building or grading permit two copies of a preliminary landscape plan shall be submitted for review by the Planning Department in compliance with condition "S" above. Native trees and other native plants shall be utilized, and which are consistent with the rural character of the community. U. If during construction a construction fence is installed, it shall not block any easements or trails. V. During construction perimeter easements shall remain clear and free of debris, parked vehicles, building material, building equipment and all other construction items. W. During construction, conformance with the air quality management district requirements, stormwater pollution prevention practices, County and local ordinances and engineering practices so that people or property are not exposed to undue vehicle trips, noise, dust, and objectionable odors shall be required. X. During construction, the Erosion Control Plan containing the elements set forth in Section 7010 of the 2001 County of Los Angeles Uniform Reso. 2007-06 Q PactfiPlrl 5 5 • • 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. Y. 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. Z. 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. AA. 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 septic tanks. AB. 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. AC. The Planning Department and County District Engineer shall approve the drainage plan. All water from any site irrigation systems and all drainage from the site shall be conveyed in an approved manner and shall drain towards the north of the property. The water shall not sheet over onto the neighboring properties. Drainage structures may be located in easements, as approved by the Rolling Hills Community Association. 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. AD. The applicants shall pay all of the applicable School District fees, Los Angeles County Building and Safety and Public Works Department fees, including Parks and Recreation Fees for new residence. AE. The project must be reviewed and approved by the Rolling Hills Community Association Architectural Review Committee prior to the issuance of any grading or building permit. AF. Notwithstanding Sections 17.46.020 and 17.46.070 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, any modification to the proposed porches, including filling in any portion of the porches or the breezeway, as shown on the site plan on file marked Exhibit A and dated February 12, 2007, shall require the filing of a new application for approval by the Planning Commission. AG. Until the applicant executes an Affidavit of Acceptance of all conditions of the Site Plan Review approval, as required by Section 17.46.065 of the Municipal Code, the approvals shall not be effective. Reso. 2007-06 Q Pactfialrl 6 AH. All conditions of the Site Plan approval that apply shall be complied -with prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit by the County of Los Angeles. AI. Any action challenging the final decision of the City made as a result of the public hearing on this application must be filed within the time limits set forth in Section 17.54.070 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code and Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 15th DAY OF MAY 2007. ATTEST: MARILYN L. KERN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK Reso. 2007-06 Q PactfPIdi 7 1 ARVEL WITTE, CHAIRMAN STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) § CITY OF ROLLING HILLS) I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2007-06 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL OF A SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE TO REPLACE AN EXISTING RESIDENCE AT 9 EASTFIELD DRIVE, IN ZONING CASE NO. 739 (LOT 55-EF), (MARGOLIS). was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on May 15, 2007 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners DeRoy, Hankins, Henke, Sommer and Chairman Witte. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following: Administrative Offices. D ``'UTY CITY CLERK Reso. 2007-06 Q Factfialil 50TH ANNIVERSARY 1957 - 2007 DATE:, TO: FROM: • • Cup oieleo ll,.; INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 APRIL 17, 2007 HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR APPLICATION NO.: SITE LOCATION: ZONING AND SIZE: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PUBLISHED: ZONING CASE NO. 739 9 EASTFIELD DRIVE (LOT 55-EF) RA-S-1; 4.3 ACRES (GROSS) DR. AND MRS. ROBERT MARGOLIS THOMAS BLAIR, BLAIR AND ASSOCIATES FEBRUARY 10, 2007 REOUEST AND RECOMMENDATION 1. Request for a Site Plan Review for grading and construction of a 5,000 square foot residence with 704 square foot garage, 1,080 square feet of covered porches, 80 square foot attached trellis, 400 square foot detached trellis, 48 square foot barbeque area, 120 square foot breezeway and 126 square foot service yard. No basement is proposed. The applicants also request to widen the driveway and modify the driveway approach. 2. It is recommended that the Planning Commission review the staff report, open the continued public hearing, take public testimony and provide direction to staff. BACKGROUND 3. Several Commissioners visited the subject project on March 20, 2007. Commissioners DeRoy and Sommer were absent. The Commissioners also viewed the project from the adjacent property, at 11 Eastfield Drive. At the field trip Mr. Wallace submitted pictures of views from his property. The property owners agreed to cooperate to prepare a landscaping plan that would provide privacy for each property and afford Mr. Wallace's continued views. The proposed landscaping would be located in the easement, and therefore, RHCA approval is required. 4. The property is zoned RAS-1 and consists of 4.3 acres gross and 3.17 acres net (138,030 sq.ft.) and is currently developed with a 3,381 square foot residence, 400 square foot garage and 420 square foot stable with 684 square foot corral. The easements on this property are wider (25 feet) than the required side setbacks (20 feet). ZC NO. 739 Marp-nli s ® Printed on Recycled Paper • 5. Adequate area adjacent to the existing stable is available to construct an addition to the existing 420 square foot stable to meet the minimum requirement of 450 square feet stable. The existing corral meets the -minimum requirement for a 550 square foot corral. 6. The applicants propose to demolish the existing residence, but will retain the stable and corral. 7. One wing of the residence, consisting of the garage, a study, a bedroom and a bathroom will be attached to the main residence by a solid roof breezeway. Structures connected by a solid roof are considered attached and are not subject to Conditional Use Permit approval. 8. At the February 20, Planning Commission meeting, Mr. Wallace, property owner at 11 Eastfield Drive submitted a letter explaining his concerns about the proposed development. The letter is attached. He has requested that during the field trip, the Commission view the proposed project from his property, which they did. MUNICIPAL CODE COMPLIANCE, 9. 8,148 square feet of structures are proposed and 17,710 square feet of structures and paved areas are proposed. However, pursuant to Section 17.16.200, up to five free standing structures, such as trellises, fire places, gazebos, barbeque and similar accessory structures, combination of which does not exceed 800 square feet are not counted towards the structural and total lot coverage or building pad coverage. Therefore, not including the 48 square foot barbecue and the 400 square foot detached trellis, the structural coverage on the lot will be 7,700 square feet or 5.6% of the net lot area, (20% permitted), and the total coverage will be 17,262 square feet or 12.5%, (35% permitted). 10. The construction will utilize the existing building pads. The residential building pad is 19,558 square feet. Coverage on this pad is proposed to be 6,530 square feet or 33.4%, not including the 80 square foot attached trellis and not including 500 square feet of the 1,080 square foot attached porch, (500 sq.ft. of the covered porch is not counted, as it is 10% of the size of the residence). The stable building pad is 7,847 square feet and will have coverage of 545 square feet or 6.9% (not including 45 square feet of he 140 sq.ft. porch). The detached trellis will be located on a 1,372 square foot pad. The trellis is not counted towards pad coverage, as it is one of the exempted structures per Section 17.16.200 of the Zoning Code. 11. Grading for this project is proposed to consist of a cut of 615 cubic yards of soil and 615 cubic yards of fill. This includes widening of the driveway, miscellaneous grading for landscaping and backfill, excavation for footings and for drainage and erosion control. ZC NO. 739 Mar�n1is 2�� 12. The disturbed area of the lot is proposed at 36,375 square feet or 26.3%, (40.0% maximum permitted). 13. The existing driveway is 12 feet wide. The applicants propose to widen the driveway to 16 feet. Section 16.17.160 states that any driveway shall not exceed 12% grade unless otherwise approved by the Planning Commission and that the first 20 feet have 7% slope. The proposed driveway does not exceed 7% slope for the first 20 feet. However, a 15% slope is proposed for about 146 feet of the driveway and then it slopes to less than 12% as the driveway gets closer to the residence. Additional grading would be required to meet the 12% slope requirement for the entire length of the driveway. The applicant is therefore seeking Planning Commission's consideration in this matter. 14. The applicants propose to drain the site to the north towards the natural drainage course. The drainage plan shows a dissipater partially in the northerly easement and the headwall in the southerly easement. A 3-foot swale is proposed behind the garage in the easement. All pipes, except for the dissipater and the headwall will be located underground. The Rolling Hills Community Association reviewed the drainage plan and approved the drainage facilities in the easements, as shown on the plan. Memo to that effect from RHCA is attached. 15. It will be required that all utility lines to the property be placed underground and that the roof material of the residence meets City and RHCA standards for Class "A" roofing material. OTHER AGENCIES REVIEW 16. The applicants propose to modify the existing driveway approach, and move it approximately 3-4 feet to the south, to create a more defined separation between the driveway to 7 Eastfield and subject property. The Traffic Commission reviewed the driveway approach at their March 22, 2007 meeting and recommended approval, with a condition that the trees located on the southwestern corner of the driveway be trimmed for better visibility. The Traffic Engineer's report is attached. 17. The Rolling Hills Community Association reviewed this project for architectural elements and design and recommended approval with certain corrections. 18. The project has been determined to be categorically exempt pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). ZC NO. 739 Marvnli s ZONING CASE NO. 739 SITE PLAN REVIEW RA-S-1 ZONE SETBACKS Front: 50 ft. from front roadway easement line Side: 20 ft. from property line Rear: 50 ft. from property line STRUCTURES (Site Plan Review required for new structures and if size of structure increases by at least 1,000 sq. ft. and has the effect of increasing the size of the structure by more than 25% in a 36-month period). STRUCTURAL LOT COVERAGE (20% maximum) TOTAL LOT COVERAGE (35% maximum) BUILDING PAD COVERAGE RESIDENTIAL (30% maximum guideline) Stable coverage Combined coverage GRADING Site plan review required if excavation and/or fill or combination thereof is more than 3 feet in depth and covers more than 2,000 sq. ft., must be balanced on site DISTURBED AREA (40% maximum; any graded building pad area, any remedial grading (temporary disturbance), any graded slopes and building pad areas, and any nongraded area where impervious surfaces exist.) STABLE (minimum 450 sa. ft.) and CORRAL (minimum 550 so. ft.) STABLE ACCESS ACCESSWAY VIEWS PLANTS AND ANIMALS ZC NO. 739 Marrolis EXISTING - SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE TO BE DEMOLISHED Residence 3381 sq.ft Garage 400 sq.ft Stable 420 sq.ft. Covered 140 sq.ft porch. TOTAL 3.2% 4,241 sq.ft. PROPOSED NEW RESIDENCE Residence 5000 sq.ft Garage 704 sq.ft Stable 450 sq.ft. ServiceYd. 120 sq.ft Porches 1220 sq.ft. Breezeway 126 sq.ft. Att. Trellis 80 sq.ft. Det. Trellis 400 sq.ft. Barbecue 48 sq.ft. Basement 0 TOTAL 8,148 sq.ft. 5.6% of 138,U30 sq.ft. net lot, not inc. barbecue and detached trellis 7.0% 12.5% of 138,030 sq.ft. net lot area 6 0°0 L ✓ 133.4% of 19,558 sq.ft. pad 19.3% 6.9% N/A 23.0% 420 s.f. stable 684 s.f. existing corral Existing from driveway From Eastfield N/A N/A 6.9% of 7,847 sq.ft. pad 30.0% 615 c.y. cut and 615 c.y. fill 26.3%, 36,375 square feet 450 sq.ft.- future 684 sq.ft.- existing Existing from driveway From Eastfield Planning Commission review Planning Commission review NEARBY PROPERTIES For information purposes only ADDRESS 5 Eastfield 17 Eastfield 11 Eastfield. 6 Eastfield. 8 Eastfield 10 Eastfield AVERAGE 9 Eastfield OWNER Banker Surprenant Wallace Haueisen Johnson Butler Margolis RESIDENCE In square feet 2,994 5,352* 3,175* 8,214 4,187 2,906 4,471 Proposed 5,000 SOURCE: Assessors' Records *City Records The above calculations do not include garages. LOT AREA (sq.ft.) excl. road 46,740 128,070 91,910 55,740 46,170 51,400 70,005 152,030 YEAR BUILT** 1966 1954/added 2005* 1960/added 2006* 1993 1973/1978 1950/1962 ** In instances where two dates appear in the Assessor's entries, the first date is "Year Built" and the second "Effective Year Built". The "Year Built" date represents the actual date the original house was built and the "Effective Year Built" date represents the reduced effective age of the property. This means that sometime between the "Year Built" date and the "Effective Year Built" date the property underwent a major remodel or addition, which reduced the age of the house for re-evaluating purposes. ZC NO. 739 Mars:Toli s • 0 Michael and Laura Wallace 11 Eastfield Drive Rolling Hills, California 90274 February 19, 2007 Ms. Yolanta Schwartz Planning Director City of Rolling Hills 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, California 90274 Re: Margolis New House Construction Project — 9 Eastfield Drive Dear Ms. Schwartz: By F E R w 2007 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS We have specific concerns about the new house and garage complex proposed by Robert and Lisa Margolis at 9 Eastfield Drive. We reside in the house situated directly to the south of the Margolis' existing house. We do not oppose the concept of a new house being built on the Margolis property. However, we are concerned about certain features of the proposed design that may impact our views, our privacy and our quiet. We have performed a limited review of the plans submitted for the project at the City offices. Based on that review, we have prepared the attached summary of our concerns that we would like the Planning Commission to consider in its evaluation of the proposed project. We have identified in the summary what we believe are a few accommodations that could alleviate our concerns and lead to a mutually beneficial project for both families. It is likely that the Planning Commission, based on its experience with these types of issues, will have additional ideas about how to achieve a mutually beneficial project. We have met with Robert and Lisa Margolis to discuss our concerns. We have agreed in principle to seek mutually beneficial solutions, but have not yet had an opportunity to discuss specific design parameters or changes. To preserve our rights and to ensure that the Planning Commission gives full consideration to our views, we feel compelled to submit our concerns and requested accommodations in writing. Please ensure that this letter and the attached two -page summary are presented to the Planning Commission as a part of its review tomorrow evening at the Planning Commission meeting. We are also planning to attend the meeting and present our ideas at that time. Sincerely, Michael and Laura Wallace Attachment cc: Robert and Lisa Margolis • • Margolis New House Project - 9 Eastfield Drive Areas of Concern & Requested Accommodations By Wallace Family —11 Eastfield Drive (Neighbor to South) Ouestions & Concerns 1) Does the new house and garage need to be so close to our house? Could the new buildings be located further north or reoriented so it would not be so crowded next to our master bedroom and master bathroom? 2) Our most significant concern is the impact the new house and garage will have on our views of the Santa Monica Bay, Santa Monica Mountains and the South Bay (Queen's Necklace). The views that would be impacted by the new house and garage are OUR ONLY VIEWS of the ocean or city from our house and backyard. We currently have beautiful views of these areas from our backyard, master bedroom and master bathroom that were primary design considerations in our recent remodeling project. We are particularly worried that the new house will eliminate or reduce these views, especially those from our master bedroom porch and other patios in my backyard. This is very important to us. 3) We are concerned that the new house extends further to the west into our view corridor than the existing house (which already somewhat impairs our northward views of the South Bay). Could the house be situated further to the east, or the westernmost room be relocated so the new house extends no further west than the existing house (or even less so)? 4) We are very worried that the extensive roofs of the new house will block the city lights views we have from four windows in our master bedroom and master bathroom. We specifically designed these windows to capture these views as part of our recently completed master suite remodeling project. If the new roofline is any higher than the existing roofline, we will lose these valuable and beautiful views. Could the overall height of the roofline be maintained or even lowered by some combination of the following (or other ideas)? a. lower the elevation of the new house by 3 feet to the same level as the motor court b. use 8 foot walls at areas of the house where our views are most impacted c. use a lower pitch roof (3 in 12) d. use a hip roof design rather than a gable roof design e. consider the location of chimneys to minimize their impact on our views f. other ideas 5) We are concerned that the main entrance to the new house and the breezeway to the study and bedrooms attached to the new garage will be directly under our master bedroom and bathroom window and result in excessive noise in our new master suite. The existing house has its front entrance on the opposite side of our master suite and creates no disturbance in this location. Eliminating the breezeway could enable moving the house eastward out of our view corridor. Connecting the garage to the house would shorten the very long overall east -to -west length of the new house and garage complex (approximately 200 feet of continuous roofline) and create a sound barrier between the front entrance of the new house and our master suite. • Margolis New House Project - 9 Eastfield Drive Areas of Concern & Requested Accommodations By Wallace Family — 11 Eastfield Drive (Neighbor to South) 6) The size of the new house and garage building seem very large for the space available and exceed the pad coverage guidelines of the City. However, if accommodations could be made to maintain or even improve our views, and to minimize the impact of the close proximity of our houses, we think the Margolis project could be nicely done and a benefit to both properties. 7) Summary of Accommodations Requested a. Do not build any portion of the new house further west than the westernmost point of the existing house to preserve our views of the Santa Monica Bay (Queen's Necklace). b. Move the entire new house further to the east and to the north to preserve our views and maximize space between our houses. c. Lower the pad elevation and rooflines of the new house to preserve our views. d. Design and locate chimneys to preserve our existing views. e. Consider combining main house and garage building to shorten overall east -west length of buildings and to create a sound barrier between new front entrance and our master suite. f. Remove and/or trim many large trees that currently obstruct our valuable views. g. Grant a "view easement" allowing ongoing maintenance of landscaping to maintain our valuable views in the future, regardless of ownership of the property. 8) We request that The City of Rolling Hills pass a Resolution attaching conditions to the approval of the Margolis project, specifically (1) the westernmost point of building construction not extend beyond existing house, (2) the maximum elevation of new roofline not exceed the elevation of the existing roofline in any location, (3) the maximum length of east - west roof run be reduced to some reasonable level (less than the currently proposed 200 feet), and (4) providing tree removal and maintenance conditions for view preservation. 9) We will gladly support the Margolis application if the above accommodations are made. We believe the requested accommodations can be made without impacting the goals the Margolis project attempts to achieve. However, if the proposed design is not modified to address our legitimate concerns, and ultimately leads to an application that blocks our views, infringes our privacy and disturbs our quiet, then we believe the proposed new house and garage complex is inappropriate for the property. It is obviously much too large a home for the space available unless appropriate accommodations are made to address neighborhood concerns. We will oppose the application with the City with all reasonable means unless meaningful efforts are made to address our very limited and reasonable concerns. 2 of 2 CSD • • Memorandum To: Yolanta Schwartz, City of Rolling Hills Planning Director From: Julie Roberts, Architectural Inspector and Secretary Date: February 14, 2007 Re: 9 Eastfield Drive, Rolling Hills In regards to clarification of the use of easements on this property, this property does have an unique situation were the easements are 25'wide (larger) than the setback at 20'wide. It has been brought to my attention that the property suffers from a major erosion control and drainage problem due to most of the residences in the Eastfield Drive tract drain through the Margolis Property. The RHCA has reviewed and agreed with the proposed drainage plan that will be installed in both side easements. Please let me know if you have any further questions. RH CITY — re:9 Eastfield Drive—2-14-07 • WILLDAN Serving Public Agencies MEMORANDUM To: Anton Dahlerbruch, City Manager From: Vanessa Munoz, Traffic Engineer Date: March 27, 2007 Subject: #9 EASTFIELD DRIVE DRIVEWAY Based on a field visit on March 22, 2007 to #9 Eastfield Drive, I the recommend the driveway widening be permitted. The following item should be required for the approval: • Trimming of trees located on the southwest corner of the driveway. Trees shall be trimmed behind edge of pavement to allow better visibility when driver is coming out of the driveway. 50TH ANNIVERSARY 1957 - 2007 DATE: TO: FROM: • MARCH 20, 2007 HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR 4111 'o //in.�'' INCORPORATED JANUARY 24. ] 957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS. CALIF. 90274 (310)377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 APPLICATION NO.: SITE LOCATION: ZONING AND SIZE: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PUBLISHED: ZONING CASE NO. 739 9 EASTFIELD DRIVE (LOT 55-EF) RA-S-1; 4.3 ACRES (GROSS) DR. AND MRS. ROBERT MARGOLIS THOMAS BLAIR, BLAIR AND 'ASSOCIATES FEBRUARY 10, 2007 REQUEST AND RECOMMENDATION 1. Request for a Site Plan Review for grading and construction of a 5,000 square foot residence with 704 square foot garage, 1,080 square feet of covered porches, 80 square foot attached trellis, 400 square foot detached trellis, 48 square foot barbeque area, 120 square foot breezeway and 126 square foot service yard. No basement is proposed. 2. It is recommended that the Planning Commission review the staff report, open the continued public hearing, take public testimony and provide direction to staff. BACKGROUND 3. The Planning Commission visited the subject project earlier today. The Commission also viewed the project from the adjacent property, 11 Eastfield Drive. 4. The property is zoned RAS-1 and consists of 4.3 acres gross and 3.17 acres net (138,030 sq.ft.) and is currently developed with a 3,381 square foot residence, 400 square foot garage and 420 square foot stable with 684 square foot corral. The easements on this property are wider (25 feet) than the required side setbacks (20 feet). 5. Adequate area adjacent to the existing stable is available to construct an addition to the existing 420 square foot stable to meet the minimum requirement of 450 square feet stable. The existing corral meets the minimum requirement for a 550 square foot corral. ZC NO.739 1 Marpnlis P inred on FPcydcd Pnprr • 6. The applicants propose to demolish the existing residence, but will retain the stable and corral. 7. The garage, a study and a bedroom will be attached to the main residence by a solid roof breezeway. Structures connected by a solid roof are considered attached and are not subject to Conditional Use Permit approval. 8. At the February 20, Planning Commission meeting, Mr. Wallace, property owner at 11 Eastfield Drive submitted a letter explaining his concerns about the proposed development. The letter is attached. He has requested that during the field trip, the Commission view the proposed project from his property. MUNICIPAL CODE COMPLIANCE 9. 8,148 square feet of structures are proposed and 17,710 square feet of structures and paved areas are proposed. However, pursuant to Section 17.16.200, up to five free standing structures, such as trellises, fire places, gazebos, barbeque and similar accessory structures, combination of which does not exceed 800 square feet are not counted towards the structural and total lot coverage or building pad coverage. Therefore, not including the 48 square foot barbeque and the 400 square foot detached trellis, the structural coverage on the lot will be 7,700 square feet or 5.6% of the net lot area, (20% permitted), and the total coverage will be 17,262 square feet or 12.5%, (35% permitted). 10. The construction will utilize the existing building pads. The residential building pad is 19,558 square feet. Coverage on this pad is proposed to be 6,530 square feet or 33.4%, not including the 80 square foot attached trellis and not including 500 square feet of the 1,080 square foot attached porch, (500 sq.ft. of the covered porch is not counted, as it is 10% of the size of the residence). The stable building pad is 7,847 square feet and will have coverage of 545 square feet or 6.9% (not including 45 square feet of he 140 sq.ft. porch). The detached trellis will be located on a 1,372 square foot pad. The trellis is not counted towards pad coverage, as it is one of the exempted structures per Section 17.16.200 of the Zoning Code. 11. Grading for this project is proposed to consist of a cut of 615 cubic yards of soil and 615 cubic yards of fill. This includes widening of the driveway, miscellaneous grading for landscaping and backfill, excavation for footings and for drainage and erosion control. 12. The disturbed area of the lot is proposed at 36,375 square feet or 26.3%, (40.0% maximum permitted). 13. The existing driveway is 12 feet wide. The applicants propose to widen the driveway to 16 feet. The subject property shares a driveway approach with the adjacent property. The applicants propose to modify the driveway approach, so that their ingress/egress is fully on their property. Section 16.17.160 states that any driveway shall not exceed 12% grade unless otherwise approved by the Planning Commission and that the first 20 feet have 7% slope. The proposed ZC NO. 739 Margolis 2 driveway does not exceed 7% slope for the first 20 feet. However, a 15% slope is proposed for about 146 feet of the driveway and then it slopes to less than 12% as the driveway gets closer to the residence. Additional grading would be required to meet the 12% slope requirement for the entire length of the driveway. The applicant is therefore seeking Planning Commission's consideration in this matter. 14. The applicants propose to drain the site to the north towards the natural drainage course. The drainage plan shows a dissipater partially in the northerly easement and the headwall in the southerly easement. A 3-foot swale is proposed behind the garage in the easement. All pipes, except for the dissipater and the headwall will be located underground. The Rolling Hills Community Association reviewed the drainage plan and approved the drainage facilities in the easements, as shown on the plan. Memo to that effect from RHCA is attached. 15. It will be required that all utility lines to the property be placed underground and that the roof material of the residence meets City and RHCA standards for Class "A" roofing material. OTHER AGENCIES REVIEW, 16. The applicants propose to modify the existing driveway approach. The Traffic Commission will review the driveway approach at their March 22, 2007 meeting. The Traffic Commission's recommendations will be incorporated into the staff report at the April 17, Planning Commission meeting. 17. The Rolling Hills Community Association reviewed this project for architectural elements and design and recommended approval with certain corrections. 18. The project has been determined to be categorically exempt pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). ZC NO.739 Marvnli s 3 ZONING CASE NO. 739 SITE PLAN REVIEW RA-S-1 ZONE SETBACKS Front: 50 ft. from front roadway easement line Side: 20 ft. from property line Rear: 50 ft. from property line STRUCTURES (Site Plan Review required for new structures and if size of structure increases by at least 1,000 sq. ft. and has the effect of increasing the size of the structure by more than 25% in a 36-month period). STRUCTURAL LOT COVERAGE (20% maximum) TOTAL LOT COVERAGE (35% maximum) BUILDING PAD COVERAGE RESIDENTIAL (30% maximum guideline) Stable coverage Combined coverage GRADING Site plan review required if excavation and/or fill or combination thereof is more than 3 feet in depth and covers more than 2,000 sq. ft., must be balanced on site DISTURBED AREA (40% maximum; any graded building pad area, any remedial grading (temporary disturbance), any graded slopes and building pad areas, and any nongraded area where impervious surfaces exist.) STABLE (minimum 450 sa. ft.) and CORRAL (minimum 550 sa. ft.) STABLE ACCESS ACCESSWAY VIEWS PLANTS AND ANIMALS ZC NO. 739 Marnnlis EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE TO BE DEMOLISHED Residence 3381 sq.ft Garage 400 sq.ft Stable 420 sq.ft. Covered 140 sq.ft porch. TOTAL 3.2% 7.0% 19.3% 6.9% N/A 23.0% 4,241 sq.ft. 420 s.f. stable 684 s.f. existing corral Existing from driveway From Eastfield N/A N/A 4 PROPOSED NEW RESIDENCE Residence 5000 sq.ft Garage 704 sq.ft Stable 450 sq.ft. ServiceYd. .120 sq.ft Porches 1220 sq.ft. Breezeway 126 sq.ft. Att. Trellis 80 sq.ft. Det. Trellis 400 sq.ft. Barbecue 48 sq.ft. Basement 0 8,148 sq.ft. TOTAL 5.6% of 138,030 sq.ft. net lot, not inc. barbecue and detached trellis 12.5% of 138,030 sq.ft. net lot area 33.4% of 19,558 sq.ft. pad 6.9% of 7,847 sq.ft. pad 30.0% 615 c.y. cut and 615 c.y. fill 26.3%, 36,375 square feet 450 sq.ft.- future 684 sq.ft.- existing Existing from driveway From Eastfield Planning Commission review Planning Commission review NEARBY PROPERTIES For information purposes only ADDRESS 5 Eastfield 7 Eastfield 11 Eastfield. 6 Eastfield. 8 Eastfield 10 Eastfield - AVERAGE 9 Eastfield OWNER Banker Surprenant Wallace Haueisen Johnson Butler Margolis RESIDENCE LOT AREA In square feet (sq.ft.) excl. road 2,994 46,740 5,352* 128,070 3,175* 91,910, 8,214 55,740 4,187 46,170 2,906 51,400 4,471 70,005 Proposed 152,030 5,000 SOURCE: Assessors' Records *City Records The above calculations do not include garages. YEAR BUILT** 1966 1954/added 2005* 1960/added 2006* 1993 1973/1978 1950/1962 ** In instances where two dates appear in the Assessor's entries, the first date is "Year Built" and the second "Effective Year Built". The "Year Built" date represents the actual date the original house was built and the "Effective Year Built" date represents the reduced effective age of the -property. This means that sometime between the "Year Built" date and the "Effective Year Built" date the property underwent a major remodel or addition, which reduced the age of the house for re-evaluating purposes. ZC NO. 739 Margolis d Memorandum To: Yolanta Schwartz, City of Rolling Hills Planning Director From: Julie Roberts, Architectural Inspector and Secretary Date: February 14, 2007 Re: 9 Eastfield Drive, Rolling Hills In regards to clarification of the use of easements on this property, this property does have an unique situation were the easements are 25'wide (larger) than the setback at 20'wide. It has been brought to my attention that the property suffers from a major erosion control and drainage problem due to most of the residences in the Eastfield Drive tract drain through the Margolis Property. The RHCA has reviewed and agreed with the proposed drainage plan that will be installed in both side easements. Please let me know if you have any further questions. RH CITY — re:9 Eastfield Drive—2-14-07 • Michael and Laura Wallace 11 Eastfield Drive Rolling Hills, California 90274 Ms. Yolanta Schwartz Planning Director City of Rolling Hills 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, California 90274 WI February 19, 2007 FEB 2 2007 Re: Margolis New House Construction Project — 9 Eastfield Drive Dear Ms. Schwartz: By CITY OF ROLLING HILLS We have specific concerns about the new house and garage complex proposed by Robert and Lisa Margolis at 9 Eastfield Drive. We reside in the house situated directly to the south of the Margolis' existing house. We do not oppose the concept of a new house being built on the Margolis property. However, we are concerned about certain features of the proposed design that may impact our views, our privacy and our quiet. We have performed a limited review of the plans submitted for the project at the City offices. Based on that review, we have prepared the attached summary of our concerns that we would like the Planning Commission to consider in its evaluation of the proposed project. We have identified in the summary what we believe are a few accommodations that could alleviate our concerns and lead to a mutually beneficial project for both families. It is likely that the Planning Commission, based on its experience with these types of issues, will have additional ideas about how to achieve a mutually beneficial project. We have met with Robert and Lisa Margolis to discuss our concerns. We have agreed in principle to seek mutually beneficial solutions, but have not yet had an opportunity to discuss specific design parameters or changes. To preserve our rights and to ensure that the Planning Commission gives full consideration to our views, we feel compelled to submit our concerns and requested accommodations in writing. Please ensure that this letter and the attached two -page summary are presented to the Planning Commission as a part of its review tomorrow evening at the Planning Commission meeting. We are also planning to attend the meeting and present our ideas at that time. Sincerely, Michael and Laura Wallace Attachment cc: Robert and Lisa Margolis • *pHs New 1-louse Project - 9 Eastfield Drive Areas of Concern & Requested Accommodations By Wallace Family — 11 Eastfield Drive (Neiuhbor to South) Questions & Concerns 1) Does the new house and garage need to be so close to our house? Could the new buildings be located further north or reoriented so it would not be so crowded next to our master bedroom and master bathroom? 2) Our most significant concern is the impact the new house and garage will have on our views of the Santa Monica Bay, Santa Monica Mountains and the South Bay (Queen's Necklace). The views that would be impacted by the new house and 2araee are OUR ONLY VIEWS of the ocean or city from our house and backyard. We currently have beautiful views of these areas from our backyard, master bedroom and master bathroom that were primary design considerations in our recent remodeling project. We are particularly worried that the new house will eliminate or reduce these views, especially those from our master bedroom porch • and other patios in my backyard. This is very important to us. 3) We are concerned that the new house extends further to the west into our view corridor than the existing house (which already somewhat impairs our northward views of the South Bay). Could the house be situated further to the east, or the westernmost room be relocated so the new house extends no further west than the existing house (or even less so)? 4) We are very worried that the extensive roofs of the new house will block the city lights views we have from four windows in our master bedroom and master bathroom. We specifically . designed these windows to capture these views as part of our recently completed master suite remodeling project. If the new roofline is any higher than the existing roofline, we will lose these valuable and beautiful views. Could the overall height of the roofline be maintained or even lowered by some combination of the following (or other ideas)? a. lower the elevation of the new house by 3 feet to the same level as the motor court b. use 8 foot walls at areas of the house where our views are most impacted c. use a lower pitch roof (3 in 12) d. use a hip roof design rather than a gable roof design e. consider the location of chimneys to minimize their impact on our views f. other ideas 5) We are concerned that the main entrance to the new house and the breezeway to. the study and bedrooms attached to the new garage will be directly under our master bedroom and bathroom window and result in excessive noise in our new master suite. The existing house has its front entrance on the opposite side of our master suite and creates no disturbance in this location. Eliminating the breezeway could enable moving the house eastward out of our view corridor. Connecting the garage to the house would shorten the very long overall east -to -west length of the new house and garage complex (approximately 200 feet of continuous roofline) and create a sound barrier between the front entrance of the new house and our master suite. I of 2 argolis New 1-Iouse Project - 9 Eastfield rive Areas of Concern & Requested Accommodations By Wallace Family — II Eastfield Drive (Neiuhbor to South) 6) The size of the new house and garage building seem very large for the space available and exceed the pad coverage guidelines of the City. However, if accommodations could be made to maintain or even improve our 'views, and to minimize the impact of the close proximity of our houses, we think the Margolis project could be nicely done and a benefit to both properties. 7) Summary of Accommodations Requested a. Do not build any portion of the new house further west than the westernmost point of the existing house to preserve our views of the Santa Monica Bay (Queen's Necklace). b. Move the entire new house further to the east and to the north to preserve our views and maximize space between our houses. c. Lower the pad elevation and rooflines of the new house to preserve our views. d. Design and locate chimneys to preserve our existing views. e. Consider combining main house and garage building to shorten overall east -west length of buildings and to create a sound barrier between new front entrance and our master • suite. f. Remove and/or trim many large trees that currently obstruct our valuable views. g. Grant a "view easement" allowing ongoing maintenance of landscaping to maintain our valuable views in the future, regardless of ownership of the property. 8) We request that The City of Rolling Hills pass a Resolution attaching conditions to the approval of the Margolis project, specifically (1) the westemmost point of building construction not extend beyond existing house, (2) the maximum elevation of new roofline not exceed the elevation of the existing roofline in any location, (3) the maximum length of east - west roof run be reduced to some reasonable level (less than the currently proposed 200 feet), and (4) providing tree removal and maintenance conditions for view preservation. 9) We will gladly support the Margolis application if the above accommodations are made. We believe the requested accommodations can be made without impacting the goals the Margolis project attempts to achieve. However, if the proposed design is not modified to address our legitimate concerns, and ultimately leads to an application that blocks our views, infringes our privacy and disturbs our quiet, then we believe the proposed new house and garage complex is inappropriate for the property. It is obviously much too large a home for the space available unless appropriate accommodations are made to address neighborhood concerns. We will oppose the application with the City with all reasonable means unless meaningful efforts are made to address our very limited and reasonable concerns. 2 of 2 50TH ANNIVERSARY 1957 - 2007 DATE: TO: FROM: • ieo,,fl .. • 8-A INLoR1't:)RNI CD JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS. CALIF. 90274 (310)377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 FEBRUARY 20, 2007 HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR APPLICATION NO.: SITE LOCATION: ZONING AND SIZE: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PUBLISHED: REOUEST ZONING CASE NO. 739 9 EASTFIELD DRIVE (LOT 55-EF) RA-S-1; 4.3 ACRES (GROSS) MR. AND MRS. ROBERT MARGOLIS THOMAS BLAIR, BLAIR AND ASSOCIATES FEBRUARY 10, 2007 Request for a Site Plan Review for grading and construction of a 5,000 square foot residence with 704 square foot garage, 1,080 square feet of covered porches, 80 square foot attached trellis, 400 square foot detached trellis, 48 square foot barbeque area, 120 square foot breezeway and 126 square foot service yard. No basement is proposed. BACKGROUND 1. The property is zoned RAS-1 and consists of 4.3 acres gross and 3.17 acres net (138,030 sq.ft.) and is currently developed with a 3,381 square foot residence, 400 square foot garage and 420 square foot stable with 684 square foot corral. The easements on this property are wider (25 feet) than the required side setbacks (20 feet). 2. Adequate area adjacent to the existing stable is available to construct an addition to the existing 420 square foot stable to meet the minimum requirement of 450 square feet stable. The existing corral meets the minimum requirement for 550 square feet. 3. The applicants propose to demolish the existing residence, but will retain the stable and corral. 4. The existing driveway is 12 feet wide. The applicants propose to widen the driveway to 16 feet. The subject property shares a driveway approach with the adjacent property. The applicants propose to modify the driveway approach, so that their igress / engress is on their property. ® Pointrd on Recycled Poper 4 • • 5. The garage, a study and a bedroom will be attached to the main residence by a solid breezeway. Structures connected by a solid breezeway are considered attached and are not subject to Conditional Use Permit approval. MUNICIPAL CODE COMPLIANCE 6. 8,148 square feet of structures are proposed and 17,710 square feet of structures and paved areas are proposed. However, pursuant to Section 17.16.200, up to five free standing structures, such as trellises, fire places, gazebos, barbeque and similar accessory structures, combination of which does not exceed 800 square feet are not counted towards the structural and total lot coverage or building pad coverage. Therefore, not including the 48 square foot barbeque and the 400 square foot detached trellis, the structural coverage on the lot will be 7,700 square feet or 5.6% of the net lot area, (20% permitted), and the total coverage will be 17,262 square feet or 12.5%, (35% permitted). 7. The construction will utilize the existing building pads. The residential building pad is 19,558 square feet. Coverage on this pad is proposed to be 6,530 square feet or 33.4%, not including the 80 square foot attached trellis and not including 500 square feet of the 1,080 square foot attached porch, (500 sq.ft. of the covered porch is not counted, as it is 10% of the size of the residence). The stable building pad is 7,847 square feet and will have coverage of 545 square feet or 6.9% (not including 45 square feet of he 140 sq.ft. porch). The detached trellis will be located on a 1,372 square foot pad. The trellis is not counted towards pad coverage, as it is one of the exempted structures per Section 17.16.200 of the Zoning Code. 8. Grading for this project is proposed to consist of a cut of 615 cubic yards of soil and 615 cubic yards of fill. This includes widening of the driveway, miscellaneous grading for landscaping and backfill, excavation for footings and for drainage and erosion control. 9. The disturbed area of the lot is proposed. at 36,375 square feet or 26.3%, (40.0% maximum permitted). 10. The applicants propose to drain the site to the north towards the natural drainage course. The drainage plan shows a dissipater partially in the northerly easement and the headwall in the southerly easement. A 3-foot swale is proposed behind the garage in the easement. All pipes, except for the dissipater and the headwall will be located underground. Prior to the next Planning Commission meeting the applicants' representative will submit the drainage plan to the Rolling Hills Community Association for their review. 11. It will be required that all utility lines to the property be placed underground and that the roof material of the residence meets City and RHCA standards for Class "A" roofing material. OTHER AGENCIES REVIEW • • 12. The applicants propose to modify the existing driveway approach. The Traffic Commission will review the driveway approach at their March 22, 2007 meeting. 13. The Rolling Hills Community Association will review the project for architectural elements and design at a later date. 14. The project has been determined to be categorically exempt pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission review the staff report, open the public hearing, take public testimony and schedule a field trip. • • ZONING CASE NO. 739 SITE PLAN REVIEW RA-S-1 ZONE SETBACKS Front: 50 ft. from front roadway easement line Side: 20 ft. from property line Rear: 50 ft. from property line STRUCTURES (Site Plan Review required for new structures and if size of structure increases by at least 1,000 sq. ft. and has the effect of increasing the size of the structure by more than 25% in a 36-month period). STRUCTURAL LOT COVERAGE (20% maximum) TOTAL LOT COVERAGE (35% maximum) BUILDING PAD COVERAGE RESIDENTIAL (30% maximum guideline) Stable coverage Combined coverage GRADING Site plan review required if excavation and/or fill or combination thereof is more than 3 feet in depth and covers more than 2,000 sq. ft., must be balanced on site DISTURBED AREA (40% maximum; any graded building pad area, any remedial grading (temporary disturbance), any graded slopes and building pad areas, and any nongraded area where impervious surfaces exist.) STABLE (minimum 450 sa. ft.) and CORRAL (minimum 550 so. ft.) STABLE ACCESS ACCESSWAY VIEWS EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE TO BE DEMOLISHED Residence 3381 sq.ft Garage 400 sq.ft Stable 420 sq.ft. Covered 140 sq.ft porch. TOTAL 3.2% 4,241 sq.ft. PROPOSED NEW RESIDENCE Residence 5000 sq.ft Garage 704 sq.ft Stable 450 sq.ft. ServiceYd. 120 sq.ft Porches 1220 sq.ft. Breezeway 126 sq.ft. Att. Trellis 80 sq.ft. Det. Trellis 400 sq.ft. Barbecue 48 sq.ft. Basement 0 8,148 sq.ft. TOTAL 5.6% of 138.030 sq.ft. net lot, not inc. barbecue and detached trellis 7.0% 12.5% of 138,030 sq.ft. net lot area 19.3% 6.9% N/A 23.0% 420 s.f. stable 684 s.f. existing corral Existing from driveway From Eastfield N/A PLANTS AND ANIMALS N/A 33.4% of 19,558 sq.ft. pad 6.9% of 7,847 sq.ft. pad 30.0% 615 c.y. cut and 615 c.y. fill 26.3%, 36,375 square feet 450 sq.ft.- future 684 sq.ft.- existing Existing from driveway From Eastfield Planning Commission review Planning Commission review NEARBY PROPERTIES For information purposes only ADDRESS OWNER 5 Eastfield Banker 7 Eastfield Surprenant 11 Eastfield. Wallace 6 Eastfield. 8 Eastfield 10 Eastfield AVERAGE Haueisen Johnson Butler 9 Eastfield Margolis RESIDENCE In square feet 2,994 5,352* 3,175* 8,214 4,187 2,906 4,471 Proposed 5,000 SOURCE: Assessors' Records *City Records The above calculations do not include garages. LOT AREA (sq.ft.) excl. road 46,740 128,070 91,910 55,740 46,170 51,400 70,005 152,030 YEAR BUILT** 1966 1954/added 2005* 1960/added 2006* 1993 1973/1978 1950/1962 ** In instances where two dates appear in the Assessor's entries, the first date is "Year Built" and the second "Effective Year Built". The "Year Built" date represents the actual date the original house was built and the "Effective Year Built" date represents the reduced effective age of the vroverty. This means that sometime between the "Year Built" date and the "Effective Year Built" date the property underwent a major remodel or addition, which reduced the age of the house for re-evaluating purposes.