Loading...
538, For a previously constructed 1, Staff Reports• • C1iy o/ /e0fA4 Jd.•PP, INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 Agenda Item No.: 4.B. Mtg. Date: 6/24/96 DATE: JUNE 24, 1996 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL ATTN: CRAIG R. NEALIS, CITY MANAGER FROM: LOLA M. UNGAR, PRINCIPAL PLANNER SUBJECT: RESOLUTION NO. 96-12: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING AN EXTENSION AND MODIFICATION OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR JOINT POWERS TRANSIT AUTHORITY LIMITED USES IN ZONING CASE NO. 532A. BACKGROUND 1. The Planning Commission approved the subject resolution on June 18, 1996 at their regular meeting. 2. The resolution extends the Conditional Use Permit for two years with reviews in December and March each year and modifying the request to increase storage parking from 10 vans to up to 14 vans. Additional conditions include the limitation that eleven vans be operational at any given time, that the Transit Authority encourage carpooling among drivers, where feasible, documentation of driver carpooling, and that the transit service not allow vehicles to start their engines prior to 6 AM. These conditions are included in draft Resolution No. 96-12 that is attached. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission receive and file Resolution No. 96-12. ZONING CASE NO. 532A PAGE 1 @Proved on Recycled Pip... r RESOLUTION NO. 96-12 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING AN EXTENSION AND MODIFICATION OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR JOINT POWERS TRANSIT AUTHORITY LIMITED USES IN ZONING CASE NO. 532A. THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. An application was duly filed by the Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District with respect to real property at the ±31.14 acre western portion of Lot 72-RH, and currently, 38 Crest Road West, Rolling Hills, requesting to extend and modify a Conditional Use Permit to permit portions of the Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District Crest Road property that is used for a maintenance and warehouse facility to continue to be used by the Palos Verdes Peninsula Transit Authority for administrative uses and to increase storage parking from 10 vans to up to 14 vans at the school district property. Section 2. Prior City actions with respect to this property and this proposed use include the following: A. On February 26, 1963, a Conditional Use Permit was approved by the Planning Commission for the following five structures to be constructed at the Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District site: (1) administration building, (2) education material and library facility building, (3) warehouse building, (4) district maintenance building, and (5) an elementary school building, The Conditional Use Permit expired on February 26, 1964 and no new buildings were constructed. B. On, June 5, 1964 a Conditional Use Permit was denied by the Planning Commission to permit the construction of an (1) administration building, (2) elementary school building, and (3) district maintenance building. The Planning Commission found that the construction and location of the proposed administration building, maintenance building and garage would establish and permit a commercial use of the property that would consist of a garage for the storage of approximately thirty-seven (37) diesel school buses, a facility for repairing, maintaining and servicing the buses, a warehouse for the storage of school supplies and a repair/workshop for the repair and maintenance of school property, all of which uses will create noise, dirt and confusion from 6 AM in the morning until approximately 5 PM in the afternoon each day the facilities are in operation, and these uses would constitute a nuisance and depreciate the value of all property adjoining the school property and interfere with the enjoyment of the residential use of the adjacent properties by the residents and owners. RESOLUTION NO. 96-12 PAGE1OF6 • • C. On November 13, 1995, the Zoning Ordinance was amended to allow joint powers transit authority uses as a conditionally permitted use in the RA-S-2 Zone. On November 17, 1995, a Conditional Use Permit to allow portions of school district property to be used by the Palos Verdes Peninsula Transit Authority for administrative uses and the storage parking only of 10 vans at the school district property. Section 3. On May 9, 1996, Planning staff prepared an initial study for the project. The initial study found that the project would not have a significant effect on the environment. A Negative Declaration was prepared and was circulated to the applicant and other interested parties in accordance with State of California CEQA Guidelines. The public notice of the Planning Commission's intent to recommend approval of the Negative Declaration was published on May 11, 1996. Copies of the Negative Declaration were sent to adjacent cities and other government agencies. No comments on the Negative Declaration were received. Section 4. The application applies to the ±31.14 acre western portion of Lot 72-RH. The General Plan Land Use designation for this property is Very Low Density Residential 2+ Net Acres per Dwelling Unit. Section 5. The subject site is presently occupied by 7 school buildings, a maintenance building, a warehouse building, a computer/office equipment repair building, a vehicle repair shop, and an administration building. The zone designation for the subject site is RA-S-2 and the zone designation on adjacent properties is RA-S-2. Section 6. The project as proposed is to permit portions of school district property used as a maintenance and warehouse facility to be used by a joint powers transit authority for administrative uses and the storage parking only of up to 14 vans at the site. The site will continue to be used for the storage and maintenance of school district vehicles and equipment. The school district proposes to permit a joint powers transit authority to use 500 square feet of the northernmost portion of a 7,600 square foot warehouse for administrative uses and 3,500 square feet of an existing asphalt paved area of school district property for the storage parking only of up to 14 vans. Section 7. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the application on May 21, 1996 and June 18, 1996. The applicants were notified of the public hearing in writing by first class mail. Evidence was heard and presented from all persons interested in affecting said proposal, from all persons protesting the same, and from members of the City staff and the Planning Commission having reviewed, analyzed and studied said proposal. Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District and Palos Verdes Peninsula Transit Authority representatives were in attendance at the hearing. RESOLUTION NO. 96-12 PAGE 2 OF 6 Section 8. The Planning Commission has reviewed the proposed Negative Declaration and finds that it represents the independent judgment of the City and that it was prepared in compliance with CEQA. Therefore, the Planning Commission finds that the proposed project would not have a significant effect on the environment. Based upon these findings, the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council adopt the Negative Declaration in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. Section 9. Ordinance No. 256 was adopted by the City Council on November 13, 1995 requiring a Conditional Use Permit for transit authority uses in the RA-S-2 Zone. With respect to the request for a Conditional Use Permit for transit authority administrative uses and the storage parking only of up to 14 vans, the Planning Commission finds: A. The granting of a Conditional Use Permit for administrative uses and the storage parking only of 14 vans by a joint powers transit authority would be consistent with the purposes and objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan and will be desirable for the public convenience and welfare because the use is consistent with similar school district uses on the property and these uses will be located in an area of . the property where such use will be the least intrusive to surrounding properties. The transit vans will not use Rolling Hills' roads for access in and out of the site. In addition, locating the vans at this location will reduce the travel distances for use of these vans, thereby incrementally decreasing traffic, fuel consumption and negative impacts to air quality. B. The nature, condition, and development of adjacent uses, buildings, and structures have been considered, and the public transit authority administrative uses and the storage parking only of 14 vans will not adversely affect or be materially detrimental to adjacent residential uses because the existing residences are at a sufficient distance away and adequately screened so as not to impact the view or privacy of surrounding neighbors. C. The project is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, the natural terrain, and surrounding residences because the public transit authority administrative uses and the storage parking only of 14 vans will comply with the low profile residential development pattern of the community, be consistent with uses on that site, will be located on a ±31.14 acre parcel of property that is adequate in size, shape and topography to accommodate such use. D. The proposed conditional use complies with all applicable development standards of the zone district because the public transit authority administrative uses and the storage parking only of 14 vans will not require any new development at the existing site. E. The proposed conditional use is consistent with the portions of the Los Angeles County Hazardous Waste Management Plan relating to siting and siting RESOLUTION NO. 96-12 PAGE 3 OF 6 • criteria for hazardous waste facilities because the project, though listed on the current State of California Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites List, will not require any development at the site. F. The proposed conditional use observes the spirit and intent of Title 17 of the Zoning Code because the public transit authority administrative uses and the storage parking only of 14 vans will not require any new development at the site and access to the site will be located outside the gates of the City. Section 10. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission approves the request for a Conditional Use Permit in Zoning Case No. 532A to allow joint powers transit authority limited administrative uses and the storage parking only of 14 vans at the Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District site, as shown on the Development Plan dated August 8, 1995 and marked Exhibit A, subject to the conditions specified in Section 11. Section 11. The Planning Commission's approval of a Conditional Use Permit in Zoning Case No. 532A. to allow joint powers transit authority limited administrative uses and the storage parking only of 14 vans at the Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District site is subject to the following conditions: A. The Conditional Use Permit shall expire on June 18, 1998, unless extended by the Planning Commission prior to that date. B. It is declared and made a condition of this Conditional Use Permit approval, that if any conditions thereof are violated, this approval shall be suspended and the privileges granted thereunder shall lapse; provided that the applicant has been given written notice to cease such violation and has failed to do so for a period of thirty (30) days. C. All requirements of the Buildings and Construction Ordinance, the Zoning Ordinance, and of the zone in which the subject property is located must be complied with unless otherwise set forth in the Permit, or shown otherwise on an approved plan. D. The lot shall be maintained in substantial conformance with the site plan on file dated August 8, 1995 and marked Exhibit A, except as otherwise provided in these conditions. E. Administrative office space shall be limited to 500 square feet of the 7,600 square foot warehouse building. F. The 3,500 square foot storage parking area at the western portion of the property designated for the 14 transit vans shall be striped and marked "For Van Storage Parking Only" and shall be maintained as such until the use terminates. No vans shall be parked on the site outside the 3,500 square foot parking area. RESOLUTION NO. 96-12 PAGE 4 OF 6 G. The vehicles shall be parked in such a manner so as to prevent and prohibit the backing up of vehicles. H. Vehicular access to and from the school district property shall be from the driveway at the northwest portion of the property outside the gates of the City of Rolling Hills. I. Van engines shall .not be started nor shall the vans depart from the school district storage parking site before 6 AM. J. Car pooling among drivers shall be encouraged where feasible. Documentation of the fraction and number of drivers who are carpooling shall be included in status reports as scheduled in Condition Q. K. Maintenance of the 14 transit vans shall not take place at the school district property but, at an off -site repair facility. L. Existing service using 11 vans and storing 3 vans in reserve shall not be increased. M. Speed limit signs shall be maintained by the applicant on the internal driveway of the site. N. Landscaping shall be maintained to obscure the buildings and vehicles on the site so that the structures, vehicles, driveway, and slopes are screened and obscured from view at the northern property line with native drought -resistant vegetation that is compatible with the surrounding vegetation of the community. O. Noise on the site shall be limited to reasonable levels and monitored using measurements, tests or other acoustical evaluation. P. A meeting or meetings with area residents shall be coordinated by the applicant and the transit authority regarding their concerns prior to the Planning Commission meetings in December, 1996; March, 1997; December, 1997; and March, 1998. Q. The applicant and City staff shall schedule a public hearing before the Planning Commission at the Commission's meetings in December, 1996; March, 1997; December, 1997; and March, 1998 to hear a status report on the uses approved by this application. R. Any substantial modifications to the project which would constitute additional development or significantly alter the use shall require the filing of a new application for approval by the Planning Commission. S. The applicant shall execute an Affidavit of Acceptance of all conditions of this Conditional Use Permit approval, or the approval shall not be effective. RESOLUTION NO. 96-12 PAGE 5 OF 6 PASSED AND ADOPTED ON THE 18TH DAY O , 1996. ALLAN ROBERTS, CHAIRMAN ATTEST: MARILYN L. KERN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CITY OF ROLLING HILLS §§ I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 96-12 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING AN EXTENSION AND MODIFICATION OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR JOINT POWERS TRANSIT AUTHORITY LIMITED USES IN ZONING CASE NO. 532A. was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on June 18, 1996 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Hankins, Sommer, Witte and Chairman Roberts. NOES: None. ABSENT: None . ABSTAIN: None . and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following: Administrative Offices � . i� .�.AJ DEPU CITY CLERK RESOLUTION NO. 96-12 PAGE 6 OF 6 •City .1) leoffin9. • INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377.1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 Agenda Item No.: 4.A. Mtg. Date: 6/24/96 DATE: JUNE 24, 1996 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL ATTN: CRAIG R. NEALIS, CITY MANAGER FROM: LOLA M. UNGAR, PRINCIPAL PLANNER SUBJECT: RESOLUTION NO. 96-11: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A VARIANCE TO PERMIT AN ENCROACHMENT FOR A PREVIOUSLY CONSTRUCTED ART STUDIO/HOBBY SHOP INTO THE SIDE YARD SETBACK, GRANTING A VARIANCE TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED STRUCTURAL LOT COVERAGE, GRANTING A VARIANCE TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED DISTURBED AREA, AND APPROVING SITE PLAN REVIEW TO PERMIT A PREVIOUSLY CONSTRUCTED ART STUDIO/HOBBY SHOP IN ZONING CASE NO. 538. Mr. Errol Gordon, 15 Eastfield Drive (Lot 52-EF) BACKGROUND 1. The Planning Commission approved the subject resolution on June 18, 1996 at their regular meeting. 2. Applications were made requesting . a Variance to permit an encroachment into the side yard setback for a previously constructed 256 square foot illegal art studio/hobby shop, requesting a Variance to exceed the maximum structural lot coverage, and a request for Site Plan Review to permit a previously constructed illegal art studio/hobby shop structure. During the hearing process, additional requests for a Variance to permit a previously constructed illegal solid wood fence that encroaches into the side yard setback and a request to exceed the maximum permitted disturbed area were introduced. Later the applicant proposed to remove the solid wood fence. The applicant requested that the Rolling Hills Community Association reduce the rear easement of his property (Lot 52-EF) to 10 feet from 25 feet which would then increase the net lot area. The Community Association RESOLUTION NO. 96-11 PAGE 1 ®Pnr,r�•�,1 .�•� P.),,y .:r:: a • • approved the reduction of the easement on May 16, 1996 although no formal documents have been implemented. Removal of the solid wood fence and recordation of the easement reduction prior to issuance of building permits are included in the resolution. 3. • The applicant is requesting a Variance to permit a previously constructed 256 square foot illegal art studio/hobby shop that encroaches 5.5 feet into the 20 foot side yard setback. • The applicant is requesting a Variance to exceed the maximum structural lot coverage permitted of 20%. The existing structural lot coverage is 21.3% and as proposed will be 21.7%. • The applicant is requesting a Variance to exceed the maximum disturbed area permitted of 40%. The maximum disturbed area is 25,846 square feet or 46.2% and exceeds the maximum 40% of the net lot area permitted by the Zoning Code. Staff included the existing structural and flatwork areas and the landscaping at the southern portion of the residence and around the spa and art studio area that is 4,213.5 square feet or 8.1%. The existing riding ring was not included as disturbed area. • The applicant also requests Site Plan Review to permit the same previously constructed illegal art studio/hobby shop structure required for any new structure. 4. The existing residence and attached garage was built in 1949. In 1960, a horse stable was constructed. In 1961, the kitchen was remodeled and a swimming pool and pool equipment shed were constructed. In 1962, the stable was doubled in size. In 1965, the existing garage was converted to a bedroom and bath and a new garage was added. The residence is 2,405 square feet and the garage is 610 square feet. There is no permit record for the wooden hot tub shown on the plot plan which also requires electrical and plumbing permits. On November 15, 1977, a Conditional Use Permit in Zoning Case No. 201 was approved for a 6,895 tennis court that required retaining walls and construction was completed in 1980. The tennis court encroaches 10 feet into the 20 foot side yard setback and 40 feet into the rear yard setback. Conditions for the tennis court were: (1) That the dimensions and percentages of net lot coverage be verified by the engineer and sent to the chairman of the Planning Commission; (2) that placement of the proposed court be located by a survey; (3) that the height of the fence be limited to eight feet (later altered by the Commission to 10 feet); (4) that the Landscape Committee review and approve the landscape plan; (5) and that provisions be shown on the plan for a gravel area on Eastfield Drive north of the driveway for parking, and a large yucca in that area be removed. (Ordinance No. 150 requiring a Conditional Use Permit for a tennis court but, no specific conditions was adopted on April RESOLUTION NO. 96-11 PAGE 2 25, 1977 and Ordinance No. 215 requiring fourteen (14) specific conditions was adopted later on June 6, 1987). 5. The distance of the adjacent Farinsky residence to the east at 13 Eastfield Drive is 70 feet from the art studio/hobby shop. 6. The entire interior area of the lot beyond the setback areas constitutes the building pad and is 34,166 square feet. Coverage on the pad was 34.9% and as proposed is 35.6%, both exceed the Planning Commission's guideline of 30%. 7. Access to the property will remain the same from the existing driveway off Eastfield Drive to the garage at the southern portion of the lot. Stable access will also remain the same through the easements at the east off Eastfield Drive. 8. Grading will not be required for the project. 9. The project has been determined to be categorically exempt pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council receive and file Resolution No. 96-11. RESOLUTION NO. 96-11 PAGE 3 CRITERIA & MAJOR IMPACTS RA -S-1 Zone Setbacks: Front: 50 ft. from front easement line Side: 20 ft. from property line Rear: 50 ft. from property line Structures (Site Plan Review required 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). Grading Disturbed Area (40% maximum; any graded building pad area, any remedial grading (temporary disturbance), any graded slopes and building pad areas, any nongraded area where impervious surfaces exist and any planned landscaped areas) Structural Lot Coverage (20% maximum) Total Lot Coverage (35% maximum) Building Pad Coverage (30% maximum iecummended) Roadway Access Access to Stable and Corral [Accessibility and maximum 4:1 (25%) slope required ONLY for new residence or additions that require Site Plan Review]. Preserve Views Preserve Plants and Animals RESOLUTION NO. 96-11 PAGE 4 EXISTING The stable encroaches 6.5' into the front yard setback, and the tennis court encroaches 10' into the side yard setback and 40' into the rear yard setback. Residence Garage Swim Pool Tennis Ct. Stable Service Yard TOTAL N/A 45.8% 21.3% 34.4% 34.9% 2.405 sq. ft. 610 sq.ft. 740 sq.ft. 6.895 sq.ft. 1,175 sq.ft. 96 sq.ft. PROPOSED The "as built" art studio/hobby shop encroaches 5.5 feet into the 20' side yard setback. The "as built" solid wood fence encroaches 10 feet into the 20' side yard setback. and will be removed. Residence Garage Swim Pool Tennis Ct. Stable Service Yard Art Studio 11,921 sq.ft. TOTAL Existing off Eastfield Drive Existing w/a slope of 10% or less off Eastield Drive N/A N/A None 46.2% 21.7% 34.8% 35.6% 2,405 sq. ft. 610 sq.ft. 740 sq.ft. 6,895 sq.ft. 1,175 sq.ft. 96 sq.ft. 256 sq.ft.. 12,177sq.ft. Existing off Eastfield Drive Existing w/a slope of 10% or less off Eastield Drive Planning Commission will review Planning Commission will review • VARIANCE REQUIRED FINDINGS A. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same vicuuty and zone; and B. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights possessed by other properties in the same, vicinity and zone but which is denied the property in question; and C. That the granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; and D. That in granting the variance, the spirit and intent of this title will be observed; and E. That the variance does not grant special privilege; F. That the variance is consistent with the portions of the County of Los Angeles Hazardous Waste Management Plan relating to siting and siting criteria for hazardous waste facilities; and G. That the variance request is consistent with the General Plan of the City of Rolling Hills. RESOLUTION NO. 96-11 PAGE 5 RESOLUTION NO. 96-11 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A VARIANCE TO PERMIT AN ENCROACHMENT FOR A PREVIOUSLY CONSTRUCTED ART STUDIO/HOBBY SHOP INTO THE SIDE YARD SETBACK, GRANTING A VARIANCE TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED STRUCTURAL LOT COVERAGE, GRANTING A VARIANCE TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED DISTURBED AREA, AND APPROVING SITE PLAN REVIEW TO PERMIT A PREVIOUSLY CONSTRUCTED ART STUDIO/HOBBY SHOP IN ZONING CASE NO. 538. THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Applications were duly filed by Mr. Errol Gordon with respect to real property located at 15 Eastfield Drive, Rolling Hills (Lot 52-EF) requesting a Variance to permit an encroachment into the side yard setback for a previously constructed illegal art studio/hobby shop, requesting a Variance to exceed the maximum structural lot coverage, and a request for Site Plan Review to permit a previously constructed illegal art studio/hobby shop structure. During the hearing process, additional requests for a Variance to permit a previously constructed illegal solid wood fence that encroaches into the side yard setback and a request to exceed the maximum permitted disturbed area were introduced. Later the applicant proposed to remove the solid wood fence. Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the applications on March 19, 1996, April 16, 1996, May 21, 1996, and at a field trip visit on March 30, 1996. Section 3. The Planning Commission finds that the project qualifies as a Class 3 Exemption [State CA Guidelines, Section 15301(e)] and is therefore categorically exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act. Section 4. Sections 17.38.010 through 17.38.050 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code permit approval of a Variance from the standards and requirements of the Zoning Ordinance when exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applicable to the property and not applicable to other similar properties in the same zone prevent the owner from making use of a parcel of property to the same extent enjoyed by similar properties in the same vicinity. A Variance to Sections 17.16.120 and 17.16.150 is required because they state that every parcel in the RA-S-1 zone shall have a side yard of not less than 20 feet from the side property line. The applicant is requesting a Variance to permit a previously constructed 256 square foot art studio/hobby shop that encroaches up to 5.5 feet into the side yard setback to remain in the side yard setback. With respect to this request for a Variance, the Planning Commission finds as follows: A. There are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances and conditions applicable to the property or to the intended use that do not apply generally to the other property or class of use in the same zone because the lot is long and narrow and building structures are thereby required to be crowded against side lot lines and close to adjacent residences. B. The Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone, but which is denied to the property in question. The Variance is necessary because these types of accessory structures are not uncommon in the City, the location of structures along side setback lines is prevalent in this area of the City, and other adjacent structures already encroach into the setback. Thus, there will not be any greater incursion into the side setback than already exists. In addition, this encroachment will not impact the adjacent bridle trail. C. The granting of the Variance would not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the property is located. The Variance is necessary because these types of accessory structures are not uncommon in the City, the location of structures along side setback lines is prevalent in this area of the City, and other adjacent structures already encroach into the setback. Thus, there will not be any greater incursion into the side setback than already exists. In addition, this encroachment will not impact the adjacent bridle trail. Section 5. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves a Variance for Zoning Case No. 538 to permit an art studio/hobby shop to encroach up to 5.5 feet into the side yard setback, subject to the conditions in Section 12. Section 6. A Variance to Section 17.16.070(A)(1) is required because it states that coverage by structures shall not be more than 20 percent of the net lot area. The applicant is requesting a Variance because coverage by structures will cover 21.7% of the net lot area. With respect to this request for a Variance, the Planning Commission finds as follows: A. There are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances and conditions applicable to the property or to the intended use that do not apply generally to the other property or class of use in the same zone. The Variance for the lot coverage is necessary because the lot is relatively small and is long and narrow. Building structures are located within side yards and close to adjacent residences. The lot size and configuration, together with the existing development on the lot creates a difficulty in meeting this Code requirement. B. The Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone, but which is denied to the property in question. The Variance is necessary because of the size and shape of the lot and the lots in the general vicinity that are smaller than other lots in the surrounding area. RESOLUTION NO. 96-11 PAGE2OF7 • • C. The granting of the Variance would not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the property is located. Development on the pad will be 21.7% which will allow a substantial portion of the lot to remain undeveloped. Section 7. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves the Variance for Zoning Case No. 538 to permit coverage by structures of 21.7%, subject to the conditions specified in Section 12. Section 8. A Variance to Sections 17.16.070(B) is required because that section states that the natural conditions on a lot shall be maintained to the greatest degree possible and that disturbance shall be limited to forty (40) percent of the net lot area. The applicant is requesting a Variance because 46.2% of the net lot area is "disturbed." With respect to this request for a Variance, the Planning Commission finds as follows: A. There are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances and conditions applicable to the property or to the intended use that do not apply generally to the other property or class of use in the same zone. The Variance for the disturbed area is necessary because the lot is relatively small in comparison to most lots in the City. It is also long, narrow, relatively flat, and building structures are located within side yards and close to adjacent residences. B. The Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone, but which is denied to the property in question. The Variance is necessary because of the size and shape of the lot and the lots in the general vicinity that are smaller than other lots in the surrounding area that make it difficult to develop this lot in a manner consistent with other homes in the City. C. The granting of the Variance would not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the property is located. Substantial portions of the lot will remain undeveloped. Section 9. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves the Variance for Zoning Case No. 538 to permit the disturbed area of the lot (46.2%) to exceed the Code requirement, subject to the conditions specified in Section 12. Section 10. Section 17.46.030 requires a development plan to be submitted for site plan review and approval before any building or structure may be constructed or any expansion, addition, alteration or repair to existing buildings may be made which involve changes to grading or an increase to the size of the building or structure by at least 1,000 square feet and has the effect of increasing the size of the building by more than twenty- five percent (25%) in any thirty-six (36) month period. With respect to the Site Plan Review application, the Planning Commission makes the following findings of fact: RESOLUTION NO. 96-11 PAGE 3 OF 7 • • A. The proposed development is compatible with the General Plan, the Zoning Ordinance and surrounding uses because the proposed structure complies with the General Plan requirement of low profile, low density residential development with sufficient open space between surrounding structures. The project conforms to Zoning Code setback and lot coverage requirements with the Variances approved in Sections 5 and 7 of this Resolution. The lot has a net square foot area of 55,925 square feet. The residence (2,405 sq.ft.), garage (610 sq.ft.), swimming pool (740 sq.ft.), tennis court (6,895 sq.ft.), stable (1,175 sq.ft.), and service yard (96 sq.ft.) will have 12,177 square feet which constitutes 21.7% of the lot. The total lot coverage including paved areas and driveway will be 19,212 square feet which equals 34.4% of the lot, which is within the 35% maximum overall lot coverage requirement. The project is on a relatively large lot with the art studio/hobby shop located well away from the road so as to reduce the visual impact of the development. B. The development plan substantially preserves the natural and undeveloped state of the lot by minimizing building coverage because the existing art studio/hobby shop structure will not cause the total lot coverage to be exceeded. The proposed residence will have a buildable pad coverage of 35.6%. Further, no grading will be required. Significant portions of the lot will be left undeveloped. C. The proposed development, as conditioned, is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, the natural terrain and surrounding residences. As indicated in Paragraph A, the total lot coverage maximum will not be exceeded and the proposed project is consistent with the scale of the neighborhood when compared to this small and irregular -shaped lot. The ratio of the proposed structure to lot coverage is similar to the ratio found on several properties in the vicinity. D. The proposed development preserves and integrates into the site design, to the maximum extent feasible, existing natural topographic features of the lot including surrounding native vegetation, mature trees, drainage courses, and land forms (such as hillsides and knolls). No grading will be required. E. The development plan follows natural contours of the site to minimize grading and the natural drainage courses will continue to the canyons at the northwest side (rear) of this lot. Drainage will continue along Eastfield Drive at the east side of the property. F. The development plan supplements the existing vegetation with landscaping that is compatible with and enhances the rural character of the community. G. The proposed development is sensitive to and not detrimental to the convenience and safety of circulation for pedestrians and vehicles because the proposed project will utilize the existing vehicular access, thereby having no further impact on the roadway. H. The project conforms with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and is categorically exempt from environmental review. RESOLUTION NO. 96-11 PAGE 4 OF 7 • • Section 11. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves the Site Plan Review application for Zoning Case No. 538 for a proposed art studio/hobby shop as indicated on the development plan incorporated herein as Exhibit A and subject to the conditions specified in Section 12. Section 12. The Variance to the side yard setback approved in Section 5, the Variance to the structural lot coverage approved in Section 7, the Variance to the disturbed area approved in Section 9, and the Site Plan Review approved in Section 11 of this Resolution are subject to the following conditions: A. The Variance and Site Plan Review approvals shall expire within one year from the effective date of approval as defined in Sections 17.38.070 and 17.48.0080. B. It is declared and made a condition of the Variance approval, that if any conditions thereof are violated, this approval shall be suspended and the privileges granted thereunder shall lapse; provided that the applicant has been given written notice to cease such violation and has failed to do so for a period of thirty (30) days. C. The applicant shall obtain all required building, plumbing, electrical and other Uniform Code Permits for the art studio/hobby shop. In addition, all requirements of the Buildings and Construction Ordinance, the Zoning Ordinance, and of the zone in which the subject property is located must be complied with unless otherwise set forth in a lawfully issued building, plumbing, electrical or other Uniform Code Permit. D. The lot shall be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the site plan on file and marked Exhibit A, except as otherwise provided in these conditions. E. The existing 6 foot high, 84 foot long solid wood fence at the northwestern portion of the lot shall be removed within 60 days of the approval of this Resolution. F. Structural lot coverage shall not exceed 21.7%. G. Building pad coverage shall not exceed 35.6%. H. Landscaping shall be maintained to screen structures, but not to obstruct views of neighboring properties. I. The proposed ten (10) foot easement instead of the existing twenty-five (25) foot easement at the rear portion of the lot shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Association and shall be recorded prior to the issuance of any building permit. J. The art studio/hobby shop shall be reviewed and approved by the Rolling Hills Community Association Architectural Review Committee prior to the issuance of any building permit. RESOLUTION NO. 96-11 PAGE 5 OF 7 • • K. Building and all other required Uniform Code Permits shall be obtained for the art studio/hobby shop within one year of the effective date of approval of this Resolution. L. Notwithstanding Section 17.46.070 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, arty modifications to the project which would constitute additional development shall require the filing of a new application for Site Plan Review approval by the Planning Commission. M. All conditions of these Variance and Site Plan Review approvals must be complied with prior to the issuance of a building or grading permit from the County of Los Angeles. N. The applicant shall execute an Affidavit of Acceptance of all conditions of these Variance and Site Plan Review approvals, or the approvals shall not be effective. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 18TH DAY O "JUNE, 1996 ALLAN ROBERTS, CHAIRMAN ATTEST: k• MARILYN I RN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK RESOLUTION NO. 96-11 PAGE 6 OF 7 • STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ) ) §§ I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 96-11 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A VARIANCE TO PERMIT AN ENCROACHMENT FOR A PREVIOUSLY CONSTRUCTED ART STUDIO/HOBBY SHOP INTO THE SIDE YARD SETBACK, GRANTING A VARIANCE TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMi 1 t tU STRUCTURAL LOT COVERAGE, GRANTING A VARIANCE TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED DISTURBED AREA, AND APPROVING SITE PLAN REVIEW TO PERMIT A PREVIOUSLY CONSTRUCTED ART STUDIO/HOBBY SHOP IN ZONING CASE NO. 538. was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on June 18, 1996 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Hankins, Sommer and Chairman Roberts. NOES: Commissioner Witte. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following: Administrative Offices. RESOLUTION NO. 96-11 PAGE 7 OF 7 rr nL-y,•. DEPUTY Cl'1`( CLERK •City ol Roiling HEARING DATE: MAY 21,1996 TO: FROM: • INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION LOLA M. UNGAR, PRINCIPAL PLANNER APPLICATION NO. SITE LOCATION: ZONING AND SIZE: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PUBLISHED: REOUEST ZONING CASE NO. 538 15 EASTFIELD DRIVE (LOT 52-EF) RAS-1, 1.63 ACRES MR. ERROL GORDON DOUGLAS MCHATTIE, SOUTH BAY ENGINEERING MARCH 9, 1996 Request for a Variance to permit 'a previously constructed illegal art studio/hobby shop that encroaches into the side yard setback, request for a Variance to permit a previously constructed illegal solid wood fence that encroaches into the side yard setback, request for a Variance to exceed the maximum structural lot coverage, request for a Variance to exceed the maximum total lot coverage, request for a Variance to exceed the maximum disturbed area, and request for Site Plan Review to permit a previously constructed illegal art studio/hobby shop structure. BACKGROUND 1. The Planning Commission continued this item from the April 16, 1996 meeting to allow the applicant the opportunity to revise plans so that some disturbed area could be returned to natural habitat and thus reduce percentages to meet Zoning Code requirements. The applicant requested that the Rolling Hills Community Association reduce the rear easement of his property (Lot 52-EF) to 10, feet from 25 feet which would then increase the net lot area. It has been reported that the Community Association approved the reduction of the easement on May 16, 1996 although no formal documents have been implemented. Plans were also revised to remove 2 feet from the north side of the tennis court; remove the solid wood fence at the north easement line and replace it 10 feet south on the north side yard setback line that is 20 feet from the property line, and remove 1 to 1-1/2 feet of the brick border at the south side of the property. ZONING CASE NO. 538 PAGE 1 Printed on Recycled Paper. • . With these modifications, the structural lot coverage will be 21.4% (20% permitted), the total lot coverage will be 34.0% (35% permitted), and the maximum disturbed area will be 46.2% (40% permitted). Thus, the Variances for the structural lot coverage and the maximum disturbed area will still be required. The relocation of the solid wood fence to the 20 foot setback line will make a Variance for the existing fence unnecessary, and the Variance for the total lot coverage will no longer be necessary. 2. The requests are for: • The applicant is requesting a Variance to permit a previously constructed 256 square foot illegal art studio/hobby shop that encroaches 5.5 feet into the 20 foot side yard setback. • The applicant is requesting a Variance to permit a previously constructed 6 foot high, 84 foot long illegal solid wood fence that encroaches 10 feet into the 20 foot side yard setback to be moved 10 feet south to the 20 foot setback line. The Zoning Code does not permit structures in setbacks. Only, a three rail boundary fence is permitted in any yard, either on the perimeter, easement line or not more than five feet outside of and parallel to the perimeter easement line and may be located on the property line if there is no easement line. [Section 17.12.020 and 17.16.150(A)]. • The applicant is requesting a Variance to exceed the maximum structural lot coverage permitted of 20%. The existing structural lot coverage is 21.3% and as proposed will be 21,4%. • The applicant is requesting a Variance to exceed the maximum disturbed area permitted of 40%. The maximum disturbed area is 25,846 square feet or 46.2% and exceeds the maximum 40% of the net lot area permitted by the Zoning Code. Staff included the existing structural and flatwork areas and the landscaping at the southern portion of the residence and around the spa and art studio area that is 4,213.5 square feet or 8.1%. The existing riding ring was not included as disturbed area. • The applicant also requests Site Plan Review to permit the same previously constructed illegal art studio/hobby shop structure required for any new structure. 3. The existing residence and attached garage was built in 1949. In 1960, a horse stable was constructed. In 1961, the kitchen was remodeled and a swimming pool and pool equipment shed were constructed. In 1962, the stable was doubled in size. In 1965, the existing garage was converted to a bedroom and bath and a new garage was added. The residence is 2,405 square feet and the garage is 610 square feet. There is no permit record for the wooden hot tub shown on the plot plan which also requires electrical and plumbing permits. ZONING CASE NO. 538 PAGE 2 • • On November 15, 1977, a Conditional Use Permit in Zoning Case No. 201 was approved for a 6,895 tennis court that required retaining walls and construction was completed in 1980. The tennis court encroaches 10 feet into the 20 foot side yard setback and 40 feet into the rear yard setback. Conditions for the tennis court were: (1) That the dimensions and percentages of net lot coverage be verified by the engineer and sent to the chairman of the Planning Commission; (2) that placement of the proposed court be located by a survey; (3) that the height of the fence be limited to eight feet (later altered by the Commission to 10 feet); (4) that the Landscape Committee review and approve the landscape plan; (5) and that provisions be shown on the plan for a gravel area on Eastfield Drive north of the driveway for parking, and a large yucca in that area be removed. (Ordinance No. 150 requiring a Conditional Use Permit for a tennis court but, no specific conditions was adopted on April 25, 1977 and Ordinance No. 215 requiring fourteen (14) specific conditions was adopted later on June 6, 1987). 4. The distance of the adjacent Farinsky residence to the east at 13 Eastfield Drive is 70 feet from the art studio/hobby shop. 5. The entire interior area of the lot beyond the setback areas constitutes the building pad and is 34,166 square feet. Coverage on the pad was 34.9% and as proposed is 35.6%, both exceed the Planning Commission's guideline of 30%. 6. Access to the property will remain the same from the existing driveway off Eastfield Drive to the garage at the southern portion of the lot. Stable access will also remain the same through the easements at the east off Eastfield Drive. 7. Grading will not be required for the project. 8. 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 proposed plans and take public testimony. ZONING CASE NO. 538 PAGE 3 CRITERIA & MAJOR IMPACTS EXISTING RA -S-1 Zone Setbacks: Front: 50 ft. from front easement line Side: 20 ft. from property line Rear: 50 ft. from property line Structures (Site Plan Review required 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). Grading Disturbed Area (40% maximum; any graded building pad area, any remedial grading temporary disturbance), any graded slopes and building pad areas, any nongraded area where impervious surfaces exist and any planned landscaped areas) Structural Lot Coverage (20% maximum) Total Lot Coverage (35% maximum) Building Pad Coverage (30% maximum recommended) Roadway Access Access to Stable and Corral [Accessibility and maximum 4:1 (25%) slope required ONLY for new residence or additions that require Site Plan Review]. Preserve Views Preserve Plants and Animals The stable encroaches 6.5' into the front yard setback, and the tennis court encroaches 10' into the side yard setback and 40' into the rear yard setback. Residence Garage Swim Pool Tennis Ct. Stable Service Yard TOTAL N/A 45.8% 21.3% 34.4% 34.9% PROPOSED The "as built" art studio/hobby shop encroaches 5.5 feet into the 20' side yard setback. The "as built" solid wood fence encroaches 10 feet into the 20' side yard setback. 2.405 sq. ft. Residence 610 sq.ft. Garage 740 sq.ft. Swim Pool 6.895 sq.ft. Tennis Ct. 1,175 sq.ft. Stable 96 sq.ft. Service Yard Art Studio 11,921 sq.ft. TOTAL Existing off Eastfield Drive Existing w/a slope of 10% or less off Eastield Drive N/A N/A None 46.2% 21.4% 34.0% 35.6% 2,405 sq. ft. 610 sq.ft. 740 sq.ft. 6,695 sq.ft. 1,175 sq.ft. 96 sq.ft. 256 sq.ft.. 11,977sq.ft. Existing off Eastfield Drive Existing w/a slope of 10% or less off Eastield Drive Planning Commission will review Planning Commission will review ZONING CASE NO. 538 PAGE 4 VARIANCE REQUIRED FINDINGS A. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same vicinity and zone; and B. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights possessed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone but which is denied the property in question; and C. That the granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; and D. That in granting the variance, the spirit and intent of this title will be observed; and E. That the variance does not grant special privilege; F. That the variance is consistent with the portions of the County of Los Angeles Hazardous Waste Management Plan relating to siting and siting criteria for hazardous waste facilities; and G. That the variance request is consistent with the General Plan of the City of Rolling Hills. ZONING CASE NO. 538 PAGE 5 GINNY LEEUWENBURGH 12 EASTFIELD DRIVE ROLLING HILLS , CA 90 27 4 April 12, 1996 jj) rl • n iv/7 1,71 APR 1 6 1996 CITY OF F:.:_L.... HILLS ay MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: ZONING CASE NO. 538 I WISH TO BE ON THE RECORD AS OPPOSING APPROVAL OF THE "AS BUILT" CONSTRUCTION ON THIS PROPERTY. THE LOWER EASTFIELD AREA WAS DEVELOPED IN THE LATE FORTIES AND EARLY FIFTIES. THIS AREA NOW HAS EIGHT TENNIS COURTS, MANY COMPLETELY IMPROVED LOTS AND SEVERAL LOTS UNDER THE MINIMUM ONE ACRE ZONING. I FIRMLY SUPPORT MAINTAINING THE FRONT, REAR AND SIDE YARD SETBACKS AS NECESSARY TO MAINTAIN THE SEPARATION OF IMPROVEMENTS IN THIS CITY. APPROVING THIS REQUEST FOR "AS BUILT" STRUCTURES AND RAISING LOT COVERAGE WILL GIVE THIS PROPERTY A PRIVILEGE AND A PROPERTY RIGHT NOT ENJOYED BY OTHER PROPER- TIES IN THE AREA. PLEASE PROTECT THE ZONING IN THIS CASE AND DENY THIS "AS BUILT" REQUEST AND INCREASING THE MAXIMUM STRUCTURAL LOT COVERAGE ON THIS PROPERTY. THANK YOU, Ir.Q.a-ck wrt_Onb1.01 GINNY LEEUWENBURGH i Ca opeollin y JUL HEARING DATE: APRIL 16,1996 TO: FROM: • �G INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION LOLA M. UNGAR, PRINCIPAL PLANNER APPLICATION NO. SITE LOCATION: ZONING AND SIZE: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PUBLISHED: REOUEST ZONING CASE NO. 538 15 EASTFIELD DRIVE (LOT 52-EF) RAS-1, 1.63 ACRES MR. ERROL GORDON DOUGLAS MCHATTIE, SOUTH BAY ENGINEERING MARCH 9, 1996 Request for a Variance to . permit a previously constructed illegal art studio/hobby shop that encroaches into the side yard setback, request for a Variance to permit a previously constructed, illegal solid wood fence that encroaches into the side yard setback, request for a Variance to exceed the maximum structural lot coverage, request for a Variance to exceed the maximum total lot coverage, .request for a Variance to exceed the maximum disturbed area, and request for Site Plan Review to permit a previously constructed illegal art studio/hobby shop structure. BACKGROUND 1. The Planning Commission viewed the site on March 30, 1996. 2. • The applicant is requesting a Variance to permit a previously constructed 256 square foot illegal art studio/hobby shop that encroaches 5.5 feet into the 20 foot side yard setback. •. The applicant is requesting a Variance to permit a previously constructed 6 foot high, 84 foot long illegal solid wood fence that encroaches 10 feet into the 20 foot side yard setback. The Zoning Code does not permit structures in setbacks. Only, a three rail boundary fence is permitted in any yard, either on the perimeter easement line or not more than five feet outside of and parallel to the perimeter easement line and may be located on the property line if there is no easement line. [Section 17.12.020 and 17.16.150(A)]. ZONING CASE NO. 538 PAGE 1 Printed on Recycled Paper. • The applicant is requesting a Variance to exceed the maximum structural lot coverage permitted of 20%. The net lot coverage was recalculated by staff. The existing structural lot coverage is 23.0% and as proposed will be 23.5%. • The applicant is requesting a Variance to exceed the maximum total lot coverage permitted of 35%. The net lot coverage was recalculated by staff. The existing total lot coverage is 37.2% and as proposed will be 37.7%. • The applicant is requesting a Variance to exceed the maximum disturbed area permitted of 40%. The net lot coverage was recalculated by staff. The maximum disturbed area existing and proposed is 23,725.5 square feet or 45.9%+ and exceeds the maximum 40% of the net lot area permitted by the Zoning Code. Staff included the existing structural and flatwork areas and the landscaping at the southern portion of the residence and around the spa and art studio area that is 4,213.5 square feet or 8.1%. The existing riding ring was not included as disturbed area. The Commission should also determine whether to add the 6,619.5 square foot horse training ring, 12.8%, as disturbed area for a total 58.7%. [Disturbed area is defined as: Any graded building pad area, any remedial grading (temporary disturbance), any graded slopes and building pad areas, any nongraded area where impervious surfaces exist and any planned landscaped areas]. • The applicant also requests Site Plan Review to permit the same previously constructed illegal art studio/hobby shop structure required for any new structure. The distance of the adjacent Farinsky residence to the east at 13 Eastfield Drive is 70 feet from the art studio/hobby shop. 3. The existing residence and attached garage was built in 1949. In 1960, a horse stable was constructed. In 1961, the kitchen was remodeled and a swimming pool and pool equipment shed were constructed. In 1962, the stable was doubled in size. In 1965, the existing garage was converted to a bedroom and bath and a new garage was added. The residence is 2,405 square feet and the garage is 610 square feet. There is no permit record for the wooden hot tub shown on the plot plan which also requires electrical and plumbing permits. On November 15, 1977, a Conditional Use Permit in Zoning Case No. 201 was approved for a 6,895 tennis court that required retaining walls and construction was completed in 1980. The tennis court encroaches 10 feet into the 20 foot side yard setback and 40 feet into the rear yard setback. Conditions for the tennis court were: (1) That the dimensions and percentages of net lot coverage be verified by the engineer and sent to the chairman of the Planning Commission; (2) that placement of the proposed court be located by a survey; ZONING CASE NO. 538 PAGE 2 • • (3) that the height of the fence be limited to eight feet (later altered by the Commission to 10 feet); (4) that the Landscape Committee review and approve the landscape plan; (5) and that provisions be shown on the plan for a gravel area on Eastfield Drive north of the driveway for parking, and a large yucca in that area be removed. (Ordinance No. 150 requiring a Conditional Use Permit for a tennis court but, no specific conditions was adopted on April 25, 1977 and Ordinance No. 215 requiring fourteen (14) specific conditions was adopted later on June 6, 1987). 4. The distance of the adjacent Farinsky residence to the east at 13 Eastfield Drive is 70 feet from the art studio/hobby shop. 5. The entire interior area of the lot beyond the setback areas constitutes the building pad and is 34,166 square feet. Coverage on the pad was 34.9% and as proposed is 35.6%, both exceed the Planning Commission's guideline of 30%. 6. Access to the property will remain the same from the existing driveway off Eastfield Drive to the garage at the southern portion of the lot. Stable access will also remain the same through the easements at the east off Eastfield Drive. 7. Grading will not be required for the project. 8. 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 proposed plans and take public testimony. ZONING CASE NO. 538 PAGE 3 CRITERIA & MAJOR IMPACTS RA -S-1 Zone Setbacks: Front: 50 ft. from front easement line Side: 20 ft. from property line Rear: 50 ft. from property line EXISTING The stable encroaches 6.5' into the front yard setback, and the tennis court encroaches 10' into the side yard setback and 40' into the rear yard setback. Structures Residence (Site Plan Review required if size of Garage structure increases by at least 1,000 Swim Pool sq.ft. and has the effect of increasing Tennis Ct. the size of the structure by more than Stable 25% in a 36-month period). Service Yard Grading Disturbed Area (40% maximum; any graded building pad area, any remedial grading (temporary disturbance), any graded slopes and building pad areas, any nongraded area where impervious surfaces exist and any planned landscaped areas) Structural Lot Coverage (20% maximum) Total Lot Coverage (35% maximum) Building Pad Coverage (30% maximum recommended) Roadway Access Access to Stable and Corral [Accessibility and maximum 4:1 (25%) slope required ONLY for new residence or additions that require Site Plan Review]. Preserve Views Preserve Plants and Animals TOTAL N/A 45.9%+ 23.0% 37..2% 34.9% PROPOSED The "as built" art studio/hobby shop encroaches 5.5 feet into the 20' side yard setback. The "as built" solid wood fence encroaches 10 feet into the 20' side yard setback. 2.405 sq. ft. Residence 2,405 sq. ft. 610 sq.ft. Garage 610 sq.ft. 740 sq.ft. Swim Pool 740 sq.ft. 6.895 sq.ft. Tennis Ct. 6,895 sq.ft. 1,175 sq.ft. Guest House 1,175 sq.ft. 96 sq.ft. Service Yard 96 sq.ft. Art Studio 256 sq.ft.. 11,921 sq.ft. TOTAL 12,177 sq.ft. Existing off Eastfield Drive Existing w/a slope of 10% or less off Eastield Drive N/A N/A None 45.9%+ 23.5% 37.7% 35.6% Existing off Eastfield Drive Existing w/a slope of 10% or less off Eastield Drive Planning Commission will review Planning Commission will review ZONING CASE NO. 538 PAGE 4 • • VARIANCE REQUIRED FINDINGS A. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same vicinity and zone; and B. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights possessed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone but which is denied the property in question; and C. That the granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; and D. That in granting the variance, the spirit and intent of this title will be observed; and E. That the variance does not grant special privilege; F. That the variance is consistent with the portions of the County of Los Angeles Hazardous Waste Management Plan relating to siting and siting criteria for hazardous waste facilities; and G. That the variance request is consistent with the General Plan of the City of Rolling Hills. ZONING CASE NO. 538 PAGE 5 • Ci, Roiling HEARING DATE: MARCH 30,1996 TO: FROM: 1 INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377.1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION LOLA M. UNGAR, PRINCIPAL PLANNER APPLICATION NO. SITE LOCATION: ZONING AND SIZE: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PUBLISHED: ZONING CASE NO. 538 15 EASTFIELD DRIVE (LOT 52-EF) RAS-1, 1.63 ACRES MR. ERROL GORDON DOUGLAS MCHATTIE, SOUTH BAY ENGINEERING MARCH 9, 1996 REOUEST Request for a Variance to permit a previously constructed illegal art studio/hobby shop that encroaches into the side yard setback, request for a Variance to exceed the maximum structural lot coverage, and request for Site Plan Review to permit a previously constructed illegal art studio/hobby shop structure. BACKGROUND In reviewing the applicant's request under Title 17, Zoning, staff would identify the following issues for evaluation: 1. The applicant is requesting a Variance to permit a previously constructed 256 square foot illegal art studio/hobby shop that encroaches 5.5 feet into the 20 foot side yard setback. The applicant is requesting a Variance to exceed the maximum structural lot coverage permitted of 20%. The existing structural lot coverage is 21.2% and as proposed will be 21.6%. The applicant also requests Site Plan Review to permit the same previously constructed illegal art studio/hobby shop structure required for any new structure. The maximum disturbed area existing and proposed appears to exceed the maximum 40% of the net lot area permitted by the Zoning Code. The total lot coverage (structural and flatwork) proposed is 19,512 square feet and these areas comprise 34.6% of the net lot area. Add to this the 6,619.5 square foot ZONING CASE NO. 538 PAGE 1 Cp Printed on Recycled Paper. . • training ring (11.8%) plus the various landscaped areas on the lot and the resulting disturbed area appears to be more than 46.4%. [Maximum disturbed area is defined as: Any graded building pad area, any remedial grading (temporary disturbance), any graded slopes and building pad areas, any nongraded area where impervious surfaces exist and any planned landscaped areas]. The distance of the adjacent Farinsky residence to the east at 13 Eastfield Drive is 70 feet from the art studio/hobby shop. 2. The existing residence and attached garage was built in 1949. In 1960, a horse stable was constructed. In 1961, the kitchen was remodeled and a swimming pool and pool equipment shed were constructed. In 1962, the stable was doubled in size. In 1965, the existing garage was converted to a bedroom and bath and a new garage was added. The residence is 2,405 square feet and the garage is 610 square feet. There is no permit record for the wooden hot tub shown on the plot plan which also requires electrical and plumbing permits. On November 15, 1977, a Conditional Use Permit in Zoning Case No. 201 was approved for a 6,895 tennis court that required retaining walls and construction was completed in 1980. The tennis court encroaches 10 feet into the 20 foot side yard setback and 40 feet into the rear yard setback. Conditions for the tennis court were: (1) That the dimensions and percentages of net lot coverage be verified by the engineer and sent to the chairman of the Planning Commission; (2) that placement of the proposed court be located by a survey; (3) that the height of the fence be limited to eight feet (later altered by the Commission to 10 feet); (4) that the Landscape Committee review and approve the landscape plan; (5) and that provisions be shown on the plan for a gravel area on Eastfield Drive north of the driveway for parking, and a large yucca in that area be removed. (Ordinance No. 150 requiring a Conditional Use Permit for a tennis court but, no specific conditions was adopted on April 25, 1977 and Ordinance No. 215 requiring fourteen (14) specific conditions was adopted later on June 6, 1987). 3. The entire interior area of the lot beyond the setback areas constitutes the building pad and is 34,166 square feet. Coverage on the pad was 34.9% and as proposed is 35.6%, both exceed the Planning Commission's guideline of 30%. 4. The total lot coverage is 19,256 square feet or 34.2% and proposed lot coverage is 19,512 square feet or 34.6% (35% permitted). 5. Access to the property will remain the same from the existing driveway off Eastfield Drive to the garage at the southern portion of the lot. Stable access will also remain the same through the easements at the east off Eastfield Drive. ZONING CASE NO. 538 PAGE 2 • • 6. Grading will not be required for the project. 7. 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 proposed plans and take public testimony. CRITERIA & MAJOR IMPACTS RA -S-1 Zone Setbacks: Front: 50 ft. from front easement line Side: 20 ft. from property line Rear: 50 ft. from property line Structures (Site Plan Review required 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). Grading Disturbed Area (40% maximum; any graded building pad area, any remedial grading (temporary disturbance), any graded slopes and building pad areas, any nongraded area where impervious surfaces exist and any planned landscaped areas) Structural Lot Coverage (20% maximum) Total Lot Coverage (35% maximum) Building Pad Coverage (30% recommended) Roadway Access EXISTING The stable encroaches 6.5' into the front yard setback, and the tennis court encroaches 10' into the side yard setback and 40' into the rear yard setback. Residence Garage Swim Pool Tennis Ct. Stable Service Yard PROPOSED The "as built" art studio/hobby shop encroaches 5.5 feet into the 20' side yard setback. 2.405 sq. ft. Residence 610 sq.ft. Garage 740 sq.ft. Swim Pool 6.895 sq.ft. Tennis Ct. 1,175 sq.ft. Guest House 96 sq.ft. Service Yard Art Studio 2,405 sq. ft. 610 sq.ft. • 740 sq.ft. 6,895 sq.ft. 1,175 sq.ft. 96 sq.ft. 256 sq.ft.. TOTAL 11,921 sq.ft. TOTAL 12,177 sq.ft. N/A None 45.9%+ 11,921 sq.ft. or 21.2% 19,256 sq.ft. or 34.2% 34.9% Existing off Eastfield Drive 46.4%+ 12,177 sq.ft. or 21.6% 19,512 sq.ft. or 34.6% 35.6% Existing off Eastfield Drive ZONING CASE NO. 538 PAGE 3 • Access to Stable and Corral [Accessibility and maximum 4:1 (25%) slope required ONLY for new residence or additions that require Site Plan Review]. Preserve Views Preserve Plants and Animals Existing w/a slope of 10% or less Existing w/a slope of 10% or less off Eastield Drive off Eastield Drive N/A Planning Commission will review N/A Planning Commission will review VARIANCE REQUIRED FINDINGS A. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same vicinity and zone; and B. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights possessed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone but which is denied the property in question; and C. That the granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; and D. That in granting the variance, the spirit and intent of this title will be observed; and E. That the variance does not grant special privilege; F. That the variance is consistent with the portions of the County of Los Angeles Hazardous Waste Management Plan relating to siting and siting criteria for hazardous waste facilities; and G. That the variance request is consistent with the General Plan of the City of Rolling Hills. ZONING CASE NO. 538 PAGE 4 • . (04 City ofieoffinS Jh/'fs HEARING DATE: MARCH 19,1996 TO: FROM: INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION LOLA M. UNGAR, PRINCIPAL PLANNER APPLICATION NO. SITE LOCATION: ZONING AND SIZE: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PUBLISHED: ZONING CASE NO. 538 15 EASTFIELD DRIVE (LOT 52-EF) RAS-1, 1.63 ACRES MR. ERROL GORDON DOUGLAS MCHATTIE, SOUTH BAY ENGINEERING MARCH 9, 1996 REOUEST. Request for a Variance to permit a previously constructed illegal art studio/hobby shop that encroaches into the side yard setback, request for a Variance to exceed the maximum structural lot coverage, and request for Site Plan Review to permit a previously constructed illegal art studio/hobby shop structure. BACKGROUND In reviewing the applicant's request under Title 17, Zoning, staff would identify the following issues for evaluation: 1. The applicant is requesting a Variance to permit a previously constructed 256 square foot illegal art studio/hobby shop that encroaches 5.5 feet into the 20 foot side yard setback. The applicant is requesting a Variance to exceed the maximum structural lot coverage permitted of 20%. The existing structural lot coverage is 21.2% and as proposed will be 21.6%. The applicant also requests Site Plan Review to permit the same previously constructed illegal art studio/hobby shop structure required for any new structure. The maximum disturbed area existing and proposed appears to exceed the maximum 40% of the net lot area permitted by the Zoning Code. The total lot coverage (structural and flatwork) proposed is 19,512 square feet and these areas comprise 34.6% of the net lot area. Add to this the 6,619.5 square foot ZONING CASE NO. 538 PAGE 1 Printed on Recycled Paper. training ring (11.8%) plus the various landscaped areas on the lot and the resulting disturbed area appears to be more than 46.4%. [Maximum disturbed area is defined as: Any graded building pad area, any remedial grading (temporary disturbance), any graded slopes and building, pad areas, any nongraded area where impervious surfaces exist and any planned landscaped areas]. The distance of the adjacent Farinsky residence to the east at 13 Eastfield Drive is 70 feet from the art studio/hobby shop. 2. The existing residence and attached garage was built in 1949. In 1960, a horse stable was constructed. In 1961, the kitchen was remodeled and a swimming pool and pool equipment shed were constructed. In 1962, the stable was doubled in size. In 1965, the existing garage was converted to a bedroom and bath and a new garage was added. The residence is 2,405 square feet and the garage is 610 square feet. There is no permit record for the wooden hot tub shown on the plot plan which also requires electrical and plumbing permits. On November 15, 1977, a Conditional Use Permit in Zoning Case No. 201 was approved for a 6,895 tennis court that required retaining walls and construction was completed in 1980. The tennis court encroaches 10 feet into the 20 foot side yard setback and 40 feet into the rear yard setback. Conditions for the tennis court were: (1) That the dimensions and percentages of net lot. coverage be verified by the engineer and sent to the chairman of the Planning Commission; (2) that placement of the proposed court be located by a survey; (3) that the height of the fence be limited to eight feet (later altered by the Commission to 10 feet); (4) that the Landscape Committee review and approve the landscape plan; (5) and that provisions be shown on the plan for a gravel area on Eastfield Drive north of the driveway for parking, and a large yucca in that area be removed. (Ordinance No. 150 requiring a Conditional Use Permit for a tennis court but, no specific conditions was adopted on April 25, 1977 and Ordinance No. 215 requiring fourteen (14) specific conditions was adopted later on June 6, 1987). 3. The entire interior area of the lot beyond the setback areas constitutes the building pad and is 34,166 square feet. Coverage on the pad was 34.9% and as proposed is 35.6%, both exceed the Planning Commission's guideline of 30%. 4. The total lot coverage is 19,256 square feet or 34.2% and proposed lot coverage is 19,512 square feet or 34.6% (35% permitted). 5. Access to the property will remain the same from the existing driveway off Eastfield Drive to the garage at the southern portion of the lot. Stable access will also remain the same through the easements at the east off Eastfield Drive. ZONING CASE NO. 538 PAGE 2 yf 6. Grading will not be required for the project. 7. 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 proposed plans and take public testimony. CRITERIA & MAJOR IMPACTS RA -S-1 Zone Setbacks: Front: 50 ft. from front easement line Side: 20 ft. from property line Rear: 50 ft. from property line Structures (Site Plan Review required 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). Grading Disturbed Area (40% maximum; any graded building pad area, any remedial grading (temporary disturbance), any graded slopes and building pad areas, any nongraded area where impervious surfaces exist and any planned landscaped areas) Structural Lot Coverage (20% maximum) Total Lot Coverage (35% maximum) Building Pad Coverage (30% recommended) Roadway Access XISTING The stable encroaches 6.5' into the front yard setback, and the tennis court encroaches 10' into the side yard setback and 40' into the rear yard setback. Residence Garage Swim Pool Tennis Ct. Stable Service Yard i PROPOSED The "as built" art studio/hobby shop encroaches 5.5 feet into the 20' side yard setback. 2.405 sq. ft. Residence 610 sq.ft. Garage 740 sq.ft. Swim Pool 6.895 sq.ft. Tennis Ct. 1,175 sq.ft. Guest House 96 sq.ft. Service Yard Art Studio 2,405 sq. ft. 610 sq.ft. 740 sq.ft. 6,895 sq.ft. 1,175 sq.ft. 96 sq.ft. 256 sq.ft.. TOTAL 11,921 sq.ft. TOTAL 12,177 sq.ft. N/A None 45.9%+ 11,921 sq.ft. or 21.2% 19,256 sq.ft. or 34.2% 34.9% Existing off Eastfield Drive 46.4%+ 12,177 sq.ft. or 21.6% 19,512 sq.ft. or 34.6% 35.6% Existing off Eastfield Drive ZONING CASE NO. 538 PAGE 3 Access to Stable and Corral [Accessibility and maximum 4:1 (25%) slope required ONLY for new residence or additions that require Site Plan Review]. Preserve Views Preserve Plants and Animals Existing w/a slope of 10% or less Existing w/a slope of 10% or less off Eastield Drive off Eastield Drive N/A N/A VARIANCE REQUIRED FINDINGS A. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property that do not apply &enerally to other properties in the same vicinity and zone; and B. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights possessed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone but which is denied the property in question; and C. That the granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; and D. That in granting the variance, the spirit and intent of this title will be observed; and E. That the variance does not grant special privilege; F. That the variance is consistent with the portions of the County of Los Angeles Hazardous Waste Management Plan relating to siting and siting criteria for hazardous waste facilities; and G. That the variance request is consistent with the General Plan of the City of Rolling Hills. Planning Commission will review Planning Commission will review ZONING CASE NO. 538 PAGE 4