616, Seeking approval to leave lowe, Staff Reports•City .1)
• 9--A
INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274
(310) 377-1521
DATE: OCTOBER 16, 2001 FAX: (310) 377-7288
E-mail: cityofrh@aol.com
TO: HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PRINCIPAL PLANNER
SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 616
Mr.Kenneth Johnson, 29 Middleridge Lane South
Request for a one-year extension of time
BACKGROUND
Attached is a letter from Mr. Johnson requesting a one-year time extension for a
previously approved Site Plan to permit grading and Variances to encroach into
the front yard setback with an addition and a stable at an existing single family
residence.
The Planning Commission approved the request on August 15, 2000. The vote
was 5-0. The City Council took jurisdiction of the case on August 28, 2000 and
subsequently on October 9, 2000, approved the Site Plan and Variance requests
by Resolution No. 889.
If granted, the new expiration date will be November 9, 2002.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Planning Commission review the request.
Resolution No. 2001-21 is enclosed for Commission's consideration for the time
extension.
Printed on Recycled Paper.
RESOLUTION NO. 2001-21
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS APPROVING A MODIFICATION TO
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 889 APPROVING AN
EXTENSION TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED VARIANCE TO
CONSTRUCT A RESIDENTIAL ADDITION WHICH WILL
ENCROACH INTO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK, GRANTING A
VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A STABLE WHICH WILL
ENCROACH INTO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK, AND
GRANTING SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL TO AUTHORIZE
GRADING AT AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AT
29 MIDDLERIDGE LANE SOUTH IN ZONING CASE NO. 616.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES
HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. A request has been filed by Mr. Kenneth Johnson with
respect to real property located at 29 Middleridge Lane South (Lot 248-A-1-UR),
Rolling Hills, requesting a one year time extension for a previously approved
Variance to encroach into the front yard setback with an addition and a stable,
and a Site Plan Review to permit the construction of additions and stable and to
authorize grading at a single family residence that was approved by the City
Council by Resolution No. 889 on October 9, 2000.
Section 2. The Commission considered this item at a meeting on
October 16, 2001, at which time information was presented indicating that the
extension of time is necessary.
Section 3. Based on information and evidence submitted, the Planning
Commission does hereby amend Paragraph A, Section 13 of Resolution No. 889,
adopted by the City Council, dated October 9, 2000, to read as follows:
"The Variance and Site Plan approvals shall expire within two years from
the effective date of approval, as defined in Sections 17.38.070 (A) and 17.46.080
(A), of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code unless construction on the applicable
portions of the structures have commenced within that time period."
Section 4. Except as herein amended, the provisions of Resolution No.
889 shall continue to be in full force and effect.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2001.
ALLAN ROBERTS, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
MARILYN KERN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS )
§§
I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2001-21 entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS APPROVING A MODIFICATION TO
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 889 APPROVING AN
EXTENSION TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED VARIANCE TO
CONSTRUCT A RESIDENTIAL ADDITION WHICH WILL
ENCROACH INTO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK, GRANTING A
VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A STABLE WHICH WILL
ENCROACH INTO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK, AND
GRANTING SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL TO AUTHORIZE
GRADING AT AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AT
29 MIDDLERIDGE LANE SOUTH IN ZONING CASE NO. 616.
was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on
October 16, 2001 by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following:
Administrative Offices.
DEPUTY CITY CLERK
• •
Cypress Capital Partners
(310) 265-9308
Fax (310) 265-9318
KENNETH J JOHNSON 2785 Pacific Coast Hwy #E-301
Principal Torrance, California 90505
September 18, 2001
Ms. Yolanta Schwartz
Principal Planer
City of Rolling Hills
No. 2 Portuguese Bend Road
Rolling Hills, California 90274
Subject: Zoning Case No. 616
29 Middleridge Lane South
Dear Ms. Schwartz:
Hv
•
SEP 2 $2at
Thank you for your letter dated 8/24/01 regarding the above referenced case.
Enclosed is my check in the amount of $200.00 to cover the filing fee for the
time extension. I am requesting the one-year extension.
Please call if there are any questions.
S
City WAllin, ✓V�•LL'.� INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274
(310) 377-1521
FAX: (310) 377-7288
E-mail: cityofrh@aol.com
Agenda Item No.: 8-A
Mtg. Date: 10/09/00
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CRAIG R. NEALIS, CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION NO. 889: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A VARIANCE TO
CONSTRUCT A RESIDENTIAL ADDITION TO ENCROACH INTO
THE FRONT YARD SETBACK, GRANTING A VARIANCE TO
CONSTRUCT A STABLE TO ENCROACH INTO THE FRONT YARD
SETBACK AND GRANTING SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL TO
AUTHORIZE GRADING AT A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AT 29
MIDDLERIDGE LANE SOUTH IN ZONING CASE NO. 616.
DATE: OCTOBER 9, 2000
BACKGROUND
The attached resolution was requested by the City Council at their regular meeting on
September 25, 2000 to grant approval for, a Variance to construct a residential addition
that will encroach into the front yard setback, a Variance to construct a stable that will
encroach into the front yard setback, and Site Plan Review approval to authorize
grading in the above referenced case. The Resolution presented contains the standard
conditions of the Planning Commission as well as those conditions identified by the
City Council on September 25, 2000.. Conditions identified by the City Council are
contained in Paragraphs R, S, T, U and V beginning on page 6 of the resolution.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 889.
CRN:mlk
10/09/00Johnsonreso.sta
1
Printed on Recycled Paper.
• •
DRAFT
RESOLUTION NO. 889
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A
RESIDENTIAL ADDITION TO ENCROACH INTO THE FRONT
YARD SETBACK, GRANTING A VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A
STABLE TO ENCROACH INTO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK AND
GRANTING SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL TO AUTHORIZE
GRADING AT A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AT 29
MIDDLERIDGE LANE SOUTH IN ZONING CASE NO. 616.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES HEREBY
FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Applications were duly filed by Mr. Kenneth J. Johnson with
respect to real property located at 29 Middleridge Lane South (Lot 248-A-1-UR), Rolling
Hills, requesting the following: (1) modify a previously approved Variance for the
construction of a residential addition to encroach into the front yard setback, (2) modify
a previously approved Variance for the construction of a stable to encroach into the
front yard setback, and (3) modify a previously approved Site Plan Review to authorize
grading at a single family residence.
Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing
to consider the applications on June 20, 2000, July 18, 2000, and at a field trip visit on July
15, 2000. The applicants were notified of the public hearing in writing by first class mail
and through the City's newsletter. Evidence was heard and presented from all persons
interested in affecting said proposal and from members of the City staff and the
Planning Commission having reviewed, analyzed and studied said proposal. The
applicants were in attendance at the hearing.
Section 3. On August 15, 2000, the Planning Commission approved the
application by Resolution No. 2000-18 in Zoning Case No. 616.
Section 4. On August 28, 2000, the City Council took jurisdiction of Zoning
Case No. 616.
Section 5. The City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing to
consider the case on September 11, 2000, September 25, 2000, and at a field trip visit on
September 25, 2000. The applicants were notified of the public hearing in writing by first
class mail and through the City's newsletter. Evidence was heard and presented from
all persons interested in affecting said proposal, from all persons protesting the same,
and from members of the City staff and the City Council having reviewed, analyzed and
studied said proposal. The applicants were in attendance at the hearings. The following
concerns were expressed by the Council: the ability to maintain the pad area below the
house for equestrian use only, the need for a fence establishing the equestrian area, that
no structures shall be permitted on the graded pad, that the graded pad shall be
smoothed to a more natural condition, that slopes adjacent to the canyon be returned to
a 2:1 slope ratio, the need for a landscape plan incorporating California Native
Resolution No. 889
• •
DRAFT
vegetation similar to that in the adjacent canyon, and the need for a drainage plan to be
approved by the County.
Section 6. The Planning Commission found that the project qualifies as a
Class 1, 3, and 4 Exemption [State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15301(e), 15303(e) and
15304] and is therefore categorically exempt from environmental review under the
California Environmental Quality Act.
Section 7. Sections 17.38.010 through 17.38.050 of the Rolling Hills Municipal
Code permit approval of a Variance from the standards and requirements of the Zoning
Ordinance when exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applicable to the property
and not applicable to other similar properties in the same zone prevent the owner from
making use of a parcel of property to the same extent enjoyed by similar properties in
the same vicinity. Section 17.16.110 requires a front yard of fifty feet (50') from the front
easement line. The applicant is requesting to add a 1,200 square foot residential
addition at the southwest corner of the residence attached by a breezeway that will
encroach twenty-five (25) feet into the fifty (50) foot front yard setback. With respect to
this request for a Variance, the City Council finds as follows:
A. There are 'exceptional and extraordinary circumstances and conditions
applicable to the property that do not apply generally to the other property or class of
use in the same zone. The lot is an irregular -shaped lot. The existing legal
nonconforming residence was built within the front yard setback and the existing
building pad is located close to the street. The residential addition will be constructed
to align with the existing structure. Due to the irregular shape of the lot and the siting
of the existing house on the lot, it would be infeasible to construct the addition without
encroaching into the required setback.
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
grading was minimized to increase the building pad on this irregular shaped lot and
there will not be any greater incursion into the front yard setback than already exists at
the site and at other property in the same vicinity. The Variance will permit the
development of the property in a manner similar to development patterns on
surrounding properties. The location of the building pad dictates that the proposed
addition be set forward on the lot because the existing structure was not constructed
under current setback standards and the building pad is situated close to the street.
C. The granting of the Variance will 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 allow a substantial
portion of the lot to remain undeveloped.
Section 8. Based upon the foregoing findings, the City Council hereby
approves the request for a Variance in conjunction with Zoning Case No. 616 to permit
the proposed project to encroach a maximum of twenty-five feet (25') into the fifty foot
(50') front yard setback, subject to the conditions specified in Section 13.
Resolution No. 889 -2-
• •
DRAFT
Section 9. Section 17.16.200 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code requires that
stables and corrals not be constructed in the front yard. The applicant is requesting to
construct a 2,600 square foot stable in the front yard. With respect to this request for a
Variance, the City Council finds as follows:
A. There are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances and conditions
applicable to the property that do not apply generally to the other property or class of
use in the same zone. The lot is an irregular shaped lot. The existing legal
nonconforming residence was built within the front yard setback and the existing
building pad for the stable is located close to the street. The required stable cannot be
physically located anywhere other than the proposed location in the required setback
due to the topography and irregular shape of the site.
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
grading will not be required to increase the building pad for the stable on this irregular
shaped lot and there will not be any greater incursion into the front yard setback than
already exists at the existing site and at other property in the same vicinity. Also,
granting of the Variance will permit the development of the property in a manner
similar to development patterns on surrounding properties. The Variance is necessary
because the Rolling Hills Municipal Code requires that every lot have a site that is
readily accessible and suitable for a stable and corral, and the only site on the property
for a stable and corral requires encroachment into the front yard.
C. The granting of the Variance will 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 allow a substantial
portion of the lot to remain undeveloped.
Section 10. Based upon the foregoing findings, the City Council hereby
approves the request for a Variance in conjunction with Zoning Case No. 616 to permit
the construction of a 2,600 square foot stable in the front yard, subject to the conditions
specified in Section 13.
Section 11. Section 17.46.020 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code requires a
development plan to be submitted for site plan review and approval before any grading
that requires a grading permit or any new building or structure may be constructed.
The applicants request Site Plan Review to authorize the maintenance of grading at a
singlefamily residence. With respect to the Site Plan Review application, the City
Council makes the following findings of fact:
A. The proposed development is compatible with the General Plan, the Zoning
Ordinance and surrounding uses. The grading, as conditioned, complies with the
General Plan requirement of low profile, low density residential development with
sufficient open space between surrounding structures. With the Variances approved in
Sections 7 and 9, the project conforms to Zoning Code setback and lot coverage
requirements. The lot has a net square foot area of 103,237 square feet. The residence
(4,984 sq.ft.), attached garage (704 sq.ft.), pool (472 sq.ft.), stable (2,600 sq.ft.), and
Resolution No. 889 -3-
• •
DRAFT
service yard (96 sq.ft.) will have 8,856 square feet which constitutes 8.6% of the lot
which is within the maximum 20% structural lot coverage requirement. The total lot,
coverage including paved areas and driveway will be 13,784 square feet which equals
13.4% of the lot, which is within the 35% maximum overall lot coverage requirement.
The proposed project is on a relatively large irregular -shaped lot with most of the
structures located at or below and away from the road so as to reduce the visual
impact of the development.
B. 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). A minimum amount of grading will be required and will only be
done to provide approved drainage that will flow away from the proposed structures,
the existing residence, and neighboring residences.
C. The development plan follows the natural contours of the site to minimize
grading and the natural drainage courses will continue to the canyons at the west side
of this lot.
D. The development plan incorporates existing large trees and native vegetation
to the maximum extent feasible. Specifically, the development plan preserves several
mature trees and shrubs.
E. The development plan substantially preserves the natural and undeveloped
state of the lot by minimizing, building coverage because the new structures will not
cause the structural and total lot coverage to be exceeded. Further, the proposed
project is designed to minimize grading. Significant portions of the lot will be left
undeveloped so as to maintain scenic vistas across the northwesterly portions of the
property.
F. 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 lot coverage maximum will not be exceeded and the proposed project
is consistent with the scale of the neighborhood when compared to this
irregular -shaped lot. Any additional grading shall be permitted only to restore the
natural 2:1 slope of the property as it meets the canyons.
G. The proposed development is sensitive and not detrimental to the
convenience and safety of circulation for pedestrians and vehicles. The proposed
project will utilize the same driveway to Middleridge Lane South for access.
H. The project conforms with the requirements of the California Environmental
Quality Act and is categorically exempt from environmental review.
Section 12. Based upon the foregoing findings, the City Council hereby
approves the Site Plan Review request to allow grading, allow proposed limited
grading and to allow the construction of residential additions and a stable at an
existing single family residence, as indicated on the Development Plan reviewed by the
Resolution No. 889 -4-
• •
DRAFT
City Council on September 25, 2000 and dated June 14, 2000 and marked Exhibit A,
subject to the conditions specified in Section 10-13.
Section 13. The Variances regarding encroachments approved in Sections 7
and 9 of this Resolution 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 if applicants have not pulled the appropriate
building permits and commenced work as defined in Sections 17.38.070(A) and
17.46.080(A) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code unless otherwise extended pursuant to
the requirements of these sections.
B. It is declared and made a condition of the Variance and Site Plan Review
approvals, that if any conditions thereof are violated, this approval shall be suspended
and the privileges granted thereunder shall lapse; provided that the applicants have
been given written notice to cease such violation, the opportunity for a hearing has been
provided, and if requested, has been held, and thereafter the applicant fails to correct
the violation within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of the City's
determination.
C. All requirements of the Buildings and Construction Ordinance, the
Zoning Ordinance, and of the zone in which the subject property is located must be
complied with unless otherwise set forth in the Permit, or shown otherwise on an
approved plan.
D. The lot shall be developed and maintained in substantial conformance
with the site plan on file marked Exhibit A and dated June 14, 2000, except as otherwise
provided in these conditions.
E. The property on which the project is located shall contain an area of
sufficient size to also provide an area meeting all standards for a stable and corral with
vehicular access thereto in conformance with site plan review limitations.
F. Structural lot coverage shall not exceed 8,856 square feet or 8.6% in
conformance with lot coverage limitations.
G. Total lot coverage of structures and paved areas shall not exceed 13,784
square feet or 13.4% in conformance with lot coverage limitations.
H. The disturbed area of the lot shall not exceed 41,294 square feet or 40.0%
in conformance with lot coverage limitations.
I. Building pad coverage shall not exceed 55.2%.
J. There shall be no further grading for the project beyond the 4,650 cubic
yards of cut soil and the 4,650 cubic yards of fill soil that has already taken place, other
than is necessary to restore the slopes adjacent to the canyons to a 2:1 slope.
Resolution No. 889 -5-
DRAFT
K. The stable loft shall not have glazed openings but, may have usable
shutters.
L. Any stable loft shall be limited in use to the storage of feed, tack and
stable equipment.
M. The stable shall be used for the exclusive purpose of keeping permitted
domestic animals. Commercial uses are not permitted.
N. Landscaping shall be designed to incorporate mature trees and shrubs so
as not to obstruct views of neighboring properties but to obscure the residence.
O. Landscaping shall includewater efficient irrigation, to the maximum
extent feasible, that incorporates a low gallonage irrigation system, utilizes automatic
controllers, incorporates an irrigation design using " hydrozones," considers slope
factors and climate conditions in design, and utilizes means to reduce water waste
resulting from runoff and overspray in accordance with Section 17.27.020 (Water
efficient landscaping requirements) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code.
P. The landscape plan shall include appropriate planting of the hillsides and
lower created pad which has been denuded by periodic discing and grading with low
growing ground cover. The landscaping plan shall include California native plants
similar to the existing natural vegetation in the canyon adjacent to the pad area below
the house.
Q. Two copies of a landscape plan shall be submitted for review and
approval by the Planning Department and shall include native drought -resistant
vegetation that will not disrupt the impact of the views of neighboring properties prior
to the issuance of any building permit. The landscaping plan submitted shall comply
with the purpose and intent of the Site Plan Review Ordinance, shall incorporate
existing mature trees and native vegetation, and shall utilize to the maximum extent
feasible, plants that are native to the area and/or consistent with the rural character of
the community.
A bond in the amount of the cost estimate of the implementation of the landscaping
plan plus 15% shall be posted prior to issuance of a grading and building permit and
shall be retained with the City for not less than two years after landscape installation.
The retained bond will be released by the City Manager after the City Manager
determines (i) that the landscaping was installed pursuant to the landscaping plan as
approved and (ii) that such landscaping is properly established and in good condition.
R. The pad area below the home shall be maintained for equestrian use only;
S. No structures shall be permitted in the pad are below the home;
T. The pad area below the home shall be encircled or otherwise delineated
by the applicant installing a white three rail fence.
Resolution No. 889 -6-
• •
DRAFT
U. The graded pad area shall be smoothed out to a more natural state and
slopes adjacent to the pad area and canyons on the property shall be returned to a 2:1
slope.
V. The applicant shall provide a drainage plan for the lower pad area subject
to County approval.
W. During construction, dust control measures shall be used to stabilize the
soil from wind erosion and reduce dust and objectionable odors generated by
construction activities in accordance with South Coast Air Quality Management
District, Los Angeles County and local ordinances and engineering practices.
X. During construction, conformance with local ordinances and engineering
practices so that people or property are not exposed to landslides, mudflows, erosion,
or land subsidence shall be required.
Y. During construction, conformance with the air quality management district
requirements, stormwater pollution prevention practices, county and local ordinances
and engineering practices so that people or property are not exposed to undue vehicle
.trips, noise, dust, objectionable odors, landslides, mudflows, erosion, or land
subsidence shall be required.
Z. During and after construction, all soil preparation, drainage, and landscape
sprinklers shall protect the building pad from erosion and direct surface water to the
rear of the lot at the northwest.
AA. During construction, an applicant prepared Erosion Control Plan
containing the elements set forth in Section 7010 of the 1996 County of Los Angeles
Uniform Building Code shall be followed to minimize erosion and to protect slopes and
channels to control stormwater pollution as required by the County of Los Angeles.
AB. 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.
AC. 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.
AD. The drainage plan system shall be modified, subject to review and
approval by the Planning Department and City Engineer, to include any water from
any site irrigation systems. All drainage from the site shall be conveyed in an
approved manner to the rear or northeast of the lot.
AE. The property owners shall be required to conform with the Regional
Water Quality Control Board and County Health Department requirements for the
installation and maintenance of stormwater drainage facilities.
Resolution No. 889 -7-
DRAFT
AF. 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.
AG. A detailed drainage plan that conforms to the development plan as
approved by the City Council shall be submitted to the Rolling Hills Planning
Department staff for their review and approval.
AH. The project shall be reviewed and approved by the Rolling Hills
Community Association Architectural Review Committee prior to the issuance of any
drainage, building or grading permit.
AI. The working drawings submitted to the County Department of Building
and Safety for plan check review shall conform to the development plan described in
Condition D.
AJ. Notwithstanding Sections 17.46.020 and 17.46.070 of the Rolling Hills
Municipal Code, any modifications to the project which would constitute additional
grading or structural development shall require the filing of a new application for
approval by the Planning Commission.
AK. Prior to the submittal of an applicable final building plan to the County of
Los Angeles for plan check, a detailed drainage plan with related geology, soils and
hydrology reports that conform to the development plan as approved by the City
Council must be submitted to the Rolling Hills Planning Department staff for their
review and approval.
AL. The applicants shall execute an Affidavit of Acceptance of all conditions of
these Variance and Site Plan Review approvals, pursuant to Section 17.38.060, or the
approvals shall not be effective.
AM. All conditions of these Variance and Site Plan Review approvals shall be
complied with prior to the issuance of a building permit from the County of Los
Angeles.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 9TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2000.
GODFREY PERNELL, MAYOR
ATTEST:
MARILYN KERN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK
Resolution No. 889 -8-
• •
DRAFT
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
§§
I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 889 entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A
RESIDENTIAL ADDITION TO ENCROACH INTO THE FRONT
YARD SETBACK, GRANTING A VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A
STABLE TO ENCROACH INTO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK AND
GRANTING SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL TO AUTHORIZE
GRADING AT A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AT 29
MIDDLERIDGE LANE SOUTH IN ZONING CASE NO. 616.
was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council on October 9, 2000
by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following:
Administrative Offices.
DEPUTY CITY CLERK
Resolution No. 889 -9-
DATE:
TO:
ATTN:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
• •
eity oiteoffinl
INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274
(310) 377-1521
FAX: (310) 377-7288
E-mail: cityofrh@aol.com
Agenda Item No.: 7.A.
Mtg. Date: 9/25/2000
SEPTEMBER 25, 2000
HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
CRAIG R. NEALIS, CITY MANAGER
LOLA M. UNGAR, PLANNING DIRECTOR
ZONING CASE NO. 616: An appeal of a Planning Commission approved
request to modify a previously approved Variance for the construction of a
residential addition to encroach into the front yard setback, a request to
modify a previously approved Variance for the construction of a stable to
encroach into the front yard setback, and a request to modify a previously
approved, Site Plan Review to authorize the maintenance of previously
conducted and illegal grading at a single family residence at 29 Middleridge
Lane South (Lot 248-A-1-UR), Rolling Hills, CA.
Mr. and Mrs. Kenneth J. Johnson, 29 Middleridge Lane South (Lot 248-A-1-
UR)
ZONING AND SIZE: RA-S-2, 3.36 ACRES
REPRESENTATIVES: MR. JOHN V. JUGE, JR., JUGE DESIGN GROUP
PUBLISHED: SEPTEMBER 2, 2000
BACKGROUND
1. The City Council will have met at the project site earlier this evening.
2. The City Council took the subject case under jurisdiction on Monday, August 28,
2000 at their regular meeting.
3. The Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2000-18 that is attached on
August 15, 2000 at their regular meeting granting a request to (1) modify a
previously approved Variance for the construction of a residential addition to
encroach into the front yard setback, (2) modify a previously approved Variance
for the construction of a stable to encroach into the front yard setback, and (3)
modify a previously approved Site Plan Review to authorize the maintenance of
previously conducted and illegal grading at a single family residence. The vote
was 5-0.
4. In October, 1996, the Johnsons received Variance and Site Plan Review approvals
to construct residential additions and a stable that encroached into the front yard
setback and required grading. Grading for the previously approved residential
addition and proposed stable required 4,980 cubic yards of cut soil and 4,980 cubic
CD
Printed on Recycled Paper.
yards of fill soilwas completed with cubic ards of cut soil and 4,650
ut, p 4,650Y
cubic yards of fill soil. The soil was to be removed from the southeast portion of
the lot and relocated to the northwest side of the residence to enlarge the
residential building pad according to Mr. Johnson when City Manager Craig
Nealis and Planning Director Ungar visited the site in August, 1998. We were
assured by Mr. Johnson that the newly created area below the residence was
uncompacted fill and would eventually be used for the proposed stable area.
Now, the Johnsons request that the fill material and debris that was relocated to
the northern portion of the lot to create this pad remain, "for the kids to play or
pasture area for horses.". In a letter dated May 15, 2000, Mr. Johnson explained
that activity at the northern portion of the lot "was outside the scope of the
approved grading plan and was the result of fill material that was rejected by the
soils engineer and supervising geologist. At the end of the grading project, the
rejected materials were spread where they remain today. Additionally, this area
was also the repository of the materials that were excavated when the pool
excavation occurred last year. To date, I have exported no fill materials off site."
Regarding how the change will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare
nor injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone where the
property is located, the applicants state, "It doesn't impact anyone's view and is
not that significant an amount of dirt."
5. The applicants are requesting to modify a previously approved Variance to
construct a 1,200 square foot residential addition at the southwest corner of the
residence attached by a breezeway that will encroach 25 feet into the 50 foot front
yard setback. The addition will not encroach any further than the existing
residence into the setback. The existing 3,784 square foot residence plus the
addition will be 4,984 square feet.
The applicants are requesting to modify a previously approved Variance for a
3,200 square foot stable now reduced to 2,600 square feet. The stable will be
located in the front yard (stables are not permitted in front yards), 113 feet west of
the residence that will also encroach 34 feet into the 50 foot front yard setback.
The applicants are also requesting to modify the previously approved Site Plan to
authorize the maintenance of previously conducted and illegal grading for a
building pad at the property. (Site Plan Review is required for any grading
requiring a grading permit, any new building or structure except a barn or stable
without grading, and any additions that increase the size of the structure by at
least 1,000 square feet and has the effect of increasing the size of the structure by
more than 25% in any 36-month period).
6. Structural lot coverage will be 8,856 square feet and 8.6% of the net lot area (20%
maximum permitted). Total lot coverage will be 13,784 square feet and 13.4% of
the net lot area (35% maximum permitted).
7. The 14,786 square foot residential building pad that is beyond allowable setbacks
will have 6,160 square feet or 41.7% coverage and exceeds the Planning
Commission's guideline maximum of 30% (previous approval was 40.9%). The
1,072 square foot stable pad that is beyond allowable setbacks will have 2,600
square feet or 242.5% coverage. Coverage on both pads will be 55.2%.
8. Including the proposed 8,800 square foot "play areasture," the disturbed area
of the lot will be 41,294 square feet or 40.0% of the net lot area (40% maximum).
9. The existing driveway access at the southeast portion of the lot off Middleridge
Lane South will not be disturbed.
10. A 16 foot wide trail that has a grade of 18% or less exists 30 feet west of the existing
driveway to provide access to the proposed stable.
11. Building permits show that the original residence was built in 1979. The
swimming pool was constructed in 1986. A grading permit was issued for a total
of 7,050 cubic yards of grading in December, 1997; a building permit was issued
for an 800 square foot pool reconstruction in November, 1998; and a building
permit was issued for a 311 square foot breezeway addition in July, 1999. These
permits are still open and are not completed or finalled.
12. 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 review the proposed plans and take public testimony.
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.
•
CRITERIA, :<
MAJOR, IMPACTS
RA -S-2 Zone Setbacks:
Front: 50 ft. from front
easement line
Side: 35 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, andany
nongraded area where
impervious surfaces exist).
Structural Lot Coverage
(20% maximum)
Total Lot Coverage
(35% maximum)
Residential Building Pad
Coverage
(Guideline maximum of 30%)
Stable Building Pad Coverage
Total Building Pad Coverage
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
I.
PREY. APPROVED. 10/15/96:::,
Variance granted to
encroach 27 feet into
front setback for
residential addition and
Variance granted to
encroach 28 feet into
the front yard and front
yard setback for stable.
Residence 4,865 sq.ft.
Garage 704 sq.ft.
Swim Pool 472 sq.ft.
Stable 3,200 sq.ft.
Service Yd. 96 sa.ft.
TOTAL 9.337 sq.ft
4,980 cu. yds cut soil
4,980 cu. yds fill soil
35.2%
9.0%
13.9%
40.9%
298,5%
58.3%
Existing off Middleridge
Lane South
Proposed with a slope
of 20% or less
from driveway off
Middleridge Lane South
Planning Commission
will review
Planning Commission
will review
EXISTING
Residence encroaches
up to 25 feet into front
yard setback.
Residence3,784 sq.ft.
Garage 704 sq.ft.
Swim Pool 472 sq.ft.
Stable 0 sq.ft.
Service Yd. 96 sa.ft.
TOTAL 5,056 sq.ft
4,650 cu.yds cut soil
4,650 cu.yds fill soil
37.5%
(Includes 8,800 square
foot proposed "play
area/pasture"
4.9%
9.7%
33.5%
0
33.5%
No change
Existing 16 foot wide
access with a slope of
18%, 30 feet west of
existing driveway.
No change
No change
°POSED
Modify Variance to
encroach up to 25 feet
into front yard setback
for residential addition
and modify Variance to
encroach up to 34 feet
into the front yard and
front yard setback for
stable.
Residence 4,984 sq.ft.
Garage 704 sq.ft.
Swim Pool 472 sq.ft.
Stable 2,600 sq.ft.
Service Yd. 96 sa.ft.
TOTAL 8.856 sa.ft.
4,650 cu.yds cut soil
4,650 cu.yds fill soil
40.0%
(Includes 8,800 square
foot proposed "play
area/pasture"
8.6%
13.4%
41.7%
242.5%
55.2%
INo change
Existing 16 foot wide
access with a slope of
18%, 30 feet west of
existing driveway.
No change
INo change
aiy o/eollin S ��ee
INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274
(310) 377-1521
FAX: (310) 377-7288
E mail: cityofrh@aol.com
Agenda Item No.: 7-A
Mtg. Date: 9 / 11 /2000
DATE: SEPTEMBER 11, 2000
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
ATTN: CRAIG R. NEALIS, CITY MANAGER
FROM: LOLA M. UNGAR, PLANNING DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 616: An appeal of a Planning Commission approved
request to modify a previously approved Variance for the construction of a
residential addition to encroach into the front yard setback, a request to
modify a previously approved Variance for the construction of a stable to
encroach into the front yard setback, and a request to modify a previously
approved Site Plan Review to authorize the maintenance of previously
conducted and illegal grading at a single family residence at 29 Middleridge
Lane South (Lot 248-A-1-UR), Rolling Hills, CA.
Mr. and Mrs. Kenneth J. Johnson, 29 Middleridge Lane South (Lot 248-A-1-
UR)
ZONING AND SIZE: RA-S-2, 3.36 ACRES
REPRESENTATIVES: MR. JOHN V. JUGE, JR., JUGE DESIGN GROUP
PUBLISHED: SEPTEMBER 2, 2000
BACKGROUND
1. The City Council took the subject case under jurisdiction on Monday, August 28,
2000 at their regular meeting.
2. The Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2000-18 that is attached on
August 15, 2000 at their regular meeting granting a request to (1) modify a
previously approved Variance for the construction of a residential addition to
encroach into the front yard setback, (2) modify a previously approved Variance
for the construction of a stable to encroach into the front yard setback, and (3)
modify a previously approved Site Plan Review to authorize the maintenance of
previously conducted and illegal grading at a single family residence. The vote
was 5-0.
3. In October, 1996, the Johnsons received Variance and Site Plan Review approvals
to construct residential additions and a stable that encroached into the front yard
setback and required grading. Grading for the previously approved residential
addition and proposed stable required 4,980 cubic yards of cut soil and 4,980 cubic
yards of fill soil but, was completed with 4,650 cubic yards of cut soil and 4,650
cubic yards offill soil. The soil was to be removed from the southeast portion of
p-I,
Printed on Recycled Paper.
the lot and re ocated to the northwest side of to residence to enlarge the
residential building pad according to Mr. Johnson when City Manager Craig
Nealis and Planning Director Ungar visited the site in August, 1998. We were
assured by Mr. Johnson that the newly created area below the residence was
uncompacted fill and would eventually be used for the proposed stable area.
Now, the Johnsons request that the fill material and debris that was relocated to
the northern portion of the lot to create this pad remain, "for the kids to play or
pasture area for horses." In a letter dated May 15, 2000, Mr. Johnson explained
that activity at the northern portion of the lot "was outside the scope of the
approved grading plan and was the result of fill material that was rejected by the
soils engineer and supervising geologist. At the end of the grading project, the
rejected materials were spread where they remain today. Additionally, this area
was also the repository of the materials that were excavated when the pool
excavation occurred last year. To date, I have exported no fill materials off site."
Regarding how the change will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare
nor injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone where the
property is located, the applicants state, "It doesn't impact anyone's view and is
not that significant an amount of dirt."
4. The applicants are requesting to modify a previously approved Variance to
construct a 1,200 square foot residential addition at the southwest corner of the
residence attached by a breezeway that will encroach 25 feet into the 50 foot front
yard setback. The addition will not encroach any further than the existing
residence into the setback. The existing 3,784 square foot residence plus the
addition will be 4,984 square feet.
The applicants are requesting to modify a previously approved Variance for a
3,200 square foot stable now reduced to 2,600 square feet. The stable will be
located in the front yard (stables are not permitted in front yards), 113 feet west of
the residence that will also encroach 34 feet into the 50 foot front yard setback.
The applicants are also requesting to modify the previously approved Site Plan to
authorize the maintenance of previously conducted and illegal grading for a
building pad at the property. (Site Plan Review is required for any grading
requiring a grading permit, any new building or structure except a barn or stable
without grading, and any additions that increase the size of the structure by at
least 1,000 square feet and has the effect of increasing the size of the structure by
more than 25% in any 36-month period).
5. Structural lot coverage will be 8,856 square feet and 8.6% of the net lot area (20%
maximum permitted). Total lot coverage will be 13,784 square feet and 13.4% of
the net lot area (35% maximum permitted).
6. The 14,786 square foot residential building pad that is beyond allowable setbacks
will have 6,160 square feet or 41.7% coverage and exceeds the Planning
Commission's guideline maximum. of 30% (previous approval was 40.9%). The
1,072 square foot stable pad that is beyond allowable setbacks will have 2,600
square feet or 242.5% coverage. Coverage on both pads will be 55.2%.
7. Including the proposed 8,800 square foot "play area/pasture," the disturbed area
of the lot will be 41,294 square feet or 40.0% of the net lot area (40% maximum).
8. The existing driveway access at the southeast portion of the lot off Middleridge
Lane South will not be disturbed.
9. A 16 foot wide trail that has a grade of 18% or less exists 30 feet west of the existing
driveway to provide access to the proposed stable.
10. Building permits show that the original residence was built in 1979. The
swimming pool was constructed in 1986. A grading permit was issued for a total
of 7,050 cubic yards of grading in December, 1997; a building permit was issued
for an 800 square foot pool reconstruction in November, 1998; and a building
permit was issued for a 311 square foot breezeway addition in July, 1999. These
permits are still open and are not completed or finalled.
11. 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 review the proposed plans and take public testimony.
RIANCE REQUIRED FINDING,
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.
r
i
CRITERIA. ;.:';
& MAJOR IMPACTS
RA -S-2 Zone Setbacks:
Front: 50 ft. from front
easement line
Side: 35 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).
Gradinq
Disturbed Area
(40% maximum; any graded
building pad area, any remedial
grading (temporary
disturbance), any graded slopes
and building pad areas, andany
nongraded area where
impervious surfaces exist).
Structural Lot Coveraae
(20% maximum)
Total Lot Coveraae
(35% maximum)
Residential Buildina Pad
Coveraae
(Guideline maximum of 30%)
Stable Buildina Pad Coveraae
Total Building Pad Coveraae
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
PREV;APPROVED
10/,15/95
Variance granted to
encroach 27 feet into
front setback for
residential addition and
Variance granted to
encroach 28 feet into
the front yard and front
yard setback for stable.
Residence 4,865 sq.ft.
Garage 704 sq.ft.
Swim Pool 472 sq.ft.
Stable 3,200 sq.ft.
Service Yd. 96 sa.ft.
TOTAL. 9.33Lsaft•
4,980 cu. yds cut soil
4,980 cu. yds fill soil
35.2%
9.0%
13.9%
40.9%
298,5%
58.3%
Existing off Middleridge
Lane South
Proposed with a slope
of 20% or less
from driveway off
Middleridge Lane South
Planning Commission
will review
Planning Commission
will review
EXISTING..:
Residence encroaches
up to 25 feet into front
yard setback.
Residence3,784 sq.ft.
Garage 704 sq.ft.
Swim Pool 472 sq.ft.
Stable 0 sq.ft.
Service Yd. 96 sa.ft.
TOTAL 5,056 sq.ft
14,650 cu.yds cut soil
4,650 cu.yds fill soil
37.5%
(Includes 8,800 square
foot proposed "play
area/pasture"
14.9%
19.7%
33.5%
0
133.5%
No change
Existing 16 foot wide
access with a slope of
18%, 30 feet west of
existing driveway.
No change
No change
ROPOSEIi
Modify Variance to
encroach up to 25 feet
into front yard setback
for residential addition
and modify Variance to
encroach up to 34 feet
into the front yard and
front yard setback for
stable.
Residence 4,984 sq.ft.
Garage 704 sq.ft.
Swim Pool 472 sq.ft.
Stable 2,600 sq.ft.
Service Yd. 96 sa.ft.
TOTAL 8.856 sq.ft
4,650 cu.yds cut soil
4,650 cu.yds fill soil
40.0%
(Includes 8,800 square
foot proposed "play
area/pasture"
8.6%
13.4%
41.7%
242.5% •
55.2%
No change
Existing 16 foot wide
access with a slope of
18%, 30 feet west of
existing driveway.
No change
No change
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-18
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A
RESIDENTIAL ADDITION TO ENCROACH INTO THE FRONT
YARD SETBACK, GRANTING A VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A
STABLE TO ENCROACH INTO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK AND
GRANTING SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL TO AUTHORIZE THE
RETENTION AND MAINTENANCE OF ILLEGALLY CONDUCTED
GRADING AT A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AT 29
MIDDLERIDGE LANE SOUTH IN ZONING CASE NO. 616.
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. Kenneth J. Johnson with
respect to real property located at 29 Middleridge Lane South (Lot 248-A-1-UR), Rolling
Hills, requesting the following: (1) modify a previously approved Variance for the
construction of a residential addition to encroach into the front yard setback, (2) modify
a previously approved Variance for the construction of a stable to encroach into the
front yard setback, and (3) modify a previously approved Site Plan Review to authorize
the maintenance of previously conducted and illegal grading at a single family
residence.
Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing
to consider the applications on June 20, 2000 and July 18, 2000,. and at a field trip visit on
July 15, 2000. The applicants were notified of the public hearing in writing by first class
mail and through the City's newsletter. Evidence was heard and presented from all
persons interested in affecting said proposal and from members of the City staff and the
Planning Commission having reviewed, analyzed and studied said proposal. The
applicant or his representative were in attendance at the hearing.
Section 3. The Planning Commission finds that the project qualifies as a Class
1, 3, and 4 Exemption [State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15301(e), 15303(e) and 15304]
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. Section 17.16.110 requires a front yard of fifty feet (50') from the front
easement line. The applicant is requesting to add a 1,200 square foot residential addition
at the southwest corner of the residence attached by a breezeway that will encroach
twenty-five (25) feet into the fifty (50) foot front yard setback. With respect to this
request for a Variance, the Planning Commission finds as follows:
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-18
PAGE 1 OF 8
cs)
• •
A. There are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances and conditions
applicable to the property that do not apply generally to the other property or class of
use in the same zone because the lot is an irregular -shaped lot. The existing legal
nonconforming residence was built within the front yard setback and the existing
building pad is located close to the street. The residential addition will be constructed
to align with the existing structure. Due to the irregular shape of the lot and the siting
of the existing house on the lot, it would be infeasible to construct the addition without
encroaching into the required setback.
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
grading was minimized to increase the building pad on this irregular shaped lot and
there will not be any greater incursion into the front yard setback than already exists at
the existing site and at other property in the same vicinity. The Variance will permit
the development of the property in a manner similar to development patterns on
surrounding properties. The location of the building pad dictates that the proposed
addition be set forward on the lot because the existing structure was not constructed
under current setback standards and the building pad is situated close to the street,
C. The granting of the Variance would not be materiallydetrimental 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 allow a substantial
portion of the lot to remain undeveloped. .
Section 5. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission
hereby approves the request for a Variance in conjunction with Zoning Case No:'616 to
permit the proposed project to encroach a maximum of twenty-five feet (25') into the
fifty foot (50') front yard setback, subject to the conditions specified in Section 10.
Section 6. Section 17.16.200 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code requires that
stables and corrals not be constructed in the front yard. The applicant is requesting to
construct a 2,600 square foot stable in the front yard. With respect to this request for a
Variance, the Planning Commission finds as follows:
A. There are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances and conditions
applicable to the property that do not apply generally to the other property or class of
use in the same zone because the lot is an irregular shaped lot. The existing legal
nonconforming residence was built within the front yard setback and the existing
building pad for the stable is Iocated close to the street. The required stable cannot be
located anywhere else than the proposed location in the required setback due to the
topography and irregular shape of the site.
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
grading will not be required to increase the building pad for the stable on this irregular
shaped lot and there will not be any greater incursion into the front yard setback than
already exists at the existing site and at other property in the same vicinity. Also, the
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-18
PAGE2OF8
• •
Variance will permit the development of the property in a manner similar to
development patterns on surrounding properties. The Variance is necessary because
the Rolling Hills Municipal Code requires that every lot have a site that is readily
accessible and suitable for a stable and corral and the only site on the property for a
stable and corral requires encroachment into the front yard.
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 allow a substantial
portion of the lot to remain undeveloped.
Section 7. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission
hereby approves the request for a Variance in conjunction with Zoning Case No. 616 to
permit the construction of a 2,600 square foot stable in the front yard, subject to. the
conditions specified in Section 10.
Section 8. Section 17.46.020 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code requires a
development plan to be submitted for site plan review and approval before any grading
that requires a grading permit or any new building or structure may be constructed.
The applicants request Site Plan Review to authorize the maintenance of previously
conducted and illegal grading at a single family residence. With respect to the Site Plan
Review application, the Planning Commission makes the following findings of fact:
A. The proposed development is compatible with the General Plan, the Zoning
Ordinance and surrounding uses because the proposed grading, as conditioned,
complies with the General Plan requirement of low profile, low density residential
development with sufficient open space between surrounding structures. With the
Variances approved in Sections 5 and 7, the project conforms to Zoning Code setback
and lot coverage requirements. The lot has a net square foot area of 103,237 square feet.
The residence (4,984 sq.ft.), attached garage (704 sq.ft.), pool (472 sq.ft.), stable (2,600
sq.ft.), and service yard (96 sq.ft.) will have 8,856 square feet which constitutes 8.6% of
the lot which is within the maximum 20% structural lot coverage requirement. The
total lot coverage including paved areas and driveway will be 13,784 square feet which
equals 13.4% of the lot, which is within the 35% maximum overall lot coverage
requirement. The proposed project is on a relatively large irregular -shaped lot with
most of the structures located at or below and away from the road so as to reduce the
visual impact of the development.
B. 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) because a minimum amount of grading is proposed and will only
be done to provide approved drainage that will flow away from the proposed
structures, the existing residence, and neighboring residences.
C. The development plan follows the natural contours of the site to minimize
grading and the natural drainage courses will continue to the canyons at the west side
of this lot.
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-18
PAGE 3 OF 8
• •
D. The development plan incorporates existing large trees and native vegetation
to the maximum extent feasible. Specifically, the development plan preserves several
mature trees and shrubs.
E. The development plan substantially preserves the natural and undeveloped
state of the lot by minimizing building coverage because the new structures will not
cause the structural and total lot coverage to be exceeded. Further, the proposed
project is designed to minimize grading. Significant portions of the lot will be left
undeveloped so as to maintain scenic vistas across the northwesterly portions of the
property.
F. The proposed development, as conditioned, is harmonious in scale and mass
. with. the site, the natural terrain andsurrounding residences. As indicated in
Paragraph A, the lot coverage maximum will not be exceeded and the proposed project
is consistent with the scale of the neighborhood when compared to this
irregular -shaped lot. Any additional grading shall be permitted only to restore the
natural slope of the property.
G. The proposed development is sensitive and not detrimental to the
convenience and safety of circulation for pedestrians and vehicles because the
proposed project will utilize the same driveway to Middleridge Lane South for access.
H. The project conforms with the requirements of the California Environmental
Quality Actand is categorically exempt from environmentalreview.
Section 9. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission
hereby approves the Site Plan Review request to- allow previously conducted illegal
grading, allow proposed limited grading and to allow the construction of residential
additions and a stable at an existing single family residence, as indicated on the
Development Plan dated June 14, 2000 and marked Exhibit A, subject to the conditions
specified in Section 10.
Section 10. The Variances regarding encroachments approved in Sections 5
and 7 of this Resolution and the Site Plan Review approved in Section 9 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 if applicants have not pulled the appropriate
building permits and commenced work as defined in Sections 17.38.070(A) and
17.46.080(A) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code unless otherwise extended pursuant to
the requirements of these sections.
B. It isdeclared and made a condition of the Variance and Site Plan Review
approvals, that if any conditions thereof are violated, this approval shall be suspended
and the privileges granted thereunder shall lapse; provided that the applicants have
been given written notice to cease such violation, the opportunity for a hearing has been
provided, and if requested, has been held, and thereafter the applicant fails to correct
the violation within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of the City's
determination.
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-18
PAGE 4 OF 8
• •
C. All requirements of the Buildings and Construction Ordinance, the
Zoning Ordinance, and of the zone in which the subject property is located must be
complied with unless otherwise set forth in the Permit, or shown otherwise on an
approved plan.
D. The lot shall be developed and maintained in substantial conformance
with the site plan on file marked Exhibit A and dated June 14, 2000, except as otherwise
provided in these conditions.
E. The property on which the project is located shall contain an area of
sufficient size to also provide an area meeting all standards for a stable and corral with
vehicular access thereto in conformance with site plan review limitations.
F. Structural lot coverage shall not exceed 8,856 square feet or 8.6% in
conformance with lot coverage limitations.
G. Total lot coverage of structures and paved areas shall not exceed 13,784
square feet or 13.4% in conformance with lot coverage limitations.
H. The disturbed area of the lot shall not exceed 41,294 square feet or 40.0%
in conformance with lot coverage limitations.
I. Building pad coverage shall not exceed 55.2%.
J. There shall be no further grading for the project than the 4,650 cubic yards
of cut soil and the 4,650 cubic yards of fill soil that has already taken place.
K. The stable loft shall not have glazed openings but, may have usable
shutters.
L. Any stable loft shall be limited in use to the storage of feed, tack and
stable equipment.
M. The stable shall be used for the exclusive purpose of keeping permitted
domestic animals. Commercial uses are not permitted.
N. Landscaping shall be designed using mature trees and shrubs so as not to
obstruct views of neighboring properties but, to obscure the residence.
O. Landscaping shall include water efficient irrigation, to the maximum
extent feasible, that incorporates a low gallonage irrigation system, utilizes automatic
controllers, incorporates an irrigation design using "hydrozones," considers slope
factors and climate conditions in design, and utilizes means to reduce water waste
resulting from runoff and overspray in accordance with Section 17.27.020 (Water
efficient landscaping requirements) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code.
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-18
PAGE 5 OF 8
• •
P. The landscape plan shall include appropriate planting of the hillsides and
lower created pad which has been denuded by periodic discing and grading with low
growing ground cover.
Q. Two copies of a landscape plan must be submitted for review by the
Planning Department and include native drought -resistant vegetation that will not
disrupt the impact of the views of neighboring properties prior to the issuance of any
building permit. The landscaping plan submitted must comply with the purpose and
intent of the Site Plan Review Ordinance, shall incorporate existing mature trees and
native vegetation, and shall utilize to the maximum extent feasible, plants that are
native to the area and/or consistent with the rural character of the community.
A bond in the amount of the cost estimate of the implementation of the landscaping
plan plus 15% shall be required to be posted prior to issuance of a grading and building
permit and shall be retained with the City for not less than two years after landscape
installation. The retained bond will be released by the City Manager after the City
Manager determines that the landscaping was installed pursuant to the landscaping
plan as approved, and that such landscaping is properly established and in good
condition.
R. During construction, dust control measures shall be used to stabilize the
soil from wind erosion and reduce dust and objectionable odors generated by
construction activities in accordance with South Coast Air Quality Management
District, Los Angeles County and local ordinances and engineering practices.
S. During construction, conformance with local ordinances and engineering
practices so that people or property are not exposed to landslides, mudflows, erosion,
or land subsidence shall be required.
T. During construction, conformance with the air quality management district
requirements, stormwater pollution prevention practices, county and local ordinances
and engineering practices so that people or property are not exposed to undue vehicle
trips, noise, dust, objectionable odors, landslides, mudflows, erosion, or land
subsidence shall be required.
U. During and after construction, all soil preparation, drainage, and landscape
sprinklers shall protect the building pad from erosion and direct surface water to the
rear of the lot at the northwest.
V. During construction, an applicant prepared Erosion Control Plan
containing the elements set forth in Section 7010 of the 1996 County of Los Angeles
Uniform Building Code shall be followed to minimize erosion and to protect slopes and
channels to control stormwater pollution as required by the County of Los Angeles.
W. 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.
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-18
PAGE 6 OF 8
• •
X. 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.
Y. The drainage plan system shall be modified and approved by the
Planning Department and City Engineer, to include any water from any site irrigation
systems and that all drainage from the site shall be conveyed in an approved manner to
the rear or northeast of the lot.
Z. The property owners shall be required to conform with the Regional
Water Quality Control Board and County Health Department requirements for the
installation and maintenance of stormwater drainage facilities.
AA. 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.
AB. A detailed drainage plan that conforms to the development plan as
approved by the Planning Commission must be submitted to the Rolling Hills Planning
Department staff for their review.
AC. The project must be reviewed and approved by the Rolling Hills
Community Association Architectural Review Committee prior to the issuance of any
drainage, building or grading permit..
AD. The working drawings submitted to the County Department of Building
and Safety for plan check review shall conform to the development plan described in
Condition D.
AE. Notwithstanding Sections 17.46.020 and 17.46.070 of the Rolling Hills
Municipal Code, any modifications to the project which would constitute additional
grading or structural development shall require the filing of a new application for
approval by the Planning Commission.
AF. Prior to the submittal of an applicable final building plan to the County of
Los Angeles for plan check, a detailed drainage plan with related geology, soils and
hydrology reports that conform to the development plan as approved by the Planning
Commission must be submitted to the Rolling Hills Planning Department staff for their
review.
AG. The applicants shall execute an Affidavit of Acceptance of all conditions of
these Variance and Site Plan Review approvals, pursuant to Section 17.38.060, or the
approvals shall not be effective.
AH. All conditions of these Variance and Site Plan Review approvals must be
complied with prior to the issuance of a building permit from the County of Los
Angeles.
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-18
PAGE7OF8
r
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 15TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2000.
ALLLN ROBERTS, CHAIRMAN
AI I'EST:
� ... f . l�....��
MARILYN K RN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS)
I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2000-18 entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A
RESIDENTIAL ADDITION TO ENCROACH INTO THE FRONT
YARD SETBACK, GRANTING A VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A
STABLE TO ENCROACH INTO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK AND
GRANTING SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL TO AUTHORIZE THE
RETENTION AND MAINTENANCE OF ILLEGALLY CONDUCTED
GRADING AT A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AT 29
MIDDLERIDGE LANE SOUTH IN ZONING CASE NO. 616.
was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on
August 15, 2000 by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Margeta, 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.
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-18
PAGE 8 OF 8
DEPUTY CITY CLERK
DATE:
TO:
ATTN:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
•
City l
INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274
(310) 377.1521
FAX: (310) 377-7288
E-mail: cityofrh@aol.com
Agenda Item No.: 4.B.
Mtg. Date: 8/28/2000
AUGUST 28, 2000
HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
CRAIG R. NEALIS, CITY MANAGER
LOLA M. UNGAR, PLANNING DIRECTOR
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-18: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A
VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A RESIDENTIAL ADDITION TO
ENCROACH INTO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK, GRANTING A
VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A STABLE TO ENCROACH INTO THE
FRONT YARD SETBACK AND GRANTING SITE PLAN REVIEW
APPROVAL TO AUTHORIZE THE RETENTION AND MAINTENANCE
OF ILLEGALLY CONDUCTED GRADING AT: A SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENCE AT 29 MIDDLERIDGE LANE SOUTH .'IN ZONING CASE
NO. 616.
Mr. Kenneth J. Johnson, 29 Middleridge Lane South (Lot 248-A-1-UR)
BACKGROUND
1. The Planning Commission adopted. Resolution No. 2000-18 that is attached on
August 15, 2000 at their regular meeting granting a request to (1) modify a
previously approved Variance for the construction of a residential addition to
encroach into the front yard setback, (2) modify a previously approved Variance
for the construction of a stable to encroach into the front yard setback, and (3)
modify a previously approved Site Plan Review to authorize the maintenance of
previously conducted and illegal grading at a single family residence. The vote
was 5-0.
2. The applicants are requesting to modify a previously approved Variance to
construct a 1,200 square foot residential addition at the southwest corner of the
residence attached by a breezeway that will encroach 25 feet into the 50 foot front
yard setback. The addition will not encroach any further than the existing
residence into the setback. The existing 3,784 square foot residence plus the
addition will be 4,984 square feet.
The applicants are requesting to modify a previously approved Variance for a
3,200 square foot stable now reduced to 2,600 square feet. The stable will be
located in the front yard (stables are not permitted in front yards), 113 feet west of
the residence that will also encroach 34 feet into the 50 foot front yard setback.
Printed on Recycled Paper.
•The applicantsalso requesting to modify the previously approved
ed Site Plan to
authorize the maintenance of previously conducted and illegal grading for a
building pad at the property. (Site Plan Review is required for any grading
requiring a grading permit, any new building or structure except a barn or stable
without grading, and any additions that increase the size of the structure by at
least 1,000 square feet and has the effect of increasing the size of the structure by
more than 25% in any 36-month period).
Grading for the previously approved residential addition and proposed stable
required 4,980 cubic yards of cut soil and 4,980 cubic yards of fill soil but, was
completed with 4,650 cubic yards of cut soil and 4,650 cubic yards of fill soil. The
soil was to be removed from the southeast portion of the lot and relocated to the
northwest side of the residence to enlarge the residential building pad.
During grading for the project, fill material and debris were relocated to the
northern portion of the lot and the applicants request that this illegal pad remain
"for the kids to play or pasture area for horses." In a letter dated May 15, 2000, Mr.
Johnson explained that activity at the northern portion of the lot "was outside the
scope of the approved grading plan and was the result of fill material that was
rejected by the soils engineer and supervising geologist. At the end of the grading
project, the rejected materials were spread where they remain today. Additionally,
this area was also the repository of the materials that were excavated when the
pool excavation occurred last year. To date, I have exported no fill materials off
site."
Regarding how the change will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare
nor, injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone where the
property is located, the applicants state, "It doesn't impact anyone's view and is
not that significant an amount of dirt."
3 Structural lot coverage will be 8,856 square feet and 8.6% of the net lot area (20%
maximum permitted). Total lot coverage will be 13,784 square feet and 13.4% of
the net lot area (35% maximum permitted).
4. The 14,786 square foot residential building pad that is beyond allowable setbacks
will have 6,160 square feet or 41.7% coverage and exceeds the Planning
Commission's guideline maximum of 30% (previous approval was 40.9%). The
1,072 square foot stable pad that is beyond allowable setbacks will have 2,600
square feet or 242.5% coverage. Coverage on both pads'will be 55.2%.
5. Including the proposed 8,800 square foot "play area/pasture," the disturbed area
of the lot will be 41,294 square feet or 40.0% of the net lot area (40% maximum).
6. The existing driveway access at the southeast portion of the lot off Middleridge
Lane South will not be disturbed.
7. A 16 foot wide trail that has a grade of 18% or less exists 30 feet west of the existing
driveway to provide access to the proposed stable.
8. Building permits show that the original residence was built in 1979. The
swimming pool was constructed in 1986. A grading permit was issued for a total
of 7,050 cubic yards of grading in December, 1997; a building permit was issued
for an 800 square foot pool reconstruction in November, 1998; and a building
permit was issuefor a 311 square foot breezewaya dition in July, 1999. These
q T Y
permits are still open and are not completed or finalled.
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. 2000-18.
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.
•
•
OR1
RA -S-2 Zone Setbacks:
Front: 50 ft. from front
easement line
Side: 35 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, andany
nongraded area where
impervious surfaces exist).
Structural Lot Coverage
(20% maximum)
Total Lot Coverage
(35% maximum)
Residential Building Pad
Coverage
(Guideline maximum of 30%)
Stable Building Pad Coverage
Total Building Pad Coverage
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
Variance granted to
encroach 27 feet into
front setback for
residential addition and
Variance granted to
encroach 28 feet into
the front yard and front
yard setback for stable.
Residence 4,865 sq.ft.
Garage 704 sq.ft.
Swim Pool 472 sq.ft.
Stable 3,200 sq.ft.
Service Yd. 96 sa.ft.
TOTAL 9.337 sq.ft
4,980 cu. yds cut soil
4,980 cu. yds fill soil
35.2%
19.0%
113.9%
40.9%
298,5%
58.3%
Existing off Middleridge
Lane South
Proposed with a slope
of 20% or less
from driveway off
Middleridge Lane South
Planning Commission
will review
IPlanning Commission
will review
i
Residence encroaches
up to 25 feet into front
yard setback.
Residence3,784 sq.ft.
Garage 704 sq.ft.
Swim Pool 472 sq.ft.
Stable 0 sq.ft.
Service Yd. 96 sa.ft.
TOTAL 5,056 sq.ft
14,650 cu.yds cut soil
4,650 cu.yds fill soil
37.5%.
(Includes 8,800 square
foot proposed "play
area/pasture"
4.9%.
1,9.7%
33.5%
II °
II '33.5%
No change
Existing 16 foot wide
access with a slope of
18%, 30 feet west of
existing driveway.
ONo
change
INo change
Modify Variance to
encroach up to 25 feet
into front yard setback
for residential addition
and modify Variance to
encroach up to 34 feet
into the front yard and
front yard setback for
stable.
Residence 4,984 sq.ft.
Garage 704 sq.ft.
Swim Pool 472 sq.ft.
Stable 2,600 sq.ft.
Service Yd. 96 sa.ft.
TOTAL 8.856 sa.ft.
4,650 cu.yds cut soil
4,650 cu.yds fill soil
40.0%
(Includes 8,800 square
foot proposed "play
area/pasture"
8.6%
13.4%
41.7%
242.5%
55.2%
No change
Existing 16 foot wide
access with a slope of
18%, 30 feet west of
existing driveway.
No change
No change
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-18
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A
RESIDENTIAL ADDITION TO ENCROACH INTO THE FRONT
YARD SETBACK, GRANTING A VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A
STABLE TO ENCROACH INTO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK AND
GRANTING SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL TO AUTHORIZE THE
RETENTION AND MAINTENANCE OF ILLEGALLY CONDUCTED
GRADING AT A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AT 29
MIDDLERIDGE LANE SOUTH IN ZONING CASE NO. 616.
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. Kenneth J. Johnson with
respect to real property located at 29 Middleridge Lane South (Lot 248-A-1-UR), Rolling
Hills, requesting the following: (1) modify a previously approved Variance for the
construction of a residential addition to encroach into the front yard setback, (2) modify
a previously approved Variance for the construction of .a stable to encroach into the
front yard setback, and (3) modify a previously approved Site Plan Review to authorize
the maintenance of previously conducted and illegal, grading : at a single family
residence.
Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted °'aduly noticed public hearing.
to consider the applications on June 20, 2000 and July 18, 2000, and at a field trip visit on
July 15, 2000. The applicants were notified of the public hearing in writing by first class
mail and through the City's newsletter. Evidence was heard andpresented from all
persons interested in affecting said proposal and from members of the City staff and the
Planning Commission having reviewed, analyzed and studied said proposal. The
applicant or his representative were in attendance at. the hearing.
Section 3. The Planning Commission finds that the project qualifies as a Class
1, 3, and 4 Exemption [State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15301(e), 15303(e) and 15304]
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. Section 17.16.110 requires a front yard of fifty. feet (50') from the front
easement line. The applicant is requesting to add.a 1,200 square foot residential addition
at the southwest corner of the residence attached by a breezeway that will, encroach
twenty-five (25) feet into the fifty (50) foot front yard setback. With respect to this
request for a Variance, the Planning Commission finds as follows:
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-18
PAGE 1 OF 8
• •
A. There are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances and conditions
applicable to the property that do not apply generally to the other property or class of
use in the same zone because the lot is an irregular -shaped lot. The existing legal
nonconforming residence was built within the front yard setback and the existing
building pad is located close to the street. The residential addition will be constructed
to align with the existing structure. Due to the irregular shape of the lot and the siting
of the existing house on the lot, it would be infeasible to construct the addition without
encroaching into the required setback.
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
grading was minimized to increase the building pad on this irregular shaped lot and
there will not be any greater incursion into the front yard setback than, already exists at
the existing site and at other property in the same vicinity: The Variance will permit
the development .of the property in a manner similar to development patterns on
surrounding properties. The location of the building pad dictates that the proposed
addition be set forward on the lot because the existing structure was, not constructed
under current setback standards and the building pad is situated close to the street,
C. The granting of the Variance would not be materially detrimental to the
public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements. insuch vicinityand zone
in which the property ' is located. Development on the pad will allow a substantial
portion of the lot to remain undeveloped.
Section 5. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission
hereby approves the request for a Variance in conjunction with Zoning Case No. 616 to
permit the proposed project to encroach a maximum of twenty-five ,feet (25') into the
fifty foot (50') front yard setback, subject to the conditions specified in Section 10.
Section 6. Section 17.16.200 of the Rolling Hills. Municipal Code requires that
stables and corrals not be constructed in the front yard. The, applicant is requesting to
construct a 2,600 square foot stable in the front yard. With,respect to this request for a
Variance, the Planning Commission finds as follows:
A. There are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances and conditions
applicable to the property that do not apply generally to the other property or class of
use in the same zone because the lot is an irregular shaped lot. ' The existing legal
nonconforming residence was built within the front yard setback and the existing
building pad for the stable is located close to the street. The required stable cannot be
located anywhere else than the proposed location in the required setback due to the
topography and irregular shape of the site.
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
grading will not be required to increase the building pad for the stable on this irregular
shaped lot and there will not be any greater incursion into the front yard setback than
already exists at the existing site and at other property in the same vicinity. Also, the
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-18
PAGE 2 OF 8
•
Variance will permit the development of the property in • a manner similar to
development. patterns on surrounding properties. The Variance is necessary because
the Rolling Hills Municipal Code requires that every lot have a site that is readily
accessible and suitable for a stable and corral and the only site on the property for a
stable and corral requires encroachment into the front yard.
C. The granting of the Variance would not be materially detrimental to the
public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in suchvicinity and zone.
in which the property is located. Development on the pad will allow a substantial
portion of the lot to remain undeveloped.
Section 7. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission
hereby approves the request for a Variance in conjunction with Zoning Case No. 616 to
permit the construction of a 2,600 square foot stable in the front yard, subject to the
conditions specified in Section 10.
Section 8. Section 17.46.020 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code requires a
development plan to be submitted for site plan review and approval before any grading
that requires a grading permit or any new building, or structure maybe constructed.
The applicants request Site Plan Review to authorize themaintenance. of previously
conducted and illegal grading at a single family residence. With respectto the Site Plan
Review 'application, 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 grading, as conditioned,
complies with the General Plan requirement of lowprofile, low density residential
development with sufficient open space between surrounding structures. With the
Variances approved in Sections 5 and 7, the project conforms to Zoning Code setback
and lot coverage requirements. The lot has a net square foot area of 103,237 square feet.
The residence (4,984 sq.ft.), attached garage (704 sq.ft.), pool (472 sq.ft.), stable (2,600
sq.ft.),:and service yard (96 sq.ft.) will have 8,856 square feet which constitutes 8.6% of
the lot which is within the maximum 20°t0 structural lot coverage requirement. The
total lot coverage including paved areas and driveway will be 13,784 square feet which
equals 13.4% of the lot, which is within the 35% maximum overall lot coverage
requirement. The proposed project is on a relatively large irregular -shaped lot with
most of the structures located at or below and away from the road so as to reduce the
visual impact of the development.. .
B. 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) because a minimum amount of grading is proposed and will only
be done to provide approved drainage that will flow away from the. proposed
structures, the existing residence, and neighboring residences.,
C. The development plan follows the natural contours of the site to minimize
grading and the natural drainage courses will continueto the canyons at the west side
of this lot.
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-18
PAGE 3 OF 8
• •
D. The development plan incorporates existing large trees and native vegetation
to the maximum extent feasible. Specifically, the development plan preserves several
mature trees and shrubs.
E. The development plan substantially preserves the natural and undeveloped
state of the lot by minimizing building coverage because the new structures will not
cause the structural and total lot coverage to be exceeded. Further, the proposed
project is designed to minimize grading. Significant portions of the lot will be left
undeveloped so as to maintain scenic vistas across the northwesterly portions of the
property.
F. 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 lot coverage maximum will not be exceeded and the proposed project
is consistent with the scale of the neighborhood when compared to this
irregular -shaped lot. Any additional grading shall be permitted only to restore the
natural slope of the property.
G. The proposed development is sensitive and not detrimental to the
convenience and safety of circulation for pedestrians and vehicles because the
proposed project will utilize the same driveway to Middleridge Lane South for access.
H. The project conforms with the requirements of the California Environmental
Quality Act and is categorically exempt from environmental review.
Section 9. Based upon the foregoing findings, the. Planning Commission
hereby approves the Site Plan Review request to allow previously conducted illegal
grading, allow proposed limited grading and to allow the construction of residential
additions and a stable at an existing single family residence,asindicated on the
Development Plan dated June 14, 2000 and marked Exhibit A, subject to the conditions
specified in Section 10.
Section 10. The Variances regarding encroachments approved in Sections 5
and 7 of this Resolution and the Site Plan Review approved in Section 9 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 if applicants have . not pulled the appropriate
building permits and commenced work as defined in Sections 17.38.07O(A) and
17.46.08O(A) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code unless otherwise extended pursuant to
the requirements of these sections.
B. It is declared and made a condition of the Variance and Site Plan Review
approvals, that if any conditions thereof are violated, this approval shall be suspended
and the privileges granted thereunder shall lapse; provided that the applicants have
been given written notice to cease such violation, the opportunity:. fora 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. .
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-18
PAGE 4 OF 8
C. All requirements of the Buildings and Construction Ordinance, the
Zoning Ordinance, and of the zone in which the subject propertyis 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 June 14, 2000, except as otherwise
provided in these conditions.
E. The property on which the project is located shall contain an area of
sufficient size to also provide an area meeting all standards for a stable and corral with
vehicular access thereto in conformance with site plan review limitations.
F. Structural lot coverage shall not exceed 8,856 square feet or 8.6% in
conformance with lot coverage limitations.
G. Total lotcoverage, of structures and paved areas shall not exceed 13,784
square feet or 13:4% in conformance with lot coverage limitations.
H. The disturbed area of the lot shall not exceed 41,294 square feet or 40.0%
in conformance with lot coverage limitations.
I. Building pad coverage shall not exceed 55.2%:
J. There shall be no further grading for the project than the 4,650 cubic yards
of cut soil and the 4,650 cubic yards of fill soil that has already taken place.
• K. The stable loft shall not have glazed openings but, may have usable
shutters.
L. Any stable loft shall be limited in use to the storage of feed, tack and
stable equipment.
M. The stable shall be used for the exclusive purpose, of keeping permitted
domestic animals. Commercial uses are not permitted.
N. Landscaping shall be designed using mature, trees and shrubs so' as not to
obstruct views of neighboring properties but, to obscure the residence.
O. Landscaping shall include water efficient irrigation, to the maximum
extent feasible, that incorporates a low gallonage irrigation system, utilizes automatic
controllers, incorporates an irrigation design using "hydrozones," considers slope
factors and climate conditions in design, and utilizes means to reduce water waste
resulting from runoff and overspray. in accordance with Section 17.27.020 (Water
efficient landscaping requirements) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code.
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-18
PAGE 5 OF 8
• 11
P. The landscape plan shall include appropriate planting of the hillsides and
lower created pad which has been denuded by periodic discing and grading with low
growing ground cover.
Q. Two copies of a landscape plan must be submitted for review by the
Planning Department and include native drought -resistant vegetation that will not
disrupt the impact of the views of neighboring properties prior to the issuance of any
building permit. The landscaping plan submitted must comply with the purpose and
intent of the Site Plan Review Ordinance, shall incorporate existing mature trees and
native vegetation, and shall utilize to the maximum extent feasible, plants that are
native to the area and/or consistent with the rural character of the community.
A bond in the amount of the cost estimate of the implementation of the landscaping
plan plus 15% shall be required to be posted prior to issuance of a grading and building
permit and shall be retained with the City for not less than two years after landscape
installation. The retained bond will be released by the City Manager after the City
Manager determines that the landscaping was installed pursuant to the landscaping
plan as approved, and that such landscaping is properly established and in good
condition.
R. During construction, dust control measures shall be used to stabilize the
soil from wind, erosion and reduce dust and objectionable odors generated by
construction activities in accordance with South Coast Air Quality Management
District, Los Angeles County and local ordinances and engineering practices.
S. During construction, conformance with local ordinances :and engineering
practices so that people or property are not exposed to landslides, mudflows, erosion,
or land subsidence shall be required.
T. During construction, conformance with the air quality managementdistrict
requirements, stormwater pollution prevention practices, county and localordinances
and engineering practices so that people or property are .not exposed to unduevehicle
trips, noise, dust, objectionable odors, landslides, mudflows, erosion, or land
subsidence shall be required.
U. During and after construction, all soil preparation, drainage, and landscape
sprinklers shall protect the building pad from erosion and direct surface water to the
rear of the lot at the northwest.
V. During construction, an applicant prepared Erosion Control Plan
containing the elements set forth in Section 7010 of the 1996 County of Los Angeles
Uniform Building Code shall be followed to minimize erosion and to protect slopes and
channels to control stormwater pollution as required by the County of Los Angeles.
W. During and after construction, all parking shall take placeon the projectsite
and, if necessary, any overflow parking shall take place within 'nearby roadway
easements.
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-18
PAGE 6 OF 8
X. 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.
Y. The drainage plan system shall be modified and approved by the
Planning Department and City Engineer, to include any water from any site irrigation
systems and that all drainage from the site shall be conveyed in an approved manner to
the rear or northeast of the lot.
Z. The property owners shall be required to conform with the Regional
Water Quality • Control Board and County Health Department requirements for the
installation and maintenance of stormwater drainage facilities.
AA. 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.
AB. A detailed drainage plan that conforms to the development plan . as
approved by the Planning Commission must be submitted to the Rolling Hills Planning
Department staff for their review.
AC. The project must be reviewed and approved by the Rolling Hills
Community Association Architectural Review Committee prior to the issuance of any
drainage, building or grading permit..
AD. The working drawings submitted to the County Department of Building
and Safety for plan check review; shall conform to the development: plan described in
Condition D.
AE. Notwithstanding Sections 17.46.020 and 17.46.070 of the Rolling Hills
Municipal Code, any modifications to the project which would constitute additional
grading or structural development shall require the filing of a new application for
approval by the Planning Commission.
AF. Prior to the submittal of an applicable finalbuilding plan to the County of
Los Angeles for plan check, a detailed drainage plan with related geology, soils and
hydrology reports that conform to the development plan as approved by the Planning
Commission must be submitted to the Rolling Hills Planning Department staff for their
review.
AG. The applicants shall execute an Affidavit of Acceptance of all conditions, of
these Variance and Site Plan Review approvals, pursuant to Section 17.38.060, or the
approvals shall not be effective.
AH. All conditions of these Variance and Site Plan Review approvals must be
complied with prior to the issuance of a building permit from the County of Los
Angeles.
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-18
PAGE 7 OF 8
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 15TH DAY OF AUGUST,000.
ALLA'N ROBERTS, CHAIRMAN
A 1'1'EST:
.
MARILYN KERN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK
STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) .
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS)
I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2000-18 entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A
RESIDENTIAL . ADDITION TO ENCROACH INTO THE FRONT
YARD SETBACK, GRANTING A VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A
STABLE TO ENCROACH INTO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK AND
GRANTING SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL TO AUTHORIZE THE
RETENTION AND MAINTENANCE OF ILLEGALLY CONDUCTED
GRADING AT A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AT 29
MIDDLERIDGE LANE SOUTH IN ZONING CASE NO.616.
was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the - Planning Commission on
August 15, 2000 by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Margeta, 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.
DEPUTY CITY CLERK
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-18
PAGE 8 OF 8
•City olleollin9
•
INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274
(310) 377-1521
HEARING DATE: JULY 18, 2000 FAX: (310) 377-7288
E-mail: cityofrh@aol.com
TO: HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: LOLA M. UNGAR, PLANNING DIRECTOR
APPLICATION NO. ZONING CASE NO. 616
SITE LOCATION: 29 MIDDLERIDGE LANE SOUTH (LOT 248-A-1-UR)
ZONING AND SIZE: RAS-2, 3.36 ACRES
APPLICANT: MR. AND MRS. KENNETH J. JOHNSON
REPRESENTATIVE: MR. JOHN V. JUGE, JR., JUGE DESIGN GROUP
PUBLISHED: JUNE 10, 2000
REQUEST
Request to modify a previously approved Variance for the construction of a
residential addition to encroach into the front yard setback, a request to modify a
previously approved Variance for the construction of a stable to encroach into the
front yard setback, and a request to modify a previously approved Site Plan Review to
authorize the maintenance of previously conducted and illegal grading at a single
family residence
BACKGROUND
1. The Planning Commission will have viewed the site on Saturday, July 15, 2000.
2. The applicants are requesting to modify a previously approved Variance to
construct a 1,200 square foot residential addition at the southwest corner of the
residence attached by a breezeway that will encroach 25 feet into the 50 foot
front yard setback. The addition will not encroach any further than the existing
residence into the setback. The existing 3,784 square foot residence plus the
addition will be 4,984 square feet.
The applicants are requesting to modify a previously approved Variance for a
3,200 square foot stable now reduced to 2,600 square feet. The stable will be
located in the front yard (stables are not permitted in front yards), 113 feet west
of the residence that will also encroach 34 feet into the 50 foot front yard
setback.
The applicants are also requesting to modify the previously approved Site Plan
to authorize the maintenance of previously conducted and illegal grading for a
building pad at the property. (Site Plan Review is required for any grading
requiring a grading permit, any new building or structure except a barn or stable
without grading, and any additions that increase the size of the structure by at
least 1,000 square feet and has the effect of increasing the size of the structure by
more than 25% in any 36-month period).
ZONING CASE NO. 616
PAGE 1
Printed on Recycled Paper.
• •
Grading for the previously approved residential addition and proposed stable
required 4,980 cubic yards of cut soil and 4,980 cubic yards of fill soil but, was
completed with 4,650 cubic yards of cut soil and 4,650 cubic yards of fill soil. The
soil was to be removed from the southeast portion of the lot and relocated to
the northwest side of the residence to enlarge the residential building pad.
During grading for the project, fill material and debris were relocated to the
northern portion of the lot and the applicants request that this illegal pad
remain "for the kids to play or pasture area for horses." In a letter dated May
15, 2000, Mr. Johnson explained that activity at the northern portion of the lot
"was outside the scope of the approved grading plan and was the result of fill
material that was rejected by the soils engineer and supervising geologist. At
the end of the grading project, the rejected materials were spread where they
remain today. Additionally, this area was also the repository of the materials
that were excavated when the pool excavation occurred last year. To date, I
have exported no fill materials off site."
Regarding how the change will not be materially detrimental to the public
welfare nor injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and
zone where the property is located, the applicants state, "It doesn't impact
anyone's view and is not that significant an amount of dirt."
3. Structural lot coverage will be 8,856 square feet and 8.6% of the net lot area (20%
maximum permitted). Total lot coverage will be 13,784 square feet and 13.4% of
the net lot area (35% maximum permitted).
4. The 14,786 square foot residential building pad that is beyond allowable setbacks
will have 6,160 square feet or 41.7% coverage and exceeds the Planning
Commission's guideline maximum of 30% (previous approval was 40.9%).
The 1,072 square foot stable pad that is beyond allowable setbacks will have
2,600 square feet or 242.5% coverage. Coverage on both pads will be 55.2%.
5. Including the proposed 8,800 square foot "play area/pasture," the disturbed area
of the lot will be 41,294 square feet or 40.0% of the net lot area (40% maximum).
6. The existing driveway access at the southeast portion of the lot off Middleridge
Lane South will not be disturbed.
7. A 16 foot wide trail that has a grade of 18% or less exists 30 feet west of the
existing driveway to provide access to the proposed stable.
8. Building permits show that the original residence was built in 1979. The
swimming pool was constructed in 1986. A grading permit was issued for a
total of 7,050 cubic yards of grading in December, 1997; a building permit was
issued for an 800 square foot pool reconstruction in November, 1998; and a
building permit was issued for a 311 square foot breezeway addition in July,
1999. These permits are still open and are not completed or finalled.
9. The project has been determined to be categorically exempt pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
ZONING CASE NO. 616
PAGE 2
RECOMMENDATION
• •
It is recommended that the Planning Commission review the proposed plans and
take public testimony.
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. 616
PAGE 3
•
•
CRITERIA
& MAJOR IMPACTS
RA -S-2 Zone Setbacks:
Front: 50 ft. from front
easement line
Side: 35 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,
andany nongraded area. where
impervious surfaces exist).
Structural Lot Coverage
(20% maximum)
Total Lot Coverage
(35% maximum)
Residential Building Pad
Coverage
(Guideline maximum of 30%)
Stable Building Pad Coverage
Total Building Pad Coverage
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
PREV. APPROVED
10/15/96
Variance granted to
encroach 27 feet into
front setback for
residential addition
and Variance granted
to encroach 28 feet
into the front yard and
front yard setback for
stable.
Residence 4,865 sq.ft.
Garage 704 sq.ft.
Swim Pool 472 sq.ft.
Stable 3,200 sq.ft.
Service Yd. 96 sa.ft.
TOTAL 9.337 sa.ft.
4,980 cu. yds cut soil
4,980 cu. yds fill soil
35.2%
9.0%
13.9%
40.9%
298,5%
58.3%
Existing off
Middleridge Lane
South
Proposed with a slope
of 20% or less
from driveway off
Middleridge Lane
South
EXISTING
Residence
encroaches up to 25
feet into front yard
setback.
Residence3,784 sq.ft.
Garage 704 sq.ft.
Swim Pool 472 sq.ft.
Stable 0 sq.ft.
Service Yd. 96 sa.ft.
TOTAL 5.056 sa.ft
4,650 cu.yds cut soil
4,650 cu.yds fill soil
37.5%
(Includes 8,800
square foot proposed
"play area/pasture"
4.9%
9.7%
33.5%
0
33.5%
No change
Existing 16 foot wide
access with a slope of
18%, 30 feet west of
existing driveway.
Planning Commission No change
will review
Planning Commission No change
will review
PROPOSED
Modify Variance to
encroach up to 25 feet
into front yard setback
for residential addition
and modify Variance
to encroach up to 34
feet into the front yard
and front yard setback
for stable.
Residence 4,984 sq.ft.
Garage 704 sq.ft.
Swim Pool 472 sq.ft.
Stable 2,600 sq.ft.
Service Yd. 96 sa.ft.
TOTAL 8.856 sa.ft.
4,650 cu.yds cut soil
4,650 cu.yds fill soil
40.0%
(Includes 8,800 square
foot proposed "play
area/pasture"
8.6%
13.4%
41.7%
242.5%
55.2%
No change
Existing 16 foot wide
access with a slope of
18%, 30 feet west of
existing driveway.
No change
No change
ZONING CASE NO. 616
PAGE 4
•City 0/ leoffiny _AA
•
INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274
(310) 377-1521
HEARING DATE: JULY 15, 2000 FAX: (310) 377-7288
E-mail: cityofrh@aol.com
TO: HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: LOLA M. UNGAR, PLANNING DIRECTOR
APPLICATION NO. ZONING CASE NO. 616
SITE LOCATION: 29 MIDDLERIDGE LANE SOUTH (LOT 248-A-1-UR)
ZONING AND SIZE: RAS-2, 3.36 ACRES
APPLICANT: MR. AND MRS. KENNETH J. JOHNSON
REPRESENTATIVE: MR. JOHN V. JUGE, JR., JUGE DESIGN GROUP
PUBLISHED: JUNE 10, 2000
REOUEST
Request to modify a previously approved Variance for the construction of a
residential addition to encroach into the front yard setback, a request to modify a
previously approved Variance for the construction of a stable to encroach into the
front yard setback, and a request to modify a previously approved Site Plan Review to
authorize the maintenance of previously conducted and illegal grading at a single
family residence
BACKGROUND
1. The Planning Commission will view the site on Saturday, July 15, 2000
following a visit to Storm Hill Lane, then 15 Eastfield Drive, beginningat 8AM.
2. The applicants are requesting to modify a previously approved Variance to
construct a 1,200 square foot residential addition at the southwest corner of the
residence attached by a breezeway that will encroach 25 feet into the 50 foot
front yard setback. The addition will not encroach any further than the existing
residence into the setback. The existing 3,784 square foot residence plus the
addition will be 4,984 square feet.
The applicants are requesting to modify a previously approved Variance for a
3,200 square foot stable now reduced to 2,600 square feet. The stable will be
located in the front yard (stables are not permitted in front yards), 113 feet west
of the residence that will also encroach 34 feet into the 50 foot front yard
setback.
The applicants are also requesting to modify the previously approved Site Plan
to authorize the maintenance of previously conducted and illegal grading for a
building pad at the property. (Site Plan Review is required for any grading
requiring a grading permit, any new building or structure except a barn or stable
without grading, and any additions that increase the size of the structure by at
ZONING CASE NO. 616
PAGE 1
Printed on Recycled Paper.
least 1,000 square felt and has the effect of increasing thsize of the structure by
more than 25% in any 36-month period).
Grading for the previously approved residential addition and proposed stable
required 4,980 cubic yards of cut soil and 4,980 cubic yards of fill soil but, was
completed with 4,650 cubic yards of cut soil and 4,650 cubic yards of fill soil. The
soil was to be removed from the southeast portion of the lot and relocated to
the northwest side of the residence to enlarge the residential building pad.
During grading for the project, fill material and debris were relocated to the
northern ' portion of the lot and the applicants request that this illegal pad
remain "for the kids to play or pasture area for horses." In a letter dated May
15, 2000, Mr. Johnson explained that activity at the northern portion of the lot
"was outside the scope of the approved grading plan and was the result of fill
material that was rejected by the soils engineer and supervising geologist. At
the end of the grading project, the rejected materials were spread where they
remain today. Additionally, this area was also the repository of the materials
that were excavated when the pool excavation occurred last year. To date, I
have exported no fill materials off site."
Regarding how the change will not be materially detrimental to the public
welfare nor injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and
zone where the property is located, the applicants state, "It doesn't impact
anyone's view and is not that significant an amount of dirt."
3. Structural lot coverage will be 8,856 square feet and 8.6% of the net lot area (20%
maximum permitted). Total lot coverage will be 13,784 square feet and 13.4% of
the net lot area (35% maximum permitted).
4. The 14,786 square foot residential building pad that is beyond allowable setbacks
will have 6,160 square feet or 41.7% coverage and exceeds the Planning
Commission's guideline maximum of 30% (previous approval was 40.9%).
The 1,072 square foot stable pad that is beyond allowable setbacks will have
2,600 square feet or 242.5% coverage. Coverage on both pads will be 55.2%.
5. Including the proposed 8,800 square foot "play area/pasture," the disturbed area
of the lot will be 41,294 square feet or 40.0% of the net lot area (40% maximum).
6. The existing driveway access at the southeast portion of the lot off Middleridge
Lane South will not be disturbed.
7. A 16 foot wide trail that has a grade of 18% or less exists 30 feet west of the
existing driveway to provide access to the proposed stable.
8. Building permits show that the original residence was built in 1979. The
swimming pool was constructed in 1986. A grading permit was issued for a
total of 7,050 cubic yards of grading in December, 1997; a building permit was
issued for an 800 square foot pool reconstruction in November, 1998; and a
building permit was issued for a 311 square foot breezeway addition in July,
1999. These permits are still open and are not completed or finalled.
9. The project has been determined to be categorically exempt pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
ZONING CASE NO. 616
PAGE 2
RECOMMENDATION •
•
It is recommended that the Planning Commission review the proposed plans and
• take public testimony.
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. 616
PAGE 3
•
CRITERIA
& MAJOR IMPACTS
RA -S-2 Zone Setbacks:
Front: 50 ft. from front
easement line
Side: 35 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,
andany nongraded area where
impervious surfaces exist).
Structural Lot Coveraae
(20% maximum)
Total Lot Coveraae
(35% maximum)
Residential Buildina Pad
Coverage
(Guideline maximum of 30%)
Stable Buildina Pad Coverage
Total Buildina Pad Coverage
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
PREV. ,APPROVED
10/15/96
Variance granted to
encroach 27 feet into
front setback for
residential addition
and Variance granted
to encroach 28 feet
into the front yard and
front yard setback for
stable.
Residence 4,865 sq.ft.
Garage 704 sq.ft.
Swim Pool 472 sq.ft.
Stable 3,200 sq.ft.
Service Yd. 96 sa.ft.
TOTAL 9.337 sa.ft.
4,980 cu. yds cut soil
4,980 cu. yds fill soil
35.2%
9.0%
13.9%
40.9%
298,5%
EXISTING
Residence
encroaches up to 25
feet into front yard
setback.
Residence3,784 sq.ft.
Garage 704 sq.ft.
Swim Pool 472 sq.ft.
Stable 0 sq.ft.
Service Yd. 96 sa.ft.
TOTAL 5.056 sa.ft
4,650 cu.yds cut soil
4,650 cu.yds fill soil
37.5%
(Includes 8,800
square foot proposed
"play area/pasture"
4.9%
9.7%
• 33.5%
58.3%
Existing off
Middleridge Lane
South
Proposed with a slope
of 20% or less
from driveway off
Middleridge Lane
South
0
33.5%
No change
Existing 16 foot wide
access with a slope of
18%, 30 feet west of
existing driveway.
Planning Commission No change
will review
Planning Commission No change
will review
PROPOSED
Modify Variance to
encroach up to 25 feet
into front yard setback
for residential addition
and modify Variance
to encroach up to 34
feet into the front yard
and front yard setback
for stable.
Residence 4,984 sq.ft.
Garage 704 sq.ft.
Swim Pool 472 sq.ft.
Stable 2,600 sq.ft.
Service Yd. 96 sa.ft.
TOTAL 8.856 sa.ft.
4,650 cu.yds cut soil
4,650 cu.yds fill soil
40.0%
(Includes 8,800 square
foot proposed "play
area/pasture"
8.6%
13.4%
41.7%
242.5%
55.2%
No change
Existing 16 foot wide
access with a slope of
18%, 30 feet west of
existing driveway.
No change
No change
ZONING CASE NO. 616
PAGE 4
•City 0/
•
INCORPORATED JANUARY 24,
1957
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274
(310) 377-1521
HEARING DATE: JUNE 20, 2000 FAX: (310) 377-7288
E-mail: cityofrh@aol.com
TO: HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: LOLA M. UNGAR, PLANNING DIRECTOR
APPLICATION NO.
SITE LOCATION:
ZONING AND SIZE:
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
PUBLISHED:
REQUEST
ZONING CASE NO. 616
29 MIDDLERIDGE LANE SOUTH (LOT 248-A-1-UR)
RAS-2, 3.36 ACRES
MR. AND MRS. KENNETH J. JOHNSON
MR. JOHN V. JUGE, JR., JUGE DESIGN GROUP
JUNE 10, 2000
Request to modify a previously approved Variance for the construction of a
residential addition to encroach into the front yard setback, a request to modify a
previously approved Variance for the construction of a stable to encroach into the
front yard setback, and a request to modify a previously approved Site Plan Review to
authorize the maintenance of previously conducted and illegal grading at a single
family residence
BACKGROUND
1. The applicants are requesting to modify a previously approved Variance to
construct a 1,200 square foot residential addition at the southwest corner of the
residence attached by a breezeway that will encroach 25 feet into the 50 foot
front yard setback. The addition will not encroach any further than the existing
residence into the setback. The existing 3,784 square foot residence plus the
addition will be 4,984 square feet.
The applicants are requesting to modify a previously approved Variance for a
3,200 square foot stable now reduced to 2,600 square feet. The stable will be
located in the front yard (stables are not permitted in front yards), 113 feet west
of the residence that will also encroach 34 feet into the 50 foot front yard
setback.
The applicants are also requesting to modify the previously approved Site Plan
to authorize the maintenance of previously conducted and illegal grading for a
building pad at the property. (Site Plan Review is required for any grading
requiring a grading permit, any new building or structure except a barn or stable
without grading, and any additions that increase the size of the structure by at
least 1,000 square feet and has the effect of increasing the size of the structure by
more than 25% in any 36-month period).
ZONING CASE NO. 616
PAGE 1
C:t
Pririted on Recycled Paper.
Grading for the preZTously approved residential addit, and proposed stable
required 4,980 cubic yards of cut soil and 4,980 cubic yards of fill soil but, was
completed with 4,650 cubic yards of cut soil and 4,650 cubic yards of fill soil. The
soil was to be removed from the southeast portion of the lot and relocated to
the northwest side of the residence to enlarge the residential building pad.
During grading for the project, fill material and debris were relocated to the
northern portion of the lot and the applicants request that this illegal pad
remain "for the kids to play or pasture area for horses." In a letter dated May
15, 2000, Mr. Johnson explained that activity at the northern portion of the lot
"was outside the scope of the approved grading plan and was the result of fill
material that was rejected by the soils engineer and supervising geologist. At
the end of the grading project, the rejected materials were spread where they
remain today. Additionally, this area was also the repository of the materials
that were excavated when the pool excavation occurred last year. To date, I
have exported no fill materials off site."
Regarding how the change will not be materially detrimental to the public
welfare nor injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and
zone where the property is located, the applicants state, "It doesn't impact
anyone's view and is not that significant an amount of dirt."
2. Structural lot coverage will be 8,856 square feet and 8.6% of the net lot area (20%
maximum permitted). Total lot coverage will be 13,784 square feet and 13.4% of
the net lot area (35% maximum permitted).
3. The 14,786 square foot residential building pad that is beyond allowable setbacks
will have 6,160 square feet or 41.7% coverage and exceeds the Planning
Commission's guideline maximum of 30% (previous approval was 40.9%).
The 1,072 square foot stable pad that is beyond allowable setbacks will have
2,600 square feet or 242.5% coverage. Coverage on both pads will be 55.2%.
4. Including the proposed 8,800 square foot "play area/pasture," the disturbed area
of the lot will be 41,294 square feet or 40.0% of the net lot area (40% maximum).
5. The existing driveway access at the southeast portion of the lot off Middleridge
Lane South will not be disturbed.
6. A 16 foot wide trail that has a grade of 18% or less exists 30 feet west of the
existing driveway to provide access to the proposed stable.
7. Building permits show that the original residence was built in 1979. The
swimming pool was constructed in 1986. A grading permit was issued for a
total of 7,050 cubic yards of grading in December, 1997; a building permit was
issued for an 800 square foot pool reconstruction in November, 1998; and a
building permit was issued for a 311 square foot breezeway addition in July,
1999. These permits are still open and are not completed or finalled.
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. 616
PAGE 2
VARIANCEREQUIRED 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. 616
PAGE 3
CRITERIA
& MAJOR IMPACTS
RA -S-2 Zone Setbacks:
Front: 50 ft. from front
easement line
Side: 35 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,
andany nongraded area where
impervious surfaces exist).
Structural Lot Coveraae
(20% maximum)
Total Lot Coverage
(35% maximum)
Residential Building Pad
Coveraae
(Guideline maximum of 30%)
Stable Buildina Pad Coveraae
Total Buildina Pad Coveraae
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
III
PREV. APPROVED
10/15/96
Variance granted to
encroach 27 feet into
front setback for
residential addition
and Variance granted
to encroach 28 feet
into the front yard and
front yard setback for
stable.
Residence 4,865 sq.ft.
Garage 704 sq.ft.
Swim Pool 472 sq.ft.
Stable 3,200 sq.ft.
Service Yd. 96 sa.ft.
TOTAL 9.337 sa.ft.
4,980 cu. yds cut soil
4,980 cu. yds fill soil
35.2%
9.0%
13.9%
40.9%
298, 5%
58.3%
Existing off
Middleridge Lane
South
Proposed with a slope
of 20% or less
from driveway off
Middleridge Lane
South
•
EXISTING
Residence
encroaches up to 25
feet into front yard
setback.
Residence3,784 sq.ft.
Garage 704 sq.ft.
Swim Pool 472 sq.ft.
Stable 0 sq.ft.
Service Yd. 96 sa.ft.
TOTAL 5.056 sa.ft
4,650 cu.yds cut soil
4,650 cu.yds fill soil
37.5%
(Includes 8,800
square foot proposed
"play area/pasture"
4.9%
9.7%
33.5%
0
33.5%
No change
Existing 16 foot wide
access with a slope of
18%, 30 feet west of
existing driveway.
Planning Commission No change
will review
Planning Commission No change
will review
PROPOSED
Modify Variance to
encroach up to 25 feet
into front yard setback
for residential addition
and modify Variance
to encroach up to 34
feet into the front yard
and front yard setback
for stable.
Residence 4,984 sq.ft.
Garage 704 sq.ft.
Swim Pool 472 sq.ft.
Stable 2,600 sq.ft.
Service Yd. 96 sa.ft.
TOTAL 8.856 sa.ft.
4,650 cu.yds cut soil
4,650 cu.yds fill soil
40.0%
(Includes 8,800 square
foot proposed "play
area/pasture"
8.6%
13.4%
41.7%
242.5%
55.2%
No change
Existing 16 foot wide
access with a slope of
18%, 30 feet west of
existing driveway.
No change
No change
ZONING CASE NO. 616
PAGE 4