640B, Variance for encroachment in , Resolutions & Approval ConditionsRESOLUTION NO. 93-26
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF ROLLING HILLS APPROVING A VARIANCE TO PERMIT AN
ENCROACHMENT INTO THE FRONT YARD TO CONSTRUCT A STABLE
AND CORRAL, APPROVING A SITE PLAN REVIEW APPLICATION, AND
REPEALING RESOLUTION NO. 92-27 IN ZONING CASE NO. 460B.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES
HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Applications were duly filed by Dr. James
Scharffenberger with respect to real property located at 5
Appaloosa Lane, Rolling Hills (Lot 106-D-RH) requesting: (1) A
Variance to permit encroachment into the front yard to construct a
stable and corral, and (2) Site Plan Review of a proposed new
residence. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public
hearing to consider the applications on December 17, 1991 and
January 21, 1992, and at a field trip visit on January 11, 1992.
Section 2. The Commission approved Resolution No. 92-10 in
Zoning Case No. 460 on February 1, 1992. The City Council took the
subject zoning case under jurisdiction on February 10, 1992 and
conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the appeal of
the applications on February 24, 1992. The City Council remanded
the subject case back to the Planning Commission to address the two
issues of: (1) The necessity to provide a title report for 3
Appaloosa Lane (Lot 106-D-RH) which shows that there is an easement
for roadway purposes across property known as 2 Appaloosa Lane (Lot
106-C-RH) and across Lot 246-MS, and (2) The approval by the
Traffic Commission of the proposed accessway to the subject site.
Section 3. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed
public hearing to consider the applications on March 17, 1992,
April 28, 1992, May 19, 1992, June 16, 1992, and July 21, 1992
while awaiting the title report. Under Section 65957 of the
Government Code the applicant requested a 90 day extension of time
on August 17, 1992 and the Planning Commission conducted a duly
noticed public hearing to consider the applications on August 18,
1992, September 15, 1992, and October 20, 1992.
Section 4. Following the resolution of these matters, the
Commission approved Resolution No. 92-27 in Zoning Case No. 460A on
November 21, 1992. The City Council took the subject zoning case
under jurisdiction on November 23, 1992 and conducted a duly
noticed public hearing to consider the appeal of the applications
on January 11, 1993. On that date, the applicant withdrew the
proposed plans and requested review of new plans. The City Council
remanded the subject case back to the Planning Commission to review
the new proposal and the large area of grading.
•
RESOLUTION NO. 93-26
PAGE 2
Section 5. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed
public hearing to consider the applications on February 16, 1993,
March 16, 1993, April 27, 1993, May 18, 1993, June 15, 1993, and
July 20, 1993, and at field trip visits on April 17, 1993 and July
15, 1993.
Section 6. The Planning Commission finds that the project is
categorically exempt from environmental review under the California
Environmental Quality Act pursuant to a Class 3 exemption provided
by Section 15303 of the State CEQA Guidelines.
Section 7. Section 17.38.050(A) through (G) permits 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. A Variance to Sections 17.16.200(A)(3) is required
because this section states that corrals or pens may not be located
in the front yard. The applicant is requesting a Variance to
encroach up to 28 feet into the 122 foot irregular front yard
setback to construct a 450 square foot stable and a 550 square foot
corral. With respect to this request, the Planning Commission
finds as follows:
A. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances, and
conditions applicable to the property and the intended use that do
not apply generally to the other property in the same vicinity and
zone. The Variance for the stable and corral is necessary because
the topography of the site prevents the construction of a stable.
corral, and retaining walls in the rear yard. The proper and
logical location for the stable and corral is below the proposed
building pad because of the topographical nature of the lot. The
proposed building pad for the residence will be located at the
southwest portion of the lot where the ground is mostly level. The
northwest side yard slopes down to the canyon which precludes the
creation of a flat area for a stable and corral in the rear yard.
The area proposed for the stable and corral is the only place
available on this property for this use.
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 the
property in question. The Variance is necessary because the
General Plan encourages and the Zoning Ordinance requires the
delineation of stables and corrals on properties in the City of
Rolling Hills and a stable and corral could not be feasibly located
in the rear yard.
RESOLUTION NO. 93-26
PAGE 3
C. The granting of the Variance will not be materially
detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or
improvements in the vicinity and zone in which the property is
located. The Variance will permit the construction of a stable and
corral which will not impact the street or neighboring properties
because they will be nestled into the hillside. Also, the building
pad for the stable is located along a long driveway so that it will
not be visible from the street.
Section 8. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning
Commission hereby approves the Variance to permit the construction
of a 450 square foot stable and a 550 square foot corral in the
front yard as shown on the Development Plan attached hereto as
Exhibit A, subject to the conditions specified in Section 12.
Section 9. Section 17.46.030 requires a development plan to
be submitted for site plan review and approval before any building
or structure may be constructed or any expansion, addition,
alteration or repair to existing buildings may be made which
involve changes to grading or an increase to the size of the
building or structure by at least 1,000 square feet and has the
effect of increasing the size of the building or structure by more
than 25%,in any 36-month period.
Section 10. 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 structure complies with the General Plan requirement of
low profile, low density residential development with sufficient
open space between surrounding structures. The project conforms to
Zoning Code setback and lot coverage requirements. The lot has a
net square foot area of 87,152 square feet. The proposed residence
(5,615 sq.ft.), garage (875 sq.ft.), swimming pool (308 sq.ft.),
service yard (72 sq.ft.), and future stable (450 sq.ft.) will have
7,320 square feet which constitutes 8.4% of the lot which is within
the maximum 20% structural lot coverage requirement. The total lot
coverage including paved areas and driveway will be 17,210 square
feet which equals 19.8% of the lot, which is within the 35% maximum
overall lot coverage requirement. The proposed project is on a
relatively large lot with most of the proposed structures located
away from the road so as to reduce the visual impact of the
development. The pad is similar in size to several neighboring
developments.
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
RESOLUTION NO. 93-26
PAGE 4
h
proposed and will only be done to provide approved drainage that
will flow away from the proposed residence and existing neighboring
residences.
C. 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 grading will only be done to provide
approved drainage that will flow away from the proposed residence
and existing neighboring residences.
D. The proposed development preserves and integrates into
the site design, to the maximum extent feasible, existing natural
topographic features of the lot including surrounding native
vegetation, mature trees, drainage courses, and land forms (such as
hillsides and knolls) because grading will conform with the
existing land contours which are varied.
E. 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 north side of this lot.
F. The development plan incorporates existing large trees
and native vegetation to the maximum extent feasible and, with the
conditions attached to this approval, supplements it with
landscaping that is compatible with and enhances the rural
character of the community.
G. 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 will
have a buildable pad coverage of 35%. Significant portions of the
lot will be left undeveloped so as to maintain trail access near
the western property line and scenic vistas across the northerly
portions of the property.
H. The proposed development 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. Grading shall be permitted only to restore the
natural slope of the property. The ratio of the proposed structure
to lot coverage is similar to the ratio found on several properties
in the vicinity.
I. The proposed development is sensitive and not
detrimental,tothe convenience and safety of circulation for
pedestrians and vehicles because the proposed project will utilize
Appaloosa Lane for access. Also, the proposed driveway is near the
RESOLUTION NO. 93-26
PAGE 5
end of a cul-de-sac street which will therefore create little
interference with traffic.
J. The project conforms with the requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act and is categorically exempt
from environmental review.
Section 11. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning
Commission hereby approves the Site Plan Review application for
Zoning Case No. 460B for a proposed residential development as
indicated on the development plan incorporated herein as Exhibit A
and subject to the conditions contained in Section 12.
Section 12. The Variance to permit the construction of a
stable, corral, and retaining walls that will encroach into the
front yard approved in Section 8, and the Site Plan Review for
residential development approved in Section 11 are subject to the
following conditions:
A. The Variance shall expire unless used within one year
from the effective date of approval as defined in Section 17.38.070
of the Municipal Code. The Site Plan Review approval shall expire
within one year from the effective date of approval as defined in
Section.17.46.080(A).
B. It is declared and made a condition of the Variance and
the Site Plan Review approval, that if any conditions thereof are
violated, the Permit shall be suspended and the privileges granted
thereunder shall lapse; provided that the applicant has been given
written notice to cease such violation and has failed to do so for
a period of thirty (30) days.
C. All requirements of the Building and Construction
Ordinance, the Zoning Ordinance, and of the zone in which the
subject property is located must be complied with unless otherwise
approved by Variance.
D. The lot shall be developed and maintained in substantial
conformance with the site plan on file marked Exhibit A except as
otherwise provided in these conditions.
E. Grading shall not exceed 1,590 cubic yards of cut soil
and 1,590 cubic yards of fill soil.
F. Graded slopes shall be contoured to 2:1, 2-1/2:1, and
3:1 slopes.
G. All retaining walls incorporated into the project shall
not be greater than 5 feet in height at any one point.
RESOLUTION NO. 93-26
PAGE 6
H. The driveway access apron shall be twenty-four (24) feet
wide.
I. The driveway access apron shall be roughened to assist
equestrian crossing.
J. To minimize the visibility of buildings on the pad, the
structures, driveway, graded slopes and retaining walls shall be
screened and shielded from view with native drought -resistant
vegetation and other vegetation that is compatible with the
surrounding vegetation of the community. Special emphasis shall be
incorporated into the landscaping plan to obscure the house from
riders on the Glory Trail at the western property line by way of
large native plants or plants that are compatible with the
surrounding vegetation of the community.
K. A landscape plan must be submitted to and approved by
the City of Rolling Hills Planning Department staff prior to the
issuance of any grading and 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.
L. Prior to the submittal of an applicable final grading
plan to the County of Los Angeles for plan check, a detailed
grading and 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. Cut and fill slopes must
conform to the City of Rolling Hills standard of 2 to 1 slope
ratio.
M. The project must be reviewed and approved by the Rolling
Hills Community Association Architectural Review Committee prior to
the issuance of any building or grading permit.
N. The working drawings submitted to the County Department
of Building and Safety for plan check review and must conform to
the development plan approved with this application.
RESOLUTION NO. 93-26
PAGE 7
0. The building pad coverage shall not exceed 35%.
P. The applicant shall execute an Affidavit of Acceptance
of all conditions -of this Variance and Site Plan Review, or the
approval shall not be effective.
Q. All conditions of this Variance and Site Plan Review
approval must be complied with prior to the issuance of a building
or grading permit from the County of Los Angeles.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 17TH DAY OF AUGUST, 1993.
EVY1HANKIE S, C ING CHAIR
ATTEST:
Y `'Jug . k.•-u-vvi
MARILYN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK
The foregoing Resolution No. 93-26 entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING
HILLS APPROVING A VARIANCE TO PERMIT AN ENCROACHMENT INTO THE
FRONT YARD TO CONSTRUCT A STABLE AND CORRAL, APPROVING A SITE
PLAN REVIEW APPLICATION, AND REPEALING RESOLUTION NO. 92-27 IN
ZONING CASE NO. 460B.
was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission on August 17, 1993, 1992 by the following roll call
vote:
AYES: Commissioner Raine and Acting Chairman Hankins
NOES: Commissioner Frost
ABSENT: Commissioner Lay and Chairman Roberts
ABSTAIN: None
DEPUTY dE TY CLERK