Loading...
745, Demo existing SFR and Construc, Resolutions & Approval ConditionsRESOLUTION NO. 1075 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A TWO-YEAR TIME EXTENSION FOR A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IN ZONING CASE NO. 745 AT 40 EASTFIELD DRIVE, (LOT 91-EF), (TONSICH). THE CITY COUNCIL DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. An application was duly filed by Mr. Nicholas Tonsich, property owner, with respect to real property located at 40 Eastfield Drive, (Lot 91-EF), Rolling Hills, CA requesting a two-year time extension for a previously approved Site Plan Review for grading and construction of a new single family residence to replace an existing single family residence in Zoning Case No. 745. The project was approved by Resolution No. 1028. Section 2. The City Council considered this item at a meeting on October 12, 2009 at which time information was presented indicating that additional time is needed to commence construction. Section 3. Based upon information and evidence submitted, the City Council does hereby amend Paragraph A, Section 10 of Resolution No. 1028, dated November 26, 2007 to read as follows: "A. The Site Plan and Variances approvals shall expire within four years from the effective date of approval if work has not commenced as defined in Section 17.46.080 of the Zoning Ordinance. No further extension shall be granted. Section 4. Except as herein amended, the provisions and conditions of Resolution No. 1028 shall continue to be in full force and effect. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOl'1'hD THIS 1y DAY OF OCTOBER 2009. ATTEST: O) S HEINSHEIMER, MAYO-It HEIDI LUCE, DEPUTY CITY CLERK -1- Resolution No. 1075 Tonsich STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§ CITY OF ROLLING HILLS I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 1075 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A TWO-YEAR TIME EXTENSION FOR A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IN ZONING CASE NO. 745 AT 40 EASTFIELD DRIVE, (LOT 91-EF), (TONSICH). was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council on October 12., 2009 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Black, Hill, Lay, Pernell and Mayor Heinsheimer NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following: Administrative Offices DEPUTY CITY CLERK -2- Resolution No. 1075 Tonsich This page is part of your document - DO NOT DISCARD i i i i i n VI 20110925615 u i 1111 II i III i i Recorded/Fi ed in Officia Records Recorder's Off ce, Los Angeles County, California 00004374930 11111 00338741 SEQ: III 07/08/11 AT 03:01PM u i DAR - Counter (Hard Copy) i 11111 IH 111011011011 IDI ID lill 111 1110 Il 111 I 01 I 1 00i llhllll 1 IllIII 1111 Ill llIII Ilililil 110 11111 THIS FORM IS NOT TO BE DUPLICATED i 0009: FEES: 39.00 TAXES: 0.00 OTHER: 0.00 PAID: 39.00 E484723 r� RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND MAIL TO: CITY OF ROLLING HILLS PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2 PORTUGUESE BEND RD. ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310) 377-1521 (310) 377-7288 FAX • *20110925615` T RECORDER'S USE ONLY THE REGISTRAR -RECORDER'S OFFICE REQUIRES THAT THE FORM BE NOTARIZED BEFORE RECORDATION. AFFIDAVIT OF ACCEPTANCE FORM STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ) §§ ZONING CASE NO. 745 XX SITE PLAN REVIEW; I (We) the undersigned state I am (We are) the owner(s) of the real property described as follows: 40 EASTFIELD DRIVE, ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (LOT 91-EF) This property is the subject of the above numbered case and conditions of approval I am (We are) aware of, and accept, all the stated conditions in said ZONING CASE NO. 745 XX SITE PLAN REVIEW I (We) certify (or deel.a{e) under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Ntc-1D(AS—fontcd Name typed or printed Address 41=> EA TFIEti0 NR-tvE R�cru►.�G, Htt �.S . CA 902-4 City/State Signature Name typed or printed _Address City/State GO Signatures must be acknowledged by a notary public. See Attached Exhibit "A", RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL NO. 1028 State of California ) County of Los Angeles ) On J th. ) (p, 2 p / / before me, _.,7)0/Jr.. A 6 e -r 7".( Personally appeared N C .l c-1 I S T i) s i r- t-1 who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/ are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/ she/ they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies) and that by his/ her /their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS by hand and official seal. Signature of Notary -Zee ,/ -Seal) � • I 4 DOUGLAS K. MCHATTPS Commisslon # 1033934 Notary PubtIc.Callt'ornla f My Comm. Expires Feb 25. 2013Los Angeles County .( RESOLUTION NO. 1028 ) • )C 1'1, .. 1/t ] A- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT A NEW RESIDENCE TO REPLACE AN EXISTING RESIDENCE IN ZONING CASE NO. 745 AT 40 EASTFIELD DRIVE, LOT 91-EF, (TONSICH). THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Application was duly filed by Mr. and Mrs. Nicholas Tonsich with respect to real property located at 40 Eastfield Drive, Rolling Hills (Lot 91-EF) requesting a site plan review request for grading of 833 cubic yards of cut and 833 cubic yards of fill, which includes excavation for a basement and construction of a new 4,075 square foot single family residence, 600 square foot garage, 492 square feet of covered porches, 110 square foot entryway, 2,979 square foot basement, and a service yard. The existing 442 square foot pool and 51 square foot pool equipment will remain, although the swimming pool will be refurbished. The applicants have originally requested a new driveway approach off of Eastfield Drive, to be constructed on their property. Currently access to the property is through the property at 38 Eastfield. The Traffic Commission recommended against the driveway in the proposed location. Following the Traffic Commission's review, the applicant withdrew the request for the new driveway approach. Section 2. The Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2007-15, on September 18, 2007 granting approval in Zoning Case No. 745. The vote was 4-1. Commissioner Witte abstained due to the fact that he was absent during a field visit to the site and at the meeting following the field trip. The City Council at their October 8, 2007 meeting took this case under jurisdiction. The Council expressed concerns over the design and appearance of the proposed basement, the visibility of the walls from Outrider Road, and the deck above the basement. The Councilmembers were concerned that the deck gives a two-story appearance to the structure. Section 3. The City Council conducted duly noticed public hearings to consider the application on October 22, 2007, and at a field trip visit on November 13, 2007. The applicants were notified of the public hearings in writing by first class mail and were in attendance. Evidence was heard and presented from all persons interested in affecting said proposal, including neighbors at 38 and 42 Eastfield, and from members of the City staff and the City Council having reviewed, analyzed and studied said proposal. Those members of the City Council present at the field trip directed staff to prepare a resolution of approval to be considered at their November 26, 2007 meeting. Councilmember Lay requested that clearer plans and side view of proposed structure be provided. Section 4. In October 2002 the Planning Commission approved a Site Plan Review to permit construction of an addition to the existing residence, to construct a 596 square foot detached garage, to construct an 800 square foot guest house and a future stable on a lower pad; a Variance request to permit the detached garage to encroach into the required side yard setback and Conditional Use Permits to construct the guest house and the detached garage on subject property. The City Council, after taking jurisdiction of the case in November of 2002 approved the project with minor changes. Section 5. During the review process of the 2002 application geology study revealed that the slopes below the proposed addition and below the proposed detached garage do not meet the factor of stability as required by the Los Angeles County Building Code in order to construct the guest house on the lower pad. In addition, the Los Angeles County Department of Building and Safety required a horizontal setback of 15 feet between structures and the ascending slopes, or terraced walls to act as support for the slope and the required separation. To accomplish the requirement for slope stability and distance to the ascending slope, remediation of the slopes was required, which resulted in exceedance in disturbed area of the lot. In December 2005, the Planning Commission approved a request for Site Plan Review for walls, and grading and a Variance for 60.0% disturbed area. Section 6. The property is currently developed with a 2,355 square foot residence, 400 square foot detached garage, 442 square foot swimming pool, and 51 square foot service yard/pool equipment shed. The detached garage currently encroaches into the side yard setback and is proposed to be demolished. Resolution No. 1028 1 11Section 7. cords show that the, existing house wiL,i . an attached garage was constructed in 1950. There are no records on file for the detached garage. The garage therefore, is not permitted. There are also no records indicating that the attached garage, constructed with the house in 1950, was legally converted into living space. With the new proposal these unauthorized conditions would be eliminated. However, should the applicant not implement this project, a condition has been added to this Resolution of approval, that the applicant either remove the illegal conditions on the lot or apply for a variance and site plan review to legalize the situation. Section 8. The City Council finds that the project qualifies as a Class 4 Exemption (State of CA Guidelines, Section 15304 - Minor Land Alteration) and is therefore categorically exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act. Section 9. Section 17.46.030 requires a development plan to be submitted for site plan review and approval before any development requiring a grading permitor any building or structure may be constructed. With respect to the Site Plan Review for grading and construction of a new residence 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 because the proposed structures comply 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 requirements and no variances are required. The lot has a net area of 39,664 square feet, as calculated for development purposes. The size of proposed structure will be 6,316 square feet, which constitutes 15.9% of the net lot area, which is within the maximum 20% structural lot coverage permitted. The total lot coverage including paved areas and driveways will be 13,254 square feet which equals 33.4% of the net lot, which is within the 35% maximum overall lot coverage permitted. The proposed project is screened from the road so as to reduce the visual impact of the development. B. The project substantially preserves the natural and undeveloped` state of the lot by minimizing building coverage. The topography and the configuration of the lot, has been considered, and it was determined that the proposed development will not adversely affect or be materially detrimental to adjacent uses, buildings, or structures because the proposed construction will be constructed on an existing building pad, will be the least intrusive to surrounding properties, will be screened and landscaped with mature trees and shrubs, is of sufficient distance from nearby residences so that it will not impact the view or privacy of surrounding neighbors, and will permit the owners to enjoy their property without deleterious infringement on the rights of surrounding property owners. C. The proposed development, as conditioned, is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, and is consistent with the scale of the neighborhood when compared to properties in the vicinity. The proposed project will follow the pattern and style of the original residence. The construction of an attached garage will replace an existing illegal garage. D. The development plan incorporates existing trees and native vegetation to the maximum extent feasible. Specifically, the development plan will supplement the existing vegetation with landscaping that is compatible with and enhances the rural character of the community. E. The development plan substantially preserves the natural and undeveloped state of the lot by minimizing building coverage because the new structure will not cause the lot to look overdeveloped and will be located on an existing pad. Significant portions of the lot will be left undeveloped. The project will be screened from Eastfield Drive and from Outrider Road. F. The development plan preserves surrounding native vegetation and mature trees and supplements these elements with drought -tolerant landscaping which is compatible with and enhances the rural character of the community, and Landscaping provides a buffer or transition area between private and public areas. 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 not change the existing circulation pattern and will utilize an existing driveway. The property owner may in the future request a driveway off of his property, as the current access is taken from 38 Eastfield. Resolution No. 1028 2 H. •roject is exempt' from the requirements )thalifornia Environmental Quality Act. Section 10. Based upon the foregoing findings and the evidence in the record, the Planning Commission hereby approves the Site Plan Review in Zoning Case No. 745 for grading and new residence with the following conditions: A. The Site Plan Review, approval shall expire within two years from the effective date of approval as defined in Sections 17.46.080(A) of the Zoning Ordinance unless otherwise extended pursuant to the requirements of this section. B. If any conditions if approval are violated, this approval shall be suspended and the privileges granted hereunder shall lapse; provided that the applicants have been given written notice to cease such violation, the opportunity for a hearing has been provided, and if requested, has been held, and thereafter the applicant fails to correct the violation within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of the City's determination. C. All requirements of the Building Code and the Zoning Ordinance including outdoor lighting requirements, roofing material requirements, stable construction and stable use requirements and all other requirements and of the zone in which the subject property is located must be complied with, unless otherwise set forth in this approval. D. The project shall be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the plans on file in the City Planning Department dated August 17, (site plan) and October 3, 2007 (elevations) except as otherwise provided in these conditions. E. This project shall be reviewed and approved by the RHCA. The City does not approve or recommend the design or any architectural features of the proposed structure. Any deviations to this project that the RHCA may recommend or request, which would trigger additional grading, require additional walls or affect any of the herein approved development standards, shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission. F. Building permits for this project shall not be issued until the City's amended regulations relative to basements are adopted and are in effect. G. Structural lot coverage shall not exceed 6,316 square feet or 15.9% in conformance with structural lot coverage limitations. H. Total lot coverage of structures and paved areas shall not exceed 13,254 square feet or 33.4% in conformance with lot coverage limitations. 1. The disturbed area of the lot shall not exceed 15,510 square feet or 39.1% in conformance with disturbed area limitations. J. Residential building pad coverage on the 13,619 square foot residential building pad shall not exceed 5,459 square feet or 40.0%, not including 407 square feet of the covered porch; coverage on the existing 1,100 square foot future stable pad shall not exceed 40.9%. K. Grading shall not exceed 833 cubic yards of cut soil and 833 cubic yards of fill soil. Grading shall be balanced on site and shall include the excavation of the basement. L. The proposed retaining wall, which would replace an existing retaining wall located to the south of the residence, shall not exceed a height of 5 feet at any one point from the finished grade. M. The final elevation of the residential building pad shall not be raised by more than 2.1 feet from the current elevation, and includes the driveway and parking area. The height of the residence shall not exceed 17 feet from the finished floor to the highest ridgeline of the house. The basement shall not exceed 11 feet in depth. N. The existing 442 sq.ft. pool may be refurbished, but may not be increased in size, unless a Variance for front yard location is approved. O. Prior to issuance of a final inspection bf the new residence, the existing unauthorized detached garage shall be demolished. The new garage (attached) shall be constructed and completed concurrently with the new residence. Resolution No. 1028 3 • • P. In th_'nt that the approvals contained in this Rcs.,,�ition expire, as stipulated in subparagraph "A" above, the City will immediately initiate code enforcement proceedings to assure that a legal two -car garage is provided on the property, and that the converted attached garage is inspected and that it complies with all applicable building codes. Q. Notwithstanding Section 17.46.020 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, any additional grading on the property or any additional walls, which may be a requirement of the County Public Works or Building and Safety Departments or a condition of the site preparation, shall require the filing of an application for approval by the Planning Commission. R. Prior to issuance any grading or building permits by the City, the applicants shall resolve with the RHCA the matter of the newly planted trees and the chain link fence located in the easement along the south westerly property line and a copy of such resolve shall be submitted to the City. S. Landscaping shall be designed using mature trees and shrubs so as not to obstruct views from neighboring properties but to obscure the residence and the parking arca from the neighbors and from the roadways. The trees and shrubs at full maturity shall not exceed the ridge height of the residence. No planting or irrigation shall be allowed in the easements, unless reviewed and approved by the RHCA. T. Two copies of landscaping plans for the property, including all slope areas, shall be submitted for review by the Planning Department prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit. The landscaping shall include water efficient plants and irrigation 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. U. Drainage dissipater shall be constructed outside of any easements, unless approved by the RHCA. The drainage system shall be approved by the Los Angeles County Department of Building and Safety, and shall be designed in such a manner as to drain in northerly direction of the property (towards Outrider Road) and be dissipated on the subject property. If an above ground swale and/or dissipater is required, the above ground swale and/or dissipater shall be designed in such a manner as not to cross over any equestrian trails or discharge water onto a trail, shall be stained in an earth tone color, and shall be screened from any trail, road and neighbors' view to the maximum extent practicable, without impairing the function of the drainage system. V. 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. W. During construction, conformance with local ordinances and engineering practices so that people or property is not exposed to landslides, mudflows, erosion, or land subsidence shall be required. X. During construction, conformance with the air quality management district requirements, storm water 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. Y. During construction, if required by the County of Los Angeles, the Erosion Control Plan containing the elements set forth in Section 7010 of the 1998 County of Los Angeles Uniform Building Code shall be followed to minimize erosion and to protect slopes and channels to control storm water pollution. Z. During and after construction, all parking shall take place on the project site. Any overflow parking may be on the adjacent roadway easements. AA. 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. Resolution No. 1028 4 } AB. 1, roperty owners shall be required to confor. tfle Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Health Department requirements for the installation and maintenance of storm water drainage facilities. AC. The property owners shall be required to conform to the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Public Works Department Best Management Practices (BMP's) related to solid waste and storrn water pollution prevention. AD. Perimeter easements and trails, if any, including roadway easements shall remain free and clear of any improvements including, but not be limited to, fences -including construction fences, landscaping, irrigation and drainage devices, play equipment, parked vehicles, building materials, debris and equipment, except that the Rolling Hills Community Association may approve certain encroachments. AE. The side property lines, easement lines and setback lines in the area of the construction shall be staked during the entire construction process. AF. 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. AG. Prior to granting a final inspection and/or certificate of occupancy, all utility lines shall be placed underground. AH. Prior to the submittal of an applicable grading plan to the County of Los Angeles for plan check, a detailed grading and drainage plan must be submitted to the Planning Department and to RHCA for review. Cut and fill slopes must conform to the City of Rolling Hills standard of 2 to 1 slope ratio. Lesser slopes are encouraged. Al. The roof material shall meet the City and RHCA requirements. AJ. The applicants shall execute an Affidavit of Acceptance of all conditions of the Site Plan Review approval, or the approval shall not be effective. AK. All conditions, when applicable, of the Site Plan Review approval must be complied with prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit from the County of Los Angeles. AL. Any action challenging the final decision of the City made as a result of the public hearing on this application must be filed within the time limits set forth in section 17.54.070 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code and Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 26th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2007. ATTEST: MARILYN KERN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK Resolution No. 1028 5 JIM BLACK, MAYOR • V • STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§ CITY OF ROLLING HILLS I certify that the foregoing Resolution 1028 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT A NEW RESIDENCE TO REPLACE AN EXISTING RESIDENCE IN ZONING CASE NO. 745 AT 40 EASTFIELD DRIVE, LOT 91-EF, (TONSICH) was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council on November 26, 2007 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Heinsheimer, Lay, Pernell, Mayor Pro Tem Hill and Mayor Black. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following: Administrative Offices. Resolution No. 1028 6 DEPUTY CITY CLERK • • RESOLUTION 2007-15 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT A NEW RESIDENCE TO REPLACE AN EXISTING RESIDENCE IN ZONING CASE NO. 745 AT 40 EASTFIELD DRIVE, LOT 91-EF, (TONSICH). THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Application was duly filed by Mr. and Mrs. Nicholas Tonsich with respect to real property located at 40 Eastfield Drive, Rolling Hills (Lot 91-EF) requesting a site plan review request for grading of 833 cubic yards of cut and 833 cubic yards of fill, which includes excavation for a basement and construction of a new 4,075 square foot single family residence, 600 square foot garage, 492 square feet of covered porches, 110 square foot entryway, 2,979 square foot basement, and a service yard. The existing 442 square foot pool and 51 square foot pool equipment will remain, although the swimming pool will be refurbished. The applicants have originally requested a new driveway approach off of Eastfield Drive, to be constructed on their property. Currently access to the property is through the property at 38 Eastfield. The Traffic Commission recommended against the driveway in the proposed location. Following the Traffic Commission's review, the applicant withdrew the request for the new driveway approach. However, the applicants may come back with another proposal in the future. Section 2. In October 2002 the Planning Commission approved a Site Plan Review to permit construction an addition to the existing residence, to construct a 596 square foot detached garage, to construct an 800 square foot guest house and a future stable on a lower pad; a Variance request to permit the detached garage to encroach into the required side yard setback and Conditional Use Permits to construct the guest house and the detached garage on subject property. The City Council, after taking jurisdiction of the case in November of 2002 approved the project with minor changes. Section 3. During the review process of the 2002 application geology study revealed that the slopes below the proposed addition and below the proposed detached garage do not meet the factor of stability as required by the Los Angeles County Building Code in order to construct the guest house on the lower pad. In addition, the Los Angeles County Department of Building and Safety required a horizontal setback of 15 feet between structures and the ascending slopes, or terraced walls to act as support for the slope and the required separation. To accomplish the requirement for slope stability and distance to the ascending slope, remediation of the slopes was required, which resulted in exceedance in disturbed area of the lot. In December 2005, the Planning Commission approved a request for Site Plan Review for walls, and grading and a Variance for 60.0% disturbed area. Section 4. The Planning Commission conducted duly noticed public hearings to consider the application on July 17, and August 21, 2007, and at a field trip visit on August 21, 2007. The applicants were notified of the public hearings in writing by first Resolution 2007-15 Tonsich • • { class mail and were in attendance. Evidence was heard and presented from all persons interested in affecting said proposal, including neighbors at 38 and 42 Eastfield, and from members of the City staff and the Planning Commission having reviewed, analyzed and studied said proposal. Section 5. The property is currently developed with a 2,355 square foot residence, 400 square foot detached garage, 442 square foot swimming pool, and 51 square foot service yard/pool equipment shed. The detached garage currently encroaches into the side yard setback and is proposed to be demolished. Section 6. Records show that the existing house with an attached garage was constructed in 1950. There are no records on file for the detached garage. The garage therefore, is not permitted. There are also no records indicating that the attached garage, constructed with the house in 1950, was legally converted into living space. Section 7. The Planning Commission finds that the project qualifies as a Class 4 Exemption (State of CA Guidelines, Section 15304 - Minor Land Alteration) and is therefore categorically exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act. Section 8. Section 17.46.030 requires a development plan to be submitted for site plan review and approval before any development requiring a grading permit or any building or structure may be constructed. With respect to the Site Plan Review for grading and construction of a new residence the Planning Commission makes the following findings of fact: A. The proposed development is compatible. with the General Plan, the Zoning Ordinance and surrounding uses because the proposed structures comply 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 requirements and no variances are required. The lot has a net area of 39,664 square feet, as calculated for development purposes. The size of proposed structure will be 6,316 square feet, which constitutes 15.9% of the net lot area, which is within the maximum 20% structural lot coverage permitted. The total lot coverage including paved areas and driveways will be 13,254 square feet which equals 33.4% of the net lot, which is within the 35% maximum overall lot coverage permitted. The proposed project is screened from the road so as to reduce the visual impact of the development. B. The project substantially preserves the natural and undeveloped state of the lot by minimizing building coverage. The topography and the configuration of the lot, has been considered, and it was determined that the proposed development will not adversely affect or be materially detrimental to adjacent uses, buildings, or structures because the proposed construction will be constructed on an existing building pad, will be the least intrusive to surrounding properties, will be screened and landscaped with mature trees and shrubs, is of sufficient distance from nearby residences so that it will not impact the view or privacy of surrounding neighbors, and will permit the owners to enjoy their property without deleterious infringement on the rights of surrounding property owners. Resolution 2007-15 2 Tonsich • • C. The proposed development, as conditioned, is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, and is consistent with the scale of the neighborhood when compared to properties in the vicinity. The proposed project will follow the pattern and style of the original residence. The construction of an attached garage will replace an existing illegal garage. D. The development plan incorporates existing trees and native vegetation to the maximum extent feasible. Specifically, the development plan will supplement the existing vegetation with landscaping that is compatible with and enhances the rural character of the community. E. The development plan substantially preserves the natural and undeveloped state of the lot by minimizing building coverage because the new structure will not cause the lot to look overdeveloped and will be located on an existing pad. Significant portions of the lot will be left undeveloped. The project will be screened from Eastfield Drive and from Outrider Road. F. The development plan preserves surrounding native vegetation and mature trees and supplements these elements with drought -tolerant landscaping which is compatible with and enhances the rural character of the community, and landscaping provides a buffer or transition area between private and public areas. 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 not change the existing circulation pattern and will utilize an existing driveway. The property owner may in the future request a driveway off of his property, as the current access is taken from 38 Eastfield. H. The project is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. Section 9. Based upon the foregoing findings and the evidence in the record, the Planning Commission hereby approves the Site Plan Review in Zoning Case No. 745 for grading and new residence with the following conditions: A. The Site Plan Review, approval shall expire within two years from the effective date of approval as defined in Sections 17.46.080(A) of the Zoning Ordinance unless otherwise extended pursuant to the requirements of this section. B. If any conditions if approval are violated, this approval shall be suspended and the privileges granted hereunder shall lapse; provided that the applicants have been given written notice to cease such violation, the opportunity for a hearing has been provided, and if requested, has been held, and thereafter the applicant fails to correct the violation within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of the City's determination. C. All requirements of the Building Code and the Zoning Ordinance including outdoor lighting requirements, roofing material requirements, stable Resolution 2007-15 3 Tonsich • • construction and stable use requirements and all other requirements and of the zone in which the subject property is located must be complied with, unless otherwise set forth in this approval. D. The project shall be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the plans on file in the City Planning Department dated August 17, (site plan) and July 10, 2007 (elevations) except as otherwise provided in these conditions. E. The basement design shall comply with the City's current regulations contained in Section 17.12.020 B of the Zoning Ordinance, unless those regulations are amended by the time of building permit issuance. A revised plan showing the final design of the basement, approved by the RHCA, shall be submitted to the City prior to issuance of a building permit. F. Structural lot coverage shall not exceed 6,316 square feet or 15.9% in conformance with structural lot coverage limitations. G. Total lot coverage of structures and paved areas shall not exceed 13,254 square feet or 33.4% in conformance with lot coverage limitations. H. The disturbed area of the lot shall not exceed 15,510 square feet or 39.1% in conformance with disturbed area limitations. I. Residential building pad coverage on the 13,619 square foot residential building pad shall not exceed 5,459 square feet or 40.0%, not including 407 square feet of the covered porch; coverage on the existing 1,100 square foot future stable pad shall not exceed 40.9%. J. Grading shall not exceed 833 cubic yards of cut soil and 833 cubic yards of fill soil. Grading shall be balanced on site and shall include the excavation of the basement. K. The proposed retaining wall, which would replace an existing retaining wall located to the south of the residence, shall not exceed a height of 5 feet at any one point from the finished grade. L. The final elevation of the residential building pad shall not be raised by more than 2.1 feet from the current elevation, and includes the driveway and parking area. The height of the residence shall not exceed 17 feet from the finished floor to the highest ridgeline of the house. The basement shall not exceed 11 feet in depth. M. The existing 442 sq.ft. pool may be refurbished, but may not be increased in size, unless a Variance for front yard location is approved. N. Prior to issuance of a final inspection of the new residence, the existing unauthorized detached garage shall be demolished. The new garage (attached) shall be constructed and completed concurrently with the new residence. Resolution 2007-15 4 Tonsich J • • O. In the event that the approvals contained in this Resolution expire, as stipulated in subparagraph "A" above, the City will immediately initiate code enforcement proceedings to assure that a legal two -car garage is provided on the property, and that the converted attached garage is inspected and that it complies with all applicable building codes. P. Notwithstanding Section 17.46.020 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, any additional grading on the property or any additional walls, which may be a requirement of the County Public Works or Building and Safety Departments or a condition of the site preparation, shall require the filing of an application for approval by the Planning Commission. Q. Prior to issuance any grading or building permits by the City, the applicants shall resolve with the RHCA the matter of the newly planted trees and the chain link fence located in the easement along the south westerly property line and a copy of such resolve shall be submitted to the City. R. Landscaping shall be designed using mature trees and shrubs so as not to obstruct views from neighboring properties but to obscure the residence and the parking area from the neighbors and from the roadways. The trees and shrubs at full maturity shall not exceed the ridge height of the residence. No planting or irrigation shall be allowed in the easements, unless reviewed and approved by the RHCA. S. Two copies of landscaping plans for the property shall be submitted for review by the Planning Department prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit. The landscaping shall indude water efficient plants and irrigation 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. T. Drainage dissipater shall be constructed outside of any easements, unless approved by the RHCA. The drainage system shall be approved by the Los Angeles County Department of Building and Safety, and shall be designed in such a manner as to drain in northerly direction of the property (towards Outrider Road) and be dissipated on the subject property. If an above ground swale and/or dissipater is required, the above ground swale and/or dissipater shall be designed in such a manner as not to cross over any equestrian trails or discharge water onto a trail, shall be stained in an earth tone color, and shall be screened from any trail, road and neighbors' view to the maximum extent practicable, without impairing the function of the drainage system. U. During construction, dust control measures shall be used to stabilize the soil from wind erosion and reduce dust and objectionable odors generated by construction activities in accordance with. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Los Angeles County and local ordinances and engineering practices. Resolution 2007-15 5 Tonsich • • V. During construction, conformance with local ordinances and engineering practices so that people or property is not exposed to landslides, mudflows, erosion, or land subsidence shall be required. W. During construction, conformance with the air quality management district requirements, storm water 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. X. During construction, if required by the County of Los Angeles, the Erosion Control Plan containing the elements set forth in Section 7010 of the 1998 County of Los Angeles Uniform Building Code shall be followed to minimize erosion and to protect slopes and channels to control storm water pollution. Y. During and after construction, all parking shall take place on the project site. Any overflow parking may be on the adjacent roadway easements. Z. During construction, the property owners shall be required to schedule and regulate construction and related traffic noise throughout the day between the hours of 7 AM and 6 PM, Monday through Saturday only, when construction and mechanical equipment noise is permitted, so as not to interfere with the quiet residential environment of the City of Rolling Hills. AA. The property owners shall be required to conform to the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Health Department requirements for the installation and maintenance of storm water drainage facilities. AB. The property owners shall be required to conform to the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Public Works Department Best Management Practices (BMP's) related to solid waste and storm water pollution prevention. AC. The project must be reviewed and approved by the Rolling Hills Community Association Architectural Review Committee prior to the issuance of any grading or building permits. AD. Perimeter easements and trails, if any, including roadway easements shall remain free and clear of any improvements including, but not be limited to, fences -including construction fences, landscaping, irrigation and drainage devices, play equipment, parked vehicles, building materials, debris and equipment, except that the Rolling Hills Community Association may approve certain encroachments. AE. The side property lines, easement lines and setback lines in the area of the construction shall be staked during the entire process of construction. AF. The working drawings submitted to the County Department of Building and Safety for plan check review shall conform to the development plan described in Condition D. Resolution 2007-15 6 Tonsich • • AG. Prior to granting a final inspection and/or certificate of occupancy, all utility lines shall be placed underground. AH. Prior to the submittal of an applicable grading plan to the County of Los Angeles for plan check, a detailed grading and drainage plan must be submitted to the Planning Department and to RHCA for review. Cut and fill slopes must conform to the City of Rolling Hills standard of 2 to 1 slope ratio. Lesser slopes are encouraged. AI. Utility lines shall be placed underground and the roof material shall meet the City and RHCA requirements. AJ. The applicants shall execute an Affidavit of Acceptance of all conditions of the Site Plan Review approval, or the approval shall not be effective. AK. All conditions, when applicable, of the Site Plan Review approval must be complied with prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit from the County of Los Angeles. AL. Any action challenging the final decision of the City made as a result of the public hearing on this application must be filed within the time limits set forth in section 17.54.070 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code and Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 18th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2007. ROGEL SOMMER, CHAIRMAN ATTEST: 1YVJAA i'"?LkAiv.) MARILYN KERN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK Resolution 2007-15 7 Tonsich STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§ CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ) I certify that the foregoing Resolution 2007-15 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT A NEW RESIDENCE TO REPLACE AN EXISTING RESIDENCE IN ZONING CASE NO. 745 AT 40 EASTFIELD DRIVE, LOT 91-EF, (TONSICH) was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on September 18, 2007 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners DeRoy, Henke, Smith and Chairman Sommer. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: Commissioner Witte. and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following: Administrative Offices. DEPUTY CITY CLERK Resolution 2007-15 8 Tonsich 414 A A Plrt\ K4A,‘„)