458, Construction of a new SFR and, Resolutions & Approval Conditions• •
RESOLUTION NO. 92-15
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A VARIANCE
TO ENCROACH INTO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK TO
CONSTRUCT A RETAINING WALL AND GRANTING SITE
PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL OF A NEW RESIDENTIAL
STRUCTURE IN ZONING CASE NO. 458, SUBJECT TO
SPECIFIED CONDITIONS.
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. Richard
Colyear with respect to real property located at 0 Chestnut Lane,
Rolling Hills (Lot 241-A-1-MS) requesting a variance to encroach
into the front yard setback to construct a retaining wall and
Site Plan Review approval of a proposed 1,674 square foot single
family residence, a 350 square foot attached garage, a 450 square
'foot future stable and a 96 square foot service yard.
Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted a duly
noticed public hearing to consider the application for Site Plan
Review on November 19, 1991, December 17, 1991, January 21, 1992
and February 18, 1992, March 17, 1992 and at field trip visits on
December 7, 1991, January 11, 1992, February 1, 1992 and February
29, 1992. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed
public hearing to consider the application for the variance on
March 17, 1992.
Section 3. The Planning Commission concurs with
Planning Staff that the project qualifies as a Class 3 Exemption
(State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15303 (4 and is therefore
categorically exempt from environmental review under the
California Environmental Quality Act.
Section 4. Sections 17.32.010 through 17.32.030 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 17.16.060 requires a front yard setback
for every residential parcel to be fifty (50) feet. The
applicant is requesting to construct a retaining wall with a
maximum height of five feet (5') above the downslope grade, a
maximum length of 252 feet, which will encroach a maximum of
fifty (50') feet into the fifty (50) foot front yard setback.
Section 5. With respect to this request for a
variance, the Planning Commission finds as follows:
920327 eeh 1680770 (3)
• •
A. There are exceptional and extraordinary
circumstances and conditions applicable to the property or to the
intended use that do not apply generally to the other property or
class of use in the same zone because there exists existing
topographical constraints on the property that necessitate the
construction of a retaining wall in order to construct a
vehicular driveway onto the property.
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 because of the steep slope on the lot
which necessitates a retaining wall to support the slopebank next
to the proposed driveway.
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 because the proposed project will be
compatible with surrounding properties and will be comparable to
the height and nature of an existing retaining wall along the
northern edge of the property.
Section 6. Based upon the foregoing findings, the
Planning Commission hereby approves the variance for Zoning Case
458 to permit the encroachment of a retaining wall into the front
yard setback, to a maximum height of five feet (5'), a maximum
length of 252 feet and with a maximum encroachment of fifty (50')
feet into the front yard setback, as indicated on the development
plan submitted with this application and incorporated herein by
reference as Exhibit A, subject to the conditions specified in
Section 12 of this Resolution.
Section 7. Section 17.34.010 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 or
structures, which involve changes to grading or an increase to
the size of the building or structure by more than twenty-five
percent (25%) in any thirty-six month period, may be permitted.
Section 8. With respect to the Site Plan Review
application, the Planning Commission makes the following findings
of fact:
A. The proposed development, as modified by the
conditions of approval, 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 87,120 square feet. The proposed
residence (1,674 sq. ft.), garage (350 sq. ft.), and future
920327 eeh 1680770 (3)
- 2
• •
stable (450 sq. ft.) will have 2,510 square feet which
constitutes 2.9% of the lot which is within the maximum 20%
structural lot coverage requirement. The total lot coverage
including paved areas and driveway will be 11,470 square feet
which equals 13.2% of the lot, which is within the 35% maximum
overall lot coverage requirement.
B. The proposed development, as modified by the
conditions of approval, 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).
C. The development plan, as modified by the
conditions of approval, follows natural contours of the site to
minimize grading and the natural drainage courses will continue
to the canyons at the northwest side of this lot.
D. The development plan will, in compliance with
the conditions contained in this Resolution, supplement the
existing vegetation with landscaping that is compatible with and
enhances the rural character of the community.
E. The development plan, as modified by the
conditions of approval, 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 of 12,000 square feet and a building
pad coverage of 17.7%.
F. The proposed development, as modified by the
conditions of approval, is harmonious in scale and mass with the
site, the natural terrain and surrounding residences. As
indicated in Paragraph E, the lot coverage maximum will not be
exceeded and the proposed project is consistent with the scale of
the neighborhood. Modifications have been made to reduce the
prominence of the house on the lot by moving the structure away
from the edge of the building pad. The ratio of the proposed
structure to lot coverage is similar to or less than the ratio
found on several properties in the vicinity.
G. The proposed development, as modified by the
conditions of approval, is sensitive and not detrimental to
convenience and safety of circulation for pedestrians and
vehicles because conditions have been imposed to place the
driveway so as to intersect with Chestnut Lane at a point which
is farther away from the corner of Chestnut Lane and Johns Canyon
Road than as originally shown on the proposed Site Plan.
H. The project conforms with the requirements of
the. California Environmental Quality Act and is categorically
exempt from environmental review.
920327 eeh 1680770 (3)
3
4.1
• •
Section 9. The Commission's finds that it has
authority to impose conditions of approval on this discretionary
land use decision pursuant to the City's police power, the State
Planning and Zoning Law, City ordinances and California
Government Code Section 66499.34. Pursuant to California
Government Code Section 66499.34, the City is precluded from
granting any approval necessary to develop any real property
which has been divided, or which has resulted from a division, in
violation of the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act or of the
provisions of local ordinances enacted by the City if it finds
that development of such real property is contrary to the public
health or the public safety. California Government Code Section
66499.34 also authorizes the City, with respect to parcels of
real property created in violation of the Subdivision Map Act or
local ordinances that are under the ownership of the same person
who was the record owner of the property at the time the
violation occurred, to impose such conditions as would be
applicable to a current division of the property, except that if
a conditional certificate of compliance has been filed for
record, then the City may only impose such conditions stipulated
in that certificate.
Section 10. With respect to the requirements of
California Government Section 66499.34, and for purposes of
showing a nexus between the provisions of condition "K" of
Section 12 and the need for that condition, the Planning
Commission finds as follows:
A. Richard Colyear was a record owner of the
subject property at the time of its subdivision in 1970.
B. In 1970, as a condition of tentative map
approval of the tract, certain perimeter easements were imposed
for bridal trails, road and public utilities to be reserved for
the benefit of the Rolling Hills Community Association in
documents to be recorded. The parcel that is the subject of this
application is a part of that tract. The requirement that these
perimeter easements be reserved by document was denoted by the
applicant on the final map approved and recorded for the tract.
However, the applicant has never recorded any of the easements
imposed by his conditional subdivision approval.
C. The City's Sanitary Sewer Feasibility Study,
prepared by ASL Consulting Engineers on February 9, 1988,
recommends the installation of future sewer lines to service the
immediate vicinity of parcel to be constructed along the westerly
property line of Parcel 2 (Lot 2), along the boundary line of
proposed Parcels 1 and 2 and then along the easterly property
line of Parcel 1 (Lot 1) (See Map 13 of 22 to the ASL Study).
Based upon this Study and the need to provide for the future
installation of sewers to serve the property which is the subject
of this application and to serve properties in the immediate
vicinity of the subject property, conditions have been attached
to require the applicant to record an easement to the City (to be
920327 eeh 1680770 (3)
- 4
• •
immediately transferred to the Rolling Hills Community
Association) for ingress and egress purposes to construct
underground utilities along those portions of the properties
described above.
D. The Planning Commission further finds that
the City is considering the construction of a sewer system and
that if it finds such a system to be necessary, will need these
easements through which the system can be constructed and
maintained for the benefit of the subject property and
surrounding properties.
E. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66499.34,
only by the imposition of condition "K" of Section 12 to address
the applicant's original violation of subdivision approval can
the Planning Commission properly approve the application for Site
Plan Review.
Section 11. Based upon the foregoing findings, the
Planning Commission hereby approves the Site Plan Review
application for Zoning Case No. 458 for a proposed residential
development as indicated on the development plan incorporated
herein as Exhibit A, subject to the conditions contained in
Section 12 of this Resolution.
Section 12. The variance to the front yard setback
approved in Section 6 of this Resolution and the Site Plan Review
for residential development approved in Section 11 of this
Resolution are subject to the following conditions:
A. The variance and Site Plan Review approval
shall expire within one year from the effective date of approval
as defined in Section 17.34.080.A.
B. It is declared and made a condition of the
Site Plan Review approval, that if any conditions thereof are
violated, this approval shall be suspended and the privileges
granted thereunder shall lapse; provided that the applicant has
been given written notice to cease such violation and has failed
to do so for a period of thirty (30) days.
C. All requirements of the Buildings and
Construction Ordinance, the Zoning Ordinance, and of the zone in
which the subject property is located must be compiled 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 dated March
19, 1992 and marked Exhibit A, except as otherwise provided in
these conditions.
E. The working drawings submitted to the County
Department of Building and Safety for plan check review must
- 5
920327 eeh 1680770 (3)
• •
include a 550 square foot corral and must conform to the
development plan approved with this application.
F. Grading shall be limited so that the amount of
soil displaced to construct the building pad shall not exceed
4000 cubic yards of soil. Cut and fill slopes shall not exceed a
steepness of a 2 to 1 slope ratio. The grading plan shall
utilize land form or contour grading techniques in its design so
as to create a building pad and slopes that blend with the
horizontal and vertical contours of the natural terrain.
17.7%.
G. The building pad coverage shall not exceed
H. The driveway from the street to the building
pad of the subject property, as shown on the plans dated March
19, 1992 shall be moved so that the northeasterly point of
intersection of the driveway with Chestnut Lane occurs at least
seventy-five (75) feet from the center of the radius curve of the
intersection of Chestnut Lane and Johns Canyon Road.
I. To obscure the building on the pad, the
structures, driveway, graded slopes and retaining walls shall be
screened and shielded from view with native drought -resistant
vegetation that is compatible with the surrounding vegetation of
the community.
J. 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 costs 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 gc'd condition.
K. Pursuant to California Government Code
Section 66499.34, the City's police power, State Planning and
Zoning law, the City's ordinances and other applicable powers and
authority available to the City, and based upon the findings
contained in Section 7 of this Resolution relating to violations
of the Subdivision Map Act and local ordinances at the time the
parcel was created,the applicant shall prepare and, upon
approval and acceptance by the City, record prior to the issuance
920327 eeh 1680770 (3)
- 6 -
• •
of any grading or building permit for the subject parcel, an
easement in gross, in favor of the City of Rolling Hills (with
the intention that the City convey it immediately to the Rolling
Hills Community Association) for ingress, egress and the
installation, maintenance, repair, replacement and removal of
sewer lines and other underground utilities over that certain
real property described as (i) the westerly ten (10) feet of
Parcel 2, (ii) ten (10) feet on either side of the boundary line
between Parcels 1 and 2 and (iii) the easterly ten (10) feet of
Parcel 1. The easement deed shall prohibit Grantor or any
successor to Grantor from constructing or erecting any
improvements or altering the contours of the surface of the
easement areas other than installation of shallow rooted
landscaping and necessary irrigation systems.
L. The property that is the subject of this
approval is also the subject of pending litigation entitled
Richard C. Colyear v. City of Rolling Hilis, etc, et al, and City
of Rolling Hills v. Richard C. Colyear (Case No. YC005965)
regarding conditions of approval of a lot line adjustment
involving Parcel 1 (lot 1), and Richard C. Colyear v. City of
Rolling Hills (Case No. SB91C00317) involving the processing fees
for the lot line adjustment. The approval of this Site Plan
Review shall not limit, impair or otherwise prejudice the City's
position with respect to the pending litigation mentioned above.,
M. This Site Plan Review approval shall not in
any way constitute a representation that Parcel 1 (Lot 1) was
subdivided in compliance with the State Subdivision laws, the
City's ordinances or conditions imposed pursuant thereto.
N. The retaining wall in the front yard
setback shall not exceed five (5') feet in height measures from
the downslope side of the wall to the surface of the ground,
shall not exceed 252 feet in length and shall be permitted to
encroach the maximum fifty (50') feet into the front yard
setback. The retaining wall shall be constructed in accordance
with the approved Site Plan, identified as Exhibit "A".
0. 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 Hilis Planning Department staff for their review. Cut
and fill slopes shall not exceed a steepness of a 2 to 1 slope
ratio.
P. The project must be reviewed and approved by
the Rolling Hilis Community Association Architectural Review
Committee prior to the issuance of any building or grading
permit.
920327 eeh 1680770 (3)
7
• •
Q. Notwithstanding Section 17.34.070 of the
Rolling Hills Municipal Code, any modifications to the project
which would constitute additional development shall require the
filing of a new application for approval by the Planning
Commission.
R. The applicant shall execute an Affidavit of
Acceptance of all conditions of this Site Plan Review, or the
approval shall not be effective.
S. Conditions C, D, F, G, H, I, J, K, 0, and P
of this Site Plan Review approval must be complied with prior to
the issuance of a building or grading permit from the County of
Los Angeles.
1992.
ATTEST:
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 28th day of March,
DIANE SAWY `R; DEPUTY CIDY CLERK
ALAN ROBERTS, CHAIRMAN
8
920327 eeh 1680770 (3)
• •
The foregoing Resolution No. 92-15 entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH INTO THE
FRONT YARD SETBACK TO CONSTRUCT A RETAINING WALL AND
GRANTING SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL OF A NEW RESIDENTIAL
STRUCTURE IN ZONING CASE NO. 458, SUBJECT TO SPECIFIED
CONDITIONS.
was approved and adopted at a regular adjourned meeting of the
Planning Commission on March 28, 1992, by the following roll call
vote:
AYES: Catmissioners Frost, Hankins, Lay and Chairman Roberts
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: Commissioner Raine
P�`/ O- t eyr.
DEPUTY C TY CLERK
920327 eeh 1680770 (3)
- 9
RESOLUTION NO. 93-14
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ROLLING HILLS APPROVING AN EXTENSION TO A PREVIOUSLY
APPROVED VARIANCE TO PERMIT ENCROACHMENT INTO THE FRONT
YARD SETBACK TO CONSTRUCT A RETAINING WALL AND APPROVING
AN EXTENSION TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE PLAN. REVIEW
FOR A NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IN ZONING CASE NO. 458.
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. Richard C. Colyear
with respect to real property located at 0 Chestnut Lane (Lot 241-
A-1-MS), Rolling Hills requesting an extension to a previously
approved Variance to permit encroachment into the front yard
setback to construct a retaining wall, and requesting an extension
to a previously approved Site Plan Review application for a
proposed new residence.
Section 2. The Commission considered this item at a meeting
on March 16, 1993 at which time information was presented
indicating that the extension of time is necessary because there is
still litigation surrounding the development, specifically, the
request for a lot line adjustment which could affect the site plan
approval.
Section 3. Based upon information and evidence submitted, the
Planning Commission does hereby amend Paragraph A, Section 12 of
Resolution No. 92-15, dated March 28, 1992, to read as follows:
"A. The Variance and Site Plan Review approvals shall expire
within two years of the approval of this Resolution."
Section 4. Except as herein amended, the provisions of
Resolution No. 92-15 shall continue to be in full force and effect.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 16 L AY OF MARCH, 1993.
ALLAN ROBERTS, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
MARILYN KERN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK
•
RESOLUTION NO. 93-14
PAGE 2
The foregoing Resolution No. 93-14 entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ROLLING HILLS APPROVING AN EXTENSION TO A PREVIOUSLY
APPROVED VARIANCE TO PERMIT ENCROACHMENT INTO THE FRONT
YARD SETBACK TO CONSTRUCT A RETAINING WALL AND APPROVING
AN EXTENSION TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE PLAN REVIEW
FOR A NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IN ZONING CASE NO. 458.
was approved and adopted at a regular adjourned meeting of the
Planning Commission on March 16, 1993 by the following roll call
vote:
AYES: Commissioners Frost, Hankins, Raine and Chairman Roberts
NOES:
ABSENT: Commissioner Lay
ABSTAIN:
DEPUTY CItY CLERK