Loading...
458, Construction of a new SFR and, Staff Reports• • city o/ /e0fA4 Jhi'h �aT C. INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (213) 377-1521 FAX: (213) 377-7288 AGENDA ITEM A MEETING DATE 4/13/92 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL ATTENTION: CRAIG R. NEALIS, CITY MANAGER FROM: LOLA M. UNGAR, PRINCIPAL PLANNER SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 458 RESOLUTION NO. 92-15: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS APPROVING A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH INTO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR A RETAINING WALL AND GRANTING SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL IN ZONING CASE NO. 458. OWNER: Mr. Richard Colyear ADDRESS: 0 Chestnut Lane, formerly 18 Johns Canyon Road (Lot 241-A-1-MS) BACKGROUND 1. The Planning Commission approved the subject resolution on March 28, 1992 (attached). 2. The applicant requests a Variance to permit the encroachment of a curved 252-foot long retaining wall that will be no higher than 5 feet in height that will encroach up to 50 feet into the 50-foot front yard setback. 3. The applicant is also requesting Site Plan Review to construct a new 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. 4. On February 29, 1992, the Planning Commission viewed the area of the proposed driveway entrance on Chestnut Lane, more than 75 feet from the center radius of the corner of the property at Johns Canyon Road and Chestnut Lane. 5. The Planning Commission should note that this lot is part of the subdivision of property obtained by Mr. Richard Colyear in 1971. Certain perimeter easements that were imposed as a condition of approval of the tentative map were to be reserved in documents to be recorded at the time the final map was recorded for the subdivision. These documents were not recorded. The Commission included these easements in the resolution document as a condition of approval of the Site Plan Review pursuant to the authority provided by California Government Code Section 66499.34, the City's police power, State Planning and Zoning Law and the City's ordinances. ZONING CASE NO. 458 PAGE 2 6. Grading for the project would require 4,000 cubic yards of cut soil and 4,000 cubic yards of fill soil. 7. The structural lot coverage proposed is 2,570 square feet or 2.9% and the total lot coverage proposed is 11,470 square feet or 13.2%. 8. Coverage on the 12,000 square foot building pad proposed is 16.89. Staff's calculations include all structures on the building pad. 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. 92-15. • • 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 (a)) 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 - • • 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 920327 eeh 1680770 (3) 5 • • 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. G. The building pad coverage shall not exceed 17.7%. 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, he 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 god 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 parce14 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 Hills, 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 Hills 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 Hills 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. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 28th day of March, 1992. ATTEST: DIANE SAWY Y CLERK ALAN ROBERTS, CHAIRMAN 920327 eeh 1680770 (3) - 8 • • 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: Commissioners Frost, Hankins, Lay and Chairman Roberts NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Commissioner Raine DEPUTY C]TY CLERK 920327 eeh 1680770 (3) - 9 - 0 City • l2 PP•,.9 JUL March 18, 1992 TO: FILE FROM: LOLA UNGAR, PRINCIPAL PLANNER INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (213) 377-1521 FAX: (213) 377-7288 SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 458 DRIVEWAY RETAINING WALLS IN SIDE YARD SETBACK It was noted on this date that driveway retaining walls shown in the side yard setback on drawings for the subject case for February 14, 1992 and March 3, 1992 would require a Variance, were not noticed and were omitted in error from previous staff reports and were not a part of the approvals for the subject case. Mr. Douglas McHattie, South Bay Engineering, will be removing these retaining walls from the final plans. C14, 0/ leollil.y J✓'�� MEETING DATE: MARCH 16, 1993 TO: • INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: LOLA UNGAR, PRINCIPAL PLANNER SUBJECT: BACKGROUND ZONING CASE NO. 458 MR. RICHARD C. COLYEAR, 0 CHESTNUT LANE (LOT 241-A-1-MS) REQUEST FOR A ONE-YEAR EXTENSION OF TIME Attached is a request from Mr. Richard Stone, representing Mr. Colyear, for a one year extension of time for 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 at the subject site. Planning Commission Resolution No. 92-15 was approved on March 28, 1992. Mr. Stone explained that the extension of time is necessary because there are no new or changed circumstances relating to the project and there is still litigation surrounding the development, specifically, the request for a lot line adjustment which could affect the site plan approval. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission review the request. 38 Printed on Recycled Paper. HEARING DATE: TO: FROM: APPLICATION NO. SITE LOCATION: ZONING & SIZE: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PUBLISHED: REQUEST • • City oi Rolling ilifid MARCH 17, 1992 PLANNING COMMISSION LOLA UNGAR. PRINCIPAL PLANNER INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (213) 377-1521 FAX: (213) 377.7288 ZONING CASE NO. 458 18 JOHNS CANYON ROAD (LOT 241-A-1) RAS-2, 2 ACRES MR. RICHARD COLYEAR MR. HERB MONTENEGRO, COLYEAR DEVELOPMENT MARCH 7, 1992 The applicant requests a Variance to permit the encroachment of a retaining wall into the front yard setback and requests Site Plan Review to permit the construction of a proposed new single family residence and an attached two -car garage. BACKGROUND 1. The applicant now requests a Variance to permit the encroachment of a curved 252-foot long retaining wall that will be no higher than 5 feet in height that will encroach up to 50 feet into the 50 foot front yard setback. 2. The applicant is also requesting Site Plan Review to construct a new 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. 3. On February 29, 1992, the Planning Commission viewed the area of the proposed driveway entrance on Chestnut Lane, more than 75 feet from the center radius of the corner of the property at Johns Canyon Road and Chestnut Lane. 4. The Planning Commission should note that this lot is part of the subdivision of property obtained by Mr. Richard Colyear in 1971. Certain perimeter easements that were imposed as a condition of approval of' the tentative map were to be reserved in documents to be recorded at the time the final map was recorded for the subdivision. These documents were not recorded. The Commission may want to impose certain types and locations of those easements as a condition of approval of the Site Plan Review pursuant to the authority provided by California Government Code Section 66499.34, the City's police power, State Planning and Zoning Law and the City's ordinances. 5. Grading for the revised plan would require 4,000 cubic yards of cut soil and 4,000 cubic yards of fill soil. 6. The structural lot coverage proposed is 2,570 square feet or 2.9% and the total lot coverage proposed is 11,470 square feet or 13.2%. • • ZONING CASE NO. 458 PAGE 2 7. Coverage on the 12,000 square foot building pad proposed is 16.8%. Staff's calculations include all structures on the building pad. 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. T BY: 46-12-92 ;11: 08AM : R I CHARDS, \ATSON rr2-' 1310377728i 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. 45E, SUBJECT TO SPECIFIED CONDITIONS. THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DORS HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: section 1, Applications were duly filed by Mr. Richard Calyear with respect to real property located at 0 Chestnut Lane, Rolling Hills (Lot 241-A-1 MS)requeetinq 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. Tha 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. jgection 3. The Planning Commission concurs with Planning Staff that the project qualifies 60 a Class 3 Exemption (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15303 (a) and is therefore categorically exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act. peotion 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 oiroumetanoea 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 sane extent enjoyed by similar properties in the sane 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. $fiction 5. With respect to this request for a variance, the Planning Commission finds as follows: 920312 eM 16&UT70 (2) r BY: 3-12-92 :11: 08AM ; R l CHARDS, S ATSON 1 i1 Ud777 tit • • 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 pecceceed 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 s=1opabank next to the proposed driveway. C. The granting of4the 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 (s'), a maximum length of 252 feet and with a maximum encroachment of fifty (se') 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 1.7.34.010 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 (2540 in any thirty-six month period, may be permitted. petition a. with respect to the Site Plan Review application, the Planning Commission makes the following findings of tact: 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 let has a net square foot area of 87,120 square feet. The proposed residence (1,674 sq. ft.), garage (350 sq. ft.), and future 92031Z eel 168DTT0 (2) 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, ac 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 forma (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 tha community. E. The development plan, as modified by the Conditions of approval, substantially preserves the natural and undeveloped state bf 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 Peet and a building pad coverage or 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 etruoture to lot coverage io similar to or 1cee 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 eo as to intersect with Chestnut Lane at a point which is further away from the corner of Chestnut Lane and Johns Canyon Road then as originally shown on the proposed site Plan. M. The project conforms with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and is categorically exempt from environmental review. 9ZD312 W 1680770 (2) • • Be lion • 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 provisidna of the Subdivision Map Act or of the provisional 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 paroele 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 1Q. With respect to the requirements of California Government Section 66499.34, and for purposes of showing a nexus between the provisions of condition "L" 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 in the at ject of this application is a part of that tract. The requirement that these perimeter easements be reserved by document wags 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 hie oonditional 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) . eased 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 - 4 -- 920312 ash 1680771) (Z) 1 t31 01 0 • • 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 need for easements at these locations is necessary for the construction or the sewer system as shown in the ASL Study, and that such system is necessary for the public health and public safety of the people of Rolling Hills and the stability of properties in the City. E. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66499.34, only by the imposition of condition HL" of section 9 to address the applicant's original violation of subdivision approval can the Planning Commission properly approve the application for site Plan Review. option 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 condition6 contained in Section 12 of this Resolution. Section 1Z.. 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 Affective 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 Februarv_:14:,1992, and marked Exhibit A, except as otherwise provided in these conditions. E. The building pad, as shown on the plans dated , shall be moved feet to the and be 920312 ash mono (2) - 5 - 1 C, T V 14 04 1 1 1 • 1 Lna, it , %..,,:,,.,....J, ,,.....,., , .. • • constructed so that the top surface of the northern edge of the pad is located at elevation above sea level. F. The working drawings submitted to the County Department of Building and Safety for plan chock review must include a 5O square foot corral and must conform to the development plan approved with this application. G. Grading shall be limited so that the amount of soil displaced to construct the building pad &hall not exceed 4000 cubic yards of soil. 17.7%. H. The building pad coverage shall not exceed 1. The driveway from the street to the building pad of the subject property, as shown on the plans dated February 14, 1!W Ehall be moved so that the northeasterly point of intersection of the driveway with Chestnut Lana occur& &eventy- five (75) feet from the center of the radius curve or the intersection of Chestnut Lane and Johns Canyon Road. J. To minimize the building on the pad, the etruotures, 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 eoxununity. 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 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 wee installed pursuant to the landscaping plan as approved, and that such landscaping is properly established and in good condition. L. 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 that parcel was created, the applicant shall prepare and, upon 920312 eeh 1600170 (2) - 6 • • approval and acceptance by the City, record prior to the issuance 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 convoy it immediately to the Rolling Mille Community Association) for ingress, egress and the installation, maintenance, repair, replaoement 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 Percale 1 and 2 and (iii) the easterly ton (10) feet of Parcel 1. The easement deed shall prohibit Grantor or any suCCQseor 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 syatemc. R. The property that ie the subject of this approval is also the subject of pending litigation entitled Richard C. Colyear v. City of Rolling Nina, 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. SB91coo317) 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' position with respect to the pending litigation mentioned above. N. This Site Plan Review approval ahsll 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 impoeed pursuant thereto. 0. 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 maxiumum 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". P. Prior to the submittal of an applicable final grading plan to the County of Los Angeles for plan chock, a detailed grading and drainage plan with related geology, voila 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. Q. 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. 920312 eon 1680770 (2) r 7 J-1.:-ZU 11 11A.%] V 1LnAICU3, IV:i13l1.\ lt)IUL)i r (::,CSC • • R. Notwithstanding Section 17.34.070 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, any modifioatione to the project which would constitute additional development shall require the filing of a new application for approval by the Planning Comnission. S. The applicant shall Execute an Affidavit of Acceptance of all conditions of this Site Plan Review, or the approval shall not be effective. T. Conditions C, D, E, 4, H, I, J, X, L, P and Q of this Site Plan Review approval must be complied with prior to the issuance of a building or grading permit from the County of Loa Angeles. 1992. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 17 day of March, ALAN ROBERTS, CHAIRMAN ATTEST: DIANNE SAWYER, DEPUTY CITY CLERK The foregoing Resolution No. 92-15 entitled: A RESOLUTION or 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 OP A NEW RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE IN ZONING CASE NO. 458, SUBJECT TO ePEOIFIED CONDITIONS. was approved and adopted at a regular adjourned meeting of the Planning Commission on March 1992, by the following roll call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: 92031? 1680T70 (2) DEPUTX. CITY CLERK 8 • • HEARING DATE: TO: FROM: City o/ RO/A J�P� FEBRUARY 18, 1992 PLANNING COMMISSION LOLA UNGAR, PRINCIPAL PLANNER INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (213) 377-1521 FAX: (213) 377-7288 APPLICATION NO. ZONING CASE NO. 458 SITE LOCATION: 18 JOHNS CANYON ROAD (LOT 241-A-1) ZONING & SIZE: RAS-2, 2 ACRES APPLICANT: MR. RICHARD COLYEAR REPRESENTATIVE: MR. HERB MONTENEGRO, COLYEAR DEVELOPMENT PUBLISHED: NOVEMBER 9, 1991 REQUEST The applicant requests a Site Plan Review to permit the construction of a proposed new single family residence and an attached garage. BACKGROUND 1. On February 1, 1992, the Planning Commission viewed a staking of a revised driveway plan suggested by the Traffic Commission for the subject case and requested review by the Fire Department. As proposed, the plans do not comply with the Fire Department's Access Standards and would be required to comply with the attached modifications related to percentage of grade, driveway width, Fire Department turnaround, and residential fire sprinklers. 2. Grading for the revised plan would require 4,000 cubic yards of cut soil and 4,000 cubic yards of fill soil. 3. The applicant is requesting Site Plan Review to construct a new 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. 4. Access to the proposed building site will be from the northeast portion of the lot off Chestnut Lane. 5. The soils report states, "The proposed residential structure shall be supported by foundations embedded entirely in firm bedrock or entirely in compacted fill placed on firm bedrock. Due to the depths of firm bedrock and the steepness of the adjacent descending slopes, deep foundations, such as caissons, will be required for portions of the proposed structures." 6. The structural lot coverage proposed is 2,570 square feet or 2.9% and the total lot coverage proposed is 11,470 square feet or 13.2%. 7. Coverage on the 12,000 square foot building pad proposed is 17.7%. Staff's calculations include all structures on the building pad. 8. The project has been determined to be categorically exempt pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). • • ZONING CASE NO. 458 PAGE 2 RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission review the proposed plans and take public testimony. AGOURA HILLS ARTESIA AZUSA BALDWIN PARK BELL BELLFLOWER BELL GARDENS P. MICHAEL FREEMAN FIRE CHIEF FORESTER & FIRE WARDEN November 1, 1988 COUNTY OF LOS ANGkES FIRE DEPARTMENT VIP 1320 NORTH EASTERN AVENUE LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90063-3294 (213) 72.0-5141 NOTICE Effective immediately all development constructed in the unincorporated area of the County and all contracting cities of Los Angeles County must comply with Section 10.207(f) and 10.301(e) (Fire apparatus access roads; installation of fire protection facilities, respectively) of the County of Los Angeles Fire Code. For clarification purposes of Section 10.207(f), of the County of Los Angeles Fire Code, the term all-weather driving capabilities shall mean a surface that will support the imposed loads of.fire apparatus during inclimate weather including normal rainfall. Permissible access road construction may include, but not limited to the following: A. First layer of asphalt with "A" base (sand, gravel mix compacted, 95% or greater, 4" to 6" in depth). B. Three inch (3") Type II A.C. pavement on 4" crushed aggregate base. C. Six inch(6") Type II A.C. pavement on native soil. D. Six inch (6") portland cement concrete pavement on native soil. Access road construction shall be governed by the specifications as set forth by the Department of Public Works or modifications prepared by a state registered civil engineer. For additional information, please contact the local Fire Prevention Office or the Fire Protection Engineering Section at (213) 720-5141. JAMES-V. DALEO, FIRE MARSHAL PREVENTION, PREPAREDNESS AND CONSERVATION BUREAU JVD:11 Revised 11/1/91 SERVING THE UNINCORPORATED AREAS OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY AND THE CITIES OF BRADBURY CARSON CERRITOS CLAREMONT COMMERCE CUDAHY DIAMOND BAR DUARTE GLENDORA HAWAIIAN GARDENS HIDDEN HILLS HUNTINGTON PARK INDUSTRY IRWINDALE LA CANADA FLINTRIDGE LAKEWOOD LA MIRADA LANCASTER LA PUENTE LAWNDALE LOMITA MAYWOOD NORWALK PALMDALE PALOS VERDES ESTATES PARAMOUNT PICO RIVERA RANCHO PALOS VERDES ROLLING HILLS ROLLING HILLS ESTATES ROSEMEAD SAN DIMAS SANTA CLARITA SIGNAL HILL SOUTH EL MONTE SOUTH GATE TEMPLE CITY WALNUT WEST HOLLYWO' D WESTLAKE VILLAGE WHITTIER • • February 6, 1992 TO: ASSISTANT FIRE CHIEF JAY CORBETT✓ FROM: JIM BAILEY, SUPERVISOR, PLAN CHECK UNIT 3i SUBJECT: 35 CREST ROAD WEST, ROLLING HILLS Per your request, I have reviewed the enclosed grading plan dated February 6, 1992, for compliance with our access standards. In its present design, the plans do not comply with our Access Standard 10.207A. The following modifications would be required to bring the plans into compliance. 1. The 20% grade should be reduced to 15%. However, due to the topographic features, I would accept a 20% grade for a maximum length of 150, provided the overall grade does not exceed 17%. 2. Since the private driveway exceeds 400 feet in length, a Fire Department turnaround is required at the building pad. 3. The required width of the driveway should be 20 feet, however, due to the topographic features, I would accept 15 feet. An alternate solution would be to accept the following: 1. Allow the proposed grade to remain at 20% throughout. 2. Require a Fire Department turnaround at the building pad. 3. Do not allow the reduction in width from 20 to 15 feet. 4. Require residential fire sprinklers throughout. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please feel free to call me. JGB:11 cc: Carl Linzner bcc: Bailey: X a:\Crest H��tS_� ut�i�iv J IHIVUHt(UJ FI REOAPPARATUS-'MPUMPER 70' 35' 35' 10' I E 10' 1 NF' FIGURE A 20' a HAMMER -HEAD TURN -AROUND 20' 0 N 40' 0 N FIGURE B f 6' 20' 6' N O AREA ADJACENT TO HYDRANT FIGURE 10' D -I 30' FIGURE C INTERMEDIATE TURN -AROUND PRIVATE ST. (CUL - DE - SAC ) 3-85 REFERENCE SHEET I HEARING DATE: TO: FROM: APPLICATION NO. SITE LOCATION: ZONING & SIZE: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PUBLISHED: REOUEST C14,ol /eoffing Jh//J INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 JANUARY 21, 1992 PLANNING COMMISSION LOLA UNGAR, PRINCIPAL PLANNER NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (213) 377-1521 FAX: (213) 377-7288 ZONING CASE NO. 458 18 JOHNS CANYON ROAD (LOT 241-A-1) RAS-2, 2 ACRES MR. RICHARD COLYEAR MR. HUGH MONTENEGRO, COLYEAR DEVELOPMENT NOVEMBER 9, 1991 The applicant requests a Site Plan Review to permit the construction of a proposed new single family residence and an attached garage. BACKGROUND 1. On December 17, 1991, the Planning Commission requested a staking of the driveway entrance to the proposed site, a review by the Traffic Commission, and also inquired as to the adjacent neighbor's knowledge of the proposed grading in their easements. 2. On January 11, 1992, the Planning Commission viewed a color marked staking of the proposed driveway entrance and easements off the southwest corner of Johns Canyon Road and Chestnut Lane. 3. On January 16, 1992, Rolling Hills Community Association Manager Peggy Minor reiterated to staff that her letter to City Manager Craig Nealis regarding the Colyear Lot Line Adjustment on November 13, 1990 also addresses this case and permits a driveway easement on the RHCA easement located in the vicinity of the intersection of Chestnut Lane and Johns Canyon Road. 4. On January 17, 1992, the Traffic Commission reviewed the staking of the proposed driveway and an oral report will be given to the Commission by City Manager Craig Nealis. 5. Mrs. Cole, 8 Johns Canyon Road has been apprised of the proposed driveway grading and will review the plans. 6. The applicant is requesting a Site Plan Review to construct a new 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. ZONING CASE NO. 458 PAGE 2 RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission review the proposed plans and take public testimony. • Ci1y op RQ/A Jh/'f HEARING DATE: TO: FROM: APPLICATION NO. SITE LOCATION: ZONING & SIZE: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PUBLISHED: REQUEST • INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, DECEMBER 17, 1991 PLANNING COMMISSION LOLA UNGAR, PRINCIPAL PLANNER 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (213) 377-1521 FAX: (213) 377-7288 ZONING CASE NO. 458 18 JOHNS CANYON ROAD (LOT 241-A-1) RAS-2, 2 ACRES MR. RICHARD COLYEAR MR. HUGH MONTENEGRO, COLYEAR DEVELOPMENT NOVEMBER 9, 1991 The applicant requests a Site Plan Review to permit the construction of a proposed new single family residence and an attached garage. BACKGROUND 1. The Planning Commission viewed a silhouette of the proposed project at a field trip on December 7, 1991. There was discussion at the site about the possible relocation of the residence but the applicant has made no indication to change the original proposal. 2. The applicant is requesting a Site Plan Review to construct a new 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. 3. Access to the proposed building site will be from the northeast portion of the lot off Johns Canyon Road. 3. Grading for the project site will require 3,700 cubic yards of cut and 3,700 cubic yards of fill. 4. The soils report states, "The proposed residential structure shall be supported by foundations embedded entirely in firm bedrock or entirely in compacted fill placed on firm bedrock. Due to the depths of firm bedrock and the steepness of the adjacent descending slopes, deep foundations, such as caissons, will be required for portions of the proposed structures." 5. The structural lot coverage proposed is 2,570 square feet or 2.9% (20% permitted) and the total lot coverage proposed is 11,470 square feet or 13.2% (35% permitted). ZONING CASE NO. 458 PAGE 2 6. Coverage on the 12,000 square foot building pad proposed is 17.7%. (This calculation and the total lot coverage were checked by Planning and found to be different from the submitted blueprint). 7. The project has been determined to be categorically exempt pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission review the proposed plans and take public testimony. •City opeollin9. HEARING DATE: TO: FROM: APPLICATION NO. SITE LOCATION: ZONING & SIZE: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PUBLISHED: REQUEST INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (213) 377-1521 FAX: (213) 377-7288 NOVEMBER 19, 1991 PLANNING COMMISSION LOLA UNGAR. PRINCIPAL PLANNER ZONING CASE NO. 458 18 JOHNS CANYON ROAD (LOT 241-A-1) RAS-2, 2 ACRES MR. RICHARD COLYEAR MR. HUGH MONTENEGRO, COLYEAR DEVELOPMENT NOVEMBER 9, 1991 The applicant requests a Site Plan Review to permit the construction of a proposed new single family residence and an attached garage. BACKGROUND In reviewing the applicant's request under Title 17 (Zoning), staff would identify the following issues for evaluation: 1. The applicant is requesting a Site Plan Review to construct a new 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. 2. Access to the proposed building site will be from the northeast portion of the lot off Johns Canyon Road. 3. Grading for the project site will require 3,700 cubic yards of cut and 3,700 cubic yards of fill. 4. The soils report states, "The proposed residential structure shall be supported by foundations embedded entirely in firm bedrock or entirely in compacted fill placed on firm bedrock. Due to the depths of firm bedrock and the steepness of the adjacent descending slopes, deep foundations, such as caissons, will be required for portions of the proposed structures." 5. The structural lot coverage proposed is 2,570 square feet or 2.9% (20% permitted) and the total lot coverage proposed is 11,470 square feet or 13.2% (35% permitted). 6. Coverage on the 12,000 square foot building pad proposed is 17.7%. (This calculation and the total lot coverage were checked by Planning and found to be different from the attached 4A ZONING CASE NO. 458 PAGE 2 blueprint). 7. The project has been determined to be categorically exempt pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). RECOMMENDATION• It is recommended that the Planning Commission review the proposed plans and take public testimony. FAX (213) 564-4105 TELEX 67-4674 Sawa Watt Commw 5321 FIRESTONE BOULEVARD SOUTH GATE, CALIFORNIA 90280 November 13, 1991 City of Rolling Hills 2, Portuguese Bend Rd. Rolling Hills, CA. 90274 Attention: Planning Commission Subject: Zoning Case #458 Gentlemen: TELEPHONE (213) 564-3281 !NOV 1, 4 1991 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS �y. We are in receipt of the Notice of Public Hearing to be held November 19th, 1991, concerning the above subject. A review of the subject application and plans, revealed that the property in question is )at this time) addressed as 18, Johns Canyon Road, Rolling Hills, California. Inasmuch as addresses on Johns Canyon Road are already established, and that the end of Johns Canyon Road at the cul-de-sac, the addresses are numbers 15, 16 and 17. This would put the aforementioned address beyond the location of these properties, and would cause post office, UPS and other delivery services considerable problems. We would suggest that if 8, Johns Canyon Road is not used, that this would seem to be an appropriate address for this property. 4A==s0 STEEL SERVICE CENTER INSTITUTE Very truly yours, uraon W. Shultz "TONS OF QUALITY"