Loading...
628, An addition to existing living, Staff Reports• • City 0/ leoffinf JUL INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 E-mail: cityofrh@aol.com MEETING DATE: JUNE 18, 2002 TO: HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 628, 6 MIDDLERIDGE LANE NORTH (LOTS 12,13,14, & PART OF 15-MR) MR. AND MRS. CRAIG EKBERG REQUEST FOR A ONE-YEAR TIME EXTENSION. BACKGROUND Attached is a request from Mr. and Mrs. Craig Ekberg, requesting a one-year time extension for a previously approved request for a Site Plan Review to construct substantial additions and a Variance to encroach with the addition into the front yard setback at a single family residence in Zoning Case No. 628 that was approved by the Commission on July 17, 2001 by Resolution No. 2001-14. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission consider the request and adopt Resolution No. 2002-10 granting the extension. Printed on Recycled Paper. • • April 25, 2002 City of Rolling Hills Planning Commission REQUEST FOR EXTENSION. Dear Planning Commission: APR 2 CITY . :G7d;1Pi1�L This letter is to request an extension for our APPROVALS FOR ZONING CASE NO. 628. Enclosed you'll find the filing fee check for $200 made out to the City of Rolling Hills. We request, if we have to be present, to attend the Planning Commission meeting on June 18. Sincerely, Craig and Hanne Ekberg 6 Middleridge Ln.N. Rolling Hills, CA 90274 • • RESOLUTION NO. 2002-10 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS APPROVING A MODIFICATION TO PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2001-14 AND APPROVING AN EXTENSION TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR SUBSTANTIAL ADDITIONS AND A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH INTO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK IN ZONING CASE NO. 628,(EKBERG). 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. and Mrs. Craig Ekberg with respect to real property located at 6 Middleridge Lane North Rolling Hills, requesting an extension to a previously approved Site Plan Review for substantial addition and a Variance to encroach into the front yard setback to construct a portion of the addition. Section 2. The Commission considered this item at a meeting on June 18, 2002, at which time information was presented indicating that the extension of time is necessary in order to commence plan check processing. Section 3. Based upon information and evidence submitted, the Planning Commission does hereby amend Paragraph A, Section 10 of Resolution No. 2001-14, dated July 17, 2001, to read as follows: "A. The Variance and Site Plan Review approvals shall expire within two years from the effective date of this approval as defined in Sections 17.38.070(A) and 17.46.080(A), unless construction on the applicable portions of the structure have commenced within that time period." Section 4. Except as herein amended, the provisions of Resolution No. 2001-14 shall continue to be in full force and effect. 2002. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 18th DAY OF JUNE EWE HANKINS, VICE -CHAIR ATTEST: MARILYN KERN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK • STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§ CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ) I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2002-10 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS APPROVING A MODIFICATION TO PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001-14 AND APPROVING AN EXTENSION TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR SUBSTANTIAL ADDITIONS AND A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH INTO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK IN ZONING CASE NO. 628, (EKBERG). was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on June 18, 2002 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following: Administrative Offices MARILYN KERN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK DATE: TO: ATTN: FROM: SUBJECT: • • etEy apt«wq INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 E-mail: cityofrh@aol.com Agenda Item No.: 4A Mtg. Date: 7/23/01 JULY 23, 2001 HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL CRAIG R. NEALIS, CITY MANAGER YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PRINCIPAL PLANNER RESOLUTION NO. 2001-14: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL TO PERMIT CONSTRUCTION OF SUBSTANTIAL ADDITIONS TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE, AND A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH INTO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK WITH A PORTION OF THE ADDITION, IN ZONING CASE NO. 628. (EKBERG). BACKGROUND 1. The Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2001-14, which is attached, on July 17, 2001 at their regular meeting granting a request for a site plan approval to construct substantial additions, and a variance request to encroach with a portion of the addition into the front yard setback. The vote was 5-0. 2. The Planning Commission opened a public hearing in this case on March 20, 2001. The Commission viewed the site and silhouette for the proposed additions on Monday, April 9, 2001. 3. The applicant is requesting to construct 915 square feet of residential additions to an existing 4,598 square foot residence for a total of 5,513 square feet, of which 160 sq.ft. would encroach into the front yard setback, which requires a Variance; a 644 square foot basement; a 1,298 square feet addition to the existing 756 square foot garage for a total of 2,054 square feet. A portion of the existing house, approximately 930 square feet, encroaches into the front yard set back. The proposal also includes the retention of the existing 459 square foot structure, originally constructed as a stable, and conversion of this structure to its originally intended use with a loft, and retention of the existing pool and spa. ZC No. 628 1 J Printed on Recycled Paper. • • 4. During the June 19, 2001 hearing the applicant requested permission to retain the swimming pool/spa on the property. Originally the applicant proposed to demolish the pool/spa, so that he would be in substantial compliance with the City's guidelines pertaining to structural building pad coverage, which is 30%. With the proposed additions, and with the pool and the spa, the residential building pad coverage will be 36.4%. Without the pool and spa, the residential building pad coverage would be 33.0%. At that hearing the Commission directed staff to prepare a Resolution of approval. As part of this approval, the applicant is required to convert the existing second story over the stable to a hayloft, and return the lower portion to a barn. 5. Initially the applicant requested a Site Plan Review to permit 915 square foot addition to the residence, 657 square feet addition to the garage, 108 square foot addition to the existing barn and 644 square foot basement. In addition a Variance to encroach with 160 square feet of the addition into the front yard setback was also submitted. The existing pool and spa were proposed to be removed. The applicant's representative provided the following justification for the Variance. The applicant's architect states •in part, that the variance is justified because exceptional conditions exist on the site,' whereby the existing house already encroaches into the front yard setback, and the proposed addition into the front yard setback is of an "in fill" nature and will not worsen the condition. In addition, the existing house is oddly shaped and the master bedroom, located within the part of the house that is encroaching into the front yard setback, is extremely small and has an awkward access, through the living room. 6. During the April 9, 2001 site visit the Commission and staff observed that the existing stable was not utilized for animal keeping. The applicant was informed by staff that pursuant to the City's Zoning Ordinance a detached garage, recreation room and similar uses require the approval of a Conditional Use Permit. In addition, an area of not less than 1000 square feet must be set aside on site for a barn and corral. 7. During the site visit it was also observed that the refreshment center is of substantial construction which falls under City's definition of a structure. It therefore, must be included in the calculations for pad and lot coverage. The refreshment center is 113 square feet. 8. At the April 17, 2001 Planning Commission meeting, the applicant requested continuation of this case to the May 15, 2001 meeting, so that appropriate application, plans and calculations could be submitted to staff to incorporate all of the required structures into the structural lot coverage and also to submit an application for CUP to convert the existing stable into a detached garage. 9. The applicant submitted a revised application, which the Commission considered at their May 15, 2001 meeting. The application included the original request to construct substantial additions of which 160 square feet would encroach into the front yard setback, which requires a Variance, and a request for a ZC No. 628 0 • • Conditional Use Permit to convert the existing stable to a detached garage. The plans also showed a sufficient area for future stable and corral. 10. During the May 15, 2001 meeting the Commission expressed concern with the proposed conversion of the barn into a detached garage, since the barn has a second story, which is used as habitable space. Pursuant to the Rolling Hills Zoning and Building Ordinance, no habitable space is allowed above another habitable space, except over a basement. In addition, a barn may have a loft. The original plans for the barn show that a loft was approved and constructed, which through the years was converted into a storage/habitable area and an exterior door was provided to the second story. 11. During the May 15, 2001 meeting the applicant withdrew the Conditional Use Permit request to convert the existing stable into a detached garage, and requested continuation of the public hearing to the June 19t'', 2001 Planning Commission meeting in order to revise the application. At the June 19, 2001 meeting, the applicant presented the request that was approved by the Commission, which consists of a Site Plan Review to construct the additions, and the Variance to encroach with 160 sq.ft. of the addition into the front yard setback. 12. The original house was constructed in 1952. The barn and the pool were constructed in 1958. A recreation room and covered refreshment center were constructed in 1968. In 1988 the recreation room was remodeled and a porch was enclosed. A portion of the pool, a brick deck with the spa and the bar/refreshment center are located within the front yard setback. 13. Middleridge Lane North bisects the property into two parts. The building pad is located west of the roadway. The eastern portion of the lot is undeveloped with a varied slope of between 28% and 38%, and is covered with dense vegetation. 14 Grading for the project will include 250 cubic yards of cut soil from the excavation of 644 square foot basement. The fill soil will also total 250 cubic yards and will be deposited on site to the north-east of the residential building pad. 15. The total net lot area of this lot is 119,970 square feet. The structural lot coverage proposed is 9,517square feet or 7.9%, (20% permitted). The total lot coverage proposed, including all structures and paved areas is 23,165 square feet or 19.3%, (35% permitted). 16. The 24,900 square foot residential building pad will have proposed coverage of 9,060 square feet, (5,513 sq.ft. residence, 2,054 sq.ft. garage, 544 sq.ft. recreation room, 836 sq. ft. pool/spa and 113 sq. ft. refreshment center) or 36.4%. The existing barn pad is 1,565 square feet with existing pad coverage of 459 square feet or 29.3%. The combined pads are 26,465 square feet and the proposed coverage is at 36.0%. Planning Commission guideline is 30%. 17. The disturbed area of the lot will be 25%. [40% maximum permitted; any graded building pad area, any remedial grading (temporary disturbance), any ZC No. 628 3 graded slopes and building pad areas, and any non -graded area where impervious surfaces exist]. 18. 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. 2001-14. ZC No. 628 4 • A. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same vicinity and zone; and B. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights possessed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone but which is denied the property in question; and C. That the granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; and D. That in granting the variance, the spirit and intent of this title will be observed; and E. That the variance does not grant special privilege; F. That the variance is consistent with the portions of the County of Los Angeles Hazardous Waste Management Plan relating to siting and siting criteria for hazardous waste facilities; and G. That the variance request is consistent with the General Plan of the City of Rolling Hills. ciriiri:rMase IVo<"62.$:*`<• eay" ADDRESS 1 Middleridge Lane South 2 Middleridge Lane South 3 Middleridge Lane South 4 Middleridge Lane South 5 Middleridge Lane South 7 Middleridge Lane South 1 Middleridge Lane North 3 Middleridge Lane North 5 Middleridge Lane North 7 Middleridge Lane North 9 Middleridge Lane North 11 Middleridge Lane North 6 Middleridge Lane North Above OWNER Cigliano Ayelsbury Lynn Schmoller Becker Boyd Barnes Tilles Trust. Cramer Johnson Watts Moore AVERAGE EXISTING PROPOSED sizes include the residences only. ZC No. 628 RESIDENCE (SQ.FT.) 4,541 2,877 3,852 2,790 2,601 3,225 2,100 3,704 3,671 2,364 2,937 3,240 3,158 4,598 5,513 5 LOT SIZE ACRES (NET) 5.75 1.88 3.40 1.44 3.26 3.48 3.23 1.29 1.16 1.16 1.14 1.19 2.36 3.40 SITE PLAN REVIEW RA-S-1 ZONE SETBACKS Front: 50 ft. from front easement line Side: 20 ft. from property line Rear: 50 ft. from property line STRUCTURES Site Plan Review required for grading requiring a grading permit, any new ucture or if size of structure increases at least 1,000 sq.ft. and has the effect of increasing the size of the structure by more than 25% in a 36-month period. STRUCTURAL LOT COVERAGE (20% maximum) • TOTAL LOT COVERAGE (35% maximum) RESIDENTIAL & TOTAL BUILDING PAD COVERAGE Guideline maximum of 30%) GRADING Site Plan Review required if excavation and/or fill or combination thereof is more than 3 feet in depth and covers more than 2,000 sq.ft. must be balanced on site. ZONING CASE NO. 628 EXISTING Existing residence encroaches 25-35 feet,(approx. 930 sq. ft.) into the front yard setback. Residence Garage Swim Pool/Spa Service Yard Bar area Rec.Room Stable Basement Total 6.1% 17.8% 4,598 sq.ft. 756 sq.ft. 836 sq.ft. 100 sq.ft. 225 sq.ft. 544 sq.ft. 459 sa.ft. 0 7,306 sq.ft. 25% of res. pad 29.3% of barn. pad 27.4% of combined pads N/A PREVIOUS PROPOSAL #1 Additional 160 Sq. ft. encroachment into the front yard Residence Garage Swim Pool/Spa Service Yard Bar area Det.garage Rec.room Stable Basement Total not incl. basement 7.2% 18.7% PREVIOUS PROPOSAL #2 CURRENT PROPOSAL Same —160 Same —160 sq ft. sq.ft..encroachment_ encroachment 5,513 sq.ft. Residence 1,413 sq.ft. Garage 0 sq. ft. Swim pool/spa 100 sq. ft. Service yard 113 sq. ft. Bar area 641 sq. ft. Rec. Room 544 sq. ft. Stable 450 so. ft. Basement 644 sq. ft. Total w/o basement 8,674 sq. ft. 7.2% 30.4% of 24,900 sq, ft. res. pad 25.9% of 3,698 sq, ft, barn pad 30.3% of combined pads 250 cu. yds. basement cut soil & 250 cu. yds. fill soil. Blanced on site. 18.6% 5,513 sq.ft. Residence 5,513 sq.ft. 2,054 sq.ft. Garage 2,054 sq.ft. 0 sq.ft. Swim pool/spa 836 sq.ft. 100 sq.ft. Service yard 100 sq.ft. 113 sq.ft. Bar area 113 sq.ft.. 544 sq.ft. Rec. Room 544 sq.ft.l 459 sq.ft. Stable 459 sq.ft.l: 644.sa.ft. Basement 644 sa.ft.1: 8,683 sq.ft. Total w/o 9,619 sq.ft. basement i. 33% of 24,900 sq.ft. res. pad 29.3% of 1,565 sq.ft. barn pad 32.8% combined pads Same — 250 cubic yards cut and 250 cubic yards fill. 7.9% 19.3% 36.4% of 24,900 sq. ft. res. pad 29.3% of 1,565 sq. ft. barn pad 36% combined pads Same — 250 cubic yards cut and 250 cubic yards fill. DISTURBED AREA 40% maximum; any graded building pad area, any remedial grading (temporary disturbance), any graded slopes and building pad areas, and any nongraded area where impervious surfaces exist. STABLE (450 SQ.FT. & 550 SQ.FT. CORRAL) *ABLE ACCESS maximum 25% slop) ROADWAY ACCESS VIEWS PLANTS AND ANIMALS • 17.6% Existing 459 sq.ft. Existing at 7% slope, off of Middleridge Lane N. Existing from Middleridge Lane N. N/A N/A 26% 450 sq.ft.-future 550 sq.ft.-future No change No change Planning Commission Review Planning Commission review 25% Leave existing — 459 sq.ft. (convert second story to hayloft) No change is proposed No change is proposed Planning Commission review Planning Commission review 25% Leave existing — 459 sq.ft. (convert second story to hayloft) No change is proposed No change is proposed No change is proposed No change is proposed • • RESOLUTION NO. 2001-14 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF SUBSTANTIAL ADDITIONS AND GRANTING A VARIANCE TO PERMIT ENCROACHMENT INTO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK WITH A PORTION OF, THE ADDITION AT AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AT 6 MIDDLERIDGE LANE NORTH, IN ZONING CASE NO. 628. 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. and Mrs. Ekberg with respect to real property located at 6 Middleridge Lane North, Rolling Hills, (Lots 12,13,14 & part 15-MR), requesting a Variance to permit encroachment into the front yard setback to construct an addition and Site Plan Review for the construction of substantial additions to a single family residence. Section 2. A. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearings to consider the application on March 20, 2001, April 17, 2001, May 15, 2001, June 19, 2001 and at a field trip on April 9, 2001. The applicant was notified of the hearings in writing by first class mail. The applicant was in attendance at the hearings. Evidence was heard from members of the City staff, the applicant's representative, and all persons interested in affecting the proposal. The Planning Commission reviewed, analyzed and studied the project. B. During the site visit the Commission and staff observed that the existing stable was not utilized for animal keeping. The applicant was informed that pursuant to the City's Zoning Ordinance a detached garage, recreation room and similar uses require the approval of a Conditional Use Permit. In addition, an area not less than 1000 square feet must be set aside on the property for a barn and corral. At the April 17, 2001 Planning Commission meeting, the applicant requested continuation of this case to the May 15, 2001 meeting, so that appropriate application, plans and calculations could be submitted to staff to incorporate all of the required structures into the structural lot coverage and also to submit an application for the CUP request. Section 3. The applicant submitted a revised application, which the Commission considered at their May 15, 2001 meeting, which included the original request to construct substantial additions of which 160 square feet would encroach into the front yard setback, which requires a Variance, and a request for a Conditional Use Permit to convert the existing stable to a detached garage, and set aside sufficient area for future stable and corral. Throughout the review process, the applicant proposed to demolish the existing pool and spa. During the May 15, meeting the Commission expressed concern with the proposed conversion of the barn into a detached garage, since the barn has a second story, which is used as habitable space. In addition, an exterior access door exists from the second story. During the meeting the applicant RESOLUTION NO. 2001-14 1 • • withdrew the Conditional Use Permit. request to convert the existing stable into a detached garage, and requested continuation of the public hearing to the June 19th, 2001 Planning Commission meeting in order to revise the application. Section 4. The applicant has submitted a revised site plan requesting to construct 915 square feet of residential additions to an existing 4,598 square foot residence for a total of 5,513 square feet; a 644 square foot basement; a 1,298 square feet addition to the existing 756 square foot garage for a total of 2,054 square feet. A Variance application is also requested to permit 160 square feet of the residential additions to encroach into the front yard setback. A portion of the existing house, approximately 930 square feet, encroaches into the front yard set back. The existing stable structure will remain and the habitable area will be converted to a loft. During the June 19, 2001meeting, the applicant requested that the Commission permit the applicant to retain the existing pool and spa, despite the fact that the structural building lot coverage will exceed the 30% Planning Commission guideline. Section 5. The Planning Commission finds that the project qualifies as a Class 1 Exemption (State of CA Guidelines, Section 15301(e) and is therefore categorically exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act. Section 6. Sections 17.38.010 through 17.38.050 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code permit approval of a Variance from the standards and requirements of the Zoning Ordinance when exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applicable to the property and not applicable to other similar properties in the same zone prevent the owner from making use of a parcel of property to the same extent enjoyed by similar properties in the same vicinity. Section 17.16.110 requires the front yard setback for every residential parcel to be fifty (50) feet. The applicant is requesting to encroach up to a maximum 160 square feet into the front yard setback. The existing house encroaches approximately 27 feet on the average into the front yard setback. With respect to this request for a Variance, the Planning Commission finds as follows: A. There are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances and conditions applicable to the property or to the intended use that do not apply generally to the other property or class of use. in the same zone because the existing house encroaches into the front yard setback and the proposed addition will not further the encroachment. B. The Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone, but which is denied to the property in question. The Variance is necessary because the development and use of the subject property is in a manner consistent with the shape of the lot and development and this additional small incursion into the front yard setback. will not be any greater encroachment than already exists. 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. Allowing the proposed encroachment into the front yard setback will not constitute any greater incursion than already exists. In addition, development on this portion of the pad will allow a substantial portion of the RESOLUTION NO. 2001-14 2 more environmentally significant rear and front portions of the lot to remain undeveloped. Section 7. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves the Variance for Zoning Case No. 628 to permit the encroachment of a 160 square foot addition to an existing residence, as indicated on the development plan, submitted with this application and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit A, dated June 28, 2001 subject to the conditions specified in Section 10 of this Resolution. Section 8. Section 17.46.030 requires a development plan to be submitted for site plan review and approval before any building or structure may be constructed or any expansion, addition, alteration or repair to existing buildings may be made which involve changes to grading or an increase to the size of the building or structure by at least 1,000 square feet and has the effect of increasing the size of the building by more than twenty-five percent (25%) in any thirty-six (36) month period. With respect to the Site Plan Review application, the Planning Commission makes the following findings of fact: A. The proposed development is compatible with the General Plan, the Zoning. Ordinance and surrounding uses because the proposed structure complies with the General Plan requirement of low profile, low density residential development with sufficient open space between surrounding structures. The project conforms to Zoning Code setback and net lot coverage requirements with the Variance approved in Section 7 of this Resolution. The lot has a net square foot area of 119,970 square feet. The proposed residence (5,513 sq.ft.), garage (2,054 sq.ft.), stable (459 sq.ft), detached recreation room (544 sq.ft.), swimming pool/spa (836 sq.ft.), refreshment center (113 sq.ft.), and service yard will have 9,517 square feet which constitutes 7.9% coverage of the net lot which is within the maximum 20% structural net lot coverage requirement. The total lot coverage including paved areas and driveway will be 23,165 square feet or 19.3% of the net lot area. The residential building pad consists of 24,900 square feet and will have a structural coverage of 36.4%. B. The proposed development preserves and integrates into the site design, to the maximum extent feasible, existing natural topographic features of the lot including surrounding native vegetation, mature trees, and drainage courses. The lot is relatively flat. Grading will consist of 250 cubic yards of cut soil and 250 cubic yards of fill and will be balanced on site in an area north of the proposed addition, where there exists a small gully in the terrain. C. The development plan follows natural contours of the site to minimize grading and the existing natural drainage courses will continue. D. The development plan incorporates existing trees and native vegetation to the maximum extent feasible. E. The development plan substantially preserves the natural and undeveloped state of the lot by concentrating building coverage on the residential building pad. The proposed project will not cause the structural and total lot coverage to exceed City's standards. The project will be located on a relatively flat portion of the lot RESOLUTION NO. 2001-14 3 with significant portions of the lot left undeveloped. The development plans will minimize impact on Middleridge Lane. F. The proposed development, as conditioned, is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, the natural terrain and surrounding residences. As indicated in Paragraph A, the net lot coverage maximum will not be exceeded and the proposed project is consistent with the scale of the neighborhood. The ratio of the proposed structure to lot coverage is similar to the ratio found on several properties in the vicinity. G. The proposed development is sensitive and not detrimental to the convenience and safety of circulation for pedestrians and vehicles. The applicant proposes to utilize the existing driveway approximately. • H. The project conforms to the requirement of the California Environmental Quality Act and is categorically exempt from environmental review. Section 9. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves the Site Plan Review application for Zoning Case No. 628 for a proposed residential development as indicated on the development plan incorporated herein as Exhibit A, dated June 28, 2001 and subject to the conditions contained in Section 10. Section 10. The Variance to the front yard setback approved in Section 7 and the Site Plan Review approved in Section 9 of this Resolution are subject to the following conditions: A. The Variance and Site Plan Review approvals shall expire within one year from the effective date of approval as defined in Sections 17.38.070(A) and 17.46.080(A), unless construction on the applicable portions of the structure have commenced within that time period. B. It is declared and made a condition of the Variance and Site Plan Review approvals, that if any conditions thereof are violated, the approval shall be suspended and the privileges granted thereunder shall be subject to revocation; 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 and has been provided additional notice and a hearing prior to the revocation of the Permit. C. All requirements of the Buildings Code of the City of Rolling Hills . and the Rolling Hills Zoning Ordinance must be complied with unless otherwise set forth in the Permit, or shown otherwise on an approved plan. D. The lot shall be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the site plan on file marked Exhibit A, dated June 28, 2001 except as otherwise provided in these conditions. E. Grading shall not exceed 250 cubic yards of cut soil and 250 cubic yards of fill, and shall be balanced on site. RESOLUTION NO.2001-14 4 F. Any grading shall preserve the existing topography, flora, and natural features to the greatest extent possible, H. The residential building pad coverage shall not exceed 36.4%, and the total structural and flatwork coverage shall not exceed 19.3% of the net lot area. The structural lot coverage shall not exceed 9,519 square feet or 7.9% of the net lot area. 25%. H. The disturbed area of the lot shall not exceed 30,000 square feet or I. Landscaping shall incorporate and preserve, to the maximum extent feasible, the existing trees and shrubs. J. Landscaping shall include water efficient irrigation, to the maximum extent feasible, that incorporates a low gallonage irrigation system, utilizes automatic controllers, incorporates an irrigation design using "hydrozones," considers slope factors and climate conditions in design, and utilizes means to reduce water waste resulting from runoff and overspray in accordance with Section 17.27.020 (Water efficient landscaping requirements) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code. K. The proposed basement shall conform to Section 17.12.020 of the Zoning Ordinance and the requirements of the Los Angeles County Building Code and shall have only one standard solid door for ingress/egress to the exterior. L. Pursuant to Section 17.27.030 of the Zoning Ordinance, all utility lines shall be placed underground. M. The existing structure intended for keeping of animals shall be converted to a stable, subject to the requirements of Section 17.16.200 of the Zoning Ordinance. A loft may be retained in this structure, subject to the requirements of Section 17.16.080(2) of the Zoning Ordinance. The existing door from the second story to the exterior shall be removed and the doorway closed off. The overhead garage door shall be replaced with a standard barn door approved by the Rolling Hills Community Association. N. The property owners shall be required to conform 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. O. 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.2001-14 5 • • P. project site. All parking, during and after construction, shall take place on the Q. 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 septic tanks. R. The property owners shall be required to conform with the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Health Department requirements • for the installation and maintenance of storm water drainage facilities. S. The property owners shall be required to conform with the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Public Works Department Best Management Practices (BMP's) related to solid waste. T. An Erosion Control Plan containing the elements set forth in Section 7010 of the 1998 County of Los Angeles Uniform Building Code shall be prepared to minimize erosion and to protect slopes and channels to control storm water pollution as required by the County of Los Angeles. U. Prior to the submittal of an applicable final building 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. V. 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. W. The applicants shall execute an Affidavit of Acceptance of all conditions of the Site PIan and Variance approvals, or the approvals shall not be effective. J4. All conditions of the Variance and Site Plan approvals that apply 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 17t. P A • F Y 2001. ALLAN ROBERTS, CHAIRMAN ATTEST: MARILYN KERN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK RESOLUTION NO. 2001-14 6 • • STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§ CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ) I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2001-14 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF SUBSTANTIAL ADDITIONS AND GRANTING A VARIANCE TO PERMIT ENCROACHMENT INTO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK WITH A PORTION OF THE ADDITION AT AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AT 6 MIDDLERIDGE LANE NORTH, IN ZONING CASE NO. 628. was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on July 17, 2001 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Hankins, Margeta, Sommer, Witte and Chairman Roberts. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following: Administrative Offices. • DEPUT CITY CLERK RESOLUTION NO. 2001-14 7 DATE: TO: FROM: • • A c?1 afi2 efine wee INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 E-mail: cityofrh@aol.com JULY 17, 2001 HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PRINCIPAL PLANNER APPLICATION NO.: SITE LOCATION: ZONING AND SIZE: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PUBLISHED: REQUEST ZONING CASE NO. 628 6 MIDDLERIDGE LANE NORTH (LOTS 12,13,14, & PART OF 15-MR) RA-S-1, 4.068 ACRES MR. AND MRS. CRAIG EKBERG MR. CRISS GUNDERSON, ARCHITECT MARCH 10, 2001 MAY 5, 2001 (CUP -WITHDRAWN) Request for a Site Plan Review to construct substantial residential additions that require grading at an existing single family residence; request for a Variance to encroach with 160 square feet of the additions into the front yard setback. BACKGROUND The Planning Commission at the June 19, 2001 meeting directed staff to prepare a Resolution of approval regarding a site plan to construct substantial additions and a variance to encroach into the front yard setback in Zoning Case No. 628 . The vote was 5-0. During the public hearing the applicant requested permission to retain the swimming pool/spa on the property. Originally the applicant proposed to demolish the pool/spa, so that he would be in substantial compliance with the City's guidelines pertaining to structural building pad coverage, which is 30%. With the proposed additions, the residential building pad coverage, without the pool and spa would be 33%. With the pool and spa, the residential building pad coverage will be 36.4%. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2001-14, which is attached, approving Zoning Case No. 628. •a Pnn ed on Recycled Paper. SITE PLAN REVIEW RA-S-1 ZONE SETBACKS Front: 50 ft. from front easement line Side: 20 ft. from property line Rear: 50 ft. from property line STRUCTURES Site Plan Review required for grading requiring a grading permit, any new structure or if size of structure increases by at least 1,000 sq.ft. and has the effect of increasing the size of the structure by more than 25% in a 36-month period. STRUCTURAL LOT COVERAGE (20% maximum) TOTAL LOT COVERAGE (35% maximum) RESIDENTIAL & TOTAL BUILDING PAD COVERAGE (Guideline maximum of 30%) GRADING Site Plan Review required if excavation and/or fill or combination thereof is more than 3 feet in depth and covers more than 2,000 sq.ft. must be balanced on site. ZC No. 628 7/17/01 ZONING CASE NO. 628 EXISTING Existing residence encroaches 25-35 feet,(approx. 930 sq. ft.) into the front yard setback. Residence Garage Swim Pool/Spa Service Yard Bar area Rec. Room Stable Basement Total 6.1% 17.8% 4,598 sq.ft. 756 sq.ft. 836 sq.ft. 100 sq.ft. 225 sq.ft. 544 sq.ft. 459 soft. 0 7,306 sq.ft. 25% of res. pad 29.3% of barn pad 27.4% of combined pads N/A PREVIOUS PROPOSAL #1 Additional 160 Sq. ft. encroachment into the front yard Residence Garage Swim Pool/Spa Service Yard Bar area Det.garage Rec.room Stable Basement Total not incl. basement 7.2% 18.7% 5,513 sq.ft. 1,413 sq.ft. 0 sq. ft. 100 sq. ft. 113 sq. ft. 641 sq. ft. 544 sq. ft. 450 so. ft. 644 sq. ft. 8,674 sq. ft. 30.4% of 24,900 sq, ft. res. pad 25.9% of 3,698 sq, ft, barn pad 30.3% of combined pads 250 cu. yds. basement cut soil & 250 cu. yds. fill soil. Blanced on site. 1 PREVIOUS PROPOSAL #2 Same —160 sq.ft..ncroachment Residence Garage Swim pool/spa Service yard Bar area Rec. Room Stable Basement Total w/o basement 7.2% 18.6% CURRENT PROPOSAL Same —160 sq ft. encroachment 5,513 sq.ft. Residence 2,054 sq.ft. Garage 0 sq.ft. Swim pool/spa 100 sq.ft. Service yard 113 sq.ft. Bar area 544 sq.ft. Rec. Room 459 sq.ft. Stable 644.sa.ft. Basement 8,683 sq.ft. Total w/o basement 33% of 24,900 sq.ft. res. pad 29.3% of 1,565 sq.ft. barn pad 32.8% combined pads Same — 250 cubic yards cut and 250 cubic yards fill. • 7.9% 19.3% 5,513 sq.ft. 2,054 sq.fAik 836 sq.W 100 sq.ft. 113 sq.ft. 544 sq.ft. 459 sq.ft. 644 sri.ft. 9,619 sq.ft. 36.4% of 24,900 sq. ft. res. pad 29.3% of 1,565 sq. ft. barn • pad 36% combined pads Same — 250 cubic yards cut and 250 cubic yards fill. DISTURBED AREA 40% maximum; any graded building pad area, any remedial grading (temporary disturbance), any graded slopes and building pad areas, and any nongraded area where impervious surfaces exist. STABLE (450 SQ.FT. & 550 SQ.FT. CORRAL) STABLE ACCESS (maximum 25% slop) ROADWAY ACCESS VIEWS PLANTS AND ANIMALS ZC No. 628 7/17/01 17.6% Existing 459 sq.ft. Existing at 7% slope, off of Middleridge Lane N. Existing from Middleridge Lane N. N/A N/A 2 25% Leave existing — 459 sq.ft. (convert second story to hayloft) No change is proposed No change is proposed Planning Commission review Planning Commission review 25% Leave existing — 459 sq.ft. (convert second story to hayloft) No change is proposed No change is proposed No change is proposed No change is proposed • RESOLUTION NO. 2001-14 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF SUBSTANTIAL ADDITIONS AND GRANTING A VARIANCE TO PERMIT ENCROACHMENT INTO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK WITH A PORTION OF THE ADDITION AT AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AT 6 MIDDLERIDGE LANE NORTH, IN ZONING CASE NO. 628. 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. and Mrs. Ekberg with respect to real property located at 6 Middleridge Lane North, Rolling Hills, (Lots 12,13,14 & part 15-MR), requesting a Variance to permit encroachment into the front yard setback to construct an addition and Site Plan Review for the construction of substantial additions to a single family residence. Section 2. A. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearings to consider the application on March 20, 2001, April 17, 2001, May 15, 2001, June 19, 2001 and at a field trip on April 9, 2001. The applicant was notified of the hearings in writing by first class mail. The applicant was in attendance at the hearings. Evidence was heard from members of the City staff, the applicant's representative, and all persons interested in affecting the proposal. The Planning Commission reviewed, analyzed and studied the project. B. During the site visit the Commission and staff observed that the existing stable was not utilized for animal keeping. The applicant was informed that pursuant to the City's Zoning Ordinance a detached garage, recreation room and similar uses require the approval of a Conditional Use Permit. In addition, an area not less than 1000 square feet must be set aside on the property for a barn and corral. At the April 17, 2001 Planning Commission meeting, the applicant requested continuation of this case to the May 15, 2001 meeting, so that appropriate application, plans and calculations could be submitted to staff to incorporate all of the required structures into the structural lot coverage and also to submit an application for the CUP request. Section 3. The applicant submitted a revised application, which the Commission considered at their May 15, 2001 meeting, which included the original request to construct substantial additions of which 160 square feet would encroach into the front yard setback, which requires a Variance, and a request for a Conditional Use Permit to convert the existing stable to a detached garage, and set aside sufficient area for future stable and corral. Throughout the review process, the applicant proposed to demolish the existing pool and spa. During the May 15, meeting the Commission expressed concern with the proposed conversion of the barn into a detached garage, since the barn has a second story, which is used as habitable space. In addition, an exterior access door exists from the second story. During the meeting the applicant RESOLUTION NO. 2001-14 1 withdrew the ConZCitional Use Permit request to convert the existing stable into a detached garage, and requested continuation of the public hearing to the June 19th, 2001 Planning Commission meeting in order to revise the application. Section 4: The applicant has submitted a revised site plan requesting to construct 915 square feet of residential additions to an existing 4,598 square foot residence for a total of 5,513 square feet; a 644 square foot basement; a 1,298 square feet addition to the existing 756 square foot garage for a total of 2,054 square feet. A Variance application is also requested to permit 160 square feet of the residential additions to encroach into the front yard setback. A portion of the existing house, approximately 930 square feet, encroaches into the front yard set back. The existing stable structure will remain and the habitable area will be converted to a loft. During the June 19, 2001 meeting, the applicant requested that the Commission permit the applicant to retain the existing pool and spa, despite the fact that the structural building lot coverage will exceed the 30% Planning Commission guideline. Section 5. The Planning Commission finds that the project qualifies as a Class 1 Exemption (State of CA Guidelines, Section 15301(e) and is therefore categorically exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act. Section 6. Sections 17.38.010 through 17.38.050 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code permit approval of a Variance from the standards and requirements of the Zoning Ordinance when exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applicable to the property and not applicable to other similar properties in the same zone prevent the owner from making use of a parcel of property to the same extent enjoyed by similar properties in the same vicinity. Section 17.16.110 requires the front yard setback for every residential parcel to be fifty (50) feet. The applicant is requesting to encroach up to a maximum 160 square feet into the front yard setback. The existing house encroaches approximately 27 feet on the average into the front yard setback. With respect to this request for a Variance, the Planning Commission finds as follows: A. There are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances and conditions applicable to the property or to the intended use that do not apply generally to the other property or class of use in the same zone because the existing house encroaches into the front yard setback and the proposed addition will not further the encroachment. B. The Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone, but which is denied to the property in question. The Variance is necessary because the development and use of the subject property is in a manner consistent with the shape of the lot and development and this additional small incursion into the front yard setback. will not be any greater encroachment than already exists. 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. Allowing the proposed encroachment into the front yard setback will not constitute any greater incursion than already exists. In addition, development on this portion of the pad will allow a substantial portion of the RESOLUTION NO. 200 1- 14 2 • • more environmentally significant rear and front portions of the lot to remain undeveloped. Section 7. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves the Variance for Zoning Case No. 628 to permit the encroachment of a 160 square foot addition to an existing residence, as indicated on the development plan submitted with this application and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit A, dated June 28, 2001 subject to the conditions specified in Section 10 of this Resolution. Section 8. Section 17.46.030 requires a development plan to be submitted for site plan review and approval before any building or structure may be constructed or any expansion, addition, alteration or repair to existing buildings may be made which involve changes to grading or an increase to the size of the building or structure by at least 1,000 square feet and has the effect of increasing the size of the building by more than twenty-five percent (25%) in any thirty-six, (36) month period. With respect to the Site Plan Review application, the Planning Commission makes the following findings of fact: A. The proposed development is compatible with the General Plan, the Zoning Ordinance and surrounding uses because the proposed structure complies with the General Plan requirement of low profile, low density residential development with sufficient open space between surrounding structures. The project conforms to Zoning Code setback and net lot coverage requirements with the Variance approved in Section 7 of this Resolution. The lot has a net square foot area of 119,970 square feet. The proposed residence (5,513 sq.ft.), garage (2,054 sq.ft.), stable (459 sq.ft), detached recreation room (544 sq.ft.), swimming pool/spa (836 sq.ft.), refreshment center (113 sq.ft.), and service yard will have 9,517 square feet which constitutes 7.9% coverage of the net lot which is within the maximum 20% structural net lot coverage requirement. The total lot coverage including paved areas and driveway will be 23,165 square feet or 19.3% of the net lot area. The residential building pad consists of 24,900 square feet and will have a structural coverage of 36.4%. B. The proposed development preserves and integrates into the site design, to the maximum extent feasible, existing natural topographic features of the lot including surrounding native vegetation, mature trees, and drainage courses. The lot is relatively flat. Grading will consist of 250 cubic yards of cut soil and 250 cubic yards of fill and will be balanced on site in an area north of the proposed addition, where there exists a small gully in the terrain. C. The development plan follows natural contours of the site to minimize grading and the existing natural drainage courses will continue. D. The development plan incorporates existing trees and native vegetation to the maximum extent feasible. E. The development plan substantially preserves the natural and undeveloped state of the lot by concentrating building coverage on the residential building pad. The proposed project will not cause the structural and total lot coverage to exceed City's standards. The project will be located on a relatively flat portion of the lot RESOLUTION NO. 2001-14 3 • • with significant portions of the lot left undeveloped. The development plans will minimize impact on Middleridge Lane. F. The proposed development, as conditioned, is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, the natural terrain and surrounding residences. As indicated in Paragraph A, the net lot coverage maximum will not be exceeded and the proposed project is consistent with the scale of the neighborhood. The ratio of the proposed structure to lot coverage is similar to the ratio found on several properties in the vicinity. G. The proposed development is sensitive and not detrimental to the convenience and safety of circulation for pedestrians and vehicles. The applicant proposes to utilize the existing driveway approximately. H. The project conforms to the requirement of the California Environmental Quality Act and is categorically exempt from environmental review. Section 9. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves the Site Plan Review application for Zoning Case No. 628 for a proposed residential development as indicated on the development plan incorporated herein as Exhibit A, dated June 28, 2001 and subject to the conditions contained in Section 10. Section 10. The Variance to the front yard setback approved in Section 7 and the Site Plan Review approved in Section 9 of this Resolution are subject to the following conditions: A. The Variance and Site Plan Review approvals shall expire within one year from the effective date of approval as defined in Sections 17.38.070(A) and 17.46.080(A), unless construction on the applicable portions of the structure have commenced within that time period. B. It is declared and made a condition of the Variance and Site Plan Review approvals, that if any conditions thereof are violated, the approval shall be suspended and the privileges granted thereunder shall be subject to revocation; 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 and has been provided additional notice and a hearing prior to the revocation of the Permit. C. All requirements of the Buildings Code of the City of Rolling Hills and the Rolling Hills Zoning Ordinance must be complied with unless otherwise set forth in the Permit, or shown otherwise on an approved plan. D. The lot shall be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the site plan on file marked Exhibit A, dated June 28, 2001 except as otherwise provided in these conditions. E. Grading shall not exceed 250 cubic yards of cut soil and 250 cubic yards of fill, and shall be balanced on site. RESOLUTION NO. 2001-14 4 • • F. Any grading shall preserve the existing topography, flora, and natural features to the greatest extent possible, H. The residential building pad coverage shall not exceed 36.4%, and the total structural and flatwork coverage shall not exceed 19.3% of the net lot area. The structural lot coverage shall not exceed 9,519 square feet or 7.9% of the net lot area. 25%. H. The disturbed area of the lot shall not exceed 30,000 square feet or I. Landscaping shall incorporate and preserve, to the maximum extent feasible, the existing trees and shrubs. J. Landscaping shall include water efficient irrigation, to the maximum extent feasible, that incorporates a low gallonage irrigation system, utilizes automatic controllers, incorporates an irrigation design using "hydrozones," considers slope factors and climate conditions in design, and utilizes means to reduce water waste resulting from runoff and overspray in accordance with Section 17.27.020 (Water efficient landscaping requirements) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code. K. The proposed basement shall conform to Section 17.12.020 of the Zoning Ordinance and the requirements of the Los Angeles County Building Code and shall have only one standard solid door for ingress/egress to the exterior. L. Pursuant to Section 17.27.030 of the Zoning Ordinance, all utility lines shall be placed underground. M. The existing structure intended for keeping of animals shall be converted to a stable, subject to the requirements of Section 17.16.200 of the Zoning Ordinance. A loft may be retained in this structure, subject to the requirements of Section 17.16.080(2) of the Zoning Ordinance. The existing door from the second story to the exterior shall be removed and the doorway closed off. The overhead garage door shall be replaced with a standard barn door approved by the Rolling Hills Community Association. N. The property owners shall be required to conform 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. O. 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. 2001-14 5 • • P. project site. All parking, during and after construction, shall take place on the Q. 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 septic tanks. R. The property owners shall be required to conform with the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Health Department requirements for the installation and maintenance of storm water drainage facilities. S. The property owners shall be required to conform with the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Public Works Department Best Management Practices (BMP's) related to solid waste. T. An Erosion Control Plan containing the elements set forth in Section 7010 of the 1998 County of Los Angeles Uniform Building Code shall be prepared to minimize erosion and to protect slopes and channels to control storm water pollution as required by the County of Los Angeles. U. Prior to the submittal of an applicable final building 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. V. 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. W. The applicants shall execute an Affidavit of Acceptance of all conditions of the Site Plan and Variance approvals, or the approvals shall not be effective. X. All conditions of the Variance and Site Plan approvals that apply must be complied with prior to the issuance of a building or grading permit from the County of Los Angeles. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 17th DAY OF JULY 2001. ALLAN ROBERTS, CHAIRMAN ATTEST: MARILYN KERN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK RESOLUTION NO. 2001-14 6 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§ CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ) I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2001-14 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF SUBSTANTIAL ADDITIONS AND GRANTING A VARIANCE TO PERMIT ENCROACHMENT INTO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK WITH A PORTION OF THE ADDITION AT AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AT 6 MIDDLERIDGE LANE NORTH, IN ZONING CASE NO. 628. was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on July 17, 2001 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following: Administrative Offices. DEPUTY CITY CLERK RESOLUTION NO. 2001-14 7 DATE: TO: FROM: • City 0/2 tlin q JUNE 19, 2001 • INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 E-mail: cityofrh@aol.com HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PRINCIPAL PLANNER APPLICATION NO.: SITE LOCATION: ZONING AND SIZE: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PUBLISHED: REQUEST ZONING CASE NO. 628 6 MIDDLERIDGE LANE NORTH (LOTS 12,13,14, & PART OF 15-MR) RA-S-1, 4.068 ACRES MR. AND MRS. CRAIG EKBERG MR. CRISS GUNDERSON, ARCHITECT MARCH 10, 2001 MAY 5, 2001 (CUP) Request for a Site Plan Review to construct substantial residential additions that require grading at an existing single family residence; request for a Variance to encroach with 160 square feet of the additions into the front yard setback. BACKGROUND 1. The Planning Commission opened a public hearing in this case on March 20, 2001. The Commission viewed the site and silhouette for the proposed additions on Monday, April 9, 2001. 2. During the site visit the Commission and staff observed that the existing stable was not utilized for animal keeping. The applicant was informed by staff that pursuant to the City's Zoning Ordinance a detached garage, recreation room and similar uses require the approval of a Conditional Use Permit. In addition, an area not less than 1000 square feet must be set aside on site for a barn and corral. 3. During the visit it was also observed that the refreshment center is of substantial construction which falls under City's definition of a structure. It therefore, must be included in the calculations for pad and lot coverage. The refreshment center is 113 square feet. 4. At the April 17, 2001 Planning Commission meeting, the applicant requested continuation of this case to the May 15, 2001 meeting, so that appropriate application, plans and calculations could be submitted to staff to ZC No. 628 6/19/01 1 Printed on Recycled Paper. incorporate all of the required structures into the structural lot coverage and also to submit an application for the CUP request. 5. The applicant submitted a revised application, which the Commission considered at their May 15, 2001 meeting, which included the original request to construct substantial additions of which 160 square feet would encroach into the front yard setback, which requires a Variance, and a request for a Conditional Use Permit to convert the existing stable to a detached garage, and set aside sufficient area for future stable and corral. 6. During the May 15, meeting the Commission expressed concern with the proposed conversion of the barn into a detached garage, since the barn has a second story, which is used as habitable space. Pursuant to the Rolling Hills Zoning and Building Ordinance, no habitable space is allowed above another habitable space, except over a basement. In addition, a barn may have a loft. The original plans for the barn show that a loft was approved and constructed, which through the years was converted into a storage/habitable area and an access door was provided from the outside to the second story. 7. During the meeting the applicant withdrew the Conditional Use Permit request to convert the existing stable into a detached garage, and requested continuation of the public hearing to the June 19th, 2001 Planning Commission meeting in order to revise the application. A letter to that effect is attached. 8. The applicant has submitted a revised site plan requesting to construct 915 square feet of residential additions to an existing 4,598 square foot residence for a total of 5,513 square feet; a 644 square foot basement; a 1,298 square feet addition to the existing 756 square foot garage for a total of 2,054 square feet, (previously, 657 square foot addition to the existing 756 square foot garage for a total of 1,413 square feet was proposed). A Variance application is also requested to permit 160 square feet of the residential additions to encroach into the front yard setback. A portion of the existing house, approximately 930 square feet, encroaches into the front yard set back. The existing stable structure will remain. The applicant's representative provided the attached justification for the Variance. The applicant's architect states in part, that the variance is justified because exceptional conditions exist on the site, whereby the existing house already encroaches into the front yard setback, and the proposed addition into the front yard setback is of an "in fill" nature and will not worsen the condition. In addition, the existing house is oddly shaped and the master bedroom, located within the part of the house that is encroaching into the front yard setback, is extremely small and has an awkward access, through the living room. 9. The original house was constructed in 1952. The barn and the pool were constructed in 1958. A recreation room and covered refreshment center were constructed in 1968. In 1988 the recreation room was remodeled and a porch was enclosed. A portion of the pool, a brick deck with the spa and the bar/refreshment center are located within the front yard setback. The pool and ZC No. 628 6/19/01 2 • spa are proposed to be removed. The bar/refreshment center is proposed to remain. 10. The original barn was approved and constructed with a hayloft. A door located on the south side of the stable, serving the loft was also approved and constructed. Subsequently, the hayloft was converted to a second story and the door on the south side was closed off. The second story is currently used as a storage/work room. An exterior glass door exists on the east side of the stable, through which the second story may be accessed. Pursuant to Section 15.04.080 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, there shall be no habitable space, including garages and storage rooms above another story, except over a basement. As part of this approval, the applicant will be required to convert the existing second story over the stable to a hayloft, and return the lower portion to a barn. 11. Middleridge Lane North bisects the property into two parts. The building pad is located west of the roadway. The eastern portion of the lot is undeveloped with a varied slope of between 28% and 38%, and is covered with dense vegetation. 12. Grading for the project will include 250 cubic yards of cut soil from the excavation of 644 square foot basement. The fill soil will also total 250 cubic yards and will be deposited on site to the north-east of the residential building pad, as indicated on the site plan by a dotted line. 13. The total net lot area of this lot is 119,970 square feet. The structural lot coverage proposed is 8,683 square feet or 7.2%, (20% permitted). The total lot coverage proposed, including all structures and paved areas is 22,329 square feet or 18.6%, (35% permitted). 14. The 24,900 square foot residential building pad will have proposed coverage of 8,224 square feet, (5,513 sq.ft. residence, 2,054 sq.ft. garage, 544 sq.ft. recreation room and 113 square feet refreshment center) or 33.0%. The existing barn pad is 1,565 square feet with existing pad coverage of 459 square feet or 29.3%. The combined pads are 26,465 square feet and the proposed coverage is at 32.8%. Planning Commission guideline is 30%. 15. The disturbed area of the lot will be 25%. [40% maximum permitted; any graded building pad area, any remedial grading (temporary disturbance), any graded slopes and building pad areas, and any non -graded area where impervious. surfaces exist]. 16. At the March 20, 2001 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission opened the public hearing, reviewed and took public testimony in this case. The Planning Commission requested that staff provide a list showing the building size of the adjacent properties. A size comparison table is attached. Also included is a comparison table of the previous and current proposal. 17. Regarding the size of the portion of the lot located east of Middleridge Lane, it is approximately 36,650 square feet, (net area), and according to the City's ZC No. 628 6/19/01 3 • • subdivision regulations, does not contain sufficient land area to become a separate lot. 18. 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 consider the staff report and take public testimony. ZC No. 628 6/19/01 4 I, REQUIRED FINDINGS FOR VARIANCE A. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same vicinity and zone; and B. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights possessed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone but which is denied the property in question; and C. That the granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; and D. That in granting the variance, the spirit and intent of this title will be observed; and E. That the variance does not grant special privilege; F. That the variance is consistent with the portions of the County of Los Angeles Hazardous Waste Management Plan relating to siting and siting criteria for hazardous waste facilities; and G. That the variance request is consistent with the General Plan of the City of Rolling Hills. Zoning Case No. 628.- Nearby Properties ADDRESS 1 Middleridge Lane South 2 Middleridge Lane South 3 Middleridge Lane South 4 Middleridge Lane South 5 Middleridge Lane South 7 Middleridge Lane South 1 Middleridge Lane North I 3 Middleridge Lane North I 5 Middleridge Lane North I 7 Middleridge Lane North 9 Middleridge Lane North 11 Middleridge Lane North 6 Middleridge Lane North OWNER Cigliano Ayelsbury Lynn Schmoller Becker Boyd Barnes Tilles Trust Cramer Johnson Watts Moore AVERAGE EXISTING PROPOSED Above sizes include the residences only. RESIDENCE (SQ.FT.) 4,541 2,877 3,852 2,790 2,601 3,225 2,100 3,704 3,671 2,364 2,937 3,240 3,158 4,598 5,513 LOT SIZE ACRES (NET) 5.75 1.88 3.40 1.44 3.26 3.48 3.23 1.29 1.16 1.16 1.14 1.19 2.36 3.40 ZC No. 628 6/19/01 5 SITE PLAN REVIEW RA-S-1 ZONE SETBACKS Front: 50 ft. from front easement line Side: 20 ft. from property line Rear: 50 ft. from property line STRUCTURES Site Plan Review required for grading requiring a grading permit, any new structure or if size of structure increases by at least 1,000 sq.ft. and has the effect of increasing the size of the structure by more than 25% in a 36-month period. STRUCTURAL LOT COVERAGE (20% maximum) TOTAL LOT COVERAGE (35% maximum) RESIDENTIAL & TOTAL BUILDING PAD COVERAGE (Guideline maximum of 30%) GRADING Site Plan Review required if excavation and/or fill or combination thereof is more than 3 feet in depth and covers more than 2,000 sq.ft. must be balanced on site. ZC No. 628 6/19/01 EXISTING Existing residence encroaches 25-35 feet,(approx. 930 sq. ft.) into the front yard setback. Residence Garage Swim Pool/Spa Service Yard Bar area Rec. Room Stable Basement Total 6.1% 17.8% 4,598 sq.ft. 756 sq.ft. 836 sq.ft. 100 sq.ft 225 sq.ft 544 sq.ft 459sa.ft. 0 7,306 sq.ft. 25% of res. pad 29.3% of barn pad 27.4% of combined pads N/A 6 PROPOSED(PREVIOUSLY) Additional 160 sq.ft. encroachment into the front yard. Residence Garage - Swim Pool/Spa Service Yard Bar area Det.garage Rec. room Stable Basement Total not incl. basement 7.2% 18.7% CURRENT PROPOSAL Same —160 sq.ft..encroachment 5,513 sq.ft. Residence 1,413 sq.ft. Garage 0 sq.ft. Swim pool/spa 100 sq.ft Service yard 113 sq.ft Bar area 641 sq.ft Rec. Room 544 sq.ft Stable 450 sa.ft Basement 644 sq.ft. Total w/o bsmnt. 8,674 sq.ft. 30.4% of 24,900 sq.ft. res. pad 25.9% of 3,698 sq. ft. barn pad 30.3% of combined pads 250 cu.yds. basement cut soil & 250 cu. yds. fill soil. Balanced on site 7.2% 18.6% 5,513 sq.ft. 2,054 sq.ft. 0 sq.ft. 100 sq.ft. 113 sq.ft. 544 sq.ft. 459 sq.ft. 644 sa.ft. 8,683 sq.ft. 33% of 24,900 sq.ft. res. pad 29.3% of 1,565 sq.ft. barn pad 32.8% combined pads Same — 250 cubic yards DISTURBED AREA 40% maximum; any graded building pad area, any remedial grading (temporary disturbance), any graded slopes and building pad areas, and any nongraded area where impervious surfaces exist. STABLE (450 SQ.FT. & 550 SQ.FT. CORRAL) STABLE ACCESS (maximum 25% slop) ROADWAY ACCESS VIEWS PLANTS AND ANIMALS ZC No. 628 6/19/01 17.6% Existing 459 sq.ft. Existing at 7% slope, off of Middleridge Lane N. Existing from Middleridge Lane N. N/A N/A 7 26% 450 sq.ft. Future 550 sq.ft. No change is proposed No change is proposed Planning Commission review Planning Commission review 25% Leave existing — 459 sq.ft. (convert second story to hayloft) No change is proposed No change is proposed Planning Commission review Planning Commission review • • • CRISS C GUNDERSON ARCHITECT 2024 Via Pacheco, Palos Verdes Estates, California 90274 TEL (310) 373-8077 FAX (310) 373-8277 Monday, December 11, 2000 Variance application attachment Eckberg Residence No. 6 Middleridge Lane North, Rolling Hills Criteria to be satisfied for grant of Variance A. Exceptional conditions exist at No. 6 Middleridge Lane North in that the current house is currently located in the front. yard setback. Given the layout of the current floor plan, the existing topography, and the existing improvements to the site, the only option to enlarge the master bedroom and living room are as indicated on the site plan. The only other alternative would be to completely demolish the existing structures and rebuild. This approach is not financially feasible for the Eckbergs, nor does this approach warrant consideration from a real estate value standpoint for any property owner. B. The existing home has an extremely small master bedroom which is only 11 feet wide (plus a small alcove for the bed) and is oddly shaped, having very little room for furniture beyond that of the bed. Circulation to the bedroom is through the living room which is awkward and makes the living room function much smaller than it's actual size. It appears these undesirable condition are the results of previous additions that were poorly conceived. The proposed additions will improve these conditions, but will leave the home short of current standards of the neighborhood.. The master bedroom suite will remain undersized in comparison to homes in Rolling Hills of a similar size. The requested improvements are necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of the property as possessed by others. C. The proposed additions are of an "infill" type. These additions do not encroach any further into the front yard setback than the current nonconforming conditions encroach. A majority of the proposed additions are screened by the massing of the existing house. The open space around the home and garage is in keeping with the spirit of the cities guidelines. With 6.7% structural coverage and 18.1 % total coverage the results of the proposed improvements are substantially below the coverage limitations and the coverage of surrounding properties. These facts as well as the mature landscaping on the property insure that granting the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. D. The granting of the variance allows the property's hardships to not to interfere with the Eckberg's property rights, respecting and observing the spirit and intent of the city. E. In so much that the above -mentioned existing building encroachments are common is the neighborhood, the variance will not grant any special privileges. In fact, the variance is necessary to allow this property to remain similar in nature to the surrounding homes. The variance request is consistent with the General Plan of the City of Rolling Hills. • • CRISS C GUNDERSON ARCHITECT 2024 Via Pacheco, Palos Verdes Estates, California 90274 TEL (310) 373-8077 FAX (310) 373-8277 Thursday, June 07, 2001 Ms. Yolanta Schwartz, Principal Planner City of Rolling Hills No. 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, California. 90274 Regarding: Zoning Case No. 628 No. 6 Middleridge North Ekberg Additions Dear Ms. Schwartz, As discussed during the Planning Commission meeting on May 15th, the Ekbergs would like to withdrawn their application for a Conditional Use Permit for the conversion of the existing barn into a garage. Furthermore, the Ekbergs propose to restore the existing barn and loft to' the' original condition as indicated in the permitted plans on file atthe Community Association. These modifications are shown on the current site plan dated June 1, 2001. If possible, we would like to reserve the right to reinitiate the same application at a later date, if the enlarged garage at the main residence were for some reason denied by the Planning Commission or City Council. Thank you, Criss Gunderson Architect cc: Mr. and Mrs. Craig Ekberg DATE: TO: FROM: • Cii, 0/ AllinS.fa MAY 15, 2001 INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377.1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 E-mail: cityofrh@aol.com HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PRINCIPAL PLANNER APPLICATION NO.: SITE LOCATION: ZONING AND SIZE: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PUBLISHED: REOUEST ZONING CASE NO. 628 6 MIDDLERIDGE LANE NORTH (LOTS 12,13,14, & PART OF 15-MR) RA-S-1, 4.068 ACRES MR. AND MRS. CRAIG EKBERG MR. CRISS GUNDERSON, ARCHITECT MARCH 10, 2001 MAY 5, 2001 (CUP) Request for a Site Plan Review to construct substantial residential additions that require grading at an existing single family residence; request for a Variance to encroach with 160 square feet of the additions into the front yard setback and a request for a Conditional Use Permit to convert an existing stable into a detached garage. BACKGROUND 1. The Planning Commission viewed the site and silhouette for the proposed additions on Monday, April 9, 2001. 2. During the sitevisit the Commission and staff observed that the existing stable was not utilized for animal keeping. The applicant was informed by staff that pursuant to the City's Zoning Ordinance a detached garage, recreation room and similar uses require the approval of a Conditional Use Permit. In addition, an area not less than 1000 square feet must be set aside on site for a barn and corral. 3. During the visit it was also observed that the refreshment center is of substantial construction which falls under City's definition of a structure. It therefore, must be included in the calculations for pad and lot coverage. The refreshment center is 113 square feet. 4. At the April 17, 2001 Planning Commission meeting, the applicant ZC No. 628 5/15/01 1 Pririted on Recycled Paper. • • requested continuation of this case to the May 15, 2001 meeting, so that appropriate application, plans and calculations may be submitted to staff. 5. The applicant submitted a revised application which includes a request for a Conditional Use Permit to convert the existing stable to a detached garage. The earlier applications for Site Plan Review and Variance also need to be considered by the Planning Commission. 6. The applicant is requesting to construct 915 square feet of residential additions to an existing 4,598 square foot residence for a total of 5,513 square feet; a 657 square foot addition to an existing 756 square foot garage for a total of 1,413 square feet; a 182 square foot addition to an existing 459 square foot stable, which, if a CUP is granted, will be converted to a detached garage, for a total of 641 square feet, and a 644 square foot basement. A Variance application is also requested to permit 160 square feet of the residential additions to encroach into the front yard setback. A portion of the existing house, approximately 930 square feet, encroaches into the front yard set back. The applicant's representative provided the attached justification for the Variance. The applicant's architect states in part, that the variance is justified because exceptional conditions exist on the site, whereby the existing house already encroaches into the front yard setback, and the proposed addition into the front yard setback is of an "in fill" nature and will not worsen the condition. In addition, the existing house is oddly shaped and the master bedroom, located within the part of the house that is encroaching into the front yard setback, is extremely small and has an awkward access, through the living room. 7. The original house was constructed in 1952. The barn and the pool were constructed in 1958. A recreation room and covered refreshment center were constructed in 1968. In 1988 the recreation room was remodeled and a porch was enclosed. A portion of the pool, a brick deck with the spa and the bar/refreshment center are located within the front yard setback. The pool and spa are proposed to be removed. The bar/refreshment center is proposed to remain. 8. The original barn was approved and constructed with a hay loft. A door located on the south side of the stable, serving the loft was also approved and constructed. Subsequently, the hay loft was converted to a second story and the door on the south side was closed off. The second story is currently used as a storage/work-out room. An exterior glass door exists on the east side of the stable, through which the second story may be accessed. Pursuant to Section 15.04.080 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, there shall be no habitable space, including garages and storage rooms above another story, except over a basement. The applicant is proposing to convert the existing stable to a detached garage and eliminate the second story. 9. The proposed detached garage will be accessed through the existing garage, which will be enlarged. The access will be within 25 feet of the side property line, as is required by the Zoning Code. ZC No. 628 5/15/01 2 • • 10. Middleridge Lane North bisects the property into two parts. The building pad is located west of the roadway. The eastern portion of the lot is undeveloped with a varied slope of between 28% and 38%, and is covered with dense vegetation. 11. An area for a future 450 square foot barn and 550 square foot corral has been reserved on site, to be located to the west of the main house. 12. Grading for the project will include 250 cubic yards of cut soil from the excavation of 644 square foot basement. The fill soil will also total 250 cubic yards and will be deposited on site to the north-east of the residential building pad, as indicated on the site plan by a dotted line. 13. The total net lot area of this lot is 119,970 square feet. The structural lot coverage proposed is 8,674 square feet or 7.2%, (20% permitted). The total lot coverage proposed, including all structures and paved areas is 22,320 square feet or 18.7%, (35% permitted). 14. The 24,900 square foot residential building pad will have proposed coverage of 7,583 square feet, (5,513 sq.ft. residence, 1,413 sq.ft. garage, 544 sq.ft. recreation room and 113 square feet refreshment center) or 30.4%. The detached garage and barn pad is proposed to be 3,698 square feet with proposed pad coverage of 1,091 square feet (450 sq. ft. future barn and 641 sq. ft. detached garage) or 29.5%. The combined pads are 28,598 square feet and the proposed coverage is at 30.3%. Planning Commission guideline is 30%. 15. The disturbed area of the lot will be 26%. [40% maximum permitted; any graded building pad area, any remedial grading (temporary disturbance), any graded slopes and building pad areas, and any nongraded area where impervious surfaces exist]. 16. At the March 20, 2001 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission opened the public hearing, reviewed and took public testimony in this case. The Planning Commission requested that staff provide a list showing the building size of the adjacent properties. A comparison table is attached. 17. At that meeting, the Commission inquired about the difference between the terms "lot" and "parcel" and why the legal description in one instance refers to several lots and in another shows a single lot. According to the Los Angeles County Assessors Office, there are two different systems for describing the same property. Years ago, when surveyors took a survey of properties in Los Angeles County, they assigned consecutive, number to each property within a certain area or tract. Through the years, some of those properties were either deeded to relatives or subdivided, creating several different parcels. When the State of California legislators established the Assessors Office, that office took over the task of recordation of land. They foundthat there were too many lot numbers that were very similar, (i.e. lot 12A, 12B, 12C, etc.) With the advancements in the Subdivision Map Act, the assessors' office was given the authority to change the system of ZC No. 628 5/15/01 3 • • recordation. For ease of recordation, the Assessor's Office developed a different methodology and divided the County into Assessor's Books. Each Book is divided into Assessor's Map Page, and each Map Page shows Parcel Number for each lot or parcel. (The word "lot" and "parcel" are used interchangeably). The assessors, for the purpose of their work, do not pay attention to the lot numbers that were assigned years ago by the surveyors. In short, according to the Assessor's Office, there exist two different systems describing the same property. They are both legal and both may be used when describing a property. As can be seen from the attached "Assessor's Map" all lots have two numbers. The ones in the circle are the assessors' numbers, and the bold numbers are those assigned by surveyors of that tract years ago. The short lines (hooks or map ties, as they are called) shown across the solid lines of an area, indicate that the lot with the number in the circle covers the areas hooked by the ties. As for the possibility of the lots being sold separately, the Subdivision Map Act gives local jurisdictions controls over development and subdivision. A property owner would not be able to subdivide a property and record it as a legal lot/parcel without City approvals and meeting the standard development standards for lot size, pad size, street frontage, etc. The County Recorder's Office and subsequently the Assessor's Office would not recognize a subdivision that does not have City or County approvals. Regarding the size of the portion of the lot located east of Middleridge Lane, it is approximately 36,650 square feet, (net area), and according to the City's subdivision regulations, does not contain sufficient land area to become a separate lot. 18. 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 consider the staff report and take public testimony. ZC No. 628 5/15/01 4 SITE PLAN REVIEW EXISTING PROPOSED RA-S-1 ZONE SETBACKS Front: 50 ft. from front easement line Side: 20 ft. from property line Rear: 50 ft. from property line STRUCTURES Site Plan Review required for grading requiring a grading permit, any new structure or if size of structure increases by at least 1,000 sq.ft. and has the effect of increasing the size of the structure by more than 25% in a 36-month period. STRUCTURAL LOT COVERAGE (20% maximum) TOTAL LOT COVERAGE (35% maximum) RESIDENTIAL & TOTAL BUILDING PAD COVERAGE (Guideline maximum of 30%) GRADING Site Plan Review required if excavation and/or fill or combination thereof is more than 3 feet in depth and covers more than 2,000 sq.ft. must be balanced on site. DISTURBED AREA 40% maximum; any graded building pad area, any remedial grading (temporary disturbance), any graded slopes and building pad areas, and any nongraded area where impervious surfaces exist. STABLE (450 SQ.FT. & 550 SQ.FT. CORRAL) STABLE ACCESS (maximum 25% slop) ROADWAY ACCESS VIEWS PLANTS AND ANIMALS Existing residence encroaches 25-35 feet,(approx. 930 sq. ft.) into the front yard setback. Residence Garage Swim Pool/Spa Service Yard Bar area Rec. Room Stable Basement Total 6.1% 17.8% 4,598 sq.ft. 756 sq.ft. 836 sq.ft. 100 sq.ft 225sq.ft 544 sq.ft 459 sa.ft. 0 7,306 sq.ft. 25% of res. pad 29.3% of barn pad 27.4% of combined pads N/A 17.6% Existing 459 sq.ft. Existing at.7% slope, off of Middleridge Lane N. Existing from Middleridge Lane N. N/A N/A Additional 160 sq.ft. encroachment into the front yard. Residence Garage Swim Pool/Spa Service Yard Bar area Det.garage Rec. room Stable Basement Total not incl. basement 7.2% 18.7% 5,513 sq.ft. 1,413 sq.ft. 0 sq.ft. 100 sq.ft 113 sq.ft 641 sq.ft 544 sq.ft 450 sq.ft 644 sq.ft. 8,674 sq.ft. 30.4% of 24,900 sq.ft. res. pad 25.9% of 3,698 sq. ft. barn pad 30.3% of combined pads 250 cu.yds. basement cut soil & 250 cu. yds. fill soil. Balanced on site 26% 450 sq.ft. 550 sq.ft. No change is proposed No change is proposed Planning Commission review Planning Commission review ZC No. 628 5/15/01 REQUIRED FINDINGS FOR VARIANCE A. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same vicinity and zone; and B. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights possessed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone but which is denied the property in question; and C. That the granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; and D. That in granting the variance, the spirit and intent of this title will be observed; and E. That the variance does not grant special privilege; F. That the variance is consistent with the portions of the County of Los Angeles Hazardous Waste Management Plan relating to siting and siting criteria for hazardous waste facilities; and G. That the variance request is consistent with the General Plan of the City of Rolling Hills. Zoning Case No. 628 - Nearby Properties ADDRESS 1 Middleridge Lane South 2 Middleridge Lane South 3 Middleridge Lane South 4 Middleridge Lane South 5 Middleridge Lane South 7 Middleridge Lane South 1 Middleridge Lane North 3 Middleridge Lane North 5 Middleridge Lane North 7 Middleridge Lane North 9 Middleridge Lane North 11 Middleridge Lane North 6 Middleridge Lane North OWNER Cigliano Ayelsbury Lynn Schmoller Becker Boyd Barnes Tilles Trust Cramer Johnson Watts Moore AVERAGE EXISTING PROPOSED Above sizes include the residences only. RESIDENCE (SQ.FT.) 4,541 2,877 3,852 2,790 2,601 3,225 2,100 3,704 3,671 2,364 2,937 3,240 3,158 4,598 5,513 LOT SIZE ACRES (NET) 5.75 1.88 3.40 1.44 3.26 3.48 3.23 1.29 1.16 1.16 1.14 1.19 2.36 3.40 ZC No. 628 5/15/01 6 .r I • /4g sd i O 9 gstivio i I PijZ 1� 4iI J �� voi) 41 /3/. SEE: 466-4 12. 0 zas:.c. ?9 fed /5040• 13 • es 1 • 10 s4 32t.38 33S74 34B 90 11 i z9Ar : s6.ia04'• N j7.32•45 d Z9s 1 ALL ACREAGES ON THIS PAGE ARE NET 4e" =Agoro .'. js8m p 370 TRACT NO. 12866 M.B. 246-20-21 ASSESSOR'S MAP COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CALIF. :7569-019-004 6 Middleridcge Lane. North 14 <21 16 C 3.21f Ae . Z N w vr 17 e. .49300, \\ go k 6'Q ``4 Z • • CRISS C GUNDERSON ARCHITECT 2024 Via Pacheco, Palos Verdes Estates, California 90274 TEL (310) 373-8077 FAX (310) 373-8277 Monday, December 11, 2000 Variance application attachment Eckberg Residence No. 6 Middleridge Lane North, Rolling Hills Criteria to be satisfied for grant of Variance A. Exceptional conditions exist at No. 6 Middleridge Lane North in that the current house is currently located in the front yard setback. Given the layout of the current floor plan, the existing topography, and the existing improvements to the site, the only option to enlarge the master bedroom and living room are as indicated on the site plan. The only other alternative would be to completely demolish the existing structures and rebuild. This approach is not financially feasible for the Eckbergs, nor does this approach warrant consideration from a real estate value standpoint for any property owner. B. The existing home has an extremely small master bedroom which is only 11 feet wide (plus a small alcove for the bed) and is oddly shaped, having very little room for furniture beyond that of the bed. Circulation to the bedroom is through the living room which is awkward and makes the living room function much smaller than it's actual size. It appears these undesirable condition are the results of previous additions that were poorly conceived. The proposed additions will improve these conditions, but will leave the home short of current standards of the neighborhood.. The master bedroom suite will remain undersized in comparison to homes in Rolling Hills of a similar size. The requested improvements are necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of the property as possessed by others. C. The proposed additions are of an "infill" type. These additions do not encroach any further into the front yard setback than the current nonconforming conditions encroach. A majority of the proposed additions are screened by the massing of the existing house. The open space around the home and garage is in keeping with the spirit of the cities guidelines. With 6.7% structural coverage and 18. 1 % total coverage the results of the proposed improvements are substantially below the coverage limitations and the coverage of surrounding properties. These facts as well as the mature landscaping on the property insure that granting the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. D. The granting of the variance allows the property's hardships to not to interfere with the Eckberg's property rights, respecting and observing the spirit and intent of the city. E. In so much that the above=mentioned existing building encroachments are common is the neighborhood, the variance will not grant any special privileges. In fact, the variance is necessary to allow this property to remain similar in nature to the surrounding homes. The variance request is consistent with the General Plan of the City of Rolling Hills. DATE: TO: FROM: • 4) 6 A C1i 0/iei4 Jh/? INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 E-mail: cityofrh@aol.com APRIL 17, 2001 HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PRINCIPAL PLANNER APPLICATION NO.: SITE LOCATION: ZONING AND SIZE: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PUBLISHED: REQUEST ZONING CASE NO. 628 6 MIDDLERIDGE LANE NORTH (LOTS 12,13,14, & PART OF 15-MR) RA-S-1, 4.068 ACRES MR. AND MRS. CRAIG EKBERG MR. CRISS GUNDERSON, ARCHITECT MARCH 10, 2001 Request for a Site Plan Review to construct substantial residential additions at an existing single family residence and request for a Variance to encroach with 160 square feet of the additions into the front yard setback. BACKGROUND 1. The Planning Commission viewed the site and silhouette for the proposed additions on Monday, April 9, 2001. 2. During the site visit the Commission and staff observed that the existing structure located on the lower building pad, depicted as a stable on the plot plan, is not being utilized for that purpose. Therefore, the applicant is considering an application to the Planning Commission for a Conditional Use Permit for a mixed - use structure. A Conditional. Use Permit is required for a detached garage or mixed -use structure. The applicant is also considering reserving an area and/or constructing a required barn and corral across from the main house, on the relatively flat portion of the lot fronting Middleridge Lane. A Variance application would be required for a barn at this location, as it would be located in the front yard setback. It is anticipated that these applications will be presented to the Planning Commission at the May 15, 2001 meeting following proper notice pursuant to the Municipal Code. 3. During the visit it was also observed that the refreshment center is of ZC No. 628 4/17/01 1 Printed on Recycled Paper. • substantial construction which falls under City's definition for a structure. It therefore, must be included in the calculations for pad and lot coverage. The refreshment center is 225 square feet. Staff recalculated the structural pad and net lot area coverages, which are incorporated into this staff report. However, total property figures will change when the third building pad and the future barn are proposed. 4. Currently, the applicant is requesting Site Plan Review to construct 915 square feet of residential additions to an existing 4,598 square foot residence for a total of 5,513 square feet; a 657 square foot addition to an existing 756 square foot garage for a total of 1,413 square feet; a 108 square foot addition to an existing 459 square foot stable for a total of 567 square feet, and a 644 square foot basement. A Variance application is also requested to permit 160 square feet of the additions to encroach into the front yard setback. Aportion of the existing house, approximately 930 square feet, encroaches into the front yard set back. The applicant's representative provided the attached justification for the Variance. The applicant's architect states in part, that the variance is justified because exceptional conditions exist on the site, whereby the existing house already encroaches into the front yard setback, and the proposed addition into the front yard setback is of an "in fill" nature and will not worsen the condition. In addition, the existing house is oddly, shaped and the master bedroom, located within the part of the house that is encroaching into the front yard setback, is extremely small and has an awkward access, through the living room. 5. The original house was constructed in 1952. The barn and the pool were constructed in 1958. A recreation" room and covered refreshment center were constructed in 1968. In 1988 the recreation room was remodeled and a porch was enclosed. A portion of the pool, a brick deck with the spa and the bar/refreshment center are located within the front yard setback. The pool and spa are proposed to be removed. The bar/refreshment center is proposed to remain. 6. Middleridge Lane North bisects the property into two parts. The building pad is located west of the roadway. The eastern portion of the lot is undeveloped with a varied slope of between 28% and 38%, and is covered with dense vegetation. 7. A 459 square foot barn is located to the west of the main house. A 108 square foot addition to the barn is proposed. There is adequate area on this building pad for the corral. Access to the stable is provided through an existing driveway off of Middleridge Lane North. 8. Grading for the project will include 250 cubic yards of cut soil from the excavation of 644 square foot basement. The fill soil will also total 250 cubic yards and will be deposited on site to the north-east of the residential building pad, as indicated on the site plan by a dotted line. 9. The total net lot area of this lot is 119,970 square feet. The structural lot coverage proposed is 8,262 square feet or 6.9%, (20% permitted), and the total lot ZC No. 628 4/17/01 2 • coverage proposed, including all structures and paved areas is 21,908 square feet or 18.3%, (35% permitted). 10. The 24,900 square foot residential building pad will have proposed coverage of 7,695 square feet, (5,513 sq.ft. residence, 1,413 sq.ft. garage, 544 sq.ft. recreation room and 225 square feet refreshment center) or 30.9%. The barn pad is 1,565 square feet with proposed pad coverage of 567 square feet or 36.2%. The combined pad coverage is proposed at 31.2%. Planning Commission guideline is 30%. 11. The disturbed area of the lot will be 30,000 square feet or 25%. [40% maximum permitted; any graded building pad area, any remedial grading (temporary disturbance), any graded slopes and building pad areas, and any nongraded area where impervious surfaces exist]. 12. At the March 20, 2001 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission opened the public hearing, reviewed and took public testimony in this case. The Planning Commission requested that staff provide a list showing the building size of the adjacent properties. A comparison table is attached. 13. At that meeting, the Commission inquired about the difference between the terms "lot" and "parcel" and why the legal description in one instance refers to several lots and in another shows a single lot. According to the Los Angeles County Assessors Office, there are two different systems for describing the same property. Years ago, when surveyors took a survey of properties in Los Angeles County, they assigned consecutive number to each property within a certain area or tract. Through the years, some of those properties were either deeded to relatives or subdivided, creating several different parcels. When the State of California legislators established the Assessors Office, that office took over the task of recordationof land. They found that there were too many lot numbers that were very similar, (i.e. lot 12A, 12B, 12C, etc.) With the advancements in the Subdivision Map Act, the assessors' office was given the authority to change the system of recordation. For ease of recordation, the Assessor's Office developed a different methodology and divided the County into Assessor's Books. Each Book is divided into Assessor's Map Page, and each Map Page shows Parcel Number for each lot or parcel. (The word "lot" and "parcel" are used interchangeably). The assessors, for the purpose of their work, do not pay attention to the lot numbers that were assigned years ago by the surveyors. In short, according to the Assessor's Office, there exist two different systems describing the same property. They are both legal and both may be used when describing a property. As can be seen from the attached "Assessor's Map" all lots have two numbers. The ones in the circle are the assessors' numbers, and the bold numbers are those assigned by surveyors of that tract years ago. The short lines (hooks or map ties, as they are called) shown across the solid lines of an area, indicate that the lot with the number in the circle covers the areas hooked by the ties. As for the possibility of the lots being sold°separately, the Subdivision Map Act gives local jurisdictions controls over development and subdivision. A property owner would not be able to subdivide a property and record it as a legal lot/parcel ZC No. 628 4/17/01 3 • • without City approvals and meeting the standard development standards for lot size, pad size, street frontage, etc. The County Recorder's Office and subsequently the Assessor's Office would not recognize a subdivision that does not have City or County approvals. Regarding the size of the portion of the lot located east of Middleridge Lane, it is approximately 36,650 square feet, (net area), and according to the City's subdivision regulations, does not contain sufficient land area to become a separate lot. 14. 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 consider the staff report, take public testimony, provide any direction to the applicant regarding the proposed additions to the main residence, and continue the public hearing to the May 15, 2001 Planning Commission meeting in anticipation of submittal of an application by the applicant for a barn and mixed use structure. ZC No. 628 4/17/01 4 Zoning Case N. 628 SITE PLAN REVIEW RA-S-1 ZONE SETBACKS Front: 50 ft. from front easement line Side: 20 ft. from property line Rear: 50 ft. from property line STRUCTURES Site Plan Review required for grading requiring a grading permit, any new structure or if size of structure increases by at least 1,000 sq.ft. and has the effect of increasing the size of the structure by more than 25% in a 36-month period. STRUCTURAL LOT COVERAGE (20% maximum) TOTAL LOT COVERAGE (35% maximum) RESIDENTIAL & TOTAL BUILDING PAD COVERAGE (Guideline maximum of 30%) GRADING Site Plan Review required if excavation and/or fill or combination thereof is more than 3 feet in depth and covers more than 2,000 sq.ft. must be balanced on site. DISTURBED AREA 40% maximum; any graded building pad area, any remedial grading (temporary disturbance), any graded slopes and building pad areas, and any nongraded area where impervious surfaces exist. STABLE (450 SQ.FT. & 550 SQ.FT. CORRAL) STABLE ACCESS (maximum 25% slop) ROADWAY ACCESS VIEWS PLANTS AND ANIMALS EXISTING Existing residence encroaches 25-35 feet,(approx. 930 sq. ft.) into the front yard setback. Residence Garage Swim Pool/Spa Service Yard Bar area Stable Basement Total 6.2% 17.8% 4,598 sq.f sq.f sq. 100 sq. 225 sq. 459 sa. 0 7,418 sq.ft 25% of res. pad 29.3% of barn pad 27.4% of combined pads N/A 17.6% Existing 459 sq.ft. Existing at 7% slope, off of Middleridge Lane N. Existing from Middleridge Lane N. N/A N/A ft. ft. ft. ft ft ft. PROPOSED Additional 160 sq.ft. encroachment into the front yard. Residence Garage Swim Pool/Spa Service Yard Bar area Stable Basement Total not incl. basement 6.9% 18.3% 5,513 sq.ft. 1,413 sq.ft. 0 sq.ft. 100 sq.ft 225 sq.ft 567 sa.ft 644 sq.ft. 8,262 sq.ft. 30.9% of 24,900 sq.ft. res. pad 36.2% of 1,565 sq. ft. barn pad 31.2% of combined pads 250 cu.yds. basement cut soil & 250 cu. yds. fill soil. Balanced on site 25% 567 sq.ft. 550 sq.ft. No change is proposed No change is proposed Planning Commission review Planning Commission review ZC No. 628 4/17/01 5 REQUIRED FINDINGS, FOR VARIANCE A. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same vicinity and zone; and B. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights possessed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone but which is denied the property in question; and C. That the granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; and D. That in granting the variance, the spirit and intent of this title will be observed; and E. That the variance does not grant special privilege; F. That the variance is consistent with the portions of the County of Los Angeles Hazardous Waste Management Plan relating to siting and siting criteria for hazardous waste facilities; and G. That the variance request is consistent with the General Plan of the City of Rolling Hills. Zoning Case No. 628 - Nearby Properties ADDRESS 1 Middleridge Lane South 2 Middleridge Lane South 3 Middleridge Lane South 4 Middleridge Lane South 5 Middleridge Lane South 7 Middleridge Lane South 1 Middleridge Lane North 3 Middleridge Lane North 5 Middleridge Lane North 7 Middleridge Lane North 9 Middleridge Lane North 11 Middleridge Lane North 6 Middleridge Lane North OWNER Cigliano Ayelsbury Lynn Schmoller Becker Boyd Barnes Tilles Trust Cramer Johnson Watts Moore AVERAGE EXISTING PROPOSED RESIDENCE (SQ. FT.) 4,541 2,877 3,852 2,790 2,601 3,225 2,100 3,704 3,671 2,364 2,937 3,240 3,158 4,598 5,513 LOT SIZE ACRES (NET) 5.75 1.88 3.40 1.44 3.26 3.48 3.23 1.29 1.16 1.16 1.14 1.19 2.36 3.40 ZC No. 628 4/17/01 6 • • CRISS C GUNDERSON ARCHITECT 2024 Via Pacheco, Palos Verdes Estates, California 90274 TEL (310) 373-8077 FAX (310) 373-8277 Monday, December 11, 2000 Variance application attachment Eckberg Residence No. 6 Middleridge Lane North, Rolling Hills Criteria to be satisfied for ,grant of Variance A. Exceptional conditions exist at No. 6 Middleridge Lane North in that the current house is currently located in the front yard setback. Given the layout of the current floor plan, the existing topography, and the existing improvements to the site, the only option to enlarge the master bedroom and living room are as indicated on the site plan. The only other alternative would be to completely demolish the existing structures and rebuild. This approach is not financially feasible for the Eckbergs, nor does this approach warrant consideration from a real estate value standpoint for any property owner. B. The existing home has an extremely small master bedroom which is only 11 feet wide (plus a small alcove for the bed) and is oddly shaped, having very little room for. furniture beyond that of the bed. Circulation to the bedroom is through the living room which is awkward and makes the living room function much smaller than it's actual size. It appears these undesirable condition are the results of previous additions that were poorly conceived. The proposed additions will improve these conditions, but will leave the home short of current standards of the neighborhood.. The master bedroom suite will remain undersized in comparison to homes in Rolling Hills of a similar size. The requested improvements are necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of the property as possessed by others. C. The proposed additions are of an "infill" type. These additions do not encroach any further into the front yard setback than the current nonconforming conditions encroach. A majority of the proposed additions are screened by the massing of the existing house. The open space around the home and garage is in keeping with the spirit of the cities guidelines. With 6.7% structural coverage and 18. 1 % total coverage the results of the proposed improvements are substantially below the coverage limitations and the coverage of surrounding properties.. These facts as well as the mature landscaping on the property insure that granting the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. D. The granting of the variance allows the property's hardships to not to interfere with the Eckberg's property rights, respecting and observing the spirit and intent of the city. E. In so much that the above -mentioned existing building encroachments are common is the neighborhood, the variance will not grant any special privileges. In fact, the variance is necessary to allow this property to remain similar in nature to the surrounding homes. The variance request is consistent with the General Plan of the City of Rolling Hills. :cA T. SEE: 466-4 /42 6a /30.03 0 Zest :04,/50da• 13 •10 322.38 33$./a 34890 / O2364e. �\ .190104.... S"2/ 8437 f. 370 'TRACT NO. 12866 M.B.246-20-21 • 67..96 .7569-019-004 6 Middleridge Lane. North ♦ . ' •` \ �`'17 0.3 • c. •/G,990in �.8 K ALL ACREAGES ON THIS PAGE. ARE NET ASSESSOR'S HAP COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CALIF. DATE: TO: FROM: Cu• • y o/ /eollinS APRIL 9, 2001 INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 E-mail: cityofrh@aol.com HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PRINCIPAL PLANNER APPLICATION NO.: SITE LOCATION: ZONING AND SIZE: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PUBLISHED: REQUEST ZONING CASE NO. 628 6 MIDDLERIDGE LANE NORTH (LOTS 12,13,14, & PART OF 15-MR) RA-S-1, 4.068 ACRES MR. AND MRS. CRAIG EKBERG MR. CRISS GUNDERSON, ARCHITECT MARCH 10, 2001 Request for a Site Plan Review to construct substantial residential additions at an existing single family residence and request for a Variance to encroach with 160 square feet of the additions into the front yard setback. BACKGROUND 1. The Planning Commission will view the site and silhouette for the proposed additions on Monday, April 9, 2001. 2. At the March 20, 2001 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission opened the public hearing, reviewed and took public testimony on a Zoning Case No. 628. The Planning Commission requested that staff provide a list showing the building size of the adjacent properties. A comparison table is attached. 3. At the meeting, the Commission inquired about the difference between the terms "lot" and "parcel" and why the legal description in one instance refers to several lots and in another shows a single parcel. According to the Los Angeles County Assessors Office, there are two different systems for describing the same property. Years ago, when surveyors took a survey of properties in Los Angeles County, they assigned consecutive number to each property within a certain area or tract. Through the years, some of those properties were either deeded to relatives or subdivided, creating several different parcels. When the State of California legislators established the Assessors Office, that office took over the task ZC No.628 P1ng.Comin. 4/09/01 Printed on Recycled Paper. • • of recordation of land. They found that there were too many lot numbers that were very similar, (i.e. lot 12A, 12B, 12C, etc.) With the advancements in the Subdivision Map Act, the assessors' office was given the authority to change the system of recordation. For ease of recordation, the Assessor's Office developed a different methodology and divided the County into Assessor's Books. Each Book is divided into Assessor's Map Page, and each Map Page shows Parcel Number for each lot or parcel. (The words "lot" and "parcel" are used interchangeably). The assessors, for the purpose of their work, do not pay attention to the lot numbers, that were assigned years ago by the surveyors. In short, according to the Assessor's Office, there exist two different systems describing the same property. They are both legal and both may be used when describing a property. As can be seen from the attached "Assessor's Map" all lots have two numbers. The ones in the circle are the assessors' numbers, and the bold numbers are those assigned by surveyors of that tract years ago. The short lines (hooks or map ties, as they are called) shown across the solid lines of an area, indicate that the lot with the number in the circle covers the areas hooked by the ties. As for the possibility of the lots being sold separately, the Subdivision Map Act gives local jurisdictions controls over development and subdivision. A property owner would not be able to subdivide a property and record it as a legal lot/parcel without City approvals and meeting the standard development standards for lot size, pad size, street frontage, etc. The County Recorder's Office and subsequently the Assessor's Office would not recognize a subdivision that does not have City or County approvals. Regarding the size of the portion of the lot located east of Middleridge Lane, it is approximately 36,650 square feet, (net area), and according to the City's subdivision regulations, does not contain sufficient land area to become a separate lot. 4. The applicant is requesting Site Plan Review to construct 915 square feet of residential additions to an existing 4,598 square foot residence for a total of 5,513 square feet; a 657 square foot addition to an existing 756 square foot garage for a total of 1,413 square feet; a 108 square foot addition to an existing 459 square foot stable for a total of 567 square feet, and a 644 square foot basement. A Variance application is also requested to permit 160 square feet of the additions to encroach into the front yard setback. A portion of the existing house, approximately 930 square feet, encroaches into the front yard set back. The applicant's representative provided the attached justification for the Variance. The applicant's architect states in part, that the variance is justified because exceptional conditions exist on the site, whereby the existing house already encroaches into the front yard setback, and the proposed addition into the front yard setback is of an "in fill" nature and will not worsen the condition. In addition, the existing house is oddly shaped and the master bedroom, located within the part of the house that is encroaching into the front yard setback, is extremely small and has an awkward access, through the living room. ZC No.628 P1ng.Comm. 4/09/01 5. The original house was constructed in 1952. The barn and the pool were constructed in 1958. A recreation room and covered refreshment center were constructed in 1968. In 1988 the recreation room was remodeled and a porch was enclosed. A portion of the pool, a brick deck with the spa and the bar/refreshment center are located within the front yard setback. The pool and spa are proposed to be removed. The bar/refreshment center is proposed to remain. 6. Middleridge Lane North bisects the property into two parts. The building pad is located west of the roadway. The eastern portion of the lot is undeveloped with a varied slope of between 28% and 38%, and is covered with dense vegetation. 7. A 459 square foot barn is located to the west of the main house. A 108 square foot addition to the barn is proposed. There is adequate area on this building pad for the corral. Access to the stable is provided through an existing driveway off of Middleridge Lane North. 8. Grading for the project will include 250 cubic yards of cut soil from the excavation of 644 square foot basement. The fill soil will also total 250 cubic yards and will be deposited on site to the north-east of the residential building pad, as indicated on the site plan by a dotted line. 9. The total net lot, area of this lot is 119,970 square feet. The structural lot coverage proposed is 8,037 square feet or 6.7%, (20% permitted), and the total lot coverage proposed, including all structures and paved areas is 21,683 square feet or 18.1%, (35% permitted). 10. The 24,900 square foot residential building pad will have proposed coverage of 7,470 square feet, (5,513 sq.ft. residence, 1,413 sq.ft. garage and 544 sq.ft. recreation room) or 30%. The barn pad is 1,565 square feet with proposed pad coverage of 567 square feet or 36.2%. The combined pad coverage is proposed at 30.4%. 11. The disturbed area of the lot will be 30,000 square feet or 25%. [40% maximum permitted; any graded building pad area, any remedial grading (temporary disturbance), any graded slopes and building pad areas, and any nongraded area where impervious surfaces exist]. 12. 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 view the site and silhouette. ZC No.628 P1ng.Comm. 4/09/01 3 SITE PLAN REVIEW EXISTING PROPOSED RA-S-1 ZONE SETBACKS Front: 50 ft. from front easement line Side: 20 ft. from property line Rear: 50 ft. from property line STRUCTURES Site Plan Review required for grading requiring a grading permit, any new structure or if size of structure increases by at least 1,000 sq.ft. and has the effect of increasing the size of the structure by more than 25% in a 36-month period. STRUCTURAL LOT COVERAGE (20% maximum) TOTAL LOT COVERAGE (35% maximum) RESIDENTIAL & TOTAL BUILDING PAD COVERAGE (Guideline maximum of 30%) GRADING Site Plan Review required if excavation and/or fill or combination thereof is more than 3 feet in depth and covers more than 2,000 sq.ft. must be balanced on site. DISTURBED AREA 40% maximum; any graded building pad area, any remedial grading (temporary disturbance), any graded slopes and building pad areas, and any nongraded area where impervious surfaces exist. STABLE (450 SQ.FT. & 550 SQ.FT. CORRAL) STABLE ACCESS (maximum 25% slop) ROADWAY ACCESS VIEWS PLANTS AND ANIMALS ZC No. 628 Plng.Comm. 4/09/01 Existing residence encroaches 25-35 feet,(approx. 930 sq. ft.) into the front yard setback. Residence 4,598 sq.ft. Garage 756 sq.ft. Swim Pool/Spa 836 sq.ft. Service Yard 100 sq.ft. Stable 459 sa.ft. Basement 0 Total 7,193 sq.ft. 6.0% 17.6% 24.8% of res. pad 29.3% of barn pad 27.2% of combined pads N/A 17.6% Existing 459 sq.ft. Existing at 7% slope, off of Middleridge Lane N. Existing from Middleridge Lane N. N/A N/A Additional 160 sq.ft. encroachment into the front yard. Residence Garage Swim Pool/Spa Service Yard Stable Basement Total not incl. basement 6.7% 18.1% 5,513 sq.ft. 1,413 sq.ft. 0 sq.ft. 100 sq.ft. 567 sa.ft 644 sq. ft. 8,037 sq.ft. 30% of 24,900 sq.ft. res. pad 36.2% of 1,565 sq. ft. barn pad 30.4% of combined pads 250 cu.yds. basement cut soil & 250 cu. yds. fill soil. Balanced on site 25% 567 sq.ft. 550 sq.ft. No change is proposed No change is proposed Planning Commission review Planning Commission review 4 REQUIRED FINDINGS FOR VARIANCE A. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same vicinity and zone; and B. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights possessed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone but which is denied the property in question; and C. That the granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; and D. That in granting the variance, the spirit and intent of this title will be observed; and E. That the variance does not grant special privilege; F. That the variance is consistent with the portions of the County of Los Angeles Hazardous Waste Management Plan relating to siting and siting criteria for hazardous waste facilities; and G. That the variance request is consistent with the General Plan of the City of Rolling Hills. ZC No. 628 Plng.Comm. 4/09/01 5 ZC NO. 628, 6 MIDDLERIDGE LANE NORTH, NEARBY PROPERTIES ADDRESS 1 Middleridge Lane South 2 Middleridge Lane South 3 Middleridge Lane South 4 Middleridge Lane South 5 Middleridge Lane South 7 Middleridge Lane South 1 Middleridge Lane North 3 Middleridge Lane North 5 Middleridge Lane North 7 Middleridge Lane North 9 Middleridge Lane North 11 Middleridge Lane North 6 Middleridge Lane North RESIDENCE LOT SIZE OWNER ACRES (SQ.FT.) (NET) Cigliano 4,541 5.75 Ayelsbury 2,877 1.88 Lynn 3,852 .3.40 Schmoller 2,790 1.44 Becker 2,601 3.26 Boyd 3,225 3.48 Barnes 2,100 3.23 Tilles Trust 3,704 1.29 Cramer 3,671 1.16 Johnson 2,364 1.16 Watts 2,937 1.14 Moore 3,240 1.19 AVERAGE 3,158 2.36 EXISTING 4,598 3.40 PROPOSED 5,513 Above sizes include the residences only. ZC No. 628 Plng.Comm. 4/09/01 • /ie0fiL4 .fa DATE: MARCH 20, 2001 TO: FROM: YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PRINCIPAL PLANNER INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 E-mail: cityofrh@aol.com HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO.: SITE LOCATION: ZONING AND SIZE: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PUBLISHED: REQUEST ZONING CASE NO. 628 6 MIDDLERIDGE LANE NORTH (LOTS 12,13,14,& PART OF 15-MR) RA-S-1, 4.068 ACRES MR. AND MRS. CRAIG EKBERG MR. CRISS GUNDERSON, ARCHITECT MARCH 10, 2001 Request for a Site Plan Review to construct substantial residential additions at an existing single family residence and request for a Variance to encroach with 160 square feet of the additions into the front yard setback. BACKGROUND 1. The applicant is requesting Site Plan Review to construct 915 square feet of residential additions to an existing 4,598 square foot residence for a total of 5,513 square feet; a 657 square foot addition to an existing 756 square foot garage for a total of 1,413 square feet; a 108 square foot addition to an existing 459 square foot stable for a total of 567 square feet, and a 644 square foot basement. A Variance application is also requested to permit 160 square feet of the additions to encroach into the front yard setback. A portion of the existing house, approximately 930 square feet, encroaches into the front yard set back. The applicant's representative provided the attached justification for the Variance. The applicant's architect states in part, that the variance is justified because exceptional conditions exist on the site, whereby the existing house already encroaches into the front yard setback, and the proposed addition into the front yard setback is of an "in fill" nature and will not worsen the condition. In addition, the existing house is oddly shaped and the master bedroom, located within the part of the house that is encroaching into the front yard setback, is extremely small and has an awkward access, through the living room. ZC No. 628 Plng.Comm. 3/20/01 1 Printed on Recycled Paper. • • 2. The original house was constructed in 1952. The barn and the pool were constructed in 1958. A recreation room and covered refreshment center were constructed in 1968. In 1988 the recreation room was remodeled and a porch was enclosed. A portion of the pool, a brick deck with the spa and the bar/refreshment center are located within the front yard setback. The pool and spa are proposed to be removed. The bar/refreshment center is proposed to remain. 3. Middleridge Lane North bisects the property into two parts. The building pad is located west of the roadway. The eastern portion of the lot is undeveloped with a varied slope of between 28% and 38%, and is covered with dense vegetation. 4. A 459 square foot barn is located to the west of the main house. A 108 square foot addition to the barn is proposed. There is adequate area on this building pad for the corral. Access to the stable is provided through an existing driveway off of Middleridge Lane North. 5. Grading for the project will include 250 cubic yards of cut soil from the excavation of 644 square foot basement. The fill soil will also total 250 cubic yards and will be deposited on site to the north-east of the residential building pad, as indicated on the site plan by a dotted line. 6. The total net lot area of this lot is 119,970 square feet. The structural lot coverage proposed is 8,037 square feet or 6.7%, (20% permitted), and the total lot coverage proposed, including all structures and paved areas is 21,683 square feet or 18.1%, (35% permitted). 7. The 24,900 square foot residential building pad will have proposed coverage of 7,470 square feet, (5,513 sq.ft. residence, 1,413 sq.ft. garage and 544 sq.ft. recreation room) or 30%. The barn pad is 1,565 square feet with proposed pad coverage of 567 square feet or 36.2%. The combined pad coverage is proposed at 30.4%. 8. The disturbed area of the lot will be 30,000 square feet or 25%. [40% maximum permitted; any graded building pad area, any remedial grading (temporary disturbance), any graded slopes and building pad areas, and any nongraded area where impervious surfaces exist]. 9. 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 request for a Variance and Site Plan and take public testimony. ZC No. 628 Plng.Comm. 3/20/01 2 ZONING CASE NO. 628 SITE PLAN REVIEW RA-S-1 ZONE SETBACKS Front: 50 ft. from front easement line Side: 20 ft. from property line Rear: 50 ft. from property line STRUCTURES Site Plan Review required for grading requiring a grading permit, any new structure or if size of structure increases by at least 1,000 sq.ft. and has the effect of increasing the size of the structure by more than 25% in a 36-month period. STRUCTURAL LOT COVERAGE (20% maximum) TOTAL LOT COVERAGE (35% maximum) RESIDENTIAL &TOTAL BUILDING PAD COVERAGE (Guideline maximum of 30%) GRADING Site Plan Review required if excavation and/or fill or combination thereof is more than 3 feet in depth and covers more than 2,000 sq.ft. must be balanced on site. DISTURBED AREA 40% maximum; any graded building pad area, any remedial grading (temporary disturbance), any graded slopes and building pad areas, and any nongraded area where impervious surfaces exist. STABLE (450 SQ.FT. & 550 SQ.FT. CORRAL) STABLE ACCESS (maximum 25% slop) ROADWAY ACCESS VIEWS PLANTS AND ANIMALS ZC No. 628 Plng.Comm. 3/20/01 EXISTING Existing residence encroaches 25-35 feet,(approx. 930 sq. ft.) into the front yard setback. Residence Garage Swim Pool/Spa Service Yard Stable Basement Total 6.0% 17.6% 4,598 sq.ft. 756 sq.ft. 836 sq.ft. 100 sq.ft. 459 sa.ft. 0 7,193 sq.ft. 24.8% of res. pad 29.3% of barn pad 27.2% of combined pads N/A 17.6% Existing 459 sq.ft. Existing at 7% slope, off of Middleridge Lane N. Existing from Middleridge Lane N. N/A N/A 3 PROPOSED Additional 160 sq.ft. encroachment into the front yard. Residence Garage Swim Pool/Spa Service Yard Stable Basement Total not incl. basement 6.7% 18.1% 5,513 sq.ft. 1,413 sq.ft. 0 sq.ft. 100 sq.ft. 567 sa.ft 644 sq. ft. 8,037 sq.ft. 30% of 24,900.sq.ft. res. pad 36.2% of 1,565 sq. ft. barn pad 30.4% of combined pads 250 cu.yds. basement cut soil & 250 cu. yds. fill soil. Balanced on site 25% 567 sq.ft. 550 sq.ft. No change is proposed No change is proposed Planning Commission review Planning Commission review REQUIRED FINDINGS FOR VARIANCE A. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same vicinity and zone; and B. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights possessed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone but which is denied the property in question; and C. That the granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; and D. That in granting the variance, the spirit and intent of this title will be observed; and E. That the variance does not grant special privilege; F. That the variance is consistent with the portions of the County of Los Angeles Hazardous Waste Management Plan relating to siting and siting criteria for hazardous waste facilities; and G. That the variance request is consistent with the General Plan of the City of Rolling Hills. ZC No. 628 Plng.Comm. 3/20/01 4 • • CRISS C GUNDERSON ARCHITECT 2024 Via Pacheco, Palos Verdes Estates, California 90274 TEL (310) 373-8077 FAX (310) 373-8277 Monday, December 11, 2000 Variance application attachment Eckberg Residence No. 6 Middleridge Lane North, Rolling Hills Criteria to be satisfied for grant of Variance A. Exceptional conditions exist at No. 6 Middleridge Lane North in that the current house is currently located in the front- yard setback. Given the layout of the current floor plan, the existing topography, and the existing improvements to the site, the only option to enlarge the master bedroom and living room are as indicated on the site plan. The only other alternative would be to completely demolish the existing structures and rebuild. This approach is not financially feasible for the Eckbergs, nor does this approach warrant consideration from a real estate value standpoint for any property owner. B. The existing home has an extremely small master bedroom which is only 11 feet wide (plus a small alcove for the bed) and is oddly shaped, having very little room for furniture beyond that of the bed. Circulation to the bedroom is through the living room which is awkward and makes the living room function much smaller than it's actual size. It appears these undesirable condition are the results of previous additions that were poorly conceived. The proposed additions will improve these conditions, but will leave the home short of current standards of the neighborhood. The master bedroom suite will remain undersized in comparison to homes in Rolling Hills of a similar size. The requested improvements are necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of the property as possessed by others. C. The proposed additions are of an "infill" type. These additions do not encroach any further into the front yard setback than the current nonconforming conditions encroach. A majority of the proposed additions are screened by the massing of the existing house. The open space around the home and garage is in keeping with the spirit of the cities guidelines. With 6.7% structural coverage and 18.1% total coverage the results of the proposed improvements are substantially below the coverage limitations and the coverage of surrounding properties. These facts as well as the mature landscaping on the property insure that granting the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. D. The granting of the variance allows the property's hardships to not to interfere with the Eckberg's property rights, respecting and observing the spirit and intent of the city. E. In so much that the above -mentioned existing building encroachments are common is the neighborhood, the variance will not grant any special privileges. In fact, the variance is necessary to allow this property to remain similar in nature to the surrounding homes. The variance request is consistent with the General Plan of the City of Rolling Hills.