Loading...
414, Lot line adjustment - Certific, Staff Reports• • City 0/ _WA INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (213) 377-1521 FAX: (213) 377-7288 Agenda Item No: 1_4-- A Mtg. Date: 2-11-91 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: CRAIG R. NEALIS, CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSIONS DENIAL OF ZONING CASE NO. 414; A REQUEST FOR LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT FOR LOT 241-A-2-MS (35 CREST ROAD WEST) AND FOR LOT 241-A-1-MS (VACANT LOT OFF OF CHESTNUT LANE). DATE: FEBRUARY 11, 1991 Attached for review is material pertaining to the subject continued Public Hearing. This material was presented to the City Council at the meeting of January 28, 1991 at which time it was held over to the meeting of February 11, 1991. Assistant City Attorney Kevin Ennis will meet with the applicant's representatives on Friday, February 8 and a report will be provided containing possible recommended action at Monday's meeting. CN:ds 1 Cif, O/ leolling �l / /h INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1937 NO.2 PORTUGUESE BEHO ROAD ROLLING HILLS` CALF. 90274 (213) 377•1321 FAX (213) 377•7298 Agenda Item No: 3.A Mtg. Date:l-hi-91- TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: CRAIG R. NEALIS, CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'B DENIAL OF ZONING CASE NO. 414; REQUEST FOR LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT FOR LOT 241-A-2-M8 (35 CREST ROAD WEST) AND FOR LOT 241-A-1-MS (VACANT LOT OFF OF CHESTNUT LANE) . DATE: DECEMBER 17, 1990 Please find attached a memorandum with attachments from Assistant City Attorney Kevin G. Ennis relative to the subject continued public hearing. :ds i RICHARDS. WATSON & GOSHON MEMORANDUM To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Kevin G. Ennis, Assistant City Attorney DATE: December 13, 1990 SUBJECT: Appeal of Planning Commission's Denial of Zoning Case No. 414 -- Lot Line Adjustment This item is a continued public hearing to consider the appeal brought by Mr. Richard Colyear to the Planning Commission's denial of a lot line adjustment in Zoning Case No. 414. Mr. Colyear is the applicant and owner of two contigu- ous parcels of property. Parcel No. 1 is a 2-acre (gross) undeveloped lot located off of Chestnut Lane. Parcel No. 2 is a 5.35-acre (gross) developed lot located at 35 Crest Road West. Mr. Colyear's application is for a lot line adjustment to move the lot line that separates the two parcels so that 35/100ths of an acre of Parcel No. 2 (the larger,. developed parcel) is placed into Parcel No. 1 (the small, undeveloped parcel). The resulting parcels would be approximately 2.35 acres (approximately 2 acres net) and 5 acres. The apparent purpose of the adjustment is to make Parcel No. 1 more marketable and better configured for potential development. Mr. Colyear's application was heard by the Planning Commission at its meetings in January, February and March of 1990. Pursuant to Section 66412 of the California Government Code, the City is limited in its discretion in approving or deny- ing a lot line adjustment to whether or not the parcels resulting from the lot line adjustmentwill conform to local zoning and building ordinances. On April 7, 1990, the Planning Commission approved a Resolution denying the lot line adjustment. The findings for denial were: 1) that the lot line adjustment would reduce the required lot frontage for Parcel No. 2; 2) that Parcel No. 1 did not abut an improved roadway (Chestnut Lane) but only abutted an unimproved portion of a roadway easement; 3) that insufficient evidence had been submitted to show that the applicant had the legal authority to construct a driveway across the easement that exists between Parcel No. 1 and Chestnut Lane; and 4) that insufficient evidence had been submitted to show that Parcel No. 1 could be developed in conformance with the requirements of the Site Plan Review Ordinance. KGE:lem 1680352 RICHARDS. WATSON 1,..r1 MEMORANDL • Mayor and City Council December 13, 1990 Page 2 The applicant appealed the Commission's denial and filed a claim against the City for the amount of the $3,500 appeal fee. The City Council denied the claim over the appeal fee and held a hearing on the appeal on May 29, 1990. The Council heard testimony, continued the item and directed the applicant to provide additional data to clarify the legal authority for access to Parcel No. 1. Since that May meeting, staff, our office and the applicant's representatives have been able to clarify several issues that had been the basis for the Commission's denial of the application. First, new maps and information have been obtained from the applicant which show that the lot line adjustment will not reduce the amount of roadway frontage because neither parcel currently has roadway frontage. This defect was created at the time of the subdivision in 1974 and before enactment in 1980 of the City's current minimum roadway frontage requirements. The legal authority to construct a driveway to Parcel No. 1 from Chestnut Lane has also been clarified by the Rolling Hills Community Association. At issue was whether the applicant had the written authority from the Community Association to con- struct a driveway across the unpaved portion of the roadway ease- ment that lies between Parcel No. 1 and Chestnut Lane. The applicant has submitted a memorandum from Peggy Minor of the Community Association indicating that the Association authorizes such use. We have asked that Sidney Croft, the Association's legal counsel, review and approve the conclusion contained in that memorandum prior to the City Council's meeting on Monday, December 17, 1990. The remaining issue listed in the Commission's denial was lack of evidence to show compliance with the City's Site Plan Review Ordinance. The Commission's concern related to the apparent large volume of grading that would be necessary to create a building pad on Parcel No. 1. This concern may be addressed by attachment of a condition to the lot line adjustment approval to make it clear that any development on Parcel No. 1 is subject to compliance with the requirements of the Site Plan Review Ordinance. Recommendation For the reasons specified above, it is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached Resolution approving the pro- posed lot line adjustment subject to conditions. This _ recommendation is premised on the City's receipt-of"Mr:-Croft's- approval of the conclusions contained in the memorandum from the Association dated November 13, 1990. KGE:lem 1680352 ( RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE FOR LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT IN ZONING CASE NO. 414 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. An application was filed by Mr. Richard Colyear with respect to real property in the vicinity of Chestnut Lane (Lot 241-A-1-MS) and real property located at 35 Crest Road West, Rolling Hills (Lot 241-A-2-MS) requesting a Certificate of Compliance for a Lot Line Adjustment to move the side lot line dividing these two lots so that a portion of existing Lot 241-A- 2-MS (Parcel No. 2) is placed into Lot 241-A-1-MS (Parcel No. 1). Section a. California Government Code Subsec- tion 66412(d) authorizes minor lot line adjustments without requiring a tentative map, parcel map or final map if: A. the lot line adjustment involves two or more existing adjacent parcels, where land is proposed to be taken from one parcel and added to an adjacent parcel; B. a greater number of parcels than originally existed is not thereby created; C. the lot line adjustment will create parcels that conform to local zoning and building ordinances; and D. the lot line adjustment is approved by the City. Section 3,. The Planning Commission conducted a duly - noticed public hearing to consider the application on January 16, 1990, February 20, 1990 and March 20, 1990, and conducted a field site review on January 6, 1990. Upon reviewing the evidence and receiving testimony, the Commission denied the lot line adjust- ment by a Resolution adopted on April 7, 1990. Section 4. Pursuant to Section 17.32.140 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, the applicant appealed the Commission's denial of the lot line adjustment within the appeal period on April 16, 1990. Section 5. The City Council opened the public hearing on May 29, 1990 and continued it until such time that the appli- cant provided certain information to the City regarding driveway access to Parcel No. 1. 901214► dd 1680353 (2) Section 6. The applicant has now provided additional information to the City regarding the lot frontage along main- tained roadways and the authority to construct a driveway across the roadway easement for purposes of creating access from Chestnut Lane to Parcel No. 1. Sectioj. The City Council has considered the evi- dence, both written and oral, presented to it in connection with this application and finds as follows: A. The proposed lot line adjustment will increase the size of Lot 241-A-1-MS so that it will cover a net two acres after excluding easements. B. The proposed adjustment will not increase or change the existing nonconformity with respect to Sec- tion 16.16.040 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code requiring a minimum frontage of 150 feet along a maintained roadway. C. Evidence has been presented by the applicant by way of a memorandum from Peggy Minor, Manager of the Rolling Hills Community Association, indicating that the Community Association authorizes the construction of a driveway from Chestnut Lane to Parcel No. 1 across an easement held by the Association for roadway purposes. Based upon this authorization, the City has evidence to conclude that the owner of Parcel No. 1 can comply with Section 17.16.115 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code requiring each parcel to be developed with a driveway to a maintained roadway. D. Conditions have been attached to this approval which provide that it will not impair or limit the City's application of the Site Plan Review Ordinance to any future development of Parcel No. 1. Section 8. In accordance with the foregoing findings, the lot line adjustment sought in Zoning Case No. 414 as indicated on the map attached hereto as Exhibit "A" is hereby approved subject to the following conditions: A. The lot line adjustment shall not in any respect limit or impair the City's application of the Site Plan Review Ordinance (Ordinance 221) to Lot 241-A-1-MS (Parcel No. 1) at such time as an application is made for development. B. The Certificate of Lot Line Adjustment shall include a legal description complying with the delineation of adjustment attached hereto as Exhibit A. 901214 dd 1680353 (2) -2- � 1w C. The applicant shall execute an affidavit of acceptance of all conditions or. this lot line adjustment shall not be effective. ATTEST: PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this day of , 1990. CITY CLERK 901214 dd 1680353 (2) - 3 - MAYOR • • A: • • }• • • N /9.5�S0.E 3it.p1 287. 1 84.3/` a •00 1` df 9 p� °Zot•Atkla,G cs,•G ito o ♦i0. B7 0 o O �1 i 0 tvl • 60 • ke) tit r 415.00 vos of Of ctott • Ci1y .1) leoer.�n9 INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (213) 377-1521 FAX (213) 377-7288 Agenda Item No: 4.B Mtg. Date: 1-28-91 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: CRAIG R. NEALIS, CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF ZONING CASE NO. 414; A REQUEST FOR LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT FOR LOT 241-A-2-MS (35 CREST ROAD WEST) AND FOR LOT 241-A-1-MS (VACANT LOT OFF OF CHESTNUT LANE). DATE: JANUARY 28, 1991 An updated report will be provided regarding this item by City Attorney Mike Jenkins. CN:ds • r CEO • 0/ l2 Rotting off INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (213) 377-1521 FAX (213) 377.7288 Agenda Item No: 3.A Mtg. Date:1_1ti_91-- TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: CRAIG R. NEALIS, CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF ZONING CASE NO. 414; REQUEST FOR LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT FOR LOT 241-A-2-MS (35 CREST ROAD WEST) AND FOR LOT 241-A-1-MS (VACANT LOT OFF OF CHESTNUT LANE). DATE: DECEMBER 17, 1990 Please find attached a memorandum with attachments from Assistant City Attorney Kevin G. Ennis relative to the subject continued public hearing. :ds • ( RICHARDS. WATSOR GERSHON MEMORANDUM To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Kevin G. Ennis, Assistant City Attorney DATE: December 13, 1990 SUBJECT: Appeal of Planning Commission's Denial of Zoning Case No. 414 -- Lot Line Adjustment This item is a continued public hearing to consider the appeal brought by Mr. Richard Colyear to the Planning Commission's denial of a lot line adjustment in Zoning Case No. 414. Mr. Colyear is the applicant and owner of two contigu- ous parcels of property. Parcel No. 1 is a 2-acre (gross) undeveloped lot located off of Chestnut Lane. Parcel No. 2 is a 5.35-acre (gross) developed lot located at 35 Crest Road West. Mr. Colyear's application is for a lot line adjustment to move the lot line that separates the two parcels so that 35/100ths of an acre of Parcel No. 2 (the larger, developed parcel) is placed into Parcel No. 1 (the small, undeveloped parcel). The resulting parcels would be approximately 2.35 acres (approximately 2 acres net) and 5 acres. The apparent purpose of the adjustment is to make Parcel No. 1 more marketable and better configured for potential development. Mr. Colyear's application was heard by the Planning Commission at its meetings in January, February and March of 1990. Pursuant to Section 66412 of the California Government Code, the City is limited in its discretion in approving or deny- ing a lot line adjustment to whether or not the parcels resulting from the lot line adjustment will conform to local zoning and building ordinances. On April 7, 1990, the Planning Commission approved a Resolution denying the lot line adjustment. The findings for denial were: 1) that the lot line adjustment would reduce the required lot frontage for Parcel No. 2; 2) that Parcel No. 1 did not abut an improved roadway (Chestnut Lane) but only abutted an unimproved portion of a roadway easement; 3) that insufficient evidence had been submitted to show that the applicant had the legal authority to construct a driveway across the easement that exists between Parcel No. 1 and Chestnut Lane; and 4) that insufficient evidence had been submitted to show that Parcel No. 1 could be developed in conformance with the requirements of the Site Plan Review Ordinance. KGE:lem 1680352 RICHARDs. Witt 8 lacRSM..r MEMORA UM Mayor and City Council December 13,'1990 Page 2 The applicant appealed the Commission's denial and filed a claim against the City for the amount of the $3,500 appeal fee. The City Council denied the claim over the appeal fee and held a hearing on the appeal on May 29, 1990. The Council heard testimony, continued the item and directed the applicant to provide additional data to clarify the legal authority for access to Parcel No. .1. Since that May meeting, staff, our office and the applicant's representatives have been able to clarify several issues that had been the basis for the Commission's denial of the application. First, new maps and information have been obtained from the applicant which show that the lot line adjustment will not reduce the amount of roadway frontage because neither parcel currently has roadway frontage. This defect was created at the time of the subdivision in 1974 and before enactment in 1980 of the City's current minimum roadway frontage requirements. The legal authority to construct a driveway to Parcel No. 1 from Chestnut Lane has also been clarified by the Rolling Hills Community Association. At issue was whether the applicant had the written authority from the Community Association to con- struct a driveway across the unpaved portion of the roadway ease- ment that lies between Parcel No. 1 and Chestnut Lane. The applicant has submitted a memorandum from Peggy Minor of the Community Association indicating that the Association authorizes such use. We have asked that Sidney Croft, the Association's legal counsel, review and approve the conclusion contained in that memorandum prior to the City Council's meeting on Monday, December 17, 1990. The remaining issue listed in the Commission's denial was lack of evidence to show compliance with the City's Site Plan Review. Ordinance. The Commission's concern related to the apparent large volume of grading that would be necessary to create a building pad on Parcel No. 1. This concern may be addressed by attachment of a condition to the lot line adjustment approval to make it clear that any development on Parcel No. 1 is subject to compliance with the requirements of the Site Plan Review Ordinance. Recommendation For the reasons specified above, it is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached Resolution approving the pro- posed lot line adjustment subject to conditions. This recommendation is premised on the City's receipt -of -Mr. 'Croft's-- approval of the conclusions contained in the memorandum from the Association dated November 13, 1990. KGE:lem 1680352 • RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE FOR LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT IN ZONING CASE NO. 414 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. An application was filed by Mr. Richard Colyear with respect to real property in the vicinity of Chestnut Lane (Lot 241-A-1-MS) and real property located at 35 Crest Road West, Rolling Hills (Lot 241-A-2-MS) requesting a Certificate of Compliance for a Lot Line Adjustment to move the side lot line dividing these two lots so that a portion of existing Lot 241-A- 2-MS (Parcel No. 2) is placed into Lot 241-A-1-MS (Parcel No. 1). Section 2. California Government Code Subsec- tion 66412(d) authorizes minor lot line adjustments without requiring a tentative map, parcel map or final map if: A. the lot line adjustment involves two or more existing adjacent parcels, where land is proposed to be taken from one parcel and added to an adjacent parcel; B. a greater number of parcels than originally existed is not thereby created; C. the lot line adjustment will create parcels that conform to local zoning and building ordinances; and City. D. the lot line adjustment is approved by the Section 3. The Planning Commission conducted a duly - noticed public hearing to consider the application on January 16, 1990, February 20, 1990 and March 20, 1990, and conducted a field site review on January 6, 1990. Upon reviewing the evidence and receiving testimony, the Commission denied the lot line adjust- ment by a Resolution adopted on April 7, 1990. Section 4. Pursuant to Section 17.32.140 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, the applicant appealed the Commission's denial of the lot line adjustment within the appeal period on April 16, 1990. Section 5. The City Council opened the public hearing on May 29, 1990 and continued it until such time that the appli- cant provided certain information to the City regarding driveway access to Parcel No. 1. 901214 6J 1680353 (2) Section 6. The applicant has now provided additional information to the City regarding the lot frontage along main- tained roadways and the authority to construct a driveway across the roadway easement for purposes of creating access from Chestnut Lane to Parcel No. 1. Section 7. The City Council has considered the evi- dence, both written and oral, presented to it in connection with this application and finds as follows: A. The proposed lot line adjustment will increase the size of Lot 241-A-1-MS so that it will cover a net two acres after excluding easements. B. The proposed adjustment will not increase or change the existing nonconformity with respect to Sec- tion 16.16.040 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code requiring a minimum frontage of 150 feet along a maintained roadway. C. Evidence has been presented by the applicant by way of a memorandum from Peggy Minor, Manager of the Rolling Hills Community Association, indicating that the Community Association authorizes the construction of a driveway from Chestnut Lane to Parcel No. 1 across an easement held by the Association for roadway purposes. Based upon this authorization, the City has evidence to conclude that the owner of Parcel No. 1 can comply with Section 17.16.115 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code requiring each parcel to be developed with a driveway to a maintained roadway. D. Conditions have been attached to this approval which provide that it will not impair or limit the City's application of the Site Plan Review Ordinance to any future development of Parcel No. 1. Section 8. In accordance with the foregoing findings, the lot line adjustment sought in Zoning Case No. 414 as indicated on the map attached hereto as Exhibit "A" is hereby approved subject to the following conditions: A. The lot line adjustment shall not in any respect limit or impair the City's application of the Site Plan Review Ordinance (Ordinance 221) to Lot 241-A-1-MS (Parcel No. 1) at such time as an application is made for development. B. The Certificate of Lot Line Adjustment shall include a legal description complying with the delineation of adjustment attached hereto as Exhibit A. 901214 dd 1680353 (2) -2- t • ' • ' C. The applicant shall execute an affidavit of acceptance of all conditions or this lot line adjustment shall not be effective. ATTEST: PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this day of , 1990. CITY CLERK 901214 dd 1680353 (2) - 3 - MAYOR Ana / ^ / ,ova 5 r, ti • i 4,fr . to3II.5! 4 7.8 7 J � J ^' h LOT 1 • • 29406 • •o a PARCE L ---- 7s00 /IJ 6°13,ycB+E. ZONING CASE . 414 r �21 49 60Vi L.o1 2 � T2, Z94o5 453. 00 n '1 A/BB°3o'oo"w /33, 6o N i °i3'.3o"E 40. • 2 I [tr"Vg) DEC 0 7 1989 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS By..._ z.c 444 th� LOT LINE ADS J STMEr±T SOUTANE *AT MOO ZPI saezxa conrosATION rm ' 304 TC/OM',Lace Q_) [1tAT($ CAL,?O*N A POtt. Atm SCALE I" s �:�3• »sass 173.is11 B O' Di*" J EZ DATE Z-iO-59 DE ED JOB NO.S,$ 'T 1 t1� '441 ty 0/ Allin9. JUL INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (213) 377-1521 FAX: (213) 377-7288 Agenda Item No: 3.A Mtg. Date: 1-14-91 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: CRAIG R. NEALIS, CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF ZONING CASE NO. 414; REQUEST FOR LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT FOR LOT 241-A-2-MS (35 CREST ROAD WEST) AND FOR LOT 241-A-1-MS (VACANT LOT OFF OF CHESTNUT LANE). DATE: JANUARY 14, 1991 BACKGROUND On April 7, 1990 members of the Rolling Hills Planning Commission approved a Resolution denying an application for lot line adjustment in the subject zoning case. Property owner Mr. Richard Colyear has appealed this item to the City Council. City Council members first heard this appeal on Monday, December 17, 1990, at which time the public hearing was continued to a field trip. That field trip was conducted on Saturday, January 12, 1991 at 11:00 a.m. The applicant and owner of the two contiguous parcels of property is Mr. Richard Colyear. Parcel No. 1 is a two acre (gross) undeveloped lot located off of Chestnut Lane. Parcel No. 2 is a 5.3 acre (gross) developed lot located at 35 Crest Road West. The application presented to the City is for a lot line adjustment to move the lot line that separates the two parcels so that 35/100 of an acre of Parcel No. 2 (the larger, developed parcel) is placed into Parcel No. 1 (the small, undeveloped parcel). The resulting parcels will be approximately 2.35 acres and 5 acres. The larger, Parcel No. 2, has vehicular access to Crest Road via a twenty five foot road easement. It is worth noting for the record. that a second easement which is not noted on the zoning case lot line adjustment map provided by South Bay Engineering exists at the easterly point of the property which could possibly provide vehicular access to Crest Road from that side of Parcel No. 2. -1- FACTORS SURROUNDING PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL Findings for the denial are included in this evenings Staff Report in a Memorandum dated December 13, 1990 from Assistant City Attorney, Kevin G. Ennis. Additionally, information that has been provided by the applicant which addresses the concerns expressed in the Planning Commission Resolution are contained in that document. ISSUES AT HAND The issues that have been raised regarding the buildability of the newly configured 2.35 acre lot are substantial. The slope and vehicular access of that property, will have to be carefully scrutinized as it relates to residential development. The appeal before the City Council this evening however, represents a separate issue from the buildability of the lot in question. CITY MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION It is respectfully recommended that the City Council continue this item to the January 28, 1991 meeting. At that meeting, Staff will present an amended Resolution of the City Council authorizing the issuance of a Certificate of Compliance for lot line adjustment in the above referenced Zoning Case. Amendments to the Resolution will include: o that the City Council visited the properties on January 12, 1991; o that the City does not, by adoption of the Resolution, constitute or represent that the lot line adjustment proves in any form or condition future development within the established zoning standards; o that the Resolution will be recorded with the Certificate of Lot Line Adjustment. CN:ds • a Cilft o/ ie0m INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (213) 377-1521 FAX: (213) 377-7288 Agenda Item No: 3.A Mtg. Date: 12-17-90 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: CRAIG R. NEALIS, CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSIONS DENIAL OF ZONING CASE NO. 414; REQUEST FOR LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT FOR LOT 241-A-2-MS (35 CREST ROAD WEST) AND FOR LOT 241-A-1-MS (VACANT LOT OFF OF CHESTNUT LANE). DATE: DECEMBER 17, 1990 Please find attached a memorandum with attachments from Assistant City Attorney Kevin G. Ennis relative to the subject continued public hearing. :ds • • RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHON MEMORANDUM TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Kevin G. Ennis, Assistant City Attorney DATE: December 13, 1990 SUBJECT: Appeal of Planning Commission's Denial of Zoning Case No. 414 -- Lot Line Adjustment This item is a continued public hearing to consider the appeal brought by Mr. Richard Colyear to the Planning Commission's denial of a lot line adjustment in Zoning Case No. 414. Mr. Colyear is the applicant and owner of two contigu- ous parcels of property. Parcel No. 1 is a 2-acre (gross) undeveloped lot located off of Chestnut Lane. Parcel No. 2 is a 5.35-acre (gross) developed lot located at 35 Crest Road West. Mr. Colyear's application is for a lot line adjustment to move the lot line that separates the two parcels so that 35/100ths of an acre of Parcel No. 2 (the larger, developed parcel) is placed into Parcel No. 1 (the small, undeveloped parcel). The resulting parcels would be approximately 2.35 acres (approximately 2 acres net) and 5 acres. The apparent purpose of the adjustment is to make Parcel No. 1 more marketable and better configured for potential development. Mr. Colyear's application was heard by the Planning Commission at its meetings in January, February and March of 1990. Pursuant to Section 66412 of the California Government Code, the City is limited in its discretion in approving or deny- ing a lot line adjustment to whether or not the parcels resulting from the lot line adjustment will conform to local zoning and building ordinances. On April 7, 1990, the Planning Commission approved a Resolution denying the lot line adjustment. The findings for denial were: 1) that the lot line adjustment would reduce the required lot frontage for Parcel No. 2; 2) that Parcel No. 1 did not abut an improved roadway (Chestnut Lane) but only abutted an unimproved portion of a roadway easement; 3) that insufficient evidence had been submitted to show that the applicant had the legal authority to construct a driveway across the easement that exists between Parcel No. 1 and Chestnut Lane; and 4) that insufficient evidence had been submitted to show that Parcel No. 1 could be developed in conformance with the requirements of the Site Plan Review Ordinance. KGE:lem 1680352 RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSIO MEMORANDUM Mayor and City Council December 13, 1990 Page 2 The applicant appealed the Commission's denial and filed a claim against the City for the amount of the $3,500 appeal fee. The City Council denied the claim over the appeal fee and held a hearing on the appeal on May 29, 1990. The Council heard testimony, continued the item and directed the applicant to provide additional data to clarify the legal authority for access to Parcel No. 1. Since that May meeting, staff, our office and the applicant's representatives have been able to clarify several issues that had been the basis for the Commission's denial of the application. First, new maps and information have been obtained from the applicant which show that the lot line adjustment will not reduce the amount of roadway frontage because neither parcel currently has roadway frontage. This defect was created at the time of the subdivision in 1974 and before enactment in 1980 of the City's current minimum roadway frontage requirements. The legal authority to construct a driveway to Parcel No. 1 from Chestnut Lane has also been clarified by the Rolling Hills Community Association. At issue was whether the applicant had the written authority from the Community Association to con- struct a driveway across the unpaved portion of the roadway ease- ment that lies between Parcel No. 1 and Chestnut Lane. The applicant has submitted a memorandum from Peggy Minor of the Community Association indicating that the Association authorizes such use. We have asked that Sidney Croft, the Association's legal counsel, review and approve the conclusion contained in that memorandum prior to the City Council's meeting on Monday, December 17, 1990. The remaining issue listed in the Commission's denial was lack of evidence to show compliance with the City's Site Plan Review Ordinance. The Commission's concern related to the apparent large volume of grading that would be necessary to create a building pad on Parcel No. 1. This concern may be addressed by attachment of a condition to the lot line adjustment approval to make it clear that any development on Parcel No. 1 is subject to compliance with the requirements of the Site Plan Review Ordinance. Recommendation For the reasons specified above, it is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached Resolution approving the pro- posed lot line adjustment subject to conditions. This recommendation is premised on the City's receipt of Mr. Croft's approval of the conclusions contained in the memorandum from the Association dated November 13, 1990. KGE:lem 1680352 • RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE FOR LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT IN ZONING CASE NO. 414 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. An application was filed by Mr. Richard Colyear with respect to real property in the vicinity of Chestnut Lane (Lot 241-A-1-MS) and real property located at 35 Crest Road West, Rolling Hills (Lot 241-A-2-MS) requesting a Certificate of Compliance for a Lot Line Adjustment to move the side lot line dividing these two lots so that a portion of existing Lot 241-A- 2-MS (Parcel No. 2) is placed into Lot 241-A-1-MS (Parcel No. 1). Section 2. California Government Code Subsec- tion 66412(d) authorizes minor lot line adjustments without requiring a tentative map, parcel map or final map if: A. the lot line adjustment involves two or more existing adjacent parcels, where land is proposed to be taken from one parcel and added to an adjacent parcel; B. a greater number of parcels than originally existed is not thereby created; C. the lot line adjustment will create parcels that conform to local zoning and building ordinances; and D. the lot line adjustment is approved by the City. Section 3. The Planning Commission conducted a duly - noticed public hearing to consider the application on January 16, 1990, February 20, 1990 and March 20, 1990, and conducted a field site review on January 6, 1990. Upon reviewing the evidence and receiving testimony, the Commission denied the lot line adjust- ment by a Resolution adopted on April 7, 1990. Section 4. Pursuant to Section 17.32.140 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, the applicant appealed the Commission's denial of the lot line adjustment within the appeal period on April 16, 1990. Section 5. The City Council opened the public hearing on May 29, 1990 and continued it until such time that the appli- cant provided certain information to the City regarding driveway access to Parcel No. 1. 901214 dd 1680353 (2) • • Section 6. The applicant has now provided additional information to the City regarding the lot frontage along main- tained roadways and the authority to construct a driveway across the roadway easement for purposes of creating access from Chestnut Lane to Parcel No. 1. Section 7. The City Council has considered the evi- dence, both written and oral, presented to it in connection with this application and finds as follows: A. The proposed lot line adjustment will increase the size of Lot 241-A-1-MS so that it will cover a net two acres after excluding easements. B. The proposed adjustment will not increase or change the existing nonconformity with respect to Sec- tion 16.16.040 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code requiring a minimum frontage of 150 feet along a maintained roadway. C. Evidence has been presented by the applicant by way of a memorandum from Peggy Minor, Manager of the Rolling Hills Community Association, indicating that the Community Association authorizes the construction of a driveway from Chestnut Lane to Parcel No. 1 across an easement held by the Association for roadway purposes. Based upon this authorization, the City has evidence to conclude that the owner of Parcel No. 1 can comply with Section 17.16.115 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code requiring each parcel to be developed with a driveway to a maintained roadway. D. Conditions have been attached to this approval which provide that it will not impair or limit the City's application of the Site Plan Review Ordinance to any future development of Parcel No. 1. Section 8. In accordance with the foregoing findings, the lot line adjustment sought in Zoning Case No. 414 as indicated on the map attached hereto as Exhibit "A" is hereby approved subject to the following conditions: A. The lot line adjustment shall not in any respect limit or impair the City's application of the Site Plan Review Ordinance (Ordinance 221) to Lot 241-A-1-MS (Parcel No. 1) at such time as an application is made for development. B. The Certificate of Lot Line Adjustment shall include a legal description complying with the delineation of adjustment attached hereto as Exhibit A. 901214 dd 1680353 (2) -2- C. The applicant shall execute an affidavit of acceptance of all conditions or this lot line adjustment shall not be effective. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this day of , 1990. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK 901214 dd 1680353 (2) - 3 - re772-- Akk 11; G-7.'.1c2 Ptri: C7-1,1 4 d 11 — 1,11.c-7.7 711 ,g -fi /Le 41( • 1_61 em•-11„r„,e.—,,,,,<,„„„4„2:27„-e7 /4-5 • • STAFF REPORT DATE: March 14, 1990 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: STAFF SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 414; Request for Certificate of Compliance for a Lot Line Adjustment for property in proximity of Chestnut Lane (Lot 241-A-1-MS) and property located at 35 Crest Road West (Lot 241-A-2-MS); Owner: Richard Colyear DISCUSSION The Planning Commission, at their regular meeting of February 20, 1990, continued the above -stated application to allow the applicant time to provide further certified documentation. Such documentation was requested to verify existence of an easement for vehicular use from Chestnut Lane, and confirm Rolling Hills Community Association permission to use any applicable easement for driveway access. Another matter discussed was the preliminary grading plan that indicated an export of soil amounting to 9,970 cubic yards. The City is in receipt of a letter, dated March 1, 1990, that was submitted by the applicant's representative, South Bay Engineering, requesting an appeal to the Planning Commission's inaction upon the matter. It is Staff's opinion that the appeal request is not warranted, since the Commission did not take action to approve or deny the request in accordance with Title 17 of the Municipal Code. Therefore, the matter is again before the Commission for consideration. The Commission will recall from the last meetings on the matter that the City Attorney advised Staff and the Commission that State Code applicable to the review of lot line adjustments is limited to whether the resulting parcels of property will conform to "local zoning and building ordinances". Further, State Code does not define or limit which zoning code and building ordinance provisions a city may consider. Staff suggested the following list of conditions that must be satisfied should the Commission take favorable action upon the application: 1. The resulting lots shall each have a minimum lot area of two (2) acres net area (Section 16.16.010). 2. Theresulting lots shall each have a minimum frontage along a roadway easement line of no less than 150 feet (Section 16.16.040) 3. Grading for cut and fill slopes shall not exceed a steepness of two horizontal to one vertical, or exceed a vertical height of thirty (30') feet (Sections 15.04.110 and 15.04.140). Grading balance may be considered (City policy). • • zc414 page 2 4. A single driveway shall be developed and maintained as access from a maintained roadway to each residential structure (Section 17.16.115) 5. No building or structure shall be constructed and no expansion, addition, alteration or repair to existing buildings or structures which involve changes to grading which requires a grading permit or increasing the size of the building or structure by more than twenty-five (25) percent in any thirty-six (36) month period shall be made in the RA-S zone without first receiving site plan review approval (Section 17.16.130). Should the proposed project not comply outright with the forementioned items 1 through 4, the applicant would have the opportunity to apply for a variance that would accompany the lot line adjustment request or a future site plan review application. RECOMMENDATION Prior to any action on this application, the Commission must verify the requested information from the last meeting. Should the application comply with the requirements of the State Subdivision Map Act and City requirements, the request is recommended for approval subject to conditions discussed. zc414#4 • • STAFF REPORT DATE: February 13, 1990 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: STAFF SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 414; Request for Certificate of Compliance for a Lot Line Adjustment for property in proximity of Chestnut Lane (Lot 241-A-1-MS) and property located at 35 Crest Road West (Lot 241-A-2-MS); Owner: Richard Colyear DISCUSSION This application has been submitted by the property owner, Mr. Richard Colyear, requesting a lot line adjustment for the above -stated property. The Planning Commission, at their regular meeting of January 16, 1990, continued the above -stated application to allow time for Mr. Colyear and City Staff to review and comment upon written correspondence submitted by Dr. Joseph Carey at the prior meeting. This correspondence related to ownership and permitted uses along a strip of land between Chestnut Lane and the proposed lot. At the last meeting, the City Attorney advised the Commission that Government Code Section 66412(d) provides that the City's review of the application is limited to whether the parcels resulting from the lot line adjustment will conform to "local zoning and building ordinances". Further, this subsection does not define or limit which zoning code and building ordinance provision or provisions a city may consider. The following list of zoning code and building ordinance provisions would be deemed applicable, and may be incorporated as conditions upon the action of the Commission: 1. The resulting lots shall each have a minimum lot area of two (2) acres net area (Section 16.16.010). 2. The resulting lots shall each have a minimum frontage along a roadway easement line of no less than 150 feet (Section 16.16.040). 3. Grading for cut and fill slopes shall not exceed a steepness of two horizontal to one vertical, or exceed a vertical height of thirty (30') feet (Sections 15.04.110 and 15.04.140). 4. No building or structure shall be constructed and no expansion, addition, alteration or repair to existing buildings or structures which involve changes to grading which requires a grading permit or increasing the size of the building or structure by more than twenty-five (25) percent in any thirty-six (36) month period shall be made in the RA-S zone without first receiving site plan review approval (Section 17.16.130). • • zc414 page 2 5. A single driveway shall be developed and maintained as access from a maintained roadway to each residential structure (Section 17.16.115). RECOMMENDATION Prior to any action on this application, the Commission should receive the response of the City Attorney to the letters of correspondence received at the last meeting. Should the application comply with the requirements of the State Subdivision Map Act, the request is recommended for approval subject to conditions discussed. zc414#3 STAFF REPORT DATE: January 5, 1990 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: STAFF SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 414; Request for Certificate of Compliance for a Lot Line Adjustment for property accessed Chestnut Lane (Lot 241-A-1-MS) and property located at 35 Crest Road West (Lot 241-A-2-MS); Owner: Mr. Richard Colyear DISCUSSION The Planning Commission, at their scheduled meeting held December 12, 1989, continued the above -stated application to an adjourned meeting so as to inspect the site and surrounding properties. At the last meeting, the Commission discussed the prior action applicable to the matter (zc387), and requested opinion from the City Attorney regarding the imposition of conditions to actions on lot line adjustments. The City Attorney advised the Commission to reconsider the application for the adjustment of property line in accordance with the provisions of the State Subdivision Map Act and City regulations. The City Attorney will be providing the Commission with an opinion statement which discusses the requirements for Lot Line Adjustments. The content of the statement will address the applicability of the adjustment request and the issue of conditions attached to such actions. RECOMMENDATION Prior to any action on this application, the Commission is requested to receive the City Attorney's opinion for consideration. Should the application comply with the requirements set forth in the Municipal Code and the State Subdivision Map Act,, the request is recommended for approval. zc414#2