694, Construct new barn, grading re, Resolutions & Approval ConditionsRESOLUTION NO. 2005-14
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL FOR A
VARIANCE TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED
DISTURBED AREA OF THE LOT AND A SITE PLAN REVIEW
FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A STABLE ON A PROPERTY THAT
REQUIRES PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW, DUE TO
EXISTING STRUCTURAL DEVELOPMENT RESTRICTION
APPROVED IN SEPTEMBER 2002 AND WHERE A SINGLE
FAMILY RESIDENCE IS UNDER CONSTRUCTION IN ZONING
CASE NO. 694 AT 20 EASTFIELD DRIVE, (LOT 83-EF), (DYER).
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. An application has been filed by Mr. and Mrs. Aaron Dyer
with respect to real property located at 20 Eastfield Drive, (Lot 83-EF), Rolling
Hills, requesting a Variance to exceed the maximum permitted disturbed area of
the lot and a Site Plan Review for grading to construct an 880 square foot stable
at a property where construction of a single family residence was approved in
September of 2002 and is currently under construction. The September 2002
approval contains a condition that any future development on subject property
must be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission.
Section 2. Originally the applicants requested a Site Plan Review for
grading and construction of a 720 square foot swimming pool and an 880 square
foot stable and a Variance to exceed the maximum permitted disturbed area of
the lot. Subsequently, the applicants proposed a 576 square foot swimming pool,
which required less grading than the 720 square foot swimming pool.
Section 3. In September 2002, the City Council after taking this case
under jurisdiction, approved an application for a 4,458 square foot residence with
a 693 square foot garage and 1,440 square foot basement, which required 1,640
cubic yards of cut and 1,640 cubic yards of fill and a Variance to exceed the
maximum permitted disturbed area of the lot (46.7%). A 450 square foot future
stable was also approved in the general area of the proposed stable. The City
Council took this case under jurisdiction and ultimately upheld the Planning
Commission's decision of approval. The residence is currently under construction.
Section 4. The Resolution of Approval of the application for the single
family residence (Resolution No. 923) contains a condition that the Planning
Commission must review any future development on the property. Therefore,
the request to construct larger than originally approved stable requires Planning
Commission review.
Section 5. At the April 19, 2005 meeting, the Planning Commission, after
review and deliberation, directed staff to prepare a resolution to approve the Site
'nns_ia ilupr i
Plan Review and Variance to exceed the maximum permitted disturbed lot area
for the construction of the stable and to deny the Site Plan Review and Variance
to exceed the maximum permitted disturbed area for grading and construction of
the proposed pool.
Section 6. On May 5, 2005 the applicants submitted a letter requesting
withdrawal of the Site Plan Review and Variance application for the swimming
pool. The applicants submitted a new Site Plan Review and Variance
applications for construction of the pool in a different location.
Section 7. The Planning Commission conducted duly noticed public
hearings to consider the request in Zoning Case No. 694 for Variance and Site
Plan Review on September 21, 2004, November 16, 2004, February 22, 2005,
March 15, 2005, April 19, 2005 and at a field trip visit on March 15, 2005. The
applicants were notified of the hearings in writing by first class mail. Evidence
was heard and presented from all persons interested in said proposal. The
Planning Commission heard a report from the City staff and reviewed, analyzed
and studied the proposal. The applicants and the applicants' representative were
in attendance at the hearings.
Section 8. The Planning Commission finds that the project qualifies as
a Class 3 Exemption (The State of CA Guidelines, Section 15303) and is therefore
categorically exempt from environmental review under the California
Environmental Quality Act.
Section 9 Section 17.46.030 requires a development plan to be
submitted for site plan review and approval before any development requiring a
grading permit or 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 for grading for the stable
pad and the restriction placed in Resolution No. 923 granted on September 23,
2002 by the City Council on any future development on subject property the
Planning Commission makes the following findings of fact:
A. The proposed development is compatible with the General Plan,
and surrounding uses because the proposed stable complies with the General
Plan requirement of low profile, low -density residential development with
sufficient open space between surrounding structures, and equestrian uses. The
project conforms to Zoning Code setbacks and the grading will be minimal.
B. The project substantially preserves the natural and undeveloped
state of the lot. The proposed stable will be constructed on an existing building
pad and minimal grading is required. The project is of sufficient distance from
nearby residences so that the stable will not impact the view or privacy of
surrounding neighbors, and will permit the owners to enjoy their property
without deleterious infringement on the rights of surrounding property owners.
7(1(K_1d haler
C. The proposed development, as conditioned, is harmonious in scale
and mass with the site. Although the disturbed net lot area exceeds the
maximum permitted, the proposed project is consistent with the scale of the
neighborhood when compared to properties in the vicinity. Four hundred fifty
square feet was originally set aside for the stable and the area was included in
the previously granted Variance to exceed the maximum permitted disturbed net
lot. The proposed 880 square foot stable, which is 430 square feet larger than
originally approved requires 98 cubic yards of cut and fill and will increase the
disturbance of the lot by 1.9%.
D. The development plan incorporates existing vegetation to the
maximum extent feasible. The development plan substantially preserves the
natural and undeveloped state of the lot and the stable will not cause the lot to
look overdeveloped. Significant portions of the lot will be left undeveloped so as
to maintain open space.
E. The proposed development is sensitive and not detrimental to the
convenience and safety of circulation for pedestrians and vehicles because the
proposed project will not change the existing circulation pattern and will utilize
an existing driveway. No new stable access from Outrider Road or Eastifeld
Drive is proposed.
F. The proposed project is to construct a stable and corral area of
sufficient size that meets all standards for vehicular access thereto in
conformance with site plan review requirements.
G. The project is exempt from the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act.
Section 10. 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. A
Variance to Section 17.16.070 (B) is required because it states that the lot
disturbance shall be limited to 40% of the net lot area. With respect to this
request for a Variance for lot disturbance of 48.6%, 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. The Variance for
the total disturbance is necessary because the configuration, double street
frontage and topography of the lot create a difficulty in meeting this Code
requirement.
�nns_ia nuPr
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 of the existing conditions of the lot. A 450 square
foot stable was previously approved. The additional 430 square feet (for a total of
880 square foot stable) will only minimally affect the disturbance of the lot.
Ninety-eight (98) cubic yards of grading is required for this construction. One of
the goals of the General Plan is to encourage construction of equestrian uses,
which this Variance would accommodate.
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. All development will
occur within required setbacks, and will be adequately screened to prevent
adverse visual impact to surrounding properties.
Section 11. Based upon the foregoing findings in Section 9 and Section
10, of this Resolution, the Planning Commission hereby approves the Variance
and Site Plan Review for Zoning Case No. 694 to construct an 880 square foot
stable, and to exceed the maximum permitted disturbed area subject to the
following conditions:
A. The Site Plan and Variance approvals shall expire within two years
from the effective date of approval if work has not commenced as defined in
Sections 17.38.070(A) and 17.46.080 of the Zoning Ordinance, unless otherwise
extended pursuant to the requirements of these sections.
B. It is declared and made a condition of the approval, that if any
conditions thereof are violated, this approval shall be suspended and the
privileges granted thereunder shall lapse; provided that the City has given the
applicants written notice to cease such violation, the opportunity for a hearing
has been provided, and if requested, has been held, and thereafter the applicant
fails to correct the violation within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of
the City's determination.
C. All requirements of the Building and Construction Ordinance, the
Zoning Ordinance, and of the zone in which the subject property is located must
be complied with unless otherwise set forth in the permit, or shown otherwise on
an approved plan. This shall include, but not be limited to, the requirements of
the Outdoor Lighting Ordinance, Undergrounding of Utilities Ordinance, Roof
Covering Ordinance and others.
D. The lot shall be developed and maintained in substantial
conformance with the site plan on file marked Exhibit A and dated May 6, 2005,
except as otherwise provided in these conditions.
E. Structural lot coverage shall not exceed 6,503 square feet or 14.1%
in conformance with lot coverage limitations.
1nn5_1a flv r
F. Total lot coverage of structures and paved areas shall not exceed
10,280 square feet or 22.3% in conformance with lot coverage limitations.
G. The disturbed area of the lot shall not exceed 22,320 square feet or
48.6% in conformance with the Variance approval.
H. Building pad coverage on the stable pad shall not exceed 25.3%.
I. Grading for the stable shall not exceed 98 cubic yards of cut and 98
cubic yards of fill and shall be balanced on site.
J. Landscaping shall be designed using mature trees and shrubs so as
not to obstruct views from neighboring properties, but to screen the structure on
the lot. If trees are to be incorporated into the landscaping scheme, at maturity
they shall be no higher than the ridge height of the stable.
K. The stable and corral shall be located a minimum of ten feet from
the Outrider Road roadway easement and twenty-five feet from the rear
property line.
L. 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.
M. During construction, dust control measures shall be used to stabilize
the soil from wind erosion and reduce dust and objectionable odors generated by
construction activities in accordance with South Coast Air Quality Management
District, Los Angeles County and local ordinances and engineering practices.
N. During construction, conformance with local ordinances and
engineering practices so that people or property are not exposed to landslides,
mudflows, erosion, or land subsidence shall be required.
O. During construction, conformance with the Air Quality Management
District requirements, stormwater pollution prevention practices, county and
local ordinances and engineering practices so that people or property are not
exposed to undue vehicle trips, noise, dust, objectionable odors, landslides,
mudflows, erosion, or land subsidence shall be required.
P. During and after construction, all soil preparation, drainage, and
landscape sprinklers shall protect the building pad from erosion and direct
surface water in an approved manner.
'nns_1a nvPr
Q. During and after construction, all parking shall take place on the project
site and, if necessary, any overflow parking shall take place within nearby
roadway easements.
R. 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.
S. The drainage plan system shall be approved by the Planning
Department and the County Drainage Engineer and shall assure that any water
from any site irrigation systems and all drainage from the site shall be conveyed
in an approved manner and shall remain on the property and not cross over the
roadway easements.
T. 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 stormwater drainage facilities.
U. The property owners shall be required to conform to the Regional
Water Quality Control Board and County Public Works Department Best
Management Practices (BMP's) related to solid waste.
V. The project shall be reviewed and approved by the Rolling Hills
Community Association Architectural Review Committee prior to the issuance
of any permits.
W. The working drawings submitted to the County Department of
Building and Safety for plan check review shall conform to the development plan
described in Condition D.
X. All conditions of approval in Zoning Case No. 645 shall be in full
force and effect.
Y. Notwithstanding Sections 17.46.020 and 17.46.070 of the Rolling
Hills Municipal Code, any modifications to the property, which would
constitute additional structural development or grading, shall require the
filing of a new application for approval by the Planning Commission.
Z. Prior to the submittal of an applicable final building plan to the
County of Los Angeles for plan check, a detailed drainage plan and, if required
by the Los Angeles County Building Department, 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.
'7f111c_1d near A
AA. The applicants shall execute an Affidavit of Acceptance of all
conditions of this Site Plan and Variance approvals, pursuant to Sections
17.38.060 and 17.46.065 of the Zoning Ordinance, or the approval shall not be
effective.
AB. All conditions of this Site Plan Review and Variance approval,
which apply, must be complied with prior to the issuance of a building permit
from the County of Los Angeles.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 17th DAY OF MAY 2005.
A ok ,v2v
ROGER SOMMER, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
MARILYN L. KERN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK
nnc_ i a nuPr 7
f
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS)
I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2005-14 entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL FOR A VARIANCE TO EXCEED
THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED DISTURBED AREA OF THE LOT AND A SITE
PLAN REVIEW FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A STABLE ON A PROPERTY THAT
REQUIRES PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW, DUE TO EXISTING
STRUCTURAL DEVELOPMENT RESTRICTION APPROVED IN SEPTEMBER
2002 AND WHERE A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IS UNDER
CONSTRUCTION IN ZONING CASE NO. 694 AT 20 EASTFIELD DRIVE, (LOT
83-EF), (DYER).
was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on
May 17, 2005 by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners DeRoy, Hankins, Witte and Chairman Sommer.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following:
Administrative Offices.
DEPUTY CI CLERK
2005-14 Dyer 8