Loading...
705, Construct a new pool within th, Staff ReportsCi4 o/ leo lliny DATE: JULY 25, 2005 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL ATTN: CRAIG R. NEALIS, CITY MANAGER FROM: YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR 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.: 4B Mtg. Date: 7/ 25 / 05 SUBJECT: RESOLUTION NO. 2005-21. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL OF A SITE PLAN REVIEW TO CONSTRUCT A SWIMMING POOL AND A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH WITH THE SWIMMING POOL INTO THE REAR SETBACK ON A PROPERTY THAT REQUIRES PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW, DUE TO EXISTING STRUCTURAL DEVELOPMENT RESTRICTION, IN ZONING CASE NO. 705 AT 20 EASTFIELD DRIVE, (LOT 83-EF), (DYER). BACKGROUND 1. The Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2005-21, which is attached, on July 19, 2005 at their regular meeting granting approval in Zoning Case No. 705. The vote was 4-0-1. (Commissioner Hanke was absent). 2. The applicants propose to construct a 960 square foot swimming pool with pool equipment, to be located in the 50-foot rear setback. 3. Previously, the property owners proposed a swimming pool in the side yard area. The Planning Commission expressed concerns relating to the location of the pool in the side yard, the grading quantities required to built the pool in this location, the additional disturbance of the lot and the visibility of the pool and easy access to it from Eastfield and Outrider Roads. In response to concerns expressed by the Planning Commission, the applicants withdrew the application to locate the pool in the side yard area and submitted a new application requesting to locate the pool in the rear setback. 4. In September 2002, the City Council, after taking the case under jurisdiction, approved an application for a 4,458 square foot residence with a 693 square foot ZC NO. 705 ®Printed on Recycled Pepe'r • • garage and 1,440 square foot basement, which required 1,640 cubic yards of cut and 1,640 cubic yards of fill. A Variance to exceed the maximum permitted disturbed area of the lot (46.7%) was also approved as well as a 450 square foot future stable. The residence is currently under construction. 5. On May 17, 2005 Planning Commission approved a Site Plan and a Variance in Zoning Case No. 694 to construct an 880 square foot stable and to exceed the maximum permitted disturbed lot area, (48.6%). 6. With the approval of the previous applications the Commission and City Council applied a condition to the property that any future development be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission. In addition, swimming pools having 800 square feet or more of surface water require a Site Plan Review. 7. No further lot disturbance will result from the construction of the pool, because the proposed pool will be located in and area which was previously disturbed. 8. No grading is proposed for the swimming pool. 9. The property is zoned RAS-1, and the gross lot area is 1.47 acres. The net lot area is 46,040 square feet. 10. The structural net lot coverage is proposed at 7,489 square feet or 16.3% which includes the residence, garage, service yard, pool, pool equipment, covered patio and the stable, (20% permitted). The total lot coverage including the structures and paved areas, which includes 480 square feet of pool decking is proposed to be 11,746 square feet or 25.5%, (35% permitted). 11. Building pad coverage on the 15,940 square foot residential building pad is proposed to be 6,609 square feet or 41.5%, whichincludes the proposed pool and the covered porch. (Currently covered porches are included in the building pad coverage. Recently the Planning Commission recommended to the City Council an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to allow covered porches having an area of 10% or less of the size of the residence to not to be counted towards the building pad coverage. The City Council introduced the ordinance at their July 11, 2005 meeting. FYI, in this case, under this language, the covered porch is less than 10% of the size of the residence, and therefore the entire 376 sq.ft. porch would not be included in the building pad coverage. Not including the porch the residential building pad coverage would be 6,233 square feet or 39.1%). The existing building pad coverage is 5,623 square feet or 35.3%. Building pad coverage on the 3,480 square foot stable / corral pad will be 25.2%, as approved in Zoning Case No. 694. The combined coverage is proposed to be 38.5% including the porch and 36.6% not including the porch, (porch is less than 10% of the size of the residence). 12. Water run-off from the pool and pool deck is proposed to be connected to the existing residential drains. ZC NO. 705 13. The project has been determined to be categorically exempt pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). 14. The Rolling Hills Community Association will review this project at a later date. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council receive and file this staff report or provide other direction to staff. ZC NO. 705 s VARIANCE REQUIRED FINDINGS 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. 705 a Zoning Case No. 645 Zoning Case No. 694 Mr. and Mrs. Dyer, 20 Eastfield Drive SITE PLAN REVIEW RA-S- 1 ZONE SETBACKS Front: 50 ft. from front RESIDENCE easement line Side: 20 ft. from property line; Side -corner lot: 10 ft. from easement line Rear: 50 ft. from property line STRUCTURES (Site Plan Review required 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). TOTAL 5.7% PROPERTY PRIOR TO DEMOLITION OF RESIDENCE STRUCTURAL LOT COVERAGE (20% maximum) TOTAL LOT COVERAGE (35% maximum) ZC NO. 705 SINGLE FAMILY 15.8% ZONING CASE NO. 705 APPROVED ZC NO. 645 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE (UNDER CONSTRUCTION) SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE/GARAGE, FUTURE STABLE & NEW DRWY Residence 2160 sq.ft Residence 4458 sq.ft Garage 380 sq.ft. Garage 693 sq.ft Stable 0 Future stable 450 sq.ft Service yard 96 sq.ft. Service yard 96 sq.ft Basement 1440 sq.ft 2,636 TOTAL (excl. 5,697 sq.ft sq.ft. bsmt). 12.4% of 46,040 sq.ft. net lot area 19.5% APPROVED ZC. NO. 694 STABLE ONLY STABLE Residence 4458 sq.ft Garage 693 sq.ft Stable 880 sq.ft Service yard 96 sq.ft Pool 0 sq.ft. Covered porch 376 sq.ft. Basement 1440 sq.ft TOTAL 6,503 sq.ft. (excl.bsmt) 14.1% of 46,040 sq.ft. net lot area 22.3% PROPOSED SWIMMING POOL IN REAR SETBACK SWIMMING POOL Residence 4458 sq.ft Garage 693 sq.ft Stable 880 sq.ft Service yard 96 sq.ft Pool 960 sq.ft. Pool equip. 26 sq.ft. Covered porch 376 sq.ft. Basement 1440 sq.ft TOTAL 7,489 sq.ft. (excl.bsmt) 16.3% of 46,040 sq.ft. net lot area 25.5% 1 • RESIDENTIAL BUILDING 34.3% of 7,680 sq.ft. PAD COVERAGE (30% residential pad maximum -guideline) STABLE PAD COVERAGE COMBINED GRADING Site Plan Review required if excavation and/or fill or combination thereof is more than 3 feet OR 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 (min. 450 N/A SQ.FT. & 550 SQ.FT. CORRAL) • STABLE ACCESS ROADWAY ACCESS VIEWS PLANTS AND ANIMALS ZC NO.705 11,640 sq.ft. or 25.3% N/A Existing driveway approach from Eastfield N/A N/A 32.9% of 15,940 sq.ft.building pad 45.0% of 1000 sq.ft. stable pad Combined - 33.6% 1,640 cubic yards cut 1,640 cubic yards fill 21,440 square feet or 46.7%, Variance granted Future 450 sq.ft. stable & 550 sq.ft. corral Access from driveway Driveway to be relocated to the west of existing drwy. off of Eastfield Dr. Planning Commission condition Planning Commission condition 35.3% of 15,940 sq.ft.building pad incl. porch- 25.2% of 3,480 sq.ft. stable pad 33.4% - combined 98 cubic yards cut 98 cubic yards fill (Total: previously approved and current— 1,738 c.y.) 22,320 sq,ft, or 48.6% Variance granted 880 sq.ft. & 550 sq.ft. corral Access from driveway Access from Eastfield, as previously approved Planning Commission conditions Planning Commission conditions 41.5% of 15,940 sq.ft. pad-ncl. porch (39. 1% not inc. porch - porch less than 10% of the size of residence) 25.2% stable 38.5% - combined None 22,320 sq,ft, or 48.6% 880 sq.ft. & 550 sq.ft. corral Access from driveway Access from Eastfield, as previously approved Planning Commission conditions Planning Commission conditions RESOLUTION NO. 2005-21 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL OF A SITE PLAN REVIEW TO CONSTRUCT A SWIMMING POOL AND A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH WITH THE SWIMMING POOL INTO THE REAR SETBACK ON A PROPERTY THAT REQUIRES PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW, DUE TO EXISTING STRUCTURAL DEVELOPMENT RESTRICTION, IN ZONING CASE NO. 705 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 Site Plan Review and a Variance to construct a 960 square foot swimming pool and spa with 26 square foot pool equipment area, both of which would be located in the rear setback at a property where construction of a single family residence was approved in September of 2002 and is currently under construction. 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. The proposed pool was to be located in the side yard below the residence. Later during. the proceedings, the applicants withdrew the application for the swimming pool and requested approval for the stable only, which was granted on May 17, 2005. Subsequently, the applicants submitted a new request for the swimming pool in its current location. 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. A 1,000 square foot area for future stable and corral was set -aside on the lot. The City Council ultimately upheld the Planning Commission's decision of approval. The residence is currently under construction. Section 4 The Planning Commission conducted duly noticed public hearings to consider the request in Zoning Case No. 705 for Variance and Site Plan Review on May 17, 2005, June 14, 2005 and at a field trip visit on June 14, 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, /nn;_Ia nvvr • • analyzed and studied the proposal. The applicants and the applicants' representative were in attendance at the hearings. Section 5. 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 6. Pursuant to Section 17.46.040 the Planning Commission may condition an approval to require site plan review for any future construction on the property, regardless of whether site plan review would ordinarily be applicable to such construction. With respect to the Site Plan Review application due to 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 pool 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 will not require grading nor exceed the disturbed area of the lot, as previously approved. B. The project substantially preserves the natural and undeveloped state of the lot. The proposed pool will be constructed on an existing building pad. The project is of sufficient distance from nearby residences so that the swimming pool 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. 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. An 880 square foot stable was approved and will be built in keeping with City's goals of preserving equestrian uses. 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 project 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. lnnc_ i a Thar ,U F. The project is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. Section 7. 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 17.16.130 is required because it states that every lot in the RAS-1 zone shall have a rear setback of not less than 50 feet from the rear property line. The applicant is requesting a Variance to encroach 30 feet into the required 50-foot rear setback to construct the pool. 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 that do not apply generally to the other property or class of use in the same zone. The lot size and configuration, together with the existing development on the lot creates difficulty in meeting the rear yard setback Code requirements. The subject lot is located on a corner of two streets with a 30-foot roadways easement on one side and 15 foot easement on the other, which substantially reduces the net lot area of the parcel. 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. Strict application of the Zoning Ordinance would deprive the property owner of the right and benefits enjoyed by similarly situated properties in the same vicinity and zone. The encroachment permits the use of the lot to the extent allowed for other properties in the vicinity. The Variance will permit.the development of the property in a manner similar to development patterns on surrounding properties. 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. Development in the rear yard will allow the remaining portion of the lot to remain undeveloped; would minimize grading and would not be visible from neighbors' properties. The structural lot coverage and the total impervious lot coverage are within the requirements of the City. Although the applicants previously were granted a Variance to exceed the lot disturbance (48.6%), the proposed pool will not have any additional effect on this criteria, as it is proposed to be located on a previously disturbed area. The residential building pad coverage exceeds the City's guidelines by 9.7% already. The Building Pad coverage with the proposed pool and spa will be 41.4%, including a porch. Section 8. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves the Site Plan Review and Variance for Zoning Case No. 705 to encroach 30 feet into the rear yard setback with a 960 square feet 11111S_ia nvpr O • • swimming pool and a spa and 26 square feet of pool equipment 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 and landscaping requirements. 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 7,489 square feet or 16.3% in conformance with lot coverage limitations. F. Total lot coverage of structures and paved areas shall not exceed 11,746 square feet or 25.5% 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 previously approved Variance. H. Building pad coverage shall not exceed 39.1% not including the porch and 41.5% including the porch. I. There shall be no grading for the proposed swimming pool. J. Landscaping shall be designed using mature trees and shrubs so as not to obstruct views from neighboring properties, but to screen the pool 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 residence. K. The landscaping plan on file in the Planning Department approved in conjunction with the approval of the residence in Zoning Case No. 645 includes the pool area and shall be in full force and effect. /nns_1a nvPr • • L. Landscaping shall include water efficient irrigation 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. 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. 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. )nnV_ia Tlvpr 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 and 694 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. 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 19th DAY OF JULY 2005. 1; IA ROOOR SOMMER, CHAIRMAN ATTEST: MARILYN 11 KERN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK lMK_ I d ilvrr STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§ CITY OF ROLLING HILLS) I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2005-21 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL OF A SITE PLAN REVIEW TO CONSTRUCT A SWIMMING POOL AND A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH WITH THE SWIMMING POOL INTO THE REAR SETBACK ON A PROPERTY THAT REQUIRES PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW, DUE TO EXISTING STRUCTURAL DEVELOPMENT RESTRICTION, IN ZONING CASE NO. 705 AT 20 EASTFIELD DRIVE, (LOT 83-EF), (DYER). was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on July 19, 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. 1pt] DEPTJTY CITY CLERK 2005-I4 Dyer 7 DATE: TO: FROM: • Cuy 0/reoffins �ae� • 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 19, 2005 HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR APPLICATION NO. SITE LOCATION: ZONING AND SIZE: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PUBLISHED: REQUEST ZONING CASE NO. 705 20 EASTFIELD DRIVE (LOT 83-EF) RA-S-1, 1.47 ACRES (GROSS) MR. & MRS. AARON DYER DOUGLAS McHATTIE, BOLTON ENGINEERING MAY 7, 2005 Request for a Site Plan Review and a Variance to construct a swimming pool, which would encroach into the rear setback at 20 Eastfield Drive. BACKGROUND 1. At the June 14, 2005 adjourned meeting of the Planning Commission, the Commission directed staff to prepare a Resolution of Approval in Zoning Case No. 705. The vote was 4-0. 2. The attached Resolution contains standard findings of facts and conditions, and the condition that any further development on the property be subject to review and approval by the Planning Commission, as directed by the Planning Commission. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2005-21 approving this development. ®Printed on R. ;yrlrrd RESOLUTION NO. 2005-21 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL OF A SITE PLAN REVIEW TO CONSTRUCT A SWIMMING POOL AND A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH WITH THE SWIMMING POOL INTO THE REAR SETBACK ON A PROPERTY THAT REQUIRES PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW, DUE TO EXISTING STRUCTURAL DEVELOPMENT RESTRICTION, IN ZONING CASE NO. 705 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 Site Plan Review and a Variance to construct a 960 square foot swimming pool and spa with 26 square foot pool equipment area, both of which would be located in the rear setback at a property where construction of a single family residence was approved in September of 2002 and is currently under construction. 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. The proposed pool was to be located in the side yard below the residence. Later during the proceedings, the applicants withdrew the application for the swimming pool and requested approval for the stable only, which was granted on May 17, 2005. Subsequently, the applicants submitted a new request for the swimming pool in its current location. 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. A 1,000 square foot area for future stable and corral was set -aside on the lot. The City Council ultimately upheld the Planning Commission's decision of approval. The residence is currently under construction. Section 4 The Planning Commission conducted duly noticed public hearings to consider the request in Zoning Case No. 705 for Variance and Site Plan Review on May 17, 2005, June 14, 2005 and at a field trip visit on June 14, 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, (D_ • • analyzed and studied the proposal. The applicants and the applicants' representative were in attendance at the hearings. Section 5. 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 6. Pursuant to Section 17.46.040 the Planning Commission may condition an approval to require site plan review for any future construction on the property, regardless of whether site plan review would ordinarily be applicable to such construction. With respect to the Site Plan Review application due to 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 pool 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 will not require grading nor exceed the disturbed area of the lot, as previously approved. B. The project substantially preserves the natural and undeveloped state of the lot. The proposed pool will be constructed on an existing building pad. The project is of sufficient distance from nearby residences so that the swimming pool 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. 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. An 880 square foot stable was approved and will be built in keeping with City's goals of preserving equestrian uses. 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 project 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. '(MG_Id rhiPr • • F. The project is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. Section 7. 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 17.16.130 is required because it states that every lot in the RAS-1 zone shall have a rear setback of not less than 50 feet from the rear property line. The applicant is requesting a Variance to encroach 30 feet into the required 50-foot rear setback to construct the pool. 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 that do not apply generally to the other property or class of use in the same zone. The lot size and configuration, together with the existing development on the lot creates difficulty in meeting the rear yard setback Code requirements. The subject lot is located on a corner of two streets with a 30-foot roadways easement on one side and 15 foot easement on the other, which substantially reduces the net lot area of the parcel. 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. Strict application of the Zoning Ordinance would deprive the property owner of the right and benefits enjoyed by similarly situated properties in the same vicinity and zone. The encroachment permits the use of the lot to the extent allowed for other properties in the vicinity. The Variance will permit the development of the property in a manner similar to development patterns on surrounding properties. 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. Development in the rear yard will allow the remaining portion of the lot to remain undeveloped; would minimize grading , and would not be visible from neighbors' properties. The structural lot coverage and the total impervious lot coverage are within the requirements of the City. Although the applicants previously were granted a Variance to exceed the lot disturbance (48.6%), the proposed pool will not have any additional effect on this criteria, as it is proposed to be located on a previously disturbed area. The residential building pad coverage exceeds the City's guidelines by 9.7% already. The Building Pad coverage with the proposed pool and spa will be 41.4%, including a porch. Section 8. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves the Site Plan Review and Variance for Zoning Case No. 705 to encroach 30 feet into the rear yard setback with a 960 square feet 'nns_ia nver • • swimming pool and a spa and 26 square feet of pool equipment 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 and landscaping requirements. 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 7,489 square feet or 16.3% in conformance with lot coverage limitations. F. Total lot coverage of structures and paved areas shall not exceed 11,746 square feet or 25.5% 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 previously approved Variance. H. Building pad coverage shall not exceed 39.1% not including the porch and 41.5% including the porch. I. There shall be no grading for the proposed swimming pool. J. Landscaping shall be designed using mature trees and shrubs so as not to obstruct views from neighboring properties, but to screen the pool 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 residence. K. The landscaping plan on file in the Planning Department approved in conjunction with the approval of the residence in Zoning Case No. 645 includes the pool area and shall be in full force and effect. �MS_lA Dyer • • L. Landscaping shall include water efficient irrigation 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. 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. 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. ,,11n5_1A. nvPr 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 and 694 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. 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 19th DAY OF JULY 2005. ATTEST: MARILYN L. KERN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK ')11(15_ l d IlvPr ROGER SOMMER, CHAIRMAN A CD STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§ CITY OF ROLLING HILLS) I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2005-21 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL OF A SITE PLAN REVIEW TO CONSTRUCT A SWIMMING POOL AND A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH WITH THE SWIMMING POOL INTO THE REAR SETBACK ON A PROPERTY THAT REQUIRES PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW, DUE TO EXISTING STRUCTURAL DEVELOPMENT RESTRICTION, IN ZONING CASE NO. 705 AT 20 EASTFIELD DRIVE, (LOT 83-EF), (DYER). was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on July 19, 2005 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 /11n5-1a nvA,- 7 DATE: TO: FROM: • Ci1yapeoee 9 �aPe 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 JUNE 14, 2005 HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR APPLICATION NO. SITE LOCATION: ZONING AND SIZE: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PUBLISHED: REQUEST ZONING CASE NO. 705 20 EASTFIELD DRIVE (LOT 83-EF) RA-S-1, 1.47 ACRES (GROSS) MR. & MRS. AARON DYER DOUGLAS McHATTIE, BOLTON ENGINEERING MAY 7, 2005 Request for a Site Plan Review and a Variance to construct a swimming pool, which would encroach into the rear setback at 20 Eastfield Drive. BACKGROUND 1. The Planning Commission at the May 17, 2005 meeting scheduled a field visit to subject property on June 14, 2005. 2. The applicants propose to construct a 960 square foot swimming pool with pool equipment, to be located in the 50-foot rear setback. 3. Previously, the property owners proposed a swimming pool in the side yard area, but withdrew that application in order to submit this revised request. 4. In September 2002, the City Council, after taking the 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. A Variance to exceed the maximum permitted disturbed area of the lot (46.7%) was also approved as well as a 450 square foot future stable. The residence is currently under construction. 5. At the May 17, 2005 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission approved a Site Plan and a Variance in Zoning Case No. 694 to construct an 880 square foot stable and to exceed the maximum permitted disturbed lot area, (48.6%). ZC NO. 705 PIng.Comm. 6/14/05 1 0 @Printer) bn Hocycl?d i'► 6. With the approval of the previous applications the Commission and City Council applied a condition to the property that any future development be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission. In addition, swimming pools having 800 square feet or more of surface water require a Site Plan Review. 7. No further lot disturbance will result from the construction of the pool, because the proposed pool will be located on the residential building pad area, which was previously disturbed. 8. No grading is proposed for the swimming pool. 9. The property is zoned RAS-1, and the gross lot area is 1.47 acres. The net lot area is 46,040 square feet. 10. The structural net lot coverage is proposed at 7,489 square feet or 16.3% which includes the residence, garage, service yard, pool, pool equipment, covered patio and the stable, (20% permitted). The total lot coverage including the structures and paved areas, which includes 480 square feet of pool decking is proposed to be 11,746 square feet or 25.5%, (35% permitted. 11. Building pad coverage on the 15,940 square foot residential building pad is proposed to be 6,609 square feet or 41.5%, which includes the proposed pool and the covered patio. Without the 376 square foot covered patio, the residential building pad coverage would be 39.1%. Building pad coverage on the 3,480 square foot stable/corral pad will be 25.2%, as approved in Zoning Case No. 694. The combined coverage is proposed at 38.5%. 12. Water run-off from the pool and pool deck is proposed to be connected to the existing residential drains. 13. The project has been determined to be categorically exempt pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). 14. The Rolling Hills Community Association will review this project at a later date. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission view the proposed project take public input and provide direction to staff. ZC NO. 705 PIng.Comm. 6/14/05 .� • • VARIANCE REQUIRED FINDINGS 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. 705 PIng.Comm. 6/14/05 Zoning Case No. 645 Zoning Case No. 694 Mr. and Mrs. Dyer, 20 Eastfield Drive SITE PLAN REVIEW RA-S- 1 ZONE SETBACKS Front: 50 ft. from front RESIDENCE easement line Side: 20 ft. from property line; Side -corner lot: 10 ft. from easement line Rear: 50 ft. from property line STRUCTURES (Site Plan Review required 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). PROPERTY PRIOR TO DEMOLITION OF RESIDENCE STRUCTURAL LOT COVERAGE (20% maximum) TOTAL LOT COVERAGE 15.8% (35% maximum) RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PAD COVERAGE (30% maximum-ouidelinel STABLE PAD COVERAGE COMBINED SINGLE FAMILY ZC NO.705 PIng.Comm. 6/14/05 34.3% of 7,680 sq.ft. residential pad ZONING CASE NO. 705 APPROVED ZC NO. 645 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE (UNDER CONSTRUCTION) SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE/GARAGE, FUTURE STABLE & NEW DRWY Residence 2160 sq.ft Residence 4458 sq.ft Garage 380 sq.ft. Garage 693 sq.ft Stable 0 Future stable 450 sq.ft Service yard 96 sq.ft. Service yard 96 sq.ft Basement 1440 sq.ft TOTAL 2,636 TOTAL (excl. 5,697 sq.ft sq.ft. bsmt). 5.7% 12.4% of 46,040 sq.ft. net lot area 19.5% 32.9% of 15,940 sq.ft.building pad 45.0% of 1000 sq.ft. stable pad Combined - 33.6% APPROVED ZC. NO. 694 STABLE ONLY STABLE Residence 4458 sq.ft Garage 693 sq.ft Stable 880 sq.ft Service yard 96 sq.ft Pool 0 sq.ft. Covered porch 376 sq.ft. Basement 1440 sq.ft TOTAL 6,503 sq.ft. (excl.bsmt) 14.1% of 46,040 sq.ft. net lot area 22.3% 32.9% of 15,940 sq.ft.building pad incl. porch-35.3% 25.2% stable 33.4% - combined PROPOSED SWIMMING POOL IN REAR SETBACK SWIMMING POOL Residence 4458 sq.ft Garage 693 sq.ft Stable 880 sq.ft Service yard 96 sq.ft Pool 960 sq.ft. Pool equip. 26 sq.ft. Covered porch 376 sq.ft. Basement 1440 sq.ft TOTAL 7,489 sq.ft. (excl.bsmt) 16.3% of 46,040 sq.ft. net lot area 25.5% 39.1% of 15,940 sq.ft.building pad incl. porch-41.5% 25.2% stable 38.5% - combined • GRADING Site Plan Review required if excavation and/or fill or combination thereof is more than 3 feet OR 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 (min. 450 N/A SQ.FT. & 550 SQ.FT. CORRAL) STABLE ACCESS ROADWAY ACCESS • VIEWS PLANTS AND ANIMALS ZC NO.705 Ping.Comm. 6/14/05 11,640 sq.ft. or 25.3% N/A Existing driveway approach from Eastfield N/A N/A 1,640 cubic yards cut 1,640 cubic yards fill 21,440 square feet or 46.7%, Variance granted Future 450 sq.ft. stable & 550 sq.ft. corral Access from driveway Driveway to be relocated to the west of existing drwy. off of Eastfield Dr. IPlanning Commission condition IPlanning Commission condition 98 cubic yards cut 98 cubic yards fill (Total: previously approved and current —1,738 c.y.) 22,320 sq,ft, or 48.6% Variance granted 880 sq.ft. & 550 sq.ft. corral Access from driveway Access from Eastfield, as previously approved Planning Commission conditions Planning Commission conditions None 22;320 sq,ft, or 48.6% 880 sq.ft. & 550 sq.ft. corral Access from driveway Access from Eastfield, as previously approved IPlanning Commission review IPlanning Commission review 4 DATE: TO: FROM: • ei apeoeen$ Jh/ • c"--\ p 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 MAY 17, 2005 HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR APPLICATION NO. SITE LOCATION: ZONING AND SIZE: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PUBLISHED: REQUEST ZONING CASE NO. 705 20 EASTFIELD DRIVE (LOT 83-EF) RA-S-1, 1.47 ACRES (GROSS) MR. & MRS. AARON DYER DOUGLAS McHATTIE, BOLTON ENGINEERING MAY 7, 2005 Request for a Site Plan Review and a Variance to construct a swimming pool, which would encroach into the rear setback at 20 Eastfield Drive. BACKGROUND 1. The applicants propose to construct a 960 square foot swimming pool with pool equipment, to be located in the 50-foot rear setback. 2. Previously, the property owners proposed a swimming pool in the side yard area, but withdrew that application in order to submit this revised request. 3. In September 2002, the City Council, after taking the 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. The residence is currently under construction. 4. At the May 17, 2005 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission approved a Site Plan and a Variance in Zoning Case No. 694 to construct an 880 square foot stable and to exceed the maximum permitted disturbed lot area, (48.6%). 5. With the approval of the previous applications the Commission and City Council applied a condition to the property that any future development be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission. In addition, swimming pools having 800 square feet or more of surface water require a Site Plan Review. ZC NO. 705 Plng.Comm. 5/17/05 ®Printed on Recycled Panel • 6. No further lot disturbance will result from the construction of the pool, because the proposed pool will be located on the residential building pad area, which was previously disturbed. 7. No grading is proposed for the swimming pool. 8. The property is zoned RAS-1, and the gross lot area is 1.47 acres. The net lot area is 46,040 square feet. 9. The structural net lot coverage is proposed at 7,489 square feet or 16.3% which includes the residence, garage, service yard, pool, pool equipment, covered patio and the stable, (20% permitted). The total lot coverage including the structures and paved areas, which includes 480 square feet of pool decking is proposed to be 11,746 square feet or 25.5%, (35% permitted. 10. Building pad coverage on the 15,940 square foot residential building pad is proposed to be 6,609 square feet or 41.5%, which includes the proposed pool and the covered patio. Without the 376 square foot covered patio, the residential building pad coverage will be 39.1%. Building pad coverage on the 3,480 square foot stable/corral pad will be 25.2%, as approved in Zoning Case No. 694. The combined coverage is proposed at 38.5%. 11. Water run-off from the pool and pool deck will be connected to the existing residential drains. 12. The project has been determined to be categorically exempt pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). 13. The Rolling Hills Community Association will review this project at a later date. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission review the staff report, open the public hearing, take public input and provide direction to staff. ZC NO. 705 Plng.Comm. 5/17/05 • VARIANCE REQUIRED FINDINGS A. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances orconditions 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. 705 PIng.Comm. 5/17/05 Zoning Case No. 645 Zoning Case No. 694 Zoning Case No. 705 Mr. and Mrs. Dyer, 20 Eastfield Drive SITE PLAN REVIEW RA-S- 1 ZONE SETBACKS Front: 50 ft. from front RESIDENCE easement line Side: 20 ft. from property line; Side -corner lot: 10 ft. from easement line Rear: 50 ft. from property line STRUCTURES (Site Plan Review required 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). PROPERTY PRIOR TO DEMOLITION OF RESIDENCE STRUCTURAL LOT COVERAGE (20% maximum) TOTAL LOT COVERAGE 15.8% (35% maximum) RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PAD COVERAGE (30% maximum-auidelinel STABLE PAD COVERAGE COMBINED SINGLE FAMILY ZC NO. 705 Plng.Comm. 5/17/05 34.3% of 7,680 sq.ft. residential pad CHRONOLOGY OF PROPOSALS APPROVED ZC NO. 645 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE (UNDER CONSTRUCTION) SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE/GARAGE, FUTURE STABLE & NEW DRWY Residence 2160 sq.ft Residence 4458 sq.ft Garage 380 sq.ft. Garage 693 sq.ft Stable 0 Future stable 450 sq.ft Service yard 96 sq.ft. Service yard 96 sq.ft Basement 1440 sq.ft APPROVED ZC. NO. 694 STABLE ONLY PROPOSED SWIMMING POOL IN REAR SETBACK STABLE SWIMMING POOL Residence 4458 sq.ft Garage 693 sq.ft Stable 880 sq.ft Service yard 96 sq.ft Pool 0 sq.ft. Covered porch 376 sq.ft. Basement 1440 sq.ft TOTAL 2,636 TOTAL (excl. 5,697 sq.ft TOTAL 6,503 sq.ft. sq.ft. bsmt). (excl.bsmt) 5.7% 12.4% of 46,040 sq.ft. net 14.1 % of 46,040 sq.ft. lot area net lot area 19.5% 32.9% of 15,940 sq.ft.building pad 45.0% of 1000 sq.ft. stable pad Combined - 33.6% 22.3% 32.9% of 15,940 sq.ft.building pad incl. porch-35.3% 25.2% stable 33.4% - combined Residence 4458 sq.ft Garage 693 sq.ft Stable 880 sq.ft Service yard 96 sq.ft Pool 960 sq.ft. Pool equip. 26 sq.ft. Covered porch 376 sq.ft. Basement 1440 sq.ft TOTAL 7,489 sq.ft. (excl.bsmt) 16.3% of 46,040 sq.ft. net lot area 25.5% 39.1 % of 15,940 sq.ft.building pad incl. porch-41.5% 25.2% stable 38.5% - combined GRADING Site Plan Review required if excavation and/or fill or combination thereof is more than 3 feet OR 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 (min. 450 N/A SQ.FT. & 550 SQ.FT. CORRAL) STABLE ACCESS ROADWAY ACCESS 11,640 sq.ft. or 25.3% N/A Existing driveway approach from Eastfield SVIEWS N/A PLANTS AND ANIMALS N/A 1,640 cubic yards cut 1,640 cubic yards fill 21,440 square feet or 46.7%, Variance granted 205 cubic yards cut 205 cubic yards fill (Total previously approved and current — 1,845 c.y.) 27,394 sq,ft, or 56.7% requires Variance Future 450 sq.ft. stable & 880 sq.ft. & 550 sq.ft. 550 sq.ft. corral corral Access from driveway Driveway to be relocated to the west of existing drwy. off of Eastfield Dr. Planning Commission condition Planning Commission condition Access from driveway Access from Eastfield, as previously approved Planning Commission review Planning Commission review 98 cubic yards cut 98 cubic yards fill (Total previously approved and current — 1,738 c.y.) 22,320 sq,ft, or 48.6% requires Variance 880 sq.ft. & 550 sq.ft. corral Access from driveway Access from Eastfield, as previously approved Planning Commission review Planning Commission review