Loading...
645, Construction of a new SFR with, Staff ReportsI • • City ol leolling -NA NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 E-mail: cityofrh@aol.com Agenda Item No.: 7A Mtg.Date: 9/23/02 DATE: SEPTEMBER 23, 2002 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL ATTN: CRAIG R. NEALIS, CITY MANAGER FROM: YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR SUBJECT: RESOLUTION NO. 923. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL TO PERMIT GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINIGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE TO REPLACE AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AND A FUTURE STABLE AND GRANTING VARIANCES TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED DISTURBED AREA OF THE LOT AND TO PERMIT ENCROACHMENT OF A RETAINING WALL INTO THE REAR YARD SETBACK IN ZONING CASE NO. 645, AT 20 EASTFIELD DRIVE, (LOT 83-EF) (DYER). BACKGROUND: 1. On August 20, 2002, the Planning Commission approved the above request by Resolution No. 2002-13. 2. On August 26, 2002, the City Council took jurisdiction of Zoning Case No. 645. The Council members were concerned about the proposed exceedance of the disturbed area of the lot and the lack of conditions for landscaping. 3. On September 9, 2002, the City Council conducted a public hearing. Evidence was heard and presented from all persons interested in affecting said proposal, and from members of the city staff. After review and deliberation, the City Council upheld the Planning Commission's decision to approve Zoning Case No 645, but insturcted staff to include conditions for landscaping and landscaping bond, and directed staff to prepare a resolution of approval, which is attached. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 923 approving Zoning Case No. 645. RESOLUTION NO..923 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL TO PERMIT GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE TO REPLACE AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AND A FUTURE STABLE, AND GRANTING VARIANCES TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED DISTURBED AREA OF THE LOT AND TO PERMIT. ENCROACHMENT OF A RETAINING WALL INTO THE REAR YARD SETBACK IN ZONING CASE NO. 645, AT 20 EASTFIELD DRIVE, (LOT 83-EF) (DYER). THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Applications were duly filed by Mr. and Mrs. Aaron Dyer with respect to real property located at 20 Eastfield Drive, Rolling Hills, (Lot 83-EF), requesting a Site Plan Review to permit grading and construction of a new 4,458 square foot residence with a 693 square foot garage and a future stable, a Variance to permit a retaining wall to encroach into the rear yard setback and a Variance to exceed the maximum permitted disturbed area of the lot. A 1,440 square foot basement is also proposed. Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted duly noticed public hearings to consider the application on February 26, 2002, March 19, 2002, and July 16, 2002 meetings and at a field trip on March 11, 2002. The applicants were noticed of the public hearings by a first class mail. Evidence was heard and presented from all persons interested in affecting said proposal and from members of the City staff and the Planning Commission having reviewed, analyzed and studied said proposal. The applicants' representative was in attendance at the hearings. During the course of the public hearings, the Commission requested that the applicant reduce the size of the proposed residence, and conform to the 30% residential building pad coverage guideline established by the Planning Commission. The applicants revised the proposal and reduced the residential building pad coverage to 32.9%. The applicants reduced the originally proposed house by 902 square feet and the garage by 55 square feet. At the July 16, 2002 meeting several neighbors spoke in favor of the project. Prior to the meeting, eight letters from neighbors were received in favor. of the project. Section 3. On August 20, 2002, the Planning Commission approved the application by Resolution No. 2002-13. Section 4. On August 26, 2002, the City Council took jurisdiction of Zoning Case No. 645. The Council members were concerned about the proposed exceedance of the disturbed area of the lot and the lack of conditions for landscaping. • • Section 5. The City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the case on September 9, 2002. The applicants were notified of the public hearing in writing by first class mail and were in attendance. Evidence was heard and presented from all persons interested in affecting said proposal, and from members of the City staff and the City Council having reviewed, analyzed and studied said proposal. At the September 9, 2002 public hearing the City Council upheld the Planning Commission's approval, but requested that conditions for landscaping be added. Section 6. The City Council 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 7. Section 17.46.030 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code requires a development plan to be submitted for site plan review and approval before any grading 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 requesting construction of the new house and garage to replace the existing residence and a future stable, the City Council makes the following findings of fact: A. The proposed development is compatible with the General Plan, the Zoning Ordinance and surrounding uses because the proposed structures comply with the General Plan requirement of low profile, low -density residential development with sufficient open space between surrounding structures. The project conforms to Zoning Code setback and lot coverage requirements. The lot has a net square foot area of 46,040 square feet. The proposed residence (4,458 sq.ft.), garage (693 sq.ft.), service yard and future stable (450 sq.ft.) will have 5,697 square feet which constitutes 12.4% of the lot coverage, which is within the maximum 20% structural lot coverage requirement. A 1,440 square foot basement is also proposed. The total lot coverage including paved areas and a new driveway will be 8,971 square feet, which equals 19.5% of the lot which is within the 35% maximum overall lot coverage requirement. The proposed project is located away from the roads so as to reduce the visual impact of the development. The building pad coverage is proposed at 32.9%, which exceeds the 30% guideline coverage established by the Planning Commission. The disturbed area of the lot is proposed at 46.6%, which exceeds the 40% maximum permitted and requires a Variance. B. The development plan substantially preserves the natural and undeveloped state of the lot by minimizing building coverage because the new structure will not cause the lot to look overdeveloped. Significant portions of the lot will be left undeveloped so as to maintain open space on the property. The nature, condition, and development of adjacent uses, buildings, and structures and the topography of the lot have been considered, and the construction of the new house and future stable will not adversely affect or be materially detrimental to the adjacent uses, buildings, or structures because the proposed structures will be constructed on a portion of the lot which is the least intrusive to surrounding properties, will be screened and landscaped with trees and shrubs which at maturity will not exceed 25 feet in Reso. No. 923 CC 9/23/02 • • height, is a sufficient distance from nearby residences and the street so that proposed structures 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, the natural terrain and surrounding residences. As indicated in Paragraph A, the lot coverage maximum set forth in the Zoning Code will not be exceeded and the proposed project is consistent with the scale of the neighborhood. D. The development plan incorporates existing building pad and preserves a large undeveloped landscaped area of the lot that is compatible with and enhances the rural character of the community. The applicants will remove the existing driveway and landscape it to match the existing contours of the property, therefore, further reducing the impervious surfaces on the lot. E. The development plan follows natural contours of the site to minimize grading and the natural drainage courses will continue to the northeast (towards the streets) of the lot. Grading for this project will involve 1,640 cubic yards of cut and 1,640 cubic yards of fill and will be balanced on site. F. The development plan preserves surrounding native vegetation and mature trees and supplements these elements with drought -tolerant landscaping which is compatible with and enhances the rural character of the community, and landscaping provides a buffer or transition area between private and public areas. G. The proposed development is sensitive and not detrimental to the convenience and safety ofcirculation for pedestrians and vehicles because the proposed driveway of off Eastfield Drive follows natural contours and will require minimal grading. H. The project conforms to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and is exempt. Section 8. Based upon the foregoing findings and the evidence in the record, the City Council hereby approves the Site Plan Review application for Zoning Case No. 645 for proposed structures as shown on the Development Plan dated JUNE 15, 2002, and marked Exhibit A, subject to the conditions contained in Section 13 of this resolution. Section 9. Section 17.16.120 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code requires the side yard setback for every residential parcel in the RA-S-1 Zone to be twenty (20) feet, Section 17.16.110 requires that front yard setback be fifty (50) feet from the roadway easement line, and Section 17.16.130 requires that the rear yard setback be fifty (50) feet from the rear property line. Except for the required rear yard setback under certain conditions, all other required setbacks must remain unobstructed by structures. Sections 17.38.010 through 17.38.050 permit approval of a Variance from the standards and requirements of the Zoning Code when exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applicable to the property and not applicable to other similar properties in the same Reso. No. 923 CC 9/23/02 • S zone prevent the owner from making use of a parcel of property to the same extent enjoyed by similar properties in the same vicinity. The applicant is requesting permission to allow one, not to exceed 3-foot high and 60 feet long, retaining wall to be located in the rear yard setback. With respect to this request for a Variance, the City Council 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 because the lot is irregular in shape and it fronts on two streets, Eastfield Drive and Outrider Road. Due to the double street frontage, much of the area of the lot is in the roadway easements. The remainder of the lot slopes upward from the streets with an existing building pad located at the westerly portion of the lot. B. The Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone, but which is denied to the property in question because due to the existing grade, irregular shape of the property and double street frontage of the property, the placement of the house and driveway require a small cut into the rear yard slope, which requires a retaining wall in the rear yard setback. C. The granting of the Variance would not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the property is located because the wall will be incorporated into the landscaping and will contain planters. In addition, the wall will not be visible from the public right-of-way and will be screened by existing mature trees in the rear. Construction of said wall would eliminate the necessity for any additional grading on the hillside. Section 10. • Based upon the foregoing findings and the evidence in the record, the City Council hereby approves the Variance to permit the construction of a retaining wall that will be located in the rear yard setback, in accordance with the development plan dated JUNE 15, 2002, and marked Exhibit A in Zoning Case No. 645, subject to the conditions contained in Section 13 of this resolution. Section 11. 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 46.6%, the City Council 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. Reso. No. 923 CC 9/23/02 • • 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. Currently only a small portion of the lot has a slope that is suitable for construction. Additional grading and enlargement of this pad is needed to allow construction of a new residence. 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 12. Based upon the foregoing findings and the evidence in the record, the City Council hereby approves the Variance for Zoning Case No. 645 to permit a disturbed area of 21,440 square feet or 46.6%, subject to the conditions specified in Section 13 of this Resolution. Section 13. The Site Plan review request to construct a new house, garage and a future stable approved in Section 8, the Variance request to construct a wall within the rear yard setback approved in Section 10, and the Variance request to exceed the 40% maximum permitted disturbance of the lot approved in Section 12 of this resolution are subject to the following conditions: A. The Site Plan review and the Variances approvals shall expire within one year from the effective date of approval if construction pursuant to these approvals has not commenced within that time period, as required by Sections 17.46.080(A) and 17.38.070(A) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, or the approvals granted are otherwise extended pursuant to the requirements of these sections. B. It is declared and made a condition of the Variances and Site Plan Review approvals, that if any conditions thereof are violated, this approval shall be suspended and the privileges granted hereunder shall lapse; provided that the applicants have been given 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 Code, 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. D. This approval shall be subject to the approval of the soils, geology and geotechnical reports and studies by the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works. E. The lot shall be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the site plan on file marked Exhibit A and dated JUNE 15, 2002, except as otherwise provided in these conditions. Reso. No. 923 CC 9/23/02 • • 4 F. The working drawings submitted to the County Department of Building and Safety for plan check review must conform to the development plan approved with this application. G. The basement shall not exceed 1,440 square feet and all requirements for the basements shall be met subject to Section 17.20.020 of the City of Rolling Hills Zoning Code. H. The future barn shall conform to all of the requirements of Sections 17.16.170 and 17.16.200 of the Zoning Code and be in substantial conformance with the site plan on file marked Exhibit A and dated JUNE 15, 2002. I. Grading shall not exceed 1,640 cubic yards of cut and 1,640 cubic yards of fill and shall be balanced on site. J. Structural lot coverage shall not exceed 5,697 square feet or 12.4% of the net lot area of the lot. K. Total lot coverage of structures and paved areas shall not exceed 8,971 square feet or 19.5% in conformance with lot coverage limitations. L. The disturbed area of the lot shall not exceed 21,440 square feet or 46.6% of the net lot area in conformance with the Variance approval. M. Residential building pad coverage on the 15,940 square foot residential building pad shall not exceed 5,247 square feet or 32.9%; coverage on the 1000 square feet future barn pad shall not exceed 450 square feet or 45.0%. N. The applicant shall remove all asphalt and cement from the existing driveway and return the entire existing driveway to landscaped state to match the adjacent terrain and vegetation. O. 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. P. All graded areas shall be landscaped. Landscaping for the entire project shall be designed using native shrubs and mature trees, which at full maturity shall not exceed the ridge height of the residence, and which will not obstruct views of neighboring properties. Two copies of landscaping plan for the graded/repaired area and a cost estimate for material, labor and irrigation to implement the landscaping plan shall be submitted for review by the Planning Department prior to the issuance of grading permit. Reso. No. 923 CC 9/23/02 el) • • A bond in the amount of the cost estimate of the implementation of the landscaping plan plus 15% shall be required to be posted prior to issuance of a grading permit and shall be retained with the City for not less than two years after landscape installation. After the two-year period, upon the request of the applicant, the retained bond will be released by the City Manager after the City Manager or his designee determines that the landscaping was installed pursuant to the landscaping plan as approved, and that such landscaping is properly established and in good condition. Q. The proposed wall in the rear yard setback shall not exceed three feet in height, in conformance with the Variance approval. R. During construction, any soil disturbance shall preserve the existing topography, flora, and natural features to the greatest extent possible. S. 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, and objectionable odors shall be required. T. During construction, the Erosion Control Plan containing the elements set forth in Section 7010 of the 1998 County of Los Angeles Uniform Building Code shall be followed to minimize erosion and to protect slopes and channels to control stormwater pollution as required by the County of Los Angeles. U. 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. V. 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. W. The property owners shall be required to conform with the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Health Department requirements for the installation and maintenance of septic tanks. X. 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 and run-off facilities. Y. The property owners shall be required to conform with the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Public Works Department Best Management Practices (BMP's) related to solid waste. Z. A drainage plan system shall be approved by the Planning Department and County District Engineer. Any water from any site irrigation systems and all drainage from the site shall be conveyed in an approved manner. Reso. No. 923 CC 9/23/02 c�� • • 4 AA. All utility lines shall be placed underground. The roof material for the new residence and future stable shall comply with the City of Rolling Hills Building Code requirements. The development shall comply with the City of Rolling Hills Outdoor Lighting requirements. AB. The applicants shall pay all of the applicable Los Angeles County Building and Safety and Public Works Department fees, including Parks and Recreation Fees for new residence. AC. A detailed drainage plan and grading plan that conforms to the development plan as approved by the Planning Commission shall be submitted to the Rolling Hills Planning Department staff for their review and approval. AD. 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 "E". AE. The project must be reviewed and approved by the Rolling Hills Community Association Architectural Review Committee prior to the issuance of any grading or building permit. AF. The driveway access to the property shall be from Eastfield Drive. The construction of the driveway shall comply with the requirements of the Traffic Commission. AG. Until the applicant executes an Affidavit of Acceptance of all conditions of the Variances and Site Plan Review approvals, as required by Section 17.42.070 of the Municipal Code, the approvals shall not be effective. AH. All conditions of the Variances and Site Plan approvals that apply shall be complied with prior to the issuance of a building permit from the County of Los Angeles. AI. Notwithstanding Sections 17.46.020 and 17.46.070 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, any modifications to the project or any future construction, which would constitute additional structural development shall require the filing of a new application for approval by the Planning Commission. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 23rd DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2002. ATTEST: MARILYN KERN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK Reso. No. 923 CC 9/23/02 8 FRANK E. HILL, MAYOR PRO-TEM • STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§ CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ) I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 923 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL TO PERMIT GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE TO REPLACE AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AND A FUTURE STABLE AND GRANTING VARIANCES TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED DISTURBED AREA OF THE LOT AND TO PERMIT ENCROACHMENT OF A RETAINING WALL INTO THE REAR YARD SETBACK IN ZONING CASE NO. 645, AT 20 EASTFIELD DRIVE, (LOT 83-EF) (DYER). was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council on September 23, 2002, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following: Administrative Offices. Reso. No. 923 CC 9/23/02 DEPUTY CITY CLERK 9 • City ofieollin9 _AA IIICORPoPtaTEOO JAN : RY 2.f, 19,E NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 E-mail: cityofrh@aol.com Agenda Item No.: 6A Mtg.Date: 9/9/02 DATE: SEPTEMBER 9, 2002 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL ATTN: CRAIG R. NEALIS, CITY MANAGER FROM: YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FOR A SITE PLAN REVIEW TO PERMIT GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE TO REPLACE AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AND GRANTING VARIANCES TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED DISTURBED LOT AREA AND TO PERMIT ENCROACHMENT OF A RETAINING WALL INTO THE REAR YARD SETBACK IN ZONING CASE NO. 645, AT 20 EASTFIELD DRIVE, (LOT 83-EF) (DYER). REOUEST Request for a Site Plan Review for grading and construction of a new single-family residence with a garage to replace an existing single-family residence and a new driveway; a request for a Variance to exceed the maximum permitted disturbed area of the lot and a Variance to permit construction of a 3-foot high retaining wall in the rear yard setback. BACKGROUND 1. The applicants have requested, and the Planning Commission granted a Site Plan approval to construct a new 4,458 square foot residence with a 693 square foot garage and 1,440 square foot basement, and a 450 square foot future stable and Variances to exceed the maximum permitted disturbed area of the lot and to permit encroachment of a retaining wall into the rear yard setback. 2. At the August 26, 2002 City Council meeting the Council took jurisdiction of Zoning Case No. 645. We have attached the information that was submitted to the Planning Commission. 3. Pursuant to City requirements, this public hearing has been noticed in the Peninsula News and notifications were mailed to property owners within a 1000-foot radius of the subject property. ZC No. 645 City Council 9/9/02 1 • 4. The existing house measuring 2,160 square feet with a 380 square foot garage was constructed in 1951, will be demolished. 5. Originally, the applicants submitted a request for a 5,360 square foot residence with a 748 square foot garage. The Commission considered the original application request at the February 26, 2002, and March 19, 2002, meetings and at a field trip on March 11, 2002. The original proposal met the Zoning Ordinance requirements for total lot coverage, disturbed area and structural net lot coverage, but exceeded the building pad coverage guideline by over 15.0%, (45.1%). The Commission expressed concern about the exceedence of the 30% building pad coverage guideline for the proposed project. The Commission suggested that the applicant scale down the project and bring the size of the house closer to the size of the existing homes in the neighborhood and to a maximum extent practicable meet the 30% building pad coverage guideline. 6. The property is zoned RAS-1, and the gross lot area is 1.47 acres, or 64,033 square feet. The net lot area is 46,040 square feet. The subject property is located on the corner of Eastfield Drive and Outrider Road. For the purpose of construction, the net lot area is calculated by taking the gross lot area and deducting all of the street easements plus ten feet along the perimeter of the entire property. Due to the double frontage of this lot, much of the area of the property is deducted from the calculations for net lot area. The property slopes upwards from the streets with an existing building pad located at the westerly portion of the lot. 7. The applicants revised their project reducing the house by 902 square feet, and the garage by 55 square feet from the original proposal, a 1,440 square foot basement was added, the building pad increased, grading increased and a modified grading plan submitted. 8. The applicants are also applying for a Variance from the requirement of 40% maximum permitted disturbed area of the lot. The proposed disturbed area will be 46.6% of the net lot area. Currently 25.3% of the lot is disturbed. An additional Variance is requested to construct a maximum of 3-foot high retaining wall in the rear yard setback. 9. The proposed house will occupy the westerly portion of the lot and will be located away from the streets. The future stable and corral will be located in the rear yard setback, a minimum of 25 feet from the rear property line. 10. The residential building pad is proposed to be 15,940 square feet. The proposed coverage will be 5,247 square feet or 32.9%, (45.1% proposed previously). The existing building pad coverage is 34.3%, which exceeds the City's guidelines. The original proposal showed the building pad at 13,760 square feet. By increasing the size of the building pad and decreasing the size of the house, the applicants were able to reduce the building pad coverage. However, more grading is required to enlarge the pad, which increases the disturbed area of the lot, which necessitates the Variance. Building pad coverage on the future 1000 square foot stable pad, located in the rear will have coverage of 45%. ZC No. 645 City Council 9/9/02 2 11. The proposed structural net lot coverage is 5,697 square feet or 12.4%, which includes the residence, garage, service yard, and future stable, (20% permitted); and the total lot coverage proposed including the structures and paved areas is 8,971 square feet or 19.5% of the net lot area, (35% permitted). 12. Grading for the project will require 1,640 cubic yards of cut soil and 1,640 cubic yards of fill soil, which will be balanced on site. The applicants propose to return the existing driveway to natural state and to landscape the area to match the remaining of the undisturbed lot. Therefore, the existing driveway is not included in the calculations for disturbed area or lot coverage. 13. An existing five-foot retaining wall, located along the side yard setback, will be reconstructed. 14. The proposed driveway will vary in slope from 7% to 20%. Section 17.16.160 of the Zoning Code states that a driveway shall not exceed a maximum grade of 12%, unless otherwise approved by the Planning Commission and the first 20 feet of a driveway shall have a maximum grade of 7%. 15. The Traffic Commission reviewed the proposed driveway approach at their March 27, 2002 meeting and recommended approval with a condition that no trees or tall shrubbery be planted along the driveway. 16. It will be required that the utilities to the house be placed underground, and that all appropriate fees, including Parks and Recreation fees for a new house be paid. 17. The project has been determined to be categorically exempt pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). 18. In addition to the letters of support, which are attached, several neighbors spoke at the July 16, 2002 Planning Commission hearing in support of this project. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council review the staff report, take public testimony and direct staff as appropriate. ZC No. 645 City Council 9/9/02 3 Zoning Case No. 645 SITE PLAN REVIEW II RA-S- 1 ZONE SETBACKS Front: 50 ft. from front easement line Side: 20 ft. from property line Rear: 50 ft. from property line STRUCTURES (Site Plan Review required if size of structure increases by at least 1,000 sq.ft. and has the effect of increasing the size of the structure by more than 25% in a 36- month period). STRUCTURAL LOT COVERAGE (20% maximum) TOTAL LOT COVERAGE (35% maximum) RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PAD COVERAGE (30% maximum -guideline) pad STABLE PAD COVERAGE EXISTING II PREVIOUSLY PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE/GARAGE AND FUTURE STABLE Residence Garage Stable Service yard TOTAL 5.7% 15.8% GRADING Site Plan Review required if excavation and/or fill or combination thereof is more than 3 feet in depth and covers more than 2,000 sq.ft.); must be balanced on site. DISTURBED AREA (40% maximum; any graded building pad area, any remedial grading (temporary disturbance), any graded slopes and building pad areas, and any nongraded area where impervious surfaces exist.) STABLE (min. 450 SQ.FT_ N/A & 550 SQ.FT. CORRAL) 2160 sq.ft Residence 380 sq.ft. Garage 0 Future stable 96 sq.ft. Service yard 2636 sq.ft. TOTAL 14.5% 34.3% of 7,680 sq.ft. residential 11,640 sq.ft. or 25.3% STABLE ACCESS N/A ZC No. 645 City Council 9/9/02 21.6% II CURRENTLY PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE/GARAGE, FUTURE STABLE & NEW DRWY 5360 sq.ft. Residence 748 sq.ft. Garage 450 sq.ft. Future stable 96 sq.ft Service yard Basement 6654 sq.ft. TOTAL (excl. bsmt) 12.4% 45.1 % of 13,760 sq.ft. residential pad 45.0% of 1000 sq.ft. stable pad 330 cubic yards cut 330 cubic yards fill 18,139 sq.ft. or 39.4% Future 450 sq.ft. stable & 550 sq.ft. corral Future access from Outrider 19.5% 4458 sq.ft 693 sq.ft 450 sq.ft 96 sq.ft 1440 sq.ft 5697 sq.ft 32.9% of 15,940 sq.ft.building pad 45.0% of 1000 sq.ft. stable pad Combined coverage- 33.6% 1,640 cubic yards cut 1,640 cubic yards fill 21,440 square feet or 46.6%, which requires a Variance Future 450 sq.ft. stable & 550 sq.ft. corral Future access from Outrider SITE PLAN REVIEW CRITERIA ROADWAY ACCESS VIEWS PLANTS AND ANIMALS ZC No. 645 City Council 9/9/02 EXISTING Existing driveway approach from Eastfield N/A N/A PREVIOUSLY PROPOSED Driveway to be relocated to the west of existing drwy, off of Eastfield Dr. Planning Commission review. Planning Commission review. CURRENTLY PROPOSED Driveway to be relocated to the west of existing drwy. Planning Commission review. Planning Commission review. • • • • 20 Eastfield NEARBY PROPERTIES ADDRESS OWNER RESIDENCE LOT SIZE (SQ.FT.) (NET) 21 Eastfield Lyons/Adams 4,055 55,756 19 Eastfield Cannon 3,530 57,480 18 Eastfield Shoemaker 5,932 88,420 16 Eastfield Gregorio 4,636 84,057 2 Outrider Call 5,560 50,094 22 Eastfield Yoshimura 4,543 56,640 26 Eastfield Harkin 2,098 41,790 1 Outrider Miller 3,372 53,460 3 Outrider Post 2,921 153,370 20 Eastfield Dyer Existing 2,160 ( 54,890 Proposed 4,458 AVERAGE 4,071 60,118 NOTE: 1. The net lot areas shown here are as they appear in the assessors' records and exclude private roads. 2. The above do not include garages. 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. 645 City Council 9/9/02 • Planning Commission City of Rolling Hills Re: Dyer Property — 20 Eastfield Drive Dear Madam and Sirs; rgillVEy CITY OF ROLLING HILLS rs� At the Planning Commission meeting on March 19th, 2002, we asked that the Planning Commission exercise its discretion and allow the pad coverage to exceed the thirty percent guideline. The Planning Commission declined to do so, and consideration of the proposed new home on our lot was continued so that we could attempt to bring the plans within the lot coverage guidelines. During the past months we have been attempting to do so, and have significantly modified our plans in that attempt. While the revised plan still does not strictly conform with that guideline, we believe that certain mitigating factors, as well as the positive aspects of that plan, weigh in favor of an exercise of the Commission's discretion that would allow this home to be built. In that regard, we ask you to consider the following: 1) In the discussions of the enactment of the site plan review that occurred in the 1990's, a comment was made that, during discussions at the time of that enactment, it was decided that those guidelines would not apply to all of the lots in the Eastfield area. We have heard conflicting accounts of those discussions. We have heard that the guidelines were not to be adhered to in the Eastfield area because the lots were of varying sizes and shapes, and were typically much smaller than the rest of the city. We have heard that, because the Eastfield lots were typically smaller, the guidelines were only intended to apply to the properties that were over two acres in size. We have heard that, for similar reasons, the guidelines were only intended to apply to lots that were over one acre in size. We have not yet been able to conclude what the actual intent was. However, the size and the shape of our lot should warrant such special application of the guidelines. Because our lot is located on the corner of Eastifield and Outrider, with the easements as they were increased, our actual net lot area is only 46040 square feet, just barely over an acre. 2) It is difficult to believe that the intent of those guidelines was to preclude a house that will cover only 12.4% percent net coverage of what is a relatively flat lot, and only 8% coverage of our gross lot. The current house already exceeds the 30 percent guideline. According to our architect, without a relaxation of that guideline, with maximum allowable grading, we will be limited to a house of appx. 2300 square feet plus the garage. 3) The current proposal asks for pad coverage of 33.4% of the lot, if the barn is eliminated from this equation we would be at 30% pad coverage. We understand that the barn needs to be calculated as part of the pad coverage, but on this gently sloping lot, the barn is actually designated to be on the large flat pad that is located below the building pad. C�? • • 4) The current plan only requires the movement of 1640 cubic feet of dirt, which is very minor grading. 5) If you look at the attached study of homes, when we replace two homes built prior to 1960 with two nearer homes built after 1960, the average square footage for our area is 4510 square feet on an average lot size of 63,290 square feet, we are requesting a smaller than average house on a larger than average lot at 4,458 square feet on our 64,120 square feet lot. 6) Although this proposal requires we disturb 49.7% of our net lot, we are really only disturbing 34% of our gross lot because of the land we cannot count due to our corner lot and the easements created because of our location. We lose fully one third of our lot to easements. The disturbance of land is very minor and will be returned to lawn as it is now. 7) The corner lot location creates an unusual hardship that a non -corner lot would not have. 8) The current driveway is being moved, eliminating a traffic hazard. This change has already been approved by the Traffic Commission. The existing driveway will be removed, eliminating 1970 square feet of blacktop from the property and returning it to landscape. Our new driveway will take up 1125 square feet and be less visible from Eastfield than the current driveway. 9) The current plans allows for the large lawn area below the house to remain intact and retain the "open space" feeling. 10) The current plan keeps the house on the current pad and does not require pad movement. 11) The new house sits far back from both streets and is tucked into the hillside. 12) We do not intend to seek approval for a sports court. 13) We do not intend to seek approval for a guest house. 14) Most importantly, none of our neighbors oppose the construction of the new house. On the contrary, our neighbors have expressed that, as with the other improvements we have made on our lot, they believe that the proposed house will add to the beauty and appeal of Eastfield and to their own property values. 15) The consideration of our overall topography should also be taken into account. It is understandable that you would not want a large house on a small pad when the rest of the property is unusable and steep hillside, but our entire lot is relatively flat. We respectfully submit that this project meets all of the standards of this community, and that the excess pad coverage should not be a bar to its development. We ask that you permit us to construct the home as it is currently planned. Aar n & Suza # Eastfield Dr' e oiling Hills D \MY DOCUMENTS`.EASTFIELD PROPOSAL 2.DOC Mr. And Mrs. Cole Shoemaker 18 Eastfield Dr. Rolling Hills, CA 90274 April 13, 2002 Rolling Hills Planning Commission 2 Portuguese Bend North Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Dear Planning Commission Members, It has come to my attention that the site plan for the Dyers new home at #20 Eastfield has been rejected by the council due to its size. This is not only a disappointment to the Dyers but to my family and other neighbors as well. Eastfield Drive is finally starting to get some "positive press" as the homes along the drive are being upgraded. Our home was one of the first to replace an old, poorly planned home along the drive. Real Estate folks are starting to recognize Eastfield as a street that will have increasing property values. A 3,500 sq. ft. home at Rolling Hills prices has no resale value unless it is a tear down. The council has been very wise to keep Rolling Hills a rural, natural city with modest homes. The council can continue it's excellent vision for Rolling Hills while allowing new homes to be built to today's size standards. I urge the council to reconsider the square foot allotment to the Dyers as a favor to them and the neighbors and a boon to the city. Looking forward to seeing the beautiful corner at Eastfield and Outrider, Cole Shoemaker Barbara Shoemaker ru“ as LVf/L ern., LLO:MUAM RGI-ILIT V PHLU' VLKUL7 1LL:31f0 F333-0530 P:02 • • t 5 euGsidsri 9ZaaS '- imp 96464 TAM 90274 `Ule' wce utKiti f yolk an, gelid ( the SZ fev 9ami y, oh 20 `t ast4teU 94 wue ,�� it. wilt 6Q to haze a' neap face on, this,c°a"P.v S)taua' exciting,�" in, have continuedto Taal S tine. ue,vsince'this,tamil y !toe molga , Meiy intp/R,uei the Rimy, twin, alt who, d ciue tuf an, a' daily Basis �leeiwp4oprier!, tesi '. ' a 4,900 14, compatak with' the switaandiAq, !tames, and does, not seem, too, zediuusidinavy tad, this, lave paiteet he Cee s, Conlin w, to, keep awc, the Best (dor,,, in, the I' ad to' ea" - M9' t � twat atr a e'. We Sup t7" " this?v.ou "� !ami in, an, thus, MU and welcome them, anti tltei v new, A6orne, in) the neigitio4A4ad fry man* Fa to I* Wank yyow, • April 13, 2002 To: Site Review Board Re: The property located at 20 Eastfield The Dyer's have informed us of their plans to build a new residence to accommodate their growing family. It seems that what they hope to do is compatible with several homes in close proximity. They have done a nice job in updating the existing property on the site and certainly respect the atmosphere for open space and the rural feel we all want to retain in our community. We hope you will consider their requests. Respectfully, ,ire Bev and Jim Post 3 Outrider Road • • William & ,Deena Ruth 21lummingbird Lane Rolling 1-Iiild, CA 90274 To Whom It May Concern: We are writing to offer our wholehearted support to the Dyer Family and their proposed new home. They have been very gracious in sharing their plans with myself and many of our neighbors. We do not feel by any means that a 4,900 SF home on an acre lot is pushing the lot coverage that we all enjoy so much in our city. As you know Eastfield has some of the smaller lots in the city and it seems that some special consideration should be given to address these properties. Let's continue to support those individuals that want to enhance our city and their quality of life, while being considerate to everyone. Please do not hesitate to contact us for any further assistance. Bill & Deena Ruth Family May 6, 2002 City of Rolling Hills 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA To Whom it May Concern: I am a resident of Rolling Hills and live on Eastfield Drive. I would like to express my support for Aaron and Suzanne Dyer's request to build a new home at 20 Eastfield Drive. Our city is a special and wonderful place to live. Having lived on and off in Rolling Hills throughout my whole life, I am encouraged by the improvements residents are making to their properties. With our large lots and ample spacing between homes, I feel there is plenty of room for homeowners to build homes that match the value of the property. A home of approximately 5,000 square feet on a lot of over an acre is not out of proportion. I can think of many houses along Eastfield that are over 5,000 square feet and are not on lots any larger than the Dyer's lot. None of these homes are overbearing and all blend well with the neighborhood. The city needs to consider property values and market demands when reviewing a building plan request from a homeowner. Most who can afford to purchase property in Rolling Hills would also want a grander house than what people built 50 years ago. Keeping the building to lot ratio abnormally small adversely affects property values in our city. I am sure that building a larger house that is within reason will still preserve our privacy and the rural atmosphere of our city. Please consider the Dyer's request for their new , house. Sincerely, Carrie Bond 54 Eastfield Drive Rolling Hills (310)377-2524 Kathleen Tonsich 40 Eastfield Drive Rolling Hills, CA 90274 April 10, 2002 RE: 20 Eastfield Drive Dear Sirs: I would like to voice my support for the construction of a new home at #20 Eastfield. A new home on this very visible corner will add to the beauty of Eastfield. I have reviewed the Dyer's plans and feel that the home will fit in well in the neighborhood. I like the fact that the awkward driveway will be removed and the existing lawn will remain. I'think that special consideration should be given to the fact that they are a corner lot and are having difficulty obtaining a pad within the guidelines. The fact that the entire lot is usable and not a steep slope like so many of the lots in Rolling Hills should be taken into consideration. Sincerely, Kathleen Tonsich Susan Weller 3 Flying Mane Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 April 10, 2002 Dear Planning Commission, My husband and I have owned our home in Rolling Hills for almost 25 years and appreciate the beauty of our community. I am familiar with the Dyer's home at #20 Eastfield Drive as I drive by that property almost daily. I support them being able to constrict a new home on their lot. I feel that a new home will add to the overall appeal of Rolling Hills and especially the appeal of Eastfield Drive. I do not feel that a 4900 square foot home is excessive for an acre and half lot that is very gently sloping. I appreciate them trying to maintain the natural topography of the land by not doing extensive grading. I think it is only fair to give them consideration for the fact that they are on a corner lot and unable to achieve a larger pad for the house. Sincerely, Susan Weller • Dr. Sam Wolinsky 8 Reata Lane Rolling Hills, CA 90274 April 17, 2002 City of Rolling Hills 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Dear Site Plan Review: I strongly support the Dyer's proposal for a new home at #20 Eastfield. I feel the lot is well suited for a new larger home to meet the growing family's needs. A home of 4900 square feet will fit in nicely in the area and add curb appeal. The fact that the home does not need any variances and will maintain the existing topography fits the city's rural plan. I understand they exceed the pad coverage guideline, but guidelines should be adjusted as necessary. Sincerely, Dr. Sam Wolinsky DATE: TO: ATTN: FROM: SUBJECT: • City opeo Pe,.9 INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 E il: cityofrh@aol.com Agenda Item No.:8A Mtg. Date: 9/8/03 SEPTEMBER 8, 2003 HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL CRAIG R. NEALIS, CITY MANAGER YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR RESOLUTION NO. 944. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS APPROVING A MODIFICATION TO CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 923 AND APPROVING AN EXTENSION TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AND VARIANCES TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED DISTURBED AREA OF THE LOT AND TO CONSTRUCT A RETAINING WALL WHICH WOULD ENCROACH INTO THE REAR YARD SETBACK IN ZONING CASE NO. 645 AT 20 EASTFIELD DRIVE, (LOT 83-EF) DYER. BACKGROUND Attached is a request from Mr. and Mrs. Dyer, requesting a one-year time extension for a previously approved request for a Site Plan Review for grading and construction of a new single family residence and Variances to exceed the maximum permitted disturbed area and to encroach into the rear yard setback with a wall, in Zoning Case No. 645 that was approved by the City Council by Resolution No. 923 on September 23, 2002. The applicants state that additional time is required to process the proposal through County departments. If the request for extension is approved, the approval will expire on September 23, 2004, unless work commences on or prior to that date. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council consider the request and adopt Resolution No.. 944 granting the extension. PriI (KI or, Fi+a cv(;I, d f �;+;n Aug 26 03 08:44a RareS. Dyer [3144-3369 p.1 Yolanta Schwartz City of Rolling Hills #1 Portuguese Bend Rolling Hills CA 90274 Dear Ms. Schwartz, Aaron & Suzanne Dyer #20 East -field Rolling Hills, Ca 90274 We would like to request an extension of our approval for construction of our home located at #20 Eastfield. We are currently awaiting permits from the county on our grading but have not yet received them. Sincerely, aron & Suz • • RESOLUTION NO. 944 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS APPROVING A MODIFICATION TO CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 923 AND APPROVING AN EXTENSION TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AND VARIANCES TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED DISTURBED AREA OF THE LOT AND TO CONSTRUCT A RETAINING WALL WHICH WOULD ENCROACH INTO THE REAR YARD SETBACK IN ZONING CASE NO. 645 AT 20 EASTFIELD DRIVE, (LOT 83-EF) DYER. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. A request has been filed by Mr. and Mrs. Aaron Dyer with respect to real property located at 20 Eastifeld Drive (Lot 83-EF), Rolling Hills, requesting an extension to a previously approved Site Plan Review and Variances for the construction of a new single family residence. Section 2. The Council considered this item at a meeting September 8, 2003, at which time information was presented indicating that the extension of time is necessary in order to complete the County of Los Angeles plan check process. Section 3. Based upon information and evidence submitted, the City Council does hereby amend Paragraph A, Section 13 of Resolution No. 923, dated September 23, 2002 to read as follows: "A. The Site Plan Review and Variances approvals shall expire within two years from the effective date of approval if construction pursuant to these approvals has not commenced within that time period." Section 4. Except as herein amended, the provisions of Resolution No. 923 shall continue to be in full force and effect. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 8TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2003. FRANK HILL, MAYOR ATTEST: MARILYN KERN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK Resolution No. 944 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CITY OF ROLLING HILLS) § I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 944 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS APPROVING A MODIFICATION TO CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 923 AND APPROVING AN EXTENSION TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AND VARIANCES TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED DISTURBED AREA OF THE LOT AND TO CONSTRUCT A RETAINING WALL WHICH WOULD ENCROACH INTO THE REAR YARD SETBACK IN ZONING CASE NO. 645 AT 20 EASTFIELD DRIVE, (LOT 83-EF) DYER. was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council on September 8, 2003 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following: Administrative Offices DEPUTY CITY CLERK Resolution No. 944 - 2 - • City AM" INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 E-mail: cityofrh@aol.com Agenda Item No.:4A Mtg. Date: 8/26/02 DATE: AUGUST 26, 2002 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL ATTN: CRAIG R. NEALIS, CITY MANAGER FROM: YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR SUBJECT: RESOLUTION NO. 2002-13. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL TO PERMIT GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE TO REPLACE AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AND GRANTING VARIANCES TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED DISTURBED LOT AREA AND TO PERMIT ENCROACHMENT OF A RETAINING WALL INTO THE REAR YARD SETBACK IN ZONING CASE NO. 645, AT 20 EASTFIELD DRIVE, (LOT 83-EF) (DYER). REQUEST Request for a Site Plan Review for grading and construction of a new single-family residence with garage, and a new driveway to replace an existing single-family residence; a request for a Variance to exceed the maximum permitted disturbed area of the lot and a Variance to permit construction of a 3-foot high retaining wall in the rear yard setback. BACKGROUND 1. The Planning Commission at the August 20, 2002, meeting adopted Resolution No. 2002-13, which is attached, granting the above request to replace an existing single-family residence in Zoning Case No. 645. The vote was 3-1-1 with Commissioner Margeta voting in opposition to the project and Commissioner DeRoy abstaining. 2. The applicants request to construct a new 4,458 square foot residence with a 693 square foot garage and a 450 square foot future stable. The proposed stable would be located in the rear yard, which is permitted. A 1,440 square foot basement is also proposed. ZC No. 645 City Council 8/26/02 o ®Prn1e!1 Un ROCSer:ICd • 3. The existing house measuring 2,160 square feet with a 380 square foot garage was constructed in 1951, will be demolished. 4. Originally, the applicants submitted a request for a 5,360 square foot residence with a 748 square foot garage. The Commission considered the original application request at the February 26, 2002, and March 19, 2002, meetings and at a field trip on March 11, 2002. The original proposal met the Zoning Ordinance requirements for total lot coverage, disturbed area and structural net lot coverage, but exceeded the building pad coverage guideline by over 15.0%, (45.1%). The Commission expressed concern about the exceedence of the 30% building pad coverage guideline for the proposed project. The Commission suggested that the applicant scale down the project and bring the size of the house closer to the size of the existing homes in the neighborhood and to a maximum extent practicable meet the 30% building pad coverage guideline. 5. The property is zoned RAS-1, and the gross lot area is 1.47 acres, or 64,033 square feet. The net lot area is 46,040 square feet. The subject property is located on the corner of Eastfield Drive and Outrider Road. For the purpose of construction, the net lot areas is calculated by taking the gross lot area and deducting all street easements plus ten feet along the perimeter of the entire property. Due to the double frontage of this lot, much of the area of the property is deducted from the calculations for net lot area. The property slopes upwards from the streets with an existing building pad located at the westerly portion of the lot. 6. The applicants revised their project, which was considered and approved by the Planning Commission at the July 16, 2002 public hearing. The proposed house was reduced by 902 square feet, and the garage by 55 square feet from the original proposal, a basement was added and a modified grading plan submitted. 7. The applicants are also applying for a Variance from the requirement of 40% maximum permitted disturbed area of the lot. The proposed disturbed area will be 46.6% of the net lot area. Currently 25.3% of the lot is disturbed. Additional variance is requested to construct a maximum of 3-foot high retaining wall in the rear yard setback. 8. The proposed house will occupy the westerly portion of the lot and will be located away from the streets. The future stable and corral will be located in the rear yard setback, a minimum of 25 feet from the rear property line. 9. The residential building pad is proposed to be 15,940 square feet. The proposed coverage will be 5,247 square feet or 32.9%, which is a reduction from 45.1% proposed previously. Building pad coverage on the future 1000 square foot stable pad, located in the rear yard setback area will have coverage of 45%. The existing building pad coverage is 34.3%, which exceeds the City's guidelines. The proposed construction will utilize to large extent the existing building pad. The original proposal showed the building pad at 13,760 square feet. By increasing the size of the building pad and decreasing the size of the house, the applicants were able to reduce the building pad coverage. However, more grading is required to enlarge the pad, which ,increases the disturbed area of the lot, which necessitates the Variance. ZC No. 645 City Council 8/26/02 • • 10. The proposed structural net lot coverage is 5,697 square feet or 12.4%, which includes the residence, garage, service yard, and future stable, (20% permitted); and the total lot coverage proposed including the structures and paved areas is 8,971 square feet or 19.5% of the net lot area, (35% permitted). 11. Grading for the project will require 1,640 cubic yards of cut soil and 1,640 cubic yards of fill soil, which will be balanced on site. The applicants propose to return the existing driveway to natural state and to landscape the area to match the remaining of the undisturbed lot. Therefore, the existing driveway is not included in the calculations for disturbed area or lot coverage. 12. An existing five-foot retaining wall, located along the side yard setback, will be reconstructed. 13. The proposed driveway will vary in slope from 7% to 20%. Section 17.16.160 of the Zoning Code states that a driveway shall not exceed a maximum grade of 12%, unless otherwise approved by the Planning Commission and the first 20 feet of a driveway shall have a maximum grade of 7%. 14. The Traffic Commission reviewed the proposed driveway approach at their March 27, 2002 meeting and recommended approval with a condition that no trees or tall shrubbery be planted along the driveway. 15. It will be required that the utilities to the house be placed underground, and that all appropriate fees, including Parks and Recreation fees for a new house be paid. 16. The project has been determined to be categorically exempt pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). 17. Several letters in support of this project were received from surrounding property owners, and are attached. Several neighbors spoke at the July 16, 2002 Planning Commission hearing in support of this project. In addition, the applicants submitted a letter for Commission's review. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council receive and file Planning Commission Resolution No. 2002-13, or direct staff as appropriate. ZC No. 645 City Council 8/26/02 3 �J Zoning Case No. 645 SITE PLAN REVIEW RA-S- 1 ZONE SETBACKS Front: 50 ft. from front easement line Side: 20 ft. from property line Rear: 50 ft. from property line STRUCTURES (Site Plan Review required 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). I TOTAL EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE Residence Garage Stable Service yard STRUCTURAL LOT COVERAGE 15.7% (20% maximum) TOTAL LOT COVERAGE (35% maximum) RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PAD COVERAGE (30% maximum -guideline) pad STABLE PAD COVERAGE GRADING Site Plan Review required if excavation and/or fill or combination thereof is more than 3 feet in depth and covers more than 2,000 sq.ft.); must be balanced on site. DISTURBED AREA (40% maximum; any graded building pad area, any remedial grading (temporary disturbance), any graded slopes and building pad areas, and any nongraded area where impervious surfaces exist.) STABLE (min. 450 SQ.FT. & 550 SQ.FT. CORRAL) STABLE ACCESS ZC No. 645 City Council 8/26/02 15.8% PREVIOUSLY PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE/GARAGE AND FUTURE STABLE 2160 sq.ft Residence 5360 sq.ft. 380 sq.ft. Garage 748 sq.ft. 0 Future stable 450 sq.ft. 96 sq.ft. Service yard 96 sq.ft 2636 sq.ft. I TOTAL 114.5% 21.6% 34.3% of 7,680 sq.ft. residential 11,640 sq.ft. or 25.3% N/A N/A II CURRENTLY PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE/GARAGE, FUTURE STABLE & NEW DRWY Residence Garage Future stable Service yard Basement 6654 sq.ft. I TOTAL (excl. bsmt) 12.4% 45.1 % of 13,760 sq.ft. residential pad 45.0% of 1000 sq.ft. stable pad 330 cubic yards cut 330 cubic yards fill 18,139 sq.ft. or 39.4% Future 450 sq.ft. stable & 550 sq.ft. corral Future access from Outrider 19.5% 4458 sq.ft 693 sq.ft 450 sq.ft 96 sq.ft 1440 sq.ft 5697 sq.ft 32.9% of 15,940 sq.ft.building pad 45.0% of 1000 sq.ft. stable pad Combined coverage- 33.6% 1,640 cubic yards cut 1,640 cubic yards fill 21,440 square feet or 46.6%, which requires a Variance Future 450 sq.ft. stable & 550 sq.ft. corral IFuture access from Outrider SITE PLAN REVIEW CRITERIA ROADWAY ACCESS VIEWS PLANTS AND ANIMALS ZC No. 645 City Council 8/26/02 EXISTING Existing driveway approach from Eastfield N/A N/A 5 PREVIOUSLY PROPOSED Driveway to be relocated to the west of existing drwy, off of Eastfield Dr. Planning Commission review. Planning Commission review. CURRENTLY PROPOSED Driveway to be relocated to the west of existing drwy. Planning Commission review. Planning Commission review. • • • • 20 Eastfield NEARBY PROPERTIES ADDRESS OWNER RESIDENCE LOT SIZE (SQ.FT.) (NET) 21 Eastfield Lyons/Adams 4,055 55,756 19 Eastfield Cannon 3,530 57,480 18 Eastfield Shoemaker 5,932 88,420 16 Eastfield Gregorio 4,636 84,057 2 Outrider Call 5,560 50,094 22 Eastfield Yoshimura 4,543 56,640 26 Eastfield Harkin 2,098 41,790 1 Outrider Miller 3,372 53,460 3 Outrider Post 2,921 53,370 20 Eastfield Dyer Existing 2,160 54,890 Proposed 4,458 AVERAGE 4,071 60,118 NOTE: 1. The net lot areas shown here are as they appear in the assessors' records and exclude private roads. 2. The above do not include garages. 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. 645 City Council 8/26/02 6 ti©EIVE Planning Commission City of Rolling Hills a 1W 13 Re: Dyer Property — 20 Eastfield Drive Dear Madam and Sirs; t;ITY OF ROLLING HILLS r:y At the Planning Commission meeting on March 19th, 2002, we asked that the Planning Commission exercise its discretion and allow the pad coverage to exceed the thirty percent guideline. The Planning Commission declined to do so, and consideration of the proposed new home on our lot was continued so that we could attempt to bring the plans within the lot coverage guidelines. During the past months we have been attempting to do so, and have significantly modified our plans in that attempt. While the revised plan still does not strictly conform with that guideline, we believe that certain mitigating factors, as well as the positive aspects of that plan, weigh in favor of an exercise of the Commission's discretion that would allow this home to be built. In that regard, we ask you to consider the following: 1) In the discussions of the enactment of the site plan review that occurred in the 1990's, a comment was made that, during discussions at the time of that enactment, it was decided that those guidelines would not apply to all of the lots in the Eastfield area. We have heard conflicting accounts of those discussions. We have heard that the guidelines were not to be adhered to in the Eastfield area because the lots were of varying sizes and shapes, and were typically much smaller than the rest of the city. We, have heard that, because the Eastfield lots were typically smaller, the guidelines were only intended to apply to the properties that were over two acres in size. We have heard that, for similar reasons, the guidelines were only intended to apply to lots that were over one acre in size. We have not yet been able to conclude what the actual intent was. However, the size and the shape of our lot should warrant such special application of the guidelines. Because our lot is located on the corner of Eastifield and Outrider, with the easements as they were increased, our actual net lot area is only 46040 square feet, just barely over an acre. 2) It is difficult to believe that the intent of those guidelines was to preclude a house that will cover only 12.4% percent net coverage of what is a relatively flat lot, and only 8% coverage of our gross lot. The current house already exceeds the 30 percent guideline. According to our architect, without a relaxation of that guideline, with maximum allowable grading, we will be limited to a house of appx. 2300 square feet plus the garage. 3) The current proposal asks for pad coverage of 33.4% of the lot, if the barn is eliminated from this equation we would be at 30% pad coverage. We understand that the barn needs to be calculated as part of the pad coverage, but on this gently sloping lot, the barn is actually designated to be on the large flat pad that is located below the building pad. 4) The current plan only requires the movement of 1640 cubic feet of dirt, which is • very minor grading. 5) If you look at the attached study of homes, when we replace two homes built prior to 1960 with two nearer homes built after 1960, the average square footage for our area is 4510 square feet on an average lot size of 63,290 square feet, we are requesting a smaller than average house on a larger than average lot at 4,458 square feet on our 64,120 square feet lot. 6) Although this proposal requires we disturb 49.7% of our net lot, we are really only disturbing 34% of our gross lot because of the land we cannot count due to our corner lot and the easements created because of our location. We lose fully one third of our lot to easements. The disturbance of land is very minor and will be returned to lawn as it is now. 7) The corner lot location creates an unusual hardship that a non -corner lot would not have. 8) The current driveway is being moved, eliminating a traffic hazard. This change has already been approved by the Traffic Commission. The existing driveway will be removed, eliminating 1970 square feet of blacktop from the property and returning it to landscape. Our new driveway will take up 1125 square feet and be less visible from Eastfield than the current driveway. 9) The current plans allows for the large lawn area below the house to remain intact and retain the "open space" feeling. 10) The current plan keeps the house on the current pad and does not require pad movement. 11) The new house sits far back from both streets and is tucked into the hillside. 12) We do not intend to seek approval for a sports court. 13) We do not intend to seek approval for a guest house. 14) Most importantly, none of our neighbors oppose the construction of the new house. On the contrary, our neighbors have expressed that, as with the other improvements we have made on our lot, they believe that the proposed house will add to the beauty and appeal of Eastfield and to their own property values. 15) The consideration of our overall topography should also be taken into account. It is understandable that you would not want a large house on a small pad when the rest of the property is unusable and steep hillside, but our entire lot is relatively flat. We respectfully submit that this project meets all of the standards of this community, and that the excess pad coverage should not be a bar to its development. We ask that you permit us to construct the home as it is currently planned. 4 Aar n Suza # Eastfield Drie oiling Hills D:\MY DOCUMENTS\EASTFIELD PROPOSAL2.DOC • APR i 5 22 cry OF ROLIN 1 S ry To: City Plan Review Rolling Hills Homeowners Association 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills,Ca.90274 From: Phil and Jan Kelly 8 Hackamore Road Rolling Hills,Ca.90274 Re:20 Eastfield Road Dear Sir: April 11,2002 As residents of Rolling Hills for over 25 years,we would like it to be known that in our opinion we do not feel a 4900 sq.ft. new home in our area would be undesirable. The Dyer's should be allowed to exceed their pad coverage because of the slight sloping topography of their 64000 sq.ft. corner lot. Please give this alot of consideration because any new additions in this area would certainly make the East side of the hill much more desirable. Mr. And Mrs. Cole Shoemaker • 18 Eastfield Dr. Rolling Hills, CA 90274 April 13, 2002 Rolling Hills Planning Commission 2 Portuguese Bend North Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Dear Planning Commission Members, It has come to my attention that the site plan for the Dyers new home at #20 Eastfield has been rejected by the council due to its size. This is not only a disappointment to the Dyers but to my family and other neighbors as well. Eastfield Drive is finally starting to get some "positive press" as the homes along the drive are being upgraded. Our home was one of the first to replace an old, poorly planned home along the drive. Real Estate folks are starting to recognize Eastfield as a street that will have increasing property values. A 3,500 sq. ft. home at Rolling Hills prices has no resale value unless it is a tear down. The council has been very wise to keep Rolling Hills a rural, natural city with modest homes. The council can continue it's excellent vision for Rolling Hills while allowing new homes to be built to today's size standards. I urge the council to reconsider the square foot allotment to the Dyers as 'a favor to them and the neighbors and a boon to the city. Looking forward to seeing the beautiful corner at Eastfield and Outrider, Cole Shoemaker Barbara Shoemaker APR-11-200Z THU 14:26 ID:RUTH REALTY * PALOS VERDES TEL:310 633-0660 • • P:02 5 Q$utsidav 9 oad 9Tollinty90114,,SE4 90274 ate, uniting, to you, an, dealt at tIto S1 re, 9ami y, at, 20 `t astlieid on, tAis, " it 9ltt°.d. •• at Wow, exciting, it, wilt do to, haute a" t� ►� � ca�.zev Ski zip `Aue v sine -eats, ami 4v has, mooed io, Meet Iwo& can tuned to unyrove the, dew, ',Loin, all wh&dtiue. ity an, a,d,aLifBasis, '6heiiv pwpnaed, residence' at apinatcfrnalAy 4,900 s9 to ca n patihlei wait, the, surrounding, homes, and daee, not, seem, too, extgaoldinoty, tot, this, love, picot c.Eeb's, continue- to keep, oux, city, the' Best, pine,/ in the Iowa to, line, addle ptese',ui+i ru tat at<noophe*e `We, suppazt, this, y4ungy Andy, in, dui/dial, tl ei ' diteanv harms o v tAis, site, and welcomer deem, and thew net w maze, into' the- nei hl o,thaad top maeuy yew to %'had&eau,, a April 13, 2002 To: Site Review Board Re: The property located at 20 Eastfield The Dyer's have informed us of their plans to build a new residence to accommodate their growing family. It seems that what they hope to do is compatible with several homes in close proximity. They have done a nice job in updating the existing property on the site and certainly respect the atmosphere for open space and the rural feel we all want to retain in our community. We hope you will consider their requests. Respectfully, die } 1/45 Bev and Jim Post 3 Outrider Road /15-a-7 APR-11-2002 THU 14:26 ID:RUTH REALTY #F PALOS VERDES TEL:310 633-0690 P:01 • • W �liam & Deena Ruth 2 Hummingbird Lane Rolling Hulld, CA 90274 To Whom It May Concern: We are writing to offer our wholehearted support to the Dyer Family and their proposed new home. They have been very gracious in sharing their plans with myself and many of our neighbors. We do not feel by any means that a 4,900 SF home on an acre lot is pushing the lot coverage that we all enjoy so much in our city. As you know Eastfield has some of the smaller lots in the city and it seems that some special consideration should be given to address these properties. Let's continue to support those individuals that want to enhance our city and their quality of life, while being considerate to everyone. Please do not hesitate to contact us for any further assistance. Bill & Deena Ruth Family May 6, 2002 City of Rolling Hills 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA To Whom it May Concern: I am a resident of Rolling Hills and live on EastfieldDrive. I would like to express my support for Aaron and Suzanne Dyer's request to build a new home at 20 Eastfield Drive. Our city is a special and wonderful place to live. Having lived on and off in Rolling Hills throughout my whole life, I am encouraged by the improvements residents are making to their properties. With our large lots and ample spacing between homes, I feel there is plenty of room for homeowners to build homes that match the value of the property. A home of approximately 5,000 square feet on a lot of over an acre is not out of proportion. I can think of many houses along Eastfield that are over 5,000 square feet and are not on lots any larger than the Dyer's lot. None of these homes are overbearing and all blend well with the neighborhood. The city needs to consider property values and market demands when reviewing a building plan request from a homeowner. Most who can afford to purchase property in Rolling Hills would also want a grander house than what people built 50 years ago. Keeping the building to lot ratio abnormally small adversely affects property values in our city. I am sure that building a larger house that is within reason will still preserve our privacy and the rural atmosphere of our city. Please consider the Dyer's request for their new , house. Sincerely, Carrie.Bond 54 Eastfield Drive Rolling Hills (310)377-2524 • Kathleen Tonsich 40 Eastfield Drive Rolling Hills, CA 90274 April 10, 2002 RE: 20 Eastfield Drive Dear Sirs: I would like to voice my support for the construction of a new home at #20 Eastfield. A new home on this very visible corner will add to the beauty of Eastfield. I have reviewed the Dyer's plans and feel that the home will fit in well in the neighborhood. I like the fact that the awkward driveway will be removed and the existing lawn will remain. I'think that special consideration should be given to the fact that they are a corner lot and are having difficulty obtaining a pad within the guidelines. The fact that the entire lot is usable and not a steep slope like so many of the lots in Rolling Hills should be taken into consideration. Sincerely, Kathleen Tonsich Susan Weller 3 Flying Mane Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 April 10, 2002 Dear Planning Commission, My husband and I have owned our home in Rolling Hills for almost 25 years and appreciate the beauty of our community. I am familiar with the Dyer's home at #20 Eastfield Drive as I drive by that property almost daily. I support them being able to construct a new home on their lot. I feel that a new home will add to the overall appeal of Rolling Hills and especially the appeal of Eastfield Drive. I do not feel that a 4900 square foot home is excessive for an acre and half lot that is very gently sloping. I appreciate them trying to maintain the natural topography of the land by not doing extensive grading. I think it is only fair to give them consideration for the fact that they are on a corner lot and unable to achieve a larger pad for the house. Sincerely, Susan Weller Dr. Sam Wolinsky 8 Reata Lane Rolling Hills, CA 90274 April 17, 2002 City of Rolling Hills 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Dear Site Plan Review: I strongly support the Dyer's proposal for a new home at #20 Eastfield. I feel the lot is well suited for a new larger home to meet the growing family's needs. A home of 4900 square feet will fit in nicely in the area and add curb appeal. The fact that the home does not need any variances and will maintain the existing topography fits the city's rural plan. I understand they exceed the pad coverage guideline, but guidelines should be adjusted as necessary. Sincerely, • Dr. Sam Wolinsky • • RESOLUTION NO. 2002-13 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL TO PERMIT GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE TO REPLACE AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AND A FUTURE STABLE, AND GRANTING VARIANCES TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED DISTURBED AREA OF THE LOT AND TO PERMIT ENCROACHMENT OF A RETAINING WALL INTO THE REAR YARD SETBACK IN ZONING CASE NO. 645, 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. Applications were duly filed by Mr. and Mrs. Aaron Dyer with respect to real property located at 20 Eastfield Drive, Rolling Hills, (Lot 83-EF), requesting a Site Plan Review to permit grading and construction of a new 4,458 square foot residence with a 693 square foot garage and a future stable, a Variance to permit a retaining wall to encroach into the rear yard setback and a Variance to exceed the maximum permitted disturbed area of the lot. A 1,440 square foot basement is also proposed. Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted duly noticed public hearings to consider the application on February 26, 2002, March 19, 2002, and July 16, 2002 meetings and at a field trip on March 11, 2002. The applicants were noticed of the public hearings by a first class mail. Evidence was heard and presented from all persons interested in affecting said proposal and from members of the City staff and the Planning Commission having reviewed, analyzed and studied said proposal. The applicants' representative was in attendance at the hearings. During the course of the public hearings, the Commission requested that the applicant reduce the size of the proposed residence, and conform to the 30% residential building pad coverage guideline established by the Planning Commission. The applicants revised the proposal and reduced the residential building pad coverage to 32.9%. The applicants reduced the originally proposed house by 902 square feet and the garage by 55 square feet. At the July 16, 2002 meeting several neighbors spoke in favor of the project. Prior to the meeting, eight letters from neighbors were received in favor of the project. Section 3. 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 4. Section 17.46.030 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code requires a development plan to be submitted for site plan review and approval before any grading • • 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 requesting construction of the new house and garage to replace the existing residence and a future stable, the Planning Commission makes the following findings of fact: A. The proposed development is compatible with the General Plan, the Zoning Ordinance and surrounding uses because the proposed structures comply with the General Plan requirement of low profile, low -density residential development with sufficient open space between surrounding structures. The project conforms to Zoning Code setback and lot coverage requirements. The lot has a net square foot area of 46,040 square feet. The proposed residence (4,458 sq.ft.), garage (693 sq.ft.), service yard and future stable (450 sq.ft.) will have 5,697 square feet which constitutes 12.4% of the lot coverage, which is within the maximum 20% structural lot coverage requirement. A 1,440 square foot basement is also proposed. The total lot coverage including paved areas and a new driveway will be 8,971 square feet, which equals 19.5% of the lot which is within the 35% maximum overall lot coverage requirement. The proposed project is located away from the roads so as to reduce the visual impact of the development. The building pad coverage is proposed at 32.9%, which exceeds the 30% guideline coverage established by the Planning Commission. The disturbed area of the lot is proposed at 46.6%, which exceeds the 40% maximum permitted and requires a Variance. B. The development plan substantially preserves the natural and undeveloped state of the lot by minimizing building coverage because the new structure will not cause the lot to look overdeveloped. Significant portions of the lot will be left undeveloped so as to maintain open space on the property. The nature, condition, and development of adjacent uses, buildings, and structures and the topography of the lot have been considered, and the construction of the new house and future stable will not adversely affect or be materially detrimental to the adjacent uses, buildings, or structures because the proposed structures will be constructed on a portion of the lot which is the least intrusive to surrounding properties, will be screened and landscaped with trees and shrubs which at maturity will not exceed 25 feet in height, is a sufficient distance from nearby residences and the street so that proposed structures 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, the natural terrain and surrounding residences. As indicated in Paragraph A, the lot coverage maximum set forth in the Zoning Code will not be exceeded and the proposed project is consistent with the scale of the neighborhood. D. The development plan incorporates existing building pad and preserves a large undeveloped landscaped area of the lot that is compatible with and enhances the rural character of the community. The applicants will remove the existing driveway and Reso. No. 2002-13 2 a • • landscape it to match the existing contours of the property, therefore, further reducing the impervious surfaces on the lot. E. The development plan follows natural contours of the site to minimize grading and the natural drainage courses will continue to the northeast (towards the streets) of the lot. Grading for this project will involve 1,640 cubic yards of cut and 1,640 cubic yards of fill and will be balanced on site. F. The development plan preserves surrounding native vegetation and mature trees and supplements these elements with drought -tolerant landscaping which is compatible with and enhances the rural character of the community, and landscaping provides a buffer or transition area between private and public areas. G. The proposed development is sensitive and not detrimental to the convenience and safety of circulation for pedestrians and vehicles because the proposed driveway of off Eastfield Drive follows natural contours and will require minimal grading. H. The project conforms to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and is exempt. Section 5. Based upon the foregoing findings and the evidence in the record, the Planning Commission hereby approves the Site Plan Review application for Zoning Case No. 645 for proposed structures as shown on the Development Plan dated JUNE 15, 2002, and marked Exhibit A, subject to the conditions contained in Section 10 of this resolution. Section 6. Section 17.16.120 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code requires the side yard setback for every residential parcel in the RA-S-1 Zone to be twenty (20) feet, Section 17.16.110 requires that front yard setback be fifty (50) feet from the roadway easement line, and Section 17.16.130 requires that the rear yard setback be fifty (50) feet from the rear property line. Except for the required rear yard setback under certain conditions, all other required setbacks must remain unobstructed by structures. Sections 17.38.010 through 17.38.050 permit approval of a Variance from the standards and requirements of the Zoning Code 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. The applicant is requesting permission to allow one, not to exceed 3-foot high and 60 feet long, retaining wall to be located in the rear yard setback. With respect to this request for a Variance, the Planning Commission finds as follows: A. There are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances and conditions applicable to the property that do not apply generally to the other property or class of use in the same zone because the lot is irregular in shape and it fronts on two streets, Eastfield Drive and Outrider Road. Due to the double street frontage, much of the area of the lot is in the roadway easements. The remainder of the lot slopes upward from the streets with an existing building pad located at the westerly portion of the lot. Reso. No. 2002-13 3 • • B. The Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone, but which is denied to the property in question because due to the existing grade, irregular shape of the property and double street frontage of the property, the placement of the house and driveway require a small cut into the rear yard slope, which requires a retaining wall in the rear yard setback. C. The granting of the Variance would not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the property is located because the wall will be incorporated into the landscaping and will contain planters. In addition, the wall will not be visible from the public right-of-way and will be screened by existing mature trees in the rear. Construction of said wall would eliminate the necessity for any additional grading on the hillside. Section 7. Based upon the foregoing findings and the evidence in the record, the Planning Commission hereby approves the Variance to permit the construction of a retaining wall that will be located in the rear yard setback, in accordance with the development plan dated JUNE 15, 2002, and marked Exhibit A in Zoning Case No. 645, subject to the conditions contained in Section 10 of this resolution. Section 8. 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 46.6%, 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. 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. Currently only a small portion of the lot has a slope that is suitable for construction. Additional grading and enlargement of this pad is needed to allow construction of a new residence. 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. Reso. No. 2002-13 4 OD% Section 9. Based upon the foregoing findings and the evidence in the record, the Planning Commission hereby approves the Variance for Zoning Case No. 645 to permit a disturbed area of 21,440 square feet or 46.6%, subject to the conditions specified in Section 10 of this Resolution. Section 10. The Site Plan review request to construct a new house, garage and a future stable approved in Section 5, the Variance request to construct a wall within the rear yard setback approved in Section 7, and the Variance request to exceed the 40% maximum permitted disturbance of the lot approved in Section 9 of this resolution are subject to the following conditions: A. The Site Plan review and the Variances approvals shall expire within one year from the effective date of approval if construction pursuant to these approvals has not commenced within that time period, as required by Sections 17.46.080(A) and 17.38.070(A) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, or the approvals granted are otherwise extended pursuant to the requirements of these sections. B. It is declared and made a condition of the Variances and Site Plan Review approvals, that if any conditions thereof are violated, this approval shall be suspended and the privileges granted hereunder shall lapse; provided that the applicants have been given 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 Code, 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. D. This approval shall be subject to the approval of the soils, geology and geotechnical reports and studies by the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works. E. The lot shall be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the site plan on file marked Exhibit A and dated JUNE 15, 2002, except as otherwise provided in these conditions. F. The working drawings submitted to the County Department of Building and Safety for plan check review must conform to the development plan approved with this application. G. The basement shall not exceed 1,440 square feet and all requirements for the basements shall be met subject to Section 17.20.020 of the City of Rolling Hills Zoning Code. H. The future barn shall conform to all of the requirements of Sections 17.16.170 and 17.16.200 of the Zoning Code and be in substantial conformance with the site plan on file marked Exhibit A and dated JUNE 15, 2002. Reso. No. 2002-13 5 • I. Grading shall not exceed 1,640 cubic yards of cut and 1,640 cubic yards of fill and shall be balanced on site. J. Structural lot coverage shall not exceed 5,697 square feet or 12.4% of the net lot area of the lot. K. Total lot coverage of structures and paved areas shall not exceed 8,971 square feet or 19.5% in conformance with lot coverage limitations. L. The disturbed area of the lot shall not exceed 21,440 square feet or 46.6% of the net lot area in conformance with the Variance approval. M. Residential building pad coverage on the 15,940 square foot residential building pad shall not exceed 5,247 square feet or 32.9%; coverage on the 1000 square feet future barn pad shall not exceed 450 square feet or 45.0%. N. 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. O. Landscaping for the entire project shall be designed using native mature trees, and which at full maturity shall not exceed 25 feet in height, and native shrubs so as not to obstruct views of neighboring properties. P. The applicant shall remove all asphalt and cement from the existing driveway and return the entire existing driveway to landscaped state to match the adjacent terrain and vegetation. Q. The proposed wall in the rear yard setback shall not exceed three feet in height, in conformance with the Variance approval. R. During construction, any soil disturbance shall preserve the existing topography, flora, and natural features to the greatest extent possible. S. 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, and objectionable odors shall be required. T. During construction, the Erosion Control Plan containing the elements set forth in Section 7010 of the 1998 County of Los Angeles Uniform Building Code shall be followed to minimize erosion and to protect slopes and channels to control stormwater pollution as required by the County of Los Angeles. Reso. No. 2002-13 6 • • U. 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. V. 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. W. The property owners shall be required to conform with the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Health Department requirements for the installation and maintenance of septic tanks. X. 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 and run-off facilities. Y. The property owners shall be required to conform with the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Public Works Department Best Management Practices (BMP's) related to solid waste. Z. A drainage plan system shall be approved by the Planning Department and County District Engineer. Any water from any site irrigation systems and all drainage from the site shall be conveyed in an approved manner. AA. All utility lines shall be placed underground. The roof material for the new residence and future stable shall comply with the City of Rolling Hills Building Code requirements. The development shall comply with the City of Rolling Hills Outdoor Lighting requirements. AB. The applicants shall pay all of the applicable Los Angeles County Building and Safety and Public Works Department fees, including Parks and Recreation Fees for new residence. AC. A detailed drainage plan and grading plan that conforms to the development plan as approved by the Planning Commission shall be submitted to the Rolling Hills Planning Department staff for their review and approval. AD. 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 "E". AE. The project must be reviewed and approved by the Rolling Hills Community Association Architectural Review Committee prior to the issuance of any grading or building permit. Reso. No. 2002-13 7 • • AF. The driveway access to the property shall be from Eastfield Drive. The construction of the driveway shall comply with the requirements of the Traffic Commission. AG. Until the applicant executes an Affidavit of Acceptance of all conditions of the Variances and Site Plan Review approvals, as required by Section 17.42.070 of the Municipal Code, the approvals shall not be effective. AH. All conditions of the Variances and Site Plan approvals that apply shall be complied with prior to the issuance of a building permit from the County of Los Angeles. AI. Notwithstanding Sections 17.46.020 and 17.46.070 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, any modifications to the project which would constitute additional structural development shall require the filing of a new application for approval by the Planning Commission. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 20th DAY OF AUGUST, 2002. 6( EHAN , CHAIRWOMAN ATTEST: MARILYN KERN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK Reso. No. 2002-13 8 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§ CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ) I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2002-13 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL TO PERMIT GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE TO REPLACE AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AND A FUTURE STABLE AND GRANTING VARIANCES TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED DISTURBED AREA OF THE LOT AND TO PERMIT ENCROACHMENT OF A RETAINING WALL INTO THE REAR YARD SETBACK IN ZONING CASE NO. 645, AT 20 EASTFIELD DRIVE, (LOT 83-EF) (DYER). was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on August 20, 2002, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Sommer, Witte and Chairwoman Hankins. NOES: Commissioner Margeta. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: Commissioner DeRoy. and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following: Administrative Offices. DEPUTY CI CLERK Reso. No. 2002-13 9 DATE: TO: FROM: • • City O/ Roffin iff6 INCORPORATED J7 A ANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 E-mail: cityofrh@aol.com AUGUST 20, 2002 HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR APPLICATION NO. SITE LOCATION: ZONING AND SIZE: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PUBLISHED: ZONING CASE NO. 645 20 EASTFIELD DRIVE (LOT 83-EF) RA-S-1, 1.47 ACRES (GROSS) MR. & MRS. AARON DYER DOUGLAS McHATTIE, BOLTON ENGINEERING FEBRUARY 16, 2002 JUNE 8, 2002 REQUEST Request for a Site Plan Review for grading and construction of a new single-family residence with garage, and a new driveway to replace an existing single-family residence; a request for a Variance to exceed the maximum permitted disturbed area of the lot and a Variance to permit construction of a 3-foot high retaining wall in the rear yard setback. BACKGROUND The Planning Commission at the July 16, 2002, meeting directed staff to prepare a Resolution of approval regarding the above request to replace an existing single- family residence in Zoning Case No. 645. The vote was 3-1, with Commissioner Margeta opposing the project. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2002-13, which is attached, approving Zoning Case No. 645. Punted on Recycled Paper. • • RESOLUTION NO. 2002-13 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL TO PERMIT GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE TO REPLACE AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AND A FUTURE STABLE, AND GRANTING VARIANCES TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED DISTURBED AREA OF THE LOT AND TO PERMIT ENCROACHMENT OF A RETAINING WALL INTO THE REAR YARD SETBACK IN ZONING CASE NO. 645, 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. Applications were duly filed by Mr. and Mrs. Aaron Dyer with respect to real property located at 20 Eastfield Drive, Rolling Hills, (Lot 83-EF), requesting a Site Plan Review to permit grading and construction of a new 4,458 square foot residence with a 693 square foot garage and a future stable, a Variance to permit a retaining wall to encroach into the rear yard setback and a Variance to exceed the maximum permitted disturbed area of the lot. A 1,440 square foot basement is also proposed. Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted duly noticed public hearings to consider the application on February 26, 2002, March 19, 2002, and July 16, 2002 meetings and at a field trip on March 11, 2002. The applicants were noticed of the public hearings by a first class mail. Evidence was heard and presented from all persons interested in affecting said proposal and from members of the City staff and the Planning Commission having reviewed, analyzed and studied said proposal. The applicants' representative was in attendance at the hearings. During the course of the public hearings, the Commission requested that the applicant reduce the size of the proposed residence, and conform to the 30% residential building pad coverage guideline established by the Planning Commission. The applicants revised the proposal and reduced the residential building pad coverage to 32.9%. The applicants reduced the originally proposed house by 902 square feet and the garage by 55 square feet. At the July 16, 2002 meeting several neighbors spoke in favor of the project. Prior to the meeting, eight letters from neighbors were received in favor of the project. Section 3. 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 4. Section 17.46.030 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code requires a development plan to be submitted for site plan review and approval before any grading • • 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 requesting construction of the new house and garage to replace the existing residence and a future stable, the Planning Commission makes the following findings of fact: A. The proposed development is compatible with the General Plan, the Zoning Ordinance and surrounding uses because the proposed structures comply with the General Plan requirement of low profile, low -density residential development with sufficient open space between surrounding structures. The project conforms to Zoning Code setback and lot coverage requirements. The lot has a net square foot area of 46,040 square feet. The proposed residence (4,458 sq.ft.), garage (693 sq.ft.), service yard and future stable (450 sq.ft.) will have 5,697 square feet which constitutes 12.4% of the lot coverage, which is within the maximum 20% structural lot coverage requirement. A 1,440 square foot basement is also proposed. The total lot coverage including paved areas and a new driveway will be 8,971 square feet, which equals 19.5% of the lot which is within the 35% maximum overall lot coverage requirement. The proposed project is located away from the roads so as to reduce the visual impact of the development. The building pad coverage is proposed at 32.9%, which exceeds the 30% guideline coverage established by the Planning Commission. The disturbed area of the lot is proposed at 46.6%, which exceeds the 40% maximum permitted and requires a Variance. B. The development plan substantially preserves the natural and undeveloped state of the lot by minimizing building coverage because the new structure will not cause the lot to look overdeveloped. Significant portions of the lot will be left undeveloped so as to maintain open space on the property. The nature, condition, and development of adjacent uses, buildings, and structures and the topography of the lot have been considered, and the construction of the new house and future stable will not adversely affect or be materially detrimental to the adjacent uses, buildings, or structures because the proposed structures will be constructed on a portion of the lot which is the least intrusive to surrounding properties, will be screened and landscaped with trees and shrubs which at maturity will not exceed 25 feet in height, is a sufficient distance from nearby residences and the street so that proposed structures 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, the natural terrain and surrounding residences. As indicated in Paragraph A, the lot coverage maximum set forth in the Zoning Code will not be exceeded and the proposed project is consistent with the scale of the neighborhood. D. The development plan incorporates existing building pad and preserves a large undeveloped landscaped area of the lot that is compatible with and enhances the rural character of the community. The applicants will remove the existing driveway and Reso. No. 2002-13 2 • • landscape it to match the existing contours of the property, therefore, further reducing the impervious surfaces on the lot. E. The development plan follows natural contours of the site to minimize grading and the natural drainage courses will continue to the northeast (towards the streets) of the lot. Grading for this project will involve 1,640 cubic yards of cut and 1,640 cubic yards of fill and will be balanced on site. F. The development plan preserves surrounding native vegetation and mature trees and supplements these elements with drought -tolerant landscaping which is compatible with and enhances the rural character of the community, and landscaping provides a buffer or transition area between private and public areas. G. The proposed development is sensitive and not detrimental to the convenience and safety of circulation for pedestrians and vehicles because the proposed driveway of off Eastfield Drive follows natural contours and will require minimal grading. H. The project conforms to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and is exempt. Section 5. Based upon the foregoing findings and the evidence in the record, the Planning Commission hereby approves the Site Plan Review application for Zoning Case No. 645 for proposed structures as shown on the Development Plan dated JUNE 15, 2002, and marked Exhibit A, subject to the conditions contained in Section 10 of this resolution. Section 6. Section 17.16.120 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code requires the side yard setback for every residential parcel in the RA-S-1 Zone to be twenty (20) feet, Section 17.16.110 requires that front yard setback be fifty (50) feet from the roadway easement line, and Section 17.16.130 requires that the rear yard setback be fifty (50) feet from the rear property line. Except for the required rear yard setback under certain conditions, all other required setbacks must remain unobstructed by structures. Sections 17.38.010 through 17.38.050 permit approval of a Variance from the standards and requirements of the Zoning Code 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. The applicant is requesting permission to allow one, not to exceed 3-foot high and 60 feet long, retaining wall to be located in the rear yard setback. With respect to this request for a Variance, the Planning Commission finds as follows: A. There are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances and conditions applicable to the property that do not apply generally to the other property or class of use in the same zone because the lot is irregular in shape and it fronts on two streets, Eastfield Drive and Outrider Road. Due to the double street frontage, much of the area of the lot is in the roadway easements. The remainder of the lot slopes upward from the streets with an existing building pad located at the westerly portion of the lot. Reso. No. 2002-13 3 • • B. The Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone, but which is denied to the property in question because due to the existing grade, irregular shape of the property and double street frontage of the property, the placement of the house and driveway require a small cut into the rear yard slope, which requires a retaining wall in the rear yard setback. C. The granting of the Variance would not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the property is located because the wall will be incorporated into the landscaping and will contain planters. In addition, the wall will not be visible from the public right-of-way and will be screened by existing mature trees in the rear. Construction of said wall would eliminate the necessity for any additional grading on the hillside. Section 7. Based upon the foregoing findings and the evidence in the record, the Planning Commission hereby approves the Variance to permit the construction of a retaining wall that will be located in the rear yard setback, in accordance with the development plan dated JUNE 15, 2002, and marked Exhibit A in Zoning Case No. 645, subject to the conditions contained in Section 10 of this resolution. Section 8. 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 46.6%, 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. 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. Currently only a small portion of the lot has a slope that is suitable for construction. Additional grading and enlargement of this pad is needed to allow construction of a new residence. 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. Reso. No. 2002-13 4 • • Section 9. Based upon the foregoing findings and the evidence in the record, the Planning Commission hereby approves the Variance for Zoning Case No. 645 to permit a disturbed area of 21,440 square feet or 46.6%, subject to the conditions specified in Section 10 of this Resolution. Section 10. The Site Plan review request to construct a new house, garage and a future stable approved in Section 5, the Variance request to construct a wall within the rear yard setback approved in Section 7, and the Variance request to exceed the 40% maximum permitted disturbance of the lot approved in Section 9 of this resolution are subject to the following conditions: A. The Site Plan review and the Variances approvals shall expire within one year from the effective date of approval if construction pursuant to these approvals has not commenced within that time period, as required by Sections 17.46.080(A) and 17.38.070(A) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, or the approvals granted are otherwise extended pursuant to the requirements of these sections. B. It is declared and made a condition of the Variances and Site Plan Review approvals, that if any conditions thereof are violated, this approval shall be suspended and the privileges granted hereunder shall lapse; provided that the applicants have been given 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 Code, 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. D. This approval shall be subject to the approval of the soils, geology and geotechnical reports and studies by the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works. E. The lot shall be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the site plan on file marked Exhibit A and dated JUNE 15, 2002, except as otherwise provided in these conditions. F. The working drawings submitted to the County Department of Building and Safety for plan check review must conform to the development plan approved with this application. G. The basement shall not exceed 1,440 square feet and all requirements for the basements shall be met subject to Section 17.20.020 of the City of Rolling Hills Zoning Code. H. The future barn shall conform to all of the requirements of Sections 17.16.170 and 17.16.200 of the Zoning Code and be in substantial conformance with the site plan on file marked Exhibit A and dated JUNE 15, 2002. Reso. No. 2002-13 5 • I. Grading shall not exceed 1,640 cubic yards of cut and 1,640 cubic yards of fill and shall be balanced on site. J. Structural lot coverage shall not exceed 5,697 square feet or 12.4% of the net lot area of the lot. K. Total lot coverage of structures and paved areas shall not exceed 8,971 square feet or 19.5% in conformance with lot coverage limitations. L. The disturbed area of the lot shall not exceed 21,440 square feet or 46.6% of the net lot area in conformance with the Variance approval. M. Residential building pad coverage on the 15,940 square foot residential building pad shall not exceed 5,247 square feet or 32.9%; coverage on the 1000 square feet future barn pad shall not exceed 450 square feet or 45.0%. N. 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. O. Landscaping for the entire project shall be designed using native mature trees, and which at full maturity shall not exceed 25 feet in height, and native shrubs so as not to obstruct views of neighboring properties. P. The applicant shall remove all asphalt and cement from the existing driveway and return the entire existing driveway to landscaped state to match the adjacent terrain and vegetation. Q. The proposed wall in the rear yard setback shall not exceed three feet in height, in conformance with the Variance approval. R. During construction, any soil disturbance shall preserve the existing topography, flora, and natural features to the greatest extent possible. S. 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, and objectionable odors shall be required. T. During construction, the Erosion Control Plan containing the elements set forth in Section 7010 of the 1998 County of Los Angeles Uniform Building Code shall be followed to minimize erosion and to protect slopes and channels to control stormwater pollution as required by the County of Los Angeles. Reso. No. 2002-13 6 • • U. 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. V. 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. W. The property owners shall be required to conform with the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Health Department requirements for the installation and maintenance of septic tanks. X. 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 and run-off facilities. Y. The property owners shall be required to conform with the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Public Works Department Best Management Practices (BMP's) related to solid waste. Z. A drainage plan system shall be approved by the Planning Department and County District Engineer. Any water from any site irrigation systems and all drainage from the site shall be conveyed in an approved manner. AA. All utility lines shall be placed underground. The roof material for the new residence and future stable shall comply with the City of Rolling Hills Building Code requirements. The development shall comply with the City of Rolling Hills Outdoor Lighting requirements. AB. The applicants shall pay all of the applicable Los Angeles County Building and Safety and Public Works Department fees, including Parks and Recreation Fees for new residence. AC. A detailed drainage plan and grading plan that conforms to the development plan as approved by the Planning Commission shall be submitted to the Rolling Hills Planning Department staff for their review and approval. AD. 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 "E". AE. The project must be reviewed and approved by the Rolling Hills Community Association Architectural Review Committee prior to the issuance of any grading or building permit. Reso. No. 2002-13 7 • • AF. The driveway access to the property shall be from Eastfield Drive. The construction of the driveway shall comply with the requirements of the Traffic Commission. AG. Until the applicant executes an Affidavit of Acceptance of all conditions of the Variances and Site Plan Review approvals, as required by Section 17.42.070 of the Municipal Code, the approvals shall not be effective. AH. All conditions of the Variances and Site Plan approvals that apply shall be complied with prior to the issuance of a building permit from the County of Los Angeles. AI. Notwithstanding Sections 17.46.020 and 17.46.070 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, any modifications to the project which would constitute additional structural development shall require the filing of a new application for approval by the Planning Commission. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 20th DAY OF AUGUST, 2002. EVIE HANKINS, CHAIRWOMAN ATTEST: MARILYN KERN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK Reso. No. 2002-13 8 • • STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CITY OF ROLLING HILLS I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2002-13 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL TO PERMIT GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE TO REPLACE AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AND A FUTURE STABLE AND GRANTING VARIANCES TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED DISTURBED AREA OF THE LOT AND TO PERMIT ENCROACHMENT OF A RETAINING WALL INTO THE REAR YARD SETBACK IN ZONING CASE NO. 645, AT 20 EASTFIELD DRIVE, (LOT 83-EF) (DYER). was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on August 20, 2002, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following: Administrative Offices. DEPUTY CITY CLERK Reso. No. 2002-13 9 DATE: TO: FROM: • S12. • City 0/ /eO//LZ INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 JULY 16, 2002 HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR APPLICATION NO. SITE LOCATION: ZONING AND SIZE: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PUBLISHED: NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 E-mail: cityofrh@aol.com ZONING CASE NO. 645 (Revised) 20 EASTFIELD DRIVE (LOT 83-EF) RA-S-1, 1.47 ACRES (GROSS) MR. & MRS. AARON DYER DOUGLAS McHATTIE, BOLTON ENGINEERING FEBRUARY 16, 2002 JUNE 8, 2002 REOUEST Request for a Site Plan Review for grading and construction of a new single-family residence with garage, and a new driveway to replace an existing single-family residence; a request for a Variance to exceed the maximum permitted disturbed area of the lot and a Variance to permit construction of a 3-foot high retaining wall in the rear yard setback. BACKGROUND 1. The Planning Commission considered this application request at their February 26, 2002, March 19, 2002 meetings and at a field trip on March 11, 2002. The Commission expressed concern about the exceedence of the. 30% buildable pad coverage guideline for the proposed project. The Commission suggested that the applicant scale down the project and bring the size of the house closer to the size of the existing homes in the neighborhood and to a maximum extent practicable meet the 30% buildable pad coverage guideline. 2. Following the field trip, the applicants requested continuance of this case to the June 18th, 2002 Planning Commission meeting. Prior to the June meeting, the applicants requested continuation of their case to tonight's meeting. 3. The applicants have revised their proposal and are currently requesting to construct a new 4,458 square foot residence with a 693 square foot garage and a 450 square foot future stable. The proposed stable would be located in the rear yard, which is permitted. A 1,440 square foot basement is also proposed. The house will be reduced by 902 square feet, and the garage by 55 square feet from the original proposal. 4. The applicants are also applying for a Variance from the requirement of 40% maximum permitted disturbed area of the lot. The proposed disturbed area will be ZC NO. 645 Revised Plng.Comm. 7/16/02 1 Printed on Recycled Paper. • • 46.6% of the net lot area. Currently 25.3% of the lot is disturbed. Additional variance is requested to construct a maximum of 3-foot high retaining wall in the rear yard setback. Both Variance requests were triggered by the creation of a larger building pad area. 5. The existing house measuring 2,160 square feet with a 380 square foot garage was constructed in 1951, will be demolished. 6. The proposed house will occupy the westerly portion of the lot and will be located away from the streets. The future stable and corral will be located in the rear yard setback, a minimum of 25 feet from the rear property line. 7. The property is zoned RAS-1, and the gross lot area is 1.47 acres. The net lot area is 46,040 square feet. The applicant's representative is proposing to increase the residential pad area to 15,940 square feet, (an increase of 2,180 square feet from the previous proposal) and the stable/corral pad is proposed at 1,000 square feet. 8. The proposed structural net lot coverage is 5,697 square feet or 12.4%, which includes the residence, garage, service yard, and future stable, (20% permitted); and the total lot coverage proposed including the structures and paved areas is 8,971 square feet or 19.5% of the net lot area, (35% permitted). 9. Building pad coverage on the 15,940 square foot residential building pad is proposed at 5,247 square feet or 32.9%, which is a reduction from 45.1% proposed previously. Building pad coverage on the future 1000 square foot stable pad, located in the rear yard setback area will have coverage of 45%. The existing building pad coverage is 34.3%, which exceeds the City's guidelines. The proposed construction will utilize to large extent the existing building pad. 10. Grading for the project will require 1,640 cubic yards of cut soil and 1,640 cubic yards of fill soil, which will be balanced on site. The applicants propose to return the existing driveway to natural state and to landscape the area to match the remaining of the undisturbed lot. Therefore, the existing driveway is not included in the calculations for disturbed area or lot coverage. 11. An existing five-foot retaining wall, located along the side yard setback, will be reconstructed. 12. The proposed driveway will vary in slope from 7% to 20%. Section 17.16.160 of the Zoning Code states that a driveway shall not exceed a maximum grade of 12%, unless otherwise approved by the Planning Commission and the first 20 feet of a driveway shall have a maximum grade of 7%. The applicant is requesting that the proposed driveway be approved as submitted. 13. The Traffic Commission reviewed the proposed driveway approach at their March 27, 2002 meeting and recommended approval with a condition that no trees or tall shrubbery be planted along the driveway. 14. It will be required that the utilities to the house be placed underground, and that all appropriate fees, including Parks and Recreation fees be paid. ZC NO. 645 Revised Plng.Comm. 7/16/02 2 • • 15. The project has been determined to be categorically exempt pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). 16. Several letters in support of this project were received from surrounding property owners, and are attached. In addition, the applicants submitted a letter for Commission's review. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission review the revised site plan and the staff report and direct staff as appropriate. ZC NO. 645 Revised Plng.Comm. 7/16/02 3 Zoning Case No. 645 SITE PLAN REVIEW RA-S- 1 ZONE SETBACKS Front: 50 ft. from front easement line Side: 20 ft. from property line Rear: 50 ft. from property line STRUCTURES (Site Plan Review required if size of structure increases by at least 1,000 sq.ft. and has the effect of increasing the size of the structure by more than 25% in a 36- month period). STRUCTURAL LOT COVERAGE (20% maximum) TOTAL LOT COVERAGE (35% maximum) RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PAD COVERAGE (30% maximum -guideline) pad STABLE PAD COVERAGE II EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE Residence Garage Stable Service yard TOTAL 5.7% 15.8% GRADING Site Plan Review required if excavation and/or fill or combination thereof is more than 3 feet in depth and covers more than 2,000 sq.ft.); must be balanced on site. DISTURBED AREA (40% maximum; any graded building pad area, any remedial grading (temporary disturbance), any graded slopes and building pad areas, and any nongraded area where impervious surfaces exist.) STABLE (min. 450 SQ.FT. N/A & 550 SQ.FT. CORRAL) II PREVIOUSLY PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE/GARAGE AND FUTURE STABLE 2160 sq.ft Residence 380 sq.ft. Garage 0 Future stable 96 sq.ft. Service yard 2636 sq.ft. TOTAL 14.5% 34.3% of 7,680 sq.ft. residential 11,640 sq.ft. or 25.3% STABLE ACCESS N/A ZC NO. 645 Revised Plng.Comm. 7/16/02 21.6% 5360 sq.ft. 748 sq.ft. 450 sq.ft. 96 sq.ft 6654 sq.ft. II CURRENTLY PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE/GARAGE, FUTURE STABLE & NEW DRWY Residence Garage Future stable Service yard Basement TOTAL (excl. bsmt) 12.4% 19.5% 4458 sq.ft 693 sq.ft 450 sq.ft 96 sq.ft 1440 sq.ft 5697 sq.ft 45.1% of 13,760 sq.ft. residential pad 32.9% of 15,940 sq.ft.building pad 45.0% of 1000 sq.ft. stable pad 330 cubic yards cut 330 cubic yards fill 18,139 sq.ft. or 39.4% 45.0% of 1000 sq.ft. stable pad Combined coverage- 33.6% 1,640 cubic yards cut 1,640 cubic yards fill 21,440 square feet or 46.6%, which requires a Variance Future 450 sq.ft. stable & 550 sq.ft. Future 450 sq.ft. stable & 550 sq.ft. corral corral Future access from Outrider Future access from Outrider • • SITE PLAN REVIEW CRITERIA ROADWAY ACCESS VIEWS PLANTS AND ANIMALS ZC NO. 645 Revised Plng.Comm. 7/16/02 EXISTING Existing driveway approach from Eastfield N/A N/A PREVIOUSLY PROPOSED Driveway to be relocated to the west of existing drwy, off of Eastfield Dr. Planning Commission review. Planning Commission review. CURRENTLY PROPOSED Driveway to be relocated to the west of existing drwy. Planning Commission review. Planning Commission review. r • 20 Eastfield NEARBY PROPERTIES ADDRESS OWNER RESIDENCE LOT SIZE (SQ.FT.) (NET) 21 Eastfield Lyons/Adams 4,055 55,756 19 Eastfield Cannon 3,530 57,480 18 Eastfield Shoemaker 5,932 88,420 16 Eastfield Gregorio 4,636 84,057 2 Outrider Call 5,560 50,094 22 Eastfield Yoshimura 4,543 56,640 26 Eastfield Harkin 2,098 41,790 1 Outrider Miller 3,372 53,460 3 Outrider Post 2,921 53,370 20 Eastfield Dyer Existing 2,160 54,890 Proposed 4,458 AVERAGE 4,071 60,118 NOTE: 1. The net lot areas shown here are as they appear in the assessors' records and exclude private roads. 2. The above do not include garages. 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. 645 Revised Plng.Comm. 7/16/02 6 �GHII �°� is It, •fir `f % DATE: TO: FROM: Cu• y op2 ffi..y JUNE 18, 2002 HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 APPLICATION NO. SITE LOCATION: ZONING AND SIZE: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PUBLISHED: NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 E-mail: cityofrh@aol.com ZONING CASE NO. 645 (Revised) 20 EASTFIELD DRIVE (LOT 83-EF) RA-S-1, 1.47 ACRES (GROSS) MR. & MRS. AARON DYER DOUGLAS McHATTIE, BOLTON ENGINEERING FEBRUARY 16, 2002 JUNE 8, 2002 REQUEST Request for a Site Plan Review for grading and construction of a new single-family residence with garage, and a new driveway to replace an existing single-family residence, a request for a Variance to exceed the maximum permitted disturbed area of the lot and a Variance to permit construction of a 3-foot high retaining wall in the rear yard setback. BACKGROUND 1. The Planning Commission considered this application request at their February 26, 2002, March 19, 2002 meetings and at a field trip on March 11, 2002. The Commission expressed concern about the exceedence of the 30% buildable pad coverage guideline for the proposed project. The Commission suggested that the applicant scale down the project and bring the size of the house closer to the size of the existing homes in the neighborhood 2. Following the field trip, the applicants requested continuance of this case to the June 18th, 2002 Planning Commission meeting. 3. The Traffic Commission reviewed the proposed driveway approach at their March 27, 2002 meeting and recommended approval with a condition that no trees or tall shrubbery be planted along the driveway. 4. The applicants have revised their proposal and are currently requesting to construct a new 4,458 square foot residence with a 693 square foot garage and a 450 square foot future stable. The proposed stable would be located in the rear yard, which is permitted. A 1,440 square foot basement is also proposed. The house will be reduced by 902 square feet, and the garage by 55 square feet from the original proposal. ZC NO. 645 Revised Plng.Comm. 6/18/02 1 %a Printed on Recycled Paper. • 5. The applicants are also applying for a Variance from the requirement of 40% maximum permitted disturbed area of the lot. Currently 25.3% of the lot is disturbed. The proposed disturbance will be at 46.6%. Additional variance is requested to construct a maximum of 3-foot retaining wall in the rear yard setback. 6. The existing house measuring 2,160 square feet with a 380 square foot garage was constructed in 1951, will be demolished. 7. The proposed house will occupy the westerly portion of the lot and will be located away from the streets. The future stable and corral will be located in the rear yard setback, a minimum of 25 feet from the rear property line. 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. The applicant's representative is proposing to increase the residential pad area to 15,940 square feet, (an increase of 2,180 square feet from the previous proposal) and the stable/corral pad is proposed at 1,000 square feet. In order to create a larger pad size, it is necessary to do more grading and to disturb more of the lot than previously proposed. In addition, a 3-foot retaining wall is proposed along the building pad in the rear yard setback. 9. The structural net lot coverage proposed is 5,697 square feet or 12.4%, which includes the residence, garage, service yard, and future stable, (20% permitted); and the total lot coverage proposed including the structures and paved areas is 8,971 square feet or 19.5% of the net lot area, (35% permitted). 10. Building pad coverage on the 15,940 square foot residential building pad is proposed at 5,247 square feet or 32.9%, which is a reduction from 45.1% proposed . previously. Building pad coverage on the future 1000 square foot stable pad, located in the rear yard setback area will have coverage of 45%. The existing building pad coverage is 34.3%, which exceeds the City's guidelines. The proposed construction will utilize to large extent the existing building pad. 11. Grading for the project will require 1,640 cubic yards of cut soil and 1,640 cubic yards of fill soil, which will be balanced on site. The disturbed area of the lot will be 21,440 square feet or 46.6% of the net lot area, which requires a Variance. The applicants propose to return the existing driveway to natural state and to landscape the area to match the remaining of the undisturbed lot. Therefore, the existing driveway is not included in the calculations for disturbed area or lot coverage. 12. An existing five-foot retaining wall, located along the side yard setback, will be reconstructed. 13. The proposed driveway will vary in slope from 7% to 20%. Section 17.16.160 of the Zoning Code states that a driveway shall not exceed a maximum grade of 12%, unless otherwise approved by the Planning Commission and the first 20 feet of a driveway shall have a maximum grade of 7%. The applicant is requesting that the proposed driveway be approved as submitted. 14. It will be required that the utilities to the house be placed underground, and that all appropriate fees, including Parks and Recreation fees be paid. ZC NO. 645 Revised Plng.Comm. 6/18/02 2 • • 15. The project has been determined to be categorically exempt pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission review the revised site plan and the staff report and direct staff as appropriate ZC NO. 645 Revised Plng.Comm. 6/18/02 3 Zoning Case No. 645 SITE PLAN REVIEW RA-S- 1 ZONE SETBACKS Front: 50 ft. from front easement line Side: 20 ft. from property line Rear: 50 ft. from property line STRUCTURES (Site Plan Review required if size of structure increases by at least 1,000 sq.ft. and has the effect of increasing the size of the structure by more than 25% in a 36- month period). STRUCTURAL LOT COVERAGE (20% maximum) TOTAL LOT COVERAGE (35% maximum) RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PAD COVERAGE (30% maximum -guideline) pad STABLE PAD COVERAGE GRADING Site Plan Review required if excavation and/or fill or combination thereof is more than 3 feet in depth and covers more than 2,000 sq.ft.); must be balanced on site. DISTURBED AREA (40% maximum; any graded building pad area, any remedial grading (temporary disturbance), any graded slopes and building pad areas, and any nongraded area where impervious surfaces exist.) STABLE (min. 450 SQ.FT. N/A & 550 SQ.FT. CORRAL) EXISTING PREVIOUSLY PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE/GARAGE AND FUTURE STABLE Residence Garage Stable Service yard TOTAL 5.7% 15.8% 2160 sq.ft Residence 380 sq.ft. Garage 0 Future stable 96 sq.ft. Service yard 2636 sq.ft. TOTAL 14.5% 34.3% of 7,680 sq.ft. residential 11,640 sq.ft. or 25.3% STABLE ACCESS N/A ZC NO. 645 Revised Plng.Comm. 6/18/02 21.6% II CURRENTLY PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE/GARAGE, FUTURE STABLE & NEW DRWY 5360 sq.ft. Residence 4458 sq.ft 748 sq.ft. Garage 693 sq.ft 450 sq.ft. Future stable 450 sq.ft 96 sq.ft Service yard 96 sq.ft Basement 1440 sq.ft 6654 sq.ft. TOTAL 5697 sq.ft 12.4% 45.1% of 13,760 sq.ft. residential pad 45.0% of 1000 sq.ft. stable pad 330 cubic yards cut 330 cubic yards fill 18,139 sq.ft. or 39.4% Future 450 sq.ft. stable & 550 sq.ft. corral Future access from Outrider 19.5% 32.9% of 15,940 sq.ft.building pad 45.0% of 1000 sq.ft. stable pad Combined coverage- 33.6% 1,640 cubic yards cut 1,640 cubic yards fill 21,440 square feet or 46.6%, which requires a Variance Future 450 sq.ft. stable & 550 sq.ft. corral Future access from Outrider SITE PLAN REVIEW CRITERIA ROADWAY ACCESS VIEWS PLANTS AND ANIMALS ZC NO. 645 Revised Plng.Comm. 6/18/02 EXISTING Existing driveway approach from Eastfield N/A N/A PREVIOUSLY PROPOSED Driveway to be relocated to the west of existing drwy, off of Eastfield Dr. Planning Commission review. Planning Commission review. CURRENTLY PROPOSED Driveway to be relocated to the west of existing drwy. Planning Commission review. Planning Commission review. • • • 20 Eastfield NEARBY PROPERTIES ADDRESS OWNER RESIDENCE LOT SIZE (SQ.FT.) (NET) 21 Eastfield Lyons/Adams 4,055 55,756 19 Eastfield Cannon 3,530 57,480 18 Eastfield Shoemaker 5,932 88,420 2 Outrider Call 5,560 50,094 22 Eastfield Yoshimura 4,543 56,640 26 Eastfield Harkin 2,098 41,790 1 Outrider Miller 3,372 53,460 3 Outrider Post 2,921 53,370 20 Eastfield Dyer Existing 2,160 54,890 Proposed 4,458 AVERAGE 4,001 58,125 NOTE: 1. The net lot areas shown here are as they appear in the assessors' records and exclude the sq.ft. of the private roads. 2. The above do not include garages. 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. 645 Revised Plng.Comm. 6/18/02 6 DATE: TO: FROM: ty °Moiling INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 E-mail: cityo(rh@aol.com APRIL 16, 2002 HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR APPLICATION NO. SITE LOCATION: ZONING AND SIZE: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PUBLISHED: ZONING CASE NO. 645 (Revised) 20 EASTFIELD DRIVE (LOT 83-EF) RA-S-1, 1.47 ACRES (GROSS) MR. & MRS. AARON DYER DOUGLAS McHATTIE, BOLTON ENGINEERING FEBRUARY 16, 2002 REQUEST The applicants, Mr. and Mrs. Dyer have requested continuance of their case to the June 18, 2002 Planning Commission meeting. Correspondence from the applicants is attached. Prnted ran Fu: ;Igd r'-:i DATE: TO: FROM: • city ofieoffinl 6a INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 MARCH 19, 2002 FAX: (310) 377-7288 E-mail: cityofrh@aol.com HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR APPLICATION NO. SITE LOCATION: ZONING AND SIZE: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PUBLISHED: ZONING CASE NO. 645 20 EASTFIELD DRIVE (LOT 83-EF) RA-S-1, 1.47 ACRES (GROSS) MR. & MRS. AARON DYER DOUGLAS McHATTIE, BOLTON ENGINEERING FEBRUARY 16, 2002 REQUEST Request for a Site Plan Review for grading and construction of a new single family residence with garage, and a new driveway to replace an existing single family residence. BACKGROUND 1. The Planning Commission visited the subject property on March 11, 2002. The Commission expressed concern about the exceedence of the 30% buildable pad coverage guideline for the proposed project. Discussion ensued regarding the location of the proposed driveway. Commissioners were concerned about' the safety of the proposed driveway from Eastfield Drive. 2. The applicants are requesting a Site Plan Review for the construction of a new 5,360 square foot residence with 748 square foot garage, to replace an existing residence and to construct a 450 square foot future stable. The existing house measuring 2,160 square feet with a 380 square foot garage was constructed in 1951, will be demolished. The proposed construction requires grading. Site Plan Review criteria and a comparison table of nearby residences is attached. 3. At the December 18, 2001 Planning Commission meeting the applicants requested determination of the front and rear yards. The property is located on a corner of Eastfield Drive and Outrider Road. Subsequently, the applicants withdrew the request and submitted an application for a Site Plan Review for development. The proposed location of the front, rear and side yards complies with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance and staff's determination that the front yard be along Eastfield Drive. 4. The applicants are proposing to close off the existing driveway and driveway approach to the property and construct a new driveway. The proposed driveway will be located off of Eastfield Drive, to the west of the existing driveway. The existing ZC NO. 645 Plng.Comm. 3/19/02 1 Pririted on Recycled Paper. • • driveway is located at an angle in a very close proximity to a stop sign. The Traffic Commission, at their March 21st meeting, will review the proposed driveway approach. 5. The proposed house will occupy the westerly portion of the lot and will,be located away from the streets. The future barn and corral will be located in the rear yard setback, a minimum of 25 feet from the rear property line. 6. The property is zoned RAS-1, and the gross lot area is 1.47 acres. The net lot area is 46,040 square feet. The residential building pad measures 13,760 square feet, and the barn/corral pad is proposed at 1,000 square feet. 7. The structural net lot coverage proposed is 6,654 square feet or 14.5%, which includes the residence, garage, service yard, and future stable, (20% permitted); and the total lot coverage proposed including the structures and paved areas is 9,928 square feet or 21.6% of the net lot area, (35% permitted). 8. Building pad coverage on the 13,760 square foot residential building pad is proposed at 6,204 square feet or 45.1%. Building pad coverage on the future 1000 square foot stable pad, located in the rear yard setback area will have coverage of 45%. The existing building pad coverage is 34.3%, which exceeds the City's guidelines. The applicant's representative stated that although the proposed coverage exceed the Commission's guideline of 30%, much more grading would be required on this lot in order to meet the 30% coverage requirement. The lot is nicely landscaped and the existing rolling topography and drainage would be disturbed if a larger building pad was created. The proposed location of the house is desirable, as it will be located away from the street frontages and the proposed construction will utilize the existing building pad. 9. Grading for the project will require 330 cubic yards of cut soil and 330 cubic yards of fill soil, which will be balanced on site. The disturbed area of the lot will be 18,139 square feet or 39.4% of the net lot area. The applicants propose to return the existing driveway to natural state and to landscape the area to match the remaining of the undisturbed lot. Therefore, the existing driveway is not included in the calculations for disturbed area or lot coverage. The current disturbed area of the lot is 25.3%. 10. An existing five-foot retaining wall, located along the side yard setback, will be reconstructed and will vary in height to not to exceed 5 feet.. The proposed driveway will vary in slope from 7% to 20%. Section 17.16.160 of the Zoning Code states that a driveway shall not exceed a maximum grade of 12%, unless otherwise approved by the Planning Commission and the first 20 feet of a driveway shall have a maximum grade of 7%. The applicant is requesting that the proposed driveway be approved as submitted. 11. It will be required that the utilities to the house be placed underground. 12. The project has been determined to be categorically exempt pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). ZC NO. 645 Plng.Comm. 3/19/02 2 • • RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission review the site plan and the staff report and direct staff as appropriate Zoning Case No. 645 SITE PLAN REVIEW RA-S- 1 ZONE SETBACKS Front: 50 ft. from front easement line Side: 20 ft. from property line Rear: 50 ft. from property line STRUCTURES (Site Plan Review required if size of structure increases by at least 1,000 sq.ft. and has the effect of increasing the size of the structure by more than 25% in a 36- month period). STRUCTURAL LOT COVERAGE (20% maximum) TOTAL LOT COVERAGE (35% maximum) RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PAD COVERAGE (30% maximum -guideline) pad BARN PAD COVERAGE GRADING Site Plan Review required if excavation and/or fill or combination thereof is more than 3 feet in depth and covers more than 2,000 sq.ft.); must be balanced on site. DISTURBED AREA (40% maximum; any graded building pad area, any remedial grading (temporary disturbance), any graded slopes and building pad areas, and any nongraded area where impervious surfaces exist.) STABLE (min. 450 SQ.FT. N/A & 550 SQ.FT. CORRAL) STABLE ACCESS N/A EXISTING II PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AND FUTURE STABLE Residence Garage Stable Service yard TOTAL ROADWAY ACCESS VIEWS PLANTS AND ANIMALS ZC NO. 645 Plng.Comm. 3/19/02 5.7% 15.8% 2160 sq.ft. Residence 5360 sq.ft. 380 sq.ft. Garage 748 sq.ft. 0 Future Stable 450 sq.ft. 96 sq.ft Service yard 96 sq.ft 2636 sq.ft. TOTAL 14.5% 34.3% of 7,680 sq.ft. residential 11,640 sq.ft. or 25.3% Existing driveway approach from Eastfield N/A N/A 21.6% 6654 sq.ft. 45.1% of 13,760 sq.ft. residential pad 45.0% of 1000 sq.ft. barn pad 330 cubic yards cut 330 cubic yards fill 18,139 sq.ft. or 39.4% Future 450 sq.ft. stable & 550 sq.ft. corral Future access from Outrider Driveway to be relocated to the west of existing drwy, off of Eastfield Dr. Planning Commission will review. Planning Commission will review. 3 20 Eastfield NEARBY PROPERTIES ADDRESS OWNER RESIDENCE LOT SIZE (SQ.FT.) (NET) 21 Eastfield Lyons/Adams 4,055 55,756 19 Eastfield Cannon 3,530 57,480 18 Eastfield Shoemaker 5,932 88,420 2 Outrider Call 5,560 50,094 22 Eastfield Yoshimura 4,543 56,640 26 Eastfield Harkin 2,098 41,790 1 Outrider Miller 3,372 53,460 3 Outrider Post 2,921 53,370 20 Eastfield Dyer Existing 2,160 641120 Proposed 5,360 GA / W AVERAGE 4,001 58,125 NOTE: 1. The net lot areas shown here are as they appear in the assessors' records and exclude the sq.ft. of the private roads. The City's required deductions for net lot area are also not included. 2. The above do not include garages. ZC NO. 645 Plng.Comm. 3/19/02 4 Si V• • DATE: TO: FROM: • Cay e/ R0I'fi • INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 MARCH 11, 2002 E-mail: cityofrh@aol.com HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR APPLICATION NO. ZONING CASE NO. 645 SITE LOCATION: 20 EASTFIELD DRIVE (LOT 83-EF) ZONING AND SIZE: RA-S-1, 1.47 ACRES (GROSS) APPLICANT: MR. & MRS. AARON DYER REPRESENTATIVE: DOUGLAS McHATTIE, BOLTON ENGINEERING PUBLISHED: FEBRUARY 16, 2002 REOUEST Request for a Site Plan Review for grading and construction of a new single family residence with garage, and a new driveway to replace an existing single family residence. BACKGROUND 1. The Planning Commission has scheduled a field visit to subject property on March 11, 2002. 2. The applicants are requesting a Site Plan Review for the construction of a new 5,360 square foot residence with 748 square foot garage, to replace an existing residence and to construct a 450 square foot future stable. The existing house measuring 2,160 square feet with a 380 square foot garage was constructed in 1951, will be demolished. The proposed construction requires grading. Site Plan Review criteria and a comparison table of nearby residences is attached. 3. At the December 18, 2001 Planning Commission meeting the applicants requested determination of the front and rear yards. The property is located on a corner of Eastfield Drive and Outrider Road. Subsequently, the applicants withdrew the request and submitted an application for a Site Plan Review for development. The proposed location of the front, rear and side yards complies with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance and staff's determination that the front yard be along Eastfield Drive. 4. The applicants are proposing to close off the existing driveway and driveway approach to the property and construct a new driveway. The proposed driveway will be located off of Eastfield Drive, to the west of the existing driveway. The existing driveway is located at an angle in a very close proximity to a stop sign. The Traffic Commission, at their March meeting, will review the proposed driveway approach. ZC NO. 645 Plng.Comm. 3/11/02 Field Trip 1 Printed on Recycled Paper. • • 5. The proposed house will occupy the westerly portion of the lot and will be located away from the streets. The future barn and corral will be located in the rear yard setback, a minimum of 25 feet from the rear property line. 6. The property is zoned RAS-1, and the gross lot area is 1.47 acres. The net lot area is 46,040 square feet. The residential building pad measures 13,760 square feet, and the barn/corral pad is proposed at 1,000 square feet. 7. The structural net lot coverage proposed is 6,654 square feet or 14.5%, which includes the residence, garage, service yard, and future stable, (20% permitted); and the total lot coverage proposed including the structures and paved areas is 9,928 square feet or 21.6% of the net lot area, (35% permitted). 8. Building pad coverage on the 13,760 square foot residential building pad is proposed at 6,204 square feet or 45.1%. Building pad coverage on the future 1000 square foot stable pad, located in the rear yard setback area will have coverage of 45%. The existing building pad coverage is 34.3%, which exceeds the City's guidelines. The applicant's representative stated that although the proposed coverage exceed the Commission's guideline of 30%, much more grading would be required on this lot in order to meet the 30% coverage requirement. The lot is nicely landscaped and the existing rolling topography and drainage would be disturbed if a larger building pad was created. The proposed location of the house is desirable, as it will be located away from the street frontages and the proposed construction will utilizes the existing building pad. 9. Grading for the project will require 330 cubic yards of cut soil and 330 cubic yards of fill soil, which will be balanced on site. The disturbed area of the lot will be 18,139 square feet or 39.4% of the net lot area. The applicants propose to return the existing driveway to natural state and to landscape the area to match the remaining of the undisturbed lot. Therefore, the existing driveway is not included in the calculations for disturbed area or lot coverage. The current disturbed area of the lot is 25.3%. 10. An existing five-foot retaining wall, located along the side yard setback, will be reconstructed and will vary in height to not to exceed 5 feet. The proposed driveway will vary in slope from 7% to 20%. Section 17.16.160 of the Zoning Code states that a driveway shall not exceed a maximum grade of 12%, unless otherwise approved by the Planning Commission, and the first 20 feet of a driveway shall have a maximum grade of 7%. The applicant is requesting that the proposed driveway be approved as submitted. 11. It will be required that the utilities to the house be placed underground. 12. The project has been determined to be categorically exempt pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission view the site of the proposed project. ZC NO. 645 Plng.Comm. 3/11/02 Field Trip 2 • • Zoning Case No. 645 SITE PLAN REVIEW RA-S- 1 ZONE SETBACKS Front: 50 ft. from front easement line Side: 20 ft. from property line Rear: 50 ft. from property line STRUCTURES (Site Plan Review required if size of structure increases by at least 1,000 sq.ft. and has the effect of increasing the size of the structure by more than 25% in a 36- month period). STRUCTURAL LOT COVERAGE (20% maximum) TOTAL LOT COVERAGE (35% maximum) RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PAD COVERAGE (30% maximum -guideline) pad BARN PAD COVERAGE EXISTING PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AND FUTURE STABLE Residence Garage Stable Service yard TOTAL GRADING Site Plan Review required if excavation and/or fill or combination thereof is more than 3 feet in depth and covers more than 2,000 sq.ft.); must be balanced on site. DISTURBED AREA (40% maximum; any graded building pad area, any remedial grading (temporary disturbance), any graded slopes and building pad areas, and any nongraded area where impervious surfaces exist.) STABLE (min. 450 SQ.FT. N/A & 550 SQ.FT. CORRAL) STABLE ACCESS N/A 5.7% 15.8% 2160 sq.ft. Residence 380 sq.ft. Garage 0 Future Stable 96 sq.ft Service yard 2636 sq.ft. TOTAL 14.5% 34.3% of 7,680 sq.ft. residential ROADWAY ACCESS VIEWS PLANTS AND ANIMALS ZC NO. 645 Plng.Comm. 3/11/02 Field Trip 11,640 sq.ft. or 25.3% Existing driveway approach from Eastfield N/A N/A 3 21.6% 5360 sq.ft. 748 sq.ft. 450 sq.ft. 96 sq.ft 6654 sq.ft. 45.1% of 13,760 sq.ft. residential pad 45.0% of 1000 sq.ft. barn pad 330 cubic yards cut 330 cubic yards fill 18,139 sq.ft. or 39.4% Future 450 sq.ft. stable & 550 sq.ft. corral Future access from Outrider Driveway to be relocated to the west of existing drwy, off of Eastfield Dr. Planning Commission will review. Planning Commission will review. • • 20 Eastfield NEARBY PROPERTIES ADDRESS OWNER RESIDENCE LOT SIZE (SQ.FT.) (NET) 21 Eastfield Lyons/Adams 4,055 55,756 19 Eastfield Cannon 3,530 57,480 18 Eastfield Shoemaker 5,932 88,420 2 Outrider Call 5,560 50,094 22 Eastfield Yoshimura 4,543 56,640 26 Eastfield Harkin 2,098 41,790 1 Outrider Miller 3,372 53,460 3 Outrider Post 2,921 53,370 20 Eastfield Dyer Existing 2,160 64,120 Proposed 5,360 AVERAGE 4,001 58,125 NOTE: 1. The net lot areas shown here are as they appear in the assessors' records and exclude the sq.ft. of the private roads. The City's required deductions for net lot area are also not included. 2. The above do not include garages. ZC NO. 645 Plng.Comm. 3/11/02 Field Trip 4 DATE: TO: FROM: • Ci1 o/ JUL FEBRUARY 26, 2002 • 8,4 INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 E-mail: cityofrh@aol.com HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PRINCIPAL PLANNER APPLICATION NO. SITE LOCATION: ZONING AND SIZE: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PUBLISHED: REOUEST ZONING CASE NO. 645 20 EASTFIELD DRIVE (LOT 83-EF) RA-S-1, 1.47 ACRES (GROSS) MR. & MRS. AARON DYER DOUGLAS McHATTIE, BOLTON ENGINEERING FEBRUARY 16, 2002 Request for a Site Plan Review for grading and construction of a new single family residence with garage, and a new driveway to replace an existing single family residence. BACKGROUND 1. The applicants are requesting a Site Plan Review for the construction of a new 5,360 square foot residence with 748 square foot garage, to replace an existing residence and to construct a 450 square foot future stable. The existing house measuring 2,160 square feet with a 380 square foot garage was constructed in 1951, will be demolished. The proposed construction requires grading. Site Plan Review criteria and a comparison table of nearby residences is attached. 2. At the December 18, 2001 Planning Commission meeting the applicants requested determination of the front and rear yards. The property is located on a corner of Eastfield Drive and Outrider Road. Subsequently, the applicants withdrew the request and submitted an application for a Site Plan Review for development. The proposed location of the front, rear and side yards complies with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance and staff's determination that the front yard be along Eastfield Drive. 3. The applicants are proposing to close off the existing driveway and driveway approach to the property and construct a new driveway. The proposed driveway will be located off of Eastfield Drive, to the west of the existing driveway. The existing driveway is located at an angle in a very close proximity to a stop sign. The Traffic Commission, at their March meeting, will review the proposed driveway approach. ZC NO. 645 Plng.Comm. 2/26/02 1 Printed on Recycled Paper. • 4. The proposed house will occupy the westerly portion of the lot and will be located away from the streets. The future barn and corral will be located in the rear yard setback, a minimum of 25 feet from the rear property line. 5. The property is zoned RAS-1, and the gross lot area is 1.47 acres. The net lot area is 46,040 square feet. The residential building pad measures 13,760 square feet, and the barn/corral pad is proposed at 1,000 square feet. 6. The structural net lot coverage proposed is 6,654 square feet or 14.5%, which includes the residence, garage, service yard, and future stable, (20% permitted); and the total lot coverage proposed including the structures and paved areas is 9,928 square feet or 21.6% of the net lot area, (35% permitted). 7. Building pad coverage on the 13,760 square foot residential building pad is proposed at 6,204 square feet or 45.1%. Building pad coverage on the future 1000 square foot stable pad, located in the rear yard setback area will have coverage of 45%. The applicant's representative stated that although this coverage exceed the Commission's guideline of 30%, much more grading would be required on this lot in order to meet the 30% coverage requirement. The lot is nicely landscaped and the existing rolling topography and drainage would be disturbed if a larger building pad was created. The proposed location of the house is desirable, as it will be located away from the street frontages and the proposed construction will utilizes the existing building pad. 8. Grading for the project will require 330 cubic yards of cut soil and 330 cubic yards of fill soil, which will be balanced on site. The disturbed area of the lot will be 18,139 square feet or 39.4% of the net lot area. The applicants propose to return the existing driveway to natural state and to landscape the area to match the remaining of the undisturbed lot. Therefore, the existing driveway is not included in the calculations for disturbed area or lot coverage. 9. An existing five-foot retaining wall, located along the side yard setback, will be reconstructed and will vary in height to not to exceed 5 feet. The proposed driveway will vary in slope from 7% to 20%. Section 17.16.160 of the Zoning Code states that a driveway shall not exceed a maximum grade of 12%, unless otherwise approved by the Planning Commission, and the first 20 feet of a driveway shall have a maximum grade of 7%. The applicant is requesting that the proposed driveway be approved as submitted. 10. It will be required that the utilities to the house be placed underground. 11. The project has been determined to be categorically exempt pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission review the Site Plan request and take public testimony. ZC NO. 645 Plng.Comm. 2/26/02 2 • • Zoning Case No. 645 SITE PLAN REVIEW RA-S- 1 ZONE SETBACKS Front: 50 ft. from front easement line Side: 20 ft. from property line Rear: 50 ft. from property line STRUCTURES (Site Plan Review required if size of structure increases by at least 1,000 sq.ft. and has the effect of increasing the size of the structure by more than 25% in a 36- month period). STRUCTURAL LOT COVERAGE (20% maximum) TOTAL LOT COVERAGE (35% maximum) RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PAD COVERAGE (30% maximum -guideline) BARN PAD COVERAGE GRADING Site Plan Review required if excavation and/or fill or combination thereof that is more than 3 feet in depth and covers more than 2,000 sq.ft.) must be balanced on site. DISTURBED AREA (40% maximum; any graded building pad area, any remedial grading (temporary disturbance), any graded slopes and building pad areas, and any nongraded area where impervious surfaces exist.) STABLE (min. 450 SQ.FT. & 550 SQ.FT. CORRAL) STABLE ACCESS ROADWAY ACCESS • VIEWS PLANTS AND ANIMALS EXISTING II PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AND FUTURE STABLE Residence Garage Stable Service yard TOTAL 5.7% 15.8% 2160 sq.ft. Residence 5360 sq.ft. 380 sq.ft. Garage 748 sq.ft. 0 Future Stable 450 sq.ft. 96 sq.ft Service yard 96 sq.ft 2636 sq.ft. TOTAL 14.5% Existing driveway approach from Eastfield N/A N/A ZC NO. 645 Plng.Comm. 2/26/02 3 21.6% 6654 sq.ft. 45.1% of 13,760 sq.ft. residential pad 45.0% of 1000 sq.ft. barn pad 330 cubic yards cut 330 cubic yards fill 18,139 sq.ft. or 39.4% Future 450 sq.ft. stable & 550 sq.ft. corral Future access from Outrider Driveway to be relocated to the west of existing drwy, off of Eastfield Dr. Planning Commission will review. Planning Commission will review. • 20 Eastfield NEARBY PROPERTIES ADDRESS OWNER RESIDENCE LOT SIZE (SQ.FT.) (NET) 21 Eastfield Lyons/Adams 4,055 55,756 19 Eastfield Cannon 3,530 57,480 18 Eastfield Shoemaker 5,932 88,420 2 Outrider Call 5,560 50,094 22 Eastfield Yoshimura 4,543 56,640 26 Eastfield Harkin 2,098 41,790 1 Outrider Miller 3,372 53,460 3 Outrider Post 2,921 53,370 20 Eastfield Dyer Existing 2,160 64,120 Proposed 5,360 AVERAGE 4,001 58,125 NOTE: The net lot areas shown here are as they appear in the assessors' records and exclude the sq.ft. of the private roads. The City's required deductions for net lot area are also not included. The above do not include garages. ZC NO. 645 Plng.Comm. 2/26/02 4