Loading...
558, Construct a guest house on th, Resolutions & Approval ConditionsRESOLUTION NO. 97-17 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A GUEST HOUSE AND GRANTING SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE SAME GUEST HOUSE AT AN EXISTING RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN ZONING CASE NO. 558. THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Applications were duly filed by Ms. Carol Anderson and Mr. Jan Janura with respect to real property located at 4 Buggy Whip Drive (Lot 244-MS), Rolling Hills, requesting a Conditional Use Permit for a guest house and requesting Site Plan Review for the construction of a guest house on property developed with a single family residence. Section 2. In 1992, the Planning Commission reapproved and modified an expired Variance for a retaining wall that would encroach into the front yard setback and reapproved and modified an expired Site Plan Review for the construction of a new residence by Resolution No. 92-3 in a modification of Zoning Case No. 402. Section 3. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the new applications specified in Section 1 on May 20, 1997 and June 17, 1997, and at a field trip visit on June 14, 1997. The applicants were notified of the hearing in writing by first class mail and through the City's newsletter. The applicants were represented by Mr. Roger North, Architect, at the hearings. Section 4. The Planning Commission finds that the project qualifies as a Class 3 Exemption (State 'CEQA Guidelines, Section 15303(e) and is therefore categorically exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act. Section 5. Section 17.16.210(A)(5) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code permits approval of a guest house with a Conditional Use Permit under certain conditions. The applicant is requesting to construct a 706 square foot guest house. With respect to this request for a Conditional Use Permit, the Planning Commission finds as follows: A. The granting of a Conditional Use Permit for a guest house would be consistent with the purposes and objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan and would be desirable for the public convenience and welfare because the use is consistent with similar uses in the community, and the area proposed for the guest house is located where such use will not change the existing configuration of structures on the lot. • • B. The nature, condition, and development of adjacent uses, buildings, and structures have been considered, and the construction of a guest house would not adversely affect or be materially detrimental to the adjacent uses, buildings, or structures because the proposed structure is above the level of the residential building pad and is a sufficient distance from nearby residences so that the guest house would not impact the view or privacy of surrounding neighbors. C. The project is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, the natural terrain, and surrounding residences because the guest house will comply with the low profile residential development pattern of the community and is located on a 3.49 acre parcel of property that is adequate in size, shape and topography to accommodate such use. D. The proposed conditional use complies with all applicable development standards of the zone district because the 706 square foot size of the guest house is less than the 800 square foot maximum permitted and the guest house does not encroach into any setback areas. E. The proposed conditional use is consistent with the portions of the Los Angeles County Hazardous Waste Management Plan relating to siting criteria for hazardous waste facilities because the project site is not listed on the current State of California Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites List. F. The proposed conditional use observes the spirit and intent of Title 17 of the Zoning Code because the guest house will be 196 feet from the residence and there is sufficient space on the lot for future development of a stable. Section 6. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves a Conditional Use Permit for the construction of a guest house in accordance with the Development Plan attached hereto in Zoning Case No. 558 subject to the conditions contained in Section 9. Section 7. Section 17.46.020 requires a development plan to be submitted for site plan review and approval before any building or structure may be constructed or any expansion, addition, alteration or repair to existing buildings or structures, which involve changes to grading or an increase in 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 or structure by more than twenty-five percent (25%) in any thirty-six month period, may be permitted. With respect to the Site Plan Review, the Planning Commission makes the following findings of fact: A. The proposed development, as modified by the conditions of approval, is compatible with the General Plan, the Zoning Ordinance and surrounding uses because the proposed structure complies with the General Plan requirement of low profile, low density residential development with sufficient open space between surrounding structures. The project conforms to Zoning Code setback and lot coverage requirements. RESOLUTION NO. 97-17 PAGE 2 OF 6 • • The lot has a net square foot area of 133,163 square feet. The residence (7,150 sq. ft.), garage (1,040 sq. ft.), future stable (450 sq.ft.), proposed guest house (706 sq.ft.), swimming pool (460 sq.ft.), and service yard (96 sq.ft.) will have 9,902 square feet which constitutes 7.4% of the lot which is within the maximum 20% structural lot coverage requirement. The total lot coverage including paved areas and driveway will be 14,116 square feet which equals 10.6% of the lot, which is within the 35% maximum overall lot coverage requirement. B. The proposed development,, as modified by the conditions of approval, preserves and integrates into the site design, to the maximum extent feasible, existing natural topographic features of the lot including surrounding native vegetation, mature trees, drainage courses, and land forms (such as hillsides and knolls). C. The development plan, as modified by the conditions of approval, follows natural contours of the site to minimize grading. The natural drainage courses will be preserved and continue drainage to the canyons at the northwest side of this lot. D. The development plan will, based upon compliance with the conditions contained in this Resolution, supplement the existing vegetation with landscaping that is compatible with and enhances the rural character of the community. E. The development plan, as modified by the conditions of approval, substantially preserves the natural and undeveloped state of the lot by minimizing building coverage because the new structures will not cause the structural and total lot coverage to be exceeded. Further, the proposed project will have a buildable pad coverage of 63%, a residential building pad coverage of 27.9%, and a total building pad coverage of 29.3%. F. The proposed development, as modified by the conditions of approval, is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, the natural terrain and surrounding residences. As indicated in Paragraph A, the lot coverage maximum will not be exceeded. The proposed project is also consistent with the scale of other residential developments in the immediate neighborhood. Grading will be minor and required only to restore the natural slope of the property. The ratio of the proposed structures to lot coverage is similar to the ratio found on several properties in the vicinity. G. The proposed development, as modified by the conditions of approval, is sensitive and not detrimental to convenience and safety of circulation for pedestrians and vehicles because the proposed project will be 50 feet from the existing driveway off Buggy Whip Drive and there will be no vehicular access or paved parking area within 50 feet of the guest house. H. The project conforms with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and is categorically exempt from environmental review. RESOLUTION NO. 97-17 PAGE 3 OF 6 • • Section 8. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves the Site Plan Review application for Zoning Case No. 558 for a proposed guest house as indicated on the development plan incorporated herein as Exhibit A, subject to the conditions contained in Section 9 of this Resolution. Section 9. The Conditional Use Permit for a guest house approved in Section 6 and the Site Plan to construct a guest house approved in Section 8 of this Resolution are subject to the following conditions: A. These Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan approvals shall expire within one year from the effective date of approval as defined in Sections 17.42.070 and 17.46.080. B. It is declared and made a condition of these Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan approvals, that if any conditions thereof are violated, these approvals shall be suspended and the privileges granted thereunder shall lapse; provided that the applicant has been given written notice to cease such violation and has failed to do so for a period of thirty (30) days. C. All requirements of the Buildings and Construction Ordinance, the Zoning Ordinance, and of the zone in which the subject property is located must be complied with unless otherwise set forth in the Permit, or shown otherwise on an approved plan. D. The lot shall be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the site plan on file dated May 9, 1997, and marked Exhibit A, except as otherwise provided in these conditions. E. 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. F. Grading shall be limited so that the amount of soil displaced to construct the proposed project shall not exceed 5 cubic yards of cut soil and 5 cubic yards of fill soil. Cut and fill slopes shall not exceed a steepness of a 2 to 1 slope ratio. The grading plan shall utilize land form or contour grading techniques in its design so as to create a building pad and slopes that blend with the horizontal and vertical contours of the natural terrain. G. The guest house building pad coverage shall not exceed 63%. H. Landscaping shall be provided and maintained to obscure the guest house and the building pad so that the structure and graded slope is screened and shielded from view at the southern and eastern easement lines along Buggy Whip Drive with native drought -resistant vegetation that is compatible with the surrounding vegetation of the community. RESOLUTION NO. 97-17 PAGE 4 OF 6 • • I. Tall trees such as Eucalyptus and Sequoia shall not be planted. J• house. No kitchen or other cooking facilities shall be provided within the guest K. No vehicular access or paved parking area shall be developed within 50 feet of the guest house. L. Occupancy of the proposed guest house or servant quarters shall be limited to persons employed on the premises and their immediate family or by the temporary guests of the occupants of the main residence. No guest may remain in occupancy for more than thirty days in any six-month period. M. Renting of the guest house is prohibited. N. The guest house shall not exceed 706 square feet. O. Prior to the submittal of an applicable final grading plan to the County of Los Angeles for plan check, a detailed grading and drainage plan with related geology, soils and hydrology reports that conform to the development plan as approved by the Planning Commission must be submitted to the Rolling Hills Planning Department staff for their review. Cut and fill slopes shall not exceed a steepness of a 2 to 1 slope ratio. P. The project must be reviewed and approved by the Rolling Hills Community Association Architectural Review Committee prior to the issuance of any building or grading permit. Q. Any modifications to the project shall comply with Section 17.46.070 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code. R. The applicant shall execute an Affidavit of Acceptance of all conditions of these Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan approvals, or the approvals shall not be effective. S. All conditions of these Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan approvals that apply must be complied with prior to the issuance ofa building or grading permit from the County of Los Angeles. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTEDAx OF JULY, 1997. ALLAN ROBERTS, CHAIRMAN RESOLUTION NO. 97-17 PAGE 5 OF 6 • • ATTEST: _ hA,,J MARILYN K RN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§ CITY OF ROLLING HILLS I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 97-17 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A GUEST HOUSE AND GRANTING SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE SAME GUEST HOUSE AT AN EXISTING RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN ZONING CASE NO. 558. was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on July 15, 1997 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: Commissioners Hankins, Margeta, Sommer and Chair Roberts. None. ABSENT: Commissioner Witte. ABSTAIN: None . and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following: Administrative Offices. P . k DEPUTY CITY CLERK RESOLUTION NO. 97-17 PAGE 6 OF 6 RESOLUTION NO. 92-3 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE.CITY OF ROLLING HILLS REAPPROVING AND MODIFYING AN EXPIRED VARIANCE TO PERMIT ENCROACHMENT INTO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK TO CONSTRUCT A RETAINING WALL AND REAPPROVING AND MODIFYING AN EXPIRED SITE PLAN REVIEW APPLICATION FOR A NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IN ZONING CASE NO. 402. 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. Dana John MacKay with respect to real property located at 4 Buggy Whip Drive, Rolling Hills (Lot 244-MS) requesting: (1) Reapproval of an expired Variance to permit encroachment into the front yard setback to construct a retainingwall; and (2) Reapproval of an expired Site Plan Review application for a proposed new residence. Previously proposed approvals for a larger residence expired on September 19, 1991, which was two years after the original approval date of September 19, 1989. Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted a.duly noticed public hearing to consider the applications on October 22, 1991, November 19, 1991, and December 17, 1991 and at a field trip visit on November 2, 1991. Section 3. The Planning Commission finds that the -project is categorically exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act. Section 4. Section 17.28.022 requires that required yards be maintained unoccupied from the ground up of any structures. The applicant is requesting a Variance to encroach up to 30 feet into the 50 foot front yard setback to. construct a retaining wall, a total of 580 feet in length, that will not be more than 5 feet in height at any one point. The Planning Commission finds as follows: A. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances and conditions applicable to the property and the intended use that do not apply generally to the other property in the same vicinity and zone. The Variance for the retaining wall is necessary to support the necessary driveway slope. 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 the property in question. The Variance is necessary because the proposed retaining wall will provide stability and support for the driveway at 4 Buggy Whip Drive. C. The granting of the Variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which the property is RESOLUTION NO. 92-3 PAGE 2 located. The Variance will permit the construction of a retaining wall which will provide improved engineering and drainage to the subject property and the surrounding properties and residences. Section 5. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves the Variance to permit the 580 foot long retaining wall to encroach up to 30 feet into the front yard setback not to exceed 5 feet in height at any one point, subject to the conditions specified in Section 9. Section 6. Section 17.34.010 requires a development plan to be submitted for site plan review and approval before any building or structure may be constructed or any expansion, addition, alteration or repair to existing buildings may be made which involve changes to grading or an increase to the size of the building or structure by more than twenty-five percent (25%) in any thirty-six month period. Section 7. The Planning Commission makes the following findings of fact: A. The proposed development is compatible with ,the General Plan, the Zoning Ordinance and surrounding uses because the proposed structure complies with the General Plan requirement of low profile, low density residential development with sufficient open space between surrounding structures. The project conforms to Zoning Code setback and lot coverage requirements. The lot has a net square foot area of 133,163 square feet. The proposed residence (7,200 sq.ft.), garage (1,040 sq.ft.), swimming pool.(731. sq.ft.), and future stable (450 sq.ft.) will have 9,421 square feet which constitutes 7.1% of the lot which is within the maximum 20% structural lot coverage requirement. The total lot coverage including paved areas and driveway will be 25,881 square feet which equals 19.4% of the lot, which is within the 35% maximum overall lot coverage requirement. The proposed project is on a relatively large lot with most of the proposed structures located away from the road so as to reduce the visual impact of the development and is similar and compatible with several neighboring developments. B. The proposed development preserves and integrates into the site design, to the maximum extent feasible, existing natural topographic features of the lot including surrounding native vegetation, mature trees, drainage courses, and land forms (such as hillsides and knolls) because grading will only be done to provide approved drainage that will flow away from the proposed residence and existing neighboring residences. C. The development plan follows natural contours of the site to minimize grading and the natural drainage courses will continue to the canyons at the north side of this lot. S RESOLUTION NO. 92-3 PAGE 3 D. The development plan incorporates existing large trees and native vegetation to the maximum extent feasible and supplements it with landscaping that is compatible with and enhances the rural character of the community. E. The development plan substantially preserves the natural and undeveloped state of the lot by minimizing building coverage because the new structures will not cause the structural and total lot coverage to be exceeded. Further, the proposed project will have a buildable pad coverage of 32%. Significant portions of the lot will be left undeveloped so as to maintain trail access across the property and scenic vistas across the northerly portions of the property. F. The proposed development is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, the natural terrain and surrounding residences. As indicated in Paragraph C, the lot coverage maximum will not be exceeded and the proposed project is consistent with the scale of th.e neighborhood. Grading shall be permitted only to restore the natural slope of the property. The ratio of the proposed structure to lot coverage is similar to the ratio found on several properties in the vicinity. G. The proposed development is sensitive and not detrimental to convenience and safety of circulation for pedestrians and vehicles because the proposed project will utilize the existing vehicular access, thereby having no further impact on the roadway. H. The project conforms with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and is categorically exempt from environmental review. Section 8. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves the Site Plan Review application for the Modification to Zoning Case No. 402 for a proposed residential development as indicated on the development plan incorporated herein as Exhibit A and subject to the conditions contained in .Section 9. Section 9. The Variance to permit the construction of a retaining wall into the front yard setback approved in Section 5 and the Site Plan Review for residential development approved in Section 8 are subject to the following conditions: A. The Variance shall expire unless used within one year from the effective date of approval as defined in Section 17.32.110 of the Municipal Code. The Site Plan Review approval shall expire within one year from the effective date of approval as defined in Section 17.34.080.A. RESOLUTION NO. 92-3 PAGE 4 B. It is declared and made a condition of the Variance and the Site Plan Review approval, that if any conditions thereof are violated, the Permit shall be suspended and the privileges granted thereunder shall lapse; provided that the applicant has been given written notice to cease such violation and has failed to do so for a period of thirty (30) days. C. A1,1 requirements of the Buildings and Construction Ordinance, the Zoning Ordinance, and of the zone in which the subject property is located must be complied with unless otherwise set forth in the Permit, or shown otherwise on an approved plan. D. The lot shall be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the site plan on file marked Exhibit A except as otherwise provided in these conditions. E. The former horse trail at the rear of the property shall be cleared and reopened for equestrian use. F. All retaining walls incorporated into•the project shall not be greater than 5 feet in height at any. one point. G. The driveway, graded slopes and retaining walls shall be screened and shielded from view with native drought -resistant vegetation that is compatible with the surrounding vegetation of the community. H. A landscape plan must be submitted to and approved by the City of Rolling Hills Planning Department staff prior to the issuance of any grading and building permit. The landscaping plan submitted must comply with the purpose and intent of the Site Plan Review Ordinance, shall incorporate existing mature trees and native vegetation, and shall utilize to the maximum extent feasible, plants that are native to the area and/or consistent with the rural character of the community. 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 and building permit and shall be retained with the City for not less than two years after landscape installation. The retained bond will be released by the City Manager after the City Manager determines that the landscaping was installed pursuant to the landscaping plan as approved, and that such landscaping is properly established and in good condition. I. Prior to the submittal of an applicable final grading plan to the County of Los Angeles for plan check, a detailed grading and drainage plan with related geology, soils and hydrology reports that conform to the development plan as approved by the Planning Commission must be submitted to the Rolling Hills Planning Department staff for their review. Cut and fill slopes must RESOLUTION NO. 92-3 PAGE 5 conform to the City of. Rolling Hills standard of 2 to 1 slope ratio. J. The project must be reviewed and approved by the Rolling Hills Community Association Architectural Review Committee prior to the issuance of any building or grading permit. K. 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. L. Any modifications to the project which would constitute a modification to the development plan as approved by the Planning Commission shall require the filing of an application for modification of the Zoning Case pursuant to Section 17.34.070 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code. M. The building pad coverage shall not exceed 32%. N. The applicant shall execute an Affidavit of Acceptance of all conditions of this Variance, pursuant to Section 17.32.087, or the approval shall not be effective. O. Conditions A, C, D, F, G, H, I, J, K, M, and N of this Variance°and Site Plan Review approval must be complied -with prior to the issuance of a building or grading permit from the County of Los Angeles. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THISY OF JANUARY, 1992. ATTEST: ALLAN ROBERTS, CHAIRMAN DIANE SAW ER, DEPUTY CI CLERK RESOLUTION NO. 92-3 PAGE 6 The foregoing Resolution No. 92-3 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS REAPPROVING AND MODIFYING AN EXPIRED VARIANCE TO PERMIT ENCROACHMENT INTO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK TO CONSTRUCT A RETAINING WALL AND REAPPROVING AND MODIFYING AN EXPIRED SITE PLAN REVIEW APPLICATION FOR A NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IN ZONING CASE NO. 402. was approved and adopted at a regular adjourned meeting of the Planning Commission on January 11, 1992 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Hankins, Lay, Raine and Chairman Roberts NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Frost ABSTAIN: None. DEPUTY CPAPY CLERK JAN A. JANURA January 19, 1999 Mr. Craig Nealis, City Manager City of Rolling Hills 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, Ca 90274 Dear Mr. Nealis, HUIVFIT JAN 2 0 1999 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS uv I have been building a home at 4 Buggy Whip Drive for the past five and a half years. The home is now finally completed, and I am alive to see it. Both facts that at this point I find astounding. Part of the condition for building the home was to put up a landscaping bond in the amount of $26,500.00. The majority of our landscaping in both scope and cost was installed early on the property over two years ago. That portion consists of 75 mature trees of varying species. I have given these trees.a conservative average value of $4,500.00 each. Many of these trees were 25 years of growth, were delivered in 8 foot boxes and were in excess of 45 feet in height. The cost of the trees alone was $337,500.00. At that time of planting I;, spent an additional $22,700.00 on planting of additional shrubs, for a total of $360,200.00. Recently we have done landscaping of sod and hillside planting that has come to $33,500.00. Given the scope of the landscaping on this project and the fact that the majority of the landscaping has been in for over two years, I would request that the City release the landscaping bond. Thank You for Your Consideration, Jan Janura