Loading...
570, To conduct grading in rear yar, Resolutions & Approval Conditions• • RESOLUTION NO. 98-10 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS APPROVING A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH INTO THE NORTH SIDE YARD SETBACK TO AUTHORIZE THE RETENTION WITH MODIFICATIONS OF PREVIOUSLY ILLEGALLY CONSTRUCTED RETAINING WALLS, APPROVING A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH INTO THE SOUTH SIDE YARD SETBACK TO AUTHORIZE THE RETENTION WITH MODIFICATIONS OF PREVIOUSLY ILLEGALLY CONSTRUCTED RETAINING WALLS AND GRANTING SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL TO AUTHORIZE THE MAINTENANCE OF PREVIOUSLY CONDUCTED AND ILLEGAL GRADING RELATED TO THE PREVIOUSLY CONSTRUCTED RETAINING WALLS AT A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IN ZONING CASE NO. 570. 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. Jerry Scarboro with respect to real property located at 9 Caballeros Road (Lot 32-SK), Rolling Hills, requesting a Variance to authorize the retention of existing illegally constructed retaining walls that encroach into the north side yard setback, request for a Variance to authorize the retention of existing illegally constructed retaining walls that encroach into the south side yard setback and request for Site Plan Review to authorize the maintenance of previously conducted and illegal grading to create a rear yard pad area at an existing single family residence. During the hearing process, the amount of grading was reduced to preclude the creation of a rear yard pad area. Section 2. The illegal construction came to the attention of the City in September, 1997. On Monday, September 8, 1997, Mr. Rafael Bernal, District Engineering Associate, and Planning staff spoke to Mr. Scarboro about the "as built" retaining walls that were constructed illegally at the subject site and ordered the work stopped. The City notified the Scarboros by letter that the retaining walls were constructed illegally and subject to review by the Planning Commission because the walls were being constructed without permits and were encroaching into the side yard setbacks. On another occasion, Mr. Bernal was informed of continued construction taking place at the site and issued a Second Notice "Stop Work Order." The Scarboros submitted a Variance application on November 6, 1997 and the subject case was presented to the Planning Commission on December 16, 1997. On December 17, 1997, a Third Notice "Stop Work Order" was issued by Mr. Bernal and it was emphasized in a letter on December 18, 1997 to the Scarboros to stop any work until further information and verification regarding movement of soil and changing of grades on the property was provided. Section 3. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the applications on December 16, 1997, January 20, 1998, February RESOLUTION NO. 98-10 M property, and there will not be any greater incursion into the side yard than what already exists on other properties in the same vicinity. 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. The existing retaining walls will allow drainage on the property to be controlled as it flows to the canyon to the east inside the applicants' property, the height of the walls will be reduced, and a substantial portion of the lot will remain undeveloped. Section 6. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves the Variance for Zoning Case No. 570 to authorize the retention of encroachments into the north side yard setback to authorize two previously constructed illegal retaining walls to remain and be modified to a maximum height of five (5) feet; the upper wall that encroaches a maximum of twenty-seven (27) feet into the thirty-five (35) foot north side yard setback and the lower wall that encroaches a maximum of twenty-six (26) feet into the thirty-five (35) foot north side yard setback as indicated on the development plan submitted with this application and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit A, dated May 12, 1998 and subject to the conditions specified in Section 11 of this Resolution. Section 7. The applicant is requesting a Variance to authorize the retention of an encroachment into the south side yard setback to authorize the retention of an encroachment into the south side yard setback to allow a portion of a previously constructed illegal retaining wall to be demolished, relocated and modified to a forty-three (43) foot long retaining wall with a maximum height of two (2) feet that will encroach a maximum of five (5) feet into the thirty-five (35) foot side 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 or to the intended use 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 the existing retaining wall is located on a hillside slope at the rear of the lot and away from the street and assist in protecting the hillside from damage due to erosion. 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 there will be minimum grading to modify and construct the retaining wall on this irregular shaped lot, drainage will be controlled on the property, and there will not be any greater incursion into the side yard than what already exists on other properties in the same vicinity. RESOLUTION NO. 98-10 PAGE 3 OF 9 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. The modified retaining wall will allow drainage on the property to be controlled as it flows to the canyon to the east inside the applicants' property, the height of the walls will be reduced, and a substantial portion of the lot will remain undeveloped. Section 8. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves the Variance for Zoning Case No. 570 to allow a portion of a previously constructed illegal retaining wall to be demolished, relocated and modified to be a forty-three (43) foot long retaining wall with a maximum height of two (2) feet that will encroach a maximum of five (5) feet into the thirty-five (35) foot side yard setback as indicated on the development plan submitted with this application and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit A, dated May 12, 1998 and subject to the conditions specified in Section 11 of this Resolution. Section 9. Section 17.46.020 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code requires a development plan to be submitted for site plan review and approval before any grading that requires a grading permit or any new building or structure may be constructed. The applicants request Site Plan Review to allow previously constructed and proposed limited grading and to allow the retention and modification of previously constructed illegal retaining walls at an existing single family residence. With respect to the Site Plan Review application, 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 grading and retaining walls, as conditioned, comply with the General -Plan requirement of low profile, low density residential development with sufficient open space between surrounding structures. With the Variances approved in Sections 6 and 8, the project conforms to Zoning Code setback and lot coverage requirements. The lot has a net square foot area of 82,400 square feet. The residence (2,388 sq.ft.), attached garage (600 sq.ft.), pool (510 sq.ft.), stable (864 sq.ft.), and service yard (150 sq.ft.) will have 4,648 square feet which constitutes 5.64% of the lot which is within the maximum 20% structural lot coverage requirement. The total lot coverage including paved areas and driveway will be 9,402 square feet which equals 11.4% 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 retaining wall structures located at or below and away from the road so as to reduce the visual impact of the development. 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 a minimum amount of grading is proposed and will only be done to provide approved drainage that will flow away RESOLUTION NO. 98-10 PAGE 4 OF 9 M from the previously constructed and modified retaining walls, the existing residence, and neighboring residences. C. The development plan follows the natural contours of the site to minimize grading and the natural drainage courses will continue to the canyons at the east side (rear yard) of this lot. D. The development plan incorporates existing large trees and native vegetation to the maximum extent feasible. Specifically, the development plan preserves several mature trees and shrubs. 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 is designed to minimize grading. Significant portions of the lot will be left undeveloped so as to maintain scenic vistas across the northeasterly portions of the property. F. 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 will not be exceeded and the proposed project is consistent with the scale of the neighborhood when compared to this irregular -shaped lot. Grading shall be permitted only to restore the natural slope of the property. G. The proposed development is sensitive and not detrimental to the convenience and safety of circulation for pedestrians and vehicles because the proposed project will utilize the same driveway to Caballeros Road for access. H. The project conforms with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and is categorically exempt from environmental review. Section 10. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves the Site Plan Review request to allow previously constructed retaining walls and proposed limited grading and to allow the modification and retention of previously constructed illegal retaining walls at an existing single family residence, as indicated on the Development Plan dated May 12, 1998, and marked Exhibit A, subject to the conditions specified in Section 11. Section 11. The Variance to permit encroachments into the north side yard setback to allow two previously constructed illegal retaining walls to be retained and modified to a maximum height of five (5) feet (the upper wall to encroach a maximum of twenty-seven (27) feet into the thirty-five (35) foot north side yard setback and the lower wall to encroach a maximum of twenty-six (26) feet into the thirty-five (35) foot north side yard setback) approved in Section 6, the Variance to RESOLUTION NO. 98-10 PAGE 5 OF 9 allow a modified forty-three (43) foot retaining wall to encroach 5 feet into the south side yard setback approved in Section 8, and the Site Plan to allow previously constructed retaining walls, previously completed and proposed limited grading, and to permit the retention and modification of previously constructed illegal retaining walls at an existing single family residence approved in Section 8 as indicated on the Development Plan attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A dated May 12, 1998, are subject to the following conditions: A. The Variance and Site Plan Review approvals shall expire within one year from the effective date of approval as defined in Sections 17.38.070 and 17.46.080. B. It is declared and made a condition of the Variance and Site Plan Review approvals, 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. All requirements of the Building and Construction Ordinance, the Zoning Ordinance, and of the zone in which the subject property is located must be complied with unless otherwise approved by Variance. D. The lot shall be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the site plan on file marked Exhibit A dated May 12, 1998, except as otherwise provided in these conditions. E. The northern upper retaining wall that is 8 feet from the property line shall be reduced from a maximum height of 6.5 feet to vary from 2.6 feet to 5.0 feet in height and shall not exceed 143 feet in length. F. The northern lower retaining wall that is 9 feet from the property line shall be reduced from a maximum height of 8.5 feet to vary from 0 feet to 5.0 feet in height from northwest to southeast and shall not exceed 143 feet in length. G. The southern retaining wall that is 24 feet from the property line shall be partially demolished and relocated to be 30 feet from the property line, reduced from a maximum height of 2.5 feet to vary from 1.0 foot to 2.0 feet in height, and shall not exceed 43 feet in length. H. Any retaining walls shall not exceed 5 feet in height, averaging no more than 2-1/2 feet. I. The top upper edge of all retaining walls shall be a continuous smooth line and without jagged inclines or declines along the length of the wall. RESOLUTION NO. 98-10 PAGE 6 OF 9 • M J. Structural lot coverage shall not exceed 5.64% and total lot coverage of structures and paved areas shall not exceed 11.4%. K. Disturbed area of the lot shall not exceed 13.6%. L. Balanced cut and fill for the retaining walls shall not exceed 104 cubic yards. M. The graded area at the west side of the upper and lower northern retaining walls shall not exceed 1,805 square feet. N. The existing topography, flora and natural features of the lot shall be retained to the greatest extent feasible. O. Additional landscape screening shall be planted to obscure the eastern and southern faces of the northern retaining walls and the northern faces of the southern retaining walls. P. Landscape screening for the eastern and southern faces of the retaining walls shall be maintained so as not to obstruct views of neighboring properties but to obscure the retaining walls. Q. 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 Planning Commission determines that the landscaping was installed pursuant to the landscaping plan as approved, and that such landscaping is properly established and in good condition. R. Review and approval of a site drainage plan by the City Engineer shall be obtained for the existing and proposed grading and the retaining walls. S. A plan that conforms to the development plan as approved by the Planning Commission must be submitted to the Rolling Hills Planning Department staff for their review prior to the submittal of an applicable site drainage plan to the County of Los Angeles for plan check. RESOLUTION NO. 98-10 PAGE 7 OF 9 • T. The project must be reviewed and approved by the Rolling Hills Community Association Architectural Review Committee prior to approval of the drainage plan. U. The working drawings submitted to the County Department of Building and Safety for site drainage plan review and building permits must conform to the development plan described at the beginning of this section (Section 11). V. The applicant shall execute an Affidavit of Acceptance of all conditions of these Variance and Conditional Use Permit approvals pursuant to Section 17.38.060, or the approval shall not be effective. W. All conditions of these Variance and Site Plan Review approvals must be complied with prior to approval of the site drainage plan by the County of Los Angeles. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED ON THE 16 ATTEST: g • MARILYN RN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK RESOLUTION NO. 98-10 PAGE 8 OF 9 , 1998. ALLAN ROBERTS, CHAIRMAN STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CITY OF ROLLING HILLS I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 98-10 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS APPROVING A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH INTO THE NORTH SIDE YARD SETBACK TO AUTHORIZE THE RETENTION WITH MODIFICATIONS OF PREVIOUSLY ILLEGALLY CONSTRUCTED RETAINING WALLS, APPROVING A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH INTO THE SOUTH SIDE YARD SETBACK TO AUTHORIZE THE RETENTION WITH MODIFICATIONS OF PREVIOUSLY ILLEGALLY CONSTRUCTED RETAINING WALLS AND GRANTING SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL TO AUTHORIZE THE MAINTENANCE OF PREVIOUSLY CONDUCTED AND ILLEGAL GRADING RELATED TO THE PREVIOUSLY CONSTRUCTED RETAINING WALLS AT A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IN ZONING CASE NO. 570. was approved and adopted at an adjourned regular meeting of the Planning Commission on June 16, 1998 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Hankins, Sommer and Chairman Roberts. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Witte. ABSTAIN: Commissioner Margeta. and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following: Administrative Offices r-14tA"-J-4_ g \° —01./N—) MARILYN KE , DEPUTY CITY CLERK RESOLUTION NO. 98-10 PAGE 9 OF 9