Loading...
513, Construction for new SFR, Staff ReportsCi1y ol RO/A �aee • INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 MEMORANDUM DATE: NOVEMBER 18,1994 TO: FILE ATTENTION: CRAIG R. NEALIS, CITY MANAGER FROM: LOLA M. UNGAR, PRINCIPAL PLANNER SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 513 MR. RICHARD COLYEAR, 0 CHESTNUT LANE (LOT 241-A-1-MS) Mr. Colyear called on Thursday, November 17, 1994 to ask whether we could sign plans for a grading permit for the subject property. When staff told him that we could not because he did not comply with the approved resolution, he suggested that we speak with an advisor and that he would call back the next day. We spoke with Assistant City Attorney Kevin Ennis who advised us that we cannot sign plans because Mr. Colyear has not signed and recorded the Affidavit of Acceptance, nor has he recorded the required easements in the subject case as required by the Resolution of Approval. When Mr. Colyear called today, we told him that we could not sign the plans for the grading permit because of the reasons stated above. His parting words were, "I'll see you in court". Printed on Recycled Paper. Ci opleoeenq.�P� AGENDA ITEM 5-C MEETING DATE 5/9/94 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL ATTENTION: CRAIG R. NEALIS, CITY MANAGER FROM: LOLA M. UNGAR, PRINCIPAL PLANNER INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 513 Mr. Richard Colyear, 0 Chestnut Lane (Lot 241-A-1-MS) RESOLUTION NO. 94-11: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH INTO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK TO CONSTRUCT A RETAINING WALL, GRANTING A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH INTO THE SIDE YARD SETBACK TO CONSTRUCT A RETAINING WALL AND GRANTING SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL OF A NEW RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE IN ZONING CASE NO. 513. BACKGROUND 1. The Planning Commission approved the subject resolution approving the proposed project on May 7, 1994. 2. A previous application was approved in 1992, and later was extended in 1993, but approvals expired on March 28, 1994. And, according to Section 17.46.080(B)(3) of the Zoning Code, no extension period can be granted beyond the second anniversary of the original project approval unless a new public hearing is held. And, any extension granted beyond the second anniversary may only be granted or denied in the same manner and based upon the same criteria as required for approval of the original project. 3. At this time, the applicants are in the Plan Check process with the similar plans to those previously submitted in 1992 for a 1,674 square foot residence, a 350 square foot attached garage, a 450 square foot future stable and a 96 square foot service yard. Retaining walls are proposed at the south side of the driveway and at the south -side of the building pad. Previous plans included a retaining wall that encroaches 50 feet into the 50 foot front yard setback. Proposed plans also include an encroachment of a retaining wall 16 feet into the 35 foot side yard setback. The curren status of the plans require approval for soils and geology. The dr-iveway width has been increased to 20 feet to satisfy the requirements of the Fire Department. Preliminary landscaping plans have been approved by the Planning Department but, easements to be recorded as noted in Section 14, Condition K (also in the previous Resolution of approval) are still unrecorded. 3. Access to the proposed building site will be from the northeast portion of the lot off Chestnut Lane. ®Printed on Recycled P:,turr • • RESOLUTION NO. 94-11 PAGE 2 4. Grading for the project site will require 4,000 cubic yards of cut and 4,000 cubic yards of fill. Deep foundations, such as caissons, will be required for portions of the proposed structure. 5. The structural lot coverage proposed is 2,570 square feet or 3.0% (20% permitted) and the total lot coverage proposed is 11,470 square feet or 13.2% (35% permitted). 6. Coverage on the 11,760 square foot building pad proposed is 22%. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council receive and file Resolution No. 94-11. • • DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. 94-11 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH INTO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK TO CONSTRUCT A RETAINING WALL, GRANTING A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH INTO THE SIDE YARD SETBACK TO CONSTRUCT A RETAINING WALL, AND GRANTING SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL OF A NEW RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE IN ZONING CASE NO. 513, SUBJECT TO SPECIFIED CONDITIONS. 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. Richard Colyear with respect to real property located at 0 Chestnut Lane, Rolling Hills (Lot 241-A-1-MS) requesting a Variance to encroach into the front yard setback to construct a retaining wall, requesting a Variance to encroach into the side yard setback to construct a retaining wall, and requesting Site Plan Review for a new single family residence. Section 2. On March 28, 1992, the Planning Commission approved Resolution No. 92-15 granting a Variance to encroach into the front yard setback to construct a retaining wall and granting Site Plan Review approval of a new residential structure in Zoning Case No. 458. Those approvals were extended for one year by approval of Resolution No. 93-14 on March 16, 1993. Pursuant to Rolling Hills Municipal Code Section 17.46.080(B)(3) of the Zoning Code, no extension period shall be granted beyond the second anniversary of the original project approval unless a new public hearing is held. And, any extension granted beyond the second anniversary of original approval may only be granted or denied in the same manner and based upon the same criteria as required for approval of the original project. The applicant has submitted this request for a further extension of theVariance and Site Plan Review and has requested an additional Variance to construct a retaining wall in the side yard setback. Section 3. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the application on April 18, 1994. The applicant was notified of the hearing in writing by first class mail and through the City's newsletter. The applicant's representative, Mr. Douglas McHattie of South Bay Engineering, was in attendance at the hearing. Section 4. The Planning Commission finds that the project qualifies as a Class 3 Exemption (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15303 (a)) and is therefore categorically exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act. Section 5. 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. Section 17.16.110 requires a front yard setback for every residential parcel to be fifty (50) feet. The applicant is requesting to construct a retaining wall with a maximum height of five (5) feet above the downslope grade, a maximum length of 296 feet, which will encroach a maximum of fifty (50) feet into the fifty (50) foot front yard setback. Section 6. With respect to this request for a Variance, the Planning Commission finds as follows: RESOLUTION NO. 94-11 PAGE 2 • • 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 there exists topographical constraints on the property that necessitate the construction of a retaining wall in order to construct a vehicular driveway onto the property. 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 of the steep slope on the lot which necessitates a retaining wall to support the slope bank next to the proposed driveway. 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 proposed project will be compatible with surrounding properties and will be comparable to the height and nature of an existing retaining wall along the northern edge of the property. Section 7. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves the Variance for Zoning Case No. 513 to permit the encroachment of a retaining wall into the front yard setback, to a maximum height of five feet (5'), a maximum length of 296 feet and with a maximum encroachment of fifty feet (50') into the front yard setback, as indicated on the development plan submitted with this application and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit A, subject to the conditions specified in Section 16 of this Resolution. Section 8. Section 17.16.120(B)(1) requires a side yard of 35 feet in the RA-S-2 residential zone. The applicant is requesting to construct a retaining wall with a maximum height of five (5) feet above the downslope grade, a maximum length of 155 feet, which will encroach a maximum of sixteen (16) feet into the thirty-five (35) foot side yard setback. Section 9. 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 there exists topographical constraints on the property that necessitate the construction of a retaining wall in order to construct a vehicular driveway onto the property. 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 of the steep slope on the lot which necessitates a retaining wall to support the slope bank next to the proposed driveway. 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 proposed project will be compatible with surrounding properties and will be comparable to the height and nature of an existing retaining wall along the northern edge of the property. Section 10. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves the Variance for Zoning Case No. 513 to permit the encroachment of a retaining wall into the side yard setback, to a maximum height of five feet (5'), a maximum length of 155 feet and with a maximum encroachment of sixteen feet (16') into the thirty-five foot (35') side yard setback, as indicated on the development plan submitted with this application and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit A, subject to the conditions specified in Section 16 of this Resolution. CI) RESOLUTION NO. 94-11 • PAGE 3 • Section 11. 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. Section 12. With respect to the Site Plan Review application, 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. The lot has a net square foot area of 87,120 square feet. The proposed residence (1,674 sq. ft.), garage (350 sq. ft.), and future stable (450 sq.ft.) will have 2,510 square feet which constitutes 2.9% of the lot which is within the maximum 20% structural lot coverage requirement. The total lot coverage including paved areas and driveway will be 11,470 square feet which equals 13.2% 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 and the natural drainage courses will continue to the canyons at the northwest side of this lot. D. The development plan will, in 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 of 12,000 square feet and a building pad coverage of 17.7%. 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 E, the Iot coverage maximum will not be exceeded and the proposed project is consistent with the scale of the neighborhood. Modifications have been made to reduce the prominence of the house on the lot by moving the structure away from the edge of the building pad. The ratio of the proposed structure to lot coverage is similar to or less than 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 conditions have been imposed to place the driveway so as to intersect with Chestnut Lane at a point which is farther away from the corner of Chestnut Lane and Johns Canyon Road than as originally shown on the proposed Site Plan. RESOLUTION NO.94-11 • PAGE 4 • H. The project conforms with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and is categorically exempt from environmental review. Section 13. The Commission finds that it has authority to impose conditions of approval on this discretionary land use decision pursuant to the City's police power, the State Planning and Zoning Law, City ordinances and California Government Code Section 66499.34. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 66499.34, the City is precluded from granting any approval necessary to develop any real property which has been divided, or which has resulted from a division, in violation of the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act or of the provisions of local ordinances enacted by the City if it finds that development of such real property is contrary to the public health or the public safety. California Government Code Section 66499.34 also authorizes the City, with respect to parcels of real property created in violation of the Subdivision Map Act or local ordinances that are under the ownership of the same person who was the record owner of the property at the time the violation occurred, to impose such conditions as would be applicable to a current division of the property, except that a conditional certificate of compliance has been filed for record, then the City may only impose such conditions stipulated in that certificate. Section 14. With respect to the requirements of California Govemment Section 66499.34, and for purposes of showing a nexus between the provisions of condition "K" of Section 16 and the need for that condition, the Planning Commission finds as follows: A. Richard Colyear was a record owner of the subject property at the time of its subdivision in 1970. B. In 1970, as a condition of tentative map approval of the tract, certain perimeter easements were imposed for bridle trails, road and public utilities to be reserved for the benefit of the Rolling Hills Community Association in documents to be recorded. The parcel that is the subject of this application is a part of that tract. The requirement that these perimeter easements be reserved by document was denoted by the applicant on the final map approved and recorded for the tract. However, the applicant has never recorded any of the easements imposed by his conditional subdivision approval. C. The City's Sanitary Sewer Feasibility Study, prepared by ASL Consulting Engineers on February 9, 1988, recommends the installation of future sewer lines to service the immediate vicinity of parcel to be constructed along the westerly property line of Parcel 2 (Lot 2), along the boundary line of proposed Parcels 1 and 2 and then along the easterly property line of Parcel 1 (Lot 1) (See Map 13 of 22 to the ASL Study). Based upon this Study and the need to provide for the future installation of sewers to serve the property which is the subject of this application and to serve properties in the immediate vicinity of the subject property, conditions have been attached to require the applicant to record an easement to the City (to be immediately transferred to the Rolling Hills Community Association) for ingress and egress purposes to construct underground utilities along those portions of the properties described above. D. The Planning Commission further finds that the required easements will serve and benefit the subject property by providing an accessway for the installation and maintenance of underground utilities to serve the site. The easement will allow the construction of underground sewer lines along the side of the property to serve the property and provide an alternative to the use of septic systems on this lot and on surrounding lots. This alternative method of sewage disposal is preferable from a geologic standpoint since this lot is on a slope and the use of septic systems in the City have occasionally resulted in slope stability problems and have occasionally failed. E. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66499.34, only by the imposition of condition "K" of Section 16 to address the applicant's original violation of subdivision approval can the Planning Commission properly approve the application for Site Plan Review. RESOLUTION NO. 94-11 • PAGE 5 • Section 15. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves the Site Plan Review application for Zoning Case No. 513 for a proposed residential development as indicated on the development plan incorporated herein as Exhibit A, subject to the conditions contained in Section 16 of this Resolution. Section 16. The Variance to the front yard setback approved in Section 7, the Variance to the side yard setback approved in Section 10, and the Site Plan Review for residential development approved in Section 15 of this Resolution are subject to the following conditions: A. The Variances and Site Plan Review approvals shall expire within one year from the effective date of approval as defined in Section 17.38.070. B. It is declared and made a condition of the Site Plan Review approval, that if any conditions thereof are violated, this approval 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 March 24, 1994 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 include a 550 square foot corral and 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 building pad shall not exceed 4000 cubic yards of 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 building pad coverage shall not exceed 17.7%. H. The driveway from the street to the building pad of the subject property, as shown on the plans dated March 24, 1994 shall be at least seventy-five (75) feet from the center of the radius curve of the intersection of Chestnut Lane and Johns Canyon Road. I. To obscure the building on the pad, the structures, 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. J. 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 costs 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 RESOLUTION NO. 94-11 4) PAGE 6 • 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. K. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 66499.34, the City's police power, State Planning and Zoning law, the City's ordinances and other applicable powers and authority available to the City, and based upon the findings contained in Section 14 of this Resolution relating to violations of the Subdivision Map Act and local ordinances at the time the parcel was created, the applicant shall prepare and, upon approval and acceptance by the City, record prior to the issuance of any grading or building permit for the subject parcel, an easement in gross, in favor of the City of Rolling Hills(with the intention that the City convey it immediately to the Rolling Hills Community Association) for ingress, egress and the installation, maintenance, repair, replacement and removal of sewer lines and other underground utilities over that certain real property described as (i) the westerly ten (10) feet of Parcel 2, (ii) ten (10) feet on either side of the boundary line between Parcels 1 and 2, and (iii) the easterly ten (10) feet of Parcel 1. The easement deed shall prohibit Grantor or any successor to Grantor from constructing or erecting any improvements or altering the contours of the surface of the easement areas other than installation of shallow rooted landscaping and necessary irrigation systems. L. The property that is the subject of this approval is also the subject of pending litigation entitled Richard C. Colyear v. City of Rolling Hills, etc., et al, and City of Rolling Hills v. Richard C. Colyear (Case No. YC005965) regarding conditions of approval of a lot line adjustment involving Parcel 1 (Lot 1), and Richard C. Colyear v. City of Rolling Hills (Case No. SB91C00317) involving the processing fees for the lot line adjustment. The approval of this Site Plan Review shall not limit, impair or otherwise prejudice the City's position with respect to the pending litigation mentioned above. M. This Site Plan Review approval shall not in any way constitute a representation that Parcel 1 (Lot 1) was subdivided in compliance with the State Subdivision laws, the City's ordinances or conditions imposed pursuant thereto. N. The retaining wall in the front yard setback shall not exceed five (5') feet in height measured from the downslope side of the wall to the surface of the ground, shall not exceed 296 feet in length and shall be permitted to encroach the maximum fifty (50') feet into the front yard setback. The retaining wall shall be constructed in accordance with the approved Site Plan, identified as Exhibit "A". O. The retaining wall in the side yard setback shall not exceed five (5') feet in height measured from the downslope side of the wall to the surface of the ground, shall not exceed 155 feet in length and shall be permitted to encroach up to a maximum 16 feet into the side yard setback. The retaining wall shall be constructed in accordance with the approved Site Plan, identified as Exhibit "A". P. 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. Q. 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. RESOLUTION NO. 94-11 PAGE 7 • R. Notwithstanding Section 17.46.070 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, any modifications to the project which would constitute additional development shall require the filing of a new application for approval by the Planning Commission. S. The applicant shall execute an Affidavit of Acceptance of all conditions of this Site Plan Review; or the approval shall not be effective. T. Conditions C, D, F, G, H, I, J, K, 0, P, Q, and S of these Variance and Site Plan Review approvals must be complied with prior to the issuance of a building or grading permit from the County of Los Angeles. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 7th day of May, 1994. ALLAN ROBERTS, CHAIRMAN ATTEST: MARILYN KERN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ) I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 94-11 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH INTO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK TO CONSTRUCT A RETAINING WALL, GRANTING A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH INTO THE SIDE YARD SETBACK TO CONSTRUCT A RETAINING WALL, AND GRANTING SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL OF A NEW RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE IN ZONING CASE NO. 513, SUBJECT TO SPECIFIED CONDITIONS. was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on May 7, 1994 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 HEARING DATE: TO: FROM: APPLICATION NO. SITE LOCATION: ZONING & SIZE: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PUBLISHED: REQUEST • 0/ JUL APRIL 18, 1994 PLANNING COMMISSION LOLA UNGAR, PRINCIPAL PLANNER INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 ZONING CASE NO. 513 0 CHESTNUT LANE (LOT 241-A-1) RAS-2, 2 ACRES MR. RICHARD C. COLYEAR MR. DOUGLAS MCHATTIE, SOUTH BAY ENGINEERING APRIL 9, 1994 The applicant requests a Variance to permit encroachment into the front yard setback to construct a retaining wall, requests a Variance to permit encroachment into the side yard setback to construct a retaining wall, and requests Site Plan Review to permit the construction of a proposed new single family residence and an attached garage. BACKGROUND In reviewing the applicant's request under Title 17 (Zoning), staff would identify the following issues for evaluation: 1. A previous application was approved in 1992, and later was extended in 1993, but approvals expired on March 28, 1994. And, according to Section 17.46.080(B)(3) of the Zoning Code, no extension period can be granted beyond the second anniversary of the original project approval unless a new public hearing is held. And, any extension granted beyond the second anniversary may only be granted or denied in the same manner and based upon the same criteria as required for approval of the original project. 2. At this time, the applicants are in the Plan Check process with the similar plans to those previously submitted in 1992 for a 1,674 square foot residence, a 350 square foot attached garage, a 450 square foot future stable and a 96 square foot service yard. Retaining walls are proposed at the south side of the driveway and at the south side of the building pad. Previous plans included a retaining wall that encroaches 50 feet into the 50 foot front yard setback. Proposed plans also include an encroachment of a retaining wall 10 feet into the 35 foot side yard setback. The current status of the plans require approval for soils and geology as noted in the attached letter from Mr. McHattie of South Bay Engineering. Mr. McHattie also notes that the driveway width has been increased to 20 feet to satisfy the requirements of the Fire Department. Preliminary landscaping plans have been approved by the Planning Department but, easements to be recorded as noted in Section 12, Condition K of Resolution No. 92-15 are still unrecorded. Printed on Recycled Paper. ZONING CASE NO. 513 PAGE 2 3. Access to the proposed building site will be from the northeast portion of the lot off Chestnut Lane. 4. Grading for the project site will require 4,000 cubic yards of cut and 4,000 cubic yards of fill. Deep foundations, such as caissons, will be required for portions of the proposed structure. 5. The structural lot coverage proposed is 2,570 square feet or 3.0% (20% permitted) and the total lot coverage proposed is 11,470 square feet or 13.2% (35% permitted). 6. Coverage on the 11,760 square foot building pad proposed is 22%. 7. 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 proposed plans and take public testimony.