Loading...
575, To build a retaining wall that, Staff Reports• ofielling JUL 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.: 4.A. Mtg. Date: 9/28/98 DATE: SEPTEMBER 28, 1998 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL ATTN: CRAIG R. NEALIS, CITY MANAGER FROM: LOLA M. UNGAR, PLANNING DIRECTOR SUBJECT: RESOLUTION NO. 98-18: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS APPROVING A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH INTO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR MODIFICATIONS OF A PREVIOUSLY ILLEGALLY CONSTRUCTED DRIVEWAY RETAINING WALL IN ZONING CASE NO. 575. Mr. and Mrs. Joey Chung, 9 Bowie Road (Lot 14-CRA) BACKGROUND 1. The Planning Commission adopted the attached Resolution No. 98-18 on September 15, 1998 at their regular meeting approving a Variance to encroach into the front yard setback for modifications of a previously illegally constructed driveway retaining wall. The vote was 4-0. 'Commissioner Roger Sommer was absent. 2. Mr. and Mrs. Chung are requesting a Variance to authorize the retention of an encroachment into the front yard setback to allow a previously constructed 35 foot wooden retaining wall, up to 5 feet high, to remain and proposing remedial measures to modify a total of 130 feet of retaining walls that encroach a maximum of 10 feet into the 50 foot front yard setback. During the hearing process, the applicants proposed remedial measures to modify and reinforce the existing retaining walls to secure the failing driveway to meet City and County building and safety requirements. The applicants state that the Variance is necessary because a retaining wall is needed to keep the driveway from falling and cracking as previously there was a lip paving over sliding dirt. They also state that the retaining wall was •.a Printed on Recycled Paper. • • necessary to avoid a landslide and is protecting the driveway and supporting the foundation of the house and is quite a distance from neighbors. 3. At a field trip on May 4, 1998, the Commission requested that the applicants seek the advice of a local professional civil engineer regarding the illegal retaining wall and support of the driveway and residence at the site and provided a list of local civil engineering firms to the applicants. Mr. John Y. Hong, registered Professional Engineer, representing the Chungs, provided the attached letter and has been in contact with staff. Mr. Hong proposes cast -in -concrete railroad piles (CCRP) to be spaced 10 feet to 12 feet on center on the outer side of the existing railroad tie retaining wall, minimum of 1 inch cover of concrete for railroad track inside the pilings (8 feet below grade, 4 feet above grade), and concrete spacer (filler) between rail and existing railroad ties - No. 4 rebar, one vertical and three horizontal at 12 inches. Staff spoke with Rolling Hills Community Association Architectural Inspector Mr. Roger Vink who had also received plans. Mr. Vink reported that the Association will await the Planning Commission's decision before presenting the proposal to the Community Association's Architectural Committee. We also forwarded the proposal to Ms. Lata Thakar, District Engineer, County Building & Safety for feasibility. Ms. Thakar informed us that the engineer must submit calculations to justify the remedial measures proposed along with stamped plans and a geotechnical engineer must provide the necessary data for soils and geology for the proposed design parameters for the project to be reviewed by the Department of Building and Safety. 4. On October 29, 1997, when it came to the attention of the City that a wooden retaining wall was constructed without benefit of a building permit, Mr. Rafael Bernal, District Engineering Associate and Planning staff visited the site and requested that the owners, Mr. and Mrs. Chung, stop all work. Mrs. Chung said that the retaining wall was backfilled with gravel. Mr. Bernal informed staff that the retaining wall may not meet minimum engineering standards. At that time, the applicants also discussed the possible request for the importation of soil to the property to raise the height of the existing flood channel but later abandoned that concept. 5. Section 17.16.150 of the Zoning Code requires that all required yards or setbacks be maintained unoccupied and unobstructed by any structures except for 3-rail boundary fences, no more than 20% of driveway area, no more than 10% uncovered parking areas, and walkways, steps, mailboxes, security lighting, and irrigations systems. It should be noted that the County Department of Building and Safety does not require a building permit for retaining walls that are less than 3 feet in height and do not have a • • "surcharge," auch as a hillside or driveway behind them. If there is a surcharge, then engineering is required. The Rolling Hills Zoning Code limits the height of retaining walls for game courts to 4 feet and though the Code does not address the height of other retaining walls it describes them as structures. The Community Association requires that retaining walls not exceed 5 feet in height, averaging no more than 2-1/2 feet. 6. No grading is proposed. 7. The existing residence encroaches up to 18 feet into the front yard setback. Other retaining walls in the front yard setback encroach up to 28 feet into the front yard setback. 8. A 50 foot retaining wall was constructed in 1961. The 2,100 square foot residence with attached 702 square foot garage was completed in 1962. There is a 160 square foot barn and 1,242 square foot corral at the rear and northern portion of the lot. 9. The structural lot coverage is 2,962 square feet or 3.7% (20% maximum permitted) and the total lot coverage proposed is 12,610 square feet or 15.9% (35% maximum permitted). 10. Existing disturbed area is 12,610 square feet or 15.9% (40% maximum permitted). 11. The project has been determined to be categorically exempt pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council receive and file Resolution No. 98-18. • t RESOLUTION NO. 98-18 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS APPROVING A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH INTO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR MODIFICATIONS OF A PREVIOUSLY ILLEGALLY CONSTRUCTED DRIVEWAY RETAINING WALL IN ZONING CASE NO. 575. 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 Joey Chung with respect to real property located at 9 Bowie Road (Lot 14-CRA), Rolling Hills, requesting a Variance modification to an existing illegally constructed driveway retaining wall that encroaches into the front yard setback at an existing single family residence. During the hearing process, the applicants proposed remedial measures to modify and reinforce the existing retaining walls to meet City and County building and safety requirements. Section 2. On October 29, 1997, when it came to the attention of the City that a wooden retaining wall for a driveway was constructed without the benefit of a building permit, Mr. Rafael Bernal, District Engineering Associate and Planning staff visited the site and requested that the owners, Mr. and Mrs. Chung, stop all work. Mrs. Chung said that the retaining wall was backfilled with gravel. Mr. Bernal informed staff that the retaining wall may not meet minimum engineering standards. At that time, the applicants also discussed the possible request for the importation of soil to the property to raise the height of the existing flood channel but later abandoned that concept. Section 3. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the application on March 17, 1998, April 21, 1998, May 19, 1998, June 16, 1998, July 21, 1998, August 18, 1998, and at a field trip visit on May 4, 1998. The applicant was notified of the public hearing in writing by first class mail and through the City's newsletter. Evidence was heard from members of the City staff, the applicants, and the Planning Commission having reviewed, analyzed and studied the project. Concerns expressed by Commissioners and the applicants focused on the unauthorized construction of the retaining wall, the retaining wall height and the safety of the retaining wall. Section 4. The Planning Commission finds that the project qualifies as a Class Class 5 Exemption [State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15305 (Minor Alterations to Land Use Limitations)] 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 RESOLUTION NO. 98-18 PAGE 1 OF 5 • • 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 in the RA-S zone to be no less than fifty (50) feet from the front easement line. The applicant is requesting a Variance to authorize the retention of an encroachment into the front yard setback to allow a previously constructed thirty-five (35) foot long, up to five (5) foot high illegal driveway retaining wall to remain and proposing remedial measures to modify a total of 130 feet of retaining walls that encroaches a maximum of ten (10) feet into the fifty (50) foot front 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 propertyor 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 previously constructed illegal retaining walls are located on a hillside slope at the rear of the lot and away from the street and assist in preventing an existing driveway from potential collapse and 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 to stabilize the driveway, protect the hillside from erosion, control drainage on the property and to otherwise ensure that proper and adequate vehicular access onto the site is maintained. 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 wall will allow drainage on the property to be controlled as it flows to the canyon to the north inside the applicants' property. A substantial portion of the lot will remain undeveloped. In addition, the retaining wall, as conditioned, will be screened with vegetation so as not to be visible from surrounding properties. Section 6. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves the Variance for Zoning Case No. 575 to authorize the retention of an encroachment into the front yard setback to authorize a previously constructed illegal retaining wall to remain and proposing remedial measures to modify a total of 130 feet of retaining walls that encroach a maximum of ten (10) feet into the fifty (50) foot front yard setback as indicated on the development plan submitted with this application and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit A, dated August 13, 1998 and subject to the conditions specified in Section 7 of this Resolution. RESOLUTION NO. 98-18 PAGE 2 OF 5 • • Section 7. The Variance to permit encroachments into the front yard setback for modifications to a previously constructed illegal retaining wall that will be modified to a maximum height of five (5) feet and encroach a maximum of ten (10) feet into the fifty (50) foot front yard setback approved in Section 6 as indicated on the Development Plan attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A dated August 13, 1998, is subject to the following conditions: A. The Variance approval 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 Variance 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. 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 August 13, 1998, except as otherwise provided in these conditions. E. The modified retaining walls shall not exceed 130 feet in length. F. The modified retaining walls shall not exceed 5 feet in height. G. The top edge of the modified retaining walls shall be a continuous smooth line and without jagged inclines or declines along the length of the wall. H. The existing topography, flora and natural features of the lot shall be retained to the greatest extent feasible. I. Additional landscape screening that incorporates drought -resistant native plants shall be planted to obscure the northern or outer face of the retaining walls. J. Landscape screening that incorporates drought -resistant native plants shall be planted at the northern face of the retaining walls and shall be maintained so as not to obstruct views of neighboring properties but to obscure the retaining walls. K. A landscape plan for the northern face of the retaining walls 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 RESOLUTION NO. 98-18 PAGE 3 OF 5 • • 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 Manager or 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. L. A licensed civil. engineer shall submit calculations and stamped plans to justify the remedial measures proposed to be reviewed and approved by the Department of Building and Safety. M. A licensed geotechnical engineer shall provide the necessary data for soils and geology for the proposed design parameters for the project to be reviewed and approved by the Department of Building and Safety. N. 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. O. The project must be reviewed and approved by the Rolling Hills Community Association Architectural Review Committee prior to approval of the drainage plan. P. 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 7). Q. The applicant shall execute an Affidavit of Acceptance of all conditions of this Variance approval pursuant to Section 17.38.060, or the approvalshall not be effective. R. All conditions of this Variance approval must be complied with prior to approval of the site drainage plan by the County of Los Angeles. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED ON THE 15T RESOLUTION NO. 98-18 PAGE4OF5 O SEPTEMBER, 1998. ALLAN ROBERTS, CHAIRMAN ATTEST: MARILYN KF.IZN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES) §§ CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ) I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 98-18 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS APPROVING A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH INTO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR MODIFICATIONS OF A PREVIOUSLY ILLEGALLY CONSTRUCTED DRIVEWAY RETAINING WALL IN ZONING CASE NO. 575. was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on September 15, 1998 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Hankins, Margeta, Witte And Chairman Roberts. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Sommer. ABSTAIN: None. and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following: Administrative Offices allYthE, DEPUTY CITY CLERK RESOLUTION NO. 98-18 PAGE5OF5 JYH PAGE 01 08/ 05/199B 08:15 714282166E • • August 5, 1998 Lola Unger, Re.: Chung, 9 Bowie Retaining Wall Dear Lola, GK GoldKey Professional Real Estate And Land Development Company AUG 0 5 1998 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS x�y Per our phone conversation on Friday, July 31, 1998, the engineering plans for the retaining wall at the Chung's residence will be submitted on or before Monday, August 10, 1998. As discussed and agreed the plans will be at your office prior to the city board meeting where you will be presenting the proposed retaining wall for approval. have visited the site and will be designing a retaining wall that will sufficiently support the existing widened driveway. If you have any questions, please page me at (714) 802-4454. Sincerely, cc: file: kymm010 J. Chung Commitment a Results 8380 E. Mesdowgate Drive, Anahiem Hills. CA 92808 Off. (714) 282.1888 Res. (714) 282-7083 Pgr. (714) 802-4454 • • - - --- "*---s\ c ill! 0-1: /2- • i lg@tan9 AUG 1 0 1998 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS Otv • cf� .1) ie0ti4 �aer HEARING DATE: AUGUST 18, 1998 TO: FROM: f 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 LOLA M. UNGAR, PLANNING DIRECTOR APPLICATION NO. SITE LOCATION: ZONING AND SIZE: APPLICANT: PUBLISHED: REOUEST ZONING CASE NO. 575 9 BOWIE ROAD (LOT 14-CRA) RAS-2, 2.13 ACRES MR. AND MRS. JOEY CHUNG MARCH 7, 1998 Request for a Variance to permit an existing illegally constructed retaining wall that encroaches into the front yard setback. BACKGROUND 1. On August 5, 1998, we received the attached letter from Mrs. Debbie Chung regarding the meeting on July 21, 1998. The subject item had been continued by the Planning Commission to allow time for the applicants to have an engineer look at the soundness of the illegally constructed retaining wall and support of the driveway and residence at the site. Mr. John Y. Hong, registered Professional Engineer, representing the Chungs, provided the attached letter and has been in contact with staff. Mr. Hong proposes cast -in -concrete railroad piles (CCRP) to be spaced 10 feet to 12 feet on center on the outer side of the existing railroad tie retaining wall, minimum of 1 inch cover of concrete for railroad track inside the pilings (8 feet below grade, 4 feet above grade), and concrete spacer (filler) between rail and existing railroad ties - No. 4 rebar, one vertical and three horizontal at 12 inches. Staff spoke with Rolling Hills Community Association Architectural Inspector Mr. Roger Vink who had also received plans. Mr. Vink reported that the Association will await the Planning Commission's decision before presenting the proposal to the Community Association's Architectural Committee. We also forwarded the proposal to Ms. Lata Thakar, District Engineer, County Building & Safety for feasibility. Ms. Thakar informed us ZONING CASE NO. 575 PAGE 1 Printed on Recycled Paper. • • that the engineer must submit calculations to justify the remedial measures proposed along with stamped plans and a geotechnical engineer must provide the necessary data for soils and geology for the proposed design parameters for the project to be reviewed by the Department of Building and Safety. 2. The Planning Commission viewed the illegally constructed railroad tie retaining wall on Monday, May 4, 1998. At the meeting, the Commission requested that the applicants seek the advice of a local professional civil engineer regarding the illegal retaining wall and support of the driveway and residence at the site. A list of local civil engineering firms was forwarded to the applicants. 3. On October 29, 1997, when it came to the attention of the City that a wooden retaining wall was constructed without benefit of a building permit, Mr. Rafael Bernal, District Engineering Associate and Planning staff visited the site and requested that the owners, Mr. and Mrs. Chung, stop all work. Mrs. Chung said that the retaining wall was backfilled with gravel. Mr. Bernal informed staff that the retaining wall may not meet minimum engineering standards. At that time, the applicants also discussed the possible request for the importation of soil to the property to raise the height of the existing flood channel but later abandoned that concept. 4. The applicants are requesting a Variance to permit an existing illegally constructed retaining wall that is 35 feet long and approximately 5 feet in height that has been constructed without permits to encroach up to 10 feet into the 50 foot front yard setback at the subject residence. The applicants state that the Variance is necessary because a retaining wall is needed to keep the driveway from falling and cracking as previously there was a lip paving over sliding dirt. They also state that the retaining wall was necessary to avoid a landslide and is protecting the driveway and supporting the foundation of the house and is quite a distance from neighbors. 5. Section 17.16.150 of the Zoning Code requires that all required yards or setbacks be maintained unoccupied and unobstructed by any structures except for 3-rail boundary fences, no more than 20% of driveway area, no more than 10% uncovered parking areas, and walkways, steps, mailboxes, security lighting, and irrigations systems. It should be noted that the County Department of Building and Safety does not require a building permit for retaining walls that are less than 3 feet in height and do not have a "surcharge," auch as a hillside or driveway behind them. If there is a surcharge, then engineering is required. The Rolling Hills Zoning Code limits the height of retaining walls to 4 feet for game courts and though the Code does not address the height of retaining walls it describes them as structures. The Community Association requires ZONING CASE NO. 575 PAGE 2 • • that retaining walls not exceed 5 feet in height, averaging no more than 2-1/2 feet. 6. No grading is proposed. 7. The existing residence encroaches up to 18 feet into the front yard setback. Other retaining walls in the front yard setback encroach up to 28 feet into the front yard setback. 8. A 50 foot retaining wall was constructed in 1961. The 2,100 square foot residence with attached 702 square foot garage was completed in 1962. There is a 160 square foot barn and 1,242 square foot corral at the rear and northern portion of the lot. 9. The structural lot coverage is 2,962 square feet or 3.7% (20% maximum permitted) and the total lot coverage proposed is 12,610 square feet or 15.9% (35% maximum permitted). 10. Existing disturbed area is 12,610 square feet or 15.9% (40% maximum permitted). 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 proposed plans and take public testimony. 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. ZONING CASE NO. 575 PAGE 3 eq8 git-eoar. • MUG 0 4 19% Ci Of ROLLING HILLS Fkv 4410•44. imJ n 4541-444, &isle 40, ,e) viac stage) 0,cu ea Pity* L, ,toorsi orpg• 50Pretor tr 4"git f**si • how► &firove S 4 V OB/05/1990 00:15 714202160E JYH PAGE 01 • August 5, 1998 Lola Unger Re.: Chung, 9 Bowie Retaining Wall Dear Lola, GoldKey Professional Real Estate And Land Development Company VCEGUI9 AUG 0 5 1998 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS Ry Per our phone conversation on Friday, July 31, 1998, the engineering plans for the retaining wall at the Chung's residence will be submitted on or before Monday, August 10, 1998. As discussed and agreed the plans will be at your office prior to the city board meeting where you will be presenting the proposed retaining wall for approval. I have visited the site and will be designing a retaining wall that will sufficiently support the existing widened driveway. If you have any questions, please page me at (714) 802-4454. Sincerely, cc: file: kymm010 J. Chung Commitment a Results 8380 E. Meadowgate Drive, Anahiem Hills, CA 92808 Off. (714) 282-1880 Res. (714) 282-7083 Pgr. (714) 802-4454 I ' r :eZ,eittyc c /Z- " CA r • lE@MAIR AUG 1 0 1990 CITY OF ROLLING 1-3ILLS !Ay • City o/ leoffinl HEARING DATE: JULY 21,1998 TO: FROM: • 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 LOLA M. UNGAR, PLANNING DIRECTOR APPLICATION NO. SITE LOCATION: ZONING AND SIZE: APPLICANT: PUBLISHED: REOUEST ZONING CASE NO. 575 9 BOWIE ROAD (LOT 14-CRA) RAS-2, 2.13 ACRES MR. AND MRS. JOEY CHUNG MARCH 7, 1998 Request for a Variance to permit an existing illegally constructed retaining wall that encroaches into the front yard setback. BACKGROUND 1. Staff spoke with Mr. Joey Chung on July 14, 1998 and July 15, 1998 and was informed that an engineer will look at the illegally constructed retaining wall on July 16, 1998 after which Mr. Chung will send the engineer's report and a letter to the City regarding the project. On June 16, 1998, the Planning Commission continued the subject case to this evening's meeting at the request of Mr. Chung. On June 17, 1998, he wrote that they are still working on the situation and would contact us as soon as they could. The Planning Commission viewed the illegally constructed retaining wall on Monday, May 4, 1998. At the meeting, the Commission requested that the applicants seek the advice of a local professional civil engineer regarding the illegal retaining wall and support of the driveway and residence at the site. A list of local civil engineering firms was forwarded to the applicants. 2. On October 29, 1997, when it came to the attention of the City that a wooden retaining wall was constructed without benefit of a building permit, Mr. Rafael Bernal, District Engineering Associate and Planning staff visited the site and requested that the owners, Mr. Joey Chung and Mrs. Deborah Chung, ZONING CASE NO. 575 PAGE 1 Printed on Recycled Paper. s • stop all work. Mrs. Chung said that the retaining wall was backfilled with gravel. Mr. Bernal informed staff that the retaining wall may not meet minimum engineering standards. At that time, the applicants also discussed the possible request for the importation of soil to the property to raise the height of the existing flood channel but later abandoned that concept. 3. The applicants are requesting a Variance to permit an existing illegally constructed retaining wall that is 35 feet long and approximately 5 feet in height that has been constructed without permits to encroach up to 10 feet into the 50 foot front yard setback at the subject residence. The applicants state that the Variance is necessary because a retaining wall is needed to keep the driveway from falling and cracking as previously there was a lip paving over sliding dirt. They also state that the retaining wall was necessary to avoid a landslide and is protecting the driveway and supporting the foundation of the house and is quite a distance from neighbors. 4. Section 17.16.150 of the Zoning Code requires that all required yards or setbacks be maintained unoccupied and unobstructed by any structures except for 3-rail boundary fences, no more than 20% of driveway area, no more than 10% uncovered parking areas, and walkways, steps, mailboxes, security lighting, and irrigations systems. It should be noted that the County Department of Building and Safety does not require a building permit for retaining walls that are less than 3 feet in height and do not have a "surcharge," auch as a hillside or driveway behind them. If there is a surcharge, then engineering is required. In addition, the Zoning Code limits the height of retaining walls to 4 feet for game courts and though the Code does not address the height of retaining walls it describes them as structures. The Community Association requires that retaining walls not exceed 5 feet in height, averaging no more than 2-1/2 feet. 5. No grading is proposed. 6. The existing residence encroaches up to 18 feet into the front yard setback. Other retaining walls in the front yard setback encroach up to 28 feet into the front yard setback. 7. A 50 foot retaining wall was constructed in 1961. The 2,100 square foot residence with attached 702 square foot garage was completed in 1962. There is a 160 square foot barn and 1,242 square foot corral at the rear and northern portion of the lot. 8. The structural lot coverage is 2,962 square feet or 3.7% (20% maximum permitted) and the total lot coverage proposed is 12,610 square feet or 15.9% (35% maximum permitted). ZONING CASE NO. 575 PAGE 2 • • 9. Existing disturbance is 12,610 square feet or 15.9% (40% maximum permitted). 10. 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. 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. ZONING CASE NO. 575 PAGE 3 3 [1 C nn11II 1N JUN 1 7 1998 June 17, 1998 CITY OF POLLII :3 HILLS Hv Lola Unger City of Rolling Hills City Hall No. 2 Portuguese Berid Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 re: Z,"I near Lola: We are requesting an extension concerning our case. We are still working on the situation and will contact you as soon as we can. We appreciate your patience. Thank you. cerely yours, Debora Chung `' -r--v IZ H ly'r a C1iy 0 Rolling _AIL HEARING DATE: JUNE 16, 1998 TO: FROM: 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 LOLA M. UNGAR, PLANNING DIRECTOR APPLICATION NO. SITE LOCATION: ZONING AND SIZE: APPLICANT: PUBLISHED: REOUEST ZONING CASE NO. 575 9 BOWIE ROAD (LOT 14-CRA) RAS-2, 2.13 ACRES MR. AND MRS. JOEY CHUNG MARCH 7, 1998 Request for a Variance to permit an existing illegally constructed retaining wall that encroaches into the front yard setback. BACKGROUND 1. On May 19, 1998, the Planning Commission continued the subject case to this evening's meeting at the request of Mr. Joey Chung. Mr. Chung said that he would like his father-in-law, Mr. S.M. Kim, to be in attendance at the hearing. The Planning Commission viewed the illegally constructed retaining wall o n Monday, May 4, 1998. At the meeting, the Commission requested that the applicants seek the advice of a local professional civil engineer regarding the illegal retaining wall and support of the driveway and residence at the site. A list of local civil engineering firms was forwarded to the applicants. 2. On October 29, 1997, when it came to the attention of the City that a wooden retaining wall was constructed without benefit of a building permit, Mr. Rafael Bernal, District Engineering Associate and Planning staff visited the site and requested that the owners, Mr. Joey Chung and Mrs. Deborah Chung, stop all work. Mrs. Chung said that the retaining wall was backfilled with gravel. Mr. Bernal informed staff that the retaining wall may not meet minimum engineering standards. At that time, the applicants also discussed the possible request for the importation of soil to the property to raise the height of the existing flood channel but later abandoned that concept. ZONING CASE NO. 575 PAGE 1 Printed on Recycled Paper. • • 3. The applicants are requesting a Variance to permit an existing illegally constructed retaining wall that is 35 feet long and approximately 5 feet in height that has been constructed without permits to encroach up to 10 feet into the 50 foot front yard setback at the subject residence. The applicants state that the Variance is necessary because a retaining wall is needed to keep the driveway from falling and cracking as previously there was a lip paving over sliding dirt. They also state that the retaining wall was necessary to avoid a landslide and is protecting the driveway and supporting the foundation of the house and is quite a distance from neighbors. 4. Section 17.16.150 of the Zoning Code requires that all required yards or setbacks be maintained unoccupied and unobstructed by any structures except for 3-rail boundary fences, no more than 20% of driveway area, no more than 10% uncovered parking areas, and walkways, steps, mailboxes, security lighting, and irrigations systems. It should be noted that the County Department of Building and Safety does not require a building permit for retaining walls that are less than 3 feet in height and do not have a "surcharge," auch as a hillside or driveway behind them. If there is a surcharge, then engineering is required. In addition, the Zoning Code limits the height of retaining walls to 4 feet for game courts and though the Code does not address the height of retaining walls it describes them as structures. The Community Association requires that retaining walls not exceed 5 feet in height, averaging no more than 2-1/2 feet. 5. No grading is proposed. 6. The existing residence encroaches up to 18 feet into the front yard setback. Other retaining walls in the front yard setback encroach up to 28 feet into the front yard setback. 7. A 50 foot retaining wall was constructed in 1961. The 2,100 square foot residence with attached 702 square foot garage was completed in 1962. There is a 160 square foot barn and 1,242 square foot corral at the rear and northern portion of the lot. 8. The structural lot coverage is 2,962 square feet or 3.7% (20% maximum permitted) and the total lot coverage proposed is 12,610 square feet or 15.9% (35% maximum permitted). 9. Existing disturbance is 12,610 square feet or 15.9% (40% maximum permitted). 10. The project has been determined to be categorically exempt pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). ZONING CASE NO. 575 PAGE 2 RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission review the proposed plans and take public testimony. 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. ZONING CASE NO. 575 PAGE 3 ►- i £.'e1ff 0/ AiLing 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 DATE: JUNE 16, 1998 TO: HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: LOLA M. UNGAR, PLANNING DIRECTOR SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 575 Mr. and Mrs. Joey Chung, 9 Bowie Road (Lot 14-CRA) Request for a Variance to permit a previously constructed illegal retaining wall that encroaches into the front yard setback. Staff spoke to Mr. Chung this afternoon and learned that he would like to request a continuance for the subject case because he has a conflict for this evening. He says that his father-in-law, Mr. Kim, is working with an engineer regarding this project. Mr. Chung said that he will provide a written request on Wednesday, June 17, 1998. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission continue the item to the next regular Planning Commission meeting with the requirement that the City be provided a written request for the continuance. %a Printed on Recycled Paper. • Ci1y p Ro llin S ��ee HEARING DATE: MAY 19, 1998 TO: FROM: • 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 LOLA M. UNGAR, PLANNING DIRECTOR APPLICATION NO. SITE LOCATION: ZONING AND SIZE: APPLICANT: PUBLISHED: REOUEST ZONING CASE NO. 575 9 BOWIE ROAD (LOT 14-CRA) RAS-2, 2.13 ACRES MR. AND MRS. JOEY CHUNG MARCH 7, 1998 Request for a Variance to permit an existing illegally constructed retaining wall that encroaches into the front yard setback. BACKGROUND 1. The Planning Commission viewed the retaining wall on Monday, May 4, 1998. At the meeting, the Commission requested that the applicants seek the advice of a local professional civil engineer regarding the illegal retaining wall and support of the driveway and residence at the site. A list of local civil engineering firms was forwarded to the applicants. 2. On October 29, 1997, when it came to the attention of the City that a wooden retaining wall was constructed without benefit of a building permit, Mr. Rafael Bernal, District Engineering Associate and Planning staff visited the site and requested that the owners, Mr. Joey Chung and Mrs. Deborah Chung, stop all work. Mrs. Chung said that the retaining wall was backfilled with gravel. Mr. Bernal informed staff that the retaining wall may not meet minimum engineering standards. At that time, the applicants also discussed the possible request for the importation of soil to the property to raise the height of the existing flood channel but later abandoned that concept. 3. The applicants are requesting a Variance to permit an existing illegally constructed retaining wall that is 35 feet long and approximately 5 feet in height that has been constructed without permits to encroach up to 10 feet into the 50 foot front yard setback at the subject residence. ZONING CASE NO. 575 PAGE 1 Printed on Recycled Paper. 4. • • The applicants state that the Variance is necessary because a retaining wall is needed to keep the driveway from falling and cracking as previously there was a lip paving over sliding dirt. They also state that the retaining wall was necessary to avoid a landslide and is protecting the driveway and supporting the foundation of the house and is quite a distance from neighbors. 4. Section 17.16.150 of the Zoning Code requires that all required yards or setbacks be maintained unoccupied and unobstructed by any structures except for boundary fences, no more than 20% of driveway area, no more than 10% uncovered parking areas, and walkways, steps, mailboxes, security lighting, and irrigations systems. It should be noted that the County Department of Building and Safety does not require a building permit for retaining walls that are less than 3 feet in height and do not have a "surcharge," auch as a hillside or driveway behind them. If there is a surcharge, then engineering is required. In addition, the Zoning Code limits the height of retaining walls to 4 feet for game courts and though the Code does not address the height of retaining walls it describes them as structures. The Community Association requires that retaining walls not exceed 5 feet in height, averaging no more than 2-1/2 feet. 5. No grading is proposed. 6. The existing residence encroaches up to 18 feet into the front yard setback. Other retaining walls in the front yard setback encroach up to 28 feet into the front yard setback. 7. A 50 foot retaining wall was constructed in 1961. The 2,100 square foot residence with attached 702 square foot garage was completed in 1962. There is a 160 square foot barn and 1,242 square foot corral at the rear and northern portion of the lot. 8. The structural lot coverage is 2,962 square feet or 3.7% (20% maximum permitted) and the total lot coverage proposed is 12,610 square feet or 15.9% (35% maximum permitted). 9. Existing disturbance is 12,610 square feet or 15.9% (40% maximum permitted). 10. 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. ZONING CASE NO. 575 PAGE 2 • • VARIANCE REQUIRED BINDINGS 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. ZONING CASE NO. 575 PAGE 3 •City ol Rolling -AIL HEARING DATE: MAY 4, 1998 TO: FROM: • 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 LOLA M. UNGAR, PLANNING DIRECTOR APPLICATION NO. SITE LOCATION: ZONING AND SIZE: APPLICANT: PUBLISHED: REOUEST ZONING CASE NO. 575 9 BOWIE ROAD (LOT 14-CRA) RAS-2, 2.13 ACRES MR. AND MRS. JOEY CHUNG MARCH 7, 1998 Request for a Variance to permit an existing illegally constructed retaining wall that encroaches into the front yard setback. BACKGROUND 1. The Planning Commission will meet to view the retaining wall on Monday, May 4,1998 at 6:00 PM. 2. On October 29, 1997, when it came to the attention of the City that a wooden retaining wall was constructed without benefit of a building permit, Mr. Rafael Bernal, District Engineering Associate and Planning staff visited the site and requested that the owners, Mr. Joey Chung and Mrs. Deborah Chung, stop all work. Mrs. Chung said that the retaining wall was backfilled with gravel. Mr. Bernal informed staff that the retaining wall may not meet minimum engineering standards. At that time, the applicants also discussed the possible request for the importation of soil to the property to raise the height of the existing flood channel but later abandoned that concept. 3. The applicants are requesting a Variance to permit an existing illegally constructed retaining wall that is 35 feet long and approximately, 5 feet in height that has been constructed without permits to encroach up to 10 feet into the 50 foot front yard setback at the subject residence. The applicants state that the Variance is necessary because a retaining wall is needed to keep the driveway from falling and cracking as previously there ZONING CASE NO. 575 PAGE 1 Printed on Recycled Paper. • • was a lip paving over sliding dirt. They also state that the retaining wall was necessary to avoid a landslide and is protecting the driveway and supporting the foundation of the house and is quite a distance from neighbors. 4. Section 17.16.150 of the Zoning Code requires that all required yards or setbacks be maintained unoccupied and unobstructed by any structures except for boundary fences, no more than 20% of driveway area, no more than 10% uncovered parking areas, and walkways, steps, mailboxes, security lighting, and irrigations systems. It should be noted that the County Department of Building and Safety does not require a building permit for retaining walls that are less than 3 feet in height and do not have a "surcharge," auch as a hillside or driveway behind them. If there is a surcharge, then engineering is required. In addition, the Zoning Code limits the height of retaining walls to 4 feet for game courts and though the Code does not address the height of retaining walls it describes them as structures. The Community Association requires that retaining walls not exceed 5 feet in height, averaging no more than 2-1/2 feet. 5. No grading is proposed. 6. The existing residence encroaches up to 18 feet into the front yard setback. Other retaining walls in the front yard setback encroach up to 28 feet into the front yard setback. 7. A 50 foot .retaining wall was constructed in 1961. The 2,100 square foot residence with attached 702 square foot garage was completed in 1962. There is a 160 square foot barn and 1,242 square foot corral at the rear and northern portion of the lot. 8. The structural lot coverage is 2,962 square feet or 3.7% (20% maximum permitted) and the total lot coverage proposed is 12,610 square feet or 15.9% (35% maximum permitted). 9. Existing disturbance is 12,610 square feet or 15.9% (40% maximum permitted). 10. 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. ZONING CASE NO. 575 PAGE 2 • 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. ZONING CASE NO. 575 PAGE 3 140 i Ci1 ol /e0fA4 JUL HEARING DATE: APRIL 21, 1998 TO: • 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 FROM: LOLA M. UNGAR, PLANNING DIRECTOR APPLICATION NO. SITE LOCATION: ZONING AND SIZE: APPLICANT: PUBLISHED: REOUEST ZONING CASE NO. 575 9 BOWIE ROAD (LOT 14-CRA) RAS-2, 2.13 ACRES MR. AND MRS. JOEY CHUNG MARCH 7, 1998 Request for a Variance to permit an existing illegally constructed retaining wall that encroaches into the front yard setback. BACKGROUND 1. The Planning Commission continued the case to this evening's meeting to set the date and time for a field trip visit. 2. On October 29, 1997, when it came to the attention of the City that a wooden retaining wall was constructed without benefit of a building permit, Mr. Rafael Bernal, District Engineering Associate and Planning staff visited the site and requested that the owners, Mr. Joey Chung and Mrs. Deborah Chung, stop all work. Mrs. Chung said that the retaining wall was backfilled with gravel. Mr. Bernal informed staff that the retaining wall may not meet minimum engineering standards. At that time, the applicants also discussed the possible request for the importation of soil to the property to raise the height of the existing flood channel but later abandoned that concept. 2. The applicants are requesting a Variance to permit an existing illegally constructed retaining wall that is 35 feet long and approximately 5 feet in height that has been constructed without permits to encroach up to 10 feet into the 50 foot front yard setback at the subject residence. The applicants state that the Variance is necessary because a retaining wall is needed to keep the driveway from falling and cracking as previously there ZONING CASE NO. 575 PAGE 1 Printed on Recycled Paper. • • was a lip paving over sliding dirt. They also state that the retaining wall was necessary to avoid a landslide and is protecting the driveway and supporting the foundation of the house and is quite a distance from neighbors. 3. Section 17.16.150 of the Zoning Code requires that all required yards or setbacks be maintained unoccupied and unobstructed by any structures except for boundary fences, no more than 20% of driveway area, no more than 10% uncovered parking areas, and walkways, steps, mailboxes, security lighting, and irrigations systems. It should be noted that the County Department of Building and Safety does not require a building permit for retaining walls that are less than 3 feet in height and do not have a "surcharge," auch as a hillside or driveway behind them. If there is a surcharge, then engineering is required. In addition, the Zoning Code limits the height of retaining walls to 4 feet for game courts and though the Code does not address the height of retaining walls it describes them as structures. The Community Association requires that retaining walls not exceed 5 feet in height, averaging no more than 2-1/2 feet. 4. No grading is proposed. 5. The existing residence encroaches up to 18 feet into the front yard setback. Other retaining walls in the front yard setback encroach up to 28 feet into the front yard setback. 6. A 50 foot retaining wall was constructed in 1961. The 2,100 square foot residence with attached 702 square foot garage was completed in 1962. There is a 160 square foot barn and 1,242 square foot corral at the rear and northern portion of the lot. 7. The structural lot coverage is 2,962 square feet or 3.7% (20% maximum permitted) and the total lot coverage proposed is 12,610 square feet or 15.9% (35% maximum permitted). 8. Existing disturbance is 12,610 square feet or 15.9% (40% maximum permitted). 9. 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. ZONING CASE NO. 575 PAGE 2 • • VARIANCE REQUIRED I INNDINGS 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. ZONING CASE NO. 575 PAGE 3 • C14 o/ ie0ti4 JdFP, HEARING DATE: MARCH 17, 1998 TO: 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 FROM: LOLA M. UNGAR, PLANNING DIRECTOR APPLICATION NO. SITE LOCATION: ZONING AND SIZE: APPLICANT: PUBLISHED: REOUEST ZONING CASE NO. 575 9 BOWIE ROAD (LOT 14-CRA) RAS-2, 2.13 ACRES MR. AND MRS. JOEY CHUNG MARCH 7, 1998 Request for a Variance to permit an existing illegally constructed retaining wall that encroaches into the front yard setback. BACKGROUND 1. On October 29, 1997, when it came to the attention of the City that a wooden retaining wall was constructed without benefit of a building permit, Mr. Rafael Bernal, District Engineering Associate and Planning staff visited the site and requested that the owners, Mr. Joey Chung and Mrs. Deborah Chung, stop all work. Mrs. Chung said that the wall was backfilled with gravel. Mr. Bernal informed staff that the retaining wall may not meet minimum engineering standards. At that time, the applicants also discussed the possible request for the importation of soil to the property to raise the height of the existing flood channel but later abandoned that concept. 2. The applicants are requesting a Variance to permit an existing illegally constructed retaining wall that is 35 feet long and approximately 5 feet in height that has been constructed without permits to encroach up to 10 feet into the 50 foot front yard setback at the subject residence. The applicants state that the Variance is necessary because a retaining wall is needed to keep the driveway from falling and cracking as previously there was a lip paving over sliding dirt. They also state that the retaining wall was necessary to avoid a landslide and is protecting the driveway and supporting the foundation of the house and is quite a distance from neighbors. ZONING CASE NO. 575 PAGE 1 Printed on Recycled Paper. • . 3. Section 17.16.150 of the Zoning Code requires that all required yards or setbacks be maintained unoccupied and unobstructed by any structures except for boundary fences, no more than 20% of driveway area, no more than 10% uncovered parking areas, and walkways, steps, mailboxes, security lighting, and irrigations systems. It should be noted that the County Department of Building and Safety does not require a building permit for retaining walls that are less than 3 feet in height and do not have a "surcharge" or hillside behind them. If there is a surcharge, then engineering is required. In addition, the Zoning Code limits the height of retaining walls to 4 feet for game courts and does not address other retaining walls. Though, the Community Association requires that retaining walls not exceed 5 feet in height, averaging no more than 2-1/2 feet. 4. No grading is proposed. 5. The existing residence encroaches up to 18 feet into the front yard setback. Other retaining walls in the front yard setback encroach up to 28 feet into the front yard setback. 6. A 50 foot retaining wall was constructed in 1961. The 2,100 square foot residence with attached 702 square foot garage was completed in 1962. There is a 160 square foot barn and 1,242 square foot corral at the rear and northern portion of the lot. 7. The structural lot coverage is 2,962 square feet or 3.7% (20% maximum permitted) and the total lot coverage proposed is 12,610 square feet or 15.9% (35% maximum permitted). 8. Existing disturbance is 12,610 square feet or 15.9% (40% maximum permitted). 9. 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. ZONING CASE NO. 575 PAGE 2 • • 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. ZONING CASE NO. 575 PAGE 3