Loading...
758, Property has existing disturbe, Staff Reports• City 6/ Rolling -AIL DATE: NOVEMBER 10, 2008 • INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 Agenda Item No.: 4B Mtg. Date: 11/10/08 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR THROUGH: ANTON DAHLERBRUCH, CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: RESOLUTION NO. 2008-18. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A SITE PLAN REVIEW TO DEMOLISH AND REBUILT A LARGE PORTION OF AN EXISTING RESIDENCE AND TO CONSTRUCT AN ADDITION THERETO AND REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FOR PREVIOUSLY GRADED AREAS THAT EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED DISTURBED AREA OF THE NET LOT AT A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AT 8 MAVERICK LANE, (LOT 26-A-SK), ROLLING HILLS, CA., (KARPF). RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council receive and file this report or provide other direction to staff. REQUEST The applicants request a Site Plan Review to demolish 3,385 square feet of the existing 5,485 square foot residence, to reconstruct that area and to add 1,618 square feet to the residence for a total residence of 7,103 square feet and a Variance for previously graded areas that exceed the maximum permitted disturbed area of the net lot at 8 Maverick Lane. BACKGROUND 1. At the October 21, 2008 Planning Commission meeting the Commission adopted Resolution No. 2008-18 granting approval of this case. The vote was 4-0- ZC 758 8 Maverick 1 Printed on Recycled Paper • 1. Commissioner Smith was absent. Together with the standard conditions, the Planning Commission applied the following additional conditions: • That the Planning Commission reviews any further development on the property, including future stable. • That the set aside area for the future stable be relocated to the location approved in 1999. • That if the retaining wall of the building pad needs to be higher than the 30 inches approved, that it must be reviewed by the Planning Commission • That additional trees are planted, as indicated on the plan. • That four trees be removed, as indicated on the plan. • That 4,044 sq.ft. impervious surface be removed and substituted with landscaping or combination of landscaping and pervious material. • That verification is provided to the City that a minimum of 50% of the demolition material has been recycled. 2. Originally, the applicant requested a CUP for a garden room to be located in a previously approved area for a stable. During the public hearing, the applicant withdrew the request for a garden room and agreed to move the future stable to the east, where it was previously approved; agreed to remove a portion of the impervious surfaces along the driveway to the future stable and by the residence; as per the neighbors request, agreed to plant a row of trees along the access road to the future stable, to remove several trees along the primary driveway and to plant additional trees in the rear of the residence. 3. The property is zoned RAS-2 and consists of 2.81 acres gross. The net lot area for development purposes is 110,320 square feet or 2.53 acres. The lot is irregular in shape and is located at the end of a cul-de-sac. The lot slopes downwards approximately 26 feet from the roadway easement line to the development and the improvements are not visible from the street level. 4. For the purpose of determining setbacks on this property, the front yard setback is 50 feet from the cul-de-sac roadway easement line. The side yard setbacks are 35 feet from the property lines and the rear setback is 50-feet from the rear property line. 5. Building records show that the house was built in 1958. A 240 square foot addition was constructed in 1990. In 1998 a pool and spa were constructed. A major remodel and addition were granted in 1999 and approval granted for a 1,375 square foot stable. The stable was not constructed. 6. Currently, the property is developed with 5,485 square foot residence, 865 square foot garage, 1,643 square foot basement, 616 square foot swimming pool with 54 square foot pool equipment area, 800 square foot guest house, 522 square feet covered porches, service yard, barbecue and a water feature. 7. The 1999 grading and construction plan show the disturbed area at 38.6%. During grading, the limits of grading were expanded to accommodate the building ZC 758 8 Maverick 2 • pads, including the large stable and to meet the slope gradient of 2:1. As a result, the disturbed area of the lot exceeded the maximum permitted of 40%. Therefore, currently, the applicant is required to seek a Variance to exceed the 40% disturbed net lot area to allow the existing "as graded" condition to remain. 8. The residence is proposed at 7,103 square feet with 865 square foot garage and 772 square feet of covered porches including at the entry to the house. The maximum height of the residence is proposed at 19'. 9. The applicants contacted 9 neighbors in the vicinity of subject property to inform them of their proposed project and received no objections. At the July Planning Commission meeting several neighbors were present and testified in support of this project. After further discussion with the neighbors the applicants agreed to provide additional landscaping, remove trees along the driveway, plant more trees and relocate the future stable. MUNICIPAL CODE COMPLIANCE 10. The proposed project will be located on existing building pads and previously graded and disturbed area of the lot. 11. A not to exceed 30-inch high 40-foot long garden wall is proposed along the top of the slope and at the edge of the building pad, requiring 12 cubic yards of cut and fill. The dirt will be used to backfill the wall. This will result in an increased building pad by 140 square feet. 12. The existing driveway and driveway approach from Maverick Lane to the residence and the stable pad will remain. 13. The net lot area of the lot is 110,320 square feet. The structural lot coverage proposed is 10,756 square feet or 9.7% of the net lot area (not counting the water feature and barbecue, per City's provisions for allowances). The total lot coverage proposed, including structures and flatwork is 21,133 square feet or 19.2% of the net lot area, (35% permitted). 14. There are two building pads on the property. The existing residential building pad is 25,611 square feet and will be enlarged by 140 sq.ft. to 25,751 square feet. The building pad coverage on the residential building pad will be 9,596 square feet or 37.3%, not including 710 sq.ft. of the covered porches, (10% of the size of the residence), water feature and barbecue. Currently the building pad coverage is 30.9%. The stable pad is 5,261 square feet and the coverage is proposed at 450 square feet or 8.5%, for the future stable. 15. The disturbed area of the lot is 63,652 square feet or 57.7% of the net lot area, which includes both building pads, and requires a Variance. 16. In response for justification for the Variance request to exceed the maximum permitted 40% of disturbed area, the applicant's representative states that the exceedance is a pre-existing condition and no additional disturbance is proposed. ZC 758 8 Maverick 3 • 17. The applicant's representative states (attached), that the applicant is aware of the city's guideline for pad coverage of 30%, and that the coverage of 37.3% is not egregious because it is consistent with the general plan and the intent of the guidelines because: • the large lot easily supports the size of the proposed home and other improvements • the building pad could be increased by grading, however that would not be desirable • the proposed additions fit comfortably on the existing pad without overcrowding • distances to setbacks and slopes far exceed standard expectations for similar homes in the community • the development is on an area of the pad that cannot be seen by neighbors due to existing topography and landscaping • the entire property is below street level with a long driveway and the residenceis located well back from the setback giving the appearance of expansiveness of the property and the feeling of openness. 18. All utility lines were placed underground. The applicant will be required to comply with the City's roof requirements, outdoor lighting requirements, landscaping, recycling of construction material requirements and all other provisions of the City's Zoning and Building Codes. CONCLUSION 19. The application is for demolition of 3,385 square feet of the existing 5,485 square foot residence, to reconstruct that area and to add 1,618 square feet to the residence for a total of 7,103 square foot residence, and a Variance for previously graded areas that exceed the maximum permitted disturbed area of the lot. Two building pads exist on the lot and the project will be located on the existing pads. 20. The proposed development will be the largest as compared to similar properties in the vicinity. However, the lot is larger than most in the area and the development is below street level and will be screened. No development is proposed on the stable pad. 21. When reviewing an application, the Planning Commission must find that the application meets the criteria for granting of a Site Plan Review and Variance Some of the goals and policies of the Land Use Element of the General Plan that would be applicable to this application and were considered by the Planning Commission include City's desire to "maintain Rolling Hills' distinctive rural residential character". Another goal is for the City "to accommodate development which is compatible with and complements existing land uses". The Land Use Element also calls to "maintain and provide regulations for sufficient setbacks and easements to provide buffers between residential uses" and require that development conform with the City's existing low -profile, ranch style architecture". ZC 758 8 Maverick • 22. The project is compatible with the surrounding properties. The roof height of the residential addition will align with the existing roof. The highest point of the project is proposed to be 19.0 feet from the finished grade. The building pad will not be raised. OTHER AGENCIES REVIEW 23. The project has been determined to be categorically exempt pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). 24. The Rolling Hills Community Association will review the project for architectural elements and design at a later date. ZC 758 8 Maverick ZONING CASE NO. 758 REVISED SITE PLAN REVIEW RA-S-2 ZONE SETBACKS Front: 50 ft. from front easement Side: 35 ft. from property line Rear: 50 ft. from property line STRUCTURES (Site Plan Review required if size of structure increases by at least 1,000 sq. ft. and has the effect of increasing the size of the structure by more than 25% in a 36-month period). STRUCTURAL LOT COVERAGE (20% maximum) TOTAL LOT COVERAGE (35% maximum) BUILDING PAD COVERAGE RESIDENTIAL COVERAGE (30% max) STABLE COMBINED EXISTING Single family residence Residence Garage Stable Guest house Garden rm. Service yd Pool Pool equip. Att. Trellis Porches Barbecue Water feature Basement TOTAL 5485 sq.ft. 865 sq.ft. 0 sq.ft. 800 sq.ft. 0 sq.ft. 96 sq.ft. 616 sq.ft. 54 sq.ft. 0 sq.ft. 522 sq.ft. 32 sq.ft. 100 sq.ft. 1643 sq.ft. 8,570 sq.ft 7.8% (7.65% w/allowance) 21.15% 30.9 % of 25,611 sq.ft. residential building pad not incl. allowances 47,8% previously approved (not constructed) I PREVIOUSLY PROPOSED Reconstruction and addition Garden Room & Variance for disturbed area Residence Garage Stable -future Guest house Garden rm. Service Yd. Pool Pool eq. Att.Trellis Porches Barbecue Water feature Basement TOTAL 7103 sq.ft 865 sq.ft 450 sq.ft. 800 sq.ft. 800 sq.ft. 96 sq.ft 616 sq.ft. 54 sq.ft. 180 sq.ft. 997 sq.ft. 32 sq.ft. 100 sq.ft. 1643 sq.ft. 12,093 sq.ft 10.96% of 110,320 sq.ft. net lot area (10.4% w/allowance) 23.9% of 110,320 sq.ft. net lot area 37.3% of 25,751 sq.ft. residential building pad not inc. allowances 26.5% of 5,261 sq.ft. building pad 35.4% REVISED Reconstruction and addition to single family residence & Variance for disturbed area Residence Garage Stable -future Guest house Garden rm. Service Yd. Pool Pool eq. Att.Trellis Porches Barbecue Water feature Basement TOTAL 7103 sq.ft 865 sq.ft 450 sq.ft. 800 sq.ft. 0 sq.ft. 96 sq.ft 616 sq.ft. 54 sq.ft. 0 sq.ft. 772 sq.ft. 32 sq.ft. 100 sq.ft. 1643 sq.ft. 10,888 sq.ft 9.8% of 110,320 sq.ft. net lot area (9.73% w/allowance) 19.2% of 110,320 sq.ft. net lot area 37.3% of 25,751 sq.ft. residential building pad not inc. allowances 8.5% of 5,261 sq.ft. building pad 34.7% GRADING Site plan review required if excavation and/or fill or combination thereof is more than 3 feet in depth and covers more than 2,000 sq. ft.,/balanced on site. DISTURBED AREA (40% maximum; STABLE (minimum 450 sq. ft.) CORRAL (minimum 550 sq. ft.) STABLE ACCESS ACC ESSWAY VIEWS PLANTS AND ANIMALS N/A 57.7% Future Existing Existing N/A N/A 12 c.y. 57.7% 450 sq.ft. future 550 sq.ft. -future Existing Existing Planning Commission review Planning Commission review 12 c.y. 57.7% 450 sq.ft. future 550 sq.ft. -future Existing Existing Planning Commission condition Planning Commission condition • • ADJACENT PROPERTIES: FOR INFORMATION ONLY ADDRESS OWNER 9 Maverick Shoemaker 7 Maverick Hawroyd 6 Maverick Sanjar 5 Maverick Brogden 4 Maverick • I Virtue 8 Bowie Road I Tsai 6 Bowie Road Hsu Average 8 Maverick Karpf RESIDENCE 3,866* 4,964* 3,797 2,517 5,392 4,792* 4,653* 4,283 5,485 Existing 7.103 Proposed LOT AREA**YEAR BUILT 4.05 2.91 1.08 2.57 1.1 1.7 2.35 2.00 2.85 SOURCES: LOS ANGELES COUNTY ASSESSORS OFFICE * City records The above do not include garages and other accessory structures * * Excludes roadway easements SITE PLAN REVIEW CRITERIA 2003 1960/1964/1998 1956/1968 1957 1955/1966 1966/1968 1972/1977 1958/1990/1999 17.46.010 Purpose. The site plan review process is established to provide discretionary review of certain development projects in the City for the purposes of ensuring that the proposed project is consistent with the City's General Plan; incorporates environmentally and aesthetically sensitive grading practices; preserves existing mature vegetation; is compatible and consistent with the scale, massing and development pattern in the immediate project vicinity; and otherwise preserves and protects the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Rolling Hills. 17.46.050 Required findings. A. The Commission shall be required to make findings in acting to approve, conditionally approve, or deny a site plan review application. B. No project which requires site plan review approval shall be approved by the Commission, or by the City Council on appeal, unless the following findings can be made: 1. The project complies with and is consistent with the goals and policies of the general plan and all requirements of the zoning ordinance; 2. The project substantially preserves the natural and undeveloped state of the lot by minimizing building coverage. Lot coverage requirements are regarded as maximums, and the actual amount of lot coverage permitted depends upon the existing buildable area of the lot; 3. The project is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, the natural terrain and surrounding residences; ZC 758 8 Maverick 7 • • 4. The project preserves and integrates into the site design, to the greatest extent possible, existing topographic features of the site, including surrounding native vegetation, mature trees, drainage courses and land forms (such as hillsides and knolls); 5. Grading has been designed to follow natural contours of the site and to minimize the amount of grading required to create the building area; 6. Grading will not modify existing drainage channels nor redirect drainage flow, unless such flow is redirected into an existing drainage course; 7. The project preserves surrounding native vegetation and mature trees and supplements these elements with drought -tolerant landscaping which is compatible with and enhances the rural character of the community, and landscaping provides a buffer or transition area between private and public areas; 8. The project is sensitive and not detrimental to the convenient and safe movement of pedestrians and vehicles; and 9. The project conforms to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. SOURCE: City of Rolling Hills Zoning Ordinance CRITERIA FOR VARIANCES 17.38.050 Required findings. In granting a variance, the Commission (and Council on appeal) must make the following 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; B. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights possessed by other properties in the same vicinityand zone but which is denied the property in question; 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; D. That in granting the variance, the spirit and intent of this title will be observed; E. That the variance does not grant special privilege to the applicant; 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. ZC758 8�`✓ 8 Maverick • CRISS C GUNDERSON ARCHITECT 2024 Via Pacheco, Palos Verdes Estates, California 90274 TEL (310) 373-8077 FAX (310) 373-8277 Friday, June 27, 2008 Regarding: Karpf Additions No. 8 Maverick Lane The applicant recognizes that the city's guideline for pad coverage is proposed to exceed the recommended 30% by 7.3%. Nonetheless, we feel the proposed additions are consistent with both the general plan and the intent of the guidelines for the following reasons: 1) The large size of the property of 110,320 net sq. ft. easily supports the size of the home and other improvements as demonstrated by the structural lot coverage figure of 10.96% with total coverag including hardscape of 24.03%. 2) The existing pad could be increased in size to support the guideline of 30% with additional grading. This is undesirable in that: a) The environmental disruption to the neighborhood while it -grading the lot is needless. b) The costs incurred by the property owner would be a hardship. 3) The proposed additions fit comfortably on the existing pad without overcrowding. 4) Distances from the proposed additions, as well as from the existing improvements, to top and toe of slopes, and from building setbacks, far exceed standard expectations for similar homes in the community. 5) The proposed additions are on an area of the pad that cannot be seen by neighbors or the community at large due to the existing topography and landscaping. 6) The entire property is below street level with the improvements accessed via a long, down slope driveway. While this driveway and the slopes on either side of it are not part of the pad, they are part of the "front yard" which creates a very large setback from the street, magnifying the expansiveness of the property and the feeling of openness. 1 June 25, 2008 Ed and Sandy La Charite 23 Caballeros Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Dear Sandy and Ed, Will the remodeling and rebuilding on Caballeros and Maverick ever stop. I guess the Mahmarian's are just about finishing up, you folks are going full bore and about the time you finish we will be beginning! As you may know Sheila and I have recently purchased the property at 8 Maverick Lane, the rather sprawling house just off to your right (though you know us as your neighbors at 14 Caballeros.) Our plan is to do some extensive remodeling which will involve obtaining Planning Commission, City Council and RHCA approval. While I am quite sure that the actual remodeling we wilt be doing (which will involve a complete rebuilding of the older wing of the home) will not affect either your view or your view of our property at all as I do not believe you can see that part of the home from yours I nonetheless wanted to connect with you as we also plan on doing some landscaping in front of the wing of the property that you can see from your property and which we believe will be of esthetic benefit to both homes. I would like to come by and show you our plans and discuss the landscaping with you (as yours is one of the properties that should benefit from the landscaping we have in mind). I hope to gain your support for the project as a whole as this is important to the Planning Commission. At a very minimum I hope we can count on your not being in opposition to what we have planned, but you will have to decide that after you see what we have in mind. In any case, please give me a call so that we can set up a time to meet that works for you folks so I can share our plans with you. Home: 310-544-8536; Cell: 818-400-6881. I look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, Spencer L. Karpf Sheila Xi Wang Karpf Evi)fty..0q#11- :11-41) JUL 1 2008 cr7 Y OF ROLLING HILLS By_ • • June 25, 2008 Albert and Debra Tsai 8 Bowie Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Dear Albert and Debra, As you may know, my wife Sheila and I have recently purchased the property at 8. Maverick Lane, the home just above yours (we think. It is hard to tell which addresses are which on the privateroad that comes off Bowie Road but I think your is just below and to the East of ours.) We are currently "neighbors" of your as we are Rolling Hills residents living at 14 Caballeros. Our plan is to do some extensive remodeling which will involve obtaining Planning Commission, City Council and RHCA approval. While I am pretty sure that the actual remodeling we will be doing (which will involve a complete rebuilding of the older wing of the home) will not in any way affect your property at all as I do not believe you can see that part of the home from yours. However, we will be doing some landscaping in conjunction with the remodel that may be esthetic benefit to both of our properties. There is one gap in the landscaping along the property line between our properties and our intention, assuming no objection on your part, would be to fill in that gap with another tree. With that last tree in place I don't believe either of us will be able to see the other's property. I would like to come by and show you our plans and discuss the landscaping with you. I hope to gain your support for the project as a whole as you are an adjacent property owner and such support is important to the Planning Commission. At a very minimum I hope we can count on your not being in opposition to what we have planned, but you will have to decide that after you see what we have in mind. In any case, please give me a call so that we can set up a time to meet that works for you folks so I can share our plans with you. Home: 310-544-8536; Cell: 818-400-6881. You can also contact me via e- mail at: SkarofCa earthlink.net. If you will include a contact number I'll get in touch with you to set up a time to meet. I look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, Spencer L. Karpf Sheila Xi Wang Karpf JUL. IS 2008 t_,:r. •tULLii\IG • • June 25, 2008 Bernard & Janice Howroyd Rolling Hills Residents PO Box 29048 Glendale, CA 91209 Dear Janice and Bernard, As you may know, my wife Sheila and I have recently purchased the property at 8 Maverick Lane, the Dessy's former home Our plan is to do some extensive remodeling which will involve obtaining Planning Commission, City Council and RHCA approval. While my sense is that the actual remodeling we will be doing (which will involve a complete rebuilding of the older wing of the home) will not have any effect on your property I would still like to meet you and have the opportunity to show you what we are planning. Needless to say I also would like to gain your support for the project as a whole as I know that this is important to the Planning Commission. At a very minimum I hope we can count on your not being in opposition to what we have planned. As an interesting side note I have somewhat of a connection to both of you. In your case, Janice, my company, SMCI, was for many years a sub -vendor to your company while we did business at Amgen. Bernard, you and I have a connection in that I have been the legislative chair for the NACCB Southern California Chapter and we found ourselves on opposite sides of AB 1710 last year. Fortunately, our lobbyist and I were able to work with labor, Ed Lenz of ASA and the other folks involved in formulating language for the current SB 940 which provides relief from L'Oreal while not saddling the I.T. and health care staffing industries with weekly pay requirements. It looks like this bill will pass and be signed this year and it should well serve all of our interests. In any case, please give me a call so that we can set up a time to meet that works for you folks so that I can share our plans with you. Home: 310-544-8536; Cell: 818-400-6881. The whole R.H. planning process notwithstanding, I look forward to having the opportunity to meet you as future neighbors and as leaders in the staffing industry. Sincerely, Spencer L Karpf Sheila Xi Wang Karpf C1-3 av JUL 1 2008 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS June 25, 2008 Sahab and Mojgan Sanjar 6 Maverick Lane Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Dear Sahab and Mohgan, As you may know, my wife Sheila and I have recently purchased the property at 8 Maverick Lane, the home just below yours. We are also currently your "neighbors" on Caballeros Road where we live at # 14. Our plan is to do some extensive remodeling which will involve obtaining Planning Commission, City Council and RHCA approval. My sense is that the actual remodeling we will be doing (which will involve a complete rebuilding of the older wing of the home) will not affect either your view or your view of our property. Our plan is to completely rebuild the older wing of the home to make it more contemporary, updated and to correct some issues we have with room size, location and layout. While the rebuilt wing will be slightly larger than it currently is, the overall footprint of the new wing will be pretty much unchanged from what it is. We also intend to do significant landscaping which I believe will benefit your property (as well as ours) as it will soften the view of our property from yours while not affecting your city and bay views. Much of this landscaping will be done prior to the beginning of construction so as to also soften the impact of the construction we will be doing on neighboring properties. All this is, of course, dependent on receiving City approval.. Without such approval it will be necessary to do extensive grading to increase the size of the pad so that we can proceed with our construction plans. Needless to say, we very much hope to avoid this approach as it will add to construction time as well as costs. I would like meet with you to show you our plans and discuss the landscaping with you (as yours is one of the properties that should benefit most from the landscaping we have in mind). I hope to gain your support for the project as a whole as this is important to the Planning Commission and will help me avoid a major grading project and its associated costs. At a very minimum I hope we can count on your not being in opposition to what we have planned, but you will have to decide that after you see what we have in mind. In any case,please give me a call so that we can set up a time to meet that works for you folks so I can share our plans with you. Home: 310-544-8536; Cell: 818-400-6881. You can also reach me via e-mail at: skarpfCc�earthlink.net. If you will included a contact number in your communications I will give you a call so that we can plan a meeting time. Sincerely, Spencer L. Karpf Sheila Xi Wang Karpf I 971. �. jilL, 1 2008 • • June 23, 2008 B. Allen & Dorothy Lay Rolling Hills Residents 19 Caballeros Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Dear Dotty and Allen, Allen, It was nice chatting with you this weekend, even though only briefly and from afar. As you know, Sheila and I have purchased the property at 8 Maverick. Our plan is to do some extensive remodeling which will involve obtaining Planning Commission, City Council and RHCA approval. My sense is that the actual remodeling we will be doing (which will involve a complete rebuilding of the older wing of the home) will not affect your views or your view of our property at all as I do not believe you can see that part of the home from yours. However, as we discussed, we plan on doing some landscaping on the hill between our properties and this should be to the esthetic benefit of both homes. I would like to come by and show you our plans, discuss landscaping options with you (as yours is one of the properties that will most benefit from the landscaping we have in mind). I hope to gain your support for the project as a whole. At a very minimum I hope we can count on your not being in opposition to what we have planned. In your case, Allen, I'm not sure how to approach you as you are on the Council. I guess you can put your neighbor hat on for our discussion while retaining your neutrality and objectivity for the Council meeting. You will have to advise me based on your experience on the council as to how this works. In any case, please give me a call so that we can set up a time to meet that works for you folks so I can share our plans with you. Home: 310-544-8536; Cell: 818-400-6881. I look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, Spencer Karpf Sheila Xi Wang Karpf 1 01 "-if?TirillVi.14111-1)) PI JUL 1 5 2008 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS. S►'__ _.Y June 26, 2008 Jack and Louise Shoemaker 9 Maverick Lane Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Dear Jack and Louise, It was a pleasure meeting you the other day, Jack, and having the opportunity to chat for a bit. We look forward to being your neighbors when we finish our remodeling project and finally move in. (Our architect tells us that this is likely to be another 18 months — in the meantime we will continue to be in the neighborhood over on Caballeros.) As I mentioned, our intention is to do some extensive remodeling which will involve rebuilding the older wing of the home and which will also involve obtaining Planning Commission, City Council and RHCA approval. My sense is that what we are proposing to do will not have any effect on the esthetics or views of your home as we will be retaining pretty much the same footprint for the house as we currently have although we will be enlarging it somewhat (hence the need for city approval). We are also proposing building a garden room / building down the slope below the house (where the driveway now ends) but I don't think that you will be able to see that, though I cannot say that with certainty (you would probably be able to see it from some points on your property though not from your home and patio.) In general I think our plan is very sensitive to preserving the neighbors views and esthetics and in the case of many of the neighbors I think the esthetics of their properties will be increased by the landscaping we will be doing. Regardless of the lack of impact on your property, I would still like to meet with you and have the opportunity to show you what we are planning. Needless to say I also would like to gain your support for the project as a whole as I know that this is important to the Planning Commission. At a very minimum I hope we can count on your not being in opposition to what we have planned. I'll give you a call so that we can set up a time to meet that works for you folks so that I can share our plans with you. Home: 310-544-8536; Cell: 818-400-6881. The whole R.H. planning process notwithstanding, I look forward to having the opportunity to meet Louise and to get to know you both better before we actually become neighbors. Sincerely, Spencer L Karpf Sheila Xi Wang Karpf Irsfi JUL 1 2008 CC[EY OF RuL LING HILLS June 25, 2008 Richard and Carolyn Mahmarian 21 Caballeros Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Dear Carolyn and Richard, As you may know, my wife Sheila and I have recently purchased the property at 8 Maverick Lane, the rather sprawling house just off to your right (though you know us as your neighbors at 14 Caballeros.) Our plan is to do some extensive remodeling which will involve obtaining Planning Commission, City Council and RHCA approval. While I am pretty sure that the actual remodeling we will be doing (which will involve a complete rebuilding of the older wing of the home) will not affect either your view or your view of our property at all as I do not believe you can see that part of the home. However, we will be doing some landscaping on the hill between our properties that may be esthetic benefit to both of our properties. At least from the standpoint of your property is should soften the view of the wing of our house that we will not be rebuilding, to the extent that you can see it from your property (I think you can but am not sure.) In either case, I would like to come by and show you our plans and discuss the landscaping with you. hope to gain your support for the project as a whole as this is important to the Planning Commission. At a very minimum I hope we can count on your not being in opposition to what we have planned, but you will have to decide that after you see what we have in mind. In any case, please give me a call so that we can set up a time to meet that works for you folks so I can share our plans with you. Home: 310-544-8536; Cell: 818-400-6881. I look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, Spencer L. Karpf Sheila Xi Wang Karpf 11))),WerPf!vti,i, PJ JUL 1 s: 2008 COY OF ROLLING HILLa. June 25, 2008 Joseph and Molly Berenato 25 Caballeros Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Dear Molly and Joe, As you may know, my wife Sheila and I have recently purchased the property at 8 Maverick Lane, the rather sprawling house just off to your right (though you know us as your neighbors at 14 Caballeros.) Our plan is to do some extensive remodeling which will involve obtaining Planning Commission, City Council and RHCA approval. While I am pretty sure that the actual remodeling we will be doing (which will involve a complete rebuilding of the older wing of the home) will not affect either your view or your view of our property at all as I do not believe you can see that part of the home. We are also proposing a garden room that may be visible from parts of your property. That said, however, we will be doing some landscaping on the hill between our properties which should greatly soften your view of the wing of our home that we will not be rebuilding and which you can clearly see. It should also take care of any other part of the improvements that you might be able to see (although, again, I don't know if you would be able to see them even without the landscaping — I say this based on having had a look at our property from yours when you had the recent site visit by the Planning Commission in conjunction with your proposed deck) I would like to come by and show you our plans and discuss the landscaping with you. I hope to gain your support for the project as a whole as this is important to the Planning Commission. At a very minimum I hope we can count on your not being in opposition to what we have planned, but you will have to decide that after you see what we have in mind. In any case, please give me a call so that we can set up a time to meet that works for you folks so I can share our plans with you. Home: 310-544-8536; Cell: 818-400-6881. I look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, Spencer L. Karpf Sheila Xi Wang Karpf IPo' JUL 1 2008 CITY OF HULLING HILLS By_ June 29, 2008 Yuan-cheng and Rita Hsu 6 Bowie Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Dear Albert and Debra, As you may know, my wife Sheila and I have recently purchased the property at 8 Maverick Lane, the home just above yours (we think. It is hard to tell which addresses are which on the private road that comes off Bowie Road but I think your is just below our.) We are currently "neighbors" of your as we are Rolling Hills residents living at 14 Caballeros. Our plan is to do some extensive remodeling which will involve obtaining Planning Commission, City Council and RHCA approval. While I am pretty sure that the actual remodeling we will be doing (which will involve a complete rebuilding of the older wing of the home) will not in any way affect your property at all as I do not believe either of us can see the others property. However, we will be doing some landscaping in conjunction with the remodel that may be esthetic benefit to both of our properties. This would involve planting some additional trees along the property line between our properties. These additional plantings should be of esthetic value to both properties. I would like to come by and show you our plans and discuss the landscaping with you. I hope to gain your support for the project as a whole as you are an adjacent property owner and such support is important to the Planning Commission. At a very minimum I hope we can count on your not being in opposition to what we have planned, but you will have to decide that after you see what we have in mind. In any case, please give me a call so that we can set up a time to meet that works for you folks so I can share our plans with you. Home: 310-544-8536; Cell: 818-400-6881. You can also contact me via e- mail at: SkarpfCa,earthlink.net. If you will include a contact number I'll get in touch with you to set up a time to meet. I look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, Spencer L. Karpf Sheila Xi Wang Karpf • • RESOLUTION NO. 2008-18 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A SITE PLAN REVIEW TO DEMOLISH AND REBUILT A LARGE PORTION OF AN EXISTING RESIDENCE AND TO CONSTRUCT AN ADDITION THERETO AND REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FOR PREVIOUSLY GRADED AREAS THAT EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED DISTURBED AREA OF THE NET LOT AT A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AT 8 MAVERICK LANE, (LOT 26-A-SK), ROLLING HILLS, CA., (KARPF). THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. An application was duly filed by Mr. Spencer Karpf with respect to real property located at 8 Maverick Lane (Lot 1-MR), Rolling Hills, CA requesting a Site Plan Review to demolish 3,385 square feet of the existing 5,485 square foot residence, to reconstruct that area and to add 1,618 square feet to the residence for a total of 7,103 square foot residence and a Variance for previously graded areas that exceeds the maximum peintitted disturbed area of the net lot. The residence is also developed with a 1,643 square foot basement. Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted duly noticed public hearings to consider the application on July 15 and September 16, 2008 and at a field trip visit on September 16, 2008. The applicants were notified of the public hearings in writing by first class mail. Evidence was heard and presented from all persons interested in affecting said proposal and from members of the City staff and the Planning Commission having reviewed, analyzed and studied said proposal. The applicant and his representative were in attendance at the hearings. Section 3. The applicant contacted several neighbors in the vicinity of subject property and informed them of the proposed project. No objections were received, except for one resident objecting to the location of the future stable. The applicant relocated the future stable to a location approved with the 1998 application. At the July Planning Commission meeting several neighbors were present and testified in support of this project. Section 4. At the meetings the Planning Commission expressed concerns regarding the size of the proposed development, the amount of hardscape and the various structures being applied for. Subsequently, the applicants scaled down the project and withdrew a CUP application for an 800 square foot Garden Room with covered porches and trellis and reduced the existing hardscape by 4,044 square feet. Section 5. The Planning Commission finds that the project qualifies as a Class 3 Exemption (The State of CA Guidelines, Section 15303) and is therefore Reso. 2008-18 ZC NO. 758 1 • • categorically exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act. Section 6. Section 17.46.030 requires a development plan to be submitted for Site Plan Review and approval before any grading requiring a grading permit or any building or structure may be constructed or any expansion, addition, alteration or repair to existing buildings may be made which involve changes to grading or an increase to the size of the building or structure by at least 1,000 square feet and has the effect of increasing the size of the building by more than twenty-five percent (25%) in any thirty-six (36) month period. With respect to the Site Plan Review application requesting construction of the new house, the Planning Commission makes the following findings of fact: A. The proposed development is compatible with the General Plan, the Zoning Ordinance and surrounding uses because the proposed structures comply with the General Plan requirement of low profile, low -density residential development with sufficient open space between surrounding structures. The project conforms to Zoning Code lot coverage requirements. The property is zoned RAS-2 and consists of 2.81 acres gross. The net lot area for development purposes is 110,320 square feet or 2.53 acres. The lot is irregular in shape and is located at the end of a cul-de-sac. The Iot slopes downwards approximately 26 feet fromthe roadway easement line to the development and the improvements are not visible from the street level. The proposed project consisting of 7,103 sq.ft. residence, 865 sq.ft. garage, 772 sq.ft. covered porches/entryway, 616 sq.ft. pool, 54 sq.ft. pool equipment area, 800 sq.ft. guest house, barbecue, water pond, service yard and future stable constitutes 9.8% of the net lot which is within the maximum 20% structural lot coverage requirement. The total lot coverage including all structures, paved areas and driveway is proposed at 22,470 square feet, which constitutes 20.25% of the net lot which is within the 35% maximum overall net lot coverage requirement. The proposed project is screened from the road so as to reduce the visual impact of the development. B. The development plan substantially preserves the natural and undeveloped state of the lot by minimizing building coverage because the new structure will not cause the lot to look overdeveloped. Significant portions of the lot will be left undeveloped so as to maintain open space on the property. The existing shrubs and trees will remain and additional shrubs will be planted to further screen the property from the adjacent properties. Four trees that currently block a neighbors' view will be removed. Other trees, with the concurrence of the neighbors will be planted. The nature, condition, and development of adjacent uses, buildings, and structures and the topography of the lot have been considered, and the construction of the new addition will not adversely affect or be materially detrimental to the adjacent uses, buildings, or structures because the proposed structure will be constructed on a portion of the lot which is least intrusive to surrounding properties, will be screened and landscaped with trees and shrubs, is a sufficient distance from nearby residences so that the proposed structures will not impact the view or privacy of surrounding neighbors, and will substantially utilize the existing building pad for the new construction. Reso. 2008-18 ZC NO. 758 2 Zf • C. The proposed development, as conditioned, is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, the natural terrain and' surrounding residences. As indicated in Paragraph A, the lot coverage maximum set forth in the Zoning Code will not be exceeded. D. The development plan incorporates existing trees and is screened from other properties and the road by existing mature vegetation, which will be preserved. Per neighbors' request additional trees and shrubs will be planted and some removed. E. The development plan largely utilizes the existing building pad and no grading is proposed, except that the pad will be enlarged by 144 square feet. F. The proposed development is sensitive and not detrimental to the convenience and safety of circulation for pedestrians and vehicles because it will utilize the existing driveway. G. The project conforms to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and is exempt. Section 7. Sections 17.38.010 through 17.38.050 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code permit approval of a Variance from the standards and requirements of the Zoning Ordinance when exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applicable to the property and not applicable to other similar properties in the same zone prevent the owner from making use of a parcel of property to the same extent enjoyed by similar properties in the same vicinity. A Variance to Section 17.16.070 (B) is required because it states that the lot disturbance shall be limited to 40.0% of the net lot area. The applicant is requesting a Variance because total disturbance of the net lot area is 57.7%, which is non -conforming. The lot was disturbed with the previous application, however, no Variance was requested at the time of grading. 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. The Variance for the total disturbance is necessary because of the pre-existing conditions on the property, where the existing disturbed area already exceeds the maximum permitted and is at 57.7%, which includes the pad for the future stable. B. The Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone, but which is denied to the property in question. The Variance is necessary because of the unusual location of the lot at a cul-de-sac and where the current disturbed area exceeds the maximum permitted. This Variance is to legalize previously created condition. The landscaping on the property masks the previously graded condition and it does not look unnatural. Reso. 2008-18 ZC NO. 758 3 • • 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 project as conditioned by this Resolution will be adequately screened to prevent adverse visual impact to surrounding properties. The previously conducted grading improved slope stability through the use of approved drainage and buttressing of the slopes, and will permit the owners to enjoy their property without deleterious infringement on the rights of surrounding property owners. Section 8. Based upon the foregoing findings in Sections 6 and 7, the Planning Commission hereby approves the Site Plan Review application and Variance in Zoning Case No. 758 for construction of a substantial addition and exceedance of the maximum permitted disturbed lot area as shown on the Development Plan dated October 3, 2008 subject to the following conditions: A. The Site Plan Review and Variance approvals shall expire within two years from the effective date of approval if construction pursuant to this approval has not commenced within that time period, as required by Sections 17.46.080(A) and 17.38.070(A) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, or the approval granted is otherwise extended pursuant to the requirements of those sections. B. It is declared and made a condition of the approval, that if any conditions thereof are violated, this approval shall be suspended and the privileges granted hereunder shall lapse; provided that the applicants have been given written notice to cease such violation, the opportunity for a hearing has been provided, an.d if requested, has been held, and thereafter the applicant fails to correct the violation within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of the City's determination. C. All requirements of the Building 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 this Permit, or shownotherwise on an approved plan. D. The lot shall be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the site plan on file dated October 3, 2008 except as otherwise provided in these conditions. E. The working drawings submitted to the County Department of Building and Safety for plan check review must conform to the development plan approved with this application. F. There shall be no grading for this project and all construction shall take place on the exiting building pad, except that the existing pad may be enlarged by 140 square feet. G. Structural lot coverage shall not exceed 10,756 square feet (excluding water feature and barbecue -132 sq.ft.) or 9.7%. Reso. 2008-18 ZC NO. 758 " 23 • • H. Total lot coverage of structures and paved areas shall not exceed 21,133 square feet or 19.2% in conformance with lot coverage limitations. I. The disturbed area of the lot shall not exceed 63,652 square feet or 57.7% of the net lot area in conformance with the approved variance for exceedance of lot disturbance. J. Residential building pad coverage on the 25,751 square foot residential building pad shall not exceed 9,596 square feet or 37.3%, (not including 710 sq.ft. of the covered porch, water feature and barbecue). The future stable pad is 5,261 square feet and will have coverage of 450 sq.ft., if a stable is built, or 8.5%. K. A minimum of, four -foot level path and/or walkway, which does not have to be paved, shall be provided around the entire perimeter of the residence, garage and basement. L. 3.500 square feet of the existing asphalt driveway shall be removed and replaced with landscaping or mixture of landscaping and pervious decorative surface and 544 square feet of the cement driveway by the residence shall be removed and replaced with decorative pervious material or landscaping. M. Per the site plan dated October 3, 2008 and per verbal agreement with the neighbors, the applicant shall remove 4 trees in the general location of the driveway; plant additional 4 trees in the rear -to the north and north west of the residence; and plant trees or shrubs along a 70-foot long area at the start of the asphalt driveway in vicinity of the southwestern easement line, but not in the easement. N. Landscaping shall be designed using native trees and shrubs so as not to obstruct views of neighboring properties but to screen the project. The trees at maturity shall not exceed the height of the roofline of the residence and shall be maintained at that height at all times. Landscaping shall include water efficient irrigation that incorporates low gallonage irrigation system, utilizes automatic controllers, incorporates an irrigation design using "hydrozones," considers slope factors and climate conditions, and utilizes means to reduce water waste resulting from runoff and overspray. O. Any walls required for this project shall not exceed 30 inches in height and shall be screened with landscaping to maximum extend practicable. P. All utility lines to the structure shall be placed underground and the roof material shall meet the City and RHCA requirements. Q. The property owners shall be required to conform to the City of Rolling Hills Outdoor Lighting Standards. Reso. 2008-18 ZC NO. 758 • • R. The property on which the project is located shall contain a set aside area to provide an area meeting all standards for a stable, corral with access thereto. S. During and after construction, all soil preparation, drainage, and landscape sprinklers shall protect the building pad from erosion and direct surface water in an approved manner. T. During and after construction perimeter easements and trails shall remain free and clear of encroachments including, but not be limited to, site development, fences -including construction fences, grading, landscaping, irrigation, drainage devices, play equipment, parked vehicles, building materials, debris and other equipment, unless otherwise approved by the Rolling Hills Community Association. U. No drainage device may be located in such a manner as to contribute to erosion or in any way affect an easement or a trail and shall not be located in an easement, unless otherwise approved by the RHCA. V. During construction, conformance withthe air quality management district requirements, stormwater pollution prevention practices, County and local ordinances and engineering practices so that people or property are not exposed to undue vehicle trips, noise, dust, and objectionable odors shall be required. W. During construction, an Erosion Control Plan containing the elements set forth in Section 7010 of the 2007 County of Los Angeles Uniform Building Code shall be followed to minimize erosion and to protect slopes and channels to control stormwater pollution as required by the County of Los Angeles. X. During construction, the property owners shall be required to schedule and regulate construction and related traffic noise throughout the day between the hours of 7 AM and 6 PM, Monday through Saturday only, when construction and mechanical equipment noise is permitted, so as not to interfere with the quiet residential environment of the City of Rolling Hills. Y. The property owners shall be required to conform to the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Health Department requirements for the installation and maintenance of a septic tank. Z. The property owners shall be required to conform to the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Health Department requirements for the installation and post construction maintenance of stormwater drainage facilities. Reso. 2008-18 ZC NO. 758 6Os • • AA. The property owners shall be required to conform to the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Public Works Department Best Management Practices (BMPs) related to solid waste. AB. Prior to the submittal of a final building plan to the County of Los Angeles for plan check, a detailed drainage plan that conforms to the development plan as approved by the Planning Commission shall be submitted to the Planning Department staff. AC. The project must be reviewed and approved by the Rolling Hills Community Association Architectural Review Committee prior to the issuance of any grading or building permit. AD. Notwithstanding Sections 17.46.020 and 17.46.070 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, any modification to the property, which would constitute additional structural development or grading, including modification to the height of the 30-inch wall, approved with this application, and construction of the future stable shall require the filing of a new application for approval by the Planning Commission. AE. The applicant shall pay all of the applicable Los Angeles County Building and Safety and Public Works Department fees, including school fees for new construction. AF. A minimum of 50% of the construction and demolition material shall be recycled and verification submitted to the City. AG. Until the applicants execute and record an Affidavit of Acceptance of all conditions of this Site Plan Review and Variance approvals, as required by the Municipal Code, the approvals shall not be effective. AH. All conditions of the Site Plan and Variance approvals, that apply, shall be complied with prior to the issuance of building permit from the County of Los Angeles. AI. Any action challenging the final decision of the City made as a result of the public hearing on this application must be filed within the time limits set forth in Section 17.54.070 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code and Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6 PASSED, APPROVED AND AD TED THIS 21st DAY OF OCTOBER 2008. ( V--i k:.c_(1,),. (----y- I 'V RICHARD HENKE, CHAIRMAN ATTEST: MARILYN KERN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK Reso. 2008-18 ZC NO. 758 7 .CID7 • • STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§ CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ) I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2008-18 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A SITE, PLAN REVIEW TO DEMOLISH AND REBUILT A LARGE PORTION OF AN EXISTING RESIDENCE AND TO CONSTRUCT AN ADDITION THERETO AND REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FOR PREVIOUSLY GRADED AREAS THAT EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED DISTURBED AREA OF THE NET LOT AT A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AT 8 MAVERICK LANE, (LOT 26-A-SK), ROLLING HILLS, CA., (KARPF). was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on October 21, 2008 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners DeRoy, Sommer, Witte and Chairman Henke. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Smith. ABSTAIN: None. and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following: Administrative Offices. Reso. 2008-18 ZC NO. 758 DEPUTY CITY CLERK 8 DATE: TO: FROM: • City oto INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377.1521 FAX: (310) 377.7288 OCTOBER 21, 2008 HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR APPLICATION NO. SITE LOCATION: ZONING AND SIZE: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PUBLISHED: ZONING CASE NO. 758 8 MAVERICK ROAD (LOT 26-A-SK) RA-S-2, 2.81 ACRES (GROSS) MR. AND MRS. SPENCER KARPF CRISS GUNDERSON JULY 5, 2008 REQUEST AND RECOMMENDATION The applicants request a Site Plan Review to demolish 3,385 square feet of the existing 5,485 square foot residence, to reconstruct that area and to add 1,618 square feet to the residence for a total residence of 7,103 square feet and a Variance for previously graded areas that exceed the maximum permitted disturbed area of the net lot at 8 Maverick Lane. It is recommended that the Planning Commission review and adopt Resolution No. 2008-18 as conditioned or provide other direction to staff. BACKGROUND 1. At the September 16, 2008 Planning Commission meeting, after a lengthy discussion, the Commission directed staff to prepare a Resolution approving the proposed project. The vote was 5-0. 2. The Commission kept the public hearing open, so that a discussion could continue on this project, if necessary. During the public hearing, the applicant withdrew the request for a garden room with attached porches and trellis and agreed to move the future stable to the east, where it was previously approved; agreed to remove a portion of the impervious surfaces along the driveway to the future stable and by the residence; agreed to plant a row of trees along the access road to the future stable and to remove several trees along the primary driveway. 3. The applicants submitted a revised site plan and formally withdrew the request for a CUP for the garden room, reduced the impervious surfaces by 4,044 square feet - 3,500 sq.ft. of the asphalt driveway to the future stable and 544 sq. Printed on Recycled Paper • ft. near the residence. The revised site plan shows additional trees to be planted in the rear of the residence and along a 70-foot long area of the access road to the future stable and removal of 4 trees along the primary driveway. With the revised proposal, the structural lot coverage is proposed to be 9.7%; the total lot coverage — 19.2%; the disturbed area -57.7%-same as previous proposal; and the residential building pad 37.3% -same as previous proposal. See development chart. 4. The attached Resolution No. 2008-18 contains standard findings of facts and conditions of approval plus conditions based on the revised project and site plan, including: • That the Planning Commission reviews any further development on the property, including future stable. • That the set aside area for the future stable be relocated to the previously approved location. • That if the retaining wall needs to be higher than the 30 inches approved, that it must be reviewed by the Planning Commission • That additional trees be planted, as indicated on the plan. • That four trees be removed, as indicated on the plan. • That 4,044 sq.ft. impervious surface be removed and substituted with landscaping or combination of landscaping and pervious material. • That verification is provided to the City that a minimum of 50% of the demolition material was recycled. r RESOLUTION NO. 2008-18 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A SITE PLAN REVIEW TO DEMOLISH AND REBUILT A LARGE PORTION OF AN EXISTING RESIDENCE AND TO CONSTRUCT AN ADDITION THERETO AND REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FOR PREVIOUSLY GRADED AREAS THAT EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED DISTURBED AREA OF THE NET LOT AT A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AT 8 MAVERICK LANE, (LOT 26-A-SK), ROLLING HILLS, CA., (KARPF). THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES HEREBY FIND, 'RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. An application was duly filed by Mr. Spencer Karpf with respect to real property located at 8 Maverick Lane. (Lot 1-MR), Rolling Hills, CA requesting a Site Plan Review to demolish 3,385 square feet of the existing 5,485 square foot residence, to reconstruct that area and to add 1,618 square feet to the residence for a total of 7,103 square foot residence and a Variance for previously graded areas that exceeds the maximum permitted disturbed area of the net lot. The residence is also developed with a 1,643 square foot basement. Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted duly noticed public hearings to consider the application on July 15 and September 16, 2008 and at a field trip visit on September 16, 2008. The applicants were notified of the public hearings in writing by first class mail. Evidence was heard and presented from all persons interested in affecting said proposal and from members of the City staff and the Planning Commission having reviewed, analyzed and studied said proposal. The applicant and his representative were in attendance at the hearings. Section 3. The applicant contacted several neighbors in the vicinity of subject property and informed them of the proposed project. No objections were received, except for one resident objecting to the location of the future stable. The applicant relocated the future stable to a location approved with the 1998 application. At the July Planning Commission meeting several neighbors were 'present and testified in support of this project. Section 4. At the meetings the Planning Commission expressed concerns regarding the size of the proposed development, the amount of hardscape and the various structures being applied for. Subsequently, the applicants scaled down the project and withdrew a CUP application for a 800 square foot Garden Room with covered porches and trellis and reduced the existing hardscape by 4,044 square feet. Section 5. The Planning Commission finds that the project qualifies as a Class 3 Exemption (The State of CA Guidelines, Section 15303) and is therefore Reso. 2008-18 ZC NO. 758 • • categorically exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act. Section 6. Section 17.46.030 requires a development plan to be submitted for Site Plan Review and approval before any grading requiring a grading permit or any building or structure may be constructed or any expansion, addition, alteration or repair to existing buildings may be made which involve changes to grading or an increase to the size of the building or structure by at least 1,000 square feet and has the effect of increasing the size of the building by more than twenty-five percent (25%) in any thirty-six (36) month period. With respect to the Site Plan Review application requesting construction of the new house, the Planning Commission makes the following findings of fact: A. The proposed development is compatible with the General Plan, the Zoning Ordinance and surrounding uses because the proposed structures comply with the General Plan requirement of low profile, low -density residential development with sufficient open space between surrounding structures. The project conforms to Zoning Code lot coverage requirements. The property is zoned RAS-2 and consists of 2.81 acres gross.. The net lot area for development purposes is 110,320 square feet or 2.53 acres. The lot is irregular in shape and is located at the end of a cul-de-sac. The lot slopes downwards approximately 26 feet from the roadway easement line to the development and the improvements are not visible from the street level. The proposed project consisting of 7,103 sq.ft. residence, 865 sq.ft. garage, 772 sq.ft. covered porches/entryway, 616 sq.ft. pool, 54 sq.ft. pool equipment area, 800 sq.ft. guest house, barbecue, water pond, service yard and future stable constitutes 9.8% of the net lot which is within the maximum 20% structural lot coverage requirement. The total lot coverage including all structures, paved areas and driveway is proposed at 22,470 square feet, which constitutes 20.25% of the net lot which is within the 35% maximum overall net lot coverage requirement. The proposed project is screened from the road so as to reduce the visual impact of the development. B. The development plan substantially preserves the natural and undeveloped state of the lot by minimizing building coverage because the new structure will not cause the lot to look overdeveloped. Significant portions of the lot will be left undeveloped so as to maintain open space on the property. The existing shrubs and trees will remain and additional shrubs will be planted to further screen the property from the adjacent properties. Four trees that currently block a neighbors' view will be removed. Other trees, with the concurrence of the neighbors will be planted. The nature, condition, and development of adjacent uses, buildings, and structures and the topography of the lot have been considered, and the construction of the new addition will not adversely affect or be materially detrimental to the adjacent uses, buildings, or structures because the proposed structure will be constructed on a portion of the lot which is least intrusive to surrounding properties, will be screened and landscaped with trees and shrubs, is a sufficient distance from nearby residences so that the proposed structures will not impact the view or privacy of surrounding neighbors, and will substantially utilize the existing building pad for the new construction. Reso. 2008-18 ZC NO. 758 2 C. The proposed development, as conditioned, is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, the natural terrain and surrounding residences. As indicated in Paragraph A, the lot coverage maximum set forth in the Zoning Code will not be exceeded. D. The development plan incorporates existing trees and is screened from other properties and the road by existing mature vegetation, which will be preserved. Per neighbors' request additional trees and shrubs will be planted and some removed. E. The development plan largely utilizes the existing building pad and no grading is proposed, except that the pad will be enlarged by 144 square feet. F. The proposed development is sensitive and not detrimental to the convenience and safety of circulation for pedestrians and vehicles because it will utilize the existing driveway. G. The project conforms to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and is exempt. Section 7. Sections 17.38.010 through 17.38.050 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code permit approval of a Variance from the standards and requirements of the Zoning Ordinance when exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applicable to the property and not applicable to other similar properties in the same zone prevent the owner from making use of a parcel of property to the same extent enjoyed by similar properties in the same vicinity. A Variance to Section 17.16.070 (B) is required because it states that the lot disturbance shall be limited to 40.0% of the net lot area. The applicant is requesting a Variance because total disturbance of the net lot area is 57.7%, which is non -conforming. The lot was disturbed with the previous application, however, no Variance was requested at the time of grading. 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. The Variance for the total disturbance is necessary because of the pre-existing conditions on the property, where the existing disturbed area already exceeds the maximum permitted and is at 57.7%, which includes the pad for the future stable. B. The Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone, but which is denied to the property in question. The Variance is necessary because of the unusual location of the lot at a cul-de-sac and where the current disturbed area exceeds the maximum permitted. This Variance is to legalize previously created condition. The landscaping on the property masks the previously graded condition and it does not look unnatural. Reso. 2008-18 ZC NO. 758 • • 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 project as conditioned by this Resolution will be adequately screened to prevent adverse visual impact to surrounding properties. The previously conducted grading improved slope stability through the use of approved drainage and buttressing of the slopes, and will permit the owners to enjoy their property without deleterious infringement on the rights of surrounding property owners. Section 8. Based upon the foregoing findings in Sections 6 and 7, the Planning Commission hereby approves the Site Plan Review application and Variance in Zoning Case No. 758 for construction of a substantial addition and exceedance of the maximum permitted disturbed lot area as shown on the Development Plan dated October 3, 2008 subject to the following conditions: A. The Site Plan Review and Variance approvals shall expire within two years from the effective date of approval if construction pursuant to this approval has not commenced within that time period, as required by Sections 17.46.080(A) and 17.38.070(A) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, or the approval granted is otherwise extended pursuant to the requirements of those sections. B. It is declared and made a condition of the approval, that if any conditions thereof are violated, this approval shall be suspended and the privileges granted hereunder shall lapse; provided that the applicants have been given written notice to cease such violation, the opportunity for a hearing has been provided, and if requested, has been held, and thereafter the applicant fails to correct the violation within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of the City's determination. C. All requirements of the Building 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 this 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 October 3, 2008 except as otherwise provided in these conditions. E. The working drawings submitted to the County Department of Building and Safety for plan check review must conform to the development plan approved with this application. F. There shall be no grading for this project and all construction shall take place on the exiting building pad, except that the existing pad may be enlarged by 140 square feet. G. Structural lot coverage shall not exceed 10,756 square feet (excluding water feature and barbecue -132 sq.ft.) or 9.7%. Reso. 2008-18 ZC NO. 758 • • H. Total lot coverage of structures and paved areas shall not exceed 21,133 square feet or 19.2% in conformance with lot coverage limitations. I. The disturbed area of the lot shall not exceed 63,652 square feet or 57.7% of the net lot area in conformance with the approved variance for exceedance of lot disturbance. J. Residential building pad coverage on the 25,751 square foot residential building pad shall not exceed 9,596 square feet or 37.3%, (not including 710 sq.ft. of the covered porch, water feature and barbecue). The future stable pad is 5,261 square feet and will have coverage of 450 sq.ft., if a stable is built, or 8.5%. K. A minimum of four -foot level path and / or walkway, which does not have to be paved, shall be provided around the entire perimeter of the residence, garage and basement. L. 3.500 square feet of the existing asphalt driveway shall be removed and replaced with landscaping or mixture of landscaping and pervious decorative surface and 544 square feet of the cement driveway by the residence shall be removed and replaced with decorative pervious material or landscaping. M. Per the site plan dated October 3, 2008 and per verbal agreement with the neighbors, the applicant shall remove 4 trees in the general location of the driveway; plant additional 4 trees in the rear -to the north and north west of the residence; and plant trees or shrubs along a 70-foot long area at the start of the asphalt driveway in vicinity of the southwestern easement line, but not in the easement. N. Landscaping shall be designed using native trees and shrubs so as not to obstruct views of neighboring properties but to screen the project. The trees at maturity shall not exceed the height of the roofline of the residence and shall be maintained at that height at all times. Landscaping shall include water efficient irrigation that incorporates low gallonage irrigation system, utilizes automatic controllers, incorporates an irrigation design using "hydrozones," considers slope factors and climate conditions, and utilizes means to reduce water waste resulting from runoff and overspray. O. Any walls required for this project shall not exceed 30 inches in height and shall be screened with landscaping to maximum extend practicable. P. All utility lines to the structure shall be placed underground and the roof material shall meet the City and RHCA requirements. Q. The property owners shall be required to conform to the City of Rolling Hills Outdoor Lighting Standards. Reso. 2008-18 ZC NO. 758 • • R. The property on which the project is located shall contain a set aside area to provide an area meeting all standards for a stable, corral with access thereto. S. During and after construction, all soil preparation, drainage, and landscape sprinklers shall protect the building pad from erosion and direct surface water in an approved manner. T. During and after construction perimeter easements and trails shall remain free and clear of encroachments including, but not be limited to, site development, fences -including construction fences, grading, landscaping, irrigation, drainage devices, play equipment, parked vehicles, building materials, debris and other equipment, unless otherwise approved by the Rolling Hills Community Association. U. No drainage device may be located in such a manner as to contribute to erosion or in any way affect an easement or a trail and shall not be located in an easement, unless otherwise approved by the RHCA. V. During construction, conformance with the air quality management district requirements, stormwater pollution prevention practices, County and local ordinances and engineering practices so that people or property are not exposed to undue vehicle trips, noise, dust, and objectionable odors shall be required. W. During construction, an Erosion Control Plan containing the elements set forth in Section 7010 of the 2007 County of Los Angeles Uniform Building Code shall be followed to minimize erosion and to protect slopes and channels to control stormwater pollution as required by the County of Los Angeles. X. During construction, the property owners shall be required to schedule and regulate construction and related traffic noise throughout the day between the hours of 7 AM and 6 PM, Monday through Saturday only, when construction and mechanical equipment noise is permitted, so as not to interfere with the quiet residential environment of the City of Rolling Hills. Y. The property owners shall be required to conform to the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Health Department requirements for the installation and maintenance of a septic tank. Z. The property owners shall be required to conform to the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Health Department requirements for the installation and post construction maintenance of stormwater drainage facilities. Reso. 2008-18 ZC NO. 758 6 • • AA. The property owners shall be required to conform to the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Public Works Department Best Management Practices (BMPs) related to solid waste. AB. Prior to the submittal of a final building plan to the County of Los Angeles for plan check, a detailed drainage plan that conforms to the development plan as approved by the Planning Commission shall be submitted to the Planning Department staff. AC. The project must be reviewed and approved by the Rolling Hills Community Association Architectural Review Committee prior to the issuance of any grading or building permit. AD. Notwithstanding Sections 17.46.020 and 17.46.070 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, any modification to the property, which would constitute additional structural development or grading, including modification to the height of the 30-inch wall, approved with this application, and construction of the future stable shall require the filing of a new application for approval by the Planning Commission. AE. The applicant shall pay all of the applicable Los Angeles County Building and Safety and Public Works Department fees, including school fees for new construction. AF. A minimum of 50% of the construction and demolition material shall be recycled and verification submitted to the City. AG. Until the applicants execute and record an Affidavit of Acceptance of all conditions of this Site Plan Review and Variance approvals, as required by the Municipal Code, the approvals shall not be effective. AH. All conditions of the Site Plan and Variance approvals, that apply, shall be complied with prior to the issuance of building permit from the County of Los Angeles. AI. Any action challenging the final decision of the City made as a result of the public hearing on this application must be filed within the time limits set forth in Section 17.54.070 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code and Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 21st DAY OF OCTOBER 2008. RICHARD HENKE, CHAIRMAN ATTEST: MARILYN KERN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK Reso. 2008-18 ZC NO. 758 7 (03 • STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§ CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ) I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2008-18 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A SITE PLAN REVIEW TO DEMOLISH AND REBUILT A LARGE PORTION OF AN EXISTING RESIDENCE AND TO CONSTRUCT AN ADDITION THERETO AND REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FOR PREVIOUSLY GRADED AREAS THAT EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED DISTURBED AREA OF THE NET LOT AT A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AT 8 MAVERICK LANE, (LOT 26-A-SK), ROLLING HILLS, CA., (KARPF). was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on October 21, 2008 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following: Administrative Offices. DEPUTY CITY CLERK Reso. 2008-18 8 ZC NO. 758 DATE: TO: FROM: • C1t o/ Polling • INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377.1521 FAX: (310) 377.7288 SEPTEMBER 16, 2008 HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR APPLICATION NO. SITE LOCATION: ZONING AND SIZE: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PUBLISHED: ZONING CASE NO. 758 8 MAVERICK ROAD (LOT 26-A-SK) RA-S-2, 2.81 ACRES (GROSS) MR. AND MRS. SPENCER KARPF CRISS GUNDERSON JULY 5, 2008 REQUEST AND RECOMMENDATION 1. The applicants request a Site Plan Review to demolish 3,385 square feet of the existing 5,485 square foot residence, to reconstruct that area and to add 1,618 square feet to the residence for a total residence of 7,103 square feet, a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to construct an 800 square foot garden room and a Variance for previously graded areas that exceed the maximum permitted disturbed area of the net lot at 8 Maverick Lane. 2. It is recommended that the Planning Commission review the staff report, view the project at the site, take public testimony and continue the hearing to the regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting or provide other direction to staff. BACKGROUND 3. The property is zoned RAS-2 and consists of 2.81 acres gross. The net lot area for development purposes is 110,320 square feet or 2.53 acres. The lotis irregular in shape and is located at the end of a cul-de-sac. The lot slopes downwards approximately 26 feet from the roadway easement line to the development and the improvements are not visible from the street level. 4. For the purpose of determining setbacks on this property, the front yard setback is 50 feet from the cul-de-sac roadway easement line. The side yard setbacks are 35 feet from the property lines and the rear setback is 50-feet from the rear property line. ZC NO. 758 1 00 Printed on Recycled Paper • • 5. Building records show that the house was built in 1958. A 240 square foot addition was constructed in 1990. In 1998 a pool and spa were constructed. A major remodel and addition were completed in 1999. 6. Currently, the property is developed with 5,485 square foot residence, 865 square foot garage, 1,643 square foot basement, 616 square foot swimming pool with 54 square foot pool equipment area, 800 square foot guest house, 522 square feet covered porches, service yard, barbecue and a water feature. 7. In 1999, an application for an 800 square foot guest house, 2,240 square foot addition to the residence and a 1,375 square foot stable was approved with grading of 1,560 cubic yard of cut and fill, which included the pad for the stable. The stable was not constructed, however the pad for the stable was graded. 8. The 1999 grading and construction plan show the disturbed area at 38.6%. During grading, the limits of grading were expanded to accommodate the building pads and to meet the slope gradient of 2:1. As a result, the disturbed area of the lot exceeded the maximum permitted of 40%. Therefore, currently, the applicant is required to seek a Variance to exceed the 40% disturbed net lot area to allow the existing "as graded" condition to remain. 9. The residence is proposed at 7,103 square feet with 865 square foot garage and 772 square feet of covered porches including at the entry to the house. The maximum height of the residence is proposed at 19'. 10. The garden room is proposed to be 800 square feet with 225 square feet of covered porches and 180 square feet of attached trellises. The height of the garden room is proposed at 13'6". The garden room will be located on the same pad as the future stable. The applicants are not planning to construct the stable at this time. According to the applicant, the garden room is to be used for growing and keeping of plants. Access to the future stable pad was provided for with the previous approval and is paved. 11. The applicants contacted 9 neighbors in the vicinity of subject property to inform them of their proposed project and received no objections. At the July Planning Commission meeting several neighbors were present and testified in support of this project. 12. Following the July Planning Commission meeting a resident from 4 Maverick visited the City to inquire about the project. Although she was not against the project, she asked that the Planning Commission consider requiring removal of some of the tall trees along the driveway that are beginning to block her view and ask that shorter trees be planted, if planting is required. The neighbor stated that she will contact Mr. Karpf regarding this matter. 13. The 1999 approval required a landscaping plan to screen the residence and the guest house from neighboring residences, and several trees were planted. It also required that the landscaping be of a type that would not impact views from neighboring properties. ZC NO. 758 2 J MUNICIPAL CODE COMPLIANCE 14. The proposed project will be located on existing building pads and previously graded and disturbed area of the lot. 15. A not to exceed 3-foot high 40-foot long garden wall is proposed along the top of the slope and at the edge of the building pad, requiring 12 cubic yards of cut and fill. The dirt will be used to backfill the wall. This will result in an increased building pad by 140 square feet. 16. The existing driveway and driveway approach from Maverick Lane to the residence and the stable pad will remain. 17. The net lot area of the lot is 110,320 square feet. The structural lot coverage proposed is 11,961 square feet or 10.84% of the net lot area (not counting the water feature and barbecue, per City's provisions for allowances). The total lot coverage proposed, including structures and flatwork is 26,382 square feet or 23.9% of the net lot area, (35% permitted). 18. There are two building pads on the property. The existing residential building pad is 25,611 square feet and will be enlarged by 140 sq.ft. to 25,751 square feet. The building pad coverage on the residential building pad will be 9,596 square feet or 37.3%, not including 710 sq.ft. of the covered porches, (10% of the size of the residence), water feature and barbecue. Currently the building pad coverage is 30.9%. The stable pad is 5,261 square feet and the coverage is proposed at 1,395 square feet or 26.5%, including the future stable, but excluding attached trellis and 80 sq.ft. of the covered porch (10% of the size of the accessory structure). 19. The disturbed area of the lot is 63,652 square feet or 57.7% of the net lot area, which includes both building pads, and requires a Variance. 20. In response for justification for the Variance request to exceed the maximum permitted 40% of disturbed area, the applicant's representative states that the exceedance is a pre-existing condition and no additional disturbance is proposed. 21. The applicant's representative states (attached), that the applicant is aware of the city's guideline for pad coverage of 30%, and that the coverage of 37.3% is not egregious because it is consistent with the general plan and the intent of the guidelines because: • the large lot easily supports the size of the proposed home and other improvements • the building pad could be increased by grading, however that would not be desirable • the proposed additions fit comfortably on the existing pad without overcrowding • distances to setbacks and slopes far exceed standard expectations for similar homes in the community • the development is on an area of the pad that cannot be seen by neighbors due to existing topography and landscaping ZC NO. 758 • • 4 • the entire property is below street level with a long driveway and the residence is located well back from the setback giving the appearance of expansiveness of the property and the feeling of openness. 22. All utility lines were placed underground. The applicant will be required to comply with the City's roof requirements, outdoor lighting requirements, landscaping, recycling of construction material requirements and all other provisions of the City's Zoning and Building Codes. CONCLUSION 23. The application is for demolition of 3,385 square feet of the existing 5,485 square foot residence, to reconstruct that area and to add 1,618 square feet to the residence for a total of 7,103 square foot residence, a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to construct an 800 square foot garden room and a Variance for previously graded areas that exceed the maximum permitted disturbed area of the lot. Two building pads exist on the lot and the project will be located on the existing pads. 24. The proposed development will be the largest as compared to similar properties in the vicinity. However, the lot is larger than most in the area and the development is below street level and will be screened. The development (square foot area) on the stable pad will be similar to what was previously approved, but not constructed. 25. The Planning Commission must find that the application meets the criteria for granting of a Site Plan Review, Variance and Conditional Use Permit. Some of the goals and policies of the Land Use Element of the General Plan that would be applicable to this application and should be considered by the Planning Commission include City's desire to "maintain Rolling Hills' distinctive rural residential character". Another goal is for the City "to accommodate development which is compatible with and complements existing land uses". The Land Use Element also calls to "maintain and provide regulations for sufficient setbacks and easements to provide buffers between residential uses" and require that development conform with the City's existing low -profile, ranch style architecture". 26. The project is compatible with the surrounding properties. The roof height of the residential addition will align with the existing roof. The highest point of the project is proposed to be 19.0 feet from the finished grade and the garden room not to exceed 13'6" in height. The building pads will not be raised. 27. The Commission could require that the garden room be screened from adjacent properties and that additional landscaping be added throughout the rear of the development to screen it from the up -hill properties, and that the applicant work with the neighbor at 4 Maverick Lane to insure that her view is not blocked. ZC NO. 758 4U • • OTHER AGENCIES REVIEW, 28. The project has been determined to be categorically exempt pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). 29. The Rolling Hills Community Association will review the project for architectural elements and design at a later date. ZC NO. 758 5 ZONING CASE NO. 758 SITE PLAN REVIEW RA-S-2 ZONE SETBACKS Front: 50 ft. from front easement Side: 35 ft. from property line Rear: 50 ft. from property line STRUCTURES (Site Plan Review required if size of structure increases by at least 1,000 sq. ft. and has the effect of increasing the size of the structure by more than 25% in a 36-month period). STRUCTURAL LOT COVERAGE (20% maximum) TOTAL LOT COVERAGE (35% maximum) BUILDING PAD COVERAGE RESIDENTIAL COVERAGE (30% max) STABLE COMBINED GRADING Site plan review required if excavation and/or fill or combination thereof is more than 3 feet in depth and covers more than 2,000 sq. ft.,/balanced on site. DISTURBED AREA (40% maximum; STABLE (minimum 450 sa. ft.) CORRAL (minimum 550 sa. ft.) STABLE ACCESS ACCESSWAY VIEWS PLANTS AND ANIMALS EXISTING Single family residence Residence Garage Stable Guest house Garden rm. Service yd Pool Pool equip. Att. Trellis Porches Barbecue Water feature Basement TOTAL 5485 sq.ft. 865 sq.ft. 0 sq.ft. 800 sq.ft. 0 sq.ft. 96 sq.ft. 616 sq.ft. 54 sq.ft. 0 sq.ft. 522 sq.ft. 32 sq.ft. 100 sq.ft. 1643 sq.ft. 8,570 sq.ft 7.8% (7.65% w/allowance) 21.15% 30.9 % of 25,611 sq.ft. residential building pad not incl. allowances 47,8% previously approved (not constructed) N/A 57.7% Future Existing Existing N/A N/A PROPOSED Reconstruction and addition Garden Room Variance for disturbed area Residence Garage Stable -future Guest house Garden rm. Service Yd. Pool Pool eq. Att.Trellis Porches Barbecue Water feature Basement TOTAL 7103 sq.ft 865 sq.ft 450 sq.ft. 800 sq.ft. 800 sq.ft. 96 sq.ft 616 sq.ft. 54 sq.ft. 180 sq.ft. 997 sq.ft. 32 sq.ft. 100 sq.ft. 1643 sq.ft. 12,093 sq.ft 10.96% of 110,320 sq.ft. net lot area (10.4% w/allowance) 23.9% of 110,320 sq.ft. net lot area 37.3% of 25,751 sq.ft. residential building pad not inc. allowances 26.5% of 5,261 sq.ft. building pad 35.4% 12 c.y. 57.7% 450 sq.ft. future 550 sq.ft. -future Existing Existing Planning Commission review Planning Commission review ZC NO. 758 6 • • ADJACENT PROPERTIES: FOR INFORMATION ONLY ADDRESS OWNER RESIDENCE LOT AREA**YEAR BUILT 9 Maverick Shoemaker 3,866* 4.05 2003 7 Maverick Hawroyd 4,964* 2.91 1960/1964/1998 6 Maverick Sanjar 3,797 1.08 1956/1968 5 Maverick Brogden 2,517 2.57 1957 4 Maverick Virtue 5,392 1.1 1955/1966 8 Bowie Road Tsai 4,792* 1.7 1966/1968 6 Bowie Road Hsu 4,653* 2.35 1972/1977 Average 4,283 2.00 8 Maverick Karpf 5,485 Existing 2.85 1958/1990/1999 7.103 Proposed SOURCES: LOS ANGELES COUNTY ASSESSORS OFFICE * City records The above do not include garages and other accessory structures * * Excludes roadway easements SITE PLAN REVIEW CRITERIA 17.46.010 Purpose. The site plan review process is established to provide discretionary review of certain development projects in the City for the purposes of ensuring that the proposed project is consistent with the City's General Plan; incorporates environmentally and aesthetically sensitive grading practices; preserves existing mature vegetation; is compatible and consistent with the scale, massing and development pattern in the immediate project vicinity; and otherwise preserves and protects the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Rolling Hills. 17.46.050 Required findings. A. The Commission shall be required to make findings in acting to approve, conditionally approve, or deny a site plan review application. B. No project which requires site plan review approval shall be approved by the Commission, or by the City Council on appeal, unless the following findings can be made: 1. The project complies with and is consistent with the goals and policies of the general plan and all requirements of the zoning ordinance; 2. The project substantially preserves the natural and undeveloped state of the lot by minimizing building coverage. Lot coverage requirements are regarded as maximums, and the actual amount of lot coverage permitted depends upon the existing buildable area of the lot; ZC NO. 758 7 `✓ • • 3. The project is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, the natural terrain and surrounding residences; 4. The project preserves and integrates into the site design, to the greatest extent possible, existing topographic features of the site, including surrounding native vegetation, mature trees, drainage courses and land forms (such as hillsides and knolls); 5. Grading has been designed to follow natural contours of the site and to minimize the amount of grading required to create the building area; 6. Grading will not modify existing drainage channels nor redirect drainage flow, unless such flow is redirected into an existing drainage course; 7. The project preserves surrounding native vegetation and mature trees and supplements these elements with drought -tolerant landscaping which is compatible with and enhances the rural character of the community, and landscaping provides a buffer or transition area between private and public areas; 8. The project is sensitive and not detrimental to the convenient and safe movement of pedestrians and vehicles; and 9. The project conforms to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. SOURCE: City of Rolling Hills Zoning Ordinance CRITERIA FOR VARIANCES 17.38.050 Required findings. In granting a variance, the Commission (and Council on appeal) must make the following 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; 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; 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; D. That in granting the variance, the spirit and intent of this title will be observed; E. That the variance does not grant special privilege to the applicant; 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. CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT: ZC NO. 758 • • 17.42.050 Basis for approval or denial of conditional use permit. The Commission (and Council on appeal), in acting to approve a conditional use permit application, may impose conditions as are reasonably necessary to ensure the project is consistent with the General Plan, compatible with surrounding land use, and meets the provisions and intent of this title. In making such a determination, the hearing body shall find that the proposed use is in general accord with the following principles and standards: A. That the proposed conditional use is consistent with the General Plan; B. That the nature, condition and development of adjacent uses, buildings and structures have been considered, and that the use will not adversely affect or be materially detrimental to these adjacent uses, building or structures; C. That the site for the proposed conditional use is of adequate size and shape to accommodate the use and buildings proposed; D. That the proposed conditional use complies with all applicable development standards of the zone district; E. That the proposed use is consistent with the portions of the Los Angeles County Hazardous Waste Management Plan relating to siting and siting criteria for hazardous waste facilities; F. That the proposed conditional use observes the spirit and intent of this title. SOURCE: City of Rolling Hills Zoning Ordinance ZC NO. 758 9 • • CRISS C GUNDERSON ARCHITECT 2024 Via Pacheco, Palos Verdes L•slates, California 90274 TEL (310) 373-8077 FAX (310) 373-8277 Friday, June 27, 2008 Regarding: Karpf Additions No. 8 Maverick Lane The applicant recognizes that the city's guideline for pad coverage is proposed to exceed the recommended 30% by 7.3%. Nonetheless, we feel the proposed additions arc consistent with both the general plan and the intent of the guidelines for the following reasons: 1) The large size of the property of 110,320 net sq. ft. easily supports the size of the home and other improvements as demonstrated by the structural lot coverage figure of 10.96% with total coverag including hardscape of 24.03%. 2) The existing pad could be increased in size to support the guideline of 30% with additional grading. This is undesirable in that: a) The environmental disruption to the neighborhood while re -grading the lot is needless. b) The costs incurred by the property owner would be a hardship. 3) The proposed additions fit comfortably on the existing pad without overcrowding. 4) Distances from the proposed additions, as well as from the existing improvements, to top and toe of slopes, and from building setbacks, far exceed standard expectations for similar homes in the community. 5) The proposed additions are on an area of the pad that cannot be seen by neighbors or the community at large due to the existing topography and landscaping. 6) The entire property is below street level with the improvements accessed via a long, down slope driveway. While this driveway and the slopes on either side of it are not part of the pad, they are part of the "front yard" which creates a very large setback from the street, magnifying the expansiveness of the property and the feeling of openness. DATE: TO: FROM: • Ctt 0/ ie0ii • INCORPORATED JANUARY 24. 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377.1521 FAX: (310) 377.7288 AUGUST 19, 2008 HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR APPLICATION NO. SITE LOCATION: ZONING AND SIZE: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PUBLISHED: ZONING CASE NO. 758 8 MAVERICK ROAD (LOT 26-A-SK) RA-S-2, 2.81 ACRES (GROSS) MR. AND MRS. SPENCER KARPF CRISS GUNDERSON JULY 5, 2008 REQUEST AND RECOMMENDATION 1. The applicant requested that the field visit be continued to a September date prior to or the same day as the regular Planning Commission meeting on September 16, 2008. The request is attached. The development request is for Site Plan Review to demolish 3,385 square feet of the existing 5,485 square foot residence, to reconstruct that area and to add 1,618 square feet to the residence for a total residence of 7,103 square feet, a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to construct an 800 square foot garden room and a Variance for previously graded areas that exceed the maximum permitted disturbed area of the net lot at 8 Maverick Lane. ® Printed on Recycled Paper • • Mon, .Jul 21, 2008 12:28 PM Subject: 8 Maverick Date: Monday, July 21, 2008 11:47 AM From: Spencer Karpf <SKarpf@smci.com> To: <ys@cityofrh.net> Cc: <crissgunderson@cox.net>, <skarpf@earthlink.net> Conversation: 8 Maverick Dear Yolanta - As we discussed earlier today, I will not be available to attend the site visit or the Planning Commission hearing on my property in August. For that reason I request a continuance to the September hearing and a postponement of the site visit until September. As mentioned, my schedule in September is very flexible and I can accommodate any time during the month of September for a site visit. Please confirm with me that you have received this communication and that the site visit and hearing will be continued until September. Thank you, Spencer Page 1 of 1 DATE: TO: FROM: • Ctty obe Pt, JII// • INCORF'ORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377.7288 JULY 15, 2008 HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR APPLICATION NO. SITE LOCATION: ZONING AND SIZE: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PUBLISHED: ZONING CASE NO. 758 8 MAVERICK ROAD (LOT 26-A-SK) RA-S-2, 2.81 ACRES (GROSS) MR. AND MRS. SPENCER KARPF CRISS GUNDERSON JULY 5, 2008 REQUEST AND RECOMMENDATION 1. The applicants request a Site Plan Review to demolish 3,385 square feet of the existing 5,485 square foot residence, to reconstruct that area and to add 1,618 square feet to the residence for a total residence of 7,103 square feet, a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to construct an 800 square foot garden room and a Variance for previously graded areas that exceed the maximum permitted disturbed area of the net lot at 8 Maverick Lane. 2. It is recommended that the Planning Commission review the staff report, open the public hearing, take public testimony and schedule a field trip to the property. BACKGROUND 3. The property is zoned RAS-2 and consists of 2.81 acres gross. The net lot area for development purposes is 110,320 square feet or 2.53 acres. The lot is irregular in shape and is located at the end of a cul-de-sac. The lot slopes downwards approximately 26 feet from the roadway easement line to the development and the improvements are not visible from the street level. 4. For the purpose of determining setbacks on this property, the front yard setback is 50 feet from the cul-de-sac roadway easement line. The side yard setbacks are 35 feet from the property lines and the rear setback is 50-feet from the rear property line. 5. Building records show that the house was built in 1958. A 240 square foot addition was constructed in 1990. In 1998 a pool and spa were constructed. A major remodel and addition were constructed in 1999. ZC NO. 758 1 0 Printed on Recycled Paper 6. Currently, the property is developed with 5,485 square foot residence, 865 square foot garage, 1,643 square foot basement, 616 square foot swimming pool with 54 square foot pool equipment area, 800 square foot guest house, 522 square feet covered porches, service yard, barbecue and a water feature. 7. In 1999, an application for an 800 square foot guest house, 2,240 square foot addition to the residence and a 1,375 square foot stable was approved with grading of 1,560 cubic yard of cut and fill, which included the pad for the stable. The stable was not constructed, however the pad for the stable was graded. 8. The 1999 grading and construction plan shows the disturbed area at 38.6%. During grading the limit of grading was expanded to accommodate the building pads and to meet the slope gradient of 2:1. As a result, the disturbed area of the lot exceeded the maximum permitted of 40%. Therefore, currently, the applicant is required to seek a Variance to exceed the 40% disturbed net lot area to allow the existing "as graded" condition to remain. 9. The residence is proposed to be 7,103 square feet with 865 square foot garage and 772 square feet of covered porches including at the entry to the house. 10. The garden room is proposed to be 800 square feet with 225 square feet of covered porches and 180 square feet of attached trellises. The garden room will be located on the same pad as the future stable. The applicants are not planning to construct the stable at this time. According to the applicant, the garden room is to be used for growing and keeping of plants. The proposed residence will have 772 square feet of porches. Access to the future stable pad was provided for with the previous approval and is paved. MUNICIPAL CODE COMPLIANCE 11. The proposed project will be located on existing building pads and previously graded and disturbed area of the lot. 12. A not to exceed 3-foot high 40-feet long garden wall is proposed along the top of the slope and at the edge of the building pad, requiring 12 cubic yards of cut and fill. The dirt will be used to backfill the wall. This will result in increasing the building pad by 140 square feet. 13. The existing driveway and driveway approach from Maverick Lane to the residence and the stable pad will remain. 14. The net lot area of the lot is 110,320 square feet. The structural lot coverage proposed is 11,961 square feet or 10.84% of the net lot area (not counting the water feature and barbecue, per City's provisions for allowances). The total lot coverage proposed, including structures and flatwork is 26,382 square feet or 23.9% of the net lot area, (35% permitted). ZC NO. 758 2 i 15. There are two building pads on the property. The existing residential building pad is 25,611 square feet and will be enlarged by 140 sq.ft. to 25,751 square feet. The building pad coverage on the residential building pad will be 9,596 square feet or 37.3%, not including 710 sq.ft. of the covered porches, (10% of the size of the residence), water feature and barbecue. Currently the building pad coverage 30.9%. The stable pad is 5,261 square feet and the coverage is proposed at 1,395 square feet or 26.5%, including the future stable, but excluding attached trellis and 80 sq.ft. of the covered porch (10% of the size of the accessory structure). 16. The disturbed area of the lot is 63,652 square feet or 57.7% of the net lot area, which includes both building pads, and requires a Variance. 17. In response for justification for the Variance request to exceed the maximum permitted 40% of disturbed area, the applicant's representative states that the exceedance is a pre-existing condition and no additional disturbance is proposed. 18. The applicant's representative states (attached), that the applicant is aware of the city's guideline for pad coverage of 30%, and that the coverage of 37.3% is not egregious because it is consistent with the general plan and the intent of the guidelines because: • the large lot easily supports the size of the proposed home and other improvements • the building pad could be increased by grading, however that would not be desirable • the proposed additions fit comfortably on the existing pad without overcrowding • distances to setbacks and slopes far exceed standard expectations for similar homes in the community • the development is on an area of the pad that cannot be seen by neighbors due to existing topography and landscaping • the entire property is below street level with a long driveway and the residence is located well back from the setback giving the appearance of expansiveness of the property and the feeling of openness. 19. All utility lines were placed underground. The applicant will be required to comply with the City's roof requirements, outdoor lighting requirements, landscaping, recycling of construction material requirements and all other provisions of the City's Zoning and Building Codes. CONCLUSION 20. The application is to demolish 3,385 square feet of the existing 5,485 square foot residence, to reconstruct that area and to add 1,618 square feet to the residence for a total residence of 7,103 square feet, a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to construct an 800 square foot garden room and a Variance for previously graded areas that exceed the maximum permitted disturbed area of the lot. Two building pads exist on the lot and the project will be located on the existing pads. ZC NO. 758 v • • 21. A Variance to exceed the disturbed area is required for previously graded areas. 22. The proposed development will be the largest as compared to similar properties in the vicinity. However, the lot is larger than most in the area and the development is below street level and will be screened. The development (square foot area) on the stable pad will be similar to what was previously approved, but not constructed. 23. The Planning Commission must find that the application meets the criteria for granting of a Site Plan Review, Variance and Conditional Use Permit. Some of the goals and policies of the Land Use Element of the General Plan that would be applicable to this application and should be considered by the Planning Commission include City's desire to "maintain Rolling Hills' distinctive rural residential character". Another goal is for the City "to accommodate development which is compatible with and complements existing land uses". The Land Use Element also calls to "maintain and provide regulations for sufficient setbacks and easements to provide buffers between residential uses" and require that development conform with the City's existing low -profile, ranch style architecture". 21. The project is compatible with the surrounding properties. The roof height. of the residential addition will align with the existing roof. The highest point of the project is proposed to be 19.0 feet from the finished grade and the garden room not to exceed 13'6" in height. The building pads will not be raised. 22. The Commission could require that the garden room be screened from adjacent properties and that additional landscaping be added throughout the rear of the development to screen it from the up -hill properties. OTHER AGENCIES REVIEW 23. The project has been determined to be categorically exempt pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). 24. The Rolling Hills Community Association will review the project for architectural elements and design at a later date. ZC NO. 758 ZONING CASE NO. 758 SITE PLAN REVIEW RA-S-2 ZONE SETBACKS Front: 50 ft. from front easement Side: 35 ft. from property line Rear: 50 ft. from property line STRUCTURES (Site Plan Review required if size of structure increases by at least 1,000 sq. ft. and has the effect of increasing the size of the structure by more than 25% in a 36-month period). STRUCTURAL LOT COVERAGE (20% maximum) TOTAL LOT COVERAGE (35% maximum) BUILDING PAD COVERAGE RESIDENTIAL COVERAGE (30% max) STABLE COMBINED GRADING Site plan review required if excavation and/or fill or combination thereof is more than 3 feet in depth and covers more than 2,000 sq. ft.,/balanced on site. DISTURBED AREA (40% maximum; STABLE (minimum 450 sa. ft.) CORRAL (minimum 550 sa. ft.) STABLE ACCESS ACCESSWAY VIEWS PLANTS AND ANIMALS ZC NO. 758 EXISTING Single family residence Residence Garage Stable Guest house Garden rm. Service yd Pool Pool equip. Att. Trellis Porches Barbecue Water feature Basement TOTAL 5485 sq.ft. 865 sq.ft. 0 sq.ft. 800 sq.ft. 0 sq.ft. 96 sq.ft. 616 sq.ft. 54 sq.ft. 0 sq.ft. 522 sq.ft. 32 sq.ft. 100 sq.ft. 1643 sq.ft. 8,570 sq.ft 7.8% (7.65% w/allowance) 21.15% 30.9 % of 25,611 sq.ft. residential building pad not incl. allowances 47,8% previously approved (not constructed) N/A 57.7% Future Existing Existing N/A N/A (5) PROPOSED Reconstruction and addition Garden Room Variance for disturbed area Residence Garage Stable -future Guest house Garden rm. Service Yd. Pool Pool eq. Att.Trellis Porches Barbecue Water feature Basement TOTAL 7103 sq.ft 865 sq.ft 450 sq.ft. 800 sq.ft. 800 sq.ft. _ 96 sq.ft 616 sq.ft. 54 sq.ft. 180 sq.ft. 997 sq.ft. 32 sq.ft. 100 sq.ft. 1643 sq.ft. 12,093 sq.ft 10.96% of 110,320 sq.ft. net lot area (10.4% w/allowance) 23.9% of 110,320 sq.ft. net lot area 37.3% of 25,751 sq.ft. residential building pad not inc. allowances 26.5% of 5,261 sq.ft. building pad 35.4% 12 c.y. 57.7% 450 sq.ft. future 550 sq.ft. -future Existing Existing Planning Commission review Planning Commission review • • ADJACENT PROPERTIES: FOR INFORMATION ONLY ADDRESS 9 Maverick 7 Maverick 6 Maverick 5 Maverick 4 Maverick 8 Bowie Road 6 Bowie Road 8 Maverick OWNER Shoemaker Hawroyd Sanjar Brogden Virtue Tsai Hsu Average Karpf RESIDENCE LOT AREA**YEAR BUILT 3,866* 4.05 2003 4,964* 2.91 1960/1964/1998 3,797 1.08 1956/1968 2,517 2.57 1957 5,392 1.1 1955/1966 4,792* 1.7 1966/1968 4,653* 2.35 1972/1977 4,283 2.00 5,485 Existing 2.85 1958/1990/1999 7.103 Proposed SOURCES: LOS ANGELES COUNTY ASSESSORS OFFICE * City records The above do not include garages and other accessory structures * * Excludes roadway easements SITE PLAN REVIEW CRITERIA 17.46.010 Purpose. The site plan review process is established to provide discretionary review of certain development projects in the City for the purposes of ensuring that the proposed project is consistent with the City's General Plan; incorporates environmentally and aesthetically sensitive grading practices; preserves existing mature vegetation; is compatible and consistent with the scale, massing and development pattern in the immediate project vicinity; and otherwise preserves and protects the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Rolling Hills. 17.46.050 Required findings. A. The Commission shall be required to make findings in acting to approve, conditionally approve, or deny a site plan review application. B. No project which requires site plan review approval shall be approved by the Commission, or by the City Council on appeal, unless the following findings can be made: 1. The project complies with and is consistent with the goals and policies of the general plan and all requirements of the zoning ordinance; ZC NO. 758 6 • • 2. The project substantially preserves the natural and undeveloped state of the lot by minimizing building coverage. Lot coverage - requirements are regarded as maximums, and the actual amount of lot coverage permitted depends upon the existing buildable area of the lot; 3. The project is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, the natural terrain and surrounding residences; 4. The project preserves and integrates into the site design, to the greatest extent possible, existing topographic features of the site, including surrounding native vegetation, mature trees, drainage courses and land forms (such as hillsides and knolls); 5. Grading has been designed to follow natural contours of the site and to minimize the amount of grading required to create the building area; 6. Grading will not modify existing drainage channels nor redirect drainage flow, unless such flow is redirected into an existing drainage course; 7. The project preserves surrounding native vegetation and mature trees and supplements these elements with drought -tolerant landscaping which is compatible with and enhances the rural character of the community, and landscaping provides a buffer or transition area between private and public areas; 8. The project is sensitive and not detrimental to the convenient and safe movement of pedestrians and vehicles; and 9. The project conforms to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. SOURCE: City of Rolling Hills Zoning Ordinance CRITERIA FOR VARIANCES 17.38.050 Required findings. In granting a variance, the Commission (and Council on appeal) must make the following 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; 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; 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; D. That in granting the variance, the spirit and intent of this title will be observed; E. That the variance does not grant special privilege to the applicant; F. That the variance is consistent with the portions of the County of Los Angeles Hazardous Waste Management Plan relating to siting and siting criteria for hazardous waste facilities; and G. That the variance request is consistent with the general plan of the City of Rolling Hills. ZC NO. 758 7 • • CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT: 17.42.050 Basis for approval or denial of conditional use permit. The Commission (and Council on appeal), in acting to approve a conditional use permit application, may impose conditions as are reasonably necessary to ensure the project is consistent with the General Plan, compatible with surrounding land use, and meets the provisions and intent of this title. In making such a determination, the hearing body shall find that the proposed use is in general accord with the following principles and standards: A. That the proposed conditional use is consistent with the General Plan; B. That the nature, condition and development of adjacent uses, buildings and structures have been considered, and that the use will not adversely affect or be materially detrimental to these adjacent uses, building or structures; C. That the site for the proposed conditional use is of adequate size and shape to accommodate the use and buildings proposed; D. That the proposed conditional use complies with all applicable development standards of the zone district; E. That the proposed use is consistent with the portions of the Los Angeles County Hazardous Waste Management Plan relating to siting and siting criteria for hazardous waste facilities; F. That the proposed conditional use observes the spirit and intent of this title. SOURCE: City of Rolling Hills Zoning Ordinance ZC NO.758_ • • CRISS C GUNDERSON ARCHITECT 2024 Via Pacheco, Palos Verdes Estates. Calilbrnia 90274 TEL (310) 373.3(177 FAX (310) 373-8277 Friday, June 27, 2008 Regarding: Karpf Additions No. 8 Maverick Lane The applicant recognizes that the city's guideline for pad coverage is proposed to exceed the recommended 30% by 7.3%. Nonetheless, we feel the proposed additions are consistent with both the general plan and the intent of the guidelines for the following reasons: I) The large size of the property of 110,320 net sq. ft. easily supports the size of the home and other improvements as demonstrated by the structural lot coverage figure of 10.96% with total coverag including hardscape of 24.03%. 2) The existing pad could be increased in size to support the guideline of 30% with additional grading. This is undesirable in that: a) The environmental disruption to the neighborhood while re -grading the lot is needless. b) The costs incurred by the property owner would be a hardship. 3) The proposed additions fit comfortably on the existing pad without overcrowding. 4) Distances from the proposed additions, as well as from the existing improvements, to top and toe of slopes, and from building setbacks, far exceed standard expectations for similar homes in the community. 5) The proposed additions are on an area of the pad that cannot be seen by neighbors or the community at large due to the existing topography and landscaping. 6) The entire property is below street level with the improvements accessed via a long, down slope driveway. While this driveway and the slopes on either side of it are not part of the pad, they are part of the "front yard" which creates a very large setback from the street, magnifying the expansiveness of the property and the feeling of openness.