Loading...
795, Relocate and enlarge existing , Staff ReportsRaete, qeeid INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX (310) 377-7288 Mtg. Date: 9/21/10 Agenda Item: 8B TO: HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: . YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR DATE: SEPTEMBER 21, 2010 APPLICATION NO. ZONING CASE .NO. 795 SITE LOCATION: 8 MAVERICK ROAD (LOT 26-A-SK) ZONING AND SIZE: RA-S-2, 2.81 ACRES (GROSS) APPLICANT: MR. AND MRS. SPENCER KARPF REPRESENTATIVE: CRISS GUNDERSON PUBLISHED: SEPTEMBER 2, 2010 REOUEST AND RECOMMENDATION 1. The applicant requests a Site Plan Review to enlarge and relocate an existing pool and spa and to relocated and add several walls, not to exceed on the average 30 inches in height. A 5-foot high wall is proposed for a 10-foot distance in the side yard area. The existing pool and spa of 616 square feet is proposed to be demolished and a new 808 square foot pool and spa constructed in a slightly different location. The existing pool equipment area is proposed to be relocated as well. As a result of moving the walls, the building pad area will increase by 1,789 square feet. 2. The Planning Commission visited the site on September 14, and requested that the area of construction be properly staked. The Planning Commission visited the site for the second time on September 21, 2010. The applicant removed the request for the fountain, as he does not have a concrete location or design in mind for the fountain. With the elimination of 100 sq.ft., the structural coverage does not change (9.9%) It is recommended that the Planning Commission review the staff report, take public testimony and provide direction to staff. The Commission asked that the applicant show the areas of landscaping and calculations for hardscape. The applicant is proposing to install hardscape not to exceed the following: _1_ v Primary Driveway - 6,661 sq.ft. Paved walks, patios and court yards -1,241 sq.ft. Pool Deck - 600 sq.ft. Other paved driveways, parking, roads (to stable) - 1,875 sq.ft., for a total hardscape of not to exceed 10,377 sq.ft., which was approved with the prior application and is included in the Total Lot Coverage calculations (max. allowed, including all structures - 35% of the net lot area). 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 arid 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. In 2008 the Planning Commission approved a site plan review and a variance in Zoning Case No. 758 to demolish 3,385 square feet of the then 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 with 865 square foot garage and a Variance for previously graded areas that exceeds the maximum permitted disturbed area of the net lot. There is a 1,643 square foot basement at the residence and an 800 square foot detached recreation room. 6. Resolution No. 2008-18 in Zoning Case No. 758 includes a condition that any further development on the property, including walls, must be submitted to the Planning Commission for review and approval. The proposed walls, which would contribute to an enlarged building pad area and the relocated and enlarged pool would not trigger exceedances of the development standard requirements, but require Planning Commission review due to the condition. 7. The previously approved project is currently under construction. MUNICIPAL CODE COMPLIANCE 8. The applicant proposes to move the existing wall in the front of the residence approximately 5 feet back to gain additional flat area around the front. The wall will be approximately 120 feet in length and not exceed 30 inches in height on the average, and a portion of the wall, approximately 10 feet in length, will be at a maximum 5 feet high. Further, he is proposing to enlarge the back yard along the existing building pad area by 3-5 feet and construct a 240 feet long wall at the top of the building pad. The wall will not exceed 30 inches in height and will connect to a previously approved 30 inch wall. The existing pool will be demolished and a new, larger infinity pool will be constru cted. -2- (02.___D • 9. A not to exceed 3-foot high 40-feet long garden wall was previously approved along the top of the slope and at the edge of the building pad. 10. The existing driveway and driveway approach from Maverick Lane to the • residence and the stable pad will remain. 11. The net lot area of the lot is 110,320 square feet. The structural lot coverage proposed is 10,948 square feet or 9.9% of the net lot area (not counting the barbecue, per City's provisions for allowances). The total lot coverage proposed, including structures • and flatwork is 21,325 square feet or 19.3% of the net lot area, (35% permitted). 12. There are two building pads on the property. The proposed residential building pad .. will be 27,540 square feet and will have coverage of 35.5% (previously approved at 37.3 jo ). The stable pad is 5,261 square feet and the coverage is proposed at 450 square feet or 8.5%. 13. The disturbed area of, the lot is 63,652 square feet or 57.7% of the net lotarea, which includes both building pads and will remain. A variance for the disturbance was approved with the 2008 application. 14. Grading will consist of excavating 250 cubic yards of dirt for .the new pool, filling in the existing pool and excavating and filling in behind the new walls fo r a total of 90 cubic yards of cut and 90 cubic yards of fill. 15. All utility lines were placed underground at this property. The applicant will be required to comply with the City's roof material requirements, outdoor lighting requirements, landscaping, recycling of construction material requirements and all other provisions of the City's Zoning and Building Codes and the conditions specified in Resolution No. 2008-18. CONCLUSION 16. The application calls for relocation and enlargement of the existing pool and enlargement of the building pad area, which necessitates walls along the pad in front and in the rear. The proposed walls will not exceed 30 inches in height, except that a small portion of the wall will be 5 feet. 17. The project is before the Planning Commission due to a condition on the property that any additional development on subject lot be reviewed by the Commission, and for the 5-foot wall. 18. The property has an existing building pad to the rear that is suitable for a future stable and corral. 19. The proposed development will not be detrimental to other properties as it is a small area considering the proposed structures on the property and will not give an overbuilt appearance to the lot. OTHER AGENCIES REVIEW -3- 20. The Rolling Hills Community Association Architectural Committee will review the project for architectural elements and design at a later date. 21. The project has been determined to be categorically exempt pursuant to the California Environrn.ental Quality Act (CEQA). ZONING CASE NO. 795 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 DRWY ACCESS VIEWS PLANTS AND ANIMALS APPROVED IN 2008 Reconstruction and addition to single family residence & Variance for disturbed area Residence Garage Stable -future Guest house Service Yd. Poo! Pool eq. Porches Barbecue Water feature Basement 7103 sq.ft 865 sq.ft 450 sq.ft. 800 sq.ft. 96 sq.ft 616 sq.ft. 54 sq.ft. 772 sq.ft. 32 sq.ft. 100 sq.ft. 1643 sq.ft. TOTAL 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% 12 c.y. 57.7% 450 sq.ft. future 550 sq.ft. -future Existing Existing Planning Commission condition Planning Commission condition -4- 09( CURRENTLY PROPOSED Enlarge pool and enlarge residential building pad (changes in bold) Residence 7103 sq.ft Garage 865 sq.ft Stable -future 450 sq.ft. Guest house 800 sq.ft. Service Yd. 96 sq.ft Pool 808 sq.ft. Pool eq. 54 sq.ft. Porches 772 sq.ft. Barbecue 32 sq.ft. Water feature 0 sq.ft. Basement 1643 sq.ft. TOTAL 10,980 sq.ft. 9.9% of 110,32U sq.ft. net lot area (10.0% w/allowance) 19.3% of 110,320 sq.ft. net lot area 35.5% of 27,540 sq.ft. building pad not inc. allowances 8.5% of 5,261 sq.ft. building pad 33.3% Excavation from pool plus 90 c.y. cut and 90 c.y. fill ( to the greatest extent possible, excavated material from the new pool is planned to be used to fill existing pool) 57.7% 450 sq.ft. future 550 sq.ft. -future Existing Existing Planning Commission condition Planning Commission condition 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 plant 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; 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 September 14, 2008 Sheila Xi Wang Karpf Spencer L. Karpf 8 Maverick Lane Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Honorable Members of the Planning Comrnission City of Rolling I-l.ills . 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 R.EC:EIVED SEP 14 2010 City .of Rolling 1~iill� By • Anton Dahlerbruch, City Manager Yolanta Schwartz, Planning Director Re: Zoning Case No. 795 Dear Honorable Members of the Planning Commission, Mr. Dahlerbruch and Ms. Schwartz. We would like to offer the following written testimony in support of our application to enlarge and relocate an existing pool and spa and to relocate and add several walls. 1. The increase in the size of the pool and spa is trivial (approximately 170 sq. ft.) The new pool will have several advantages over the existing one. a. It will be located further from the closest neighboring property (Shoemaker). It will not be visible to any other neighbor. The Shoemakers have indicated to me that they support this project and will try to be in attendance at the hearing to voice their support. b. A large quantity of hardscape will be removed in conjunction with the removal of the old pool including a large quantity of artificial rock formations. This will leave the site with a more natural look. c. The new pool will be much more in architectural harmony with the home giving an overall more esthetic appearance to the development. d. With the proposed pad addition of 1789 sq. t., the overall pad coverage will reduce by approximately 1.5% giving a more open, natural appearance. l • e. The 170 increase in pool size represents only 10% of the increase in pad size. This will result in a pad coverage reduction of approximately 1.5% giving a more open, natural appearance to the entire development. There are no adverse affects of the minor retaining walls that will increase the pad size. a. The walls will not exceed an average of 30". Normally, such small walls would not even require Planning Commission approval and would be approved over the counter. It is only because of a condition of approval on the home that they require this approval process. b. The wall in the front of the home will replace an existing wall of similar size. The only difference is that it will push back a small distance into an already graded (for a driveway) hillside. When complete, it will not even be' appearant that any change was made. Only one neighbor can even see this retaining wall, and they see the existing one. This neighbor (Shoemaker), who will have a somewhat "cleaner" view of a larger, more open pad, supports this project. c The second wall, in the back and one side of the,hoane, will also be of a very minimal height, will be completely hidden by landscaping (as the Commission will have seen on the site visit — the landscaping almost covers the stakes showing the location of the wall) and will only be visible to five neighbors (La Charlie, Altman, Lay, Berenato, Mahmarian — the Shoemakers will not be able to see this wall from their home and they have indicated support of this project). All five of these neighbors have either indicated that they are not opposed or support the project. Four have provided me with written statements to this effect and one (Altman) has indicated that I may so inform the Commission. One neighbor (Lay) indicated that they do not support the request, but also do not oppose it. That neighbor also indicated that landscaping already in place "will soon block most of the views between our properties", and this includes the proposed wall. The written statements are attached. d. These are very, very minor walls of the sort normally approved over the counter without the need for Planning Commission approval. They will have no adverse effect on any neighbors anyone but that will increase the pad area by almost 1800 sq. ft. so as to allow for a very slightly larger pool while still creating an increased feeling of openness. ( 13) Page 1of1 • ska f rthlink.net Mail Account From: Carolyn Mahmarlan [r, rolynr iitorniebeadin.com) Sent: Sunday, September 12, 2010 10:07 AM To: skarpf@earffilink.net Subject: Retaining wall We have no objection to the proposed re wining waR. Dick and Carolyn Mahmarian 21 Caballeros 9/12/2010 • Page 1 of 1 skarpf earthlir)k.nct 'fail Account From: Molly Berenato imoflyberenato©yahoo.com] Sent:. Sunday, September 12, 2010 6:22 PM To: skarpf@earthlink.net Subject: Re: 8 Maverick Retaining Wall .Spencer, Just a.short note confirming our conversation earlier today and our willingness to support your application to the Commission for permission to build a. retaining wall. REGARDS,' Joe Berenato (25 Caballeros Road). From: "skarpf a earthlink.net" <skarpf@i earthlink.net> To: molyberenato@yahoo.oam Cc: jberenat oOducommun.cam Sent: Sun, September 12, 2010 1:11:56 PM Subject: 8 Maverick Retaining Wall Joseph - Thanks for taking the time to chat with me regarding our retaining wall application that will be before the Planning Commission. I'm pleased that you feel you can support our application and appreciate your taking the time to write a couple of lines to indicate this so I will be able to present it to the Commission. Thanks again, Spencer Karpf 9/12/2010 R.e: Retaining Wal l • Page 1 of 1 Re: Retaining From: Sandy La Charite <slacharite@cox.nei> To: skarpf@earthlink.net Subject: Re: Retaining Wall Date: Sep 13, 2010 9:49 AM Good Morning Spencer: Ed and I have'no'issue with your installing, as you stated, a three foot retaining wall which will be' landscaped so that it's not visible to us from our property. Sandy and Ed La Charite Original Message From: <skarpf@ear.thlink.net> To: <slacharite@cox.net>; <laltman@verizon.net> Sent: Sunday, September 12, 2010 12:08 PM Subject: Retaining.Wa11 > Liz, Sandy, Ed and Lou - > Thanks for taking the time to meet with me this a.m.. to review our plans > for > adding a retaining wall at the perimiter of our pad. > I appreciate your willingness to send a brief note that I can present to > the > Planning Commission to show the membersthat you have no opposition to > what > we are planning. > I also enjoyed the neighborly chat part of the visit. > > Sincerely, > > Spencer httn://webmail.earthlink.net/wam/printable.jsp?msgid=8397&x=-1261217844 9/13/2010 skarpfafearhl'aetk.net Mail Account From: Men Lay [altenlay(r..ox.net; Sent Wednesdays, September 08, 2010 10:02 PM To: sicarp'f rthlink.rvets Qarpf@eartillink.raet Co: Sandy LaCharite; YS@cityohin.net Dick Viahrnarian Sttbje t: Re: 8 Maveric Project Hi Spencer, I have never.aliowed political differences to get in the way of friendship . and don't expect to start at this point. in my life. However, when in a political debate, I have. tried to focus on the issues and not on the individual, I think it is good advice for anyone. Tom & Godfrey have served this community with distinction for many years and they'deserve the respect of all of us whether you agree with them or not. I hope that any campaign.waged in the coming months focuses on differences in views,. approaches to - management and issues, and does not try to malign individuals as we so often see in so many campaigns around the state and nation. .With respect to your request, I cannot support a retaining wall around substantially all of the exterior of your lot merely for the purpose of extending the pad. The impact on the area is the pad itself not the house upon it. We will not oppose your application to the planning commission but please make it clear, if asked,. that we do not support your request, but are simply leaving the Planning,Commission to make their decision. We will not attend the public hearing as We are out of town. Also, I'm sure you recognize that I will recuse myself from the discussion and the vote on whatever decision from the Planning Commission comes before'the Council, due to my ownership of an adjacent property.. I am copying our Planning Director,' Yolanta Schwartz so she will be aware that we are not opposing your application. I.think the neighbors most impacted by your request are the Mahmarians at 21 Caballeros and the LaCharite's at 23 Caballeros. . They look more directly at the edge of your pad than do we. I have copied them on this response so you may wish to talk to them directly. In any event the Catalina Cherry trees between our properties will soon block most of the views between our properties. Please note that my wife's name is Dorothy and her friends call her Dottie, but Dot is not acceptable to her so be forewarned. Please feel free to call me at any time. The contractor who did your demolition did'a fine job managing the noise and dust during the project. Thanks! Allen TO: PRU,,I; DATE: • /erei4 ci6 Roteezpria titeeea INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX (310) 377-7288 Mtg. Date: 9/14:f F 0 Agenda Item: 4B HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR SEP !'EMBER 14, 2010 APPLICATION NO. SITE LOCATION: ZONING AND SIZE: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PUBLISIi.ED: ZONING CASE NO. 795 8 MAVERICK ROAD (LOT 26-A-SK) RA-S-2, 2.81 ACRES (GROSS) MR. AND MRS. SPENCER KA.RPF CRISS GUNDERSON SEPTEMBER 2, 2010 REOUEST AND RECOMMENDATION 1. The applicant requests a Site Plan Review to enlarge and relocate an existing pool and spa and to relocated and add several walls, not to exceed on the average 30 inches in height. A 5-foot high wall is proposed for a short distance in the side yard area. The existing pool and spa of 616 square feet is proposed to be demolished and a new 808 square foot pool and spa constructed in a different location. As a result of moving the walls, the building pad area will increase by 2.,789 square feet. ?. It is recommended that the Planning Commission review the staff report, view the project in the field, take public testimony and provide 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 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. In 2008 the Planning Commission approved a site plan review and a variance in Zoning Case No. 758 to demolish 3,385 square feet of the then 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 with 865 square foot garage and a Variance for previously graded areas that exceeds the maximum permitted disturbed area of the net lot. There is a 1,643 square foot basement at the residence and an 800 square foot detached recreation room. 6. Resolution No. 2008-18 in Zoning Case No. 758 includes a condition that any further development on the property, including walls, must be submitted to the Planning Commission for review and approval. The proposed walls, which would contribute to an enlarged building pad area and the relocated and enlarged pool would not trigger exceedances of the development standards requirements. ‘7. The previously approved project is currently under construction. MUNICIPAL CODE COMPLIANCE 8. The applicant proposes to move the existing wall in the front of the residence approximately 5 feet back to gain additional flat area around the front. The wall will not exceed 30 inches on the average, and a portion of the wall, approximately 12 feet in length, will be at a maximum 5 feet high. Further, he is proposing to enlarge the back yard along the existing building pad area by 3-5 feet and constructing a wall at the top of the building pad. The wall will not exceed 30 inches in height and will connect to a previously approved 30 inch wall. The existing pool will be demolished and a new, larger infinity pool will be constructed. 9. A not to exceed 3-foot high 40-feet long garden wall was previously approved along the top of the slope and at the edge of the building pad. 10. The existing driveway and driveway approach from Maverick Lane to the residence and the stable pad will remain. 11. The net lot area of the lot is 110,320 square feet. The structural lot coverage proposed is 10,948 square feet or 9.9% 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 21,325 square feet or 19.3% of the net lot area, (35% permitted). 12. There are two building pads on the property. The proposed residential building pad will be 27,540 square feet and will have coverage of 35.5% (previously approved at 37.3%). The stable pad is 5,261 square feet and the coverage is proposed at 450 square feet or 5.5%. 13. 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 will remain. -2- C 14. All utility lines were placed underground at this property. The applicant will be required to comply with the City's roof material requirements, outdoor lighting requirements, landscaping, recycling of construction material requirements and all other provisions of the City's Zozling and Building Codes • and the conditions specified in Resolution No. 2008-18. CONCLUSION 15. The application calls for relocation and enlargement of the existing pool and enlargement of the building pad area, which necessitates walls along the pad in front and in the rear. The proposed walls will not exceed 30 inches in height, except that a small portion of the wall will be 5 feet. 16. The project is before the Planning Commission due to a condition on the property that any additional d. evelopment on subject lot be reviewed by the Commission. 17. The property has an existing building pad to the rear that is suitable for a future stable and corral. 18. The proposed development will not be detrimental to other properties as it is a small area considering the proposed structures on the property and will not give an overbuilt appearance to the lot. OTHER AGENCIES REVIEW 19. The Rolling Hills Community Association Architectural Committee will review the project for architectural elements and design at a later date. 20. The project has been determined to be categorically exempt pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). -3(I'D - • • ZOtJING CASE NO. 795 SITE PLAN REV1EW RA-2 ZONE SETBACKS Front: 50 ft. from front easement Sidra: 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 C'OVERAG E (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 DRWY ACCESS VIEWS PLANTS AND ANIMALS APPROVED IN 2008 Reconstruction and addition to single family residence & Variance for disturbed area Residence Garage Stable -future Guest house Service Yd. Pool Pool eq. Porches Barbecue Water feature Basement TOTAL 7103 sq.ft 865 sq.ft 450 sq.ft. 800 sq.ft. 96 sq.ft .616 sq.ft. 54 Sa.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% 12 c.y. 57.7% 450 sq.ft. future 550 sq.ft. -future Existing Existing Planning Commission condition Planning Commission condition CURRENTLY PROPOSED Enlarge pool and enlarge residential building pad (changes in bold) Residence Garage Stable -future Guest house Service Yd. Pool Pool eq. Porches Barbecue Water feature Basement TOTAL 7103 sq.ft 865 sq.ft 450 sq.ft. 800 sq.ft. 96 sq.ft 808 sq.ft. 54 sq.ft. 772 sq.ft. 32 sq.ft. 100 sq.ft. 1643 sq.ft. 11,080 sq.ft. 9.9% of 110,320 sq.ft. net lot area (10.0% w/allowance) 19.3% of 110,320 sq.ft. net lot area 35.5% of 27,540 sq.ft. building pad not inc. allowances 8.5% of 5,261 sq.ft. building pad 34.7% (no change) Excavation from pool plus 90 c.y. cut and 90 c.y. fill ( to the greatest extent possible, excavated material from the new pool is planned to be used to fill existing pool) 57.7% 450 sq.ft. future 550 sq.ft. -future Existing Existing Planning Commission condition Planning Commission condition SITE PLAN REVIEW CRITERIA 17.46.O12 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; 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 fordns (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 arid 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