393, Addition of 500 SF to SFR and , Staff ReportsCi1y 0/ /Collin, Jh/&
MEETING DATE: NOVEMBER 16, 1993
INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274
(310) 377-1521
FAX: (310) 377-7288
TO: HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: LOLA UNGAR, PRINCIPAL PLANNER
SUBJECT: Zoning Case No. 393
Mr. and Mrs. Charles Haueisen, 6 Eastfield Drive
(Lot 62-EF)
Emergency Fire Door modification.
During the Building Inspection process at the subject address, the
City was informed that there was doorway access from the
subterranean garage to the residential structure that is prohibited
in Paragraph H, Section 6 of Resolution No. 91-2 (attached)
approved March 9, 1991.
But, the large expanse of basement area lacks a second emergency
exit. Attached is a letter from Richard Linde, architect for the
subject residence currently under construction, recommending that
because of the large expanse of basement area a fire door, equipped
with panic hardware that opens out, is necessary. Lata Thakar,
District Engineer for Los Angeles County Building and Safety
concurs that subject to City approval a second emergency exit is
needed for the health and safety of the occupants.
Therefore, in the interest of health and safety for the occupants,
staff will approve a one -hour fire -rated emergency exit door at the
east wall of the basement with a self -closing door operator.
Printed on Recycled Paper.
1UE
111
All
1 R1CHARD M. L.INDE AND ASSOCIATES, 1NC.
2200 AMAPOLA COURT,, SUITE 200 • V TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA 90501
City of Rolling Hills
No. 2 Portuguese Bend Road
Rolling Hills; CA 90274
Att: Lola Unger - Principal Planner
Ref: 6 Eastfield Drive
Easement Exit Door ( East End)
Dear Iola:
e. I. e. architect
(31 q 320-9062
October 26, 1993
93-057
This letter is to express our opinion and recommendation of,a
need for a second emergency exit in the existing basement area
of this residence.
We suggest a one -hour fire -rated emergency exitdoor at the east
wall,of the basement with a self -closing door operator. The door
should swing in the direction of egress and should be installed with
panic hardware. The door will only be operable with the use of a
key from the garage into the basement area.
After physically reviewing the 3,257 S.F. basement area, it is
our opinion that this exit -door should remain not only to satisfy
the requirements of the 1991 Uniform Building Code but also for the
health and safety of the occupants.
If we can be of further assistance in this matter, please call our
office,
RML:gl?
Richard M. Linde
St-L1='%-4‘
CI
ad, 26,Q3
•
3303 1991 UNIFORM BUILDING CODE
For purposes of this section. basements and occupied roofs shall be provided
with exits as required for stories:
EXCEPTIONS: Occupied roofs on Group R. Division 3 Occupancies may have
one exit if such occupied areas are kss than 500 square feet and are located no higher
than immediately above the second story.
Floors complying with the provisions for mezzanines as specified in Section
1717 shall be provided with exits as specified therein.
The second story shall be provided with not less than two exits when the occu-
pant Toad is 10 Or more. Occupants on floors above the second story and in base-
ments shall have access to not Less tnan two separate exits rrom me uoor or
basement.
EXCEPTIONS: 1. Tvo or more dwelling units on the second story or in a base-
ment may have access to only one common exit when the total occupant Toad served
by that exit does not exceed l0.
2. Except as provided in Table No. 33-A. only one exit need be provided from the
secono moor or a oasement wtuun an uwivwuai awetitng unit or a uroup K. u►vsston
congregate restoence.
3. When the third floor within an individual dwelling unit or a Group R, Division
3 congregate residence does not exceed 500 square feet. only one exit need be pro-
vidbd from that floor.
4. Floors and basements used exclusively for service of the building may have one
exit. For the purposes of this exception. storage rooms, laundry rooms, maintenance
offices and similar uses shall not be considered as providing service to the building.
S. Storage rooms. laundry rooms and maintenance offices not exceeding 300
square feet in floor area may be provided with only one exit.
6. Elevator lobbies may have one exit provided the use of such exit does not require
keys. tools. special knowledge or effort.
For special requirements see the following sections: Group A. Section 3317;
Group E, Section 3318; Group H. Section 3319: Group 1, Section 3320; Rooms
Containing Fuel -fired Equipment and Cellulose Nitrate Handling Rooms, Section
3321; Reviewing Stands, Grandstands and Bleachers. Section 3322; Laboratories,
Sections 702 (c) and 802 (d); and Open Parting Garages. Section 709 (g). For stage
exits, see Section 3903 (f).
Every story or portion thereof having an occupant load of 501 to 1,000 shall not
have less than three exits.
Every story or portion thereof having an occupant load of 1.001 or more shall not
have less than four exits. •
The number of exits required from any story of a building shall be determined by
using the occupant load of that story plus the percentages of the occupant loads of
floors which exit into the level under consideration as follows:
1. Fifty percent of the occupant load in the first adjacent story above and the fast
adjacent story below, when a story below exits through the level under consider-
ation.
2. Tventy•five percent of the occupant load in the story immediately beyond the
first adjacent story.
630
. •
RESOLUTION NO. 91-2
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS APPROVING A
SECOND MODIFICATION TO THE PREVIOUSLY
APPROVED SITE PLAN TO ALLOW FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A SUBTERRANEAN GARAGE
AND AMENDING THE RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL
IN ZONING CASE NO. 393
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. and
Mrs. Charles Haueisen with respect to real property located at
6 Eastfield Drive, Rolling Hills (Lot No. 62-EF) requesting a
second modification to the previously approved site plan to allow
for the construction of a subterranean garage instead of a
detached above -grade garage.
Section 2. The Planning Commission reviewed and
approved the original application for site plan review on July 8,
1989 pursuant to Resolution No. 89-15. The first modification to
the site plan was approved by the Commission on November 3, 1990
as. Resolution No. 90-34 along with a variance to the twenty
percent (20%) side yard requirement for construction of a
driveway in the side yard. This second modification is to allow
for the construction of a subterranean garage and the deletion of
a previously approved detached above -grade garage.
Section 3. The Planning Commission conducted a duly
noticed public hearing to consider the application for a second
modification to the, site plan on January 15, 1991 and February
19, 1991, and conducted a field .trip on February 16, 1991.
Section 4. Section 17.34.070 provides for a subsequent
modification after a site plan review application has been
approved. Modification of the approved plans and/or any
conditions imposed including additions or deletions, may be
considered. The decision on the modification of plans and/or
conditions shall be in the same manner as set forth in Sec-
tions 17.32.030 and 17.34.040 of the Municipal•Code.
of fact:
Section► 5. The Commission makes the following findings
A. The proposed structure complies with the General
Plan requirement of low profile, low density resi-
dential development with sufficient open space
between surrounding structures. The project con-
forms to the Zoning Code setback and lot coverage
requirements. The lot has a net square foot area
of 45,798 square feet. The proposed residential
structure and garages will have 9,146 square feet
which constitutes approximately 19% of the lot,
which is within the maximum 20% lot coverage
requirement. The total lot coverage including
paved areas and stable will be 15,951 square feet
which equals 34.8% of the lot, which is within the
35% maximum structural lot coverage requirement.
The total pad coverage will be approximately 37%.
B. The proposed development preserves and integrates
into the site design, to the maximum extent feas-
ible, the natural topographical features of the
lot by being constructed on the existing building
pad. The construction of the subterranean garage
will be less visibly intrusive when the project is
viewed from Eastfield Drive than the previously
approved above -grade detached garage.
C. The project follows the natural contours of the
site described in paragraph B, above. Grading and
excavation is limited to the existing building pad
area and soil displacement caused by construction
of the subterranean garage will be placed back
against and above the structure so as to integrate
the structure into the natural contours of the
site.
D. To the maximum extent possible, native vegetation
will be preserved and enhanced by conditions _
attached hereto requiring mature native plants to
be planted so as to screen the project from
Eastfield Drive.
E. The project substantially preserves the natural
and undeveloped state of the lot in that the
reconstruction will occur within the existing
building pad area.
F. Although the Development Plan specifies a rela- .
tively large residential structure, the project'is
harmonious in scale and mass for the site and in
910306 1j 1680436 (1)
-2-
relation to neighboring residential structures.
The proposed structure is 60 feet from the nearest
residence.
G. The project is sensitive and not detrimental to
the convenience and safety of circulation for
pedestrians and vehicles in that the driveway
remains in its existing location.
H. The project conforms to the requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act and is
categorically exempt from environmental review.
Section 6. Based upon the foregoing Section, the
Planning Commission hereby approves the request for a second
modification to the approved site plan in Zoning Case No. 393 to
permit an attached subterranean garage with vehicular access, as
indicated on the development plan attached hereto and incorpor-
ated herein as Exhibit A, subject to the following conditions:
A. No further structures shall be permitted to be
constructed on the site and no further addition to
those structures shall be permitted once construc-
tion of the improvements specified on Exhibit A is
complete.
B. The subterranean garage shall abut, but not pro-
vide access to the residential structure on the
site by way of a doorway or other passageway.
C. The proposed building plan must be approved by the
Rolling Hills Community Association Architectural
Committee before the applicant receives a grading
permit from the County of Los Angeles.
D. Prior to the submittal of a final grading plan to
the County of Los Angeles, the grading plan shall
be submitted to the Rolling Hills Planning
Department staff for their review, along with
related geology, soils and hydrology reports.
This grading plan must conform to the development
plan as approved by the Planning Commission. Cut
and fill slopes must conform to the City standard
of 2 to 1 slope ratio.
E. A landscape plan must be submitted to the
Landscape Committee of the Rolling Hills Community
Association, which shall forward its recommenda-
tions for approval or revision to the City of •
Rolling Hills Planning Department staff for
approval prior to the issuance of any grading and
910306 1J 1680436 (1) - 3 -
building permit. The landscaping plan submitted
must comply with the purpose and intent of the
Site Plan Review Ordinance, shall incorporate
existing mature trees and native vegetation, and
shall utilize to the maximum extent feasible,
plants that are native to the area and/or consis-
tent with the rural character of the community.
The landscape plan shall provide that mature
native shrubs or shrubs that are compatible with
the rural character of the community be planted
between Eastfield Drive and the proposed garage,
which shrubs shall be maintainedat a height
sufficient to, but not any higher than necessary
to, screen the top of the garage when viewed from
Eastfield Drive.
F. A bond in the amount of the cost estimate of the
landscaping plus 15% shall be required to be
posted with the City prior to the issuance of a
grading and building permit, and shall be retained
with the City for not less than two years after
landscape installation. The retained bond will be
released by the City after the City Manager (or
the Landscape Committee of the Rolling Hills
Community Association, if appointed to act for
this purpose in the place of the City Manager)
determines that the landscaping was installed pur-
suant to the landscaping plan as approved, and
that such landscaping is properly established and
in good condition.
G. The working drawings submitted to the County
Department of Building and Safety for plan check
must conform to the development plan approved with
this site plan review.
H. Any further modification to the development plans
approved by the Planning Commission shall require
the filing of an application for modification of
the development plan and must be reviewed and _
approved by the Planning Commission pursuant to:
Section 17.43.070 of the Rolling Hills Municipal -
Code.
I., The applicant shall execute an affidavit of
acceptance of all conditions pursuant to Sec-
tion 17.32.087 or this site plan review approval
shall not be effective.
J. All conditions of this modification must be com-.
plied with prior to the issuance of a building or
grading permit from _the County of Los Angeles.
910306 tj 1680436 (1) - 4 -
Section 7. The terms and conditions of Resolution
No. 89-15, adopted on July 8, 1989, and Resolution No. 90-34,
adopted on November 3, 1990, along with the approved variance to
the twenty percent (20%) side yard coverage requirement shall
remain and be in full force and effect except for any provision
therein which conflicts with the provisions of this Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 9th day of March,
1991.
Allan Roberts, Chairman
ATTEST:
MA/
Diane 'Sawyer, De uty City Clerk
910306 lj 1680436 (1) - 5 -
The foregoing Resolution No. 91-2 entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING
HILLS APPROVING A SECOND MODIFICATION TO THE PREVIOUSLY
APPROVED -'-SATE PLAN TO ALLOW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A
SUBTERRANEAN GARAGE AND AMENDING THE RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL IN
ZONING CASE NO. 393
was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission on March 9, 1991 by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
Commissioners Frost, Hankizis f..„. Lay and Raine;
Chairman Roberts.
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
1
Deputy City Clerk
•
City O /?O/fi?zJUL INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
v
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274
(310) 377-1521
FAX: (310) 377.7238
MEETING DATE: OCTOBER 26, 1993
TO: HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: LOLA UNGAR, PRINCIPAL PLANNER
SUBJECT: Zoning Case No. 393
Mr. and Mrs. Charles Haueisen, 6 Eastfield Drive
(Lot 62-EF)
Emergency Fire Door modification.
BACKGROUND
Staff met with Mr. and Mrs. Haueisen on Friday, October 22, 1993 to
discuss the issue which has not been finalized at this time.
Printed on Recycled Paper.
Cu, o`er Rolling JUL
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL
ATTENTION: CRAIG NEALIS, CITY MANAGER
FROM: LOLA UNGAR, PRINCIPAL PLANNER
INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274
(213) 377.1521
FAX: (213) 377-7288
Agenda Item No.
Meeting Date 3/11/91
SUBJECT: REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION ITEM
MODIFICATION TO ZONING CASE NO. 393
MR. & MRS. CHARLES HAUEISEN, 6 EASTFIELD DR. (LOT 62EF)
The following approved case is hereby transmitted as action of the
Planning Commission from their regular meeting of February 19,
1991.
The original zoning case was approved by the Planning Commission on
August 4, 1990 and, subsequently, a new request was filed for a
modification of a previously approved site plan to construct an
attached subterranean garage (previously approved as detached)
with driveway access and amend the resolution of approval
accordingly. The Planning Commission required the applicants to
stake the proposed project for the Commission's January field trip
and then later, the Commission required the construction of a full-
sized silhouette of the proposed modification for the February
field trip.
Attached find the proposed resolution which the Planning Commission
will be finalizing on March 9, 1991. If there are any additions
or corrections to the resolution, they will be brought to your
attention in written form.
The recommended action of the City Council is to receive and file:
Resolution No. 91-2 re: Modification of Zoning Case No. 393
Mr. & Mrs. Charles Haueisen, 6 Eastfield Dr. (Lot 62EF)
Approval of a Request for a modification of a previously approved
site plan to construct an attached subterranean garage (previously
approved as detached)with driveway access and amend the resolution
of approval accordingly.
g •
FS
Ci1 o/ ie0ti4
DATE: MARCH 4, 1991
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL
ATTENTION: CRAIG NEALIS, CITY MANAGER
FROM: LOLA UNGAR, PRINCIPAL PLANNER
INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274
(213) 377-1521
FAX: (213) 377-7288
Agenda Item No. LOk
Meeting Date 3/11/91
SUBJECT: REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION ITEM
MODIFICATION TO ZONING CASE NO. 393
MR. & MRS. CHARLES HAUEISEN, 6 EASTFIELD DR. (LOT 62EF)
The following approved case is hereby transmitted as action of the
Planning Commission from their regular meeting of February 19,
1991.
The original zoning case was approved by the Planning Commission on
August 4, 1990 and, subsequently, a new request was filed for a
modification of a previously approved site plan to construct an
attached subterranean garage (previously approved as above ground
detached) with driveway access and amend the resolution of approval
accordingly. The Planning Commission required the applicants to
stake the proposed project for the Commission's January field trip
and then later, the Commission required the construction of a full-
sized silhouette of the proposed modification for the February
field trip.
Attached find the proposed resolution which the Planning Commission
finalized on March 9, 1991. If there were any additions or
corrections to the resolution, they will be brought to your
attention in written form at the City Council Meeting.
The recommended action of the City Council is to receive and file:
Resolution No. 91-2 re: Modification of Zoning Case No. 393
Mr. & Mrs. Charles Haueisen, 6 Eastfield Dr. (Lot 62EF)
Approval of a Request for a modification of a previously approved
site plan to construct an attached subterranean garage (previously
approved as above ground detached) with driveway access and amend
the resolution of approval accordingly.
SENT 5Y:Xerax Teiecopier 7021'; 3- 6-91 ; 12:22
2136260078-, 3777Ytltl)i;ii
RESOLUTION NO. 91-2
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS APPROVING A
SECOND MODIFICATION TO THE PREVIOUSLY
APPROVED SITE PLAN TO ALLOW FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A SUBTERRANEAN GARAGE
AND AMENDING THE RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL
IN ZONING CASE NO. 393
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
$ ction 1. An application was duly filed by Mr. and
Mrs. Charles Haueisen with respect to real property located at
6 Eastfield Drive, Rolling Hills (Lot No. 62-EF) requesting a
econd modification to the previously approved site plan to allow
for the construction of a subterranean garage instead of a
detached above -grade garage.
2ecti.o>1„, . The Planning Commission reviewed and
approved the original application for site plan review on July 8,
1989 pursuant to Resolution No. 89-15. The first modification to
the site plan was approved by the Commission on November 3, 1990
ac; Resolution No. 90-34 along with a variance to the twenty
percent (20%) side yard requirement for construction of a
driveway in the side yard. This second modification is to allow
for the construction of a subterranean garage and the deletion of
a previously approved detached above -grade garage.
Bection_ 2. The Planning Commission conducted a duly
noticed public hearing to consider the application for a second
modification to the site plan on January 15, 1991 and February
19, 1991, and conducted a field trip on February 16, 1991.
$ection.A. Section 17.34.070 provides for a subsequent
modification after a site plan review application has been
approved. Modification of the approved plans and/or any
conditions imposed including additions or deletions, may be
considered. The decision on the modification of plans and/or
condition€: shall be in the same manner as set forth in Sec-
tions 17.32.030 and 17.34.040 of the Municipal Code.
910306 lJ 1680436 (1)
SENT bY:xerox Telecopier 7021 ; 3- 6-91 ; 12;23
2136260076-► 3777266; 3
• •
$gotion 5. The Commission makes the following findings
of fact:
A. The proposed structure complies with the General
plan requirement of low profile, low density resi-
dential development with sufficient open space
between surrounding structures. The project con-
forms to the Zoning Code setback and lot coverage
requirements. The lot has a net square foot area
of 45,798 square feet. The proposed residential
structure and garages will have 9,146 square feet
which constitutes approximately 19% of the lot,
which is within the maximum 20% lot coverage
requirement. The total lot coverage including
paved areas and stable will be 15,951 square feet
which equals 34.8% of the lot, which is within the
35% maximum structural lot coverage requirement.
The total pad coverage will be approximately 37%.
B. The proposed development preserves and integrates
into the site design, to the maximum extent feas-
ible, the natural topographical features of the
lot by being constructed on the existing building
pad. The construction of the subterranean garage
will be less visibly intrusive when the project is
viewed from Eastfield Drive than the previously
approved above -grade detached garage.
C. The project follows the natural contours of the
site described in paragraph B, above. Grading and
excavation is limited to the existing building pad
area and soil displacement caused by construction
of the subterranean garage will be placed back
against and above the structure so as to integrate
the structure into the natural contours of the
site.
D. To the maximum extant possible, native vegetation
will be preserved and enhanced by conditions
attached hereto requiring mature native plants to
be planted so as to screen the project from
Eastfield Drive.
E. The project substantially preserves the natural
and undeveloped state of the lot in that the
reconstruction will occur within the existing
building pad area.
F. Although the Development plan specifies a rela-
tively large residential structure, the project is
harmonious in scale and mass for the site and in
910306 11 1680436 (1)
-2—
Bc,,i BY:Xerox ielecopier 7021 ; 3- 6-81 ; 12;24 ; 2136260078-4 3777268#; 4
• •
relation to neighboring residential structures.
The proposed structure is 60 feat from the nearest
residence.
G. The project is sensitive and not detrimental to
the convenience and safety of circulation for
pedestrians and vehicles in that the driveway
remains in its existing location.
H. The project conforms to the requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act and is
categorically exempt from environmental review.
lion 6. Based upon the foregoing Section, the
Planning commission hereby approves the request for a second
modification to the approved site plan in Zoning Case No. 393 to
permit an attached subterranean garage with vehicular access, as
indicated on the development plan attache hereto and incorpor-
ated herein as Exhibit A, subject to the following conditions:
A. No further structures shall be permitted to be
constructed on the site and no further addition to
those structures shall be permitted once construc-
tion of the improvements specified on Exhibit A is
complete.
B. The subterranean garage shall abut, but not pro-
vide access to the residential structure on the
site by way of a doorway or other passageway.
C. The proposed building plan must be approved by the
Rolling Hills Community Association Architectural
Committee before the applicant receives a grading
permit from the County of Los Angeles.
D. Prior to the submittal of a final grading plan to
the County of Los Angeles, the grading plan shall
be submitted to the Rolling Hills Planning
Department staff for their review, along with
related geology, soils and hydrology reports.
This grading plan must conform to the development
plan as approved by the Planning Commission. Cut
and fill slopes must conform to the City standard
of 2 to 1 elope ratio.
E. A landscape plan must be submitted to the
Landscape Committee of the Rolling Hills Community
Association, which shall forward its recommenda-
tions for approval or revision to the City of
Rolling Hills PlanningDepartment staff for
approval prior to the issuance of any grading and
910306 lJ 1680436 (1) m3.
3-
,:Pvl b`,':.'(e"oh lei copier Iu[i i J- C-yi + IY;z4
Y1 JGLGu'u 10-' j1771titi4; i
• •
building permit. The landscaping plan submitted
must comply with the purpose and intent of the
Site Plan Review ordinance, shall incorporate
existing mature trees and native vegetation, and
shall utilize to the maximum extent feasible,
plants that are native to the area and/or consis-
tent with the rural character of the community.
The landscape plan shall provide that mature
native shrubs or shrubs that are compatible with
the rural character of the community be planted
between Eastfield Drive and the proposed garage,
which shrubs shall be maintained at a height
sufficient to, but not any higher than necessary
to, screen the top of the garage when viewed from
Eastfield Drive.
F. A bond in the amount of the cost estimate of the
landscaping plus 15% shall be required to be
posted with the City prior to the issuance of a
grading and building permit, and shall be retained
with the City for not less than two years after
landscape installation. The retained bond will be
released by the City after the City Manager (or
the Landscape Committee of the Rolling Hills
Community Association, if appointed to act for
this purpose in the place of the City Manager)
determines that the landscaping was installed pur-
suant to the landscaping plan as approved, and
that such landscaping is properly established and
in good condition.
G. The working drawings submitted to the County
Department of Building and Safety for plan check
must conform to the development plan approved With
this site plan review.
H. Any further modification to the development plans
approved by the Planning Commission shall require
the filing of an application for modification of
the development plan and must be reviewed and
approved by the Planning Commission pursuant to
Section 17.43.070 of the Rolling Hills Municipal
Code.
I. The applicant shall execute an affidavit of
acceptance of all conditions pursuant to sec-
tion 17.32.087 or this site plan review approval
shall not be effective.
J. All conditions of this modification must be com-
plied with prior to the issuance of a building or
grading permit from the County of Los Angeles.
910306 LJ 1680436 (1)
.).Ni BrXe,-ox Telecopier 1U21
CIJOLouOro" orr;cQc«,« u
• •
Section 7. The terms and conditions of Resolution
No. 89-15, adopted on July 8, 1989, and Resolution No. 90-34,
adopted on November 3, 1990, along with the approved variance to
the twenty percent (20%) side yard coverage requirement shall
remain and be in full force and effect except for any provision.
therein which conflicts with the provisions of this Resolution.
1991.
ATTEST:
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this day o
CITY CLERK
01 o3as 11 1680436 (1)
-5-
MAYOR
• •
Ciiy 0/ leoffin9 ihild
DATE OF HEARING:
TO:
FROM:
APPLICATION NO.:
SITE LOCATION:
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
PUBLISHED:
PRIOR CITY ACTIONS:
REQUEST:
DISCUSSION
tf\r-e-\_
y`E.
INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274
(213) 377-1521
FAX: (213) 377-7288
JANUARY 15, 1991
PLANNING COMMISSION
ANNE PALATINO, INTERIM PRINCIPAL PLANNER
MODIFICATION TO ZONING CASE NO. 393
6 EASTFIELD DRIVE (LOT 62 EF)
MR. and MRS. CHARLES HAUEISEN
MR. JACK RODE
JANUARY 5, 1991
NOVEMBER 3, 1990, RESOLUTION NO. 90-34,
APPROVAL FOR A VARIANCE TO EXCEED THE 20% SIDE
YARD SETBACK COVERAGE & MODIFICATION TO A
PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE PLAN REVIEW TO
CONSTRUCT A DETACHED GARAGE.
To modify a previously approved site plan to
construct an attached subterranean garage with
driveway access and amend the resolution
accordingly.
As explained above, the applicant recently gained approval to
construct a detached garage on their property. The new application
for a modification proposes to attach the garage to the residence;
the garage would be subterranean with landscaping above. (refer to
Sheet lA for elevations)
The amount of driveway coverage in the sideyard will remain the
same as that proposed in the previously approved plan, 37%
coverage. There is no proposed change to the grading. The existing
mature trees will be preserved.
Other minor additions to the residence are a seven foot add -on to
the family room and an additional foot along the south and east
wall, for a total of 500 sq. ft. of additional living space.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the Planning Commission review the proposed
plans and take public testimony if any.
•
DATE: OCTOBER 10, 1990
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: STAFF
SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 393 (Modification to stable); 6 Eastfield Drive;
Owner: Haueisen
pISCUSSIo11
This matter for a modification to the previously approved site plan to
enlarge a detached stable from 1,000 square feet to a 1,400 square foot
stable and garage has been continued over from the last few meetings due
to the proposed ordinance regarding mixed use structures. The Commission
will recall that modifications to the proposed residence were approved,
and the applicant has been informed that work on the house could be
started, subject to permits from the County Building and Safety
Department. The applicant has responded that they would rather proceed
with the project in its entirety, than in phases with the grading that
must be done. Although the City has a pending ordinance, staff would
suggest that the Commission take a decisive action upon the modification
request.
zc393#2
ill**** STAFF REPORT
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
JULY 11, 1990
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF
SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 393; Request for modification to approved site
plan and to amend Resolution of Approval; 6 Eastfield Drive, Lot
62-EF; Owner: Haueisen
DISCUSSION
The Planning Commission, at their regular meeting of June 19, 1990,
continued the application to the adjourned meeting of June 30 so as to
conduct a field inspection of the site and surrounding properties. At the
field meeting, the Commission, staff, applicant and the applicant's design
professional reviewed the proposed modifications to the original site plan
review project for a new residence. The original application is
concurrently under review from the Commission for an extension, since a
time period of one year has lapsed from the first approval date on the
subject Zoning Case.
The applicant's request for modification is two -fold. First, the
Commission must evaluate the proposed modification for an expanded mixed
use structure to include a 1,400 square foot secondary garage and barn.
Issues discussed previously on this matter include grading modifications,
development of access, visual impacts and provision of landscaping. From
the last field inspection, the Commission suggested the imposition of an
"implied easement" along the southerly property line wherean easement
does not currently exist. Figures have been. recalculated for the net lot
area and lot coverages. Revised plans show that lot and pad coverage
standards will not be exceeded. The Commission has the option to take
action on this matter and attached appropriate conditions that have been
generated from the Subcommittee recommendations (attached). On the other
hand, the Commission could continue the matter until the Ordinance has
been amended to address the mixed use provisions. The latter is
anticipated to be completed in September.
The second part
480 square feet
access to the
include changes
requirements.
setback of 5.5'
minimum setback.
(18.7% structure,
of the request involves the modification for an additional
to the residential project and reorientation of the garage
side of the proposed house. Issues discussed previously
to the setback from the roadway and lot/pad coverage
Revised plans indicate a reduction of the corner side yard
from 69' to 63.5', but still well in excess from the
Lot and pad coverages are within City prescribed limits
33.5% total; 32.2% pad).
S**** STAFF REPORT
Zoning Case .No. 393
page 2
RECOMMENDATION
The Commission should review for action each request separately. The
Commission must closely examine the proposed project modifications and
potential impacts in accordance with City requirements addressing
development compatibility. Should the requests be approved, the
Commission has the authority to attach appropriate conditions. On the
"Mixed Use" request, the Commission has the prerogative to continue the
matter until the procedures for a code amendment is complete.
zc393#5
•`*** STAFF REPORT
DATE: JULY 9, 1990
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: STAFF
SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 393; Request for Extension of approval for Site
Plan Review; 6 Eastfield Drive, Lot 62-EF; Owner: Haueisen
DISCUSSION
The City is in receipt of a letter, dated June 20, 1990, from Mr. and Mrs.
Charles Haueisen, requesting an extension on the original site plan review
approval of the Planning Commission on June 20, 1989. Section 17.34.080
of the Municipal Code requires that "extensions shall not be granted for
more than a total of one year unless a public hearing is held and approval
granted in the same manner and based upon the same criteria as for the
issuance of a new permit".
In light of the recent discussions of the City regarding mixed use
structures and the additional requests for modification by the applicants,
the City would not object to acquiescing the request for extension.
RECOMMENDATION
Correspondingly, staff would recommend that the Commission approve an
extension of one year to an expiration date of June 20, 1991.
zc393ext
ill" STAFF REPORT
* * * *
•
DATE: June 12, 1990
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: STAFF
SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 393; Request for modification to approved site
plan and to amend Resolution of Approval; 6 Eastfield Drive, Lot
62-EF; Owner: Charles Haueisen
DISCUSSION
The City is in receipt of a letter, dated May 18, 1990, from Mr. Richard
Linde, architect and representative for the property owner of the vacant
lot located at 6 Eastfield Drive, requesting modification to the
previously approved site plan and Resolution for a new residence. The
Commission will recall that the applicant has submitted a previous request
for modification to develop a mixed -use, garage and stable structure of
which application has been continued indefinitely. A Commission
subcommittee is currently attending to a study of this matter of mixed -use
accessory structures.
The applicant desires the Commission's review on an additional 480 square
feet of building square footage which results in a modification to the
building setback for the project. The revised project entails the
extension of the proposed residence to a corner side yard setback of 63'6"
from 69' away from the roadway easement. The front yard setback will be
consistent with the original project specification of 56 feet. Revised
pad coverage figures call for a coverage of approximately 32%, and lot
coverage limits are not exceeded. Further, the applicant desires to
adjust the driveway design in order to orientate the attached garage
access to the side of the house rather than exposed to the roadway.
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission has the prerogative to separate the review of the
residence modification from the evaluation of the mixed -use structure
proposed, since the latter has been continued for further study on that
issue. The Commission must closely examine the proposed project
modifications and potential impacts in accordance with the purposes and
objectives of the ordinance regarding development compatibility. Should
the request for the residence modifications only be approved, the
Commission has the authority to impose additional conditions
appropriately.
zc393#4
• i
STAFF REPORT
DATE: May 9, 1990
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: STAFF
SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO.393; Request for modification to approved site
plan and to amend Resolution of approval; 6 Eastfield Drive, Lot
62-EF; Owner: Charles Haueisen
DISCUSSION
The Planning Commission, at their meeting of April 18, 1990, continued
indefinitely the above -stated matter, and appointed a subcommittee of.two
commissioners to study, in coordination with the City Council, the issues
of mixed -use assessory structures. The City Council has been in the
preliminary discussion stages on this matter. A statement of policies in
regards to the development and maintenance of these types of structures
would follow.
The project calls for a modification to increase the size of a previously
approved 1,000 square foot stable to a 1,400 square foot garage and stable
(without loft) combination structure. The proposed structure will have a
one-story, step-down configuration, and the applicant's design
professional indicates minimal, if any, additional grading would be
required. Further, the project includes additional paved vehicular access
along the southerly property line where a perimeter easement does not
exist. At a previous meeting, staff pointed out that along said southerly
property line appeared to be an unreinforced cut in the typography, and
questioned the necessity of a retaining wall.
Other issues raised for discussion included impacts to the abutting
property and roadway, and the provision of landscaping. The previously
adopted Resolution requires that a landscape plan be submitted to the
City.
RECOMMENDATION
Since the City Council and Planning Commission Subcommittee have not
completed their review and evaluation for mixed -use structures, Staff
would recommend that the application for modification be continued
indefinitely. The prior Site Plan Review approval for the new residence
on the lot remains currently active.
zc393#3
• •
STAFF REPORT
DATE: April 9, 1990
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: STAFF
SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 393; Request for modification to approved site
plan and to amend Resolution of approval; 6 Eastfield Drive, Lot
62-EF; Owner: Charles Haueisen
DISCUSSION
The Planning Commission, at their regular meeting of March 20, 1990,
continued the above -stated application to an adjourned meeting so as to
inspect the site and surrounding properties. The applicant desires to
modify their previously approved project (6/22/89) to include a 1,400
square foot stable/garage and 1,900 square feet of additional paved
driveway. The prior plan called for a 1,000 square foot stable. The
proposed residence on the site remains unchanged at 6,158 square feet,
including garage (830 SF).
Issues and concerns raised at the previous meetings were discussed as
follows:
1. The enlarged stable/garage structure by 400 square feet will be
located 30 feet from the northeasterly easement line along Eastfield Drive
and minimal, if any, additional grading than previously approved will be
necessary. This area was accepted as a side yard and thus would exceed
the minimal setback of 20 feet in the RAS-1 zone. However, staff would
identify concern as it pertains to visual impact from the roadway. The
applicant's plans indicate that two existing mature trees will be retained
to provide some screening. The previously adopted Resolution requires
submittal of a landscaping plan as a condition of approval.
2. The additional structure and flatwork square footages will not
result in the lot coverage standards to be exceeded. Further, the stable
section of the structure will comply with separation standards from
residential buildings and property lines. The Commission should evaluate
the proximity of the garage and vehicular use with the abutting property.
An observed unreinforced cut in the topography along the southerly
property should be questioned to determine if a retaining wall requires
construction.
• •
zc393
page 2
3. The Commission may wish to further discuss standards for
mixed -use structures. The proposed one-story structure will have a
step-down configuration to accomodate the existing topography. A loft has
not been proposed. The structure, with appropriate exterior revisions,
has been approved by the Architectural Committee of the Rolling Hills
Community Association.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission closely examine the proposed
project modification and potential impacts in accordance with the purposes
and objectives of the zoning ordinance regarding development
compatibility. Should the request be approved, the Commission has the
authority to impose additional conditions appropriately.
zc393#2
• •
STAFF REPORT
DATE: March 12, 1990
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: STAFF
SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 393; Request for modification to approved site
plan and to amend Resolution of approval; 6 Eastfield Drive,
Lot 62-EF; Owner: Charles Haueisen
DISCUSSION
The City is in receipt of a letter, dated March 5, 1990, from Richard
Linde, architect and representative for Mr. Charles Haueisen, requesting a
modification to the previously approved site plan and Resolution for
development of the lot located a 6 Eastfield Drive.
The. Planning Commission, at their regular meeting of June 20, 1989,
adopted a Resolution granting Site Plan Review to allow construction of a
new 5,328 square foot residence and 830 square foot attached garage (6,158
sq. ft. total). The plans further indicated a 1,000 square foot future
stable in the rear yard setback area. The applicant now desires to
construct an expanded stable/garage structure as part of the residential
development project. The revised project incorporates a 1,400 square foot
stable/garage and 1,900 square feet of additional paved driveway on site.
The proposed structure will a have a setback of 30 feet from the
northeasterly easement line along Eastfield Drive and no additional
grading is indicated. This area was approved as a corner side yard, and
thus complies with the side yard setback requirement. Further, the stable
area of the structure will satisfy the minimum 25 foot setback from a
property line and 35 foot separation from the residence. Lot coverage
requirements will not be exceeded.
In reviewing the proposed modification, Staff would would identify concern
as it pertains to visual impact from the roadway and proximity of the
garage use with abutting properties.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission closely examine the proposed
project modification and potential impacts in accordance with the zoning
ordinance regarding development compatibility. The Commission should
receive public testimony and continue the matter to an adjourned meeting
so as to inspect the site and surrounding properties.
zc393mod