892, Demo existing garage & Constru, Staff ReportsA
TO:
FROM:
APPLICATION NO.
SITE LOCATION:
ZONING AND SIZE:
OWNER:
REPRESENTATIVE:
PUBLISHED:
• •
C1ty 0/l2ll,,.s JJ�II,
INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
N0. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274
(310) 377-1521
FAX: (310) 377.7288
Agenda Item No.: 6B
Mtg. Date: 02/106
HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION
YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR
WENDY STARKS, ASSOCIATE PLANNER
ZONING CASE NO. 892
3 EASTFIELD DRIVE (LOT 58-EF)
RA-S-1, 1.4 ACRES (GROSS)
MR. AND MRS. BENNETT
BEN CAUTHEN, PROJECT DESIGNER
DECEMBER 3, 2015
FEBRUARY 4, 2016
REQUEST AND RECOMMENDATION
1. The property owners Mr. and Mrs. Bennett, request a Site Plan Review for
minor grading to widen the existing driveway and create a one car parking pad and
up to 5' high retaining wall and a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for replacement of
the existing detached 672 square foot garage with a new 704 square foot detached
garage and multiple variances. The variances requested include: to construct a 195
sq. ft. addition to the main residence of which 61 square feet encroach 6'3" into the
front setback, to provide a new one -car parking pad, less than 30 feet from the
roadway easement line and a 5' high retaining wall in the front setback, to encroach
18' into the front yard setback with the detached garage, to exceed the maximum
permitted structural andtotal coverage of the lot and the disturbed area of the lot, to
reconstruct the garage with an out of grade condition along the northeast side of the
garage and a retaining wall in the front that will not average out to 2.5' in height.
2. At the January 19, 2016 Planning Commission meeting, the Planning
Commission directed staff to prepare a Resolution approving the project subject to a
revised design to address the out -of -grade condition at the side and rear of the
proposed garage, to provide a 4 foot access path around the garage, and to submit a
plan to retain the large pine tree at the front of the property in the easement, adjacent
to the newly proposed retaining wall.
ZC NO. 892
3 Eastfield Road
Printed on Recycled Paper
• •
3. The applicants submitted a revised plan complying with the Planning
Commission's requests to address the out -of -grade condition by screening it with
two retaining corner walls (54' long total) that will be a maximum of 5-feet high,
which will straddle the corner of the garage and will average out to 2.5 feet; planting
to screen the condition; providing a 4-foot planter/ access path, and confirmed that a
concerted effort will be made to retain the pine tree in the front.
A "no further development without Planning Commission review" condition is
included in the resolution.
4. It is recommended that the Planning Commission review and consider the
attached Resolution No. 2016-04 for adoption.
ZC NO. 892
3 Eastfield Road
• a
RESOLUTION NO. 2016-04
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL FOR A SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A
DETACHED GARAGE, GRADING AND RETAINING WALLS; A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A DETACHED GARAGE;
AND VARIANCES TO CONSTRUCT AN ADDITION TO THE RESIDENCE IN
THE FRONT SETBACK, A ONE -CAR PARKING PAD LESS THAN 30 FEET
FROM THE ROADWAY EASEMENT LINE, GARAGE AND WALL
ENCROACHMENT INTO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK, OUT OF GRADE
CONDITION OF THE GARAGE, WALL THAT DOES NOT AVERAGE OUT TO
2.5-FEET, TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED STRUCTURAL AND
TOTAL COVERAGE AND THE DISTURBED AREA OF THE LOT, IN ZONING
CASE NO. 892, AT 3 EASTFIELD DRIVE, (LOT 58-EF), (BENNETT).
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. Bennett with respect to real
property located at 3 Eastfield Drive, Rolling Hills (Lot 58-EF) requesting a Site Plan Review
for grading (21 c.y.) to widen the existing driveway and create a one car parking pad and up to
5' high retaining walls and a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for replacement of the existing
detached 672 square foot garage with a new 704 square foot detached garage and variances
that include: 1) to construct a 195 square foot addition to the main residence of which 61 sq. ft.
would encroach 6'3" into the front setback, 2) to provide a new one -car parking pad, less than
30 feet from the roadway easement line, 3) to encroach 18' into the front yard setback with the
detached garage, 4) to exceed the maximum permitted structural and total coverage of the lot
and the disturbed area of the lot, 6) to locate 5' high retaining wall in the front setback, that
will not average out to 2.5' in height and 7) to reconstruct the garage with an out of grade
condition.
Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted duly noticed public hearings to
consider the application at a regular meeting on December 15, 2015 and January 19, 2016 and
at a field trip to the property on January 19, 2016. Several neighbors were present at the
meetings, and one neighbor was present at the field trip. The applicant was 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's
representative was in attendance at the hearings.
Section 3. The property is zoned RAS-1 and consists of 1.4 acres gross (60,984 sq. ft.)
and 44,413 sq. ft. net lot area for development purposes. The property is located on the north
side of Eastfield Drive. The property is almost square shaped. The property is characterized by
a steep slope, descending from the southwest corner (front) diagonally to northeast corner
Reso. 2016-04
3 Eastfield Drive
1
• •
(rear). The topography in the front yard between the road edge and house front wall has a
drop of 18 feet, or a 69% downslope. This project site is developed with a single family
residence and detached garage built in 1956.
In 1963 , the Planning Commission granted a front yard variance for an addition,
waiving the then required 30 foot front setback in favor of 23-feet, in recognition of the
constraints of the steep terrain and fact that the detached garage already encroached 7 feet into
the 30' setback. In 1971 the Planning Commission granted a variance for a tennis court,
allowing the court to encroach into the side yard.
Section 4. The Planning Commission finds that the project qualifies as a Class 3
Exemption, and is therefore categorically exempt from environmental review under the
California Environmental Quality Act.
Section 5. 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 more than 999 square feet in any thirty-six (36) month period. With
respect to the Site Plan Review application requesting grading and construction of a new
detached garage, grading, and retaining walls, 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 homes in the neighborhood are similar in size to
the proposed home on smaller lots. As existing the site has nonconforming structural coverage
and existing total coverage already and with the proposal the increase for both will be
minimal. The proposed grading and retaining walls will be minor in amount and degree and
will not alter the existing character and residential use on the property or of the surrounding
neighborhood, nor will existing contours of the property be significantly altered. Existing
landscaping will be preserved including one large pine tree in the front yard, and all otherwise
native vegetation on the property will be preserved and the walls screened.
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 proposed motor court, while within the front yard setback,
will be screened behind and at the bottom of a slope, which is consistent with the natural
topography. The proposed retaining wall in the front yard will blend with the existing
topography. The encroachment of the garage into the front setback will be less than the
existing garage encroachment and is constrained by the location of the existing house and
building pad, which, in turn is constrained by the steep topography both at the front and
towards the rear of the building pad. The amount of new living area being added within the
Reso. 2016-04
3 Eastfield Drive
2
O
• •
front setback will not create any . adverse visual bulk impacts because it will be a relatively
small area, is under an existing overhang and will not be visible from the street at the lot front.
C. The proposed development, as conditioned, is harmonious in scale and mass
with the site, the natural terrain and surrounding residences. The lot and house are similar to
adjacent lots and residences and the garage will be screened via a retaining wall and
landscaping on the side and rear.
D. The development plan incorporates existing trees and is screened from other
properties and the road by existing vegetation, which will be preserved. Every attempt will be
made to retain a large existing pine tree in the front setback close in proximity to the proposed
retaining wall.
E. The development plan follows to the maximum extent practicable contours of the
site to minimize grading and retain the natural drainage courses. The proposed grading and
retaining walls will be minor in amount. The dirt from the excavation of the small parking
pad will be utilized to construct the retaining wall surrounding the new garage, so that
grading will be balanced on site. The graded areas will be landscaped.
F. The proposed development is sensitive and not detrimental to the convenience
and safety of circulation for pedestrians and vehicles because the existing driveway will be
utilized and the new driveway configuration will promote safety as it will allow residents to
drive directly into the garage from the street. The proposed parking pad and space will allow
more parking on -site as the site is currently constrained for on -site parking.
G. The project conforms to the requirements of the California Environmental
Quality Act and is exempt.
Section 6. Section 17.16.210(A)(4) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code permits
approval of a detached garage under certain conditions, provided the Planning Commission
approves a Conditional Use Permit. The applicant is requesting to construct a 704 square foot
detached garage. With respect to this request for a Conditional Use Permit, the Planning
Commission finds as follows:
A. The granting of a Conditional Use Permit for construction of the garage structure
would be consistent with the purposes and objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and General
Plan because the use is consistent with similar uses in the community and is a permitted use
with a CUP. The area proposed for such structure would not require substantial grading, and
such use will not make the lot overdeveloped. The proposed detached garage is in the same
location as the existing detached garage and in a location best suited for the garage, as there is
no other area to place a garage. The proposed location will not interfere with the location of
the residence.
B. The nature, condition, and development of adjacent uses, buildings, and
structures have been considered, and the detached structure will not adversely affect or be
Reso. 2016-04
3 Eastfield Drive
3
• i
materially detrimental to these adjacent uses, buildings, or structures because the side and rear
portions of proposed use will be partially screened from view by a retaining wall and
landscaping and is of sufficient distance from nearby residences so that the structure will not
impact the view or privacy of surrounding neighbors. The out -of -grade condition of the
proposed garage will be buffered with a retaining wall and landscaping to soften the impact.
C. The project is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, the natural terrain, and
surrounding residences because the detached garage structure will comply with the low
profile residential development pattern of the community, there is adequate area on the
property to construct such a 450 square foot stable, and the project would not take away an
area for equestrian development in the future.
D. The proposed conditional use complies with all applicable development
standards of the zone district as approved by this Resolution, because it is a permitted use
under the Municipal Code.
Section 7. Sections 17.38.010 through 17.38.050 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code
permit approval of a Variance granting relief from the standards and requirements of the
Zoning Ordinance when exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applicable to the property
prevent the owner from making use of a parcel of property to the same extent enjoyed by
similar properties in the same vicinity or zone.
A Variance is required from RHMC Sections 17.16.190F, 17.16.080 and 17.16.060 because the
project exceeds the allowed maximum average of wall height of 2.5-feet of both the free
standing wall and the walls of the proposed garage and the front parking pad wall, portion of
the residence addition and portion of the detached garage would be located in setbacks.
A Variance to Section 17.060.070 is also required because the maximum disturbed area is not to
exceed 40% and this project is proposed to exceed maximum disturbance with 43.4%, and the
proposed total structural and total lot coverage area would exceed the allowed amounts with
an increase from 24.1% to 25.9% where 20% maximum is allowed for structural coverage, and
an increase from 36.7% to 41.1% where 35% maximum total lot coverage is allowed.
With respect to the aforementioned requests for Variances, the Planning Commission
finds as follows:
A. There are exceptional circumstances and conditions on the subject property as
follows:
Regarding requested variance relating to the height and encroachment into the setback
for the proposed retaining wall: the proposed 5-foot retaining wall in the front yard will match
the upward slope and will blend in with the natural slope and will not be seen from the street.
The sloping condition at the front of the lot in this area makes a retaining wall necessary to
protect the proposed new outdoor car -port. The addition, of which 61 square feet will
encroach into the front setback is minimal, given that almost half of the residence and most of
the existing garage encroach into the front setback due to the configuration and steepness of
the lot. The addition will be almost entirely under an exiting roof line and not visible from the
street. The encroachment of the proposed garage will follow the same footprint as the existing
Reso. 2016-04
3 Eastfield Drive
4
i •
garage, but 7 feet less and will provide safer ingress and egress onto the property. The out of
grade condition of the proposed garage will be within the footprint of the existing garage and
will not be exacerbated by the new construction. The steepness and configuration of the lot
makes it impossible to meet the code requirement and provide for a garage on the lot. The
visual impact of the out of grade condition of the garage will be mitigated by the construction
of a terraced wall and landscaping in front of this condition.
Regarding the requested variances from Section 17.16.070, relating to maximum
structural and total lot coverage limits and disturbance of the lot: the property is uniquely
constrained by an existing tennis court on the property, and by the steep topography both at
the front and the rear of the building pad. The lot coverage is relatively small compared to
the amount of coverage that is associated with the improvements, specifically the existing
6,433 square foot sports court. The proposed additional disturbance to provide more on -site
parking, and to widen the driveway is minimal and will result in better vehicle access. To the
maximum extent practicable the proposed development works within and follows the
existing conditions on the lot.
B. The variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial
property right possessed by other property owners in the same vicinity and zone but which is
denied to the property in question by strict application of the code. The property right which
otherwise would be enjoyed is the ability to utilize a portion of the front yard for on -site
parking, and superior access and entry/exit to the garage than currently exists.
C. The granting of the Variance would not be materially detrimental to the public
welfare or injurious to the properties or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the
property is located in that the proposed on -site parking space and reconfigured garage access
increases safety to the residents and neighborhood as it allows for direct access from the
street. Further, the increased on -site parking is necessary as parking on Eastfield Drive is
greatly needed and constrained on this stretch of the road. Additionally, the improvements
to the property (additional parking space, retaining wall, residential addition, and garage)
will not be easily viewed from adjacent properties, and the street and visual impacts are
minor. To the maximum extent practicable the proposed development works within and
follows the' existing conditions on the lot and therefore will not be materially or otherwise
detrimental to the public.
D. In granting of the Variance the spirit and intent of the Zoning Ordinance will be
observed in that the proposed parking pad, retaining wall, and garage, and small residential
addition construction will be orderly, attractive, and while the garage has an out -of -grade
condition, it will be buffered and mediated with landscaping and a wall to ensure it will not
affect the rural character of the community. The subject property retains a suitable stable and
corral set -aside area and the proposed garage and addition will not impact use of these
existing structures.
E. The Variance request is consistent with the General Plan of the City of Rolling
Hills because the proposed structures comply with the General Plan requirement of low
Reso. 2016-04
3 Eastfield Drive
5 CJ
• •
profile, low -density residential development with sufficient open space between surrounding
structures.
F. The Variance is consistent with the portions of the County of Los Angeles
Hazardous Waster Management Plan relating to siting and siting criteria for hazardous waste
facilities.
Section 8. Based upon the foregoing findings in Sections 5, 6, and 7, the Planning
Commission hereby approves the Site Plan Review application, Conditional Use Permit and
Variances in Zoning Case No. 892 for minor grading and construction of a residence addition,
a detached garage, a new one -car parking space, and retaining walls as shown on the Site Plan
dated January 29, 2016 subject to the following conditions:
A. The conditions of approval specified herein shall be printed on all construction
plans and shall be at all times available at the construction site.
B. The Site Plan Review, Conditional Use Permit 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),
17.42.070(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.
C. 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.
D. All requirements of the Building and Construction Code, the Zoning Code, and
of the zone in which the subject property is located must be complied with, including the
Outdoor Lighting Ordinance, unless otherwise set forth in this approval, or shown otherwise
on an approved plan. All existing overhead utility lines serving the subject property shall be
undergrounded pursuant to Section 17.27.030.
E. The lot shall be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the
site plan on file dated January 29, 2016
F. The working drawings submitted to the Department of Building and Safety for
plan check and construction review must conform to the development plan approved with this
application. In addition, prior to submittal of final plans to the Building Department for
issuance of building permits, the plans for the project shall be submitted to staff for verification
that the final plans are in compliance with the plans approved by the Planning Commission.
The licensed professional preparing construction plans for this project for
Building Department review shall execute a Certificate affirming that the plans conform in all
Reso. 2016-04
3 Eastfield Drive
F CJ
• •
respects to this Resolution approving this project and all of the conditions set forth therein and
the City's Building Code and Zoning Ordinance.
Further, the person obtaining a building and/ or grading permit for this project shall
execute a Certificate of Construction stating that the project will be constructed according to
this Resolution and any plans approved therewith.
G. Grading shall not exceed a total of 21 cubic yard of cut and fill, which includes
the creation of a one -car motor court, to widen the driveway, and to mediate the out -of -grade
condition of the garage, and shall be balanced on site. Cut and fill slopes shall not exceed
steepness as shown on the development plan dated January 29, 2016. Prior to the issuance of
grading or building permits, a landscaping plan shall be submitted to the Planning
Department
H. Structural lot coverage shall not exceed 11,574 square feet or 25.9% of the net lot
area, (excluding 76 sq.ft. allowed ancillary detached structures).
I Total lot coverage of structures and paved areas shall not exceed 18,241 square
feet, including the widened driveway and the motor court or 41.1 % of net lot area (with
deductions).
J. The retaining wall along the motor court and driveway may not exceed 5 feet in
height at any one point from the finished grade. The retaining walls flanking the detached
garage may not exceed 5 feet in height, sloping to 0 feet, with 2.5 feet average, for
approximately 54 feet in length total.
K. The disturbance of the net lot shall not exceed 19,260 square feet of surface area
or 43.4%.
L. Residential building pad coverage on the 5,908 square feet residential building
pad shall not exceed 85.8%. The stable/sports court building pad shall remain at 7,790 square
feet with coverage or 82.6%, which includes the sports court.
M. 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 garage.
N. There shall be no sleeping quarters, temporary occupancy or . any cooking
facilities in the detached garage. The detached garage shall not exceed 704 square feet as
measured from the outside walls, and may contain a toilet and a sink.
O. ° Should the detached garage as specified on the approved plan be converted to
another use, without required approvals, the permit granting the detached garage may be
revoked, pursuant to Chapter 17.58, and the structure may have to be removed at the cost of
the property owner.
Reso. 2016-04
3 Eastfield Drive
7
• •
P. A fuel modification plan, a landscape plan, and an irrigation plan prepared by a
registered landscape architect, landscape designer, landscape contractor, or an individual with
expertise acceptable to the forestry division of the fire department shall be submitted and
approved by the City, including for screening of the north eastern portions of the detached
garage.
Q. All graded areas shall be vegetated utilizing to the greatest extent feasible
mature native and drought resistant plants. Plants shall be utilized, which are consistent with
the rural character of the community and meet the fire department requirements for fire
resistant plants. Any trees and shrubs used in the landscaping scheme for this project shall be
planted in a way that will not result in a hedge like screening and as not to impair views of
neighboring properties but to screen the project site.
R. Every effort will be made to retain the large existing pine tree at the front of the property that is
shown on the plans submitted to the. Planning Department on January 29, 2016.
S. The property owners shall be required to conform to the City of Rolling Hills and
RHCA roofing material standards, Outdoor Lighting Standards, as well as all other
requirements of the Municipal Code.
T. Minimum of 50% of the construction material spoils shall be recycled and
diverted. The hauler must be licensed by the City, must have the appropriate insurance and
must provide the appropriate documentation to the City.
U. There shall be no dumping of any debris, trash, soil spoils, construction materials
or any other matter into the canyons.
V. The property lines, easement lines and setbacks, where possible, in the vicinity of
the areas of construction, shall be delineated during the entire duration of the construction and
no grading, construction or storage of any objects including building materials shall take place
in the easement, unless approved by the RHCA.
W. 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.
X. During grading and construction operations, trucks shall not park, queue and/ or
idle at the project site or in the adjoining right-of-way before or after the permitted hours of
operations. To the maximum extent possible, staging of equipment and parking of vehicles
during construction shall be on site.
Y. The contractors and subcontractors are to encourage their employees to car-pool
into the City.
Reso. 2016-04
3 Eastfield Drive
8
• •
Z The applicant shall comply with requirements for bonding for grading and all
other requirements resulting from the review of the soils and geology reports.
AA. No drainage device may be located in such a manner as to contribute to erosion
or in any way affect an easement, trail or adjacent properties.
AB. During construction, conformance with the air quality management district
requirements shall be complied with, so that people or property are not exposed to undue
vehicle trips, noise, dust, and objectionable odors. The grading activities shall be watered on a
daily basis, or more often, if necessary.
AC. 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 and storm management, including post construction
maintenance of stormwater facilities.
AD. An Erosion Control Plan, if required by the building department, shall be
prepared to minimize erosion and to protect slopes and channels to control storm water
pollution as required by the Code.
AE. The property owner and/or his/her contractor/applicant shall be responsible
for compliance with the no -smoking provisions in the Municipal Code.
AF. The contractor shall not use tools that could produce a spark, including for
clearing and grubbing, during red flag warning conditions. Weather conditions can be found
at: http//www.wrh.noaa.gov/Iox/main.php?suite=safety &page=hazard_definitions#FIRE. It
is the sole responsibility of the property owner and/or his/her contractor to monitor the red
flag warning conditions.
AG. Until the applicants execute and record an Affidavit of Acceptance of all
conditions of this Site Plan Review, Conditional Use Permit and Variance approvals, as
required by the Municipal Code, the approvals shall not be effective.
AH. All conditions of the Site Plan, Conditional Use Permit and Variance
approvals, that apply, shall be complied with prior to the issuance of grading or building
permit.
AI. Notwithstanding Sections 17.46.020 and 17.46.070 of the Rolling Hills
Municipal Code, any future modifications to the property or to this project, which would
constitute additional grading, height or any structural development shall require the filing
of a new application for approval by the Planning Commission.
Reso. 2016-04
3 Eastfield Drive
• •
AJ. 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 16th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016.
BRAD CHELF, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
HEIDI LUCE, CITY CLERK
Reso. 2016-04
3 Eastfield Drive 10
• Es
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2016-04 entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL FOR A SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A
DETACHED GARAGE, GRADING AND RETAINING WALLS; A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A DETACHED GARAGE;
AND VARIANCES TO CONSTRUCT AN ADDITION TO THE RESIDENCE IN
THE FRONT SETBACK, A ONE -CAR PARKING PAD LESS THAN 30 FEET
FROM THE ROADWAY EASEMENT LINE, GARAGE AND WALL
ENCROACHMENT INTO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK, OUT OF GRADE
CONDITION OF THE GARAGE, WALL THAT DOES NOT AVERAGE OUT TO
2.5-FEET, TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED STRUCTURAL AND
TOTAL COVERAGE AND THE DISTURBED AREA OF THE LOT, IN ZONING
CASE NO. 892, AT 3 EASTFIELD DRIVE, (LOT 58-EF), (BENNETT).
was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on February 16,
2016 the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following:
Administrative Offices.
HEIDI LUCE, CITY CLERK
3 Eastfield Drive
Reso. 2016-04 13
11
eitsl o/,Colli,.s.JdlG
TO:
FROM:
APPLICATION NO.
SITE LOCATION:
ZONING AND SIZE:
OWNER:
REPRESENTATIVE:
PUBLISHED:
INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274
(310) 377.1521
FAX: (310) 377.7288
Agenda Item No.: 7A
Mtg. Date: 01-19-16
HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION
YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR
ZONING CASE NO. 892
3 EASTFIELD DRIVE (LOT 58-EF)
RA-S-1, 1.4 ACRES (GROSS)
MR. AND MRS. BENNETT
BEN CAUTHEN, PROJECT DESIGNER
DECEMBER 3, 2015
REQUEST AND RECOMMENDATION
1. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on this proposed
development on December 15, 2015 and visited the site early in the day on January
19, 2016.
2. The property owners Mr. and Mrs. Bennett, request a Site Plan Review for
grading (21 c.y.) to widen the existing driveway and create a one car parking pad and
up to 5' high retaining wall and a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for replacement of
the existing detached 672 square foot garage with a new 704 square foot detached
garage and variances that include: 1) to construct a 195 square foot addition to the
main residence of which 61 sq. ft. would encroach 6'3" into the front setback, 2) to
provide a new one -car parking pad, less than 30 feet from the roadway easement line,
3) to encroach 18' into the front yard setback with the detached garage, 4) to exceed
the maximum permitted structural and total coverage of the lot and the disturbed
area of the lot, and 6) to locate 5' high retaining wall in the front setback, that will not
average out to 2.5' in height.
3. It is recommended that the Planning Commission review the staff report, take
public input and provide direction to staff.
BACKGROUND
4. The property is zoned RAS-1 and consists of 1.4 acres gross (60,984 sq. ft.) and
44,413 sq. ft. net lot area for development purposes. The property is located on the
ZC NO. 892
3 Eastfield Road
d
Printed on Recycled Paper
• •
north side of Eastfield Drive. The property is almost square shaped. The property is
characterized by a steep slope, descending from the southwest corner (front)
diagonally to northeast corner (rear). The topography in the front yard between the
road edge and house front wall has a drop of 18 feet, or a 69% downslope. This project
site is developed with a single family residence and detached garage built in 1956.
5. In 1963 the Planning Commission granted a front yard variance for an addition,
waiving the then required 30 foot front setback in favor of 23-feet, in recognition of the
constraints of the steep terrain and fact that the detached garage already encroached 7
feet into the 30' setback. In 1971 the Planning Commission granted a variance for a
tennis court, allowing the court to encroach into the side yard.
MUNICIPAL CODE COMPLIANCE
6. The property is developed with a 3,073 square foot residence, 672 square foot
garage and 510 square foot swimming pool on a 5,908 square foot building pad area
(outside setbacks). A 6,433 square foot tennis court is located in the rear of the
property. The existing garage will be demolished and replaced and a nonconforming
animal pen in the front yard setback will be removed. A 1,000 square foot area is
proposed to be set aside for a future stable and corral near the tennis court.
7. As existing the site has nonconforming structural coverage of 24.1% (20%
allowed) and with the proposal, this will increase to 25.9%, (which includes a future
stable). The existing total coverage is also nonconforming at 36.7% (35% allowed) and
this will be increased to 41.1 %, requiring a variance.
8. The construction of a new garage and an addition of an enclosed front entry
within the standard 50-foot front setback each require a new variance because the
current proposal exceeds the scope of the prior variance. The new garage will be 704
square feet (3-car), detached and reoriented so that the access will be at the front,
facing Eastfield. By reorienting the garage, it will encroach 18' into the required 50'
front setback, for a total encroachment of 576 square feet. (Current garage encroaches
27' for a total encroachment of 594 square feet). Behind the garage, a new service
yard will be built. In between the garage and front entry of the home, a paved entry
courtyard will be created leading to the proposed new 61 square foot enclosed entry.
9. The applicant's goal is to improve access and parking on the property. To
improve access, the driveway will be widened approximately 5 feet and the garage will
be reconstructed with increased setback and new orientation. To increase on -site
parking, a one -car motor court will be constructed within the front setback, 8 feet from
the roadway easement line, which requires a variance. Pursuant to Section 17.16.150 of
the Municipal Code parking areas must be located at least 30 feet from the roadway
easement line and the driveway and parking area may not cover, respectively, more
ZC NO.892
3 Eastfield Road
• •
than 20% and 10% of the front yard setback. The driveway will cover 11.5% and the
parking area will cover 9% of the front setback, which is conforming.
10. The applicant proposes to construct several retaining walls to create the new
motor court and to widen the driveway (to 17 feet wide at its narrowest point). Several
existing retaining and rubble walls will be removed. At the motor court a 5-foot high
maximum retaining wall is required but the wall along the driveway will vary in
height to no more than 3 feet. The construction of the wall along the driveway
complies with the code, as, up to 3' high walls are permitted along driveways.
11. The creation of the motor court and widened driveway involves minor grading,
including 21 cubic yards of earth that will be reused as fill under the new garage slab.
This grading will not alter the existing drainage patterns.
12. The widening of the driveway requires review by the City's Traffic Commission,
which is scheduled on January 28, 2016. The project, including walls within the
roadway easement will also be required to be reviewed by the Rolling Hills
Community Association.
13. The existing disturbed area is 38.9% of the net lot, (40% max.) and with this
proposal, due to the minor grading at the front, the disturbed area will increase (4.5%)
to 43.4%, requiring a variance.
14. Coverage on the 5,908 square foot residential building pad (outside of setbacks)
will be increased from 72.4% to 85.8%. The guideline established by the Planning
Commission is a maximum pad coverage of 30%.
15. In accordance with Section 17.16.040 of the Municipal Code, a Conditional Use
Permit is required for a detached garage pursuant to the criteria and conditions in
17.16.210 as follows:
a. (Garage) shall not be located in the front yard or any setback.
b. A sink and toilet is permitted.
c. A kitchen or kitchenette shall not be permitted.
d. No sleeping quarters or renting of the structure shall be permitted.
e. The Planning Commission shall have the ability to limit the size of the detached
garage in relationship to the size of the residence, topography, size of the lot and other
conditions.
The proposed garage will be in compliance with the above criteria except. location
within the front yard and setback, which is included in the variance applications. No
sleeping quarters, or plumbing fixtures are proposed and the proposal is for a
standard 3-car garage structure. An existing guest quarters within the existing
garage will be removed.
ZC NO.892
3 Eastfield Road
CONCLUSION
16. When reviewing a development application the Planning Commission should
consider whether 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. In addition, the
Commission must determine if the project meets the Variance criteria enclosed with
this report.
17. In reviewing this application, the Commission should consider the topography
of the property, lot size and/or shape and the location of the previously graded pad at
the front of the property, which limits site layout options. It will be a requirement that
all utility lines be placed underground.
18. The owner has submitted the following as the basis for making findings to
approve the project:
Site Plan Review: 1) The proposed grading and retaining walls will be minor in
amount and degree and will not alter the existing character and residential use on the
property or of the surrounding neighborhood, nor will existing contours of the
property be significantly altered; 2) Existing landscaping will be preserved, and all
otherwise native vegetation on the property will be preserved.
Variances: 1) The proposed motor court, while within the front yard setback, will be
screened behind and at the bottom of a slope which is consistent with the natural
topography; 2) The proposed 5-foot retaining wall in the front yard will blend with the
existing topography; 3) The encroachment of the garage into the front setback will be
less than the existing garage and is constrained by the location of the existing house
and building pad which, in turn is constrained by the steep topography both at the
front and towards the rear of the building pad; 4) The amount of new living area being
added within the front setback will not create any adverse visual bulk impacts because
it will be a relatively small area (61 square feet) and will not be visible from the street at
the lot front; 5) The lot coverage increase is relatively small compared to the amount of
coverage that is associated with the existing improvements, in particular, the existing
6,433 square foot sports court; the amount of disturbed area exceedance proposed is
relatively minor and the purpose, to provide more onsite parking, and to widen the
driveway will result in better vehicle access.
Conditional Use Permit: Other than the requested variance for location, the detached
garage will comply with the development standards for detached garage.
ZC NO.892
3 Eastfield Road
• •
18. The project has been determined to be categorically exempt from the provisions
of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as a minor addition to an existing
residence pursuant to Section 15301.e of the CEQA Guidelines.
ZONING CASE NO. 892
SITE PLAN REVIEW
RA-S-1 ZONE SETBACKS
Front: 50 ft. from front easement
line
Side: 20 ft. from property line
Rear: 50 ft. from property line
STRUCTURES
(Site Plan Review required for new
structures, grading and if size of
the residence increases by more
than 999 sq. ft. in a 36-month
period).
STRUCTURAL LOT COVERAGE
(20% maximum)
TOTAL LOT COVERAGE
(35% maximum)
BUILDING PAD COVERAGE
(30% maximum guideline)
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., must be balanced on
site
DISTURBED AREA
(40% maximum; any graded
building pad area, any remedial
grading (temporary disturbance),
any graded slopes and building
pad areas, and any nongraded
area where impervious surfaces
exist.)
STABLE (minimum 450 sa. ft.) and
CORRAL (minimum 550 sq. ft.1
ZC NO. 89'2
3 Eastfield Road
EXISTING
SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENCE,
DETACHED GARAGE,
POOL, SPORT COURT
Residence 3073 sq.ft
Garage 420 sq.ft
Stable(fut) 0 sq.ft
Service yd 0 sq.ft
Guest hse 252 sq.ft
Pool 510 sq.ft
Pool eqpm. 24 sq.ft.
Sport court 6433 sq,ft
Shed 76 sq. ft.
10,788
TOTAL sq.ft.
24.3%
36.7%
72.4% of 5,908 sq.ft. pad
N/A
38.9% of lot
PROPOSED
ADDITIONS, DETACHED
GARAGE, MOTOR COURT,
GRADING FRONT YARD,
WALL HEIGHT,
DISTURBED AREA,
COVERAGES
Residence 3268 sq.ft
Garage 704 sq.ft
Stable (fut) 450 sq.ft.
Service yd 109 sq.ft
Guest hse 0 sq.ft.
Pool/spa 510 sq.ft.
Pool eqpm. 24 sq.ft.
Sport court 6433 sq.ft.
Shed 76 sq.ft.
TOTAL 11,574 sq.ft.
26.0% of 44,413 sq.ft. net
lot area (25.9 %with
deductions)
41.1% of 44,413 sq.ft. net lot
area (with deductions)
85.8% of 5,908 sq.ft. pad
21 cubic yards total, to be
balanced on site
43.4% of lot
Future
STABLE ACCESS N/A
ACC ESSWAY Existing from Eastfield
VIEWS. N/A
PLANTS AND ANIMALS N/A
Future
Existing from Eastfield-
widened
Planning Commission
review
Planning Commission
review
SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL 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;
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.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPROVAL CRITERIA:
17.42.050 Basis for approval or denial of conditional use permit.
ZC NO.892
3 Eastfield Road
• •
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.
VARIANCE APPROVAL CRITERIA
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.
SOURCE: City of Rolling Hills Zoning Ordinance
ZC NO.892
3 Eastfield Road
•
City
TO:
FROM:
APPLICATION NO.
SITE LOCATION:
ZONING AND SIZE:
OWNER:
REPRESENTATIVE:
PUBLISHED:
•
f f2ll,.g JJdh
INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274
(310) 377.1521
FAX: (310) 377-7288
Agenda Item No.: 4A
Mtg. Date: 01-19-16 FT
HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION
YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR
ZONING CASE NO. 892
3 EASTFIELD DRIVE (LOT 58-EF)
RA-S-1, 1.4 ACRES (GROSS)
MR. AND MRS. BENNETT
BEN CAUTHEN, PROJECT DESIGNER
DECEMBER 3, 2015
REQUEST AND RECOMMENDATION
1. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on this proposed
development on December 15, 2015 and scheduled a field trip to subject property on
January 19, 2016.
2. The property owners Mr. and Mrs. Bennett, request a Site Plan Review for
grading (21 c.y.) to widen the existing driveway and create a one car parking pad and
up to 5' high retaining wall and a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for replacement of
the existing detached 672 square foot garage with a new 704 square foot detached
garage and variances that include: 1) to construct a 195 square foot addition to the
main residence of which 61 sq. ft. would encroach 6'3" into the front setback, 2) to
provide a new one -car parking pad, less than 30 feet from the roadway easement line,
3) to encroach 18' into the front yard setback with the detached garage, 4) to exceed
the maximum permitted structural and total coverage of the lot and the disturbed
area of the lot, and 6) to locate 5' high retaining wall in the front setback, that will not
average out to 2.5' in height.
3. It is recommended that the Planning Commission review the staff report, view
the project in the field, take public input and continue the discussion to the evening
meeting of the Planning Commission, or provide other direction to staff.
ZC NO. 892
3 Eastfield Road
C�)
0
Printed on Recycled Paper
• •
ti
BACKGROUND
4. The property is zoned RAS-1 and consists of 1.4 acres gross (60,984 sq. ft.) and
44,413 sq. ft. net lot area for development purposes. The property is located on the
north side of Eastfield Drive. The property is almost square shaped. The property is
characterized by a steep slope, descending from the southwest corner (front)
diagonally to northeast corner (rear). The topography in the front yard between the
road edge and house front wall has a drop of 18 feet, or a 69% downslope. This project
site is developed with a single family residence and detached garage built in 1956.
5. In 1963 the Planning Commission granted a front yard variance for an addition,
waiving the then required 30 foot front setback in favor of 23-feet, in recognition of the
constraints of the steep terrain and fact that the detached garage already encroached 7
feet into the 30' setback. In 1971 the Planning Commission granted a variance for a
tennis court, allowing the court to encroach into the side yard.
MUNICIPAL CODE COMPLIANCE
6. The property is developed with a 3,073 square foot residence, 672 square foot
garage and 510 square foot swimming pool on a 5,908 square foot building pad area
(outside setbacks). A 6,433 square foot tennis court is located in the rear of the
property. The existing garage will be demolished and replaced and a nonconforming
animal pen in the front yard setback will be removed. A 1,000 square foot area is
proposed to be set aside for a future stable and corral near the tennis court.
7. As existing the site has nonconforming structural coverage of 24.1% (20%
allowed) and with the proposal, this will increase to 25.9%, (which includes a future
stable). The existing total coverage is also nonconforming at 36.7% (35% allowed) and
this will be increased to 41.1%, requiring a variance.
8. The construction of a new garage and an addition of an enclosed front entry
within the standard 50-foot front setback each require a new variance because the
current proposal exceeds the scope of the prior variance. The new garage will be 704
square feet (3-car), detached and reoriented so that the access will be at the front,
facing Eastfield. By reorienting the garage, it will encroach 18' into the required 50'
front setback, for a total encroachment of 576 square feet. (Current garage encroaches
27' for a total encroachment of 594 square feet). Behind the garage, a new service
yard will be built. In between the garage and front entry of the home, a paved entry
courtyard will be created leading to the proposed new 61 square foot enclosed entry.
9. The applicant's goal is to improve access and parking on the property. To
improve access, the driveway will be widened approximately 5 feet and the garage will
be reconstructed with increased setback and new orientation. To increase on -site
parking, a one -car motor court will be constructed within the front setback, 8 feet from
ZC NO. 892
3 Eastfield Road
the roadway easement line, which requires a variance. Pursuant to Section 17.16.150 of
the Municipal Code parking areas must be located at least 30 feet from the roadway
easement line and the driveway and parking area may not cover, respectively, more
than 20% and 10% of the front yard setback. The driveway will cover 11.5% and the
parking area will cover 9% of the front setback, which is conforming.
10. The applicant proposes to construct several retaining walls to create the new
motor court and to widen the driveway (to 17 feet wide at its narrowest point). Several
existing retaining and rubble walls will be removed. At the motor court a 5-foot high
maximum retaining wall is required but the wall along the driveway will vary in
height to no more than 3 feet. The construction of the wall along the driveway
complies with the code, as up to 3' high walls are permitted along driveways.
11. The creation of the motor court and widened driveway involves minor grading,
including 21 cubic yards of earth that will be reused as fill under the new garage slab.
This grading will not alter the existing drainage patterns.
12. The widening of the driveway requires review by the City's Traffic Commission,
which is scheduled on January 28, 2016. The project, including walls within the
roadway easement will also be required to be reviewed by the Rolling Hills
Community Association.
13. The existing disturbed area is 38.9% of the net lot, (40% max.) and with this
proposal, due to the minor grading at the front, the disturbed area will increase (4.5%)
to 43.4%, requiring a variance.
14. Coverage on the 5,908 square foot residential building pad (outside of setbacks)
will be increased from 72.4% to 85.8%. The guideline established by the Planning
Commission is a maximum pad coverage of 30%.
15. In accordance with Section 17.16.040 of the Municipal Code, a Conditional Use
Permit is required for a detached garage pursuant to the criteria and conditions in
17.16.210 as follows:
a. (Garage) shall not be located in the front yard or any setback.
b. A sink and toilet is permitted.
c. A kitchen or kitchenette shall not be permitted.
d. No sleeping quarters or renting of the structure shall be permitted.
e. The Planning Commission shall have the ability to limit the size of the detached
garage in relationship to the size of the residence, topography, size of the lot and other
conditions.
1
The proposed garage will be in compliance with the above criteria except location
within the front yard and setback, which is included in the variance applications. No
ZC NO.892
3 Eastfield Road
• •
sleeping quarters, or plumbing fixtures are proposed and the proposal is for a
standard 3-car garage structure. An existing guest quarters within the existing
garage will be removed.
CONCLUSION
16. When reviewing a development application the Planning Commission should
consider whether 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. In addition, the
Commission must determine if the project meets the Variance criteria enclosed with
this report.
17. In reviewing this application, the Commission should consider the topography
of the property, lot size and/or shape and the location of the previously graded pad at
the front of the property, which limits site layout options. It will be a requirement that
all utility lines be placed underground.
18. The owner has submitted the following as the basis for making findings to
approve the project:
Site Plan Review: 1) The proposed grading and retaining walls will be minor in
amount and degree and will not alter the existing character and residential use on the
property or of the surrounding neighborhood, nor will existing contours of the
property be significantly altered; 2) Existing landscaping will be preserved, and all
otherwise native vegetation on the property will be preserved.
Variances: 1) The proposed motor court, while within the front yard setback, will be
screened behind and at the bottom of a slope which is consistent with the natural
topography; 2) The proposed 5-foot retaining wall in the front yard will blend with the
existing topography; 3) The encroachment of the garage into the front setback will be
less than the existing garage and is constrained by the location of the existing house
and building pad which, in turn is constrained by the steep topography both at the
front and towards the rear of the building pad; 4) The amount of new living area being
added within the front setback will not create any adverse visual bulk impacts because
it will be a relatively small area (61 square feet) and will not be visible from the street at
the lot front; 5) The lot coverage increase is relatively small compared to the amount of
coverage that is associated with the existing improvements, in particular, the existing
6,433 square foot sports court; the amount of disturbed area exceedance proposed is
relatively minor and the purpose, to provide more onsite parking, and to widen the
driveway will result in better vehicle access.
ZC NO.892
3 Eastfield Road
Conditional Use Permit: Other than the requested variance for location, the detached
garage will comply with the development standards for detached garage.
18. The project has been determined to be categorically exempt from the provisions
of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as a minor addition to an
existing residence pursuant to Section 15301.e of the CEQA Guidelines.
ZONING CASE NO. 892
SITE PLAN REVIEW
RA-S-1 ZONE SETBACKS
Front: 50 ft. from front easement
line
Side: 20 ft. from property line
Rear: 50 ft. from property line
STRUCTURES
(Site Plan Review required for new
structures, grading and if size of
the residence increases by more
than 999 sq. ft. in a 36-month
period).
STRUCTURAL LOT COVERAGE
(20% maximum)
TOTAL LOT COVERAGE
(35% maximum)
BUILDING PAD COVERAGE
(30% maximum guideline)
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., must be balanced on
site
DISTURBED AREA
(40% maximum; any graded
building pad area, any remedial
grading (temporary disturbance),
any graded slopes and building
pad areas, and any nongraded
area where impervious surfaces
exist.)
STABLE (minimum 450 sq. ft.Land
ZC NO. 892
3 Eastfield Road
EXISTING
SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENCE,
DETACHED GARAGE,
POOL, SPORT COURT
Residence 3073 sq.ft
Garage 420 sq.ft
Stable(fut) 0 sq.ft
Service yd 0 sq.ft
Guest hse 252 sq.ft
Pool 510 sq.ft
Pool eqpm. 24 sq.ft.
Sport court 6433 sq,ft
Shed 76 sq. ft.
10,788
TOTAL sq.ft.
24.3%
36.7%
72.4% of 5,908 sq.ft. pad
N/A
38.9% of lot
PROPOSED
ADDITIONS, DETACHED
GARAGE, SERVICE YARD,
MOTOR COURT, GRADING
VARIANCES: FRONT
YARD, WALL HEIGHT,
DISTURBED AREA,
COVERAGEg
Residence 3268 sq.ft
Garage 704 sq.ft
Stable (fut) 450 sq.ft.
Service yd 109 sq.ft
Guest hse 0 sq.ft.
Pool/spa 510 sq.ft.
Pool eqpm. 24 sq.ft.
Sport court 6433 sq.ft.
Shed 76 sq.ft.
TOTAL 11,574 sq.ft.
26.0% of 44,413 sq.ft. net
lot area (25.9 %with
deductions)
41.1% of 44,413 sq.ft. net lot
area (with deductions)
85.8% of 5,908 sq.ft. pad
21 cubic yards total, to be
balanced on site
43.4% of lot
Future
• •
CORRAL (minimum 550 so. ft.)
STABLE ACCESS N/A Future
ACCESSWAY Existing from Eastfield Existing from Eastfield-
widened
VIEWS N/A Planning Commission
review
PLANTS AND ANIMALS N/A Planning Commission
review
SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL 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;
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.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPROVAL CRITERIA:
17.42.050 Basis for approval or denial of conditional use permit.
ZC NO.892
3 Eastfield Road
•
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.
VARIANCE APPROVAL CRITERIA
17.38.050 Reauired 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.
SOURCE: City of Rolling Hills Zoning Ordinance
ZC NO.892
3 Eastfield Road