The URL can be used to link to this page

670, Construct a new SFR & Guest ho, Staff ReportsC14 o/ f? PP..g • INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 ' E-mail: cityofrh@aol.com Agenda Item No.: 4C Mtg. Date: 10/27/03 DATE: OCTOBER 27, 2003 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL ATTN: CRAIG R. NEALIS, CITY MANAGER FROM: YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR SUBJECT: RESOLUTION NO. 2003-20. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL OF A, SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AND GUEST HOUSE AND GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A GUEST HOUSE ON A VACANT PARCEL OF LAND IN ZONING CASE NO. 670 AT 18 CREST ROAD EAST (LOT 193-1-MS), (SLUSHER). BACKGROUND 1. The Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2003-20, which is attached, on October 21, 2003 at their regular meeting granting a request for a Site Plan Review for grading and construction of a new residence, and Conditional Use Permit for a guest house at 18 Crest Road East. The vote was 5-0. 2. The applicant is requesting a Site Plan Review and Conditional Use Permit for grading and construction of a new 6,700 square foot residence, 1,520 square foot garage 819 square foot swimming pool, 720 square foot guest house, 96 square feet service yard, and 450 square foot future stable at an existing vacant lot at 18 Crest Road East. A basement is not proposed. 3. Previously the applicant requested a Site Plan Review and Conditional Use Permits for grading and construction of a new 6,700 square foot residence, 1,440 square foot garage 819 square foot swimming pool, 700 square foot recreation room, 780 square foot guest house, 96 square feet service yard, and 450 square foot future stable. The request for the 700 square feet recreation room was removed from the application during the Planning Commission public hearing process. ZC NO. 670 CC 10/27/03 ®Pnn7Url on RRoc;yclr,:d h'>un.:r • 4. The property is zoned RAS-2, and the gross lot area is 167,270 square feet or 3.84 acres. The net lot area is 132,240 square feet, (3.03 acres). 5. In February 1998, the Planning Commission approved a Site Plan Review for a 3,735 square foot new residence, 680 square foot garage, and a swimming pool, and a Variance to construct retaining walls in the side and front yards setbacks. A new driveway approach and a new driveway within the lot, which would require substantial grading, were also approved. The then owners did not develop the property and the approval expired. The original house was demolished in 1997. 6. During the field trip to the property, the Planning Commission expressed concerns over the height of the proposed structures. As a result, the applicant lowered the roof ridgeline of the structures from 24 feet to 20 feet, and this requirement is included in the Resolution of Approval. 7. Mr. Belleville, 12 Crest Road, submitted a letter and subsequent e-mails, which are attached, objecting to the proposed location of the future stable. The applicant's representative met with Mr. Belleville, and as a result of that meeting the representative agreed to consider relocating the future stable closer to the eastern side yard setback. Subsequently, the engineer determined that in order to relocate the stable to Mr. Belleville's satisfaction, additional grading and disturbance would be required. Mr. Belleville and the applicants' representative discussed an alternative location, which would also require grading, and would place the stable in the middle of the property, which was not acceptable to the property owners. The Planning Commission found that the original proposed location, near the trail, is the most desirable. Representatives from Caballeros were also present at the filed trip and at the subsequent meetings, and felt that the proposed location is also most advantageous, due to the proximity to the trail. 8. The applicant is proposing to utilize the existing driveway approach to the property and to relocate the existing driveway within the property slightly to the west of the existing driveway to take advantage of the tree canopies along the driveway. The driveway will vary in slope from 12.0% to 18.0%, and will descent, with the property, from north to south, towards Crest Road. The proposed driveway will be 16 feet wide. Section 17.16.160 requires that driveways not exceed 12.0% in slope, unless otherwise approved by the Planning Commission, and the first 20 feet of a driveway must not exceed 7.0%. 9. The proposed guest house is subject to Section 17.16.210 of the Zoning Ordinance and requires a Conditional Use Permit. Among other requirements, no kitchen or other cooking facilities are allowed in the guest house. A list of development standards for a guest house is attached. 10. Grading for the project will require 3,682 cubic yards of cut soil and 3,682 cubic yards of fill soil, ( a 148 cubic yards reduction from original proposal), which will be balanced on site. Most of the existing trees in the rear and side of the property will remain. ZC NO. 670 CC 10/27/03 2 • • 11. The structural lot coverage on the 132,240 square foot net lot area is proposed to be 10,606 square feet or 8.0%, which includes the residence, garage, pool, service yard, guest house and the future stable, (20% permitted); and the total lot coverage proposed including the structures and paved areas will be 23,110 square feet or 17.2%, (35% permitted). 112. Two building pads are proposed. The residential building pad is proposed to be 33,864 square feet. The stable building pad is proposed to be 18,100 square feet, and will not require grading. Building pad coverage on the 33,864 square foot residential building pad is proposed at 10,156 square feet or 30.0%, and includes all of the structures, except the stable. Building pad coverage on the 18,100 square foot stable pad will be 2.5% when the stable is constructed. 13. Disturbed area of the lot will be 37.7%, (40% permitted) of the net lot area. Disturbance includes any remedial grading (temporary disturbance), any graded slopes and building pad areas, and any nongraded area where impervious surfaces will remain or are proposed to be added. 14. Utilities to the structures will be placed underground. 15. The Rolling Hills Community Association will review this project at a later date. 16. The project has been determined to be categorically exempt pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council receive and file the staff report or provide direction to staff. ZC NO. 670 CC 10/27/03 ZONING CASE NO. 670 SITE PLAN REVIEW RA-S- 2 ZONE SETBACKS Front: 50 ft. from front easement line Side: 35 ft. from property line Rear: 50 ft. from property line STRUCTURES (Site Plan Review required if size of structure increases by at least 1,000 sq.ft. and has the effect of increasing the size of the structure by more than 25% in a 36- month period). STRUCTURAL LOT COVERAGE (20% maximum) TOTAL LOT COVERAGE (35% maximum) RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PAD COVERAGE (30% maximum -guideline) BARN PAD COVERAGE GRADING Site Plan Review required if excavation and/or fill or combination thereof that is more than 3 feet in depth or 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 (min. 450 SQ.FT. & 550 SQ.FT. CORRAL) STABLE ACCESS ROADWAY ACCESS VIEWS PLANTS AND ANIMALS ZC NO. 670 CC 10/27/03 { PREVIOUSLY PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE, RECREATION ROOM AND GUEST HOUSE Residence Garage Swim Pool Stable future Guest house Recr.Rm Service yard 6700 sq.ft. 1440 sq.ft. 819 sq.ft. 450 sq.ft. 780 sq.ft. 700 sq.ft 96 sq.ft II PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE, AND GUEST HOUSE Residence Garage Swim Pool Stable future Guest house Recr.Rm Service yard TOTAL 10,985 sq.ft. TOTAL 8.31% of 132,240 sq. ft. net lot area 17.98% 28.5% of 36,960 sq.ft.building pad 2.4% of 19,120 building pad Combined — 19.6% 3,830 cubic yards cut 3,830 cubic yards fill 39.8% or 52,631 sq.ft of net lot area 450 sq. ft future 550 sq. ft. corral Future from Crest Road along westerly easement Existing driveway approach from Crest Road Planning Commission reviewed Planning Commission reviewed • 6700 sq.ft. 1520 sq.ft. 1120 sq.ft. 450 sq.ft. 720 sq.ft. 0 sq.ft 96 sq.ft 10,606 sq.ft. 8.0% of 132,240 sq.ft. net lot area 17.2% 30.0% of 33,864 sq.ft. building pad 2.5% of 18,100 sq.ft. building pad Combined — 20.4% 3,682 cubic yards of cut 3,682 cubic yards of fill 37.7% of 52,631 sq.ft. net lot area 450 sq. ft future 550 sq. ft. corral Future from Crest Road along westerly easement Existing driveway approach from Crest Road Condition Condition • • GUESTHOUSE CONDITIONS a. Requires all guest or servant quarters on same recorded lot as main house b. Maximum 800 sq.ft. floor area c. No kitchen or other cooking facilities permitted d. Develop and maintain in substantial conformance with site plan e. No vehicular access or paved parking area permitted to be developed within 50' of proposed guesthouse or servant quarters f. No guest may remain in occupancy more than 30 days in any 6 month period g. Renting of guesthouse is prohibited h. Comply with all requirements of code i. Preliminary landscaping plan required NEARBY PROPERTIES (For information only) Address Owner House size Lot Area (acres) 6 Crest Road Cleassens 6,159 5.70 12 Crest Road Belleville 7,235 3.89 16 Crest Road Kraus 5,460 1.51 29 Crest Road Severy 2,271 6.57 17 Crest Road Johnson Ann 2,994 9.64 7 Crest Road Johnson Alan 6,604 3.67 AVERAGE 5,120 5.48 18 Crest Road Slusher 6,700 (Proposed) 3.83 NOTE: The lot area and home sizes for the properties shown above, are taken from the Assessors' Records, and do not include garages. ZC NO.670 CC 10/27/03 • • RESOLUTION NO. 2003-20 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL OF A SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AND GUEST HOUSE AND GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A GUEST HOUSE ON A VACANT PARCEL OF LAND IN ZONING CASE NO. 670 AT 18 CREST ROAD EAST (LOT 193-1-MS), (SLUSHER). 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. Howard Slusher with respect to real property located at 18 Crest Road East, (Lot 193-1-MS), Rolling Hills, CA requesting a Site Plan Review to permit grading and construction of a new 6,700 square foot single family residence with 1,520 square foot garage, 1,120 square foot swimming pool, 720 square foot guest house and 450 square foot future stable. Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted duly noticed public hearings to consider the application on August 18, 2003, September 16, 2003 and at a field trip visit on September 9, 2003. The applicants were notified of the public hearings in writing by first class mail. Evidence was heard and presented from all persons interested in affecting said proposal and from members of the City staff and the Planning Commission having reviewed, analyzed and studied said proposal. The applicants' representatives were in attendance at the hearings. Section 3. Originally, the applicants requested an additional Conditional Use permit for a detached recreation room. After the Planning Commission field trip and public hearing, the applicants scaled down and revised their proposal so that a second Conditional Use Permit would not be required. The project will be restricted to a 20-foot height from the finished grade. Section 4. During the proceedings lengthy discussion ensued concerning the location of the future stable. Mr. Phil Belleville, 12 Crest Road East objected to the proposed location of the future stable. However, the applicant and the Planning Commission found the proposed location to be most desirable. Section 5. The Planning Commission finds that the project qualifies as a Class 3 Exemption (The State of CA Guidelines, Section 15303) and is therefore categorically exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act. Resolution No. 2003-20 Slusher • Section 6. Section 17.46.030 requires a development plan to be submitted for Site Plan Review and approval before any grading requiring a grading permit or any building or structure may be constructed or any expansion, addition, alteration or repair to existing buildings may be made which involve changes to grading or an increase to the size of the building or structure by at least 1,000 square feet and has the effect of increasing the size of the building by more than twenty-five percent (25%) in any thirty-six (36) month period. With respect to the Site Plan Review application requesting construction of the new house, guest house and future stable, the Planning Commission makes the following findings of fact: A. The proposed development is compatible with the General Plan, the Zoning Ordinance and surrounding uses because the proposed structures comply with the General Plan requirement of low profile, low -density residential development with sufficient open space between surrounding structures. The project conforms to Zoning Code setback and lot coverage requirements. The net lot area of the lot is 132,240 square feet, (3.03 acres). The proposed residence (6,700 sq.ft.), garage (1,520 sq.ft.), service yard (96 sq.ft.), swimming pool (1,120 sq.ft.), gust house (720 sq.ft.) and future stable (450 sq.ft.) will have 10,606 square feet of structures, which constitutes 8.0% of the net lot which is within the maximum 20% structural lot coverage requirement. The total lot coverage including all structures, paved areas and driveway will be 23,110 square feet, which constitutes 17.2% of the net lot which is within the 35% maximum overall net lot coverage requirement. The proposed project is screened from the road so as to reduce the visual impact of the development. The disturbed area of the lot will be 37.7%, which is within the 40% maximum permitted, and includes the future stable. B. The development plan substantially preserves the natural and undeveloped state of the lot by minimizing building coverage because the new structure will not cause the lot to look overdeveloped. Significant portions of the lot will be left undeveloped so as to maintain open space on the property. The existing trees on the northern portion on the parcel will remain and will screen the residence from the neighbors. The nature, condition, and development of adjacent uses, buildings, and structures and the topography of the lot have been considered, and the construction of the new house and stable will not adversely affect or be materially detrimental to the adjacent uses, buildings, or structures because the proposed structure will be constructed on a portion of the lot which is the least intrusive to surrounding properties, will be screened and landscaped with trees and shrubs which at maturity will not exceed 20 feet in height, is a sufficient distance from nearby residences so that the proposed structure will not impact the view or privacy of surrounding neighbors, and will substantially utilize the existing building pad for the new construction. C. The proposed development, as conditioned, is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, the natural terrain and surrounding residences. As indicated in Paragraph A, the lot coverage maximum set forth in the Zoning Code will not be exceeded and the proposed project is consistent with the scale of the neighborhood. Resolution No. 2003-20 Slusher • • D. The development plan incorporates existing trees and native vegetation to the maximum extent feasible. Specifically, the development plan preserves dense brush and shrubs and supplements it with landscaping that is compatible with and enhances the rural character of the community. E. The development plan follows natural contours of the site to minimize grading and retain the natural drainage courses. Grading for this project will involve 3,682 cubic yards of cut and 3,682 cubic yards of fill and will be balanced on site. F. The proposed development is sensitive and not detrimental to the convenience and safety of circulation for pedestrians and vehicles because the proposed development will utilize the existing driveway. G. The project conforms to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and is exempt. Section 7. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves the Site Plan Review application for Zoning Case No. 670 for grading and for construction of a new residence guest house as shown on the Development Plan dated September 30, 2003, and marked Exhibit A, subject to the conditions contained in Section 10 of this Resolution. Section 8. Section 17.16.210(A)(5) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code permits approval of a guest house under certain conditions, provided the Planning Commission approves a Conditional Use Permit. The applicant is requesting to construct a 720 square foot guest house. 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 the construction of a guest house would be consistent with the purposes and objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan and will be desirable for the public convenience and welfare because the use is consistent with similar uses in the community, and the area proposed for the guest house would be located in an area on the property where such use will not change the existing configuration of structures on the lot. B. The nature, condition, and development of adjacent uses, buildings, and structures have been considered, and the construction of a guest house will not adversely affect or be materially detrimental to these adjacent uses, buildings, or structures because the proposed guest house will be located in a cluster with the proposed pool and residence to promote pad integration and is of sufficient distance from nearby residences so that the guest house will not impact the view or privacy of surrounding neighbors. C. The project is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, the natural terrain, and surrounding residences because the guest house will comply with the low profile residential development pattern of the community. The Resolution No. 2003-20 Slusher 3 • • height of the structure will be restricted to 20 feet maximum from the finished grade. D. The proposed conditional use complies with all applicable development standards of the zone district because the 720 square foot size of the guest house is less than the maximum permitted under the Municipal Code and the guest house does not encroach into any setback areas. E. The proposed conditional 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 because the project site is not listed on the current State of California Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites List. F. The proposed conditional use observes the spirit and intent of Title 17 of the Zoning Code because an adequate area is set -aside for the construction of a future stable structure and adjacent corral. Section 9. Based upon the foregoing findings and the evidence in the record, the Planning Commission hereby approves a Conditional Use Permit for the construction of an 720 square foot guest house, in accordance with the development plan dated September 30, 2003 and marked Exhibit A in Zoning Case No. 670 subject to the conditions contained in Section 10 of this Resolution. Section 10. The Site Plan Review approved in Section 7 and the Conditional Use Permit approved in Section 9 of this Resolution are subject to the following conditions: A. The Site Plan Review and Conditional Use Permit approval shall expire within one year from the effective date of approval if construction pursuant to this approval has not commenced within that time period, as required by Sections 17.46.080(A) and 17.42.070(A) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, or the approval granted is otherwise extended pursuant to the requirements of those sections. B. It is declared and made a condition of the approval, that if any conditions thereof are violated, this approval shall be suspended and the privileges granted hereunder shall lapse; provided that the applicants have been given written notice to cease such violation, the opportunity for a hearing has been provided, and if requested, has been held, and thereafter the applicant fails to correct the violation within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of the City's determination. C. All requirements of the Building and Construction Ordinance, the Zoning Ordinance, and of the zone in which the subject property is located must be complied with unless otherwise set forth in the Permit, or shown otherwise on an approved plan. Resolution No. 2003-20 Slusher • • D. The lot shall be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the revised site plan on file marked Exhibit A and dated September 30, 2003, except as otherwise provided in these conditions. E. The working drawings submitted to the County Department of Building and Safety for plan check review must conform to the development plan approved with this application. F. Grading shall not exceed 3,682 cubic yards of cut and 3,682 cubic yards of fill and shall be balanced on site. G. Structural lot coverage shall not exceed 10,606 square feet or 8.0%. H. Total lot coverage of structures and paved areas shall not exceed 23.110 square feet or 17.2% in conformance with lot coverage limitations. I. The disturbed area of the lot shall not exceed 49,855 square feet or 37.7% of the net lot area in conformance with lot disturbance limitations. J. Residential building pad coverage on the 33,864 square foot residential building pad shall not exceed 10,156 square feet or 30.0%; coverage on the proposed 18,100 square foot stable pad shall not exceed 450 square feet or 2.5%. K. The proposed guest house shall not exceed 720 square feet and shall meet all requirements of the Zoning Code, which include, but is not limited to the following: a. No kitchen or other cooking facilities shall be provided within guest quarters. b. No vehicular access or paved parking area shall be developed within fifty feet of the proposed guest house. c. Renting of the guest house is prohibited. d. Occupancy of the guest house shall be limited to persons employed on the premises or by the immediate family or temporary guests of the occupants of the main residence. No guest may remain in occupancy for more than thirty days in any six-month period. L. The disturbed areas shall be landscaped. Landscaping shall include water efficient irrigation, to the maximum extent feasible, that incorporates low gallonage irrigation system, utilizes automatic controllers, incorporates an irrigation design using "hydrozones," considers slope factors and climate conditions in design, and utilizes means to reduce water waste resulting from runoff and overspray in accordance with Section 17.27.020 (Water Efficient Landscaping Requirements) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code. M. A landscaping plan for the disturbed areas must be submitted for review by the Planning Department prior to issuing grading or building permits. To the maximum extend practicable, native trees and other native plants shall be utilized. If trees are to be used in the landscaping scheme for this project, they Resolution No. 2003-20 Slusher • • shall be mature when planted and which at full maturity shall not exceed 20 feet in height; shrubs shall be planted so as not to obstruct views of neighboring properties but, to obscure the stable and residential structure on site. N. Prior to the issuance of any building or grading permit two copies of a preliminary landscape plan shall be submitted for review by the Landscaping Committee and include native drought -resistant vegetation that will not disrupt the impact of the views of neighboring properties. 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 consistent with the rural character of the community. A security in the amount of the cost estimate of the implementation of the landscaping plan plus 15% shall be required to be posted prior to issuance of a drainage, grading and building permits and shall be retained with the City for not less than two years after landscape installation. The retained security will be released by the City Manager after the City Manager determines that the landscaping was installed pursuant to the landscaping plan as approved, and that such landscaping is properly established and in good condition. O. The maximum ridge height of the proposed structures shall not exceed 20 feet as measured from the finished grade. P. Any walls required for this project shall not exceed 5 feet in height having an average of 2 1 /2 feet, and shall be screened with landscaping to maximim extend practicable. Q. During construction, any soil disturbance shall preserve the existing topography, flora, and natural features to the greatest extent possible. R. The project is subject to General Permit No.CAS000002 (Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activities). The applicant shall comply with the requirements of this permits as required by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. S. During construction, conformance with the air quality management district requirements, stormwater pollution prevention practices, county and local ordinances and engineering practices so that people or property are not exposed to undue vehicle trips, noise, dust, and objectionable odors shall be required. T. During construction, an Erosion Control Plan containing the elements set forth in Section 7010 of the 200.1 County of Los Angeles Uniform Building Code shall be followed to minimize erosion and to protect slopes and channels to control stormwater pollution as required by the County of Los Angeles. Resolution No. 2003-20 Slusher • • U. During and after construction, all parking shall take place on the project site and, if necessary, any overflow parking shall take place within nearby roadway easements. V. 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. W. The property owners shall be required to conform to the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Health Department requirements for the installation and maintenance of septic tanks. X. The property owners shall be required to conform to the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Health Department requirements for the installation and maintenance of stormwater drainage facilities. Y. The property owners shall be required to conform to the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Public Works Department Best Management Practices (BMP's) related to solid waste. Z. The property owners shall be required to conform to the City of Rolling Hills Outdoor Lighting Standards Ordinance, (Ordinance No. 287). AA. A drainage plan shall be approved by the Planning Department and County District Engineer, to include any water from any site irrigation systems and that all drainage from the site shall be conveyed in an approved manner. AB. All utility lines shall be placed underground. The roof material for the new residence and stable shall comply with the City of Rolling Hills Building Code requirements. AC. Prior to the submittal of an applicable final building plan to the County of Los Angeles for plan check, a detailed drainage plan with related geology, soils and hydrology reports that conform to the development plan as approved by the Planning Commission shall be submitted to the Rolling Hills Planning Department staff for their review and approval. AD. The project must be reviewed and approved by the Rolling Hills Community Association Architectural Review Committee prior to the issuance of any grading or building permit. AE. The applicant shall pay all of the applicable Los Angeles County Building and Safety and Public Works Department fees, including Parks and Recreation Fees for new residence and school fees. Resolution No 2003-20 Slusher • • AF. Until the applicants execute an Affidavit of Acceptance of all conditions of this Site Plan Review approval, as required by Section 17.42.070 the approvals shall not be effective. AG. All conditions of the Site Plan and Conditional Use approval, that apply, shall be complied with prior to the issuance of grading or building permit from the County of Los Angeles. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADDPyD THIS 21st DAY OF OCTOBER 2003. ARV ilvrg, c HAIRMAN ATTEST: MARILYN KERN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK Resolution No-2003-20 Slusher • • STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ) ) §§ ) I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2003-20 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL OF A SITE PLANT REVIEW FOR GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AND GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A GUEST HOUSE ON A VACANT PARCEL OF LAND IN ZONING CASE NO. 670 AT 18 CREST ROAD EAST (LOT 193-1-MS), (SLUSHER). was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on October 21, 2003 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners DeRoy, Hankins, Margeta, Sommer and Chairman Witte. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following: Administrative Offices. °DEPUTY CITY CLERK Resolution No.2003-20 Slusher O/ I • • t! c- RZ d- ,Q C4IDI 1 Yair 11\VI AUG 1 9 2003 CITY OF ROLLING FALLS By . iWL.� vm I message view http://webmail.aol.com/fmsgview.adp?folder=SU5CT I g=quid=7143899 • • Subj: Zoning Case No. 670 Date: 9/1/2003 1:32:03 PM Eastern Daylight Time From: PFBEI To: Citvofrh Cc: PFBEI This is to request that the Rolling Hills City office, provide a copy of this objection for each member of the Planning Commission at the earliest possible time. Please pardon that I was unable to attend the August 19 meeting concerning the above, but I understand you did receive my note protesting the location of the "Future Stable". Unfortunately I will also be unable to attend the field trip on September 9 as I have a long standing commitment for that afternoon and evening. I would be available in the morning and early afternoon. I do not know the identity of owner of the property involved, but suspect that we would not have a problem here if we had a chance to talk and the traditional spirit of neighbors prevailed. There are so many more reasonable options for the location of the "Future Stable" that agreement surely could be reached. In any event, I have not had the opportunity to talk to the family involved and thus amplify my protest. Having attended nearly all RHCA Association meetings in the past year, as well as most of the committee meetings on Easements as well as Security, I know that the policy is the preservation of open space. As one rides or walks down the trail on the East side of our property at 12 Crest Road East, to the point where it turns 90 degrees at our back line, one sees a wonderful open field and vista before turning again in back of No. 1 Georgeff to go north down the hill into more beautiful parts of the trail. The "Future Stable" will greatly change the vista and ambiance of the trail, without any reason to do so. There is a large area in back of No. 18 Crest Road East where the "Future Stable" could be placed without infringing on the beauty of the trail and our privacy and enjoyment of our own property. Placing it right in back of our lot, across the easement, unnecessarily invades our privacy and subjects us to the noise, dust and odors of another's stable. To the extent there are options, each owner should be subject to their own tolerance of the downsides involved. It likely will even be a part of the vista as one proceeds up our main driveway. Please either deny the "Future Stable" or require it to be located in back of No. 18 and not in back of our property. We regard this as a very important issue, directly affecting our property in a very negative way. Thankyou and best possible regards for the work you perform as volunteers. Philip F. Belleville 12 Crest Road East 541-5256 I of 1 9/2/03 10:18 AM nnp:/Iwenmaii.aoi.convtrnsgview.aclpytolder='I'I V U(2k9Y &uid= / 191 J99 • • Subj: Re: Zoning Case 670, Future Barn Location at 18 Crest Road East Date: 9/9/2003 6:48:59 PM Eastern Daylight Time From: Citvofrh To: PF13E I Mr. Belleville, We received the email and will present it to the Commission. This case will not be decided tonight and will be further considered by the Commission on the evening of 9/16 at 7:30 p.m. at City Hall. Thank you, Craig Nealis 1 of 1 9/9/03 3:49 PM rkv1...' lJ1VI I IV C.•SltLC V ICW IlliF/.// Y11.V111U11.Ul/10..V111/IIII3& Y IA VI .UII1I.IVIUl.1—JV., S.. a I —......,..—, ......, • a • Subj: Fwd: Zoning Case 670, Future Barn Location at 18 Crest Road East Date: 9/9/2003 6:40:02 PM Eastern Daylight Time From: PFB E I To: Citvofrh Cc: PFBE I Subj: Zoning Case 670, Future Barn Location at 18 Crest Road East Date: 9/9/2003 6:29:37 PM Eastern Daylight Time From: PFBE1 To: Cityofrh@lw.com Cc: PFBEI, BoltonEngCorp@cs.com Dear Planning Commission: I just returned from the site, viewed the stakes and confirmed my thinking that, while the Future Barn as laid out is in a somewhat better location than originally drawn, which was immediately in back of my property, it is still a view impairment of the only view we have from 12 Crest Road East. There is an easement tree (Canary Island Pine) recently down now so the view is temporarily impaired, but either Roger or we will fix that soon. If the Future Barn was a tree, or a bush, instead of a Future Barn, I could go through the City's process and have it trimmed back or removed. In that context, there is no good reason to approve the construction of an impairment, particularly when it is not necessary. If I understand the situation, the problem is that there is so much house, recreation building, guest house, pool etc. that there is no room left without a disturbance variance to draw the Future Barn anywhere where there will be any grading. If that is true, then the problem is that there is too much, too large going into the lot and we stand to pay the price for it by having a view impairment. The solutions would be to either invite the owner to seek a variance for the Future Barn in the location Ross and I talked about Monday, or reduce in size or amount the proposed improvements to permit the same thing without a variance. That desirable location is properly set back from the easement on the eastern boundary of the property, and a little further south. It would be across the easement a little to the north of the barn on the adjoining property. If you walk over there and have Ross show you what he and I originally had in mind, you will see that the grading would be minimal. If you see a spot with a lot of slope, it is not the spot we had in mind. This is not about not wanting to see a barn. As you know, we have probably the oldest horse barn in Rolling Hills. It was built in the 1800's and we enjoy it greatly and are very proud of it. Also, we have owned our property since the early 1970's and have never objected before concerning any project. Again, I am sorry we have a long standing commitment to be in Los Angeles this evening and cannot join you. But, we sincerely urge that you deal with this location dispute by either a) inviting the owner to seek a disturbance variance so the Future Barn can be put further to the east and further south to where we are suggesting, or b) reduce the amount or size of improvements sufficient to permit the Future Barn to be located where we are suggesting. Respectfully submitted, Philip F. Belleville 12 Crest Road East I of 1 9/9/03 3:46 PM AOL.COM I Message View • lutp://webmail.aol.com/fieiew.adp?folder=SU5CTIg=&uid=7... 1 of 1 Subj: Fwd: Stable Location In Zoning Case 670 Date: 9/9/2003 12:33:23 AM Eastern Daylight Time From: PFBE1 To: Citvofrh Cc: pfbel @aol.com, requ, BoltonEngCorn@cs.com Craig, thanks for your note. I want to be sure you received both of my Friday emails. The first one confirmed a tentative agreement with Bolton et al locating the Future Barn near the East line of the property in a fairly level location which would not unduly obstruct our view (and the view from the trail) across the open space. The second one confirmed that Bolton el al were not willing to go forward and request Planning Commission approval of the new location as it apparently would require a little grading and the project as a whole was already aggressive in that regard. They did not want to adversely affect their ongoing applications to the Planning Commission. Thus, they changed the location to one north of the proposed guest house. That location is better than the one right across from my back property line, but it still substantially impairs our only view, i.e. across the open space in back of our property. We do not have any other view from our property. Ross however did agree that they would not object if I took the brunt of it and asked the Planning Commission to not consider the small amount of additional grading for the Future Stable near the East line in their decision concerning the proposed residence and guest house. If such approval resulted, then the Future Stable would be located along the East line, a little north of a stable on the adjoining property to the East, in the agreed location and should not constitute a substantial view impairment. The purpose of my second email was to ask the Commission to approve the agreed location at my request, being the resident whose view would be adversely affected. Bottom line, this is an easy way to fix in the best interest of all concerned a very serious dispute. Hopefully the Planning Commission will consider it favorably and not let the acceptable location for the Future Stable affect its decision as to the proposed residence and guest house. Best regards, Philip Belleville (310) 541-5256 Subj: Re: Stable Location In Zoning Case 670 Date: 9/8/2003 11:16:14 AM Eastern Daylight Time From: Cityofrh To: PFBE1 Hello Mr. Belleville, We received your latest email. It will be forwarded to the Planning Commission at the field trip. Please call either Yolanta or me if you have further questions. Thank you, Craig Nealis Subj: Zooning Case 670 Date: 9/5/2003 11:12:3T AM Eastern Daylight Time From: PFBE1@aol.com To: BoltonEngCorp@cs.com Cc: PFBEl@aol.com, Cityofrh@aol.com Ross, 1 appreciate our meeting at 18 Crest Road this morning. It was in the spirit we like to see between Rolling Hills neighbors. Our agreement, subject to approval by Doug and the owner, is that the Future Stable location will be near the eastern line of the lot, next to the easement and behind the proposed guest house. That should make sense to all concerned in the context where the owner likely will never build the Stable and where we expect to keep our home at 12 Crest Road East and pass it on to our children. Our privacy and the trail interest in open space coming east and then north on the Crane trail would be met. Also, the owner would have a location to work from if he ever needed it. • look forward to your call today, hopefully confirming that all are in agreement. As I indicated, unfortunately Mrs. Belleville and I have long standing commitments for late Friday afternoon and will not be able to attend the field trip. Best regards, Philip Belleville 12 Crest Road East Rolling Hills, CA 90274 1 of 1 9/8/03 8:10 AM • 41ln, Sep 8, 2003 8:13 AM Subject: Stable Location In Zoning Case 670 Date: Friday, September 5, 2003 6:17 PM From: PFBE1@aol.com To: <mkern@cityofrh.net>, <Cityofrh@aol.com> Cc: <PFBE1@aol.com>, <BoltonEngCorp@cs.com> Dear Planning Commission: Unfortunately, the prospective compromise concerning the Future Stable location at 18 Crest Road East has fallen through. Ross Bolton and I had a very good meeting at the site this morning and we were hopeful that we had a compromise by locating the Future Stable east of, and perhaps slightly north of, the proposed guest house near the eastern easement line. That would have tucked it in on relatively level land without obstructing our vista or the vista of riders on the Crane trail. However, Ross and I talked later this afternoon and he reported that the amount of disturbance in connection with other aspects of the site are relatively aggressive, and that placement where we spotted would make it more so, this they would not risk their ongoing relationship with the City and ask for approval of something which might make it even more aggressive. I told him that I would take the brunt of it and ask that you make whatever exception may be necessary at our request to eliminate the controversy and dispute on the subject. Since the site is relatively level at the desired spot, this is to formally ask that you do not hold it against the other approvals being sought 18 Crest Road East and approve the location Ross and I discussed near the East property line of the property. Ross apparently has changed the plans submitted to put the Future Stable directly north of the proposed guest house on the property. That is movement in the right direction and somewhat better, but it still will stick out like a sore thumb and obstruct our view through a beautiful open space. It would be tragic to plan it there when there is such a great opportunity to make it much less visible in a location which eliminates the dispute and one which all concerned would approve. We are very sorry that we cannot change our plans for next Tuesday afternoon and thus cannot attend the meeting at the property. We will be available all morning and until mid afternoon. But, this is to ask that you please help out to eliminate the problem and not hold the slight disturbance that would be caused by the Future Stable against the balance of the project. If you do that, it is my understanding that the Future Stable will be placed in the location Ross and I picked this morning. Respectfully submitted, Philip Belleville 12 Crest Road East Page 1 of 1 JL.LVIrI lvll'a�.i�c r,crr • Subj: Questions concerning appeal Date: 9/18/2003 2:57:01 AM Eastern Daylight Time From: PF13E 1 To: Citvofrh Cc: PFBEI Craig and Yolanda, if I decide it is necessary to appeal the Planning Commissions decision to allow the future barn site for 18 Crest East to be immediately in back of my property (for example rather than where Ross Bolton and I tentatively agreed it should be, or even where it was located when the Commission did its site visit and where it was when I met with Ross Bolton and later Ross and the Portland architect), I need to know: a) what is the time period for deciding whether or not to appeal, b) if a decision is made to appeal, what is the process and how is it implemented, and c) when and how does the hearing take place? We will be traveling from next Monday until we return on October 18. We will be at our farm in Michigan until October 11 and then in NY,NY until we return on the 18th. I have a telephone in Michigan, as well as my cel phone, and plan to take my laptop so I will have email access. From what I heard last night, I surmise that it is not likely that the owner would choose to compromise even if I was willing, for purposes of a compromise, to have the site left where it was staked out in back of the original guest house location. As I understand it, no grading would be required in that location and it certainly would be better than the location immediately behind my property as announced last night. My fundamental position is the vista impairment and invasion of privacy, when neither is necessary because of the large space the owner has for site location. I await your guidance. Best personal regards, Phil Belleville I of 1 9/18/03 8:07 AM I l.I a. a..a`a. • I'_ V • • • Subj: Re: Questions concerning appeal Date: 9/18/2003 11:24:03 AM Eastern Daylight Time From: Citvofrh To: PFBE I Hello Phil, Here is our response to your questions: a). The appeal period is 30 days following adoption of the resolution by the Planning Commission. The Commission will consider adopting the resolution on 10/21/03. b) An appeal can be made in writing within the 30 day appeal period. Any appeal requires a fee of 2/3rds the original application fee. An appeal can be filed by the applicant, another party (such as yourself). The City Council can elect, by a majority vote, to take the case under jurisdiction on their own. All of these scenarios require the setting of a new public hearing. c) Any appeal would be scheduled in front of the City Council following the required public hearing notice. The appeal would take place at a regular City Council meeting (second or fourth Mondays), which normally would also include an adjourned meeting/hearing in the field. Please let us know if you have any further questions. Sincerely, Craig Nealis 1 of 1 9/18/03 8:43 AM Subj: Re: Questions concerning appeal Date: 9/19/2003 12:04:13 AM Eastern Daylight Time From: PFBEI To: Citvofrh Cc: PFBE1 Craig, I did not have an application fee as the objecting party. Is there a fee requirement on my part to appeal and, if so, how much is it? In addition, is the fee ultimately returned if the appellant prevails or ???? Do I figure it right that I have until the 22nd of October to file a notice of appeal. Does the notice need to comply with any particular form. If so, I would appreciate a sample. Also, is there a mediation process provided by the City to try to resolve such matters? It certainly would seem appropriate here when a resolution would be so easy. Best regards, Phil Belleville I of 1 9/ 18/03 10:19 AM • • Subj: Re: Questions concerning appeal Date: 9/19/2003 12:07:38 AM Eastern Daylight Time From: PFBEI To: Citvofrh Cc: PFBEI Craig, one more thing, how do I go about asking the City Counsel to take the matter under its own jurisdiction and what are the chances that it would? Phil 1 of 1 9/18/03 10:19 AM • • Subj: Re: Questions concerning appeal Date: 9/18/2003 1:36:22 PM Eastern Daylight Time From: Citvofrh To: PFBEI Phil, In my experience, I have only seen the City Council take a matter under it's own jurisdiction when they have concerns or unanswered questions regarding a case. I have not seen the City Council take a case under jurisdiction on behalf or a resident. The appeal process is available to residents. Craig Nealis I of 1 9/18/03 10:45 AM ! • Subj: Re: Questions concerning appeal Date: 9/18/2003 1:45:16 PM Eastern Daylight Time From: Citvol'rh To: PFBE 1 Phil, Any party requesting an appeal is required to pay the 2/3rds fee at the time of filing the appeal. In this case, the original application fee was $4,700.00 and therefore, the appeal fee, for any party pursuing the appeal, would be $3,133.00. There are no provisions to provide for return of any appeal fees due to the outcome of an appeal. The appeal period on this case, assuming the Planning Commission adopts the resolution of approval on 10/21 is 30 days from that date. We will send you the appeal form. Any person appealing a case is free to submit additional information. There are no provisions for specific mediation services. We always suggest that neighbors express their concerns to each other directly or in a manner of their choosing. Thank you, Craig Nealis 1 of 1 9/18/03 10:45 AM Subj: Re: Questions concerning appeal Date: 9/18/2003 2:22:14 PM Eastern Daylight Time From: PFBEI To: Citvofrh Cc: PFBE I We don't have a telephone number, address, or any other way of talking to the owner. As we understand it, he is a Washington resident. Not having a contact point, we attempted to talk to the engineers, who we know from attending Association meetings and as they apparently were the engineers for our project. You know the story there. We had an apparent agreement, then the surprise relocation at the hearing, plus the insulting fabrications from the architect. Anything you could do to try to resolve this should be appreciated by all. We are not inclined to let it drop as the result as to the future barn is harmful to us, and we believe the residents in general, and seems so unnecessary in view of the alternatives available. I don't know what we will be doing by way of the appeal. Fortunately there is no immediate deadline. The fee part of it is so high when we are only objecting to one small part of a large project that it may be more sensible to consider proceeding with legal process. I would suggest that the City take a look at the fee, in the context of the current situation, in that in cases like this one, the fee could in reality amount to a constructive denial of an appeals process and excuse proceeding with it. The process only works if the protester is affluent, willing to put economics aside and is not willing to go directly to legal process. For what it is worth, I believe the possibility of objections ought to be considered in the original application cost. Best regards, Phil Belleville I of I 9/18/03 11:37AM • • Subj: Re: Questions concerning appeal Date: 9/18/2003 2:37:21 PM Eastern Daylight Time From: C itvofrh To: PFBEI Phil, I suggest you contact the applicant's engineer and request to be provided the telephone number of the applicant. I will provide a copy of you letter to our City Attorney regarding the rest of your concerns. Thank you, Craig Nealis 1 of 1 9/18/03 11:37 AM AOL.COM I Message View • http://webmail.aol.'fmsgview.adp?folder=SU5CTI g=&uid=7... 1 of I Subj: 18 Crest Road East Future Barn Location Date: 9/28/2003 4:58:37 PM Eastern Daylight Time From: PFBEI To: BoltonEns!Corr @cs.com, Citvofrh Cc: PFBEI Note to Mr. Bolton, for distribution also to Craig and the Planning Commission Members. Ross, sorry you were not at the Planning Commission meeting. Some disappointing inaccuracies were expressed to the effect that I had avoided talking to your client and had directed your surveyors etc. in connection with staking out the location in the back of the building area which you had already staked out when you and I talked at the site in the afternoon of the field trip. I hope your client doesn't have the same misconceptions. As you know, I had nothing to do with directing surveyors or staking, and had no information for contacting your client. In any event, we are at our farm in Michigan between now and October 11, when we will be spending some time in NY and then returning to Rolling Hills on October 18. We are contemplating where we go from here and believe it is time that we have an opportunity to talk with your client/our future neighbor. With all the options involved, there must be some way to resolve this to our mutual satisfaction in a neighborly way without more process. As we will need to get along and cooperate for years to come, we also want to be sure he doesn't have the misconception presented at the meeting. I am sending a copy to the city offices for Craig who referred me to you for information on how to establish contact with your client. Our telephone here is (810) 387-0116 and the email works as well. I would be very pleased to have a call from your client, and will answer it promptly if we are out. Michigan is in the eastern time zone, so first thing in the morning west coast time works best. We do not consider the issue as a personal matter and hope that it can be discussed and resolved in a neighborly way. This is the first time we have taken exception to a neighbor's proposed action in our almost 30 years of residence. Best regards, Phil Belleville 9/29/03 7:45 AM AOL.COM I Message View http://wcbmail_aol.com/f►rview.adp?folder= SU5CT1 g=&uid=7... loft Subj: 18 Crest Road East Future Barn Location Date: 9/28/2003 4:58:37 PM Eastern Daylight Time From: PFB E 1 To: BoltonEnRCorn @cs.com, Citvofrh Cc: PFBE 1 Note to Mr. Bolton, for distribution also to Craig and the Planning Commission Members. Ross, sorry you were not at the Planning Commission meeting. Some disappointing inaccuracies were expressed to the effect that I had avoided talking to your client and had directed your surveyors etc. in connection with staking out the location in the back of the building area which you had already staked out when you and I talked at the site in the afternoon of the field trip. I hope your client doesn't have the same misconceptions. As you know, I had nothing to do with directing surveyors or staking, and had no information for contacting your client. In any event, we are at our farm in Michigan between now and October 11, when we will be spending some time in NY and then returning to Rolling Hills on October 18. We are contemplating where we go from here and believe it is time that we have an opportunity to talk with your client/our future neighbor. With all the options involved, there must be some way to resolve this to our mutual satisfaction in a neighborly way without more process. As we will need to get along and cooperate for years to come, we also want to be sure he doesn't have the misconception presented at the meeting. I am sending a copy to the city offices for Craig who referred me to you for information on how to establish contact with your client. Our telephone here is (810) 387-0116 and the email works as well. I would be very pleased to have a call from your client, and will answer it promptly if we are out. Michigan is in the eastern time zone, so first thing in the morning west coast time works best. We do not consider the issue as a personal matter and hope that it can be discussed and resolved in a neighborly way. This is the first time we have taken exception to a neighbor's proposed action in our almost 30 years of residence. Best regards, Phil Belleville 9/29/03 7:43 AM ir....v... I ...........-• ._ . • Subj: Re: 18 Crest Road- Barn Location Date: 10/7/2003 10:46:26 PM Eastern Daylight Time From: PFBEI To: Howard.Slusher@nike.com, Julie.dierino.cr@nike.com Cc: PFBEI, Citvofrh, BoltonEnt2Corn@c.com I appreciate your getting back to me. I am at our farm in Michigan and will be going on to NY at the end of the week. We will be returning to Rolling Hills on the 18th. I respect the high level of competence and civic energy of each of the members of the Planning Commission, but I believe they made a mistake in this situation by not finding a balance which served both your and our interests. Unfortunately I was unable to attend either the first meeting on the subject or the field trip, so probably did not adequately make my points. In any event, the City Counsel is the final arbiter at the administrative level and there will have to be a decision as to whether or not to exercise that option. It should not be a decision which has to be made as my objection is to such an insignificant part of your project, but extremely important from our perspective.. In terms of location, a good compromise would be the location Ross Bolton had staked out for the Commission when it visited the property on September 9. I saw it that afternoon, with your Architect and Mr. Bolton. I was not happy with it as I had in mind a location further south/east (closer to your neighbors stable to the east) that had been discussed favorably the preceding Monday with Mr. Bolton. However, I understand your need for a site that does not require excavation and I would find it acceptable for compromise purposes. It may work for you as it is near the access you are planning from Crest Road East. More generally speaking, I believe there are many locations on the south end of your field further away from the trail and our guesthouse and property line which would be satisfactory. If you are not happy with the compromise I suggest, I would entertain any ideas you or your professional consultants propose. I look forward to having your family as close neighbors and hope that this can be amicable resolved and put behind us without further consternation. Best regards, Philip F. Belleville 10/8/03 7:47 AM lofI fr DATE: TO: FROM: • CEO o/ ie0ti • INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 E-mail: cityofrh@aol.com OCTOBER 21, 2003 HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR APPLICATION NO. SITE LOCATION: ZONING AND SIZE: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PUBLISHED: ZONING CASE NO. 670 18 CREST ROAD EAST (LOT 193-1-MS) RA-S-2, 3.84 ACRES (GROSS) MR. HOWARD SLUSHER DOUGLAS McHATTIE, BOLTON ENGINEERING AUGUST 9, 2003 REQUEST Request for a Site Plan Review for grading and construction of a new single family residence and request for Conditional Use Permits for a guest house. BACKGROUND At the September 16, 2003 public hearing, the Planning Commission directed staff to prepare a Resolution to approve Zoning Case No. 670, which is attached. The vote was 5-0. At the meeting the Commission requested that a note be placed on the approved site plan indicating the that the maximum height of the structures shall not exceed 20 feet from the finished grade. The applicant's representative submitted a revised plan to that effect. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission consider Resolution No. 2003- 20 approving the project. Pruilecl care Fireryclud l';rltter • • RESOLUTION NO. 2003-20 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL OF A SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AND GUEST HOUSE AND GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A GUEST HOUSE ON A VACANT PARCEL OF LAND IN ZONING CASE NO. 670 AT 18 CREST ROAD EAST (LOT 193-1-MS), (SLUSHER). 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. Howard Slusher with respect to real property located at 18 Crest Road East, (Lot 193-1-MS), Rolling Hills, CA requesting a Site Plan Review to permit grading and construction of a new 6,700 square foot single family residence with 1,520 square foot garage, 1,120 square foot swimming pool, 720 square foot guest house and 450 square foot future stable. Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted duly noticed public hearings to consider the application on August 18, 2003, September 16, 2003 and at a field trip visit on September 9, 2003. The applicants were notified of the public hearings in writing by first class mail. Evidence was heard and presented from all persons interested in affecting said proposal and from members of the City staff and the Planning Commission having reviewed, analyzed and studied said proposal. The applicants' representatives were in attendance at the hearings. Section 3. Originally, the applicants requested an additional Conditional Use permit for a detached recreation room. After the Planning Commission field trip and public hearing, the applicants scaled down and revised their proposal so that a second Conditional Use Permit would not be required. The project will be restricted to a 20-foot height from the finished grade. Section 4. During the proceedings lengthy discussion ensued concerning the location of the future stable. Mr. Phil Belleville, 12 Crest Road East objected to the proposed location of the future stable. However, the applicant and the Planning Commission found the proposed location to be most desirable. Section 5. The Planning Commission finds that the project qualifies as a Class 3 Exemption (The State of CA Guidelines, Section 15303) and is therefore categorically exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act. Resolution No. 2003-20 1 Slusher • Section 6. Section 17.46.030 requires a development plan to be submitted for Site Plan Review and approval before any grading requiring a grading permit or any building or structure may be constructed or any expansion, addition, alteration or repair to existing buildings may be made which involve changes to grading or an increase to the size of the building or structure by at least 1,000 square feet and has the effect of increasing the size of the building by more than twenty-five percent (25%) in any thirty-six (36) month period. With respect to the Site Plan Review application requesting construction of the new house, guest house and future stable, the Planning Commission makes the following findings of fact: A. The proposed development is compatible with the General Plan, the Zoning Ordinance and surrounding uses because the proposed structures comply with the General Plan requirement of low profile, low -density residential development with sufficient open space between surrounding structures. The project conforms to Zoning Code setback and lot coverage requirements. The net lot area of the lot is 132,240 square feet, (3.03 acres). The proposed residence (6,700 sq.ft.), garage (1,520 sq.ft.), service yard (96 sq.ft.), swimming pool (1,120 sq.ft.), gust house (720 sq.ft.) and future stable (450 sq.ft.) will have 10,606 square feet of structures, which constitutes 8.0% of the net lot which is within the maximum 20% structural lot coverage requirement. The total lot coverage including all structures, paved areas and driveway will be 23,110 square feet, which constitutes 17.2% of the net lot which is within the 35% maximum overall net lot coverage requirement. The proposed project is screened from the road so as to reduce the visual impact of the development. The disturbed area of the lot will be 37.7%, which is within the 40% maximum permitted, and includes the future stable. B. The development plan substantially preserves the natural and undeveloped state of the lot by minimizing building coverage because the new structure will not cause the lot to look overdeveloped. Significant portions of the lot will be left undeveloped so as to maintain open space on the property. The existing trees on the northern portion on the parcel will remain and will screen the residence from the neighbors. The nature, condition, and development of adjacent uses, buildings, and structures and the topography of the lot have been considered, and the construction of the new house and stable will not adversely affect or be materially detrimental to the adjacent uses, buildings, or structures because the proposed structure will be constructed on a portion of the lot which is the least intrusive to surrounding properties, will be screened and landscaped with trees and shrubs which at maturity will not exceed 20 feet in height, is a sufficient distance from nearby residences so that the proposed structure will not impact the view or privacy of surrounding neighbors, and will substantially utilize the existing building pad for the new construction. C. The proposed development, as conditioned, is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, the natural terrain and surrounding residences. As indicated in Paragraph A, the lot coverage maximum set forth in the Zoning Code will not be exceeded and the proposed project is consistent with the scale of the neighborhood. Resolution No. 2003-20 2 Slusher • • D. The development plan incorporates existing trees and native vegetation to the maximum extent feasible. Specifically, the development plan preserves dense brush and shrubs and supplements it with landscaping that is compatible with and enhances the rural character of the community. E. The development plan follows natural contours of the site to minimize grading and retain the natural drainage courses. Grading for this project will involve 3,682 cubic yards of cut and 3,682 cubic yards of fill and will be balanced on site. F. The proposed development is sensitive and not detrimental to the convenience and safety of circulation for pedestrians and vehicles because the proposed development will utilize the existing driveway. G. The project conforms to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and is exempt. Section 7. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves the Site Plan Review application for Zoning Case No. 670 for grading and for construction of a new residence guest house as shown on the Development Plan dated September 30, 2003, and marked Exhibit A, subject to the conditions contained in Section 10 of this Resolution. Section 8. Section 17.16.210(A)(5) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code permits approval of a guest house under certain conditions, provided the Planning Commission approves a Conditional Use Permit. The applicant is requesting to construct a 720 square foot guest house. 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 the construction of a guest house would be consistent with the purposes and objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan and will be desirable for the public convenience and welfare because the use is consistent with similar uses in the community, and the area proposed for the guest house would be located in an area on the property where such use will not change the existing configuration of structures on the lot. B. The nature, condition, and development of adjacent uses, buildings, and structures have been considered, and the construction of a guest house will not adversely affect or be materially detrimental to these adjacent uses, buildings, or structures because the proposed guest house will be located in a cluster with the proposed pool and residence to promote pad integration and is of sufficient distance from nearby residences so that the guest house will not impact the view or privacy of surrounding neighbors. C. The project is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, the natural terrain, and surrounding residences because the guest house will comply with the low profile residential development pattern of the community. The Resolution No. 2003-20 3 Slusher J height of the structure will be restricted to 20 feet maximum from the finished grade. D. The proposed conditional use complies with all applicable development standards of the zone district because the 720 square foot size of the guest house is less than the maximum permitted under the Municipal Code and the guest house does not encroach into any setback areas. E. The proposed conditional 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 because the project site is not listed on the current State of California Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites List. F. The proposed conditional use observes the spirit and intent of Title 17 of the Zoning Code because an adequate area is set -aside for the construction of a future stable structure and adjacent corral. Section 9. Based upon the foregoing findings and the evidence in the record, the Planning Commission hereby approves a Conditional Use Permit for the construction of an 720 square foot guest house, in accordance with the development plan dated September 30, 2003 and marked Exhibit A in Zoning Case No. 670 subject to the conditions contained in Section 10 of this Resolution. Section 10. The Site Plan Review approved in Section 7 and the Conditional Use Permit approved in Section 9 of this Resolution are subject to the following conditions: A. The Site Plan Review and Conditional Use Permit approval shall expire within one year from the effective date of approval if construction pursuant to this approval has not commenced within that time period, as required by Sections 17.46.080(A) and 17.42.070(A) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, or the approval granted is otherwise extended pursuant to the requirements of those sections. B. It is declared and made a condition of the approval, that if any conditions thereof are violated, this approval shall be suspended and the privileges granted hereunder shall lapse; provided that the applicants have been given written notice to cease such violation, the opportunity for a hearing has been provided, and if requested, has been held, and thereafter the applicant fails to correct the violation within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of the City's determination. C. All requirements of the Building and Construction Ordinance, the Zoning Ordinance, and of the zone in which the subject property is located must be complied with unless otherwise set forth in the Permit, or shown otherwise on an approved plan. Resolution No. 2003-20 4 Slusher • • D. The lot shall be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the revised site plan on file marked Exhibit A and dated September 30, 2003, except as otherwise provided in these conditions. E. The working drawings submitted to the County Department of Building and Safety for plan check review must conform to the development plan approved with this application. F. Grading shall not exceed 3,682 cubic yards of cut and 3,682 cubic yards of fill and shall be balanced on site. G. Structural lot coverage shall not exceed 10,606 square feet or 8.0%. H. Total lot coverage of structures and paved areas shall not exceed 23.110 square feet or 17.2% in conformance with lot coverage limitations. I. The disturbed area of the lot shall not exceed 49,855 square feet or 37.7% of the net lot area in conformance with lot disturbance limitations. J. Residential building pad coverage on the 33,864 square foot residential building pad shall not exceed 10,156 square feet or 30.0%; coverage on the proposed 18,100 square foot stable pad shall not exceed 450 square feet or 2.5%. K. The proposed guest house shall not exceed 720 square feet and shall meet all requirements of the Zoning Code, which include, but is not limited to the following: a. No kitchen or other cooking facilities shall be provided within guest quarters. b. No vehicular access or paved parking area shall be developed within fifty feet of the proposed guest house. c. Renting of the guest house is prohibited. d. Occupancy of the guest house shall be limited to persons employed on the premises or by the immediate family or temporary guests of the occupants of the main residence. No guest may remain in occupancy for more than thirty days in any six-month period. L. The disturbed areas shall be landscaped. Landscaping shall include water efficient irrigation, to the maximum extent feasible, that incorporates low gallonage irrigation system, utilizes automatic controllers, incorporates an irrigation design using "hydrozones," considers slope factors and climate conditions in design, and utilizes means to reduce water waste resulting from runoff and overspray in accordance with Section 17.27.020 (Water Efficient Landscaping Requirements) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code. M. A landscaping plan for the disturbed areas must be submitted for review by the Planning Department prior to issuing grading or building permits. To the maximum extend practicable, native trees and other native plants shall be utilized. If trees are to be used in the landscaping scheme for this project, they Resolution No. 2003-20 5 Slusher • • shall be mature when planted and which at full maturity shall not exceed 20 feet in height; shrubs shall be planted so as not to obstruct views of neighboring properties but, to obscure the stable and residential structure on site. N. Prior to the issuance of any building or grading permit two copies of a preliminary landscape plan shall be submitted for review by the Landscaping Committee and include native drought -resistant vegetation that will not disrupt the impact of the views of neighboring properties. 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 consistent with the rural character of the community. A security in the amount of the cost estimate of the implementation of the landscaping plan plus 15% shall be required to be posted prior to issuance of a drainage, grading and building permits and shall be retained with the City for not less than two years after landscape installation. The retained security will be released by the City Manager after the City Manager determines that the landscaping was installed pursuant to the landscaping plan as approved, and that such landscaping is properly established and in good condition. O. The maximum ridge height of the proposed structures shall not exceed 20 feet as measured from the finished grade. P. Any walls required for this project shall not exceed 5 feet in height having an average of 2 1/2 feet, and shall be screened with landscaping to maximim extend practicable. Q. During construction, any soil disturbance shall preserve the existing topography, flora, and natural features to the greatest extent possible. R. The project is subject to General Permit No.CAS000002 (Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activities). The applicant shall comply with the requirements of this permits as required by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. S. During construction, conformance with the air quality management district requirements, stormwater pollution prevention practices, county and local ordinances and engineering practices so that people or property are not exposed to undue vehicle trips, noise, dust, and objectionable odors shall be required. T. During construction, an Erosion Control Plan containing the elements set forth in Section 7010 of the 2001 County of Los Angeles Uniform Building Code shall be followed to minimize erosion and to protect slopes and channels to control stormwater pollution as required by the County of Los Angeles. Resolution No. 2003-20 Slusher • • U. During and after construction, all parking shall take place on the project site and, if necessary, any overflow parking shall take place within nearby roadway easements. V. 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. W. The property owners shall be required to conform to the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Health Department requirements for the installation and maintenance of septic tanks. X. The property owners shall be required to conform to the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Health Department requirements for the installation and maintenance of stormwater drainage facilities. Y. The property owners shall be required to conform to the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Public Works Department Best Management Practices (BMP's) related to solid waste. Z. The property owners shall be required to conform to the City of Rolling Hills Outdoor Lighting Standards Ordinance, (Ordinance No. 287). AA. A drainage plan shall be approved by the Planning Department and County District Engineer, to include any water from any site irrigation systems and that all drainage from the site shall be conveyed in an approved manner. AB. All utility lines shall be placed underground. The roof material for the new residence and stable shall comply with the City of Rolling Hills Building Code requirements. AC. Prior to the submittal of an applicable final building plan to the County of Los Angeles for plan check, a detailed drainage plan with related geology, soils and hydrology reports that conform to the development plan as approved by the Planning Commission shall be submitted to the Rolling Hills Planning Department staff for their review and approval. AD. The project must be reviewed and approved by the Rolling Hills Community Association Architectural Review Committee prior to the issuance of any grading or building permit. AE. The applicant shall pay all of the applicable Los Angeles County Building and Safety and Public Works Department fees, including Parks and Recreation Fees for new residence and school fees. Resolution No. 2003-20 7 Slusher • • AF. Until the applicants execute an Affidavit of Acceptance of all conditions of this Site Plan Review approval, as required by Section 17.42.070 the approvals shall not be effective. AG. All conditions of the Site Plan and Conditional Use approval, that apply, shall be complied with prior to the issuance of grading or building permit from the County of Los Angeles. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 21st DAY OF OCTOBER 2003. ARVEL WITTE, CHAIRMAN ATTEST: MARILYN KERN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK Resolution No. 2003-20 8 Slusher Y • STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) § CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ) I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2003-20 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL OF A SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AND GRANTING .A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A GUEST HOUSE ON A VACANT PARCEL OF LAND IN ZONING CASE NO. 670 AT 18 CREST ROAD EAST (LOT 193-1-MS), (SLUSHER). was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on October 21, 2003 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following: Administrative Offices. DEPUTY CITY CLERK Resolution No. 2003-20 9 Slusher DATE: TO: FROM: • City opeoeenS �aeP SEPTEMBER 16, 2003 • JL.NUA..RY 14, i .57 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 E-mail: cityolrhaol.com HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR APPLICATION NO. SITE LOCATION: ZONING AND SIZE: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PUBLISHED: REOUEST ZONING CASE NO. 670 18 CREST ROAD EAST (LOT 193-1-MS) RA-S-2, 3.84 ACRES (GROSS) MR. HOWARD SLUSHER DOUGLAS McHATTIE, BOLTON ENGINEERING AUGUST 9, 2003 Request for a Site Plan Review for grading and construction of a new single family residence and request for Conditional Use Permits for a guest house and for a detached recreation room. BACKGROUND 1. The Commission viewed the subject property on September 9, 2003. The Commission expressed concerns over the height of the proposed structures, and requested that elevation plans be prepared for tonight's meeting. The Commission also requested cross sections for the graded areas and structures. Section 17.16.080 of the Zoning Ordinance states that "a building shall have no more than one story", except that a one-story space is permitted over a basement. The Rolling Hills Community Association regulates the heights of structures and architectural features. 2. Mr. Belleville, 12 Crest Road, submitted letters (e-mails), which are attached, objecting to the proposed location of the future stable. The applicant's representative met with Mr. Belleville, and as a result of that meeting the representative agreed to consider relocation of the future stable closer to the eastern side yard setback. Subsequently, the engineer determined that in order to relocate the stable to Mr. Belleville's satisfaction, additional grading and disturbance would be required. Mr. Belleville and the applicants' representative discussed an alternative location, which would also require grading, and would place the stable in the middle of the property, which is not acceptable to the property owners. 3. The applicant is requesting a Site Plan Review and Conditional Use Permit for grading and construction of a new 6,700 square foot residence, 1,440 square foot garage 819 square foot swimming pool, 700 square foot recreation room, 780 square foot guest ZC No. 670 Ping. Comm. 9/16/03 1 • • house, 96 square feet service yard, and 450 square foot future stable at an existing vacant lot at 18 Crest Road East. No basement is proposed. 4. The property is zoned RAS-2, and the gross lot area is 167,270 square feet or 3.84 acres. The net lot area is 132,240 square feet, (3.03 acres). 5. In February 1998, the Planning Commission approved a Site Plan Review for a 3,735 square foot new residence, 680 square foot garage, and a swimming pool, and a Variance to construct retaining walls in the side and front yards setbacks. A new driveway approach and a new driveway within the lot, which would require substantial grading, were also approved. The then owners did not develop the property and the approval expired. The original house was demolished in 1997. 6. The applicant is proposing to utilize the existing driveway approach to the property and to relocate the existing driveway within the property slightly to the west of the existing driveway to take advantage of the tree canopies along the driveway. The driveway will vary in slope from 12% to 18%, and will descent, with the property, from north to south, towards Crest Road. The proposed driveway will be 16 feet wide. Section 17.16.160 requires that driveways not exceed 12% in slope, unless otherwise approved by the Planning Commission, and the first 20 feet of a driveway must not exceed 7%. 7. The proposed guest house and recreation room are subject to Section 17.16.210 of the Zoning Ordinance and require a Conditional Use Permit. No kitchen or other cooking facilities are allowed in either of the uses and no sleeping facilities are allowed in the recreation room. A list of development standards for these uses are attached 8. Grading for the project will require 3,830 cubic yards of cut soil and 3,830 cubic yards of fill soil, which will be balanced on site. Most of the existing trees in the rear and side of the property will remain. 9. The structural lot coverage on the 132,240 square foot net lot area is proposed to be 10,985 square feet or 8.31%, which includes the residence, garage, pool, service yard, guest house, recreation room and the future stable, (20°A) permitted); and the total lot coverage proposed including the structures and paved areas will be 23,769 square feet or 17.98%, (35% permitted). 10 Two building pads are proposed. The residential building pad is proposed to be 36,960 square feet. The stable building pad is proposed to be 19,120 square feet, and will not require grading. Building pad coverage on the 36,960 square foot residential building pad is proposed at 10,535 square feet or 28.5%, and includes all of the structures, except the stable. Building pad coverage on the 19,120 square foot stable pad will be 2.4% when the stable is constructed. 11. Disturbed area of the lot will be 39.8%, (40% permitted) of the net lot area. Disturbance includes any remedial grading (temporary disturbance), any graded slopes and building pad areas, and any nongraded area where impervious surfaces will remain or are proposed to be added. ZC No. 670 Ping. Comm. 9/16/03 2 • • 12. Utilities to the structures will be placed underground. 13. The Rolling Hills Community Association will review this project at a later date. 14. The project has been determined to be categorically exempt pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission review the staff report, take public testimony and give direction to staff. ZC No. 670 Ping. Comm. 9/16/03 3 ZONING CASE NO. 670 SITE PLAN REVIEW RA-S- 2 ZONE SETBACKS Front: 50 ft. from front easement line Side: 35 ft. from property line Rear: 50 ft. from property line STRUCTURES (Site Plan Review required if size of structure increases by at least 1,000 sq.ft. and has the effect of increasing the size of the structure by more than 25% in a 36- month period). STRUCTURAL LOT COVERAGE (20% maximum) TOTAL LOT COVERAGE (35% maximum) RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PAD COVERAGE (30% maximum -guideline) BARN PAD COVERAGE GRADING Site Plan Review required if excavation and/or fill or combination thereof that is more than 3 feet in depth or 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 (min. 450 SQ.FT. & 550 SO.FT. CORRAL) STABLE ACCESS ROADWAY ACCESS VIEWS PLANTS AND ANIMALS EXISTING VACANT LOT ZC No. 670 Ping. Comm. 9/16/03 4 PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE, RECREATION ROOM AND GUEST HOUSE Residence Garage Swim Pool Stable future Guest house Recr.Rm Service yard 6700 sq.ft. 1440 sq.ft. 819 sq.ft. 450 sq.ft. 780 sq.ft. 700 sq.ft 96 sq.ft TOTAL 10,985 sq.ft. 8.31% of 132,240 sq. ft. net lot area 17.98% 28.5% of 36,960 building pad 2.4% of 19,120 building pad Combined — 19.6% 3,830 cubic yards cut 3,830 cubic yards fill 39.8% or 52,631 sq.ft of net lot area 450 sq. ft future 550 sq. ft. corral Future from Crest Road along westerly easement. Existing driveway approach from Crest Road Planning Commission review. Planning Commission review. CONDITIONS FOR CABANA/RECREATION ROOM No sleeping quarters or kitchen or other cooking facilities shall be permitted GUESTHOUSE CONDITIONS a. Requires all guest or servant quarters on same recorded lot as main house b. Maximum 800 sq.ft. floor area c. No kitchen or other cooking facilities permitted d. Develop and maintain in substantial conformance with site plan e. No vehicular access or paved parking area permitted to be developed within 50' of proposed guesthouse or servant quarters f. No guest may remain in occupancy more than 30 days in any 6 month period g. Renting of guesthouse is prohibited h. Comply with all requirements of code i. Preliminary landscaping plan required NEARBY PROPERTIES (For information only) Address Owner House size I Lot Area (acres) 6 Crest Road Cleassens 6,159 5.70 12 Crest Road Belleville 7,235 3.89 16 Crest Road Kraus 5,460 1.51 29 Crest Road Severy 2,271 16.57 17 Crest Road Johnson Ann 2,994 9.64 7 Crest Road Johnson Alan 6,604 3.67 AVERAGE 5,120 5.48 18 Crest Road Slusher 6,700 (Proposed) 13.83 NOTE: The lot area and home sizes for the properties shown above, are taken from the Assessors' records and do not include garages. ZC No. 670 Ping. Comm. 9/16/03 5 • .-0--- \ -D_ Q ".N,0 1.2.i d-V-1 Cl'"-S- P ,rsi 1.,t, is•--,,•-/-.4..e. i klc x , , . , v Q s _ e t7.zijr(Lp. r_, . L . ‘j_ . _, , \: 7 : ) • " - - / j celf i * -"LP \\ os A:-.1-'%.,ki,S. 4 - ) 4-1.- -) "."11-- .A.A --ux,-p r---fr-re--T-2,% ,9--1/4-9-1f- 0 .. CAta. h4 d VAIC AUG 9 'IV 8Y ' AOL.COM I Message View http://webmail.aol.com/fmsgview.adp?folder=SU5CT 1 g=&uid=7143899 • r. Subj: Zoning Case No. 670 Date: 9/1/2003 1:32:03 PM Eastern Daylight Time From: PFB E 1 To: Cityofrh Cc: PFBEI This is to request that the Rolling Hills City office, provide a copy of this objection for each member of the Planning Commission at the earliest possible time. Please pardon that I was unable to attend the August 19 meeting concerning the above, but I understand you did receive my note protesting the location of the "Future Stable". Unfortunately I will also be unable to attend the field trip on September 9 as I have a long standing commitment for that afternoon and evening. I would be available in the morning and early afternoon. I do not know the identity of owner of the property involved, but suspect that we would not have a problem here if we had a chance to talk and the traditional spirit of neighbors prevailed. There are so many more reasonable options for the location of the "Future Stable" that agreement surely could be reached. In any event, I have not had the opportunity to talk to the family involved and thus amplify my protest. Having attended nearly all RHCA Association meetings in the past year, as well as most of the committee meetings on Easements as well as Security, I know that the policy is the preservation of open space. As one rides or walks down the trail on the East side of our property at 12 Crest Road East, to the point where it turns 90 degrees at our back line, one sees a wonderful open field and vista before turning again in back of No. 1 Georgeff to go north down the hill into more beautiful parts of the trail. The "Future Stable" will greatly change the vista and ambiance of the trail, without any reason to do" so. There is a large area in back of No. 18 Crest Road East where the "Future Stable" could be placed without infringing on the beauty of the trail and our privacy and enjoyment of our own property. Placing it right in back of our lot, across the easement, unnecessarily invades our privacy and subjects us to the noise, dust and odors of another's stable. To the extent there are options, each owner should be subject to their own tolerance of the downsides involved. It likely will even be a part of the vista as one proceeds up our main driveway. Please either deny the "Future Stable" or require it to be located in back of No. 18 and not in back of our property. We regard this as a very important issue, directly affecting our property in a very negative way. Thankyou and best possible regards for the work you perform as volunteers. Philip F. Belleville 12 Crest Road East 541-5256 1 of 1 9/2/03 10:18 AM • • Subj: ZooningCase No.gl0 Date: 9/5/2003 11:12:54 AM Eastern Daylight Time From: PFBE1@aol.com To: BoltonEngCorp@cs.com Cc: PFBE1 @aol.com, Cityofrh@aol.com Ross, I appreciate our meeting at 18 Crest Road this morning. It was in the spirit we like to see between Rolling Hills neighbors. Our agreement, subject to approval by Doug and the owner, is that the Future Stable location will be near the eastern line of the lot, next to the easement and behind the proposed guest house. That should make sense to all concerned in the context where the owner likely will never build the Stable and where we expect to keep our home at 12 Crest Road East and pass it on to our children. Our privacy and the trail interest in open space coming east and then north on the Crane trail would be met. Also, the owner would have a location to work from if he ever needed it. I look forward to your call today, hopefully confirming that all are in agreement. As I indicated, unfortunately Mrs. Belleville and I have long standing commitments for late Friday afternoon and will not be able to attend the field trip. Best regards, Philip Belleville 12 Crest Road East Rolling Hills, CA 90274 1 of 1 9/8/03 8:10 AM • ton, Sep 8, 2003 8:13 AM Subject: Stable Location In Zoning Case 670 Date: Friday, September 5, 2003 6:17 PM From: PFBE1@aol.com To: <mkern@cityofrh.net>, <Cityofrh@aol.com> Cc: <PFBE1@aol.com>, <BoltonEngCorp@cs.com> Dear Planning Commission: Unfortunately, the prospective compromise concerning the Future Stable location at 18 Crest Road East has fallen through. Ross Bolton and I had a very good meeting at the site this morning and we were hopeful that we had a compromise by locating the Future Stable east of, and perhaps slightly north of, the proposed guest house near the eastern easement line. That would have tucked it in on relatively level land without obstructing our vista or the vista of riders on the Crane trail. However, Ross and I talked later this afternoon and he reported that the amount of disturbance in connection with other aspects of the site are relatively aggressive, and that placement where we spotted would make it more so, this they would not risk their ongoing relationship with the City and ask for approval of something which might make it even more aggressive. I told him that I would take the brunt of it and ask that you make whatever exception may be necessary at our request to eliminate the controversy and dispute on the subject. Since the site is relatively level at the desired spot, this is to formally ask that you do not hold it against the other approvals being sought 18 Crest Road East and approve the location Ross and I discussed near the East property line of the property. Ross apparently has changed the plans submitted to put the Future Stable directly north of the proposed guest house on the property. That is movement in the right direction and somewhat better, but it still will stick out like a sore thumb and obstruct our view through a beautiful open space. It would be tragic to plan it there when there is such a great opportunity to make it much less visible in a location which eliminates the dispute and one which all concerned would approve. We are very sorry that we cannot change our plans for next Tuesday afternoon and thus cannot attend the meeting at the property. We will be available all morning and until mid afternoon. But, this is to ask that you please help out to eliminate the problem and not hold the slight disturbance that would be caused by the Future Stable against the balance of the project. If you do that, it is my understanding that the Future Stable will be placed in the location Ross and I picked this morning. Respectfully submitted, Philip Belleville 12 Crest Road East Page 1 of 1 AOL.C;OM I Message View • http://webmail.aol.com/ iew.adp?folder=SU5CT I g=&uid=7... Subj: Fwd: Stable Location In Zoning Case 670 Date: 9/9/2003 12:33:23 AM Eastern Daylight Time From: PFBE1 To: Citvofrh Cc: pfbel@aol.com. requ, BoltonEnaCom@cs.com Craig, thanks for your note. I want to be sure you received both of my Friday emails. The first one confirmed a tentative agreement with Bolton et al locating the Future Barn near the East line of the property in a fairly level location which would not unduly obstruct our view (and the view from the trail) across the open space. The second one confirmed that Bolton el al were not willing to go forward and request Planning Commission approval of the new location as it apparently would require a little grading and the project as a whole was already aggressive in that regard. They did not want to adversely affect their ongoing applications to the Planning Commission. Thus, they changed the location to one north of the proposed guest house. That location is better than the one right across from my back property Tine, but it still substantially impairs our only view, i.e. across the open space in back of our property.' We do not have any other view from our property. Ross however did agree that they would not object if I took the brunt of it and asked the Planning Commission to not consider the small amount of additional grading for the Future Stable near the East line in their decision concerning the proposed residence and guest house. If such approval resulted, then the Future Stable would be located along the East line, a little north of a stable on the adjoining property to the East, in the agreed location and should not constitute a substantial view impairment. The purpose of my second email was to ask the Commission to approve the agreed location at my request, being the resident whose view would be adversely affected. Bottom line, this is an easy way to fix in the best interest of all concerned a very serious dispute. Hopefully the Planning Commission will consider it favorably and not let the acceptable location for the Future Stable affect its decision as to the proposed residence and guest house. Best regards, Philip Belleville (310) 541-5256 Subj: Re: Stable Location In Zoning Case 670 Date: 9/8/2003 11:16:14 AM Eastern Daylight Time From: Cityofrh To: PFBE1 Hello Mr. Belleville, We received your latest email. It will be forwarded to the Planning Commission at the field trip. Please call either Yolanta or me if you have further questions. Thank you, Craig Nealis 1 of 1 10 9/9/03 8:41 AM AOL.COM j Message View 4111 http://webmail.aol.com/fm w.adp?folder=SUSCTlg=&uid=7191543 0 Subj: Fwd: Zoning Case 670, Future Barn Location at 18 Crest Road East Date: 9/9/2003 6:40:02 PM Eastern Daylight Time From: PFBE I To: Citvofrh Cc: PFBE I Subj: Zoning Case 670, Future Barn Location at 18 Crest Road East Date: 9/9/2003 6:29:37 PM Eastern Daylight Time From: PFBE1 To: Cityofrh@lw.com Cc: PFBE1, BoltonEngCorp@cs.com Dear Planning Commission: I just returned from the site, viewed the stakes and confirmed my thinking that, while the Future Barn as laid out is in a somewhat better location than originally drawn, which was immediately in back of my property, it is still a view impairment of the only view we have from 12 Crest Road East. There is an easement tree (Canary Island Pine) recently down now so the view is temporarily impaired, but either Roger or we will fix that soon. If the Future Barn was a tree, or a bush, instead of a Future Barn, I could go through the City's process and have it trimmed back or removed. In that context, there is no good reason to approve the construction of an impairment, particularly when it is not necessary. If I understand the situation, the problem is that there is so much house, recreation building, guest house, pool etc. that there is no room left without a disturbance variance to draw the Future Barn anywhere where there will be any grading. If that is true, then the problem is that there is too much, too large going into the lot and we stand to pay the price for it by having a view impairment. The solutions would be to either invite the owner to seek a variance for the Future Barn in the location Ross and I talked about Monday, or reduce in size or amount the proposed improvements to permit the same thing without a variance. That desirable location is properly set back from the easement on the eastern boundary of the property, and a little further south. It would be across the easement a little to the north of the barn on the adjoining property. If you walk over there and have Ross show you what he and I originally had in mind, you will see that the grading would be minimal. If you see a spot with a lot of slope, it is not the spot we had in mind. This is not about not wanting to see a barn. As you know, we have probably the oldest horse barn in Rolling Hills. It was built in the 1800's and we enjoy it greatly and are very proud of it. Also, we have owned our property since the early 1970's and have never objected before concerning any project. Again, I am sorry we have a long standing commitment to be in Los Angeles this evening and cannot join you. But, we sincerely urge that you deal with this location dispute by either a) inviting the owner to seek a disturbance variance so the Future Barn can be put further to the east and further south to where we are suggesting, or b) reduce the amount or size of improvements sufficient to permit the Future Barn to be located where we are suggesting. Respectfully submitted, Philip F. Belleville 12 Crest Road East 1 of 1 9/9/03 3:46 PM DATE: TO: FROM: • City a/ k'0f/L �eP • INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 ' (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 E-mail: cityofrh@aol.com SEPTEMBER 9, 2003 HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR APPLICATION'NO. ZONING CASE NO. 670 SITE LOCATION: 18 CREST ROAD EAST (LOT 193-1-MS) ZONING AND SIZE: RA-S-2, 3.84 ACRES (GROSS) APPLICANT: MR. HOWARD SLUSHER REPRESENTATIVE: DOUGLAS McHATTIE, BOLTON ENGINEERING PUBLISHED: AUGUST 9, 2003 REQUEST Request for a Site Plan Review for grading and construction of a new single family residence and request for a Conditional Use Permit for a guest house and detached recreation room. BACKGROUND 1. At the August 19, 2003 meeting, the Planning Commission scheduled a field trip to subject property on September 9, 2003. 2. The applicant is requesting a Site Plan Review and Conditional Use Permit for grading and construction of a new 6,700 square foot residence, 1,440 square foot garage 819 square foot swimming pool, 700 square foot recreation room, 780 square foot guest house, 96 square feet service yard, and 450 square foot future stable at an existing vacant lot at 18 Crest Road East. No basement is proposed. 3. The property is zoned RAS-2, and the gross lot area is 167,270 square feet or 3.84 acres. The net lot area is 132,240 square feet, (3.03 acres). 4. In February 1998, the Planning Commission approved a Site Plan Review for a 3,735 square foot new residence, 680 square foot garage, and a swimming pool, and a Variance to construct retaining walls in the side and front yards setbacks. A new driveway approach and a new driveway within the lot, which would require substantial grading, were also approved. The then owners did not develop the property and the approval expired. The original house was demolished in 1997. 5. The applicant is proposing to utilize the existing driveway approach to the property and to relocate the existing driveway within the property slightly to the west ZC No. 670 Ping. Comm. 9/9/03FT 1 ®Pnntf,don F4.: ,yclr:d I'n;un • • of the existing driveway. The driveway will vary in slope from 12% to 18%, and will descent, with the property, from north to south, towards Crest Road. The proposed driveway will be 15 feet wide. Section 17.16.160 requires that driveways not exceed 12% in slope, unless otherwise approved by the Planning Commission, and the first 20 feet of a driveway must not exceed 7%. 6. The proposed guest house and recreation room are subject to Section 17.16.210 of the Zoning Ordinance and require a Conditional Use Permit. No kitchen or other cooking facilities are allowed in either of the uses and no sleeping facilities are allowed in the recreation room. A list of development standards for these uses is attached. 7. Grading for the project will require 3,830 cubic yards of cut soil and 3,830 cubic yards of fill soil, which will be balanced on site. There will be no grading or disturbance in the back half of the property and most of the existing trees will remain. 8. The structural lot coverage on the 132,240 square foot net lot area is proposed to be 10,985 square feet or 8.31%, which includes the residence, garage, pool, service yard, guest house, recreation room and the future stable, (20% permitted); and the total lot coverage proposed including the structures and paved areas will be 23,110 square feet or 17.48%, (35% permitted). 9 Proposed are two building pads. The residential building pad is proposed to be 36,960 square feet. The stable building pad is proposed to be 19,120 square feet, and will not require grading. Building pad coverage on the 36,960 square foot residential building pad is proposed at 10,535 square feet or 28.5%, and includes all of the structures, except the stable. Building pad coverage on the 19,120 square foot stable pad will be 2.4% when the stable is constructed. 10. Disturbed area of the lot will be 39.8%, (40% permitted) of the net lot area. Disturbance includes any remedial grading (temporary disturbance), any graded slopes and building pad areas, and any nongraded area where impervious surfaces will remain or are proposed to be added. 11. It will be required that utilities be placed underground. 12. The Rolling Hills Community Association will review this project at a later date. 13. A letter from adjacent property owner is attached, requesting that the stable be moved to a different location. 14. The project has been determined to be categorically exempt pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission view the site. ZC No. 670 Ping. Comm. 9/9/03FT ZONING CASE NO. 670 SITE PLAN REVIEW RA-S- 2 ZONE SETBACKS Front: 50 ft. from front easement line Side: 35 ft. from property line Rear: 50 ft. from property line STRUCTURES (Site Plan Review required if size of structure increases by at least 1,000 sq.ft. and has the effect of increasing the size of the structure by more than 25% in a 36- month period). STRUCTURAL LOT COVERAGE (20% maximum) TOTAL LOT COVERAGE (35% maximum) RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PAD COVERAGE (30% maximum -guideline) BARN PAD COVERAGE GRADING Site Plan Review required if excavation and/or fill or combination thereof that is more than 3 feet in depth or 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 (min. 450 SQ.FT. & 550 SQ.FT. CORRAL) STABLE ACCESS ROADWAY ACCESS VIEWS PLANTS AND ANIMALS EXISTING VACANT LOT ZC No. 670 Ping. Comm. 9/9/03FT 3 PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE, RECREATION ROOM AND GUEST HOUSE Residence Garage Swim Pool Stable future Guest house Recr.Rm Service yard 6700 sq.ft. 1440 sq.ft. 819 sq.ft. 450 sq.ft. 780 sq.ft. 700 sq.ft 96 sq.ft TOTAL 10,985 sq.ft. 8.31 % of 132,240 sq. ft. net lot area 17.48% 28.5% of 36,960 building pad 2.4% of 19,120 building pad Combined — 19.5% 3,830 cubic yards cut 3,830 cubic yards fill 39.8% or 52,631 sq.ft of net lot area 450 sq. ft future 550 sq. ft. corral Future from Crest Road along westerly easement. Existing driveway approach from Crest Road Planning Commission will review. Planning Commission will review. • CONDITIONS FOR CABANA/RECREATION ROOM, No sleeping quarters or kitchen or other cooking facilities shall be permitted GUESTHOUSE CONDITIONS a. Requires all guest or servant quarters on same recorded lot as main house b. Maximum 800 sq.ft. floor area c. No kitchen or other cooking facilities permitted d. Develop and maintain in substantial conformance with site plan e. No vehicular access or paved parking area permitted to be developed within 50' of proposed guesthouse or servant quarters f. No guest may remain in occupancy more than 30 days in any 6 month period g. Renting of guesthouse is prohibited h. Comply with all requirements of code i. Preliminary landscaping plan required NEARBY PROPERTIES (For information only) Address Owner House size Lot Area (acres) 6 Crest Road Cleassens 6,159 5.70 12 Crest Road Belleville 7,235 3.89 16 Crest Road Kraus 5,460 1.51 29 Crest Road Severy 2,271 6.57 17 Crest Road Johnson Ann 2,994 9.64 7 Crest Road Johnson Alan 6,604 3.67 AVERAGE 5,120 5.48 18 Crest Road Slusher 6,700 (Proposed) 3.83 NOTE: The lot area and home sizes for the properties shown above, are taken from the assessors' records and do not include garages. ZC No. 670 Ping. Comm. 9/9/03FT 4 • • JL*A. ,.1Q - ti- rl 5 ' 1. r I 'a_ C .74r •,may (_. * mil' J 1n� \ CY -y-�-1 1 . e_---(rvt-- 4 --=e ^,-"( A.-._11-/CTeL �7k 'tS1 c_090i C! pPIEliWn AUG 1 9 20a3 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS By AOL.COM I Message View • hup://webmail.aol.com/fiiiew.adp?folder=SU5CT1g=&uid=7143899 Subj: Zoning Case No. 670 Date: 9/1/2003 1:32:03 PM Eastern Daylight Time From: PFBEI To: Citvofrh Cc: PFBEI This is to request that the Rolling Hills City office, provide a copy of this objection for each member of the Planning Commission at the earliest possible time. Please pardon that I was unable to attend the August 19 meeting concerning the above, but I understand you did receive my note protesting the location of the "Future Stable". Unfortunately I will also be unable to attend the field trip on September 9 as I have a long standing commitment for that afternoon and evening. I would be available in the morning and early afternoon. I do not know the identity of owner of the property involved, but suspect that we would not have a problem here if we had a chance to talk and the traditional spirit of neighbors prevailed. There are so many more reasonable options for the location of the "Future Stable" that agreement surely could be reached. In any event, I have not had the opportunity to talk to the family involved and thus amplify my protest. Having attended nearly all RHCA Association meetings in the past year, as well as most of the committee meetings on Easements as well as Security, I know that the policy is the preservation of open space. As one rides or walks down the trail on the East side of our property at 12 Crest Road East, to the point where it turns 90 degrees at our back line, one sees a wonderful open field and vista before turning again in back of No. 1 Georgeff to go north down the hill into more beautiful parts of the trail. The "Future Stable" will greatly change the vista and ambiance of the trail, without any reason to do so. There is a large area in back of No. 18 Crest Road East where the "Future Stable" could be placed without infringing on the beauty of the trail and our privacy and enjoyment of our own property. Placing it right in back of our lot, across the easement, unnecessarily invades our privacy and subjects us to the noise, dust and odors of another's stable. To the extent there are options, each owner should be subject to their own tolerance of the downsides involved. It likely will even be a part of the vista as one proceeds up our main driveway. Please either deny the "Future Stable" or require it to be located in back of No. 18 and not in back of our property. We regard this as a very important issue, directly affecting our property in a very negative way. Thankyou and best possible regards for the work you perform as volunteers. Philip F. Belleville 12 Crest Road East 541-5256 1 of 1 9/2/03 10:18 AM DATE: TO: FROM: • • C14 ol leo/lin$ Jh/'/? INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 E-mail: cityofrh@aol.com AUGUST 19, 2003 HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR APPLICATION NO. ZONING CASE NO. 670 SITE LOCATION: 18 CREST ROAD EAST (LOT 193-1-MS) ZONING AND SIZE: RA-S-2, 3.84 ACRES (GROSS) APPLICANT: MR. HOWARD SLUSHER REPRESENTATIVE: DOUGLAS McHATTIE, BOLTON ENGINEERING PUBLISHED: AUGUST 9, 2003 REQUEST Request for a Site Plan Review for grading and construction of a new single family residence and request for a Conditional Use Permit for a guest house and detached recreation room. BACKGROUND 1. The applicant is requesting a Site Plan Review and Conditional Use Permit for grading and construction of a new 6,700 square foot residence, 1,440 square foot garage 819 square foot swimming pool, 700 square foot recreation room, 780 square foot guest house, 96 square feet service yard, and 450 square foot future stable at an existing vacant lot at 18 Crest Road East. No basement is proposed. 2. The property is zoned RAS-2, and the gross lot area is 167,270 square feet or 3.84 acres. The net lot area is 132,240 square feet, (3.03 acres). 3. In February 1998, the Planning Commission approved a Site Plan Review for a 3,735 square foot new residence, 680 square foot garage, and a swimming pool, and a Variance to construct retaining walls in the side and front yards setbacks. A new driveway approach and a new driveway within the lot, which would require substantial grading, were also approved. The then owners did not develop the property and the approval expired. The original house was demolished in 1997. 4. The applicant is proposing to utilize the existing driveway approach to the property and to relocate the existing driveway within the property slightly to the west of the existing driveway. The driveway will vary in slope from 12% to 18%, and will descent, with the property, from north to south, towards Crest Road. The proposed driveway will be 15 feet wide. Section 17.16.160 requires that driveways not exceed 12% ZC NO. 670 Plng.Comm. 8/19/03 1 yJ Printed on Recycled Paper. in slope, unless otherwise approved by the Planning Commission, and the first 20 feet of a driveway must not exceed 7%. 5. The proposed guest house and recreation room are subject to Section 17.16.210 of the Zoning Ordinance and require a Conditional Use Permit. No kitchen or other cooking facilities are allowed in either of the uses and no sleeping facilities are allowed in the recreation room. A list of development standards for these uses is attached. 6. Grading for the project will require 3,830 cubic yards of cut soil and 3,830 cubic yards of fill soil, which will be balanced on site. There will be no grading or disturbance in the back half of the property and most of the existing trees will remain. 7. The structural lot coverage on the 132,240 square foot net lot area is proposed to be 10,985 square feet or 8.31%, which includes the residence, garage, pool, service yard, guest house, recreation room and the future stable, (20% permitted); and the total lot coverage proposed including the structures and paved areas will be 23,110 square feet or 17.48%, (35% permitted). 8 Proposed are two building pads. The residential building pad is proposed to be 36,960 square feet. The stable building pad is proposed to be 19,120 square feet, and will not require grading. Building pad coverage on the 36,960 square foot residential building pad is proposed at 10,535 square feet or 28.5%, and includes all of the structures, except the stable. Building pad coverage on the 19,120 square foot stable pad will be 2.4% when the stable is constructed. 9. Disturbed area of the lot will be 39.8%, (40% permitted) of the net lot area. Disturbance includes any remedial grading (temporary disturbance), any graded slopes and building pad areas, and any nongraded area where impervious surfaces will remain or are proposed to be added. 10. It will be required that utilities be placed underground. 11. The Rolling Hills Community Association will review this project at a later date. 12. The project has been determined to be categorically exempt pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission review the staff report and take public testimony. ZC NO. 670 Plng.Comm. 8/19/03 2 Zoning Case No. 670 SITE PLAN REVIEW RA-S- 2 ZONE SETBACKS Front: 50 ft. from front easement line Side: 35 ft. from property line Rear: 50 ft. from property line STRUCTURES (Site Plan Review required if size of structure increases by at least 1,000 sq.ft. and has the effect of increasing the size of the structure by more than 25% in a 36- month period). STRUCTURAL LOT COVERAGE (20% maximum) TOTAL LOT COVERAGE (35% maximum) RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PAD COVERAGE (30% maximum-auidelinel BARN PAD COVERAGE GRADING Site Plan Review required if excavation and/or fill or combination thereof that is more than 3 feet in depth or 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 (min. 450 SQ.FT. & 550 SQ.FT. CORRAL) STABLE ACCESS ROADWAY ACCESS VIEWS PLANTS AND ANIMALS ZC NO. 670 Plng.Comm. 8/19/03 EXISTING VACANT LOT 3 PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE, RECREATION ROOM AND GUEST HOUSE Residence Garage Swim Pool Stable future Guest house Recr.Rm Service yard 6700 sq.ft. 1440 sq.ft. 819 sq.ft. 450 sq.ft. 780 sq.ft. 700 sq.ft 96 sq.ft TOTAL 10,985 sq.ft. 8.31% of 132,240 sq. ft. net lot area 17.48% 28.5% of 36,960 building pad 2.4% of 19,120 building pad Combined — 19.5% 3,830 cubic yards cut 3,830 cubic yards fill 39.8% or 52,631 sq.ft of net lot area 450 sq. ft future 550 sq. ft. corral Future from Crest Road along westerly easement. Existing driveway approach from Crest Road Planning Commission will review. Planning Commission will review. CONDITIONS FOR CABANA/RECREATION ROOM No sleeping quarters or kitchen or other cooking facilities shall be permitted GUESTHOUSE CONDITIONS a. Requires all guest or servant quarters on same recorded lot as main house b. Maximum 800 sq.ft. floor area c. No kitchen or other cooking facilities permitted d. Develop and maintain in substantial conformance with site plan e. No vehicular access or paved parking area permitted to be developed within 50' of proposed guesthouse or servant quarters f. No guest may remain in occupancy more than 30 days in any 6 month period g. Renting of guesthouse is prohibited h. Comply with all requirements of code i. Preliminary landscaping plan required NEARBY PROPERTIES (For information onlv) Address Owner House size Lot Area (acres) 6 Crest Road Cleassens 6,159 5.70 12 Crest Road Belleville 7,235 3.89 16 Crest Road Kraus 5,460 1.51 29 Crest Road Severy 2,271 6.57 17 Crest Road Johnson Ann 2,994 9.64 7 Crest Road Johnson Alan 6,604 3.67 AVERAGE 5,120 5.48 18 Crest Road Slusher 6,700 (Proposed) 3.83 NOTE: The lot area and home sizes for the properties shown above, are taken from the assessors' records, with roadway easement deducted and do not include garages. ZC NO. 670 Plng.Comm. 8/19/03 4