659, Addition to existing SFR of a , Staff ReportsCii, 0/ leienS �a�r
DATE: APRIL 28, 2003
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
ATTN: CRAIG R. NEALIS, CITY MANAGER
FROM: YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR
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.: 4B
Mtg. Date: 4/28/03
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION NO. 2003-09. A RESOLUTION OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
GRANTING A VARIANCE APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT AN
ADDITION AND EXPANSION OF THE FRONT ENTRANCE
WHICH WILL ENCROACH INTO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK
AND A VARIANCE TO RETAIN THE EXISTING DRIVEWAY,
WHICH EXCEEDS THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED COVERAGE OF
THE FRONT YARD AREA AT AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENCE, AT 6 OPEN BRAND ROAD (LOT 112-EF) IN
ZONING CASE NO. 659, (TABAZADEH).
BACKGROUND
1. The Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2003-09, which is attached, on
April 15, 2003 at their regular meeting granting a request for a Variance to encroach
with an addition and an entryway into the front yard setback, and a variance to exceed
the maximum permitted coverage of the front yard area with an existing driveway. The
vote was 5-0.
2. The applicant is requesting a Variance to permit an encroachment of additional
6'7" into the 50 foot front yard setback to construct a 223 square foot residential
addition under an existing covered porch and a new 142 square foot roofed entryway,
for a total of 365 square feet of additions. The existing residence is 3,379 square feet.
With the residential addition the house will be 3,602 square feet. Much of the eastern
part of the residence is located in the setbacks, and encroaches up to 20 feet into the
required 50-foot front yard setback and up to 7 feet into the required 20-foot side yard
setback.
3. The area of the house being considered for alteration currently encroaches up to
8 feet into the front yard setback, with an open entryway encroaching additional 6 feet.
ZC NO. 659
CC 4/28/03
�o
Printed On Recycled (oa{'rwr
• •
The proposed addition is comprised of enclosing the existing covered porch, for a total
encroachment of 14'7", and constructing a new open entry, which will encroach an
additional 9 feet, for a maximum encroachment of 23'7" into the front yard setback, for
a horizontal distance of 16 feet.
4. The applicant is also requesting a Variance to retain the existing 1,583 square feet
driveway, which exceeds the maximum permitted front yard coverage. Section
17.16.150 of the Zoning Code permits driveways in any yard. However, a driveway
may not cover more than 20% of the area of the yard in which it is located. The existing
circular driveway covers 24% of the front yard area, and therefore a Variance is
requested. The proposed addition will not affect the driveway and no modification to
the existing driveway is proposed. The Variance is necessary because staff and the
applicant could not determine when the driveway was constructed and, therefore, it
could not be established as "legal non -conforming".
5. Describing the justification for granting of the Variances, the architect states, that
the proposed project is mainly within the existing roofline and aligns with the existing
building line. The entry porch is an exterior space providing transition from the
outdoors to the indoors. The house meets the previously required 30' front yard
setback, which was amended to 50 feet in 1981.
In addition, the architect states, that the driveway has been in existence with no
adverse effect to the public and properties in the vicinity. The property is located on a
cul-de-sac and has a narrow frontage.
6. The existing house with an attached garage was built in 1953. An addition was
constructed in 1976 and another one in 1983.
7. The net lot area of the lot is 69,690 square feet. The structural lot coverage
proposed is 4,782 square feet, which includes the residence, covered entryway, garage,
service yard and a future stable or 6.86% of the net lot area (20% maximum permitted),
and the total lot coverage proposed, which includes the driveway, is 8,485 square feet or
12.1% (35% maximum permitted).
8. A future stable is proposed to be located in the rear of the property and will be
tucked into the hill. Originally, the applicant proposed to locate the future stable on an
existing level area of the property below the house. Following the field trip, staff
received a letter from property owner at 2 Open Brand Road, which is attached,
objecting to the location of the future stable, due to potential view obstruction. The
architect visited the neighbor's property, worked with the neighbor and they have
agreed on an alternate location, which, when constructed, would require grading of 218
cubic yards of cut and fill. The Planning Commission included a condition in the
Resolution of Approval requiring that due to the view concern expressed by the
neighbor, the construction of any future stable on the property be reviewed by the
Commission.
9. The residential building pad, outside the required setbacks is 5,370 square feet.
The building pad coverage on the residential building pad is proposed to be 81.0%.
Currently the coverage is 78.8%. The future stable building pad will have coverage of
ZC NO. 659
CC 4/28/03
2 g
• •
22.5%. As stated previously, portions of the residence are located within the front and
side yard setbacks, however these areas are not included in the residential building pad
calculations, but the structures located thereon are included in pad coverage
calculations.
10. No additional disturbance or grading of the lot is necessary for the proposed
additions. The disturbed area of the lot,. including the future stable, will be 13,621
square feet or 19.5% of the net lot area (40% maximum permitted). Currently the
disturbed area of the lot is 14.8%.
11. Access to the residence from Open Brand Road will remain the same. Access to
the future stable will be provided along the westerly side of the property.
12. 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 Resolution No. 2003-09.
ZC NO. 659
CC 4/28/03
VARIANCE REQUIRED FIN
A. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property
that do not apply generally to other properties in the same vicinity and zone; and
B. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights
possessed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone but which is denied the property in
question; and
C. That the granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or
injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; and
D. That in granting the variance, the spirit and intent of this title will be observed; and
E. That the variance does not grant special privilege;
F. That the variance is consistent with the portions of the County of Los Angeles Hazardous Waste
Management Plan relating to siting and siting criteria for hazardous waste facilities; and
G. That the variance request is consistent with the General Plan of the City of Rolling Hills.
PROPERTIES IN THE VICINITY
ADDRESS OWNER RESIDENCE NET LOT*
4 Open Brand Lee 3,357 64,390
2 Open Brand Makineni 5,007 76,020
1 Open Brand Eugene 3,577 32,500
7 Open Brand Kobayashi 4,043 104,979
9 Open Brand McNamara 2,623 87,120
48 Eastfield Mastsunaga 2,900 80, 970
60 Eastifeld Wolfenden 4,466 154,000
6 Open Brand Tabazadeh 3,602 proposed 82,690
3,379 existing
AVERAGE 3,710 85,697
* excludes roadway, but not areas deducted for calculating net lot area for
construction purposes
Garages are not included
ZC NO. 659
CC 4/28/03
ZONING CASE NO. 659
RA-S-1 Zone Setbacks:
Front: 50 ft. from front easement Existing residence encroaches up to
line 20 feet into the front yard setback.
Side: 20 ft. from property line
Rear: 50 ft. from property line
Structures
Proposed expanded residential
addition will encroach up to 23 feet
into the front yard setback.
Residence 3,379 sq.ft. Residence 3,602 sq.ft.
Garage 408 sq.ft. Garage 408 sq.ft.
Covered Porches 265 sq.ft. Covered Entry 142 sq.ft.
Stable 0 sq.ft. Stable 450 sq.ft.
Service Yard 180 sq.ft. Service yard 180 sq.ft.
TOTAL 4,232 sq.ft. TOTAL 4,782 sq.ft.
Structural Lot Coverage 6.0% 6.86%
(20% maximum)
Total Lot Coverage 11.9% 12.1%
(35% maximum)
Residential Building Pad Coverage 78.8. % 81.0%
(Guideline maximum of 30%)
N/A 22.5%
Stable Building Pad Coverage
Total (combined) Building Pad N/A 64.9%
Coverage
Grading N/A
Disturbed Area
(40% maximum; any graded 14.8%
building pad area, any remedial
grading (temporary disturbance),
any graded slopes and building
pad areas, any nongraded area
where impervious surfaces exist)
Roadway Access Existing off Open Brand Road
Stable & Corral N/A
Stable Access N/A
Preserve Plants and animals N/A
Preserve Views N/A
ZC NO. 659
CC 4/28/03
None
19.5%
No change
Future 450 sq.ft. stable &
550 sq.ft. corral
Future -along easement, not to
exceed 25% slope
Planning Commission conditions
Planning Commission conditions
•
Padma Makineni
2 Open Brand Road
Rolling Hills, CA.90274
Yolanda Schwartz
Planning Director
City of Rolling Hills
2Portuguese Bend Road
Rolling Hills, CA.90274
April 8,2003
Subject: Concerns about 6 Open Brand Rd remodeling.
Dear Yolanda Schwartz,
What ever they were doing in the front is ok.
My concern is only in the back. Which is going to obstruct my view?
I am opposing the proposal to construct any kind of structure.
Sincerely,
22t
Padma Makineni
• •
RESOLUTION NO. 2003-09
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
GRANTING A VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT AN
ADDITION AND EXPANSION OF THE FRONT
ENTRANCE WHICH WILL ENCROACH INTO THE
FRONT YARD SETBACK AND A VARIANCE TO
RETAIN THE EXISTING DRIVEWAY, WHICH
EXCEEDS THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED
COVERAGE OF THE FRONT YARD AREA AT AN
EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE LOCATED
AT 6 OPEN BRAND ROAD, (LOT 112-EF) IN
ZONING CASE NO. 659, (TABAZADEH).
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Applications were duly filed by Mr. and Mrs. Mojtaba
Tabazadeh with respect to real property located at 6 Open Brand Road (Lot 112-
EF), Rolling Hills, requesting a Variance to enclose a covered porch and to permit
the expansion of the front entrance which encroach into the front yard setback,
and a Variance to retain the existing driveway, which exceeds the maximum
permitted coverage of the front yard area at an existing single family residence.
A future stable and corral are proposed to be located below the residence and
will require grading, when constructed.
Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public
hearing to consider the applications on March 18, 2003, April 15, 2003 and at a
field trip visit on April 1, 2003. The applicant was notified of the public hearings
in writing by first class mail. Evidence was heard and presented from all persons
interested in affecting said proposal and from members of the City staff and the
Planning Commission having reviewed, analyzed and studied said proposal. The
applicant's representative was in attendance at the hearings.
Section 3. The Planning Commission finds that the project qualifies as
a Class 1 Exemption [State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15301(e)] and is therefore
categorically exempt from environmental review under the California
Environmental Quality Act.
Section 4. Sections 17.38.010 through 17.38.050 of the Rolling Hills
Municipal Code permit approval of a Variance from the standards and
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance when exceptional or extraordinary
circumstances applicable to the property and not applicable to other similar
properties in the same zone prevent the owner from making use of a parcel of
property to the same extent enjoyed by similar properties in the same vicinity.
Section 17.16.110 requires a front yard of fifty feet (50') from the front easement
line. The applicant is requesting to enclose 223 square feet of the existing covered
porch and expand the front entrance by 142 square feet. Both additions will
encroach a maximum of twenty-three feet and seven inches (23'7") into the fifty-
Reso. 2003-09 Variance
• •
foot (50') front yard setback for a horizontal distance of 16 feet. The existing
house already encroaches into the front yard setback. With respect to this
request for a Variance, the Planning Commission finds as follows:
A. There are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances and
conditions applicable to the property that do not apply generally to the other
property or class of use in the same zone because the residence is located close to
the street and adjacent residences. The existing development pattern on the lot
and the sloping rear portion precludes continued expansion of the residence on
the lot. The existing residence was developed at a time when the required front
yard setback was 30 feet from the roadway easement, and is in conformance with
the then requirement.
B. The Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and
zone, but which is denied to the property in question. The Variance is necessary
because the development and use of the subject property in a similar manner
consistent with the shape of the lot and development of other property on this
street justifies this additional small incursion into the front yard setback. The
proposed addition is mainly within the existing roofline and aligns with the
existing building line. The further encroachment of the entryway will be
minimal.
C. The granting of the Variance would not be materially detrimental
to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such
vicinity and zone in which the property is located. Development on the pad will
allow a substantial portion of the lot to remain undeveloped.
Section 5. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning
Commission hereby approves the Variance for Zoning Case No. 659 to permit
the proposed project to encroach a maximum of twenty-three feet and seven
inches (22'7") into the fifty -foot (50') front yard setback, subject to the conditions
in Section 8 of this Resolution.
Section 6. Section 17.16.150 of the Zoning Ordinance states that
driveways are permitted in any yard, but shall not cover more than 20% of the
area of the yard in which they are located. The existing driveway at subject
property covers 24% of the front yard area, and therefore requires a Variance.
With respect to this request for a Variance, the Planning Commission finds as
follows:
A. There are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances and
conditions applicable to the property that do not apply generally to the other
property or class of use in the same zone because the subject lot has a narrow
frontage due to its location on a cul-de-sac. Due to staff's and applicant's inability
to determine, if the driveway in its current configuration was constructed before
or after the provision of the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to driveways coverage
became effective, a Variance to legalize this condition is required.
Reso. 2003-09 Variance
2
• •
B. The Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and
zone, but which is denied to the property in question. The Variance is necessary
because the development and use of the subject property in a similar manner
consistent with the shape of the lot and development of other property on this
street justifies the size of the driveway. The proposed addition does not affect
the location and size of the driveway.
C. The granting of the Variance would not be materially detrimental
to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such
vicinity and zone in which the property is located. Development on the pad does
not affect the existing driveway and the driveway is on a curve of a cul-de-sac.
The area of the driveway adjacent to the residence is screened from the street.
Section 7. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning
Commission hereby approves the Variance for Zoning Case No. 659 to permit
the existing driveway, which covers 24% of the front yard area, as shown on the
Development Plan dated April 15, 2003, and marked Exhibit A, subject to the
conditions in Section 8 of this Resolution.
Section 8. The Variances requests to encroach into the front yard
setback and to exceed the front yard coverage with an existing driveway,
approved in Section 5 and in Section 7 of this Resolution are subject to the
following conditions:
A. The Variances approval shall expire within one year from the
effective date of approval as defined in Section 17.38.070(A) unless otherwise
extended pursuant to the requirements of that section.
B. It is declared and made a condition of the Variances approval, that
if any conditions thereof are violated, this approval shall be suspended and the
privileges granted thereunder 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 Buildings 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.
D. The lot shall be developed and maintained in substantial
conformance with the site plan on file marked Exhibit A and dated April 15,
2003, except as otherwise provided in these conditions.
E. The property on which the project is located shall contain an area of
sufficient size to also provide an area meeting all standards for a stable and
Reso. 2003-09 Variance
3
• •
corral with vehicular access thereto in conformance with site plan review
limitations, and subject to condition "AE" of this Resolution.
F. There shall be no grading for this project, except that grading may
be required for the future stable.
G. If additional landscaping is introduced to screen the proposed
development from the roadway, such landscaping shall be designed to use
native plants or other drought -tolerant mature trees and shrubs so as not to
exceed the ridge height of the residence nor obstruct views from neighboring
properties.
H. Landscaping shall include water efficient irrigation, to the
maximum extent feasible, that incorporates a 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.
I. The property owners shall comply with the requirements of the
Lighting Ordinance of the City of Rolling Hills, (ORDINANCE NO. 287)
pertaining to lighting on said property.
J. The property owners shall comply with the requirements of Section
17.16.190 of the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to roof covering, when the addition
is 200 square feet or larger.
K. Utility lines serving subject property shall be placed underground.
L. Structural lot coverage shall not exceed 4,782 square feet or 6.86%
in conformance with lot coverage limitations.
M. Total lot coverage of structures and paved areas shall not exceed
8,485 square feet or 12.1% in conformance with lot coverage limitations.
N. The disturbed area of the lot shall not exceed 13,631 square feet or
19.5% in conformance with lot coverage limitations, which includes the future
stable.
O. Residential building pad coverage, on the 5,370 square foot
residential building pad shall not exceed 4,332 square feet or 81.0%; coverage on
the 2,000 square foot stable pad shall not exceed 450 square feet or 22.5%.
P. The existing topography, flora and natural features of the lot shall
be retained to the greatest extent feasible.
Q. During construction, dust control measures shall be used to stabilize
the soil from wind erosion and reduce dust and objectionable odors generated by
Reso. 2003-09 Variance
4 •
Ci0
•
construction activities in accordance with South Coast Air Quality Management
District, Los Angeles County and local ordinances and engineering practices.
R. During construction, conformance with local ordinances and
engineering practices so that people or property are not exposed to landslides,
mudflows, erosion, or land subsidence shall be required.
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, objectionable odors, landslides,
mudflows, erosion, or land subsidence shall be required.
T. During and after construction, all soil preparation, drainage, and
landscape sprinklers shall protect the building pad from erosion and direct
surface water in an approved manner.
U. During construction, an approved 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, if required by the County of Los
Angeles.
V. 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.
W. During construction, the property owners shall be required to
schedule and regulate construction and related traffic noise throughout the day
between the hours of 7 AM and 6 PM, Monday through Saturday only, when
construction and mechanical equipment noise is permitted, so as not to interfere
with the quiet residential environment of the City of Rolling Hills.
X. The drainage plan shall be approved by the Planning Department
and the L.A. County Building Division, to include any water from any site
irrigation systems and that all drainage from the site shall be conveyed in an
approved manner.
Y. The property owners shall be required to conform with the
Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Health Department
requirements for the installation and maintenance of stormwater drainage
facilities.
Z. The property owners shall be required to conform with the
Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Public Works Department
Best Management Practices (BMP's) related to solid waste.,
Reso. 2003-09 Variance
5.
• S
AA. The project must be reviewed and approved by the Rolling Hills
Community Association Architectural Review Committee prior to the issuance of
any building permit.
AB. The working drawings submitted to the County Department of
Building and Safety for plan check review shall conform to the development plan
described in Condition D.
AC. The applicants shall execute an Affidavit of Acceptance of all
conditions of this Variance approvals, pursuant to Section 17.38.060, or the
approval shall not be effective.
AD. All conditions of this Variance approval, which apply, must be
complied with prior to the issuance of a building permit from the County of Los
Angeles.
AE. The construction of a future stable, in the location shown on the
Site Plan, Exhibit "A", dated April 15, 2003, or in any location on said lot, shall
be subject to Planning Commission approval, including evaluation of view
impacts.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 15TH DAY OF APRIL 15, 2003.
,(1)
EVIE HAIIVkINS, CHAIRWOMAN
ATTEST:
K
MARILYN KERN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK
Reso. 2003-09 Variance
6
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS)
I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2003-09 entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A VARIANCE TO
CONSTRUCT AN ADDITION AND EXPANSION OF THE
FRONT ENTRANCE WHICH WILL ENCROACH INTO THE
FRONT YARD SETBACK AND A VARIANCE TO RETAIN THE
EXISTING DRIVEWAY, WHICH EXCEEDS THE MAXIMUM
PERMITTED COVERAGE OF THE FRONT YARD AREA AT AN
EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE LOCATED AT 6 OPEN
BRAND ROAD, (LOT 112-EF) IN ZONING CASE NO. 659,
(TABAZADEH).
was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on
April 15, 2003 by the following roll call vote:
AYES: anoLnnai°womanDHanXCinsargeta,
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following:
Administrative Offices.
Reso. 2003-09 Variance
7
Witte, Sommer
iEPUTY CITY CLERK
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
• • 7A
City �leo?? Jh/h
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
APRIL 15, 2003
HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR
APPLICATION NO.
SITE LOCATION:
ZONING AND SIZE:
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
PUBLISHED:
REOUEST
ZONING CASE NO. 659
6 OPEN BRAND ROAD (LOT 112-EF)
RAS-1, 1.9 ACRES (GROSS)
MR. & MRS. TABAZADEH
S. K. ARCHITECTS
MARCH 8, 2003
Request for a Variance to encroach into the front yard setback to permit an addition and
an expansion of a front entry and request for a Variance to exceed the maximum
permitted coverage of the front yard with an existing driveway at an existing single
family residence.
BACKGROUND
1. The Planning Commission visited the subject property on April 1, 2003. The
Commission directed staff to prepare a Resolution of Approval for the April 15, 2003
Planning Commission public hearing. Resolution No. 2003-09 is attached for
consideration. The Commission did not close the public hearing at the field trip, and
therefore, may continue deliberating and taking testimony.
2. Following the field trip, staff received a letter from property owner at 2 Open
Brand Road, see attached, objecting to the location of the future stable. According to the
owner, the future stable or any structure on the lower pad area would obstruct their
view.
3. The applicant is requesting a Variance to permit an encroachment of additional
6'7" into the 50 foot front yard setback to construct a 223 square foot residential
addition under an existing covered porch and a new 142 square foot roofed entryway,
for a total of 365 square feet of additions. The existing residence is 3,379 square feet.
With the residential addition the house will be 3,602 square feet. Much of the eastern
part of the residence is located in the setbacks, and encroaches up to 20 feet into the
ZONING CASE NO. 659
PAGE 1
►a
Printed on Recycled Paper.
4
•
required 50-foot front yard setback and up to 7 feet into the required 20-foot side yard
setback.
4. The area of the house being considered for alteration currently encroaches up to
8 feet into the front yard setback, with an open entryway encroaching additional 6 feet.
The proposed addition is comprised of enclosing the existing covered porch, and
constructing a new open entry, which will encroach an additional 9 feet, for a maximum
encroachment of 23'7" into the front yard setback, for a horizontal distance of 16 feet.
5. The applicant is also requesting a Variance to retain the existing 1,583 square feet
driveway, which exceeds the maximum permitted front yard coverage. Section
17.16.150 of the Zoning Code permits driveways in any yard. However, a driveway
may not cover more than 20% of the area of the yard in which it is located. The existing
circular driveway covers 24% of the front yard area, and therefore a Variance is
requested. The proposed addition will not affect the driveway and no modification to
the existing driveway is proposed.
6. Describing the justification for granting of the Variances, the architect states, that
the proposed project is mainly within the existing roofline and aligns with the existing
building line. The entry porch is an exterior space providing transition from the
outdoors to the indoors. The house meets the previously required 30' frontyard
setback, which was amended to 50 feet in 1981.
In addition, the architect states, that the driveway. has been existing with no
adverse effect to the public and properties in the vicinity. The property is located on a
cul-de-sac and has a narrow frontage.
7. The existing house with an attached garage was built in 1953. An addition was
constructed in 1976 and another one in 1983.
8. The net lot area of the lot is 69,690 square feet. The structural lot coverage
proposed is 4,782 square feet, which includes the residence, covered entryway, garage,
service yard and a future stable or 6.86% of the net lot area,(20% maximum permitted)
and the total lot coverage proposed, which includes the driveway, is 8,485 square feet or
12.1% (35% maximum permitted).
9. There are two building pads on the lot. The residential building pad, outside the
required setbacks is 5,370 square feet. The building pad coverage on the residential
building pad is proposed to be 81.0%. Currently the coverage is 78.8%. The future stable
building pad will have coverage of 15.1%. As stated previously, portions of the
residence are located within the front and side yard setbacks, and these flat portions of
the lot are not included in the residential building pad calculations, but the structures
located thereon are included in pad coverage calculations. The total building pad
coverage is proposed to be 4,782 square feet or 57.3% for the two building pads.
10. No additional disturbance of the lot is necessary for the proposed additions. The
disturbed area of the lot, including the future stable, will be 11,063 square feet or 15.8%
of the net lot area (40% maximum permitted).
ZONING CASE NO. 659
PAGE 2
11. Grading will not be required for the project.
12. Access to the residence from Open Brand Road will remain the same. Access to
the future stable will be provided along the westerly easement.
13. 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 consider
Resolution No. 2003-09.
ZONING CASE NO. 659
PAGE 3
• •
VARIANCE REQUIRED FINDINGS
A. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property
that do not apply generally to other properties in the same vicinity and zone; and
B. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights
possessed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone but which is denied the property in
question; and
C. That the granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or
injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; and
D. That in granting the variance, the spirit and intent of this title will be observed; and
E. That the variance does not grant special privilege;
F. That the variance is consistent with the portions of the County of Los Angeles Hazardous Waste
Management Plan relating to siting and siting criteria for hazardous waste facilities; and
G. That the variance request is consistent with the General Plan of the City of Rolling Hills.
' PROPERTIES IN THE VICINITY
ADDRESS OWNER RESIDENCE NET LOT*
4 Open Brand Lee 3,357 64,390
2 Open Brand Makineni 5,007 76,020
1 Open Brand Eugene 3,577 32,500
7 Open Brand Kobayashi 4,043 104,979
9 Open Brand McNamara 2,623 87,120
48 Eastfield Mastsunaqa 2,900 80, 970
60 Eastifeld Wolfenden 4,466 154,000
6 Open Brand Tabazadeh 3,602 proposed 82,690
3,379 existing
AVERAGE 3,710 85,697
* excludes roadway, but not areas deducted for calculating net lot area for
construction purposes
Garages are not included
ZONING CASE NO. 659
PAGE 4
ZONINGCASE NO. 659
CRITERIA & MAJOR IMPACTS
RA-S-1 Zone Setbacks:
Front: 50 ft. from front easement
line
Side: 20 ft. from property line
Rear: 50 ft. from property line
Structures
Structural Lot Coverage
(20% maximum)
Total Lot Coverage
(35% maximum)
Residential Building Pad Coverage
(Guideline maximum of 30%)
Stable Building Pad Coverage
Total Building Pad Coverage
Grading
Disturbed Area
(40% maximum; any graded
building pad area, any remedial
grading (temporary disturbance),
any graded slopes and building
pad areas, any nongraded area
where impervious surfaces exist)
Roadway Access
Stable & Corral
Stable Access
Preserve Plants and animals
Preserve Views
EXISTING
Existing residence encroaches up to
20 feet into the front yard setback.
Residence
Garage
Covered Porches
Stable
Service Yard
TOTAL
6.0%
11.9%
78.8. %
N/A
50.7%
N/A
14.8%
3,379 sq.ft.
408 sq.ft.
265 sq.ft.
0 sq.ft.
180 sq.ft.
4,232 sq.ft.
Existing off Open Brand Road
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
PROPOSED
Proposed expanded residential
addition will encroach up to 23 feet
into the front yard setback.
Residence
Garage
Covered Entry
Stable
Service yard
TOTAL
6.86%
12.1%
81.0%
15.1%
57.3%
None
15.8%
No change
3,602 sq.ft.
408 sq.ft.
142 sq.ft.
450 sq.ft.
180 sq.ft.
4,782 sq.ft.
Future 450 sq.ft. stable &
550 sq.ft. corral
Future -along easement, not to
exceed 25% slope
Planning Commission conditions
Planning Commission conditions
ZONING CASE NO. 659
PAGE 5
Padma Makineni
2 Open Brand Road
Rolling Hills, CA.90274
Yolanda Schwartz
Planning Director
City of Rolling Hills
2Portuguese Bend Road
Rolling Hills, CA.90274
April 8,2003
Subject: Concerns about 6 Open Brand Rd remodeling.
Dear Yolanda Schwartz,
What ever they were doing in the front is ok.
My concern is only in the back. Which is going to obstruct my view?
I am opposing the proposal to construct any kind of structure.
Sincerely,
r,& / q
Padma Makineni
•
RESOLUTION NO. 2003-09
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A VARIANCE
TO CONSTRUCT AN ADDITION AND EXPANSION OF
THE FRONT ENTRANCE WHICH WILL ENCROACH
INTO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK AND A VARIANCE
TO RETAIN THE EXISTING DRIVEWAY, WHICH
EXCEEDS THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED COVERAGE OF
THE FRONT YARD AREA AT AN EXISTING SINGLE
FAMILY RESIDENCE LOCATED AT 6 OPEN BRAND
ROAD, (LOT 112-EF) IN ZONING CASE NO. 659,
(TABAZADEH).
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES
HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Applications were duly filed by Mr. and Mrs. Mojtaba Tabazadeh
with respect to real property located at 6 Open Brand Road (Lot 72-B-EF), Rolling Hills,
requesting a Variance to enclose a covered porch and to permit the expansion of the
front entrance which encroach into the front yard setback, and a Variance to retain the
existing driveway, which exceeds the maximum permitted coverage of the front yard
area at an existing single family residence.
Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing
to consider the applications on March 18, 2003 and at a field trip visit on April 1, 2003.
The applicant was notified of the public hearings in writing by first class mail. Evidence
was heard and presented from all persons interested in affecting said proposal and from
members of the City staff and the Planning Commission having reviewed, analyzed and
studied said proposal. The applicant was in attendance at the hearing.
Section 3. The Planning Commission finds that the project qualifies as a Class
1 Exemption [State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15301(e)] and is therefore categorically
exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act.
Section 4. Sections 17.38.010 through 17.38.050 of the Rolling Hills Municipal
Code permit approval of a Variance from the standards and requirements of the Zoning
Ordinance when exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applicable to the property
and not applicable to other similar properties in the same zone prevent the owner from
making use of a parcel of property to the same extent enjoyed by similar properties in
the same vicinity. Section 17.16.110 requires a front yard of fifty feet (50') from the front
easement line. The applicant is requesting to enclose 223 square feet of the existing
covered porch and expand the front entrance by 142 square feet. Both additions will
encroach a maximum of twenty-three feet and seven inches (23'7") into the fifty -foot
(50') front yard setback for a horizontal distance of 16 feet. The existing house already
encroaches into the front yard setback. With respect to this request for a Variance, the
Planning Commission finds as follows:
A. There are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances and conditions
applicable to the property that do not apply generally to the other property or class of
RESOLUTION NO. 2003-09
PAGE 1 OF 5
• •
use in the same zone because the residence is located close to the street and adjacent
residences. The existing development pattern on the lot and the sloping rear portion
precludes continued expansion of the residence on the lot. The existing residence was
developed at a time when the required front yard setback was 30 feet from the roadway
easement, and is in conformance with the then requirement.
B. The Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone,
but which is denied to the property in question. The Variance is necessary because the
development and use of the subject property in a similar manner consistent with the
shape of the lot and development of other property on this street justifies this additional
small incursion into the front yard setback. The proposed addition is mainly within the
existing roofline and aligns with the existing building line. The further encroachment of
the entryway will be minimal.
C. The granting of the Variance would not be materially detrimental to the
public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone
in which the property is located. Development on the pad will allow a substantial
portion of the lot to remain undeveloped.
Section 5. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission
hereby approves the Variance for Zoning Case No. 659 to permit the proposed project
to encroach a maximum of twenty-three feet and seven inches (22'7") into the fifty -foot
(50') front yard setback, subject to the conditions in Section 8 of this Resolution.
Section 6. Section 17.16.150 of the Zoning Ordinance states that driveways are
permitted in any yard, but shall not cover more than 20% of the area of the yard in
which they are located. The existing driveway at subject property covers 24% of the
front yard area, and therefore requires a Variance. With respect to this request for a
Variance, the Planning Commission finds as follows:
A. There are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances and conditions
applicable to the property that do not apply generally to the other property or class of
use in the same zone because the subject lot has a narrow frontage due to its location on
a cul-de-sac. Due to staff's and applicant's inability to determine, if the driveway in its
current configuration was constructed before or after the provision of the Zoning
Ordinance pertaining to driveways coverage became effective, a Variance to legalize
this condition is required.
B. The Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone,
but which is denied to the property in question. The Variance is necessary because the
development and use of the subject property in a similar manner consistent with the
shape of the lot and development of other property on this street justifies the size of the
driveway. The proposed addition does not affect the location and size of the driveway.
C. The granting of the Variance would not be materially detrimental to the
public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone
in which the property is located. Development on the pad does not affect the existing
RESOLUTION NO. 2003-09
PAGE 2 OF 5
• •
4
driveway and the driveway is on a curve of a cul-de-sac. The area of the driveway
adjacent to the residence is screened from the street.
Section 7. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission
hereby approves the Variance for Zoning Case No. 659 to permit the existing driveway,
which covers 24% of the front yard area, as shown on the Development Plan dated
February 25, 2003, and marked Exhibit A, subject to the conditions in Section 8 of this
Resolution.
Section 8. The Variances requests to encroach into the front yard setback and
to exceed the front yard coverage with an existing driveway, approved in Section 5 and
in Section 7 of this Resolution are subject to the following conditions:
A. The Variances approval shall expire within one year from the effective
date of approval as defined in Section 17.38.070(A) unless otherwise extended pursuant
to the requirements of that section.
B. It is declared and made a condition of the Variances approval, that if any
conditions thereof are violated, this approval shall be suspended and the privileges
granted thereunder 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 Buildings 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.
D. The lot shall be developed and maintained in substantial conformance
with the site plan on file marked Exhibit A and dated February 25, 2003, except as
otherwise provided in these conditions.
E. The property on which the project is located shall contain an area of
sufficient size to also provide an area meeting all standards for a stable and corral with
vehicular access thereto in conformance with site plan review limitations.
F. There shall be no grading for the project.
G. If additional landscaping is introduced to screen the proposed
development from the roadway, such landscaping shall be designed to use native
plants orother drought -tolerant mature trees and shrubs so as not to exceed the ridge
height of the residence nor obstruct views from neighboring properties.
H. Landscaping shall include water efficient irrigation, to the maximum
extent feasible, that incorporates a 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
RESOLUTION NO. 2003-09
PAGE 3 OF 5
• •
resulting from runoff and overspray in accordance with Section 17.27.020 (Water
efficient landscaping requirements) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code.
I. The property owners shall comply with the requirements of the Lighting
Ordinance of the City of Rolling Hills, (ORDINANCE NO. 287) pertaining to lighting on
said property.
J. The property owners shall comply with the requirements of Section
17.16.190 of the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to roof covering, when the addition is 200
square feet or larger.
K. Utility lines serving subject property shall be placed underground.
L. Structural lot coverage shall not exceed 4,782 square feet or 6.86% in
conformance with lot coverage limitations.
M. Total lot coverage of structures and paved areas shall not exceed 8,485
square feet or 12.1% in conformance with lot coverage limitations.
N. The disturbed area of the lot shall not exceed 11,063 square feet or 15.8% in
conformance with lot coverage limitations.
O. Residential building pad coverage on the 5,370 square foot residential
building pad shall not exceed 4,332 square feet or 81.0%; coverage on the 2,970 square
foot stable pad shall not exceed 450 square feet or 15.2%.
P. The existing topography, flora and natural features of the lot shall be
retained to the greatest extent feasible.
Q. During construction, dust control measures shall be used to stabilize the
soil from wind erosion and reduce dust and objectionable odors generated by
construction activities in accordance with South Coast Air Quality Management
District, Los Angeles County and local ordinances and engineering practices.
R. During construction, conformance with local ordinances and engineering
practices so that people or property are not exposed to landslides, mudflows, erosion,
or land subsidence shall be required.
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, objectionable odors, landslides, mudflows, erosion, or land
subsidence shall be required.
T. During and after construction, all soil preparation, drainage, and landscape
sprinklers shall protect the building pad from erosion and direct surface water in an
approved manner.
RESOLUTION NO. 2003-09
PAGE 4 OF 5
• •
U. During construction, an approved 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, if required by the County of Los Angeles.
V. 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.
W. During construction, the property owners shall be required to schedule and
regulate construction and related traffic noise throughout the day between the hours of
7 AM and 6 PM, Monday through Saturday only, when construction and mechanical
equipment noise is permitted, so as not to interfere with the quiet residential
environment of the City of Rolling Hills.
X. The drainage plan shall be approved by the Planning Department and the
L.A. County Building Division, to include any water from any site irrigation systems
and that all drainage from the site shall be conveyed in an approved manner.
Y. The property owners shall be required to conform with the Regional
Water Quality Control Board and County Health Department requirements for the
installation and maintenance of stormwater drainage facilities.
Z. The property owners shall be required to conform with the Regional
Water Quality Control Board and County Public Works Department Best Management
Practices (BMP's) related to solid waste.
AA. The project must be reviewed and approved by the Rolling Hills
Community Association Architectural Review Committee prior to the issuance of any
building permit.
AB. The working drawings submitted to the County Department of Building
and Safety for plan check review shall conform to the development plan described in
Condition D.
AC. The applicants shall execute an Affidavit of Acceptance of all conditions of
this Variance approvals, pursuant to Section 17.38.060, or the approval shall not be
effective.
AD. All conditions of this Variance approval, which apply, must be complied
with prior to the issuance of a building permit from the County of Los Angeles.
RESOLUTION NO. 2003-09
PAGE 5 OF 5
• •
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 15TH DAY OF APRIL 15, 2003.
EVIE HANKINS, CHAIRWOMAN
ATTEST:
MARILYN KERN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS)
I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2003-09 entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT AN
ADDITION AND EXPANSION OF THE FRONT ENTRANCE WHICH
WILL ENCROACH INTO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK AND A
VARIANCE TO RETAIN THE EXISTING DRIVEWAY, WHICH
EXCEEDS THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED COVERAGE OF THE FRONT
YARD AREA AT AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
LOCATED AT 6 OPEN BRAND ROAD, (LOT 112-EF) IN ZONING CASE
NO. 659, (TABAZADEH).
was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on April
15, 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. 2003-09
PAGE 6 OF 5
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
• • 3/1
City ol Rolling -AIL
APRIL 1, 2003
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
HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR
APPLICATION NO.
SITE LOCATION:
ZONING AND SIZE:
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
PUBLISHED:
REOUEST
ZONING CASE NO. 659
6 OPEN BRAND ROAD (LOT 112-EF)
RAS-1, 1.9 ACRES (GROSS)
MR. & MRS. TABAZADEH
S. K. ARCHITECTS
MARCH 8, 2003
Request for a Variance to encroach into the front yard setback to permit an addition and
an expansion of a front entry and request for a Variance to exceed the maximum
permitted coverage of the front yard with an existing driveway at an existing single
family residence.
BACKGROUND
1. The Planning Commission at the March 18, 2003 public hearing scheduled a field
trip to subject property on April 1, 2003.
2. The applicant is requesting a Variance to permit an encroachment of additional
6'7" into the 50 foot front yard setback to construct a 223 square foot residential
addition under an existing covered porch and a new 142 square foot roofed entryway,
for a total of 365 square feet of additions. The existing residence is 3,379 square feet.
With the residential addition the house will be 3,602 square feet. Much of the eastern
part of the residence is located in the setbacks, and encroaches up to 20 feet into the
required 50-foot front yard setback and up to 7 feet into the required 20-foot side yard
setback.
3. The area of the house being considered for alteration currently encroaches up to
8 feet into the front yard setback, with an open entryway encroaching additional 6 feet.
The proposed addition is comprised of enclosing the existing covered porch, and
constructing a new open entry, which will encroach an additional 9 feet, for a maximum
encroachment of 23'7" into the front yard setback, for a horizontal distance of 16 feet.
ZONING CASE NO. 659
PAGE 1
Printed on Recycled Paper.
7
• •
4. The applicant is also requesting a Variance to retain the existing 1,583 square feet
driveway, which exceeds the maximum permitted front yard coverage. Section
17.16.150 of the Zoning Code permits driveways in any yard. However, a driveway
may not cover more than 20% of the area of the yard in which it is located. The existing
circular driveway covers 24% of the front yard area, and therefore a Variance is
requested. The proposed addition will not affect the driveway and no modification to
the existing driveway is proposed.
5. Describing the justification for granting of the Variances, the architect states, that
the proposed project is mainly within the existing roofline and aligns with the existing
building line. The entry porch is an exterior space providing transition from the
outdoors to the indoors. The house meets the previously required 30' front yard
setback, which was amended to 50 feet in 1981.
In addition, the architect states, that the driveway has been existing with no
adverse effect to the public and properties in the vicinity. The property is located on a
cul-de-sac and has a narrow frontage.
6. The existing house with an attached garage was built in 1953. An addition was
constructed in 1976 and another one in 1983.
7. The net lot area of the lot is 69,690 square feet. The structural lot coverage
proposed is 4,782 square feet, which includes the residence, covered entryway, garage,
service yard and a future stable or 6.86% of the net lot area,(20% maximum permitted)
and the total lot coverage proposed, which includes the driveway, is 8,485 square feet or
12.1% (35% maximum permitted).
8. There are two building pads on the lot. The residential building pad, outside the
required setbacks is 5,370 square feet. The building pad coverage on the residential
building pad is proposed to be 81.0%. Currently the coverage is 78.8%. The future stable
building pad will have coverage of 15.1%. As stated previously, portions of the
residence are located within the front and side yard setbacks, and these flat portions of
the lot are not included in the residential building pad calculations, but the structures
located thereon are included in pad coverage calculations. The total building pad
coverage is proposed to be 4,782 square feet or 57.3% for the two building pads.
9. No additional disturbance of the lot is necessary for the proposed additions. The
disturbed area of the lot, including the future stable, will be 11,063 square feet or 15.8%
of the net lot area (40% maximum permitted).
10. Grading will not be required for the project.
11. Access to the residence from Open Brand Road will remain the same. Access to
the future stable will be provided along the westerly easement.
12. The project has been determined to be categorically exempt pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
ZONING CASE NO. 659
PAGE 2
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Planning Commission view the proposed project.
ZONING' CASE NO2659
CRITERIA & MAJOR IMPACTS EXISTING
RA-S-1 Zone Setbacks:
Front: 50 ft. from front easement
line
Side: 20 ft. from property line
Rear: 50 ft. from property line
Structures
Structural Lot Coverage
(20% maximum)
Total Lot Coverage
(35% maximum)
Residential Building Pad Coverage
(Guideline maximum of 30%)
Stable Building Pad Coverage
Total Building Pad Coverage
Grading
Disturbed Area
(40% maximum; any graded
building pad area, any remedial
grading (temporary disturbance),
any graded slopes and building
pad areas, any nongraded area
where impervious surfaces exist)
Roadway Access
Stable & Corral
Stable Access
Preserve Plants and animals
Preserve Views
PROPOSED
Existing residence encroaches up to Proposed expanded residential
27.5 feet into the front yard setback. addition will encroach up to 23 feet
into the front yard setback.
Residence
Garage
Covered Porches
Stable
Service Yard
TOTAL
6.0%
11.9%
78.8. %
N/A
50.7%
N/A
14.8%
3,379 sq.ft.
408 sq.ft.
265 sq.ft.
0 sq.ft.
180 sq.ft.
4,232 sq.ft.
Existing off Open Brand Road
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Residence
Garage
Covered Entry
Stable
Service yard
TOTAL
6.86%
12.1%
81.0%
15.1%
57.3%
None
15.8%
No change
3,602 sq.ft.
408 sq.ft.
142 sq.ft.
450 sq.ft.
180 sq.ft.
4,782 sq.ft.
Future 450 sq.ft. stable &
550 sq.ft. corral
Future -along easement, not to
exceed 25% slope
Planning Commission Review
Planning Commission Review
ZONING CASE NO. 659
PAGE 3
",VARIANCE REQUIRED FINDINGS
A. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property
that do not apply generally to other properties in the same vicinity and zone; and
B. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights
possessed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone but which is denied the property in
question; and
C. That the granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or
injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; and
D. That in granting the variance, the spirit and intent of this title will be observed; and
E. That the variance does not grant special privilege;
F. That the variance is consistent with the portions of the County of Los Angeles Hazardous Waste
Management Plan relating to siting and siting criteria for hazardous waste facilities; and
G. That the variance request is consistent with the General Plan of the City of Rolling Hills.
PROPERTIES IN THE VICINITY
ADDRESS OWNER RESIDENCE NET LOT*
4 Open Brand Lee 3,357 64,390
2 Open Brand Makineni 5,007 76,020
1 Open Brand Eugene . 3,577 32,500
7 Open Brand Kobayashi 4,043 104,979
9 Open Brand McNamara 2,623 87,120
48 Eastfield Mastsunaga 2,900 80, 970
60 Eastifeld Wolfenden 4,466 154,000
6 Open Brand Tabazadeh 3,602 proposed 82,690
3,379 existing
AVERAGE 3,710 85,697
* excludes roadway, but not areas deducted for calculating net lot area for
construction purposes
Garages are not included
ZONING CASE NO. 659
PAGE 4
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
s •
C'tfy a� R0f/*4
MARCH 18, 2003
8A
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
HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR
APPLICATION NO.
SITE LOCATION:
ZONING AND SIZE:
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
PUBLISHED:
REOUEST
ZONING CASE NO. 659
6 OPEN BRAND ROAD (LOT 112-EF)
RAS-1, 1.9 ACRES (GROSS)
MR. & MRS. TABAZADEH
S. K. ARCHITECTS
MARCH 8, 2003
Request for a Variance to encroach into the front yard setback to permit the expansion
of a front entry and request for a Variance to exceed the maximum permitted coverage
of the front yard with an existing driveway at a single family residence.
BACKGROUND
1. The applicant is requesting a Variance to permit an encroachment of additional
6'7" into the 50 foot front yard setback to construct a 223 square foot residential
addition under an existing covered porch to an existing 3,379 square foot residence and
a new 142 square foot roofed entryway, for a total of 365 square feet of additions. With
the residential addition the house will be 3,602 square feet. Much of the eastern part of
the residence is located in the setbacks, and encroaches up to 20 feet into the required
50-foot front yard setback and up to 7 feet into the required 20-foot side yard setback.
The area of the house being considered for alteration, currently encroaches up to
8 feet into the front yard setback, with an open entryway encroaching additional 6 feet.
The proposed addition is comprised of enclosing the existing covered porch, and
constructing a new open entry, which will encroach an additional 9 feet, for a maximum
encroachment of 23'7" into the front yard setback, for a horizontal distance of 16 feet.
2. The applicant is also requesting a Variance to retain the existing 1,583 square feet
driveway, which exceeds the maximum permitted front yard coverage. Section
17.16.150 of the Zoning Code permits driveways in any yard. However, a driveway
may not cover more than 20% of the area of the yard in which it is located. The existing
circular driveway covers 24% of the front yard area, and therefore a Variance is
ZONING CASE NO. 659
PAGE 1
yJ
Printed on Recycled Paper.
•
• •
requested. The proposed addition will not affect the driveway and no modification to
the existing driveway is proposed.
3. Describing the justification for granting of the Variances, the architect states, that
the proposed project is mainly within the existing roofline and aligns with the existing
building line. The entry porch is an exterior space providing transition from the
outdoors to the indoors. The house meets the previously required 30' front yard
setback, which was amended to 50 feet in 1981.
In addition, the architect states, that the driveway has been existing with no
adverse effect to the public and properties in the vicinity. The property is located on a
cul-de-sac and has a narrow frontage.
4. The existing house with an attached garage was built in 1953. An addition was
constructed in 1976 and another one in 1983.
5. The net lot area of the lot is 69,690 square feet. The structural lot coverage
proposed is 4,782 square feet, which includes the residence, covered entryway, garage,
service yard and a future stable or 6.86% of the net lot area,(20% maximum permitted)
and the total lot coverage proposed, which includes the driveway, is 8,485 square feet or
12.1% (35% maximum permitted).
6. There are two building pads on the lot. The residential building pad, outside the
required setbacks is 5,370 square feet. The building pad coverage on the residential
building pad is proposed to be 81.0%. Currently the coverage is 78.8%. The future stable
building pad will have coverage of 15.1%. As stated previously, portions of the
residence are located within the front and side yard setbacks, and these flat portions of
the lot are not included in the residential building pad calculations, but the structures
located thereon are included in pad coverage calculations. The total building pad
coverage is proposed to be 4,782 square feet or 57.3% for the two building pads.
7. No additional disturbance of the lot is necessary for the proposed additions. The
disturbed area of the lot, including the future stable, will be 11,063 square feet or 15.8%
of the net lot area (40% maximum permitted).
8. Grading will not be required for the project.
9. Access to the residence from Open Brand Road will remain the same. Access to,
the future stable will be provided along the westerly easement.
10. The project has been determined to be categorically exempt pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
11. The applicant's architect provided pictures of the property, which are enclosed.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Planning Commission review the staff report and take
public input.
ZONING CASE NO. 659
PAGE 2
ZONING CASE NO, 659
CRITERIA & MAJOR IMPACTS
RA-S-1 Zone Setbacks:
Front: 50 ft. from front easement
line
Side: 20 ft. from property line
Rear: 50 ft. from property line
Structures
Structural Lot Coverage
(20% maximum)
Total Lot Coverage
(35% maximum)
Residential Building Pad Coverage
(Guideline maximum of 30%)
Stable Building Pad Coverage
Total Building Pad Coverage
Grading
Disturbed Area
(40% maximum; any graded
building pad area, any remedial
grading (temporary disturbance),
any graded slopes and building
pad areas, any nongraded area
where impervious surfaces exist)
Roadway Access
Stable & Corral
Stable Access
Preserve Views
Preserve Plants and Animals
EXISTING
Existing residence encroaches up to
27.5 feet into the front yard setback.
Residence
Garage
Covered Porches
Stable
Service Yard
TOTAL
6.0%
11.9%
78.8. %
N/A
50.7%
N/A
14.8%
3,379 sq.ft.
408 sq.ft.
265 sq.ft.
0 sq.ft.
180 sq.ft.
4,232 sq.ft.
Existing off Open Brand Road
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
PROPOSED
Proposed expanded residential
addition will encroach up to 23 feet
into the front yard setback.
Residence
Garage
Covered Entry
Stable
Service yard
TOTAL
6.86%
12.1%
81.0%
15.1%
57.3%
None
15.8%
No change
3,602 sq.ft.
408 sq.ft.
142 sq.ft.
450 sq.ft.
180 sq.ft.
4,782 sq.ft.
Future 450 sq.ft. stable &
550 sq.ft. corral
Future -along easement, not to
exceed 25% slope
Planning Commission Review
Planning Commission Review
ZONING CASE NO. 659
PAGE 3
• •
VARIANCE REQUIRED FINDINGS
A. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property
that do not apply generally to other properties in the same vicinity and zone; and
B. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights
possessed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone but which is denied the property in
question; and
C. That the granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or
injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; and
D. That in granting the variance, the spirit and intent of this title will be observed; and
E. That the variance does not grant special privilege;
F. That the variance is consistent with the portions of the County of Los Angeles Hazardous Waste
Management Plan relating to siting and siting criteria for hazardous waste facilities; and
G. That the variance request is consistent with the General Plan of the City of Rolling Hills.
PROPERTIES IN THE VICINITY
ADDRESS OWNER RESIDENCE NET LOT*
4 Open Brand Lee 3,357 64,390
2 Open Brand Makineni 5,007 76,020
1 Open Brand Eugene 3,577 32,500
7 Open Brand Kobayashi 4,043 104,979
9 Open Brand McNamara 2,623 87,120
48 Eastfield Mastsunaga 2,900 80, 970
60 Eastifeld Wolfenden 4,466 154,000
6 Open Brand Tabazadeh 3,602 proposed 82,690
3,379 existing
AVERAGE 3,710 85,697
* excludes roadway, but not areas deducted for calculating net lot area for
construction purposes
Garages are not included
ZONING CASE NO. 659
PAGE 4
•
Tabazadeh Residence
#6 Open Brand Rd., Rolling Hills, CA
Proposed addition will be partially enclosing the above covered porch
Proposed addition will be partially enclosing the above covered porch
S K Architects
4040 Palos Verdes Dr. North, Ste 201, R.H.E, CA 90274
(310) 544-7272
March 7, 2003
1
•
Tabazadeh Residence S
#6 Open Brand Rd., Rolling Hills, CA
View of the existing porch where the proposed addition will take place
Aligning with the existing building face to the right.
Proposed enclosed porch will be aligned with the existing exterior wall above.
Existing entry porch is proposed to be extended about 5' passed the existing wall
S K Architects
4040 Palos Verdes Dr. North, Ste 201, R.H.E, CA 90274
(310) 544-7272
March 7, 2003
2
•
Tabazadeh Residence S
#6 Open Brand Rd., Rolling Hills, CA
View from cul-de-sac looking North at project site
View from cul-de-sac looking North at project site
S K Architects
4040 Palos Verdes Dr. North, Ste 201, R.H.E, CA 90274
(310) 544-7272
March 7, 2003
3
•
Tabazadeh Residence
#6 Open Brand Rd., Rolling Hills, CA
Driveway exiting into cul-de-sac
View from cul-de-sac looking West
S K Architects
4040 Palos Verdes Dr. North, Ste 201, R.H.E, CA 90274
(310) 544-7272
March 7. 2003
4
•
Tabazadeh Residence
#6 Open Brand Rd., Rolling Hills, CA
View from cul-de-sac looking South at neighbor's driveway
across from the project site
View from cul-de-sac looking South at neighbor's house
across from the project site
S K Architects
4040 Palos Verdes Dr. North, Ste 201, R.H.E, CA 90274
(310) 544-7272
March 7, 2003
5
•
Tabazadeh Residence 0
#6 Open Brand Rd., Rolling Hills, CA
View from cul-de-sac looking East at neighbor's driveway
Adjacent to the project site
View from cul-de-sac looking East at neighbor's driveway
Adjacent to the project site
S K Architects
4040 Palos Verdes Dr. North, Ste 201, R.H.E, CA 90274
(310) 544-7272
March 7, 2003
6
•
Tabazadeh Residence •
#6 Open Brand Rd., Rolling Hills, CA
View of the existing driveway
View of the existing driveway
S K Architects
4040 Palos Verdes Dr. North, Ste 201, R.H.E, CA 90274
(310) 544-7272
March 7, 2003
7
•
Tabazadeh Residence S
#6 Open Brand Rd., Rolling Hills, CA
View of the existing driveway
View of the existing driveway
S K Architects
4040 Palos Verdes Dr. North, Ste 201, R.H.E, CA 90274
(310) 544-7272
March 7, 2003
8
•
Tabazadeh Residence •
#6 Open Brand Rd., Rolling Hills, CA
View of the existing driveway
View of the existing driveway
S K Architects
4040 Palos Verdes Dr. North. Ste 201, R.H.E, CA 90274
(310) 544-7272
March 7, 2003
9