805, New pool & spa with new retain, Resolutions & Approval ConditionsRESOLUTION NO. 2013-17
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A TIME EXTENSION TO
COMMENCE CONSTRUCTION OF A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED
PROJECT WHICH ENTAILS A SITE PLAN REVIEW AND
VARIANCES IN ZONING CASE NO. 805 AT 2864 PALOS
VERDES DRIVE NORTH, LOT 992-A-RH, (CALHOUN).
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 Bradford J. Dudley, AIA on
behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Stephen Calhoun with respect to real property located at 2864
Palos Verdes Drive North Lower requesting a 24-months time extension to comply
with the requirements of Resolution No. 2011-12 to commence construction of the
project.
Section 2. The Commission considered this item at a meeting on November
19, 2013 at which time information was presented indicating that additional time is
needed due to change of scope of work.
Section 3. Based upon information and evidence submitted, the Planning
Commission granted the request for time extension and does hereby amend
Paragraph B, Section 11 of Resolution No. 2011-12, dated December 20, 2011 to read as
follows:
B. The Site Plan Review and Variances approvals shall expire within four
years from the effective date of this approval if construction pursuant to this
approval has not commenced within that time period, as required by Sections
17.46.080(A) and 17.38.070(A) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code.
Section 4. Except as herein amended, the provisions and conditions of
Resolution No. 2011-12 shall continue to be in full force and effect.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 19th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2013.
KA CHELF, CHAIRM'N
ATTEST:
a/PlalthrL
HEIDI LUCE
CITY CLERK
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
) §§
I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2013-17 entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A TIME EXTENSION TO
COMMENCE CONSTRUCTION OF A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED
PROJECT WHICH ENTAILS A SITE PLAN REVIEW AND
VARIANCES IN ZONING CASE NO. 805 AT 2864 PALOS
VERDES DRIVE NORTH, LOT 992-A-RH, (CALHOUN).
was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on
November 19, 2013 by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Mirsch, Smith and Chairman Chelf.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: Commissioner Gray.
and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following:
Administrative Offices
HEIDI LUCE
CITY CLERK
RESOLUTION NO. 2013-11
A _RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL OF A VARIANCE TO
EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED STRUCTURAL AND TOTAL
LOT COVERAGE OF THE LOT IN ZONING CASE NO. 840, AT 2864
PALOS VERDES DRIVE NORTH, (LOT 992-A-RH), (CALHOUN).
PROJECT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE EXEMPT FROM THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, (CEQA).
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. Stephen Calhoun
with respect to real property located at 2864 Palos Verdes Drive North, Rolling Hills
(Lot 992-A-RH) requesting a Variance to construct a 56 square foot addition to the
residence, which would be utilized as an elevator. The additional square footage would
exceed the previously approved Variance for structural and total lot coverage. The
addition, (with previously approved exceedances) would exceed the maximum
permitted structural lot coverage by 1.3% and the total lot coverage by 6.1%.
Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted duly noticed public hearing
to consider the application at a field trip on May 21, 2013, at which time the Planning
Commission directed staff to prepare a Resolution of approval for consideration at the
regularly scheduled meeting of June 18, 2013. 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 and his representative were in attendance at the hearing. No inquiries or
objections were received from neighbors.
Section 3. The property is a flag lot taking access from Palos Verdes Drive
North. It is zoned RAS-1 and it is 1.22 acres gross in area. The rear of the property is
located in a steep canyon, which is also a flood hazard area, and is not developable.
Section 4. In 2011 Variances were granted to encroach 6 feet into the required
north side yard setback with a wall; to exceed the maximum permitted structural lot
coverage by 1.1%; to exceed the maximum permitted total lot coverage by 5.8%; to
exceed the maximum permitted disturbed area of the lot by 20% for a total disturbance
of 60%, and to waive the requirement that a stable and corral area be set aside on the
lot.
Section 5. The Planning Commission finds that the project qualifies as a Class
3 Exemption, and is therefore categorically exempt from environmental review under
the California Environmental Quality Act.
Reso. 2013-11, 2864 PV Dr. N.
1
w
Section 6. 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. A Variance from Section 17.16.070 is required because it states the
maximum permitted structural coverage shall not exceed 20% of the net lot area and
total structural coverage, including all structures and paved areas shall not exceed 35%
of the net lot area. The applicant is requesting a Variance to exceed the structural net lot
coverage by 1.3%, (0.2% above previously approved variance), and the total structural
coverage by 6.1%, (0.3% above previously approved 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 properties or class of use in the
same vicinity and zone. With the prior approvals the structural coverage was approved
at 21.1%, (20% maximum permitted). This circumstance currently exists and the
proposed project adds a very small amount of structural coverage. The lot is relatively
small. Compared to adjacent lots it is only 69% of the average of the six adjacent lots at
51,143 sq.ft. In addition, the lot has a large access area that is not counted towards the
net lot area - 8,788 sq.ft. As a result, the net lot area is significantly less and the
allowable structural and total coverage is reduced when compared to typical lots of
similar size. 4,167 square feet of the access, (pole of the lot), is paved and contribute to
the large amount of hardscape area, thus the exceedance of the total coverage.
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 proposed addition does not add to the living
space of the residence, but will be utilized as an elevator for handicap access to the
house. The topography of the lot and the out of grade construction of the house make it
infeasible for wheelchair accessibility. The overage is of 0.2% over the existing structural
coverage and the overage of 0.3% over the existing total coverage is not significant and
the property owner should not be denied the request for handicap access.
C. The variance does not grant special privileges to the applicant. Unique
circumstances applicable to the subject property make it infeasible for the property
owner to comply with Section 17.16.070. The pole of the flag contributes to the large
hardscape calculations, but is not counted towards the size of the lot.
D. 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. The variance will permit the owners to enjoy their property
without deleterious infringement on the rights of surrounding property owners. A
Reso. 2013-11, 2864 PV Dr. N.
2
minor increase in the overall percentage of coverage on the lot will have no effect on the
public welfare or on property or improvements in the vicinity.
E. In granting the variance, the spirit and intent of the Zoning Ordinance will be
observed. The purpose of the Zoning Ordinance is to regulate development in an
orderly fashion and in a manner consistent with the goals and policies of the General
Plan. Approval of the variance will not impede any goals of the Zoning Ordinance or
the General Plan. Rather, the variance will allow the property owner to provide for
handicap access. The overage requested is not substantial and does not undermine the
spirit or intent of the Zoning Ordinance.
F. The project conforms to the requirements of the California Environmental
Quality Act and the Los Angeles County Hazardous Waste Management Plan.
Section 7. Based upon the foregoing findings in Section 6, the Planning
Commission hereby approves the Variance application in Zoning Case No. 840 subject
to the following conditions:
A. The conditions of approval specified herein shall be printed on all
construction plans and shall be at all times available at the construction site.
B. This approval shall expire within two years from the effective date of this
resolution if construction pursuant to this approval has not commenced within that
time period, as required by Section 17.38.070 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, or the
approval granted is otherwise extended pursuant to the requirements of those sections.
C. It is declared and made a condition of the approval, that if any conditions
thereof are violated, this approval shall be suspended and the privileges granted
hereunder shall lapse; provided that the applicants have been given written notice to
cease such violation, the opportunity for a hearing has been provided, and if requested,
has been held, and thereafter the applicant fails to correct the violation within a period
of thirty (30) days from the date of the City's determination.
D. All requirements of the Building and Construction Code, the Zoning Code
including roofing material standards, outdoor lighting, and of the zone in which the
subject property is located must be complied with unless otherwise set forth in this
approval, or shown otherwise on an approved plan.
E. The lot shall be developed and maintained in substantial conformance
with the site plan on file dated May 10, 2013.
F. The working drawings submitted to the Department of Building and
Safety for plan check and construction review must conform to the development plan
approved with this application. The licensed professional preparing construction plans
Reso. 2013-11, 2864 PV Dr. N.
3
4
for this project for Building Department review shall execute a Certificate affirming that
the plans conform in all respects to this Resolution approving this project and all of the
conditions set forth therein and the City's Building Code and Zoning Ordinance.
G. Prior to submittal of final plans to the Building Department for issuance of
grading or building permits, the plans for the project shall be submitted to staff for
verification that the final plans are in compliance with the plans approved by the
Planning Commission. The person obtaining a building and/ or grading permit for this
project shall execute a Certificate of Construction stating that the project will be
constructed according to this Resolution and any plans approved therewith.
H. There shall be no grading for this project.
I. Structural lot coverage shall not exceed 21.3% of the net lot area, in
conformance with the granting of Variance.
J Total lot coverage of structures and paved areas shall not exceed 14,596
square feet, including the driveway or 41.1 % in conformance with the granting of
Variance.
K. Residential building pad coverage on the 18,588 square feet residential
building pad shall not exceed 7,733 square feet or 41.6% (not including portion of the
covered porches).
L. Utility lines to the property shall be placed underground.
M. The elevator shall not be converted or modified into other uses, unless
reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission.
N. Most advanced technologically sound -reducing equipment shall be
installed in the elevator to dampen the sound emanating from the elevator equipment.
O. The project shall be subject to the City's Construction and Demolition
permit requirements.
P. There shall be no dumping of any debris, trash, soil spoils, construction
materials or any other matter into the canyon.
Q. 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.
R. During construction operations, trucks shall not park, queue and/ or idle at
the project site or in the adjoining right-of-way before or after the permitted hours of
Reso. 2013-11, 2864 PV Dr. N.
4
operations. To the maximum extent possible, staging of equipment and parking of
vehicles during construction shall be on site.
S. The property owners shall be required to conform to the Regional Water
Quality Control Board and County Public Works Department requirements for the
installation and post construction maintenance of stormwater drainage facilities.
T. During construction, conformance with the air quality management
district requirements shall be complied with, so that people or property are not exposed
to undue vehicle trips, noise, dust, and objectionable odors.
U. The property owner and/or his/her contractor/applicant shall be
responsible for compliance with the no -smoking provisions in the Municipal Code.
V. The contractor shall not use tools that could produce a spark, including
for clearing and grubbing, during red flag warning conditions. Weather conditions can
be found at:
http//www.wrh.noaa.gov/lox/main.php ?suite=safety&page=hazard_definitions#FIR
E. It is the sole responsibility of the property owner and/or his/her contractor to
monitor the red flag warning conditions.
W. Until the applicants execute and record an Affidavit of Acceptance of all
conditions of this Variances approvals, as required by the Municipal Code, the
approvals shall not be effective.
X. Any modification to the project or to the property, which would
constitute grading or structural addition shall be reviewed and approved by the
Planning Commission.
Y. Any action challenging the final decision of the City made as a result of
the public hearing on this application must be filed within the time limits set forth in
Section 17.54.070 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code and Code of Civil Procedure
Section 1094.6
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPT
ATTEST:,
HEIDI LUCE, DEPUTY CITY CLERK
Reso. 2013-11, 2864 PV Dr. N.
THIS
5
201.'
ELh, CHAIRMAN/
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2013-11 entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL OF A VARIANCE TO
EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED STRUCTURAL AND TOTAL
LOT COVERAGE OF THE LOT IN ZONING CASE NO. 840, AT 2864
PALOS VERDES DRIVE NORTH, (LOT 992-A-RH), (CALHOUN).
PROJECT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE EXEMPT FROM THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, (CEQA).
was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on June
18, 2013 by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Henke, Mirsch, Smith and Chairman Chelf.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: Commissioner Gray.
and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following:
Administrative Offices.
HEIDI LUCE
DEPUTY CITY CLERK
Reso. 2013-11, 2864 PV Dr. N.
6
rxe
r
RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND
MAIL TO:
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2 P.ORTUGUESE BEND RD.
ROLLING HILLS, CA"90274
(310) 377-1521
(310) 377-7288 FAX
T RECORDER'S"USE ONLY
THE REGISTRAR -RECORDER'S OFFICE REQUIRES THAT THE FORM BE'NOTARIZEDBEFORE
RECORDATION.
AFFIDAVIT.OF ACCEPTANCE FORM
STATE: OFCALIFORNIA );
COUNTY -OF LO,S'ANGELES
CITY OF ROLLING -HILLS
ZONINGAS GE -NO: 805
XX SITE PLAN REVIEW;
I (We) the undersigned state
§§.
VARIANCES
am (Weare) the owner(s).of the real property described as follows:
2864 PALOS VERDES DRIVE NORTH, ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (LOT 992-A-RH)
This property is the subject of the above numbered case and conditions of approval
I am (We are) aware of, and accept, all the stated conditions in said ZONING CASE NO. 805
XX SITE PLAN REVIEW
XX VARIANCES
I Of) Celt y (or declare)'un r the penalty -of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
t,/L
Signature Signature
phevl M, CAI toLr
Name typed or printed .
Name typed or printed
Address /5 to --I VaIVS Ve,r1&9f.i\LAddress
0I1i►n( 1hIb. OPT.
City/State City/State
•
Signatures must be acknowledged by a notary public.
See Attached Exhibit."A", RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL NO. 2911-12
State of California )
County of Los Angeles )
On I(A, I 2 C} 201 /4 before me,
Doren WQ')kfr; i\l Ota hl PIk71iC
Personally
,,..d ter . a
apoil
peare .
who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence `to' be the person(e)-whose name(s) is/ are -
subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/ chc/ thcy..executed the.;same in
his/f eir authorized capacity(ie6)-and that by his/ her /€heir signature(s)-:on' .the instrument the
person(st, or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s)-acted, executed the instrument.
I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California. that the foregoing
paragraph is true and correct.
WITNESS by hand and official seal
DOREEN WOOLEN •
Commission # 2012572
Notary Public - California
LosAngeles County
Signature of Notary Seal My Comm. Expires Mar
16,. 2017
•
•
EX4I >3 IT
RESOLUTION NO. 2(111.12
A RESOLUTION OF TT'EE. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL FOR A SITE: PLAN REVIEW
FOR GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION OE AN ADDITION, NEW
POOL, SPA, RAISED PATIOS AND WALIS; REQUEST FOR
VARIANCES TO BE RELIEVED FROM THE REQUIREMENT TO SET
ASIDE AN AREA FOR A FUTURE STABLE AND CORRAL, TO ALLOW
A PORTION OF A RETAINING WALL TO ENCROACH INTO THE
NORTH SIDE YARD SETBACK, TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM
PERMITTED S RUCI URAL AND TOTAL LOT COVERAGE AND TO
EXCEED TILE MAXIMUM PERMITTED DISTURBED AREA OF THE
LOT IN ZONING CASE NO. 805, ON A PROPERTY DEVELOPED WITH
A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AT 2861 PALOS VERDES. DRIVE
NORTH, (LOT 992-A-RH), (CALHOUN). PROJECT HAS BEEN
DETERMINED TO BE EXENIPF FROM THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, (CEQA).
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. Stephen Calhoun
with respect to real property located at 2864 Palos Verdes Drive North, Rolling Hills
(Lot 992-A-R1 E) requesting a Site flan Review and Variances. The project entails
grading of 269 cubic yards of cut and 258 cubic yards of fill, with 11 cubic yards to be
exported from the pool jspa construction, (527 c.y. total); to construct a new 652 square
foot swimming pool with spa, raised patio at the residence, covered patio at the rear of
the property with a 187 square font outdoor kitchen and several not to exceed 5' high
walls. 947 square foot addition to the residence, for a total of 5,287 square foot house
and 38 square foot addition to the basement for a total basement of 2,180 square feet, are
also proposed.
The applicants request Variances to encroach 6 feet into the required north side yard
setback with a wall; to exceed the maximum permitted structural lot coverage by 1.1 %;
to exceed the maximum permitted total lot coverage by 5.8%; to exceed the maximum
permitted disturbed area of the lot by 20% for a total disturbance of 60%, and to waive
the requirement that a stable and corral area he set aside on the lot.
Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted duly noticed public hearings
to consider the application at regular meetings on September 20, October 18, November
15, 2011 and at a field trip to the property on October 18, 2011. At the October 18
meeting, the Planning Commission suggested that the applicant revise and reduce the
proposal and submit a Variance application to waive the requirement that a stable and
corral area be set aside on the property The applicants were notified of the public
hearings in writing by first class mail. Evidence was heard and presented from all
Rotio. 2011-12, 286.1 1'V Dr. NI.
• •
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 and their representatives were in attendance at the hearings.
Section 3. The property is a flag lot taking access from Palos Verdes Drive
North. It is zoned RAS-1 and it is 1.22 acres gross in area. Records show that 4,155
square toot house with garage and a 277 square foot mezzanine was completed in 1993.
A variance for walls in the setbacks was granted in 1992 as part of the grading for the
residence. The house is also developed with a 2,142 square foot basement. At that time
the house was approved, an area for a future stable and corral was set -aside in the
general location of the proposed swimming pool. The rear of the property is located in a
steep canyon, which is also a flood hazard area, and is not developable.
Section 4. 'The Planning Commission finds that the project qualifies as a Class
3 Exemption, and is therefore categorically exempt from environmental review under
the California Environmental Quality Act.
Section 5. The Planning Commission considered the request for the Site Plan
Review and Variances and reviewed the size and shape of the lot and the size of the
previously constructed structures on the lot. The Planning Commission, after
consideration and discussion, came to the conclusion that the size and configuration of
the lot could not support the construction of a stable and corral. BY granting this
Variance the City is not setting a precedent for similar requests in the future h r cause it
makes its determination on the unique characteristics of this property and the current
circumstances. Granting the Variance so as to relieve the property owner from the
obligation to identify and set aside an area for a stable and corral does not preclude the
current or future property owners from applying to the City for approval to construct a
stable and corral at a future date if a suitable location or construction plan is later
identified.
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. With respect to the Site Plan application for
grading for the improvements the Planning Commission makes the following findings
of fact:
A. The proposed development is compatible with the General Plan and
surrounding uses because the proposed project complies with the General Plan
requirement of low profile, low -density residential development with sufficient open
space between surrounding structures. The pool and other improvements are minor
and are not contained in one area, therefore the lot does not have the appearance of
overdevelopment. The proposed pool is relatively small in size and conforms to Zoning
Code setbacks. The proposed project is screened from the road so as to reduce the visual
impact of the development. The property was previously disturbed for the construction
Row. 2(>tl-t" 2364 IN Dr. N.
• •
of the residence and it currently exceeds the maximum permitted disturbance (56%).
lVith the additional grading, the disturbed area would be 60%, which is a minimal
increase.
B. l he development plan substantially preserves the natural and undeveloped state
of the lot because the new improvements will not cause the lot to look overdeveloped.
The house additions are proposed underneath the existing eaves. Significant portions of
the lot will be left undeveloped so as to maintain open space on the property. The
nature, condition, and development of adjacent uses, buildings, and structures and the
topography of the lot have been considered, and the construction will not adversely
affect or be materially detrimental to the adjacent uses, buildings, or structures because
the proposed improvements will be constructed on a portion of the lot which is least
intrusive to surrounding properties, will be screened and landscaped with trees and
shrubs is of sufficient distance from nearby residences so that the proposed project will
not impact the view or privacy of surrounding neighbors, and will substantially utilize
the existing relatively flat area for the new construction.
C. The proposed activity is compatible with the General Plan and the Zoning
Ordinance. The Land Use Element of the General Plan establishes the maintenance of
strict grading practices to preserve the community's natural terrain. The Building Code
and the Zoning Ordinance require a balanced cut and fill ratio and do not permit
import or export of soil, except under special circumstances applicable to a property
and with a discretionary permission by the Planning Commission. The project conforms
to the grading requirements, and Zoning Code setbacks, except for a small portion of a
patio wall, which would encroach 6-feet into the required 20-foot side setback.
D. The proposed development, as conditioned, is harmonious in scale
and mass with the site, the natural terrain and surrounding residences. The proposed
project is consistent with the scale of the neighborhood.
E. The development plan follows natural contours of the site to minimize grading
and retain the natural drainage courses. The proiect is not located in a canyon or on
existing slopes that exceed
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 Grading will not modify existing drainage channels nor
redirect drainage flow. Drainage has been designed to follow the existing drainage
course, but in a more direct manner, via drainage pipes and dissipater.
Rena. 2011-12, 2864 i'V Dr. N.
3
• •
H. The project preserves surrounding native vegetation and mature trees and will
supplement these elements with drought -tolerant landscaping. A landscaping; shall be
filed tvith the City.
1. The project conforms to the requirements of the California Environmental
Quality Act and is exempt.
Section 7. 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. A Variance to Section 17.16.070 (fi) is required because it states that
the lot 'disturbance shall he limited to 40.0% of the net lot area. The applicant is
requesting a Variance because total disturbance of the net lot area is proposed to be
60.0%, 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 this property that do not apply generally to the other properties in the same zone.
The property is unique in that it is a flag lot and irregular in shape, with the driveway
to the property not counted towards the lot area. However, for the purpose of
disturbance it is counted as disturbed area, because it is paved and was previously
graded. 56.0% of the lot was previously disturbed and the additional 4% disturbance is
minimal for the construction of the proposed improvements.
0. The variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial
property right possessed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone, but which
would be denied to the property in question absent a variance. The applicants propose
to demolish several existing small structures to construct the swimming pool and other
minor outdoor improvements, such as a patio, trellis and barbeque. Swimming pools
are a common amenity enjoyed by several properties in the vicinity and zone.
Installation of the pool in largely in an area that was previously disturbed. Only a small
portion of the pool would be located in a newly disturbed area of the pad. The overage
is of 4°.. over the existing disturbance is not significant and the property owner should
not be denied the privilege of a swimming pool simply because the topographic nature
of the lot and the configuration of the flag lot make it infeasible to comply strictly with
Section 17.16.170.
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. A minor increase in the overall percentage of disturbed area on
the lot will have no effect on the public welfare or on property or improvements in the
vicinity.
Reso. 2011.12, 25h4 t'V Dr. N.
• •
i). In granting the variance, the spirit and intent of the Zoning Ordinance will be
observed. The purpose of the Zoning Ordinance is to regulate development in an
orderly fashion and in a manner consistent with the goals and policies of the General
Plan. Approval of the variance will not impede anv goals of the Zoning Ordinance or
the General Plan. Rather, the variance will allow the property owner to enjoy the same
rights and privileges afforded to other property owners in the vicinity. The overage
requested is not substantial and does not undermine the spirit or intent of the Zoning
Ordinance
E. The variance does not grant special privileges to the applicant. In absence of the
variance, the property owner would be deprived of the same rights and privileges
afforded to other property owners in the vicinity. Unique circumstances applicable to
the subject property make it infeasible for the property owner to comply with Section
17.16.070. The minor overage requested will allow the property owner to enjoy the
same rights and privileges afforded to many other properties in the vicinity and zone.
F. 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.
G. The variance request is consistent with the General Plan. The proposed project,
together with the variance, will he compatible with the objectives, policies, general land
uses, and programs specified in the General Plan.
Section 8. Sections 17.38.010 through 17.38.O50 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. A Variance from Section 17.16.070 is required because it states the
maximum permitted structural coverage shall not exceed 20% of the net lot area and
total structural coverage, including all structures and paved areas shall not exceed 35°°
of the net lot area. The applicant is requesting a Variance to exceed the structural net lot
coverage by 1.1%, and the total structural coverage by 5.8%. 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 properties or class of use in the
same vicinity and zone. With the prior approvals it was not necessary to show on the
plans or include in the structural coverage calculations of the porches and other minor
structures. VVith the additional 947 square foot addition under the eaves and the
addition of the pool, the maximum permitted structural coverage would exceed 20% by
1.1 These circumstances currently exist and the proposed project adds a very small
Res°.2011-12, 2tib4 t'V Dr.,l.
• •
amount of structural coverage. The lot is relatively small. Compared to adjacent lots it is
only 69% of the average of the six adjacent lots at 51,143 sq.ft. in addition, the lot has a
large access area that is not counted towards the net lot area - 8.788 sq.ft. As a result, the
net lot area is significantly less and the allowable structural and total coverage and
disturbed area is reduced when compared to typical lots of similar size. 4,167 square
fret of the access, (pole of the lot), is paved and contribute to the large amount of
hardscape area.
0. 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. "Ihe applicants propose to demolish several existing
small structures to construct the swimming pool and other minor outdoor
improvements and the house addition. Swimming pools are a common amenity
enjoyed by several properties in the vicinity and zone. The overage is of 1.1' over the
existing structural coverage and the overage of 5.8% over the existing total coverage is
not significant and the property owner should not be denied the privilege of a
swimming pool and addition simply because the topographic nature of the lot and the
configuration of the flag lot make it infeasible to comply strictly with Section 17.16.07(1.
C. The variance does not grant special privileges to the applicant. Unique
circumstances applicable to the subject property make it infeasible for the property
owner to comply with Section 17.16.070. The pole of the flag contributes to the large
hardscape calculations, but is not counted towards the size of the lot.
D. 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. The variance will permit the owners to enjoy their property
without deleterious infringement on the rights of surrounding property owners. A
minor increase in the overall percentage of coverage on the lot will have no effect on the
public welfare or on property or improvements in the vicinity.
E. in granting the variance, the spirit and intent of the Zoning Ordinance will be
observed. The purpose of the Zoning Ordinance is to regulate development in an
orderly Cashion and in a manner consistent with the goals and policies of the General
Plan. Approval of the variance will not impede any goals of the Zoning Ordinance or
the General Plan. Rather, the variance will allow the property owner to enjoy the same
rights and privileges afforded to other property owners in the vicinity. The overage
requested is not substantial and does not undermine the spirit or intent of the Zoning
Ordinance.
F. The project conforms to the requirements of the California Environmental
Quality Act and the Los Angeles County Hazardous Waste Management Plan
Netio. 2011.12, 2864 IT Dr. N.
• •
Section 9. Sections 17.38.010 through 17.38.05(1 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. A Variance from Section 17.1t5.170 is required because it states that
every lot or parcel for which an administrative or discretionary approval is required
shall have an area developed with or set aside for a combination stable and corral of a
minimum of 1,000 square feet, and access Nvay thereto that does not exceed a slope of
25%. The applicant is requesting a Variance to not to set aside an area for a stable and
corral. With respect to this request for a Variance, they 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 properties or class of use in the
same vicinity and zone. The property was subdivided in 196-1 in a manner that did not
leave room for a future stable and corral. The lot is a flag lot with narrow frontage and
slopes steeply in the rear. The parcel cannot support construction of a stable and corral
without it being constructed in the canyon, which would require tremendous grading
and disruption of the natural terrain and natural drainage course. These circumstances
currently exist and the proposed project does not create the inability nor contribute to
these circumstances that necessitate this Variance.
B. The Planning Commission considered the request for this Variance and reviewed
the size and shape of the lot and the size of the previously constructed structures on the
lot. The Planning Commission, after consideration and discussion, came to the
conclusion that the size and configuration of the lot could not support the construction
of a stable and corral. By granting this Variance the City is not setting a precedent for
similar requests in the future because it makes its determination on the unique
characteristics of this property and the current circumstances. Granting the Variance so
as to relieve the property owner from the obligation to identify and set aside an area for
a stable and corral does not preclude the current or future property owners from
applying to the City for approval to construct a stable and corral at a future date if a
suitable location or construction plan is later identified.
C. 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. When the house was constructed the set aside area
for a future stable and corral was placed on the lot in the general area of the proposed
swimming pool. However, the field visit to the property revealed that said area is not
suitable or conducive to the construction of a stable, as it is in front of the front door of
the residence. The application for the residence and pool triggers the requirement that
an area for a stable and corral be set aside. The proposed project is not the cause for the
inability to set aside an area for a stable and corral on the lot because the existing lot
Reso. 2011-12, 2864 r'y Dr. N.
• •
could not accommodate a stable and corral that would meet the Health Department's
and City's requirement that a stable and corral be located not less than 35 feet to
residential structure and 25 feet to side property line.
D. 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 one in which
the property is located. There is no suitable area on the property to construct a stable
and corral. The views and vistas from adjacent properties will be retained, as there will
he no structure placed on the slopes of subject property. The variance will permit the
owners to enjoy their property without deleterious infringement on the rights of
surrounding property owners.
E. In granting of the Variance the spirit and intent of the Zoning Ordinance will be
observed in that no additional grading will occur in the future and the natural terrain
and vistas will he preserved.
F. The Variance request is consistent with the General flan of the City of Rolling
Hills because in order to construct a stable and corral substantial grading would have to
he undertaken and importation of soil would he required, which is not in keeping with
the gosh of the General Plan.
Section 10. Sections 17.38.01(1 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. A Variance to Section 17.If'.120 and Section 17.16.150F and G is
required because it states that a side yard setback shall be minimum of 20 feet and no
structures are allowed therein and a walls not to exceed 3-feet, under certain
circumstances, may be located in setbacks. The applicants request Variance to construct
a 5-foot high wall along a portion of the patio in the side 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 properties or class of use in the
same vicinity and zone. The subject property, together with the adjoining properties,
was developed on a small building pad with steep slopes descending towards Palos
Verdes Drive North. The slopes beyond the existing building pad descend to a canyon
at a gradient of over 359�,. In order to accommodate the residence and keep within the
setback requirements, no patio would be allowed. These circumstances currently exist
and the proposed project does not create the inability nor contribute to these
circumstances that necessitate this Variance.
Res°. 2011-12, 25s4 PV Dr. N.
• •
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 Planning Commission considered the request
for this Variance and reviewed the size and shape of the lot and the size of the
previously constructed structures on the lot. The Planning Commission, after
consideration and discussion, came to the conclusion that the size and configuration of
the lot together with the length and width of the pole support the granting of the
Variance. By granting this Variance the City is not setting a precedent for similar
requests in the future because it makes its determination on the unique characteristics of
this property and the current circumstances.
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. There are circumstances related to this property that are beyond
the applicants' control, such as the size and configuration of the lot and the nature of
the flag lot that warrant granting of the variance. The variance will permit the owners to
enjoy their property without deleterious infringement on the rights of surrounding
property owners in regards to street parking.
Section 11. Based upon the foregoing findings in Sections 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10, the
Planning Commission hereby approves the Site Plan Review and Variances application
in Zoning Case No. 805 for grading and construction of structures as shown on the Site
Plan dated November 3, 2011 subject to the following conditions:
A. The conditions of approval specified herein shall be printed on all
construction plans and shall be at all times available at the construction site.
B. The Site Plan Review and Variances approvals shall expire within two
years from the effective date of approval if construction pursuant to this approval has
not commenced within that time period, as required by Sections 17.416.080(A) and
17.38.070(A) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, or the approval granted is otherwise
extended pursuant to the requirements of those sections.
C. it is declared and made a condition of the approval, that if any conditions
thereof are violated, this approval shall he suspended and the privileges granted
hereunder shall lapse; provided that the applicants have been given written notice to
cease such violation, the opportunity for a hearing has been provided, and if requested,
has been held, and thereafter the applicant fails to correct the violation within a period
of thirty- (30) days from the date of the City's determination.
D. All requirements of the Building and Construction Code, the Zoning
Code, and of the zone in which the subject property is located must be complied with
unless otherwise set forth in this approval, or shown otherwise on an approved plan.
Reso. 2011.12, 2864 t'V t)r. N.
9
•
E. The lot shall be developed and maintained in substantial conformance
with the site plan on file dated November 3, 2011.
F. The project must be reviewed and approved by the RHCA Architectural
Committee.
G. The working drawings submitted to the Department of Building and
Safety (either County or Willdan Engineering), for plan check and construction review
must conform to the development plan approved with this application. In addition,
prior to submittal of final plans to the Building Department for issuance of building
permits, the plans for the project shall be submitted to staff for verification that the final
plans are in compliance with the plans approved by the Planning Commission.
H. Grading shall not exceed a total of 527 cubic yard of cut and fill total,
which includes excavation of the basement and the pool and 11 cubic yards of dirt from
the excavation may be exported. Cut and fill slopes shall not exceed steepness as shown
on the development plan dated November 3, 2011. To the greatest extent practicable,
effort should be made to create gentler slopes than 2:1, without exceeding the approved
disturbance of the lot.
1. Structural lot coverage shall not exceed 7,490 square feet or 21.r., of the
net lot area, (excluding the outdoor kitchen area), in conformance with the granting of
Variance.
'Total lot coverage of structures and paved areas shall not exceed 14,450
square feet, including the driveway or 40.8';,, in conformance with the granting of
Variance.
K. The retaining wall along the patio in the side yard setback may not exceed
5 feet in height at any one point from the finished grade. All other walls may not exceed
five feet in height at any one point from the finished grade.
{.. The disturbance of the net lot shall not exceed 21,309 square feet of surface
area or 60.0%.
M. Residential building pad coverage on the 18,588 square feet residential
building pad shall not exceed 7.490 square feet or 40.3% (not including portion of the
covered porches).
N. The applicant shall be required to confon 1,' the City of Rolling Hills
Water Efficient landscape Ordinance, Chapter 13.18 of the Municipal Code, if
applicable. The applicant shall submit to the City two copies of a landscaping and
irrigation plan and water usage certification prior to obtaining grading or building
Reso, 201 1.12, 28414 IA' Dr. N.
10
• •
permits. Within 90-days of completion of they construction of the project, the applicant
shall submit a landscaping compliance certification.
0 All graded areas shall he vegetated utilizing to the greatest extent feasible
mature native and drought resistant plants. Plants shall be utilized, which are consistent
with the rural character of the community and meet the fire department requirements
for fire resistant plants. Any trees and shrubs used in the landscaping scheme for this
project shall be planted in a way that will not result in a hedge like screening and as not
to impair views of neighboring properties but to screen the project site.
P. All utility lines to the residence shall be placed underground.
Q. The property owners shall be required to conform to the City of Rolling
Hills and RHCA roofing material standards, Outdoor Lighting Standards, as well as all
other requirements of the Municipal Code.
R Minimum of 50°;. of the construction material spoils shall he recycled and
diverted. The hauler must be licensed by the City, must have the appropriate insurance
and must provide the appropriate documentation to the City.
S. There shall be no dumping of anv debris, trash, soil spoils, construction
materials or anv other matter into the canyon.
I No grading, construction or storage of anv objects including building
materials shall take place in the easement, unless approved by the RHCA.
U. 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 h 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 (fills.
V. During grading and construction operations, trucks shall not park, queue
and/or idle at the project site or in the adjoining right-of-way before or after the
permitted hours of operations. To the maximum extent possible, staging of equipment
and parking of vehicles during construction shall be on site.
W. All applicable State and County requirements, including Countv Health
Department, pertaining to septic tanks construction and maintenance shall he complied
with.
X. The applicant shall comply with grading requirements relative to
submitting grading and construction reports as required by the Building and Grading
Code.
Reno. 2(111.12, 2864 Pk' Dr. N.
11
• •
1'. The applicant shall comply with requirements for bonding for grading
and all other requirements resulting from the review of the soils and geology reports.
Z. The applicant shall submit a detailed drainage plan including hydrology
study to the drainage engineer if required. To the maximum extent practicable,
additional drainage generated from the development shall be retained and dissipated
on site. Prior to issuance of any grading permits for the construction such approved
plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review and filing.
AA. No drainage device may be located in such a manner as to contribute to
erosion or in any way affect an easement, trail or adjacent properties. The energy
dissipaters shall be designed in such a manner as to not cross over any equestrian trails
or easements. The drainage system(s) shall not discharge water onto a trail, shall
incorporate earth tone colors, including in the design of the dissipater and shall be
screened from any trail and neighbors views to the maximum extent practicable,
without impairing the function of the drainage system.
AB. the property owners shall be required to conform to the Regional Water
Quality Control Board and County Public Works Department requirements for the
installation and post construction maintenance of stormwater drainage facilities.
AC. During construction, conformance with the air quality management
district requirements shall be complied with, so that people or property are not exposed
to undue vehicle trips, noise, dust, and objectionable odors.
AD. The property owners shall be required to conform to the Regional Water
Quality Control Board and County Public Works Department Best Management
Practices (BMPs) related to solid waste and storm water management, including erosion
control measures.
AE. The property owner and/or his/her contractor/applicant shall be
responsible for compliance with the no -smoking provisions in the Municipal Code.
AF. The contractor shall not use tools that could produce a spark, including
for clearing and grubbing, during red flag warning conditions. Weather conditions can
be found at:
http://www.wrh.nuaa.gov/lox/main.php?suite=safety&page=hazard_definitions#FiR
E. It is the sole responsibility of the property owner and/or his/her contractor to
monitor the red flag warning conditions.
AG. 'Until the applicants execute and record an Affidavit of Acceptance of all
conditions of this Site Plan Review and Variances approvals, as required by the
Municipal Code, the approvals shall not he effective.
Re,,o. 2011-12, 2 4 PI.' Dr. N.
12
• •
Al I. All conditions of the Site Plan and Variances approvals, that apply, shall
be complied with prior to the issuance of grading or building permit.
Al. Any modification to the project, including but not be limited to increase
in l;rading quantities, limits of grading or disturbed area on the property that varies
from this approval and which would be within the purview of staff's approval, shall be
reviewed and approved by staff and reported to the Planning Commission.
Al. Any action challenging the final decision of the City made as a result of
the public hearing on this application must be filed within the time limits set forth in
Section 17.54.070 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code and Code of Civil Procedure
Section 1094.6
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED TIIIS 20th DAY OF DECEMBER 2011.
ATTEST:
HEIDI LUCE, DEPUTY CITY CLERK
Reso. 2(111-12, 2S6-1 IT Dr. N.
JEFF-r IEPI`k,. IAIRN -
13
• •
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) 06
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2011-12 entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE; PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL FOR A SITE ['LAN REVIEW
FOR GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION, NEW
POOL, SPA, RAISED PATIOS AND WALLS; REQUEST FOR
VARIANCES TO BE RELIEVED FRONT TIIE REQUIREMENT TO SET
ASIDE AN AREA FOR A FUTURE STABLE ANI) CORRAL, TO ALLOW
•\ PORTION OF A RETAINING 1VALL '10 ENCROACH INTO THE
NORTH SIDE YARD SETBACK, TO EXCEED T1IE; MAXIMUM
PERMITTED STRUCTURAL AND TOTAL LOT COVERAGE. AND 10
EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED DISTURBED AREA OF THE
LOT ON A PROPERT\ DEVELOPED WIT[ E A SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENCE IN ZONING CASE NO. 805, Al'"2864 I'ALOS VERDES
DRIVE NORTH, (LOT 992-A-RH), (CALHOUN). PROJECT HAS BEEN
DETERMINED TO BE EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRC)NMENTAl, QUALITY ACT, (CEQA).
was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on
December 20, 2011 by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Chclf, DeRov, Henke, Smith and Chairman Pieper.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Nona.
ABSTAIN: None.
and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following:
Administrative Offices.
HEIDI LUCE
DEPUTY CITY CLERK
Reso. 2011-12, 2h04 PV 1)r. N.
14
F
JUL 3 0 2O1
City of Rolling Hills
By