Loading...
445, Construct guest house in rear , Staff Reports• • TO: C1i ofiZoffin g INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (213) 377-1521 FAX: (213) 377-7288 Agenda Item No. Meeting Date 4/22/91 SB HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL ATTENTION: CRAIG NEALIS, CITY MANAGER FROM: SUBJECT: LOLA M. UNGAR, PRINCIPAL PLANNER REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS RESOLUTION NO. 91-7 ZONING CASE NO. 445, MR. AND MRS. LEONARD FULLER 2 PACKSADDLE ROAD EAST (LOT 32 SF) Attached find the proposed resolution for the subject zoning case. The Planning Commission approved the proposed project on April 16, 1991 for a Variance for the continued encroachment of a structure (former stable) in the rear yard setback, a Conditional Use Permit for the 840 square foot former stable to be used as a guest house that will not be enlarged, and substantial residential additions that will include a 5,143 square foot residence with a 618 square foot garage. The recommended action of the City Council is to receive and file: Resolution No. 91-7 ZONING CASE NO. 445, Mr. & Mrs. Leonard Fuller, 2 Packsaddle Road East (Lot 32-SF) A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Rolling Hills granting a Variance for the continued encroachment of a structure in the rear yard setback, granting a Conditional Use Permit for a guest house, and granting Site Plan Review approval for substantial residential additions. RESOLUTION NO. 91-7 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A VARIANCE FOR THE CONTINUED ENCROACHMENT OF A STRUCTURE IN THE REAR YARD SETBACK, GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A GUEST HOUSE, AND GRANTING SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL IN ZONING CASE NO. 445. 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. Fuller with respect to real property located at 2 Packsaddle Road East, Rolling Hills (Lot 28-SK) requesting a Variance into allowable setbacks and Site Plan Review for residential additions. It was later determined that the stable had been converted to a guest house by a previous owner without permits and would require a variance and a conditional use permit to continue to encroach within the rear yard setback. Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the application for a Variance into allowable setbacks and a Site Plan Review on January 15, 1991, February 19, 1991, and March 19, 1991 and at a field trip visit on February 16, 1991. When it was learned that there were no permits for the guest house, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the application of a Variance for the continued encroachment of a structure in the rear yard setback, a Conditional Use Permit for a guest house, and a Site Plan Review held on April 16, 1991. Section 3. Sections 17.32.010 through 17.32.030 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. A Variance to Section 17.16.060 is required to permit the continued encroachment of a structure thirty (30) feet within the fifty (50) foot rear yard setback. A. There are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances and conditions applicable to the property and the existing use that do not apply generally to the other property in the same vicinity and zone. The Variance is necessary because the structure in the rear yard setback has been permitted as a stable since 1954. Permits were applied for on April 17, 1975 to convert the stable to a guest house but were later canceled on April 21, 1975. 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 i denied the subject property. The Variance is necessary in order for e RESOLUTION NO. 91-7 PAGE 2 structure that has existed for 36 years to remain at its present location. There will not be any greater incursion into the setback than already exists. C. Granting this variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which the property is located. A sufficient distance remains between the structure and the uses on the adjacent property so that the continued use of the guest house will not impinge on adjacent properties. Maintaining the structure in its present location will keep a substantial portion of the lot open and undeveloped. Section 4. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves the Variance to encroach into the front yard setback to a maximum of 30 feet as indicated on the Development Plan attached hereto as Exhibit A subject to the conditions contained in Section 11. Section 5. The applicant has submitted plans for the use of an existing structure as a guest house as shown in Exhibit A. Section 17.16.012.F. of the Municipal Code provides for the discretion of the Planning Commission to grant a Conditional Use Permit for a guest house provided no kitchen or cooking facilities are provided. Section 6. The Planning Commission makes the following findings: A. The granting of a Conditional Use Permit for a guest house would be consistent with the purposes and objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan and will be desirable for the public convenience and welfare because the proposed guest house structure is preexisting and does not involve an expansion of overall area for the use. B. The granting of a Conditional Use Permit would be consistent with the purposes and objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan, because the guest house will comply with the low profile residential development pattern of the community and is located on a parcel of property that is adequate in size, shape and topography. Section 7. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves a Conditional Use Permit for a guest house in Zoning Case No. 445. Section 8. Section 17.34.010 requires a development plan to be submitted for site plan review and approval before any building or structure may be constructed or, 4}yugsexpansion,y b ema addition �i alteration or repair to existing builai RESOLUTION NO. 91-7 PAGE 3 involve changes to grading or an increase to the size of the building or structure by more than twenty-five percent (25%) in any thirty-six month period. The applicant has proposed to construct substantial residential additions to the existing residential structure of 2,581 square feet. Section 9. The Planning Commission makes the following findings of fact: A. The proposed development is compatible with the General Plan, the Zoning Ordinance and surrounding uses because the proposed structure complies with the General Plan requirement of low profile, low densityresidential development with sufficient open space between surrounding structures. The project conforms to Zoning Code setback and lot coverage requirements. The lot has a net square foot area of 54,847 square feet. The proposed residence (5,143 sq.ft.), garage (618 sq.ft.), swimming pool (296 sq.ft.), future stable (450 sq.ft.), guest house (840 sq.ft.), and 80 sq.ft. service yard will have 7,577 square feet which constitutes 13.8% of the lot which is within the maximum 20% structural lot coverage requirement. The total lot coverage including paved areas and driveway will be 12,658 square feet which equals 23.1% of the lot, which is within the 35% maximum overall lot coverage requirement. The proposed project is on a relatively large lot with most of the proposed additions located away from the road and screened with mature trees so as to reduce the visual impact of the development and is similar and compatible with several neighboring developments. 8. The proposed development preserves and integrates into the site design, to the maximum extent feasible, existing natural topographic features of the lot including surrounding native vegetation, mature trees, drainage courses, and land forms because the lot is relatively flat, grading will not be required and most of the mature trees will not be removed, thereby retaining the current drainage pattern and landscape screening for the site. C. The development plan follows natural contours of the site which is largely flat and drainage courses will continue naturally away from the building pad. D. The development plan incorporates existing large trees and native vegetation to the maximum extent feasible and supplements it with landscaping that is compatible with and enhances the rural character of the community. E. The development plan substantially preserves the natural and undeveloped state of the lot by minimizing building coverage because the new structures will not cause the structural and total lot coverage to be exceeded. Further, almost all of the lot is relatively flat and the proposed project will have a buildable pad RESOLUTION NO. 91-7 PAGE 4 coverage of 22.8% which is within the City's policy of 35% maximum pad coverage. Significant portions of the lot will be left undeveloped. F. The proposed development is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, the natural terrain and surrounding residences because as indicated in Paragraph C, lot coverage maximum will not be exceeded and the proposed project is of consistent scale with the neighborhood, thereby grading will be required only to restore the natural slope of the property. The ratio of the proposed structure to lotcoverageis similar to the ratio found on several properties in the vicinity. G. The proposed development is sensitive and not detrimental to convenience and safety of circulation for pedestrians and vehicles because the proposed project will utilize the existing vehicular access, thereby having no further impact on the roadway. H. The project conforms with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and is categorically exempt. from environmental review. Section 10. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves the Site Plan Review for residential additions in accordance with the Development Plan attached hereto as Exhibit A subject to the conditions contained in Section 11. Section 11. The Variance to the rear yard setback for the continued encroachment of a structure, the Conditional Use Permit for a guest house, and Site Plan Review approval for substantial residential additions as indicated on' the Development Plan attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A as approved in Sections 4, 7 and 10 are subject to the following conditions: A. The Variance and Conditional Use Permit shall expire unless used within one year from the effective date of approval as defined in Section 17.32.110 of the Municipal Code. The Site Plan Review approval shall expire within one year from the effective date of approval as defined in Section 17.34.080.A. B. It is declared and made a condition of the Variance, Conditional Use Permit and the Site Plan Review approval, that if any conditions thereof are violated, the Permit shall be suspended and the privileges granted thereunder shall lapse; provided that the applicant has been given written notice to cease such violation and has failed to do so for a period of thirty (30) days. C. All requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and of the zone in which the subject property is located must be omplied with unless otherwise set forth in the Permit, or shown otherwise on an RESOLUTION NO. 91-7 PAGE 5 approved plan. D. The lot shall•be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the site plan on file marked Exhibit A except as otherwise provided in these conditions. E. The driveway from Southfield Drive shall be closed before final building inspection. F. An area of 450 square foot for a future stable and a 550 square foot corral shall be delineated on the Development Plan. G. A building permit shall be obtained for the guest house within six months of the effective date of this resolution. H. There shall be no kitchen or cooking facilities in the guest house. I. The guest house shall not be rented or leased to any person or entity. J. A preliminary landscape plan must be submitted to and approved by the City of Rolling Hills Planning Department staff prior to the issuance of any grading and building permit. The landscaping plan submitted must comply with the purpose and intent of the Site Plan Review Ordinance, shall incorporate existing mature trees and native vegetation, and shall utilize to the maximum extent feasible, plants that are native to the area and/or consistent with the rural character of the community. A bond in the amount of the cost estimate of the implementation of the landscaping plan plus 15% shall be required to be posted prior to issuance of a grading and building permit and shall be retained with the City for not less than two years after landscape installation. The retained bond will be released by the City Manager after the City Manager determines that the landscaping was installed pursuant to the landscaping plan as approved, and that such landscaping is properly established and in good condition., K. Prior to the submittal of an applicable final grading plan to the County of Los Angeles for plan check, a detailed grading and drainage plan with related geology, soils and hydrology reports that conform to the Development Plan as approved by the Planning Commission must be submitted to the Rolling Hills Planning Department staff for their review. Cut and fill slopes must conform to the City of Rolling Hills standard of 2 to 1 slope ratio. L. The project must be reviewed and approved by the Rolling Hill.s Community Association Architectural Review Committee prior to the issuance of any building or grading permit. RESOLUTION NO. 91-7 PAGE 6 M. The working drawings submitted to the County Department of Building and Safety for plan check review must conform to the development plan approved with this application. N. Any modifications to the project which would constitute a modification to the development plan as approved by the Planning Commission shall require the filing of an application for modification of the Zoning Case pursuant to Section 17.34.070 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code.. O. The lot coverage shall not exceed 23.1%. P. The applicant shall execute an Affidavit of Acceptance of all conditions of this Variance, Conditional Use Permit, and Site Plan Review, pursuant to Section 17.32.087, or the approval shall not be effective. Q. Conditions A, C, D, F, H, I, J, K, L, M, 0 and P of this Variance, Conditional Use Permit, and Site Plan Review approval must be complied with prior to the issuance of a building or grading permit from the County of Los Angeles. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS I6t+':Y OF APRIL, 1991. ALLAN ROBERTS, CHAIRMAN ATTEST: DIANE/SAWYER, DEPUT\CITY CLERK RESOLUTION NO. 91-7 PAGE 7 The foregoing Resolution No. 91-7 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A VARIANCE FOR THE CONTINUED ENCROACHMENT OF A STRUCTURE IN THE REAR YARD SETBACK, GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A GUEST HOUSE, AND GRANTING SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL IN ZONING CASE NO. 445. was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on April 16, 1991 by the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS FROST, LAY, RAINE AND CHAIRMAN ROBERTS NOES: NONE ABSENT: HANKINS ABSTAIN: NONE 05) oLz,4 DEPUTt CITY CLERK HEARING DATE: APRIL 16, 1991 TO: HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: LOLA UNGAR, PRINCIPAL PLANNER SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 445 MR. & MRS. FULLER, 2 PACKSADDLE ROAD EAST (LOT 32 SF) Request for a Variance to permit the continued encroachment of a structure in the rear yard setback; Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a guest house; and Request for a Site Plan Review to allow substantial additions to an existing residence. The subject application was readvertised to relieve the legal technicalities regarding the conversion of the stable to a guest house. Staff recommends that public testimony be taken. A resolution of approval has been prepared and is attached for your review. RESOLUTION NO. 91-7 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A VARIANCE FOR THE CONTINUED ENCROACHMENT OF A STRUCTURE IN THE REAR YARD SETBACK, GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR GUEST HOUSE, AND GRANTING SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL IN ZONING CASE NO. 445. 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. Fuller with respect to real property located at 2 Packsaddle Road East, Rolling Hills (Lot 28-SK) requesting a Variance into allowable setbacks and Site Plan Review for residential additions. It was later determined that the stable had been converted to a guest house by a previous owner without permits and would require a variance and a conditional use permit to continue to encroach within the rear yard setback. Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the application for a Variance into allowable setbacks and a Site Plan Review on January 15, 1991, February 19, 1991, and March 19, 1991 and at a field trip visit on February 16, 1991. When it was learned that there were no permits for the guest house, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the application of a Variance for the continued encroachment of a structure in the rear yard setback, a Conditional Use Permit for a guest house, and a Site Plan Review held on April 16, 1991. Section 3. Sections 17.32.010 through 17.32.030 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. A Variance to Section 17.16.060 is required to permit the continued encroachment of a structure thirty (30) feet within the fifty (50) foot rear yard setback. A. There are exceptional and, extraordinary circumstances and conditions applicable to the property and the existing use that do not apply generally to the other property in the same vicinity and zone. The Variance is necessary because the structure in the rear yard setback has been permitted as a stable since 1954. Permits were applied for on April 17, 1975 to convert the stable to a guest house but were later canceled on April 21, 1975. 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 the subject property. The Variance is necessary in order or the • • RESOLUTION NO. 91-7 PAGE 2 structure that has existed for 36 years to remain at its present location. There will not be any greater incursion into the setback than already exists. C. Granting this variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which the property is located. A sufficient distance remains between the structure and the uses on the adjacent property so that the continued use of the guest house will not impinge on adjacent properties. Maintaining the structure in its present location will keep a substantial portion of the lot open and undeveloped. Section 4. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves the Variance to encroach into the front yard setback to a maximum of 30 feet as indicated on the Development Plan attached hereto as Exhibit A subject to the conditions contained in Section 11. Section 5. The applicant has submitted plans for the use of an existing structure as a guest house as shown in Exhibit A. Section 17.16.012.F. of the Municipal Code provides for the discretion of the Planning Commission to grant a Conditional Use Permit for a guest house provided no kitchen or cooking facilities are provided. Section 6. The Planning Commission makes the following findings: A. The granting of a Conditional Use Permit for a guest house would be consistent with the purposes and objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan and will be desirable for the public convenience and welfare because the proposed guest house structure is preexisting and does not involve an expansion of overall area for the use. B. The granting of a Conditional Use Permit would be consistent with the purposes and objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan, because the guest house will comply with the low profile residential development pattern of the community and is located on a parcel of property that is adequate in size, shapeand topography. Section 7. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves a Conditional Use Permit for a guest house in Zoning Case No. 445. Section 8. Section 17.34.010 requires a development plan to be submitted for site plan review and approval before any building or structure may be constructed or, any expansion, addition, alteration or repair to existing buildings may Abe made which RESOLUTION NO. 91-7 PAGE 3 involve changes to grading or an increase to the size of the building or structure by more than twenty-five percent (25%) in any thirty-six month period. The applicant has proposed to construct substantial residential additions to the existing residential structure of 2,581 square feet. Section 9. The Planning Commission makes the following findings of fact: A. The proposed development is compatible with the General Plan, the Zoning Ordinance and surrounding uses because the proposed structure complies with the General Plan requirement of low profile, low density residential development with sufficient open space between surrounding structures. The project conforms to Zoning Code setback and lot coverage requirements. The lot has a net square foot area of 54,847 square feet. The proposed residence (5,143 sq.ft.), garage (618 sq.ft.), swimming pool (296 sq.ft.), future stable (450 sq.ft.), guest house (840 sq.ft.), and 80 sq.ft. service yard will have 7,577 square feet which constitutes 13.8% of the lot which is within the maximum 20% structural lot coverage requirement. The total lot coverage including paved areas and driveway will be 12,658 square feet which equals 23.1% of the lot, which is within the 35% maximum overall lot coverage requirement. The proposed project is on a relatively large lot with most of the proposed additions located away from the road and screened with mature trees so as to reduce the visual impact of the development and is similar and compatible with several neighboring developments. B. The proposed development preserves and integrates into the site design, to the maximum extent feasible, existing natural topographic features of the lot including surrounding native vegetation, mature trees, drainage courses, and land forms because the lot is relatively flat, grading will not be required and most of the mature trees will not be removed, thereby retaining the current drainage pattern and landscape screening for the site. C. The development plan follows natural contours of the site which is largely flat and drainage courses will continue naturally away from the building pad. D. The development plan incorporates existing large trees and native vegetation to the maximum extent feasible and supplements it with landscaping that is compatible with and enhances the rural character of the community. E. The development plan substantially preserves the natural and undeveloped state of the lot by minimizing building coverage because the new structures will not cause the structural and total lot coverage to be exceeded. Further, almost all of the lot is relatively flat and the proposed project will have a buildable pad RESOLUTION NO. 91-7 PAGE 4 coverage of 22.8% which is within the City's policy of 35% maximum pad coverage. Significant portions of the lot will be left undeveloped. F. The proposed development is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, the natural terrain and surrounding residences because as indicated in Paragraph C, lot coverage maximum will not be exceeded and the proposed project is of consistent scale with the neighborhood, thereby grading will be required only to restore the natural slope of the property. The ratio of the proposed structure to lot coverage is similar to the ratio found on several properties in the vicinity. G. The proposed development is sensitive and not detrimental to convenience and safety of circulation for pedestrians and vehicles because the proposed project will utilize the existing vehicular access, thereby having no further impact on the roadway. H. The project conforms with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and is categorically exempt from environmental review. Section 10. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves the Site Plan Review for residential additions in accordance with the Development Plan attached hereto as Exhibit A subject to the conditions contained in Section 11. Section 11. The Variance to the rear yard setback for the continued encroachment of a structure, the Conditional Use Permit for a guest house, and Site Plan Review approval for substantial residential additions as indicated on the Development Plan attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A as approved in Sections 4, 7 and 10 are subject to the following conditions: A. The Variance and Conditional Use Permit shall expire unless used within one year from the effective date of approval as defined in Section 17.32.110 of the Municipal Code. The Site Plan Review approval shall expire within one year from the effective date of approval as defined in Section 17.34.080.A. B. It is declared and made a condition of the Variance, Conditional Use Permit and the Site Plan Review approval, that if any conditions thereof are violated, the Permit shall be suspended and the privileges granted thereunder shall lapse; provided that the applicant has been given written notice to cease such violation and has failed to do sofor a period of thirty (30) days. C. All requirements of 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 RESOLUTION NO. 91-7 PAGE 5 approved plan. D. The lot shall be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the site plan on file marked Exhibit A except as otherwise provided in these conditions. E. The driveway from Southfield Drive shall be closed before final building inspection. F. An area of 450 square foot for a future stable and a 550 square foot corral shall be delineated on the Development Plan. G. A building permit shall be obtained for the guest house within six months of the effective date of this resolution. H. There shall be no kitchen or cooking facilities in the guest house. I. The guest house shall not be rented or leased to any person or entity. J. A preliminary landscape plan must be submitted to and approved by the City of Rolling Hills Planning Department staff prior to the issuance of any grading and building permit. The landscaping plan submitted must comply with the purpose and intent of the Site Plan Review Ordinance, shall incorporate existing mature trees and native vegetation, and shall utilize to the maximum extent feasible, plants that are native to the area and/or consistent with the rural character of the community. A bond in the amount of the cost estimate of the implementation of the landscaping plan plus 15% shall be required to be posted prior to issuance of a grading and building permit and shall be retained with the City for not less than two years after landscape installation. The retained bond will be released by the City Manager after the City Manager determines that the landscaping was installed pursuant to the landscaping plan as approved, and that such landscaping is properly established and in good condition. K. Prior to the submittal of an applicable final grading plan to the County of Los Angeles for plan check, a detailed grading and drainage plan with related geology, soils and hydrology reports that conform to the Development Plan as approved by the Planning Commission must be submitted to the Rolling Hills Planning Department staff for their review. Cut and fill slopes must conform to the City of Rolling Hills standard of 2 to 1 slope ratio. L. The project must be reviewed and approved by the Rolling Hills Community Association Architectural Review Committee prior to the issuance of any building or grading permit. RESOLUTION NO. 91-7 PAGE 6 M. The working drawings submitted to the County Department of Building and Safety for plan check review must conform to the development plan approved with this application. N. Any modifications to the project which would constitute a modification to the development plan as approved by the Planning Commission shall require the filing of an application for modification of the Zoning Case pursuant to Section 17.34.070 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code. O. The lot coverage shall not exceed 23.1%. P. The applicant shall execute an Affidavit of Acceptance of all conditions of this Variance, Conditional Use Permit, and Site Plan Review, pursuant to Section 17.32.087, or the approval shall not be effective. Q. Conditions A, C, D, F, H, I, J, K, L, M, 0 and P of this Variance, Conditional Use Permit, and Site Plan Review approval must be complied with prior to the issuance of a building or grading permit from the County of Los Angeles. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 6TH DAY OF APRIL, 1991. ALLAN ROBERTS, CHAIRMAN ATTEST: DIANE SAWYER, DEPUTY CITY CLERK MEETING DATE: APRIL 6, 1991 TO: HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: LOLA UNGAR, PRINCIPAL PLANNER SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 445 MR. & MRS. FULLER, 2 PACKSADDLE ROAD EAST (LOT 32 SF) The subject case and resolution of approval is not before your honorable body today because it was necessary, due to legal technicalities, to readvertise the application which should have included, a Variance to allow the proposed guest house (existing stable) in the rear yard setback, a Conditional Use Permit for a guest house (existing stable), and a Site Plan Review for substantial residential additions. The revised public hearing notice was advertised and a Resolution will be prepared for Planning Commission review on April 16, 1991. HEARING DATE: MARCH 19, 1991 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: LOLA UNGAR, PRINCIPAL PLANNER SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 445 MR. & MRS. FULLER, 2 PACKSADDLE ROAD EAST (LOT 32 SF) DISCUSSION This item was continued from the February 19, 1991 Planning Commission meeting so that the applicant could verify existing permits. f4D DATE OF HEARING: PROJECT DESCRIPTION APPLICATION NO.: SITE LOCATION: ZONING: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PUBLISHED: PROPERTY SIZE: • ihito JANUARY 15, 1991 4fl INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 ZONING CASE NO. 445 2 PACKSADDLE EAST (LOT 32 SF) RAS-1 MR. AND MRS. L. FULLER MR. MORGAN EMBRODEN JANUARY 5, 1991 1.259 ac. NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (213) 377-1521 FAX: (213) 377-7288 REQUEST: Request for Site Plan Review approval for substantial additions to an existing residence. SUMMARY This residence was originally built in 1953, prior to the setback requirements of the RAS-1 zone. Subsequent additions to the property are legal in terms of having building permits; these additions are the guest house, swimming pool and sewing room, which by current standards would be encroachments into required setback areas. At the time that legal ads were to be submitted to the newspaper and nearby property owners, staff did not have a set of plans that showed where the setback lines are located. The applicant nor the architect could be reached due to their vacationing during the holidays. For this reason, the ads that were placed indicate a request for a variance. It has since been determined that a variance request is not required for the proposed additions. Prior to this determination, a neighboring property owner reviewed the plans and expressed concern if there was to be any further encroachment to the east of the property. The applicants are new property owners who are bringing a family member into their household, therefore, the substantial addition is to add a new wing on to the existing residence. The existing garage will be remodeled to include living space, and a new three car garage will be added. The change in location of the garage will require relocation of the driveway on the property. -1- e • The proposed increase in the size of the residence will be from the existing 3,410 sq.ft. to 5,143 sq.ft. plus a new 618 sq. ft. garage, and a future 150 sq.ft. gazebo. Other features on the property ( swimming pool, guest house, etc.) will remain the same. The site is basically flat and has a large building pad, therefore the structural coverage represents 13.36%. At the time the applicants wish to construct the gazebo a conditional use permit will be required. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission review the plans, take testimony if any and refer this item to a field site inspection.