Loading...
477, To Permin encroachment in fron, Staff ReportsTO: • City 0/ Rolling -Willi INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 AGENDA ITEM 3B MEETING DATE 6/22/92 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (213) 377-1521 FAX: (213) 377-7288 HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL ATTENTION: CRAIG R. NEALIS, CITY MANAGER FROM: LOLA M. UNGAR, PRINCIPAL PLANNER SUBJ: ZONING CASE NO. 477 Mr. and Mrs. Howard Long, 7 Lower Black water Canyon Road (Lot 83-RH) RESOLUTION NO. 92-20: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH INTO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK TO CONSTRUCT A RETAINING WALL AND GRANTING SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL FOR SUBSTANTIAL ADDITIONS TO THE EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IN ZONING CASE NO. 477. BACKGROUND 1. The Planning Commission approved the subject Resolution on June 16, 1992. 2. The applicants are requesting a Variance to permit the encroachment into the front yard of a 205-foot long retaining wall that will be no higher than 3, feet that will replace a previously existing retaining wall. The wall will encroach up to 39 feet into the front yard setback beginning 11 feet from the setback line. 3. The applicants request Site Plan Review to permit the construction of 3,107 square feet of additions to the existing 3,989 square foot single family residence, a 721 square foot new garage at the south wing, a 341 square foot circular spa to the west of the proposed new master bedroom wing, as well as the replacement of a 152-foot long 3-foot high retaining wall at the south wing of the house. The additions will include a 516 square foot children's wing addition whereby a 481 square foot garage will be converted to residential use at the southwest wing, a 261 square foot breakfast nook addition to the kitchen at the west wing, and a 1,833 master bedroom suite at the north wing. 4. In 1955, a new 2,108 square foot residence was built at the site. In 1968, a new 400 square foot garage was completed. On May 17, 1977, a Conditional Use Permit for a tennis court was approved by the Planning Commission in Zoning Case No. 180. In 1978, 1,146 square feet of room additions were completed. In 1981, a new 1,440 square foot garage and barn were completed. On October 20, 1987, a request of the Planning Commission was withdrawn by the applicants (Mr. and Mrs. William Davisson) for a Conditional Use Permit in Zoning Case No. 342 to convert a garage and stable with a loft to servants quarters. ZONING CASE NO. 477 PAGE 2 5. Grading for the project site will require 130 cubic yards of cut soil and 130 cubic yards of fill soil. 6. The structural lot coverage proposed is 16,171 square feet or 6.5% and the total lot coverage proposed is 33,281 square feet or 13.5%. 7. The building pad coverage proposed for the residential structures, including the existing tennis court, is 31.9% and overall building pad coverage is 29.1%. 8. 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. 92-20. RESOLUTION NO. 92-20 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH INTO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK TO CONSTRUCT A RETAINING WALL AND GRANTING SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL FOR SUBSTANTIAL ADDITIONS TO THE EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IN ZONING CASE NO. 477. 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. Howard Long with respect to real property located at 7 Lower Blackwater Canyon Road, Rolling Hills (Lot 83-RH) requesting: (1) a Variance to the front yard setback to construct a retaining' wall, and (2) Site Plan Review for substantial residential additions. Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the application for a Variance and Site Plan Review on April 28, 1992, and May 19, 1992, and at a field trip on May 9, 1992. Section 3. The Planning Commission finds that the project is categorically exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to a Class 3 exemption provided by Section 15303 of the State CEQA Guidelines. Section 4. 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 requested to construct a 205-foot long retaining wall that will be no higher that 3 feet that will replace a previously existing retaining wall. The retaining wall will encroach up to a'maximum of 39 feet into the front yard setback beginning 11 feet from the setback line. With regard to this request, the Planning Commission makes the following findings:, A. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances and conditions applicable to the property and the intended use that do not apply generally to the other property in the same vicinity and zone. The sloping topography of the subject site and the existing location of the driveway necessitate construction of a retaining wall within the front yard setback in order to support existing hillside cuts and slopes. RESOLUTION NO. 92-2,0 PAGE 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 the property in question. The Variance is necessary because the existing development pattern on the lot and the topography of the site require a retaining wall. The reconstruction of such wall in the front yard setback will create a safer accessway and that will also improve the appearance of the existing driveway. C. The granting of the 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. The Variance will help to improve the geologic stability of the slope and will not be visible to surrounding properties due to the distances between the driveway and other adjacent residences. Section 5. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves the Variance to encroach up to a maximum of 39 feet into the front yard.setback to construct a retaining wall not to exceed 3 feet in height at any one point along the driveway as indicated on the Development Plan attached hereto as Exhibit A, subject to the conditions specified in Section 9 below. Section 6. 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 b.e made which 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. Section 7. 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 247,111 square feet. The proposed residence (7,096 sq.ft.), garage (721 sq.ft.), spa (314 sq.ft.), existing tennis court (6,600 sq.ft.), existing garage/stable (1,440 sq.ft.), and a service yard (135 sq.ft.), will have 16,306 square feet which constitutes 6.6% of the lot which is within the maximum 20% structural lot coverage requirement. The total lot coverage including paved areas and driveway will be 33,416 square feet which equals 13.5% of the lot, which is within the 35% maximum overall lot coverage requirement. The proposed project is on a relatively RESOLUTION NO. 92-20 PAGE 3 large lot with most of the proposed additions located away from the road 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 (such as hillsides and knolls) and grading will be minimal to minimize building coverage on the building pad itself. C. The development plan follows natural contours of the site to minimize grading and the natural drainage courses will continue to the canyons at the rear of this lot. 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. Significant portions of the lot, will be left undeveloped so as to minimize the impact of development. F. The proposed development is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, the natural terrain and surrounding residences because as indicated in Paragraph A, lot coverage maximums 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 8. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves the Site Plan Review forresidential additions as indicated on the Development Plan attached hereto as Exhibit A subject to the conditions contained in Section 9. RESOLUTION N0. 92-20 PAGE 4 Section 9. The Variance to the front yard setback approved in Sections 5 and the Site Plan Review for residential additions approved in Section 8 as indicated on the Development Plan attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A, are subject to the following conditions: A. The Variance 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 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 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 except as otherwise provided in these conditions. E. The retaining wall incorporated into the front yard setback shall not be greater than three (3) feet in height at any point along the driveway. F. No scraping of terrain shall be permitted. G. To minimize the building on the pad, the structures, driveway, graded slopes and retaining wall shall be screened and shielded from view with native drought -resistant vegetation that is compatible with the surrounding vegetation of the community. E. A 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. • • RESOLUTION NO. 92-20 PAGE 5 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. I. 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. J. 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 permi K. The residential building pad coverage shall not exceed 31.9% and overall pad coverage shall not exceed 29.1%. L. The applicant shall execute an Affidavit of Acceptance of all conditions of this Variance and Site Plan Review, pursuant to Section 17.32.087, or the approval shall not be effective. M. Conditions A, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K and L of this Variance 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 16TH DAY OF JUNE. 1992. ALLAN ROBERTS, CHAIRMAN ATTEST: DIANE SAWYER, DEPUTY CITY CLERK RESOLUTION NO. 92-20 PAGE 6 The foregoing Resolution No. 92-20 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH INTO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK TO CONSTRUCT A RETAINING WALL AND GRANTING SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL FOR SUBSTANTIAL ADDITIONS TO THE EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IN ZONING CASE NO. 477. was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on June 16, 1992 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: DEPUTY CITY CLERK elk DDDD DD e'i, Or �O1GL`%L�L>G� INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 <1= MEETING DATE: JUNE 15, 1993 TO: NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: LOLA UNGAR, PRINCIPAL PLANNER SUBJECT: BACKGROUND ZONING CASE NO. 477 MR. AND MRS. HOWARD LONG, 7 LOWER BLACKWATER CANYON ROAD (LOT 83-RH) REQUEST FOR A TIME EXTENSION OF ONE YEAR. Attached is a request from Mr. Criss Gunderson, Architect, requesting a one year time extension for a previously approved Variance to permit encroachment into the front yard to construct a retaining wall and a previously approved Site Plan for substantial additions to the existing single family residence in Zoning Case No. 477. Planning Commission Resolution No. 92-20 was approved on June 16, 1992 (attached). Mr. Gunderson states that as Mr. Long's professional football career is approaching its last year, the extension of time is necessary to allow the Longs time to decide about career opportunities and the economics of making the approved improvements to their residence. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission review the request. Printed on Recycled Paper. i May 21, 1993 Chairman Roberts Rolling Hills Planning Commission City of Rolling Hills No: .2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, California 90274 t\f MAY 2 ? 1993 CITY OF. 'ROLLING HILLS Regarding: Expiration of approval for No. 1 Lower Blackwater Canyon Road Zoning case no. 477 Dear Chairman Roberts, In behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Long, I respectfully request an one year extension for the above mentioned approval. Mr. Long's football career is approaching it's last year. At this time, he has not decided what his next profession will be. The potential of selecting a position that may require him and his family to relocate their residency to another area certainly exists. With the possibility that the Longs may be moving out of the area, it does not make economic sense to improve the current property. On the other hand, the Longs hope to stay in Rolling Hills and make the approved improvements to their home. An one year extension will allow the Longs to have the time to make these difficult decisions Tha Criss Gunderson: hitect CCG:ccg cc: Mr. and Mrs. Howard Long 253 5th Street, Suite C, Seal Beach, California 90740 Tel: (310) 594-9157 Fax: (310) 594-5553 RESOLUTION NO. 92-20 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH INTO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK TO CONSTRUCT A RETAINING WALL AND GRANTING SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL FOR SUBSTANTIAL ADDITIONS TO THE EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IN ZONING CASE NO. 477. 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. Howard Long with respect to real property located at 7 Lower Blackwater Canyon Road, Rolling Hills (Lot 83-RH) requesting: (1) a Variance to the front yard setback to construct a retaining wall, and (2) Site Plan Review for substantial residential additions. Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the application for a Variance and Site Plan Review on April 28, 1992, and May 19, 1992, and at a field trip on May 9, 1992. Section 3. The Planning Commission finds that the project is categorically exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to a Class 3 exemption provided by Section 15303 of the State CEQA Guidelines. Section 4. 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 requested to construct a 205-foot long retaining wall that will be no higher that 3 feet that will replace a previously existing retaining wall. The retaining wall will encroach up to a maximum of 39 feet into the front yard setback beginning 11 feet from the setback line. With regard to this request, the Planning Commission makes the following findings: A. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances and conditions applicable to the property and the intended use that do not apply generally to the other property in the same vicinity and zone. The sloping topography of the subject site and the existing location of the driveway necessitate construction of a retaining wall within the front yard setback in order to support existing hillside cuts and slopes. RESOLUTION NO. 92-20 PAGE 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 the property in question. The Variance is necessary because the existing development, pattern on the lot and the topography of the site require a retaining wall. The reconstruction of such wall in the front yard setback will create a safer accessway and that will also improve the appearance of the existing driveway. C. The granting of the 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. The Variance will help to improve the geologic stability of the slope and will not be visible to surrounding properties due to the distances between the driveway and other adjacent residences. Section 5. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves the Variance to encroach up to a maximum of 39 feet into the front yard setback to construct a retaining wall not to exceed 3 feet in height at any one point along the driveway as indicated on the Development Plan attached hereto as Exhibit A, subject to the conditions specified in Section 9 below. Section 6. 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 be made which 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. Section 7. 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 footarea of 247,111 square feet. The proposed residence (7,096 sq.ft.), garage (721 sq.ft.), spa (314 sq.ft.), existing tennis court (6,600 sq.ft..), existing garage/stable (1,440 sq.ft.),'and a service yard (135 sq.ft.), will have 16,306 square feet which constitutes 6.6% of the lot which is within the maximum 20% structural lot coverage requirement. The total lot coverage including paved areas and driveway will be 33,416 square feet which equals 13.5% of the lot, which is within the 35% maximum overall lot coverage requirement. The proposed project is on a relatively RESOLUTION NO. 92-20 PAGE 3 large lot with most of the proposed additions located away from the road 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 (such as hillsides and knolls) and grading will be minimal to minimize building coverage on the building pad itself. C. Thedevelopment plan follows natural contours of the site to minimize grading and the natural drainage courses will continue to the canyons at the rear of this lot. D. The development plan incorporates existing large trees and native vegetation tothe 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. Significant portions of the lot, will be left undeveloped so as to minimize the impact of development. F. The proposed development is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, the natural terrain and surrounding residences because as indicated in Paragraph A, lot coverage maximums 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 8. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves the Site Plan Review for residential additions as indicated on the Development Plan attached hereto as. Exhibit A subject to the conditions contained in Section 9. RESOLUTION NO. 92-20 PAGE 4 Section 9. The Variance to the front yard setback approved in Sections 5 and the Site Plan Review for residential additions approved in Section 8 as indicated on the Development Plan attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A, are subject to the following conditions: A. The Variance 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 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 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 except as otherwise provided in these conditions. E. The retaining wall incorporated into the front yard setback shall not be greater than three (3) feet in height at any point along the driveway. F. No scraping of terrain shall be permitted. G. To minimize the building on the pad, the structures, driveway, graded slopes and retaining wall shall be screened and shielded from view with native drought -resistant vegetation that is compatible with the surrounding vegetation of the community. H. A 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. RESOLUTION NO. 92-20 PAGE 5 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 thantwo 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. I. 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. J. 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 permi K. The residential building pad coverage shall not exceed 31.9% and overall pad coverage shall not exceed 29.1%. L. The applicant shall execute an Affidavit of Acceptance of all conditions of this Variance and Site Plan Review, pursuant to Section 17.32.087, or the approval shall not be effective. M. Conditions A, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K and L of this Variance 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 ).-DAY OF JUNE, 1992. ALLAN ROBERTS, CHAIRMAN ATTEST: DIANE SAWYER, DEPUTY ITY CLERK RESOLUTION NO. 92-20 PAGE 6 The foregoing Resolution No. 92-20 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH INTO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK TO CONSTRUCT A RETAINING WALL AND GRANTING SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL FOR SUBSTANTIAL ADDITIONS TO THE EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IN ZONING CASE NO. 477. was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on June 16, 1992 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Frost, Raine, and Chairman Roberts NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Hankins and Lay ABSTAIN: None ck DEPUTY/CITY LERK i • RAFT RESOLUTION NO. 93-21 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS APPROVING AN EXTENSION TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED VARIANCE TO PERMIT ENCROACHMENT INTO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK TO CONSTRUCT A RETAINING WALL AND APPROVING AN EXTENSION TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE PLAN FOR SUBSTANTIAL ADDITIONS TO THE EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IN ZONING CASE NO. 477. THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. A request has been filed by Mr. and Mrs. Howard Long with respect to real property located at 7 Lower Blackwater Canyon Road (Lot 83-RH), Rolling Hills, requesting an extension to a previously approved Variance to permit encroachment into the front yard setback to construct.a retaining wall, and a previously aproved Site Plan for substantial residential additions to the existing single family residence. Section 2. The Commission considered this item at a meeting on June 15, 1993 at which time information was presented indicating that the extension of time is necessary for the Longs to make decisions about career opportunities and economics. Section 3. Based upon information and evidence submitted, the Planning Commission does hereby amend.Paragraph A, Section 9 of Resolution No. 92-20, dated June 16, 1992, to read as follows: "A. The Variance and Site Plan Review approvals shall expire within two years of the approval of this Resolution." Section 4. Except as herein amended, the provisions of Resolution No. 92-20 shall continue to be in full force and effect. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 15TH DAY OF JUNE, 1993. ALLAN ROBERTS, CHAIRMAN ATTEST: MARILYN KERN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK HEARING DATE: TO: FROM: APPLICATION NO. SITE LOCATION: ZONING & SIZE: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PUBLISHED: REQUEST eiq, ,eo llins • illo INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 MAY 19, 1992 PLANNING COMMISSION LOLA UNGAR. PRINCIPAL PLANNER NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (213) 377-1521 FAX: (213) 377-7288 ZONING CASE NO. 477 7 LOWER BLACKWATER CANYON ROAD (LOT 83-RH) RAS-2, 6.166 ACRES MR. AND MRS. HOWARD LONG MR. CRISS GUNDERSON, ARCHITECT APRIL 18, 1992 The applicants request a Variance to permit the encroachment of a retaining wall into the front yard setback, and request Site Plan Review to ; permit the construction of substantial additions to an existing single family residence. BACKGROUND 1. Planning Commission viewed a staking and the roof line of the proposed project on May 9, 1992. j 2. The applicants are requesting a Variance to permit the encroachment into the front yard of a 205-foot long retaining wall that will be no higher than 3 feet that will replace a previously existing retaining wall. The !lwall will encroach up to 39 feet into the front yard setback beginning 11 feet from the setback line. 3. The applicants also request Site Plan Review to permit the construction of 3,107 square feet of additions to the existing 3,989 square foot single family residence, a 721 square foot new garage at the south wing, a 341 1 square foot circular spa to the west of the proposed new master bedroom wing, as well as the replacement of a 152-foot long 3-foot high retaining wall at the south wing of the house. The additions will include a 516 square foot children's wing addition to a 481 square foot garage that will be converted to residential use at the southwest wing, a 261 square foot breakfast nook addition to the kitchen at the west wing, and a 1,833 master bedroom suite at the north wing. 1 4. In 1955, a new 2,108 square foot residence was built at the site In 1968, a new 400 square foot garage was completed. On May 17, 1977, al Conditional Use Permit for a tennis court was approved by the Planning Commission in Zoning Case No. 180. In 1978, 1,146 square feet of room additions were completed. In 1981, a new 1,440 square foot garage and barn were completed. On October 20, 1987, a request of the Planning Commission was withdrawn by the applicants (Mr. and Mrs. William Davisson) for a Conditional Use Permit in Zoning Case No. 342 to convert a garage and stable with a loft Ito servants quarters. ZONING CASE NO. 477 PAGE 2 5. Grading for the project site will require 130 cubic yards of cut soil and 130 cubic yards of fill soil. 6. The structural lot coverage proposed is 16,171 square feet or 6.5% (20% permitted) and the total lot coverage proposed is 33,281 square feet or 13.5% (35% permitted). 7. The building pad coverage proposed is 17.6%. 8. 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 proposed plans and take public testimony. ' HEARING DATE: TO: FROM: APPLICATION NO. SITE LOCATION: ZONING & SIZE: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PUBLISHED: REQUEST • C;41 ,,/!2 ffins JUL INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 APRIL 28, 1992 PLANNING COMMIS SION LOLA UNGAR. PRINCIPAL PLANNER NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (213) 377-1521 FAX: (213) 377-7288 ZONING CASE NO. 477 7 LOWER BLACKWATER CANYON ROAD (LOT 83-RH) RAS-2, 6.166 ACRES MR. AND MRS. HOWARD LONG MR. CRISS GUNDERSON, ARCHITECT APRIL 18, 1992 The applicants request a Variance to permit the encroachment of a retaining wall into the front yard setback, and request Site Plan Review to permit the construction of substantial additions to an existing single family residence. BACKGROUND In reviewing the applicant's request under Title 17 (Zoning), staff would identify the following issues for evaluation: 1. The applicant is requesting a Variance to permit the encroachment into the front yard of a 205-foot long retaining wall that will be no higher than 3 feet that will replace a previously existing retaining wall. The wall will encroach up to 39 feet into the front yard setback beginning 11 feet from the setback line. 2. The applicants also request Site Plan Review to permit the construction of 3,107 square feet of additions to the existing single family residence, a 721 square foot new garage at the south wing, a 341 square foot circular spa to the west of the proposed new master bedroom wing, as well as the replacement of a 152-foot long 3-foot high retaining wall at the south wing of the house. The additions will include a 516 square foot children's wing addition to a 481 square foot garage that will be converted to residential use at the southwest wing, a 261 square foot breakfast nook addition to the kitchen at the west wing, and a 1,833 master bedroom suite at the north wing. 3. In 1955, a new 2,108 square foot residence was built at the site. In 1968, a new 400 square foot garage was completed. On May 17, 1977, a Conditional Use Permit for a Tennis Court was approved by the Planning Commission in Zoning Case No. 180. In 1978, 1,146 square feet of room additions were completed. In 1981, a new 1,440 square foot garage and barn were completed. On October 20, 1987, a request of the Planning Commission was withdrawn by the applicants (Mr. and Mrs. William Davisson) for a Conditional Use Permit in Zoning Case No. 342 to convert a garage and stable with a loft to servants quarters. ZONING CASE NO. 477 PAGE 2 4. Grading for the project site cubic yards of fill soil. 5. The structural lot coverage permitted) and the total lot (35 % permitted). will require 130 cubic yards of cut soil and 130 proposed is 16,171 square feet or 6.5% (20% coverage proposed is 33,281 square feet or 13.5 % 6. The building pad coverage proposed is .17.6%. 7. 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 proposed plans and take public testimony.