Loading...
529A, Appeal planning commissions de, Resolutions & Approval ConditionsRESOLl iON NO. 782 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DENYING A REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE, DENYING A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH INTO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK TO CONSTRUCT A STABLE AND CORRAL, AND DENYING A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH INTO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK TO CONSTRUCT RETAINING WALLS IN ZONING CASE NO. 529A. THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Requests have been filed by Ms. Kelly Tsou & Mr. Ching Sung Tsou with respect to real property located at 6 Ringbit Road West (Lot 8-A-2-SF), Rolling Hills, requesting a Variance to permit encroachment into the front yard setback to construct a stable, corral and retaining walls; and Site Plan Review of a proposed new residence. Section 2. On March 9, 1996, the Planning Commission approved Resolution No. 96-6 denying a request for a variance to encroach into the front yard setback to construct a stable and corral, and denying a request for a variance to encroach into the front yard setback to construct retaining walls. During the hearing process, the Commission discussed concerns related to the size of the building pad, the fragility of the hillside, amount of grading, drainage and hydrology within the immediate vicinity and in a wider area, and the restoration of native plants removed during the land development process. Evidence was heard and presented from all persons interested in affecting said proposal, from all persons protesting the same, and from members of the City staff and the Planning Commission having reviewed, analyzed and studied said proposal. Section 3. On March 25, 1996, an appeal was filed to the City Council. The Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the appeal on April 8, 1996, April 22, 1996, and May 13, 1996 and at a field trip visit on April 29, 1996. During the hearing process, the Council discussed concerns related to the size of the building pad, the fragility of the hillside, amount of grading, and the drainage and hydrology within the immediate vicinity and in a wider area and other issues. Evidence was heard and presented from all persons interested in affecting said proposal, from all persons protesting the same, and from members of the City staff and the City Council having reviewed, analyzed and studied said proposal. Section 4. The City Council finds that the project qualifies as a Class 3 Exemption (State CA Guidelines, Section 15301(e)) and is therefore categorically exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act. Section 5. Section 17.46.030 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 at least 1,000 square feet and has the effect of increasing the size of the building by more than twenty- five percent (25%) in any thirty-six (36) month period. With respect to the Site Plan Review application, the City Council makes the following findings of fact: A. The proposed development includes a single family residence and attached garage. The residence is proposed to be 3,650 square feet, the garage is proposed to be 760 square feet, the stable is proposed to be 450 square feet and the service yard is proposed to be 96 square feet. The structural lot coverage proposed is 4,860 square feet or 4.0% and the total lot coverage proposed is 9,545 square feet or 7.8%. The building pad coverage proposed is 30.3%. B. The granting of the request for the Site Plan Review would not be consistent with the purposes and objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan. Grading to create a 16,060 square foot building pad would require that 3,150 cubic yards of cut soil and 3,150 cubic yards of fill soil be moved to raise the building pad up to 11 feet at this hillside lot. The proposed structure does not comply with the General Plan requirement of maintaining strict grading practiced low profile residential development pins in the community. C. The development plan does not substantially preserve the natural and undeveloped state of the lot by minimizing building coverage because the project causes overdevelopment of the building pad due to the fact that a new pad must be created by cutting into portions of the hillside that would raise and expand the building pad on what is now a steep slope. D. The proposed development does not minimize building coverage on the pad and leaves little open space at the edges of the building pad. This makes the structure more visually prominent on the building pad than appropriate for the existing development pattern of the City. E. Although the proposed structure is smaller than some recent residences constructed in the City, the structure is not harmonious in scale and mass with the site. This lack of appropriate scale is exacerbated by its prominent location and its proposed development on a steep, fragile slope. For these reasons, the proposed development of the building pad is too large for the lot and is not consistent with the goals, purposes, and requirements of the Site Plan Review Ordinance. F. The proposed development does not preserve and is not integrated into the site design because existing natural topographic features of the lot including surrounding native vegetation, mature trees, drainage courses, and land forms will be destroyed to create a raised and enlarged building pad. G. The project will not be consistent with the General Plan requirement to maintain strict grading practices to preserve the community's natural terrain. The lot has already been graded for a building pad and the additional grading proposed is not necessary for development of a residential structure and would create a further detrimental visual impact due to the prominence and unique location of the site. H. The development plan does not follow the natural contours of the site to minimize grading because grading will be required to develop a larger building pad that involves extensive grading to raise the level of the building pad up to 11 feet. The property could be developed with less grading and with a smaller structure so that extensive grading would not be required. Section 6. Based upon the foregoing findings, the City Council hereby denies the Site Plan Review application for Zoning Case No. 529A for a proposed residential development. 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 Sections 17.16.200(A)(3), 17.16.110, and 17.16.150 is required because these sections state that corrals or pens not be located in the front yard, that every parcel in the RA-S zone shall have a front yard of not less than 50 feet, measured horizontally from the front easement line; and that required yards be maintained unoccupied from the ground up of any structures. The applicants are requesting a Variance to encroach up to 35 feet into the 50 foot front yard setback to construct a 450 square foot stable and a 550 square foot corral within the front yard setback. With respect to this request for a Variance, the Planning Commission finds as follows: A. Due to the denial by the City Council of the Site Plan Review application for this project, there is no approved site plan to which this Variance would apply and the City Council is unable to make affirmative findings for approval of this Variance. B. In addition, there are no exceptional and extraordinary circumstances and conditions applicable to the property or to the intended use that do not apply generally to the other property or class of use in the same zone because the property could be developed with less extensive grading and residential development. Resolution No. 782 -2- • • C. The Variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone, but which is denied to the property in question. The Variance is not necessary because the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance discourage unnecessary grading and require that the City maintain strict grading practices to preserve the community's natural terrain. D. The granting of the Variance would 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 construction of a stable and corral which will impact the neighboring properties because raising the building pad for the project will require unnecessary grading on a very fragile hillside that drains to the more fragile Flying Triangle Active Landslide Area. Section 8. Based upon the foregoing findings, the City Council hereby denies the Variance for Zoning Case No. 529A to permit the construction of a 450 square foot stable and a 550 square foot corral to encroach up to 35 feet into the front yard setback. Section 9. A Variance to Sections 17.16.110 and 17.16.150 is required to construct retaining walls that will encroach up to 10.5 feet into the fifty (50) foot front yard setback, a total of 90 feet in length, that will not be more than 5 feet in height at any one point. With respect to this request for a Variance, the Planning Commission finds as follows: A. Due to the denial by the City Council of the Site Plan Review application for this project, there is no approved site plan to attach to this Variance and the Planning Commission is unable to make affirmative findings for approval of this Variance. B. In addition, there are no exceptional and extraordinary circumstances and conditions applicable to the property or to the intended use that do not apply generally to the other property or class of use in the same zone becausethe property could be developed with less grading and with a smaller structure so that a retaining wall would not be required. C. The Variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone, but which is denied to the property in question. The Variance is not necessary because the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance discourage prominent structures on a slope and the property could be developed with less extensive grading and a smaller pad area thereby reducing the length and extent of the proposed wall. D. The granting of the Variance would 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 construction of retaining walls which impact the neighboring properties and will allow the building pad to be increased in size and height in contravention to the low -profile development pattern in the community and the General Plan provisions intended to continue that development plan. Section 10. Based upon the foregoing findings, the City Council hereby denies the Variance for Zoning Case No. 529A to permit the construction of a 90-foot long retaining wall that will not exceed 5 feet in height that will encroach a maximum of 10.5 feet into the front yard setback. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOI' I ED THIS 28TH DAY OF MAY, 1996. • 01 JOD ! M 1' D C MAYOR ATTEST: alliKERN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK Resolution No. 782 -3- STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ) §§ I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 782 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DENYING A REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE, DENYING A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH INTO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK TO CONSTRUCT A STABLE AND CORRAL, AND DENYING A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH INTO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK TO CONSTRUCT RETAINING WALLS IN ZONING CASE NO. 529A. was approved and adopted at an adjourned regular meeting of the Planning Commission on May 28, 1996 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Hill, Pernell, Mayor Pro Tem Lay and Mayor Murdock. NOES: None. ABSENT: Councilmember Heinsheimer. ABSTAIN: None. and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following: Administrative Offices. DEPUTY CITY CLERK Resolution No. 782 -4- k RESOLUTION NO. 96-6 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DENYING A REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE, DENYING A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH INTO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK TO CONSTRUCT A STABLE AND CORRAL, AND DENYING A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH INTO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK TO CONSTRUCT RETAINING WALLS IN ZONING CASE NO. 529A. THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Requests have been filed by Ms. Kelly Tsou & Mr. Ching Sung Tsou with respect to real property located at 6 Ringbit Road West (Lot 8-A-2-SF), Rolling Hills, requesting a Variance to permit encroachment into the front yard setback to construct a stable, corral and retaining walls; and Site Plan Review of a proposed new residence. Section 2. During the hearing process, the Commission discussed concerns related to the size of the building pad, the fragility of the hillside, amount of grading, drainage and hydrology within the immediate vicinity and in a wider area, and the restoration of native plants removed during the land development process. Section 3. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the requests on September 19, 1995, October 17, 1995, November 21, 1995, December 19, 1995, January 16, 1996, and February 20, 1996 and at a field trip visit on December 9, 1995. Section 4. The Planning Commission finds that the project qualifies as a Class 3 Exemption (State CA Guidelines, Section 15301(e)) and is therefore categorically exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act. Section 5. Section 17.46.030 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 at least 1,000 square feet and has the effect of increasing the size of the building by more than twenty-five percent (25%) in any thirty-six (36) month period. With respect to the Site Plan Review application, the Planning Commission makes the following findings of fact: A. The proposed development includes a single family residence and attached garage. The residence is proposed to be 3,650 square feet, the garage is • • proposed to be 760 square feet, the stable is proposed to be 450 square feet and the service yard is proposed to be 96 square feet. The structural lot coverage proposed is 4,860 square feet or 4.0% and the total lot coverage proposed is 9,545 square feet or 7.8%. The building pad coverage proposed is 30.3%. B. The granting of the request for the Site Plan Review would not be consistent with the purposes and objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan. Grading to create a 16,060 square foot building pad would require that 3,150 cubic yards of cut soil and 3,150 cubic yards of fill soil be moved to raise the building pad up to 15 feet at this hillside lot. The proposed structure does not comply with the General Plan requirement of maintaining strict grading practices and low profile residential development patterns in the community. C. The development plan does not substantially preserve the natural and undeveloped state of the lot by minimizing building coverage because the project causes overdevelopment of the building pad due to the fact that a new pad must be created on what is now a steep slope. D. The proposed development does not minimize building coverage on the pad and leaves little open space at the edges of the building pad. This makes the structure more visually prominent on the building pad than appropriate for the existing development pattern of the City. E. Although the proposed structure is smaller than some recent residences constructed in the City, the structure is not harmonious in scale and mass with the site. This lack of appropriate scale is exacerbated by its prominent location and its proposed development on a steep, fragile slope. For these reasons, the proposed development of the building pad is too large for the lot and is not consistent with the goals, purposes, and requirements of the Site Plan Review Ordinance. F. The proposed development does not preserve and is not integrated into the site design because existing natural topographic features of the lot including surrounding native vegetation, mature trees, drainage courses, and land forms will be destroyed to create a larger building pad. G. The project will not be consistent with the General Plan requirement to maintain strict grading practices to preserve the community's natural terrain. The lot has already been graded for a building pad and the additional grading proposed is not necessary for development of a residential structure and would create a further detrimental visual impact due to the prominence and unique location of the site. H. The development plan does not follow the natural contours of the site to minimize grading because grading will be required to develop a larger building pad that involves raising the level of the building pad from 9 to 15 feet above the existing building pad. The increased elevation of pad is not appropriate because it RESOLUTION NO. 96-6 PAGE 2 OF 5 • • will materially affect surrounding residences and the views from surrounding residences above and below the project site. Section 6. Based upon the foregoing findings, the. Planning Commission hereby denies the Site Plan Review application for Zoning Case No. 529A for a proposed residential development. 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 Sections 17.16.200(A)(3), 17.16.110, and 17.16.150 is required because these sections state that corrals or pens not be located in the front yard, that every parcel in the RA-S zone shall have a front yard of not less than 50 feet, measured horizontally from the front easement line; and that required yards be maintained unoccupied from the ground up of any structures. The applicants are requesting a Variance to encroach up to 35 feet into the 50 foot front yard setback to construct a 450 square foot stable and a 550 square foot corral within the front yard setback. With respect to this request for a Variance, the Planning Commission finds as follows: A. Due to the denial by the Planning Commission of the Site Plan Review application for this project, there is no approved site plan to attach to this Variance and the Planning Commission is unable to make affirmative findings for approval of this Variance. B. In addition, there are no exceptional and extraordinary circumstances and conditions applicable to the property or to the intended use that do not apply generally to the other property or class of use in the same zone because the topography of the site requires that the construction of a stable and corral in the front yard would require 3,150 cubic yards of cut soil and 3,150 cubic yards of fill soil. C. The Variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone, but which is denied to the property in question. The Variance is not necessary because the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance discourage unnecessary grading and require that the City maintain strict grading practices to preserve the community's natural terrain. D. The granting of the Variance would 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 construction of a stable and corral which will impact the neighboring properties because raising the building pad for the project will require unnecessary grading on a very fragile hillside that drains to the more fragile Flying Triangle Active Landslide Area. RESOLUTION NO. 96-6 PAGE 3 OF 5 • • Section 8. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby denies the Variance for Zoning Case No. 529A to permit the construction of a 450 square foot stable and a 550 square foot corral to encroach up to 35 feet into the front yard setback. Section 9. A Variance to Sections 17.16.110 and 17.16.150 is required to construct retaining walls that will encroach up to 10.5 feet into the fifty (50) foot front yard setback, a total of 90 feet in length, that will not be more than 5 feet in height at any one point. With respect to this request for a Variance, the Planning Commission finds as follows: A. Due to the denial by the Planning Commission of the Site Plan Review application for this project, there is no approved site plan to attach to this Variance and the Planning Commission is unable to make affirmative findings for approval of this Variance. B. In addition, there are no exceptional and extraordinary circumstances and conditions applicable to the property or to the intended use that do not apply generally to the other property or class of use in the same zone because the topography of the site requires that the project construction that includes retaining walls in the front yard would require 3,150 cubic yards of cut soil and 3,150 cubic yards of fill soil. C. The Variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone, but which is denied to the property in question. The Variance is not necessary because the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance discourage unnecessary grading and require that the City maintain strict grading practices to preserve the community's natural terrain. D. The granting of the Variance would 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 construction of retaining walls which will impact the neighboring properties because raising the building pad for the project will require unnecessary grading on a very fragile hillside that drains to the even more fragile Flying Triangle Active Landslide Area. Section 10. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby denies the Variance for Zoning Case No. 529A to permit the construction of a 90-foot long retaining wall that will not exceed 5 feet in height that will encroach a maximum of 10.5 feet into the front yard setback. RESOLUTION NO. 96-6 PAGE 4 OF 5 • i PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 9TH DAYF MARCH, 1996. IE HAN INS, ACTING CHAIR ATTEST: MARILYN L. KERN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CITY OF ROLLING HILLS §§ I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 96-6 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DENYING A REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE, DENYING A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH INTO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK TO CONSTRUCT A STABLE AND CORRAL, AND DENYING A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH INTO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK TO CONSTRUCT RETAINING WALLS IN ZONING CASE NO. 529A. was approved and adopted at an adjourned regular meeting of the Planning Commission on March 9, 1996 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Hankins, Rainer and Witte. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: Commissioner Sommer. and Chairman Roberts. and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following: Administrative Offices. .a DEPUTY C*CLERK° RESOLUTION NO. 96-6 PAGE 5 OF 5