426, Add 3608 sq ft to existing 160, Resolutions & Approval ConditionsRESOLUTION NO. 90-12
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A VARIANCE
TO THE FRONT AND REAR YARD SETBACKS AND SITE PLAN REVIEW
APPROVAL IN ZONING CASE NO. 426
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 Dr. Samar
Sircar with respect to real property located at 58 Eastfield Drive,
Rolling Hills (Lot 103 - EF) requesting a variance to the front yard
setback requirement to remodel a portion of the nonconforming
residence and to the rear yard setback requirement to construct a
retaining wall; Site Plan Review approval to construct additions to
the existing structure.
Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed
public hearing to consider the application on April 18, 1990, May 15,
1990 and June 19, 1990; and conducted a field Site Plan Review on May
5, 1990 and June 2, 1990.
Section 3. Sections 17.32.010 through 17.32.030 permit
approval of a variance form the standards and requirements of the
Zoning Ordinance when exceptional or extraordinary circumstances
applicable to the other similar properties in the same zone prevent
the owner from making use of the property to the same extent enjoyed
by similar properties. Section 17.16.065 requires a front yard
setback in the RAS - 1 Zone to be 50 feet. The applicant is
requesting that a portion of an existing garage be allowed to
continue to encroach eleven (11') feet into the front yard setback
upon conversion to living area. Pursuant to these Sections, the
Planning Commission finds that:
A. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or
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 vicinity and zone because the lot
is shallow and there exists topographical constraints that
justify the continued encroachment since the residential
structure cannot be significantly expanded into the front
and rear yard due to the current development pattern of the
site.
B. The variance is necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by
other property in the same vicinity and zone, but which is
denied to the property in question because the neighborhood
area of the subject site has other residential developments
with reduced yard setbacks.
•
C. The granting of the variance would not be materially
detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the
property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which
the property is located because the proposed expansion of
the residence would result in no greater incursion into the
front yard setback than the existing incursion.
Section 4. Based upon the foregoing findings, the
Commission hereby approves the Variance for Zoning Case No. 426 to
permit the continued eleven (11') foot encroachment of the
residential structure within the front yard setback, as indicated in
the Development Plan submitted with this application and incorporated
herein by reference as Exhibit A, and subject to the conditions
outlined in Section 9 of this Resolution.
Section 5. Section 17.16.080 requires a rear yard setback
to be fifty (50) feet. The applicant is requesting an encroachment
of 22 feet in order to construct a new retaining wall which will
generally follow the location of an existing wood retaining wall that
will be removed. Pursuant to this Section, the Planning Commission
finds that:
A. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or
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 vicinity and zone because the lot
is shallow and there exists topographical constraints that
significantly restrict the development of the property into
the rear yard.
B. The variance is necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of substantial property right possessed by other
property in the same vicinity and zone, but which is
denied to the property in question because the neighborhood
area of the subject site has other residential developments
with reduced yard setbacks.
C. The granting of the variance would not be materially
detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the
property or improvements insuch vicinity and zone in which
the property is located because the proposed wall will
replace an existing wood retaining wall that poses
potential safety hazards and will be constructed generally
at the existing location of the wood wall.
Section 6. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Plan
Planning Commission hereby approves the Variance for Zoning Case No.
426 to permit an encroachment of 22 feet into the rear yard setback
in order to permit construction of a new retaining wall, as indicated
in the Development Plan submitted with this application and
incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit A, and subject to the
conditions outlined in Section 9 of this Resolution.
• •
Section 7. 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 (25%) percent in any thirty-six (36) month
period.
Section 8. The Commission makes 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 lot coverage
requirements. The lot has a net square foot area of 38,954
square feet. The residential structure, garage, swimming
pool, service yard and future stable will have 6,922 square
feet which constitutes 17.7% of the lot, which is within
the maximum 20% structural lot coverage requirement. The
total lot coverage including paved areas and driveway will
be 12,115 square feet which equals 31.0% of the lot, which
is within the 35% maximum overall lot coverage
requirement. The proposed project is similar and
compatible with neighboring development patterns.
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)
because minimal grading for the project is required,
thereby preserving the existing slope and mature trees.
C. The development plan follows natural contours of the
site to minimize grading and the existing drainage courses
will generally not be affected by the project.
D. The development plan preserves surrounding native
vegetation 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 proposed additions will generally
occur on the existing building pad and total structural lot
coverage will not be exceeded
ti
•
F. The proposed development is harmonious in scale and mass
with the site, the natural terrain and surrounding
residences because the proposed project is of consistent
scale with the neighborhood thereby requiring minimal
grading and not impairing views from surrounding
residences.
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 driveway access thereby having no
further impact on the roadway.
H. The project conforms with the requirements of the
California Environment Quality Act and is categorically
exempt form environmental review.
Section 9. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning
Commission hereby approves the site plan review application for a
proposed residential project to the property located at 58 Eastfield
Drive as indicated on the development plan attached hereto as
"Exhibit A" and subject to the following conditions:
A. The variance to the front yard setback as indicated on
the Development plan shall not be effective if that portion
of the existing residential structure is demolished.
B. The variance approvals shall expire if not used in one
year from the effective date of approval as defined and
specified in Section 17.32.110 of the Municipal Code.
C. The proposed building plan must be approved by the
Rolling Hills Community Association Architectural Committee
before the applicant receives a grading permit from the
County of Los Angeles.
D. Prior to the submittal of a final grading plan to the
County of Los Angeles, the grading plan shall be submitted
to the Rolling Hills Planning Department staff for their
review, along with related geology, soils and hydrology
reports. This grading plan must conform to the development
plan as approved by the Planning Commission.
• •
ATTEST:
E. A landscape plan must be submitted to the City of
Rolling Hills Planning Department staff for approval. The
landscaping plan submitted must comply with the purpose and
intent of the Site Plan Review Ordinance. The landscaping
plan shall incorporate existing mature trees and native
vegetation. A bond in the amount to of the cost estimate
of the landscaping plus 15% may be required to be posted
and retained with the City for not less than two years
after landscape installation. The retained bond will be
released by the City after the City Manager (or the
Landscape Committee of the Rolling Hills Community
Association, if appointed to act for this purpose in the
place of the City Manager) determines that the landscaping
was installed pursuant the landscaping plan as approved,
and that such landscaping is property established and in
good condition.
F. Landscaping of a minimum 12 feet high shall be
installed to fill the landscape voided area abutting the
property at 58 Eastfield Drive
G. The working drawings submitted to the County Department
of Building and Safety for plan check must conform to the
development plan approved with this site plan review.
H. Any obstructive items being stored by the property owner
in the northerly easement shall be removed, except the
mature vegetation in the northerly easement shall be
maintained.
I. The proposed project shall be restricted to a maximum
40% coverage of the building pad area.
J. Any modifications to the development plans approved by
the Planning Commission shall require the filing of an
application for modification of the development plan and
must be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission
pursuant to Section 17.34.070 of the Rolling Hills
Municipal Code.
K. The applicant shall execute an affidavit of acceptance
of all conditions pursuant to Section 17.32.087 or this
variance and site plan review approval shall not be
effective.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of June.,
1990.
Chairman
City Cle