Loading...
432& 432A, Appealling initial denial, si, Resolutions & Approval ConditionsRESOLUTION NO. 97-2 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DENYING A REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AND DENYING A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO PERMIT AN ENCROACHMENT INTO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR A STABLE AND CORRAL BY THE INABILITY OF THE COMMISSION TO MAKE AFFIRMATIVE FINDINGS ON THE APPLICATIONS BY MAJORITY VOTE IN ZONING CASE NO. 545A. 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 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 and corral and requesting Site Plan Review for the construction of a new single family residence and attached garage. Section 2. On July 18, 1996, it was determined by the City Manager following consultation .with the Planning Commission on July 16, 1996, that a new site plan and accompanying information submitted by the applicant were different from a previous proposal that had been denied. The prior proposal would have required grading to raise the building pad up to 14 feet. The determination allowed the applicant to reapply within twelve months of the May 28, 1996 denial of appeal by the City Council in previous Zoning Case No. 529A (Rolling Hills Municipal Code Section 17.30.040). Section 3. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the requests on September 17, 1996, October 15, 1996, November 19, 1996, and December 17, 1996 and at a field trip visit on October 12, 1996. The applicant was notified of the public hearing in writing by first class mail and through the City's newsletter, and the applicant and her representative attended all hearings. 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. Concerns expressed by residents focused on the pad elevation, the construction of caissons or soldier piles to stabilize the residence on the building pad and the fragile nature of the canyon. Section 4. Following the close of the public hearing, the Commission requested that staff prepare a Resolution of Approval on December 17, 1997. On January 21, 1997, when the Resolution was presented to the Planning Commission, the Commission members deadlocked with two in favor and two against and thus were unable to approve the Resolution by a majority vote. Therefore, the Planning • • Commission directed the preparation of this Resolution to reflect that the requests were denied by the inability of the Planning Commission to adopt affirmative findings for approval of the project. Section 5. The Planning Commission does find 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 6. 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 680 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 4,876 square feet or 4.1% and the total lot coverage proposed is 10,714 square feet or 9.0%. The building pad coverage proposed is 28.5%. B. The Planning Commission could not find by a majority vote that the granting of the request for the Site Plan Review would be consistent with the purposes and objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan. Grading to create a 17,081 square foot building pad would require that 2,170 cubic yards of cut soil and 2,170 cubic yards of fill soil be moved to raise the building pad up to 5 feet at this hillside lot. Two Commissioners were of the opinion that 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 Planning Commission could not find by a majority vote that the development plan substantially preserves the natural and undeveloped state of the lot by minimizing building coverage because two Commissioners were of the opinion that the project causes overdevelopment of the building pad due to the fact that a new and larger pad is proposed on what is now a smaller pad on the top of a prominent knoll. D. The Planning Commission could not find by a majority vote that the proposed development minimize building coverage on the pad. Two Commissioners were of the opinion that the proposed development leaves little open space at the edges of the building pad. This makes the structure more visually RESOLUTION NO. 97-2 PAGE 2 OF 5 • • 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 Planning Commission could not find by a majority vote that the structure is harmonious in scale and mass with the site. Two Commissioners found that the project is not appropriately scaled with the size of the building pad. This incongruity in scale is exacerbated by the pad's prominent location and the proposed development located on the top of a steep, fragile slope. For these reasons, the proposed development of the building pad is not consistent with the size and shape of the lot. F. The Planning Commission could not find by a majority vote that the proposed development preserves and is integrated into the site design. Two Commissioners believed that the remaining natural topographic features of the lot will be altered to create a larger building pad and that the project would impact the natural drainage course to the southeast of the site. G. The Planning Commission could not find by a majority vote that the project will be consistent with the General Plan requirement to maintain strict grading practices to preserve the community's natural terrain. Two Commissioners believed that 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 of the pad and unique location of the site. H. The Planning Commission could not find by a majority vote that the development plan follows the natural contours of the site to minimize grading because two Commissioners believed that grading will be required to develop a larger building pad that involves raising the level of the building pad from 2 to 5 feet above the existing building pad. The increased elevation of pad is not appropriate because it will affect surrounding residences and the views from surrounding residences above and below the project site. Section 7. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission was unable to make the required findings to approve the project and thus, hereby denies the Site Plan Review application for Zoning Case No. 545A for a proposed residential development. Section 8. 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 RESOLUTION NO. 97-2 PAGE 3 OF 5 • • 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 the Commission was unable to find by a majority vote that 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 two Commissioners believed that the topography of the site would require that the construction of a stable and corral in the front yard would require more grading than appropriate. C. The Planning Commission was unable to find by a majority vote that 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. Two Commissioners believed that 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 Planning Commission was unable to find by a majority vote that 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. Two Commissioners found that the Variance will permit the construction of a stable and corral which will impact the neighboring properties because it will require additional grading on a fragile hillside that drains to Flying Triangle Active Landslide Area. Section 9. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission is unable to make findings to approve the Variance and thus, hereby denies the Variance for Zoning Case No. 545A 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. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 1997. EWE FA 4KINS, ACTING CHAIR RESOLUTION NO. 97-2 PAGE 4 OF 5 ATTEST: P . MARIL .KERN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§ CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ) I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 97-2 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DENYING A REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AND DENYING A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO PERMIT AN ENCROACHMENT INTO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR A STABLE AND CORRAL BY THE INABILITY OF THE COMMISSION TO MAKE AFFIRMATIVE FINDINGS ON THE APPLICATIONS BY MAJORITY VOTE IN ZONING CASE NO. 545A. was approved and adopted at an adjourned regular meeting of the Planning Commission on February 11, 1997 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Hankins, Margeta, Sommers and Witte. NOES: None. ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Chairman Roberts. and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following: Administrative Offices. DEPUTYCLERK hr`J RESOLUTION NO. 97-2 PAGE 5 OF 5 • • RESOLUTION NO. 91-17 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DENYING A REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT A NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IN ZONING CASE NO. 432. 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. Luigi Schiappa, E.S. Development, Inc., with respect to real property located at 6 Ringbit Road West, Rolling Hills (Lot 8-A-2-EF), requesting Site Plan Review approval for construction of a single family residence and attached garage. Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the application for the Site Plan Review on November 20, 1990, December 18, 1990, January 15, 1991, February 19, 1991, March 19, 1991, April 16, 1991, May 21, 1991, and June 25, 1991, and at field trip visits on January 12, 1991 and May 4, 1991. Section 3. 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 4. The Planning Commission makes the following findings of fact: A. The project conforms with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and is categorically exempt from environmental review. B. The project, as proposed in the applicant's most recent. submission, proposed a single family residence and attached garage. The residence is proposed to be 3,210 square feet, the garage is proposed to be 609 square feet, the spa is proposed to be 50 square feet, the service yard is proposed to be 96 square feet, and the future stable is proposed to be 450 square feet. The structural lot coverage proposed is 4,415 square feet or 3.6% and the total lot coverage proposed is 6,819 square feet or 5.6%. The building pad coverage proposed is 31.9%. i • RESOLUTION NO. 91-17 PAGE 2 C. 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. The residence would be located close to the edge of the pad, thereby creating a prominent structural improvement on this hillside lot, which is not compatible with the General Plan goals of maintaining low -profile residential development patterns in the community. D. The proposed project would not be desirable to the public convenience and welfare because the project causes overdevelopment of the building pad due to the fact that the pad is on a steep canyon slope. Therefore, a building pad coverage of 31.9% is deemed excessive. E. The project would 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. F. The proposed project does not minimize building coverage on the pad and leaves little open space at the edge 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. G. The building pad is smaller than most building pads in the City. 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 near the edge of a steep slope. For these reasons, this proposed development is too large for the building pad and is not consistent with the goals, purposes, and requirements of the Site Plan Review Ordinance. H. The proposed development is not harmonious in scale and mass with the site, the natural terrain and surrounding residences. As previously indicated, the building pad coverage is excessive. RESOLUTION NO. 91-17 PAGE 3 Section 6. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby denies the request for Site Plan Review approval for the construction of a new single family residence in Zoning Case No. 432. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 13TH DAY OF JULY, 1991. ATTEST: D I ANE SAWXEt2 , DEPUT ALLAN ROBERTS, CHAIRMAN CITY CLERK The foregoing Resolution No. 91-17 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DENYING A REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT A NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IN ZONING CASE NO. 432. was approved and adopted at a regular adjourned meeting of the Planning Commission on July 13, 1991 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: Commissioners Frost, Hankins, Lay, Raine & Chairman Roberts None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None DEPUTY CITY CLER