Loading...
432A, Modification to Reso 92-5; con, Staff ReportsHEARING DATE: TO: FROM: APPLICATION NO. SITE LOCATION: ZONING & SIZE: APPLICANT: PUBLISHED: REQUEST City 0/ leoeenS JUL INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 DECEMBER 17, 1991 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. 432A 6 RINGBIT ROAD WEST (LOT 8-A-2-SF) RAS-1, 3.09 ACRES MR. LUIGI SCHIAPPA, E.S. DEVELOPMENT NOVEMBER 9, 1991 The applicant requests a Variance to permit the encroachment of a stable and corral within the front yard setback; requests a Variance for a retaining wall that encroaches into the front yard setback, and requests a Site Plan Review for a proposed new residence and attached garage. BACKGROUND 1. The Planning Commission viewed a silhouette of the proposed project on December 7, 1991. 2. The applicant requests Variances to permit a 450 square foot future stable to encroach 31 feet into the 50 foot front yard setback and a 4 foot retaining wall which encroaches 3 feet into the front yard setback. 3. The applicant requests a Site Plan Review for a 2,950 square foot residence, a 609 square foot attached garage, a 366 square foot swimming pool, a 450 square foot stable and a 96 square foot service yard. 4. Previously, on July 13, 1991, the Planning Commission denied a request for Site Plan Review approval to construct a new single family residence on the subject site. Later, on September 23, 1991, under appeal by the applicant, the City Council remanded the zoning case back to the Planning Commission. 5. The project denied was for a 3,210 square foot residence, a 609 square foot garage, a 50 square foot spa, a 96 square foot service yard and a 450 square foot future stable for a total structural lot coverage of 4,415 square feet. The building pad coverage on the previous proposal was 31.9%, the building pad was larger and required grading. ZONING CASE NO. 432A PAGE 2 6. Access to the property will be from an existing private road across an adjacent property from Ringbit Road West. 7. Grading will not be required for the project site. 8. Caissons will be required to support the building foundations. Calculations by South Bay Engineering have determined that 21 caissons will be required. The caissons will be 2 feet in diameter and will extend down 20 feet through dirt and 20 feet through bedrock. The amount of concrete needed for these caissons will be 97.7 cubic yards. 9. The structural lot coverage proposed is 4,471 square feet or 3.7% (20% permitted) and the total lot coverage proposed is 7,373 square feet or 6.1% (35% permitted). 10. Proposed structural coverage on the 11,942 square foot building pad will be 33.7%. (This calculation was checked by Planning and found to be different from the attached blueprint which did not include all structures on the building pad). 11. 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. S twit INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 MEETING DATE: DECEMBER 15, 1992 TO: HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: LOLA UNGAR, PRINCIPAL PLANNER SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 432A E.S. DEVELOPMENT, INC., MR. LUIGI SCHIAPPA 6 RINGBIT ROAD WEST (LOT 8-A-2-SF) REQUEST FOR A ONE-YEAR TIME EXTENSION FOR RESOLUTION NO. 92-5 Attached is a request by Mr. Luigi Schiappa, President of E.S. Development, Inc. for a one-year time extension for a Variance to permit an encroachment into the front yard setback to construct a stable, a corral, and retaining walls and Site Plan Review for construction of a new residence approved by the Commission on January 11, 1992 (Resolution No. 92-5). Mr. Schiappa says that financial constraints that have occurred recently necessitate his request. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission review the requested time extension. Printed on Recycled Paper. December 3, 1992 City of Rolling Hills Attn: Lola Ungar, Principal Planner No. 2 Portuguese. Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA. 90274 g•ITEIVIE] DEC 0 7 1992 itv s E ROLLING HILLS CERTIFIED MAIL - Return Receipt Requested Re: Request for Extension Zoning Case No. 432A, Resolution No. 92-5 #6<Ringbit Road West (Lot 8-A-2-SF) Dear Ms. Ungar: Let this missive serve as an official request to the Rolling Hills Planning Commission that we hereby seek a one year extension in the above referenced zoning case. Financial constraints that have occurred recently necessitate this. supplication... Rest assured we will- do everything : in our power to move.forward-in-achieving entitlements to construct the proposed residence • in your: fine city. We ask for a favorable response from the Planning and would like an extesion to January 11,•1994. Thankyou for our consideration. . your ration. Sincerely, WP51‘LOU IOAR iN 15. Develupii tent, Inc. Commission 220 SOUTH PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, SUITE 112 • REDONDO BEACH, CA 90277 • (213) 376-5058 • FAX # (213) 376.4326 RESOLUTION NO. 92-5 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A VARIANCE TO PERMIT AN ENCROACHMENT INTO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK TO CONSTRUCT A STABLE, CORRAL, AND RETAINING WALLS AND GRANTING SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL IN ZONING CASE NO. 432A. 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. Luigi Schiappa, E.S. Development with respect to real property located at 6 Ringbit Road West, Rolling Hills (Lot 8-A-2 SF) requesting: (1) A Variance to permit encroachment into the front yard setback to construct a stable, corral, and retaining walls; and (2) Site Plan Review of a proposed new residence. A previous proposal was denied by the Planning Commission appealed to the City Copncil. During the appeal, the applicant revised the plans and the City Council remanded the revised application back to the Planning Commission for further action. Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the applications on November 19, 1991 and December 17, 1991, and at a field trip visit on December 7, 1991. Section 3. The Planning Commission finds that the project is categorically exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act. 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 Sections 17.16.011.H, 17.16.060, and 17.28.022 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 fifty feet, measured horizontally from the front easement line; and that required yards be maintained unoccupied from the ground up of any structures. The applicant is requesting a Variance to encroach up to 31 feet into the 50 foot front yard setback to construct a 450 square foot stable, and a 550 square foot corral within the front setback. The Planning Commission finds as follows: 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 sa:r:e vicinity and zone. The Variance for the stable and corral is necessary because the topography of the site prevents the construction of a stable and corral in the rear yard. The existing building pad is small RESOLUTION NO. 92-5 PAGE 2 and the rear yard slcpes down to a canyon, thereby precluding the creation of a flat area for a stable or corral in the rear yard. The area proposed for the stable and corral is the only place available on this property. B. T!:e Var`_ ancen 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 General Plan and Zoning Ordinance encourage the inclusion of stables and corrals on properties in the City of Rolling Hills and a stable and corral could not be feasibly located in the rear yard. 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 permit the construction of a stable and corral which will not impact the street or neighboring properties because they will be nestled into the hillside and will not be seen. Also, the building pad for the stable is located down a long driveway so that it will not be visible from the street. Section 5. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves the Variance to permit the construction of a 450 square foot stable and a 550 square foot corral to encroach up to 31 feet into the front yard setback, subject to the conditions specified in Section 11. Section 6. A Variance to Sections 17.16.060 and 17.28.022 is required to construct right-angle retainingwalls that will encroach up to 3 feet into the fifty (50) foot, front yard setback, a total of 51 feet in length, that will not be more than 5 feet in height at any one point. 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 Variance for the retaining wall is necessary to support the hillside slope and to improve the geologic stability of the site at the driveway access turnaround area. Construction of the retaining wall into the front yard setback will permit residence to be set back further from the edge of the building pad in the rear so as to reduce the prominence of the residence on the pad. 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 it will provide stability to the existing slope and permit a driveway access turnaround area of sufficient size to permit necessary vehicular maneuverability. RESOLUTION NO. 92-5 PAGE 3 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 permit the construction of a retaining wall which will provide improved geologic stability and drainage to the subject property. Also, the wall will not be visible from immediately surrounding residences. Section 7. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves the Variance to permit the 51 foot long retaining wall to encroach up to 3 feet into the front yard setback not to exceed 5 feet in height at any one point as indicated on Exhibit A attached hereto, subject to the conditions specified in Section 11. 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 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 9. With respect to the Site Plan Review application, 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 121,210 square feet. The proposed residence (2,950 sq.ft.), garage (609 sq.ft.), swimming pool (366 sq.ft.), and future stable (450 sq.ft.) will have 4,471 square feet which constitutes 3.7% of the lot which is within the maximum 20% structural lot coverage requirement. The total lot coverage including paved areas and driveway will be 7,373 square feet which equals 6.1% 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 structures located away from the road so as to reduce the visual impact of the development. The pad is smaller and much steeper than 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) because a minimum amount of grading is proposed and will only be done to provide approved drainage that RESOLUTION NO. 92-5 PAGE 4 will flow away from the proposed residence and existing neighboring residences. The soil displaced by the drilling of caissons for the residence will be placed in the shaded areas shown on the development plan. 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 northwest side of this lot. D. The development plan will, in compliance with the conditions contained in this Resolution, supplement the existing vegetation 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, the proposed project will have a buildable pad coverage of 33.7%. Modifications have been made to the application to reduce the size of the residence so as to reduce its prominence on the lot. Significant portions of the lot will remain undeveloped to allow scenic vistas across the northwesterly portions of the property. F. The proposed development is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, the natural terrain and surrounding residences. As indicated in Paragraph E, the lot coverage maximum will not be exceeded and the proposed project is consistent with the scale of the neighborhood. Modifications have been made to reduce the prominence of the house on the lot by moving the structure away from the edge of the building pad. Grading shall be permitted 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 application for Zoning Case No. 432A for a proposed residential development as indicated on the development plan incorporated herein as Exhibit A and subject to the conditions contained in Section 11. RESOLUTION NO. 92-5 PAGE 5 Section 11. The Variance to permit the construction of a stable and corral that will encroach into the front yard setback approved in Section 5, the Variance to permit the construction of a retaining wall into the front yard setback approved in Section 7, and the Site Plan Review for residentia: development approved in Section 10 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. An approved sprinkler system shall be required for the residence and garage and the project shall conform to all applicable Los Angeles County Fire Department requirements. F. It is a requirement of this approval, that no water from the pool shall be drained into the canyons. All pool water shall, when drained, be removed from the site by truck. G. All retaining walls incorporated into the project shall not be greater than 5 feet in height at any one point. H. To minimize the building on the pad, the structures, driveway, graded slopes and retaining walls shall be screened and shielded from view with native drought -resistant vegetation that is compatible with the surrounding vegetation of the community. I. 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 RESOLUTION NO. 92-5 PAGE 6 feasible, plants that are native tc te area and/or consistent with the rural character of the community. A bond in the amount of the cost esti—ate of the implementation of the landscaping plan plus 15% shall be required to be posted prior to issuance of a grading and building :errit 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. J. 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. K. 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. L. The working drawings submitted to the County Department of Building and Safety for plan check review must include a 750 square foot corral and must conform to the development p an approved with this application. M. Notwithstanding Section 17.34.070 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, any modificatipns to the project which would constitute additional development shall require the filing of a new application for approval by the Planning Commission. N. The building pad coverage shall not exceed 33.7%. 0. The applicant shall execute an Affidavit of Acceptance of all conditions of this Variance, pursuant to Section 17.32.087, or the approval shall not be effective. P. Conditions A, C, D, E, b, H, I, J, K, L, N, and 0 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. RESOLUTION NO. 92-5 PAGE 7 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THISS TH DAY OF JANUARY, 1992. ALLAN ROBERTS, CHAIRMAN ATTEST: DIANE SAYER, DEPUTCITY CLERK The foregoing Resolution No. 92-5 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A VARIANCE TO PERMIT AN ENCROACHMENT INTO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK TO CONSTRUCT A STABLE, CORRAL, AND RETAINING WALLS AND GRANTING SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL IN ZONING CASE NO. 432A. was approved and adopted at a regular adjourned meeting of the Planning Commission on January 11, 1992 by the following roll call vote: I AYES: Commissioners Hankins, Lay, Raine and Chairman Roberts NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Frost ABSTAIN: None / v 0.1.0 DEPUTY CITY CLERK RESOLUTION NO. 92-34 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS APPROVING A MODIFICATION TO RESOLUTION NO. 92-5, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A VARIANCE TO PERMIT AN ENCROACHMENT INTO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK TO CONSTRUCT A STABLE, CORRAL, AND RETAINING WALLS AND GRANTING SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL IN ZONING CASE NO. 432A. 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. Luigi Schiappa, E.S. Development with respect to real property located at 6 Ringbit Road West, Rolling Hills (Lot 8-A-2 SF) requesting a modification to a previously approved 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. The modification requested is to extend the allowable time period for building construction. Section 2. The Commission considered this item at a meeting on December 15, 1992 at which time information was presented indicating that the extension of time is necessary for the applicant to acquire the finances for building construction. Section 3. Based upon information and evidence submitted, the Planning Commission does hereby amend Paragraph A, Section 11 of Resolution No. 92-5 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. 92-5 shall continue to be in full force and effect. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 1992. ALLAN ROBERTS, CHAIRMAN ATTEST: MARILYN KERN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK HEARING DATE: TO: FROM: APPLICATION NO. SITE LOCATION: ZONING & SIZE: APPLICANT: PUBLISHED: REOUEST aiy ./ INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NOVEMBER 19, 1991 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. 432A 6 RINGBIT ROAD WEST (LOT 8-A-2-SF) RAS-1, 3.09 ACRES MR. LUIGI SCHIAPPA, E.S. DEVELOPMENT JUNE 9, 1990 The applicant requests a Variance to permit the encroachment of a stable and corral within the front yard setback; requests a Variance for a retaining wall that encroaches into the front yard setback, and requests a Site Plan Review for a proposed new residence and attached garage. BACKGROUND In reviewing the applicant's request under Title 17 (Zoning), staff would identify the following issues for evaluation: 1. The applicant requests Variances to permit a 450 square foot future stable to encroach 31 feet into the 50 foot front yard setback and a 4 foot retaining wall which encroaches 3 feet into the front yard setback. 2. The applicant requests a Site Plan Review for a 2,950 square foot residence, a 609 square foot attached garage, a 366 square foot swimming pool, a 450 square foot stable and a 96 square foot service yard. 3. Previously, on July 13, 1991, the Planning Commission denied a request for Site Plan Review approval to construct a new single family residence on the subject site. 4. The project denied was for a 3,210 square foot residence, a 609 square foot garage, a 50 square foot spa, a 96 square foot service yard and a 450 square foot future stable for a total structural lot coverage of 4,415 square feet. 5. It should be noted that the denied project had a building pad of 12,133 square feet, requiring 190 cubic yards of cut and 490 cubic yards of fill. (The excess fill dirt would be accumulated from footings and caissons). The building pad coverage on the larger pad was 31.9%. 4g ZONING CASE NO. 432A PAGE 2 6. Subsequently, the applicant appealed the denial to the City Council. On August 26, 1991, the City heard the appeal and at that time a revised plan was proposed by the applicant. The City Council conducted a field trip on September 19, 1991 to view the revised proposal and then, on September 23, 1991 remanded the subject case back to the Planning Commission for review. 7. Access to the property will be from an existing private road across an adjacent property from Ringbit Road West. 8. Grading will not be required for the project site. 9. Caissons will be required to support the building foundations. Calculations by South Bay Engineering have determined that 21 caissons will be required. The caissons will be 2 feet in diameter and will extend down 20 feet through dirt and 20 feet through bedrock. The amount of concrete needed for these caissons will be 97.7 cubic yards. 10. The structural lot coverage proposed is 4,471 square feet or 3.7% (20% permitted) and the total lot coverage proposed is 7,373 square feet or 6.1% (35% permitted). 11. Proposed structural coverage on the 11,942 square foot building pad will be 33.7%. (This calculation was checked by Planning and found to be different from the attached blueprint which did not include all structures on the building pad). 12. 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.