0946RESOLUTION NO. 946
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
GRANTING A SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION
AND VARIANCES TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED STRUCTURAL
LOT COVERAGE AND TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED TOTAL LOT
COVERAGE AT AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IN ZONING CASE
NO. 664 AT 15 EASTFIELD DRIVE, (LOT 52 -EF) (GORDON).
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES HEREBY FIND,
RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. An application was duly filed by Mr. and Mrs. Errol Gordon with respect
to real property located at 15 Eastfield Drive (Lot 52 -EF), Rolling Hills, requesting a Site Plan
Review and Variances to exceed the maximum structural lot coverage and to exceed the
maximum total lot coverage permitted in order to construct an addition to an existing single
family residence.
Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted duly noticed public hearings to
consider the application on May 20, 2003, July 15, 2003, and August 19, 2003 and at a field trip
visit on June 3, 2003. The applicants were notified of the public hearing in writing by first class
mail. Evidence was heard and presented from all persons interested in affecting said proposal
and from members of the City staff and the Planning Commission having reviewed, analyzed
and studied said proposal. The applicants and their representative were in attendance at the
hearings. At the September 16, 2003, the Planning Commission approved the subject project by
Resolution No. 2003-17, by a vote of 4-1.
Section 3. At the September 22, 2003 City Council meeting the City Council took
jurisdiction of Zoning Case No. 664.
Section 4. The City Council conducted duly noticed public hearings to consider the
application on October 13, 2003, October 27, 2003, and at a site visit on October 21, 2003. Staff
accompanied Councilmember Lay to visit the project site on October 22, 2003. The applicants
were notified of the public hearings in writing by first class mail and were in attendance.
Evidence was heard and presented from all persons interested in affecting said proposal, and
from members of the City staff and the City Council having reviewed, analyzed and studied
said proposal.
Section 5. Originally, the applicants requested an additional Variance to construct an
addition and covered porch, portions of which would encroach into the rear yard setback. After
the Planning Commission field trip and public hearing, the applicants revised their proposal so
that a Variance for encroachment would not be required.
Section 6. During the proceedings for the proposal, it was determined that a horse
shelter structure is located in the front yard setback on subject property, which, if retained,
would also require a Variance. The shelter shall be removed as a condition of this approval.
Section 7. In August of 2000, the Planning Commission approved a 212 square -foot
addition, which triggered a Variance to exceed the maximum permitted structural lot
coverage. Also, Resolution No. 2000-17 adopted by the Planning Commission on August 15,
2000, contains a condition, which requires that any new construction on subject property be
reviewed by the Planning Commission. Therefore, the proposed addition of 762 square foot to
the residence and 141 square foot of porches require a Site Plan Review. The 212 square foot
addition was completed in July 2001.
Section 8. The City Council finds that the project qualifies as a Class 1 Exemption
[State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15301(e)] and is therefore categorically exempt from
environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act.
Section 9. 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. Section
17.16.070(A)(1) states that coverage by structures shall not be more than 20 percent of the net
lot area. The applicants are requesting a Variance because coverage by structures will cover
23.7% of the net lot area. Section 17.16.070(A)(2) states that coverage by all impervious surfaces
shall not be more than 35 percent of the net lot area. The applicants are requesting a Variance
because coverage by impervious surfaces will cover 36.4% of the net lot area. With respect to
this request for Variances, the City Council finds as follows:
Resolution No. 946 -1-
A. There are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances and conditions applicable
to the property that do not apply generally to the other property or class of use in the same
zone. The Variance for the structural lot coverage and the Variance for the total lot coverage
are necessary because the lot is 1.63 acres, however net lot area is 1.3 acres, and the lot is long
and narrow and irregular in shape. The lot size and configuration, together with the existing
development on the lot creates difficulty in meeting this Code requirement.
B. The Variances are 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 Variances are necessary because the home is relatively small
and modest, and the applicants are requesting a modest residential addition. The homes in the
vicinity of subject residence are on the average larger than this house, including the 762 square
foot addition.
C. The granting of the Variances 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. All development will occur within existing setbacks and will be
adequately screened to prevent adverse visual impact to surrounding properties.
Development on the site will be limited to 23.7% and the total impervious surfaces including
the structures will be limited to 36.4%, which will allow a substantial portion of the lot to
remain undeveloped.
Section 10. Section 17.46.030 requires a development plan to be submitted for site
plan review and approval before any development requiring a grading permit or 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 requesting 762 square foot addition, 141 square foot
porches at an existing single-family residence would normally not require a Site Plan Review.
However, due to the restriction placed in Resolution No. 2000-17 granted on August 15, 2000,
on any future development on subject property, a Site Plan Review is required. In regards to
the Site Plan Review application the City Council 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 structures comply 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 setbacks, except
for the existing stable, and lot coverage requirements. The proposed project is in the rear of the
residence and not visible from the roadway, so as to reduce the visual impact of the
development.
B. The project substantially preserves the natural and undeveloped state of the lot.
The proposed additions will be constructed on an existing building pad and will utilize for
most part already existing impervious surfaces. The project is of sufficient distance from
nearby residences so that the additions will not impact the view or privacy of surrounding
neighbors, and will permit the owners to enjoy their property without deleterious
infringement on the rights of surrounding property owners.
C. The proposed development, as conditioned, is harmonious in scale and mass
with the site. Although the structural lot coverage and the total lot coverage will exceed the
maximum coverage permitted, the proposed project is consistent with the scale of the
neighborhood when compared to properties in the vicinity. The site was previously disturbed
and minimal additional disturbance will result from the proposed project.
D. The development plan incorporates existing vegetation to the maximum extent
feasible. The development plan substantially preserves the natural and undeveloped state of
the lot and the new additions will not cause the lot to look overdeveloped. Significant portions
of the lot will be left undeveloped so as to maintain open space.
E. The proposed development is sensitive and not detrimental to the convenience
and safety of circulation for pedestrians and vehicles because the proposed project will not
change the existing circulation pattern and will utilize an existing driveway.
F. The project is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental
Quality Act.
Resolution No. 946 -2-
Section 11. Based upon the foregoing findings in Section 9 and Section 10 of this
Resolution, the City Council hereby approves the Site Plan Review and Variances in Zoning
Case No. 664 to permit 762 square foot residential additions, 141 square foot covered
porches/trellis and to exceed lot coverage by structures of 23.7%, and by impervious surfaces
of 36.4% subject to the following conditions:
A. The Site Plan and Variances approvals shall expire within one year from the
effective date of approval if work has not commenced as defined in Sections 17.38.070(A) and
17.46.080 of the Zoning Ordinance, unless otherwise extended pursuant to the requirements of
these sections.
B. It is declared and made a condition of the approval, that if any conditions thereof
are violated, this approval shall be suspended and the privileges granted hereunder shall
lapse; provided that the applicants have been given written notice to cease such violation, the
opportunity for a hearing has been provided, and if requested, has been held, and thereafter
the applicant fails to correct the violation within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of
the City's determination.
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. This shall
include, but not be limited to, the requirements of the Lighting Ordinance, Undergrounding of
Utilities Ordinance, Roof Covering Ordinance and others.
D. The lot shall be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the
site plan on file marked Exhibit A and dated August 13, 2003, except as otherwise provided in
these conditions.
E. The property on which the project is located contains a stable and corral area of
sufficient size that meets all standards for vehicular access thereto in conformance with site
plan review limitations.
F. The horse shelter structure, located in the front yard setback, shall be removed
prior to issuance of building permits for the addition.
G. Structural lot coverage shall not exceed 13,340 square feet or 23.7% in
conformance with lot coverage limitations approved in Section 11 of this Resolution.
H. Total lot coverage of structures and paved areas shall not exceed 20,491 square
feet or 36.4% in conformance with lot coverage limitations approved in Section 11 of this
Resolution.
I. The disturbed area of the lot shall not exceed 19,512 square feet or 37.6% in
conformance with 40% lot disturbance limitations.
J. Residential and total building pad coverage on the 34,166 square foot building
pad shall not exceed 13,340 square feet or 39.0%.
K. There shall be no grading for this project.
L. Landscaping shall be designed using mature trees and shrubs so as not to
obstruct views of neighboring properties but, to obscure the residence.
M. Landscaping shall include water efficient irrigation, to the maximum extent
feasible, that incorporates a low gallonage irrigation system, utilizes automatic controllers,
incorporates an irrigation design using "hydrozones," considers slope factors and climate
conditions in design, and utilizes means to reduce water waste resulting from runoff and
overspray in accordance with Section 17.27.020 (Water efficient landscaping requirements) of
the Rolling Hills Municipal Code.
N. During construction, dust control measures shall be used to stabilize the soil from
wind erosion and reduce dust and objectionable odors generated by construction activities in
accordance with South Coast Air Quality Management District, Los Angeles County and local
ordinances and engineering practices.
O. During construction, conformance with local ordinances and engineering practices
so that people or property are not exposed to landslides, mudflows, erosion, or land
subsidence shall be required.
Resolution No. 946 -3-
P. During construction, conformance with the air quality management district
requirements, stormwater pollution prevention practices, county and local ordinances and
engineering practices so that people or property are not exposed to undue vehicle trips, noise,
dust, objectionable odors, landslides, mudflows, erosion, or land subsidence shall be required.
Q. During and after construction, all soil preparation, drainage, and landscape
sprinklers shall protect the building pad from erosion and direct surface water to the rear of
the lot at the west.
R. During construction, the Erosion Control Plan containing the elements set forth in
Section 7010 of the 2001 County of Los Angeles Uniform Building Code shall be followed to
minimize erosion and to protect slopes and channels to control stormwater pollution as
required by the County of Los Angeles.
S. During and after construction, all parking shall take place on the project site and, if
necessary, any overflow parking shall take place within nearby roadway easements.
T. During construction, the property owners shall be required to schedule and
regulate construction and related traffic noise throughout the day between the hours of 7 AM
and 6 PM, Monday through Saturday only, when construction and mechanical equipment
noise is permitted, so as not to interfere with the quiet residential environment of the City of
Rolling Hills.
U. The drainage plan system shall be approved by the Planning Department and
the County Drainage Engineer and shall assure that any water from any site irrigation systems
and all drainage from the site shall be conveyed in an approved manner.
V. An Erosion Control Plan containing the elements set forth in Section 7010 of the
2001 County of Los Angeles Uniform Building Code shall be prepared to minimize erosion
and to protect slopes and channels to control stormwater pollution as required by the County
of Los Angeles.
W. The property owners shall be required to conform with the Regional Water
Quality Control Board and County Health Department requirements for the installation and
maintenance of stormwater drainage facilities.
X. The property owners shall be required to conform with the Regional Water
Quality Control Board and County Public Works Department Best Management Practices
(BMP's) related to solid waste.
Y. The project shall be reviewed and approved by the Rolling Hills Community
Association Architectural Review Committee prior to the issuance of any permit.
Z. The working drawings submitted to the County Department of Building and
Safety for plan check review shall conform to the development plan described in Condition D.
AA. Notwithstanding Sections 17.46.020 and 17.46.070 of the Rolling Hills
Municipal Code, any modifications to the property, which would constitute additional
structural development or grading, shall require the filing of a new application for approval
by the Planning Commission.
AB. Prior to the submittal of an applicable final building plan to the County of Los
Angeles for plan check, a detailed drainage plan with related geology, soils and hydrology
reports that conform to the development plan as approved by the City Council must be
submitted to the Rolling Hills Planning Department staff for their review.
AC. The applicants shall execute an Affidavit of Acceptance of all conditions of this
Site Plan and Variances approvals, pursuant to Section 17.38.060, or the approval shall not be
effective.
AD. All conditions of this Site Plan and Variances approval, which apply, must be
complied with prior to the issuance of a building permit from the County of Los Angeles.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 10TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2003.
�Z&� 1z \) ,
FRANK E. HILL, MAYOR QP
Resolution No. 946 -4-
1
1
ATTEST:
MARILYN I RN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) �§
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS )
I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 946 entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
GRANTING A SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION
AND VARIANCES TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED STRUCTURAL
LOT COVERAGE AND TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED TOTAL LOT
COVERAGE AT AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IN ZONING
CASE NO. 664 AT 15 EASTFIELD DRIVE, (LOT 52 -EF) (GORDON).
was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council on November 10, 2003 by
the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Black, Lay, Pernell, Mayor Pro Tem Heinsheimer and
Mayor Hill.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following:
Administrative Offices.
DEPUTY CITY�LERK
Resolution No. 946 -5-