Loading...
1180 Tonsich RESOLUTIOI\N0. 1180 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL OF ITEMS DEFERRED FROM CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 1172 PARTIALLY APPROVING A SITE PLAN REVIEW AND VARIANCE MODIFYING PREVIOUSLY APPROVED CONSTRUCTION IN ZONING CASE NO. 862 AT 40 EASTFIELD IDRIVE (LOT 91-EF), ROLLING HILLS CA,(TONSICH). _ The City Council of the City of Rolling Hills does hereby resolve and order as follows: Section 1. In August 2012, an application was duly filed by Mr. Nicholas Tonsich with respect to real property located at 40 Eastfield Drive, Rolling Hills (Lot 91-EF) requesting a site plan review and variances to modify a previously approved project, approved in Zoning Case No. 824 for grading and construction of a �ew singie family residence and related development. In August 2014, khe applicant submitted an application in Zoning Case No. 862 for a request to further modify the originally approved project. The request for modification included additional grading above the residence, additional grading and not to exceed 5' high wall along the south side of the residence, where the wall would encroach up to 9 feeC into the side yard setback,two additional porches,lowering of the driveway and the garage by two feet a�d re-grading the previously approved driveways, additional not to exceed 3' high retaining wall along the re-graded driveway, depressing the basement floor for a wine cellar, reducing the size of the swimming pool to accommodate the requested porches so that the structural coverage of the lot is maintained at less than 20%, relocating the service yard,constructing outside stairs to the basement from the house level, constructing a� electrical room beneath the loggia but outside the first story, relocating the set aside area for a future stable and corral, further exceedance of the disturbance of the lot, and re-construction of the rear slopes (between the house and Outrider Road) which would exceed 2:1 grade. ection 2. The previous approval in Zoning No. 824 consisted of gradi�g for a total of 5,251 cubic yards of dirt of which 3,390 cubic yards would be exported, construction of a 5,095 square foot residence, 698 squaze foot garage, 5,793 square foot basement (iacluding underneath the gazage), 646 square foot loggia across the rear of the house, 136 square foot entryway and 750 squaze foot swimming pool including a spa, off site gradiog for a driveway consisting of 180 cubic yards cut and 305 cubic yards of fill,constmction of over 3 foot high wails along t6e driveways and walls that would exceed 2 � feet average height, disCurbance of the lot of 49.6%, reconfiguration and reconstruction of the driveway and construction of two driveway approaches to be located on the property at 38 Eastfield Drive that would serve the properties at 40 and 42 Eastfield Dme. Section 3. The 2007 approval in Zoning Case No. 745 (Planning Commission Resolution No. 2007-15) and the November 2012 Modification in Zoning Case No. 824 (City Council Resolution No. 1135) include a condition on the project and the property that any modification and/or further development and grading be subject to Planning Commission review and approval under a separate Site Plan Review. Section 4. Following Planning Commission approva) of the request in Zoning Case No. 862, the City Council at its January 12, 2015 meeting took jurisdiction of the project. Pursuant to Section 17.54.015 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, a review heazing for cases taken under jurisdiction by the City Council shall be conducted as de �ovo hearings. Section 5. The City Council conducted duly noticed public hearings to consider the application on February 9, 2015 in Yhe field and at its regularly scheduled meetings on February 9, 2015 and March 9, 2015. Neighbors within 1,000-foot radius were notified of the public hearings and a notice was published in Palos Verdes Peninsula News on January 29, 2015. The applicants were notified of the public hearings in writing by first class mail. Bvidence was heard and presented from all persons interested in affecting said proposal and from members of the City staff, including City engineers, neighbors and applicanYs engineer and the City Council having reviewed, analyzed and studied said proposaL Evidence was heard and presented from all persons interested in affecting said proposal, including neighbors at 38 EastSeld Drive, 42 Eastfield Drive. Objection to the proposed modifications and request for Variances was received from the property owner at 8 Outrider Road and 12 Outrider Road. Section 6. On March 23, 2015, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 1172, which granted paRial approval of the requested Site Plan Review and Variance but deferred a final decision on: Resolution No. 1180 (40 Eastfield Drive) 1 1) Variance from RHMC Section 15.04.130 to authorize a slope steeper than 2:1 grade and 2) Site Plan Review approval of stairs providing access to the electrical room (collectively referred to as the "Deferred Items"). The City Council requested that the applicant take the following actions prior to its rendering a decision on the Deferred Items: A. Work with the appropriate County persounel to identify altemative methods of grading that would bring the rear slope as close to 2:1 grade as possible,and present the alternatives to the Planning Director. B. Identify alternative methods of access to the electrical room that would eliminate the proposed stairs, including alternate grading, and present the a7ternatives to the Planning Director. Section 7. The City Council finds that the applicant has demonstrated that the slopes below the proposed retaining wall were steeper than 2:1 prior to coaswction and as steep as 1.5:1. Additionally, Chis portion of the property will not be regraded/reconstructed, buY will be smoothed out and evened out once the stockpiled dirt is removed to bring it back to its pre-consUvction state. Therefore, a Variance for these slopes is not required. The slope above the wall (between the basement wall and the 2' keystone retaining wall) will be reconstrucCed to variable grades ranging from 2:l to 1.5:1 and will be regraded to provide for stability to the house above, as is required by the Building Depariment. A Variance in this area for siopes greater than 2:1 is required. The applicant has aiso demonstrated that historically there were two level pads close to the rear roadway easement line and they may be retained; one to be used for septic tank and seepage pits and one for a set aside area for a future stable and cottal. This set aside area may be used as play area but shall not be paved in any manner including sofY laid pavers or enclosed by a fence. The City Councii finds that the proposed modification to the stairs from the previously approved plan is miuor, the stairs will be in line with the light well to which they will lead, and they will not project further from the basement than the approved light wells. Therefore, the City Council approves the Deferred Items subject to the conditions set forth herein. Section 8. The City Council finds that the project qualifies as a Class 4 Exemption (State of CA Guidelines, Section 15304 - Minor Land Alteration) and is therefore categorically exempt from environmental review under the California Environmeneal Quality Act. Section 9. 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. In addition, Section 17.46.040C authorizes the City to require a Site Plan Review for any future construction on the lot, regazdless of whether a Site Plan Review would ordinarily be applicable to such construction. This project received such a condition during previous reviews of the development. The Deferred Items include Site Plan Review for modification of the stairs providing access to the electrical room,for which the CiCy 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 modification to the stairs from the previously approved plan is minor, Che stairs wil] be in line with the light well to which they will lead, and they will not project further from the basement than the approved light wells. With the conditions, the proposed project wi11 be screened from the road and adjacent neighbors to reduce the visual impact of the development. B. The topography and the configuraCion of the lot has been considered, and iY was determined that the proposed modifications will not adversely affect or be materially detrimental Co adjacent uses, buildings, or structures because the proposed construction will occur lazgely on an existing building pad, will be the least intrusive to surrounding properties, will be screeoed and landscaped with trees and shmbs, is of safficient distance from nearby residences so Chat it 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. In addition,the proposed modifications, as conditioned, are harmonious in scale and mass with the site, and are consistent with the scale of the neighborhood when compared to new residences in the City. The proposed project will follow the pattern and style of the originally approved residence,and is a modification only. C. The development plan substantially preserves the natural and undeveloped state of the lot by minimizing building coverage because the modifications to the new structure will not cause the lot to look overdeveloped a�d will be located on an existing pad. Significant portions of the lot will be left undeveloped. The project will be screened from Eastfield Drive and from Outrider Road. The proposed modifications aze minor and will not affect the scale or aspect of the previously approved project. Resolution No. 1180 (40 Eastfield Drive) 2 D. It shall be required that the development plan introduce drought-tolerant landscaping, which is compatible with and enhances the rural character of the communiry, and the landscaping will provide a buffer or transition area between private and public azeas. E. The proposed development is sensitive and not detrimenYal to the convenience and safety of circulation for pedestrians and vehicles because the proposed project will correct a very dangerous situation where currently one driveway approach sepazates into two driveways, one serving 40 Eastfield and the other 42 Eastfield Drive, at a steep area and not readily visible to either driver. The proposed circulation will allow each property to be served by its own driveway approach and driveway. F. The project is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. Section 10. The Deferred Items include a variance from RHMC Section 15.04.130 to authorize a slope steeper tha� 2:1 grade. Sections 17.38910 through 17.38.050 of the RHMC permit approval of a variance from the standards and requirements of the Zoning Ordinance when, due to exceptional or extraordinary circumsYances applicable to the property and not applicable to other similar properties in the same zone, strict application of t6e RHMC would deny the property owner substantial property rights enjoyed by other properties in the same vicinity aod zone. Additional findings are also required, as detailed herein. With respect to this request for a variance for a slope steeper than 2:1 grade,the City Council finds as follows: A. There are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances and conditious applicable to the property that do �ot apply generally to other properties in the same zone because the property historically contained steep and varied slopes. Specifically,the slopes below the proposed retaining wall were steeper than 2:1 prior to construction and as steep as 1.5:1. This portion of the property will not be regraded/reconstructed, but will be smoothed out and evened out once the stockpiled dirt is removed to bring it back to its pre-constmction state. The slope above the wall (between the basement wall and the 2' keystone retaining wall) will be reconstructed to variable grades ranging from 2:1 to 1.5:1 for consistency with Yhe existing slopes on the property and will be regraded to provide for stability to the house above, as is required by the Building Department. A Variance is required because the resulting slopes will be steeper than 2:1. The grading of the slopes is necessary to accommodate the relocated service yazd and the lowering of the garage and driveways, in order to retain the previously approved 5' high retaining wall along that portion of the building pad. The additional grading at the south side of the residence (in Che side yard setback) is necessary to allow for a walkway around the residence, as it is required by the Zoning Code. The grading complies with other applicable development standazds of the Building Code. These factors and nature of the lot make it infeasible to comply strictly with Section 15.04.130. 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 additional grading is necessary to restore the stability of the slopes and restore the topography to its pre-construction state. C. The grantiog 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. The proposed development proposes to improve siope stability and to augment and correct the existing water flow patCern. In addition, in order to relocate the service yard area, as requesCed by a neighbor, additional grading of the slope above the driveway, neaz the garage, is required to place the service yard on a flat area and provide access to the trash service vehicles as well as provide a flat area on the side of the residence. D. The purpose of the Zo�ing Ordinance is to regulate development in an orderly fashion and in a manner consistent with the goals and policies of Yhe General Plan. Approval of the vaziance will not impede any goals of the Zoning Ordinance or the General Plan. Rather, the variance will allow the property owner to enjoy the same rights and privileges afforded to other property owners in the vicinity. The steeper slopes requested are necessary to restore the stabiliYy of the slopes and restore the topography to its pre-construction state, and therefore, does not undermine the spirit or intent of the Zoning Ordinance. E. The variance does not grant special privilege to the applicant, as the grading is necessary to comply with the city's requirements and grading standazds of the Building Code. Resolution No. 1180 (40 Eastfield Drive) 3 F. The variance is consistent with the portions of the County of Los Angeles Hazardous Waste Management Plan relating to siting and siting criteria for hazardous waste facilities because tt�ere is no hazardous waste facility at issue io this case. Section ll. Based upon the foregoing findings and the evidence in the recard, the City Council hereby grants approval of the Site Plan Review and Variance in Zoning Case No. 862 described as Deferred Items in Resolution No. 1172, with the following conditions: A. The approval shall expire within two years from the effective date of approval as defined in Sections 17.46.080(A) of the Zoning Ordinance unless ot6erwise extended pursuant to the requirements of this section. B. Except as specified, this resolution does not alter the approvals set forth in Resolution No. 1172 and all conditions set forth in Resolution No. 1172 continue to apply to the subject property. If any conditions of approval 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 applica�t fails to correct the violation within a period of Chirty (30) days from the date of the Ciry's determination. C. The project subject to this Resolution, (the deferred items), shall be developed and maintained in cooformance wiCh the site plan on file in the City Planniag Department stamp dated August 5,2015. 40 Eastfield - LANDSCAPING CONDITIONS D. The landscaping for this project shall be provided aod maintained in substantial conformance with the landscaping pian on file in the City Hall dated October 7, 2015, except as otherwise provided herein. E. The two Purple Plum trees, shown on the landscaping plan, which are located north west of the Motor Court at 40 Eastfield shall �ot be planted and the existing Ficus Trees ]ocated between the properties at 38 and 40 Eastfield, also north west of the Motor Court, shall not at any time exceed the cunent height of 14' as measured from the ground at 38 Eastfield Drive. Any new trees, which are shown to be located in any easement shall be approved by the RHCA. F. The landscaping shall include water efficient plants and irrigation that incorporates a low gallonage irrigation system, utilizes automatic controliers, 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. Further,the landscaping shall be designed using large size vegetation from the onset and they shall be of a type so as �ot to grow into views from neighboring properties but to obscure to Yhe ma�cimum extend practicable the residence, the parking uea the light well walls, the rear sCairs, the retaining wall and the reaz slopes from the neighbors and from Outrider Road. The trees and shrubs when grown, shall not exceed the ridge height of the residence, except as specified elsewhere in this resolution. At planting time all shrubs and trees shall be a minimum of I S gallon in size or larger, and all ground cover or small bushes shall be no smaller than 5 gallon in size or equivaleot. The placement of any new vegetation shall be in such a manner as to not grow into a living screen or a hedge, and must be off set. Should the existing trees die, the applicant shall be required to immediately replace such trees with a minimum of 60" box tree or equivalent to assure that the propeRy is screened at all times. If any of the Ficus trees die, they are to be replaced witb a like Yree not less than 24" box. Should such trees be located in the RHCA easement,RHCA review and approval shall be required. G. The Ficus Trees located in the easement between 38 and 40 Eastfield shall be removed if prior to obtaining a final inspection of the project they have not been approved by the RHCA. Similar trees, subject to conditions of this Resolution, shall be planted outside the easement on the Tonsich's property to screen the project from the neighbors at 38 Eastfield. H. The applicant shall post with the City a landscaping bond or equivalent instrument to be held to up Co five-years from the time of planting in the amount of the landscaping work, (labor,material Resolution No. 1180 (40 Eastfield Drive) 4 4 and irrigation), pius 15% of the cost, to be refunded only if it is determ�ned that the landscaping is in good condition and meets the intent of the resolution. Staff shall review the landscaping on the property in two years from planting and if it is determined that the landscaping is in good condition and responsive to the conditions in this resolution, a portion of the bond would be refunded; then three years later staff shall inspect the site again to determine the condition of the (andscaping. The remainder of the bond would be refunded only if it is determined that the landscaping continues to meet the conditions of approval. -- I. The applicants shall execute an Affidavit of Acceptance of all conditions of this approval, or the approval shall not be effective. J. All conditions, when applicable,must be complied with prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit from the Building and Safety Department. PASSED,APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 12T"DAY OF OCT ER,2015. J F PIEPER MAYOR ATTEST: �z 1�°�������,�����i.'��.� HEIDI LUCE CITY CLERK Any action challenging the final decision of the City made as a result of the public hearing on this application must be filed withi❑ the time limits set forth in section 17.54.0'70 of the Rolling Hills Muoicipal Code and Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6. Resolution No. 1180 (40 Eastfield Drive) 5 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§ CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ) I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 1180 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL OF ITEMS DEFERRED FROM CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 1172 PARTIALLY APPROVING A SITE PLAN REVIEW AND VARIANCE MODIFYING PREVIOUSLY APPROVED CONSTRUCTION IN ZONING CASE NO. 862 AT 40 EASTFIELB DRIVE (LOT 91-EF), ROLLING HILLS CA,(TONSICH). . was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council on October 12, 2015 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Mirsch, Wilson and Mayor Pieper. NOES: Councilmember Black and Mayor Pro Tem Dieringer. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the followiug: Administrative Offices. �������F����,�� i HEIDI LUCE CITY CLERK Resolution No. 1180 (40 Eastfield Drive) 6