Loading...
05-17-16FT MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISS�ON MAY 17, 2016 FIELD TRIP PRESENT: Chairxnan Chelf, Commissioners Cardenas, Gray, Kirkpatrick, and Smith Raymond Cruz, City Manager Yalanta Schwartz,Planning Director Wendy S�arks, Associate Planner A. ZONING CASE NO. 905. Request for a Site Plan Review for a p�oposed porch addition on a property with restricted development condition in Zoning Case No. 905 at an exisfing residence Iocated at 13 Ouixider Road, {Lof 94-A-EF), Rolling Hills, CA, {Hang Ja Yoo). Also present at this field trip were: Myung C. Chung, Project Architect Chairman Chelf called the meeting to order at 7:30 a.m. at 13 Outride:r Road. Planning Director Schwaxtz reviewed the applicant`s request tor approval o£ a 244 square faot porch that would nonnally be approvable over�the-counter, but because there is a condition on the property that any development must come before the Planning Commission, a Site Plan Review is required. In addition, she stated that the RHCA Architecfural Comtnittee requixed a covered porch on the house. Following brief discussion and there being no objections, the Corrunissioners requested that staff draft a Resolution of Approval for the evening meeting when the public hearing resumes. B. ZONING CASE N�. 903. Request for a Site Plan Review for the construction of a detached trellis at 37 Chuckwagan, on a property with a condition that any construction or development on the property be reviewed by the Planning Commission, in Zoning Case No. 903, (Lot 19�CF),Rolling Hills, CA (Van Nortwick). Also present at this field tYip were: Michael Maynez, Designer Mr. and Mrs. Van Nortwick,Property Qwners Jim Aichele,resident 14 Crest Road West Associate Planner Wendy Starks reviewed the applicant's proposed project for a 701 square foot trellis above existing outdoor amenities and stated that there is a Restricted 1 Development Cor�di�ion on the property. There was discussion about where the setback was and it was confirmed that the proposed development is outside of the sefback and complies with municipa.I code's height restriction. �ollowing brie£ discussion and there being no objections, the Commissioners requested that staff draft a Resolution of Approval for the evening meeting when the public hearing restunes. C. ZONING CASE NO. 895. Reques� for a Site Plan Review to construct a new 6,269 square foot single family residence, $48 square foof garage, 6,Q00 square foot basement, 640 square £oot swunnung poo1, �50 square feet of covered porches, 98 square foot entry porch, various heighfs, but not to exceed 5' high retaining walls, new driveway, other ancillary ameni�ies and a total of 8,248 c�bic yards of grading. Variances are requested for a portion of the house, service yaxd, two light wells and retaining walls to encroach into the rear and front setbacks; future stable and corral location in the front yard and partially in�he frant setback; exceedance of the maximum permitted total lot coverage and of disturbed area; retainzng walls that exceed an average height of 2.5', and to exceed the maximum permitted coverage with a driveway of the front setback, in Zoning Case No. 895, at 10 Bowie Road, {Lot �-CRA), Rolling Hills,CA (Pang Jui Yiu}. Also present for tliis field trip wex�e: Criss Gunderson,Project Architec� Jack Ng, Property Manager Marsha Kulpa,resident 1 Bowie Road Ross Smith,resident 4 Bowie Road Mr. and Mrs. Hsu,residents 6 Bowie Road Mr. and Mrs. Tsai, residents S Bowie Road 7eanne Bishop, resident 12 Bowie Road Allen Lay,resident 19 Caballeros Road Jim Aichele, resident 14 Crest Road West Planning Director Yolanta Schwartz described the project and Criss Gunderson dist�ributed a Proposed Project Layout detailing the staking. Director Schwartz explained how the project was revised to address px�evious concerns. Specifically, the house was "slid" back, porches at the front were removed, and trees will be added to the front to provide screening. She stated that the dx�veway apron is proposed to be widened and that the Traffic Cornmission wi11 review it on May 26th. Chairma�, Chelf asked if the project's pad could be lawered and was concerned about the long driveway. Mr. Gunderson responded that the driveway cannot be reconfigured and still meet the fire department requirements. Discussion ensued and Jeanne Bishap expressed concerns about the proposed trees af the front o€the proposed pro�ect as they may block her views from her property. Chairxnan Chelf explained a landscape plan must be submitted and approved and Mr. Gunderson said the trees wi�I be respectful of her view. Mr. Lay asked about the exis�ing retaining wall that runs the length of the project to the wesf of the praperty and wondered if it was built with permits when it was built 2 about 2Q years ago. Director Schwartz advised that fhe building permits are unclear and more investigation needs to be done. Some of the residents present ix�quired about the locafion of the project in relationship to the setbacks and discussion ensued regarding the amount and height of the fill necessary to create the larger building pad. Comnlissioners expressed concerns with the height of the pad and encouraged the architect to J.ower the buildxng pad. Director Schwartz queried the number of light wells. The residents expressed concerns about parking of vehicles during construction. Director Schwartz statEd that a condition could be included if �he praject is approved, which would require that construction vehicles park on site or on Bowie Rd. easement adjacent to the site. Mr. Gundexson advised that the first thing to be built would be the new driveway to help accommodate construction vehicles. D. ZONING CASE NO. 902. Request€or a Site P�an Review for the construction of a new �1,5Q0 square foot residence, with]1,5Q0 square foot basernent, 1,540 square feet garages, 2,555 square feet cavered porches, 900 square foot swimming pool and spa, trellises, driveway and an outdoar kitchen and grading for a totart. of 64,02Q cubic yards of dirt, which includes over-excavation and re-compaction; Conditional Use Perm.its to construct a 770 square foot detached garage and 7,150 square foot tennis court; Variances to exceed the maximum permitted grading quantities and area of grading for �ie tennis court and fo exceed �lie maximum permitted coverage of the front setback with the px�oposed driveway in Zoning Case No. 902, at 23 Crest Road East, (Lot 132A-MS), Rolling Hills,CA (Hyr�es). A.lso present for this field trip were: Tavisha Nicholsan, Engineer Tony Inferrera, Architect Kit Bagnell,Los Angeles County Public Works Engineer Mr. and Mrs. HynEs, Property Owners Jim Aichele,r�sident 14 Cre�t R�ad We�t Mr. and Mrs. Mackenbach,residents 56 Portuguese Bend Road Gordon Schaye,resident 58 Portuguese Bend Road Chris IZeinsch, Project Manager 27 Cresf Road East Charles Raine, resident 2 Pinto Road Lauren Sharng,resident� Pine Tree Lane Planning Director Schwar�z descxibed the project and explained that the applicant removed the guesthouse, previously proposed in the front yard, in order to respond to previously expressed concerns. Ms. Nicholson wa�ked the group through the project and explained the staking. Chairxnan Chelf asked if the driveway could be reconfigured and Ms. Nicholson advised she would look into it but is constrained by Fire Departrnent requirements for a turn-around area and the slope from the street further east of the proposed apron. Several residenfs and Comsnissioners asked questions about grading and hydrology, and Director Schwartz explained that County dxainage engineer will be on hand at the evening public hearing to answer questions 3 and that the Supervising engineer is present at the field trzp. Commissioner Che1f asked if the house couid be Iowered. Ms. Nicholson said that this would have to be studied further. All present then walked to the back af the development to view the pool, stable set aside axea, tlie proposed tennis court and biofiltration unit. Commissioner Chelf expressed concerns about the proposed development in the rear {the tennis court and trellis), as there would be a lot of fill required for the tennis court and stated that it doesn't seem to be respectful towards the neighbors. Mr, and Mrs. Mackenbach expressed concerns about how far down, below the building pad, grading would have to start for benching and where the bedrock is and asked if the applicants are awaxe of the history of landslides in the City, and about the drai.nage in this area. Commissioner Chelf asked that Ms. Nichoison be prepared to address those questions duz�.ng the evening meeting. Commissioner Kirkpatrick expressed concerns about tlze tennis court in general and inquired how impoxtant it is to -�he project overall. Tn response to Commissioner Smith, Ms. Nicholson stated that the stable and corral set aside area couid not be staked because af the dense vegetatzon and pointed out the general area of where it is proposed,which had limited sfakes in the ground. E. ZONING CASE NO. 90�. Request for a Sxte Plan Review for the canstruction of a new 5,250 square foot residence, with 5,250 square foot basement, 1,�55 square feet detached garages, covered porches, including at stable, 964 square foot swimming pool, spa, entryway, retaining walls, driveway and outdoor kitchen and grading for a to�al of 46,Q90 cubic yards of dirt,which includes over-excavation and re-compaction; a Conditional Use Perrrtit fo construct an 800 square foot guest house, the detached garages, and 1,810 square foot stable with 481 square foot 1oft; and Vaniances to exceed the maximum permitted average height of refaining walls and to exceed the maximum permitted disturbed area of the lot in Zoning Case No. 901, at 5 Pine Tree Lane, {Lot 94-RH}, Rolling Hilis, CA. (Sharng). C?rhers pre�ent far thi�field trip were: Tavisha Nicholson,Engineer Tony Znferrera, Architect Paul Mckeown o£Mckeown Construction Inc. Lauren Sharng,Property Owner Mr. and Mrs. Hynes, property owners 23 Crest Road East jim Aichele, Resident Z4 Crest Road West William Hassoldt, l0 Pine Tree Lane Planning Director Schwartz described the project and explained that the portion of the exis�ing driveway located on the property will need to be abandoned or a conditional use permit would be required to retain it. She sfated that the driveway apron must remain on the proJect site as it serves the adjacenf property at 3 Pine Tree Lane. Ms. Nicholson walked the group through the prajecf and explained the stak�ing. Planning Director Schwartz stated that in an effort to address some of the concerns the Planning Conimission had at the previous meetin� the applicant's removed the proposed tenrus 4 court, reduced the size of the house and made the swimming pool and outdoor kitchen smaller and relocated 'the outdoor kitchen towards the back wa11. She explained that a new driveway apron is proposed and that the Traffic Commission will review it at their May 26� meeting. Mr. Hassoldt expressed concerns about the ridge height as it can be seen from his property, especially once brush and trees are cleared. D7scussion ensued about elevations, grading, and slopes for the project. The property owner explained that she desires a Iong flat driveway for horse trailers and for parking on-site �or her guests as there is iimited parking available on Pine Tree Lane. Comtnissioner Chelf inquired why at least one af the garages couldn't be attached fo the house. Ms. Sharng stated that architecturally the design works best for her and the future use of the proper�r. It was pointed out that the two-story stable would be seen from across the canyon and responding to Commissioner's questions Planning Director Schwartz advised there were no inquiries about the stable or about the project in genera� by any residents, excepf for Mr. Hassoldt and Mr. Podell, the property owner at 3 Pine Tree Lane who expressed concerns regarding the use of the common driveway. Followzng brief discussion regarding the landscaping and grading of the project, and discussion about lowering the building pad, the g�roup walked over to Mr. Hassoldt's properfiy at 10 Pine Tree Lane to view the staic�ng from his persp�ctive and noticed from the driveway that some of the ridgeline of the proposed house was vi.sib�e through the trees. There being no further discussion, the public hearing was continued to the evening aneeting of fhe Planning Coxnmission bea nning at b:30 PM. Respectfu.11y Submitted, � � �Zz-l� Y 1 nta Schwartz Date P nnaing Director Approved: l B , C airman Date 5