1189 RESOLiTTTQN N0. 1189
A RESOLUTIQN OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
APPROVING A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH INTO THE REQUIRED 20-FOOT
SIDE-YARD SETBACK WTTH EAVES AND BY 61-SQUARE FEET,DUE TO A 3Q0-
SQUARE FOOT ADDITION; APPROVING A MODIF'IED SITE PLAN REVYEW
FOR A RETAINIlVG WALL GREATER THAN THREE FEET IN HEIGHT AND
V.ARIANCES TO ENCROACH INTO THE REQUIRED 24-FQOT SIDE-YARD
SETBACK BY 12.5 FEET, DUE TO A SEVEN (7} FOOT HIGH RETAIIVING WALL
THAT D4ES NOT AVERAGE OUT TO 2.5 FEET IlV HEIGHT;
AND ACKNOWLEDGING THE WITHI}RAWAL OF A SITE PLAN REVIEW AND
VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A 6-FOOT HIGH WALL AND A 2-FOOT FLAT
WALKWAY AROUND THE BUILDING ADDITION IN ZONING CASE NO. 880 AT
15 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD (LOT 78-RH}, ROLLING HILLS CA,
(HAS SOLDT).
The City Council of the City of Rolling Hills daes hereby resolve and order as fallows:
Section 1. An application was duly fiied by Mr. and Mrs. William Hassoldt ("Applicants"),
with respect to real property located at 15 Portuguese Bend Raad, Rolling Hi11s, CA(Lot 78-RH},which
requested variances to encroach inta the required 20-foot side-yard setback. One variance proposed an
en.craachment of 61 square feet {due to the addition of a 300-square foot bedroom closet ta �he home).
The second varianc�proposed two 3-foot ta11 retaining walls. These retaining walls, in conjunction with
the buiiding encroachment, would reduce the width of th.e walkable passage area aro�nd a portion of the
residence to only two (2) feet. O�the�wo proposed retaining wails, one is "L"-shaped and would adjoin
the exterior wall of the addition and project approxima#e1y eight(8) feet in#o the side yard. The purpose
of this wa�l is to provide physical separation between the exterior of the home and an adjoining earthen
slope. The second proposed retaining wa�l, approximately 12-feet in length, would be located adjacent
to the edge of the Rolling Hills Community Association ("RHCA") easernents and project
approximately 10-feet into the side yard setback. The purpase of these walls would be to retain earthen
ramps in order#o provide a 2-foot wide passage around the building, which is less tlaan fhe �'our(4} foot
minimum passage required by the Building Code.
The Planning Cammission held duly noticed public hearings on May 19, 2015, July 7, 2015, July
21, 2415, and September 15, 2415. At its September 15, 2015 meeting, the Planning Commission
approved Zoning Case No. 880 (Planning Commission Resolutian No. 2Q15-21)by a 2-1 vote.
During the proceedings it was alsa discovered that the Appiicants had remodeled and poured a
new foundation for the sunroom on the property and had also constructed an addition totaling 42-square
feet at the rear of the praperty. These improvements were not depicted in the ariginal application
submitted ta staff ir�connection with this project.
Section 2. Following Planning Cammission approval of Zoning Case No. 8SQ, the City
Council took jurisdiction af the application at its October 12, 2015 meeting. Pursuant to Section
17.54.Q25 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, a review hearing for cases taken i.uider jurisdiction by
the City Council shall be conducted de navo.
Sectian 3. On October 26, 2015, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing and public
field trip, reviewed and considered the staff report, reviewed and considered written re�orts, public
testimony, and other information on the record, including evidence presented by Mr. Hassoldt. At the
conclusion of the October 26, 2015 meeting, the City Counci� directed staff to prepare a resolution to
approve the request for a Variance far G1-square foot encroachment of the 300-squaxe foot addition into
-- the south side yard setback, and to disapprove the request for the Variance for the 3-foot high walls and
a 2-foot ramp-like walkway around the addition due to fire safe�ty access concerns regarding the
substandard walkway. Council further directed the Applicants to provide a 4-foot wi.de walkway around
fhe perimeter of the addition, widen the azea where the slope makes a 90 degree angle at the rear corner
of the addition to provide a widex passage area, and remove the Pine tree lacated above this slape in the
vicinity of the south praperty line.
Section 4. On November 4, 2Q15, the City received a proposal from Mr. Gary Wynn,
Applicants' engineer,proposing to modify the direction of the City Councii in order ta allow for a 2-foot
wide on-grade access at the corner of the addition which would widen to 4-feet wide along the sides of
the addition. Such a modification would require a b-foot high retaining wa�l along the easement line.
Resolution No. 1189
15 Portuguese Bend Rd. 1
Section 5. �n November 9, 2415, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing,
reviewed and considered the staff report,re�iewed and considered written regorts,public testimony, and
ather information on the record, including an objectian to the proposed xnodifications and request far
Variances from Mr. Howard Weinberg, attorney for the neighbors at 18 Portuguese Bend Road. The
City Council did not approve Mfr. Wynn's November 4, 201 S proposal and reiterated support for its
October 26,2015 direction and for consideration of a resolution a�its November 23, 2015 meeting.
Section 6. Following the November 9 2Q15 hearing, in order to accornplish the City
Council's direction to pravide a 4-foot wide walkway around the residence, the Applicants submitted a
revised plan to staff which proposed to reduce the size of tlie encroachment by demolishing 20 square
feet at the corner of the addition. This new plan would alsa require an encroachment of 10 feet into the
side yard setback for the purposes of canstructing a 3-foot to 5-foot high by 20-foot long retaining wall.
Prior to the Novernber 23, 2015 City Council rn�eting, however, the Applicants withdrew this proposal
and requested that�he case be continued.
Section 7. On June 27, 201b, the City received a letter from Mr. Harold Light, attorney for
the Applicants, requesting that the City Council reconsider its c�irection of October 2b and November 9,
2015 and appro�e the Variance requests.
Section 8, On July 11, 2016, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing, reviewed
and considered the staff report, reviewed anci considered the Applicants' reques�, public testimony, and
ather information on the record. At the conclusion of the July 11, 2416, meeting, the City Cotxncil again
directed staff to prepare a resolution to: (1) approve the request for a Variance for 61-squa�re foot
encroachment of the 300-square foot addition and eaves into the south side yard setback, and {2) to
disapprove�he requ�st for the Site Plan and Variance for the 6-foot high wall and a 2-foot flat walkway
around the addition due to the walkway's inconsistency with the Building Code and Fire Code.
Section 9. On August 4, 201b,the Applicants withdrew the variance proposing the 6-foot tall
retaining wall and 2-foot-wide flat walkway and modified their request to include one seven-foat
retaining wall, which would encroach into the required 20-foat side-yard setback by 12.5 feet for a short
distance. The remaining distance of the 7-faot wall would be S feet ar less in height and wauld encroach
Iess into the setback as the wall moves away from its midpoint. This reta.ining wall, in addition to the
61-square foot buildit�g encroachment, would preserve a four (4} foot wide walkable passage area
around the residence. The City Council hereby acknowledges tl�e withdrawal of the previous site plan
and variance request.
Section 10. On August 22, 201b, the City Council held a duly noticed public meeting,
reviewed atid considered the staff report, reviewed and considered the Applicants' request, public
testimony, and other information on the record.
Section 11. Findings for Approval of Variances to encroach into the required 20-foot side-yard
setback by bl-square feet addi�ion and eaves and up to a maximum of 12.5 feet by a retaining wall.
Sections 17.38.Q10 through 17.38.050 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code permit approval of a variance
fram the standards and requirements of the Zoning Ordinanc� 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 properry to the same extent enjoyed by similar
properties in the same vicinxty. In the subject application, the Applicants requested Variances to exempt
them from strict compliance with Section 17.16.120, requiring a side-yard setback of 20 feet in the RAS-1
zone; and section 17.1b.190(F), requiring that retaining walls shall not exceed five feet in height and that
the walls shall a�erage out to two and one-half feet as measured fram the finished grade to the top of the
vvall. With respect ta these requests for Variances to encroach with the addidon, eaves and the retaining
wall into the side yard setback and to construct higher than a 5-foot retaining wall that does not average
aut to 2.5 feet in height,the City Council fmds as follows:
A. There are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances ar�d conditions applicable
to this property that do not generally apply to the other properties in the same vicinity and zone. The
mostly cornpleted addition was inadvertently built in the setback in reliance on a prior survey that was
found to be inaccurate after construction was nearly comple�e. The property is the smaller and narrower
in width than other properties in the immediate vicinity, which creates a challenge ta develop ar improve
the property. The front of the residence encroaches into the front setback and the portion of the addition
subject to the�ariance is�ocated behin.d this condition and is not�isible from the street;
B. Tlie Variances are necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantia�
property right possessed by other properties in tl�e same vicinity and zone, but which would be denied to
Resalution No. 1189
]5 Portuguese Bend Rd. 2
the property in question absent such variances. With the constraint of the lot's size ar�d width and the
configuration of the existing residence with the bedrooms located on the south side of the house, it is a
challenge to pro�ide a larger closet for one of t.�.e bedraoms in strict compliance with the Zaning
Ordinance. Furthermore, a seven-foot retaining wa11 is necessary in order to preserve a four-foot
walkway around the perimeter of the home, as proscribed by sec�ion 17.16.190(H}; in order for a seven-
foot higl�retaining wall to auerage out to 2.5 feet, the length of the wall would have to exceed 32 feet. A
variance from the requirements of section 17.15190(F} woutd preserve the enjoyment af subs�antial
property rights possessed by other properties by minimizing the amount of constructian necessary to
achieve an average wall height af 2.5 feet and would help preserve the aesthetics of the property;
C. The granting of the Variances would not be materially detrimental ta the public
welfare or injurious to the property or impxovements in the vicinity and zone in which the pxoperty is
located. The side-yard encroachments total of 61 square feet and 12.5 feet are minor in scope. These
additians wi11 not be visible from the street (Portuguese Bend Road) or adjoining residences because the
subject home's location and elevation is approximately 20 feet lower than the clasest neighboring home
and there is substa.ntial vegetation surrounding the subject home. The encroaching portion of the
addi�ion, being located on the south side of the properiy, will not impair views of neighbors to th� north.
Furthermore, a seven-foot reta.ining wa11 is necessary in order to preserve a four-foot walkway around the
perimeter of the horne and ensure adequate access to all corners of the �roperty by ernergency access
vehicles;
D. In granting the Variances, the spirit and intent of the Zoning Ordinance will be
observed. The praposed improvements will be orderly, attractive, and wiil not affect the rural character
of the community due to their relatively small scope and size. The proposed improvements will nat
encroach into existing equestrian txse on the property, which consists of a 412 square foot stable and
adjacent corral; and
E. The Variances requested are consistent with the General Plan of the City of
Rolling Hills. The proposed improvements will comply with the General Plan requirement of low
profile, low-density residential developrrient with sufficient open space between surrounding structures.
The structural lot coverage and the total impervious lo�coverage are within the requirements of the City.
Section 12. Findings for Approval of Site Plan review fa;r a retaining wall that exceeds three
feet in height, as required by Section 17.16.19Q{F). With respect ta the modified Site Plan review
application, the City Council finds as fo�lows:
A. The proposed retaining wall complies with and is cansisten# with the goals and
policies of the general plan and all requirements of tt�e zoning ordinance. A four-faot wide walkway is
required by the City's Municipal Code in order to pro�ide sufficient access to the perimeter of the home.
The proposed seven-foot high retaining wall is propased in an area that surrounds the perimeter of the
home, including the 300-square foot closet addition. In arder to maintain a four-foot walkway around
the perimeter of the home, as required by code, the slope adjacent ta the home and the addition would
need to be retained and pushed back. For this reason, neither a three-foot nor five-foot high refaining
wall would be sufficient to maintain the four-foot walkway required by the City's Municipal Code
B. The retaining wall substantia�ly preserves the natural and undeveloped state of the
lot by minimizing building coverage. The nature, condition, and development of adjacent uses,
buildings, and structures and the topography of the lot ha�e been considered, and the construction of a
seven-foat high retaining wall will not adversely affect or be detrimenta� to the adjacen# uses, buildings
or structures because the proposed improvement will be constructed on a portion of the lot which is least
intrusive to surrounding propertzes;
_ C. The Retaining Wall is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, the natural
terrain and surrounding residences. The proposed project is con�istent with the scale of the home
because the length of the proposed retaining wall will not exceed 32 feet and most of it will be between 5
and 2 feet in height;
D. The Reta.ining Wall preserves and integrates into the site design, to the greatest
extent possible, existing topographic featuxes of the site, including surraund�ng vegetation, draining
caurses and land forms. The proposed height and length of the retaining wa11 are at the minimum
threshold required in order to retain the size of the slope adjacent to the property and allow for a�'awr-foot
wide walkway;
Resalutian No. 1189
15 Portuguese Bend Rd. 3
E. Minimai excavation and back fill of 10 cubic yards is required, which does not
trigger grad�ng requirements, althougki geot�chnical report will be requixed for slape stability and
drainage
F. The proposed project will not modify existing drainage channels nor redirect the
drainage flow;
G. The proposec� project preserves surrounding vegetation and shrubs because the
height of the wall will translate into a wall that is shorter in length, thereby preserving the rural character
of the RA-S zone, and requiring less construction ovet'all which would disturb less existing�egetation;
H. The proposed retaining wall is sensitive and not detrimental to the convenient and
sa�e moveznent of pedestrians and veh�cles. A seven-foot high retaining wall would preserve a four-foot
walkway around the perimeter of the home, as required by code, in order to allow for the safe passage of
ernergency access personnel; and
L The construction of the proposed retaining wall conforms to the requirements of
the California Environmental Quality Act.
Secnon 13. Based on the foregoing findings and evidence contairied within the record, the
City Council hereby APPROVES a site plan review for retaining wall greater than three feet in height
and�ariances to encraach into the required 20-foo� side-yard setback with eaves and by 61-square feet,
due to a 300-square foot addition and 12.5 feet encraachment into the side-yard setback, due to a seven
(7) foot high retaining wall, which does not average out to 2.5 feet in height subject to the following
conditions:
A. The approval shall expire within one year from the effective c�ate of approval as
defined in Sections 17.3$.0']Q{A} of the Zoning Ordinance unless otherwise exten�ed pursuant to fihe
requirements of this section.
B. If any conditions of approvai are violated, this approval shall be suspended and
the privileges granted hereunder shall lapse; pro�ided that the applicants have been given written notice
ta cease such�ialation, the opportunity for a hearing has been pro�ided, 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 determina�ion.
C. All requiremen�s af the Building Code and �he Zoning Ordinance including
outdoor lightang requir�ments, roof ng material requirements, stable and corral area set aside
requirements and all other requirements of the zone fn which the subject property is located must be
complied with, unless otherwise set forth in this approval.
D. The project shall be developed and maintained in conformance with the site plan
on file in the City P�anning Departnnent dated August 4, 2016. The conditions of this approval shall be
printed onto building and canstruction plans and be availabie on site at all times.
E. The Applicants shall obtain the required building permits for the remodel and new
foundation for the sunroorn on the property, as well as permits for the construction of the 42-square foot
addition at the rear of the property and for aIl ather in�erior improvements, where a building permit is
required.
F. This project including ail additions, hardscape a�d wall shall be reviewed and
approved by tl�e RHCA. Any deviations to this project that the RHCA may recommen� ar request,
which would trigger aaditional grading, require additional walls or affect any of the herein approved
development, shall be submitted far reviewed by the Planning Comm�ission.
G. Structural lot coverage shall not exceed 5,870 square feet or 16.0% of the net lot
area, including the existing stable. With ailowabie deductians,the structural lot coverage sha11 be �5.8%.
H. Total lot coverage of structures and paved axeas shail not exceed 10,293 square
feet or 28.2%wi�h allowances, in conformance with lot coverage limitations.
I. The disturbed area of the lot shall remain as is currently and not exceed 71 A%.
Resolution No. 1189
15 Portuguese Bend Rd. 4
J. Residential building pad co�erage on the 15,7I0 square foot residentiai building
pad shall not exceed 32.2%,with permissible allowances.
K. The existing stable or an area of a minimum of 1,000 square feet, feasible for
development of a stable, corral and access thereto, shal�be retained on the properry at all times.
L. All u�ility lines for str�ctures subject to this application shall be placed
underground.
- M. The pxoperty owners and/or their contractor s�iall be responsible for compliance
wi�h the no-smoking provisions in the Municipal Code. The contractor shall not use tools that could
produce a spark, including �or clearing and grubbing, during z�ed flag warning conclitions. Weath�r
conditions can be found at:
k�tt :11www.wrh.naaa. ovlla�el�nain. h ?suite=safe & a e=haz�rd definitio�s#FIRE
It is the so�e responsibility of the property owners and/or their contractor to manitar the red flag warning
canditions. Shauld a red-flag warning be declared, and if work is to be conducted on the property, the
contractor shall have readily available fire extinguisher.
N. Notwithstanding Section 1.7.38.065 and 17.46.07a of the Rolling Hills
M�nicipal Code, there shall be no further modificatians, changes or variaHons to the project
approved by #his resoiution, ar any further development on the property withont Planning
Commission review and approva�.
O. Any trees or shnibs intraduced for this project or in the future, when grown, sha11
not exceed the ridge height af the resider�ce and sha11 be maintained at such height at all nmes, so as not
to impair neighbors' views. Tl�e iandscaping, if p�anted, shall include native drought-resistant
vegetation and be planted in an offset manner so as nat fo result in a hedge-like screeri. If�andscaping
of 5,000 sc�uare foot area ar greater is introduced the landscaping shali be subject to the requirements of
the City's Water Eff cient Landscape Ordinance. At planting time a11 shrubs and trees shall be a
rnin�um of 15 gallon in size or larger.
P. Ail graded areas shall be sta.bilized to prevent erosion. Any work or landscaping
for erosion contral in the RHCA easement shall be approved by RHCA.
Q. During canstruction, canformance with local ordinances and engineering
practices so that people or property is not ez�posed to landslides, mudflows, erosion, or land subsidence
shall be required.
R. During construction, conformance with the air quality management di.strict
requireme�ts, storm water pollution prevention practices, county and local ordinances and engineering
practices so that people or property are not expased to undue vehicle trips, noise, dust, abjectionable
odors, landslides, mudflows, erosion, or land subsidence shall be required.
5. During and after canstruction, all parking shall take place an the project site. Any
overflow parking during constructian may be on the roadway easement adjacent ta the property and
shall not obstruct driveways or the road.
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 Saturda.y only, when construction and mechanical equipment noise is permitted, so as
not to interfere with#l�e quiet residential environment of the City af Ralling Hills.
` U. T'he property owners shall be required to conform #o the Regional Water Quality
Control Board and County Health Department requirements �or the installation and maintenance of
storm water drainage facilities. Further, the property owners shall be requiared to conform with the
Regional Water Quality Control Baard and County Public Works Deparkment Best Management
Practices (BMPs)related to solid waste.
V. Perime�r easements and trails, if any, including raadway easements shall remain
free and clear of any improvernents including, but not be limited to, driveways, fences-including
construction fences, landscaping, irrigation and dra.inage devices, play equipm�t, parked vehicles,
building materials, debris and eyuipment, except that th� Rolling Hills Cornmunity Association may
approve certain encroachments.
Resolution No. 1189
15 Portuguese Bend Rd. 5
W. Minimum of 50% of any construction materials must be recycled or diverted from
landfills. The hauier of the materials shall obtain City's Construction and Demolitian permits for waste
hauling priar to start of work and provide proper documentation to the City.
X. No final inspection or certificate o� occupancy shall be issued, until it has been
determined that the canstructian complies with the approved plans and the conditions set forth herein
and buiiding permits have been obtained for all construction, including the "as built" addition,s.
Y. The licensed professional preparing construction plans far this project for
Building Departrnent review shall execute a Certificate affirming that the plans canform in all respects
to this Resolutian approving this project and all of the conditions set forth therein and the City's
Building Code and Zoning Ordinance. Further, the person abtaining a building permit for this project
shall execute a Certificate of Construction sta.ting that the project will be constructed according to this
Resolution and any plans approved therewith.
Z. The applicants shall execute an Affidavit of Acceptance af all conditions o�the
Site Plan Review approval, or the approval shall no#be effective. The Affidavit and the Resolution shall
be recorded.
AA. AIl 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 22nd DAY OF AUGUST 2016.
r -
BEA DIERINGER
MAY�R
ATTEST:
HEIDI LUCE
C�TY CLERK
Any action challenging the final decision of the City made as a result of the public hearing on this
application must be filed within the time limits set forth in section 17.54.070 of the Rolling Hills
Municipal Code ar�d Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6.
Resolution No. I 189
15 Portuguese Bend Rd. 6
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS )
I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 1189 entatled:
A RESOLUTIQN OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
APPROVING A VAR.TANCE TO ENCROACH INTO THE REQUiRED 20-FOOT
SIDE-YARD SETBACK WITH EAVES AND BY 61-SQUARE FEET, DUE TO A 300-
--� SQUARE FOOT ADDITION; APPROVING A MODIFIED SITE PLAN REV�W
FOR A RETAIlVING WALL GREATER THAN THREE FEET IN HEIGHT AND
VARIANCES TO ENCROACH INTO THE REQUIRED 20-F44T SIDE-YARD
SETBACK BY 12.5 FEET, DUE TO A �EVEN (7) FOOT HIGH RETAINING WALL
THAT DOES NOT AVER.AGE OUT TO 2.5 FEET IN HEIGHT;
AND ACKNOWLEDGING THE WITHDRA.WAL QF A SITE PLAN REVIEW AND
VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A 6-F�OT HIGH WALL AND A 2-FOOT FLAT
WALKWAY AROUND THE BUILDING ADDITION IN ZONING CASE N�. 880 AT
15 PORTUGLTESE BEND R�AD (LOT 78-RH), ROLLING HILLS CA,
��ssoLD�.
was approved and adopted at a regular meeting af the City Council on August 22, 2016 by the
following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilrnembers Black,Mirsch, Wiison and Mayor Dieringer.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: Councilmember Pieper(recused).
and in corr�pliance with the laws of California was posted at the following:
Adrninistrative Offices.
�_ �a �. � ,
HEIDI LUCE
CITY CLERK
Resolution No. 1189
15 Portuguese Bend Rd. 7