09-20-16FT MINUTES OF AN
ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING
OF THE PLANNING C�MMISSION
SEPTEMBER 20,2016
FIELD TRIP
PRESENT:
Chairman Chelf, Commissianers Cardenas, Gray, Kirkpatrick and
Seaburn
Yolanta Schwartz,Plannuzg Director
A. ZONING CASE NO. 910. Request for a Site PIan Review to reconstrvct and
add to an existing Iiving area and garage, for a swimming pool, new driveway and
grading and request for a Variance to exceed the maacimum permitted disturbance of
the lot in Zoning Case No. 91Q, at 85 Crest Road East, (Lot 69 G1�M5), Rolling Hills,
CA (Zee). The project has been determined to be categorically exempt (Class 3}
pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA} Guidelines, Section
15303.
Also pxesent at this field trip were:
John Mackenbach,contxactor
Leah Mirsch, Resident
James Aichele, Resident
Phil Steinberg, Neighbor-87 Crest Rd. E.
Nina Ritter, Neighbor-63 Crest Rd. E.
Chairman Cheif recused himself due to proxitnity of his residence to subject site
P�ansung Director Schwartz reviewed the applicant�s proposal including the request for
a variance to exceed the di�turbed area of the lot due to the additional grading for the
new d�rzveway and pool area. Everyone present toured the projecf starting with the
proposed garage and addi�ion under the existing breezeway. John Mackenbach pointed
out the ridgeline of �he proposed project and f�ie limits o£ the garage and motor court.
In response to Mr. Steinberg, Planning Director Schwartz pointed out the distance
between his house and the proposed driveway and. Mr. Mackenbach explained the
locafion of the property line and the 10' easement Iines on bath properties. Ms. Ritter
expressed concerns about the removal o£the existing asphalt driveway and the absence
of topographic map of the area west of the existing driveway. She questioned the
drainage and stability of the area once the asphalt driveway is removed. Ms. Ritter also
expressed concerns about t12e new driveway exiting v�xy close to the common.driveway
on Cresf Road fhat serves 5 other praperties, and asked if it can be moved further east.
In response, John Mackenbach stated that any other location would requi�e addi�ional
1
grad:ing and the driveway woula. not meet City's requixement for steepness. Several
Cornmzssioners stated that to their knowledge the drainage would be improved with
tlte removal of the asphal.t driveway as there would be more sur€ace area far infiltration
of the run-off. It was also stated that the p�roject would be engineered and the City's
drainage and grading engineer would review the project.
The group then walked over to the pool area and John Mackenbach pointed to the
finished �levation of the pool and pool area.
In response to a letter from the property owner at 8b Crest Road E., in which he
expresses objection to fihe location of the proposed driveway along the front of the
property at 85 Crest Road E., the Commissioners visited 8b Crest Road E. Discussion
ensued regarding the elevation of the driveway and the proposed 3' high wal� along the
driveway and screening the front o€ the Iot. Directo:r Schwartz stated that landscaping
of the graded areas is xequired and that with the permission of the RHCA, taller than
ground cover plants cou�d be planted. Vice-chairman Gray s�ated that this would be
discussed a�the even�ng meeting of the Plaxtning Commission.
B. ZONING CASE NO. 911. Requesfi for a Site Plan Review to legalize a
14Q square foot addition and to construct a 565 square feet o£ attached covered
porches to main residence on a property with a restrxctive development condition
and a Variance for one of the covered porches to be loca�ed in the front yard
setback at 3 Poppy Trail (Lot 8-PT`) Rolli�g Hi11s, CA, aonas). The project has
been determined to be categorically exempt {Class 3} pursuant to the California
Environmental Qua�ity Acf (CEQA) Guidelines,Section 15303.
Also present at this field txip were:
Anthony In£errera, Architect
Le�h 1l�Ii.rsch, Resident
James Azchele, Resident
Plarming Director Schwartz reviewed the applicant's proposal including the
request for a variance to locate a covered poxch along the front of the property in
the front setback and to legalize previously constructed additian to the house. She
pointed out the front setback and stated that almost 40°10 of the existing house is
located in the front setback. Everyone present toured the project starting with the
propased porch. The architect explained the elevation of the porch and proposed
ridgeline of the house, inc�uding the unpermitted portion ot the house. All
present visited the inside af the residence to view the unpermitted portion and
also viewed it from the rear. Discussion ensued about the required 4' walkway
a;round the property. It was stated that s;ince fhe unpermitted addztion needs ta
meet current standards, a 4'-walkway is required. All present wallced around the
rear of the unpexmitfed addition and the architecf explained how fhe addition
will be modified to meet the current standards and that a 4'-wide walkway could
2
be provided. Chairman Chelf stated fhat this would be addressed and discussed
at the evening meeting.
Thex�e being no further discussion, the p�.blic hearing was continued to the
evenrtng meeting of the Plannisig Comrnission beginning at 6:30 PM.
Resp�ctfully Submitted,
:t/ ,
a �
Yo1 nta 5 hwartz Daf
P` 'ng Direc�or
App�rove
--..
Brad Chelf, Chairman Date
�.
3