02-21-17FT MINUTES OF AN
ADJDURNED REGULAR MEETING
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
February 21,2017
FTELD TRIP
PRESENT:
Chairman Chelf, Commissioners Cardenas, Cooley, Kirkpa�rick and
Seaburn
Raymond Cruz, City Manager
Julia Stewart, Assistant Planner
Yolanta Schwartz, Planning Director
A. ZONING CASE N4.916. Request£o:r a Sxte PZan Review and Variances to
retain a pa�rtially excavated area for a proposed 1,322 square foot basement, a
portion of which would be located in the front setback and to retain unpermitted
patio with an outdoor barbeque area supported by a 5' high xetaining wall;
grading for dirt pathways that are buttressed by proposed 3' high railroad tie
wa1ls and a 3'S" high concrete block retaining wal� in the side and front setback.
The applicant also requests a Site Plan Review and Variances for a new 76.3'
long, 4'b" high �retaining wall, a portion of which would be Iocated in the side
setback,for retaining walls thaf do not average out to 2.5' in height and to exceed
the maximum perxnitted disturbance {48.8%) of the net lot area, including for the
set aside area far a future stable and cvrral. Project is located at 5 El Cancho
Lane, (Lot 1a-�GF}, Rolling Hills, CA, (De Miranda). Project has been detexmined
to be exempt from the California Environmental C,�uality Act, (CEQA}.
Also present for this project was:
Shane Laix7b,contractor
Planning Director Schwartz reviewed the applicant's proposal and provided a
brief background inforrnation regarding the as built elements of the project. She
stated that fhe block wall in the side setback was constructed as an emergency
measure when the drainpipe behind it ruptured damaging the propex�y and �he
slope below. She stated that the applicant is working separately with the
contractor and oth�x advisors on the drainpipe issue. She stated that the
applicant proposcs to reduce the railroad tie walls, that are higher than 3,'
constructed along the paths to 3' or 1ess, so that potentially Building and Safety
Department permit would not be necessary.
1
The Planning Commission walked around the property; first down the paths and
expressed concern regarding the existing railroad tie walls questioning if they are
adequate to supporf the slopes between the paths, and whether reducing them to
3' would be structurally sound. Ms. Schwaar�z stated that grading plan for the
paths wi11 have to be reviewed by the Building Department, and if it is
detex�mined that the walls are inadequate, the applicant will have to reconstruct
the walls. The Planning Comrnission then viewed the Iower area of the path.
According to Mr. Lamb, during the most recent rain (and after the plans for the
Plann;ng Commission were prepared), dirf sloughed off the slope above and took
out portion of the lower path, walls and landing. A 76' lo�g by 4.5' high wall was
originally proposed to be constructed in the southwest corner of the property to
support the slopes and path.s above, (a apportion af which is to be located in the
side yard setback, therefore a Variance is required). Mr. Lamb stated that due to
the slope failure, it was impossible to stake the proposed wall and that he Iaid a
white pipe in the area of the proposed wall. The Planning Cominissioners noted
that it is ve7ry difficult to see what is being proposed in that area. Discussion
ensued of what can be done to repair the slope and �lie drainpipe. In response to
Commissioner Kirkpatrick, City Manager stated that the Cify does not construct
public infrastructure and does not own or control any public improvements. He
stated that the drainpipe is Iocated on a private property.
The Com�rrussioners then walked around the house to the unpermitted patio area
and the area of the proposed basement. They nated and expressed concern about
the leaning outdoor kitchen area and the :retaining wa11 behind it, and questioned
their safety. Cornmissioner Cardenas inquired whether the kitchen could be
relocated to the patio located at the north end of the house. Mr. .Lamb sfated that
the owners would Iike to keep it in its current location and a:re Iooking into a way
to repair the patio foundation and the wa11. The Comxnissioners then observed the
excavated area under the house for the proposed basement.
There being no further discussion, the public hearing was continued to the
evening meeting of the Planning Commission beginning at 6:30 PM.
B. B. ZONING CASE N4. 914. Request for a Site Plan Review to
cons#xuct 11,052 square foot new residence with a 1,446 square foot garage and
6,620 square £oot basement, 1,33b square foot swimm;ng pool and grading of
24,900 cubic yards of cut and fill, (including excavation and cornpaction); and
Conditional Use Permit for a 744 squax�e foot two-story stable wifh a 504 square
foot ground floor and 240 square foot Ioft, a 1,491 square foot corral, a 6,985
square foot tennis court, and a 800 square foot guesthouse with 195 square feet of
attached covered porches. Also proposed are various outdoor amenities and a
new driveway. The subject property is located at 1I Upper Slackwater Canyon
Road {Lot 99-B-IZH) Rolling Hills, CA, (Author Hoines, LLC}. The project has
2
been determined to be categorically exempt pursuant �o the Califorrua
Envi:ronmental Quality Act(CEQA),Section 153Q3.
Present for this project were:
Jessica Farinacci and Louie Tomaro,Tomaro Design Group
Mr. Dave Breiholz,neighbor
Mr. and Mrs. Waters, neighbors
Mr. Fan,neighbor
Mr. and Nlrs. Manquen,neighbors
Assistant Planne:r, Stewart reviewed the applicant's proposal including the
request for Conditional Use Permit for fhe stable, tenrv.s court and guest house
and explained the proposed building pads as they relate to the current building
pads. She explained the grading and Iocation of the proposed structures. She
stated that the driveway apron is proposed to be moved approximately 7�0' to the
north and that the Traffic Commission �reviewed it and recammended approval.
In response to Comn�ssioner Kirkpatrick Chairman Chelf, Ms. Schwartz stated
that the residential building pad will be lowered by 2' and that staff wi11 bring to
the evening meeting information about the approval granted on this property
three years ago.
Dave Breiholz, suggested that the applicants re-think their drainage design and
consider discharging the water into the natura� drainages courses on either side of
the property.
Mr. Waters stated that he met with the ax�chitects and discussed the project,
location of the stable and screening, and although he does not object to the project
he feels that they have not moved the stable far enough west from the prior
proposal and reque�ted that th� Plannin� Commission req�.ire that the stable be
moved fu�°ther away from his property line.
Mr. and Mrs. Manquen explained that they live above the project on Middleridge
Lane South and they would see the stable from their house. They asked that the
stable be screened.
AII present walked around the proposed development and observed the Iocation
of the existing and proposed swimming pool, the rear yard and the stairs from
the walkout basement to the lower level where the tennis court and guest house
are proposed. Ms. Stewart stated that the RHCA Architectural Committee will
�eview the design of the basemenf egress/ing�ress, as they have purview of the
design o£basement exterior. In response to Commissioner Cardenas, Ms. Stewart
stated that the tennis court will be sunk into the hillside by a 4' retaining wall,
which is allowed by code.
3
Mr. Fan nated that the tennis �ourt is too close to Sagebrush Lane and is
concerned that he will be able to see it and hear the ba11s bouncing. He requested
that a detailed landscaping pIan be submitted and reviewed by the neighboxs. In
response to Mr. Fan, Ms. Schwartz stated that Iighting is not perrnitted for tennis
courts.
There being no further discussion, the public hearing was continued to the
evening meeting of the Planning Commission beginning at 6:30 PM.
Res ectfully Submitted,
� �/z�/��
YO �S7CiEWaTtZ D�te r
PI 'ng Director
Appr .
3 �i 1 `1
rad C lf, airman Date
�
4