1221.pdf RESOLUTION NO. 122I
A RES4LUTION OF TI� CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
DENYING A REQUEST FOR MODiFICATIONS OF THE HEIGHT AND ROOF
TYPE OF A PREVIQUSLY APPROVED ADDITION TO AND MAJQR
REMODEL OF A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE AT 24 CINCHRIl�TG ROAD
(LOT 18-3-CH}IN ZONING CA�E NO. 932 (NAI�AMURA}.
THE CITY C�UNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DQES HEREBY
RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. An application was duly filed by Mr. and Mrs. Takashi Nakamura
{col�ectively referred to as "Applicants") with respect to real property located at 24 Cinchring
Road, (Lot 18-3-CI�, Rolling Hi�ls, requesting modifications to a previously approved addition
and major remodel to a single-family residence in order to alter the roof type thereon and to
deviate from the approved ridge height elevation of the residence by two feet (hereinafter
collec�ively referred to as "proposed Modifications.") The construction of the addition/remodel
of the single-family residence is substantially campleted and the ciarrent ridge height elevation is
3-£eet above the previously approved height. The Applicants now propose to lower the ridge
height elevation by one foot and to replace the previously approved hip roof with a proposed
Dutch gable roof.
Section 2. In 2007, the City rninisterially approved an 850 ft, addition to the
residence. In 2Q09, App�icants sought to grade, b�tild a mixed use structure containing a garage
and recreation room, build a wall along the mixed use structure, and widen the driveway. This
application was app;roved by Resolution No. 2009-OG. On July 12, 2013, A�plicants obtained a
demolitian permit far interior work in the residence. The Los Angeles County Building and
Safety Department approved Applicants' development plan dated stamped May S, 2014 for
construction of improvernent ta the residence. On June 23, 2014, the City issued Applicants a
^ building permit and construction commenced thereafter. In the summer of 2d15, the City
received inquiries from residents questioning whether the residence in construction was being
built higher than allawed by the approved plans. In the fall of 2015, officials with the City and
the Los ,Angeles County Building and Safety Deparhnent inspected the property and determined
that the height of the residence (at 920.25 ft.} was noncompliant with the approved plans (which
reflected a ridge height elevation af 917.25 ft.}. Or� October 5, 2015, a notice of violation was
issued to Applicants to stap all work until xeceipt of appropriate approvals. As of October 17,
2015, work was continuing on Applicants' property. In order to bring the structizre into
campliance, the Applicants were given two options to avoid a code enforcement proceeding:
either lower the roofline to the originally appro�ed 917.25 ft. or apply to the Planning
Commission far a modification to allow the height of the structure to remain at 920.25 ft. On
Septembe:r 1, 2017, the Applicants filed for a Site Plan Review for modifications to lower the
roafline to 919.25 ft. {two feet higher than approved}. The modification request also calls for
changing out the roof type frorn a hip roof to a Dutch gable roof, which provides for Iess "see
through" ar open areas resulting in a more massive look of the structure.
Section 3. Condition "AN" of Resalution No. 2009-06 requires a Site Plan Review
by the P�anning Commission for moclifications to the approved project:
"Notwi�hstanding S�ctions 17.46.020 and 17.46.070 of the Ralling Hills Municipal
Code, any madification to this project or the property, which would constitute additional
struetural development, grading or additional excavation of dirt and any madification including,
but not limited to retaining walis, drainage devices, pad elevation, pool construction and any
other deviation from the approved plans, shall require the f�ling of a new app�ic�tion for
approval by the Planning Comm�ssion." (Bold emphasis added.)
Consequently, the modification application was scheduled for review by the Planning
Commission. The Planning Cammission's consideration of the application for the proposed
Modifications was conducted at duly notFced public hearings on September 19, 2417 and
October 17, 2017. The minutes ftom the September 19, 2U17 hearing reflect that the Planning
Commission considered tha#the higher roof was built as a ternparary roof due to winterization of
the building, that the built raof tooks different from those in the City, and that a neighbor felt t.�iat
the hause was built in its view. The Planning Commission also conducted a duly not�ced public
Resolution 1221
24 Cinchring Road -1-
field trip visit to the site on October 17, 2017. The Planning Commission denied the request at its
regular December 19, 2017 meeting.
Section 4. Following�he Flanning Commission's deniai of Zoning Case No. 932, the
City Council took jurisdiction of the application at its January 8, 201$ meeting. All materials,
documents, and information provided #o the Planning Cornmission by th� Applicants and t�ieir
neighbors at 26 Cinchring Road were inciuded with the staff report to the CiTy Council for its
7anuary 8, 2018 meeting. Pursuant to Section 17.54.015 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, a
review hearing for cases taken under jut�sdiction by the City Council shall be conducted de novo.
Section 5. �n January 30, 2018, the City Council held a duly noticed public field trip
visit to the si#e to observe the project, reviewed and considered the staff report and the
Applicants' request, took brief public testimony, and put other information on #he record. The
minutes reflect that the City Council considered comment from adjacent property neighbors that
they used to have a view of the canyon and Pa1os Verdes Land Conservancy and �hat the
proposed Modifications would obstruct their view further. The City Council continued the public
field trip visit to its regularly scheduled meeting on February 12, 201 S. The Applicants ar�d their
representatives were in attendance at both the hearings.
At the February 12, 2018 duly naticed public hearing, the City Council heard evidence
presented by all persons interested in the application for the proposed Modifications and by
members of the City staff. The staff report reflects that the ridge height of the original hause was
916.86 ft.; the ridge heigh� in the app�roved plans was 917.25 ft.; and the ridge height in the
proposed plans is 919.25 ft. T�ie City Council reviewed, analyzed, and studied the application far
the propased Modifications,the evidence presented at the January 30, 2018 pubiic field trip visit,
and the evidence presented at the February 12, 20�8 publi�c hearing, including submissions by
Architect for Residents at 26 Cinchring Road, Vincent P. DiBiasi, and by Representative for
Applicants, Allen Rigg. While Mr. DiBiasi cantends that the massing af the proposed
Modifications would be more significant than the approved plans, Mr. Rigg suggests fhat the
mass is "nearly identical" in #he front and "less" in the rear without providing any computation
as compared to the approved plans. While no empirical data was presented to the City Council,
based an the image of an overlay of the structure as-built, proposed, and approved, the structure
overall appears to have more mass.
Section b. The City Cauncil finds that the project qualifies as a Class 3 Exemption
[California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Section 15303] and is therefore
categorically exempt from environmental re�iew utider the CEQA.
Sectian 7. Having considered the evidence, the City Cauncil znakes the following
findings of fact:
A. The proposed Madifications are not compliant or consis�ent with the goals and
policies of the City's general plan. Goal 1 and Goal 2 of the City's General Plan
relating to its Land Use Element set forth policies requiring that development
conform with the City's existing low-profile, ranch style architecture and ens�e the
siting of buildings maintain and preserve viewscapes and adjacent structures through
the site review process. T'he proposed Modifications do not conform with the City's
goal of maintaining low-profile, California ranch style homes because the praposed
ridge height elevation and roof type would add visual massing and bulk to the
previously approved sing�e-famiiy residence. Furkherrnare, the proposed
Madifications do not preserve viewscapes from adjacent residences.`The 919.25 ft.
Dutch gable roaf has an unnecessarily higher and bulkier profile than the previously
approved project with a 9 i 7.25 ft. hip roof. The proposed Modifications to increase
the siope from 3:12 to 4:12 would also increase the mass of the structure. The
previously approved plan is consistent with the General Plan goals.
B. The proposed Modifications are not harmonious in scale and mass with the site and
the natural terrain and surrounding residences. The proposed Madifications do not
conform with �he City's goal of maintaining low-profile, ranch style harnes because
the proposed ridge height elevation and roof type would add visual massing and bulk
to the pre�iously appraved single-family residence. Additionally, the m�imum
height for the mixed-use structure as established in Resolution 2009-06 was 14 ft.:
"The roofline of the structure will not exceed 14 fee�." The height of the mixed use
Resolution 1221
24 Cinchring Road -2-
structu�re was determined at that time to be compatible with the surrounding
neighborhood and suitable for a ranch-style single-family home. The plan for the
mixed use structure relied on the appro�+ed plans for the residential structure; both
plans were consistent with each other and in harmony with the low-profile, ranch
style homes in the City. The Applicants offer no relevant justification far increasing
the height as now proposed, rendering the proposed home incompatible with the site
and surrounding properties�. The proposed Modifications would a.lso be visible from
the str�et and to neighbors and da not preserve viewscapes from an adjacent
residence. The 919.25 ft. Dutch gable roof has an unnecessariIy highe�r and bulkier
profile than the previously appraved 917.25 $, hip roo£ The proposed Modif cations
to increase the slope from 3:12 to 4:12 would also increase the mass of the structuxe.
Section 8. Based upon the �oregoing findings, the City Cauncil hereby denies the
application in Zoning Case No. 932 far height and roof modification of a previottsly approved
praject. The previously approved project is shown on an approved development plan stamp dated
at the Los Angetes County Building and Safety Department on May 8, 2014.
Section 9. The Applicant's unpermitted construction of a higher than approved
struciure constitutes a Building Code violation. Staff is directed ta require the Applicants to
bring the height of the residence into compliance with the plan, which was previously approved.
Therefare, the Applicants shall undertake the following actions:
A. Within three months of this Resolutian, the Applicants sha�l renew all construction
permits through the Los Angeles County Building and Safety Department for this
project and commence demolition of the illegal construction.
B. Within six mont�s of this Resolution, the Applicants shall commence the construction
of the project, including the previously approved roofline, in compliance witl� �the
approved plans and commence grading activity for the previously approved detached
garage/recreation room and access thereto per the specifications outlined in
Resolution No. 2009-Q5.
C. Within eight months of this Resolution, the Applicants shall obtain a building permit
for the construction of the pre�viously approved detached garage/recreation room and
access thereto per the specifica�ion outlined in Resolution No. 2009-Q6.
D. Witl�in twelve months of this Resolution, the entire project shatl be substantially
completed per the specifications outlined in Resolution No. 20D9-06 and per the
approved development p�an stamp dated at the Las .Angeles County Building and
Safety Department on May 8, 2014, including the construction of the driveway to the
garage. At that aime, the construction fence shall be remaved fram the premises
together with any unnecessary and unused const�zction materials, green waste, or
other debris.
E. Within fifteen months o�this Resolution, the entire project shall be campleted. Prior to
receiving a final inspection or a certificate of accupancy from the Los Angeles
County Building and Safety Deparhment both s#ructures (residence and the mixed
use) and the driveway sha21 be completed and fully func�ional.
F. The highest ridge�ine of the house sha11 not be higher#han 917.25 ft, in elevation, as
shown on the approved plans. This specified height of the ridgeline includes the
fmished roof, not merely the sheetzng of the roof. Prior to placing the finished
materiai on the roof, the ridgeline shall be certified by a certi�ed civil or structural
engineer, acceptable to City staff Prior to obtaining final inspection or a certif cate of
occupancy, certification of the ridge height af the residence, prepared by a certified
civil or stnxctural engineer, accepta.ble to City staff, shail be submitted to City staff
and the Las Angeles County Building and Sa�ety Department to confirm or deny
whether the completed project is in comptiance with the approved plans. Applicants
shall atso be in compliance with all conditions of Resolution No. 20Q9-06.
G. At the City Counci�'s discretion, it may grant a time extension at each benchmark in
the timeline of actions specified in this Section if the Applicants fi�e an application,
including the corresponding �ees, with City staff�efore the date of the required action
Resolution 1221
24 Cincl�ring Road -3-
as specified in this Section and the City Cauncil finds that that the denial of the
extensian would constitute an undue hardship upon the Applicants and that the
approval of the extensiot� would not be materially detrirnenta.l to the health, safety,
azxd general welfare of the public.
Section 10. The City Council further finds that the actions to bring the Applicants'
property inYo compliance with the previously approved plan as specified in Section 10 of this
Reso�ution are of great importance and are necessary to pmmote the health, safety, and general
welfare of the residents of the City, and therefore, th� City Council resolves that said actions
shall be rnade within the time frame specified in Section 9 of this Resolunon.
Section 11. The City or the Los Angeles County Building and Safety Department staff
may require that a construction fence be erected for the duration of the construction of this
project. Such fence shall not be located in any easeirient or cross over any trails or natural
drainage courses and shall be removed immediately upon substantial cornpletion of the project,
or as otherwise required by said staff.
Section 12. Prior to cammencing the actions specified in Section 9 0#'this Resalution,
the Applicants shall execute and record an Affidavit of Acceptance of all conditions of this
Resolution in the Los Angeles CoUnty Registrar-RecorderlCounty Clerk's Office.
PASSED,APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 26�'DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018.
J LA K,M.D.,MAY4_ R \
ATTEST:
T/YI'�
TT'E HALL, CITY CLERK
Any action challenging the final decision of the City made as a result a�the public hearing on
th.is application must be filed within the time limits set forth in sectian 17.54.070 of the Rolling
Hills Municipal Code and Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6.
Resolut�on 1221
24 Cinchring Road -4-
sT��oF cai.�oxrna �
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§
CiTY OF R4LLING HILLS )
I certify that the forega�ixig Resolution No. 1221 entitled:
A RES�LUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HII,LS
— DENYING A REQUEST FOR MODIFICATIONS OF THE HEIGHT AND ROOF
TYPE OF A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED ADDITION TO AND MAJOR
REMODEL OF A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE AT 24 CINCHRING ROAD
{LOT 18-3-CH), IN ZONING CASE NO. 932, (NAI�AMURA).
was approved and adopted at a reg�xlar meeting of the City Council on February 26, 201$ by the
following roll call vote:
AYES: Counciimembers Dieringer, Mirsch, Pieper and Wilson.
NOES: Mayor Black
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following:
Administrative Offices.
E HALL, CITY CLERK
Resolution 1221
24 Cinchring Road -5-