2018-07.pdf RESOLUTION NO. 2018-07
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY QF
ROL,LING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL QF A SYTE PLAN REVIEW
FOR TWO AS-BUILT RETAINING WALLS THAT EXCEED 3 FEET IN
HEIGHT AND A VARIANCE FOR TWO AS-BUILT WALLS ONE OF
WHICH IS A WALL LOCATED ALONG A PERVIOUSLY PAVED
PATHWAY THAT EXCEEDS THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED � FOOT
WALL HEIGHT AND EXCEEDS THE PERMIT'TED 2,5 FOOT HIGH
WALL AVER.AGE AND THE SECOND OF WHTCH TS A WALL BEHIND
A PERMITTED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE THAT ENCROACHES INTO
THE PIZOPERTY SETBACK AND EXCEEDS THE PERIVIITTED 2.5 FOQT
HIGH WALL AVERAGE, IN ZONING CASE NO. 942 AT 3 P4PPY
TRAIL, (LOT 8-PT}, ROLLING HILLS,CA QONAS).
THE PLANNING CQMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES
HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. An application was du�y£iled by Mr. Robert Jonas requesting a Site
Plan Review approving two as-built retaining wa11s that each exceed 3 feet in height
located along a pathway and behind the recreation room. The wall along the pathway
leading to the recreation room is 29Q Iinear feet with a maximum height of 6 feet; the
other, retaining wall behind the recreation room is approximately 30 Iinear feet with a
maximum height of 4 feet. The app�icant requests a Variance from the requirements of
Section 17.7�6.190{F) of as it relates to the path wall to 1) exceed the maximum permitted
a foot high wall height; and 2) exceed the permitted 2.5 foot high wall averagc; and as it
relates to the o�her wall to 1} permit it to encroach into the property setback area; and 2)
to exceed the pex•mitted 2.5 foot high wall average.
Section 2. The Planning Comxnission conducted duly noticed public heaxings
fo consider the application on May 15, 2018, including a morning field tri.p and an
evening meeting. The applicant was notified of the public hearings in writing by firsf
class mail. Evidence was heard and presented from all persons interested in affecting
said proposal and from members of the City staff and the Planning Camnlission
having reviewed, analyzed and st�zdied said proposal. The applicant's representative
was in attendance at the public hearings.
Dwri.ng the May 15, 2018 field visit a concern was expressed by �lie Planning
Cammission that the applicant should plant landscaping on the slope along the wall
next to the pathway and hanging over the rear wall. This concern has been addressed
through the conditions of approval.
Section 3. The lot is zoned RAS-2 and the lot area excluding the
roadway easement is 2.68 gross acres.
Reso. 2Q18-Q7
3 Poppy Trail �
Section 4. On March 17, 2009, the applicant was granted a Conditional Use
Pernut and a Si�te PIan Review that allowed the construction of an S00 square foot
recreation room and access thereto, zncluding a 3' high wa11 along the eastern side of the
access pathway to the recreation room. A "No further developmen�" restriction
(condition AF) was imposed on the property, requir3ng any future structural
modifica�ions to be reviewed by the Planning Commission in a Site P�an Review public
hearing. Following completian of this project, the applicant raised the pathway wall
and constructed additional walls behind the recreation room.
On October 18, 2016, the Planning Commission approved Zoning Case No. 911
approving a 375 square foot as-bux�t living area and three covered porches, totalling 705
square feet. In addition, the project included construction of a ma�cimum 5-foot high
wall at the rear of the residence to accommodate a 4-foot wide walkway along the home
perimeter contiguous to the as-built living area. The project a�so included a Variance to
locate two of the three proposed covered porches witivn the front yard setback.
Section 5. The prope�rty is currently improved wi�h a residence, stable,
detached recreafion room, and amenities such as a pool. A 3' high wall was previously
appraved along the pathway at the same time as the detached recreation room review.
It included approval for a small portion near the driveway apron to be Iocated in the
setback.
Section 6. The project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality
Act(CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303, C1ass 3 exemption Guidelines.
Section 7. Section Z7.16.390F requires a Site P1an Review for walls over 3 f�et
xn height. The proposed project includes fwo retaining walls that exceed three feet in
height located alang the pathway lead:ng �o the recreation room and behind the
recreation room. The project is also subject to Site Plan Review since the site has a
"restricted development" condition as noted in Section 4 of this Resolution.
With respect to �he Site Plan Review application for the walls the Planning Commissian
makes the following findings of fact:
1. The proposed development is compatible with the General Plan and
surroundin�g uses because the proposed project cor�plies vvith the requirement of Iow
profile, 1ow-density residential development wifh sufficient open space between
surrounding struct-ures. The project con£oxms to development standard requirements
£ox Zot coverage and disturbance of the Zoning Ordinance and no grading is proposed.
The as-built walls will be Iegalized with this approval. Only a short portion of one of
the walls, is higher than �' allowed height pursuant to RHMC Section 17.16.190(� and
although both walls do not average out to 2.5 feet,they're not very tall or obtrusive.
Reso. 2018-07
3 Poppy Trail 2
Pursuant to this resolution, the retaining wa11s are granted a variance from the
requirements o£RHMC Section 17.16.29Q(F}.
2. The development plan substan�ially preserves the nahzral and.
undeveloped state of the lot because the walls will not cause �he lot to look
overdeveloped. The walls are located in areas of the lot that were prevzously graded
and the height of the pathway wall was increased fram the prevzously approved 3' wall
when the owner added several courses of concrete blocks. The wa11 behind the
recreation room was constructed to retain a slope behind it and does not exceed 4' in
height. Significant portions of the 2.7-acre lot will be left undeveloped so�as to maintain
open space on fhe property. The nature, condition, and development o£ adjacen�t uses,
buildings, and structures and the topography of the lot have been considered, and the
walls will not adversely affect or be materially detr'v.nental to the adjacent uses,
buildings, or str�ctures. The walls are nof expected to unpact the view or przvacy of
surrounding neighbors.
3. The proposed project, as conditioned, is hannonious in scale and mass
with the site, the natural terrazn and surrounding residences. The proposed project is
conszstent wi�i the scale of the neighborhood since it is on a Iarge Iot. The lot coverage
maximums set forth in the Zoning Code wi11 not be exceeded. Both walls are necessary
to help to retain the slope and dirt behind them.
4. The development pIan follows natural contaurs of the site to the
maximum extent practicable, utilizing existing groomed and usable areas of the lat. The
as-built pathway wall follows an as-built pathway to the back of the propex�.y and the
rear wall follows a slope, which it retains. Natural drainage courses will not be affected
by the pxoject. No grading is proposed and existing d�rainage channels will not be
modi#ied. The project is not located in a canyon.
5. The project preserves much of the exis�ing vegetation elsewhere on the lot.
New ].andscaping will also be introduced to screen the wal�s and the slopes behind
them, and said plants will be req�xired to be drought tolerant, which is compatible with
and enhances the xural character of the community.
6. The proposed development is sensitive and nat detrimental to the
convenience and safety of ci�rculation for pedestrians and vehicles because the proposed
development does not a£fect or interfere with the driveway to the resic�ence or the
pathway to the recreation room.
Section 8. Sections 17.38.a10 through 17.38A�0 of the Rolling Hills Municipal
Code permit approval of a Variance grantv.�g relief from the standards and
requirements of the Zoning O�rdinance when exceptional or extraordinary
circumstances appiicable to the property preven�the owner from making use of a parcel
Reso. 20�8-07
3 Poppy Trai1 3
of property to the same e�ctent enjoyed by sinvlar properties in the same vicinity or
zone.
A variance from the requirement-s of Section 17.16.190(F} of the Zonzng
Ordinance is required for the as-buiit walls (wall shall not exceed five feet and sha11 nat
average more than 2.5 feet in height) and from Section 17.12.190 (setbacks shall be free
of�tructures).
With respecf to the aforementioned request for a variance, the Planning
Commission finds as follows:
1. There are exceptional circumstances and conditioras on the subject
property, including the natural slope, location of the building pad and the shape of the
lot, all of which constrain development. The�ot has a relatively steep natural downwa�d
slape from rear to fronf. Due to this cons�raint, the recreation room pad is at a much
higher elevation than the main residence and stable pads. The as-built walls will cause
the pad to be more usabie and the slopes behind the existing development more stable.
2. The variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right possessed by other property owners in the same vicinify and
zone but which is denied to the property in question by strict application of �he cade.
The slopes on the subject property are rather steep and maintaining the as-built walls
will allow the recreation room pad to be utilized in a safe manner.
3. The granting of the variance would not be materially detrimental to the
public welfare or injurious to the properties or impravements in such vicinity and zone
in which the property is located in that the walls are minimally visible from adjacent
properties and do not negatively affect drainage or traf#ic circulation ta and from the
propex�y. The walls wil.l be further screened with vegetation hanging over the walls to
match somQ of the other exi�ting wa�ls on thc progerty.
4. In granting the variance,the spixit and intent of the Zoning Ordinance will
be observed in that the as-built walls are orderly, attractive, and do not detrimentally
a#fect the rural character of �].ie community. Their style is cohesive with the rural
character, and tliey are minimally visible from adjacent properties.
5. The variance will nvt grant special privilege to the applicant because as
discussed the �elatively s�eep natural terrain on the property calis far the wa1ls to make
the property more stable.
6. The variance is consistent with the poxtions of the County af Los
Angeles Hazardous Waste Management Plan relating to siting a�d siting criteria for
hazardous waste facilit�es because it does not affect any hazardous waste facilities.
Ae�o. 20�.8-07
3 Pappy Trail 4
Sec�ion 9. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Plar,n;r,g Cox�unission
hereby approves the Site PIan Review and Variance in Zoning Case No. 942 fox two
as-built x�etaining walls one of which, the pathway wall, exceeds five feet and
averages more than 2.5 feet, and fhe second of which, encroaches into the property
setback and averages more than 2.5 feet„subject to the following conditions:
A. This approval shall expire within two years from the effective date of
approval unless the approval granted is otherwise extended pursuant to the
requiurements of RHMC Sections �7.38.070 and 17.46.080.
B. If any condition of this resolution i.s violated, the entitlement granted by
this resolution shall be suspended and the .privileges granted hereunder shall Iapse
and upon xeceipt of written natice from the Czty, all construction work being
performed, if any, on the subject property shall immediately cease, other �han work
determined by the City Manager or his/her designee required to cure the
violation. The stop work arder will be Iifted once the Applicant cures the violation to
the satisfaction of �he City Manager or his/her desi�ee. In the event that the
Applicant d'zsputes the City Manager or his/hex designee's determination that a
violation exists or disputes how the violation must be cured, �he Applicant may
request a hearing before the City Council. The hearing shall be scheduled at the next
regular meeting of the City Councii for which the agenda has not yet been posted, the
Applicant shall be pxovided written notice of the hearing. The stop work order shall
remain in effecf during the pendency of the hearing. The City Council shall make a
determination as to whether a violation of this Resolution has occurred. If the
Council determines that a violation has not occurred or has been cured by the time of
the hearing, the Council will lift the the stop woi�k order. If the Council determines
that a violation has occurred and has not yet been cured, �lie Council shall provide
the Applicant with a deadline to cure the violation; no constructian work shall be
perforrled on the property zxntil and ur1e�� the violation is cured by the deadline,
other than work designated by the Council to accomplish the cure. If the violatian is
not cured by the deadline, the Council. may either extend the deadline at the
Applicant's request or schedule a hearing for the revocation of the enti�lements
granted by this Resolution pursuant to Chapter 17.58 of the RHMC.
C. All requiremenfs of the Building and Construction Ordinance, the
Zoning Ordinance, LA County Building Code and o�£ the zone in which the subject
propex�y is located must be complied w�th unles� otherwise set forth in t11i�
Resolution or shown otherwise on the approved plan.
D. The lot shall be developed and maintained in substantial confo�mance
with the site plan on file dated Apri117, 2Q18, except as otherwise provided 'zn these
conditions.
Reso. 2018-07
3 Poppy Trail 5
E. Prior to submittal of final working drawings to the Building and Safety
Departinent for issuance of building permits, the plans for the project shall be
submitted to City staff for verificati.on that the final plans are in compliance with the
plans approved by the Planning Commission.
F. The working drawings submitted to the Department of Building and
Safety for plan check review must cortform to the development plan approved with
this application. A copy of the condi�ioxtis of this Resolution shall be printed on plans
approved when a building pexrnit is issued and a copy of s�ch approved plans,
including conditions of approva2, shall be available on the building site at all times.
� G. A licensed professional preparing construction plans for this project for
Building Depar�inent review shall execute a Certificafe affirrning that the plans
conform in all respects to this Resolution approving this praject and including
conformance with all of the conditions set farth therein and the City's Building Code
and Zoning Ordinance.
Furf.her, the person obtaining a buzl.ding permit for this project shall execute a
Certificate of Construction stating that the project was constructed according to this
Resolution and any plans approved therewith.
H. With this approval there will be no change to the total 1ot coverage
on the propexty. The total lot coverage (structv.ral and flatwork) is c�rren�ly
12.3% (35% max. is permitted). No additional constri,iction to the properfy is
currently proposed.
I. There will be no additi.onal disturbance on the lot as a �esult of the
proposed project. The previousiy approved disturbance is 30.9% {up to 40% is
allovved).
J. Notwithstanding 5ections 17.46.020 and I7.46.070 of the Rolling Hills
Municipal Code, any modification to this project or to the properEy, which wauld
constifixte additional strcutural development, gradin� excavation af dirt and any
modification including, but not be limi�ed ta retaining wa11s, dxainage devices, pad
elevation and any other deviation �rom the approved plan, shall require the filing
aF a new application for approva.l.by the Planning Commission.
K. At aIl times conformance with the air quality management distr�ict
requirements, stoxmwater pollution prevention practices, county and local ordinances
and engineering practices so fhat people or property are not exposed to undue vehicle
trips,noi.se, dust, and objectionable odors shall be required.
L. The property owners sha11 be required to confarm with the Regional
Water Quality Control Board and County Public Works Departrnent Best Management
Reso. 207.8-07
3 Poppy Trail 6
Practices (BMP's) requirements related to solid waste, draznage and storm water
management.
M. The proJect must be reviewed and approved by the Rolling Hills
Coxnmunity Assaciation (RHCA} Architectural Review Committee prior to the
i.ssuance o£ building permit. Per'vneter easements and trails, if any, shall remain free
and clear of any improvernents including, but not be limited to fences-including
construction fences, any hardscape, driveways, landscaping, irrigation and drainage
devices, except as othex�wise approved by the RHCA.
N. The applicant sha11 plant drought-tolerant landscaping which shall
be maintained in good condi�ion at all times.
O. The applicant sha11 submit a landscaping plan to staff as speci£ied above,
within 30-days of approval of this project and complete planting within 60-days of
appraval of the Iandscaping plan.
P. Prior to finaling of the p�roject, "as constructed" plans and certifications
shall be provided ta the Planning Department and the Bui�ding Deparfinent to
ascerta�in that the comp�efed project is in compliance with the approved plans. In
addition, any modi£ications made ta the project before then, shall be depicted "as
bui�t/as modified."
Q. Until the applicants execute_an A£fzdavit of Accep�ance af all conditians
of thzs approval, the approvals shall not be effective. Such affidavit shall be recorded
together with the resolution.
R. As a special conditiori of approval, the axea behind the upper wall
behind the re�rea�ion roon� must be plant�d wit�land�caping that will hang over the
top and screen the wa11 from view over time.
S. As a special condition of approva�, the entire hillside behind the wall
along the pathway to the recreation room be planted with appropriafe vegetatiori to
hide the hillside and secure the dirt..
Reso. 201$-07
3 Poppy Trail 7
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 19�DAY OF JUNE, 2018.
�
� F
P
CHELF,CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
�
TTE HA , CITY CLERK
,Any action challenging the final decision of the City made as a resul� of the
public hearing on this application must be filed within the time limits set forth zn
section 17.�4.070 of the Ro��ing Hi11s Municipal Code and Code of Civil
Procedure Section 1094.b.
Reso. 2018-07
3 Poppy Trail 8
STATE OF CALIFORIVIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ��
CTTY OF ROLLING HILLS )
I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2p18-07 enti�led:
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ROLLING HILLS GRANTIlVG APPROVAL OF A SFTE PLAN REVIEW FOR
TWO AS-BUILT RETAINING WALLS THAT EXCEED 3 FEET IN HEIGHT
AND A VAR�ANCE FOR TWO A5-BUILT WALLS ONE OF WHICH IS A
WALL LOCATED ALONG A PEAVIOUSLY PAVED PATHWAY THAT
EXCEEDS TI� PERMITTED 5 FOOT WALL HEIGHT AND
EXCEEDS 'THE PERMiTTED 2.5 FOOT HIGH WALL AVERAGE AND THE
SEC4ND OF WHICH IS A WALL BEHIND A PERMITTED ACCESSORY
STRUCTURE THAT ENCROACHES INTO THE PROPERTY SETBACK AND
EXCEEDS THE PERMITTED 2.5 FOOT HIGH WALL AVERAGE, IN ZOIVING
CASE NO. 942 AT 3 POPPY TRAIL, (LOT $-PT), ROLLING HILLS, CA
(JONAS}.
was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planxung Commission on
June 14, 2018 by the following roll call vote:
AYES: CARDENAS,KIRKPATRICK, SEABURN, AND CHAIR CHELF.
NOES: NONE.
ABSENT: COOLEY.
ABSTAIN: NONE.
and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following:
Admix�istrative Offices.
(R//t.
C CLERK
Reso. 2018-Q7
3 Poppy Trail 9