624, Addition to existing garage in, Resolutions & Approval ConditionsRESOLUTION NO. 2002-03
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS APPROVING A MODIFICATION TO
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2001-01
APPROVING AN EXTENSION TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED
SITE PLAN REVIEW TO CONSTRUCT SUBSTANTIAL
ADDITIONS AT AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AT
17 WIDELOOP ROAD IN ZONING CASE NO. 624, (SPENNATO).
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES
HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. A request has been filed by Dr. Peter Spennato with respect
to real property located at 17 Wideloop Road (Lot 3-A-EF), Rolling Hills,
requesting a one year time extension for a previously approved Site Plan Review
to permit the construction of additions at a single family residence that was
approved by the Planning Commission by Resolution No. 2001-01 on January 16,
. 2001.
Section 2. The Commission considered this item at a meeting on
January 15, 2002, at which time information was presented indicating that the
extension of time is necessary because the applicant's professional time
constraints prevented him from obtaining the necessary plans and documents.
Section 3. Based on information and evidence submitted, the Planning
Commission does hereby amend Paragraph A, Section 6 of Resolution No. 2001-
01, adopted by the Planning Commission, dated January 16, 2001, to read as
follows:
"This Site Plan approval shall expire within two years from the effective
date of approval, if construction pursuant to this approval has not commenced
within that time period, as required by Section 17.46.080 (A), of the Rolling Hills
Municipal Code".
Section 4. Except as herein amended, the provisions of Resolution No.
2001-01 shall continue to be in full force and effect.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 15
ATTEST:
RY 200
ALLAN ROBERTS, CHAIRMAN
ncv,„
MARILYN KERN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS )
I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2002-03 entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ROLLING HILLS APPROVING A MODIFICATION TO PLANNING
COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2001-01 APPROVING AN EXTENSION TO
A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE PLAN REVIEW TO CONSTRUCT
SUBSTANTIAL ADDITIONS AT AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
AT 17 WIDELOOP ROAD IN ZONING CASE NO. 624, (SPENNATO).
was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on
January 15, 2002 by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Hankins, Margeta, Sommer, Witte and
Chairman Roberts.
NOES: None .
ABSENT: None .
ABSTAIN: None .
and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following:
Administrative Offices.
DEPUTY C1ITY CLERK
RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND
MAIL TO
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
t Ef tf 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274
— _ (310) 377-1521
(310) 377-7288 FAX
The Registrar -Recorder's Office requires that the form be notarized before recordation.
AFFIDAVID 0 F ACCEPTANCE FORM
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS )
1
01 (12616'72
ZONING CASE NO. 624
SITE PLAN REVIEW
VARIANCE
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT
I (We) the undersigned state:
I am (We are) the owner(s) of the real property described as follows:
17 WIDELOOP ROAD, (LOT 3A-EF), ROLLING HILLS, CA.
This property is the subject of the above numbered case.
e. L�XWi �I
I am (We are) aware of, and accept, all the stated conditions in said
ZONING CASE NO. 624
I (We) certify)ordecla
re
4.+L./
Name typed or printed
J� Lii ( (L—Gc=3
Addr ss •
te.4.6 r.Jd� `Idler
City/State
Signatures must be acknowledged by a notary public.
State of California )
County of Los Angeles )
On L - 2- ' Z 00 f before me,
SITE PLAN REVIEW
VARIANCE
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
LOT LINE ADJUSTNT .
Ity of perjury that the forpg g is true and corre
r�� , d G.
S� ttYDR C`� `� c3iP i✓iv
Name typed or printed
CA 9oz-7�
. Ar(
T Recorders Use Only
Ait ck'Cc
Address
City/State
frQrl �t�t
X
personally appeared l?e, 'ter S2 e,ii n d 0 2McI C'a 14 dace frein i1a v
personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the persons) whose names) is/are
subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized
capacity(ies) and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the
e o s, a wed e ecjjt%1 tj e as njer>t
FRANZ DI1TRICH [e
.,r Commission # 1235052 Witness lay -hand ficial s a
' ' �F Notary Public - California i
i:rt yt ,ilk Los Angeles County / t1 1 CC.,... -)My Comm. Expires Oct 16, 2003
YJ it 4,,,, ' 4db," ' V' "'Mi f[i' 'Yd d.4ha
Signature of Notary
SEE EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF
A«
01 0261672
RESOLUTION NO. 2001-01
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF SUBSTANTIAL ADDITIONS TO AN EXISTING SINGLE
FAMILY RESIDENCE AT 17 WIDELOOP ROAD IN ZONING CASE NO. 624.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES HEREBY
FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. An application was duly filed by Dr. and Mrs. Peter Spennato with respect
to real property located at 17 Wideloop Road (Lot 3-A-EF), Rolling Hills, requesting Site Plan
Review for the construction of substantial additions to an existing single family residence that
requires no grading, and a Variance to permit construction that would encroach into the west
side yard setback.
Section 2. A. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing
to consider the application on November 21, 2000 and at a field trip visit on December 16,
2000. A continued public hearing by the Planning Commission was held on December 19,
2000. Evidence was heard and presented from all persons interested in affecting said proposal
and from members of the City staff and the Planning Commission having reviewed, analyzed
and studied said proposal. The applicants were notified of the hearing in writing by first class
mail. The applicants' representative was in attendance at the hearings.
B. At the same time, the Planning Commission also conducted a duly noticed public
hearing to consider a Variance to construct a 240 square foot addition to an existing 480 square
foot garage that would encroach 2.5. feet into the required 20 foot west side yard setback.
During the course of the public hearing, on December 19, 2000, the applicant withdrew the
variance application.
Section 3. The Planning Commission finds that the project qualifies as a Class 1
Exemption (The State CA Guidelines, Section 15301(e)) and is therefore categorically exempt
from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act.
Section 4. Section 17.46.020 requires a development plan to be submitted before any
building or structure may be constructed or any expansion, addition, alteration or repair to
existing buildings or structures, which involve changes to grading or an increase in the size of
the building or structure by at least 1,000 square feet and has the effect of increasing the size of
the building or structure by more than twenty-five percent (25%) in any thirty-six month
period, may be permitted. With respect to the Site Plan Review application, the Planning
Commission makes the following findings of fact:
A. The proposed development is compatible with the General Plan, the Zoning
Ordinance and surrounding uses. The proposed structure complies with the General Plan
requirement of low profile, low density residential development and maintains sufficient open
space between surrounding structures. The project conforms to Zoning Code setback, and lot
coverage requirements. The lot has a net square foot area of 32,409 square feet. The proposed
residence (3,576 sq. ft.), garage (650 sq. ft.), future stable (450 sq.ft.) and service yard (96 sq.ft.)
will have 4,772 square feet which constitutes 14.7% of the lot which is within the maximum
20% structural lot coverage requirement. The total lot coverage including paved areas and
Resolution No. 2001-01
Page 1 of 5
driveway will be 8,389 sq. feet which equals 25.9% of the 120 which is within the 35%
maximum overall lot coverage requirement.
B. The proposed development preserves and integrates into the site design, to the
maximum extent feasible, existing natural topographic features of the lot including
surrounding native vegetation, mature trees, drainage courses, and land forms (such as
hillsides and knolls).
C. The development plan follows natural contours of the site to minimize grading.
The natural drainage courses will be preserved and continue drainage to the canyons at the
northern side of this lot.
D. The development plan, as modified by the conditions of approval, substantially
preserves the natural and undeveloped state of the lot by minimizing building coverage
because the new structures will not cause the structural and total lot coverage to be exceeded.
Further, the proposed project will have a residential buildable pad of 17,459 square feet with a
coverage of 25.9%.
E. The proposed development, as modified by the conditions of approval, is
harmonious in scale and mass with the site, the natural terrain and other residences on
Wideloop Road. As indicated in Paragraph A, the lot coverage maximum will not be
exceeded. The proposed project is also consistent with the scale of other homes in the
immediate neighborhood. This project requires no grading.
F. The proposed development is sensitive and not detrimental to the convenience
and safety of circulation for pedestrians. The property is adequately served by the existing
driveway access, and vehicles for the proposed project will continue to use the existing
driveway.
G. The project conforms with the requirements of the California Environmental
Quality Act and is categorically exempt from environmental review.
Section 5. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby
approves the Site Plan Review application for Zoning Case No. 624 for a proposed residential
development as indicated on the development plan incorporated herein as Exhibit A, subject
to the conditions contained in Section 6 of this Resolution.
Section 6. The Site Plan Review approved in Section 5 of this Resolution is subject to
the following conditions:
A. This Site Plan approval shall expire within one year from the effective date of
approval if construction pursuant to this approval has not commenced within that time
period, as required by Section 17.46.080, or the Site Plan approval has been extended pursuant
to the requirements of that section.
B. It is declared and made a condition of this Site Plan approval, that if any
conditions thereof are violated, this approval shall be suspended and the privileges granted
thereunder shall lapse; provided that the applicant has been given written notice to cease such
violation and has failed to do so for a period of thirty (30) days.
-3
Resolution No. 2001-01
Page 2 of 5
01 0261672 ° 0
C. All re uiremes of the Buildingsand Construction q Cons uc un Ordinance, the Zoning
Ordinance, and of the zone in which the subject property is located must be complied with
unless otherwise set forth in the Permit, or shown otherwise on an approved plan.
D. The lot shall be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the
site plan dated December 22, 2000 , and marked Exhibit A, except as otherwise provided in
these conditions.
E. The working drawings submitted to the County Department of Building and
Safety for plan check review must conform to the development plan approved with this
application.
F. Any grading shall preserve the existing topography, flora, and natural features to
the greatest extent possible, (no grading is proposed).
G. The structural lot coverage shall not exceed 14.7% and the total lot coverage shall
not exceed 25.9%.
H. The maximum disturbed area shall not exceed 31.3% of the net lot area.
I. Landscaping shall incorporate and preserve, to the maximum extent feasible, the
existing mature trees and shrubs and the natural landscape screening surrounding the
residential building pad.
J. Landscaping shall include water efficient irrigation, to the maximum extent
feasible, that incorporates a low gallonage irrigation system, utilizes automatic controllers,
incorporates an irrigation design using "hydrozones," considers slope factors and . climate
conditions in design, and utilizes means to reduce water waste resulting from runoff and
overspray in accordance with Section 17.27.020 (Water efficient landscaping requirements) of
the Rolling Hills Municipal Code.
K. Landscaping shall be designed using mature trees and shrubs so as not to
obstruct the views of neighboring properties but, to obscure the residence.
L. The property owner shall not plant any species of plant that are likely.at mature
height to impair the views of neighboring properties.
•
M.. Landscaping shall be provided and maintained to obscure the residence and the
building pad with native drought -resistant vegetation that is compatible with the surrounding
vegetation of the community.
N. At maturity, any new landscape plantings around the proposed residence shall
not exceed the ridge height of the residence.
O. During construction, conformance with the air quality management district
requirements, stormwater pollution prevention practices, county and local ordinances and
engineering practices so that people or property are not exposed to undue vehicle trips, noise,
dust, and objectionable odors shall be required.
P. During construction, the Erosion Control Plan containing the elements set forth in
Section 7010 of the 1996 County of Los Angeles Uniform Building Code shall be followed to
Resolution No. 2001-01
Page3of5
• 01 0261672
minimize erosion and to pect slopes and channels to cont• stormwater pollution as
required by the County of Los Angeles.
Q. During and after construction, all parking shall take place on the project site and, if
necessary, any overflow parking shall take place within nearby roadway easements.
R. 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 Saturday only, when construction and mechanical equipment
noise is permitted, so as not to interfere with the quiet residential environment of the City of
Rolling Hills.
S. The property owners shall be required to conform with the Regional Water
Quality Control Board and County Health Department requirements for the installation and
maintenance of septic tanks.
T. The property owners shall be required to conform with the Regional Water
Quality Control Board and County Health Department requirements for the installation and
maintenance of stormwater drainage facilities.
U. The property owners shall be required to conform with the Regional Water
Quality Control Board and County Public Works Department Best Management Practices
(BMP's) related to solid waste.
V. The project must be reviewed and approved by the Rolling Hills Community
Association Architectural Review Committee prior to the issuance of any building permit.
X. Notwithstanding Sections 17.46.020 and 17.46.070 of the Rolling Hills Municipal
Code, any modifications to the project which would constitute additional structural
development shall require the filing of a new application for approval by the Planning
Commission.
Y. The applicants shall execute an Affidavit of Acceptance of all conditions of the
Site Plan approval, or the approvals shall not be effective.
Z. All conditions of the Site Plan approval that apply must be complied with prior
to the issuance of a building or grading permit from the County of Los Angeles.
PASSED APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 16TH DA JANUARY, 2001
ALLAN ROBERTS, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
r)(\cu-L.J.., . L,„0_,„„)
MARILYN K RN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK
Resolution No. 2001-01
Page 4 of 5
STATE OF CALIFORNIA 410 )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS )
I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2001-01 entitled:
•
01 0261672
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF SUBSTANTIAL ADDITIONS TO AN EXISTING SINGLE
FAMILY RESIDENCE AT 17 WIDELOOP ROAD IN ZONING CASE NO. 624.
was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on January 16,
2001 by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Hankins, Margeta,: Sommer and
Chairman Roberts.
NOES:
None.
ABSENT: Commissioner Witte.
ABSTAIN: None.
and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following:
Administrative Offices.
ryNai,:t„, 1d,,ut,,J
DEPUTY CITY CLERK
Resolution No. 2001-01
Page 5 of 5