435, Construct new SFR, pool, guest, Resolutions & Approval ConditionsThrough the courtesy of —
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
County
4,
SS.
On this /6 day of1-e)e(-11'
90-1949361
, in the year 19 X), before me,
(Acknowledgement)
a Notary Public in and f r the said C my and State, residing therein, duly commissioned and sworn, personally
appeared /; / %'�A�z nc ('- c r'X/G /(' 40y
personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s):
(INDIVIDUAL) Whose name is subscribed to this instrument, and acknowledged
that he (she or they) executed it.
Who executed the within instrument as president and
secretary, on behalf of the corporation therein named, and
acknowledged to me that such corporation executed the within
instrument pursuant to its articles and by-laws and a resolution of
its Board of Directors.
That executed the within instrument on behalf of the part-
nership, and acknowledged to me that the partnership executed it.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal, in and for said County and State,
the and year
(0 CORPORATION)
(❑ PARTNERSHIP)
Notary PubTic in and for said County and State u: v�lifor�lial
My commission expires:
FD-1 B
repo=:,®a0000e000eootroea00000eosme0000
•�irrw.�• OFFICIAL SEAL
M. RUTAN
a
0
3
000e0a0a+e00e036easearism00,00a0ecaz®sao0
NOTARY PUBLIC - CALIFORNIA
PRINCIPAL OFFICE IN
LOS ANGELES COUNTY
My Commission Exp. May 6, 1994
For Kecord s use
90 194061
RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND MAI'.
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274
Please record this form with the
return to:
City of Rolling Hills
2 Portuguese Bend Road
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
(The Registrar -Recorder's Office
before recordation.)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ss
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )
Tn.
RECEDED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS
RECORDER'S OFFICE
_OS ANGELES COUNTY
CALIFORNIA
it MIN. 10 A M. NOV 21 1990
'AST.
rFEE $7
Registrar -Recorder's Office
and
requires that the form be notarized
Acceptance Form
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO.
VARIANCE CASE NO. 435 (Resolution #90-35)
SITE PLAN REVIEW CASE NO. 435 (Resolution #90-35)
I (We) the undersigned state:
I am (We are) the owner(s). of the real property described as follows:
5 Williamsburg Lane North, Rolling Hills, CA 90274 (Lot 35-RH)
This property is the subject of the above numberedcases.
I am (We are) aware of, and accept, all the stated conditions in said
Conditional Use Permit Case No.
Variance Case No. 435 (Resolution #90-35)
Site Plan Review Case No. 415 (Resolution #90-35)
I (We) certify (or declare) under the penalty of perjury that the
foregoing is true and correct.
(Where the owner and applicant. are not the same, both must sign.)
Type or print
Applicant Name
Address
City, State
Signature
Owner Name
Address
City, State
Signature
This signature must
be acknowledged by a
notary public. Attach
appropriate acknowledgement.
2
,Scv5.Q.o.--ID/132.keatv-(3)
S (,)1 uui641.-1
12d.LaI-(-qu�, Cba74
RESOLUTION NO. 90-35
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A VARIANCE
TO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK AND SITE PLAN REVIEW
APPROVAL IN ZONING CASE NO. 435
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 Mr. & Mrs.
Mike Boyd with respect to real property located at 5 Williamsburg
Lane North, Rolling Hills (Lot 35-RH) requesting a variance to the
front yard setback requirement to construct a new residence and a
retaining wall and Site Plan Review approval for the new residential
redevelopment on the site and a detached stable.
Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted a duly
noticed public hearing to consider the application on July 17, 1990,
August 21, 1990 and October 16, 1990; and conducted a field review on
August 4, 1990.
Section 3. Sections 17.32.010 through 17.32.030 permit
approval of a variance from the standards and requirements of the
Zoning Ordinance when exceptional or extraordinary circumstances
applicable to other similar properties in the same zone prevent the
owner from making use of the property to the same extent enjoyed
by similar properties. Section 17.16.060 requires a front yard
setback in the RAS - 1 Zone to be 50 feet from the front easement
line. The applicant is requesting that a new residence be
constructed to encroach a maximum of 25 feet into the front yard
setback and a new retaining wall to be constructed to encroach a
maximum of 45 feet into the front yard. Pursuant to these Sections,
the Planning Commission finds that:
A. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or
conditions applicable to the property or to the intended
use that do not apply generally to the other property or
class of use in the same vicinity and zone because there
exists topographical and property development constraints
that justify the proposed residence and retaining wall
within the front yard setback because a large portion of
the buildable pad area is within the required front yard.
This resulted in the development of the existing
nonconforming residence, and the proposed house will
thereby have a narrow front setback.
• I
B. The variance is necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by
other property in the same vicinity and zone, but which is
denied to the property in question because due to the
existing development pattern and the physical setting of
the property, the residence cannot be expanded
significantly within the side and rear yards due to the
larger 25 foot wide perimeter easements and the sloping
grade at the rear. Further, the development of the
proposed residence will be compatible with the front of
setbacks of the surrounding properties.
C. The granting of the variance would not be materially
detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the
property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which
the property is located because the proposed project will
be consistent with other developments within this unique
area of the Community on Williamsburg Lane.
Section 4. Based upon the foregoing findings, the
Commission hereby approves the Variance for Zoning Case No. 435 to
permit the construction of a new residence encroaching 25 feet within
the 50 foot front yard setback and a retaining wall to encroach a
maximum of 45 feet into the front yard, as indicated in the
Development Plan submitted with this application and incorporated
herein by reference as Exhibit A, and subject to the conditions
outlined in Section 7 of this Resolution.
Section 5. Section 17.34.010 requires a development plan
to be submitted for Site Plan Review and approval before any building
or structure may be constructed or any expansion, addition,
alteration or repair to existing buildings may be made which involve
changes to grading or an increase to the size of the building or
structure by more than twenty-five (25%) percent in any thirty-six
(36) month period.
of fact:
Section 6. The Commission makes the following findings
A. The proposed development is compatible with the General
Plan, the Zoning Ordinance and surrounding uses because the
proposed structure complies with the General Plan
requirement of low profile, low density residential
development with sufficient open space between surrounding
structures. The project conforms to lot coverage
requirements. The lot has a net square foot area of
35,801.64 square feet. The residential structure, garage,
and future pool and stable will have 6,286.5 square feet
which constitutes 17.5% of the lot, which is within the
maximum 20% structural lot requirement. The total lot
coverage including paved areas and driveway will be 11,153
square feet which equals 31.1% of the lot, which is within
the 35% maximum overall lot coverage requirement. The
proposed project is similar and compatible with neighboring
development patterns.
• •
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)
because minimal grading for the project is required,
thereby preserving the natural terrain and mature
vegetation and not lowering the site contours.
C. The development plan follows natural contours of the
site to minimize grading and the existing drainage courses
will continue to the front and rear of the site.
D. The development plan incorporates large existing trees
to the extent feasible along with surrounding native
vegetation and supplements it with landscaping that is
compatible with and enhances the rural character of the
community.
E. The development plan substantially preserves the
natural and undeveloped state of the lot by minimizing
structure coverage because the new structures will not
cause the structural and total lot coverages to be
exceeded. Further, the proposed project will have a
buildable pad coverage of 31.8%, which is within the City's
policy of 40% maximum pad coverage.
F. The proposed development is harmonious in scale and
mass with the site, the natural terrain and surrounding
residences because the proposed project is of consistent
scale and setback with the neighborhood, thereby requiring
minimal grading.
G. The proposed development is sensitive and not
detrimental to the convenience and safety of circulation
for pedestrians and vehicles because the proposed project
will utilize an existing vehicular access, thereby having
no further impact on the roadway.
H. The project conforms with the requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act and is categorically
exempt from the environmental review.
Section 7. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning
Commission hereby approves the site plan review application for a
proposed residence to the property located at 5 Williamsburg Lane as
indicated on the development plan attached hereto as "Exhibit A" and
subject to the following conditions:
A. The variance approval shall expire if not used within
one year from the effective date of approval as defined and
specified in Section 17.32.110 of the Municipal Code.
• •
B. The proposed building plan must be approved by the
Rolling Hills Community Association Architectural Committee
before the applicant receives a building or grading permit
from the County of Los Angeles.
C. Prior to the submittal of a final grading plan to the
County of Los Angeles, the grading plan shall be submitted
to the Rolling Hills Planning Department staff for their
review, along with related geology, soils and hydrology
reports. This grading plan must conform to the development
plan as approved by the Planning Commission. Cut and fill
slopes must conform to the City standard 2 to 1 slope
ratio.
D. A landscape plan must be submitted to the City of
Rolling Hills Planning Department staff for approval. The
landscaping plan submitted must comply with the purpose and
intent of the Site Plan Review Ordinance. The landscaping
plan shall incorporate existing mature trees and native
vegetation. A bond in the amount of the cost estimate of
the landscaping plus 15% is required to be posted and
retained with the City for not less than two years after
landscape installation. The retained bond will be released
by the City after the City Manager (or the Landscape
Committee of the Rolling Hills Community Association, if
appointed to act for this purpose in the place of the City
Manager) determines that the landscaping was installed
pursuant the landscaping plan as approved, and that such
landscaping is property established and in good condition.
E. The working drawings submitted to the County
Department of Building and Safety for plan check must
conform to the development plan approved with this site
plan review. The height of the proposed residence shall be
restricted to one-story only.
F. Any modifications to the development plans approved by
the Planning Commission shall require the filing of an
application for modification of the development plan and
must be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission
pursuant to Section 17.43.070 of the Rolling Hills
Municipal Code.
G. The applicant shall execute an affidavit of acceptance
of all conditions pursuant to Section 17.32.087 or this
variance and site plan review approval shall not be
effective.
• •
H. All conditions of this Variance and Site Plan Review
approval must be complied with prior to the issuance of a
building or grading permit from the County of Los Angeles.
PASSED, APPROVED AN ADOPTED this
1990.
ATTEST:
Deputy City Cle
3rd day of November
Allan Roberts, Chairman