Loading...
537, Construct garage with encroach, Correspondence• City cl ROtA fli -AA JODY MURDOCK Mayor B. ALLEN LAY Mayor Pro Tem THOMAS F. HEINSHEIMER Councilmember FRANK E. HILL Councilmember GODFREY PERNELL, D.D.S. Councilmember • INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 May 29,1996 Dr. & Mrs. Juan Corredor 7 Wideloop Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 537 A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO PERMIT THE COMPLETION OF A PREVIOUSLY CONSTRUCTED ILLEGAL ATTACHED GARAGE THAT ENCROACHES INTO THE SIDE YARD SETBACK, REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO EXCEED THE TOTAL LOT COVERAGE, AND REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM DISTURBED AREA FOR PROPERTY AT 7 WIDELOOP ROAD, ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA, LOT 8-EF. Dear Dr. & Mrs. Corredor: This letter shall serve as official notification that the Planning Commission Resolution in Zoning Case No. 537, which was denied by the Planning Commission at their regular meeting on April 16, 1996, was received and filed by members of the Rolling Hills City Council at their meeting held on Tuesday, May 28, 1996. We have enclosed a copy of the staff report that was presented to the City Council relating to this application. Should you wish to discuss this further, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, Craig R. Nealis City Manager CRN:mlk corredor.ltr cc: Lola Ungar Principal Planner Mr. David Breiholz • • City o/ Ailing DATE: MAY 28,1996 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL ATTN: CRAIG R. NEALIS, CITY MANAGER FROM: LOLA M. UNGAR, PRINCIPAL PLANNER INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS. CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 Agenda Item No.: 4.A. Mtg. Date: 5/28/96 SUBJECT: RESOLUTION NO. 96-9: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DENYING A VARIANCE TO PERMIT AN ATTACHED GARAGE THAT WILL ENCROACH INTO THE SIDE YARD SETBACK, DENYING A VARIANCE TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED TOTAL LOT COVERAGE, AND DENYING A VARIANCE TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED DISTURBED AREA IN ZONING CASE NO. 537. Dr. and Mrs. Juan Corredor, 7 Wideloop (Lot 8-EF) BACKGROUND 1. The Planning Commission approved the subject resolution denying the project on May 21, 1996 at their regular meeting. 2. The applicants requested a Variance to permit the completion of a 465 square foot garage that was built without permits that will encroach up to 15 feet into the 20 foot east side yard setback and will be 5 feet from the property line. In 1970, a Variance was granted to permit an addition to the west wing of the residence to the east at 5 Wideloop Road (Scott) that is located 13 feet 6 inches from the common property line. The total distance between residences to the east would be 18 feet 6 inches. At the west side of the property, the subject residence is 27 feet from the side property line. The distance of the adjacent residence to the west at 9 Wideloop Road (King) is 8 feet from the common property line. The total distance between residences to the west is 35 feet. The residences at 5, 7 and 9 Wideloop were constructed in 1952 prior to adoption of the Zoning Ordinance in 1960. RESOLUTION NO. 96-9 PAGE 1 • Total lot coverage existing and proposed is 24,740 square feet or 41.6% of the net lot area and requires a Variance because it exceeds the 35% maximum permitted. The existing and proposed lot coverages are the same because the enclosed garage will replace the existing paved area. Structural lot coverage proposed is 10,050 square feet or 16.8% (20% maximum permitted). Existing and proposed maximum disturbed area is 24,740 square feet or 41.5% of the net lot area and requires a Variance because it exceeds the 40% permitted. [Disturbed area is described as: Any graded building pad area, any remedial grading (temporary disturbance), any graded slopes and building pad areas, any nongraded area where impervious surfaces exist and any planned landscaped areas)]. 3. The existing residence was originally built in 1952 with a variety of additions constructed in 1954, 1956, 1957, 1967 and 1982 that ranged from 155 square feet to 650 square feet in size resulting in a total 5,033 square foot residence and 640 square foot attached garage. The swimming pool was constructed in 1970 and the 823 square foot guest house was built in 1982. 4. The existing residential building pad is 17,340 square feet. Coverage on the pad had been 36.4% and as proposed will be 39%. The second building pad that contains a guest house and paddle tennis court has a coverage of 87%. Total building pad coverage proposed is 47.6%. 5. Access to the property will remain the same from the existing driveway off Wideloop Road to the garages at the eastern portion of the residence. 6. Grading will not be required for the project. 7. The project has been determined to be categorically exempt pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council receive and file Resolution No. 96-9. RESOLUTION NO. 96-9 PAGE 2 CRITERIA & MAJOR IMPACTS RAS-1 Zone Setbacks; Front: 50 ft. from front easement line Side: 20 ft. from property line Rear. 50 ft. from property line Structures (Site Plan Review required if size of structure increases by at least 1,000 sq.ft. and has the effect of increasing the size of the structure by more than 25% in a 36-month period). Grading Disturbed Area (40% maximum; any graded building pad area, any remedial grading (temporary disturbance), any graded slopes and building pad areas, any nongraded area where impervious surfaces exist and any planned landscaped areas) Structural Lot Coverage (20% maximum) Total Lot Coverage (35% maximum) Residential Building Pad Coverage (30% maximum recommended) Guest House and Paddle Tennis Court Building Pad Coverage Total Building Pad Coverage Roadway Access Access to Stable and Corral [Accessibility and maximum 4:1 (25%) slope required ONLY for new residence or additions that require Site Plan Review]. Preserve Views Preserve Plants and Animals RESOLUTION NO. 96-9 PAGE 3 EXISTING There are no encroachments Residence Garage Swim Pool Paddle Tennis Ct. Guest House TOTAL N/A 41.5% 9,585 sq.ft. or 16.1% 24,740 sq.ft. or 41.6% 36.4% 87% 45.4% PROPOSED The garage will encroach 15' into the 20' side yard setback. 5,033 sq. ft. Residence 640 sq.ft. Garage 640 sq.ft. Swim Pool 2,592 sq.ft. Paddle Tennis Ct. 680 sq.ft, Guest House 9,585 sq.ft. TOTAL Existing off Wideloop Road N/A N/A N/A None 41.5% 5,033 sq. ft. 1,105 sq.ft. 640 sq.ft. 2,592 sq.ft. 680 sq.ft, 10,050 sq.ft. 10,050 sq.ft. or 16.8% 24,740 sq.ft. or 41.6% 39% 87% 47.6% Existing off Wideloop Road N/A Planning Commission will review Planning Commission will review VARIANCE REQUIRED FINDINGS A. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same vicinity and zone; and B. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights possessed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone but which is denied the property in question; and C. That the granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; and D. That in granting the variance, the spirit and intent of this title will be observed; and E. That the variance does not grant special privilege; F. That the variance is consistent with the portions of the County of Los Angeles Hazardous Waste Management Plan relating to siting and siting criteria for hazardous waste facilities; and G. That the variance request is consistent with the General Plan of the City of Rolling Hills. RESOLUTION NO. 96-9 PAGE 4 i • • RESOLUTION NO. 96-9 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DENYING A VARIANCE TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED TOTAL LOT COVERAGE, DENYING A VARIANCE TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED DISTURBED AREA, AND DENYING A VARIANCE TO PERMIT AN ATTACHED GARAGE THAT WILL ENCROACH INTO THE SIDE YARD SETBACK IN ZONING CASE NO. 537. 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. Juan Corredor with respect to real property located at 7 Wideloop Road, Rolling Hills (Lot 8-EF) requesting a Variance to permit a previously constructed illegal attached garage that encroaches into the side yard setback. During the hearing process, additional requests for a Variance to exceed the maximum permitted total lot coverage and a Variance to exceed the maximum permitted disturbed area were introduced. Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the applications on February 20, 1996, March 19, 1996, and April 16, 1996, and at a field trip visit on March 9, 1996. Section 3. The Planning Commission finds that the project qualifies as a Class 1 Exemption [State CA Guidelines, Section 15301(e)] and is therefore categorically exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act. Section 4. Sections 17.38.010 through 17.38.050 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code permit approval of a Variance from the standards and requirements of the Zoning Ordinance when exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applicable to the property and not applicable to other similar properties in the same zone prevent the owner from making use of a parcel of property to the same extent enjoyed by similar properties in the same vicinity. Section 17.16.070(A)(2) requires a maximum permitted lot coverage by structures and impervious surfaces to be thirty-five (35) percent of the net lot area. The applicant is requesting to complete and maintain a garage addition that along with other structures and impervious surfaces will cover 24,740 square feet or 41.6% of the net lot area. With respect to this request for a Variance, the Planning Commission finds as follows: A. There are no exceptional and extraordinary circumstances and conditions applicable to the property or to the intended use that do not apply generally to the other property in the same vicinity and zone. The variance is not necessary because the lot covered by structures and impervious surfaces for this RESOLUTION NO. 96-9 PAGE 1OF4 • • project would be 41.6% which the Commission finds excessive and exceeds the total lot coverage of most properties in the vicinity so that the proposed expansion is not appropriate for the property. B. The Variance is not 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 both the residence, garage, pool, paddle tennis court, guest house and impervious surfaces already cover 41.6% of the net lot area and additional structural coverage would exacerbate the amount of structural coverage on this lot. C. The granting of the Variance will 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 does not minimize structural coverage on the lot, leaves little open space between property lines, would further restrict vehicular and pedestrian traffic, would result in further overdevelopment of the lot and far exceeds the maximum total lot coverage of 35%. This would make the proposed garage addition more visually prominent on the building pad than appropriate for the existing development pattern of the City. Section 5. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby denies the request for a Variance approval for the construction of a garage addition that will exceed the maximum total lot coverage in Zoning Case No. 537. Section 6. Section 17.16.070(B) requires that the natural conditions on a lot to be maintained to the greatest degree possible and limits disturbance to forty (40) percent of the net lot area. Disturbance includes any remedial grading (temporary disturbance), any graded slopes and building pad areas, any nongraded area where impervious surfaces exist and any planned landscaped areas. The applicant is requesting to complete and maintain a garage addition that along with other structures and impervious surfaces will cover 24,740 square feet or 41.6% of the net lot area. With respect to this request for a Variance, the Planning Commission finds as follows: A. There are no exceptional and extraordinary circumstances and conditions applicable to the property or to the intended use that do not apply generally to the other property in the same vicinity and zone. The variance is not necessary because the maximum disturbed area by structures and impervious surfaces for this project would be 41.6% which the Commission finds excessive and exceeds the total lot coverage of most properties in the vicinity so that the proposed expansion is not appropriate for the property. B. The Variance is not 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 both the residence, garage, pool, paddle tennis court, and guest house and impervious surfaces already cover RESOLUTION NO. 96-9 PAGE 2 OF 4 • • 41.6% of the net lot area and additional structural coverage would exacerbate the amount of structural coverage on this Iot. C. The granting of the Variance will 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 does not minimize structural coverage on the lot, leaves little open space between property lines, would result in further overdevelopment of the lot and far exceeds the maximum coverage of 40%. The proposed garage addition is also visually prominent on the building pad due to its location in the side yard setback. Section 7, Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby denies the request for a Variance approval for the construction of a garage addition that will exceed the maximum disturbed area in Zoning Case No. 537. Section S. Section 17.16.120(A) requires a side yard setback for every residential parcel in the RA-S-1 zone to be twenty (20) feet. The applicant is requesting to complete and maintain a 465 square foot garage addition which will encroach a maximum of fifteen (15) feet into the side yard setback. With respect to this request for a Variance, the Planning Commission finds as follows: A. There are no exceptional and extraordinary circumstances and conditions applicable to the property or to the intended use that do not apply generally to the other property in the same vicinity and zone. The variance is not necessary because the building pad coverage for this project on the upper residential pad would be 39% which the Commission finds excessive and exceeds the building pad coverage of most properties in the vicinity so that the proposed expansion is not appropriate for the property. B. The Variance is not 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 a water feature and surrounding wall encroaches into the east side yard setback and additional encroachments would exacerbate the amount of residential structure within setback areas. C. The granting of the Variance will 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 does not minimize structural coverage on the pad, leaves little open space between property lines, would result in further overdevelopment of the building pad and far exceeds the recommended coverage of 30%. The encroachment also makes the proposed garage addition more visually prominent on the building pad than appropriate for the existing development pattern of the City. RESOLUTION NO. 96-9 PAGE 3 OF 4 • • Section 9. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby denies the request for a Variance approval for the construction of a garage addition that will encroach into the side yard setback in Zoning Case No. 537. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED ON THE 21ST D : • MA . „ 1996. ATTEST: =1111=/, DEPUTY CITY CLERK STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ) §§ -"ALLAN RZ1BtRTS, CHAIRMAN I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 96-9 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DENYING A VARIANCE TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED TOTAL LOT COVERAGE, DENYING A VARIANCE TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED DISTURBED AREA, AND DENYING A VARIANCE TO PERMIT AN ATTACHED GARAGE THAT WILL ENCROACH INTO THE SIDE YARD SETBACK IN ZONING CASE NO. 537. was approved and adopted at an adjourned regular meeting of the Planning Commission on May 21,1996 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Hankins, 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 g. LiA,J MARILYN KEIYN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK RESOLUTION NO. 96-9 PAGE 4 OF 4 • City ol Rotting Jh1?/ CERTIFIED MAIL Dr. and Mrs. Juan Corredor 7 Wideloop Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 • INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 SUBJECT: APPEAL PERIOD ZONING CASE NO. 537, 7 WIDELOOP ROAD (LOT 8-EF) RESOLUTION NO. 96-9 Dear Dr. and Mrs. Corredor : NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377.7288 This letter shall serve as official notification that Zoning Case No. 537 was DENIED by the Planning Commission and the enclosed Resolution No. 96-9 was adopted at a regular meeting on May 21, 1996. The Planning Commission's decision will be reported to the City Council at an adjourned regular meeting on Tuesday, May 28, 1996. The Resolution of Denial will become effective thirty (30) days after adoption of the Planning Commission's resolution if no appeals are filed within that time period (Chapter 17.54 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code enclosed). A copy of the Development Plan is included to keep for your files. You should note that once the the resolution becomes effective on June 20, 1996, the previously constructed attached garage will be illegal and must be removed. Your cooperation will be appreciated. Please feel free to call me at (310) 377-1521 if you have any questions. SINCERELY, LOLA UNGAR PRINCIPAL PLANNER ENC: Resolution No. 96-9 Development Plan Appeal Section of The Rolling Hills Municipal Code. cc: Mr. David Breiholz ®Panted on Rer:y_I, d RESOLUTION NO. 96-9 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DENYING A VARIANCE TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED TOTAL LOT COVERAGE, DENYING A VARIANCE TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMi i i to DISTURBED AREA, AND DENYING A VARIANCE TO PERMIT AN ATTACHED GARAGE THAT WILL ENCROACH INTO THE SIDE YARD SETBACK IN ZONING CASE NO. 537. 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. Juan Corredor with respect to real property located at 7 Wideloop Road, Rolling Hills (Lot 8-EF) requesting a Variance to permit a previously constructed illegal attached garage that encroaches into the side yard setback. During the hearing process, additional requests for a Variance to exceed the maximum permitted total lot coverage and a Variance to exceed the maximum permitted disturbed area were introduced. Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the applications on February 20, 1996, March 19, 1996, and April 16,1996, and at a field trip visit on March 9,1996. Section 3. The Planning Commission finds that the project qualifies as a Class 1 Exemption [State CA Guidelines, Section 15301(e)] and is therefore categorically exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act. Section 4. Sections 17.38.010 through 17.38.050 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code permit approval of a Variance from the standards and requirements of the Zoning Ordinance when exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applicable to the property and not applicable to other similar properties in the same zone prevent the owner from making use of a parcel of property to the same extent enjoyed by similar properties in the same vicinity. Section 17.16.070(A)(2) requires a maximum permitted lot coverage by structures and impervious surfaces to be thirty-five (35) percent of the net lot area. The applicant is requesting to complete and maintain a garage addition that along with other structures and impervious surfaces will cover 24,740 square feet or 41.6% of the net lot area. With respect to this request for a Variance, the Planning Commission finds as follows: A. There are no exceptional and extraordinary circumstances and conditions applicable to the property or to the intended use that do not apply generally to the other property in the same vicinity and zone. The variance is not necessary because the lot covered by structures and impervious surfaces for this RESOLUTION NO. 96-9 PAGE 1 OF 4 • • project would be 41.6% which the Commission finds excessive and exceeds the total lot coverage of most properties in the vicinity so that the proposed expansion is not appropriate for the property. B. The Variance is not 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 both the residence, garage, pool, paddle tennis court, guest house and impervious surfaces already cover 41.6% of the net lot area and additional structural coverage would exacerbate the amount of structural coverage on this lot. C. The granting of the Variance will 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 does not minimize structural coverage on the lot, leaves little open space between property lines, would further restrict vehicular and pedestrian traffic, would result in further overdevelopment of the lot and far exceeds the maximum total lot coverage of 35%. This would make the proposed garage addition more visually prominent on the building pad than appropriate for the existing development pattern of the City. Section 5. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby denies the request for a Variance approval for the construction of a garage addition that will exceed the maximum total lot coverage in Zoning Case No. 537. Section 6. Section 17.16.070(B) requires that the natural conditions on a lot to be maintained to the greatest degree possible and limits disturbance to forty (40) percent of the net lot area. Disturbance includes any remedial grading (temporary disturbance), any graded slopes and building pad areas, any nongraded area where impervious surfaces exist and any planned landscaped areas. The applicant is requesting to complete and maintain a garage addition that along with other structures and impervious surfaces will cover 24,740 square feet or 41.6% of the net lot area. With respect to this request for a Variance, the Planning Commission finds as follows: A. There are no exceptional and extraordinary circumstances and conditions applicable to the property or to the intended use that do not apply generally to the other property in the same vicinity and zone. The variance is not necessary because the maximum disturbed area by structures and impervious surfaces for this project would be 41.6% which the Commission finds excessive and exceeds the total lot coverage of most properties in the vicinity so that the proposed expansion is not appropriate for the property. B. The Variance is not 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 both the residence, garage, pool, paddle tennis court, and guest house and impervious surfaces already cover RESOLUTION NO. 96-9 PAGE 2 OF 4 41.6% of the net lot area and additional structural coverage would exacerbate the amount of structural coverage on this lot. C. The granting of the Variance will 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 does not minimize structural coverage on the lot, leaves little open space between property lines, would result in further overdevelopment of the lot and far exceeds the maximum coverage of 40%. The proposed garage addition is also visually prominent on the building pad due to its location in the side yard setback. Section 7. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby denies the request for a Variance approval for. the construction of a garage addition that will exceed the maximum disturbed area in Zoning Case No. 537. Section 8. Section 17.16.120(A) requires a side yard setback for every residential parcel in the RA-S-1 zone to be twenty (20) feet. The applicant is requesting to complete and maintain a 465 square foot garage addition which will encroach a maximum of fifteen (15) feet into the side yard setback. With respect to this request for a Variance, the Planning Commission finds as follows: A. There are no exceptional and extraordinary circumstances and conditions applicable to the property or to the intended use that do not apply generally to the other property in the same vicinity and zone. The variance is not necessary because the building pad coverage for this project on the upper residential pad would be 39% which the Commission finds excessive and exceeds the building pad coverage of most properties in the vicinity so that the proposed expansion is not appropriate for the property. B. The Variance is not 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 a water feature and surrounding wall encroaches into the east side yard setback and additional encroachments would exacerbate the amount of residential structure within setback areas. C. The granting of the Variance will 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 does not minimize structural coverage on the pad, leaves little open space between property lines, would result in further overdevelopment of the building pad and far exceeds the recommended coverage of 30%. The encroachment also makes the proposed garage addition more visually prominent on the building pad than appropriate for the existing development pattern of the City. RESOLUTION NO. 96-9 PAGE 3 OF 4 • • Section 9. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby denies the request for a Variance approval for the construction of a garage addition that will encroach into the side yard setback in Zoning Case No. 537. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED ON THE 21ST D ON MA ,1996. --!ALLAN RZ7B'1;RTS, CHAIRMAN ATTEST: MARILYN �, DEPUTY CITY CLERK STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CITY OF ROLLING HILLS I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 96-9 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DENYING A VARIANCE TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED TOTAL LOT COVERAGE, DENYING A VARIANCE TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED DISTURBED AREA, AND DENYING A VARIANCE TO PERMIT AN ATTACHED GARAGE THAT WILL ENCROACH INTO THE SIDE YARD SETBACK IN ZONING CASE NO. 537. was approved and adopted at an adjourned regular meeting of the Planning Commission on May 21,1996 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Hankins, 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 .R a MARILYN ICE, DEPUTY CITY CLERK RESOLUTION NO. 96-9 PAGE 4 OF 4 • 17.5. 50--17.54.010 17.54, or unless the City Council sets the matter for Coun- cil hearing. All such hearings shall be noticed and con- ducted as provided for in Section 17.34. B. Upon receipt of the resolution of the Planning Commission recommending approval of a zone change or amend- ment, the City Clerk shall set the matter for hearing be- fore the City Council as provided for in Section 17.34. C. The City Council shall hear and take action upon the application or resolution pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 17.34. The Commission may adjourn or continue the hearing, as provided for in Section 17.34.080. D. The Council shall act to approve or deny the ap- plication or resolution for a zone change or amendment. E. Within thirty days following its decision, the City Council shall adopt an ordinance setting forth its action. The Council's action shall be considered final. (Ord. 239 §11(part), 1993). 17.50.050 Consistency with hazardous waste management plan. All zone change and zoning ordinance amendment deci- sions shall be consistent with the portions of the County of Los Angeles Hazardous Waste Management Plan relating to siting and siting criteria for hazardous waste facilities. (Ord. 239 §11(part), 1993). Sections: 17.54.010 17.54.020 17.54.030 17.54.040 17.54.050 17.54.060 17.54.070 Chapter 17.54 APPEALS Time for filing appeals. Persons authorized to file an appeal. Form, content and deficiencies in an appeal application. Request for information. Scheduling of appeal hearing. Proceedings. Statute of limitations. 17.54.010 Time for filing appeals. A. All actions of the Planning Commission authorized by this title may be appealed to the City Council. All appeals shall be filed in writing with the City Clerk. B. All appeals must be filed on or before the thirtieth calendar day after adoption of the Planning Commission's resolution on the project or application. Application fees shall be paid as required by Section 17.30.030. 218-40 (Rolling Hills 5/94) • 11,7.54.020--17.54.050 C. Within thirty days after the Planning Commission adopts a resolution which approves or denies a development application, the City Clerk shall place the resolution as a report item on the City Council's agenda. The City Council may, by an affirmative vote of three members, take juris- diction over the application. In the event the City Coun- cil takes jurisdiction over the application, the Planning Commission's decision will be stayed until the City Council completes its proceedings in accordance with the provisions of this chapter. (Ord. 239 §11(part), 1993). 17.54.020 Persons authorized to file an appeal. Any person, including the City Manager, may appeal a decision of the Planning Commission to the City Council, in accor- dance with the terms of this Chapter. (Ord. 239-§11(part), 1993) . 17.54.030 Forms content and deficiencies in an appeal application. A. All appeals shall be filed in writing with the City Clerk on a form or forms provided by the City Clerk. No appeal shall be considered filed until the re- quired appeal fee has been received by the City Clerk. B. The appeal application shall state, at a minimum, the name and address of the appellant, the project and ac- tion being appealed, and the reasons why the appellant believes that the Planning Commission erred or abused its discretion, or why the Planning Commission's decision is not supported by evidence in the record. C. If the appeal application is found to be defi- cient, the City Clerk shall deliver or mail (by certified mail), to the appellant a notice specifying the reasons why the appeal is deficient. The appellant shall correct the deficiency with an amendment to the appeal form within seven calendar days of receiving the deficiency notice. Otherwise, the appeal application will be deemed withdrawn, and the appeal fee will be returned to the applicant. (Ord. 239 §11(part), 1993). 17.54.040 Request for information. Upon receipt of a written and complete appeal application and fee, the City Clerk shall direct the Planning Commission Secretary to transmit to the City Council the complete record of the entire proceeding before the Planning Commission. (Ord. 239 §11(part), 1993). 17.54.050 Scheduling of appeal hearing. Upon receiv- ing an appeal, the City Clerk shall set the appeal for a hearing before the City Council to occur within twenty days of the filing of the appeal. In the event that more than one appeal is filed for the same project, the Clerk shall schedule all appeals to be heard at the same time. (Ord. 239 §11(part), 1993). 218-41 (Rolling Hills 5/94) • 17.. 060--17.54.070 17.54.060 Proceedings. A. Noticing. The hearing shall be noticed as required by Section 17.30.030. In addition, the following parties shall be noticed: 1. The applicant of the proposal being appealed; 2. The appellant; and 3. Any person who provided oral testimony or writ- ten comments to the Planning Commission during or as part of the public hearing on the project. B. Hearing. The City Council shall conduct a public hearing pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 17.34. The Council shall consider all information in the record, as well as additional information presented at the appeal hearing, before taking action on the appeal. C. Action. The Council may act to uphold, overturn or otherwise modify the Planning Commission's original action on the proposal, or the Council may remand the ap- plication back to the Planning Commission for further re- view and direction. The Council shall make findings to support its decision. D. Finality of Decision. The action of the City Council to approve, conditionally approve, or deny an ap- plication shall be final and conclusive. E. Record of Proceedings. The decision of the City Council shall be set forth in full in a resolution or ordi- nance. A copy of the decision shall be sent to the appli- cant or the appellant. (Ord. 239 §11(part), 1993). 17.54.070 Statute of limitations. Any action chal- lenging a final administrative order or decision by the City made as a result of a proceeding in which by law a hearing is required to be given, evidence is required to be taken, and discretion regarding a final and nonappealable determination of facts is vested in the City of Rolling Hills, the City Council or in any of its Commissions, offi- cers or employee's, must be filed within the time limits set forth in the California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1094.6. (Ord. 239 §11(part), 1993). Sections: 17.58.010 17.58.020 17.58.030 17.58.040 Chapter 17.58 REVOCATIONS Authority. Proceedings. Effective date. Right of appeal. 218-42 (Rolling Hills 5/94) P 852 865 198 RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL (See Reverse) Sent to `[)r, 07 2, Cotre,s,-A -- Street and No. /)-.c- -,c 6r1€4_,L P. State and ZI Code r9//ii�s 4i 669 4%0 7V Postage Certified Fee Special Delivery Fee Restricted Delivery Fee Return Receipt showing to whom and Date Delivered co 0)cn tv ca co Postmark ora`t% `o tL to a Date, and Address of Delivery Return Receipt showing to whom. I TOTAL Postage and Fe q /c PFIv,/ 1 ,67 n. SENDER: rn • Complete items 1 and/or 2 for additional services. • Complete items 3, and 4a & b. • Print your name and address on the reverse of this form so that we can O.) return this card to you. • Attach this form to the front of the mailpiece, or on the back if space does not permit. • Write "Return Receipt Requested" on the mailpiece below the article number. • The Return Receipt will show to whom the article was delivered and the date c delivered. Consult postmaster for fee. I also wish to receive the following services (for an extra fee): 1. Cl Addressee's Address 2. ❑ Restricted Delivery 3. Article Addressed to: 4a. Art cle Number Dr. t ?rs. Cua",-7 C,rredor p S'Sa $&5 / 9 8- 4b. Service Type g7 G12j Q " €,�7,�, Registered �'Certified wrs )&7//i' J/`//5 C� �d�7y ❑ Express Mail J a 2. IC/ • S37 ¢ 5. Ign furs (Addye) F-, 7. Date of Delivery Insured COD Return Receipt for Merchandise % 8. Acrdressee'ss Addfess (Only if requested . and fee is paid) 6. Signature (Agent) HPS Form 3811, December 1 99 1 *U.S.GPO: 1893--352714 DOMESTIC RETURN RECEIPT F- city 0/ IO/'/tflL Jiii4 ORPOR11f : NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377.1521 FAX: (310) 377.7288 April 22, 1996 Dr. and Mrs. Juan Corredor 7 Wideloop Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 537, a request for a Variance to permit the completion of a previously constructed illegal attached garage that encroaches into the side yard setback, request for a Variance to exceed the total lot coverage, and request for a Variance to exceed the maximum disturbed area for property at 7 Wideloop Road, Rolling Hills, CA; more precisely, Lot 8-EF. Dear Dr. and Mrs. Corredor : This letter shall serve as official notification that Zoning Case No. 537 was DENIED by the Planning Commission at their regular meeting on April 16, 1996. The final Resolution will be forwarded to you after it is signed by the Planning Commission Chairman and City Clerk. The Planning Commission's decision will be reported to the City Council at their regular meeting which is anticipated to be on Tuesday, May 28, 1996 because Monday, May 27, 1996 is a holiday. You should also be aware that the decision of the Planning Commission may be appealed within thirty (30) days after adoption of the Planning Commission's Resolution (Section 17.54.010(B) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code). Feel free to call me at (310) 377-1521 if you have any questions regarding this matter. Sinc Y, (/ l/tic/r LOLA M. UNGAR PRINCIPAL PLANNER cc: Mr. David Breiholz C14 0/ 12. e161 _NA February 22,1996 Dr. and Mrs. Juan Corredor 7 Wideloop Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 • , INCORPORATEDJANUARY 24, 1957 FIELD TRIP NOTIFICATION NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 537, a request for a Variance to permit the completion of a previously constructed illegal attached garage that encroaches into the side yard setback for property at 7 Wideloop Road, Rolling Hills, CA; more precisely, Lot 8-EF. Dear Dr. and Mrs. Corredor : We have arranged for the Planning Commission to conduct a field inspection of your property to view the "as built" construction on Saturday. March 9. 1996. The Planning Commission will meet at 7:30 AM at the Lower Blackwater Canyon Road side of 17 Portuguese Bend Road, to 17 Portuguese Bend Road, to 10 Upper Blackwater Canyon Road, and then proceed to your project site. Do not expect the Planning Commission at 7:30 AM but, be assured that the field trip will take place before 10:00 AM. The owner and/or representative should be present to answer any questions regarding the proposal. Feel free to call me at (310) 377-1521 if you have any questions. Sincer ly, re,„ Ryttr---- LOLA M. UNGA PRINCIPAL PLANNER cc: Mr. David Breiholz ® Pnnte' can Recty Je i r City ofin een9 s INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 STATUS OF APPLICATION & NOTIFICATION OF MEETING, NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 February 6,1996 Dr. and Mrs. Juan Corredor 7 Wideloop Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 537, a request for a Variance to permit the completion of a previously constructed illegal attached garage that encroaches into the side yard setback for property at 7 Wideloop Road, Rolling Hills, CA; more precisely, Lot 8-EF. Dear Dr. and Mrs. Corredor : Pursuant to state law the City's staff has completed a preliminary review of the application noted above and finds that the information submitted is: X Sufficiently complete as of the date indicated above to allow the application to be processed. Please note that the City may require further information in order to clarify, amplify, correct, or otherwise supplement the application. If the City requires such additional information, it is strongly suggested that you supply that information promptly to avoid any delay in the processing of the application. Your application for Zoning Case No. 537 has been set for public hearing consideration by the Planning Commission at their meeting on Tuesday, February 20,1996. The meeting will begin at 7:30 PM in the Council Chambers, Rolling Hills City Hall Administration Building, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills. You or your designated representative must attend to present your project and to answer questions. The staff report for this project will be available at the City Hall after 3:00 PM on Friday, February 16,1996. Please arrange to pick up the staff report to preview it prior to the hearing. Please call me at (310) 377-1521 if you have any questions. Sincerely, ‘t-ed. LOLA M. UNGAR PRINCIPAL PLANNER cc: Mr. David C. Breiholz, P.E. ® Printed on Recycled Paper