260, Construct stable in front yard, Resolutions & Approval ConditionsBEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
In the Matter of the Application
of
Mr. Joseph P. Lademan
Lot 9-2-RH
ZONING CASE NO. 260
FINDINGS AND REPORT
The application of Mr. Joseph P. Lademan, Lot 9-2-RH, Rolling
Hills Tract, for a Variance under ARTICLE III, Section 3.06, Front
Yard and Section 3.08, Rear Yard, Ordinance No. 33, came on for hearing
on the 9th day of December, 1980 in the Council Chambers of the Admin-
istration Building, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California,
and the applicant, having submitted evidence in support of the appli-
cation, the Planning Commission, being advised, now makes its Findings
and Report as required by the Ordinances of the City of Rolling Hills,
California.
I.
The Commission finds that the applicant, Mr. Joseph P.
Lademan, is the owner of that certain real property described as
Lot 9-2-RH, located at 52 Saddleback Road in the City of Rolling
Hills, and that notice of the public hearing in connection with said
application was given as required by Sections 8.06 and 8.07 of
Ordinance No. 33 of the City of Rolling Hills, California. The Com-
mission finds, further, that Mrs. Mya Hamburger, 58 Saddleback Road,
attended the meeting and said she wished to restate her concern, ex-
pressed at an earlier hearing on a similar application by Mr. Lademan,
22
which was approved on August/1978, about drainage because of geolo-
gical problems on the Lademan property. The Commission finds, further,
that Dr. and Mrs. Roberto Unguez, 48 Saddleback Road, also attended the
meeting; Mrs. Unguez stated that she is concerned about sharing the
driveway to give access to the Lademan property; Dr. Unguez said the
road may not be stable, since his garage is separating from the floor
and the foundation, and there is about 1/2" between the garage floor
and the cement foundation. The Commission finds that access to the
Lademan property, Lot 9-2-RH, across the Unguez property, Lot 9-4-RH,
was established when the property was subdivided in 1969.
II.
The Commission finds that the applicant has advised that
the approval for front and rear yard variances which was granted on
August 22, 1978 has expired; the Commission finds that Section 6.11
of the Zoning Ordinance states that the approval becomes null and void
after one year if no action is taken; the Commission further finds that
construction of a residence was delayed because of problems with geology,
and final approval was given by the Geology Department of the County
Engineer on September 26, 1980. The Commission finds that the approval
by the Planning Commission in August 1978 was subject to the following
conditions:
1. A stable in the front yard be permitted, provided
that it is reduced in size from that shown on the plan
by the area on the northerly extension, which is open
and has no walls. (A carport -like area)
2. That a rear yard setback of 30' be permitted,
instead of the required 50'; that the drainage be given
particular attention by the City Engineer, taking into
account the natural drainage flow across the pie -shaped
area to the northerly portion of the land; that the
drawing labeled Exhibit "A" be duly signed and dated
by a Civil Engineer before the applicant is permitted
to go forward with the project;
3. That the modification of setback requiredments for
the rear yard in no way indicates that the Commission
approves the design or configuration of the house, and
addresses only the problems of the lot.
The Commission finds that the applicant has advised that
within the year after the 1978 approval he complied with paragraphs
1 and 2; further, he stated that paragraph 3 is a statement of the
Planning Commission.
III.
The Commission finds that it is the recommendation of the
Planning Advisor that the County Geologist be asked to review the
geology on the access road across other properties which provide
ingress and egress for the Lademan property, and that the responsi-
bility for repair or restoration of the easement be established.
The Commission finds that the owner of Lot 9-4-RH, Dr. Roberto Unguez,
has control of the easement, and he can require repair of any damage
resulting from construction of a residence on Lot 9-2-RH prior to
occupancy of the new residence. The Commission finds that variances
of front and rear yard requirements should be granted in order to
... �i�a^.d�:.1ir'!.... �..�.+rM\mow.-+er�_,.r.. .'...'•�'r.•r..a ,.l .:.L.Y� �aY vl�'•1�vwTt. •=.y�..Y`�.+� a.
•
•
preserve substantial property rights in the same vicinity and zone,
and that the granting of such variances would not be materially
detrimental to the public welfare, nor injurious to property in the
same vicinity and zone.
IV.
From the foregoing it is concluded that a Variance of Front
Yard and Rear Yard requirements should be granted to Mr. Joseph P.
Lademan, Lot 9-2-RH, 52 Saddleback Road, -subject to the conditions
attached to Zoning Case No. 214 on August 22, 1978, as hereinbefore
stated, and that additional conditions be attached requiring that the
County Engineer be asked to review the geology on the access road, and
that the paved access be maintained in its present condition and that
any damage which occurs during construction be repaired by the appli-
cant, Mr. Lademan; and that photos of the access drive be taken before
the start of construction, and it is, therefore, so ordered.
V.
The applicant is advised that this approval shall expire.
one year from the date of grant, if not acted on. The applicant is
further advised that the time within which to seek judicial review
of this action is governed by Section 1094.6 of the Civil Procedure
of the State of California.
C
•
retary, . Planning Coijhission
irman, Plannin
Commission-
ORDINANCE NO. 137
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS AMENDING
ORDINANCE NO. 33 ENTITLED "AN ORDINANCE OF THE
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA PROVIDING FOR
ZONING IN SAID CITY"
The City Council of the City of Rolling Hills does ordain
as follows:
Section 1: Article III of Ordinance No. 33, Section 3.04
is Amended to read:
r.
"Section.3.04, Lot Coverage. Main buildings,
accessory buildings, .structures, tennis courts, swimming
pools, service yards, (enclosed or unenclosed), stables,
or an area of not less than 200 square feet for the
construction of a stable (with vehicle access thereto)
shall not cover more than 25% of the net lot area; pro-
vided further that in addition to the above described
improvements, the areas included within driveways,
parking space, walks, patios, decks, and asphalt or
concrete paving of any kind excepting roads maintained
by the Rolling Hills Community Association, shall not
cover more than .5070 of the net lot area. .
(A) For the purposes of this Section, "net
area" shall exclude all perimeter easements to a
maximum of ten feet and that portion of the lot or
parcel of land which is used for roadway purposes, and
shall also exclude any private drive or driveway which
provides ingress and egress to any other lot or parcel
of land, and access strip portion of any flag lot.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 9th day of February, 1976.
/s/ T. F. Heinsheimer
Mayor
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS )
I, TEENA CLIFTON, City Clerk of the City of Rolling Hills,
do hereby certify that the foregoing ordinance, being Ordinance
No. 137, was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of
Rolling Hills, California, signed by the Mayor of said City and
attested by the City Clerk, all at a meeting ehreof held on the
ith day of February, 1976, and that the same was passed by the
following vote:
AYES: Councilmen Crocker, Pernell, Rose
Mayor Heinsheimer
NOES: None
• BUILDING AREA"""CALCULATI C/NS
NET LOT AREA
RESIDENCE
GARAGE
SWIMMING POOL
STABLE
TENNIS COURT
COVERED (MAY NOT EXCEED 25% OF NET LOT AREA)
sq. ft.
sq. ft.
sq. ft.
sq. ft.
sq. ft.
sq. ft.
DRIVEWAY sq. ft.
PAVED WALKS AND PATIO"AREA sq. ft.
POOL DECKING sq. ft.
TOTAL COVERAGE (MAY NOT EXCEED 50% OF NET LOT AREA)
TOTAL SQ. FT.
TOTAL SQ. FT.
%