361, Addition to existing SFR, gara, Resolutions & Approval Conditionss
For Reco4er' s use
go-2ouGoa
RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND MAIL TO:
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274
RECORDED IN OFFICIAL RECORi)s
RECORDER'S OFFICE
t.OS ANGELES COUNT: •
CALIFORNIA
C fa,.Or_C r)
PAST.
Please record this form with the Registrar -Recorder's Office and
return to:
City of Rolling Hills
2 Portuguese Bend Road
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
(The Registrar -Recorder's Office requires
before recordation.)
C1=C $9
that the form be notarized
Acceptance Form
STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ss
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO.
VARIANCE CASE NO.
SITE PLAN REVIEW CASE NO.
361 (Resolution #90-29)
I (We) the undersigned state:
I am (We are) the owner(s). of the real property described as follows:
14 Southfield Drive, Rolling Hills, CA 90274 (Lot 34-SF)
This
property is the subject of the above numbered cases.
I am (We
are) aware of, and accept, all the stated conditions
Conditional Use Permit Case No.
Variance Case No.
Site Plan Review Case No.
in said
361 (Resolution #90-29)
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 /i/TO ,S/-// c-f C////�/0 iq/16/7-Gj 0
Address /V SCt17%'/ / L9 .12/7
City, State 24t //,/
Signature
x
Owner Name /// %OAS/-/ �%�?/�/C' v/+/ fl/YD%b
Address /4 sod 7/-/,z-/z=L.0
City, State pd_L//,/ .1- /L&S . Y02 2
C/Mk1/(-415--)
Signature
This signature must
be acknowledged by a
notary public. Attach
appropriate acknowledgement.
//l L L.S • �/1 .
- M
A F ' Y ,
1\,\'
JAW 0 4 1991
CITY, OE ROLLING. 1-111.1'
........ ...... ..........
•
•
•
2_
STAPLE HE,1E
evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s)
to this instrument and acknowledged that
the same.
Signature.
FORM 211 (Rev. 6/82)
(Acknowledgment to Resolution 9
STAPLE HERE
WITNESS Ilw!-Kand �and�offic�
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF Los Angeles
or November 5. 1990
***Chieko Yamamoto***
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF Los Angeles
on November 6, 1990
***Hi t0Bpli Yamamoto***
G-2Ofl GO5
(Individual)
before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared
personally known to me ❑ proved to me on the basis of satisfactory
—is— subscribed
-he- executed
ti
- A A_ —A.—.)
(This Area for official notarial seal`
•
OFFICIAL SEAL
FRANCES 0. HIRAYAMA ;
NOTARY PUBLIC - CALIFORNIA
PRINCIPAL OFFICE IN
LOS ANGELES COUNTY
Ply Commission Exp. September 18,1992 j
f _
-29/Planning Commission -City of Rolling Hills)
90-201 605
(Individual)
before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared
personally known to me ❑ proved to me on the basis of satisfactory
evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) —lc — subscribed
to this instrument and acknowledged that —ahs— executed
the same.
WITNESS and and officia eal
Signature ���!•
(This Area for official notarial seal)
OFFICIAL SEAL
FRANCES 0. HIRAYAMA ;
NOTARY PUBLIC - CALIFORNIA I
PRINCIPAL OFFICE IN I
LOS ANGELES COUNTY
bSyCommission Exp. September 18, 1992 j
FORM 211 (Rev. 6/82)
(Acknowledgment to Resolution 90-29/Planning Commission -City of Rolling Hills)
0 RESOLUTION NO. 90-2_
.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS APPROVING A MODIFICATION TO
THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED VARIANCE AND AMENDING THE
RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL FOR A VARIANCE TO THE
FRONT YARD SETBACK IN ZONING CASE NO. 361
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.
Hitoshi Yamamoto with respect to real property located at 14
Southfield Drive, Rolling Hills (Lot 34-SF) requesting a modification
to the previously approved variance to permit construction of a
residential addition, attached garage and detached stable within the
established front yard setback. The applicant is now requesting a
modification to the previously approved project to construct a
portion of the said project to consist of a detached 660 square foot
garage and a detached 200 square foot stable entirely within the
established front yard setback; and amending the Resolution of
Approval accordingly.
Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted a duly
noticed public hearing on August 21, 1990 and September 18, 1990; and
conducted a field site inspection on September 15, 1990.
Section 3. Section 17.32.120 provides for a subsequent
modification after a Variance application has been approved.
Modification of the approved plans and/or any conditions imposed,
including additions or deletions, may be considered.
Section 4. Pursuant to the foregoing Section, the Planning
Commission makes the finding that previous findings determined with
the approved City Council Resolution No. 581, dated November 14,
1988, can be restated.
Section 5. Based upon the foregoing Section, the Planning
Commission hereby approves the request for modification for Zoning
Case No. 361 to permit construction of the portion of a project to
include a detached 660 square foot garage and a detached 200 square
foot stable within the established front yard setback, as indicated
on the development plan attached hereto and incorporated herein as
Exhibit A.
Section 6. Except as herein amended, the terms and
conditions of Resolution No. 581, adopted on November 14, 1988 as
amended by this Resolution adopted on October 6, 1990, shall be in
full force and effect.
1990.
ATTEST:
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 6th day of October,
K/Th
Allanoberts, Chairman
90- `ti' . 1,605
9r_
Deputy City Cietk
•
RESOLUTION NO. 581
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ROLLING HILLS APPROVING A VARIANCE IN ZONING
CASE NO. 361
THE CITY, COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES
HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. An application was duly filed by Mr. and
Mrs. Hitoshi Yamamoto with respect to real property located at
No. 14 Southfield Drive, Rolling Hills (Lot 34-SF) requesting a
variance to permit construction of a house addition within the
established front yard of said property.
Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted a duly
noticed public hearing to consider the application on May 17,
July 21 and August 30, 1988. After considering the evidence,
both written and oral, the Commission denied the application.
The Commission's decision was timely appealed by the applicants
pursuant to Section 17.32.140(a) of the Rolling Hills Municipal
Code.
Section 3. On October 10, 1988, the City Council
opened a duly noticed, de novo public hearing pursuant to
Municipal Code Section 17.32.190 to consider the application.
Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to and considered
by the City Council. The applicants appeared before the Council
in support of the application. The Council's deliberations were
adjourned to a field trip on October 15, 1988 and to a continued
public hearing on October 24, 1988, at which times applicants
were present.
Section 4. 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 the property and not applicable to
other similar properties in the same zone prevent the owner from
making use of property to the same extent enjoyed by similar
properties. Pursuant to these Sections, the City Council finds
that:
A. The established front yard is 144 feet from the
roadway to the existing residential structure and is
considerably larger than is required by the Zoning Ordinance
(fifty feet). An existing stable structure is located
within the front yard;
•
B. Due to the shape and topography of the lot, the
house can only reasonably be expanded in the direction of
the front yard. The proposed expansion, as revised by the
applicant, would not extend beyond the point at which the
stable structure presently exists, meaning that there will
be no greater incursion into the front yard than already
exists on the property at this time.
C. In view of the topographical situation, the
presence of an existing incursion in the front yard and the
larger than usual size of the front yard, there exists
unique circumstances not generally applicable to other
properties in the same zone that justify the requested
encroachment.
D. The grant of a variance under these circumstances
will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and
welfare and will be compatible with surrounding properties
and will be consistent with the goals of the Zoning
Ordinance.
Section 5. Based on the foregoing findings, the
City Council hereby approves the Variance for Case No. 361
subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit A and incorporated
herein by reference.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this l4th day of
November , 1988.
ATTEST:
City Clerk
4d/p414
U [ Mayor
•
BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
In the Matter of the Application )
of )
) ZONING CASE NO. 361
Mr. & Mrs. Hitoshi Yamamoto )
Lot 34-SF-MS )
)
FINDINGS AND REPORT
The application of Mr. and Mrs. Hitoshi Yamamoto, Lot 34-SF,
Rolling Hills Tract, for a Variance Section 17.32.010 of the City of
Rolling Hills Municipal Code, came for hearing on the 17th day of May
1988, the 21st day of July, and the 30th day of August, 1988, in the
Council Chambers of the Administration Building, 2 Portuguese Bend
Road, Rolling Hills, California. The Planning Commission, after
being appropriately advised, now makes its Findings and Report as
required by the Municipal Code of the City of Rolling Hills,
California.
I.
The Commission finds that the applicants, Mr. and Mrs. Hitoshi
Yamamoto, are the owners of the certain real property described as
Lot 34-SF, located at 14 Southfield Road in the City of Rolling
Hills, and that notice of the public hearing in connection with said
application was given as required by Section 17.32.080 of the
Municipal Code of the City of Rolling Hills, California. The
Commission finds, further, that written and verbal comment was
received in support of the request. Further, there were no written
comments in opposition to the request, from adjoining property
owners.
II.
The Commission finds that the applicants have requested a
Variance from Section 17.08.260 and Section 17.08.270 for
encroachment into the established front yard. The property is a lot
of 2.21 net acres (96,457 sq. ft.) in size, which is located in the
RAS - 1 Zone (43,560 sq. ft.). The lot has an established front yard
of 144'.0". The applicants have requested a 94'.0" encroachment into
• •
the established front yard for the purpose of constructing an addition
to the residence of 2,900 sq. ft., a garage of 1008 sq. ft., and covered
walkway of 250 sq. ft. Also, the applicants have requested a relocation
of the driveway access to the property. The encroachment of 94'.0" into
the front yard setback would result in a front yard of 68'.0".
The applicants indicate that the proposed improvements to the
existing residence and property are most logically expanded within the
established building pad area. Therefore, the applicants request the
granting of the Variance so that they may have the same rights to
property as others in the same vicinity and zone, which would otherwise
be denied if they were not able to fully utilize the existing building
pad area. The applicants assert that there are significant topographica
and physical conditions which exist on the property, which impinge upon
the applicants' ability to fully utilize their property, without damagin
the environment. The applicants assert that a Variance should be
granted in order to preserve substantial property rights in the same
vicinity and zone, and that the granting of such Variance would not be
materially detrimental to the public welfare, nor injurious to property
in the same vicinity and zone.
III
From the foregoing, it is concluded that a Variance should be:
1. Denied as to the request for an encroachment into the
established front yard for the purpose of constructing building
additions to the residential structure, constructing a garage and
constructing a covered walkway. The Planning Commission finds that:
A. There are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances
applicable to other similar properties in the same zone that prevent
the owners from making use of the property to the same extent enjoyed
by similar properties. The applicants have not met their burden of
identifying and the Commission finds that there exists no physical
feature of the property that makes use of the property difficult or
impracticable without a variance;
B. The proposed encroachment into the front yard would
constitute a major incursion into the front yard and would create a
special privilege totally unjustified by the factual circumstances.
• •
The Zoning Ordinance allows for characteristics of property so as to giv
a property owner the same rights as possessed by neighboring properties;
in this case the variance would allow the applicants to develop
significantly into their front yard without justification, a circumstanc
that would give them a privilege not enjoyed by others. The purpose of
variance is to provide relief from an unusual condition of property
which make reasonable use difficult when ordinary standards are applied;
the fact that a variance suits their plans, does not mean that its denia
will deprive applicants of reasonable use or enjoyment of their property
and
C. The purpose of the established front yard is to provide
for residential properties in a neighborhood to be compatible to the
feeling of open space and the rural nature of the area, especially
where most visible from the street. This property fronts on Southfield
Drive. This property possesses an established front yard of some
duration, and despite its existing physical development, had additional
room within the setbacks to expand the existing residence. Grant of the
variance would be inconsistent with the objectives set forth in the
General Plan regarding rural setting, open space and neighborhood
compatibility without justification. Grant of the variance would provid
the applicants with a privilege not accorded other property owners with
exactly the same physical circumstances, will be detrimental to the
principles of sound planning, inconsistent with the goals of the General
Plan and zoning ordinance and detrimental to the public health, safety,
and welfare.
It is therefore ordered that Zoning Case No. 362 be denied.
Motion to deny by Commissioner Raine seconded by Commissioner Hankins:
AYES: Hankins, Frost, Raine, Roberts
NOES:
ABSENT: Lay
• 0
Zoning Case No. 361, Mr. and Mrs. Hitoshi Yamamoto
14 Southfield Road, Rolling Hills, California
/s/ Allan Roberts
Chairman, Planning Commissio
/s/ Terrence L. Belanaer
Secretary, Planning Commission