622, Extension to previously approv, Resolutions & Approval ConditionsRESOLUTION NO. 2001-22
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS APPROVING A MODIFICATION TO
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2000-24
APPROVING AN EXTENSION TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED
VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT RETAINING WALLS WHICH
WILL ENCROACH INTO THE SIDE YARD SETBACK, AND
GRANTING SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT
ADDITIONS THAT WILL REQUIRE RETAINING WALLS AND
GRADING AT AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AT 7
PACKSADDLE ROAD WEST IN ZONING CASE NO. 622.
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 Mr. Edmund Talbot with respect
to real property located at 7 Packsaddle Road West (Lot 19-SF), Rolling Hills,
requesting a one year time extension for a previously approved Variance to
encroach into the side yard setback with retaining walls, and a Site Plan Review
to permit the construction of additions and retaining walls that require grading
at a single family residence that was approved by the Planning Commission by
Resolution No. 2000-24 on October 17, 2000.
Section 2. The Commission considered this item at a meeting on
October 16, 2001, at which time information was presented indicating that the
extension of time is necessary because the review of the grading plans was
delayed at the Building and Safety Department of Los Angeles County.
Section 3. Based on information and evidence submitted, the Planning
Commission does hereby amend Paragraph A, Section 8 of Resolution No. 2000-
24, adopted by the City Council, dated October 17, 2000, to read as follows:
"The Variance and Site Plan approvals shall expire within two years from
the effective date of approval, as defined in Sections 17.38.070 (A) and 17.46.080
(A), of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code unless construction on the applicable
structures have commenced within that time period."
Section 4. Except as herein amended, the provisions of Resolution No.
2000-24 shall continue to be in full force and effect.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 16T DAY �O
ALLAN ROBERTS, CHAIRMAN
A1"iEST:
. 1�, I-1n.J
MARILYN KERN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS )
)
) §§
I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2001-22 entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ROLLING HILLS APPROVING A MODIFICATION TO PLANNING
COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2000-24 APPROVING AN EXTENSION TO
A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT RETAINING
WALLS WHICH WILL ENCROACH INTO THE SIDE YARD SETBACK, AND
GRANTING SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT ADDITIONS
THAT WILL REQUIRE RETAINING WALLS AND GRADING AT AN
EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AT 7 PACKSADDLE ROAD WEST IN
ZONING CASE NO. 622.
was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on
October 16, 2001 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 CITY CLERK )\M�
•
•
RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND
MAIL TO
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
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.
AFFIDAVIT OF ACCEPTANCE FORM
01-0252655
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
ZONING CASE NO.622
) §§
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:
7 PACKSADDLE ROAD WEST (LOT 19-SF). ROLLING HILLS, CA
This property is the subject of the above numbered case.
I am (We are) aware of, and accept, all the stated conditions in said
ZONING CASE NO. Q222
SITE PLAN REVIEW
VARIANCE
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT
I (We) certify (or declaru�igt t� penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Signature /r
/6-r /,4 e- 7
Name typed or winted
Signature
Name typed or printed
Address
, 6 l/q f. �G` ,9d�, Address
City/State • /`/ /. City/State
Signatures must be acknowledged by a notary public,
State of Califomia )
County of Los Angeles )
On 2(caI
personally appeared
before me, unn 14 r n a )-'l q(r) a CL-2I 1
'/di •P %db-tl
L
L
L
L
T Recorders Use Only
personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s),whose name$ is/are,
subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they-executed the same in his/her/tbeir_authorized
capacity(ies) and that by his/beg/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(sLor the entity upon behalf of which the
CHRISTINA M. ROACHELL ument.
VCOMM. #1264093 n
NOTARY PUBLIC-CALIFORNIA CA Witness b hand and official seal.
�����p,'r��-'
Ni►=� LOS ANGELES COUNTY A
V Qi.� r My Commission Expires -" Cr"e z2 4, QL—Q 0
JUNE 14, 2004 I Signature of Notary
SEE EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF
• •
6x///15 /r4
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-24
01 0252655
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A VARIANCE TO PERMIT
ENCROACHMENTS INTO THE SOUTH SIDE YARD SETBACK TO
CONSTRUCT RETAINING WALLS AND GRANTING SITE PLAN
REVIEW APPROVAL FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF ADDITIONS TO
A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE THAT WILL REQUIRE RETAINING
WALLS AND GRADING IN ZONING CASE NO. 622.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Applications were duly filed by Mr Edmund Talbot with respect
to real property located at 7 Packsaddle Road West (Lot 19-SF), Rolling Hills,
requesting a Variance to permit encroachment into the south side yard setback to
construct retaining walls and requesting Site Plan Review to permit the
construction of room additions, a basement, and retaining walls that will require
grading at an existing single family residence.
Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public
hearing to consider the applications on August 15, 2000, September 19, 2000, and
October 17, 2000, and at a field trip visit on September 9, 2000. The- applicants were
notified of the public hearing in writing by first class mail and through the City's
newsletter. 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 applicant was in
attendance at the hearings. During the hearing process, the Commission was
informed of the history of the site. The existing residence was constructed in 1952. In
1975, a request for a Conditional Use Permit by Mr. Thomas J. Roba for construction of
a retaining wall projecting into the side yard on each side of the property was denied
by the Planning Commission. In 1976, the case was rejected by the Deputy District
Attorney after retaining walls were constructed without permits because there was an
attempt by the ownerto correct :the matter. In 1981, a grading permit was issued to
Mr. Talbot to return the slope to its natural state.
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. 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
01 It52655
property to .the same extent enjoyed by similar properties in the same vicinity.
Section 17.16.110 requires the side yard setback for every residential parcel in the RA-
S-1 Zone to be twenty (20) feet. The applicant is requesting to encroach up to a
maximum 19 feet into the 20 foot south side yard setback to construct 153-foot long,
4.5 foot high retaining walls at the rear or west of the residence. With respect to this
request for a Variance, the Planning Commission finds as follows:
A. There are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances and 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 zone because of the irregular shape of the
lot. The existing legal nonconforming residence was built within the front yard and
•side yard setbacks atop a steep slope. The retaining walls will encroach beyond
existing encroachments but are limited .in area so as to preserve the safety and
integrity of the slope and leave nearly all of the existing open space near the south
side of the residence •unaffected.
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. The Variance will permit the
development of the property in a manner similar to development patterns on
surrounding properties. The location of the building pad dictates that the proposed
retaining walls be set in the south side yard setback because the existing structure
was not constructed under current setback standards and the building pad is situated
close to the edge of a steep slope,
C. The granting of the Variance will 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. Development on the pad will allow a
substantial portion of the lot to remain undeveloped and is consistent in scale and
mass with adjacent development.
Section 5. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission
hereby approves the Variance for Zoning Case No. 622 to permit the construction of
retaining walls that will encroach a maximum of nineteen (19) feet into the south
side yard setback, as indicated •on the developmentplan dated August 9, 2000,
submitted with this application and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit A,
subject to the conditions specified in Section 8 of this Resolution.
Section 6. Section 17.46.030 requires a development plan to be submitted
for site plan review and approval before any grading requiring a grading permit or
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 at least 1,000 square feet and has
the effect of increasing the size of the building by more than twenty-five percent
(25%) in any thirty-six (36) month period. With respect to the Site Plan Review
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-24
PAGE 2 OF 7
•
0* 0252655 -3
application to add 963 square feet to the proposed residence with a 963 square foot
basement, 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
maintain sufficient open space between surrounding structures. The project
conforms to Zoning Code setback and lot coverage requirements with the Variance
approved in Sections 5 of this Resolution. The lot has a net square foot area of
176,629 square feet. The proposed residence (2,778 sq.ft.), garage (400 sq.ft.), and future
stable (450 sq.ft.) will have 3,178 square feet which constitutes 1.8% of the lot which
is within the maximum 20% structural lot coverage requirement. The total lot
coverage including paved areas and driveway will be 6,160 square feet which equals
3.5% of the lot, which is within the 35% maximum overall lot coverage
requirement. The proposed project is screened from the road so as to reduce the ...
visual impact of the development on adjacent uses.
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). The lot slopes downward at the rear and
most of the mature trees will not be removed. Grading will be :done to provide
approved drainage that will flow away from the proposed residence and existing
neighboring residences.
C. The proposed development, as' conditioned, is harmonious in scale
and mass with the site, the natural terrain and surrounding residences. As indicated
in Paragraph A, the lot coverage maximum will not be exceeded and the proposed
project is consistent with the scale of the neighborhood when compared to this
irregular -shaped lot. The ratio of the proposed structure to lot coverage is similar to
the ratio found on several properties in the vicinity.
D. The development plan incorporates existing large trees and native
vegetation to the maximum extent feasible. Specifically, the development plan
preserves several mature trees and shrubs 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 building coverage because the new
structures will not cause the structural and total lot coverage to be exceeded.
Although the building structure is located within the front and side yard setbacks,
the additions will not effect a major change to the existing residence. . The
development plans as proposed will minimize impact on Packsaddle Road West.
Most of the additions proposed will not be visible from Packsaddle Road West.
Significant portions of the lot will be left undeveloped so as to maintain scenic
vistas across portions of the property.
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-24
PAGE 3 OF 7
•
it11 0252655
F. The development plan follows natural contours of the site to
minimize grading and the natural drainage courses will continue to the canyons at
the west side (rear). of this lot.
G. The development plan preserves surrounding native vegetation and
mature trees and supplements these elements with drought -tolerant landscaping
which is compatible with and enhances the rural character of the community, and
landscaping provides a buffer or transition area between private and public areas.
H. 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 driveway at the eastern portion of the
property off Packsaddle Road West for access.
I. The project conforms with the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act and is categorically exempt from environmental
review.
Section 7. Based upon the foregoing findings, the ' Planning Commission
hereby approves the Site Plan Review application for Zoning Case No. 622 for
proposed residential additions as indicated on the development plan incorporated
herein as Exhibit A and subject to the conditions contained in Section 8.
Section 8. The Variance to the side yard setback approved in Section 5 and
the Site Plan Review approved in Section 7 of this resolution are subject to the
following conditions:
A. The Variance and Site Plan Review approvals shall expire within one
year from the effective date of approval as defined in 'Sections 17.38.070(A) and
17.46.080(A) unless the applicant has acquired building permits or otherwise
extended the Variance pursuant to the requirements of those sections.
B. It is declared and made a condition of the Variance and Site Plan
Review approvals, 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, the opportunity for
a hearing has been provided, and if requested, has been held, and. thereafter the •
applicant fails to correct the violation within a period of thirty (30) days from the
date of the City's determination.
C. . All requirements of the Buildings and Construction 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.
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-24
PAGE 4OF7
•
01 0252655
D. The lot shall be developed and maintained in substantial conformance
with the site plan on file marked Exhibit A and dated August 9, 2000, 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 retaining walls incorporated into the project shall not exceed 4.5
feet in height, averaging no more than 2-1/2 feet.
G. The residential building pad coverage shall not exceed 77.4%, the stable
pad shall not exceed 45.0%, and total building pad coverage shallnot exceed 71.1%.
H. Maximum disturbed area shall not exceed 6.4% of the net lot area.
I. Grading shall not exceed 285 cubic yards of cut soil and 285 cubic yards
of fill soil and shall be balanced on site.
J. Any grading shall preserve the existing topography, flora, and natural
features to the greatest extent possible.
K. An Erosion Control Plan containing the elements set forth in Section
7010 of the 1996 County of Los Angeles Uniform Building Code shall be prepared to
minimize erosion and to 'protect slopes and channels to control stormwater
pollution as required by the County of Los Angeles.
L. Landscaping shall incorporate and preserve, to the maximum extent
feasible, the existing mature trees and shrubs and the natural landscape screening
surrounding the proposed building pad.
M. 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.
N. Prior to the submittal of an applicable final grading plan to the County
of Los Angeles for plan check, a detailed grading and drainage plan with related
geology, soils and hydrology reports that conform to the development plan as
approved by the Planning Commission must be submitted to the Rolling Hills
Planning Department staff for their review. Cut and fill slopes must conform to the
City of Rolling Hills standard of 2 to 1 slope ratio.
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-24
PAGE5OF7
• 01 0252655
O. The project must be reviewed and approved by the Rolling Hills
Community Association Architectural Review Committee prior to the issuance of
any building or grading permit.
P. 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.
Q. The applicants shall execute an Affidavit of Acceptance of all
conditions of this Variance and Site Plan Review, pursuant to Section 17.38.060, or
the approval shall not be effective.
S. All conditions of these Variance and Site Plan Review approvals 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 17TH DA) GF ' a BER, 2000.
ALLLN ROBERTS, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
MARILYN I RN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-24
PAGE 6OF7
• •
AYES:
NOES:
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS )
I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2000-24 entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A VARIANCE TO PERMIT
ENCROACHMENTS INTO THE SOUTH SIDE YARD SETBACK TO
CONSTRUCT RETAINING WALLS AND GRANTING SITE PLAN
REVIEW APPROVAL FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF ADDITIONS TO
A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE THAT WILL REQUIRE RETAINING
WALLS AND GRADING IN ZONING CASE NO. 622.
•
•
01 0252655
was approved and adopted at an adjourned regular meeting of the Planning
Commission on October 17, 2000 by the following roll call vote:
Commissioners Hankins, Margeta, Sommer, Witte
and Chairman Roberts.
None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following:
Administrative Offices.
DEPUTY C CLERK
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-24
PAGE 7OF7