472, Extensive remodel to existing , Resolutions & Approval Conditions•
RESOLUTION NO. 93-8
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ROLLING HILLS APPROVING AN EXTENSION TO A PREVIOUSLY
APPROVED VARIANCE TO PERMIT ENCROACHMENT INTO THE FRONT
YARD SETBACK TO RECONSTRUCT AND ADD TO AN EXISTING
ATTACHED GARAGE, APPROVING AN EXTENSION TO A PREVIOUSLY
APPROVED VARIANCE TO ENCROACH INTO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK
FOR A RETAINING WALL, AND APPROVING AN EXTENSION TO A
PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR RECONSTRUCTION
OF A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IN ZONING CASE NO. 472.
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 Dr. & Mrs. Paul M.
Straub with respect to real property located at 7 Packsaddle Road
East (Lot 27-SF), Rolling Hills requesting an extension to a
previously approved Variance to permit encroachment into the front
yard setback to reconstruct and add to an existing attached garage,
requesting an extension to a previously approved Variance to
encroach into the front yard setback for a retaining wall, and
requesting an extension to a previously approved Site Plan Review
for reconstruction of a single family residence.
Section 2. The Commission considered this item at a meeting
on February 16, 1993 at which time information was presented
indicating that the extension of time is necessary to obtain
adequate financing for the project.
Section 3.. Based upon information and evidence submitted the
Planning Commission does hereby amend Paragraph A, Section 11 of
Resolution No. 92-12, dated February 18, 1992, to read as follows:
"A. The Variance and Site Plan Review approvals shall expire
within two years of the approval of this Resolution."
Section 4. Except as herein amended, the provisions of
Resolution No. 92-12 shall continue to be in full force and effect.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED T IS 16t i AY FEBRUARY, 1993.
ATTEST:
ALLAN ROBERTS, CHAIRMAN
.1(.J,„,)
ILYN KERN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK
• •
RESOLUTION NO. 93-8
PAGE 2
The foregoing Resolution No. 93-8 entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ROLLING HILLS APPROVING AN EXTENSION TO A PREVIOUSLY
APPROVED VARIANCE TO PERMIT ENCROACHMENT INTO THE FRONT
YARD SETBACK TO RECONSTRUCT AND ADD TO AN EXISTING
ATTACHED GARAGE, APPROVING AN EXTENSION TO A PREVIOUSLY
APPROVED VARIANCE TO ENCROACH INTO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK
.FOR A RETAINING WALL, AND APPROVING AN EXTENSION TO A
PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR RECONSTRUCTION
OF A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IN ZONING CASE NO. 472.
was approved and adopted at a regular adjourned meeting of the
Planning Commission on February 16, 1993 by the following roll call
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Commissioners Frost,
Chairman Roberts
None
None
None
Hankins, Lay, Raine and
DEPUTY ITY CLERK
92 5'789
RECORDED IN' OFFICIAL RECORDS
RECORDER'S OFFICE FILE
LOS ANGELES COUNTY
CALIFORNIA
MIN. 10 A.M. APR 2 1992
PAST. Recorrer's u e
FEES pl-3•4,0 El
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 that the form be
notarized before recordation).
ACCEPTANCE FORM
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss
ZONING CASE NO. 472
SITE PLAN REVIEW
VARIANCE
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
I (We) the undersigned state:
I am (We are) the owner(s) of the real property described as
follows:
RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND MAIL TO,
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274
7 P csa,e(ee ieazL16k, i' (247' 27-SF), 4l//r7 '//5
This property is the subject of the above numbered cases.
I am (We are) aware of, and accept, all the stated
said
ZONING CASE NO. 472
SITE PLAN REVIEW
VARIANCE
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
I -(We) certify (ordecrare) under
foregoing is true and correct.
Print
Owner %CAUL /27 _57Wi7U/S
Name
Signaturec
L4�j�
conditions in
x
the penalty of -perjury
Print
Owner
Name
Signature
Address 7 E-/W- /7,9citSl9.P]e-F 4Address
City/State AO /vYa- ///c -3 c/9
City/State
Signatures must be acknowledged by a notary public.
rcurr /1,,
State of l,. ./efOQ 0/1-1 � ;
County of ss•
ee$arsaxseoea0ee0a0a00o00na0o0oe0000ae00a
a OFFICIAL SEAL
TERRY W. FLEMING
0
O
0
0
0
NOTARY PUBLIC - CALIFORNIA °
NOTARY BOND FILED IN o
LOS ANGELES COUNTY
My Commission Expires June 10, 1994 0
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000
that the
On this the 2 day of t&52c• �� 19(4•-before me,
227 w F: etWil �.
the undersigned Notary Public personally appeared
R-C-t- 3-r-R 44 —
personally known to me
0 proved to on the basis of satisfactory evidence
to be the person(s) whose name(s) (-S Subscribed to the
within instrument, and acknowledged that i� Ixecuted it.
WITNES$.(ny hand and official seal.
) `() -�
NotaSignatur
See Exhibit "A" attached
hereto and made a part hereof
RESOLUTION NO. 92-12
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH INTO
THE FRONT YARD SETBACK TO RECONSTRUCT AND ADD TO AN
EXISTING ATTACHED GARAGE, GRANTING A VARIANCE TO
ENCROACH INTO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR A RETAINING WALL,
AND GRANTING SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL FOR RECONSTRUCTION
OF A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IN ZONING CASE NO. 472.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES HEREBY
FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Applications were duly filed by Dr. Paul M. Straub with respect
to real property located at 7 Packsaddle Road East, Rolling Hills (Lot 27-SF)
requesting: (1) a Variance to the front yard setback to reconstruct and add to
an existing attached garage, (2) a Variance to encroach into the front yard
setback for a retaining wall, and (3) Site Plan Review for reconstruction of a
single family residence to replace an existing single family residence.
Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public
hearing to consider the application for a Variance and a Conditional Use Permit
on December 17, 1991, January 21, 1992, February 1, 1992, February 18, 1992 and
at a field trip on January 11, 1992.
Section 3. The Planning Commission finds that the project is categorically
exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act
pursuant to a Class 3 exemption provided by Section 15303 of the State CEQA
Guidelines.
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 a parcel of property to the same extent enjoyed by similar
properties. A Variance to Section 17.16.060 is required to construct additions in
the fifty (50) foot front yard setback. The applicant is requesting to make
substantial additions to the existing garage which already encroaches 28 feet into
the front yard setback. The Planning Commission finds:
A. There are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances and conditions
applicable to the property and the intended use that do not apply generally to
the other property in the same vicinity and zone. The Variance is necessary
because the existing legal nonconforming residence was built within the front
yard setback and the building pad is located close to the street and adjacent
residences. The Variance is necessary so as to permit the use of'. this property
to a similar extent as used on adjacent parcels.
92- 5'71780
RESOLUTION NO. 92-12
PAGE 2
B. This 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 is
necessary because the existing development pattern on the lot precludes the
requested additions from being built into the rear yard. The building pad is
located close to a cul-de-sac and adjacent residences.
C. The proposed plans involve the reconstruction and addition of an
existing 2-car garage into a 3-car garage. The existing 2-car garage encroaches
28 feet into the front yard setback. The structural additions will not occur in
the setback. However, due to the fact that these structural additions will
substantially alter the size of the garage, it loses its nonconforming status and
is required by law, to be brought into conformance with the Rolling Hills
Municipal Code requirements. Therefore, a Variance is necessary to permit the
continued encroachment of this garage structure into the front yard setback.
However, the portion of the garage to be added will not occur in the front yard
setback, and, this Variance will not permit any greater incursion than already
exists.
D. The granting of this Variance will not be materially detrimental to the
public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity or
zone in which the property is located. Development on the pad will allow a
substantial portion of the lot to remain undeveloped. The existing development
pattern on the lot and the sloping rear portion precludes construction towards
that area on the lot.
Section 5. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission
hereby approves the Variance to encroach into the front yard setback to a
maximum of 28 feet as indicated on the Development Plan attached hereto as
Exhibit A subject to the conditions contained in Section 11.
Section 6. A Variance to Section 17.16.060 is requested to construct a 110
foot retaining wall that will not be more than 3 feet in height that will encroach
up to a maximum of 30 feet into the front yard setback. With regard to this
request, the Planning Commission makes the following findings:
A. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances and conditions
applicable to the property and the intended use that do not apply generally to
the other property• in the same vicinity and zone. The sloping topography of the
subject site and the existing location of the driveway necessitate construction of
a retaining wall within the front yard setback in order to support proposed
hillside cuts and slopes.
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 the property in question. The Variance is necessary
because the proposed development pattern on the lot and the topography of the
site require a retaining wall. Construction of such wall in the front yard
setback will create a safer accessway and will also improve the appearance of the
existing driveway.
92- "571780
RESOLUTION NO. 92-12
PAGE 3
C. The granting of the Variance will not be materially detrimental to the
public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and
zone in which the property is located. The Variance will help to improve the
geologic stability of the slope and will not be visible to surrounding properties
due to the distances between the driveway and other adjacent residences.
Section 7. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission
hereby approves the Variance to encroach up to a maximum of 40 feet into the
front yard setback to construct a retaining wall not to exceed 3 feet in height
at any one point along the driveway as indicated on the Development Plan
attached hereto as Exhibit A, subject to the conditions specified in Section 11
below.
Section 8. 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 percent (25%) in any thirty-six
month period.
Section 9. 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 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 Zoning Code setback and lot coverage requirements. The lot
has a net square foot area of 77,892 square feet. The proposed residence (4,500
sq.ft.), garage (600 sq.ft.), a swimming pool (680 sq.ft.), a service yard (96
sq.ft.), and a stable (450 sq.ft.), will have 6,326 square feet which constitutes
8.1% of the lot which is within the maximum 20% structural lot coverage
requirement. The total lot coverage including paved areas and driveway will be
11,930 square feet which equals 15.3% of the lot, which is within the 35% maximum
overall lot coverage requirement. The proposed project is on a relatively large
lot with most of the proposed additions located away from the road so as to
reduce the visual impact of the development and is similar and compatible with
several neighboring developments.
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) and grading will be minimal to
minimize building coverage on the building pad itself.
C. The development plan follows natural contours of the site to minimize
grading and the natural drainage courses will continue to the canyons at the
rear of this lot.
D. The development plan incorporates existing large trees and native
vegetation to the maximum extent feasible and supplements it with landscaping
that is compatible with and enhances the rural character of the community.
92- 571780
•
RESOLUTION NO. 92-12
PAGE 4
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.
Significant portions of' the lot, will be left undeveloped so as to minimize the
impact of development.
F. The proposed development is harmonious in scale and mass with the
site, the natural terrain and surrounding residences because as indicated in
Paragraph A, lot coverage maximum will not be exceeded and the proposed project'
is of consistent scale with the neighborhood, thereby grading will be required
only to restore the natural slope of the property. The ratio of the proposed
structure to lot coverage is similar to the ratio found on several properties in
the vicinity. The residence will be similar in size to existing homes on
Packsaddle Road East.
G. The proposed development is sensitive and not detrimental to
convenience and safety of circulation for pedestrians and vehicles because the
proposed project will utilize the 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 environmental review.
Section 10. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission
hereby approves the Site Plan Review for a proposed new single family residence
as indicated on the Development Plan attached hereto as Exhibit A subject to the
conditions contained in Section 11.
Section 11. The Variance to the front yard setback approved in Sections
5, the Variance to the front yard setback for the retaining wall approved in
Section 7, and the Site Plan Review for a proposed new residence approved in
Section 11 as indicated on the Development Plan attached hereto and incorporated
herein as Exhibit A, are subject to the following conditions:
A. The Variance shall expire unless used within one year from the
effective date of approval as defined in Section 17.32.110 of the Municipal Code.
The Site Plan Review approval shall expire within one year from the effective
date of approval as defined in Section 17.34.080.A.
B. It is declared and made a condition of the Variance and the Site Plan
Review approval,' that if any conditions thereof are violated, the Permit shall be
suspended and the privileges granted thereunder shall lapse; provided that the
applicant has been given written notice to cease such violation and has failed to
do so for a period of thirty (30) days.
92= 571780
•
RESOLUTION NO. 92-12
PAGE 5
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.
D. The lot shall be developed and maintained in substantial conformance
with the site plan on file marked Exhibit A except as otherwise provided in these
conditions.
E. To minimize the building on the pad, the structures, driveway, graded
slopes and retaining walls shall be screened and shielded from view with native
drought -resistant vegetation that is compatible with the surrounding vegetation
of the community.
F. All retaining walls incorporated into the project shall not be greater
than 3 feet in height.
G. A landscape plan must be submitted to and approved by the City of
Rolling Hills Planning Department staff prior to the issuance of any grading and
building permit. The landscaping plan submitted must comply with the purpose
and intent of the Site Plan Review Ordinance, shall incorporate existing mature
trees and native vegetation, and shall utilize to the maximum extent feasible,
plants that are native to the area and/or consistent with the rural character of
the community.
A bond in the amount of the cost estimate of the implementation of the
landscaping plant plus 15% shall be required to be posted prior to issuance of a
grading and building permit and shall be retained with the City for not less than
two years after landscape installation. The retained bond will be released by the
City Manager after the City Manager determines that the landscaping was
installed pursuant to the landscaping plan as approved, and that such
landscaping is properly established and in good condition.
H. 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.
I. 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.
J. •The building pad coverage shall not exceed 33.7%.
92= 571'780
•
it
'. RESOLUTION NO.`92-12
-- PAGE 6 ;
K. The applicant shall execute an Affidavit of Acceptance
of all `conditions' of this Variance, pursuant to Section 17.32.087, or the approval
shall not be effective.
•
L. Conditions A. C, D. E, F. G. H, I. J, and K 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 AND ADOPTED THIS 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 1992.
ATTEST:
EVIE HANKYNS, ACTING CHAIRMAN
Cdo
rIANE SAWYER, DEPUTY CITY CLERK
The foregoing Resolution No. 92-9 entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH INTO
THE FRONT YARD SETBACK TO RECONSTRUCT AND ADD TO AN
EXISTING ATTACHED GARAGE, GRANTING A VARIANCE TO
ENCROACH INTO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR A RETAINING WALL,
AND GRANTING SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL FOR RECONSTRUCTION
OF A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IN ZONING CASE NO. 472.
was approved and adopted at a regular adjourned meeting of the Planning
Commission on February 18, 1992 by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Lay, Paine and Acting Chairman Fankins
NOES: None
ABSENT: Chairman Poberts
ABSTAIN: Commissioner Frost
DEPUTY CITY CLERK
92= 571780
•
IglaWq
MAY 201992
CM OE ROLLING HILLS