444, Construct a recreational room, Resolutions & Approval ConditionsRESOLUTION NO. 92-14
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING
HILLS APPROVING A MODIFICATION TO RESOLUTION NO. 91-6 GRANTING
A VARIANCE TO TIIE FRONT AND SIDE YARD SETBACK AND GRANTING SITE
PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL IN ZONING CASE NO. 444.
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. and Mrs. Bernard Howroyd with
respect to real property located at 7 Maverick Lane, Rolling Hills (Lot 28-SK)
requesting a modification to the condition of approval for a Variance to the front
and side yard setback and Site Plan Review. The modification requested is to
extend the allowable time period for proposed 2,246 square feet of residential
additions, including an 832 square foot subterranean garage.
Section 2. The Commission considered this item at its meeting on March 17,
1992 at which time information was presented indicating that the extension of time
is necessary for financing of the project.
Section 3. Based upon information and evidence submitted, the Planning
Commission does hereby modify Paragraph A, Section 10 of Resolution No. 91-6,
to read as follows:
"A. The Variance to the front and side yard setback and Site Plan
approval shall expire within two years of the approval of this
Resolution."
Section 4. Except as herein amended, the provisions of Resolution No. 91-6
shall continue to be in full force and effect.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 17TH DAY OF MARCH, 1992.
ALLAN ROBERTS, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
10‘ U Dau
DIANE SAWYER, DEPU 'Y CITY CLERK
• •
RESOLUTION NO. 92-14
PAGE 2
The foregoing Resolution No. 92-14 entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING
HILLS APPROVING A MODIFICATION TO RESOLUTION NO. 91-6 GRANTING
A VARIANCE TO THE FRONT AND SIDE YARD SETBACK AND GRANTING SITE
PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL IN ZONING CASE NO. 444.
was approved and adopted at an adjourned regular meeting of the Planning
Commission on March 17, 1992 by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Hankins, Lay,. Frost and Chairman
Roberts
NOES: None'
ABSENT: Commissioner Raine
ABSTAIN: None
6
DEPUTYCITY CLERK
GENERAL ACKNOWLEDGMENT
}SS.
91 683869
OFFICIAL SEAL
D A SHELLEY
NOTARY PUBLIC - CALIFORNIA
tOS ANGELES COUNTY
'My comm. expires OCT 10, 1992
_ y
On this the_3•day of
J'0N4ti, ckrr2,.c.6+
the undersigned Notary Public, personally appeared
S(t&Aloq JfPwR)
Er -Personally known to me
0 proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence
to be the person(s) whose name(s) i5 Subscribed to the
within instrument, and acknowledged that Rc executed it.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
NO. 201
199/ , before me,
Notary's Signature
ATTENTION NOTARY: Although the information requested below is OPTIONAL, it could prevent fraudulent attachment of this certificate to another document.
THIS CERTIFICATE
MUST BE ATTACHED
TO THE DOCUMENT
DESCRIBED AT RIGHT:
Title or Type of Document
Number of Pages
Signer(s) Other Than Named Above
Date of Document
1
1
1
1
1
1
7120 122
a
NATIONAL NOTARY ASSOCIATION • 8236 Remmet Ave. • P.O. Box 7184 • Canoga Park CA 91304-7184
r
For Record 's use
91— 683869
• RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND MAIL TCI: ' RECOROB) IM OFHCIALRECORDS
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
BE
2 PORTUGU.ND ..ROAD..
ROLLI 1OVWS)'r: Ab"`902 q
1 t•
}.
RPcORVER'S officE -
LOS ANGELES COUNTY
CALIFORNIA 1 FEE $ 7
MIN. 10 A.M. MAY 10 199 2
PAST.
Please record'this'form with the Registrar -Recorder's Office and
return to.:0, ► -;-)
City...of...Rolling. Hills..;s:
2 Portuguese Bend Road
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
(The Registrar -Recorder's Office requires that the form be
before recordation.)
Acceptance Form
STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ss
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO.
VARIANCE CASE NO.
SITE PLAN REVIEW CASE NO.
144
notarized
I (We) the undersigned state:
I am (We are) the owner(s), of the real property described as follows:
7 /1't VJ fc-L • L./MN& , .. 691-0 s Vcwbcs
/cc--cetO SU,-VEy A3 PE. eSk. 6 / 33 / — 3 2
OF f. s tor cow /-r PP.s7 w ez,e. oc Lo T ASP
brzSc///f'T?oA/ /A1 4-Ss eSs Gam- 287
This property is the subject of the above numbered cases.
(We are) aware of, and accept, all the stated conditions in said
Conditional Use Permit Case No.
Variance Case No. 444'
Site Plan Review Case No. 444
I am
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.)
Applicant Name
Address
City, State
Signature
Owner Name
Address
City, State
Signature
Type or print
k r PPR h 0-0 L3 2a r b
1-14-I/E 21 c KE-
p6LLInI - ► ILLS CA- 90 Z7
This signature must
be acknowledged by a
notary public. Attach
appropriate acknowledgement.
ggaTt
JUN 1 2 .1991
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
By
RESOLUTION NO. 91-6
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A VARIANCE TO THE FRONT
AND SIDE YARD SETBACK AND GRANTING SITE PLAN REVIEW
APPROVAL IN ZONING CASE NO. 444.
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. Bernie
Howroyd with respect to real property located at 7 Maverick Lane,
Rolling Hills (Lot 28-SK) requesting: (1) a'Variance to the front
and side yard setbacks to construct residential additions; and (2)
Site Plan Review for residential additions, including a
subterranean garage. (An application requesting a Conditional Use
Permit for a guest house and recreation room has been withdrawn).
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 18, 1990. Thereafter, an
expanded request for a Site Plan Review was submitted which the
Planning Commission considered at a duly noticed public hearing
held on January 15, 1991, February 19, 1991 and March 19, 1991 and
at field trip visits on January 12, 1991, February 16, 1991 and
March 9, 1991. (The application requesting a Conditional Use Permit
for a guest house and recreation room was withdrawn during these
proceedings.)
Section 3. 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 additions which will encroach 27 feet
into the front setback. The Planning Commission finds:
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 Variance is necessary because the lot is pie -shaped
and the building pad is located close to the street and adjacent
residences. Theexisting development pattern on the lot and the
sloping rear portion precludes continued expansion of the house on
the lot.
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 necessarybecause there will
not be any greater incursion into the setback than already exists.
RESOLUTION NO. 91-6
PAGE 2
C. The granting of this 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. Development on the pad will allow a substantial, portion
of the lot to remain undeveloped.
Section 4. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning
Commission hereby approves the Variance to encroach into the front
yard setback to a maximum of 27 feet as indicated on the
Development Plan attached hereto as Exhibit A subject to the
conditions contained in Section 10.
SECTION 5. A Variance to Section 17.16.070.A. is required to
construct additions in the thirty-five (35) 'foot side yard setback.
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 Variance is necessary because the lot is pie -shaped
and the building pad is located close to the street and adjacent
residences. The existing development pattern on the lot and the
sloping rear portion precludes continued expansion of the house on
the lot.
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 there will
not be any greater incursion into the setback than already exists.
C. The granting of this 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. Development on the pad will allow a substantial portion
of the lot to remain undeveloped.
Section 6. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning
Commission hereby approves the Variance to encroach into the side
yard setback to a maximum of 11 feet as indicated on the
Development Plan attached hereto as Exhibit A subject to the
conditions contained in Section 10.
Section 7. 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.
RESOLUTION NO. 91-6
PAGE 3
Section 8. 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 126,847 square feet. The proposed
residence (5,478 sq.ft.), garage (832 sq.ft.), swimming pool (623
sq.ft.), future stable (450 sq.ft.), and 96 sq.ft. service yard
will have 7,479 square feet which constitutes 5.9% of the lot which
is within the maximum 20% structural lot coverage requirement. The
total lot coverage including paved areas and driveway will be
14,672 square feet which equals 11.6% 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 only be done to accomplish
the subterranean structure.
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.
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. Further, the proposed project will
have a buildable pad coverage of 33.9% which is within the City's
policy of 35% maximum pad coverage. Significant portions of the
lot, including the easterly slope, will be left undeveloped so as
to minimize the impact of development when viewed from across the
canyon.
F. The proposed development is harmonious in scale and mass
with the site, the natural terrain and surrounding residences
because as indicated in Paragraph C, lot coverage maximum will not
RESOLUTION NO. 91-6
PAGE 4
• be exceeded and the proposed project is of consistent scale with
the neighborhood, therebygrading 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.
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 9. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning
Commission hereby approves the Site Plan Review for residential
additions, including a subterranean garage as indicated on the
Development Plan attached hereto as Exhibit A subject to the
conditions contained in Section 10.
Section 10. The Variance to the front and side yard setbacks
approved in Sections 4 and 6 and the Site Plan Review for
residential additions, including a subterranean garage approved in
Section 9 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.
C. All requirements of 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.
RESOLUTION NO. 91-6
PAGE 5
E. Access from the garage to the basement shall only occur
through one doorway that is 3 feet by 6 feet, 8 inches in size.
F. Alterations to the existing roof shall not be higher
than 8 inches above the existing roof line. The residential
structure shall not exceed a total height of seventeen feet, four
inches (17'4").
G. Trees and shrubs shall be planted and maintained on the
downslope side of the property to screen the entrance of the
subterranean garage from view.
H. 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 plan 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.
I. 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.
J. 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.
K. 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.
L. Any modifications to the project which would constitute
a modification to the development plan as approved by the Planning
Commission shall require the filing of an application tor
RESOLUTION NO. 91-6
PAGE 6
modification of the Zoning'Case pursuant to Section 17.34.070 of
the Rolling Hills Municipal Code.
M. The building pad coverage shall not exceed 33.9%.
N. 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.
O. All conditions 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 6
ATTEST:
OF APRIL, 1991.
ALLAN ROBERTS, CHAIRMAN
DIANE SAWkER, DEPUTY ITT CLERK
Resolution No. 91-6
Page 7
The foregoing Resolution No. 91-6 entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A VARIANCE TO THE FRONT AND
SIDE YARD SETBACK AND GRANTING SITE PLAN REVIEW
APPROVAL IN ZONING CASE NO. 444.
was approved and adopted at a regular adjourned meeting of the
Planning Commission on April 6, 1991 by the following roll call
vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS FROST, HANKINS, LAY, RAINE AND CHAIRMAN
ROBERTS
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE
DEPUTi`CITY CLER