438, Demolish existing SFR, stable , Resolutions & Approval Conditions1041a71
92�.182p841
NOV 301992
CITY HAMA IMUESTED BY AND MAIL TO:
8y»..............
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274
urrr
State of
County of
(�I
1
RECOMID IN OFFICIAL RECORDS
ORDER'S OFFICE
LOS ANGELES COUNTY ;;►;
CALIFORNIA
MIN' 1 P M. SEP 29 1992
PAST.
Recorder's Use
Please record this form with the Registrar -Recorder's Office
return to: City of Rolling Hills, 2 Portuguese Bend Road
Rolling Hills,.'CA 90274
(The Registrar -Recorder's Office requires
notarized before'recordation).
ACCEPTANCE FORM
'1 (
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
ss
and
that the form be
ZONING CASE NO., /38' -SITE'PLAN REVIEW
VARIANCE
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
I (We)Ithe unde'rsi§ned "state:
-
I am (We are) the owner(s) of the real property
follows:
/6 G.re.t 4 ea. - (Lo-`" 7 ,1-1/.S) , Ito l
described as
7/f, C4 90Z7 f
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. 4 3g SITE PLAN REVIEW
VARIANCE
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
conditions in
I (We) certify (or declare) under the penalty of perjury that the
foregoing is true and correct.
Print
Owner /' k y(JU,SU! 5
Name
Signature\b .
Address /4 Cleferr Ai) L4 1
Owner /UA t7R 5/(4iKil•
ature /"a/77'a' ,4k%i
Address g G F'S%r,P)AD i
e
/6
City/State ALL tP7s- Hie c cb7City/state] L LLS 04 f&'?
Signatures must be acknowledged by a notary public.
.....
eOFFICIAL S'vv SUNNY LEE FREEMAN
•t:MOTPFY FS1f3LI-CALIFORNIAy LOS ANGELES COUNTY
MY CO1MM. EXP. C5 193
On this the, day of
Al � JJ. J t t LEE r- Rr tsl/A(V
the undersigned Notary Public, personally appeared
per ally know to me
4{9-0f-4atlsfactonfreykiE PF:
to be the person(s) whose name(s) 2 t e- subscribed to the
within instrument, and acknowledged that -PIN e, executed it.
WITNESS I1ty hand and officjel seal.
No Signature"
See Exhibit "A" attached
hereto and made a part hereof
t
•T?(/v/6/7'
RESOLUTION NO. 92-6
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ROLLING HILLS APPROVING AN EXTENSION OF TIME FOR A
VARIANCE TO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK AND SITE PLAN REVIEW,
AND MODIFYING RESOLUTION NO. 91-3 IN ZONING CASE NO. 438.
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. Hussain
Shaikh with respect to real property located at 16 Crest Road West,
Rolling Hills (Lot 74-A-MS) requesting an extension of time for a
Variance to the front yard setback and Site Plan Review, and
modifying Resolution No. 91-3 in Zoning Case No. 438. The
modification requested is to extend the allowable time period for
a proposed 7,500 square foot new single family residence, 1,600
square foot garage, 630 square foot swimming pool and a 450 square
foot future stable.
Section 2. The Commission considered this item at its meeting
on January 21, 1992 at which time information was presented
indicating that the extension of time is necessary for completion
of soils and geology approval by Los Angeles County.
Section 3. Based upon information and evidence submitted, the
Planning Commission does hereby modify Paragraph Q, Section 11 of
Resolution No. 91-3, subject to the condition contained in Section
4, to read as follows:
nQ
The Variance to the front yard setback and Site Plan
approval shall expire within two years of the approval of
this Resolution provided that imported construction
debris is removed by April 1, 1992 and the property
maintained in good order thereafter."
Section 4. The extension of time provided in Section 3 is
subject to the condition that construction debris and other garbage
be immediately removed from the site. In the event the site still
contains substantial piles of such debris and garbage within 30
days of this approval, the extension of time provided herein shall
lapse.
Section 5. Except as herein amended, the provisions of
Resolution No. 91-3 shall continue to be in full force and effect.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 1ST DAY FEBRUARY, 1992.
ALLAN ROB-tRTS, CHAIRMAN
92-1820841
RESOLUTION NO. 92-6
PAGE 2
ATTEST:
DI E SAWYER, DEPU CITY CLERK
The foregoing Resolution No. 92-6 entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ROLLING HILLS APPROVING AN EXTENSION OF TIME FOR A
VARIANCE TO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK AND SITE PLAN REVIEW,
AND MODIFYING RESOLUTION NO. 91-3 IN ZONING CASE NO. 438.
was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission on February 1, 1992 by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Hankins, Lay, Raine and Commissioner Roberts
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: Commissioner Frost
DEPUTY CITY CLE
92-1820841
3
RESOLUTION NO. 91-3
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A VARIANCE
TO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK, DENYING A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A POOL
HOUSE, AND GRANTING SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL
IN ZONING CASE NO. 438.
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. and
Mrs. Hussain Shaikh with respect to real property located at 16
Crest Road West, Rolling Hills (Lot 74-A-MS) requesting: (1) a
Variance to the front yard setback requirement to construct a
retaining wall; (2) a Conditional Use Permit to construct a pool
house; and (3) Site Plan Review approval to construct a new
residence and future stable.
Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted a duly
noticed public hearing to consider the application on August 21,
1990, October 16, 1990 and November 20, 1990, and conducted two
field visits on September 18, 1990 and November 3, 1990. The
applicant thereafter submitted a revised application which the
Planning Commission considered at a duly noticed public hearing
held on January 15, 1991 and February 19, 1991 and at a field
visit on February 16, 1991.
Section 3. Sections 17.32.010 through 17.32.030
permit approval of a Variance from the standards and require-
ments 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. Section 17.16.060 requires a front yard
setback for every residential parcel to be fifty (50) feet. The
applicant is requesting to construct a retaining wall with a
maximum height of five feet (5'), averaging no more than 2.5 feet
in height, which will encroach into the front yard setback.
Pursuant to this Section, the Planning Commission finds that:
A. There are exceptional or extraordinary circum-
stances or conditions applicable to the property or to the
intended uses that do not apply generally to the other property
or class of use in the same vicinity and zone because there
exists topographical constraints that justify the encroachment,
in that grading will be minimized if the structure is oriented
closer to the front of the lot; the encroachment is for the
construction of the retaining wall only, a condition which
existed with the previous residence.
92-1820 841
•
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 because other residences do not have the
same topographical constraints.
C. The granting of the variance would not be materi-
ally detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the prop-
erty or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the
property is located because the proposed project will be compat-
ible with surrounding properties, since the lot is generally at a
lower elevation than the roadway and surrounding properties,
thereby view impacts are minimal.
Section A. Based upon the foregoing findings,.the
Planning Commission hereby approves the Variance for Zoning Case
No. 438 to permit encroachment of the retaining wall into the
front yard setback, as indicated on the development plan sub-
mitted with this application and incorporated herein by reference
as Exhibit A, subject to the conditions specified in Section 11.
Section 5. The applicant has submitted plans to con-
struct a pool house as shown in Exhibit A. Section 17.16.012(G)
of the Municipal Code provides for the discretion of the Planning
Commission to grant a Conditional Use Permit for a pool house
provided no kitchen or cooking facilities are provided.
Section 6. The Planning Commission makes the following
findings:
A. The granting of a Conditional Use Permit would not
be consistent with the purposes and objectives of the Zoning
Ordinance and General Plan and not be desirable to the public
convenience and welfare because the proposed pool house would be
located on the southerly edge of the building pad so as to be
visibly prominent and when viewed from Crest Road West and would
impair the natural vista across that portion of property from
Crest Road West to the canyonandocean below.
B. The granting of a Conditional Use Permit would not
be consistent with the purposes and objectives of the Zoning
Ordinance and General Plan, because the proposed project will not
comply with the low profile residential development pattern of
the City.
Section 7. Based upon the foregoing findings, the
Planning Commission hereby denies a Conditional Use,Permit for a
pool house in Zoning Case No. 438.
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,
-2-
910306 LJ A540.KGE (2)
92-I820841
•
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 (36) 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 suffi-
cient 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 101,240 square feet. The
proposed residence (7,500 square feet), garage (1,600 square
feet), swimming pool (630 square feet), and future stable (450
square feet) will total 10,180 square feet which constitutes 10%
of the lot which is within the maximum 20% structural lot
coverage requirement. The total lot coverage including paved
areas and driveway will be 18,702 square feet which equals 18.5%
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 structures located below 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) because grading will be minimized
and most of the mature trees will not be removed, thereby retain-
ing the current drainage pattern and landscape screening for the
site.
C. The development plan follows natural contours of
the site to minimize grading and the existing drainage courses
will continue to the canyons at the rear of this lot.
D. The development plan incorporates existing large
trees and surrounding 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 35%. Significant
portions of the lot will be left undeveloped so as to maintain
-3-
910306 lj A540.KGE (2)
92-1820841:
trail access across the property and scenic vistas across the
westerly portions of the property.
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, the maximum lot
coverage requirement will not be exceeded and the proposed
project is of consistent scale with the neighborhood. 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 pedes-
trians and vehicles because the proposed project will utilize the
existing vehicular access, thereby having no further impact to
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
application for Zoning Case No. 438 for a proposed residential
redevelopment as indicated on the development plan incorporated
herein as Exhibit A and subject to the conditions contained in
Section 11.
Section 11. The front yard setback variance approved
in Section 4 and the Site Plan Review for residential redevelop-
ment approved in Section 10 are subject to the following
conditions:
A. All requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and of
the zone in which the subject property is located must be com-
plied with unless otherwise set forth in the Permit, or -shown
otherwise on an approved plan.
B. The lot shall be developed and maintained in sub-
stantial conformance with the site plan on file marked Exhibit A
except as otherwise provided in these conditions. Due to the
substantial size of the property, the westerly portion of the
property shall be maintained undeveloped, so as to preserve the
remaining rural and open nature of the rest of the property.
C. The lot coverage shall not exceed 18.5%.
D. The equestrian trail shall be relocated along the
interior of the south and westerly property line, and connected
to the trail on Crest Road West.
-4-
910306 1J A540.KGE (2)
92-1820841
•
E. The garage shall be reduced in width so as to
accommodate no more than six (6) standard size automobiles when
parked in a tandem configuration. The total garage opening width
shall not exceed 32 feet. The front face of the garage shall be
aligned with the westerly edge of the residence so as to
eliminate the two-story appearance created by the high south
facing wall of the westerly wing of the house.
F. The retaining will incorporated into the front
yard setback shall not be greater than five feet (5') in height
at any point, averaging no more than 2-1/2 feet in height.
G. A landscape plan must be submitted to the
Landscape Committee of the Rolling Hills Community Association,
which shall forward its recommendation for approval or revision
to the City of Rolling Hills' Planning Department Staff for
approval 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 imple-
mentation 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.
H. The landscape plan shall include landscaping so as
to screen the residential development and pool deck area from the
trails on the southerly and westerly portion of the property and
from Crest Road West. The.existing landscaping along the east
property line shall be maintained and augmented to screen the
project from the adjacent property.
I. The planter area along the perimeter of the
elevated deck over the garage shall have maintained landscaping
to provide a noise buffer and privacy.
J. The Landscape Plan shall include appropriately
spaced specimen trees along Crest Road West, the type, variety
and location of which shall be approved by the Rolling Hills
Community Association.
K. Prior to the submittal of an applicable final
grading plan to the County of Los Angeles for plan check, a
-5-
910306 1J A540.KGE (2)
92-1820841
4
•
•
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.
L. 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.
M. 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.
N. 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 applica-
tion for modification of the Development Plan pursuant to Sec-
tion 17.34.070 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code.
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.
P. It is declared and made a condition of the
Variance and the Site Plan Review approval, that if any condi-
tions thereby 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.
Q. The Variance shall expire unless used within one
year from the effective date of approval as defined in Section
17.32.10 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.
R. Applicant shall execute an Affidavit of Acceptance
of all conditions of this Variance and Site Plan Review, or the
approval shall not be effective.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED'this h a
March, 1991.
ATTEST: �\\
cL--
Diane dawyer, Depti City Clerk
910306 1J A540.KGE (2)
-6-
J
Allan Roberts, Chairman
92-1820 841
The foregoing Resolution No. 91-3 entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING
HILLS GRANTING A VARIANCE TO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK, DENYING
A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A POOL HOUSE, AND
GRANTING SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL IN ZONING CASE NO. 438.
was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission on March 9, 1991 by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Frost, Hankins, Lay and Raine;
Chairman Roberts.
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Deputy ity Clerk
92-1820841
RESOLUTION NO. 91-3
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A VARIANCE
TO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK, DENYING A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A POOL
HOUSE, AND GRANTING SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL
IN ZONING CASE NO. 438.
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. and
Mrs. Hussain Shaikh with respect to real property located at 16
Crest Road West, Rolling Hills (Lot 74-A-MS) requesting: (1) a
Variance to the front yard setback requirement to construct a
retaining wall; (2) a Conditional Use Permit to construct a pool
house; and (3) Site Plan Review approval to construct a new
residence and future stable.
Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted a duly
noticed public hearing to consider the application on August 21,
1990, October 16, 1990 and November 20, 1990, and conducted two
field visits on September 18, 1990 and November 3, 1990. The
applicant thereafter submitted a revised application which the
Planning Commission considered at a duly noticed public hearing
held on January 15, 1991 and February 19, 1991 and at a field
visit on February 16, 1991.
Section 3. Sections 17.32.010 through 17.32.030
permit approval of a Variance from the standards and require-
ments of the Zoning Ordinance when exceptional or extraordinary
circumstances applicable to the property and not applicable to
other similar properties inthe same zone prevent the owner from
making use of a parcel of property to the same extent enjoyed by
similar properties. Section 17.16.060 requires a front yard
setback for every residential parcel to be fifty (50) feet. The
applicant is requesting to construct a retaining wall with a
maximum height of five feet (5'), averaging no more than 2.5 feet
in height, which will encroach into the front yard setback.
Pursuant to this Section, the Planning Commission finds that:
A. There are exceptional or extraordinary circum-
stances or conditions applicable to the property or to the
intended uses that do not apply generally to the other property
or class of use in the same vicinity arid zone because there
exists topographical constraints that justify the encroachment,
in that grading will be minimized if the structure is oriented
closer to the front of the lot; the encroachment is for the
construction of the retaining wall only, a condition which
existed with the previous residence.
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 because other residences do not have the
same topographical constraints.
C. The granting of the variance would not be materi-
ally detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the prop-
erty or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the
property is located because the proposed project will be compat-
ible with surrounding properties, since the lot is generally at a
lower elevation than the roadway and surrounding properties,
thereby view impacts are minimal.
Section 4. Based upon the foregoing findings, the
Planning Commission hereby approves the Variance for Zoning Case
No. 438 to permit encroachment of the retaining wall into the
front yard setback, as indicated on the development plan sub-
mitted with this application and incorporated herein by reference
as Exhibit A, subject to the conditions specified in Section 11.
Section 5. The applicant has submitted plans to con-
struct a pool house as shown in Exhibit A. Section 17.16.012(G)
of the Municipal Code provides for the discretion of the Planning
Commission to grant a Conditional Use Permit for a pool house
provided no kitchen or cooking facilities are provided.
findings:
Section 6. The Planning Commission makes the following
A. The granting of a Conditional Use Permit would not
be consistent with the purposes and objectives of the Zoning
Ordinance and General Plan and not be desirable to the public
convenience and welfare because the proposed pool house would be
located on the southerly edge of the building pad so as to be
visibly prominent and when viewed from Crest Road West and would
impair the natural vista across that portion of property from
Crest Road West to the canyon and ocean below.
B. The granting of a Conditional Use Permit would not
be consistent with the purposes and objectives of the Zoning
Ordinance and General Plan, because the proposed project will not
comply with the low profile residential development pattern of
the City.
Section 7. Based upon the foregoing findings, the
Planning Commission hereby denies a Conditional Use Permit for a
pool house in Zoning Case No. 438.
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,
-2-
910306 lj A540.KGE (2)
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 (36) 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 suffi-
cient 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 101,240 square feet. The
proposed residence (7,500 square feet), garage (1,600 square
feet), swimming pool (630 square feet), and future stable (450
square feet) will total 10,180 square feet which constitutes 10%
of the lot which is within the maximum 20% structural lot
coverage requirement. The total lot coverage including paved
areas and driveway will be 18,702 square feet which equals 18.5%
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 structures located below 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) because grading will be minimized
and most of the mature trees will not be removed, thereby retain-
ing the current drainage pattern and landscape screening for the
site.
C. The development plan follows natural contours of
the site to minimize grading and the existing drainage courses
will continue to the canyons at the rear of this lot.
D. The development plan incorporates existing large
trees and surrounding 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 35%. Significant
portions of the lot will be left undeveloped so as to maintain
-3-
910306 tj A540.KGE (2)
trail access across the property and scenic vistas across the
westerly portions of the property.
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, the maximum lot
coverage requirement will not be exceeded and the proposed
project is of consistent scale with the neighborhood. 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 pedes-
trians and vehicles because the proposed project will utilize the
existing vehicular access, thereby having no further impact to
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
application for Zoning Case No. 438 for a proposed residential
redevelopment as indicated on the development plan incorporated
herein as Exhibit A and subject to the conditions contained in
Section 11.
Section 11. The front yard setback variance approved
in Section 4 and the Site Plan Review for residential redevelop-
ment approved in Section 10 are subject to the following
conditions:
A. All requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and of
the zone in which the subject property is located must be com-
plied with unless otherwise set forth in the Permit, or shown
otherwise on an approved plan.
B. The lot shall be developed and maintained in sub-
stantial conformance with the site plan on file marked Exhibit A
except as otherwise provided in these conditions. Due to the
substantial size of the property, the westerly portion of the
property shall be maintained undeveloped, so as to preserve the
remaining rural and open nature of the rest of the property.
C. The lot coverage shall not exceed 18.5%.
D. The equestrian trail shall be relocated along the
interior of the south and westerly property line, and connected
to the trail on Crest Road West.
-4-
910306 lj A540.KGE (2)
E. The garage shall be reduced in width so as to
accommodate no more than six (6) standard size automobiles when
parked in a tandem configuration. The total garage opening width
shall not exceed 32 feet. The front face of the garage shall be
aligned with the westerly edge of the residence so as to
eliminate the two-story appearance created by the high south
facing wall of the westerly wing of the house.
F. The retaining will incorporated into, the front
yard setback shall not be greater than five feet (5') in height
at any point, averaging no more than 2-1/2 feet in height.
G. A landscape plan must be submitted to the
Landscape Committee of the Rolling Hills Community Association,
which shall forward its recommendation for approval or revision
to the City of Rolling Hills' Planning Department Staff for
approval 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 imple-
mentation 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.
H. The landscape plan shall include landscaping so as
to screen the residential development and pool deck area from the
trails on the southerly and westerly portion of the property and
from Crest Road West. The existing landscaping along the east
property line shall be maintained and augmented to screen the
project from the adjacent property.
I. The planter area along the perimeter of the
elevated deck over the garage shall have maintained landscaping
to provide a noise buffer and privacy.
J. The Landscape Plan shall include appropriately
spaced specimen trees along Crest Road West, the type, variety
and location of which shall be approved by the Rolling Hills
Community Association.
K. Prior to the submittal of an applicable final
grading plan to the County of Los Angeles for plan check, a
-5-
910306 lJ A540.KGE (2)
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.
L. 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.
M. 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.
N. 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 applica-
tion for modification of the Development Plan pursuant to Sec-
tion 17.34.070 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code.
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.
P. It is declared and made a condition of the
Variance and the Site Plan Review approval, that if any condi-
tions thereby 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.
Q. The Variance shall expire unless used within one
year from the effective date of approval as defined in Section
17.32.10 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.
R. Applicant shall execute an Affidavit of Acceptance
of all conditions of this Variance and Site Plan Review, or the
approval shall not be effective.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED'this h a
March, 1991.
Allan Roberts, Chairman
ATTEST:
Diane lawyer, Dep City Clerk
910306 1j A540.KGE (2)
The foregoing Resolution No. 91-3 entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING
HILLS GRANTING A VARIANCE TO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK, DENYING
A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A POOL HOUSE, AND
GRANTING SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL IN ZONING CASE NO. 438.
was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the 'planning
Commission on March 9, 1991 by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Frost, Hankins, Lay and Raine;
Chairman Roberts.
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Deputy ity Clerk