Loading...
775, Enlarge Porch, construct outdo, Resolutions & Approval Conditionsi This page is part of your document - DO NOT DISCARD i i i u 20101901320 1111 i ilia i IV i hill 100 Recorded/Filed In Offic al Records Recorder's Office, Los Angeles County, California 000346771 1111 u 1111 1111 003053022 SEQ: 01 12/22/10 AT 04:59PM u DAR - Mail (Hard Copy) 111111 III11llll I II lIlllhI1IIIil IIII III II 11IlIIll II II I 1111 III THIS FORM IS NOT TO BE DUPLICATED FEES: 45.00 TAXES: 0.00 OTHER: 0.00 PAID: 45.00 Enna • • RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND MAIL TO: CITY OF ROLLING HILLS PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2 PORTUGUESE BEND RD. ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310) 377-1521 (310) 377-7288 FAX 110111 T RECORDER'S USE ONLY THE REGISTRAR -RECORDER'S OFFICE REQUIRES THAT THE FORM BE NOTARIZED BEFORE RECORDATION. AFFIDAVIT OF ACCEPTANCE FORM STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ZONING CASE NO. 775 I (We) the undersigned state ) §§ XX SITE PLAN REVIEW XX VARIANCES am (We are) the owner(s) of the real property described as follows: 16 CREST ROAD WEST, ROLLING HILLS, (LOT 74-A-MS), CA 90274 This property is the subject of the above numbered case and conditions of approval I am (We are) aware of, and accept, all the stated conditions in said ZONING CASE NO. 775 N REVIEW XX VARIANCES I (WI SigKature ./^" Signature RL— V 1\16 l 6-w±' Name typed or printed J Name typed or printed nder the penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Address IC AA- t 1 Address e6)1,n 14 l(S / r A ! o23 1 City/State 0 / City/State Signatures must be acknowledged by a notary public. See Attached Exhibit "A", RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL NO. 2010-01 State of California ) County of Los Angeles ) On e. & m.e.g., n �'' before me, 6RUNO J. Personally appeared I JR. — NOTARY PU3LIC 26re4i n/Ad/i... who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person() whose name() is/ *e subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/ ohc/ they executed the same in his/het/their authorized capacity(ies) and that by his/-he-4their signature() on the instrument the person(A, or the entity upon behalf of which the person(Ft) acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS by hand and official seal. Signature of Notary �r ' , _y-d ` %J� .,(cam :_L' ( Seal) BR NO J SAR INI, JR COMM. #1640609 NOTARY PUBLIC • CALIFORNIA g LOS ANGELES COUNTY Commission Expires Feb. 21, 2010 BRUN • ARTINI, JR COMM. #1640609 .a PUBLIC • CALIFORNIA in LOS COUNTY -- Commission Expires •. 2010 ti.\S!\M1tY.YV1MY.Lhti1 .. ..ti' • •'•ti . A ...WM. . W)c-fitistr- 'RESOLUTION NO. 2010-01 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A SITE PLAN REVIEW TO ENLARGE A PORCH LOCATED ABOVE A GARAGE ON A LOT THAT CONTAINS A CONDITION THAT ANY FURTHER DEVELOPMENT MUST BE REVIEWED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION; VARIANCES TO EXCEED THE STRUCTURAL LOT COVERAGE AND FOR A NEW OUTDOOR FIRE PLACE CHIMNEY TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM 12 FOOT HEIGHT BY 4 FEET, ON A LOT DEVELOPED WITH A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURES IN ZONING CASE NO. 775, AT 16 CREST ROAD WEST, (LOT 74-A-MS), (NAGELHOUT). THF. PROJECT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE EXEMPT PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA). Section 1. An application was duly filed by Mr. and Mrs. Robert Nagelhout with respect to real property located at 16 Crest Road West, Rolling Hills (Lot 74-A-MS) requesting a Site Plan Review to enlarge an existing porch by 750 square feet located above the garage, for a total of 1,215 square foot covered porch; Variances to exceed the structural lot coverage, by 0.7% and to exceed the permitted height of a chimney by 4 feet, on a lot which has a condition that any further development be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission. Also proposed is a 400 square foot trellis, outdoor kitchen and a fire place. Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted duly noticed public hearings to consider the application at a regular meeting on November 19 and December 15, 2009 and at a field trip to the property on December 15, 2009. The applicants were notified of the public hearings in writing by first class mail. 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 applicants and their representatives were in attendance at the hearings. Section 3. At the field visit to the property, the Planning Commission directed staff to prepare a Resolution of approval for consideration at the January 19, 2010 meeting. Section 4. In March 1991 in Zoning Case No. 438, the Planning Commission granted to the previous property owner a Site Plan Review for the construction of a new 7,742 square foot single family residence with a 1600 square foot semi -subterranean garage, a 630 square foot swimming pool, pool equipment a 4,108 square foot basement and a Variance to construct a 5- foot wall in the front yard setback. A request for a CUP for a cabana was denied at that time. A 1,000 square foot set aside area for a future stable and corral was also designated on the plan. The then existing house was demolished. With the 1991 proposal it was not required to call nut the porches, trellises or other architectural elements on the plans or include them in the calculations. Section 5, In March 1999 in Zoning Case No. 593, the Planning Commission approved a Conditional Use Permit and a Site Plan Review for a 7,000 square foot tennis court on the ZC NO. 775 Reso. 2010-01 1 • • property with 8-foot fencing, and in March 2003, the Planning Commission granted a modification to allow a 10-foot screening (4' wall and 6' court fencing). Section 6. No grading or additional disturbance is required for this project. A set aside area for a future stable and corral remains on the lot. The disturbed area of the lot is 34,239 square feet or 38.6% and will remain the same. An adequate access to the future stable is provided. The trellis would be located over an existing patio area adjacent to the tennis court. Section 7. The lot is 2.32 acres or 101,240 square feet gross (excluding the roadway easement) and 88,674 square feet net for development purposes. With the adjusted calculations for including the entryway and the on -grade covered porch in the calculations, the structural coverage of the net lot is proposed at 20.68%, which requires a Variance. Section 8. The Planning Commission finds that the project qualifies as a Class 1 Exemption, Existing Facilities, and is therefore categorically exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act. Section 9. 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 property to the same extent enjoyed by similar properties in the .same vicinity. A Variance from Section. 17.16.070 is required because it states .the maximum permitted structural coverage shall not exceed 20% of the net lot area. The applicant is requesting a Variance to exceed the structural net lot coverage by 0.7%. 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 that do not apply generally to the other properties or class of use in the same vicinity and zone. With the prior approvals it was not necessary to show on the plans or include in the structural coverage calculations the porches With the additional porches, the maximum permitted structural coverage would exceed 20%. These circumstances currently exist and the proposed project adds a very small amount of structural coverage. 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 existing porch is located in an area of where the sun is the hottest during afternoon hours, where the family enjoys the outdoors the most. The existing porch does not provide adequate screening from the sun. The structure is well hidden from the street and neighbors and does not look overbuilt. The proposed addition would blend into the existing residence and be well screened from the street and adjacent properties. The overage is not significant and the property owner should not be denied the privilege of the porch. C. The grantingof the Variance would not he materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the property is located. The variance will .permit the owners to enjoy their property without ZC NO. 775 Reso. 2010-01 2 5 deleterious infringement on the rights of surrounding property owners. A minor increase in the overall percentage of coverage on the lot will have no effect on the public welfare or on property or improvements in the vicinity. D. In granting the variance, the spirit and intent of the Zoning Ordinance will be observed. The purpose of the Zoning Ordinance is to regulate development in an orderly fashion and in a manner consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan. Approval of the variance will not impede any goals of the Zoning Ordinance or the General Plan. Rather, the variance will allow the property owner to enjoy the same rights and privileges afforded to other property owners in the vicinity. The overage requested is not substantial and does not undermine the spirit or intent of the Zoning Ordinance. E. The variance does not grant special privileges to the applicant. Unique circumstances applicable to the subject property make it infeasible for the property owner to comply with Section 17.16.070. When the previous approvals were granted for the residence and the tennis court, no calculations were required for the porches to show that structures do or do not meet the structural lot coverage requirements. F. The project conforms to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and the Los Angeles County Ha?ardous Waste Management Plan. G. The variance request is consistent with the General Plan. The proposed project, together with the variance, will be compatible with the objectives, policies, general land uses, and programs specified in the General Plan. Section 10. 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 property to the same extent enjoyed by similar properties in the same vicinity. A Variance from Section 17.16.200(J)(1) is required because it states that the maximum permitted chimney of a detached fire place shall not exceed 12 feet. The applicant is requesting a Variance to exceed that requirement by 4 feet. 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 that do not apply generally to the other properties or class of use in the same vicinity and zone. The exceedance is necessary due to building code requirements for keeping a certain distance between roofed structures and fire places. 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 structure is well hidden from the street and neighbors and does not look overbuilt. The proposed addition would blend into the existing residence and be well screened from the street and adjacent properties. The overage is not significant and the property owner should not be denied the privilege of the fire place. ZC NO. 775 Reso. 2010-01 3 C. The granting of the Variance would 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. The variance will permit the owners to enjoy their property without deleterious infringement on the rights of surrounding property owners. A minor increase in the overall height of the chimney will have no effect on the public welfare or on property or improvements in the vicinity. D. In granting the variance, the spirit and intent of the Zoning Ordinance will be observed. The purpose of the Zoning Ordinance is to regulate development in an orderly fashion and in a manner consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan. Approval of the variance will not impede any goals of the Zoning Ordinance or the General Plan. The overage requested is not substantial and does not undermine the spirit or intent of the Zoning Ordinance. E. The project conforms to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and the Los Angeles County Hazardous Waste Management Plan. F. The variance request is consistent with the General Plan. The proposed project, together with the variance, ;will be compatible with the objectives, policies, general land uses, and programs specified in the General Plan. Section 11. Pursuant tb Section 17.46.040 the Planning Commission may condition an approval to require site plan review for any future construction on the property, regardless of whether site plan review would ordinarily be applicable to such construction. With respect to the Site Plan Review application due to the restriction placed on this property in 1999 by the Planning Commission on any future development on subject property, the Planning Commission makes the following findings of fact: A. The proposed development is compatible with the General Plan, and surrounding uses because the proposed project complies with the General Plan requirement of low profile, low -density residential development with sufficient open space between surrounding structures, and equestrian uses. The project will not require grading nor exceed the disturbed area of the lot. B. The project !substantially preserves the natural and undeveloped state of the lot. The proposed structures will be constructed on existing building pads: The project is of sufficient distance from nearby residences so that the porch and trellis and miscellaneous structures will not impact the view or privacy of surrounding neighbors, and will permit the owners to enjoy their property without deleterious infringement on the rights of surrounding property owners. In addition, the immediately adjacent property owners were in attendance at the public hearings and did not object to the project.; C. The proposed development, as conditioned, is harmonious in scale and mass with the site. The proposed project is consistent with the scale of the neighborhood when compared to properties in the vicinity. ZC NO. 775 Reso. 2010-01 4 D. The project 'vill not cause the lot to look overdeveloped. Significant portions of the lot will be left undeveloped so as to maintain open space. E. The proposed development is sensitive and not detrimental to the convenience and safety of circulation fr pedestrians and vehicles because the proposed project will not change the existing circulation pattern and will utilize an existing driveway. F. The project i?; exempt from the requirements of the California Section 12. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves the Site Plan Review and Variances in Zoning Case No. 775, to construct additional 750 square foot covered porch over the garage, to construct a fire place, with not to exceed 16 foot high chimney as measured from the finished floor of the patio, to construct a 400 square foot detached trellis by the tennis court and to exceed the structural lot coverage by 0.7% subject to the following conditions: 1 A. The Site Plan Review and Variances approvals shall expire within two years from the effective date of approval if construction pursuant to this approval has not commenced within that time period, as required by Sections 17.46.080(A) and 17.38.070(A) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, or the approval granted is otherwise extended pursuant to the requirements of these sections. B. It is declared land made a condition of the approval, that if any conditions thereof are violated, this approval shall be suspended and the privileges granted hereunder shall lapse; provided that the applicants have 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 Building 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 'this approval, or shown otherwise on an approved plan. D. The lot shall jbe developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the site plan on file in the Planning Department dated November 11, 2009, as approved by the Planning Commission. E. The working I drawings submitted to the Department of Building and Safety for plan check review must conform to the development plan approved with this application. In addition, prior to submittal Of final plans to the Building Department for issuance of building, the plans for the project shall be submitted to staff for verification that the final plans are in compliance with the plans approved by the Planning Commission. F. The property bn which the project is located shall contain a set aside area to provide an area meeting all standards for a stable, corral with access thereto. ZC NO. 775 Reso. 2010-01 5 G. There shall be no grading for this project. The disturbed area of the lot shall remain at 38.6%, as previously approved. H. Structural lot coverage shall not exceed 20.68% (18,343 sq.ft.) of the net lot area in conformance with the yariance for lot coverage. The chimney of the fire place shall not exceed 16 feet from the finished grade of the patio. I. Total lot coverage of structures and paved areas shall not exceed 29,871 square feet or 33.68% of the net lot area in conformance with lot coverage limitations. J. The property owners shall comply with the requirements of the Lighting Ordinance, pertaining to lighting on said property. K. The property owners shall comply with the roof covering requirements for the new porch. L. Residential Building pad shall remain at 61.5%, not including the covered porch and miscellaneous structures. The tennis court pad shall also remain the same, at 81.8%, not including the proposed 400 quare foot trellis. M. Perimeter easements and trails shall' remain free and clear of any improvements including, but not be limited to, fences -including construction fences, grading (both cut and fill), landscaping, irrigation and drainage devices, play equipment, parked vehicles, building materials, debris and equipment, unle+ otherwise approved byl the Rolling Hills Community Association. N. During and after construction, all parking shall take place on the project site and, if necessary, any overflow parking shall take place v'ithin nearby roadway easements. O. The project must be reviewed and approved by the Rolling Hills Community Association. P. If new landscaping is introduced for this project, the landscaping shall include water efficient irrigation that incorporates low gallonage irrigation system, utilizes automatic controllers, incorporates ari irrigation design using "hydrozones," considers slope factors and climate conditions in design, and utilizes means to reduce water waste resulting from runoff and overspray. Further, landscaping shall be designed 'using mature trees and shrubs so as not to obstruct views of neighboring properties but to screen the. project. If new trees or shrubs are planned in conjunction with this project, at maturity,I they shall not be higher than the ridge height of the structures they are screening. Any new planting, at maturity, may not form a hedge like screen. Q. During construction, the property Owners shall be required to schedule and regulate construction and related traffic noise throughout the day between the hours of 7 AM and 6 PM, Monday through Saturday only, when construction and mechanical equipment noise is permitted, so as not to interfere with the quiet residential environment of the City of Rolling Hills. ZC NO. 775 I 6 Reso. 2010-01 • I. '• • •. R. If a construction fence is erected during construction, it shall not be located in easement or cross over trails, if any. S. During and fter construction, all parking shall take place on the project site and, if necessary, any overflow pa king shall take place within nearby roadway easements. T. Notwithstanding Sections 17.46.020 and 17.46.070 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, any future grading or structural development on the property may be approved only with Planning Commission review and approval. U. The applicant shall execute an Affidavit of Acceptance of all conditions of this approval pursuant to Section 17.38.060, or the approval shall not be effective. V. All conditions of the Variances approval, that apply, must be complied with prior to the issuance of a building permit from the Building Department. W. Any action t;hallenging the final decision of the city made as a result of the. public hearing on this appIlication must be filed within the time limits set forth in Section 17.54.070 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code and Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6. X. A minimum of 50% of the demolition and construction material must be recycled or diverted from landfills pursuant to the City's Construction and Demolition Ordinance. A final inspection shall not be granted until the contractor provides all documentation to the City. Y. The conditions of approval specified herein shall be printed on the plans submitted to RHCA and to Building and Safety Department for plan check and on all subsequent plans. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 19th DAY OF JANUARY 2010. ( � .t JI SMI H VICE -CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: cild166 HEIDI LUCE, DEPUTY CITY CLERK ZC NO. 775 Reso. 2010-01 7 �0 • , • • STATE OF CALIFORNIAI COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ) §§ I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2010-01 entitled: ' 3 + M A A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A SIT E PLAN REVIEW TO ENLARGE A PORCH LOCATED ABOVE A GARAGE ON A LOT THAT CONTAINS A CONDITION THAT ANY FURTHER DEVELOPMENT MUST BE REVIEWED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION; VARIANCES TO EXCEED THE STRUCTURAL LOT COVERAGE AND FOR A NEW OUTDOOR FIRE PLACE CHIMNEY TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM 12 FOOT HEIGHT BY 4 FEET, ON A LOT DEVELOPED WITH A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURES IN ZONING CASE NO. 775, AT 16 CREST ROAD WEST, (LOT 74-A-MS), (NAGELHOUT). THE PROJECT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE EXEMPT PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA). was approved and adopted pt a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on January 19, 2010 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Pieper, Witte and Vice Chairperson Smith. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Henke (recused) and Chairperson DeRoy. ABSTAIN: None. and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following: Administrative Offices. I `Tl?I at DEPUTY CITY CLERK • • • • ZC NO. 775 Reso. 2010-01 8 1� • ECEVED JAN 2 6 2011 City of Rolling Hills By 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 yearsof 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 DAYQIFEBRUARY, 1992. LA___,—eb ALLAN ROBtRTS, CHAIRMAN f� i RESOLUTION NO.' 92-6 PAGE 2 ATTEST:. DIE SAWYER, DEPU't 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 44, • 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) aConditional 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. • 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. 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 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 developmentplan substantially preserves the natural and undeveloped state of the lot by minimizing building coverage because the new structures willnot 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) 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 IJ 1540.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 U A540.KGE (2) 11 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. 0. 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 March, 1991. ATTEST: Diane Sawyer, Depty City Clerk -6- 910306 LJ A540.KGE (2) Allan Roberts, Chairman 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 Q'ity Clerk 0 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 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. 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. 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 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 11 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 11 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%. 44.1071 D. The equestrian trail shall be relocated along the inte for of the south and westerly property line, and connected to the trail on Crest Road West. -4- 910306 lj A540.KGE (2) • e> 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 1 t. 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 elev ted 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 11 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 March, 1991. Allan Roberts, Chairman ATTEST: Diane 'awyer, Depth City Clerk -6- 910306 lj 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 ty Clerk r ..t Ww` RESOLUTION NO. 90-42 otse (0‘)\ A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A POOL HOUSE; A VARIANCE TO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK; AND 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 a Variance to the front yard setback requirement to construct a retaining wall; a Conditional Use Permit to construct a pool house; , and 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 for Site Plan Review on September 18, 1990 and November 3, 1990. Section 3. Sections 17.32.010 through 17.32.030 permits 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. 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 circumstances 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. Resolution No: 90-42 Page No. 1 • 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 materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the property is located because the proposed project will be compatible 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 submitted 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 construct 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 be consistent with the purposes and objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan; and be desirable to the public convenience and welfare because the proposed pool house will provide a convenient facility to enhance the recreational use of the pool and because the proposed pool house would have minimal impact to the site and surrounding properties since the pool house will be secluded and removed from the roadway, and existing mature landscaping and new planting will provide screening of the pool house. B. The granting of a Conditional Use Permit would be consistent with the purposes and objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan, because the proposed project will comply with the setback requirements, and its size will not cause the total lot coverage of all structures on the site to exceed the twenty percent maximum structural lot coverage. Resolution No: 90-42 Page No. 2 'a• 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 34.17%. Significant portions of the lot will be left undeveloped so as to maintain 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 C, lot coverage maximum will not be exceeded and the proposed project is of consistent scale with the neighborhood, thereby grading will be minimized. 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 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. Resolution No: 90-42 Page No. 4 Section 7. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves the Conditional Use Permit for Zoning Case No. 438 to construct and maintain a pool house as indicated on the development plan submitted with the application and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit A subject to the conditions set forth in Section 11 of this Resolution. 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 (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 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 101,240°square feet. The proposed residence, garage, swimming pool, pool house and future stable will have 13,976 square feet which constitutes 13.8% of the lot which is within the maximum 20% structural lot coverage requirement. The total lot. coverage including paved areas and driveway will be 21,412 square feet which equals 21.1% 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 retaining the current drainage pattern and landscape screening for the site. Resolution No: 90-42 Page No. 3 Section 11. The front yard setback variance approved in Section 4 and the Conditional Use Permit approved in Section 7 and the Site Plan Review for residential redevelopment approved in Section 10 are subject to the following conditions: A. The Conditional Use Permit and 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. B. If any provision of the Conditional Use Permit is held or declared to be invalid, the permit shall be void and the privileges granted thereunder shall lapse. C. It is declared and made a condition of the Conditional Use Permit; 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. D. 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. E. 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. 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. F. The retaining wall 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. Resolution No: 90-42 Page No. 5 • • 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 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. H. The landscaping shall be added to the rear of the property to shield the residence and pool deck area from the trails. 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. 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 Cityysof Rolling Hills standard of 2 to 1 slope ratio. K. 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. Resolution No: 90-42 Page No. 6 • L. 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. M. 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 for modification of the Development Plan pursuant to Section 17.34.070 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code. N. 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. O. The lot coverage shall not exceed 21.15%. P. Applicant shall execute an Affidavit of Acceptance of all conditions pursuant to Section 17.32.087 of this Conditional Use Permit, Variance and Site Plan Review, or the approval shall not be effective. Q. All conditions of this Conditional Use Permit; 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. R. The Variance to the front yard setbacks as indicated on the development plan shall not be effective if the proposed residential structure is not constructed. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this -°-� , 1990. ATTEST: 1)(1s2( Diane 'Sawyer, Deputy City Clerk Resolution No: 90-42 Page No. 7 day of Allah —Roberts, Chairman