Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
436, Addition of 2-bedrooms & 1-bat, Resolutions & Approval Conditions
RESOLUTION NO. 92-24 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS APPROVING A MODIFICATION TO RESOLUTION NO. 91-16 GRANTING A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH INTO THE REAR YARD SETBACK TO PERMIT A LIVING ROOM ADDITION IN ZONING CASE NO. 436. 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. Karl Frykman with respect to real property located at 10 Crest Road West, Rolling Hills (Lot 2-CH) requesting a modification to a previously approved site plan and a Variance to permit the encroachment of a living room addition into the rear yard setback. The modification requested is to extend the allowable time period for the residential additions. Section 2. The Commission considered this item at its meeting on July 21, 1992 at which time information was presented indicating that the extension of time is necessary for the applicants to accumulate funds for building construction. Section 3. Based upon information and evidence submitted, the Planning Commission does hereby amend Paragraph A, Section 5 of Resolution No. 91-21 to read as follows: "A. The Variance and Site Plan Review approvals shall expire within two years of the approval of this Resolution." Section Resolution No PASSED, 4. Except as herein amended, the provisions of . 91-16 shall continue to be in full force and effect. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 21ST DAY OF JULY, 1992. ALLAN ROB S, CHAIRMAN ATTEST: DIANE SAWYER, DEPUT-CITY CLERK RESOLUTION NO. 92-24 PAGE 2 The foregoing Resolution No. 92-24 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS APPROVING A MODIFICATION TO RESOLUTION NO. 91-16 GRANTING A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH INTO THE REAR YARD SETBACK TO PERMIT A LIVING ROOM ADDITION IN ZONING CASE NO. 436. was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on July 21, 1992 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Frost, Hankins, Lay and Chairman Roberts NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Raine ABSTAIN: None 0 DEPUTY CITY CLERK RESOLUTION NO. 91-16 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS APPROVING A MODIFICATION TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE PLAN AND GRANTING A VARIANCE TO THE REAR YARD SETBACK FOR THE ENCROACHMENT OF A LIVING ROOM ADDITION IN ZONING CASE NO. 436. THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Applications were duly filed by Mr. and Mrs. Karl Frykman with respect to real property located at 10 Crest Road West, Rolling Hills (Lot 2-CH) requesting a modification to a previously approved site plan and requesting a Variance to permit the encroachment of a living room addition into the rear yard setback. Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the applications for a modification to a previously approved Site Plan Review and for a Variance to the rear yard setback on May 21, and June 25, 1991, and at a field trip visit on May 30, 1991. Section 3. Sections 17.32.010 through 17.32.030 permit approval of a Variance from the standards and requirements of the Zoning Ordinance when exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applicable to the property and not applicable to other similar properties in the same zone prevent the owner from making use of a parcel of property to the same extent enjoyed by similar properties. A Variance to Section 17.16.080 is required to construct a living room addition in the fifty (50) foot rear yard setback. The applicant is requesting an addition that will encroach a maximum of sixteen (16) feet into the rear yard setback. The Planning Commission finds: A. There are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances and conditions applicable to the property and the intended use that do not apply generally to the other property in the same vicinity and zone. The Variance is necessary because of the unique typography of the lot which is very steep at the front but gently sloping at the rear. The residence is set well back from the street and there is a spacious open feel to the property. There are no residences close by to be effected. B. This Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone, but which is denied to the property in question. The Variance is necessary because the existing development pattern on the lot precludes the requested additions from being built into the front yard. RESOLUTION NO. 91-16 PAGE 2 C. The granting of this Variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity or zone.. in which the property is located. Development on the pad will allow a substantial portion of the lot to remain undeveloped. Section 4. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves the Variance to encroach into the rear yard setback to enlarge a living room to a maximum of 16 feet as indicated on the Development Plan attached hereto as Exhibit A subject to the conditions contained in Section 8. The Planning Commission also finds that the project conforms with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and is categorically exempt from environmental review. Section 5. Section 17.34.070 provides for a subsequent modification after a site plan review application has been approved. Modification of the approved plans and/or any conditions imposed including additions or deletions, may be considered. The decision on the modification of plans and/or conditions shall be in the same manner as set forth in Sections 17.32.030 and 17.34.040 of the Municipal Code. fact: Section 6. The Commission makes the following findings of 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 lot coverage requirements. The lot has a net square foot area of 45,196 square feet. The residential structure, garage, and future stable will have 5,528 square feet which constitutes 12.1% of the lot, which is within the maximum 20o structural lot requirement. The total lot coverage including paved areas and driveway will be 11,933 square feet which equals 26.4% of the lot, which is within the 35% maximum overall lot coverage requirement. The proposed project is similar and compatible with neighboring development patterns. 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 minimal grading for the project is required, thereby preserving most of the existing slope and mature vegetation. • • RESOLUTION NO. 91-16 PAGE 3 C. The development plan follows natural contours of the site to minimize grading and the natural drainage courses will continue to the canyons at the rear of this lot. D. The development plan incorporates existing large trees and native vegetation to the maximum extent feasible and supplements it with landscaping that is compatible with and enhances the rural character of the community. E. The development plan substantially preserves the natural and undeveloped state of the lot by minimizing building coverage because the new structures will not cause the structural and total lot coverage to be exceeded. Further, although the proposed project will have a buildable pad coverage of 37.2%, the pad is contiguous to gently sloping areas and significant portions of the lot will be left undeveloped. F. The proposed development is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, the natural terrain and surrounding residences because as indicated in Paragraph A, lot coverage maximum will not be exceeded and the proposed project is of consistent scale with the neighborhood, thereby grading will be required only to restore the natural slope of the property. The ratio of the proposed structure to lot coverage is similar to the ratio found on several properties in the vicinity. G. The proposed development is sensitive and not detrimental to the convenience and safety of circulation for pedestrians and vehicles because the proposed project will utilize the existing vehicular access, thereby having no further impact on the roadway. H. The project conforms with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and is categorically exempt from environmental review. Section 7. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves the Site Plan Review for residential additions, as indicated on the Development Plan attached hereto as Exhibit A subject to the conditions contained in Section 8. Section 8. The Variance to the rear yard setback approved in Sections 4 and the Site Plan Review for residential additions approved in Section 7 as indicated on the Development Plan attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A, are subject to the following conditions: RESOLUTION NO. 91-16 PAGE 4 A. The Variance shall expire unless used within one year from the effective date of approval as defined in Section 17.32.110 of the Municipal Code. The Site Plan Review approval shall expire within one year from the effective date of approval as defined in Section 17.34.080.A. B. It is declared and made a condition of the Variance and the Site Plan Review approval, that if any conditions thereof are violated, the Permit shall be suspended and the privileges granted thereunder shall lapse; provided that the applicant has been given written notice to cease such violation and has failed to do so for a period of thirty (30) days. C. All requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and of the zone in which the subject property is located must be complied with unless otherwise set forth in the Permit, or shown otherwise on an approved plan. D. The lot shall be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the site plan on file marked Exhibit A except as otherwise provided in these conditions. E. A landscape plan must be submitted to and approved by the City of Rolling Hills Planning Department staff prior to the issuance of any grading and building permit. The landscaping plan submitted must comply with the purpose and intent of the Site Plan Review Ordinance, shall incorporate existing mature trees and native vegetation, and shall utilize to the maximum extent feasible, plants that are native to the area and/or consistent with the rural character of the community. A bond in the amount of the cost estimate of the implementation of the landscaping plan plus 15% shall be required to be posted prior to issuance of a grading and building permit and shall be retained with the City for not less than two years after landscape installation. The retained bond will be released by the City Manager after the City Manager determines that the landscaping was installed pursuant to the landscaping plan as approved, and that such landscaping is properly established and in good condition. F. Prior to the submittal of an applicable final grading plan to the County of Los Angeles for plan check, a detailed grading and drainage plan with related geology, soils and hydrology reports that conform to the development plan as approved by the Planning Commission must be submitted to the Rolling Hills Planning Department staff for their review. Cut and fill slopes must conform to the City of Rolling Hills standard of 2 to 1 slope ratio. • • • • RESOLUTION NO. 91-16 PAGE 5 G. 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. H. 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. I•. 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 Zoning Case pursuant to Section 17.34.070 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code. J. The building pad coverage shall not exceed 37.2%. K. The applicant shall execute an Affidavit of Acceptance of all conditions of this Variance, pursuant to Section 17.32.087, or the approval shall not be effective. L. All conditions of this Variance and Site Plan Review approval must be complied with prior to the issuance of a building or grading permit from the County of Los Angeles. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 13TH DAY OF JULY, 1991. ALLAN ROBERTS, CHAIRMAN ATTEST: DIANE 1AWYER, DEPUTY'CITY CLERK • • • • RESOLUTION NO. 91-16 PAGE 6 The foregoing Resolution No. 91-16 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS APPROVING A MODIFICATION TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE PLAN AND GRANTING A VARIANCE TO THE REAR YARD SETBACK FOR THE ENCROACHMENT OF A LIVING ROOM ADDITION IN ZONING CASE NO. 436. was approved and adopted at a regular adjourned meeting of the Planning Commission on July 13, 1991 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Frost, Lay, Raine and Chairman Roberts NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Commissioner Hankins DEPUTY CITY CLERK RESOLUTION NO. 90-28 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A VARIANCE TO THE REAR YARD SETBACK AND SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL IN ZONING CASE NO. 436 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. & Mrs. Karl Frykman with respect to real property located at 10 Crest Road West, Rolling Hills (Lot 2-CH) requesting a variance to the rear yard setback requirement to constructea residential addition and Site Plan Review approval for residential additions. Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the application on July 17, 1990 and August 21, 1990; and conducted a field review on August 4, 1990. Section 3. Sections 17.32.010 through 17.32.030 permit approval of a variance from the standards and requirements of the Zoning Ordinance when exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applicable to the other similar properties in the same zone prevent the owner from making use of the property to the same extent enjoyed by similar properties. Section 17.16.080 requires a rear yard setback in the RAS - 1 Zone to be 50 feet. The applicant is requesting that a residential addition be constructed to encroach 19 feet into the rear yard setback. Pursuant to these Sections, the Planning Commission finds that: A. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property or to the intended use that do not apply generally to the other property or class of use in the same vicinity and zone because there exists topographical and property development constraints that justify the proposed addition within the rear yard setback, since the existing nonconforming residence was constructed generally toward the rear of the lot, and upon a limited area of the ridge in this area. 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 due to the existing development pattern and the physical setting of the property, the residence cannot be expanded significantly within the front and side yards. Further, expansion of the subject residence will be compatible in size with the surrounding properties. • 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 is developed at a point far removed from the roadway and surrounding residences. Section 4. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Commission hereby approves the Variance for Zoning Case No. 436 to permit the construction of a residential addition encroaching 19 feet within the 50 foot rear yard setback, as indicated in the Development Plan submitted with this application and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit A, and subject to the conditions outlined in Section 7 of this Resolution. Section 5. 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 (25%) percent in any thirty-six (36) month period. of fact: Section 6. The Commission makes the following findings 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 lot coverage requirements. The lot has a net square foot area of 45,196 square feet. The residential structure, garage, and future stable will have 5,004 square feet which constitutes 11.1% of the lot, which is within the maximum 20% structural lot requirement. The total lot coverage including paved areas and driveway will be 11,409 square feet which equals 25.3% of the lot, which is within the 35% maximum overall lot coverage requirement. The proposed project is similar and compatible with neighboring development patterns. 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 minimal grading for the project is required, thereby preserving most of the existing slope and mature vegetation. C. The development plan follows natural contours of the site to minimize grading and the existing drainage courses will continue to the front and rear of the site. r • D. The development plan preserves surrounding native vegetation 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 structure coverage because the residential additions will not cause the structural and total lot coverages to be exceeded. Further, the proposed project will have a buildable pad coverage of 36.7%, which is within the City's policy of 40% maximum pad coverage. F. The proposed development is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, the natural terrain and surrounding residences because the proposed project is of consistent scale with the neighborhood, thereby requiring minimal grading and not impairing views form surrounding residences. 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 an existing vehicular access within the southerly easement, thereby having no further impact on the roadway. H. The project conforms with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and is categorically exempt from the environmental review. Section 7. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves the site plan review application for a proposed residential additions to the property located at 10 Crest Road West as indicated on the development plan attached hereto as "Exhibit A" and subject to the following conditions: A. The variance approval shall expire if not used in one year from the effective date of approval as defined and specified in Section 17.32.110 of the Municipal Code. B. The proposed building plan must be approved by the Rolling Hills Community Association Architectural Committee before the applicant receives a grading permit from the County of Los Angeles. C. Prior to the submittal of a final grading plan to the County of Los Angeles, the grading plan shall be submitted to the Rolling Hills Planning Department staff for their review, along with related geology, soils and hydrology reports. This grading plan must conform to the development plan as approved by the Planning Commission. Cut and fill slopes must conform to the City standard 2 to 1 slope ratio. • • ATTEST: D. A landscape plan must be submitted to the City of Rolling Hills Planning Department staff for approval. The landscaping plan submitted must comply with the purpose and intent of the Site Plan Review Ordinance. The landscaping plan shall incorporate existing mature trees and native vegetation. A bond in the amount of the cost estimate of the landscaping plus 15% may be required to be posted and retained with the City for not less than two years after landscape installation. The retained bond will be released by the City after the City Manager (or the Landscape Committee of the Rolling Hills Community Association, if appointed to act for this purpose in the place of the City Manager) determines that the landscaping was installed pursuant the landscaping plan as approved, and that such landscaping is property established and in good condition. E. The working drawings submitted to the County Department of Building and Safety for plan check must conform to the development plan approved with this site plan review. F. Any modifications to the development plans approved by the Planning Commission shall require the filing of an application for modification of the development plan and must be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission pursuant to Section 17.43.070 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code. G. The applicant shall execute an affidavit of acceptance of all conditions pursuant to Section 17.32.087 or this variance and site plan review approval shall not be effective. PASSED, APPROVED AN ADOPTED this lath day of September , 1990. City Clerk Allan R /Z--- Chairman CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT No. 5193 State of County of O DATE personally appeared • .6•..6 6 ; ,'.,.'y��j�` •.� .� �. E....'.� `.� �:.``. '.: `' �°..9.-s"'`�+iy'�4�'�44'-� 4,1 L L._`l " +, k �� . S before me, M1 f/E- J } 93 13933 1343363 Flcnr l� c-. NAME, TITLE OF OtFICER - E.G., "JANE DOE, NOTARY PUBLIC" - F iENi v NAMES) OF BIGNER(S)/ ['personally known to me - OR - ® proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(e) whose name() is/ate- subscribed to the within instrument and ac- knowledged to me tha hey executed the same in h+s/ er taut •rized capacity(i ) and at by =-. t#4x signature(] on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person() acted, executed the instrument. s OFFICIAL SEAL et TERRY W. FLEMING " NOTARY PUBLIC - CALIFORNIA NOTARY BOND FILED IN 3 LOS ANGELES COUNTY fi ,ky My Commission Expires June 10, 1994 4, 33*33** 338*93 ;83833*83a3s3883 )n388834833 f C r Though the data requested here is not required by law, it could prevent fraudulent reattachment of this form. THIS CERTIFICATE MUST BE ATTACHED TO THE DOCUMENT DESCRIBED AT RIGHT: WITNESS my hand and official seal. SIGITURE OF NOTARY - OPTIONAL SECTION r • TITLE OR TYPE OF DOCUMENT .� e c ii NUMBER OF PAGES t DATE OF DOCUMENT ® OPTIONAL SECTION o CAPACITY CLAIMED BY SIGNER z Though statute does not require the Notary to fill in the data below, doing so may prove invaluable to persons relying on the document. a -INDIVIDUAL ❑ CORPORATE OFFICER(S) TITLE(S) ❑ PARTNER(S) ❑ LIMITED ❑ GENERAL ❑ ATTORNEY -IN -FACT TRUSTEE(S) ❑ GUARDIAN/CONSERVATOR ❑ OTHER: SIGNER IS REPRESENTING: NAME OF PERSON(S) OR ENTITY(IES) JrZit I Al old r 1 r 1 SIGNER(S) OTHER THAN NAMED ABOVF- - ©1993 NATIONAL NOTARY ASSOCIATION • 8236 Remmet Ave., P.O. Box 7184 • Canoga Park, CA 91309-7184 SEP 01 1993 Nows- , 9' 1343363 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND MAIL -TO: By «�. CITY OF ROLLING HILLS 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 A:ECQF VF11E01N OFFICIAL RECDADS RECORDER'S OFFICE LOS ANGELES warm Y CALIFORNIA ! �AsT 1 P� JAIL 23 1993Recorder s Use I FEE $8 M 2 Please record this form with the Registrar -Recorder's Office and return to: City of Rolling Hills, 2•Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 .. '• (The Registrar -Recorder's Offi.ce'requires that the form be notarized before recordation) ACCEPTANCE FORM STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss ZONING CASE NO. 436 SITE PLAN REVIEW VARIANCE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT I (We) the undersigned state: I am (We are) the owner(s) of the real property described as follows: 10 CREST ROAD WEST, ROLLING HILLS (LOT 2-CH) This property is the subject of the above numbered cases. I am (We are) aware of, and accept, all the stated conditions in said ZONING CASE NO. 436 SITE PLAN REVIEW X VARIANCE X CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT I (We) certify (or declare) under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Print Owner Signature J-r Name �N�XC�sY, Address j 0 "v City/State AAA" / 5 CA ` Print Owner Name Signature Address City/State Signatures must be acknowledged by a notary public. On this the day of the undersigned Notary Public, personally appeared ❑ personally known to me ❑ proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) within instrument, and acknowledged that WITNESS my hand and official seal. Notary's Signature subscribed to the executed it. See Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof i