Loading...
781, """As built"" parking are and , Resolutions & Approval ConditionsRECORDING 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 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. 781 VARIANCES XX I (We) the undersigned state ) §§ XX SITE PLAN REVIEW am (We are) the owner(s) of the real property described as follows: 60 EASTFIELD DRIVE, ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (LOT 104-A-EF, 105-EF) 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. 781 XX SITE PLAN REVIEW XX VARIANCES I (We) certify (or declare) under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Signature Signature Name typed or printed Name typed or printed Address _Address City/State City/State Signatures must be acknowledged by a notary public. See Attached Exhibit "A", RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL NO. 2010-17 State of California ) County of Los Angeles ) On before me, Personally appeared who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/ are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/ she/ they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies) and that by his/ her /their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) 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 ( Seal) RESOLUTION NO. 2010-17 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL OF A SITE PLAN REVIEW AND VARIANCES TO RETAIN "AS GRADED" AND "AS BUILT" DEVELOPMENT ON A PROPERTY, WHICH AMEND THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED APPLICATIONS AND WHERE A CONDITION EXISTS THAT ANY ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT ON THE PROPERTY MUST BE REVIEWED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION, IN ZONING CASE NO. 781 AT 60 EASTFIELD DRIVE (LOT 104-A-EF & 105-EF), (WOLFENDEN). THE PROJECT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE EXEMPT PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA). 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. Robert Wolfenden with respect to real property located at 60 Eastfield Drive, Rolling Hills , CA requesting modification to a previously approved project to retain as built and as graded conditions on the property, and include the following: 1) Site Plan Review: (i) for greater than previously approved grading on the lot, which resulted in greater quantities of dirt being moved than originally approved and larger residential building pad; (ii) to retain "AS BUILT" rock walls over 3-feet in height, which are not in the setbacks; (iii) to construct larger than previously approved swimming pool and a new spa; (iv) to retain "AS BUILT" outdoor kitchen and fire place. This request is due to the condition on the previous approval that any additional development must be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission. 2) Variances: (i) to disturb greater than 40% net lot area (63.7%); (ii) to retain "AS BUILT" rock walls in setbacks; (iii) to retain "AS BUILT" brick walls 3-4 feet in the front and side setback along the front motor court. Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted duly noticed public hearings to consider the application on May 18, June 15, July 20 and August 17, 2010, and at two field trips on June 14 and July 20, 2010. The applicants were notified of the above - referenced hearings in writing by first class mail. Evidence was heard and presented from all persons interested in affecting said proposal, from all persons supporting the same, and from members of the City staff at each of the hearings. The applicants and the applicants' representatives were in attendance at the hearings. 1 Section 3. The property is zoned RAS-1 and is currently developed with a 4,466 square foot residence, (of which 2,500 is two story, pre-existing house), 480 square foot garage, 520 square feet entry way, 96 square feet trash service area, 96 square feet storage shed, 200 square feet outdoor kitchen and fire place, 42 square feet water feature, 960 square feet covered porches, 3,266 square foot basement. Several rock walls and a wall along the motor court have been constructed and require Variance approval. The applicant is proposing to construct a 940 square foot stable (previously approved 1,200 sq.ft. stable), 698 square foot pool with spa (previously approved 578 sq.ft. pool) and 50 square foot pool equipment area (previously not shown on the plans). Section 4. In 1999 the Planning Commission granted approval for a lot line adjustment to merge two lots into one for subject property. One of the lots was developed with 2,500 square foot two-story single family residence with 480 square foot garage and the other lot was vacant. The existing residence encroaches 13 feet into the front yard setback. Also approved in 1999 was a Site Plan review for a substantial addition of 3,060 square feet with 3,060 square foot basement to the existing 2-story residence, grading consisting of 3,215 cubic yards of cut and 3,215 cubic yards of fill, 578 square foot swimming pool and 1,200 square foot stable with a loft. The disturbed area of the lot was proposed at 35.1 %. In February 2001 the applicant submitted and was granted an approval for modification to add 206 square feet to the front of the previously approved addition to better align the roofline of the addition with the existing house. The same area was added to the basement. With this application a request was made to construct two walls to reduce grading. The grading quantities were reduced to 2,980 cubic yards of cut and 2,980 cubic yards of fill, thus reducing the disturbance of the lot to 33.7%. The County soils, geology and grading divisions reviewed and approved the proposed grading and in January 2002 a grading permit was issued for 2,980 cubic yards of dirt. In September 2001 the applicant submitted a request for another modification to allow to retain an as built decorative not to exceed 4-foot high wall along the motor court, which encroached into the front and side setbacks and to retain planter walls along the driveway ranging from 2.5 feet to 7'8" partially located in the front setback. The Planning Commission and subsequently the City Council after taking the case under jurisdiction approved the modification for the walls along the driveway but denied the wall along the motor court. The applicant has not removed this wall and is currently requesting a variance to keep the "as built" wall along the motor court. Section 5. While the plans for the addition and grading were being prepared and modified, the applicant was renovating the existing house and driveway. At the same time a conflict ensued regarding the access to the stable. Originally, in 1999 the City approved the access to the stable to be across Water Company's easement located on the adjacent lot (58 Eastfield). In order to use the access way the applicant needed permission from the property owners at 58 Eastfield, which he was unable to obtain. It was necessary therefore, to revise the access to the stable. The then City Manager 2 administratively approved additional grading along the north slope of the property to allow access to the stable on the applicant's property. With the modification to the driveway and the walls in the area of the existing structure and the additional disturbance for access to the stable on the north side of the property, the disturbed area was increased to 37.7%, which was still within the 40% maximum disturbance permitted. Section 6. As stated in the applicant's request for modification letter, while grading of the property, the grading contractor encountered large quantities of rock in the soil. On two occasions, after observing the situation in the field, staff administratively approved import of dirt. In 2002 staff approved import of 300 cubic yards of soil and in 2007 import of 200 cubic yards was approved for a total import of 500 cubic yards. Pursuant to Section 15.04.150(4) of the Municipal Code, staff has the ability to approve up to 500 cubic yards of import or export of . dirt when it is determined that the field conditions warrant such action and that it could not have been anticipated during the approval process. Section 7. In early 2007 the County inspector alerted the City that variation in grading from the approved plans have been observed in the field and that large boulders were placed in a natural drainage course. After inspecting the property, staff commenced code enforcement action and requested that the applicant either bring the property to the previously approved condition or request modifications from the Planning Commission. The applicant removed the boulders and restored the natural drainage course to the satisfaction of the County grading and drainage engineer. After several letters to the applicant, visits and inspections by staff and L.A. County grading, drainage and sols/ geology engineers, in June of 2007 the applicant's agent submitted a letter to the City stating that the remaining unauthorized grading will be restored. Section 8. During this time of grading, according to the applicant, further study of the project including the applicant's soils engineers' requirement that the originally approved subsurface key be expanded around the entire building pad, including the area of the grading along the north side of the property, the property owner decided to continue grading as recommended by his soils/geology engineer. In addition a buttress key was required to the rear of the stable pad. In April of 2008 the property owner submitted plans for construction of a pool to the RHCA Architectural Committee. The Committee required the pad of the pool to be lowered so that the pool wouldn't be in view of the property to the south. The City was not made aware of any of these issues or requirements. According to the applicant, the lowering of the pad for the pool contributed to the larger building pad. In addition, when the access to the stable was placed on the subject property, the applicant combined the driveway approach previously approved for the addition with the stable access and closed off the original approach, which resulted in two driveway aprons rather than three. Since additional grading (cut and 3 fill) was required for the extended buttress key, the applicant created graded paths below the house leading from the proposed stable area. In order to utilize the large amount of rocks, he constructed the rock walls on the property along the bottoms of the pads and paths. Section 9. As part of the original application, a 578 sq.ft. pool was approved. The applicant is requesting to construct a 698 square foot pool and spa. The applicant has also constructed an outdoor kitchen including a fire place, which were not part of the original approval and require a separate building permit. The RHCA Architectural Committee approved the pool, spa, water slide, fire place and outdoor kitchen in May 2008. The applicant is proposing to reduce the size of the stable to 940 square feet, (previously approved 1,200 s.f.). Section 10. Learning that the applicant is not pursuing the restoration of the unauthorized grading and has not removed the wall along the court, staff required that he apply to the Planning Commission for consideration of modifications to the project. Section 11. In December 2009, the applicant submitted "as graded" plans and his consulting engineers' soils and geology reports to the County for review. The County soils and geology division reviewed the reports and recommended that the rough grading (as graded) be approved. The County soils and grading engineer returned the "as graded" plans with corrections to the applicant. Drainage plans have been submitted to the County drainage engineer and have been reviewed. Several corrections and modifications have been requested. Section 12. In March 2010, the applicant submitted an application to the Traffic Commission for approval of the access to the stable and the combined driveway apron. The driveway and parking area to the addition has pervious surface. The stable access was approved by the RHCA. The applicant is currently working with the RHCA to provide a trail access over his property, utilizing this new stable access. Section 13. The Planning Commission finds that the project qualifies as a Class 3 Exemption (Guidelines for California Environmental Quality Act, Section 15303) and is therefore categorically exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act. Section 14. Section 17.46.070 of the Zoning Ordinance provides authority for modifications to previously approved applications. Modification of approved plans and/or conditions imposed, including additions and deletions, may be considered by staff under a minor modification and by the Planning Commission under a major modification. Staff determined that this request constitutes a major modification to the previously approved Site Plan application and therefore requires Planning Commission action. In addition, the applicants exceeded the maximum permitted 4 disturbed area of the lot and constructed walls in setbacks and therefore require approval of a Variance. Section 15. Section 17.46.030 requires a development plan to be submitted for Site Plan Review and approval before any grading requiring a grading permit or any building or structure may be constructed. In addition this property was previously conditioned that any further grading and development, from what was previously approved, shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission. With respect to the Modification of the Site Plan application for additional grading the Planning Commission makes the following findings of fact: A. The as graded condition complies with and is consistent with the General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance (with the granting of the variance below) because, among other reasons, the as graded condition meets the City's goal to create lots that are safe and free of landslide mass. The as graded conditions resulted from the unique soils and geology of the property, where it was necessary to excavate material for construction of keyways and buttresses to stabilize the building pad. In addition, during grading it was found a tremendous amount of rock in the soil. The applicant had to remove the rock and it created huge holes in the ground, and it became necessary to grade over those areas and to stabilize the areas. Much of the rocks were used in the construction of the rock walls throughout the property. This condition of the soils and geology were not anticipated when the project was first proposed. B. The project substantially preserves the natural and undeveloped state of the lot by minimizing building coverage. The lot is large and the additional structures and grading do not give it an overbuild appearance. C. The project is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, the natural terrain and surrounding residences because the as graded condition preserves significant portions of the lot so as to maintain open space on the property. The project will be screened from the street and neighbors by trees and shrubs. The nature, condition, and development of adjacent uses, buildings, and structures and the topography of the lot have been considered, and the additional grading does not adversely affect or is materially detrimental to the adjacent uses, buildings, or structures because the additional grading was done on a portion of the lot which is least intrusive to surrounding properties and will be further screened and landscaped with trees and shrubs. The resulting grading has been landscaped and additional landscaping will be provided for the access roads to the tiers of the lot. D. Grading has been designed to follow natural contours of the site to the greatest extent feasible and to minimize the amount of grading required for the building area. 5 E. Grading will not modify existing drainage channels nor redirect drainage flow unless such flow is redirected into an existing drainage course. A drainage plan will be reviewed an approved by Los Angeles County Building and Safety. F. The project is well landscaped with native and drought -tolerant vegetation and mature trees. A landscaping plan is on file with the City, which is compatible with and enhances the rural character of the community. G. The project conforms to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and is exempt. Section 16. With respect to the Modification of the Site Plan application for additional structures, including outdoor kitchen fire place, walls, proposed larger pool and spa, 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 structures comply 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 for lot coverage requirements, and specifically the coverage of the lot by structures is much less than the maximum permitted. The net lot area of the lot is 133,520 square feet, (3.06 acres). The structural lot coverage of the net lot is proposed to 8,406 sq.ft. or 6.3%, which is within the maximum 20% structural lot coverage requirement. The total lot coverage including all structures, paved areas and driveway will be 27,037 sq.ft. or 20.2% of the net lot, which is within the 35% maximum overall net lot coverage requirement. The proposed project is screened from the road so as to reduce the visual impact of the development. B. The proposed development, as conditioned, is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, the natural terrain and surrounding residences. The lot is over 3 acres (net) in size and the structures are not going to make the lot look overdeveloped. As indicated in Paragraph A, the lot coverage maximum set forth in the Zoning Code will not be exceeded. The additional structures are integral part of outdoor living in Rolling Hills, and when the application was first filed in 1999, it was not a requirement that all possible structures be shown on the site plan. C. The project is screened from other properties and the road by mature plants, which are a part of this approval. Additional screening is required along the access road to the stable and to soften the access roads. D. The rock walls resulted from the excessive rock found in the ground for this project. The applicant had to remove the rock and it created huge holes in the ground, and it became necessary to grade over those areas and to stabilize the areas. Much of the rocks were used in the construction of the rock walls throughout the property. This condition of the soils and geology were not anticipated when the project was first proposed. E. The proposed development is sensitive and not detrimental to the convenience and safety of circulation for pedestrians and vehicles because the site is accessible from a fully developed street and no changes in circulation are anticipated. F. The project conforms to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and is exempt. Section 17. The applicant seeks a variance from the 40% maximum disturbed area standard set forth in Section 17.16.070 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code. Sections 17.38.010 through 17.38.050 of the Code permit approval of a variance from the standards and requirements of the Zoning Ordinance when, due to exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applicable to the property and not applicable to other similar properties in the same zone, strict application of the Code would deny the property owner substantial property rights enjoyed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone. Additional findings are also required, as detailed herein. 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 other properties in the same vicinity and in the same zone. Section 17.16.070 of the Municipal Code provides that disturbance shall be limited to 40% of the net lot area. The applicant graded addition area of the lot and is seeking a variance for 63.7% disturbance. The nature of the soil and geology on the subject property is such that construction of the proposed residence was not possible without additional grading. The variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone, but which would be denied to the property in question absent a variance. In 1999, with several modifications later on, the applicant submitted a proposal for an addition to single family residence and did not anticipate that it would be necessary to construct additional keys and buttresses into the existing slopes to stabilize the lot. With the soils and geology consultants requiring additional keyways, it became necessary to disturb more surface area and regrade portions of the lot that originally were not planned to be disturbed. B. 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. An increase in the overall percentage of disturbed area on the lot will have no effect on the public welfare or on property or improvements in the vicinity. C. 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, where the 7 geology of the lots dictate grading requirements. The overage requested is not substantial and does not undermine the spirit or intent of the Zoning Ordinance. The variance does not grant special privileges to the applicant. To the contrary, absent a variance, the property owner would be deprived of the same rights and privileges afforded to other property owners in the vicinity. Unique circumstances applicable to the subject property make it infeasible for the property owner to comply with Section 17.16.070. D. The variance is consistent with the portions of the County of Los Angeles Hazardous Waste Management Plan relating to siting and siting criteria for hazardous waste facilities. E. 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. F. The previously conducted grading improved slope stability through the use of approved drainage and buttressing of the slopes, and will permit the owner to enjoy their property without deleterious infringement on the rights of surrounding property owners. This Variance is to legalize previously created condition. The landscaping on the property masks the previously graded condition and it does not look unnatural. Section 18. 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 to Section 17.16.190F. is required because it states that walls may not be located in any setback and Section 17.12.190 "Setbacks" because it states that setbacks may not be occupied or obstructed by any structures aboveground. The applicant proposes to locate not to exceed 3-foot walls in the front and side setbacks along the motor court, and not to exceed 3 foot rock walls in the rear and side setbacks. 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 property was developed in early 1960's on an irregularly shaped lot when the requirement for front setback was 30 feet from roadway easement line. The applicant purchased the adjacent lot and added to the original house on the new lot. A portion of the original residence was constructed in what is now the front yard setback with the garage facing that setback. The residence has a two car garage, in a two story configuration. The original driveway to the original garage was narrow and the back up area from the garage was inadequate for the large cars that exist today. The applicant enlarged the back up area of the driveway, which necessitated short walls in the setbacks. 8 The rock walls resulted from the excessive rock found in the ground for this project. The applicant had to remove the rock and it created huge holes in the ground, and it became necessary to grade over those areas and to stabilize the areas. Much of the rocks were used in the construction of the rock walls throughout the property. This condition of the soils and geology were not anticipated when the project was first proposed. 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 Variance is necessary because the existing terrain and development on the lot creates a difficulty in placing the driveway into the garage elsewhere on the property. The topography of the area in front of the residence consists of gentle slopes, which require retaining with short walls. Due to the fact that the garage is preexisting, is narrow and located close to the property line, the back up area from the garage was inadequate, especially for larger cars. In order for the garage to be accessible, it was necessary to enlarge the driveway back up area, which resulted in requiring short walls at its perimeter. 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 as built wall was constructed on an existing building pad, is not intrusive to surrounding properties, did not require any grading, and is of sufficient distance from nearby residences, so that it does not impact the view or privacy of surrounding neighbors. The Variance will permit the owners to enjoy their property without deleterious infringement on the rights of surrounding property owners. D. In granting of the Variance the spirit and intent of the Zoning Ordinance will be observed in that the proposed wall is be orderly, attractive and will protect the driveway and cars park thereon from going over the adjacent slope. The existing wall does not cause overdevelopment on the lot and is keeping within the character and size of other structures in the neighborhood and the existing development. E. The Variance request is consistent with the General Plan of the City of Rolling Hills because the proposed structures comply with the General Plan requirement of low profile, low -density residential development with sufficient open space between surrounding structures. Section 19. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves the Site Plan Review and Variances applications for Zoning Case No. 781 for substantial "as graded" condition, enlarged building pad area due to the additional grading, "as built" outdoor kitchen and fire place, " as built" rock walls that exceed 3-feet in height and larger than previously approved pool and Variances to exceed the previously approved disturbed lot area, (request for 63.7%), "as built" walls along motor court and rock walls throughout the property located in setbacks, as shown on the Development Plans dated August 12, 2010 subject to the following conditions: A. The Site Plan Review and Variance approval shall expire within two years, meaning that the project has to be completed and final inspection granted in two years from the effective date of approval. No further extension may be granted. Except that the swimming pool and the stable are not subject to this time frame. A CUP review and approval is required for the new stable, when constructed. B. It is declared and 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 be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the site plan on file in the Planning Department .dated August 12, 2010, as approved by the Planning Commission, which contains all of the "as built" structures, including rock walls and retaining walls, drainage devices, as well as graded areas and access roads. The future pool shall be as shown on a site plan dated August 17, 2010. E. The working drawings, soils and geology reports and drainage plans shall be submitted and approved by the Los Angeles County Department of Building and Safety and Public Works Department. F. Additional building and grading permits to cover the additional and new work, including grading, drainage, outdoor kitchen, fire place and walls, shall be obtained from the Building and Safety Department. If the French drain device, which encroaches into the neighbors' property, is to remain along the access to the stable, the applicant shall obtain off -site construction agreement from the neighbor and copy submitted to the City, as well a approval from the RHCA. G. The property on 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. The future stable shall not exceed 940 square feet total size. The construction of a stable requires a separate application under the Conditional Use Permit approval process. H. Grading, as amended shall not exceed 2,460 cubic yards of cut, 500 cubic yards of import, previously administratively approved; 7.870 cubic yards excavation and compaction for the keys. I. The disturbed area of the lot, as amended, shall not exceed 85,040 square feet of surface area or 63.7% of the net lot area. 10 J. Residential building pad coverage as amended shall be as follows: the residential building pad shall not exceed 24,960 square feet and have a coverage of 29.0%, not including portion of the covered porches,; and the future stable pad shall be 7,760 square feet with coverage of 12.1 % coverage for a 940 sq.ft. stable. K. Structural lot coverage shall not exceed 8,406 square feet or 6.3% of the net lot area in conformance with lot coverage limitations, which includes the proposed swimming pool and future stable. L. Total lot coverage of structures and paved areas shall not exceed 27,037 square feet or 20.2% of the net lot area in conformance with lot coverage limitations. M. The surface area of the motor court in front of the single story addition shall remain pervious. The access to the stable, except for two concrete tire strips, 110 ft. in Length, and all of the access roads throughout the property shall remain pervious and may be planted. N. All walls, drainage devices, grading areas and planting located in easements shall be reviewed and approved by the RHCA. The Planning Commission recommends that the area along the access to the stable and the adjacent property owners (adjacent to the Water Co. access easement) be landscaped so as to provide a buffer between the properties and retain the rural character of the community, provided the RHCA approves landscaping in the easement. That area, if planted shall not result in a hedge like screen O. The existing 25-foot wide access road from the stable pad to the upper level of the property shall be narrowed within 2-years or after the proposed swimming pool is built, whichever comes first; or if not completed within 2 years the applicant shall come back to the Planning Commission for review and approval. The excavated dirt from the swimming pool should be used to regrade the road to make it narrower. This road or portion thereof may also be planted to soften and to narrow the access road. P. The rock walls, as constructed, may remain, but shall not be increased in height or lengthened. The 3-4 foot walls along the motor court by the garage may remain in setback and may not be increased in height or lengthened. Q. No irrigation or drainage device may be located on a property in such a manner as to contribute to erosion orr in any way adversely affect an easement or a trail. The energy dissipaters shall be designed in such a manner as to not cross over or discharge water onto a trail or easements. R. Perimeter easements and trails shall remain free and clear of any improvements including, but not be limited to, fences, grading (both cut and fill), landscaping, irrigation and drainage devices, play equipment, parked vehicles, building materials, debris and equipment, except as provided in "N", unless the Rolling Hills Community Association approves an encroachment. 11 S. The property owners shall be required to conform with the City of Rolling Hills and RHCA Outdoor Lighting Standards and any proposed Lighting on the property shall be reviewed and approved by the City and RHCA. T. Post construction Best Management Practices regarding drainage, stormwater management and erosion control shall be observed and maintained. U. The property owners shall be required to conform to the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Health Department requirements for the installation and maintenance of a septic tank. V. Until the applicants execute and record an Affidavit of Acceptance of all conditions of this Site Plan Review and Variances approvals, as required by the Municipal Code, the approvals shall not be effective. W. Any action challenging the final decision of the City made as a result of the public hearing on this application 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. Notwithstanding Sections 17.46.020 and 17.46.070 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, any modification to this project or to the property, which would constitute additional structural development, grading or additional excavation of dirt and any modification including, but not be limited to retaining walls, drainage devices, pad elevation, and any other deviation from the approved plan, shall require the filing of a new application for approval by the Planning Commission. Except that a not to exceed 940 square foot stable, if CUP application is approved, and 698 sq.ft. pool and spa, may be constructed on the property in the previously approved locations. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 17tht DAY OF AUGUST, 2010. LOREN DEROY, CHA PERS �1 N ATTEST: HEIDI LUCE, DEPUTY CITY CLERK 12 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§ CITY OF ROLLING HILLS I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2010-17 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL OF A SITE PLAN REVIEW AND VARIANCES TO RETAIN "AS GRADED" AND "AS BUILT" DEVELOPMENT ON A PROPERTY, WHICH AMEND THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED APPLICATIONS AND WHERE A CONDITION EXISTS THAT ANY ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT ON THE PROPERTY MUST BE REVIEWED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION, IN ZONING CASE NO. 781 AT 60 EASTFIELD DRIVE (LOT 104-A-EF & 105-EF), (WOLFENDEN). THE PROJECT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE EXEMPT PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA). was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on August 17, 2010 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Pieper, Henke and Chairperson DeRoy. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Chelf and Vice Chairperson Smith. ABSTAIN: None. and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following: Administrative Offices. DEPUTY CITY CLERK 13 RESOLUTION NO. 2001-19 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS APPROVING MODIFICATION NO. 2 TO PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 99-15 AND RESOLUTION NO. 2001-05 APPROVING A VARIANCE REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT RETAINING WALLS WHICH ENCROACH INTO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK AND WHICH ARE LOCATED ALONG A DRIVEWAY, AND DENYING A VARIANCE REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT DECORATIVE WALL WHICH WOULD ENCROACH INTO THE SIDE YARD SETBACK AT AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AT 60 EASTFIELD DRIVE IN ZONING CASE NO. 596B. THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. An application has been filed by Mr. Wolfenden with respect to real property located at 60 Eastfield Drive, Rolling Hills, requesting a modification to conditions imposed for previously approved Site Plan Review to permit the completion of partially constructed retaining walls along an existing driveway which encroach into the front yard setback and to permit the completion of partially constructed decorative wall encircling the motor court which encroaches into the side yards setback at an existing two story single family residence. Section 2. The Commission considered this item at a duly noticed public hearing on August 21, 2001, September 18, 2001 and at a site visit on September 17, 2001 at which time information was presented indicating the need for the modification. Section 3. The Planning Commission finds that the project to modify Zoning Case No. 596B qualifies as a Class 1 Exemption, (State CA Guidelines, Section 15301(e)) and is therefore categorically exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act. Section 4. Section 17.16.120 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code requires the side yard setback for every residential parcel in the RA-S-1 Zone to be twenty (20) feet, Section 17.16.110 requires that front yard setback be fifty (50) feet from the roadway easement line, and Section 17.16.130 requires that the rear yard setback be fifty (50) feet from the rear property line. Except for the required rear yard setback under certain conditions, all other required setbacks must remain unobstructed by structures. Sections 17.38.010 through 17.38.050 permit approval of a Variance from the standards and requirements of the Zoning Code when exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applicable to the property and not applicable to other similarproperties 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. The applicant is requesting permission to allow retaining walls, which vary in height from 2'7" to 4 feet to be located in the front Resolution 2001-19 ZC No. 596BMod#2 1 yard setback, along the existing driveway, a 7'8" wall perpendicular to the existing garage and decorative walls along the motor court, which encroach into. the side yard setback. With respect to the request for a Variance for the retaining walls along the driveway and perpendicular to the garage in the front yard setback, 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 property or class of use in the same zone because the driveway slopes down into the property from the street. The proposed retaining walls will assist in preventing an existing slope from potential collapse, and will protect the remaining area adjacent to the driveway from damage due to erosion. 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 location of the existing garage and the grade of the existing driveway, the walls are necessary. 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 walls will be incorporated into the landscaping and will contain planters. In addition, the construction of said walls would eliminate the necessity for any additional grading of the driveway. Section 5. With respect to the request for a Variance for the decorative wall encircling the motor court which encroach into the side yard setback, the Planning Commission finds as follows A. There are no exceptional and extraordinary circumstances and conditions applicable to the property that could justify the construction of said wall in the side yard setback. The proposed wall is of decorative nature only and does not serve any necessary structural, or erosion control function. Section 6. Based upon the foregoing findings and the evidence in the record, the Planning Commission hereby approves the Variance request to permit theconstruction of retaining walls that will be located in the front yard setback, along the existing driveway, and a. wall perpendicular to the existing garage in accordance with the development plan dated September 4, 2001, and marked Exhibit A in Zoning Case No. 596B,MOD#2, subject to the conditions contained in Section 9 and 11 of this resolution, and denies the Variance request to permit the construction of a decorative wall which encroaches into the side yard setback. Section 7. Sections 17.46.050 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code , require the Planning Commission to make certain findings to lawfully grant a request for a Site Plan Review. When the Planning Commission previously granted Site Plan Review the required findings were set forth in Section 4 of Resolution 2001-19 ZC No. 596BMod#2 2 Resolution No. 99-15, and Section 4 of Resolution No. 2001-05. The Planning Commission hereby determines that the evidence in the records supports the findings contained in the prior resolutions, which are applicable to and can be made again in their entirety as the findings for the project as modified by this resolution and are, accordingly, incorporated herein by this reference. Section 8. On September 1, 2000, the applicant submitted a request for a one-year time extension for the Site Plan Review application. On September 19, 2000, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2000-22 granting the applicant's request for a one-year extension. On September 19, 2001 the applicant requested a 90-day extension to complete the review of the grading plans by the Los Angeles County Building and Safety Department. After conferring with the County Engineer, staff has granted said request. Section 9. Slight changes to the structural and total net lot coverage resulted from the grading for the proposed walls and from the construction of phase one of the proposal. Based upon information submitted and evidence in the record, the Planning Commission does hereby amend Resolution No. 99-15 as amended by Resolution 2001-15, dated February 20, 2001.as follows: A. Paragraph A of Section 6 is hereby amended to read in its entirety as follows: "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 133,520 square feet. The proposed residence (4,466 sq.ft., not including the existing or the proposed basements), garage (480 sq.ft.), swimming pool (578 sq.ft.), stable (1,200 sq.ft.), and service yard (96 sq.ft.) will have 6,820 square feet which constitutes.5.11% of the lot. which is within the maximum 20% structural lot coverage requirement. The total lot coverage including paved areas and driveway will be 19,894 square feet which equals 14.9% of the lot, which is within the 35% maximum overall lot coverage requirement. The proposed project is screened from the road so as to reduce the visual impact of the development. The residential building pad coverage will not exceed 32.8% of the 17,180 square foot residential building pad, the stable pad - will not exceed 14.0%, of the 8,640 square foot stable a4 -reGreationpael. and total building pad coverage will not exceed 26.4%." B. Paragraph B of Section 6 is hereby amended to read in its entirety as follows: "The lot shall be :developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the site plan on file marked Exhibit "A," dated August 26, 1999, and the modified site plan on file marked Exhibit "A" dated February 7, 2001, except as otherwise provided in these conditions, and with the site plan on file marked Exhibit "A" MODIFIED NO.2, dated October 4, 2001." Resolution 2001-19 ZC No. 596BMod#2 3 C. Paragraph C of Section 6 is hereby amended to read in its entirety as follows: " The residential building pad coverage shall not exceed 32.8%, the stable and recreation court pad shall not exceed 14.0%, and the total building pad coverage shall not exceed 26.4%." D. Paragraph D of section 6 is hereby amended to read in its entirety as follows: "Maximum disturbed area shall not exceed7% of the net lot area." Section 10. The approval granted under Zoning Case No. 596B, as amended herein, shall expire on December 21, 2001 unless a grading or building permit is obtained and activity commences as defined in Section 17.38.070(A). Section 11. Except as herein amended, the provisions of Resolution No. 99-15, and Resolution No. 2001-05 shall continue to be in full force and effect. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED THIS 16th DAY OF OCTOBER 2001. ALLAN ROBERTS, CHAIRMAN ATTEST: r_ k MARILYN RN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK Resolution 2001-19 ZC No. 596BMod#2 4 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ) I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2001-19 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS APPROVING MODIFICATION NO. 2 TO PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 99-15 AND RESOLUTION NO. 2001-05 APPROVING A VARIANCE REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT RETAINING WALLS WHICH ENCROACH INTO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK AND WHICH ARE LOCATED ALONG A DRIVEWAY, AND DENYING A VARIANCE REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT DECORATIVE WALL WHICH WOULD ENCROACH INTO THE SIDE YARD SETBACK AT AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AT 60 EASTFIELD DRIVE IN ZONING CASE NO. 596B. was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on October 16, 2001 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Hankins,'Margeta, Sommer, Witte and Chairman Roberts. NOES: None. ABSENT: None.. ABSTAIN: None. and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following: Administrative Offices. DEPUTY CITY CLERK Resolution 2001-19 ZC No. 596BMod#2 5 WN/4174",e5 RESOLUTION NO. 99-15 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING .HILLS GRANTING SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT A STABLE WITH LOFT AND ADJACENT CORRAL AND SUBSTANTIAL ONE-STORY ADDITIONS TO AN EXISTING TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE THAT . WILL REQUIRE GRADING IN ZONING CASE NO. 596B. 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. Robert T. Wolfenden with respect to real property located at 60 Eastfield Drive (Lots 104-A-EF & 105-EF), Rolling Hills, requesting Site Plan Review to permit the construction of stable with loft and adjacent corral and substantial one-story additions to an existing two-story single family residence that will require grading. During the hearing process, typographical errors in -the size of the addition were corrected to. show a reduction in size of the proposed addition and the request was revised to include a basement beneath the one-story addition,. previously described without a basement. As a consequence of the basement addition, the grading quantities were reduced, the building pad sizes were reduced, the maimum disturbed area was reduced, and .the slope access to the stable and corral was made more gradual. Separately,a request for a Lot Line Adjustment to merge two legal lots at 60 Eastfield Drive (Lot 105-EF). and an adjacent vacant lot to the north (Lot 104-A-EF) in Zoning Case No. 596A was approved by the Planning Commission by Resolution No. 99-14. Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider. the application on July 20, 1999, August 17, 1999, and September 21, 1999, and at a field trip visit on July 27, 1999. The applicant were notified of the public hearing in writing by first class ' mail and through. the ' City's newsletter. 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 applicant was in attendance at the hearing. • Section 3. The Planning Commission finds that the project qualifies as a Class 1 Exemption (State CA Guidelines, Section 15301(e)) and is therefore categorically exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act. Section 4. Section 17.46.030 requires a development plan to be submitted for site plan review and approval before any grading requiring a grading permit or 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 at least 1,000 square feet and has RESOLUTION NO. 99-15 Page 1 of 7 the effect of increasing the size of the building by more than twenty-five percent w (25%) in any thirty-six (36) month period. With respect to the Site Plan Review application, 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 133,520 square feet. The proposed residence (4,260 sq.ft.), garage (480 sq.ft.), swimming pool (578 sq.ft.), stable (1,200 sq.ft.), and service yard (96 sq.ft.) will have 6,614 square feet which constitutes 4.95% of the lot which is within the maximum 20% structural lot coverage requirement. The total lot coverage including paved areas and driveway will be 17,048 square feet which equals 12.77% of the lot, which is within the 35% maximum overall: lot coverage requirement. The proposed project is screened from the road so as to reduce the visual impact of the development. The residential building pad coverage will not exceed 28.98%, the stable and " recreation court pad will not exceed 14.7%, and total building pad coverage will not exceed 24.6%. B. The proposed developmentpreserves 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). The lot slopes downward and most of the mature trees will not be removed. Grading will be done to provide approved drainage that will flow away from the proposed residence and existing neighboring residences. C. The proposed development, as conditioned, 'is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, the natural terrain and surrounding residences. As indicated in Paragraph A, the lot coverage maximum will not be exceeded and the proposed project is consistent with the scale of residences in the neighborhood when compared to the large size of this irregular -shaped lot. The ratio of the proposed structure to lot coverage is similar to the ratio found on several properties in the vicinity. D. The development plan follows natural contours of the site to minimize grading and the natural drainage courses will continue to the canyons at the east side (rear) of this lot. E. The development plan incorporates existing large trees and native vegetation to the maximum extent feasible. Specifically, the development plan preserves several mature trees and shrubs and supplements it with landscaping that is compatible with and enhances the rural character of the community. RESOLUTION NO. 99-I5 Page 2 of 7 F. The development plan incorporates grading that will not modify existing drainage channels nor redirect drainage flow, unless such flow is redirected into an existing drainage course. G. 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. The development plans as proposed will minimize impact on Eastfield Drive. Most of the additions proposed will not be visible from Eastfield Drive. Significant portions of the lot will be left undeveloped so as to maintain scenic vistas across portions . of the property. H. 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 existing driveways at the western portion of the property off Eastfield Drive for access. I. The project conforms with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and is categorically exempt from environmental review. Section 5. Based upon .the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves the Site Plan Review application for Zoning Case No. 596B for proposed residential . additions as indicated on. the development plan incorporated herein as Exhibit A and is subject to the following conditions: A. The Site Plan Review approval shall expire within one year from the effective date of approval as defined in Section 17.38.070(A) unless otherwise extended pursuant to the requirements of that section. B. It is declared and made a condition of the Site Plan Review approval, that if any conditions thereof •are violated, this approval shall be suspended and the privileges granted thereunder shall lapse; provided that the applicant has been given written notice to cease such violation, the opportunity for a hearing has been provided, and if requested, has begin 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 Buildings and Construction Ordinance, the Zoning Ordinance, and of the zone in which the subject property is located must be complied with unless otherwise set forth in the Permit, or shown otherwise on an approved plan. D. The lot shall be developed and, maintained in substantial conformance with the site plan on file marked Exhibit A and dated August 26, 1999, except as otherwise provided in these conditions. RESOLUTION NO. 99-15 Page 3 of 7 • E. 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. • F. .Any retaining walls incorporated into the project shall not exceed 5 feet in height, averaging no more than 2-1/2 feet. G. The residential building pad coverage shall not exceed 28.98%, the stable and recreation court pad shall not exceed 14.7%, and total building pad coverage shall not exceed 24.6%. H. Maximum disturbed area shall not exceed 35.1% of the net Iot area. I. Grading shall not exceed 3,215 cubic yards of cut soil and 3,215 cubic yards of fill soil and shall be balanced on site. J. The loft area of the proposed stable shall have no glazed windows. IG The proposed stable with loft shall be used for the exclusive purpose of keeping permitted domestic animals by the occupants of the property. Commercial uses are not permitted. L. . Any grading shall preserve the existing topography, . flora, and. natural features to the greatest extent possible. M. Landscaping shall incorporate and preserve, to the maximum extent feasible, the existing mature trees and shrubs and the natural landscape screening surrounding the proposed building pad. N. Landscaping shall include water efficient irrigation, to the maximum extent feasible, that incorporates a low gallonage irrigation system, utilizes automatic ' controllers, incorporates an irrigation design using "hydrozones," considers slope factors and climate conditions in design, and utilizes means to reduce water waste resulting from runoff and overspray in accordance with Section ' 17.27.020 (Water efficient landscaping requirements) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code. O. Two copies of a preliminary landscape plan must be submitted for review by the Planning Department and include native drought -resistant vegetation that will not disrupt the impact of the views of neighboring properties prior to the issuance of any building or grading 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. RESOLUTION NO. 99-15 Page 4 of 7 • 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 drainage, 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. P_ The property owners shall be required to conform with the air quality management district requirements, stormwater pollution prevention practices, county and local ordinances and engineering practices so that people or property are not exposed to undue vehicle trips, noise, dust, objectionable odors, landslides, mudflows, erosion, or land subsidence. 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. - • R. All parking, during and after construction, shall take place on the project site. S. The . property owners shall be required to conform with the Regional Water Quality Control, Board and County Health Department requirements for the installation and maintenance of septic tanks. • T. The property owners shall be required to conform with the Regional Water • Quality Control Board and County Health Department requirements for the installation and maintenance of stormwater drainage facilities. U. The property owners shall be required to conform with the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Public Works Department Best Management Practices (BMP's) related to solid waste. V. An Erosion Control Plan containing the elements set forth in Section 7010 of the 1996 County of Los Angeles Uniform Building Code shall be prepared to minimize erosion and to protect slopes and channels to control stormwater pollution as required bythe County of Los Angeles. W. 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 RESOLUTION NO. 99-15 Page 5of7 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. X. 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. . Y. If the portion of the existing residence that is two-story is demolished, reconstruction to that portion of the residence shall not. be two-story in design. Should reconstruction be required to that portion of the residence, the reconstructed one-story residence may include a basement in Section 17.12.0120 ("B" words, term and phrases.) defined as a space wholly or partly undergroundwhich does not exceed a height of five feet above finished grade at any point immediately adjacent to the basement exterior. A basement shall have an average exterior height no greater than two and one-half feet across the entire -structure. Basements may have one standard door opening with a solid door not to exceed three feet by six feet, eight • inches for ingress/egress to the exterior. The accessway to the door opening shall not exceed four feet in width and shall be incorporated into the overall design of the building but shall not have any other exterior openings, sun lights or similar devices. The new basement exit door shall be solid. - • Z. , There shall. be no door or .accessway linking the • basement under the new addition of the- structure to the first floor of the existing structure. The applicant .shall Comply with all requirements . and limitations of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code regarding basements. AA. Notwithstanding Sections 17.46.020 and 17.46.070 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code; any modifications to the project which would constitute additional structural development shall require the filing of a new application for approval by the Planning Commission. AB. This Site Plan Review approval shall not be effective until the Certificate of Compliance for a Lot Line Adjustment and accompanying deeds as specified in Resolution No. 99-14 are recorded. AC. The applicant shall execute an Affidavit of Acceptance of all conditions of this Site PIan Review or the approval shall not be effective. AD. All conditions of this Site Plan Review approval must be complied with priorto the issuance of a building or grading permit from the County of Los Angeles. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 21ST RESOLUTION NO. 99-15 Page 6 of 7 AY OF SEP ‘.., ALLAN ROBERTS, CHAIRMAN ER, 1999. ATTEST: I. MARILYN KERN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§ CITY OF ROLLING HILLS I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 99-15 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT A STABLE WITH LOFT AND ADJACENT CORRAL AND SUBSTANTIAL ONE-STORY ADDITIONS TO AN EXISTING TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE THAT • WILL REQUIRE GRADING IN ZONING CASE NO. 596B. was approved and adopted at an adjourned regular meeting of the Planning Commission on September 21,1999 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Hankins,. Sommer, Witte.and Chairman Roberts. NOES: Commissioner Margeta. ABSENT None . ABSTAIN: None. and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following. Administrative. Offices. DEPUTY CITY CLERK RESOLUTION NO. 99-15 Page 7 of 7