Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
596B, Redo existing driveway and wal, Resolutions & Approval Conditions
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 • • 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 the construction 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 and recreation pad 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 exceed 37.7% 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. A 1" !'EST: MARILYN K RN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK Resolution 2001-19 ZC No. 596BMod#2 4 ALLAN ROBERTS, CHAIRMAN • • 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. . l< LvJ DEPUTY CITY CLERK Resolution 2001-19 ZC No. 596BMod#2 5 o RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND MAIL' CITY OF ROLLING HILLS 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310) 377-1521 (310) 377-7288 FAX 01 2081403 The Registrar -Recorder's Office requires that the form be notarized before recordation. Use Only T Recorders AFFIDAVIT OF ACCEPTANCE FORM STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§ CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ) ZONING CASE NO. 596B Modification SITE PLAN REVIEW Z. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT I (We) the undersigned state: I am (We are) the owner(s) of the real property described as follows: 60 Eastfield Drive, Rolling Hills, CA. This property is the subject of the above numbered case. I am (We are) aware of, and accept, all the stated conditions in said ZONING CASE NO. 596B Modification SITE PLAN REVIEW VARIANCE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT I (We) certi y r declare) under the penalty of perjury that the foregoi Signal f Na a tiyped or printed _1 Ad s eie, 3 s Z 7l` City/State Signatures must be acknowledged by a notary nubile. L is true and correct. 21/1L1L4V-41:— 9 Si na 9/ /0—ems✓ Nar>�e typed or printed fJ 4A fiif�TG/ City/State State of California ) County of Los Angeles ) On October 31 , 2QAfore me, Ed Hanley Personally appeared Robert T. Wolfenden and Janet M. Wolfenden personally known to me (or 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. ED HANLEY cl Witness by hand and official seal. Comm. # 1223950 ''nn NOTARY PUBLIC-CALIFORNIA UI Los Angeles County "r My Comm. Expires June 11, 2003 t Signature of Nota SEE EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF • RESOLUTION NO. 2001-05 01 2081403 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS APPROVING A MODIFICATION TO PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 99-15. AND APPROVING A MODIFICATION OF CERTAIN CONDITIONS FOR PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE PLAN REVIEW TO CONSTRUCT A STABLE WITH A LOFT AND ADJACENT CORRAL AND SUBSTANTIAL ONE STORY ADDITIONS TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IN ZONING CASE NO. 596B. THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. A. 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 construct a stable with.a loft, adjacent corral and substantial one story. addition to an existing two story single family residence. B. The .request for modification consists of art addition of 206 square feet of living area to the front of the originally approved addition, and the construction of two retaining walls in the north side yard area, not to exceed 4 feet in height. The applicant stated that the modification is necessary so that the new addition better aligns with the existing house and that the new addition needs to intersect the existing house at a column. The construction of the retaining walls will result in lesser grading of the property. Section 2. The Commission considered this item at a duly noticed public hearing on February 20, 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. 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 No. 99-15. The Planning Commission hereby determines that the findings contained in that prior resolution are applicable to and can be made again in their entirety as the findings for the project as modified and are, accordingly, incorporated herein by this reference. Section 5. On September 1, 2000, the applicant submitted a request for a one year time extension for the Site Plan Review application. On September 19, • i 01 2081403 2000, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2000-22 granting the applicant's request for a one year extension. Therefore, the originally submitted Site Plan Review application as well as this modification request expires on September 19, 2001. Section 6. Based upon information and evidence submitted, the Planning Commission does hereby amend Resolution No. 99-15, dated September 21,1999 as follows: A. Paragraph A of Section .4 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 netsquare 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 17,254 square feet which equals 12.92% 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 30.9%, the stable and recreation court pad will not exceed 14.7%, and total building pad coverage will not exceed 25.9%." B. Paragraph D of Section 5 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, except as otherwise provided in these conditions, and with the site plan on file marked MODIFIED Exhibit "A" dated February 7, 2001." C. P.aragraph G of Section 5 is hereby amended to read in its entirety as follows: " The residential building pad coverage shall not exceed 30.9%, the stable and recreation court pad shall not exceed 14.7%, and the total building pad coverage shall not exceed 25.9%." D. Paragraph H of section 5 is hereby amended to read in its entirety as follows: "Maximum disturbed area shall not exceed 33.7% of the net lot area." • • 01 2081403 E. Paragraph I of Section.5 is hereby amended to read in its entirety as follows: "Grading shall not exceed 2,980 cubic yards of cut soil and 2,980 cubic yards of fill soil and shall be balanced on site." Section 7. The approval granted under Zoning Case No. 596B, as amended herein, shall expire on September 21, 2001 unless substantial construction has commenced as defined in Section 17.38.070(A) or the approval has otherwise been extended pursuant to the requirements of that section. Section 8. 'Except as herein amended, the provisions of Resolution No. 99-15 and Resolution No. 2000-22 shall continue to be in full force and effect. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED THIS 20th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2001. ALLAN ROBERTS, CHAIRMAN ATTEST: MARILYN KE , DEPUTY CITY CLERK • • 01 2081403 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS CITY. OF ROLLING HILLS ) I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2001-05 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS APPROVING A MODIFICATION TO PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 99-15 AND APPROVING A MODIFICATION OF CERTAIN CONDITIONS FOR PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE PLAN REVIEW TO CONSTRUCT A STABLE WITH A LOFT AND ADJACENT CORRAL AND SUBSTANTIAL ONE STORY ADDITIONS TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IN ZONING CASE NO. 596B. was approved and adopted at an adjourned regular meeting of the Planning Commission on February 20, 2001 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. r . DEPUTY CITY CLERK , • This is a true and certified copy of the record if it bears the seal, imprinted in purple ink, of the Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk. OCT 3 1 200.E -'' .,..REGISTIME00RDER(COOKTYCtfRK LQS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA • • RESOLUTION NO. 2000-22 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS APPROVING A MODIFICATION TO PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 99-15, APPROVING AN EXTENSION TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED 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. A request has been 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 an extension to a previously approved 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 in Zoning Case No. 596B that was approved by the Planning Commission on September 21, 1999 by Resolution No. 99-15. Section 2. The Commission considered this item at a meeting on September 19, 2000 at which time information was presented indicating that the extension of time is necessary because the first phase of the project is underway (remodeling the existing residence) and phase two is about two weeks away from being submitted to the County for plan check. Section 3. Based upon information and evidence submitted, the Planning Commission does hereby amend Paragraph A, Section 5 of Resolution No. 99-15, dated September 21, 1999, to read as follows: "The Site Plan Review approval shall expire within two years of the approval of this Resolution." Section 4. Except as herein amended, the provisions of Resolution No. 99-15 shall continue to be in full force and effect. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 19TH DAY OF SF,R, 2000. ALLA1OBERTS, CHAIRMAN ATTEST: I4ARIL-YN K, RN-DRRUT C-ITY-GL-RRK STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§ CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ) I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2000-22 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS APPROVING A MODIFICATION TO PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 99-15, APPROVING AN EXTENSION TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED 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 a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on September 19, 2000 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Hankins, Margeta, Witte and Chairman Roberts. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Sommer. ABSTAIN: None . and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following: Administrative Offices DEPUTY CITY CLERK RESOLUTION NO. 2000-22 PAGE 2 • • 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 A N 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 maximum 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 was 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 (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 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). 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. 99-15 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 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 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 lot 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. K. 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 by the 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 5 of 7 • • 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, terms and phrases.) defined as a space wholly or partly underground which 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 Plan Review or the approval shall not be effective. AD. All conditions of this 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 21ST ALL —AN ROBERTS, CHAIRMAN RESOLUTION NO. 99-15 Page 6 of 7 ATTEST: MARILYN I RN, 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: Commission 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 When recorded mail to: CITY OF ROLLING HILLS City Manager 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, Ca 90274 (310) 377-1521 (310) 377-7288 FAX Space above for Recorder's use CONDITIONAL CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE in connection with the approval of a LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT California Government Code Sections 66412 (d) and 66499.35 SUBJECT LOTS: (2 Lots) OWNER (S): Parcel 1 of Rolling Hills Lot No. 105-EF as recorded in Book 58, pages 6 through 10 Assessors Parcel No. 7567-004-022 Street Address: 60 Eastfield Drive Rolling Hills, California 90274 AND Mr. Robert T. Wolfenden Parcel 2 of Rolling Hills Lot No. 104-A-EF Mr. Robert T. Wolfenden as recorded in Book 58, pages 6 through 10 Assessors Parcel No. 7567-004-21 Street Address: Vacant lot Rolling Hills, California 90274 I, Craig Nealis, am the City Manager of the City of Rolling Hills, a California Municipal Corporation, and am authorized to act on behalf of the City of Rolling Hills in the issuance of this Certificate. I am in receipt of a request for a certificate of Compliance from the above -mentioned owners, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A". I do hereby certify as follows: (a) The boundary line dividing the two lots listed above is hereby removed so as to merge the two (2) parcels to create one 3.502 acre irregular lot as described in Exhibit "B" attached to this Certificate. This lot line adjustment is made pursuant to, and in conformance with, a request made on July 8, 1999 by the owner of the subject lots, Mr. Robert T. Wolfenden. (b) The parcel created by this lot line adjustment complies with the lot line adjustment requirements of the Subdivision Map Act [California Government Code Section 66412(d)], and the creation of the merged parcel is exempt from the Parcel Map requirements of the California Subdivision Map Act. (c) This Certificate relates only to the issue of compliance with the Subdivision Map Act and City ordinances enacted pursuant thereto. The parcel described herein may be sold, leased, or financed without further compliance with the Subdivision Map Act or any local ordinance enacted pursuant thereto. Development of the parcels may require issuance of a permit or permits, or other grant or grants of approval. (d) The common side lot line dividing the two parcels and accompanying easements on each side of the common side lot line shall be removed. Nothing in this Certificate: (i) abrogates or eliminates remaining existing easements recorded against the above listed lots; (ii) exempts these parcels from requirements of all existing permits and other grants of approval from the City of Rolling Hills and other public entities, including but not limited to, Rolling Hills City Planning Commission Resolution No. 99-14 adopted on September 21, 1999; or (iii) eliminates the requirement to obtain all required permits and other grants of approval from the City of Rolling Hills and other public entities, that have not already been issued or granted for additional development or redevelopment of the subject parcels. (e) This Certificate of Compliance is subject to the conditions set forth in Planning Commission Resolution No. 99-14 attached hereto as Exhibit C and expressly incorporated herein by this reference. Approved and Certified, this day of State of California ) County of Los Angeles ) On personally appeared , 2000. Craig R. Nealis, City Manager City of Rolling Hills before me, , a Notary Public personally known to me (or 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. Witness by hand and official seal. Signature of Notary Public (seal) • EXHIBIT "A" Request for Certificate of Compliance We, the undersigned owners of record of real property within the City of Rolling Hills, County of Los Angeles, hereby request the City of Rolling Hills to determine if said real property described below on (Exhibit "B" to the Certificate) complies with the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act (Government Code, Section 66410 et seq.), and the City's Subdivision Ordinance (Title 16 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code). Signature Signature Signature Name typed or printed Name typed or, printed Name typed or printed Address Address Address State of California ) County of Los Angeles ) On before me, , a Notary Public personally appeared personally known to me (or 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. (seal) State of California ) County of Los Angeles ) On Witness by hand and official seal. Signature of Notary Public before me, , a Notary Public personally appeared personally known to me (or 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. Witness by hand and official seal. Signature of Notary Public (seal) •• s EXHIBIT "B" Legal Description of the One Parcel created by a Lot Line Adjustment merger of Parcels 1 and 2 of Rolling Hills Tract as recorded in Book Book 58, pages 6 through 10, as adjusted by Certificate of Compliance and Lot line Adjustment dated , 2000. Parcel 105 and a portion of Parcel 104 in Rolling Hills Tract, County of Los Angeles, State of California, per map recorded in Book 58, Pages 6 through 10 inclusive of Record of Surveys, in the Office of the County Recorder of said County, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the most Easterly Corner of said Parcel 105, thence along the southerly boundary of said Parcel 105, South 72 Degrees 11 Minutes 40 Seconds West a distance of 35.50 feet; thence North 87 Degrees 38 Minutes 20 Seconds West a distance 263.74 feet; thence North 44 Degrees 57 Minutes 50 Seconds West a distance of 197.73 feet; thence North 26 Degrees 53 Minutes 25 Seconds West a distance of 156.95 feet to a point on the centerline of Eastfield Drive, a private street 60 feet wide, said point being the beginning of a nontangent curve, concave to the West having a radial to said point bearing South 26 Degrees 53 Minutes 25 Seconds; thence northerly along said curve and centerline through a central angle 73 Degrees 02 Minutes 30 Seconds an arc distance of 127.48 feet, to the northwesterly corner of said Parcel 104: thence departing from said centerline along the Northerly boundary of said Parcel 104, North 80 Degrees 04 Minutes 05 Seconds East a distance of 30.00 feet; thence North 76 Degrees 09 Minutes 13 Seconds East a distance of 170.59 feet; thence departing from said northerly line South 36 Degrees 31 Minutes 00 Seconds East a distance of 133.42 feet; thence North 53 Degrees 29 Minutes 00 Seconds East a distance of 80.00 feet to a point in the Northeasterly Line of said Parcel 104; thence along said Northeasterly Line, South 36 Degrees 31 Minutes 00 Seconds East a distance of 79.72 feet; thence South 13 Degrees 22 Minutes 30 Seconds East a distance of 190.24 feet to the Northeast comer of said Parcel 105; thence along the easterly line of said Parcel 105, South 11 Degrees 11 Minutes 20 Seconds East a distance of 125.95 feet to the Point of Beginning Containing 152,490 square feet or 3.50 acres Assessor's Parcel Number: 7567 004 021 and 7567 004 022 Prepared by Bolton Engineering Corp. 7Z,,, i't Ross N. Bolton, RCE 26120 • 0 : Road, Bridle Trail, Public Utilities and Appurtenances Easement to Rolling Hills Community Association The following strips over that portion of Parcel 105 and a portion of Parcel 104 in Rolling Hills Tract, County of Los Angeles, State of California, per map recorded in Book 58, Pages 6 through 10 inclusive of Record of Surveys, in the Office of the County Recorder of said County, are Road, Bridle Trail, Public Utilities and Appurtenances Easement to the Rolling Hills Community Association, and are more particularly described as follows: Strip 1 A strip of land 25 feet wide over said Parcel 105, said strip being 25 feet wide measured at right angles being on generally the northerly side of the following described property line: Beginning at the most Easterly Corner of said Parcel 105, said point being hereinafter referred to as Point A, thence along the southerly boundary of said Parcel 105, South 72 Degrees 11 Minutes 40 Seconds West a distance of 35.50 feet; thence North 87 Degrees 38 Minutes 20 Seconds West a distance of 263.74 feet to a point hereinafter referred to as Point B. The sideline of said strip to be lengthened or shortened to create a continuous strip with the adjacent easement strips. Strip 2 A strip of land 10 feet wide over said Parcel 105, said strip being 10 feet wide measured at right angles being on generally the northeasterly side of the following described property line: Beginning at said Point B described above, thence along the southwesterly line of said Lot 105, North 44 Degrees 57 Minutes 50 Seconds West a distance of 197.73 feet, thence North 26 Degrees 53 Minutes 25 Seconds West a distance of 126.95 feet to the centerline of Eastfield Drive, a private street (60 feet wide). The sideline of said strip to be lengthened or shortened to create a continuous strip with the adjacent easement strip to the southeast and the easement for Eastfield Drive (60 feet wide). Strip 3 A strip of land 25 feet wide over said Parcel 105 and a portion of Parcel 104, said strip being 25 feet wide measured at right angles being on generally the westerly side of the following described property line: Beginning at said Point A described above, thence along the easterly boundary of said Parcel 105 and a portion of Parcel 104, North 11 Degrees 11 Minutes 20 Seconds West a distance of 125.95 feet, thence North 13 Degrees 22 Minutes 30 Seconds West a distance 190.24 feet, thence North 36 Degrees 31 Minutes 00 Seconds West a distance of 79.72 feet to hereinafter referred to as Point C. The sideline of said strip to be lengthened or shortened to create a continuous strip with the adjacent easement strips. Strip 4 A strip of land 10 feet wide over said portion of Parcel 104, said strip being 10 feet wide measured at right angles being on generally the southeasterly side of the following described property line: Beginning at said Point C described above, thence departing from said easterly boundary of said portion of Parcel 104, South 53 Degrees 29 Minutes 00 Seconds West a distance of 80.00 feet to hereinafter referred to as Point D. The sideline of said strip to be lengthened or shortened to create a continuous strip with the adjacent easement strips. Strip 5 A strip of land 25 feet wide over said portion of Parcel 104, said strip being 25 feet wide measured at right angles being on generally the southwesterly side of the following described property line: Beginning at said Point D described above, thence North 36 Degrees 31 minutes 00 Seconds West a distance of 133.42 feet to a point on the Northwesterly Line of said portion of Lot 104, said point hereinafter referred to as Point E. The sideline of said strip to be lengthened or shortened to create a continuous strip with the adjacent easement strips. Strip 6 A strip of land 10 feet wide over said portion of Parcel 104, said strip being 10 feet wide measured at right angles being on generally the southerly side of the following described property line: Beginning at said Point E described above, thence along said Northwesterly Line of said portion of Lot 104, South 76 Degrees 09 Minutes 13 Seconds West a distance of 170.59 feet to the east easement line for Eastfield Road (60 feet wide). The sideline of said strip to be lengthened or shortened to create a continuous strip with the adjacent easement strip to the southeast and the easement for Eastfield Drive, a private road (60 feet wide). Prepared by Bolton Engineering Corp. 7Z>, Ross N. Bolton, RCE 26120 EXHIBIT "C" RESOLUTION NO. 99-14 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF A CONDITIONAL CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE FOR A LO.T LINE ADJUSTMENT TO MERGE TWO EXISTING LOTS INTO ONE LOT FOR PROPERTY AT 60 EASTFIELD DRIVE (LOT 105-EF) AND AN ADJACENT VACANT LOT TO THE NORTH (LOT 104-A-EF) IN ZONING CASE NO. 596A. 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 .(Lot 105-EF) that is 2.082 acres, and an adjacent vacant lot to the north (Lot` 104-A-EF) that is 1.42 acres, requesting a Certificate of,Compliance :for a Lot Line Adjustment toremove thecommon side lot line dividing the two parcels so that one 3.502 acre.. irregular lot is created by the merger of the two 'existing lots. Section 2. California Government Code Subsection 66412(d) authorizes lot line adjustments without requiring a tentative map, parcel map : or final map if: (A) • ' the lot :line, adjustment -involves two or more existing adjacent. parcels, .where land is' • proposed .to-be:takenl•'frthn one parcel and added'to= an 'adjacent. parcel; (B) a greater: , number . of parcels than' originally existed is not thereby created; • (C) the lot line adjustment -will- create parcels that conform to local zoning .and building ordinances; - and (D) the . lot line adjustment is approved by , the City. The . City may impose conditions: on the Lot Line Adjustment in order to .make 'the lot conform to .local zoning and building ordinances, to require the prepayment of real property taxes prior to the approval of the Lot Line Adjustment or to facilitate the relocation of .: existing infrastructure or easements. Section 3. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the application at a regular meeting on July 20, 1999, August 17, 1999, and at a field trip visit on July 27, 1999. During the hearing process, the applicant separately requested Site Plan Review under Zoning Case No. 596B for the construction of residential additions to the existing residence at 60 Eastfield Drive proposed to span the existing side lot line dividing the two parcels at the south side of Lot 104-A-EF and the north side of Lot 105-EF and that will require grading. Section 4. The Planning Commission finds that the project is categorically exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to a Class 5 exemption provided by Section 15305 of the State CEQA Guidelines. RESOLUTION NO. 99-14 PAGE 1 OF 4 Section 5. The Planning Commission has considered the evidence, both written and oral, presented in connection with this application and finds as follows: A. Section 16.16.010(B) of the Rolling Hills Subdivision Ordinance and Section 17.16.060(A) of the Rolling Hills Zoning Ordinance requires that each lot in any subdivision in the RA-S-1 Zone shall have a net area of not less forty-three thousand, five hundred sixty square feet (1.0 acre). The proposed lot line adjustment will result in the combined new lot being 3.502 net acres exclusive of: (a) any and all perimeter easements measured to a minimum lineal distance of ten feet perpendicular to the property lines; (b) any portion of the lot or parcel of land used for roadway purposes; and (c) any private drive or driveway which provides access to any other lot or parcel of land. B. Section 16.16.020 of the Rolling Hills Subdivision Ordinance and Section 17.16.060(B)(3) of the Rolling Hills Zoning Ordinance require that in all cases where practicable, the sidelines of lots shall be at approximate right angles or radial to the street upon which such lot fronts. The existing sidelines of both lots are approximately at right angles or radial to Eastfield Drive. The proposed adjustment will allow the northerly side lot line ofthe combined. Lots :104-A-EF and 105=EF to be at right angles or radial to Eastfield Drive. The proposed adjustmentwill allow the southerly side lot line of the combined Lots 104-A-EF and 105-EF to be at right angles or radial to Eastfield Drive. C. Section 16.20.230 of the Rolling Hills Subdivision' `Ordinance requires that ten (10) foot wide easements _ be dedicated for .bridle trail and utility' purposes over the strips and portions of land within -and abutting upon the sidelines and rear lines of each lot. The proposed lot line adjustment to combine Lots 104-A-EF and 105-EF, an irregular lot, shall continue ten (10) foot easements along the northerly side lot line, twenty-five (25) foot easements along the easterly side lot line for 133.42 feet, ten (10) foot easements along the northerly side lotline for 80 feet, twenty-five (25) foot easements along the easterly rear lot line, and twenty-five (25) foot easements along the southerly side lot line. D. Conditions have been attached to this approval which provide that it will not impair or limit the . City's application of the Site Plan Review Ordinance to any future development of the combined Lots 104-A-EF and 105-EF. Section 6. In accordance with the foregoing findings, a Conditional Certificate of Compliance for lot line adjustment sought in Zoning Case No 596A as indicated on the map attached hereto as Exhibit "A" is hereby approved as a Conditional Certificate of Compliance subject to the following conditions: A. There shall continue to be ten (10) foot easements along the northerly side lot line, twenty-five (25) foot easements along the easterly side lot line for 133.42 feet, ten (10) foot easements along the northerly side lot line for 80 feet, twenty-five (25) foot easements along the easterly rear lot line, and twenty-five (25) foot RESOLUTION NO. 99-14 PAGE 2 OF 4 • • easements along the southerly side lot line within the adjusted boundary of the combined Lots 104-A-EF and 105-EF. The map attached to the Conditional Certificate of Compliance, referred hereto as Exhibit "A" shall delineate and note the easements specified in this paragraph. B. The lot line adjustment shall not in any way constitute any representation that the adjusted combined Lots 104-A-EF and 105-EF can be developed in compliance with current zoning and building ordinance standards. No development shall occur on the property without first complying with all applicable City Building and Zoning requirements and other applicable rules and regulations. C. The lot line adjustment shall not in any respect limit or impair the City's application of the Site Plan Review Ordinance (Ordinance No 221, 1988) to the combined Lots 104-A-EF and 105-EF at such time as an application is made for development. D. The Certificate of Lot Line Adjustment shall not be issued until • a legal description complying with: the delineation of adjustment and, the required easements as specified in Paragraph A of Section 6 are submitted to, and approved by. the City. Upon the City's approval of the legal description, the Conditional Certificate of Compliance . shall be issued by the City, shall be recorded by the property. owner in the offices of the Los Angeles ° County Recorder, and evidence of the recordation shall be returned to the City. E. The applicant shall record the deeds effectuating the transfer concurrently with the Certificate of Compliance for the Lot Line Adjustment and shall submit proof of such recordation to the City of Rolling Hills. F. The applicant shall submit proof of payment of 1998-1999 property taxes. G. The applicant shall not be required to record the Certificate of Compliance and deeds if the site plan review application in Zoning Case No. 596B is not approved. H. The applicant shall execute an Affidavit of Acceptance of all conditions or this Lot Line Adjustment shall not be effective. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED ON THE ?r1ST DAY TEMBER, 1999. ALLAN ROBERTS, CHAIRMAN RESOLUTION NO. 99-14 PAGE 3OF4 ATTEST: MARILYN KERN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§ CITY OF ROLLING HILLS I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 99-14 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF A CONDITIONAL CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE FOR A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT TO MERGE TWO EXISTING LOTS .INTO ONE LOT FOR PROPERTY AT 60 EASTFIELD DRIVE (LOT 105-EF) AND A N ADJACENT VACANT LOT TO THE NORTH (LOT 104-A-EF) IN ZONING CASE NO. 596A. :was approved and adopted at a regular meetingof. the Planning Commission on September 21, .1999 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 NO. 99-14 PAGE 4 OF 4 • • 01--C 1n080 RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND MAIL' CITY OF ROLLING HILLS 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310) 377-1521 (310) 377-7288 FAX 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 NOS. 596A & 596B SITE PLAN REVIEW Z. LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT �L I (We) the undersigned state: I am (We am) the owner(s) of the real properly described as follows: 60 EASTFIELD DRIVE (LOTS 105-EF AND 104-A-EF), ROLLING HILLS, CA This property is the subject of the above numbered case. I am (We are) aware of, and accept, all the stated conditions in said ZONING CASE NOS. 596A & 5968 SITE PLAN REVIEW L LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT Z. I (We) ce r la, Y) ur er the penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. � N me typed or printed . ' /�ri4'e. 77,4. ��G 1(4t-,s' .g©07Y City/State Signatures must be acknowledged by a notary public,. Signature Name typed or printed Address City/State T Recorder's Use Only State of California ) County of Los Angeles) // On (JAI), 14/ 200 / before me,Pe0 M5 .t', /*`�/A r'�!E Ai014124) %LI /34.1c personally appeared i2 13OE/z r 7; ,14)z F G A) !)>-A) personally known to me (or 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. ��� — <, DOUGLAS K. MC HATIIE 1 c � Commp sslon # 1125501 1111 - , 3 Notary Public — Cailfornia S: r_-► Los Angeles County My Comm. Expires Feb 2, 2031 Yw. Witness by h\and official seal. Si w w V V V W W W SEE EXHIBIT "A" & EXHIBIT "B" ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF RESOLUTION NO. 99-14 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF A CONDITIONAL CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE FOR A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT TO MERGE TWO EXISTING LOTS INTO ONE LOT FOR PROPERTY AT 60 EASTFIELD DRIVE (LOT 105-EF) AND A N ADJACENT VACANT LOT TO THE NORTH (LOT 104-A-EF) IN ZONING CASE NO. 596A. 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 realproperty located at 60 Eastfield Drive (Lot 105-EF) that is 2.082 acres and- an adjacent vacant lot to the north (Lot 104-A-EF) that is 1.42 acres, requesting a Certificate of Compliance for a Lot Line Adjustment to remove the common side lot line dividing the two parcels so that one 3.502 acre irregular lot is created by the merger of the two existing lots. Section 2. California Government Code Subsection 66412(d) authorizes lot line adjustments without requiring a tentative map, parcel map orfinal map if: (A) the lot line adjustment involves two or more existing adjacent parcels, where land is proposed to be taken from one parcel and added. to an adjacent parcel; (B) a greater number of parcels than originally existed is not thereby created; (C) the lot line adjustment will create parcels that conform to local zoning and building ordinances; and (D) the lot line adjustment is approved by the City. The City may impose conditions on the Lot Line Adjustment in .order to make the lot conform to local zoning and building ordinances, to require the prepayment of real property taxes prior to the approval of the Lot Line Adjustment or to facilitate the relocation of existing infrastructure or easements. Section 3. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the application at a regular meeting on July 20, 1999, August 17, 1999; and at a field trip visit on July 27, 1999. During the hearing process, the applicant separately requested Site Plan Review under Zoning Case No. 596B for the construction of residential additions to the existing residence at 60 Eastfield Drive proposed to span the existing side lot line dividing the two parcels at the south side of Lot 104-A-EF and the north side of Lot 105-EF and that will require grading. Section 4. The Planning Commission finds that the project is categorically exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to a Class 5 exemption provided by Section 15305 of the State CEQA Guidelines. RESOLUTION NO. 99-14 PAGE 1 OF 4 • • Section 5. The Planning Commission has considered the evidence, both written and oral, presented in connection with this application and finds as follows: A. Section 16.16.010(B) of the Rolling Hills Subdivision Ordinance and Section 17.16.060(A) of the Rolling Hills Zoning Ordinance requires that each lot in any subdivision in the RA-S-1 Zone shall have a net area of not less forty-three thousand, five hundred sixty square feet (1.0 acre). The proposed lot line adjustment will result in the combined new lot being 3.502 net acres exclusive of: (a) any and all perimeter easements measured to a minimum lineal distance of ten feet perpendicular to the property lines; (b) any portion of the lot or parcel of land used for roadway purposes; and (c) any private drive or driveway which provides access to any other lot or parcel of land. B. Section 16.16.020 of the Rolling Hills Subdivision Ordinance and Section 17.16.060(B)(3) of the Rolling Hills Zoning Ordinance require that in all cases where practicable, the sidelines of lots shall be at approximate right angles or radial to the street upon which such lot fronts. The existing sidelines of both lots are. approximately at right angles or radial to Eastfield Drive. The proposed adjustment will allow the northerly side lot line of the combined Lots 104-A-EF and 105-EF to be at right angles or radial to Eastfield Drive. The proposed adjustment will allow the southerly side lot line of the combined Lots 104-A-EF and 105-EF to be at right angles or radial to Eastfield Drive. C. Section 16.20.230 of the Rolling Hills Subdivision Ordinance requires that ten (10) foot wide easements be dedicated for bridle trail and utility purposes over the strips and portions of land within and abutting upon the sidelines and rear lines of each lot. The proposed lot line adjustment to combine Lots 104-A-EF and 105-EF, an irregular lot, shall continue ten (10) foot easements along the northerly side lot line, twenty-five (25) foot easements along the easterly side lot line for 133.42 feet, ten (10) foot easements along the northerly side lot line for 80 feet, twenty-five (25) foot easements along the easterly rear lot line, and twenty-five (25) foot easements along the southerly side lot line. D. Conditions have been attached to this approval which provide that it will not impair or limit the City's application of the Site Plan Review Ordinance to any future development of the combined Lots 104-A-EF and 105-EF. Section 6. In accordance with the foregoing findings, a Conditional Certificate of Compliance for lot line adjustment sought in Zoning Case No 596A as indicated on the map attached hereto as Exhibit "A" is hereby approved as a Conditional Certificate of Compliance subject to the following conditions: A. There shall continue to be ten (10) foot easements along the northerly side lot line, twenty-five (25) foot easements along the easterly side lot line for 133.42 feet, ten (10) foot easements along the northerly side lot line for 80 feet, twenty-five (25) foot easements along the easterly rear lot line, and. twenty-five (25) foot RESOLUTION NO. 99-14 PAGE 2 OF 4 • • easements along the southerly side lot line within the adjusted boundary of the combined Lots 104-A-EF and 105-EF. The map attached to the Conditional Certificate of Compliance, referred hereto as Exhibit "A" shall delineate and note the easements specified in this paragraph. B. The lot line adjustment shall not in any way constitute any representation that the adjusted combined Lots 104-A-EF and 105-EF can be developed in compliance with current zoning and building ordinance standards. No development shall occur on the property without first complying with all applicable City Building and Zoning requirements and other applicable rules and regulations. C. The lot line adjustment shall not in any respect limit or impair the City's application of the Site Plan Review Ordinance (Ordinance No 221, 1988) to the combined Lots 104-A-EF and 105-EF at such time as an application is made for development. D. The Certificate of Lot Line Adjustment shall not be issued until a legal description complying with the delineation of adjustment and the required easements as specified in Paragraph A of Section 6 are submitted to, and approved by the City. Upon the City's approval of the legal description, the Conditional Certificate. of Compliance shall be issued by the City, shall be recorded by the property owner in the offices of the Los Angeles County Recorder, and evidence of the recordation shall be returned to the City. . E. The applicant shall record the deeds effectuating the transfer concurrently with the Certificate of Compliance for the Lot Line Adjustment and shall submit proof of such recordation to the City of Rolling Hills. F. The applicant shall submit proof of payment of 1998-1999 property taxes. G. The applicant shall not be required to record the Certificate of Compliance and deeds if the site plan review application in Zoning Case No. 596B is not approved. H. The applicant shall execute an Affidavit of Acceptance of all conditions or this . Lot Line Adjustment shall not be effective. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED ON THE ALLAN ROBERTS, CHAIRMAN RESOLUTION NO. 99-14 PAGE 3 OF 4 • • ATTEST: Ice MA YN E DDEPUTY C� ITY CLERK STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§ L1TY OF ROLLING HILLS ) I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 99-14 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF A CONDITIONAL CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE FOR . A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT . TO MERGE TWO EXISTING LOTS INTO ONE LOT FOR PROPERTY 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 and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on September 21, 1999 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 M� CITY CLERK RESOLUTION NO. 99-14 PAGE 4 OF 4 VeN/463, " °4y 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 A N 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 maximum 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 dass 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 (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 andsurrounding 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. 99-15 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 Ad 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 onthe 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 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 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 lot 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. 1G 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 indude 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 by the 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 5 of 7 • • 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, terms 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. Theaccessway 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 Plan Review or the approval shall not be effective. AD. All conditions of this 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 21ST/bAY OF,SEPJr E ER, 1999. ALLAN ROBERTS, CHAIRMAN RESOLUTION NO. 99-15 Page 6 of 7 • ATTEST: MARILYN 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: NOES: ABSENT ABSTAIN: Commissioners Hankins,. Sommer, Witte.and Chairman Roberts. Commissioner Margeta. None. None. and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following Administrative Offices. k DEPUTY CITY CLERK RESOLUTION NO. 99-15 Page 7 of 7 • This is a true and certified copy olthe record if it bears the seal, imprinted in purple ink, iof the Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk AiliA474*,,V,Ift. JAN 18 2001 7,A er/or&t.....e.k... REGISTRAR-RECORDER/COUNTY CLERK LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA • 41r.C.. • •