405, Enlarge the existing garage 16, Resolutions & Approval Conditions•
For Recordell, Use
90 873141
kECORDING REQUESTED BY AND MAIL TO:
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274
Please record this form with
return to:
City of Rolling Hills
2 Portuguese Bend Road
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
(The Registrar -Recorder's Office requires
before recordation.)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ss
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )
RECORDED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS
RECORDER'S OFFICE
LOS ANGELES COUNTY .--
CALIFORNIA
MIN. PAST1 P.M. MAY 11 1990
.
the -Registrar -Recorder's Office and
l
I FEE $ /A
I ,
that the form be notarized
Acceptance Form
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO.
REVISEDSITE PLAN REVIEW & VARIANCE CASE NO. 405
I (We) the undersigned state:
I am(We are) the owner(s). of the real property described as follows:
F.
69 Eastfield Drive, Rolling Hills, California (Lot 19-EF)
RG501.0c\a1k) z_o/JIkcps '�o5 Wi 't '4'r A
This property is the subject of the above numbered
I am (We are) aware of, and accept, all the stated
Conditional Use Permit Zase' No.
REVISEDSITE PLAN REVIEW.& Variance Case No. 405
r ,.
cases.
conditions
in said
I (We) certify (or declare) under the penalty. of perjury that the
foregoing is true'and correct;
(Where the owner..and applicant. are
Applicant Name
Address
City, State
Signature
not the same, both must sign.)
Type or print
L.0 VGI'Z V\ 1\k
9 E M c-LD DL
R.OG.' G \4t 4- , Cif . q0 Z7'f
Owner Name
Address
City, State
Signature
This signature must
be acknowledged by a
notary public. Attach
appropriate acknowledgement.
�Q �( CAS-C"FtG-Lb
Act..vwG tAk t Ls CA, 90 2 7,f
(General)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA__
LC) 1
COUNTY OF �—� 5 A nl tiles Jy
On
State,
SS.
'1- ) IQ_ ate
()A l 'a Vt c ,e) cgS /UD n
90- 873141
LI (, / ? 0 before me, � the 7 undersi need, a ,N,/ptary Public in and for said
ersona�ly ppea�mqdhl� ( S� 1� e-t�C/• 77�C L l� p..s
A-Y of o_Es
to be the person S
to the within instrument and acknowledged that
executed the same.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signatur,
a' _.(Type or Printed)
OFC-2056
personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence)
whose name au P3R.E subscribed
OFFICIAL SEAL, )
NORMA MESSERSMITH ?
NOTARY NSW- CALIFORNIA
LOS ANGELES COUNTY
• ` v y by Comm. Expires Sept 30,1992
(This area for official notarial seal)
•
1 ve 4/\&� T
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A VARIANCE TO THE
SIDE YARD AND FRONT YARD SETBACKS, AND SITE PLAN
REVIEW APPROVAL IN ZONING CASE NO. 405
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.
Glover Sanders with respect to real property located at 69 Eastfield
Drive, Rolling Hills (Lot 19-EF) requesting a variance to the side
yard and front yard setback requirements to construct an addition to
the attached garage, and site plan review approval to construct an
addition to the existing nonconforming structure.
Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted a duly
noticed public hearing to consider the application on August 15, 1989,
and September 19, 1989, and conducted a field site review on September
16, 1989. Further, the Planning Commission, in accordance with
Section 17.34.070, conducted a duly -noticed public hearing to consider
a subsequent modification to the approved site plan on February 20,
1990 and March 20, 1990, and conducted a field site review on March
17, 1990.
Section 3. Sections 17.32.010 through 17.32.030 permit
approval of a variance from the standards and requirements of the
Zoning Ordinance when exceptional or extraordinary circumstances
applicable to the property and not applicable to other similar
properties in the same zone prevent the owner from making use of the
property to the same extent enjoyed by similar properties. Pursuant
to these Sections, the Planning Commission finds that:
A. The existing attached garage already encroaches into
the side yard and front yard setbacks. The proposed encroachment
involves an expansion of an easterly portion of the garage into
the setbacks.
B. Due to the shape and topography of the lot and the
existing developmental pattern, the garage cannot be expanded
significantly into the front and side yards. The proposed
expansion would not extend the new structure beyond the point at
which the nonconforming residential structure presently exists,
meaning that there will be no greater incursion into the side and
front yards than already exists on the property at this time.
C. In view of the topographical situation and the
presence of an existing incursion in the side and front yards,
there exist unique circumstances, not generally applicable to
other properties in the same zone, that justify the continued
encroachment.
90- 8'73141
• •
D. The grant of the variance under these circumstances
will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare,
will be compatible with surrounding properties and will be
consistent with the goals of the Zoning Ordinance.
Section 4. Based on the foregoing findings, the Planning
Commission hereby approves the Variance for Zoning Case No. 405 to
permit an encroachment into the side yard and front yard setbacks, as
indicated in the development plan submitted with this application and
incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit A, subject to the
conditions set forth in Section 7 of this Resolution.
Section 5. Section 17.34.010 requires a development plan
to be submitted for site plan review and approval before any building
or structure may be constructed or any expansion, addition,
alternation or repair to existing buildings may be made which involve
changes to grading or an increase to the size of the building or
structure by more than twenty-five percent (25%) in any thirty-six
(36) month period.
fact:
Section 6. The Commission makes the following findings of
A. The proposed residential structure is compatible with
the low density, rural character requirements of the General
Plan. This project is compatible with the Zoning Ordinance
because the project complies with the Zoning Ordinance lot
coverage requirements. The net square footage of the lot is
approximately 38,570 square feet. The proposed residential
structures, including residence, garage and pool/spa equal 4,341
square feet which represents 11% structural lot coverage, which
is within the 20% maximum coverage that is permitted. The total
lot coverage is 8,026 square feet which represents a proposed
total lot coverage of 21% which is within the 35% maximum
coverage that is permitted. The proposed project is compatible
with surrounding residential structures. The proposed project
includes a residence and proposed future stable, which structures
are similar to surrounding residential land use patterns.
B. The proposed development preserves the natural
topographic features of the lot to the maximum extent possible
because all construction will occur on the existing building pad
area, leaving a large portion of the lot undeveloped.
C. The proposed project follows the natural contours of
the site to minimize grading to the maximum extent possible, in
that all construction will occur on the existing building pad
area of the lot. Existing drainage patterns will be preserved so
that drainage will be channeled into existing drainage courses
and engineered and constructed within the requirements of the
building codes.
90- 8'73141
• •
D. The project preserves surrounding native vegetation to
the maximum extent possible, by limiting building to the existing
building pad area.
E. The project substantially preserves the natural and
undeveloped state of the lot by minimizing building coverage in
that the residential structure will cover only 9.6% of the lot,
which is substantially less than the 20% structural coverage that
is permitted. The total lot coverage including structures,
driveways, and hard surfaces will equal approximately 16.2% of
the lot, which is substantially less than the 35% total coverage
that is permitted.
site
less
F. The project is harmonious in scale and mass with the
as indicated in paragraph E above because the project is
than one-half the size that is permitted.
G. The project is sensitive
convenience and safety of pedestrians
in that the driveway will remain
exists.
H. The project conforms to
California Environmental Quality Act
from environmental review.
and not detrimental to the
and circulation of vehicles
unaltered as it presently
the requirements of the
and is categorically exempt
Section 7. Based upon the foregoing findings, the
Commission hereby approves the site plan review application for a
proposed residential structure on the property located at 69 Eastfield
Drive as indicated on the development plan attached hereto as Exhibit
A and subject to the following conditions:
A. The variance to the side yard and front yard setbacks
as indicated on the development plan shall not be effective if
the existing residential structure is demolished.
B. The variance to the side yard and front yard setbacks
shall expire if not used in one year from the effective date of
approval asdefined and specified in Section 17.32.110 of the
Municipal Code.
C. The proposed building plan must be approved by the
Rolling Hills Community Association Architectural Committee
before the applicant receives a grading permit from the County of
Los Angeles.
D. Prior to the submittal of a final grading plan to the
County of Los Angeles, the grading plan shall be submitted to the
Rolling Hills Planning Department staff for their review, along
with related geology, soils and hydrology reports. This grading
plan must conform to the development plan as approved by the
Planning Commission..
90- 873141
• •
E. A landscape plan must be submitted to the City of
Rolling Hills Planning Department staff for approval. Additional
landscaping shall be installed between the site and the southerly
abutting property to provide screening six (6') feet beyond the
edge of the residential addition and a minimum of eight (8') feet
high. The landscaping plan submitted must comply with the
purpose and intent of the Site Plan Review Ordinance. The
landscaping plan shall incorporate existing mature trees and
native vegetation. A bond in the amount of the cost estimate for
the landscaping plus 15% may be required to be posted, and
retained with the City for not less than two years after
landscape installation. The retained bond will be released by
the City after the City Manager determines that the landscaping
was installed pursuant to the landscaping plan as approved, and
that such landscaping is properly established and in good
condition.
F. The proposed spa shall be constructed to a height one
(1') foot lower, as indicated on the revised developmental plan
dated April 4, 1990.
G. The working drawings submitted to the County
Department of Building and Safety for plan check must conform to
the development plan approved with this site plan review.
H. Any modifications to the development plan as approved
by the Planning Commission shall require the filing of an
application for modification of the development plan and must be
reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission pursuant to
Section 17.34.070 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 7th day
of April , 1990.
ATTEST:
,e, ° ��--
Deputy i y Clerk
/s/ Allan Roberts
Allan Roberts, Chairman
90— 873141
For Recorde °
111
e
RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND MAIL TO:
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274
89 1'721'744
Please record this form with the -Registrar -Recorder's Office and
return to:
City of Rolling Hills
2 Portuguese Bend Road
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
FEE $7 3I
1. I 2
(The Registrar -Recorder's Office requires that the form be notarized
before recordation.)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA ')
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )
Acceptance Form
ss .
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO:.
Site Plan Review & VARIANCE CASE NO.
I (We) the undersigned state:
4n,
I am (We are) the owner(s). of'the real property described
•
69 Eastfield'Drive,Rolling Hills (Lot 19-EF)
as follows:
This property is the subject of the above numbered cases.
I am (We are) aware of, and accept, all the stated conditions in
Conditional Use Permit Case No.
Site Plan Review&Variance Case No.
4. n;
I (We) certify (or declare) under the penalty. of perjury that the
foregoing is true' and correct:-
•
(Where the owner 'and applicant. are not the same, both must sign.)
MIN.
3/ PAST 2 PM 0 CT 25 1989
- - i
RECORDED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS
RECORDER'S OFFICE
LOS ANGELES COUNTY
CALIFORNIA
Applicant
Address
City, State
fSignature
This signature must
be acknowledged by a
notary public. Attach
appropriate acknowledgement.
Owner Name
Address
City, State
Signature
said
Type or print
Name_GLO 1kr . W A �.
sT
(\OU,1t\G V\11- LS
Ak-ei 113 .L.V-piziLA-2>
0_4wGfLerpv,-frg-40m siv DE4'
.%`( £PST F(aL D
ik®LL .( IUG
a (General)
r
STATE OF CALIFORNIA (� � e v )} C 1
COUN OF l�, n"1
89-1721744
On r) 0 -��' - _► before me he uneergiAned, a^ otary Public in and for said
State, ersonall a e �`.p_ C�
i� 4 `\c pig 11
to he the person
to the within instrument and acknowledged that
executed the same.
WITNESS my hand an 11 official seal.
Signature
personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence)
whose name C7 APB subscribed
-,-;1<"}51 f-PZ)
Name (T; ped or Printed)
SS.
OFFICIAL SEAL
NORMA MESSERSMITH )
NOTARYPUBLIC- CALIFORNIA
LOS ANGELES COUNTY
My Comm. Expires Sept. 30, 1992 )
hew
OFC-2056
(This area for official notarial seal)
• •
RESOLUTION NO. 89-29
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A VARIANCE TO THE
SIDE YARD AND FRONT YARD SETBACKS, AND SITE PLAN
REVIEW APPROVAL IN ZONING CASE NO. 405
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.
Glover Sanders with respect to real property located at 69 Eastfield
Drive, Rolling Hills (Lot 19-EF) requesting a variance to the side
yard and front yard setback requirements to construct an addition to
the attached garage, and site plan review approval to construct an
addition to the existing nonconforming structure.
Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted a duly
noticed public hearing to consider the application on August 15, 1989,
and September 19, 1989, and conducted a field site review on September
16, 1989.
Section 3. Sections 17.32.010 through 17.32.030 permit
approval of a variance from the standards and requirements of the
Zoning Ordinance when exceptional or extraordinary circumstances
applicable to the property and not applicable to other similar
properties in the same zone prevent the owner from making use of the
property to the same extent enjoyed by similar properties. Pursuant
to these Sections, the Planning Commission finds that:
A. The existing attached garage already encroaches into
the side yard and front yard setbacks. The proposed encroachment
involves an expansion of an easterly portion of the garage into
the setbacks.
B. Due to the shape and topography of the lot and the
existing developmental pattern, the garage cannot be expanded
significantly into the front and side yards. The proposed
expansion would not extend the new structure beyond the point at
which the nonconforming residential structure presently exists,
meaning that there will be no greater incursion into the side and
front yards than already exists on the property at this time.
C. In view of the topographical situation and the
presence of an existing incursion in the side and front yards,
there exist unique circumstances, not generally applicable to
other properties in the same zone, that justify the continued
encroachment.
D. The grant of the variance under these circumstances
will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare,
will be compatible with surrounding properties and will be
consistent with the goals of the Zoning Ordinance.
• •
Section 4. Based on the foregoing findings, the Planning
Commission hereby approves the Variance for Zoning Case No. 405 to
permit an encroachment into the side yard and front yard setbacks, as
indicated in the development plan submitted with this application and
incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit A, subject to the
conditions set forth in Section 7 of this Resolution.
Section 5. Section 17.34.010 requires a development plan
to be submitted for site plan review and approval before any building
or structure may be constructed or any expansion, addition,
alternation or repair to existing buildings may be made which involve
changes to grading or an increase to the size of the building or
structure by more than twenty-five percent (25%) in any thirty-six
(36) month period.
fact:
Section 6. The Commission makes the following findings of
A. The proposed residential structure is compatible with
the low density, rural character requirements of the General
Plan. This project is compatible with the Zoning Ordinance
because the project complies with the Zoning Ordinance lot
coverage requirements. The net square footage of the lot is
approximately 38,570 square feet. The proposed residential
structures equal 3,739 square feet which represents 9.6%
structural lot coverage, which is within the 20% maximum coverage
that is permitted. The total lot coverage is approximately 6,236
square feet which represents a proposed total lot coverage of
16.2% which is within the 35% maximum coverage that is
permitted. The proposed project is compatible with surrounding
residential structures. The proposed project includes a
residence and proposed future stable, which structures are
similar to surrounding residential land use patterns.
B. The proposed development preserves the natural
topographic features of the lot to the maximum extent possible
because all construction will occur on the existing building pad
area, leaving a large portion of the lot undeveloped.
C. The proposed project follows the natural contours of
the site to minimize grading to the maximum extent possible, in
that all construction will occur on the existing building pad
area of the lot. Existing drainage patterns will be preserved so
that drainage will be channeled into existing drainage courses
and engineered and constructed within the requirements of the
building codes.
D. The project preserves surrounding native vegetation to
the maximum extent possible, by limiting building to the existing
building pad area.
E. The project substantially preserves the natural and
undeveloped state of the lot by minimizing building coverage in
that the residential structure will cover only 9.6% of the lot,
which is substantially less than the 20% structural coverage that
• •
is permitted. The total lot coverage including structures,
driveways, and hard surfaces will equal approximately 16.2% of
the lot, which is substantially less than the 35% total coverage
that is permitted.
F. The project is harmonious in scale and mass with the
site as indicated in paragraph E above because the project is
less than one-half the size that is permitted.
G. The project is sensitive
convenience and safety of pedestrians
in that the driveway will remain
exists.
H. The project conforms to
California Environmental Quality Act
from environmental review.
and not detrimental to the
and circulation of vehicles
unaltered as it presently
the requirements of the
and is categorically exempt
Section 7. Based upon the foregoing findings, the
Commission hereby approves the site plan review application for a
proposed residential structure on the property located at 69 Eastfield
Drive as indicated on the development plan attached hereto as Exhibit
A and subject to the following conditions:
A. The variance to the side yard and front yard setbacks
as indicated on the development plan shall not be effective if
the existing residential structure is demolished.
B. The variance to the side yard and front yard setbacks
shall expire if not used in one year from the effective date of
approval as defined and specified in Section 17.32.110 of the
Municipal Code.
C. The proposed building plan
Rolling Hills Community Association
before the applicant receives a grading
Los Angeles.
must be approved by the
Architectural Committee
permit from the County of
D. Prior to the submittal of a final grading plan to the
County of Los Angeles, the grading plan shall be submitted to the
Rolling Hills Planning Department staff for their review, along
with related geology, soils and hydrology reports. This grading
plan must conform to the development plan as approved by the
Planning Commission.
E. A landscape plan must be submitted to the City of
Rolling Hills Planning Department staff for approval. The
landscaping plan submitted must comply with the purpose and
intent of the Site Plan Review Ordinance. The landscaping plan
shall incorporate existing mature trees and native vegetation. A
bond in the amount of the cost estimate for the landscaping plus
15% shall be posted and retained with the City for not less than
two years after landscape installation. The retained bond will
be released by the City after the City Manager determines that
the landscaping was installed pursuant to the landscaping plan as
approved, and that such landscaping is properly established and
in good condition.
. •
F. The working drawings submitted to the County
Department of Building and Safety for plan check must conform to
the development plan approved with this site plan review.
G. Any modifications to the development plan as approved
by the Planning Commission shall require the filing of an
application for modification of the development plan and must be
reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission pursuant to
Section 17.34.070 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 19th day
of September , 1989.
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Allan Roberts, Chairman