Loading...
433, Construct an attached garage, Correspondence• City .1) leoffinv May 19, 1992 Ms. Teri McCoy Levine 56 Eastfield Drive. Rolling Hilis, CA 90274 SUBJECT: EXPIRATION OF EXTENSION APPROVALS RESOLUTION NOS. 90-18 AND 91-18 ZONING 'CASE NO. 433 Dear Mr. Levine: INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (213) 377-1521 FAX: (213) 377-7288 It has been almost two years since your project was approved by the Planning Commission. We would like to remind you that your extension approvals for the subject zoning case will expire on August 4, 1992. Section 17.34.080.B of the Rolling Hilis Municipal Code states, "Extensions shall not be granted for more than a total of one year unless a public hearing is held and approval granted in the same manner and based upon the same criteria as for the issuance of a new permit." Feel free to call me at (310) 377-1521 if you have any quesions. Sincerely, LOLA UNGAR PRINCIPAL PLANNER CityO /eOI/(fl Jh INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (213) 377-1521 FAX: (213) 377-7288 September 13, 1990 Ms. Terry Levine 56 Eastfield Drive Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Re: Zoning Case No. 433 - Site Plan Review for a proposed residence, Lot 102-SK Dear Ms. Levine: This is to inform you that the City Council, at their meeting on September 10, 1990, voted to ratify the Planning Commission's approval of the above referenced planning/zoning case application. Pursuant to Section 17.32.087, Ordinance No. 207, an Affidavit of Acceptance form must be executed before the approval becomes effective. A copy of the Resolution of Approval, specifying conditions of approval set forth by the Planning Commission, is enclosed for your information. Once you have reviewed the Resolution of Approval, please complete the enclosed Affidavit of Acceptance form, have the signature(s) notarized, and forward the Affidavit to the Office of the County Recorder, Room 15, 227 North Broadway, Los Angeles, CA 90012, with a check in the amount of $7.00. When the Affidavit of Acceptance has been returned to the City, duly executed and recorded, the Los Angeles County Department of Building and Safety will be notified that a permit can be issued. Please feel free to call me if you have any questions. Principal Planner Encl. /jc • • RESOLUTION N090-18 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL IN ZONING CASE NO. 433 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 Terry Levine with respect to real property located at 56 Eastfield Drive, Rolling Hills (Lot 102-SK) requesting site plan review approval for a proposed residential redevelopment on the property. Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the application on June 19, 1990 and July 17, 1990; and conducted a field site review on June 30, 1990. Section 3. Section 17.34.010 requires a development plan to be submitted for site plan review and approval before any building or structure may be constructed or any expansion, addition, alteration or repair to existing buildings may be made which involve changes to grading or an increase to the size of the building or structure by more than twenty-five (25%) percent in any thirty-six (36) month period. fact: Section 4. The Commission makes the following findings of A. The proposed development is compatible with the General Plan, the Zoning Ordinance and surrounding uses because the proposed structure complies with the General Plan requirement of low profile, low density residential development with sufficient open space between surrounding structures. The project conforms to Zoning Code setback and lot coverage requirements. The lot has a net square foot area of 54,706 square feet. The proposed residential structure, garage, swimming pool, future stable, and service yard will have 7,294 square feet which constitutes 13.3% of the lot, which is within the maximum 20% structural lot coverage requirement. The total lot coverage including paved areas and driveway will be 14,371 square feet which equals 26.2% of the lot, which is within the 35% maximum overall lot coverage requirement. The proposed project is similar and compatible with neighboring development patterns. B. The proposed development preserves and integrates into the site design, to the maximum extent feasible, existing natural topographic features of the lot including surrounding native vegetation, mature trees, drainage courses, and land forms (such as hillsides and knolls). The proposed development will lower the site a small amount, but 0 C. The development plan follows natural contours of the site to minimize grading because all drainage flow from the site will be channeled into existing drainage courses to the roadway. D. The development plan preserves to an extent surrounding native vegetation on the site and supplements it with landscaping that is compatible with and enhances the rural character of the community. E. The development plan substantially preserves the natural and undeveloped state of the lot be minimizing building coverage because the construction will not exceed the building pad coverage policy of 40% because this project will occupy only 35.5 percent of the proposed building pad. F. The proposed development is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, the natural terrain and surrounding residences because as indicated in paragraphs A and E, the project will have structural lot and building pad coverages that are less than permitted. G. The proposed development is sensitive and not detrimental to convenience and safety of circulation for pedestrians and vehicles because the project will have the required setbacks from the roadway and easements, and the present driveway access to the site will be unchanged. H. The project conforms with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and is categorically exempt from environmental review. Section 5. Based on the foregoing findings, the Commission hereby approves the Site Plan Review application for a proposed residential project to the property located at 56 Eastfield Drive, as indicated on the development plan attached hereto as "Exhibit A" and subject to the following conditions: A. Any modifications to the project which would constitute a modification to the Development Plan as approved by the Planning Commission, shall require the filing of an application for modification of the Development Plan pursuant to Section 17.34.070 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code. B. A landscaping plan must be submitted to the City of Rolling Hills Planning Department staff for approval. The plan submitted must comply with the purpose and intent of the Site Plan Review Ordinance and specifically, shall maximize the use of drought resistent plants and native vegetation, especially within the 50 foot front yard setback. The landscaping plan shall include landscaping to screen the portion of the driveway near the house and pool area from visibility from Eastfield Drive. 1990. 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 after the City Manager (or the Landscape Committee of the Community Association, if appointed to act for this purpose in place of the City Manager) determines that the landscaping was installed pursuant to the landscaping as approved, and that such landscaping is properly established and in good condition. C. The proposed building plan must be approved by the Rolling Hills Community Association Architectural Review Committee before any grading or building permit is issued. D. Prior to the submittal of a final grading plan to the County of Los Angeles for plan check, a detailed grading and drainage plan with related geology, soils and hydrology reports that conform to the Development Plan as approved by the Planning Commission must be submitted to the Rolling Hills Planning Department staff for their review. Cut and fill slopes must conform to the City of Rolling Hills standard of 2 to 1 slope ratio. 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 Site Plan Review. F. The access to the stable must be clearly delineated on the Development Plan. Any required approvals from the. Rolling Hills Community Association allowing access to the Stable through Association easements must be obtained by the applicant prior to submitting any drawings from the proposed residence to the County of Los Angeles for a building permit. G. The applicant shall execute an affidavit of acceptance of all conditions pursuant to 17.32.087 or this approval shall not be effective. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 4th day of Jluaust Chairman ATTES ,1-4144A-127 • • .4 I hereby certify that the above Resolution No. 90-18 was adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Rolling Hills on the 4th day of August, 1990 by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Frost, Lay and Hankins; Chairman Roberts NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Raine ABSTAIN: None DEPUTY CITY CLERK • Cry JUL July 25, 1990 Ms. Terry Levine 56 Eastfield Drive Rolling Hills, CA 90274 INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (213) 377-1521 FAX: (213) 377-7288 REVISED LETTER SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 433; Site Plan Review for the proposed residence Dear Ms. Levine: .J Pursuant to Section 17.32.090 (enclosed) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, this letter shall serve as official notification that the above -stated Zoning Case application was reviewed by the Planning Commission at their regular meeting of July 17, 1990. At that meeting, the Planning Commission voted to approve the request for the Site Plan Review for the proposed residence. The Planning Commission's decision will be reported to the City Council at their regular meeting on August 13, 1990. The decision of the Planning Commission may be appealed pursuant to Sections 17.32.140 and 17.32.150 (enclosed) of the Municipal Code. A copy of Resolution 614, establishing the fee for filing an appeal, is also enclosed for your information. Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact this office. Sincerely, CITY OF..ROLLING HILLS Ray /Ramada Principal Planner Encls /jr CC: Mr. Douglas McHattie, South Bay Engineering Mr. Criss Gunderson, Architect Peggy Minor, RHCA Manager • City 0/ leollin 9�ee July 20, 1990 Ms. Terry Levine 56 Eastfield Drive Rolling Hills, CA 90274 INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (213) 377-1521 FAX: (213) 377-7288 SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 433; Request for a Variance to encroach into the rear yard setback to construct a new residence, and Site Plan Review for the proposed residence Dear Ms. Levine: Pursuant to Section 17.32.090 (enclosed) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, this letter shall serve as official notification that the above -stated Zoning Case application was reviewed by the Planning Commission at their regular meeting of July 17, 1990. At that meeting, the Planning Commission voted to approve the request for the Variance to encroach into the rear yard setback to construct a new residence, and Site Plan Review for the proposed residence. The Planning Commission's decision will be reported to the City Council at their regular meeting on August 13, 1990. The decision of the Planning Commission may be appealed pursuant to Sections 17.32.140 and 17.32.150 (enclosed) of the Municipal Code. A copy of Resolution 614, establishing the fee for filing an appeal, is also enclosed for your information. Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact this office. Sincerely, CITY OF ROL ING HILLS Ray amada Principal Planner Encls /jr cc: Mr. Criss Gunderson, Architect Mr. Douglas McHattie, South Bay Engineering Peggy Minor, RHCA Manager • • C'ity 0/ leoffin July 18, 1991 Ms. Teri McCoy Levine 56 Eastfield Drive Rolling Hills, CA 90274 INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS. CALIF. 90274 (213) 377-1521 FAX: (213) 377-7288 SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 433, 56 Eastfield Drive (Lot 102-SK) Request for a one year time extension Dear Ms. Levine: This letter shall serve as official notification that a one year time extension was APPROVED by the Plannning Commission at their adjourned regular meeting on July 13, 1991. We have enclosed a copy of RESOLUTION NO. 91-18, specifying the conditions of approval set forth by the Planning Commission. Note that the approval of the time extension requires that weed removal take place prior to Auaust 4. 1991 and that the property continue to be maintained. Please feel free to call me at (213) 377-1521 if you have any questions. SINERELY, LOLA UN PRINCIPPLANNER cc: Criss Gunderson, Architect C1iy ./ R0ff4 _AA TO: Ms. Terry Levine 56 Eastfield Drive Rolling Hills, CA 90274 FROM: CITY OF ROLLING HILLS INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (213) 377-1521 FAX: (213) 377-7288 The plan for: Variance and Site Plan Review for proposed new residence. Applicant: Ms. Terry Levine Address: 56 Eastfield Drive, Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Complies with City Zoning requirements Needs Variance ( Contact City for application (c) Needs Conditional Use Permit Contact City for application (d) Needs Site Plan Review Contact City for application (e) xx Other (see below) and submittal and submittal and submittal requirements. requirements. requirements. The Planning Commission at their regular meeting held June 19, 1990, continued the above -stated application to an adjourned meeting to be held Saturday, June 30, 1990, at 7:30 A.M., So as to conduct a field inspection of the Site and surrounding properties. The property must be prepared to exhibit the proposed project, and the owner and/or representative should be present. Should you have any further questions, please contact the undersigned at this office. June 21. 1990 Ray Hamada Principal Planner CC: Mr. Douglas McHattie, South'Bay Eng. Mr. Chriss'Gunderson Arch:. • • KEITH W. EHUEL Consulting Engineering Geologist June 5, 1990 Project No. 2495-90 Ms. Terry Levine 56 Eastfield Drive Rolling Hills, CA 90274 SUBJECT: GEOLOGIC REVIEW 56 Eastfield Drive Rolling Hills, CA Dear Ms. Levine: Pursuant to your verbal request, a geologic review of the property located at 56 Eastfield Drive in the City of Rolling Hills has been performed. It is understood that it is proposed to demolish the existing residence located at the site, and construct a new single-family residential dwelling. Work performed during this review included a site visit to review geologic conditions in the site area, review of published geologic maps of the site area, and review of aerial photographs. Information obtained during this review indicates the site is geologically suitable for the proposed development. No features were observed which indicate the site is undergoing, or has recently undergone, any gross geological instabilities. No landslides are shown on published maps as underlying the site area, and no active faults are shown on maps as trending through the site. The site appears to have performed quite well with regard to gross stability. Relief in the site area is relatively low, and future good performance with regard to gross stability is anticipated. Although a detailed geotechnical investigation will need to be performed to verify these favorable geologic conditions, it is my opinion that the site is geologically suitable for construction of a single-family residential dwelling. If you have any questions regarding the information presented in this letter, please call my office. Re. pectful Keith W'. California C 340 Tejon Place 0 Palos Verdes Estates, CA 90274 ® (213) 378-4146 • • City ol Rolling TO: Mrs. Terry Levine 587 Eastfield Drive Rolling Hills, CA 90274 FROM: CITY OF ROLLING HILLS INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (213) 377.1521 FAX: (213) 377-7288 The plan for: Site Plan Review for crooerty located at 58' Eastfield Drive Applicant: Address: Mrs. Terry Levine 58 Eastfield Drive (a) Complies with City Zoning requirements (b) xx Needs Variance (Section 17.16.080 Rear Yard ) Contact City for application and submittal requirements. (c) Needs Conditional Use Permit Contact City for application (d) Needs Site Plan Review Contact City for application (e) xx Other (see below) and submittal requirements. and submittal requirements. The City reviewed your application for Site Plan Review, and has determined that the submittal is incomplete for the following reasons and those items circled on the attached sheet: 1. An application for Variance must be submitted for project encroaching into the rear yard setback. All additional information must be submitted by Thursday, June 7, 1990, 4:30 P.M. for City review in order for the application to be scheduled accordingly for a Planning Commission meeting. If you have any questions, please contact this office. June 4, 1990 y $ Hamada rincipal Planner CC: Douglas McHattie, South Bay Engineering Attachment • CHECXLIBT POR PLAN BUBMIT1W, The following information must be included on any plan for checking to the Rolling Mills Planning Commission for: a) Conditional Use Permit (including grading requirements). b) Variance (including grading requirements) c) Site Plan Review (including grading requirements) Show the following: 1. Name and address of resident and name and address of architect and civil engineer. 2. Vicinity map, scale 1:200 feet. Requested improvements should be dimensioned to property line and residences of all contiguous properties. 3. North arrow and scale of plans. 4. Existing contours of the entire lot. Square footage of pads in acco dance with Municipal icipal Cod Title 17. �CKJ*. L%4 / 7441 4'PCa 6Veral 6. Computation of lot coverage in accordance with Municipal Code Title 17. 7. All slopes shall not be steeper in slope than two horizontal to ono vertical, or exceed a vertical height of 30 feet. All slopes shall be marked with grade. (Municipal Code Title 13). O. All cut and fill slopes must be shaded. (Title 15). 4. Show all retaining walls and sections through walls, height and elevations. Show height for all buildings. 10. Show proposed drainage pattern of graded areas. 11. The defined areas) for which the Variance, Conditional Use Permit or Site Plan Review is requested. 12. Show outline or residence and any additional structures. All structures must be physically measured and square footage of each structure must be shown on drawing. A note must be on the drawing certifying to those measurements. 13. Show a graded area of not less than 2OO square feet for the construction of a stable and a graded road of not more than 25% grade for vehicular access to the stable site. (Title 17). 14. Sections should be shown through highest slope and through other areas where ground is steep, and as many additional sections as necessary to clearly delineate land contours with existing ground. A current survey and grading plan, with related soils, geology. hydrology drains pms, snowing aii structures on the rope 'with their distance from property lines del nested, will be required in applications where the requested change is close to easements, close to other properties, and/or where there is to bs significant grading on the property. 16. Distances from the center line of all existing and proposed streets adjacent to the subject property. 3