635, Convert and expand existing ba, Resolutions & Approval Conditions•
0cxh;kip1-. "A"
RESOLUTION NO. 2001-17
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION .OF THE CITY OF
ROLLING HILLS GRANTING THE FOLLOWING: (1) A VARIANCE TO
EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED DISTURBED AREA, (2) A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONVERT A STABLE INTO A GUEST
HOUSE AND ADD 120 SQUARE FEET THERETO, (3) A VARIANCE TO
PERMIT THE GUESTHOUSE TO BE LOCATED IN THE FRONT YARD
AREA, (4) A VARIANCE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF RETAINING
WALLS THAT ENCROACH INTO THE FRONT, SIDE AND REAR
YARD SETBACK AND TO RETAIN AN EXISTING RETAINING WALL
WHICH ENCROACHES INTO THE SIDE YARD SETBACK, AND (5)
SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION
OF THE RETAINING WALLS AND GRADING AT A SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENCE IN ZONING CASE NO. 635. (ALTMAN)
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. Louis Altman with
respect to real property located at 17 Caballeros Road, Rolling Hills (Lot 20-SK)
requesting (1) a Variance to exceed the maximum permitted disturbed area, (2) a
Conditional Use Permit to convert a stable into a guest house and add 120 square feet
thereto, for a total of 800 square feet guest house (3) a Variance to permit the guest
house to be located in the front yard area, (4) a Variance for the construction of retaining
walls that encroach into the front, side and rear yard setback and to retain an existing
retaining wall which encroaches into the side yard setback, and (5) Site Plan Review
approval to permit the construction of the retaining walls and grading of 6,150 square
foot side yard area to create a usable play yard and to enlarge a motor court by 280
square feet.
Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted duly noticed public hearings
to consider the applications on June 19, 2001, July 17, 2001 and August 21, 2001, and at a
field trip visit on June 28, 2001. The applicants were notified of the public hearings in
writing by first class mail. 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
applicants were in attendance at the hearings.
Section 3. The applicant's engineer stated during the hearings that the
existing drainage pattern is inadequate on the subject property and it therefore
negatively affects the adjacent property to the north, and that the proposed grading
would improve the drainage characteristics of the property by intercepting storm water
runoff from the graded area and the tributary areas of the site and diverting it to
Caballeros Road. The proposed project would improve drainage for down -slope
properties.
Section 4. At the field trip and the July 17, 2001 hearing, the Planning
Commission expressed concerns that the proposed project will create an overbuilt
• •
situation on the lot, and that the project greatly exceeds the :structural pad coverage
guideline of 30%. At the July 17, 2001 hearing the applicant respectfully requested that
the Commission continue the public hearing to the August 21, 2001 date, to allow the
applicant time to revise the proposal. The applicant submitted a revised site plan, which
was considered by the Planning Commission at the August 21, 2001 meeting. The
revised site plan showed a reduced graded area for the proposed play yard, which
would result in the deletion of one of the retaining walls. In addition, the applicant
eliminated the motor court expansion. The applicant and his engineer stated that
although the proposed plan would satisfy the applicant's desire for a play area, a guest
house and future stable, it will not correct the drainage situation on the applicant's and
on the down slope properties.
Section 5. After lengthy discussion, deliberation and consideration of all
evidence presented, the Planning Commission found that the structural and grading
conditions of the property are pre-existing, and that the proposed project will only
minimally affect the existing conditions. The Planning Commission further found that
the corrective measures proposed by the applicant in the original application for the
drainage situation would be beneficial to the properties in the vicinity. The Planning
Commission, therefore, voted to approve the originally submitted plan, presented to the
Commission at the field trip and at the July 17, 2001 public hearing.
Section 6. The Planning Commission finds that the project qualifies as a Class
4 Exemption (State of CA Guidelines, Section 15304 - Minor Land Alteration) and is
therefore categorically exempt from environmental review under the California
Environmental Quality Act.
Section 7. Sections 17.38.010 through 17.38.050 of the Rolling Hills Municipal
Code permit approval of a Variance from the standards and requirements of the Zoning
Ordinance when exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applicable to the property
and not applicable to other similar properties in the same zone prevent the owner from
making use of a parcel of property to the same extent enjoyed by similar properties in
the same vicinity. A Variance to Section 17.16.070 (B) is required because it states that
the lot disturbance shall be limited to 40% of the net lot area. The applicant is
requesting a Variance because total disturbance will be 78.4% of the net lot area. With
respect to this request for a Variance, the Planning Commission finds as follows:
A. There are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances and conditions
applicable to the property or to the intended use that do not apply generally to the other
property or class of use in the same zone. The Variance for the total disturbance is
necessary because the lot is relatively small and irregular in shape and the existing
development pattern of the lot is topographically constrained. The lot size and
configuration, together with the existing development on the lot creates a difficulty in
meeting this Code requirement.
B. The Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone,
but which is denied to the property in question. The Variance is necessary because of
the unusual size and configuration of the lot together with the City's development
standards result in more severe restrictions on the development of the subject property
RESOLUTION NO. 2001-17
ZC No.635 2
• •
than occurring on other lots in the vicinity. The area to be disturbed has been previously
terraced and graded without the benefit of City approval or grading permit, therefore,
no additional disturbance will take place and the disturbed area will remain at 78.4% of
the net lot area.
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. All development will occur within required setbacks,
except for the retaining walls as approved in Section 14 of this Resolution, and will be
adequately screened to prevent adverse visual impact to surrounding properties. The
proposed development proposes to augment and correct the existing water flow pattern
which is detrimental to the adjacent property owner. The proposed development will
improve slope stability through the use of approved drainage, will accommodate
recreation for the owners and their children, and will permit the owners to enjoy their
property without deleterious infringement on the rights of surrounding property
owners.
Section 8. Based upon the foregoing findings and the evidence in the record,
the Planning Commission hereby approves the Variance for Zoning Case No. 635 to
permit a disturbed area of 78.4%, subject to the conditions specified in Section 17 of this
Resolution.
Section 9. Section 17.16.210(A)(5) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code permits
approval of a guest house under certain conditions, provided a Conditional Use Permit
for such us is approved by the Planning Commission. The applicants are requesting to
convert an existing 680 square foot stable into a guesthouse and add 120 square feet
thereto, for a total of 800 square foot guesthouse. Such guesthouse will be located in the
front yard area of the lot. With respect to this request for a Conditional Use Permit, the
Planning Commission finds as follows:
A. The granting of a Conditional Use Permit for the conversion of an existing
stable to a guest house and the addition of 120 square feet thereto would be consistent
with the purposes and objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan and will be
desirable for the public convenience and welfare because the use is consistent with
similar uses in the community, and the area proposed for the guest house would be
located in an area on the property where such use will not change the existing
configuration of structures on the lot.
B. The nature, condition, and development of adjacent uses, buildings, and
structures have been considered, and the construction of a guest house will not
adversely affect or be materially detrimental to these adjacent uses, buildings, or
structures because the proposed guest house will take place of an already existing
structure which is located in the central portion of the lot and is of sufficient distance
from nearby residences so that the guest house will not impact the view or privacy of
surrounding neighbors.
C. The project is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, the natural
terrain, and surrounding residences because the guesthouse will comply with the low
RESOLUTION NO. 2001-17
ZC No.635 3
• •
profile residential development pattern of the community and the structure already
exists.
D. The proposed conditional use complies with all applicable development
standards of the zone district because the 800 square foot size of the guesthouse is the
maximum permitted under the Municipal Code and the guesthouse does not encroach
into any setback areas.
E. The proposed conditional use is consistent with the portions of the Los
Angeles County Hazardous Waste Management Plan relating to siting and siting
criteria for hazardous waste facilities because the project site is not listed on the current
State of California Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites List.
F. The proposed conditional use observes the spirit and intent of Title 17 of
the Zoning Code because an adequate area is set -aside for the construction of a future
stable structure and adjacent corral located at the northeasterly portion of the lot.
Section 10. Based upon the foregoing findings and the evidence in the record,
the Planning Commission hereby approves a Conditional Use Permit for the conversion
of an existing stable into a guest house, and addition of 120 square feet thereto, in
accordance with the development plan dated June 5, 2001 and marked Exhibit A in
Zoning Case No. 635 subject to the conditions contained in Section 17 of this Resolution.
Section 11. Pursuant to the Municipal Code, conditionally permitted uses
may not be located in the front yard area. The applicant is requesting permission to
allow the guesthouse to remain in the front yard area. With respect to this request for a
Variance, the Planning Commission finds as follows:
A. There are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances and conditions
applicable to the property that do not apply generally to the other property or class of
use in the same zone. The Variance request is to enlarge an existing structure already
located in the front yard area. The lot size and irregular configuration, together with
the existing development on the lot creates a difficulty in relocating the existing
structure.
B. The Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone,
but which is denied to the property in question. The Variance is necessary because there
is an existing stable at that location, which will be converted to the guest house, and the
existing terrain and development on the lot creates a difficulty in relocating said
structure as the residence is located at a restricted upper building pad, and pursuant to
the Municipal Code, sufficient area for a future stable and corral is required to be set
aside. Due to the topography, terrain and current development pattern on subject site,
such area can only be set aside to the rear of said structure. Further, other properties in
the vicinity may expand guesthouses under certain conditions while the subject
property would be precluded from such expansion.
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
RESOLUTION NO. 2001-17
ZC No.635 4
• .
in which the property is located. The guesthouse will be located in the same location as
the existing stable and will mitigate the necessity for any additional grading on the
hillside.
Section 12. Based upon the foregoing findings and the evidence in the record,
the Planning Commission hereby approves the Variance for Zoning Case No. 635 to
permit a guest house to be located in the front yard, subject to the conditions specified
in Section 17 of this Resolution. .
Section 13. Section 17.16.120 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. The applicant is requesting to construct approximately 208 feet long retaining wall
in the north side yard area which will encroach up to a maximum 48 feet into the 50 foot
front yard setback, and up to 25 feet into the, rear yard setback; a 110 feet long retaining
wall in the north side yard area which will encroach approximately 10 feet into the rear
yard setback; and to retain a previously constructed 165 feet long retaining wall located
in the north side yard setback, which also encroaches into the rear yard setback. The
existing walls and the proposed walls will not exceed a height of 3'6". With respect to
this request for a Variance, the Planning Commission finds as follows:
A. There are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances and conditions
applicable to the property or to the intended use that do not apply generally to the other
property or class of use in the same zone because the . lot is irregular in shape and
steeper than most lots of similar size. The previously constructed retaining wall is
located on a hillside slope at the side of the lot and away from the street and assist in
protecting the hillside from damage due to erosion. The future retaining walls are
necessary to correct the drainage pattern by intercepting storm water runoff and
diverting it to Caballeros Road, thereby protecting downslope properties. The retaining
walls will encroach beyond existing encroachments but are limited in area so as to
preserve the safety and integrity of the slope and leave nearly all of the existing open
space near the north side of the property unaffected.
B. The Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone,
but which is denied to the .property in question. The Variance will permit the
development of the property in a manner similar to development patterns on
surrounding properties. The location of the building pad and the development pattern
of the remaining structures on site dictate that the proposed retaining walls be set in the
north side yard area with encroachment into the front and rear yard setbacks.
C. The granting of the Variance will not be materially detrimental to the
public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone
in which the property is located because the proposed development will improve slope
stability through the use of approved drainage, will accommodate recreation for the
owners and their children, and will permit the owners to enjoy their property without
deleterious infringement on the rights of surrounding property owners.
RESOLUTION NO. 2001-17
ZC No.635 5
• •
Section 14. Based upon the foregoing findings and the evidence in the record,
the Planning Commission hereby approves a Variance for Zoning Case No. 635 to
permit the construction of retaining walls that will encroach into the front, and rear
yard setbacks, and to retain a previously constructed unauthorized retaining wall
which encroaches into the side and rear yard setbacks indicated on the development
plan dated July 5, 2001, submitted with this application and incorporated herein by
reference as Exhibit A, subject to the conditions specified in Section 17 of this
Resolution.
Section 15. Section 17.46.030 requires a development plan to be submitted for
site plan review and approval before any development 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 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
requesting grading of the terraced areas to create a usable yard area, the construction of
retaining walls, and enlargement of the motor court by 280 square feet at an existing
single family residence, the Planning Commission makes the following findings of fact:
A. The proposed development is compatible with the General Plan, the
Zoning Ordinance and surrounding uses because the proposed structures comply with
the General Plan requirement of low profile, low density residential development with
sufficient open space between surrounding structures. The project conforms to Zoning
Code setback and lot coverage requirements with the Variances approved in Sections 8,
12 and 14 of this Resolution. The lot has a net area of 40,089 square feet. The existing
residence (3,427 sq.ft.), garage (803 sq.ft.), swimming pool (735 sq.ft.), proposed guest
house (800 sq.ft.), existing gazebo (71 sq.ft.), service yard (96 sq.ft.), and future stable
(450 sq.ft.) will have 6,382 square feet which constitutes 15.9% of the net lot area which
is within the maximum 20% structural lot coverage permitted. The total lot coverage
including paved areas and driveway will be 10,262 square feet which equals 26.0% of
the net lot, which is within the 35% maximum overall lot coverage permitted. The
proposed project is screened from the road so as to reduce the visual impact of the
development.
B. The project substantially preserves the natural and undeveloped state of
the lot by minimizing building coverage. The nature, topography, previous grading
which was partially responsible for the terraced condition of the lot, and development
of adjacent uses, buildings, and structures have been considered, and the addition of
120 square feet to the existing 680 square foot structure for a total of 800 square foot
guest house, a 3.5-foot high, retaining walls, and a future stable will not adversely affect
or be materially detrimental to these adjacent uses, buildings, or structures because the
proposed addition will be constructed on a portion of the secondary building pad, will
be the least intrusive to surrounding properties, will be screened and landscaped with
mature trees and shrubs, is a sufficient distance from nearby residences so that the guest
house will not impact the view or privacy of surrounding neighbors, will improve slope
stability through the use of approved drainage, will accommodate recreation for the
owners and their children, and will permit the owners to enjoy their property without
deleterious infringement on the rights of surrounding property owners.
RESOLUTION NO. 2001-17
ZC No.635 6
• •
C. The proposed development, as conditioned, is harmonious in scale and
mass with the site, and will improve the terrain pattern and drainage. Although the
disturbed area will be exceeded, the proposed project is consistent with the scale of the
neighborhood when compared to properties in the vicinity. The site was previously
disturbed and no additional disturbance will result from the proposed project.
D. The development plan incorporates existing trees and native vegetation to
the maximum extent feasible. Specifically, the development plan will supplement the
existing vegetation with landscaping that is compatible with and enhances the rural
character of the community.
E. The development plan substantially preserves the natural and
undeveloped state of the lot by minimizing building coverage because the new
structures will not cause the lot to look overdeveloped. Significant portions of the lot
will be left undeveloped so as to maintain scenic vistas across portions of the property.
The proposed 120 square foot addition is located in the front yard on a secondary
building pad. The proposed project will not affect the existing residence. The
development plans as proposed will minimize impact on Caballeros Road. The
proposed addition and conversion of the structure to a guesthouse will not be visible
from Caballeros Road.
F. The development plan shows partial restoration of original natural
contours of the site to minimize grading and the project will improve the drainage
course to Caballeros Road.
G. The development plan preserves surrounding native vegetation and
mature trees and supplements these elements with drought -tolerant landscaping which
is compatible with and enhances the rural character of the community, and landscaping
provides a buffer or transition area between private and public areas.
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 not change the existing circulation pattern and will utilize an existing
driveway.
I. The project is , exempt from the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act
Section 16. Based upon the foregoing findings and the evidence in the record,
the Planning Commission hereby approves the Site Plan Review application for Zoning
Case No. 635 for proposed structures as shown on the Development Plan dated July 5,
2001 and marked Exhibit A, subject to the conditions contained in Section 17 of this
Resolution.
Section 17. The Variances regarding the maximum permitted disturbed area,
the location of the proposed guest house in the front yard area, the existing and
proposed retaining walls which encroach into the required setbacks approved in
Sections 8, 12 and 14 of this Resolution, the Conditional Use Permit regarding the
RESOLUTION NO. 2001-17
ZC No.635 7
• •
conversion of an existing stable into an 800 square foot guest house approved in Section
10, and the Site Plan Review approved in Section 16 of this Resolution are subject to the
following conditions:
A. The Variances, Conditional Use Permit, and Site Plan Review approvals
shall expire within one year from the effective date of approval as defined in Sections
17.38.070(A), 17.42.070(A), and 17.46.080(A) unless otherwise extended pursuant to the
requirements of those sections.
B. It is declared and made a condition of the Variances, Conditional Use
Permit and Site Plan Review approvals, that if any conditions thereof are violated, this
approval shall be suspended and the privileges granted thereunder shall lapse;
provided that the applicants have been given written notice to cease such violation, the
opportunity for a hearing has been provided, and if requested, has been held, and
thereafter the applicant fails to correct the violation within a period of thirty (30) days
from the date of the City's determination.
C. All requirements of the 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 this 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 July 5, 2001, except as otherwise
provided in these conditions.
E. The property on which the project is located shall contain an area of
sufficient size to provide an area meeting all standards for a stable and corral with
vehicular access thereto. The vehicular access to the future stable shall be not paved and
shall not exceed four (4) feet in width.
F. Structural lot coverage shall not exceed 6,382 square feet or 15.9% in
conformance with lot coverage limitations.
G. Total lot coverage of structures and paved areas shall not exceed 10,262
square feet Dr 26.0% in conformance with lot coverage limitations.
H. The disturbed area of the lot shall not exceed 31,430 square feet or 78.4%
in conformance with lot coverage limitations approved in Section 6 of this Resolution.
I. Residential building pad coverage on the 8,000 square foot residential
building pad shall not exceed 5,051 square feet or 63.3%; coverage on the 4,704 square
foot guesthouse and stable pad shall not exceed 1,250 square feet or 26.6%.
J. The guesthouse shall not exceed 800 square feet.
K. No kitchen or other cooking facilities shall be provided within the
guesthouse.
RESOLUTION NO. 2001-17
ZC No.635 8
•
L. No vehicular access or paved parking area shall be developed within fifty
feet of the proposed guesthouse.
M. Renting of the guesthouse shall not be permitted
N. Occupancy of the guesthouse shall be limited to the immediate family
members, temporary guests of the occupants of the main house or persons employed on
the premises. No guests may remain in occupancy for more than thirty days in any six-
month period.
O. The front yard area west of the proposed guesthouse shall remain
landscaped at all times, and no parking shall be permitted anywhere within fifty feet of
the guesthouse.
P. Balanced cut and fill for the project shall not exceed 332 cubic yards in
accordance with grading limitations.
Q. Grading shall not exceed 166 cubic yards of cut soil and 166 cubic yards of
fill soil (332 cubic yards maximum). Grading shall be balanced on site and shall
preserve the existing flora, and return the graded area to its original natural features, to
the greatest extent possible.
R. The proposed and existing retaining walls incorporated into the project
shall not exceed 3 feet 6 inches in height.
S. A landscape plan for the area in front of the guesthouse and for the
graded play area shall be submitted for review and approval to the Planning staff. The
landscape plan 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.
T. Landscaping shall be designed using mature trees and shrubs so as not to
obstruct views of neighboring properties but to obscure the guesthouse.
U. During construction, dust control measures shall be used to stabilize the
soil from wind erosion and reduce dust and objectionable odors generated by
construction activities in accordance with South Coast Air Quality Management
District, Los Angeles County and local ordinances and engineering practices.
V. During construction, conformance with local ordinances and engineering
practices so that people or property is not exposed to landslides, mudflows, erosion, or
land subsidence shall be required.
W. During construction, conformance 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
RESOLUTION NO. 2001-17
ZC No.635 9
• •
trips, noise, dust, objectionable odors, landslides, mudflows, erosion, or land
subsidence shall be required.
X. During construction, the Erosion Control Plan containing the elements set
forth in Section 7010 of the 1998 County of Los Angeles Uniform Building Code shall be
followed to minimize erosion and to protect slopes and channels to control stormwater
pollution as required by the County of Los Angeles.
Y. During and after construction, all parking shall take place on the project site.
Z. 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.
AA. The property owners shall be required to conform to the Regional Water
Quality Control Board and County Health Department requirements for the installation
and maintenance of stormwater drainage facilities.
AB. 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.
AC. The project must be reviewed and approved by the Rolling Hills
Community Association Architectural Review Committee prior to the issuance of any
drainage, building or grading permit.
AD. The working drawings submitted to the County Department of Building
and Safety for plan check review shall conform to the development plan described in
Condition D.
AE. Prior to the submittal of an applicable final grading plan to the County of
Los Angeles for plan check, a detailed grading and drainage plan with related geology,
soils and hydrology reports that conform to the development plan as approved by the
Planning Commission must be submitted to the Rolling Hills Planning Department staff
for their review. Cut and fill slopes must conform to the City of Rolling Hills standard
of 2 to 1 slope ratio.
AF. The applicants shall execute an Affidavit of Acceptance of all conditions of
these Variances, Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan Review approvals, pursuant to
Section 17.38.060, or the approval shall not be effective.
AG. All conditions of these Variance, Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan
Review approvals must be complied with prior to the issuance of a building or grading
permit from the County of Los Angeles.
AH. Notwithstanding sections 17.46.020 and 17.46.070 of the Rolling Hills
Municipal Code, any modifications to the projectwhich would constitute additional
structural development shall require the filing of a new application for approval by the
Planning Commission.
RESOLUTION NO. 2001-17
ZC No.635 10
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 18th POJ SPT-EMBER 2001.
r \
ALLAN ROBERTS, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
MARILYN KERN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK
RESOLUTION NO. 2001-17
ZC No.635 11
• •
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS)
I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2001-17 entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING
HILLS GRANTING THE FOLLOWING: (1) A VARIANCE TO EXCEED THE
MAXIMUM PERMITTED DISTURBED AREA, (2) A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO
CONVERT A STABLE INTO A GUESTHOUSE AND ADD 120 SQUARE FEET
THERETO, (3) A VARIANCE TO PERMIT THE GUESTHOUSE TO BE LOCATED IN
THE FRONT YARD AREA, (4) A VARIANCE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF
RETAINING WALLS THAT ENCROACH INTO THE FRONT, SIDE AND REAR
YARD SETBACK AND TO RETAIN AN EXISTING RETAINING WALL WHICH
ENCROACHES INTO THE SIDE YARD SETBACK, AND (5) SITE PLAN REVIEW
APPROVAL TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE RETAINING WALLS AND
GRADING AT A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IN ZONING CASE NO. 635.
(ALTMAN)
was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on
September 18, 2001 by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Hankins, Margeta, Sommer, Witte and
Chairman Roberts.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None .
ABSTAIN: None.
and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following:
Administrative Offices.
•
DEPUTY CITY CLERK
RESOLUTION NO. 2001-17
ZC No.635 12
b
city ol)
October 1, 2002
Mr. and Mrs. Altman
17 Caballeros Road
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274
(310) 377-1521
FAX: (310) 377-7288
E-mail: cityofrh@aol.com
SUBJECT: LANDSCAPING PLAN, ZONING CASE NO. 635
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Altman:
Your landscaping contractor/designer submitted a revised landscaping plan, which meets the
intent of the Planning Commission resolution. A copy of the plan is enclosed for your files.
You may now proceed with your plans and obtain building permits for the proposed work.
Please be advised that all of the proposed landscaping has to be installed prior to the City
and County signing off (finaling) this project.
Should you have any questions, please call me.
Sinc rely
Yaanta Schwartz
Planning Director