428, Garage addition, to extend int, Resolutions & Approval Conditions•
RESOLUTION NO. 91-15
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING
HILLS APPROVING A SECOND MODIFICATION TO RESOLUTION NO. 90-14
GRANTING A VARIANCE TO THE FRONT AND REAR YARD SETBACKS AND
SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL IN ZONING CASE NO..428.
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. and Mrs. Dale
Stucker with respect to real property located at 6 Flying Mane
Road, Rolling Hills (Lot 61-A-SF) requesting a second modification
to the condition of approval for a Variance to the front and rear
yard setbacks and Site Plan Review requirements to construct
additions to the existing residence. The modification requested is
to extend the allowable time period for complying with plan check
requirements.
Section 2. The Commission considered this item at its meeting
on June 25, 1991 at which time information was presented indicating
that the extension of time is necessary due to the requirements of
the plan check process.
Section 3. Based upon information and evidence submitted, the
Planning Commission does hereby amend Paragraph B, Section 9 of
Resolution No. 90-14 to read as follows:
"B. The Variance and Site Plan Review approvals shall expire
within two years of the approval of this Resolution."
Section 4. Except as herein amended, the provisions of
Resolution No. 90-14 and Resolution No. 90-27, shall continue to be
in full force and effect.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 25TH DAY OF JUNE, 1991.
ATTEST:
o w
DIANE SAWER, DEPUT
0.✓
CITY CLERK
ALLAN RO$A-RTS, CHAIRMAN
RESOLUTION NO. 91-15
PAGE 2
The foregoing Resolution No. 91-15 entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING
HILLS APPROVING A SECOND MODIFICATION TO RESOLUTION NO. 90-14
GRANTING A VARIANCE TO THE FRONT AND REAR YARD SETBACKS AND
SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL IN ZONING CASE NO. 428.
was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission on June 25, 1991 by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE
FROST, HANKINS, LAY, RAINE AND CHAIRMAN ROBERTS.
DEPUTY ITY CLERKV
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF Las_An • -,1Pa
On October 3, 1990
)
) ss.
, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for
90-1855082
said State, personally appeared **Dale M. Stucker & Lavonne R. Stucker***
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.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature
OFFICIAL SEAL
DEBRA L. GRIFFITH
NOTARY PUBLIC-CALIFORNIA
PRINCIPAL OFFICE IN
LOS ANGEL ES COUNTY
My Commission Expires July 18. 1994
(This area for official notarial seal)
SF-423-4 (REV. A - 7/82) (CA) (INDIVIDUAL)
For
•
Recorder's use.
90 155082
1
1
RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND MAIL TO:
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274
RECORDED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS
: RECORDER'S 'OFFICE,
LOS ANGELES COUNTY'
CALIFORNIA
31 l� 8. Alii•.NOV .2 1990•
Please record this form with the Registrar -Recorder's Office an
return to:
City of Rolling Hills
2 Portuguese Bend Road
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
NOV 2 9 1990
City Of Rolling Hills
FEE $7
(The Registrar -Recorder's Office requires th h_form bo notarized
before recordation.)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
)
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO: -
VARIANCE CASE NO.
SITE PLAN REVIEW CASE NO.
Acceptance Form
428 (MODIFICATION)
428 (MODIFICATION)
I (We) the undersigned state:
I am (We are) the owner(s). of the real property described as follows:
6 Flying Mane Road, Rolling Hills, CA (LOT 61-A-SF)
This property is the subject of the above numbered cases.
I am (We are) aware of, and accept, all the stated conditions
Conditional Use Permit Case No.
Variance Case No.
Site Plan Review Case No.
428 (MODIFICATION)
428 (MODIFICATION)
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 not the same, both must sign.)
Type or print
Applicant Name.".... /n rr/x/c _j t_c_ 44
Addressih
C 4 ty State ,,ie44 ///4VV .,/( < - 9 '
-� > f y/-!lam—,)
.
Signature 7
�j/ /1% 1�/ci6/e
Owner Name � /
Address �/� .1il' //� 07e." X 7C(
City, State c , ✓' /04- d( 7 (i
Signature � - A/
This signature must
be acknowledged by a
notary public. Attach
appropriate acknowledgement.
•
RESOLUTION NO. 90-27
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS APPROVING A MODIFICATION TO THE
PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE PLAN AND VARIANCE AND AMENDING THE
RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL FOR A VARIANCE TO THE FRONT AND REAR YARD
SETBACKS AND SITE PLAN REVIEW ACCORDINGLY IN
IN ZONING CASE NO. 428
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. & Mrs.
Dale Stucker with respect to real property located at 6 Flying Mane
Road, Rolling Hills (Lot 61-A-SF) requesting a modification to the
previously approved site plan to include an additional 527 square
feet of floor area to the residential structure and a modification to
the variance to permit the encroachment of portions of this
additional floor area into the front and rear yard setbacks; and
amending the Resolution of Approval accordingly.
Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted a duly
noticed public hearing on August 21, 1990.
Section 3. Section 17.32.120 provides for a subsequent
modification after a Variance application has been approved.
Additionally, Section 17.34.070 provides for a subsequent
modification after a site plan review application has been approved.
Modification of the approved plans and/or any conditions imposed,
including additions or deletions, may be considered. The decision on
the modification of plans and/or conditions shall be in the same
manner as set forth in Sections 17.32.030 and 17.34.040 of the
Municipal Code.
Section 4. Pursuant to the foregoing Section, the Planning
Commission makes the finding that previous findings determined with
the approved Resolution No. 90-14, dated June 30, 1989, can be
restated.
Section 5. Based upon the foregoing Section, the Planning
Commission hereby approves the request for modification for Zoning
Case No. 428 to permit an additional 527 square feet to the proposed
residential structure, as indicated on the development plan attached
hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A. Section 8 (A) of the
previously approved Resolution shall hereby read now as follows:
A. 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 the
Zoning Code setback and lot coverage requirements.
The lot has a net square foot area of 27,288 square
feet. The proposed residential structure, garage, and
future stable will have 5,380 square feet which
constitutes 20.0% of the lot, which is with in the
maximum 20% lot coverage requirement. The total lot
coverage including paved areas will be
7,910 square feet which equals 29.6% of the lot,
which is within the 35% maximum structural lot
coverage requirement. The proposed project is similar
and compatible with neighboring development patterns.
Section 6. Except as herein amended, the terms and
conditions of Resolution No. 90-14, adopted on June 30, 1990 as
amended by this Resolution adopted on September 15, 1990, shall be in
full force and effect.
1990.
ATTEST:
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 15th
City Clerk
day of September ,
\fir Allan Rob!rts, Chairman
RESOLUTION NO. 90-14
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A VARIANCE
TO THE FRONT AND REAR YARD SETBACKS AND SITE PLAN REVIEW
APPROVAL IN ZONING CASE NO. 428
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. & Mrs. Dale
Stucker with respect of real property located at 6 Flying Mane Road,
Rolling Hills (Lot 61-A-SF) requesting a variance to the front and
rear yard setback requirements to construct additions to the
nonconforming residence, and site plan review approval to construct
additions to the existing structure.
Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed
public hearing to consider the application on May 15, 1990 and June
19, 1990; and conducted a field site review on June 2, 1990.
Section 3. Sections 17.32.010 through 17.32.030 permit
approval of a variance form the standards and requirements of the
Zoning Ordinance when exceptional or extraordinary circumstances
applicable to the other similar properties in the same zone prevent
the owner from making use of the property to the same extent enjoyed
by similar properties. Section 17.16.060 requires a front yard
setback in the residential zone to be 50 feet from the front easement
line. The applicant is requesting to construct a 11.5 feet into the
front yard setback to construct a garage addition to the existing
nonconforming residence. Pursuant to these Sections, the Planning
Commission finds that:
A. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or
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 vicinity and zone because there
exists topographical and lot development constraints that
justify the continued encroachment since the residential
structure cannot be significantly expanded due to the
sloping nature of the rear area of the lot and the
shallowness of the property between the two roadways.
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 the proposed
expansion will permit the subject residence to be
consistent in size with surrounding properties.
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 proposed project will
result in no further impact to the roadways, and will be
compatible with surrounding properties, since the proposed
expansion of the residence would result in no greater
incursion into the front yard setback that the existing
incursion.
Section 4. Based on the foregoing findings, the Planning
Commission hereby approves the Variance for Zoning Case No. 428 to
permit encroachment of a garage addition 11.5 feet into the front
yard setback as indicated on the Development Plan submitted with
this application and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit A,
subject to the conditions set forth in Section of this Resolution.
Section 5. Section 17.08.280 requires in the case where a
rear yard abuts a roadway, it shall meet the front yard requirements
as indicated above. The applicant is requesting to encroach a
maximum of 12.5 feet into the rear yard setback. Pursuant to this
Section, the Planning Commission finds that:
A. There are no extraordinary circumstances or 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 soame vicinity and zone because there exists
topographical and lot development constraints that justify
the continued encroachment since the residential structure
cannot be significantly expanded due to the sloping nature
of the rear area of the lot and the shallowness of the
property between the two roadways.
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 the proposed
expansion will permit the subject residence to be
consistent in size with surrounding properties
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 proposed project
will result in no further impact to the roadways, and will
be compatible with surrounding properties.
Section 7. 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 8. 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 lot coverage
requirements. The lot has a net square foot area of 26,288
square feet. The residential structure, garage, swimming
pool and future stable will have 4,853 square feet which
constitutes 18.5% of the lot, which is within the maximum
20% structural lot coverage requirement The total lot
coverage including paved areas and driveway will be 7,383
square feet which equals 28.1% 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)
because no further grading for the project is required,
thereby preserving the existing slope and mature trees.
C. The development plan follows natural contours of the
site because no further grading is required and the
existing drainage courses will not be affected by the
project.
D. The development plan preserves surrounding native
vegetation 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 by minimizing building
coverage because the proposed additions will occur on the
existing building pad and total structural lot coverage
will not be exceeded
F. The proposed development is harmonious in scale and mass
with the site, the natural terrain and surrounding
residences because the proposed project is of minimal scale
thereby not requiring further grading or impairing views
from surrounding residences.
G. The proposed development is sensitive and not
detrimental to convenience and safety of circulation for
pedestrians and vehicles because the proposed project will
not impact the roadways.
H. The project conforms with the requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act and is categorically
exempt form environmental review.
Section 9. Based on the foregoing findings the Planning
Commission hereby approves the Site Plan Review application for a
proposed residential project to the property located at 6 Flying Mane
Road as indicated on the development plan attached hereto as
""Exhibit A" and subject to the following conditions:
A. The variance to the front and rear setbacks as indicated
on the Development plan shall not be effective if the
existing residential structure is demolished.
B. The variance approvals 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 must be approved by the
Rolling Hills Community Association Architectural Committee
before the applicant receives a grading permit form the
County of Los Angeles.
D. 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 of
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 (or the Landscape
Committee of the Rolling Hills Community Association, if
appointed to act for this purpose in the place of the City
Manager) determines that the landscaping was installed
pursuant the landscaping plan as approved, and that such
landscaping is property established and in good condition.
E. 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.
F. Any modifications to the development plans 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.
G. The applicant shall execute an affidavit of acceptance
of all conditions pursuant to Section 17.32.087 or this
variance and site plan review approval shall not be
effective.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 30th day June, 1990.
Chairman
ATTEST:
(‘
,,ccd City CleOc
r
11
STATE OF CALIFORNIA Los Angeles
COUNTY OF g
On October 3, 1990
said State, personally appeared **Dale M.
)
) ss.
, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for
Stucker &:-Lavonne R. Stucker***
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.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature
SF-423-4 (REV-A-7/82) (CA) (INDIVIDUAL)
00-1855081.
OFFICIAL SEAL
DEBRA L. GRIFFITH ;
NOTARY PUBLIC-CALIFORNIA 1
PRINCIPAL OFFICE IN
LOS ANGELES COUNTY
My Commission Expires July 18. 1994
(This area for official notarial seal)
4
1
40
For Recorder' s use
110, r90. 185508,1
RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND MAIL TO:
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274
Please record this form with
return to:
RECORDED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS
RECORDER'S OFFICE
LOS ANGELES COUNTY
• CALIFORNIA
30
IN. .8 AJ& NOV 2 1990
PAST.
the •Registrar -Recorder's Off ' and
N [F,
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 )
City' Of Rolling Hills
d a e—notarized
Acceptance Form
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO:
VARIANCE CASE NO.
SITE PLAN REVIEW CASE NO.
I (We) the undersigned state:
I am (We are) the owner(s)• of the real property described
428
428
as follows:
6 Flying ?lane Road, Rolling Hills, CA 90274 (Lot 61-A-SF)
This property is the subject of the above numbered
cases.
I am (We are) aware of, and accept, ali the stated conditions in said
Conditional Use Permit Case No.
Variance Case No.
Site Plan Review Case No.
428
428
NOV 2 9 1990 __ I FEE $7 Fa
12
I (We) certify (or declare) under the penaltyof perjury that the
foregoing is true and correct. -
(Where the owner and applicant -are not the same, both must sign.)
Type or print
Applicant Name ! .47. v o /,'y
Address 6 ...71.c, ,, Mtht)� lJ
City, State a//i/(Jr /-////./s-/ L`ff _ �D� %YZ
Signatur
Owner Name
Address
City, State
Signature
This signature must
be acknowledged by a
notary public. Attach
appropriate acknowledgement.
R
/z r/77.cAie
/// '7 7(
4( /kci /////'
RESOLUTION NO. 90-14
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A VARIANCE
TO THE FRONT AND REAR YARD SETBACKS AND SITE PLAN REVIEW
APPROVAL IN ZONING CASE NO. 428
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. & Mrs. Dale
Stucker with respect of real property located at 6 Flying Mane Road,
Rolling Hills (Lot 61-A-SF) requesting a variance to the front and
rear yard setback requirements to construct additions to the
nonconforming residence, and site plan review approval to construct
additions to the existing structure.
Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed
public hearing to consider the application on May 15, 1990 and June
19, 1990; and conducted a field site review on June 2, 1990.
Section 3. Sections 17.32.010 through 17.32.030 permit
approval of a variance form the standards and requirements of the
Zoning Ordinance when exceptional or extraordinary circumstances
applicable to the other similar properties in the same zone prevent
the owner from making use of the property to the same extent enjoyed
by similar properties. Section 17.16.060 requires a front yard
setback in the residential zone to be 50 feet from the front easement
line. The applicant is requesting to construct a 11.5 feet into the
front yard setback to construct a garage addition to the existing
nonconforming residence. Pursuant to these Sections, the Planning
Commission finds that:
A. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or
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 vicinity and zone because there
exists topographical and lot development constraints that
justify the continued encroachment since the residential
structure cannot be significantly expanded due to the
sloping nature of the rear area of the lot and the
shallowness of the property between the two roadways.
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 the proposed
expansion will permit the subject residence to be
consistent in size with surrounding properties.
•
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 proposed project will
result in no further impact to the roadways, and will be
compatible with surrounding properties, since the proposed
expansion of the residence would result in no greater
incursion into the front yard setback that the existing
incursion.
Section 4. Based on the foregoing findings, the Planning
Commission hereby approves the Variance for Zoning Case No. 428 to
permit encroachment of a garage addition 11.5 feet into the front
yard setback as indicated on the Development Plan submitted with
this application and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit A,
subject to the conditions set forth in Section 9 of this Resolution.
Section 5. Section 17.08.280 requires in the case where a
rear yard abuts a roadway, it shall meet the front yard requirements
as indicated above. The applicant is requesting to encroach a
maximum of 12.5 feet into the rear yard setback. Pursuant to this
Section, the Planning Commission finds that:
A. There are no extraordinary circumstances or 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 soame vicinity and zone because there exists
topographical and lot development constraints that justify
the continued encroachment since the residential structure
cannot be significantly expanded due to the sloping nature
of the rear area of the lot and the shallowness of the
property between the two roadways.
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 the proposed
expansion will permit the subject residence to be
consistent in size with surrounding properties
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 proposed project
will result in no further impact to the roadways, and will
be compatible with surrounding properties.
Section 7. 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 8. 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 lot coverage
requirements. The lot has a net square foot area of 26,288
square feet. The residential structure, garage, swimming
pool and future stable will have 4,853 square feet which
constitutes 18.5% of the lot, which is within the maximum
20% structural lot coverage requirement The total lot
coverage including paved areas and driveway will be 7,383
square feet which equals 28.1% 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)
because no further grading for the project is required,
thereby preserving the existing slope and mature trees.
C. The development plan follows natural contours of the
site because no further grading is required and the
existing drainage courses will not be affected by the
project.
D. The development plan preserves surrounding native
vegetation 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 by minimizing building
coverage because the proposed additions will occur on the
existing building pad and total structural lot coverage
will not be exceeded
F. The proposed development is harmonious in scale and mass
with the site, the natural terrain and surrounding
residences because the proposed project is of minimal scale
thereby not requiring further grading or impairing views
from surrounding residences.
• •
G. The proposed development is sensitive and not
detrimental to convenience and safety of circulation for
pedestrians and vehicles because the proposed project will
not impact the roadways.
H. The project conforms with the requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act and is categorically
exempt form environmental review.
Section 9. Based on the foregoing findings the Planning
Commission hereby approves the Site Plan Review application for a
proposed residential project to the property located at 6 Flying Mane
Road as indicated on the development plan attached hereto as
""Exhibit A" and subject to the following conditions:
A. The variance to the front and rear setbacks as indicated
on the Development plan shall not be effective if the
existing residential structure is demolished.
B. The variance approvals 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 must be approved by the
Rolling Hills Community Association Architectural Committee
before the applicant receives a grading permit form the
County of Los Angeles.
D. 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 of
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 (or the Landscape
Committee of the Rolling Hills Community Association, if
appointed to act for this purpose in the place of the City
Manager) determines that the landscaping was installed
pursuant the landscaping plan as approved, and that such
landscaping is property established and in good condition.
E. 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.
•
F. Any modifications to the development plans 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.
G. The applicant shall execute an affidavit of acceptance
of all conditions pursuant to Section 17.32.087 or this
variance and site plan review approval shall not be
effective.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 30th day June, 1990.
ATTEST:
Chairman
NCO .k�
City Cle