428, Garage addition, to extend int, Correspondencei•
February 7,1992
TO:
FROM:
MEMORANDUM
Craig Nealis, City Manager
Lola Ungar, Principal Planner
Julie Heinsheimer
SUBJECT: Landscape Review for:
Stucker Residence
Flying Mane Road
FEB l 0 1992
CITY Of, ROLLING HILLS
Having viewed the Stucker property, it is my opinion the Owner did not remove
any major vegetation or trees. Some plant material on the slop was lost to lack of
water during construction, but is in the process of being replaced. Foundation
planting and sod will be installed upon construction completion.
• •
`w �= City. o f leo/ling ilitto
October 14, 1991
Mr. and Mrs. Dale Stucker, Jr.
6 Flying Mane Road
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. 428, 6 Flying Mane Road (Lot 61-A-SF)
LANDSCAPING PLAN AND BOND
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Stucker:
Thank you for meeting with City Manager Craig Nealis and me on
Thursday, October 10, 1991 to discuss your submittal of a
preliminary landscape plan and an accompanying bond as required by
Planning Commission Resolution No. 90-14, Section 9, Paragraph D.
We appreciate you taking time out of your schedule to discuss your
project.
This letter reiterates that Mr. Nealis has set Monday, December 2,
1991 as the deadline for you to submit the subject requirements.
We hope this extension provides the necessary time for you to
prepare the preliminary plan.
Feel free to call me if you have any questions regarding this
matter. Thank you again for your cooperation.
Sincerely,
LOLA UNGA
PRINCIPAL PLANNER
cc: Mr. Craig Nealis, City Manager
• •
October 10, 1991
Mr. Craig R. Nealis
City of Rolling Hills
2 Portugese Bend Road
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
l§glaTit
OCT 1 1 1991
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
Subject: Zoning Case No. 428, 6 Flying Mane Road (Lot 61-A-SF)
Dear Mr. Nealis:
The following is a formal reply to the letter dated October 8, 1991 sent by
Lola Ungar, Principal Planner.
I would be most happy to submit a preliminary landscape plan as requested,
however, I am unable to comply due to the fact that the patio needs to be
poured to tie in with the existing cement work around the pool and spa.
When an application was made and pictures submitted, there were no existing
trees and low flowers. During the construction period, the sprinklers had
to be disconnected therefore, leaving the bank not as beautiful as we are
accustomed to.
1 will submit a preliminary landscape plan as soon as I am able.
If you have any questions or comments, please contact me at (213) 541-6761.
Sincerely, .
Lavonne R. 'Stucker
cc: Lola Ungar, Principal Planner
•
O�R011ing a INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
October 8, 1991
Mr. and Mrs. Dale Stucker, Jr.
6 Flying Mane Road
Rolling Hills, Ca 90274
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274
(213) 377-1521
FAX (213) 377-7288
SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 428, 6 Flying Mane Road (Lot 61-A-SF)
Request for a Variance to the front and rear yard
setbacks, and a request for a Site Plan Review to
construct additions to the existing residence.
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Stucker:
We have received complaints, since the beginning of construction at
the subject site, that the complete remodeling and additions taking
place are extremely exposed to public view on Crest Road West.
To remedy the situation, the Planning Department requests that you
submit a preliminary landscape plan and and an accompanying bond
according to Resolution No. 90-14, Section 9, Paragraph D, and
Resolution No. 90-27 (attached). We have also enclosed a sample
bond form.
We have notified the Assistant City Attorney about these
requirements. Should you fail to provide the appropriate
requirements by Friday, October 25, 1991, you will compel the City
to issue a "stop work order" which means that no further work at
the property will be permitted.
You may call me at (213) 377-1521 if you have any questions about
the disposition of this case.
Sincerely,
LOLA UNGAR
PRINCIPAL PLANNER
ENCLOSURES:
Resolution No.
90-14 and 90-27
Faithful Performance Bond Form
cc: Mr. Kevin Ennis, Assistant City Attorney
Mr. Craig Nealis, City Manager
ti 1
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
..ek)� Allan Ro•'•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 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.
� 1
Chairman
ATTEST:
4-
. tc:i City Clei*
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE BOND
(for Landscaping Condition)
WHEREAS, the City of Rolling Hills, California, approved a
site plan review application (Zoning Case Number ) for
property located at in the City of
Rolling Hills;
WHEREAS, a condition of approval of that application was the
preparation and approval of a landscape plan, the posting of a
bond in an amount equal to the reasonable estimated cost to
complete the work required by the approved landscape plan plus
fifteen percent (15%), and retention of the bond for the period
of time from the delivery of the executed bond to the City until
the City Manager determines that the landscaping has been
installed pursuant to the landscaping plan as approved and that
such landscaping is properly established and is in good
condition, which period of time shall not be less than two years
after completion of the landscaping work (hereinafter referred to
as the "Landscaping Condition");
WHEREAS, the City and applicant have determined that the
reasonable estimated cost to complete the work required by the
approved landscape plan is $
and one hundred fifteen percent (115%) of that amount is
NOW! THEREFORE, we,
Name of Principal
of as Principal,
Address of Principal
and
Name of Surety
of as Surety,
Address of Surety
along with our heirs, executors, administrators, successors and
assignees, jointly and severally, are held and firmly bound unto
the City of Rolling Hills, California, in the sum of
Dollars ($ ),
this amount being not less than one hundred fifteen percent
(115%) of the approved total estimated cost, in lawful dollars of
the United States of America, to execute the above mentioned
Landscaping Condition.
910719 kge 1680582
• •
THE CONDITION OF THIS OBLIGATION IS SUCH THAT, the
Principal, along with his or its heirs, executors,
administrators, successors or assigns, shall abide by and well
and truly keep and perform all of the obligations of the
Landscaping Condition along with any alterations thereto, made as
therein provided, all within the time specified therein and in
all respects according to their true intent and meaning. Until
satisfaction of the Landscaping Condition as specified therein,
this bond shall remain in full force and effect. Upon
satisfaction of the landscaping condition as specified therein,
the obligations of this bond shall become null and void.
FURTHER, the Surety, for value received, hereby stipulates
and agrees that no change, extension of time, alteration or
modification of the Landscaping Condition, or of the work to be
performed thereunder, shall in any way affect the obligation of
this bond, and the Surety does hereby waive notice of any such
change, extension of time, alteration or modification of the
Landscaping Condition or of the work to be performed thereunder.
FURTHER, the Surety, for value received, hereby stipulates
and agrees that the City of Rolling Hills, California may, in the
event of a breach of the Landscaping Condition, may proceed
against the Surety prior to proceeding against the Principal
without exonerating the Surety. The Surety therefore agrees to
waive the provisions of California Civil Code Section 2845.
FURTHER, the Surety expressly agrees as follows:
(a) If the Principal fails to complete any work
required by the Landscape Condition within the time specified
therein, that the City may, upon written notice to the Principal,
determine that said work or any part thereof is uncompleted, and
may cause to be forfeited to the City such portion of this
obligation as may be necessary to complete such work.
(b) If the Principal shall fail to complete one or more
of the requirements of the Landscaping Condition within the
specified time, the City shall not be required to declare a
forfeiture of this obligation or to prosecute an action under
this bond as to all actions under this bond or as to any one or
more of the remaining uncompleted requirements, even though the
City knows or has reason to know, at the time of the initial
forfeiture and prosecution for actions, that other requirements
had not been completed within the time specified for completion.
FURTHER, As part of the obligation secured hereby and in
addition to the face amount specified therefore, the Surety shall
pay all reasonable costs, expenses and fees, including
reasonable attorney's fees, incurred by City in successfully
enforcing this obligation, in an amount to be fixed by the court.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, three (3) identical counterparts of this
910719 kge 1680582
• •
instrument, each of which shall for all purposes be deemed an
original thereof, have been duly executed by the Principal and
Surety named herein, on the day of ,
199 , the name and corporate seal of each corporate party
being hereto affixed and these presents duly signed by its
undersigned representative pursuant to authority of its governing
body.
(SEAL)
By:
By:
* Note: All Signatures must by
acknowledged before a notary public.
(Attach appropriate acknowledgements.)
910719 kge 1680582 3
Principal's Name
Principal's Signature*
Surety's Name
Surety's Signature*
• •
City 0/ leollin9
INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274
(213) 377-1521
FAX: (213) 377-7288
June 26, 1991
Mr. and Mrs. Dale Stucker
6 Flying Mane Road
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 428
Request for a one year time extension
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Stucker:
This letter shall serve as official notification that Zoning Case
No. 428 was APPROVED for a one year time extension by the Planning
Commission at their regular meeting on June 25, 1991.
Resolution No. 91-15 is enclosed for your files.
Feel free to call me at (213) 377-1521 if you have any questions
regarding this matter.
Sincerely,
LOLA M. UNGAR
PRINCIPAL PLANNER
Enclosure: Resolution No. 91-15
June 13, 1991
Alan Roberts
Chairman of Planning Commission
City of Rolling Hills
2 Portuguese Bend Road
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
Re: Zoning Case 428
#6 Flying Mane Road
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
Mr. Roberts:
Mr. Dale Stucker and myself, Lavonne Stucker, are in, plan check at
this time. We will not be out of plan check in time to meet our
June 30, 1991 deadline. We would appreciate a one year extension.
Your time and attention to this matter is greatly appreciated.
Sincerely,
Lavonne Stucker
By
JUN 14 1991
City Of Rolling Hills
•
•
Mr. & Mrs. Dale Stucker
6 Flying Mane Road
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274
(213) 377-1521
FAX: (213) 377-7288
September 26, 1990
RE: ZONING CASE NO. 428:
Request for a Modification to the previously approved
Variance to encroach into the front and rear yard setbacks
to construct residential additions, and Site Plan Review
for proposed residential additions located at 6 Flying
Mane Road, Rolling Hills, Lot 61-A-SF
Dear Mr. & Mrs. Stucker:
This is 'to inform you that the City Council, at their meeting
on September 24, 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 above 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
$ 9.00. 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 Mr. Ray Hamada, Principal Planner, at
377-1521, if you have any questions.
Very tiL
�------
Ray HHamada
Principal Planner
/jr
Encls.
For Recorder,'3. use
RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND MAIL TO:
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274
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
(The Registrar -Recorder's Office requires that the form be notarized
before recordation.)
Acceptance Form
STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ss
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO.
VARIANCE CASE NO. 428 (MODIFICATION)
SITE PLAN REVIEW CASE NO. 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 in said
Conditional Use Permit Case No.
Variance Case No. 428 (MODIFICATION)
Site Plan Review Case No. 428 (MODIFICATION)
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
Address
City, State
Signature
Owner Name
Address
City, State
Signature
This signature must
be acknowledged by a
notary public. Attach
appropriate acknowledgement.
Alan Roberts
Chairman of Planning Commission
Re: Zoning Case 428
#6 Flying Mane Road
Rolling Hills, Ca
6 Flying Mane Road
Rolling Hills, Ca 90274
August 3, 1990
AUG 0 7 1990
AiDa! POLLING HIL9
Thank you for granting approval of my site plan review and variance.
After reviewing my plans I decided that the plan is not as workable as
we would like it to be and I would like to make a request for a modification
to my.previously approved plan. I realize you have made a trip to my house
previously so I have included some photos of the north side of the house
for your review. I appreciate your attention in this matter.
Sincerely,
Lavonne Stucker
LOT COVERAGE (ordinanc416. 188)
Main buildings, accessory buildings, structures, tennis courts, swi wing pools,
service yards (enclosed or unenclosed), stables, or an area of not less than 200 sqi
'feet for the construction of a stable (with vehicle access thereto) shall not cover
more than twenty (201) percent of the net lot area: provided further that in additic
to the above described improvements, the areas included within driveways, parking
space, walks, patios, decks and asphalt or concrete paving of any kind excepting
roads maintained by the Rolling Hills Community Association, shall not cover more
than thirty-five (35%) percent of the net lot area.
For the purposes of this Section 'net a: -a' shall exclude all perimeter easeme:
a maximum of ten feet and that portion of the lot or parcel of land which is uses
for roadway purposes, and shall also exclude any private drive or driveway which prc
vides ingress and egress to any other lot or parcel of land, and access strip portic
of any flag lot.
SUI:.DING AREA CALCULATIONS
NET LOT AREA -. 2 7,s 2 8 8 _ acl. tt.-
RLSIDEN43 ' 4,003 eq. ft.
GARAGE_ 540 -sq. ft.
8NIMG POOL 525 ' • sq. ft.
STABLE 200 sq. ft.
. TENNIS COOPS 0 sq. ft.
TOTAL SQUARE FIRM 5.380
A .� 0,rA.:.o (MaIY RIOT EXCEED .201 OF NET LOT AREA) 20%
oRryzwAr
PAVED AD17= maw PATIO AREA
P004 DECKING
c_
2,230 sq. ft.
• 100 sq. ft.
200 sq. ft.
TOTAL SQUARE FEET 2.530
9.6
TOTAL OVERAGE (MP Y NOT r•w 351 OF NET LOT AREA) ?9.6
moue 4
•
Ci1y 0/eo rlin S JUL
Mr. & Mrs. Dale Stucker
6 Flying Mane Road
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
RE:
Dear Mr. &
This
July 9,
the above
INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274
(213) 377-1521
FAX: (213) 377-7288
July 12, 1990
ZONING CASE NO. 428
For approving 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 at 6 Flying Mane Road,
Rolling Hills, Lot 61-A-SF
Mrs. Stucker:
is to inform you that the City Council, at their meeting on
1990, voted to ratify the Planning Commission's approval of
referenced planning/zoning case application.
Pursuant to Section 17.32.087, Ordinance No. 207, an Affidavit of
Acceptance form must be executed before the above 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 $ 13.00. 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 Mr. Ray Hamada, Principal Planner, at
377-1521, if you have any questions.
/jr
Encls.
Very trul
Ray Ramada
Principal Planner
For Recorder's use
410
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
(The Registrar -Recorder's Office requires that. the form be notarized
before recordation.)
Acceptance Form
STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ss
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO.
VARIANCE CASE NO. 428
SITE PLAN REVIEW CASE NO. 428
I (We) the undersigned state:
I am (We are) the owner(s). of the real propertydescribed as follows:
6 Flying Ilane 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, all the stated conditions in said
Conditional Use Permit Case No.
Variance Case No. 428
Site Plan Review Case No. 428
I Ode) 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
Address
City, State
Signature
Owner Name
Address
City, State
Signature
This signature must
be acknowledged by a
notary public. Attach
appropriate acknowledgement.
Cuy ./r�e�
June 27, 1990
Mr. & Mrs. Dale Stucker
6 Flying Mane Road
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. 428; Request for a Variance to encroach into
the rear yard and front yard setback to construct additions to the
existing residence and garage; Site Plan Review for the proposed
residential additions, conversion of the existing garage to living
space, and proposed new three -car garage.
Dear Mr. & Mrs. Stucker;
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 June 19, 1990. At that meeting,
the Planning Commission voted to approve the request for a Variance
and Site Plan Review.
The Planning Commission's decision will be reported to the City
Council at their regular meeting on July 9, 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 amada
Principal Planner
Encls
cc: Mr. Richard Linde, Architect
Peggy Minor, RHCA Manager
TO:
• •
aly Rolling ihild
INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE REND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274
(213) 377-1521
FAX: (213) 377-7288
MR. & MRS. DALE STUCKER JR.
6 FLYING MANE ROAD, ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274
FROM: CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
The plan for: ZONING CASE 428
Applicant: MR. & MRS. DALE STUCKER JR.
Address:
6 FLYING MANE ROAD, ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274
(a) Complies with City Zoning requirements
(b) Needs Variance (
Contact City for application and submittal requirements.
(c)
(d)
(e)
XX
Needs Conditional Use Permit
Contact City for application and submittal requirements.
Needs Site Plan Review
Contact City for application and submittal requirements.
Other (see below)
This letter shall provide you with notice that the public hearing
on Zoning Case No. 428 will be conducted at the regular meeting
of the Planning Commission on Tuesday, June 19, 1990, 7:30 p.m.
at City Hall. Yourself and/or your representative should be
present at the meeting. Should you have any further questions,
please contact this office.
June 6, 1990
Ray Ramada
'Principal Planner
cc: Richard Linde, 2200 Amapola Court, Torrance, CA 90501
ku
TO:
FROM:
•
City
INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274
(213) 377-1521
MR. AND MRS. DALE STUCKER
6 FLYING MANE ROAD, ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
The plan for:
Applicant:
Address:
ZONING CASE NO. 428
STUCKER
6 FLYING MANE ROAD, ROLLING HILLS, CA
(a) Complies with City Zoning requirements
(b) Needs Variance (
Contact City for application and
(c) Needs Conditional Use Permit
Contact City for application and
(d) Needs Site Plan Review
Contact City for application and
(e) XX Other (see below)
submittal requirements.
submittal requirements.
submittal requirements.
The Planning Commission, at their regular meeting held May 15, 1990,
continued the above -stated application to an adjourned meeting to
be held Saturday, June 2, 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.
MAY 17, 1990
cc: RICHARD LINDE
/-4444---
Rhy Hamada
Principal Planner
ku