590, Enlarge the entry to SFR 42 SF, Resolutions & Approval Conditions0 ,,,,,,. ,e,,,,,S,,•1-..,,N.. , i ... •.•,/, . : k ." ,r,.. , .,,,, q. 'lc ' Vt,N' .1r ••,IN,F1.,,...0:17,, c ,,q.f.),,.•.,..,..1 • •' • : '••
•
99 1010811
- RECORDED/FILED IN OFFICIAL RECORD'S j RECORDER'S OFFICE
LOS ANGELES COUNTY
CALIFORNIA
8:04 AM JUN 03 1999
.11101•WIII.No
SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE RESERVED FOR RECORDER 8 USE
TITLE(S)
FEE N/A N/A 0 20 9_ 19 04 19
CODE
REC. NO. NO PCOR D.A. SURVEY NOTIF. INVOL NON
FEE PAGES TITLES FEE MON. LIEN CONF.
Assessor s Identification Number (AIN)
To Be Completed By Examiner Or Title Company In Black Ink
l',,h1MMit',4001,m,,,,,,,,mewvx,AN,"rorraur.M14.4ruMmenudirreer; , „. vr,rultm"'
EXAMINER S INT.
Number of Parcels Shown
•
FleybOon Number
INRmt�;411�
RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND MAIL TO:
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274
(310) 377-1521
(310) 377.7288 FAX
OCT 2 81999
CITY OF ROLLING I-' LLS
FAN/
The Registrar -Recorder's Office requires that the form be notarized before recordation.
AFFIDAVIT OF ACCEPTANCE FOifill
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
ZONING CASE NO., Q
! (We) the undersigned state:
I am (We are) the owner(s) of the real property described as follows:
10 Eastfield Drive (Lot 64-A-EF), Rolling Hills, CA.
This property is the subject of the above numbered case.
I am (We are) aware of, and accept, all the stated conditions in said
ZONING CASE NO. ,; Q SITE PLAN REVIEW
VARIANCE
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
dtil_113 penalty of perjury that the foregoing
FEE$ sI
D.A. FEE Cade 20 $
Signature ,) yoE,eefri e.
Nam9 typedU & 5, t- e� d e
Address Alt/A/4ilais,
City/State
Slg,natutesr.rritiSt be acknowledged by a Doter/ public,
SITE PLAN REVIEW
VARIANCE
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
sL
>L
4 Recorders Use Only
rue and c
Signature g 6.N PE,zie,.7 ) L 7'
Name tyif�i)o r -4Sri / l_b ),t'
Address,,L,1Ci /./LS, &?
City/State
Statti.of California )
County;;4f• Los Angeles )
�-�-
Onget( .t%`lr I9T) before mle• /1/DM:i piG, A'G
personally appeared , 44uid T-duavcl fer acvfro,,r� 4reen f5P PprYa m . /�f-
`o proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s)
0/are.sbibscrtt ed; to,tho;:within instrument and acknowledged to me that•p®lehc/they executed the same in 4Win 4rWilritttheir
authorized`; capacity(ie'S) and that by i Ne►/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf
of W cli 'the:•persotis). acted executed the instrument.
Ltd
MyCorren.ExparedDec10.21X12
t• t
Witness by ha
and ial sea
Sign ure of Notary
SE
E EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HERETO p RETO AND MADE A PART NEREO
4 I III II II II 1 11 1 111, u1 II 1111 II III!
• 4v/e/r k
RESOLUTION NO. 99.7
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A VARIANCE TO PERMIT
ENCROACHMENTS INTO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK TO
CONSTRUCT AN ENTRYWAY ADDITION, GRANTING A
VARIANCE TO PERMIT ENCROACHMENTS INTO THE FRONT
YARD SETBACK TO CONSTRUCT A DINING ROOM ADDITION AND
GRANTING SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF ADDITIONS TO A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
THAT WILL REQUIRE GRADING IN ZONING CASE NO. 590.
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. Ray Perrault with
respect to real property located at 10 Eastfield Drive, Rolling Hills (Lot 64-A-EF)
requesting a Variance to permit encroachment into the front yard setback to
construct additions that will not exceed existing encroachments and request for Site
Plan Review to permit the construction of room additions, a basement, an expanded
driveway turnaround area and retaining walls that will require grading at an
existing single family residence.
Section 2, The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public
hearing to consider the applications on January 19,1999 and February 16,1999, and at
a field trip visit on February 6, 1999. The applicants were notified of the public
hearing in writing by first class mail and through the City's newsletter. 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
hearing.
Section 3, The Planning Commission finds that the project qualifies as a
Class 1 Exemption (State CA Guidelines, Section 15301(e)) and is therefore
categorically, exempt from environmental review under the California
Environmental Quality Act.
Section .& 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
circumstancesapplicable 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.
Section 17.16.110 requires the front yard setback for every residential parcel to be fifty
(50) feet. The applicant is requesting to encroach up to a maximum 15 feet into the
•
•
50 foot front yard setback to construct a 42 square foot addition at the entryway
beneath the existing eaves. 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 of the irregular shape of the
lot. The existing legal nonconforming residence was built with the front yard
setback and the existing building pad located close to the street. The addition will not
encroach beyond existing encroachments and is limited in area so as to leave nearly
all of the existing open space near the front of the residence 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 setback was increased after the
home was already constructed and the encroachments permit the use of the lot to
the extent allowed for other properties in the vicinity. The Variance will permit the
development of the property in a manner similar to development patterns on
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. Development on the pad will allow a
substantial portion of the lot to remain undeveloped.
Section 5. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission
hereby approves the Variance for Zoning Case No. 590 to permit the construction of
an addition that will encroach a maximum of fifteen (15) 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 specified in
Section 10 of this Resolution.
Section 6. Section 17.16.110 requires the front yard setback for every
residential parcel to be fifty (50) feet. The applicant is requesting to encroach up to a
maximum 11 feet into the 50 foot front yard setback to construct a 126 square foot
addition to the dining room under a new roof 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 because of the irregular shape of the
lot. The existing legal nonconforming residence was built with the front yard
setback and the existing building pad located close to the street. The addition will not
encroach beyond existing encroachments and is limited in area so as to leave nearly
all of the existing open space near the front of the residence unaffected.
RESOLUTION NO. 99-7
PAGE 2 OF 7
•
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 setback was increased after the
home was already constructed and the encroachments permit the use of the lot to
the extent allowed for other properties in the vicinity. The Variance will permit the
development of the property in a manner similar to development patterns on
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. Development on the pad will allow a
substantial portion of the lot to remain undeveloped.
Section 7, Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission
hereby approves the Variance for Zoning Case No. 590 to permit the construction of
an addition that will encroach a maximum of eleven (11) 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 specified in
Section 10 of this Resolution.
Section 8, Section 17.46.030 requires a development plan to be submitted
for site plan review and approval before any grading 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 to add 824 square feet to the proposed 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 structure complies
with the General Plan requirement of low profile, low density residential
development with sufficient open space between surrounding structures. The
project conforms to Zoning Code setback and lot coverage requirements with the
Variances approved in Sections 5 and 7 of this Resolution. The lot has a net square
foot area of 39,630 square feet. The proposed residence (2,906 sq.ft.), garage (686 sq.ft.),
swimming pool (580 sq.ft.), future stable (450 sq.ft.), service yard (70 sq.ft.) and porch
(84 sq.ft.) will have 4,776 square feet which constitutes 12.05% of the lot which is
within the maximum 20% structural lot coverage requirement. The total lot
coverage including paved areas and driveway will be 10,618 square feet which equals
26.79% of the lot, which is within the 35% maximum overall lot coverage
requirement. The proposed project is screened from the road so as to reduce the
visual impact of the development.
RESOLUTION NO. 99-7
PAGE 3 OF 7
•
B. The proposed development preserves and integrates into the site
design, to the maximum extent feasible, existing natural topographic features of the
lot including surrounding native vegetation, mature trees, drainage courses, and
land forms (such as hillsides and knolls). The lot slopes downward at the rear and
most of the mature trees will not be removed. Grading will be done to provide
approved drainage that will flow away from the proposed residence and existing
neighboring residences.
C. The proposed development, as conditioned, is harmonious in scale
and mass with the site, the natural terrain and surrounding residences. As indicated
in Paragraph A, the lot coverage maximum will not be exceeded and the proposed
project is consistent with the scale of the neighborhood when compared to this
irregular -shaped lot. The ratio of the proposed structure to lot coverage is similar to
the ratio found on several properties in the vicinity.
D. The development plan incorporates existing large trees and native
vegetation to the maximum extent feasible. Specifically, the development plan
preserves several mature trees and shrubs 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 new
structures will not cause the structural and total lot coverage to be exceeded.
Although the building structure is located within the front yard setback, the
additions will not effect a major change to the existing residence. The development
plans as proposed will minimize impact on Eastfield Drive. Most of the additions
proposed will not be visible from Eastfield Drive. Significant portions of the lot will
be left undeveloped so as to maintain scenic vistas across portions of the property.
F. The development plan follows natural contours of the site to
minimize grading and the natural drainage courses will continue to the canyons at
the east side (rear) of this lot.
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 utilize an existing driveway at the southwestern portion of the
property off Eastfield Drive for access.
I. The project conforms with the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act and is categorically exempt from environmental
review.
RESOLUTION NO. 99-7
PAGE 4 OF 7
• •
Section 9, Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission
hereby approves the Site Plan Review application for Zoning Case No. 590 for
proposed residential additions as indicated on the development plan incorporated
herein as Exhibit A and subject to the conditions contained in Section 10.
Section 10, The Variances to the front yard setback approved in Sections 5
and 7 and the Site Plan Review approved in Section 9 of this resolution are subject
to the following conditions:
A. The Variance and Site Plan Review approvals shall expire within one
year from the effective date of approval as defined in Sections 17.38.070(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 Variance 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
applicant has 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 the 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 February 10, 1999, except as
otherwise provided in these conditions.
E. The working drawings submitted to the County Department of
Building and Safety for plan check review must conform to the development plan
approved with this application.
F. Any retaining walls incorporated into the project shall not exceed 5
feet in height, averaging no more than 2-1/2 feet.
G. The residential building pad coverage shall not exceed 86.99%, the pool
and stable pad shall not exceed 15.0714►, and total building pad coverage shall not
exceed 42.25%.
H. Maximum disturbed area shall not exceed 40.0% of the net lot area.
RESOLUTION NO. 99-7
PAGE 5 OF 7
• •
I. Grading shall not exceed 362.93 cubic yards of cut soli and 362.93 cubic
yards of fill soil and shall be balanced on site.
J. Any grading shall preserve the existing topography, flora, and natural
features to the greatest extent possible.
K. An Erosion' Control Plan containing the elements set forth in Section
7010 of the 1996 County of Los Angeles Uniform Building Code shall be prepared to
minimize erosion and to protect slopes and channels to control stormwater
pollution as required by the County of Los Angeles.
L. Landscaping shall incorporate and preserve, to the maximum extent
feasible, the existing mature trees and shrubs and the natural landscape screening
surrounding the proposed building pad.
M. Landscaping 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.
N. An Erosion Control Plan containing the elements set forth in Section
7010 of the 1996 County of Los Angeles Uniform Building Code shall be prepared to
minimize erosion and to protect slopes and channels to control stormwater
pollution as required by the County of Los Angeles.
U. 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, Oils 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.
P. The project must be reviewed and approved by the Rolling Hills
Co ivaunity Association Architectural Review Committee prior to the issuance of
any building. or grading permit.
Q. Notwithstanding Sections 17.46.020 and 17.46.070 of the Rolling Hills
Municipal Code, any modifications to the project which would constitute additional
structural development shall require the filing of a new application for approval by
the Planning Commission.
RESOLUTION NO. 997
PAGE 6 OF 7
• •
R. The applicants shall 'execute an Affidavit of Acceptance of all
conditions of .this Variance and Site Plan Review, pursuant to Section 17.38.060, or
the approval shall not be effective.
S. All conditions of these Variance 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.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 16TH DA)LQ MA > 1H,1999.
ALLAN ROBERTS, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
•
MARILYN I SRN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS )
I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 99-7 entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING
HILLS GRANTING A VARIANCE TO PERMIT ENCROACHMENTS INTO THE FRONT
YARD SETBACK TO CONSTRUCT AN ENTRYWAY ADDITION, GRANTING A
VARIANCE TO PERMIT ENCROACHMENTS INTO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK TO
CONSTRUCT A DINING ROOM ADDMON AND GRANTING SITE PLAN REVIEW
APPROVAL FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF ADDITIONS TO A SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENCE THAT WILL REQUIRE GRADING IN ZONING CASE NO. 590.
was approved and adopted at an adjourned regular meeting of the Planning Commission an March 16,
1999 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.
v
RESOLUTIQN. NO..•99-7
PAGE 7OF 7•':' :'::' .•;•
DEPUTY CITY CLERK ``t• "' ` "
•.�:'>xi yaw
, i1V,u,;..Y3;311.,r:!GA!'r5
• •
This is a true and certified copy of the record
if it bears the seal, imprinted in purple ink,
of the Registrar•Recorder/County Clerk.
OCT 22 1999
1r o''s�,,,,; flEG1STRAR•RECOADEA(COkftitY CLEM
LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA