The URL can be used to link to this page

664, Construct a 140 sq. ft. equine, CorrespondenceSent By: LAW OFFICES OF ERROL J GORDON; 12134824508; Page 1/1 P " :2005 CITY OF ROLLING it' :S.S 410 Apr-26-05 10:08; s ERROL J. GORDON JOEANN M. GORDON 15 Eastfield Drive Rolling Hills, California 90274 Telephone No. (310) 377-0689 April 26, 2005 VIA HAND DELIVERY Mr. Craig Nealis City Manager City of Rolling Hills No. 2 Portuguese Road Rolling Hills, California 90274 Re: VARIANCE CONDITION Zoning Case Nos. 694 and 697 Property Address: 15 Eastfield Drive, Rollina Hills, CA Dear Mr. Nealis: The horse shelter subject to the variance conditions has been removed. You are tree to h.ve this fact verified by an inspection of our property. I am also enclosing a confirmation of the recordation of the two (2) Affidavit of Acceptance forms which were signed and notarized on April 18, 2005. I am enclosing a copy of the first page of these two (2) documents for your review. Thus, based upon the foregoing, pleasc remove any limitation on the issuance of the building permit for our property. If there are any q-stions, please call. Thank you. pectfu ERROL J. RDON EJG:rcid Enclosure as stated cc: Mr. Tom Blair Mr. Luis De La Rosa 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 The Registrar -Recorder's Office requires that the form be notarized before recordation. AFFIDAVIT OF ACCEPTANCE FORM STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ) §§ ZONING CASE NO. 697 SITE PLAN REVIEW VARIANCES CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT COPY of Docume t. Recorded r Vies not 94 compared with original. Original will be rct+�rncd when 4 processing Its been completed. LOS ANGELES CONY REGISTRAR • RECORDER XX XX I (We) the undersigned state: I am (We are) the owner(s) of the real property described as follows: 15 EASTFIELD DRIVE, ROLLING HILLS, (LOT 52-EF) CA 90274 This property is the subject of the above numbered case and conditions of approval I am (We are) aware of, and accept, all the stated conditions in said ZONING CASE NO. 697 SITE PLAN REVIEW XX VARIANCES CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT I (fy (or - re) under th penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Signat,47 a_ Name tyj r I. . Address 1.4.4 t- - , ' City/State �J ( r Signatures must be acknowledged by a notary public, State of California ) County of Los Angeles ) On kf('l 1qj 20b5 Signatul Off/ 6 V 1 Name typedoprinted �� A Addres City/State R- 1--4&rvu Rust ale- c R, i tc personally appeared Fr T. GoreiLn and Dect_rt✓\ Nolo( oA before me, ja✓v>,e.r APR it hop T Recorder's Use Only personally known to me (or es to me Er. the Losis e)-to be the person(s) whose name(s) subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that Re/s -ai , executed the same in Ris7her heir authorized capacity(ies) and that by ftts/I'm signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. JAMES R. HAMILTON Commission # 1433922 Notary Public - California Los Angeles County My Comm. Expires Sep 3, 2007� SEE EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF Witness by hand and official Signature of Notary 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 The Registrar -Recorder's Office requires that the form be notarized before recordation. AFFIDAVIT OF ACCEPTANCE FORM ,• STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§—� CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ) ZONING CASE Nd'. 664 COPY of Document Recorded 0 9453 5 Has not been compared with original, Original will be returned when processing hYs been completed. L05 ANGELES COUNTY REGISTRAR • RECORDER SITE PLAN REVIEW VARIANCE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT I (We) the undersigned state: I am (We are) the owner(s) of the real property described as follows: 15 EASTFIELD DRIVE, ROLLING HILLS, (LOT 52-EF) CA 90274 This property is the subject of the above numbered case and conditions of approval I am (We are) aware of, and accept, all the stated conditions in said ZONING CASE NO. 664 SITE PLAN REVIEW VARIANCE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT I (We)Zcertitar (or d under the natty of perjury that the foregoing is true and corre XX XX Signature ral Coo rccc).n Namprimlich 1 ^ On Addresgo wA '�J A '° tf\IA4f.a., City/State Signatures must be acknowledged by a notary Dahlia, State of Califomia ) County of Los Angeles ) on i l II) too 5 Signat I Ins Name4y inted C�c� �✓t U Address J oe2 tel VI city/Stett& Vl 1,_ • before me, ZIG1m2s 2. l'taivLL 42,4 NIACtf� personally appeared L rrr.) T, &brc&.rx/t rkrrt TnPGvi v. (-)n(ct DDA. personally known to me (.,, F.„,.J I., ,pie -or; thz Lo.);0 Ut Ora ii iftetet. 'J�.,,.a) to be the person(s) whose name(s) ar subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me thattertheQt executed the same in-his7he thei authorized capacity(ies) and that by ' ignature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. T Recorders Use Only JAMES R. HAMILTON Commission # 1433922 Notary Public - California 5 Los Angeles County — My Comm. Expires Sep 3, 2007 II'• I ,Jr ' • II • Witness by hand and official s Signature of Notary SEE. EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF h Ci1y ofieo PP.>.y J1,PG November 9, 2004 Mr. and Mrs. Errol Gordon 15 Eastfield Drive Rolling Hills, CA 90274 IP INCORPORATED JANLIARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 E-mail: cityofrh@aol.com SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 664, One year time extension Dear Mr. and Mrs. Gordon: This is to inform you that the City Council at their November 8, 2004 regular meeting approved your request for one-year time extension of Zoning Case No. 664 to construct additions to the residence and to exceed the structural and total lot coverage. The extension is valid for one year and will expire on November 10, 2005, unless construction approved under Zoning Case No. 664 commences prior to that date. Please find enclosed the resolution memorializing this action. Should you have any questions in this matter, please contact me at (310) 377-1521. Sincer Iy Y6anta Schwartz Panning Director • RESOLUTION NO. 969 • A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS APPROVING A MODIFICATION TO CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 946 AND APPROVING AN EXTENSION TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE PLAN REVIEW REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT AN ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AND GRANTING VARIANCE REQUESTS TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED STRUCTURAL AND TOTAL LOT COVERAGE AT AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IN ZONING CASE NO. 664 AT 15 EASTFIELD DRIVE, LOT 52-EF, (GORDON)._ THE CITY COUNCIL 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. Errol Gordon with respect to real property located at 15 Eastifeld Drive (Lot 52-EF), Rolling Hills, requesting an extension to a previously approved Site Plan Review and Variances for the construction of an addition to a single family residence, and to exceed the maximum permitted structural and total net lot coverage. Section 2. The City Council considered this item at a meeting November 8, 2004, at which time information was presented indicating that the extension of time is necessary in order to commence the project. Section 3. Based upon information and evidence submitted, the City Council does hereby amend Paragraph A, Section 11 of Resolution No. 946 dated November 10, 2003, to read as follows: "A. The Site Plan Review and Variances approvals shall expire withi two years from the effective date of approval if construction pursuant to t ese approvals has not commenced within that time period, as defined in Sec ions 17.38.070A and 17.46.080A." Section 4. Except as herein amended, the provisiorps of Resolution No. 946 shall continue to be in full force and effect. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 8TH D QIF N MB R 2004 ✓Tt OM I INSHEII` t�f AYOR ATTEST: MARILYN KERN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK Resolution No. 969 -1- STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CITY OF ROLLING HILLS) ) § I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 969 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS APPROVING A MODIFICATION TO CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 946 AND APPROVING AN EXTENSION TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE PLAN REVIEW REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT AN ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AND GRANTING VARIANCE REQUESTS TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED STRUCTURAL AND TOTAL LOT COVERAGE AT AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IN ZONING CASE NO. 664 AT 15 EASTFIELD DRIVE, LOT 52-EF, (GORDON)._ was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council on November 8, 2004, by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Hill, Lay, Mayor Pro Tem Pernell and Mayor Heinsheimer. NOES: None. ABSENT: Councilmember Black. ABSTAIN: None. and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following: Administrative Offices AYES: DEPUTY CITY CLERK Resolution No. 969 -2- Sent'By: LAW OFFICES OF ERROL J GORDON; 12134824508; • Oct-29-04 9:52AM; Page 1 111/ ERROL JAY GORDON JOEANN M. GORDON 15 Eastfield Drive Rolling Hills, California 90274 Phone (310) 377-0689 Via Hand Delivery Mr. Craig Nealis City Manager City of Rolling Hills No. 2 Portuguese Road Rolling Hills, California 90274 October 29, 2004 By OCT 2 9 2304 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS RE: ZONING CASE NO. 664 Property address: 15 Eastfield Drive, Rolling Hills, CA Dear Mr. Nealis: My wife and I hereby request the City to extend the time within which to commence the construction of our approved residential remodeling project. Unfortunately, due to the delay in obtaining the necessary geological, engineering and architectural submissions, and the approvals of the County of Los Angeles Building Department, our permit has not been issued. I am advised by Mr. Tom Blair, our project architect, that the plans are in final plan check with the County. Thus, hopefully, the project will continence construction within the near future. It should be noted that we have obtained the approval of our plans from the Rolling Hills Community Association. Sent By: LAW OFFICES OF ERROL J GOR ; 12134824508; Oct-29-04 9:39AM; 1110 Page 2/2 Mr. Craig Nealis October 29, 2004 Page 2 of 2 RE: ZONING CASE NO. 664 If there are any other matters which must be addressed in order to obtain an extension of our approval from the City, please advise me as soon as possible. Thank you for your continued cooperation. ERROL JAY ORDON EJG;fae cc: Mr. Tom Blair [fde62;16)G 10.29-04 I-RT CITY OF ROLLING HILLS RE CONSTRUCTION EXTENSION] 4k. �9City OPO/tinyl[ f. PO/tiny � INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377.1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 E-mail: cityofrh@aol.com August 25, 2004 Mr. and Mrs. E. Gordon 15 Eastfield Drive Rolling Hills, CA 90274 SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 664 -EXPIRATION OF APPROVALS Dear Mr. and Mrs. Gordon: This letter is to inform you that it has been almost one year since the approval of Zoning Case No. 664 was granted by the City Council. The approval will expire on NOVEMBER 10, 2004. unless construction commences on or prior to that date. You can extend the approvals for one year only if you apply to the City Council in writing to request an extension prior to the expiration date. In your request indicate the reason for seeking the extension. The filing fee for the time extension is $200 to be paid to the City of Rolling Hills. The City Council meets on the second and fourth Monday of each month. In order for your request to be placed on the City Council's agenda, it must be submitted to the Planning Department a minimum of two weeks prior to the meeting. Please be advised that we have not received the recorded copy of the Affidavit of Acceptance Form and Resolution of Approval for Zoning Case No. 664. A letter with instructions for recordation was mailed to you previously. Grading or construction permit will not be issued until these documents are recorded. In addition, prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, you must meet other requirements enumerated in the Resolution of approval, including the removal of the shelter. Should you need another copy of the Resolution, the Affidavit of Acceptance Form and instructions on recordation, please call me at (310) 377-1521 and I will be glad to re -send the appropriate information to you. Sipc: ely, olanta Schwartz lanning Director cc: Thomas Blair Associates, AIA ®1=nn11,l nn It. c,,.:lnc1 f'dlna • RESOLUTION NO. 969 • A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS APPROVING A MODIFICATION TO CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 946 AND APPROVING AN EXTENSION TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE PLAN REVIEW REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT AN ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AND GRANTING VARIANCE REQUESTS TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED STRUCTURAL AND TOTAL LOT COVERAGE AT AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IN ZONING CASE NO. 664 AT 15 EASTFIELD DRIVE, LOT 52-EF, (GORDON)._ THE CITY COUNCIL 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. Errol Gordon with respect to real property located at 15 Eastifeld Drive (Lot 52-EF), Rolling Hills, requesting an extension to a previously approved Site Plan Review and Variances for the construction of an -addition to a single family residence, and to exceed the maximum permitted structural and total net lot coverage. Section 2. The City Council considered this item at a meeting November 8, 2004, at which time information was presented indicating that the extension of time is necessary in order to commence the project. Section 3. Based upon information and evidence submitted, the City Council does hereby amend Paragraph A, Section 11 of Resolution No. 946 dated November 10, 2003, to read as follows: "A. The Site Plan Review and Variances approvals shall expire witlu two years from the effective date of approval if construction pursuant to t ese approvals has not commenced within that time period, as defined in Sec ions 17.38.070A and 17.46.080A." Section 4. Except as herein amended, the provisio of Resolution No. 96 shall continue to be in full force and effect. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 8TH ATTEST: MARILYN KERN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK D MB R 2004 INSHEINI�'I AYOR Resolution No. 969 -1- STATE OF CALIFOR A COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CITY OF ROLLING HILLS) ) §§ I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 969 entitled: • A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS APPROVING A MODIFICATION TO CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 946 AND APPROVING AN EXTENSION TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE PLAN REVIEW REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT AN ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AND GRANTING VARIANCE REQUESTS TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED STRUCTURAL AND TOTAL LOT COVERAGE AT AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IN ZONING CASE NO. 664 AT 15 EASTFIELD DRIVE, LOT 52-EF, (GORDON)._ was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council on November 8, 2004, by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Hill, Lay, Mayor Pto Tem Pernell and Mayor Heinsheimer. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: None. Councilmember Black. ABSTAIN: None. and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following: Administrative Offices DEPUTY CITY CLERK Resolution No. 969 -2- THOMAS A. BLAIR, A.I.A. ARCHITECT June 15, 2004 Planning Department City of Rolling Hills No. 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274. Re:, Gordon Residence 15 Eastfield Drive Dear Planning Department: Per your request, I have spoken to the Community Association regarding the excess soil that will be generated for the basement at the Gordon Residence. They have indicated to me that they can use the soil in the "Flying Triangle" or in the Eastfield area. The total soil generated will be in the 500 yard range, with a'maximum of 222 ,yards, allowed to used on site and not be considered grading. The city allows a maximum of 2,000"sq.ft. in area and a maximum of 3' in height to be placed without the need fora grading permit Amy amount the Association can't use will be used on site to contour the corral or be used in the riding ring. 41 BLAIR ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTURE & CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT Sincerely, uis de la Rosa Project Manager 2785 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, #149, TORRANCE, CA 90505 PHONE: (310) 320-2016 FAX: (310) 320-0237 a (;;.4 0/ ie0ii Jd.PP, November 13, 2003 Mr. and Mrs. Errol Gordon 15 Eastfield Drive Rolling Hills, CA 90274 • • INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 SUBJECT: 15 EASTFIELD DRIVE (LOT 52-EF), ROLLING HILLS, CA RESOLUTION NO. 946. Dear Mr. and Mrs. Gordon: NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377.1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 E-mail: cityofrh@aol.com This letter shall serve to notify you that the City Council adopted a resolution on November 10, 2003, granting Variances to exceed the maximum structural lot coverage and maximum total lot coverage and a Site Plan Review to construct a residential addition at 15 Eastfield Drive (Lot 52-EF), Rolling Hills, in Zoning Case No. 664. The City Council's decision in this matter is final. We have enclosed a copy of RESOLUTION NO. 946, specifying the conditions of approval set forth by the City Council and the approved Exhibit A Development Plan to keep for your files. Once you have reviewed the Resolution, please complete the enclosed AFFIDAVIT OF ACCEPTANCE FORM, have the signature(s) notarized, and forward the completed form and a copy of the Resolution to: Los Angeles County Registrar -Recorder Real Estate Records Section 12400 East Imperial Highway Norwalk, CA 90650 Include a check in the amount of $9.00 for the first page and $3.00 for each additional page. The City will notify the Los Angeles County Building & Safety Division to issue permits only after we receive the recorded Affidavit of Acceptance and any conditions of the Resolution required prior to issuance of building permits are met. Feel free to call me at (310) 377-1521 if you have any questions regarding this matter. Sinciely, anta Schwartz anning Director cc: Mr. Thomas A. Blair, AIA ®Prylied or Rerycicd (°:qur • RESOLUTION NO. 946 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION AND VARIANCES TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED STRUCTURAL LOT COVERAGE AND TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED TOTAL LOT COVERAGE AT AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IN ZONING CASE NO. 664 AT 15 EASTFIELD DRIVE, (LOT 52-EF) (GORDON). THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. An application was duly filed by Mr. and Mrs. Errol Gordon with respect to real property located at 15 Eastfield Drive (Lot 52-EF), Rolling Hills, requesting a Site Plan Review and Variances to exceed the maximum structural lot coverage and to exceed the maximum total lot coverage permitted in order to construct an addition to an existing single family residence. Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted duly noticed public hearings to consider the application on May 20, 2003, July 15, 2003, and August 19, 2003 and at a field trip visit on June 3, 2003. The applicants were notified of the public hearing 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 and their representative were in attendance at the hearings. At the September 16, 2003, the Planning Commission approved the subject project by Resolution No. 2003-17, by a vote of 4-1. Section 3. At the September 22, 2003 City Council meeting the City Council took jurisdiction of Zoning Case No. 664. Section 4. The City Council conducted duly noticed public hearings to consider the application on October 13, 2003, October 27, 2003, and at a site visit on October 21, 2003. Staff accompanied Councilmember Lay to visit the project site on October 22, 2003. The applicants were notified of the public hearings in writing by first class mail and were in attendance. Evidence was heard and presented from all persons interested in affecting said proposal, and from members of the City staff and the City Council having reviewed, analyzed and studied said proposal. Section 5. Originally, the applicants requested an additional Variance to construct an addition and covered porch, portions of which would encroach into the rear yard setback. After the Planning Commission field trip and public hearing, the applicants revised their proposal so that a Variance for encroachment would not be required. Section 6. During the proceedings for the proposal, it was determined that a horse shelter structure is located in the front yard setback on subject property, which, if retained, would also require a Variance. The shelter shall be removed as a condition of this approval. Section 7. In August of 2000, the Planning Commission approved a 212 square -foot addition, which triggered a Variance to exceed the maximum permitted structural lot coverage. Also, Resolution No. 2000-17 adopted by the Planning Commission on August 15, 2000, contains a condition, which requires that any new construction on subject property be reviewed by the Planning Commission. Therefore, the proposed addition of 762 square foot to the residence and 141 square foot of porches require a Site Plan Review. The 212 square foot addition was completed in July 2001. Section 8. The City Council finds that the project qualifies as a Class 1 Exemption [State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15301(e)] and is therefore categorically exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act. Section 9. 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. Section 17.16.070(A)(1) states that coverage by structures shall not be more than 20 percent of the net lot area. The applicants are requesting a Variance because coverage by structures will cover 23.7% of the net lot area. Section 17.16.070(A)(2) states that coverage by all impervious surfaces shall not be more than 35 percent of the net lot area. The applicants are requesting a Variance because coverage by impervious surfaces will cover 36.4% of the net lot area. With respect to this request for Variances, the City Council finds as follows: Resolution No. 946 -1- 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 for the structural lot coverage and the Variance for the total lot coverage are necessary because the lot is 1.63 acres, however net lot area is 1.3 acres, and the lot is long and narrow and irregular in shape. The lot size and configuration, together with the existing development on the lot creates difficulty in meeting this Code requirement. B. The Variances are 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 Variances are necessary because the home is relatively small and modest, and the applicants are requesting a modest residential addition. The homes in the vicinity of subject residence are on the average larger than this house, including the 762 square foot addition. C. The granting of the Variances 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 existing setbacks and will be adequately screened to prevent adverse visual impact to surrounding properties. Development on the site will be limited to 23.7% and the total impervious surfaces including the structures will be limited to 36.4%, which will allow a substantial portion of the lot to remain undeveloped. Section 10. 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 762 square foot addition, 141 square foot porches at an existing single-family residence would normally not require a Site Plan Review. However, due to the restriction placed in Resolution No. 2000-17 granted on August 15, 2000, on any future development on subject property, a Site Plan Review is required. In regards to the Site Plan Review application the City Council 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 setbacks, except for the existing stable, and lot coverage requirements. The proposed project is in the rear of the residence and not visible from the roadway, so as to reduce the visual impact of the development. B. The project substantially preserves the natural and undeveloped state of the lot. The proposed additions will be constructed on an existing building pad and will utilize for most part already existing impervious surfaces. The project is of sufficient distance from nearby residences so that the additions will not impact the view or privacy of surrounding neighbors, and will permit the owners to enjoy their property without deleterious infringement on the rights of surrounding property owners. C. The proposed development, as conditioned, is harmonious in scale and mass with the site. Although the structural lot coverage and the total lot coverage will exceed the maximum coverage permitted, the proposed project is consistent with the scale of the neighborhood when compared to properties in the vicinity. The site was previously disturbed and minimal additional disturbance will result from the proposed project. D. The development plan incorporates existing vegetation to the maximum extent feasible. The development plan substantially preserves the natural and undeveloped state of the lot and the new additions will not cause the lot to look overdeveloped. Significant portions of the lot will be left undeveloped so as to maintain open space. E. 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. F. The project is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. Resolution No. 946 -2- Section 11. Base on the foregoing findings in Section 9 a�ection 10 of this Resolution, the City Council hereby approves the Site Plan Review and ariances in Zoning Case No. 664 to permit 762 square foot residential additions, 141 square foot covered porches/trellis and to exceed lot coverage by structures of 23.7%, and by impervious surfaces of 36.4% subject to the following conditions: A. The Site Plan and Variances approvals shall expire within one year from the effective date of approval if work has not commenced as defined in Sections 17.38.070(A) and 17.46.080 of the Zoning Ordinance, unless otherwise extended pursuant to the requirements of these sections. B. It is declared and made a condition of the approval, that if any conditions thereof are violated, this approval shall be suspended and the privileges granted hereunder 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 the Permit, or shown otherwise on an approved plan. This shall include, but not be limited to, the requirements of the Lighting Ordinance, Undergrounding of Utilities Ordinance, Roof Covering Ordinance and others. D. The lot shall be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the site plan on file marked Exhibit A and dated August 13, 2003, except as otherwise provided in these conditions. E. The property on which the project is located contains a stable and corral area of sufficient size that meets all standards for vehicular access thereto in conformance with site plan review limitations. F. The horse shelter structure, located in the front yard setback, shall be removed prior to issuance of building permits for the addition. G. Structural lot coverage shall not exceed 13,340 square feet or 23.7% in conformance with lot coverage limitations approved in Section 11 of this Resolution. H. Total lot coverage of structures and paved areas shall not exceed 20,491 square feet or 36.4% in conformance with lot coverage limitations approved in Section 11 of this Resolution. I. The disturbed area of the lot shall not exceed 19,512 square feet or 37.6% in conformance with 40% lot disturbance limitations. J. Residential and total building pad coverage on the 34,166 square foot building pad shall not exceed 13,340 square feet or 39.0%. K. There shall be no grading for this project. L. Landscaping shall be designed using mature trees and shrubs so as not to obstruct views of neighboring properties but, to obscure the residence. 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. 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. O. During construction, conformance with local ordinances and engineering practices so that people or property are not exposed to landslides, mudflows, erosion, or land subsidence shall be required. Resolution No. 946 -3- P. During con.tion, conformance with the air quality agement district requirements, stormwater pollution prevention practices, county and local ordinances and engineering practices so that people or property are not exposed to undue vehicle trips, noise, dust, objectionable odors, landslides, mudflows, erosion, or land subsidence shall be required. Q. During and after construction, all soil preparation, drainage, and landscape sprinklers shall protect the building pad from erosion and direct surface water to the rear of the lot at the west. R. During construction, the Erosion Control Plan containing the elements set forth in Section 7010 of the 2001 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. S. During and after construction, all parking shall take place on the project site and, if necessary, any overflow parking shall take place within nearby roadway easements. T. 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. U. The drainage plan system shall be approved by the Planning Department and the County Drainage Engineer and shall assure that any water from any site irrigation systems and all drainage from the site shall be conveyed in an approved manner. V. An Erosion Control Plan containing the elements set forth in Section 7010 of the 2001 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. W. The property owners shall be required to conform with the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Health Department requirements for the installation and maintenance of stormwater drainage facilities. X. 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. Y. The project shall be reviewed and approved by the Rolling Hills Community Association Architectural Review Committee prior to the issuance of any permit. Z. 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. AA. Notwithstanding Sections 17.46.020 and 17.46.070 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, any modifications to the property, which would constitute additional structural development or grading, shall require the filing of a new application for approval by the Planning Commission. AB. Prior to the submittal of an applicable final building plan to the County of Los Angeles for plan check, a detailed drainage plan with related geology, soils and hydrology reports that conform to the development plan as approved by the City Council must be submitted to the Rolling Hills Planning Department staff for their review. AC. The applicants shall execute an Affidavit of Acceptance of all conditions of this Site Plan and Variances approvals, pursuant to Section 17.38.060, or the approval shall not be effective. AD. All conditions of this Site Plan and Variances approval, which apply, must be complied with prior to the issuance of a building permit from the County of Los Angeles. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 10TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2003. (2010 FRANK E. HILL, MAYOR Resolution No. 946 -4- • ATTEST: (Y1,%i_,c21 ) k .0 . ) MARILYN I RN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ) §§ I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 946 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION AND VARIANCES TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED STRUCTURAL LOT COVERAGE AND TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED TOTAL LOT COVERAGE AT AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IN ZONING CASE NO. 664 AT 15 EASTFIELD DRIVE, (LOT 52-EF) (GORDON). was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council on November 10, 2003 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Black, Lay, Pernell, Mayor Pro Tem Heinsheimer and Mayor Hill. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following: Administrative Offices. DEPUTY CITY'tLERK Resolution No. 946 -5- • Ci1y 0/ ie0ii Jd.PP, October 28, 2003 Mr. and Mrs. Errol Gordon 15 Eastfield Drive Rolling Hills, CA 90274 INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377.1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 E-mail: cityofrh@aol.com SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 664, a request for a Variance to exceed the maximum structural lot coverage and maximum total lot coverage to construct a residential addition at 15 Eastfield Drive (Lot 52-EF), Rolling Hills, CA. Dear Mr. and Mrs. Gordon: This letter shall serve to notify you that the City Council voted at their regular meeting on October 27, 2003 to direct staff to prepare a resolution to approve your request for a Variance to exceed the maximum structural and total lot coverage to construct a residential addition at 15 Eastfield Drive (Lot 52-EF), Rolling Hills, CA in Zoning Case No. 664 and shall be confirmed in the draft resolution that is being prepared. The City Council will review and consider the draft resolution, together with conditions of approval, at an upcoming meeting and make its final decision on your application at that subsequent meeting. The findings and conditions of approval of the draft resolution will be forwarded to you before the City Council meeting. The conditions of approval are the same as approved by the Planning Commission. The decision shall become effective immediately and it is the final decision. The City Council's action taken by resolution approving the development application is scheduled for Monday, November 10, 2003. Feel free to call me at (310) 377-1521 if you have any questions regarding this matter. Sincerely, 'Yolanta Schwartz Planning Director cc: Mr. Thomas A. Blair, AIA ®Prnilurl on H,.,:cycl,!d f';it,r,i SJA4y, YQlanta Schwartz • C;4f o/ ie0m4 Jh/2/?:j FIELD TRIP NOTIFICATION October 14, 2003 Mr. and Mrs. Errol Gordon 15 Eastfield Drive Rolling Hills, CA 90274 • INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 E-mail: cityofrh@aol.com SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 614, a request for Site Plan Review for an addition and Variances to exceed the maximum permitted total lot coverage and to exceed the maximum permitted structural lot coverage. Dear Mr. and Mrs. Gordon: At the October 13, 2003 public hearing, the City Council scheduled a field inspection of the subject project on Tuesday, October 21, 2003 at 7:30 AM. The site must be prepared according to the following requirements: • A full-size silhouette must be prepared for ALL PROPOSED STRUCTURES of the project showing the footprints, roof ridges and bearing walls; • Stake the rear yard setback line. The owner and/or representative should be present to answer any questions regarding the proposal. After the field trip, the next regular meeting of the City Council will take place on Monday, October 27, 2003 at 7:30 PM at City Hall. Please call me at (310) 377-1521 if you have any questions. Since,ely, tanning Director cc: Thomas A. Blair Associates (i)fanrdtr,i or, f r..r.vr.Ir+r{(ratnr, 10/13/2003 15:34 3105441190 • 4110 GEORGE L FARINSKY PAGE 02 Via Facsimilie Planning Commission City Council City of Rolling Hills 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Re: Zoning Case 664 Gordon Letter of June 13, 2003 , Regulations and Variances Ladies and Gentlemen: GEORGE L. FARINSKY 13 Eastfield Drive Rolling Hills, CA 90274 October 13, 2003 This fetter is furnished pursuant to your recent notice concerning a meeting of the City Council to be held October 13, 2003. The approval sought is not to exceed various permitted coverages, but rather to FURTHER EXCEED such permitted coverages. The proposal at hand appears to trade the removal of one non -permitted item for more extensive non -permitted items. It seems that a similar request was granted some time ago...to accept the removal of some number of line feet of solid fence for a long list of other non -permitted items. Wouldn't it be more appropriate to merely increase the regulation -permitted coverages to cover the percentages granted to various residents rather that putting selected residents through the variance process and approving some while rejecting others. Shouldn't the regulations, be applied consistently to all residents? Please see my letter of May 18, 2003 which is attached to and made part of this letter. As for Mr. Gordon's letter of June 13, 2003, please note the following: The Cordons' property may be long and narrow, but this doesn't seem to me to avail them to approvals which are not similarly granted to all residents. If you want more extensive coverage on lots, simply change the regulations to permit id The Gordons' residence may be "average" according to the cited staff report, but the averaging includes residences constructed on larger tots. If lot size does not relate to the size residence one can construct, why would anyone spend the money purchasing a larger lot? Our original complaint regarding the drainage issue did not relate to the quantity of water flowing across the Gordons' property, but rather to the fact that it was laden with horse urine. A copy of a letter from the Los Angeles County Department of Health Services requesting that the Gordons correct the violations we alleged and their inspector appears to have noted is also attached. It's definitely not that we were complaining about nothing! The northwest side of their riding ring is supported only by railroad ties, and the water flows through the spaces between the ties, carrying with it the urine lodged in the riding ring sand and some quantity of the sand itself. This problem could be significantly mitigated if either the city or county would complete the drainage control work that was curtailed somewhere above the Gordons' property, because, according to city and county representatives, "the allotted funds ran out". While all of us downhill from where the drainage project was curtailed pay property taxes specifically occasioned by "public works" expenditures, my last inquiries disclosed that each entity believes the other is responsible for whatever needs to be done. 10/13/2003 15:34 3105441190 • GEORGE L FARINSKY PAGE 03 • Mr. Gordon's statement that we have resisted trimming our street bushes is simply untrue. After Mr. Gordon's last visit to the City or Community Association offices to complain about this issue, Roger Vink called and asked that we trim the bushes back. That was done within a week of Mr. Vink's telephone call. The bushes that are being complained about have been there for more than 40 years and are far better cared for now that they were when we purchased our home. There is also a utility pipe installation with a large concrete base at the south end of the bushes which would dictate the same clearance even if the bushes were trimmed further. There are a great number of properties on Eastfseld Drive with plantings closer to the street than are ours. With respect to the easement between 11 and 13 Eastfield, we understand that the Gordons have on numerous occasions requested that this property be a designated trail. This request has been denied repeatedly, as we understand, because the downhill slope is very steep and considered too dangerous. Nevertheless, when the owners of the two properties requested that this easement be closed to riders, the City Council announced at a public meeting that it would be designated a trail....and its counsel stated that the city possessed insurance to cover any accidents and injuries sustained thereon. At this same meeting Roger Vink expressed his opinion that the proposed trail was dangerous. No action has been take by the City or Community Association to improve the easements or minimize the danger of using them to access the trail located at the bottom of the canyon. In commenting about those easements and complaining about bushes located therein, Mr. Gordon neglected to mention that the north easements of the Godron property are substantially completely obstructed by the encroachment (now approved) of their tennis court and large trees located therein. I don't believe he should imply that his neighbors should be held to a higher standard than that to which he himself is held...and clearly does not comply. Very truly yours. 02712.44:- George L. Farinsky • Cry September 23, 2003 Mr. and Mrs. Errol Gordon 15 Eastfield Drive Rolling Hills, CA 90274 • INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 E-mail: cityofrh@aol.com SUBJECT: 15 EASTFIELD DRIVE (LOT 52-EF), ROLLING HILLS, CA REQUESTS FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW AND VARIANCES Dear Mr. and Mrs. Gordon: This letter shall serve to notify you that the members of the City Council at the September 22, 2003 regular City Council meeting took the above -mentioned case under jurisdiction. Due to this action by the City Council, the Planning Commission's decision will be stayed until the Council completes its proceedings in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Code. (Section 17.54.015 of the Zoning Code) Your request will be set for a public hearing before the City Council on October 13, 2003. The Notice of the Public Hearing will be forwarded to you ten days prior to the meeting and the staff report will be available, and will be mailed to you on Friday, October 10, 2003. Please submit additional three (3) sets of the site plan by October 7, 2003. You and/or your representative must be present at the hearing to answer any questions the Council may have. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me or Craig Nealis, City Manager at (310) 377-1521. Sin rely anta Schwartz lanning Director ®F'rir,tv..t ran 1 2et'.yranrl I'. • 14114.015--17.54.030 17.54.015 City Council review of decisions of the Planning Commission. A. The City Council may on its own initiative review all actions of the Planning Commission taken by resolution approving or denying a development project. B. All Planning Commission actions taken by resolu- tion approving or denying a development application, accom- panied by the record of the proceedings before the Commis- sion, shall be placed as a report item on the City Coun- cil's agenda at its regular meeting next following the Commission's action. The Council may, within thirty days of the Commission's action, by an affirmative vote of three members, initiate review of the action. In the event; the Council initiates such review, the Commission's decision will be stayed until the Council completes its proceedings in accordance with the provisions of this section. C. At the time the Council votes to initiate review, or at any other time following a field trip to the site but prior to the hearing, the applicant shall be informed of the aspects of the application and/or the Commission's decision which the applicant should be prepared to address at the review hearing. D. The City Clerk shall set the review hearing within thirty days from the date the Council decides to initiate review. E. The review hearing shall be noticed and conducted as set forth in Section 17.54.060 and shall be conducted as a de novo hearing. The Council may act to uphold, over- turn, or otherwise modify the Commission's original action on the proposal, or the Council may remand the application back to the Commission for further review and direction. F. The decision of the Council, supported by find- ings, shall be set forth in full in a resolution. A copy of the decision shall be sent to the applicant. The action of the Council shall be final and conclusive. (Ord. 258 §1, 1996). 17.54.020 Persons authorized to file an appeal. Any person, including the City Manager, may appeal a decision of the Planning Commission to the City Council, in accor- dance with the terms of this Chapter. (Ord. 239 §11(part), 1993) . 17.54.030 Form, content and deficiencies in an appeal application. A. All appeals shall be filed in writing with the City Clerk on a form or forms provided by the City Clerk. No appeal shall be considered filed until the re- quired appeal fee has been received by the City Clerk. B. The appeal application shall state, at a minimum, the name and address of the appellant, the project and ac- tion being appealed, and the reasons why the appellant believes that the Planning Commission erred or abused its 218-41 (Rolling Hills 5/96) City�leoee�nS �aP� INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 E-mail: cityofrh@aol.com September 17, 2003 Mr. and Mrs. Errol Gordon 15 Eastfield Drive Rolling Hills, CA 90274 SUBJECT: 15 EASTFIELD DRIVE (LOT 52-EF), ROLLING HILLS, CA RESOLUTION NO. 2003-17 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Gordon: This letter shall serve to notify you that the Planning Commission adopted a resolution on September 16, 2003, granting Variances to exceed the maximum structural lot coverage and maximum total lot coverage and a Site Plan Review to construct a residential addition at 15 Eastfield Drive (Lot 52-EF), Rolling Hills, CA in Zoning Case No. 664. That action, accompanied by the record of the proceedings before the Commission will be reported to the City Council on September 22, 2003. The Planning Commission's decision in this matter shall become effective thirty days after the adoption of the resolution by the Commission, unless an appeal has been filed or the City Council takes jurisdiction of the case within that thirty (30) day appeal period. (Section 17.54.010(B) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code). Should there be an appeal, the Commission's decision will be stayed until the Council completes its proceedings in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Code. If no appeals are filed within the thirty (30) day period after adoption of the Planning Commission's resolution, the Planning Commission's action will become final and you will be required to cause to be recorded an Affidavit of Acceptance Form together with the subject resolution in the Office of the County Recorder before the Commission's action takes effect. I will forward to you the appropriate forms and signed resolution for recordation following the City Council meeting Please feel free to call me at (310) 377-1521 if you have any questions. Sincgrely, lanta Schwartz lanning Director cc: Mr. Thomas A. Blair, AIA Pnnto-;rl on Fi.;r.vclr,r{ • City ol Rote qia% August 20, 2003 Mr. and Mrs. Errol Gordon 15 Eastfield Drive Rolling Hills, CA 90274 • INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 E-mail: cityofrh@aol.com SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 664, a request for a Variance to exceed the maximum structural lot coverage and maximum total lot coverage to construct a residential addition at 15 Eastfield Drive (Lot 52-EF), Rolling Hills, CA. Dear Mr. and Mrs. Gordon: This letter shall serve to notify you that the Planning Commission voted at their regular meeting on August 19, 2003 to direct staff to prepare a resolution to approve your request for a Variance to exceed the maximum structural and total lot coverage to construct a residential addition at 15 Eastfield Drive (Lot 52-EF), Rolling Hills, CA in Zoning Case No. 664 and shall be confirmed in the draft resolution that is being prepared. The Planning Commission will review and consider the draft resolution, together with conditions of approval, at an upcoming meeting and make its final decision on your application at that subsequent meeting. The findings and conditions of approval of the draft resolution will be forwarded to you before the Planning Commission meeting. The decision shall become effective thirty days after the adoption of the Planning Commission's resolution unless an appeal has been filed or the City Council takes jurisdiction of the case within that thirty (30) day appeal period. (Section 17.54.010(B) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code). Should there be an appeal, the Commission's decision will be stayed until the Council completes its proceedings in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Code. The Planning Commission's action taken by resolution approving the development application is tentatively scheduled for Tuesday, September 16, 2003. That action, accompanied by the record of the proceedings before the Commission, is tentatively scheduled to be placed as a report item on the City Council's agenda at the Council's regular meeting on Monday, September 22, 2003. Feel free to call me at (310) 377-1521 if you have any questions regarding this matter. Sincerely, Y 19. ita Schwartz Iyning Director cc: Mr. Thomas A. Blair, AIA r,/ @Printed on Elec:ycle:d Patter THOMAS A. BLAIR, A.I.A. ARCHITECT By August 2, 2003. AUG 1 3 2003 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS Planning Commission and Staff City of Rolling Hills 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, Ca .90274 Re: The Gordon. Family Project 15 Eastfield Drive Dear Planning Commission and. Staff, The purpose of this letter is to summarizeitems regarding the subject project in an attempt to assist in bringing clarity to the project and to advise the Commission and Staff of revisions made to the plans and how these relate to previously expressed concerns and ideas offered by the various parties thathave had input to the project. ,Attached is a rendered elevation of the proposed improvements, it is included so that the Commission can see that the character of. the. Rolling Hills ranch style home is maintained. With the reductions listed below, the roof lines are nowin keeping with those found in most homes in Rolling Hills: BLAIR ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTURE & CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT The changes to this' plan include: • The size of the addition was reduced by 124square feet, or a 14%' reduction. • Inaddition to this, the addition has been pulled back so that no structure is within the setback area.. • ,The covered porches have also been reduced by 394 square feet, or a 74% reduction. Of this, 48 square feet are open trellis' that provide shading and a positive architectural feature, but are not solid covered porches. We hope that the Commission can appreciate the efforts and compromises that the Owner has made and approve the project as submitted. Regards, Tom Blair, AIA Architect 2785 PACIFIC -COAST HIGHWAY, #149, TORRANCE, CA 90505 PHONE: (310) 791-9691 FAX:.(310) 791-1079 • • • • ;1111 411 • =M•1011111111•111M.MIM In I _). • It44 /0fftflv _AM INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 July 16, 2003 Mr. and Mrs. Errol Gordon 15 Eastfield Drive 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: ZONING CASE NO. 664, request for Variances to construct residential addition at 15 Eastfield Drive (Lot 52-EF), Rolling Hills, CA. Dear Mr. and Mrs. Gordon: This is to inform you that the Planning Commission at their July 15, 2003 meeting voted to continue Zoning Case No. 664 to the August 19, 2003 Commission meeting, to allow you time to revise the plans. Please submit revised plans and calculations for this project by August 6, 2003. Since you are planning to remove the shade structure from the front yard, you should not include it in the calculations. Feel free to call me at (310) 377-1521 if you have any questions regarding this matter. Sincerely, olanta Schwartz Planning Director cc: Mr. Thomas A. Blair, AIA ®Prix I, d r:�r Rocyircd • elly 0/ I?0//Lfl INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 June 25, 2003 Mr. and Mrs. Errol Gordon 15 Eastfield Drive 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: ZONING CASE NO. 664, a request for Variances to construct a residential addition at 15 Eastfield Drive (Lot 52-EF), Rolling Hills, CA. Dear Mr. and Mrs. Gordon: We are in receipt of your letter dated June 23, 2003, requesting a withdrawal for a Variance to retain the shade structure in the front yard. Please assure that this structure is removed before the August 19, 2003 Planning Commission meeting. Please find enclosed the check for the Variance request, In addition, you have requested a continuance of your case to the August 19, 2003 Planning Commission meeting. We are granting you the request and will consider your application at the August Planning Commission meeting. Feel free to call me at (310) 377-1521 if you have any questions regarding this matter. Sincerely, L6,4- olanta Schwartz lanning Director cc: Mr. Thomas A. Blair, AIA (DPW nt erl �,x� fi�:; ,yr.l� CJ P,1{u,1 ERROL J. GORDON JOEANN M. GORDON 15 Eastfield Drive Rolling Hills, California 90274 (310) 377-0689 June 23, 2003 Via Facsimile & Mail Mr. Craig Nealis City Manager City of Rolling Hills No. 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, California 90274 By JUN' 2 4 2003 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS RE: Request for a Variance on Property located at 15 Eastfield Drive. Rolling Hills. CA 90274 Dear Mr. Nealis: First, please accept this as a request for a withdrawal of our application for a variance to have the shade structure/overhang in our corral approved. We have decided at this time to remove this structure from our property. I have been informed that the variance application fee will be refunded. Next, I request that the public hearing/or further consideration of our variance request regarding the improvement to our residence be continued from July 15, 2003 to the August Planning Commission meeting. The reason for my request is that our representative; Mr. Thomas Blair will be out of the country on the July date. If there is any problem concerning this postponement, please contact me immediately. Mr. Craig Nealis June 23, 2003 Page 2 of 2 REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE If there are any questions, please call. Thank you. ERROL JA GORDON EJG:fae cc: Mr. Thomas A. Blair [ZIP02:\GORDON, ERROL - 06-23-03 LBT CRAIG NEALIS RE VARIANCE REQUEST] • City 0/ leoffin9. June 18, 2003 Mr. and Mrs. Errol Gordon 15 Eastfield Drive Rolling Hills, CA 90274 INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 E-mail: cityofrh@aol.com SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 664, a request for a Site Plan Review for addition and Variances to exceed the maximum structural lot coverage, to exceed the maximum total lot coverage and to encroach with the addition into the ,rear yard setback at 15 Eastfield Drive (Lot 52-EF), Rolling Hills, CA. Dear Mr. and Mrs. Gordon: This letter shall serve to notify you that the Planning Commission voted at their regular meeting on June 17, 2003 to continue Zoning Case No. 664 to their regular meeting of July 15, 2003 to allow you and your representative to revise your proposal. The Commission expressed concern with the exceedances of the structural and total lot coverage and the encroachment into the rear yard setback. A Variance request for the location of the shade structure will also be considered by the Planning Commission at the July 15, 2003 meeting, unless you choose to remove that structure as part of the revised plan to reduce the structural coverage on the lot. Please inform me at your earliest convenience, but no later than July 1, 2003 if you intent to pursue the Variance for this structure. Should you decide to remove the shade structure prior to the next Planning Commission meeting, and inform me of that intent prior to July 1, 2003, the $1,650 Variance fee will be refunded to you. Please do not hesitate to call Craig Nealis, City Manager or me at (310) 377-1521 if you have any questions or if we can be of any assistance in this matter. Sin,erely, .51/42- olanta Schwartz Planning Director cc: Thomas A. Blair Associates Jun 12 03 12:28p Adams Lyons 3O 541 5499 p. John J. Lyons Janis E. Adams 21 Eastfield Drive Rolling Hills, CA 90274 June 17, 2003 Planning Commission City of Rolling Hills 2 Portuguese Bend Road Roiling Hills, CA 90274 Via FAX: 310-377-7288 Re: Zoning Case No. 664/Gordon Ladies and Gentlemen: Z.C. No.: 664 This letter is sent in support of Erroll and Joeann Gordon's application for various permits and variances in Case No. 664. We live at 21 Eastfield Drive, two houses down from the Gordon's home by street and much closer by easement and horse trail. Jan viewed the project as staked when the Planning Commission made their site visit. We think that the additions and changes will add to the aesthetic of the house without any intrusion on those of us who ride, walk and drive by their property. We have found the Gordons to be the best of neighbors, who have gone out of their way to be accommodating to us. 1 know that they are willing to work with any reasonable request from neighbors to ameliorate problems, real or perceived. If you have any questions or need further comments, do not hesitate to call us at 310-541-0589 Sincerely, , Janis E. Adams John J. Lyons • • ERROL J. GORDON JOEANN M. GORDON 15 Eastfield Drive Rolling Hills, CA 90274 (310) 377-0689 June 13, 2003 Via Facsimile & Mail Planning Commission City of Rolling Hills 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rollings Hills, California 90274 By JUN 1 8 2003 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS RE: • ZOING CASE NO. 664 Property Address: 15 Eastfield Drive, Rolling Hills, CA Honorable Members of Planning Commission: This letter is written in support of our application for a variance to construct an addition to our residence. To some extent, it is also a response to the issues raised by our neighbor, Mr. George Farinsky, in his letter to the Commission dated May 18, 2003. First, I request the Commission to consider a previous finding by this body regarding the City's Zoning lot and structural coverage restrictions as they relate to our property. In this regard, in granting a previous variance request, in Resolution No. 2000-17, this Commission found: "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 for the structural lot coverage is necessary because the lot is 1.63 acres, however net lot area is 1.3 acres, and the lot is long and narrow. The lot size and configuration, together with the"existing development on the lot creates a difficulty in meeting this Code requirement." Planning Commission June 13, 2003 Page 2 of 4 ZOING CASE NO. 664 The foregoing finding reflects the difficulties we have had in improving and upgrading our property over the past twenty-eight (28) years of our residency. During this time, our community has grown in many different ways, one (1) of which is the size and quality of new residences being constructed, and in the improvements made to existing homes. In our attempt to "keep pace" we have gradually made improvements to our property which we feel benefit our personal amenities, and which enhance the overall rustic, secure and desirable environment of our neighborhood. In doing so, we have attempted to preserve the ranch style of our home, and to maintain our equestrian facilities which have been the hallmark of the City of Rolling Hills. However, due to the configuration of our property, and the overall limited space available within the structural and lot coverage limits, each time we have moved to improve our property we have been required to seek a variance. It should be noted that, when we purchased our property, the coverage requirements were not as limiting, and the interpretation of coverage was different. However, we understand that the purpose andintent of these restrictions is for the overall betterment of our community. Needless to say, we appreciate the availability of the variance process. Next, our residence is very modest in size when compared to the other residences in the area with comparable size lots. As is found in the Staff Report dated June 3, 2003, the average size residence in our immediate area is 3,641 square feet. As you will note, our proposed addition will increase the size of our home from 2,617 square feet to 3,50 ► square feet, thereby making it "average." Thus, our proposed improvement will render the property comparable to those around it. Moreover, in addition to raising the tax basis, the improvement will also enhance the value of the property of our neighbors and our community. It will do so without intrusion into the site view of our contiguous properties. Still further, the Farinsky's have consistently and continuously expressed their consternation regarding two (2) issues regarding us and our property. First, they have complained to us, and to every governmental regulatory agencies possible, about the surface water drainage unto their property from our property. We have cooperated with them in allowing a drainage engineer to examine our property for suggestions, and we have been subjected to property inspections and inquiries by the City of Rolling Hills, the County of Los Angeles Building and Safety and Health Departments Planning Commission June 13, 2003 Page 3 of 4 ZOING CASE NO. 664 due to their complaints. All such inspections and complaints have resulted in the same conclusion. There is no drainage violation on our property. In fact, the notes of the Los Angeles County Building and Safety Department show that they last inspected our property on January 16, 2001 and concluded that there was no violation. The fact is that, the Farinsky's property and ours are located in the natural drainage topography of our immediate locality. It is of note further that Mr. Farinsky produced no scientific evidence to show that there would be an increase in the water flow across his property if the modest addition is made to our residence. It seems that the same amount of water will be involved without the proposed addition. So, although it is somewhat understandable that the Farinsky's are upset that water drains from our property unto theirs, the fact is they are at the low point of this natural drainage system. In fact, during heavy rains, our property receives water from all of the properties above us, which creates a small river across the low part of our lot, and turns our riding ring into a small lake. There is literally nothing that we can do to stop the flow from occurring. Thus, the Farinsky's frustration is real, however, their blame is misplaced. So too, is their unrest regarding their easements. As you may be aware, Joeann regularly rides her horses on the many Rolling Hills trails and easements, as she has done for the past twenty-five (25) years. The only access she has to the Willow Springs Trail is through the easements at the front and to the north of Farinsky's residence. Approximately two (2) years ago, the Farinsky's attempted to have the easement onthe north side of their property closed by the Community Association. However, we, along with numerous other residences, opposed this closure. As a result, their request was denied. Moreover, their front yard easement is overgrown with shrubbery, which allows only 31 feet to negotiate a horse and rider without going onto the street. At this point of their front yard easement, there is a hill which creates a blind spot for riders, and its location where it is notorious for drivers exceeding the speed limit. Thus, this is a real safety issue. Notwithstanding this fact, the Farinsky's have resisted any trimming of their front shrubs and/or clearing their northern easement. Although this is an issue for the Community Association, it is reasonable to assume that this dispute constitute some basis for Mr. Farinsky's letter regarding our variance request. Planning Commission June 13, 2003 Page 4 of 4 ZOING CASE NO. 664 Finally, since the City has determined that the overhang in our corral is a structure which requires a variance, we have filed an application to have it approved. It was our understanding at the time that it was constructed in the late 1980's or early 1990's that it was not a structure because it has no foundation or sides. Notwithstanding this fact, we will abide by the decision rendered on that variance application. Thank you for your due consideration to our application. ectfully ERROL J. GO ON and JOEANN M. GORDON EJG:fae [ZIP02:\EJG - 06-13-03 LBT CITY OF ROLLING HILLS RE ZOING CASE] 10/13/2003 15:34 3105441190 • GEORGE L FARINSKY PAGE 04 • To the Planning Commission City of Rolling Hills 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Ladies and Gentlemen: GEORGE L. FARINSKY 13 EASTFIELD DRIVE ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 MAY 18, 2003 By Irii7yr)Fria ..-;rt, r;,...., fti,19.:.. ,,1 , ,, t. l rail1,i ., t i NAY 1 9 21703 Ll\C ; rtu This letter is furnished pursuant to an undated notice furnished us concerning Zoning Case No. 664. As an adjacent Rolling Hills property owner, I hereby advise you that oppose the proposed grants of the permits and variances requested in Case 664 because the coverages on the property already exceed those permitted by the City's regulations and because the additional roof areas will cause further accumulations of water which will add to those which already flow across our property in heavy rainfalls. As you know from your previous reviews of the property in question, the requests in this case are not for approvals to exceed various permitted lot coverages, but rather for approvals to FURTHER EXCEED permitted lot coverages. If such approvals are granted, it seems they are tantamount to stating that the existing regulations are unenforceable. If this is to be the case. wouldn't it be more appropriate to amend the regulations to permit greater lot coverages for all residents rather that only approving them for a select few? In this regard, you should note that the Strawns, our prior neighbors at 11 Eastfield Drive, moved because they could not obtain permission for an addition which exceeded permitted lot coverage by substantially less than is already exceeded at the 15 Eastfield property. There is a potential for excessive water flow damaging our property from the addition of roof surface and connection of new downspouts on the proposed additions. I have previously discussed drainage control with the City and the County, who each have claimed that the other has responsibility for Roiling Hills drainage projects. Past projects have apparently ended up the hill from us, so we already have substantial water flow across our property every time there is a significant rainfall. Additional roof surfaces and drainage connections to the existing "drainage system" (which merely deposits all the runoff from 15 Eastfield in our easement) will simply aggravate this situation. 10/13/2003 15:34 3105441190 • GEORGE L FARINSKY • PAGE 05 With respect to the Case drawings and staff report, note that the garage is now attached rather than detached, Ask Roger Vink whether another unrecorded addition was made when the roof was replaced with an unapproved wood shake. There is another horse shelter structure on the property East of the stable, not shown on the drawings, that was built approximately in 1993, Also, if the previous coverages were 12,437 square feet and 19,560 square feet, it seems that the proposed 886 and 583 square feet of additions (total 1.469 square feet) would make them 13,906 and 21,029 square feet, respectively. Further, our lot at 13 Eastfield is 3,293 acres or 143,443 square feet rather than. the 95,590 shown and your maps show 11 Eastfield is 2.19 acres or 95,396 square feet rather than the 217,800 shown. I regret I am unable to attend the hearing and hope you will take my objection as well as your history with the subject property into account in rejecting this request for permits and variances. Very truly yours, f., Geor+' L. Farinsky Cry op2PP,..gJdPP, STATUS OF APPLICATION & MEETING NOTIFICATION May 6, 2003 Mr. and Mrs. Errol Gordon 15 Eastfield Drive Rolling Hills, CA 90274 I NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 E-mail: cityofrh@aol.com SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 664, request for Site Plan Review and Variances to exceed the maximum permitted total lot coverage; to exceed the maximum permitted structural lot coverage and to construct a residential addition, a portion of which would.encroach into the rear yard setback. Dear Mr. and Mrs. Gordon: Pursuant to state law the City's staff has completed a preliminary review of the application noted above and finds that the information submitted is: Ni Sufficiently complete as of the date indicated above to allow the application to be processed, however, 15 sets of plans, stamped by a licensed civil engineer or architect certifying the accuracy of the plans must be submitted by Mav 9, 2003. Please note that the City may require further information in order to clarify, amplify, correct, or otherwise supplement the application. If the City requires such additional information, it is strongly suggested that you supply that information promptly to avoid any delay in the processing of the application. Your application for Zoning Case No. 664 has been set for public hearing consideration by the Planning Commission at their meeting on Tuesday. Mav 20, 2003. The meeting will begin at 7:30 PM in the Council Chambers, Rolling Hills City Hall Administration Building, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills. You or your designated representative must attend to present your project and to answer questions. The staff report for this project will be available at the City Hall after 3:00 PM on Friday, May 16, 2003. We will forward a copy to you and your representative. Please call me at (310) 377-1521 if you have any questions. Sincerely, olanta Schwartz Manning Director cc: Thomas A. Blair Associates DATE: TO: FROM: Ciiy • epeo efinS JUL NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 E-mail: cityofrh@aol.com MAY 20, 2003 HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR APPLICATION NO. SITE LOCATION: ZONING AND SIZE: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PUBLISHED: REOUEST ZONING CASE NO. 664 15 EASTFIELD DRIVE (LOT 52-EF) RAS-1,1.63 ACRES MR. AND MRS. ERROL GORDON THOMAS A. BLAIR ASSOCIATES MAY 10, 2003 A request for a Site Plan Review for an addition and Variances to exceed the maximum permitted total lot coverage; to exceed the maximum permitted structural lot coverage and to construct a residential addition and covered porch, portions of which would encroach into the rear yard setback. BACKGROUND 1. The applicants are requesting a Site Plan Review and Variances to exceed the maximum structural and the maximum total lot coverage to construct 886 square feet of residential additions and 583 square feet of covered porch at the south and west sides of the residence. Approximately 130 square feet of the residential addition and 65 square feet of the covered porch will encroach into the rear yard setback. 2. The existing residence is 2,617 square feet; the proposed residence will be 3,503 square feet. Other structures on the lot include a 610 square foot garage, a 740 square foot swimming pool/spa, a 6,895 square foot tennis court, a 1,175 square foot stable, a 256 square foot art studio, and a 96 square foot service yard. 3. The existing structural lot coverage totals 12,437 square feet or 22.1%, for which a Variance was approved in 2000. The proposed structural lot coverage will be 13,858 or 24.6% (20% maximum permitted). The existing total lot coverage is 19,560 square feet or 34.7%. The proposed total lot coverage will be 21,020 square feet or 37.3% (35(Yo maximum permitted). Variances are required for both of the exceedances. ZC No. 664 PC 5/20/03 1 4. In August of 2000, the Planning Commission approved a 212 square -foot addition, which triggered a Variance to exceed the maximum permitted structural lot coverage. Also, Resolution No. 2000-17 adopted by the Planning Commission on August 15, 2000, contains a condition, which requires that any new construction on subject property be reviewed by the Planning Commission. The 212 square foot addition was completed in July 2001. 5. Disturbed area of the lot will be 20,437 square feet or 38.8% (40% maximum permitted). 6. The entire area of the lot outside the setback areas constitutes the building pad and is 34,166 square feet. Coverage on the pad will be 13,858 square feet or 40.6% (30% maximum Planning Commission guideline). The current building pad coverage is 36.4%. 7. The existing residence and attached garage was built in 1949. In 1960, a stable was constructed. In 1961, the kitchen was remodeled and swimming pool and pool equipment shed was constructed. In 1962, the stable was doubled in size. In 1965, the existing garage was converted to a bedroom and bath and a new garage was added. In November 1977, a Conditional Use Permit in Zoning Case No. 201 was granted for a 6,895 square foot tennis court, which was completed in 1980. The tennis court encroaches 10 feet into the 20-foot side yard setback and 40 feet into the rear yard setback. (Ordinance No. 150 requiring a Conditional Use Permit for a tennis court without any specific conditions, was adopted on April 25, 1977 and Ordinance No. 215 requiring fourteen (14) specific conditions was adopted on June 6, 1987). In June 1996, a Variance was granted to permit an encroachment for a previously constructed art studio/hobby shop into the side yard setback, and Site Plan Review approval was granted to permit a previously constructed art studio/hobby shop in Zoning Case No. 538 by Resolution No. 96-11. 8. Access to the property will remain the same from the existing driveway off Eastfield Drive to the garage at the southern portion of the lot. Stable access will also remain the same through the easements at the east off Eastfield Drive. 9. There will be no grading for this project. 10. The project has been determined to be categorically exempt pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission review the staff report and take public testimony. ZC No. 664 PC 5/20/03 • • VARIANCE REQUIRED FINDINGS A. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same vicinity and zone; and B. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights possessed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone but which is denied the property in question; and C. That the granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; and D. That in granting the variance, the spirit and intent of this title will be observed; and E. That the variance does not grant special privilege; F. That the variance is consistent with the portions of the County of Los Angeles Hazardous Waste Management Plan relating to siting and siting criteria for hazardous waste facilities; and G. That the variance request is consistent with the General Plan of the City of Rolling Hills. RESIDENCES IN PURPOSE ONLY Address 19 Eastfield 17 Eastfield 13 Eastfield 11 Eastfield 10 Eastfield 12 Eastfield 16 Eastfield 15 Eastfield THE VICINITY Name Cannon Raleigh Farinsky Wallace Butler Leeuwenburgh Gregorio AVERAGE Gordon — existing proposed — FOR INFORMATION House Size-sq.ft. 3,530 4,060 4,293 2,626 2,906 2,809 5,264 3,641 2,617 3,503 SOURCE: Los Angeles County Assessors Records The above do not include garages Lot size consists of the entire lot (gross) minus easement(s). ZC No. 664 PC 5/20/03 Lot Size-sq.ft. 57,480 61,320 95,590 217,800 61,870 40,030 78,280 87,481 70,998 roadway ZONING CASE NO. 664 CRITERIA & MAJOR IMPACTS RA -S-1 Zone Setbacks: Front: 50 ft. from front easement line Side: 20 ft. from property line Rear: 50 ft. from property line Structures (Site Plan Review required if size of structure increases by at least 1,000 sq.ft. and has the effect of increasing the size of the structure by more than 25% in a 36-month period). Grading Disturbed Area (40% maximum; any graded building pad area, any remedial grading (temporary disturbance), any graded slopes and building pad areas, and any nongraded area where impervious surfaces exist. Structural Lot Coverage (20% maximum) Total Lot Coverage (35% maximum) Building Pad Coverage (30% maximum Planning Commission guideline) Roadway Access Access to Stable and Corral Preserve Views Preserve Plants and Animals EXISTING Residence with accessory structures and uses Residence Garage Swim Pool Tennis Ct. Stable Service Yard Art Studio TOTAL None 2,617 sq.ft. 610 sq.ft. 740 sq.ft. 6,895 sq.ft. 1,175 sq.ft. 96 sq.ft. 256 sa.ft.. 12.389sa.ft. PROPOSED Variances to encroach with addition; for structural and total lot coverage Residence 3,503 sq.ft. Garage 610 sq.ft. Swim Pool 740 sq.ft. Tennis Ct. 6,895 sq.ft. Stable 1,175 sq.ft. Service Yard 96 sq.ft. Art Studio 256 sq.ft. Covered porches 583 sa.ft. TOTAL 13-858 sa ft. None 35.0% 38.8% of 56,310 square feet net lot area 22.1% 34.7% 36.4% Existing off Eastfield Drive Existing w/a slope of 7% off of Eastield Drive Planning Commission will review Planning Commission will review 24.6% 37.3% 40.6% of 34,166 square feet building pad area No change No change Planning Commission will review Planning Commission will review ZC No. 664 PC 5/20/03 4