Loading...
544, Construct stable, partially in, Resolutions & Approval Conditionsr • • RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND MAIL TO: CITY OF ROLLING HILLS 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310) 377-1521 Recorder's Use Please record this form with the Registrar -Recorder's Office and return to: City of Rolling Hills, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, CA 90274 (The Registrar -Recorder's Office requires that the form be notarized before recordation). AFFIDAVIT OF ACCEPTANCE FORM STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGFi .FS ) §§ CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ) ZONING CASE NO. 544 SI'fh PLAN REVIEW VARIANCE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT I (We) the undersigned state: I am (We are) the owner(s) of the real property described as follows: 29 MIDDLERIDGE LANE SOUTH (LOT 248-A-1-UR). ROLLING HILLS 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.544 SITE PLAN REVIEW VARIANCE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT I (We) certify (or declare) under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. POwnerrint Kj}EN �Je J c�Ol-itlJ SotJ Name i / .. h Address 29 ter ‘ or) L P E. S. City/State ?NO LL; ►-)C, 1 ;11.t) C 1 Q ©Z.1) Signatures must be acknowledged by a notary public. Print Owner c.) Name i Signature F--- Address 2.9 MOptWs, i'Oe L&Vi Ste% City/State 1`t ,, rc, (.1-4u.21 & r C'j o'L -14 ■ • ❑ ■ s State of California ) County of Los Angeles) II- On Or -I- IGCi(D before me,SJ1t t'I OYrr1Gn, NOt IiC personally appeared 11-c iN n P -14-1 ..3Oh S D in ,r a Personally known to met be proved to me on the basis of satisfactory eviden a to be the person whose name are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/they executed the same in his er heir authorized capacity(t4) and that by his/heir signaturet„on the instrument the personal, or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. WSW titer/e ;o. I *Comm.Lea loge* O and and offi i seal. irrtarn Signature of Notary See Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof 97 107397 • e"x4,ik 4 RESOLUTION NO. 96-20 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A VARIANCE TO PERMIT AN ENCROACHMENT INTO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK TO CONSTRUCT A RESIDENTIAL ADDITION, GRANTING A VARIANCE TO PERMIT A STABLE TO BE CONSTRUCTED IN THE FRONT YARD, GRANTING A VARIANCE TO PERMIT ENCROACHMENT INTO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK TO CONSTRUCT A STABLE, AND GRANTING SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A RESIDENTIAL ADDITION THAT REQUIRES GRADING IN ZONING CASE NO. 544. 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. Kenneth J. Johnson with respect to real property located at 29 Middleridge Lane South, Rolling Hills (Lot 248-A-1-UR) requesting a Variance to permit encroachment into the front yard setback to construct a residential addition, requesting a Variance to permit encroachment into the front yard setback to construct a stable, and requesting Site Plan Review for the construction of a residential addition that requires grading. Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the applications on August 20, 1996 and September 17, 1996, and at a field trip visit on September 7, 1996. Section 3. The Planning Commission finds that the project qualifies as a Class 1 and Class 3 Exemption (State CA Guidelines, Sections 15301(e) and 15303(e)) and is therefore categorically exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act. Section 4. 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 17.16.110 requires the front yard setback for every residential parcel to be fifty (50) feet. The applicant is requesting to encroach up to a maximum 27 feet into the 50 foot front yard setback to construct a single family residence. With respect to this request for a Variance, the Planning Commission finds as follows: A. There are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances and conditions applicable to the property or to the intended use that do not apply generally to the other property or class of use in the same zone because the lot is an irregular -shaped lot. The existing legal nonconforming residence was built within the front yard setback and the 97 107397 • • existing building pad is located close to the street. The new residence will be constructed to allow open space near the front of the residence. B. The Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone, but which is denied to the property in question. The Variance is necessary because grading will be minimized to increase the building pad on this irregular shaped lot and there will not be any greater incursion into the front setback than already exists at the existing site and at other property in the same vicinity. Also, 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. 544 to permit the construction of a residential addition that will encroach a maximum of twenty-seven (27) 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 12 of this Resolution. Section 6. Section 17.16.200 requires that stables and corrals not be constructed in the front yard. The applicant is requesting to construct a stable in the front yard. With respect to this request for a Variance, the Planning Commission finds as follows: A. There are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances and conditions applicable to the property or to the intended use that do not apply generally to the other property or class of use in the same zone because the lot is an irregular -shaped lot. The existing legal nonconforming residence was built within the front yard setback and the existing building pad for the stable is located close to the street. The new stable will be constructed below and away from the residence. B. The Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone, but which is denied to the property in question. The Variance is necessary because grading will not be required to increase the building pad for the stable on this irregular shaped lot and there will not b€ any greater incursion into the front setback than already exists at the existing site and at other property in the same vicinity. Also, 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 RESOLUTION NO. 96-20 PAGE 2 OF 8 97 107397 9 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. 544 to permit the construction of a stable in the front yard, 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 12 of this Resolution. Section 8. 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 of 28 feet into the 50 foot front yard setback to construct a stable. With respect to this request for a Variance, the Planning Commission finds as follows: A. There are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances and conditions applicable to the property or to the intended use that do not apply generally to the other property or class of use in the same zone because the lot is an irregular -shaped lot. The existing legal nonconforming residence was built within the front yard setback and the existing stable building pad is also located close to the street. The new stable will be constructed further down the street to allow open space near the front of the residence. B. The Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone, but which is denied to the property in question. The Variance is necessary because the irregular shaped lot and sloping backyard precludes construction of a stable in the rear yard. The proposed location will not require any greater incursion into the front yard setback than already exists at the existing site and at other property in the same vicinity. Also, 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 of the stable in the front yard setback will allow a substantial portion of the rear lot to remain undeveloped. Section 9. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves the Variance for Zoning Case No. 544 to permit the construction of a stable that will encroach a maximum of twenty-seven (28) 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 12 of this Resolution. Section 10. Section 17.46.030 requires a development plan to be submitted for site plan review and approval before any building or structure may be constructed or any expansion, addition, alteration or repair to existing buildings may be made which involve changes to grading or an increase to the size of the building or structure by at RESOLUTION NO. 96-20 PAGE 3 OF 8 97 107397 • . 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, 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. The lot has a net square foot area of 103,237`square feet (2.37 acres). The proposed residence (4,865 sq.ft.), garage (704 sq.ft.), swimming pool (472 sq.ft.), stable (3,200 sq.ft.), and service yard (96 sq.ft.) will have 9,241 square feet which constitutes 8.95% of the lot which is within the maximum 20% structural lot coverage requirement. The total lot coverage including paved areas and driveway will be 14.209 square feet which equals 13.8% of the lot, which is within the 35% maximum overall lot coverage requirement. The proposed project is on a relatively large lot with most of the proposed structures located below the road so as to reduce the visual impact of the development. 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). Grading to enlarge the building pad area for the residential addition will be required, but most of the mature trees will not be removed. Grading will also be done to provide approved drainage that -will -flow away -from the proposed residence and existing neighboring residences. C. The development plan follows natural contours of the site to minimize grading and the natural drainage courses will continue to the canyons at the west side (rear) of this lot. 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. Significant portions of the lot will be left undeveloped so as to maintain scenic vistas across the northwesterly portions of the property. F. 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 - RESOLUTION NO. 96-20 PAGE 4 OF 8 97 107397 • • shaped lot. The ratio of the proposed structure to lot coverage is similar to the ratio found on several properties in the vicinity. G. 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 the same driveway to Middleridge Lane South for access. H. The project conforms with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and is categorically exempt from environmental review. Section 11. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves the Site Plan Review application for Zoning Case No. 544 for a proposed residential development as indicated on the development plan incorporated herein as Exhibit A and subject to the conditions contained in Section 12. Section 12. The Variance to the front yard setback for the residential addition approved in Section 5, the Variance to permit a stable in the front yard, approved in Section 7, the Variance for the stable in the front yard setback approved in Section 9, and the Site Plan Review approved in Section 11 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). 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 and has failed to do so for a period of thirty (30) days. 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, except as otherwise provided in these conditions. E. A preliminary landscape plan must be submitted for review by the Planning Department and include native drought -resistant vegetation that will not disrupt the impact of the views of neighboring properties prior to the issuance of any building or grading permit. The landscaping plan submitted must comply with the purpose and intent of the Site Plan Review Ordinance, shall incorporate existing mature trees and native vegetation, and shall utilize to the maximum extent feasible, RESOLUTION NO. 96-20 PAGE 5 OF 8 97 107397 plants that are native to the area and/or consistent with the rural character of the community. A bond in the amount of the cost estimate of the implementation of the landscaping plan plus 15% shall be required to be posted prior to issuance of a grading and building permit and shall be retained with the City for not less than two years after landscape installation. The retained bond will be released by the City Manager after the City Manager determines that the landscaping was installed pursuant to the landscaping plan as approved, and that such landscaping is properly established and in good condition. F. Landscaping shall be designed so as not to obstruct views of neighboring properties but, to obscure structures. G. Landscaping shall incorporate and preserve, to the maximum extent feasible, the existing mature trees and shrubs and the natural landscape screening surrounding the proposed residential building pad. H. The landscape plan shall include appropriate planting of the hillsides which have been denuded by periodic discing. I. The stable loft shall not have glazed openings but, may have usable shutters. J. Any stable loft area shall be limited in use to the storage of feed, tack and stable equipment. K. The stable shall be used for the exclusive purpose of keeping permitted domestic animals. Commercial uses are not permitted. L. Residential building pad coverage shall not exceed 40.9%. M. Grading quantities shall not exceed 4,980 cubic yards of cut soil and 4,980 cubic yards of fill soil. N. Prior to the submittal of an applicable final grading plan to the County of Los Angeles for plan check, a detailed grading and drainage plan with related geology, soils and hydrology reports that conform to the development plan as approved by the Planning Commission must be submitted to the Rolling Hills Planning Department staff for their review. Cut and fill slopes shall not exceed a steepness of a 2 to 1 slope ratio. O. The project must be reviewed and approved by the Rolling Hills Community Association Architectural Review Committee prior to the issuance of any building or grading permit. 97 107397 RESOLUTION NO. 96-20 PAGE 6 OF 8 P. Notwithstanding Section 17.46.070 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, any modifications to the project which would constitute additional development shall require the filing of a new application for Site Plan Review approval by the Planning Commission. Q. 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. R. The applicant shall execute an Affidavit of Acceptance of all conditions of these Variance and Site Plan Review approvals or the approvals shall not be effective. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 15TH DAY ATTEST: MARILYN RN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK RESOLUTION NO. 96-20 PAGE 7 OF 8 F OCTOBER, 1996. EObi WE HAN <`INS, ACTING CHAIR 97 107397 i STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ) §§ I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 96-20 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A VARIANCE TO PERMIT AN ENCROACHMENT INTO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK TO CONSTRUCT A RESIDENTIAL ADDITION, GRANTING A VARIANCE TO PERMIT A STABLE TO BE CONSTRUCTED IN THE FRONT YARD, GRANTING A VARIANCE TO PERMIT ENCROACHMENT INTO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK TO CONSTRUCT A STABLE, AND GRANTING SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A RESIDENTIAL ADDITION THAT REQUIRES GRADING IN ZONING CASE NO. 544. was approved and adopted at an adjourned regular meeting of the Planning Commission on October 15, 1996 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Sommer, Witte and Acting Chair Hankins. NOES: Commissioner Margeta. ABSENT: Chairman Roberts. ABSTAIN: None . and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following: Administrative Offices. DEYPUTY CITY ERK RESOLUTION NO. 96-20 PAGE 8 OF 8 97 107397