Loading...
616, Seeking approval to leave lowe, Correspondence-10 City ol NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 E-mail: cityofrh@aol.com November 4, 2002 Mr. Kenneth Johnson 29 Middleridge Lane South Rolling Hills, CA 90274 SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 616 Dear Mr. Johnson: Pursuant to the approval of Zoning Case No. 616, the approvals will expire on November 9, 2002, unless construction on the application commences on or before that date. This letter pertains to the commencement of construction for the stable only. As you indicated, the construction of the addition is no longer necessary and, therefore, its approval will expire on November 9, 2002. After conversation with your contractor, Mr. John Juge, pertaining to the work nessary to prepare the site for the construction of the stable and upon consultation with the Los Angles County Building and Safety Department, we have determined that the probosed scaring of the lot, trenching for water lines and for conduits for electrical system to serve the stable constitute commencement of the project, provided that appropriate permits are obtained from the Building and Safety Department and the work, described bove, commences no later than November 9, 2002. Please be advised that the excavation for the trenches and the maintenance throughout the construction period be in a safe m nner as required by the Building and Safety Department. In case you have trenched for the water lines and electrical system, bi X have not commenced construction of the stable within the period of time that the plumbing and electrical permits remain valid for said trenching and laying of the systems,"the approval for the stable will expire and you will be required to cover up all trenches and return the area to natural state, including landscaping of the disturbed areas, as determined by City staff. By signing this letter you confirm that you understand and agree to the above conditions. • ncerely Yolanta Schwartz Planning Director Agreed and accepted: Date. / c Z th Johnson Cc: Craig Nealis, City Manager John Juge, Juge Design Group Rafael Bernal, District Engineering Associate Peggy Minor, RHCA Manager • e�4r olf2P?:nsJl,PF, September 24, 2002 Mr. Kenneth Johnson 29 Middleridge Road South Rolling Hills, CA 90274 111 3APdl I.Ft >;: i'.a:,s NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 E-mail: cityofrh@aol.com SUBJECT: EXPIRATION OF APPROVALS FOR ZONING CASE NO. 616 RESOLUTION NO. 889 Dear Mr. Johnson: This letter is to inform you that it has been almost one year since a time extension was approved by the Planning Commission for Zoning Case No. 616. Note that the approval will expire on November 9, 2002 unless you acquire permits and commence construction prior to that date. Pursuant to Section 17.46.080(B) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code once the approval expires, should you wish to proceed with the construction, you would have to re -file based upon the same criteria as required for approval of the original project. Feel free to call me at (310) 377-1521 if you have any questions. Singerely, (74) -*olanta Schwartz Planning Director i e14, f leo Pl,.y JJ•l?, October 18, 2001 Mr. Kenneth Johnson 29 Middleridge Lane South Rolling Hills, CA 90274 SUBJECT: Zoning Case No. 616 Request for one-year extension. Dear Mr. Johnson: R 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 Please find enclosed a signed copy of Resolution No. 2001-21 granting an additional one-year extension for your project. Please be advised that the permission to implement your project will expire on November 9, 2002, unless construction commences prior to that date. Should you wish to speak to me regarding this matter, please call me at (310) 377-1521. Sincerely, Ynta Schwartz Principal Planner Lr Panted on Recycled Paper. •City ofieollin fidlo NOTIFICATION OF MEETING October 5, 2001 Mr. Kenneth Johnson 29 Middleridge Lane South Rolling Hills, CA 90274 SUBJECT: Zoning Case No. 616 Request for one-year extension. Dear Mr. Johnson: • 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 Your request for a one year extension in Zoning Case No. 616, has been set for consideration by the Planning Commission at their meeting on Tuesday, October 16, 2001. The meeting will begin at 7:30 PM in the Council Chambers, Rolling Hills City Hall Administration Building, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills. The property owner or a representative must attend to answer any questions. Please call me at (310) 377-1521 if you have any questions. S' e--ly, Yoto Schwartz Pr ncipal Planner Printed on Recycled Paper. • • Cypress Capital Partners (310) 265-9308 Fax (310) 265-9318 KENNETH J JOHNSON 2785 Pacific Coast Hwy #E-301 Principal Torrance, California 90505 kv• September 18, 2001 Ms. Yolanta Schwartz Principal Planer City of Rolling Hills No. 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, California 90274 Subject: Zoning Case No. 616 29 Middleridge Lane South Dear Ms. Schwartz: crTY F4v SEP 2 1 2fIlt Thank you for your letter dated 8/24/01 regarding the above referenced case. Enclosed is my check in the amount of $200.00 to cover the filing fee for the time extension. I am requesting the one-year extension. Please call if there are any questions. • N° 7474 RECEIVED FROM THE SUM OF FOR DATE N Y\ OFFICIAL RECEIPT et ty of Ro ff i iz j Jid t . CALIFORNIA (Y1,-\ 0 _ COLLARS ;)-00, 00 Q VA..c r. ';) 9 (Xt4,d bAdiAv. _A FUND AMOUNT 2-0t•U0 CITY CLERK KENNETH J. JOHNSON 1s=ia2443g7 . SANDRA K. JOHNSON 1220 29 MIDDI ERIDGE LN. S. 0359 5025 ROLLING,HILLS, CA 90274 . Date —�, O — t J Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. California www.wellsfargo.com Memo L 2 2000 2471:0359 2350.E Si" • s (2i O/ /eo/fin 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 24, 2001 Mr. Kenneth Johnson 29 Middleridge Road South Rolling Hills, CA 90274 SUBJECT: EXPIRATION OF APPROVALS FOR ZONING CASE NO. 616 29 MIDDLERIDGE ROAD SOUTH CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 889 Dear Mr. Johnson: This letter is to inform you that it has been almost one year since the approval of Zoning Case No. 616 by the City Council. Approvals will expire on October 9, 2001. According to the Los Angeles County Building and Safety Department you have initiated erosion control plan and the plan is in plan check, however no permits have been obtained for either grading or construction. You can extend the approvals for one year only if you apply to the Planning Commission in writing to request an extension prior to the expiration date. The filing fee for the time extension is $200 to be paid to the City of Rolling Hills. Feel free to call me at (310) 377-1521 if you have any questions. Sinc rely, Yanta Schwartz Principal Planner Cc: John Juge Juge Design Group 4648 Marloma Drive Rolling Hills estates, CA 90274 Printed on Recycled Pap :r. • City 0/ CERTIFIED MAIL October 10, 2000 Mr. and Mrs. Kenneth J. Johnson 29 Middleridge Lane South 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: AFFIDAVIT OF ACCEPTANCE FORM ZONING CASE NO. 616 29 MIDDLERIDGE LANE SOUTH (LOT 248-A-1-UR), ROLLING HILLS, CA RESOLUTION NO. 889 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Johnson: This letter shall serve to notify you that the City Council adopted a resolution on October 9, 2000, granting a Variance for the construction of a residential addition to encroach into the front yard setback, granting a Variance for the construction of a stable to encroach into the front yard setback, and granting Site Plan Review to authorize the maintenance of previously conducted and illegal grading at a single family residence at 29 Middleridge Lane South (Lot 248-A-1-UR), Rolling Hills, CA in Zoning Case No. 616. The City Council's decision in this matter shall become effective thirty days after the adoption of the resolution 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 Council's action takes effect. We have enclosed a copy of RESOLUTION NO. 889, specifying the conditions of approval set forth by the City Council and the approved Exhibit A Development Plan to keep for your files. Note that Condition T of Section 13 of the Resolution has been revised to make the construction of a 3-rail fence permissible rather than required. 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 when the Affidavit of Acceptance is received by us and any conditions of the Resolution required prior to issuance of building permits are met. Please feel free to call me at (310) 377-1521 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Z.1( Lola Ungar yv- Planning Director Enclosures: AFFIDAVIT OF ACCEPTANCE FORM RESOLUTION NO. 889 EXHIBIT A DEVELOPMENT PLAN cc: Mr. John V. Juge, Jr., Juge Design Group Printed on Recycled Paper. • • 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. T Recorder's Use Only AFFIDAVIT OF ACCEPTANCE FORM STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES) §§ CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ) ZONING CASE NO. 616 SITE PLAN REVIEW �L VARIANCE L 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, CA This property is the subject of the above numbered case. I am (We are) aware of, and accept, all the stated conditions in said ZONING CASE NO. 616 SITE PLAN REVIEW ,L VARIANCE ,L CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT I (We) certify (or declare) under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Signature Signature Name typed or printed Name typed or printed Address Address City/State City/State Signatures must be acknowledged by a notary public. State of California ) County of Los Angeles ) On before me personally appeared personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies) and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. Witness by hand and official seal. Signature of Notary SEE EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF ExJi4 4+ 1Ie I, • ,! • RESOLUTION NO. 889 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A RESIDENTIAL ADDITION TO ENCROACH INTO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK, GRANTING A VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A STABLE TO ENCROACH INTO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK AND GRANTING SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL TO AUTHORIZE GRADING AT A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AT 29 MIDDLERIDGE LANE SOUTH IN ZONING CASE NO. 616. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Applications were duly filed by Mr. Kenneth J. Johnson with respect to real property located at 29 Middleridge Lane South (Lot 248-A-1-UR), Rolling Hills, requesting the following: (1) modify a previously approved Variance for the construction of a residential addition to encroach into the front yard setback, (2) modify a previously approved Variance for the construction of a stable to encroach into the front yard setback, and (3) modify a previously approved Site Plan Review to authorize grading at a single family residence. Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the applications on June 20, 2000, July 18, 2000, and at a field trip visit on July 15, 2000. The applicants were notified of the public hearing in writing by first class mail and through the City's newsletter. Evidence was heard and presented from all persons interested in affecting said proposal and from members of the City staff and the Planning Commission having reviewed, analyzed and studied said proposal. The applicants were in attendance at the hearing. Section 3. On August 15, 2000, the Planning Commission approved the application by Resolution No. 2000-18 in Zoning Case No. 616. Section 4. On August 28, 2000, the City Council took jurisdiction of Zoning Case No. 616. Section 5. The City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the case on September 11, 2000, September 25, 2000, and at a field trip visit on September 25, 2000. The applicants were notified of the public hearing in writing by first class mail and through the City's newsletter. Evidence was heard and presented from all persons interested in affecting said proposal, from all persons protesting the same, and from members of the City staff and the City Council having reviewed, analyzed and studied said proposal. The applicants were in attendance at the hearings. The following concerns were expressed by the Council: the ability to maintain the pad area below the house for equestrian use only, the need for a fence establishing the equestrian area, that no structures shall be permitted on the graded pad, that the graded pad shall be smoothed to a more natural condition, that slopes adjacent to the canyon be returned to a 2:1 slope ratio, the need for a landscape plan incorporating California Native vegetation similar to that in the adjacent canyon, and the need for a drainage plan to be approved by the County. Section 6. The Planning Commission found that the project qualifies as a Class 1, 3, and 4 Exemption [State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15301(e), 15303(e) and 153041 and is therefore categorically exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act. Section 7. 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 a front yard of fifty feet (50') from the front easement line. The applicant is requesting to add a 1,200 square foot residential addition at the southwest corner of the residence attached by a breezeway that will encroach twenty-five (25) feet into the fifty (50) foot front yard setback. With respect to this request for a Variance, the City Council finds as follows: 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 lot is an irregular -shaped lot. The existing legal nonconforming residence was built within the front yard setback and the existing building pad is located close to the street. The Resolution No. 889 -1- • • residential addition will be constructed to align with the existing structure. Due to the irregular shape of the lot and the siting of the existing house on the lot, it would be infeasible to construct the addition without encroaching into the required setback. 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 was minimized to increase the building pad on this irregular shaped lot and there will not be any greater incursion into the front yard setback than already exists at the site and at other property in the same vicinity. The Variance will permit the development of the property in a manner similar to development patterns on surrounding properties. The location of the building pad dictates that the proposed addition be set forward on the lot because the existing structure was not constructed under current setback standards and the building pad is situated close to the street. C. The granting of the Variance will 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 8. Based upon the foregoing findings, the City Council hereby approves the request for a Variance in conjunction with Zoning Case No. 616 to permit the proposed project to encroach a maximum of twenty-five feet (25') into the fifty foot (50') front yard setback, subject to the conditions specified in Section 13. Section 9. Section 17.16.200 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code requires that stables and corrals not be constructed in the front yard. The applicant is requesting to construct a 2,600 square foot stable in the front yard. With respect to this request for a Variance, the City Council finds as follows: 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 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 required stable cannot be physically located anywhere other than the proposed location in the required setback due to the topography and irregular shape of the site. 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 be any greater incursion into the front yard setback than already exists at the existing site and at other property in the same vicinity. Also, granting of the Variance will permit the development of the property in a manner similar to development patterns on surrounding properties. The Variance is necessary because the Rolling Hills Municipal Code requires that every lot have a site that is readily accessible and suitable for a stable and corral, and the only site on the property for a stable and corral requires encroachment into the front yard. C. The granting of the Variance will 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 10. Based upon the foregoing findings, the City Council hereby approves the request for a Variance in conjunction with Zoning Case No. 616 to permit the construction of a 2,600 square foot stable in the front yard, subject to the conditions specified in Section 13. Section 11. Section 17.46.020 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code requires a development plan to be submitted for site plan review and approval before any grading that requires a grading permit or any new building or structure may be constructed. The applicants request Site Plan Review to authorize the maintenance of grading at a single family residence. With respect 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. The grading, as conditioned, complies with the General Plan requirement of low profile, low density residential development with sufficient open space between surrounding structures. With the Variances approved in Sections 7 and 9, the project conforms to Zoning Code setback and lot coverage requirements. The lot has a net Resolution No. 889 -2- square foot area of 103,237 square feet. The residence (4,984 sq.ft.), attached garage (704 sq.ft.), pool (472 sq.ft.), stable (2,600 sq.ft.), and service yard (96 sq.ft.) will have 8,856 square feet which constitutes 8.6% of the lot which is within the maximum 20% structural lot coverage requirement. The total lot, coverage including paved areas and driveway will be 13,784 square feet which equals 13.4% of the lot, which is within the 35% maximum overall lot coverage requirement. The proposed project is on a relatively large irregular -shaped lot with most of the structures located at or below and away from 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). A minimum amount of grading will be required and will only be done to provide approved drainage that will flow away from the proposed structures, the existing residence, and neighboring residences. C. The development plan follows the natural contours of the site to minimize grading and the natural drainage courses will continue to the canyons at the west side 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. 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. Further, the proposed project is designed to minimize grading. 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 -shaped lot. Any additional grading shall be permitted only to restore the natural 2:1 slope of the property as it meets the canyons. G. The proposed development is sensitive and not detrimental to the convenience and safety of circulation for pedestrians and vehicles. 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 12. Based upon the foregoing findings, the City Council hereby approves the Site Plan Review request to allow grading, allow proposed limited grading and to allow the construction of residential additions and a stable at an existing single family residence, as indicated on the Development Plan reviewed by the City Council on September 25, 2000 and dated June 14, 2000 and marked Exhibit A, subject to the conditions specified in Section 10-13. Section 13. The Variances regarding encroachments approved in Sections 7 and 9 of this Resolution 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 if applicants have not pulled the appropriate building permits and commenced work as defined in Sections 17.38.070(A) and 17.46.080(A) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code unless otherwise extended pursuant to the requirements of these sections. B. It is declared and made a condition of the Variance and Site Plan Review approvals, that if any conditions thereof are violated, this approval shall be suspended and the privileges granted thereunder shall lapse; provided that the 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. Resolution No. 889 -3- • • D. The lot shall be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the site plan on file marked Exhibit A and dated June 14, 2000, except as otherwise provided in these conditions. E. The property on which the project is located shall contain an area of sufficient size to also provide an area meeting all standards for a stable and corral with vehicular access thereto in conformance with site plan review limitations. F. Structural lot coverage shall not exceed 8,856 square feet or 8.6% in conformance with lot coverage limitations. G. Total lot coverage of structures and paved areas shall not exceed 13,784 square feet or 13.4% in conformance with lot coverage limitations. H. The disturbed area of the lot shall not exceed 41,294 square feet or 40.0% in conformance with lot coverage limitations. I. Building pad coverage shall not exceed 55.2%. J. There shall be no further grading for the project beyond the 4,650 cubic yards of cut soil and the 4,650 cubic yards of fill soil that has already taken place, other than is necessary to restore the slopes adjacent to the canyons to a 2:1 slope. K. The stable loft shall not have glazed openings but, may have usable shutters. L. Any stable loft shall be limited in use to the storage of feed, tack and stable equipment. M. The stable shall be used for the exclusive purpose of keeping permitted domestic animals. Commercial uses are not permitted. N. Landscaping shall be designed to incorporate mature trees and shrubs so as not to obstruct views of neighboring properties but to obscure the residence. O. 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. P. The landscape plan shall include appropriate planting of the hillsides and lower created pad which has been denuded by periodic discing and grading with low growing ground cover. The landscaping plan shall include California native plants similar to the existing natural vegetation in the canyon adjacent to the pad area below the house. Q. Two copies of a landscape plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Department and shall include native drought -resistant vegetation that will not disrupt the impact of the views of neighboring properties prior to the issuance of any building permit. The landscaping plan submitted shall 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, 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 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 (i) that the landscaping was installed pursuant to the landscaping plan as approved and (ii) that such landscaping is properly established and in good condition. R. The pad area below the home shall be maintained for equestrian use only; S. No structures shall be permitted in the pad area below the home; T. The pad area below the home may be encircled or otherwise delineated by the applicant installing a white three rail fence. Resolution No. 889 -4- U. The graded pad area shall be smoothed out to a more natural state and slopes adjacent to the pad area and canyons on the property shall be returned to a 2:1 slope. V. The applicant shall provide a drainage plan for the lower pad area subject to County approval. W. 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. X. 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. Y. During construction, conformance with the air quality management 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. Z. 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 northwest. AA. During construction, an applicant prepared Erosion Control Plan containing the elements set forth in Section 7010 of the 1996 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. AB. 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. AC. 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. AD. The drainage plan system shall be modified, subject to review and approval by the Planning Department and City Engineer, to include any water from any site irrigation systems. All drainage from the site shall be conveyed in an approved manner to the rear or northeast of the lot. AE. 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. AF. 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. AG. A detailed drainage plan that conforms to the development plan as approved by the City Council shall be submitted to the Rolling Hills Planning Department staff for their review and approval. AH. The project shall be reviewed and approved by the Rolling Hills Community Association Architectural Review Committee prior to the issuance of any drainage, building or grading permit. AI. 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. AJ. Notwithstanding Sections 17.46.020 and 17.46.070 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, any modifications to the project which would constitute additional grading or structural development shall require the filing of a new application for approval by the Planning Commission. AK. 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 Resolution No. 889 -5- • • 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 and approval. AL. The applicants shall execute an Affidavit of Acceptance of all conditions of these Variance and Site Plan Review approvals, pursuant to Section 17.38.060, or the approvals shall not be effective. AM. All conditions of these Variance and Site Plan Review approvals shall be complied with prior to the issuance of a building permit from the County of Los Angeles. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 9TH DAY OF OC ! : - 00. EY P LL, MAYOR ATTEST: .,ih�-% MARILYNCERN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§ CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ) I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 889 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A RESIDENTIAL ADDITION TO ENCROACH INTO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK, GRANTING A VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A STABLE TO ENCROACH INTO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK AND GRANTING SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL TO AUTHORIZE GRADING AT A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AT 29 MIDDLERIDGE LANE SOUTH IN ZONING CASE NO. 616. was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council on October 9, 2000 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Heinsheimer, Hill, Lay, Mayor Pro Tem Murdock and Mayor Pernell. NOES: None. ABSENT: None . ABSTAIN: None. and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following: Administrative Offices. DEPUTY CITY I ERK Resolution No. 889 -6- P 096 199 905 US Postal Service Receipt for Certified Mail No Insurance Coverage Provided. Do not use for International Mail (See reverse) Sent too 7 & umber Pps�O//, State, & /7 Postage Certified Fee Special Delivery Fee �n� 9027y $ i,R) Restricted Delivery Fee • Retum Receipt Showing to Whom & Date Delivered E. Return Receipt Showing to Wham, < Date, & Addressee's Address 0 7TOTAL Postage & Fees $,j r 8 G Postmark or Date 0 u_ co a_ F__1, 025 IpOIDIRM to Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. ® Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. o Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, or on the front if space permits. COMM 1. Article Addressed to: SEC ON 9 gie;Wa-Z4,ege,X %So. 7��o. 1o27f. Z.0 . /1/0• aVg 2. Article Number (Copy from service label) 0�96 /99 r r905 PS Form 3811, July 1999 OCT 10 2000 Pb)TY ROLLuNQ' HdLLS I % - %6[i +lea C. Signature B. Date of Delivery ?�` J Addressee A delivery address different from item 1? ❑ Yes If YES, enter delivery address below: 0 No 3. Service Type Certified Mat ❑ Registered ❑ Insured Mail ❑ Express Mail ❑ Return Receipt for Merchandise( ❑ C.O.D. 4. Restricted Delivery? (Extra Fee) ❑ Yes Domestic Return Receipt 102595-99-M-1789 City oi leolling JUL GODFREY PERNELL, D.D.S. Mayor JODY MURDOCK. Mayor Pro Tem THOMAS F. HEINSHEIMER Councilmember FRANK E. HILL Councilmember B. ALLEN LAY Councilmember September 26, 2000 Mr. and Mrs. Kenneth L. Johnson 29 Middleridge Lane South Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Dear Mr. Johnson: 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 Thank you for taking time to attend the public hearing regarding your application to modify previously approved variances and the grading plan at your residential property. As a result of the City Council deliberation on this case, staff has been directed to prepare a resolution approving the modifications that you have requested subject to the conditions that were outlined by the City Council at the public hearing. The resolution will be presented to the City Council for consideration of adoption at their regular meeting to be held on Monday, October 9, 2000, beginning at 7:30 p.m. in the Rolling Hills City Council Chambers, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills. We will forward you a copy of the resolution when it is prepared. Should you have any questions or wish to discuss this further, please do not hesitate to let me know. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, Craig R. Nealis City Manager CRN:mlk 09/26/00johnson.ltr cc: Lola Ungar, Planning Director Peggy Minor, RHCA Manager Mr. John V. Juge, Jr., Juge Design Group Panted on Recycled Paper. • • City FIELD TRIP NOTIFICATION September 12, 2000 Mr. and Mrs. Kenneth J. Johnson 29 Middleridge Lane South 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. 616, a request to modify a previously approved Variance for the construction of a residential addition to encroach into the front yard setback, a request to modify a previously approved Variance for the construction of a stable to encroach into the front yard setback, and a request to modify 'a previously approved Site Plan Review to authorize the maintenance of previously conducted and illegal grading at a single family residence at 29 Middleridge Lane .South (Lot 248-A-1-UR, Rolling Hills, CA. Dear Mr. and Mrs. Johnson: We have arranged for the City Council to conduct a field inspection of the subject property on Monday, September 25, 2000. The City Council's timetable is to meet at 5:30 PM at your property. A silhouette or staking of the proposed project is not required. 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 at 7:30 PM that evening at the Community Association Board Room. Please call me at (310) 377-1521 if you have any questions. Lola Ungar Planning Director cc: Mr. John Juge, Jr. Printed on Recycled Paper. cc:, • City oi leolliny NOTIFICATION LETTER August 29, 2000 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 Mr. and Mrs. Kenneth J. Johnson 29 Middleridge Lane South Rolling Hills, CA 90274 SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 616: An appeal of a Planning Commission approved request to modify a previously approved Variance for the construction of a residential addition, to encroach into the front yard setback, a request to modify a previously approved Variance, for the construction of a stable to encroach into the front yard setback, and a request to modify a previously approved Site Plan Review to authorize the maintenance of previously conducted and illegal grading at a single family residence at 29 Middleridge Lane South (Lot 248-A-1-UR), Rolling Hills, CA. Dear Mr. and Mrs. Johnson: This letter is to inform you that the City Council took the subject case under jurisdiction at their regular meeting on Monday, August 28, 2000. Since there was an appeal, the Planning Commission's decision will be stayed until the Council completes its proceedings in accordance with the provisions of, the Municipal Code which are enclosed. We have set the case for public hearing consideration by the City Council at their meeting on,, Monday. September 11. 2000. 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 appeal and to answer questions. The staff report for this project will be available at the City Hall after 3:00 PM on Friday, September 8, 2000. The report will be mailed to you. Please call me at (310) 377-1521 if you have any questions. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, Lola Ungar Planning Director Enclosure: Appeal section of the Municipal Code Mr. John V. Juge, Jr., Juge Design Group Printed on Recycled Paper. • at, WA/ JUL CERTIFIED MAIL August 23, 2000 INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 E-mail: cityofrh@aot.com Mr. and Mrs. Kenneth J. Johnson 29 Middleridge Lane South Rolling Hills, CA 90274 SUBJECT: APPEAL PERIOD AND AFFIDAVIT OF ACCEPTANCE FORM ZONING CASE NO. 616 29 MIDDLERIDGE LANE SOUTH (LOT 248-A-1-UR, ROLLING HILLS, CA RESOLUTION NO. 2000-18 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Johnson: This letter shall serve to notify you that the Planning Commission adopted a resolution on August 15, 2000, granting a Variance for the construction of a residential addition to encroach into the front yard setback, granting a Variance for the construction of a stable to encroach into the front yard setback, and granting Site Plan Review to authorize the maintenance of previously 'conducted and illegal grading at a single family residence at 29 Middleridge Lane South (Lot 248-A-1-UR, Rolling Hills, CA • in Zoning Case No. 605. That action, accompanied by the record of the proceedings before the • Commission will be reported to the City Council on August 28, 2000. 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 anneal 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. We have enclosed a copy of RESOLUTION NO. 2000-18. specifying the conditions of approval set forth by the Planning Commission 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 when the Affidavit of Acceptance is received by us and any conditions of the Resolution required prior to issuance of building permits are met. Please feel free to call me at (310) 377-1521 if you have any questions. Pririted on Recycled Paper. • • Sincerely, Lola Ungar Planning D Enclosures: ctor AFFIDAVIT OF ACCEPTANCE FORM RESOLUTION NO. 2000-18 APPEAL SECTION OF THE ROLLING HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE EXHIBIT A DEVELOPMENT PLAN cc: Mr. John V. Juge, Jr., Juge Design Group • 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. T Recorders Use Only AFFIDAVIT OF ACCEPTANCE FORM STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES) §§ CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ) ZONING CASE NO. 616 SITE PLAN REVIEW VARIANCE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (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, CA This property is the subject of the above numbered case. I am (We are) aware of, and accept, all the stated conditions 'in said ZONING CASE NO. 616 SITE PLAN REVIEW VARIANCE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT I (We) certify (or declare) under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Signature Name typed or printed Address City/State Signatures must be acknowledged by a notary public. Signature Name typed or printed Address City/State L L State of California ) County of Los Angeles ) On before me, personally appeared personallyknown to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies) and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. Witness by hand and official seal. Signature of Notary SEE EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF • v)(4,e/.71 ;14 RESOLUTION NO. 2000-18 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A RESIDENTIAL ADDITION TO ENCROACH INTO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK, GRANTING A VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A STABLE TO ENCROACH INTO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK AND GRANTING SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL TO AUTHORIZE THE RETENTION AND MAINTENANCE OF ILLEGALLY CONDUCTED GRADING AT A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AT 29 MIDDLERIDGE LANE SOUTH IN ZONING CASE NO. 616. 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. Kenneth J. Johnson with respect to real property located at 29 Middleridge Lane South (Lot 248-A-1-UR), Rolling Hills, requesting the following: (1) modify a previously approved Variance for the construction of a residential addition to encroach into the front yard setback, (2) modify a previously approved Variance for the construction of. a ,stable to encroach into the front yard setback, and (3) modify a previously approved Site Plan Review to authorize the maintenance of previously conducted and illegal . grading , at a .single family residence. Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted a ,duly`noticed public hearing to consider the applications on June 20, 2000 and July 18, 2000, and at a field trip; visit on July 15, 2000. The applicants were notified of the public hearing in writing by first class mail and through the City's newsletter. Evidence was heard and presented from all persons interested in affecting said proposal and from members of the City staff and the Planning Commission having reviewed, analyzed and 'studied said •proposal. The applicant or his representative were in attendance at the hearing. Section 3. The Planning Commission finds that the project qualifies as a Class 1, 3, and 4 Exemption [State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15301(e), 15303(e) and 15304] 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 a front yard of fifty feet :(50') from the front easement line. The applicant is requesting to add.a 1,200 square foot, residential addition at the southwest corner of the residence attached by a breezeway that. will encroach twenty-five (25) feet into the fifty (50) foot front yard ,setback., With ,respect to this request for a Variance, the Planning Commission finds as follows: RESOLUTION NO. 2000-18 PAGE 1 OF 8 • 411 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 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 is located close to the street. The residential addition will be constructed to align with the existing structure. Due to the irregular shape of the lot and the siting of the existing house on the lot, it would be infeasible to construct the addition without encroaching into the required setback. 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 was minimized to increase the building pad on this irregular, shaped lot and there will not be any greater incursion into the front yard setback than already exists at the existing site and at other property in the same vicinity. The Variance will permit the development of the property in a manner similar to development patterns on surrounding properties. The location of the building pad dictates that the proposed addition be set forward on the lot because the existing structure was not constructed under current setback standards and the building pad is situated close`to: the street, 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 request for a Variance in conjunction with Zoning Case No. 616 to permit the proposed project to encroach a maximum of twenty-five feet (25') into the fifty foot (50') front yard setback, subject to the conditions specified inSection 10. Section 6. Section 17.16.200 of the Rolling Hills Municipal, Code requires that stables and corrals not be constructed in the front yard. The applicant is requesting to construct a 2,600 square foot 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 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 required stable cannot.be located anywhere else than the proposed location in the required setback due to the topography and irregular shape of the site. 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 be 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 RESOLUTION NO. 2000-18 PAGE2OF8 • Variance will permit the development of the property in a manner similar to development. patterns on surrounding properties. The Variance is necessary because the Rolling Hills Municipal Code requires that every lot have a site that is readily accessible and suitable for a stable and corral and the only. site on the property for a stable and corral requires encroachment into the front yard. C. The granting of the Variance would not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the property is located. Development on the pad will allow a substantial portion of the lot to remain undeveloped. Section 7. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves the request for a Variance in conjunction with Zoning Case No. 616 to permit the construction of a 2,600 square foot stable in the front yard, subject to the conditions specified in Section 10. Section 8. Section 17.46.020 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code requires a. development plan to be submitted for site plan review and approval before any grading' that requires a grading permit or any new building or structure may be constructed. The applicants request Site Plan Review to authorize the maintenance, of previously conducted and illegal grading at a single family residence. With respectto the Site Plan Review application, the Planning Commissionmakes the following findings of fact: A. The proposed development is compatible with the: General Plan, the Zoning Ordinance and surrounding uses because -the proposed grading,as conditioned, complies with the General Plan requirement of low profile, low :density residential development with sufficient open space between surrounding 'structures. With the - Variances approved in Sections 5 and 7, the project conforms to Zoning Code setback and lot coverage requirements. The lot has a net square foot area of 103,237 square feet. The residence (4,984 sq.ft.), attached garage (704 sq.ft.).,. pool, (472 sq.ft.), stable (2,600 sq.ft.), and service yard (96 sq.ft.) will have 8,856 square feet which constitutes 8.6% of the lot which is within the maximum 20% structural lot coverage requirement. The total lot coverage including paved areas and driveway will be 13,784 square feet which equals 13.4% of the lot, which is within the 35% maximumoverall lot coverage requirement. The proposed project is on a relatively large irregular -shaped lot with most of the structures located at or below and away from 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) because a minimum amount of grading is proposed and will only be done to provide approved drainage that will flow ..away from the proposed structures, the existing residence, and neighboring residences.. . C. The development plan follows the natural contours of the site to minimize grading and the natural drainage courses will continue to the canyons at the west side of this lot. RESOLUTION NO. 2000-18 PAGE 3 OF 8 • • 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. 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. Further, the proposed project is designed to minimize grading. 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 inscale and mass . with. the site, the natural terrain and surrounding residences. • As indicated. in Paragraph A, the lot coverage maximum will not be exceeded and the proposed project is consistent with the scale of the neighborhood .when compared to this irregular -shaped lot. Arty additional grading shall be permitted only to restore the natural slope of the property. 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 9. • Based upon the foregoing findings, the, Planning Commission hereby approves the Site Plan Review request to allow previously conducted illegal` grading, allow proposed limited grading and to allow the construction of residential additions and a stable at an existing single family residence/ As, indicated. on the Development Plan dated June 14, 2000 and marked Exhibit A, subject to the conditions specified in Section 10. Section 10. The Variances regarding encroachments approved in Sections 5 and 7 of this Resolution and the Site Plan Review approved in Section 9 of this Resolution are subject to the following conditions: A. The Variance and Site Plan Review approvals shall expire within one year from the effective date of approval if applicants have notpulled the appropriate building permits and commenced work as defined in Sections 17.38.070(A) and 17.46.080(A) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code unless otherwise extended pursuant to the requirements of these sections. B. It is declared and made a condition of the Variance and Site Plan Review approvals, that if any conditions thereof are violated, this approval shall be suspended and the privileges granted thereunder shall lapse; provided that the 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. RESOLUTION NO. 2000-18 PAGE 4 OF 8 C. All requirements of the Buildings and Construction Ordinance; the Zoning Ordinance, and of the zone in which the subject property is located must be complied with unless otherwise set forth in the Permit, or 'shown otherwise on an approved plan. D. The lot shall be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the site plan on file marked Exhibit A and dated June 14, 2000, except as otherwise provided in these conditions. E. The property on which the project is located shall contain an area of sufficient size to also provide an area meeting all standards for a stable and corral with vehicular access thereto in conformance with site plan review limitations. F. Structural lot coverage shall not exceed 8,856 square feet or, 8.6% in conformance with lot coverage limitations. G. Total lot coverage of structures and paved areas shall not exceed 13,784 square feet or 13.4% in conformance with lot coverage limitations., H. The disturbed area of the lot shall not exceed 41,294 square feet 'or 40.0% in conformance with lot coverage limitations. I. Building pad coverage shall not exceed 55.2%. J. There shall be no further grading for the project than the 4,650 cubic yards of cut soil and the 4,650 cubic yards of fill soil that has already taken place. K. shutters. The stable loft shall not have glazed openings but, may have, usable L. Any stable loft shall be limited in use to the storage of feed, tack and stable equipment. M. The stable shall be used for the exclusive. purpose of keeping permitted domestic animals. Commercial uses are not permitted. N. Landscaping shall be designed using mature trees and shrubs so as not to obstruct views of neighboring properties but, to obscure the residence. O. 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. RESOLUTION NO. 2000-18 PAGE 5 OF 8 • • P. The landscape plan shall include appropriate planting of the hillsides and lower created pad which has been denuded by periodic discing and grading with low growing ground cover. Q. Two copies of a 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 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, 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 Cityfor 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.' R. 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. • 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:., • T. . During construction; conformance with the. air quality management 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. U. 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 northwest. V. During construction, an applicant prepared Erosion Control Plan containing the elements set forth in Section 7010 of the 1996 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. W. 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. RESOLUTION NO.2000-18 PAGE 6 OF 8 • X. 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. Y. The drainage plan system shall be modified and approved by the Planning Department and City Engineer, to include any water from any site irrigation systems and that all drainage from the site shall be conveyed in an approved manner to the rear or northeast of the lot. Z. 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. AA. . 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. AB. A detailed drainage plan that conforms, to ."the .development plan as approved by the Planning Commission must be submitted to the Rolling Hills Planning Department staff for their review. AC. :The project must be reviewed and approved by the Rolling Hills Community Association Architectural Review Committee prior to the issuance of any drainage, building or grading permit. AD. 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. AE. Notwithstanding Sections 17.46.020 and 17.46.070 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, any modifications to the project which would constitute additional grading or structural development shall require the filing of a new application for approval by the Planning Commission. AF. 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 Planning Commission must be submitted to the Rolling Hills Planning Department staff for their review. AG. The applicants shall execute an Affidavit of Acceptance of all conditions of these Variance and Site Plan Review approvals, pursuant to Section 17.38.060, or the approvals shall not be effective. AH. All conditions of these Variance and Site Plan Review approvals must be complied with prior to the issuance of a building permit from the County of Los Angeles. RESOLUTION NO. 2000-18 PAGE 7 OF 8 • • PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 15TH DAY OF AUGUST,000. ALLW ROBERTS, CHAIRMAN ATTEST: MARILYN KERN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) 0 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§ CITY OF ROLLING HILLS) I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2000-18 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A RESIDENTIAL ADDITION TO ENCROACH INTO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK, GRANTING A VARIANCE TO. CONSTRUCT A STABLE TO ENCROACH INTO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK AND GRANTING SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL TO AUTHORIZE THE RETENTION AND MAINTENANCE OF ILLEGALLY CONDUCTED GRADING AT A SINGLE FAMILY, RESIDENCE , AT.. 29 MIDDLERIDGE LANE SOUTH IN ZONING CASE NO.616. was approved arid adopted at a regular meet_ ing of the Planning; Commission on August:15, 2000 by the following roll call vote: AYES:. Commissioners Margeta, Hankins, Sommer, Witte and Chairman Roberts. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following: Administrative Offices. DEPUTY CITY CLERK RESOLUTION NO. 2000-18 PAGE 8 OF 8 • 17.54.010 17.54 APPEALS 17.54.010 Time for Filing Appeals A. All actions of the Planning Commission authorized by this Title may be appealed to the City Council. All appeals shall be filed in writing with the City Clerk. B. All appeals must be filed on or before the 30th calendar day after adoption of the Planning Commission's resolution on the project or application. Application fees shall be paid .as required by Section 17.30.030 of this Title. C. Within 30 days after the Planning Commission adopts a resolution which approves or denies a development • application, the City Clerk shall place the resolution as a report item on the City Council's agenda. The City. Council may, by an affirmative vote of three members, take jurisdiction, over the application. In the event the City Counciltakes jurisdiction over the application, the .Planning' Commission's • decision will be stayed until the City, Council completes its proceedings in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter. 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 accordance with the terms of this Chapter.. 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 required 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 action being appealed, and the reasons why the appellant believes that the Planning Commission erred or abused its discretion, or why the Planning Commission's decision is not support by evidence in the record. ROLLING HILLS ZONING 76 MAY 24,1993 • 17.54.030 C. If the appeal application is found to be deficient, the City Clerk shall deliver or mail (by certified mail), to the appellant a notice specifying the reasons why the appeal is deficient. The appellant shall correct the deficiency with an amendment to the appeal form within seven calendar days of receiving the deficiency notice. Otherwise, the appeal application will be deemed withdrawn, and the appeal fee will be returned to the applicant. 17.54.040 Request for Information Upon receipt of a written and complete appeal application and fee, the City Clerk shall direct the Planning Commission Secretary to transmit to the City Council the complete record of the entire proceeding before the Planning Commission. 17.54.050 Scheduling of Appeal Hearing Upon receiving an appeal, the City Clerk shall set the appeal for a hearing before the City Council to occur within 20 days of the filing -ofthe appeal. In the event that more than one appeal is filed for ''°the same project, the Clerk shall schedule .all appeals to be heard at the same time. 17.54.060 Proceedings Noticing -The hearing shall be noticed as required by Section 1730.030 of this Title. In addition, the following parties shall be noticed; 1. The applicant of the proposal being appealed; 2. The appellant; and 3. Any person who provided oral testimony or written comments to the Planning Commission during or as part of the public hearing on the project. B. Hearing The City Council shall conduct a public hearing pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 17.34 of this Title. The Council shall consider all information in the record, as well as additional information presented at the appeal hearing, before taking action on the appeal. 77 ROLLING HILLS ZONING MAY 24,1993 17.54.060 • • C. Action The Council may act to uphold, overturn, or otherwise modify the Planning Commission's original action on the proposal, or the Council may remand the application back to the Planning Commission for further review and direction. The Council shall make findings to support its decision. D. Finality of Decision The action of the City Council to approve, conditionally approve, or deny an application shall be final and conclusive. E. Record of Proceedings • The decision of the City Council shall be set forth in full in a resolution or ordinance. A copy of the decision shall .be sent to the applicant or the appellant. 17.54.070 Statute of Limitations Anyaction. challenging a final administrative order'or.decision by the City made as a result of a proceeding in which by .law a hearing is required to be given, evidence is required to be taken, and discretion regarding a final and non -appealable determination of facts is vested in the City of Rolling Hills, the:City.Council, or in any of its Commissions, officers, or employees,; must befiled within the time limits set forth in the ' California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1094.E ROLLING HILLS ZONING 78 MAY 24,1993 1 Postage Certified Fee ISpecial Delivery Fee Restricted Delivery Fee co Retum Receipt Showing to - Whom & Date Delivered Retum Receipt Showing to Whom, < Date, & Addressee's Address CO TOTAL Postage & Fees • Postmark or Date 0 d N a) 1 a) 0 a) 0. E 0 cc cc to rn w 0 z H w cc of cn a P 096 199 899 US Postal Service Receipt for Certified Mail No Insurance Coverage Provided. Do not use for International Mail (See reverse) Sent to Street & Number ` /./o odd e- r� 3 Po 'c State, & ZIP 6 $ I,3 4170 1, a s- SENDER: ■ Complete items 1 and/or 2 for additional services. ■ Complete items 3, 4a, and 4b. • Print your name and address on the reverse of this form so that we can return this card to you. • Attach this form to the front of the mailpiece, or on the back if space does not permit. ■ Write'Return Receipt Requested' on the mailpiece below the article number. • The Retum Receipt will show to whom the article was delivered and the date delivered. 3. Article ddressed to: 7YL 1'yl "IA d2/I4?t 9 77 .66. , M AUG 2 5 2000 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS kV Ze,dv also wish to receive the following services (for an extra fee): 1. ❑ Addressee's Address 2. ❑ Restricted Delivery Consult postmaster for fee. 4a. Article Number 4b. Service Type ❑ Registered ❑ Express Mail ❑ Retum Receipt for Merchandise 7. Dat f Del -1 © O ❑ Certified ❑ Insured ❑ COD 5. Received By: (Print Name) 8. Addressee's Address (Only if requested a),-4 re /. and fee is paid) 6. Signatur (Ad rrreesseq or, gent PS Form811; December 1994 Domestic Return Receipt a% d• N 0.' d, 0, CC CC rn c N o' Y ' c a' r— • • City ./ leoffiny July 27, 2000 Mr. and Mrs. Kenneth J. Johnson 29 Middleridge Lane South 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. 616, a request to modify a previously approved Variance for the construction of a residential addition to encroach into the front yard setback, a request to modify a previously approved Variance for the construction of a stable to encroach into the front yard setback, and a request to modify a previously approved Site Plan Review to authorize the maintenance of previously conducted and illegal grading at a single family residence at 29 Middleridge Lane South (Lot 248-A-1-UR, Rolling Hills, CA. Dear Mr. and Mrs. Johnson: This letter shall serve to notify you that the Planning Commission voted at their regular meeting on July 18, 2000 to direct staff to prepare a resolution to approve your request to modify a previously approved Variance for the construction of a residential addition to encroach into the front yard setback, approve your request to modify a previously approved Variance for the construction of a stable to encroach into the front yard setback, and approve your request to modify a previously approved Site Plan Review to authorize the maintenance of previously conducted and illegal grading at a single family residence at 29 Middleridge Lane South (Lot 248-A-1-UR, Rolling Hills, CA in Zoning Case No. 616 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 being signed by the Planning Commission Chairman and City Clerk. 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, August 15, 2000. 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, August 28, 2000. Feel free to call me at (310) 377-1521 if you have any questions regarding this matter. Sincerely, Lola M. Ungar Planning Director cc: Mr. John V. Juge, Jr. r'ri,,te[1 y(Irri 1'n:, • C1iy a/ Afro FIELD TRIP NOTIFICATION June 23, 2000 • 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 Mr. and Mrs. Kenneth J. Johnson 29 Middleridge Lane South Rolling Hills, CA 90274 SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 616, a request to modify a previously approved Variance for the construction of a residential addition to encroach into the front yard setback, a request to modify a previously approved Variance for the construction of a stable to encroach into the front yard setback, and a request to modify a previously approved Site Plan Review to authorize the maintenance of previously conducted and illegal grading at a single family residence at 29 Middleridge Lane South (Lot 248-A-1-UR, Rolling Hills, CA. Dear Mr. and Mrs. Johnson: We have arranged for the Planning Commission to conduct a field inspection of the subject property on Saturday, July 15, 2000. The Planning Commission's timetable is to meet at 8:00 AM at 4 Storm Hill Lane, proceed to 31 Chuckwagon Road, 15 Eastfield Drive, and then to 29 Middleridge Lane South. Do not expect the Commission at 8:00 AM but, be assured that the field trip will take place before 10:30 AM. The site must be prepared according to the following requirements: • A full-size silhouette must be prepared for ALL STRUCTURES of the project showing the footprints, roof ridges and bearing walls; 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 Planning Commission will take place on Tuesday, July 18, 2000 at 7:30 PM at City Hall. Please call me at (310) 377-1521 if you have any questions. Lola Ungar Planning Director Enclosure: Silhouette Construction Guidelines cc: Mr. John Juge, Jr. C, Pririted on Recycled Paper. • • City ol R0f&4 LPG 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 SILHOUETTE CONSTRUCTION GUIDELINES When required by the Planning Commission or City Council, a silhouette of proposed construction should be erected for the week preceding the designated Planning Commission or City Council meeting. Silhouettes should be constructed with 2" x 4" lumber. Printed boards are not acceptable. Bracing should be provided where possible. Wire, twine or other suitable material should be used to delineate roof ridges and eaves. Small pieces of cloth or flags should be attached to the wire or twine to aid in the visualization of the proposed construction. The application may be delayed if inaccurate or incomplete silhouettes are constructed. If you have any further questions contact the 'Planning Department Staff at (310) 377-1521. .4 r. SECTION t k14,44044 i 4 4 4 4 B i N 4 { 4 .rs�wd PLAN 41.61 Printed on Recycled Paper City 0/ Rolling NOTIFICATION LETTER June 8, 2000 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 Mr. and Mrs. Kenneth J. Johnson 29 Middleridge Lane South Rolling Hills, CA 90274 SUBJECT: ZONING: CASE NO. 616, a request to modify a previously approved Variance for the construction of a residential addition to encroach into-, the front yard setback, a request to modify a. previously approved Variance for the construction of a stable to encroach into the front yard setback, and a request to modify a previously approved Site Plan Review to authorize the maintenance of previously conducted . and , illegal . grading . at a single family . residence at 29 Middleridge Lane South (Lot 248-A-1-UR, Rolling -Hills; CA. Dear Mr. and Mrs. Johnson: Pursuant to state law. the ,Citys: staff has completed a preliniinary : review of, the ..application' noted above, and findsthat the. information submitted is: X. Sufficiently complete'.as:of the date indicated above to allowtherapplication to be:processed. Please note that the City:'may require further information in order to clarify,Yamplify, correct, or otherwise.. supplement the appli.cationnIf:the City requires :such additional information, : it.:iss.strongly-suggested'that you supply. that information' promptly to avoid any; delay in the processing of :the application: Your application for Zoning Case No. 616 has been set for public'. hearing consideration by -the Planning Commission at their meeting on Tuesday. June 20. 2000. 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, June 16, 2000. We will forward a copy to you. Feel free to call me at (310) 377-1521 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Lola Ungar Planning Dir Cc: Mr. John V. Juge, Jr., Juge Design Group Printed on Recycled i'anc: 41 Cypress Capital Partners (310) 265-9308 Fax (310) 265-9318 KENNETH J JOHNSON 2785 Pacific Coast Hwy #E-301 Principal May 15, 2000 Mr. Craig Nealis City Manager City of Rolling Hills No. 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA. 90274 Re: Zoning Case No. 544 Dear Mr. Nealis: Torrance, California 90505 MY 1 a 200ti Ore OF ROLLING h'LC.f This is to advise that my general contractor, Mr. John Juge will be contacting you. He will be submitting the documents you requested relative to the procedural requirements necessary for me to request permission to retain the lower pad. In previous correspondence, I have explained that the area in question was outside the scope of the approved grading plan and was the result of fill material that was rejected by the soil engineer and supervising geologist. At the end of the grading project, the rejected materials were spread where they remain today. Additionally this area was also the repository of the materials that were excavated when the pool excavation occurred last year. To date, I have exported no fill materials off site. Mr. Juge is authorized to act in my behalf. I currently am working out of town during the week for the next six months and am not able to be present should that be necessary on short notice. You should be receiving from Mr. Juge by hand delivery this week the following materials along with this letter: 1. Request for hearing for site plan review 2. Environmental information form 3. Variance application • • 4. My personal check in the amount of $2950 5. Three sets of plot plans delineating the pad area in question The purpose of this application is to resolve the residual dirt deposit and request permission to leave it in place. Before proceeding, I would like to confirm that I am following the appropriate procedures to resolve this matter. I was hopping that due to the relative benign nature of this request that it was within your authority to grant approval thereby allowing me the luxury of avoiding the requisite paperwork and expense of a formal application. I have also asked Mr. Juge to indicate on the plot plan the preferred location of the barn per the Architectural Committee. You will note that it has been shifted slightly further west from the location on the original submission which was approved by the Planning Commission. In the past, you have indicated that this would not be a problem and you were willing to help in this regard. If that is incorrect or the new location is a problem please let Mr. Juge know right away. We are trying to accommodate the desires of the various approval authorities and I hope that we don't end up in a crossfire. Thank you for your attention and assistance in this matter. cc Mr. John Juge