Loading...
621 MOD, Remodel and add 1154 sq ft to , Resolutions & Approval Conditions• SITE PLAN REVIEW VARIANCES CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT I (We) certify (or declare) under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND MAIL TO CITY OF ROLLING HILLS 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310) 377-1521 (310) 377-7288 FAX The Registrar -Recorder's Office requires that the form be notarized before recordation. AFFIDAVIT OF ACCEPTANCE FORM STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ) §§ ZONING CASE NO. 621 Modification SITE PLAN REVIEW VARIANCES CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT I (We) the undersigned state: I am (We are) the owner(s) of the real property described as follows: 9 Maverick Lane, (lot 27-SK) Rolling Hills, CA 90274 This property is the subject of the above numbered cases and conditions of approval I am (We are) aware of, and accept, all the stated conditions in said ZONING CASE NO. 621 Modification Signature /j O Name typed or printedc k Address/ City/State '//, fri47/A-74-7 /, Signatures must be acckknoowledged% a not ry public. 03 3220406 ,S e Name typed or printed J__o z_i/ 7�� G,/J6 J.776 Address /� 7© frit / Lein e City/Statte , C� 4 Recorders Use Only XIS State of California ) County of Los Angeles ) On sal ,2 tn23 before me, <-1-0-•es, rs iN dc..„„s _a4-- personally appeared personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory, evidence), to be the person(s) whose name(s) Ware subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged e that he/she/they exe ted the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies) and that by hisLb.a 4their signature( on the instrument the p on 1, or the entity ^pon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. OFFICIAL SEAL 1 £MELITA M. AGCAOIu NOTARY PUBLIC-CAUFORPM COMMISSION 0 1244302 C LIry renim Evn ANGELES COUNTY Oari 9:t EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HERETCHOID MADE A PART HEREOF Witne officia Signature of No 03 3220406 'f State of California. ) County of t' od%ydeA ) On - 4 f\'V1/4 /, 0-0 5 before /A1;:tel g444: person y appeared I . O iA-14 L-n u, i C r 5/4-0 g�r�-u �,�; personally known to me (or proved to me the basis,of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) s/are subscribed to the within instrument and, acknowledged to me that h sha/they.executed -the same in hisltkor/their uthorized capacity(ies),• and • that• by ber/their signature(s) he instrument the person(s), .or the entity upon behalf of which the p so (s) acted,. executed the instrument. WITNES$'my band .and o'ficial Signature OFFICIAL SEAL - EMEUTA M: AGCAOIL1 NOTARY PUSUC-CALIFORNIA COMMISSION 0 1244302 C ea CcmmIssn ANGELES � eemmb� 2003 1 • 03 3220406 RESOLUTION NO. 2003-12 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS APPROVING MODIFICATIONS TO PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2000-28 AND AMENDING CONDITIONS IMPOSED FOR PREVIOUSLY APPROVED APPLICATION TO: (1) MODIFY THE VARIANCE FOR ENCROACHMENT OF RETAINING WALL INTO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK, (2) A VARIANCE TO PERMIT ENCROACHMENT OF A RETAINING WALL INTO THE WEST SIDE YARD SETBACK, AND (3) TO MODIFY THE VARIANCE TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM DRIVEWAY COVERAGE IN THE FRONT YARD AT A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE, WHICH IS CURRENTLY BEING CONSTRUCTED AT 9 MAVERICK LANE, (LOT 27-SK), IN ZONING CASE NO. 621 MODIFICATION, (SHOEMAKER). 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. Jack Shoemaker with respect to real property located at 9 Maverick Lane (Lot 27-SK), Rolling Hills, requesting modifications to conditions imposed for previously approved application to: (1) modify the Variance for encroachment of retaining wall into the front yard setback, (2) a Variance to permit encroachment of retaining walls into the side yard setback, and (3) to modify the Variance to exceed the maximum driveway coverage in the front yard at a single family residence, which is currently under construction. Section 2. The Commission considered this item at a duly noticed public hearing on May 20, 2003, June 17, 2003, and at a site visit on June 3, 2003 at which time information was presented indicating the need for the modification. Section 3. The Planning Commission finds that the project to modify Zoning Case No. 621 qualifies as a Class 1 Exemption, (State CA Guidelines, Section 15301(e)) and is therefore categorically exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act. Section 4. Section 17.16.120 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code requires the side yard setback for every residential parcel in the RA-S-2 Zone to be thirty-five (35) feet, and Section 17.16.110 requires that front yard setback be fifty (50) feet from the roadway easement line. Except for the required rear yard setback under certain conditions, all other required setbacks must remain unobstructed by structures. Sections 17.38.010 through 17.38.050 permit approval of a Variance from the standards and requirements of the Zoning Code when exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applicable to the property and not applicable to other similar properties in the same zone prevent the owner from Resolution 2003-12 ZC No. 621 Mod. • • 03 3220406 making use of a parcel of property to the same extent enjoyed by similar properties in the same vicinity. The applicant is requesting permission to move the previously approved 99-foot long, maximum 5 feet high retaining wall, which encroaches into the front and south side yard setback, closer to the residence in order to widen the driveway and to construct a new retaining wall in the west side yard setback, approximately 102 feet long, which vary in height from 2'5" to 4 feet. With respect to the requests for a Variance for the retaining wall in the west side yard setback and the modification of the wall in the south side yard setback and the front yard, 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 of the topography and irregular shape of the lot. When the application was originally approved, the then existing residence was built with a driveway that had a steep 20% slope. The proposed driveway will have an average 8.7% slope that is less steep and will enlarge the open space near the front of the residence. During construction of the originally approved driveway, the applicant was required by the Los Angeles County Fire Department to widen the driveway and to widen the walkways around the proposed residence. This resulted in the need to move the retaining wall and to construct a new retaining wall in the west side yard 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 encroachment permits the use of the lot to the extent allowed for other properties in the vicinity and is necessary for fire safety reasons. The Variance will permit the development of the property in a manner similar to development patterns on surrounding properties. Other parcels in the vicinity, which have such a steep slope, were also granted Variances to construct retaining walls. 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 on ' ich the p perty islocated. D- 'elop Development on the pad will zone :n which a«: YC�� a c`v� v m a � ,., allow a substantial portion of the lot to remain undeveloped. The proposal allows the owner to reduce the steep slope at the front of the property to bring it in compliance with Section 17.16.160 (3) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code. Except as permitted in this Resolution, the proposed development complies with lot coverage requirements, preservation of the natural environment, and all other standards of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code. Section 5. Section 17.16.150(B) requires that driveways in the RA-S zones shall not cover more than twenty (20) percent of the area of the yard in which they are located. The applicant requests to modify the previously approved coverage of 33.3 percent of the area of the front yard with a driveway to 35.5% coverage. With respect to the request for modification of the previously approved Variance, the Planning Commission finds as follows: Resolution 2003-12 ZC No. 621Mod. 2 i 03 3220406 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 of the topography and irregular shape of the lot. The proposed driveway design will provide safer access to the residence by providing an average 8.7% slope which is less steep than the existing 20% slope and will enlarge the open space near the front of the residence. The additional lot coverage is necessary to achieve the reduced slope of the driveway. During construction of the originally approved driveway, the applicant was required by the Los Angeles County Fire Department to widen the driveway. This resulted in greater coverage of the driveway in the side yard 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 encroachment permits the use of the lot to the extent allowed for other properties in the vicinity. The Variance will permit the development of the property in a manner, similar to development patterns on surrounding properties. C. The granting of the Variance would not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the property is located. Development on the pad will allow a substantial portion of the lot to remain undeveloped. Section 6. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves the modification to Variances to encroach with retaining walls into the front and west side yard setbacks and to permit a driveway to cover a maximum of 35.5 percent of the area of the front yard, in Zoning Case No. 621 Modification, as indicated on the development plan submitted with this application and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit A, dated April 25, 2003, subject to the amended conditions specified in Section 8 of this Resolution. Section 7. Slight changes to the total net lot coverage and disturbed area resulted from the original proposal due to the proposed walls and from the paving over of the access road to the stable. Based upon information submitted and evidence in the record, the Planning Commission does hereby amend Resolution No. 2000-28, to read as follows: A. Paragraph A of Section 12 is hereby amended to read in its entirety as follows: A. The proposed development, as modified by the conditions of approval, is compatible with the General Plan, the Zoning Ordinance and surrounding uses. The proposed structure complies with the General Plan requirement of low profile, low density residential development and maintain sufficient open space between surrounding structures. With the Variances Resolution 2003-12 ZC No. 621 Mod. 3 • .03 322040.6 granted herein, the project conforms to Zoning Code setback, and lot coverage requirements. The lot has a, net square foot area of 160,420 square feet. The proposed residence (3,866 sq. ft.), garage (769 sq. ft.), stable (640 sq. ft.), and service yard (96 sq. ft.) will have 5,371 square feet which constitutes 3.4% of the lot which is within the maximum 20% structural lot coverage requirement. The total lot coverage including paved areas and driveway, including the paved access road to the stable, will be 14,029 square feet which equals 8.7% of the lot, which is within the 35% maximum overall lot coverage requirement. B. Paragraph D of Section 14 is hereby amended to read in its entirety as follows: "The lot shall be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the site plan on file marked Exhibit "A," dated October 13, 2000, except as otherwise provided in these conditions, and with the site plan on file marked Exhibit "A" MODIFIED Zoning Case No. 621, dated April 25, 2003." C. Paragraph K of Section 14 is hereby amended to read in its entirety as follows: " The structural lot coverage shall not exceed 3.4% and the total lot coverage shall not exceed 8.7%." D. Paragraph M of section 14 is hereby amended to read in its entirety as follows: "Maximum disturbed area shall not exceed 10.4% of the net lot area." Section 9. Except as herein amended, the provisions of Resolution No. 2000-28 shall continue to be in full force and effect. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED THIS 15th DAY OF JULY 2003. 41. Le ,611 )1'" EVIE HANKf'1S, CHAIRWOMAN ATTEST: MARILYN KERfV, DEPUTY CITY CLERK Resolution 2003-12 ZC No. 621 Mod. 4 0 . • 03 3220406 (-2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS CITY OF ROLLING HILLS I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2003-12 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS APPROVING MODIFICATIONS TO PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2000-28 AND AMENDING CONDITIONS IMPOSED FOR PREVIOUSLY APPROVED APPLICATION TO: (1) MODIFY THE VARIANCE FOR ENCROACHMENT OF RETAINING WALL INTO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK, (2) A VARIANCE TO PERMIT ENCROACHMENT OF A RETAINING WALL INTO THE WEST SIDE YARD SETBACK, AND (3) TO MODIFY THE VARIANCE TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM DRIVEWAY COVERAGE IN THE FRONT YARD AT A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE, WHICH IS CURRENTLY BEING CONSTRUCTED AT 9 MAVERICK LANE IN ZONING CASE NO. 621 MODIFICATION. (SHOEMAKER) was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on July 15, 2003 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Margeta, Witte, Sommer and Chairwoman Hankins. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: Commissioner DeRoy. and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following: Administrative Offices. DEPUTY CITY CLERK Resolution 2003-12 ZC No. 621Mod. 5 RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND MAIL TO CITY OF ROLLING HILLS 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310) 377-1521 (310) 377-7288 FAX The Registrar -Recorder's Office requires that the form be notarized before recordation. AFFIDAVIT OF ACCEPTANCE FORM 00 1983297 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ZONING CASE NO.621 ) §§ SITE PLAN REVIEW VARIANCE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT I () the undersigned state: I am (We are) the owner(s) of the real property described as follows: 9 MAVERICK LANE (LOT 27-SK), 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. 621 SITE PLAN REVIEW VARIANCE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT I (We) cerify (or declare) under he penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Signature 20u/SE c. SffOEM4 7 iQ Name typed or printed cp J1 ��r�r ice: w• Name typed or printed J116k (,W SH6'EmaKr Q. Adt• 1 Fol6rnlwo OWL 'N)1.11NG 1A11k5%5§cke5 City/State Signatures must be acknowledged by a notary public. State of Califomia ) County of Los Angeles ) On b/ec. /2, 2000 before me, eic3--11\ T Recorder's Use Only v A ss 14o 76 6Z7� City/State /2 F1 A /. /1'e,ac,9 personally appeared - c/e w ; 4-4ioernecKe/L can/ 00/re C • • '4ive iaejGe2 personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the persons whose names) is re subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacitv(ies) and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the nt. --�- IRMA I. MERCADO Commission #1175064 C Notary Publics - California Los Angeles County My Papardinord E dyes March 1, 2002 E 1 II u iy, 111" I U' ��' 41^ 111'''9iu Witness by hand and official seal. Signature/f Notary SEE EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF • 0001983297 k/1 iJiT` yt4" RESOLUTION NO. 2000-28 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS (1) GRANTING A VARIANCE TO PERMIT ENCROACHMENT OF RETAINING WALLS INTO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK, (2) GRANTING A VARIANCE TO PERMIT ENCROACHMENT OF RETAINING WALLS INTO THE SOUTH SIDE YARD SETBACK, (3) GRANTING A VARIANCE TO PERMIT ENCROACHMENT OF PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL ADDITIONS INTO THE WEST SIDE YARD SETBACK, (4) GRANTING A VARIANCE TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM DRIVEWAY COVERAGE IN THE FRONT YARD, AND (5) GRANTING SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT SUBSTANTIAL ADDITIONS THAT REQUIRE GRADING TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AT 9 MAVERICK LANE IN ZONING CASE NO. 621. 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. Jack Shoemaker with respect to real property located a-0 Maverick Lane (Lot 27-SK),,Rolling Hills, requesting the following: (1) a Variance to permit encroachment of retaining walls into the front yard setback, (2) a Variance to permit encroachment of retaining walls into the south side yard setback, (3) a Variance to permit encroachment of proposed residential additions into the west side yard setback, (4) a Variance to exceed the maximum driveway coverage in the front yard, and (5) Site Plan Review to construct substantial additions that require grading to an existing single family residence. Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the applications on August 15, 2000, September 19, 2000, October 17, 2000, November 21, 2000, and at a field trip visit on September 9, 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. During the hearing process, plans were revised to accurately portray the location of the existing residence on the building pad and the reconfigured residence to the west so that the proposed building would be 3 feet away from the edge of the building pad at the east. Section 3. The Planning Commission finds that the project qualifies as a Class 1 Exemption (State CA Guidelines, Section 15301(e)) and is therefore categorically exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act. Section 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 • Q001 8,,91 E properties in the same vicinity. Section 17.16.110 requires the front yard setback for every residential parcel in the RA-S zone to be fifty (50) feet. The applicants are requesting to encroach up to a maximum of 25 feet into the 50 foot front yard setback to construct a 99-foot long curvilinear retaining wall up to 5 feet in height at the south. With respect to this request fora 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 of the topography and irregular shape of the lot. The existing residence was built with a driveway that has a steep 20% slope. The proposed driveway will have an average 8.7% slope that is less steep and will enlarge the open space near the front of the residence. The required grading to .reduce the slope necessitates a retaining wall to preserve the integrity of the slope. 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 encroachment permits the use of the lot to the extent allowed for other properties in the vicinity. The Variance will permit the development of the property in a manner similar to development patterns on surrounding properties. This lot has an existing driveway that exceeds the maximum permitted slope. Other parcels in the vicinity do not have such a steep slope. 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. The proposal allows the owner to reduce the steep slope at the front of the property to bring it in compliance with Section 17.16.160 (3) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code. Except as permitted in this Resolution, the proposed development complies with lot coverage requirements, preservation of the natural environment, and all other standards of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code. Section 5. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves the Variance for Zoning Case No. 621 to permit the encroachment of up to a maximum of 25 feet into the 50 foot front yard setback to construct a 99-foot long curvilinear retaining wall, as indicated on the development plan submitted with this application and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit A, dated October 13, 2000, subject to the conditions specified in Section 14 of this Resolution. Section 6. Section 17.16.120(B) . requires the side yard setback for every residential parcel in the RA-S-2 zone to be thirty-five (35) feet. The applicants are requesting to encroach up to a maximum of 17 feet into the 35 foot south side yard setback to construct a 99-foot long curvilinear retaining wall up to 5 feet in height. 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 of the topography and irregular shape of the lot. The existing residence was built with a driveway that has a steep 20% slope. The proposed driveway will have an average 8.7% slope that is less steep and will enlarge the open RESOLUTION NO. 2000-28 PAGE 2 OF10 • 0001 903* space near the front of the residence. The required grading to reduce the slope necessitates a retaining wall to preserve the integrity of the slope. 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 encroachment permits the use of the lot.. to the extent allowed for other properties in the vicinity. The Variance will permit the development of the property in a manner similar to development patterns on surrounding properties. This lot has an existing driveway that exceeds the maximum permitted slope. Other parcels in the vicinity do not have such a steep slope. C. The granting of the Variance would not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious tothe 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. The proposal allows the owner to reduce the steep slope at the front of the property to bring it in compliance with Section 17.16.160 (3) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code. Except as permitted in this Resolution, the proposed development complies with lot coverage requirements, preservation of the natural environment, and all other standards of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code. Section 7. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves the Variance for Zoning Case No. 621 to, permit the encroachment of up to a maximum of 17 feet into the '35 foot south side yard setback to construct a 99- foot long curvilinear retaining wall, as indicated on the development plan submitted with this application and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit A, dated October 13,2000, subject to the conditions specified in Section 14 of this Resolution. Section 8. Section 17.16.120(B) requires the side yard setback for every residential parcel in the RA-S-2 zone to be thirty-five (35) feet. The applicants are requesting to encroach up to a maximum of 20 feet into the 35 foot west side yard setback to construct residential additions. 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 of the topography and irregular shape of the lot. The existing legal nonconforming residence was built with the residence encroaching up to 11 feet into the west side yard setback. This addition will encroach 9 feet beyond existing encroachments, a total of 20 feet, and is limited in area so as to expand existing open space near the front and rear of the residence. The existing residence and proposed addition are modest in size. Due to the severity of slope on the property, the existing building pad cannot be increased in size. Accordingly, the encroachment is necessary becaise the proposed addition cannot be located elsewhere on the lot. 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 encroachment permits the use of the lot to the extent allowed for other properties in the vicinity. The Variance will RESOLUTION NO. 2000-28 PAGE 3 OF10 • 301 9332 91 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 9. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves the Variance for Zoning Case No. 621 to permit the encroachment of up to a maximum of 20 feet into the 35 foot west side yard setback to construct residential additions, as indicated on the development plan submitted with this application and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit A, dated October 13, 2000, subject to the conditions specified in Section 14 of this Resolution. Section 10. Section 17.16.150(B) requires that driveways in the RA-S zone shall not cover more than twenty (20) percent of the area of the yard in which they are located. The applicants are requesting to cover a maximum of 33.3 percent of the area of the front yard with a driveway. 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 of the topography and irregular shape of the lot. The proposed driveway design will provide safer access to the residence by providing an average 8.7% slope which is less steep than the existing 20% slope and will enlarge the open space near the front of the residence. The additional lot coverage is necessary to achieve the reduced slope of the driveway. 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 encroachment permits the use of the lot to the extent allowed for other properties in the vicinity. The Variance will permit the development of the property in a manner similar to development patterns on surrounding properties. C. The granting of the Variance would not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the property is located. Development on the pad will allow a substantial portion of the lot to remain undeveloped. Section 11. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves the Variance for Zoning Case No. 621 to permit a driveway to cover a maximum of 33.3 percent of the area of the front yard, as indicated on the development plan submitted with this application and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit A, dated October 13, 2000, subject to theconditions specified in Section 14 of this Resolution. RESOLUTION NO. 2000-28 PAGE 4 OF10 • 0,I9 3 93 Section 12. Section 17.46.020 requires a development plan to be submitted before any grading requiring a grading permit or any building or structure may be constructed or any expansion, addition, alteration or repair to existing buildings or structures, which involve changes to grading or an increase in the size of the building or structure by at least 1,000 square feet and has the effect of increasing the size of the building or structure by more than twenty-five percent (25%) in any thirty-six month period, may be permitted. With respect to the Site Plan Review application, the Planning Commission makes the following findings of fact: A. The proposed development, as modified by the conditions of approval, is compatible with the General Plan, the Zoning Ordinance and surrounding uses. The proposed structure complies with the General Plan requirement of low profile, low density residential development and maintain sufficient open space between surrounding structures. With the Variances granted herein, the project conforms to Zoning Code setback, and lot coverage requirements. The lot has a net square foot area of 160,420 square feet. The proposed residence (3,866 sq. ft.), garage (769 sq. ft.), stable (640 sq. ft.), and service yard (96 sq. ft.) will have 5,371 square feet which constitutes 3.4% of the lot which is within the maximum 20% structural lot coverage requirement. The total lot coverage including paved areas and driveway will be 10,368 square feet which equals 6.5% of the lot, which is within the 35% maximum overall lot coverage requirement. B. The proposed development, as modified, by the conditions of approval, 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). C. The development plan, as modified by the conditions of approval, follows natural contours of the site to minimize grading. The natural drainage courses will be preserved and continue drainage to the canyons at the northeastern side of this lot. D. The development plan will, based upon compliance with the conditions contained in this Resolution, supplement the existing vegetation with landscaping that is compatible with and enhances the rural character of the community. E. The development plan, as modified by the conditions of approval, 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. F. The proposed development, as modified by the conditions of approval, is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, the natural terrain and other residences on Maverick Lane. As indicated in Paragraph A, the lot coverage maximum will not be exceeded. The proposed project is also consistent with the scale of other large homes in the immediate neighborhood. Grading will be minor and required only to restore the natural slope of the property. The ratio of the proposed structures to lot coverage compares to the ratio found on several properties in the vicinity. G. The proposed development, as modified by the conditions of approval, is sensitive and not detrimental to the convenience and safety of circulation for RESOLUTION NO. 2000-28 PAGE 5 OF10 O.I933297 pedestrians and vehicles because the proposed project will utilize the existing driveway accessway. H. The project conforms with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and is categorically exempt from environmental review. Section 13. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves the Site Plan Review application for Zoning Case No. 621 for a proposed residential development as indicated on the development plan incorporated herein as Exhibit A, subject to the conditions contained in Section 14 of this Resolution. Section 14. The Variances approved in Sections 5, 7, 9, and 11 and the Site Plan Review approved in Section 13 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 construction pursuant to these approvals has not commenced within that time period, as required by Sections 17.38.070(A) and 17.46.080, or otherwise extended the approvals pursuant to the requirements of those sections. B. It is declared and made a condition of the Variance and Site Plan Review approvals, that if any conditions thereof are violated, this approval shall be suspended and the privileges granted thereunder shall lapse; provided that the applicant has been given written notice to cease such violation, the opportunity for a hearing has been provided, and if requested, has been held, and thereafter the applicant fails to correct the violation within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of the City's determination. C. All requirements of the Buildings and Construction Ordinance, the Zoning Ordinance, and of the zone in which the subject property is located shall 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 dated October 13, 2000, and marked Exhibit A, except as otherwise provided in these conditions. E. The working drawings submitted to the County Department of Building and Safety for plan check review shall conform to the development plan approved with this application. F. Any grading shall preserve the existing topography, flora, and natural features to the greatest extent possible. G. Grading for the project shall not exceed 856 cubic yards of cut soil and 856 cubic yards of fill soil. H. Any retaining walls incorporated into the project shall not exceed 5 feet in height, averaging no more than 2-1/2 feet. I. The residential structure shall have a pad elevation of 475 feet. RESOLUTION NO. 2000-28 PAGE 6 OF10 000id03297 J. The project shall include a basement that shall not exceed a total of 1,595 square feet. K. The structural lot coverage shall not exceed 3.4% and the total lot coverage shall not exceed 6.5%. L. The residential building pad coverage shall not exceed 53.9%, stable pad building pad coverage shall not exceed 16.7%, a third building pad below the stable pad shall not have any structural development and total building pad coverage shall not exceed 35.3%. M. The maximum disturbed area shall not exceed 7.5% of the net lot area. N. Landscaping shall incorporate and preserve, to the maximum extent feasible, the existing mature trees and shrubs and the natural landscape screening surrounding the residential building pad. 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. Landscaping shall be designed using mature trees and shrubs so as not to obstruct the views of neighboring properties but, to obscure the residence. Q. The property owner shall not plant any species of plants that are likely at mature height to impair the views of neighboring properties. R.. Landscaping shall be provided and maintained to obscure the residence and the building pad with native drought -resistant vegetation that is compatible with the surrounding vegetation of the community. S. At maturity, the new landscape plantings around the proposed residence shall not exceed the ridge height of the residence. T. Two copies of a preliminary landscape plan shall be submitted for review and approval 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 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 required to be posted prior to issuance of a drainage, grading RESOLUTION NO. 2000-28 PAGE 7 OF10 • 00.903297 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. U. 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, and objectionable odors shall be required. V. During construction, the 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. 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 property owners shall conform with the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Health Department requirements for the installation and maintenance of septic tanks. Z. The property owners shall 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 conform with the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Public Works Department Best Management Practices (BMP's) related to solid waste. AB. An Erosion Control Plan containing the elements set forth is Section 7010 of the 1996 County of Los Angeles Uniform Building Code shall be prepared to minimize erosion and to protect slopes and channels to control stormwater pollution as required by the County of Los Angeles. AC. 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 shall be submitted to the Rolling Hills Planning Department staff for their review and approval. Cut and fill slopes shall not exceed, a steepness of a 2 to 1 slope ratio. RESOLUTION NO. 2000-28 PAGE 8 OF10 • AD. The project shall be reviewed and approved by the . Rolling Hills Community Association Architectural Review Committee prior to the issuance of any building or grading permit. 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 structural development shall require the filing of a new application for approval by the Planning Commission. AF. The applicants shall execute an Affidavit of Acceptance of all conditions of the Variance and Site Plan approvals, or the approvals shall not be effective. AG. All conditions of the Variance and Site Plan approvals that apply shall be complied with prior to the issuance of a building or grading permit from the County of Los Angeles. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 21ST DAY NO :MER, 2000. ,....____C_ ALLAN ROBERTS, CHAIRMAN A1"LEST: MARILYN RN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK RESOLUTION NO. 2000-28 PAGE 9 OF10 • STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ) §§ I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2000-28 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS (1) GRANTING A VARIANCE TO PERMIT ENCROACHMENT OF RETAINING WALLS INTO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK, (2) GRANTING A VARIANCE TO PERMIT ENCROACHMENT OF RETAINING WALLS INTO THE SOUTH SIDE YARD SETBACK, (3) GRANTING A VARIANCE TO PERMIT ENCROACHMENT OF PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL ADDITIONS INTO THE WEST SIDE YARD SETBACK, (4) GRANTING A VARIANCE TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM DRIVEWAY COVERAGE IN THE FRONT YARD, AND (5) GRANTING SUE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT SUBSTANTIAL ADDITIONS THAT REQUIRE GRADING TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AT 9 MAVERICK LANE IN ZONING CASE NO. 621. was approved and adopted at an adjourned regular meeting of the Planning Commission on November 21, 2000 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Hankins, Margeta, Sommer, Witte and Chairman Roberts. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following: Administrative Offices. DEPUTY CITY CLERK RESOLUTION NO. 2000-28 PAGE 10 OF10