389, Addition of (16 ft X 9 in.)to , Resolutions & Approval ConditionsFor Recorder''s Use,
F&ECORbING REQUESTED BY AND MAIL TO:
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274
89 1636564
Please record this form with the -Registrar -Recorder's Office and
return to:
City of Rolling Hills
2 Portuguese Bend Road
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
(The Registrar -Recorder's Office requires
before recordation.)
that the form be notarized
• Acceptance Form
STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ss
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ).
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO:
VARIANCE CASE NO.
SITE PLAN REVIEW NO..
I (We) the undersigned state:
RECORDED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS
RECORDER'S OFFICE •
LOS ANGELES OWN rY
MIN. CALIFORNIA
31 PAST 11 A.M. OCT 1 11999.
389
389
I am.(We are) the owner(s), of'the real property described as follows:
23 Eastfield Drive,'R`olling Hills, California 90274
5c. e_ Q-)A, / A
This property is the subject of the above numbered cases.
I am (We are) aware of, and accept, all the stated conditions in,said,
Conditional Use Permit Case No.
Variance Case No. 389
SITE PLAN REVI\ NO. 389
I (We) certify (or declare) under the penalty. of perjury that the
foregoing is true'and correct
(Where the owner..and
applicant. are not the same, both must sign.)
Type or print
Applicant Name sK.1 ''S.S‘L.t.\ 61 J R'ssActr: v ti•,;
•
FEE $ 15: liP
(J)
Address Z3 Eras e 4 iw/e.
City, State Ck&O ► ms.
Signature
Owner Name sk40o.1;v , F_src4t 44170.
Address 2.3AacF�e
City, State '-k011 vvl Ora .l',A, 31/41
This signature must
be acknowledged by a
notary public. Attach
appropriate acknowledgement.
•
a)
ra
co,
Acknowledgement
ITC 105
STATE OF CALIFORNJP ?
COUNTY OFF /j� SS. ���
0 this r day of ! 7)' C , in the year,/rl / before me,
(,@ ,a ..1. , a Notary Public in and for the said County and State,
residin herei uly�mis�sjoned an swor persona ap eared— .�
/�/1 , personal9known to me
(or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s):
(p INDIVIDUAL) Whose name is subscribed to this instrument, and acknowledged
that he (she of they) executed it.
(❑ CORPORATION) Who executed the within instrument as _ president
and . secretary, on behalf of the corporation therein
named, and acknowledged to me that such corporation executed
the within instrument pursuant to its articles and by-laws and a
resolution of its Board of Directors.
(❑ PARTNERSFJIP) That executed the within instrument on behalf of the
partnership, and acknowledged to me that the partnership
executed it.
IN WITNESS HEREOF, I have hereunto set m -hand and affixed my official seal, in and
for said Cou jand State, thefirst above written.
Notary PuL fc in nd for said Courity an/State of California
My commissio xpires: /
89 1636564
INVESTORS TITLE COMPANY
FOR NOTARY SEAL OR STAMP
% /./'
OFFICIAL SEAL
MARJORIE G KNOX
NOTARY PUBLIC-CALIFORNIA
LOS ANGELES`COUNTY
My comm. expiies, f lAY 18, 1990
oss...ti .\0
RESOLUTION NO. l 1 Z
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A
VARIANCE TO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK AND SITE
PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL IN ZONING CASE NO. 389
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. John Resich with respect to real property located at 23
Eastfield Drive, Rolling Hills (Lot 48-EF) requesting a variance
to the front yard setback requirement and site plan review
approval to construct an addition to the existing nonconforming
structure.
Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted a duly
noticed public hearing to consider the application on April 18,
1989 and May 16, 1989, and conducted a field site review on May
13, 1989.
Section 3. Sections 17.32.010 through 17.32.030
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 property to the same extent enjoyed by similar
properties. Pursuant to these Sections, the Planning Commission
finds that:
A. The existing residential structure already
encroaches into the front yard setback. The proposed
encroachment involves an expansion of a northwesterly
portion of the residence by nine feet into the setback.
B. Due to the shape and topography of the lot,
the house can not be expanded significantly into the
back yard. The proposed expansion would not extend the
new structure beyond the point at which the noncon-
forming residential structure presently exists, meaning
that there will be no greater incursion into the front
yard than already exists on the property at this time.
C. In view of the topographical situation and
the presence of an existing incursion in the front
yard, there exists unique circumstances not generally
applicable to other properties in the same zone that
justify the continued encroachment.
69 1)636564
• •
D. The grant of a variance under these
circumstances will not be detrimental to the public
health, safety and welfare and will be compatible with
surrounding properties and will be consistent with the
goals of the Zoning Ordinance.
Section 4. Based on the foregoing findings, the
Planning Commission hereby approves the Variance for Case No. 389
to permit an encroachment of 9 feet into the front yard setback
as indicated in the Development Plan submitted with this
application and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit A,
subject to the conditions set forth in Section 7 of this
Resolution.
Section 5. Section 17.34.010 requires a development
plan to be submitted for site plan review and approval before any
building or structure may be constructed or any expansion,
addition, alteration or repair to existing buildings may be made
which involve changes to grading or an increase to the size of
the building or structure by more than twenty-five (25%) percent
in any thirty-six (36) month period.
Section 6. The Commission makes the following findings
of fact:
A. The proposed residential structure is compatible
with the low density, rural character requirements of the
General Plan. This project is compatible with the Zoning
Ordinance because the project complies with the Zoning
Ordinance lot coverage requirements. ,The net square footage
of the lot is approximately 45,150 square feet. The
proposed residential structures equal 5,361 square feet
which represents 11.87% structural lot coverage, which is
within the 20% maximum coverage that is permitted. The
total lot coverage is approximately 12,023 square feet
which represents a proposed total lot coverage of 26.62%,
which is within the 35% maximum coverage that is permitted.
The proposed project is compatible with surrounding
residential structures. The proposed project includes a
residence, swimming pool, and proposed future stable, which
structures are similar to surrounding residential land use
patterns.
B. The proposed development preserves the natural
topographic features of the lot to the maximum extent
possible because all construction will occur on, the existing
building pad area, leaving a large portion of the lot
undeveloped.
C. The proposed project follows the natural contours
of the site to minimize grading to the maximum extent
possible, in that all construction will occur on the
-2-
890606 sas 1680009 (2)
9 1638564
•
existing building pad area of the lot. Existing drainage
patterns will be preserved so that drainage will be
channeled into existing drainage courses and engineered and
constructed within the requirements of the building codes.
D. The project preserves surrounding native
vegetation to the maximum extent possible, by limiting
building to the existing building pad area.
E. The project substantially preserves the natural
and undeveloped state of the lot by minimizing building
coverage in that the residential structure will cover only
11.87% of the lot, which is substantially less than the 20%
of coverage that is permitted. The total structural lot
coverage including driveways, and hard surfaces will equal
approximately 26.63% of the lot, which is substantially less
than the 35% of coverage that is permitted.
F. The project is harmonious in scale and mass with
the site as indicated in paragraph E above because the
project is less than the one-half the size that is
permitted.
G. The project is sensitive and not detrimental to
the convenience and safety of pedestrians and circulation of
vehicles in that the driveway will remain unaltered as it
presently exists.
H. The project conforms to the requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act and is categorically
exempt from environmental review.
Section 7. Based as to foregoing findings, the
Commission hereby approves the site plan review application for a
proposed residential structure on the property located at 23
Eastfield Drive.. as indicated on the development plan attached
hereto as Exhibit A and subject to the following conditions:
A. The variance to the front yard setback as
indicated on the Development Plan shall not be
effective if the existing residential structure is
demolished.
B. The variance to the front yard setback shall
expire if not used in one year from the effective
date of approval as defined and specified in,
Section 17.32.110 of the Municipal Code.
C. The proposed building plan must be approved by the
Rolling Hills Community Association Architectural
Committee before the applicant receives a grading
permit from the County of Los Angeles.
-3-
890606 sas 1680009 (2)
09 1.�36564
D. Prior to the submittal of a final grading
plan to the County of Los Angeles, the
grading plan shall be submitted to the
Rolling Hills Planning Department Staff for
their review, along with related geology,
soils and hydrology reports. This grading
plan must conform to the development plan as
approved by the Planning Commission.
E. A landscape plan must be submitted to the City of
Rolling Hills Planning Department staff for
approval. The landscaping plan submitted must
comply with the purpose and intent of the Site
Plan Review Ordinance. The landscaping plan shall
incorporate existing mature trees and native
vegetation. A bond in the amount of the cost
estimate for the landscaping plus 15% shall be
posted and retained with the City for not less
than two years after landscape installation. The
retained bond will be released by the City after
the City Manager determines that the landscaping
was installed pursuant to the landscaping plan as
approved, and that such landscaping is properly
established and in good condition.
F. The working drawings submitted to the County
Department of Building and Safety for plan check
must conform to the Development Plan approved with
this site plan review.
G. Any modifications to the development plan as
approved by the Planning Commission shall require
the filing of an application for modification of
the development plan and must be reviewed and
approved by the Planning Commission pursuant to
Section 17.34.070 of the Rolling Hills Municipal
Code.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 6th day of
June , 1989.
/s/ Allan Roberts
Chairman
ATTEST:
Deputy
y Clerk
-4-
890606 sas 1680009 (2)
83 1:636S64