546, Demo existing SFR the construc, Resolutions & Approval Conditions•
RESOLUTION NO. 96-21
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL
TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENCE IN ZONING CASE NO. 546.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. An application has been filed by Mr. and Mrs. Russell Cole
Shoemaker with respect to real property located at 18 Eastfield Drive, Rolling Hills
(Lot 69-A-EF), requesting Site Plan Review for the construction of a new single
family residence and attached garage to replace an existing single family residence.
Section 2. The Commission considered this item at a public hearing on
October 15, 1996 and November 19, 1996, and at a field trip visit on November 2,
1996.
Section 3. The Planning Commission finds that the project qualifies as a
Class 1 Exemption (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15301(e)) and is therefore
categorically exempt from environmental review under the California
Environmental Quality Act.
Section 4. Section 17.46.020 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code requires a
development plan to be submitted for site plan review and approval for any grading
requiring a grading permit and before any building or structure may be constructed
or any expansion, addition, alteration or repair to existing buildings may be made
which involve changes to grading or an increase to the size of the building or
structure by at 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. The applicants request Site Plan Review to construct a residence,
attached garage, and swimming pool/spa. With respect to the Site Plan Review
application, the Planning Commission makes the following findings of fact:
A. The proposed development is compatible with the General Plan, the
Zoning Ordinance and surrounding uses because the proposed structure complies
with the General Plan requirement of low profile, low density residential
development with sufficient open space between surrounding structures. The
project conforms to Zoning Code setback and lot coverage requirements. The lot has
a net square foot area of 59,705 square feet. The proposed residence (5,079 sq.ft.),
attached garage (1,192 sq.ft.), swimming pool spa (624 sq.ft.), 96 square foot service
yard and existing stable (320 sq.ft.) will have 7,311 square feet which ' constitutes
12.2% of the lot which is within the maximum 20% structural lot coverage
requirement. The total lot coverage including paved areas and driveway will be
17,726 square feet which equals 29.7%, which is within the 35% maximum overall
RESOLUTION NO. 96-21
PAGE 1 OF 5
• •
lot coverage requirement. The proposed project is on a relatively large lot with most
of the proposed structures located 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 residence and existing neighboring residences.
C. The development plan follows natural contours of the site to
minimize grading and the natural drainage courses will continue to the canyons at
the east side (rear) of this lot.
D. The development plan incorporates existing large trees and native
vegetation to the maximum extent feasible. Specifically, the development plan
preserves several mature trees and shrubs.
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. The
residential and total lot coverage will not exceed the Planning Commission's
established guideline. 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 northerly 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. 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 Eastfield Drive for access.
H. The project conforms with the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act and is categorically exempt from environmental
review.
Section 5. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission
hereby approves the Site Plan Review application for construction of a new single
family residence, an attached garage, swimming pool/spa, service yard and existing
RESOLUTION NO. 96-21
PAGE 2 OF 5
stable as indicated on the Development Plan dated October 11, 1996, and marked,
Exhibit A, subject to the conditions specified in Section 6.
Section 6. The Site Plan Review application approved in Section 5 of this
Resolution is subject to the following conditions:
A. The Site Plan Review approvals shall expire within one year from the
effective date of approval as defined in Sections 17.46.080.
B. It is declared and made a condition of the Site Plan Review approvals,
that if any conditions thereof are violated, this approval shall be suspended and the
privileges granted thereunder shall lapse; provided that the applicant has been
given written notice to cease such violation and has failed to do so for a period of
thirty (30) days.
C. All requirements of the Buildings and Construction Ordinance, the
Zoning Ordinance, and of the zone in which the subject property is located must be
complied with unless otherwise set forth in the Permit, or shown otherwise on an
approved plan.
D. The lot shall be developed and maintained in substantial conformance
with the site plan on file marked, Exhibit A, except as otherwise provided in these
conditions.
E. Grading shall not exceed 480 cubic yards of cut soil and 480 cubic yards
of fill soil.
F. All retaining walls incorporated into the project shall not be greater
than 5 feet in height at any one point.
G. Residential building pad coverage shall not exceed 28.5%.
H. Maximum disturbed area shall not exceed 39.4% of the net lot area.
I. Landscaping shall incorporate and preserve, to the maximumextent
feasible, the existing mature trees and shrubs and the natural landscape screening
surrounding the proposed building pad.
J. 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 or grading permit. The landscaping plan submitted must comply with
the purpose and intent of the Site Plan Review Ordinance, shall incorporate existing
mature trees and native vegetation, and shall utilize to the maximum extent
feasible, plants that are native to the area and/or consistent with the rural character
of the community.
RESOLUTION NO. 96-21
PAGE 3 OF 5
• •
A bond in the amount of the cost estimate of the implementation of the landscaping
plan plus 15% shall be required to be posted prior to issuance of a grading and
building permit and shall be retained with the City for not less than two years after
landscape installation. The retained bond will be released by the City Manager after
the City Manager determines that the landscaping was installed pursuant to the
landscaping plan as approved, and that such landscaping is properly established and
in good condition.
K. Prior to the submittal of an applicable final grading plan to the County
of Los Angeles for plan check, a detailed grading and drainage plan with related
geology, soils and hydrology reports that conform to the development plan as
approved by the Planning Commission must be submitted to the Rolling Hills
Planning Department staff for their review. Cut and fill slopes shall not exceed a
steepness of a 2 to 1 slope ratio.
L. The project must be reviewed and approved by the Rolling Hills
Community Association Architectural Review Committee prior to the issuance of
any building or grading permit.
M. Notwithstanding Section 17.46.070 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code,
any modifications to the project which would constitute additional development
shall require the filing of a new application for Site Plan Review approval by the
Planning Commission.
N. The applicants shall execute an Affidavit of Acceptance of all
conditions of this Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan Review, pursuant to
Section 17.42.060, or the approval shall not be effective.
O. All conditions of this Site Plan Review approvals must be complied
with prior to the issuance of a building or grading permit from the County of Los
Angeles.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED ON THE 17TH DECEMBER, 1996.
ALLAN ROBERTS, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
MARILYNRN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK
RESOLUTION NO. 96-21
PAGE 4 OF 5
•
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 96-21 entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL
TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENCE IN ZONING CASE NO. 546.
was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on
December 17, 1996 by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Hankins, Sommer, Witte and Chairman Roberts.
NOES: Commissioner Margeta.
ABSENT: None .
ABSTAIN: None .
and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following:
Administrative Offices.
DEPUTY CITY CLERK
RESOLUTION NO. 96-21
PAGE 5 OF 5