Loading...
47, Construct a retaining wall alo, Resolutions & Approval Conditions• tr TO 19A-. CA 9-84) (Individual) STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF Los ANC-7/Lc J TICOR TITLE INSURANCE } ss. 91— 702732 On /1A Y1 -, /9 9 / before me, the undersigned, a Notary said State, personally appeared O f-/ /A%. ,Q / personally known to me or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person whose name /S subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged that be,: exe- cuted the same. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature Public in and for OFFICIAL SEAL DOUGLAS K MC HATTIE Notary Public -California !AS AN(EJ FS COUNTY (This area for official notarial seal) For Recorder's use 91-- 1702732 RECORDING REQUESTED"BY'' �;YI CITY OF ROLLING HILLS 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 RECORDED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS RECORDER'S OFFICE LOS ANGELES COUNTY CALIFORNIA MIN' 1 P.M. MAY 14 1991 PAST. Please record this form with the Registrar -Recorder's Office return to: City of Rolling Hills 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 (The Registrar -Recorder's Office requires before recordation.) and I FEE $7 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 REVIEU CASE NO. 434 I (We) the undersigned state: I am (We are) the owner(s) of the real property described as L-. 7eD �C 0/2l) 01- // G Y 6 This property is the subject of the above numbered cases. I am (We are) aware of, and accept, all the Conditional Use Permit Case No. Variance Case No. Site Plan Review Case No. follows: stated conditions in said 434 I (ale) 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 . 0 H Addressr,20 OQ I R 1DER ?„ This signature must be acknowledged by a notary public. Attach appropriate acknowledgement. City, State '�(?[-�-( l k 1LS . Signature Owner Name Address City, State Signature CL-lebe; CITY QF Mk:1 k G HILLS By------ 4 RESOLUTION NO. 91-5 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A VARIANCE TO EXCEED THE GRADING STANDARDS FOR MAXIMUM FILL SLOPES AND GRANTING SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL IN ZONING CASE NO. 434. THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. An application was duly filed by Mr. Howard Wallace with respect to real property located at Out o ling Hills (Lot 96-SK) requesting: (1) a Variance to exceed the grading standards for maximum fill slopes; and (2) Site Plan Review of a proposed new residence. Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the application on June 19, 1990. The applicant thereafter submitted an expanded request which the Planning Commission considered at a duly noticed public hearing held on July 17, 1990, August 21, 1990, September 18, 1990, October 16, 1990, November 20, 1990, December 18, 1990, January 15, 1991, February 19, 1991 and March 19, 1991 and at a field trip visit on August 4, 1990., Section 3. A Variance to Section 15.04.110 is required to allow for a maximum fill slope exceeding thirty (30) feet. The applicant is requesting a Variance to permit a fill slope on the downhill east side of the proposed residence of 47 feet. The Planning Commission finds: A. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances and conditions applicable to the property and the intended use that do not apply generally to the other properties in the same vicinity and zone. Remediation work to correct damage to the site by improper drainage creates a need to fill certain areas of the lot which thereby create filled slopes in excess of the City's standard. 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. A building pad could not be created and a house could not be constructed on the lot without allowing graded slopes to exceed the maximum allowed. C. The granting of this Variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which the property is located. The property is unique, on the edge of the City's boundary and scarred by improper drainage. RESOLUTION NO. 91-5 PAGE 2 Section 4. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves the Variance to allow a graded slope of 17,696 square feet as shown on the development plan attached hereto as Exhibit A, subject to the conditions contained in Section 8. 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 percent (25%) in any thirty-six month period. Section 6. The Planning Commission makes the following findings of fact: A. The proposed development is compatible with the General Plan, the Zoning Ordinance and surrounding uses because the proposed structure complies with the General Plan requirement of low profile, low density residential development with sufficient open space between surrounding structures. The project conforms to Zoning Code setback and lot coverage. requirements. The lot has.. a,: net square foot area of 103,629 square feet. The proposed . residence (5,032 sq.ft.), garage (726 sq.ft.), swimming pool (512 sq.ft.), future stable (450 sq.ft.'), and 96 sq.ft. service yard will have 6,816 square feet which constitutes 6.6% of the lot which is within the maximum 20% structural lot coverage requirement. The total lot coverage including paved areas and driveway will be 12,455 square feet which equals 12% of the lot, which is within the 35% maximum overall lot coverage requirement. The proposed project is on a relatively large lot with most of the proposed structures located away from the road so as to reduce the visual' impact of the development and is similar and compatible with several neighboring developments. 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 grading will only be done to repair the damage of past improper drainage and restore a natural drainage pattern and landscape screening for the site. 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 rear of this lot. D. The development plan incorporates existing large trees and native vegetation to the maximum extent feasible and RESOLUTION NO. 91-5 PAGE 3 enhances the rural character of the community. E. The development plan substantially preserves the natural and undeveloped state of the lot by minimizing building coverage because the new structures will not cause the structural and total lot coverage to be exceeded. Further, the proposed project will have a buildable pad coverage of 32.5% which is within the City's policy of 35% maximum pad coverage. Significant portions of the, lot will be left undeveloped so as to maintain trail access across the property and scenic vistas across the easterly portions of the property. F. The proposed development is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, the natural terrain and surrounding residences. As indicated in Paragraph C, the lot coverage maximum will not be exceeded and the proposed project is consistent with the scale of the neighborhood. Grading shall be permitted only to restore the natural slope of the property. The ratio of the proposed structure to lot coverage is similar to the ratio found on several properties in the vicinity. G. The proposed development is sensitive and not detrimental to convenience and- safety of circulation for, pedestrians and vehicles because the proposed project will utilize` the existing vehicular access, thereby having no further impact on the roadway. H. The project conforms with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and is categorically exempt from environmental review. Section 7. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves the Site Plan Review application for Zoning Case No. 434 for a proposed residential development as indicated on the development plan incorporated herein as Exhibit A and subject to the conditions contained in Section 8. Section 8. The Variance to exceed the grading standards for maximum fill slopes approved in Section 4 and the Site Plan Review for residential development approved in Section 7 are subject to the following conditions: A. The Variance shall expire unless used within one year from the effective date of approval as defined in Section 17.32.110 of the Municipal Code. The Site Plan Review approval shall expire within one year from the effective date of approval as defined in Section 17.34.080.A. B. It is declared and made a condition of the Variance and the Site Plan Review approval, that if any conditions thereof are violated, the Permit shall be suspended and the privileges granted RESOLUTION NO. 91-5 PAGE 4 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 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. The maximum length of the upslope cut shall not exceed thirty (30) feet. The maximum length of the downslope cut shall not exceed forty-seven (47) feet. • F. Graded slopes shall be landscaped only with drought tolerant vegetation that is compatible with the surrounding vegetation of the community. G. A landscape plan must be submitted to and approved by the City of RollingHills Planning Department staff prior to the. issuance of any.: grading a'nd building permit tThe 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 City for notless 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. H. 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 must conform to the City of Rolling Hills standard of 2 to 1 slope ratio. I. The project must be reviewed and approved by the Roiling Hills Community Association Architectural Review Committee prior to the issuance of any building or grading permit. RESOLUTION NO. 91-5 PAGE 5 J. The working drawings submitted to the County Department of Building and Safety for plan check review must conform to the development plan approved with this application. K. Any modifications to the project which would constitute a modification to the development plan as approved by the Planning Commission shall require the filing of an application for modification of the Zoning Case pursuant to Section 17.34.070 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code. L. The building pad coverage shall not exceed 32.5%. M. The applicant shall execute an Affidavit of Acceptance of all conditions of this Variance, pursuant to Section 17.32.087, or the approval shall not be effective. N. All conditions of this Variance and Site Plan Review approval must be complied with prior to the issuance of a building or grading permit from the County of Los Angeles. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 6�C --D OF APRIL, 1991.' ALLAN ROBERTS, CHAIRMAN ATTEST: DIANE SAWiAR,DEPUTY/ CITY CLERK Resolution No. 91-5 Page 6 The foregoing Resolution No. 91-5 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A VARIANCE TO EXCEED THE GRADING STANDARDS FOR MAXIMUM FILL SLOPES AND GRANTING SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL IN ZONING CASE NO. 434. was approved and adopted at a regular adjourned meeting of the Planning Commission on April 6, 1991 by the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS FROST, HANKINS, 'LAY, RAINE AND CHAIRMAN ROBERTS NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE n0.0ti9.-r- DEPUTY. CITY CLER • For Recorder's use 91:: 620035 RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND MAIL TO: CITY OF ROLLING HILLS 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 RECORDED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS RECORDER'S OFFICE LOS ANGELES COUNTY CALIFORNIA MIN.. 2 P,M.APR 30 1991 PAST. Please record this form with the Registrar -Recorder's return to: City of Rolling Hills 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 (The Registrar -Recorder's Office requires that before recordation..),--: -Acceptance Form STATE OF CALIFORNIA ).ss COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. VARIANCE CASE NO. SITE PLAN REVIEU CASE NO. I (We) the undersigned state: Office and JFEE$7 2 the form be notarized ° ••try :.; I am (We are) the owner(s). of the real property:4described as follows: O 6_---LorzT> /=/-\COGS ( — /U This property is the subject of the above numbered I.am (We are) aware of, and accept, all the stated Conditional Use Permit Case No. Variance Case No. Site Plan Review Case No. 434 434 cases. conditions in said 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.) TO 1944 CA (9-84) (Individual) STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF f�.c.)5 4(0 (-I: LOS On P/� / G said State, personally appeared 7) J n/ A /.�� Tvve_or—mint j TICOR TITLE INSURANCE ss. before , personally known to me or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person_ whose name / 5 subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged that shP exe- cuted the same. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature/'� -� g i�'- - U me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and /A1,-1 /- /1 C OFFICIAL SEAL DOUGLAS K. MC HATTIE Notary Public -California LOS ANGELES COUNTY My Comm. Exp. Sep. 15, 1992 for ..uLai.y puo.ic. Attach appropriate acknowledgement. (This area for official notarial seal) ltttsiSa�3aa � the �cord 1110 copy teseal,�©KI(t0dlip he RegStrar Recorder 01 1991 AQ� 30 R�OdRpRit " u1• �arrt CAuFORNIA 1.OS ANGLE 9 '702'732 Its, For Recorder's use • RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND MAIL TO: CITY OF ROLLING HILLS 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274, RECORDED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS RECORDER'S OFFICE LOS ANGELES COUNTY CALIFORNIA 1 MIN' J. P.M. MAY 14 1991 PAST. Please record this form with the Registrar -Recorder's Office and return to: j FEE- $7 City of Rolling Hills 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 (The Registrar -Recorder's Office requires that the form be notarized before recordation.). • Acceptance Form STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ss COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. VARIANCE CASE NO. SITE PLAN REVIEU CASE NO. 434 66e0.A/o.9i-0 I (We) the undersigned state: I am (We are) the owner(s). of the real property described as follows: L_ o -7 E /.2C-�o,t2 P Or- Sv g 5) S S /26C7L5 6 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. 434 Site Plan Review Case No. 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 \ W W stS Address(20 O()--ER. 11)� 2D City, State V!,(9 L-4_1)4 (9 4) (1_5 Signature 6-4 E7/ f / V Owner Name Address City, State Signature This signature must be acknowledged by a notary public. Attach appropriate acknowledgement. 77:1. I UJ6 C. TO 1944 CA (9-84) (Individual) STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF Los ,iN On / "/F/ S 4-I /9 9 / said State, personally appeared ✓ O i 1 ") 1 J TICOR TITIE''INSURANCE before me, the' un'dersigned, a Notary. Public c /-/• , personally known to me or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person_ whose name /S subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged that bP exe- cuted the same. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature / v in and for OFFICIAL SEAL DOUGLAS K MC HATTIE Notary Public-Caf fomla LOS ANKH F8 COUNTY My Comm. Exp. Sep. 15,1992 (This area for official notarial seal) • RESOLUTION NO. 91-4 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A VARIANCE TO DEVELOP A DRIVEWAY IN THE SIDE YARD SETBACK EXCEEDING THE 20% YARD COVERAGE REQUIREMENT, GRANTING A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH INTO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK TO CONSTRUCT A RETAINING WALL, AND GRANTING A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH WITHIN THE SIDE YARD SETBACK TO CONSTRUCT A RETAINING WALL IN ZONING CASE NO. 434. THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. An application was duly filed by Mr. John Rich with respect to real property located at 20 Outrider Road, Rolling Hills (Lots 78-EF and 95-B-EF) requesting: (1) a Variance to develop a driveway in the side yard setback exceeding the 20% yard coverage requirement by 56.7%, totalling 76.7% to construct a 6,480 square foot roadway to allow ingress and egress to an adjacent property at 24 Outrider Road (Lot 96-SK); (2) a Variance to encroach into the front yard setback to construct a retaining wall; and (3) a Variance to encroach within the side yard setback to construct a retaining wall. The driveway was cut prior to the application. Proper grading permits were approved on December 14, 1990. Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the application on June 19, 1990. The applicant thereafter submitted an expanded request which the Planning Commission considered at a duly noticed public hearing held on July 17, 1990, August 21, 1990, September 18, 1990, October 16, 1990, November 20, 1990, December 18, 1990, January 15, 1991, February 19, 1991 and March 19, 1991 and at a field trip visit on August 4, 1990. 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 a parcel of property to the same extent enjoyed by similar properties. Section 17.28.022 paragraph (2) allows driveways leading to a garage or other parking area to be permitted in a required yard provided the driveway and parking area do not exceed twenty percent (20%) of the area of the yard in which they are located. With regard to this request, the Planning Commission makes the following findings: A. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances and conditions applicable to the property and the intended use that do not apply generally to the other property in the same vicinity and zone. The Variance is necessary because access to the property at • • RESOLUTION NO. 91-4 PAGE 2 24 Outrider Road can only occur across the property at 20 Outrider Road. In order to minimize the impact on 20 Outrider Road, a driveway has been placed 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 the property in question. The Variance is necessary because of the inability of practical methods of accessing the lot at 24 Outrider Road from Eastfield Drive. C. The granting of the Variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which the property is located. The Variance will have no impact on surrounding properties due to distances between the driveway and residences. Section 4. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves the Variance to exceed the 20% yard coverage requirements for the construction of a driveway leading to 24 Outrider Road as indicated on the Development Plan attached hereto as Exhibit A, subject to the conditions specified in Section 9 below. Section 5. Section 17.28.022 requires that yards be maintained unoccupied from the ground up of any structures. The applicant is requesting a Variance for encroachment into the 50 foot front yard setback to construct a retaining wall in connection with a proposed driveway leading to 24 Outrider Road. The Planning Commission finds as follows: A. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances and conditions applicable to the property and the intended use that do not apply generally to the other property in the same vicinity and zone. The Variance is necessary because access to the property at 24 Outrider Road can only occur across the property at 20 Outrider Road. In order to minimize the impact on 20 Outrider Road, a driveway has been placed 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 the property in question. The Variance is necessary because of the inability of practical methods of accessing the lot at 24 Outrider Road from Eastfield Drive. C. The granting of the Variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which the property is located. The Variance will have no impact on surrounding RESOLUTION NO. 91-4 PAGE 3 properties due to distances between the driveway and residences. Section 6. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves the Variance to encroach into the front yard setback to construct a retaining wall 15 feet into the front yard setback not to exceed 5 feet in height at any one point along the driveway as indicated on the Development Plan attached hereto as Exhibit A, subject to the conditions specified in Section 9 below. Section 7. The applicant is also requesting a Variance for encroachment into the 20 foot side yard setback to construct a retaining wall in connection with the proposed driveway leading to 24 Outrider Road. The Planning Commission finds as follows: A. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances and conditions applicable to the property and the intended use that do not apply generally to the other property in the same vicinity and zone. The Variance is necessary because access to the property at 24 Outrider Road can only occur across the property at 20 Outrider Road. In order to minimize the impact on 20 Outrider Road, a driveway has been placed 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, bit which is denied the property in question. The Variance is necessary because of the inability of practical methods of accessing the lot at 24 Outrider Road from Eastfield Drive. C. The granting of the Variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which the property is located. The Variance will have no impact on surrounding properties due to distances between the driveway and residences. Section 8. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves the Variance to encroach into the side yard setback to construct a retaining wall 20 feet into the side yard setback not to exceed 5 feet in height at any one point as indicated on the Development Plan attached hereto as Exhibit A, subject to the conditions specified in Section 9. Section 9. The approvals specified in Sections 4, 6, and 8 are based upon the following conditions: A. The Variance shall expire unless used within one year from the effective date of approval as defined in Section 17.32.110 of the Municipal Code. RESOLUTION NO. 91-4 PAGE 4 B. It is declared and made a condition of the Variance approvals that if any conditions are violated, the Permit 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 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 retaining wall incorporated into the front and side yard setbacks shall not be greater than five (5) feet in height at any point along the driveway. E. The driveway and retaining walls shall be screened and and shielded from view with native vegetation to minimize the view from the residence at 20 Outrider. F. No scraping of terrain shall be permitted. G. All slopes that are disturbed by the grading of the driveway shall be planted with native drought -resistant vegetation. H. 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. I. The applicant shall execute an Affidavit of Acceptance of all conditions of this Variance, pursuant to Section 17.32.087, or the approval shall not be effective. J. All conditions of this Variance approval must be complied with prior to the issuance of a building or grading permit from the County of Los Angeles. RESOLUTION NO. 91-4 PAGE 5 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 4,TH DAY OF APRIL, 1991. ALLAN ROBERTS, CHAIRMAN ATTEST: DIANE SAW'i'ER, DEPUTY CY CLERK Resolution No. 91-4 Page 6 The foregoing Resolution No. 91-4 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A VARIANCE TO DEVELOP A DRIVEWAY IN THE SIDE YARD SETBACK EXCEEDING THE 20% YARD COVERAGE REQUIREMENT, GRANTING A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH INTO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK TO CONSTRUCT A RETAINING WALL, AND GRANTING A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH WITHIN THE SIDE YARD SETBACK TO CONSTRUCT A RETAINING WALL, IN ZONING CASE NO. 434. was approved and adopted at a regular adjourned meeting of the Planning Commission on April 6, 1991 by the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS FROST, HANKINS, LAY, RAINE AND CHAIRMAN ROBERTS NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE DEPUTY YIfTY CLERK