Loading...
504, Construct a 6 ft by 12 ft unde, Resolutions & Approval ConditionsSTATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES Oi! 04/04/94 before me, *Ain PERRETT*personal y appeared *HARTHA T TUFEi I * OFFICIAL SEAL AMY PERRETT NOTAR" PUBLIC - CALIFORNIA PRINCIPAL OFFICE IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY My Commission Exp. Apr. 5, 1994 maw- - v=-t'' Official Notarial Seal This certificate must be attached to the document described at right. Title or Type of Document Number of Pages Signer(s) Other Than Named Above Capacity Claimed By Signer: Individual(s) , notary public, 94 152 7503 proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authori-Z:,d capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. Witness my hand and official seal. Signature of Notary: ACCEPiTatifrboj 04/04/94 p/f ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT LE 76 (10191) P State of County of SEP ^.3 1994 CITY. OF: ROLLING HILLS, RECORDING RftrtnED BY AND D MAIL TO: CITY OF ROLLING HILLS 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 94-152'7503.. RECORDED/FILED IN OFFICIAL REC OflW-1 RECORDER'S OFFiCE- LOS ANGELES COUNTY .l • CALIFORNIA Lit WP p 5T 8 A,M. AUG 18 1994 Please record this form with the Reg � :. f:� "l�L '� oftlue did return to: City of Rolling Hills, 2 Port.u'guese Bend,Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 (The Registrar -Recorder's Office requires that •the form be notarized before recordation). ACCEPTANCE FORM STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ZONING CASE NO. ss 504 SITE PLAN REVIEW VARIANCE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT I (We) the undersigned state: I am (We are) the owner(s) of the real follows: t' 22 I .6 property described as 76 Eastfield Drive (Lot 120-A-EF) Rolling Hills, CA 90274 This property is the Subject of the above numbered cases. I am said (We are) aware of, and accept, all the stated conditions in ZONING CASE NO. 504 X SITE PLAN REVIEW VARIANCE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT I (We) certify (or declare) under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Print Owner Name Signatur Address /;:o<i t=�G 4/7 City/State /179//i// /4//e- Print —�-- .c.�"/,' _ iyOwnerA14/2 ✓/1 T. !Gi fFL� ame Siature%��/�1,// / ,_�,// / Address � City/ StatejF1o//,//,t/c; Signatures must be acknowledged by a notary public. SS. On this the day of 19 , before me, the undersigned Notary Public, personally appeared personally known to me proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose names) within instrument, and acknowledp,,Id th%t WITNESS my hand and official seal. Notary's Signature subscribed trgtrie exec,:;td. ;t. ..v.,-..-.i...rr.rr.+.-.�.�rr�rrr��1.141"S.P.C�'..-Jfid Cr See Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPO ACKNOWLEDGMENT No. 5907 1. I - State of iltli teb, i County of L0f. Angeb; t .. ..i - On apil b) i'q z-i before me, ( /?lam 44 //a/r1567j, A Oize DATE NAME, TITLE OF OFFICER - E.G., "JANE DOE, NOTAFW. JBLIC' -A personally appeared i personally known to me - OR - ❑ proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence l to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are i Asubscribed to the within instrument and ac- knowledged to me that he/she/they executed + the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their k 1 signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), t Can 1 or the entity upon behalf of which the A saki person(s) acted, executed the instrument. k can 1 DONNA M. HANSON A. I z NofQry° I� C�� z WITNESS my han and official seal. LOS ANGELES COUNTY is 1 •r.- ,., k MY Comm. E res MAY 2s. 1 �� �1'L 61GL % CTi I, iSIGIVA� OF NOTARY k i • i OPTIONAL , • l 1 i i< Though the data below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and could prevent k 1 fraudulent reattachment of this form. L i CAPACITY CLAIMED BY SIGNER DESCRIPTION OF ATTACHED DOCUMENT k 1 t ae2/0fzc�t C� /Yr l__ i 1 IfITLE OR TYPE OF DOCUMENT k TITLE(S) ICJ INDIVIDUAL ❑ CORPORATE OFFICER ❑ PARTNER(S) loom L., Tu$ L ❑ LIMITED ❑ GENERAL ❑ ATTORNEY -IN -FACT ❑ TRUSTEE(S) ❑ GUARDIAN/CONSERVATOR ❑ OTHER: 1 SIGNER IS REPRESENTING: NAME OF PERSON(S) OR ENTITY(IES) 1 1 t �..�.��a��r�a...�•;, ram. NAME(S) OF SIGNER(S) NUMBER OF PAGES DATE OF DOCUMENT SIGNER(S) OTHER THAN NAMED ABOVE ©1993 NATIONAL NOTARY ASSOCIATION • 8236 Remmet Ave., P.O. Box 7184 • Canoga Park, CA 91309-7184 it z ,11 • RESOLUTION NO. 94-8 q/i 3 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL FOR A PREVIOUSLY CONSTRUCTED SEMI -SUBTERRANEAN STORAGE BUILDING IN ZONING CASE NO. 504. 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'. and Hrs. Don L. Tuffli, with respect to real property located at 76 Eastfield Drive (Lot 120-A-EF) requesting Site Plan Review for a previously constructed semi -subterranean storage building. Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the application for Site Plan Review on January 18, 1994 and February 15, 1994, and at a field trip on February 5, 1994. Section 3. The Planning Commission finds that the project is categorically exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to a Class 3 exemption provided by Section 15303 of the State CEQA Guidelines. Section 4. 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 5. 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 proposed development complies with the Zoning Ordinance because the Planning Commission found that the storage building was in the side yard of this irregular -shaped lot and thus, complied with the 20 foot side yard setback requirement by being more than 20 feet from the property line and 12 feet from the easement line. The project conforms to Zoning Code setback and lot coverage requirements. The lot has a net square foot area of 62,965 square feet. The residence (4,593 sq.ft.), garage (874 sq.ft.), swimming pool (1,100 sq.ft.), proposed semi -subterranean storage building (72 sq.ft.) and stable (1,344 sq.ft.), will have 7,983 square feet which constitutes 12.6% of the lot which is within the maximum 20% structural lot coverage requirement. The total lot coverage including paved areas and driveway will be 14,161 square feet. The • • RESOLUTION NO. 94-8 PAGE 2 percentages of total lot coverage including the proposed semi - subterranean storage building equals 22.5% which is within the 35% maximum overall lot coverage requirement. The proposed project is on a relatively large lot with most of the semi -subterranean storage building imbedded in the hillside and located away from the road so as to reduce the visual' impact of the development and is similar and compatiblewith 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 i-ncluding surrounding native vegetation, mature trees, drainage courses, and land forms (such as hillsides and knolls) and grading will be minimal to minimize building coverage on the building pad itself. The storage building is imbedded in the hillside and will conform with the site design.. 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 supplements it with landscaping that is compatible with and 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 structure will not cause the structural and total lot coverage to be exceeded. Significant portions of the lot, will be left undeveloped so as to minimize the impact of development. F. The proposed development is harmonious in scale and mass with, the cite, the natural terrain and surrounding residences because as indicated in Paragraph A, lot coverage maximums will not be exceeded and the proposed project is of consistent scale with the neighborhood, thereby grading will be required 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. 94 152'7503 • • RESOLUTION NO. 94-8 PAGE 3 Section 6. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves the Site Plan Review for a semi - subterranean storage building as indicated on the Development Plan attached hereto as Exhibit A subject to the conditions contained in Section 7. Section 7. The Site Plan Review for a semi -subterranean storage building approved in Section 6 as indicated on the Development Plan attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A, is subject to the following conditions: A. The Site Plan Review approval shall expire within one year from theeffective date of approval as defined in Section 17.46.080(A). B. It is declared and made a condition of the Site Plan Review approval, that if any conditions thereof are violated, the evD approval shall be suspended and the privileges granted thereunder C7 shall lapse; provided that the applicant has been given written Lt" notice to cease such violation and has failed to do so for a period of thirty (30) days. Cq C. All requirements of the Building and Construction Ordinance, the Zoning Ordinance, and of the zone in which the qa subject property is located must be complied with unless otherwise Cr) approved by Variance. 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. Existing shrubs and trees above and around the proposed semi -subterranean storage building along Eastfield Drive shall be retained and maintained during and following construction. F. Coverage on the approximately 23,800 square feet residential building pad shall not exceed 27.9%. 1 G. 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. 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. 6 • RESOLUTION N0. 94-8 PAGE 4 - I. The applicant shall execute an Affidavit of Acceptance of all conditions of this Site Plan Review or the approval shall not be effective. J. All conditions of this 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 TH ATTEST: LI:? OF MARCH, 1993. ALLAN ROBERTS, CHAIRMAN MARILYN KER , DEPUTY CITY CLERK STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ). ) ss I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 94-8 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL FOR A PREVIOUSLY CONSTRUCTED SEMI -SUBTERRANEAN STORAGE BUILDING IN ZONING CASE NO. 504. was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on March 15, 1994 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Hankins, Raine and.Chairman Roberts NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Lay ABSTAIN: Commissioner Frost and in compliance with the laws -..of California was posted at the following: Administrative Offices 94 1527503 k r-- DEPUTY CITY CLERK