Loading...
504, Construct a 6 ft by 12 ft unde, Correspondence• • Ci4fo/ R0f1 iijfd CERTIFIED MAIL March 18, 1994 Mr. and Mrs. Don L. Tuffli 76 Eastfield Drive Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Tuffli: INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377.1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 SUBJECT: APPEAL PERIOD AND AFFIDAVIT OF ACCEPTANCE FORM ZONING CASE NO. 504, 76 EASTFIELD DRIVE (LOT 120-A-EF) RESOLUTION NO. 94-8 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Tuffli: This letter shall serve as official notification that Zoning Case No. 504 was APPROVED by the Planning Commission and the enclosed resolution was approved on March 15, 1994 at a regular meeting. The Planning Commission's decision will be reported to the City Council at their regular meeting on March 28, 1994. The approval will become effective: (1) Thirty (30) days after adoption of the Planning Commission's resolution if no appeals are filed within that time period (Section 17.54.010(B) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code attached), AND (2) An Affidavit of Acceptance Form and the subject resolution must be filed by you with the County Recorder. We have enclosed a copy of RESOLUTION NO. 94-8, specifying the conditions of approval set forth by the Planning Commission and the approved Exhibit A Development Plan to keep for your files. Once you have reviewed the Resolution, please complete the enclosed AFFIDAVIT OF ACCEPTANCE FORM, have the signature(s) notarized, and forward the completed form and the Resolution to: Los Angeles County Registrar -Recorder Real Estate Records Section 12400 East Imperial Highway Norwalk, CA 90650 Include a check in the amount of $5.00 for the first page and $3.00 for each additional page. y? Printed on Recycled Paper. PAGE 2 The City will notify the Los Angeles County Building & Safety Division to issue permits only when the Affidavit of Acceptance is received by us and any conditions of the Resolution required prior to issuance of building permits are met. Please feel free to call me at (310) 377-1521 if you have any questions. OL UNGAR PRINCIPAL PLANER ENCLOSURES: RESOLUTION NO. 94-8, EXHIBIT A DEVELOPMENT PLAN, AFFIDAVIT OF ACCEPTANCE FORM, AND APPEAL SECTION OF THE ROLLING HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE. • RESOLUTION NO. 94-8 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 Mrs. 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 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) 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 site, 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. • • 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 the effective 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 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 Building and Construction Ordinance, the Zoning Ordinance, and of the zone in which the subject property is located must be complied with unless otherwise 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%. 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. RESOLUTION NO. 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: C\ 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 DEPUTY CITY CLERK 17.54.010 17.54 APPEALS 17.54.010 Time for Filing Appeals A. All actions of the Planning Commission authorized by this Title may be appealed to the City Council. All appeals shall be filed in writing with the City Clerk. B. All appeals must be filed on or before the 30th calendar day after adoption of the Planning Commission's resolution on the project or application. Application fees shall be paid as required by Section 1730.030 of this Title. C. Within 30 days after the Planning Commission adopts a resolution which approves or denies a development application, the City Clerk shall place the resolution as a report item on -the City Council's agenda. The City Council may, by an affirmative vote of three members, take jurisdiction over the application. In the event the City Council takes jurisdiction over the application, the Planning Commission's decision will be stayed until the City Council completes its proceedings in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter. 17.54.020 Persons Authorized to File an Appeal Any person, including the City Manager, may appeal a decision of the Planning Commission to the City Council, in accordance with the terms of this Chapter. 17.54.030 Form, Content, and Deficiencies in an Appeal Application A. All appeals shall be filed in writing with the City Clerk er. form or forms provided by the City Clerk. No appeal sir be considered filed until the required appeal fee has be received by the City Clerk. B. The appeal application shall state, at a minimum, I', and address of the appellant, the project and actin.:: appealed, and the reasons why the appellant bepb,.:.. the Planning Commission erred or abused its d3c:x why the Planning Commission's decision is not sup - evidence in the record. 76 17.54.030• If the appeal application is found to be deficient, the City Clerk shall deliver or mail (by certified mail), to the appellant a notice specifying the reasons why the appeal is deficient. The appellant shall correct the deficiency with an amendment to the appeal form within seven calendar days of receiving the deficiency notice. Otherwise, the appeal application will be deemed withdrawn, and the appeal fee will be returned to the applicant. 17.54.040 Request for Information Upon receipt of a written and complete appeal application and fee, the City Clerk shall direct the Planning Commission Secretary to transmit to the City Council the complete record of the entire proceeding before the Planning Commission. 17.54.050 Scheduling of Appeal Hearing Upon receiving an appeal, the City Clerk shall set the appeal for a hearing before the City Council to occur within 20 days of the filing of the appeal. In the event that more than one appeal is filed for the same project, the Clerk shall schedule all appeals to be heard at the same time. 17.54.060 Proceedings A. Noticing The hearing shall be noticed as required by Section 17.30.030 of this Title. In addition, the following parties shall be noticed: 1. 2. The applicant of the proposal being appealed; The appellant; and 3. Any person who provided oral testimony or written comments to the Planning Commission during or as part of the public hearing on the project. B. Hearing The City Council shall conduct a public hearing pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 17.34 of this Title. The Council shall consider all information in the record, as well as additional information presented at the appeal hearing, before taking action on the appeal. 77 ROLLING HILLS ZONING MAY 24, 1993 • • 17.54.060 C. Action The Council may act to uphold, overturn, or otherwise modify the Planning Commission's original action on the proposal, or the Council may remand the application back to the Planning Commission for further review and direction. The Council shall make findings to support its decision. D. Finality of Decision The action of the City Council to approve, conditionally approve, or deny an application shall be final and conclusive. E. Record of Proceedings The decision of the City Council shall be set forth in full in a resolution or ordinance. A copy of the decision shall be sent to the applicant or the appellant. 17.54.070 Statute of Limitations Any action challenging a final administrative order or decision by the City made as a result of a proceeding in which by law a hearing is required to be given,evidence is required to be taken, and discretign,.;regarding a final and non -appealable determination of facts is rested in the City of Rolling Hills, the City Council, or in any of its Commissions, officers, or employees, must be filed within the time limits set forth in the California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1094.6 78 ROLLING HILLS ZONING MAY 24, 1993 RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND MAIL TO: Recorder's Use CITY OF ROLLING HILLS 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 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 that the form be notarized before recordation). ACCEPTANCE FORM STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss ZONING CASE NO. 504 SITE PLAN REVIEW X VARIANCE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT I (We) the undersigned state: I am (We are) the owner(s) of the real property described as follows: 76 Eastfield Drive (Lot 120-A-EF) Rolling Hills, CA 90274 This property is the subject of the above numbered cases. I am (We are) aware of, and accept, all the stated conditions in said 504 X ZONING CASE NO. 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 Print Owner Owner Name Name Signature Signature Address Address City/State. City/State Signatures must be acknowledged by a notary public. State of County of 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 name(s) within instrument, and acknowledged that WITNESS my hand and official seal. Notary's Signature subscribed to the executed it. See Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof 410 C1i o/ /f/t " JUL FIELD TRIP NOTICE January 21, 1994 Mr. and Mrs. Don L. Tuffli 76 Eastfield Drive Rolling Hills, CA 90274 INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377.1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 SUBJECT: Zoning Case No. 504: Request for Site Plan Review to permit a previously constructed semi -subterranean storage building for property at 76 Eastfield Drive, Rolling Hills, CA; more precisely, Lot 120-A-EF. Dear Mr. and Mrs. Tuffli: We have arranged for the Planning Commission to conduct a field inspection of your property to view a silhouette of the proposed project on Saturday, February 5, 1994. The Planning Commission will meet at 7:30 AM at 1 Buggy Whip Drive for a time and then proceed to the scheduled project sites. Do not expect the Commission at 7:30 AM, but be assured that the field trip will take place before 11 AM. The owner and/or representative should be present to answer any questions regarding the proposal. Feel free to call me at (310) 377-1521 if you have any questions. Sincerely, PRINCIPAL PLANNER Printed on Recycled Paper. • City o/Ro//ins. Jh// STATUS OF APPLICATION December 29, 1993 Mr. and Mrs. Don L. Tuffli 76 Eastfield Drive Rolling Hills, CA 90274 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF, 90274 (310) 377•1521 FAX: (310) 377.7288 SUBJECT: Zoning Case No. 504, Request for, Site Plan Review to permit a previously constructed semi -subterranean storage building at 76 Eastfield Drive (Lot 120-A-EF) Dear Mr. and Mrs. Tuffli: Pursuant to state law the City's staff has completed a preliminary review of the application noted above and finds that the information submitted is: X Suffici.ently complete as of the date indicated above to allow the application to be processed. Please note that the City may require further information in order to clarify, amplify, correct, or otherwise supplement the application. If the City requires such additional information, it is strongly suggested that you supply that information promptly to avoid any delay in the processing of the application. Additional Information/Requirements: 1. Submitted plans must be stamped by a licensed civil engineer or land surveyor. 2. Code requires that cut and fill be balanced. Where is fill located? Provide Amount of cut Provide Amount of fill cu,yds. cu.yds. 3. Provide clear detail of topography in storage area location. Your application for Zoning Case No. 504 has been set for public hearing consideration by the Planning Commission at their meeting on Tuesday, January 18, 1994. The meeting will begin at 7:30 PM in the Council Chambers, Rolling Hills City Hall Administration Building, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills. You or your designated representative must attend to present your project and to answer questions. �L+F''nnl('+YI nn i'2 r1GVCla�r'i Foa t'r�r. • • PAGE 2 The staff report for this project will be available at the City Hall after 3:00 PM on Friday, January 14, 1994. Please arrange to pick up the staff report to preview it prior to the hearing. Please call me at (310) 377-1521 if you have any questions. Sincerely, :/Z6z LOLA M. UNGA PRINCIPAL PLANNING