513, Construction for new SFR, Resolutions & Approval Conditions•
RESOLUTION NO. 94-11
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A VARIANCE TO
ENCROACH INTO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK TO
CONSTRUCT A RETAINING WALL, GRANTING A
VARIANCE TO ENCROACH INTO THE SIDE YARD SETBACK
TO CONSTRUCT A RETAINING WALL, AND GRANTING
SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL OF A NEW RESIDENTIAL
STRUCTURE IN ZONING CASE NO. 513, SUBJECT TO
SPECIFIED CONDITIONS.
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. Richard Colyear with respect to real
property located at 0 Chestnut Lane, Rolling Hills (Lot 241-A-1-MS) requesting a Variance to
encroach into the front yard setback to construct a retaining wall, requesting a Variance to encroach
into the side yard setback to construct a retaining wall, and requesting Site Plan Review for a new
single family residence.
Section 2. On March 28, 1992, the Planning Commission approved Resolution No.
92-15 granting a Variance to encroach into the front yard setback to construct a retaining wall and
granting Site Plan Review approval of a new residential structure in Zoning Case No. 458. Those
approvals were extended for one year by approval of Resolution No. 93-14 on March 16, 1993.
Pursuant to Rolling Hills Municipal Code Section 17.46.080(B)(3) of the Zoning Code, no
extension period shall be granted beyond the second anniversary of the original project approval
unless a new public hearing is held. And, any extension granted beyond the second anniversary
of original approval may only be granted or denied in the same manner and based upon the same
criteria as required for approval of the original project. The applicant has submitted this request for
a further extension of theVariance and Site Plan Review and has requested an additional Variance
to construct a retaining wall in the side yard setback.
Section 3. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to
consider the application on April 18,1994. The applicant was notified of the hearing in writing by
first class mail and through the City's newsletter. The applicant's representative, Mr. Douglas
McHattie of South Bay Engineering, was in attendance at the hearing.
Section 4. The Planning Commission finds that the project qualifies as a Class 3
Exemption (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15303 (a)) and is therefore categorically exempt from
environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act.
Section 5. Sections 17.38.010 through 17.38.050 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code
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 in the same vicinity. Section 17.16.110 requires a
front yard setback for every residential parcel to be fifty (50) feet. The applicant is requesting to
construct a retaining wall with a maximum height of five (5) feet above the downslope grade, a
maximum length of 296 feet, which will encroach a maximum of fifty (50) feet into the fifty (50)
foot front yard setback.
Section 6. With respect to this request for a Variance, the Planning Commission finds
as follows:
RESOLUTION NO. 94-11 •
PAGE 2
A. There are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances and conditions applicable to
the property or to the intended use that do not apply generally to the other property or class of use
in the same zone because there exists topographical constraints on the property that necessitate the
construction of a retaining wall in order to construct a vehicular driveway onto the property.
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 because of the steep slope on the lot which necessitates a retaining wall to
support the slope bank next to the proposed driveway.
C. The granting of the Variance would not be materially detrimental to the public
welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the
property is located because the proposed project will be compatible with surrounding properties
and will be comparable to the height and nature of an existing retaining wall along the northern
edge of the property.
Section 7. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby
approves the Variance for Zoning Case No. 513 to permit the encroachment of a retaining wall into
the front yard setback, to a maximum height of five feet (5'), a maximum length of 296 feet and
with a maximum encroachment of fifty feet (50') into the front yard setback, as indicated on the
development plan submitted with this application and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit
A, subject to the conditions specified in Section 16 of this Resolution.
Section 8. Section 17.16.120(B)(1) requires a side yard of 35 feet in the RA-S-2
residential zone. The applicant is requesting to construct a retaining wall with a maximum height of
five (5) feet above the downslope grade, a maximum length of 155 feet, which will encroach a
maximum of sixteen (16) feet into the thirty-five (35) foot side yard setback.
Section 9. With respect to this request for a Variance, the Planning Commission finds
as follows:
A. There are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances and conditions applicable to
the property or to the intended use that do not apply generally to the other property or class of use
in the same zone because there exists topographical constraints on the property that necessitate the
construction of a retaining wall in order to construct a vehicular driveway onto the property.
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 because of the steep slope on the lot which necessitates a retaining wall to
support the slope bank next to the proposed driveway.
C. The granting of the Variance would not be materially detrimental to the public
welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the
property is located because the proposed project will be compatible with surrounding properties
and will be comparable to the height and nature of an existing retaining wall along the northern
edge of the property.
Section 10. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby
approves the Variance for Zoning Case No. 513 to permit the encroachment of a retaining wall into
the side yard setback, to a maximum height of five feet (5'), a maximum length of 155 feet and
with a maximum encroachment of sixteen feet (16') into the thirty-five foot (35') side yard setback,
as indicated on the development plan submitted with this application and incorporated herein by
reference as Exhibit A, subject to the conditions specified in Section 16 of this Resolution.
RESOLUTION NO. 94-11
PAGE 3
Section 11. Section 17.46.020 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 or structures, which involve changes to grading
or an increase in 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, may be permitted.
Section 12. With respect to the Site Plan Review application, the Planning
Commission makes the following findings of fact:
A. The proposed development, as modified by the conditions of approval, 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 87,120 square feet. The proposed residence (1,674 sq. ft.), garage (350 sq. ft.), and future
stable (450 sq.ft.) will have 2,510 square feet which constitutes 2.9% of the lot which is within the
maximum 20% structural lot coverage requirement. The total lot coverage including paved areas
and driveway will be 11,470 square feet which equals 13.2% of the lot, which is within the 35%
maximum overall lot coverage requirement.
B. The proposed development, as modified by the conditions of approval, 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).
C. The development plan, as modified by the conditions of approval, follows natural
contours of the site to minimize grading and the natural drainage courses will continue to the
canyons at the northwest side of this lot.
D. The development plan will, in compliance with the conditions contained in this
Resolution, supplement the existing vegetation with landscaping that is compatible with and
enhances the rural character of the community.
E. The development plan, as modified by the conditions of approval, 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 of 12,000 square feet and a building pad coverage of
17.7%.
F. The proposed development, as modified by the conditions of approval, is
harmonious in scale and mass with the site, the natural terrain and surrounding residences. As
indicated in Paragraph E, the lot coverage maximum will not be exceeded and the proposed project
is consistent with the scale of the neighborhood. Modifications have been made to reduce the
prominence of the house on the lot by moving the structure away from the edge of the building
pad. The ratio of the proposed structure to lot coverage is similar to or less than the ratio found on
several properties in the vicinity.
G. The proposed development, as modified by the conditions of approval, is sensitive
and not detrimental to convenience and safety of circulation for pedestrians and vehicles because
conditions have been imposed to place the driveway so as to intersect with Chestnut Lane at a point
which is farther away from the corner of Chestnut Lane and Johns Canyon Road than as originally
shown on the proposed Site Plan.
RESOLUTION NO. 94-11
PAGE 4
H. The project conforms with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality
Act and is categorically exempt from environmental review.
Section 13. The Commission finds that it has authority to impose conditions of
approval on this discretionary land use decision pursuant to the City's police power, the State
Planning and Zoning Law, City ordinances and California Government Code Section 66499.34.
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 66499.34, the City is precluded from granting
any approval necessary to develop any real property which has been divided, or which has resulted
from a division, in violation of the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act or of the provisions of
local ordinances enacted by the City if it finds that development of such real property is contrary to
the public health or the public safety. California Government Code Section 66499.34 also
authorizes the City, with respect to parcels of real property created in violation of the Subdivision
Map Act or local ordinances that are under the ownership of the same person who was the record
owner of the property at the time the violation occurred, to impose such conditions as would be
applicable to a current division of the property, except that a conditional certificate of compliance
has been filed for record, then the City may only impose such conditions stipulated in that
certificate.
Section 14. With respect to the requirements of California Government Section
66499.34, and for purposes of showing a nexus between the provisions of condition "K" of
Section 16 and the need for that condition, the Planning Commission finds as follows:
A. Richard Colyear was a record owner of the subject property at the time of its
subdivision in 1970.
B. In 1970, as a condition of tentative map approval of the tract, certain perimeter
easements were imposed for bridle trails, road and public utilities to be reserved for the benefit of
the Rolling Hills Community Association in documents to be recorded. The parcel that is the
subject of this application is a part of that tract. The requirement that these perimeter easements be
reserved by document was denoted by the applicant on the final map approved and recorded for the
tract. However, the applicant has never recorded any of the easements imposed by his conditional
subdivision approval.
C. The City's Sanitary Sewer Feasibility Study, prepared by ASL Consulting
Engineers on February 9, 1988, recommends the installation of future sewer lines to service the
immediate vicinity of parcel to be constructed along the westerly property line of Parcel 2 (Lot 2),
along the boundary line of proposed Parcels 1 and 2 and then along the easterly property line of
Parcel 1 (Lot 1) (See Map 13 of 22 to the ASL Study). Based upon this Study and the need to
provide for the future installation of sewers to serve the property which is the subject of this
application and to serve properties in the immediate vicinity of the subject property, conditions
have been attached to require the applicant to record an easement to the City (to be immediately
transferred to the Rolling Hills Community Association) for ingress and egress purposes to
construct underground utilities along those portions of the properties described above.
D. The Planning Commission further finds that the required easements will serve and
benefit the subject property by providing an accessway for the installation and maintenance of
underground utilities to serve the site. The easement will allow the construction of underground
sewer lines along the side of the property to serve the property and provide an alternative to the use
of septic systems on this lot and on surrounding lots. This alternative method of sewage disposal
is preferable from a geologic standpoint since this lot is on a slope and the use of septic systems in
the City have occasionally resulted in slope stability problems and have occasionally failed.
E. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66499.34, only by the imposition of
condition "K" of Section 16 to address the applicant's original violation of subdivision approval
can the Planning Commission properly approve the application for Site Plan Review.
RESOLUTION NO. 94-11 0
PAGE 5
Section 15. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby
approves the Site Plan Review application for Zoning Case No. 513 for a proposed residential
development as indicated on the development plan incorporated herein as Exhibit A, subject to the
conditions contained in Section 16 of this Resolution.
Section 16. The Variance to the front yard setback approved in Section 7, the Variance
to the side yard setback approved in Section 10, and the Site Plan Review for residential
development approved in Section 15 of this Resolution are subject to the following conditions:
A. The Variances and Site Plan Review approvals shall expire within one year from the
effective date of approval as defined in Section 17.38.070.
B. It is declared and made a condition of the Site Plan Review approval, 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 dated March 24,1994 and marked Exhibit A, except as otherwise provided in these
conditions.
E. The working drawings submitted to the County Department of Building and Safety
for plan check review must include a 550 square foot corral and must conform to the development
plan approved with this application.
F. Grading shall be limited so that the amount of soil displaced to construct the
building pad shall not exceed 4000 cubic yards of soil. Cut and fill slopes shall not exceed a
steepness of a 2 to 1 slope ratio. The grading plan shall utilize land form or contour grading
techniques in its design so as to create a building pad and slopes that blend with the horizontal and
vertical contours of the natural terrain.
G. The building pad coverage shall not exceed 17.7%.
H. The driveway from the street to the building pad of the subject property, as shown
on the plans dated March 24,1994 shall be at least seventy-five (75) feet from the center of the
radius curve of the intersection of Chestnut Lane and Johns Canyon Road.
I. To obscure the building on the pad, the structures, driveway, graded slopes and
retaining walls shall be screened and shielded from view with native drought -resistant vegetation
that is compatible with the surrounding vegetation of the community.
J. A landscape plan must be submitted to and approved by the City of Rolling Hills
Planning Department staff prior to the issuance of any grading and building 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.
A bond in the amount of the costs 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
RESOLUTION NO. 94-11 •
PAGE 6
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. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 66499.34, the City's police
power, State Planning and Zoning law, the City's ordinances and other applicable powers and
authority available to the City, and based upon the findings contained in Section 14 of this
Resolution relating to violations of the Subdivision Map Act and local ordinances at the time the
parcel was created, the applicant shall prepare and, upon approval and acceptance by the City,
record prior to the issuance of any grading or building permit for the subject parcel, an easement in
gross, in favor of the City of Rolling Hills(with the intention that the City convey it immediately to
the Rolling Hills Community Association) for ingress, egress and the installation, maintenance,
repair, replacement and removal of sewer lines and other underground utilities over that certain real
property described as (i) the westerly ten (10) feet of Parcel 2, (ii) ten (10) feet on either side of the
boundary line between Parcels 1 and 2, and (iii) the easterly ten (10) feet of Parcel 1. The easement
deed shall prohibit Grantor or any successor to Grantor from constructing or erecting any
improvements or altering the contours of the surface of the easement areas other than installation of
shallow rooted landscaping and necessary irrigation systems.
L. The property that is the subject of this approval is also the subject of pending
litigation entitled Richard C. Colyear v. City of Rolling Hills, etc., et al, and City of Rolling Hills
v. Richard C. Colyear (Case No. YC005965) regarding conditions of approval of a lot line
adjustment involving Parcel 1 (Lot 1), and Richard C. Colyear v. City of Rolling Hills (Case No.
SB91C00317) involving the processing fees for the lot line adjustment. The approval of this Site
Plan Review shall not limit, impair or otherwise prejudice the City's position with respect to the
pending litigation mentioned above.
M. This Site Plan Review approval shall not in any way constitute a representation that
Parcel 1 (Lot 1) was subdivided in compliance with the State Subdivision laws, the City's
ordinances or conditions imposed pursuant thereto.
N. The retaining wall in the front yard setback shall not exceed five (5') feet in height
measured from the downslope side of the wall to the surface of the ground, shall not exceed 296
feet in length and shall be permitted to encroach the maximum fifty (50') feet into the front yard
setback. The retaining wall shall be constructed in accordance with the approved Site Plan,
identified as Exhibit "A".
O. The retaining wall in the side yard setback shall not exceed five (5') feet in height
measured from the downslope side of the wall to the surface of the ground, shall not exceed 155
feet in length and shall be permitted to encroach up to a maximum 16 feet into the side yard
setback. The retaining wall shall be constructed in accordance with the approved Site Plan,
identified as Exhibit "A".
P. 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.
Q. 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. 94-11 •
PAGE 7
R. 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 approval by the
Planning Commission.
S. The applicant shall execute an Affidavit of Acceptance of all conditions of this Site
Plan Review, or the approval shall not be effective.
T. Conditions C, D, F, G, H, I, J, K, 0, P, Q, and S of these Variance and 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 ADOP
f May, 1994.
ALLAN ROBERTS, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
MARILYN KE , D UTY CITY CLERK
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS )
I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 94-11 entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH INTO THE
FRONT YARD SETBACK TO CONSTRUCT A RETAINING WALL,
GRANTING A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH INTO THE SIDE YARD
SETBACK TO CONSTRUCT A RETAINING WALL, AND GRANTING
SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL OF A NEW RESIDENTIAL
STRUCTURE IN ZONING CASE NO. 513, SUBJECT TO SPECIFIED
CONDITIONS.
was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on May 7, 1994 by the following roll
call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Frost, Hankins, Raine and Chairman Roberts
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following:
Administrative Offices.
DEPUTY CITY CLERK
RESOLUTION NO. 93-14
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ROLLING HILLS APPROVING AN EXTENSION TO A PREVIOUSLY
APPROVED VARIANCE TO PERMIT ENCROACHMENT INTO THE FRONT
YARD SETBACK TO CONSTRUCT A RETAINING WALL AND APPROVING
AN EXTENSION TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE PLAN REVIEW
FOR A NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IN ZONING CASE NO. 458.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES HEREBY
FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. A request has been filed by Mr. Richard C. Colyear
with respect to real property located at 0 Chestnut Lane (Lot 241-
A-1-MS), Rolling Hills requesting an extension to a previously
approved Variance to permit encroachment into the front yard
setback to construct a retaining wall, and requesting an extension
to a previously approved Site Plan Review application for a
proposed new residence.
Section 2. The Commission considered this item at a meeting
on March 16, 1993 at which time information was presented
indicating that the extension of time is necessary because there is
still litigation surrounding the development, specifically, the
request for a lot line adjustment which could affect the site plan
approval.
Section 3. Based upon information and evidence submitted, the
Planning Commission does hereby amend Paragraph A, Section 12 of
Resolution No. 92-15, dated March 28, 1992, to read as follows:
"A. The Variance and Site Plan Review approvals shall expire
within two years of the approval of this Resolution."
Section 4. Except as herein amended, the provisions of
Resolution No. 92-15 shall continue to be in full force and effect.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 16 AY OF MARCH, 1993.
ALLAN ROBERTS, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
MARILYN KE N, DEPUTY CITY CLERK
RESOLUTION NO. 93-14
PAGE 2
The foregoing Resolution No. 93-14 entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ROLLING HILLS APPROVING AN EXTENSION TO A PREVIOUSLY
APPROVED VARIANCE TO PERMIT ENCROACHMENT INTO THE FRONT
YARD SETBACK TO CONSTRUCT A RETAINING WALL AND APPROVING
AN EXTENSION TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE PLAN REVIEW
FOR A NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IN ZONING CASE NO. 458.
was approved and adopted at a regular adjourned meeting of the
Planning Commission on March 16, 1993 by the following roll call
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Commissioners Frost, Hankins, Raine and Chairman Roberts
Commissioner Lay
KJ 'W)
DEPUTY CI'tY CLERK
RESOLUTION NO. 92-15
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A VARIANCE
TO ENCROACH INTO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK TO
CONSTRUCT A RETAINING WALL AND GRANTING SITE
PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL OF A NEW RESIDENTIAL
STRUCTURE IN ZONING CASE NO. 458, SUBJECT TO
SPECIFIED CONDITIONS.
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. Richard
Colyear with respect to real property located at 0 Chestnut Lane,
Rolling Hills (Lot 241-A-1-MS) requesting a variance to encroach
into the front yard setback to construct a retaining wall and
Site Plan Review approval of a proposed 1,674 square foot single
family residence, a 350 square foot attached garage, a 450 square
foot future stable and a 96 square foot service yard.
Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted a duly
noticed public hearing to consider the application for Site Plan
Review on November 19, 1991, December 17, 1991, January 21, 1992
and February 18, 1992, March 17, 1992 and at field trip visits on
December 7, 1991, January 11, 1992, February 1, 1992 and February
29, 1992. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed
public hearing to consider the application for the variance on
March 17, 1992.
Section 3. The Planning. Commission concurs with
Planning Staff that the project qualifies as a Class 3 Exemption
(State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15303 (4 and is therefore
categorically exempt from environmental review under the
California Environmental Quality Act.
Section 4. Sections 17.32.010 through 17.32.030 of
the Rolling Hills Municipal Code 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 in the
same vicinity. Section 17.16.060 requires a front yard setback
for every residential parcel to be fifty (50) feet. The
applicant is requesting to construct a retaining wall with a
maximum height of five feet (5') above the downslope grade, a
maximum length of 252 feet, which will encroach a maximum of
fifty (50') feet into the fifty (50) foot front yard setback.
Section 5. With respect to this request for a
variance, the Planning Commission finds as follows:
920327 eeh 1680770 (3)
A. There are exceptional and extraordinary
circumstances and conditions applicable to the property or to the
intended use that do not apply generally to the other property or
class of use in the same zone because there exists existing
topographical constraints on the property that necessitate the
construction of a retaining wall in order to construct a
vehicular driveway onto the property.
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 because of the steep slope on the lot
which necessitates a retaining wall to support the slopebank next
to the proposed driveway.
C. The granting of the variance would not be
materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the
property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the
property is located because the proposed project will be
compatible with surrounding properties and will be comparable to
the height and nature of an existing retaining wall along the
northern edge of the property.
Section 6. Based upon the foregoing findings, the
Planning Commission hereby approves the variance for Zoning Case
458 to permit the encroachment of a retaining wall into the front
yard setback, to a maximum height of five feet (5'), a maximum
length of 252 feet and with a maximum encroachment of fifty (50')
feet into the front yard setback, as indicated on the development
plan submitted with this application and incorporated herein by
reference as Exhibit A, subject to the conditions specified in
Section 12 of this Resolution.
Section 7. 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 or
structures, 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, may be permitted.
Section 8. With respect to the Site Plan Review
application, the Planning Commission makes the following findings
of fact:
A. The proposed development, as modified by the
conditions of approval, 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 87,120 square feet. The proposed
residence (1,674 sq. ft.), garage (350 sq. ft.), and future
2
920327 eeh 1680770 (3)
stable (450 sq. ft.) will have 2,510 square feet which
constitutes 2.9% of the lot which is within the maximum 20%
structural lot coverage requirement. The total lot coverage
including paved areas and driveway will be 11,470 square feet
which equals 13.2% of the lot, which is within the 35% maximum
overall lot coverage requirement.
B. The proposed development, as modified by the
conditions of approval, 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).
C. The development plan, as modified by the
conditions of approval, follows natural contours of the site to
minimize grading and the natural drainage courses will continue
to the canyons at the northwest side of this lot.
D. The development plan will, in compliance with
the conditions contained in this Resolution, supplement the
existing vegetation with landscaping that is compatible with and
enhances the rural character of the community.
E. The development plan, as modified by the
conditions of approval, 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 of 12,000 square feet and a building
pad coverage of 17.7%.
F. The proposed development, as modified by the
conditions of approval, is harmonious in scale and mass with the
site, the natural terrain and surrounding residences. As
indicated in Paragraph E, the lot coverage maximum will not be
exceeded and the proposed project is consistent with the scale of
the neighborhood. Modifications have been made to reduce the
prominence of the house on the lot by moving the structure away
from the edge of the building pad. The ratio of the proposed
structure to lot coverage is similar to or less than the ratio
found on several properties in the vicinity.
G. The proposed development, as modified by the
conditions of approval, is sensitive and not detrimental to
convenience and safety of circulation for pedestrians and
vehicles because conditions have been imposed to place the
driveway so as to intersect with Chestnut Lane at a point which
is farther away from the corner of Chestnut Lane and Johns Canyon
Road than as originally shown on the proposed Site Plan.
H. The project conforms with the requirements of
the California Environmental Quality Act and is categorically
exempt from environmental review.
- 3 -
920327 eeh 1680770 (3)
Section 9. The Commission's finds that it has
authority to impose conditions of approval on this discretionary
land use decision pursuant to the City's police power, the State
Planning and Zoning Law, City ordinances and California
Government Code Section 66499.34. Pursuant to California
Government Code Section 66499.34, the City is precluded from
granting any approval necessary to develop any real property
which has been divided, or which has resulted from a division, in
violation of the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act or of the
provisions of local ordinances enacted by the City if it finds
that development of such real property is contrary to the public
health or the public safety. California Government Code Section
66499.34 also authorizes the City, with respect to parcels of
real property created in violation of the Subdivision Map Act or
local ordinances that are under the ownership of the same person
who was the record owner of the property at the time the
violation occurred, to impose such conditions as would be
applicable to a current division of the property, except that if
a conditional certificate of compliance has been filed for
record, then the City may only impose such conditions stipulated
'in that certificate.
Section 10. With respect to the requirements of
California Government Section 66499.34, and for purposes of
showing a nexus between the provisions of condition "K" of
Section 12 and the need forthat condition, the Planning
Commission finds as follows:
A. Richard Colyear was a record owner of the
subject property at the time of its subdivision in 1970.
B. In 1970, as a condition of tentative map
approval of the tract, certain perimeter easements were imposed
for bridal trails, road and public utilities to be reserved for
the benefit of the Rolling Hills Community Association in
documents to be recorded. The parcel that is the subject of this
application is a part of that tract. The requirement that these
perimeter easements be reserved by document was denoted by the
applicant on the final map approved and recorded for the tract.
However, the applicant has never recorded any of the easements
imposed by his conditional subdivision approval.
C. The City's Sanitary Sewer Feasibility Study,
prepared by ASL Consulting Engineers on February 9, 1988,
recommends the installation of future sewer lines to service the
immediate vicinity of parcel to be constructed along the westerly
property line of Parcel 2 (Lot 2), along the boundary line of
proposed Parcels 1 and 2 and then along the easterly property
line of Parcel 1 (Lot 1) (See Map 13 of 22 to the ASL Study).
Based upon this Study and the need to provide for the future
installation of sewers to serve the property which is the subject
of this application and to serve properties in the immediate
vicinity of the subject property, conditions have been attached
to require the applicant to record an easement to the City (to be
920327 eeh 1680770 (3)
4
immediately transferred to the Rolling Hills Community
Association) for ingress and egress purposes to construct
underground utilities along those portions of the properties
described above.
D. The Planning Commission further finds that
the City is considering the construction of a sewer system and
that if it finds such a system to be necessary, will need these
easements through which the system can be constructed and
maintained for the benefit of the subject property and
surrounding properties.
E. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66499.34,
only by the imposition of condition "K" of Section 12 to address
the applicant's original violation of subdivision approval can
the Planning Commission properly approve the application for Site
Plan Review.
Section 11. Based upon the foregoing findings, the
Planning Commission hereby approves the Site Plan Review
application for Zoning Case No. 458 for a proposed residential
development as indicated on the development plan incorporated
herein as Exhibit A, subject to the conditions contained in
Section 12 of this Resolution.
Section 12. The variance to the front yard setback
approved in Section 6 of this Resolution and the Site Plan Review
for residential development approved in Section 11 of this
Resolution are subject to the following conditions:
A. The variance and 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
Site Plan Review approval, 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 compiled 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 dated March
19, 1992 and marked Exhibit A, except as otherwise provided in
these conditions.
E. The working drawings submitted to the County
Department of Building and Safety for plan check review must
920327 eeh 1680770 (3)
include a 550 square foot corral and must conform to the
development plan approved with this application.
F. Grading shall be limited so that the amount of
soil displaced to construct the building pad shall not exceed
4000 cubic yards of soil. Cut and fill slopes shall not exceed a
steepness of a 2 to 1 slope ratio. The grading plan shall
utilize land form or contour grading techniques in its design so
as to create a building pad and slopes that blend with the
horizontal and vertical contours of the natural terrain.
G. The building pad coverage shall not exceed
17.7%.
H. The driveway from the street to the building
pad of the subject property, as shown on the plans dated March
19, 1992 shall be moved so that the northeasterly point of
intersection of the driveway with Chestnut Lane occurs at least
seventy-five (75) feet from the center of the radius curve of the
intersection of Chestnut Lane and Johns Canyon Road.
I. To obscure the building on the pad, the
structures, driveway, graded slopes and retaining walls shall be
screened and shielded from view with native drought -resistant
vegetation that is compatible with the surrounding vegetation of
the community.
J. A landscape plan must be submitted to and
approved by the City of Rolling Hills Planning Department staff
prior to the issuance of any grading and building 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.
A bond in the amount of the costs 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 gc-,d condition.
K. Pursuant to California Government Code
Section 66499.34, the City's police power, State Planning and
Zoning law, the City's ordinances and other applicable powers and
authority available to the City, and based upon the findings
contained in Section 7 of this Resolution relating to violations
of the Subdivision Map Act and local ordinances at the time the
parcel was created, the applicant shall prepare and, upon
approval and acceptance by the City, record prior to the issuance
- 6 -
920327 eeh 1680770 (3)
of any grading or building permit for the subject parcel, an
easement in gross, in favor of the City of Rolling Hills (with
the intention that the City convey it immediately to the Rolling
Hills Community Association) for ingress, egress and the
installation, maintenance, repair, replacement and removal of
sewer lines and other underground utilities over that certain
real property described as (i) the westerly ten (10) feet of
Parcel 2, (ii) ten (10) feet on either side of the boundary line
between Parcels 1 and 2 and (iii) the easterly ten (10) feet of
Parcel 1. The easement deed shall prohibit Grantor or any
successor to Grantor from constructing or erecting any
improvements or altering the contours of the surface of the
easement areas other than installation of shallow rooted
landscaping and necessary irrigation systems.
L. The property that is the subject of this
approval is also the subject of pending litigation entitled
Richard C. Colyear v. City of Rolling Hills, etc, et al, and City
of Rolling Hills v. Richard C. Colyear (Case No. YC005965)
regarding conditions of approval of a lot line adjustment
involving Parcel 1 (lot 1), and Richard C. Colyear v. City of
Rolling Hills (Case No. SB91C00317) involving the processing fees
for the lot line adjustment. The approval of this Site Plan
Review shall not limit, impair or otherwise prejudice the City's
position with respect to the pending litigation mentioned above.
M. This Site Plan Review approval shall not in
any way constitute a representation that Parcel 1 (Lot 1) was
subdivided in compliance with the State Subdivision laws, the
City's ordinances or conditionsimposed pursuant thereto.
N. The retaining wall in the front yard
setback shall not exceed five (5') feet in height measures from
the downslope side of the wall to the surface of the ground,
shall not exceed 252 feet in length and shall be permitted to
encroach the maximum fifty (50') feet into the front yard
setback. The retaining wall shall be constructed in accordance
with the approved Site Plan, identified as Exhibit "A".
0. 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.
P. 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.
- 7
920327 eeh 1680770 (3)
Q. Notwithstanding Section 17.34.070 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 approval by the Planning
Commission.
R. The applicant shall execute an Affidavit of
Acceptance of all conditions of this Site Plan Review, or the
approval shall not be effective.
S. Conditions C, D, F, G, H, I, J, K, 0, and P
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 this 28th day of March,
1992.
ALAN ROBERTS, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
DIANE SAWY ' R, DEPUTY C Y CLERK
- 8 -
920327 eeh 1680770 (3)
The foregoing Resolution No. 92-15 entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH INTO THE
FRONT YARD SETBACK TO CONSTRUCT A RETAINING WALL AND
GRANTING SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL OF A NEW RESIDENTIAL
STRUCTURE IN ZONING CASE NO. 458, SUBJECT TO SPECIFIED
CONDITIONS.
was approved and adopted at a regular adjourned meeting of the
Planning Commission on March 28, 1992, by the following roll call
vote:
AYES:
Commissioners Frost, Hankins, Lay and Chairman Roberts
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: Commissioner Raine
2��-/ a-LAA ��
DEPUTY C TY CLERK
ti
920327 eeh 1680770 (3)
9