Loading...
513, Construction for new SFR, CorrespondenceOLENN R WATSON ROBERT O. BEVERLY HARRY L OERSHON OOUOLAS W. ARGUE MARK L LAMKEN ARNOLD SIMON ERWIN E. ADLER DAROLD D. PIEPER ALLEN E. RENNETT STEVEN L DORSEY WIWAM L STRAUSZ ROBERT M. OOLDFRIED ANTHONY S. DREWRY MITCHELL E. ABBOTT TIMOTHY L NEUFELD ROBERT F. DE METER GREGORY W. STEPANICICH ROCHELLE BROWNE DONALD STERN MICHAEL JENKINS WILUAM B. RUDEU. DAVID L COHEN QUINN M. BARROW CAROL W. LYNCH COLEMAN J. WAL.SH. JR. JEFFREY A. RABIN GREGORY M. KUNERT THOMAS M. JIMBO MICHELLE BEAL BAONERIS • RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHON ATTORNEYS AT LAW A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION AMANDA F. BUBBKIND ROBERT C. CECCON SAYRE WEAVER STEVEN H. KAUFMANN GARY E. GANS JOHN J. HARRIS KEVIN O. ENNIS ROBIN D. HARRIS MICHAEL ESTRADA LAURENCE S. WIENER STEVEN R OAR DEBORAH R. HAKMAN SCOTT K BHINTANI MICHAEL O. COLANTUONO TERRY P. KAUFMANN B. TILDEN KIM DARYL T. TESHIMA RUBIN D. WEINER BASKIA T. ASAMURA DAVID M. FLEISHMAN KAYSER O. SUME CRAIO A. STEELE MICHEU E A. CURTIS T. PETER PIERCE BENJAMIN BARNOUW TERENCE R. BOGA DOUGLAS A CAALEN DANIEL L PINES USA M. BOND January 24, 1995 s+� RICHARD RICHARDS (1918-1988) THIRTY-EIGHTH FLOOR 333 SOUTH HOPE STREET LOS ANGELES, CAUFORNIA 90071-1489 (213) 626-8484 FACSIMILE (213) 626-0078 DEMI' JAN 251995 City O` [ ! ig Hills OF COUNSEL 9MLLJAM K KRAMER 1681840 OUR FILE NUMBER R6980-00303 Paul M. Miloknay, Esq. Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton 333 South Hope Street, Suite 4800 Los Angeles, California 90071-1448 Reference: Rolling Hills - Site Plan Review Approval in Zoning Case -(Richard C. Colyear) Dear Mr. Miloknay: We have received your letter dated January 11, 1995 by which you indicate Mr. Colyear's intent to deliver to the City a Grant of Easement and an executed Affidavit of Acceptance as set forth in City of Rolling Hills Planning Commission Resolution No. 94-11. As the other conditions of Resolution 94-11 precedent to issuance of a grading permit have been satisfied, upon submittal of these documents and City approval of the deed of easement and recordation of same (see Conditon K of Resolution 94-11), the grading permit will be issued. Nothing in this letter or in the issuance by the City of any permits in connection with this project necessarily suggests agreement with the contents of your January 11 letter. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact Michael Jenkins or myself at (213) 626-8484. Very truly yours, Kevin G. Ennis Assistant City Attorney City of Rolling Hills KGE:kge Attachment: Resolution 94-11 RICHARDS, WATSON & GER./ Paul Miloknay January 24, 1995 Page 2 cc: 1681840 • Craig Nealis, City Manager Lola Ungar, Principal Planner Doug McHattie, South Bay Engineering Michael Jenkins, City Attorney Steven Kaufmann, Esq. i SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON ORANGE COUNTY OFFICE SEVENTH FLOOR 4695 MACARTHUR COURT NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660-1862 (714) 752-6400 WRITERS DIRECT DIAL NUMBER (213) 617-4261 A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS ATTORNEYS 'AT LAW FORTY-EIGHTH FLOOR 333 SOUTH HOPE STREET LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90071-1449 TELEPHONE (213) 620-1780 FACSIMILE (213) 620-1398 CABLE SHEPLAW TELEX 19-4424 January 11, 1995 Michael Jenkins, Esquire City Attorney City of Rolling Hills 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, California 90274 Re: Resolution 94-11 Dear Mr. Jenkins: SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE SEVENTEENTH FLOOR FOUR EMBARCADERO CENTER SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94111-4158 (415) 434-9100 SAN DIEGO OFFICE NINETEENTH FLOOR 501 WEST BROADWAY SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92101-3598 (619) 338-6500 OUR FILE NUMBER R41-40336 aNOVI t JAN 1S. lqtr City 01 t lllig Hsila By This letter constitutes formal notice to the City of Rolling Hills ("City") that, based upon the verbal assurances of the City Planner, Lola Ungar, Mr. Richard C. Colyear intends to comply with Sections 16.K and 16.S of the above -referenced Resolution 94-11 by delivering to the City a Grant of Easement and by executing an Affidavit of Acceptance. Ms. Ungar repre- sented to Mr. Colyear's agent, South Bay Engineering, that once Mr. Colyear complies with Sections 16.K and 16.S, the City will approve Mr. Colyear's grading permit, and that there are no other conditions that need to be satisfied in this connection. It is in reliance on these representations that Mr. Colyear intends to comply with Sections 16.K and 16.5 of Resolution 94- 11. Please take further notice that, in accordance with our discussion, on or about January 9, 1995, Mr. Colyear's compliance with Resolution 94-11 and his acceptance of the conditions set forth therein is without prejudice to any arguments made in the pending appeal entitled Colvear v. Superior Court, Second District Court of Appeal Case No. 2 Civ. B078820. 1 • SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON Michael Jenkins, Esquire City Attorney January 11, 1995 Page 2 If you have any questions or comments concerning this letter, please address them to me or Richard L. Stone at the above address. Very truly yours, 3\M\L072970S.LMF cc: Lola Ungar, Principal Planner, City of Rolling Hills City Manager, City of Rolling Hills Douglas K. McHattie, Vice -President, South Bay Engineering Company SOUTH BAY ENGINEERIN111 G COMPANY teiPi!fIt, , i 0,1:41M November 29, 1994 Lola Ungar, Principal Planner City of Rolling Hills 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills,Ca 90274 Dear Ms. Ungar: Reference: Grading Plans for Lot 1, Tract No. 29408, Mr. Richard Colyear NOV 2 9 1994 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS We are now in receipt of the complete approved packet from Los Angeles County that will enable us to obtain a grading permit for the above property. One set of these plans must be stamped approved by a representative of the, City of Rolling Hills', before the District 'office of the County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works Building and Safety Division will actually issue a,grading permit. Will you please "enumerate" specifically those items that are required by the City of Rolling Hills that will allow you to approve the grading plans. Sincerely, SOUTH BAY ENGINEERING COMPANY Douglas K.McHattie Vice President DKMc:gh ❑ 304 TEJON PLACE • PALOS VERDES ESTATES, CA 90274 • (310) 375-2556 IN L.A. (213) 772-1555' • FAX (310) 378-3816 LI 822 HAMPSHIRE ROAD, SUITE H • WESTLAKE VILLAGE, CA 91361 • (805) 494-4499 • FAX (805) 494-4211 • • Cii ofielinS JUL CERTIFIED MAIL May 10, 1994 Mr. Richard Colyear 35 Crest Road West 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: APPEAL PERIOD AND AFFIDAVIT OF ACCEPTANCE FORM ZONING CASE NO. 513. 0 CHESTNUT LANE (Lot 241-A-1-RS RESOLUTION NO. 94-11 Dear Mr. Colyear: This letter shall serve as official notification that Zoning Case No. 513 was APPROVED by the Planning Commission and the enclosed resolution was approved on May 7, 1994 at a regular meeting. The Planning Commission's decision was reported to the City Council at their regular meeting on May 9, 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. 94-11, 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 $7.00 for the first page and $3.00 for each additional page. ®Printed on Recycled Paper. • • Page 2. The City will notify the Los Angeles County Building and 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. PRINCIPAL PLANNER Enclosures: Resolution No. 94-11, Exhibit'A' Development Plan, Affidavit of Acceptance Form, and Appeal Section of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code. LMU:mjs cc: Mr. Douglas McHattie approval.Colyear • • '/,'//7",4" 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. as follows: Section 6. With respect to this request for a Variance, the Planning Commission finds 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. f RESOLUTION NO. 94-11 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 fess 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. ATTEST: PASSED, APPROVED and ADOP D this f May, 1994. ALLAN ROBERTS, CHAIRMAN MARILYN KERNDUTY 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 CLE K 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. .513 SITE PLAN REVIEW VARIANCE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT I (We) the undersigned state: I am (We are) the owner(s) of the real property described as follows: 0 Chestnut Lane (Lot 241-A-1-MS) 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 ZONING CASE NO. 513 SITE PLAN REVIEW VARIANCE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT X X 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. Gri!.r'./�.�..,f....��p'��'I�wssr�rr..r�t�ttr..a+wwna.�Jd'1'��ly'*t•/"C!'.C/���i►t�«<CC4"/�G!`I�t'ft�ltlC+1'f..!'I�t ,G� 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 O.SC�se+ ,�rr'rG'dde�r..14� subscribed to the Pxecuted it. See Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof i City O/ /e0fffla i/ia INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377.7288 April 26, 1994 Mr. Richard Colyear 35 Crest Road West Rolling Hills, CA 90274 SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 513. 0 Chestnut Lane (Lot 241 A-11 Dear Mr. Colyear: This letter shall serve as official notification that Zoning Case No. 513 was APPROVED by the Planning Commission at their adjourned regular meeting on April 18, 1994. The final Resolution and conditions of APPROVAL will be forwarded to you after they are signed by the Planning Commission Chairman and City Clerk. The Planning Commission's decision will be reported to the City Council at their regular meeting on May 9, 1994. You should also be aware that the decision of the Planning Commission may be appealed within thirty days after adoption of the Planning Commission's Resolution (Section 17.54.010(B) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code). Feel free to call me at (310) 377-1521 if you have any questions regarding this matter. Sincerely, LOLA M. UNGAR PRINCIPAL PLANNER LMU.mjs cc: Mr. Douglas McHattie approval.Colyear Printed on Recycled Paper. • e140/ieJi Jd PP NOTIFICATION LETTER March 30, 1994 Mr. Richard Colyear 35 Crest Road West 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. 513, request for Site Plan Review to permit the construction of a proposed new single family residence and an attached garage at 0 Chestnut Lane, Rolling Hills, CA; more precisely, Lot 241-A-1. Dear Mr. Colyear: Your application for Zoning Case No. 513 has been set for public hearing consideration by the Planning Commission at their meeting on Monday, April 18, 1994. (For this meeting only the Commission will meet on a Monday. The usual Planning Commission meeting date is the third Tuesday of the month). 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. The staff report for this project will be available at the City Hall after 3:00 PM on Friday, April 15, 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. (.4 IlfriEw....... LOLA M. UNGAR PRINCIPAL PLANNER cc: Mr. Douglas McHattie Printed on Recycled Paper. Co SOUTH B1 Y ENGINEERING CQ MMPANY t:4410L �:, `�l- mC, 1C �� t cer► rir� l�1h Wry( I_ ;_ a � LWOW March 24, 1994. Rolling Hills Planning Commission City of Rolling. Hills' 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Attn:' Allan Roberts, Chairman = ar Chairman'Roberts: I herewith respectfully request, an extension of time for the site review process of Lot .1 29408. This extension is,necessary, in order that Los Angeles County, Department. of Public Works,; Geology Section can complete ,their work. There has been a very minorchange to the project since your initial review; the driveway width; has been increased to twenty feet to. satisfy Fire Protection Engineering. Sincerely, Douglas McHattie Vice President... I 1 • ❑ 304 TEJON PLACE • PALOS VERDES ESTATES, CA 90274 •: (310) 375-2556' . IN L.A..(213) 772-1555 • FAX 378 3816 ❑ .822 HAMPSHIRE ROAD, SUITE H WESTLAKE'.VILLAGE, CA 91361 (805) 494 4499 • FAX (805) 494-4211