Loading...
709, Construction of retaining wall, Resolutions & Approval ConditionsThis page is part of your document - DO NOT DISCARD FEB 132UG6 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS TITLE(S) : 06 O19 401' RECORDED/FILED RECORDS OFCE LOS COUNTY CALIFORNIA 3 : 21 PM JAN 26 2006 LEAD SHEET 20 CODE 19 CODE 9 D.T.T. Assessor's Identification Number (AIN) To be completed by Examiner OR Title Company in black ink. Number of AIN's Shown THIS FORM IS NOT TO BE DUPLICATED RECORDING REQUESTED B. WHENRECORDEDMlAIL TO NAME MAILING ADDRESS -- h x\ ) ZC[PY, �CODSTEATE 1 0\ 41 06 OiJ'7401 SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE RESERVED FOR RECORDER'S USE TITLES) • RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND MAIL TO CITY OF ROLLING HILLS 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 -' _!_ (310) 377-1521 (310) 377-7288 FAX The Registrar -Recorder's Office requires that the form be notarized before recordation. AFFIDAVIT OF ACCEPTANCE FORM • 06 0197401, STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ) §§ ZONING CASE NO. 709 SITE PLAN REVIEW X X VARIANCE X X CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT I (We) the undersigned state: I am (We are) the owner(s) of the real property described as follows: 18 BOWIE ROAD, ROLLING HILLS, (LOT 9-CRA) CA 90274 This property is the subject of the above numbered case and conditions of approval I am (We are) aware of, and accept, all the stated conditions in said ZONING CASE NO. 709 SITE PLAN REVIEW X X VARIANCE X X CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT I (We) certify (or atunde a penalty of perjury that the foregoing is tr%%d��®®and correct./6 Signa a /� Signaturetoj(1)61\40 G e71 -• o /2. Name typerild ao Njame typedprr printed C AAI is & . c-14 QAddress 04 a.i/[&A. A qgiv Address City/State City/State Signatures must be acknowledged by a notary public. T Recorder's Use Only State of California County of Los Angeles ) On 1(''I1G /OS before me, v,clv-ry. Y Z r P1/4-i\oV0.- personally appeared Q._.-Y,o_tp C v-15 . Cia Cvv c personally known to me ( ctoW-evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) -is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/shefthey executed the same in 4is01er/their authorized capacity(ies) and that by his/fher/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. Witness by hand and official seal. �vC_ Signature of Notary SEE EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF • • 06 0197401 CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT vcx..e;vcxu3s,.c x-,v,<:l x-=::..xs... "c O'M.c�c c.,ti;:.-n�. �..,,n.c ate ,,•;cn ..;; ,c c;c coc c e . ,c-x. .,vc,car-:c,,� ,rx.c. ,c-x f State of California County ofY1 On LO/IQiDS Date , before me, Scoelckyo, `r,ra,-c v pub\i e , \ Name and Title of Officer (e.d., "Jane Doe, Not ublic") personally appeared $_vzc )t-t5 %At e p- \1_ CAAYAO Name(s) of Signer(s) IX personally known to me ❑ proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence SANDRA D. PIERCE Commission # 1402854 Notary Public - California San Diego County 10 My Comm. Expires Feb 28, 2007 Place Notary Seal Above to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that lae%#efthey executed the same in hie/hcr/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by h4s/14eF/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature of Notary Public OPTIONAL Though the information below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and could prevent fraudulent removal and reattachment of this form to another document. Description of Attached Document.‘ Title or Type of Document: P-C-P.r\o.Vkt b� �ceC��v1C�v Document Date: lbCI, l0S Signer(s) Other Than Named Above: Capacity(ies) Claimed`by Signer Signer's Name: �-�vn�.t 0 C v*O L . Individual ❑ Corporate Officer — Title(s): ❑ Partner — ❑ Limited ❑ General ❑ Attorney in Fact ❑ Trustee ❑ Guardian or Conservator ❑ Other: Signer Is Representing: Number of Pages: rL1grAC"! Top of thumb here �cc-c ccs� �K r�,aN a ,...cam eu� © 1997 National Notary Association • 9350 De Soto Ave., P.O. Box 2402 • Chatsworth, CA 91313-2402 Prod. No. 5907 Reorder: Call Toll -Free 1-800-876-6827 RESOLUTION NO. 2005-27 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL FOR A SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR GRADING AND A VARIANCE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A RETAINING WALL ALONG A DRIVEWAY IN THE FRONT SETBACK AT AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IN ZONING CASE NO. 709, AT 18 BOWIE ROAD (LOT 9-CRA), (CURTO). THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Application was duly filed by Mr. Renato Curto with respect to real property located at 18 Bowie Road, Rolling Hills (Lot 9-CRA) requesting a Site Plan Review and a Variance to construct an approximately 185 foot long retaining wall in the front setback at a property where a substantial addition and remodel of a single family residence is underway. Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted duly noticed public hearings to consider the application on July 19, 2005, August 16, 2005 and at a field trip on August 16, 2005. The applicant was notified of the public hearings in writing by first class mail. Evidence was heard and presented from all persons interested in affecting said proposal, and from members of the City staff and the Planning Commission having reviewed, analyzed and studied said proposal. The applicant's representatives were present at the meetings. Section 3. The property is zoned RAS-2 and is 2.03 acres (gross) in size and 1.74 acres net, (75,920 sq.ft.). Subject property is a flag lot and the property is accessed from Bowie Road via a long driveway, which is parallel to two adjacent lots. Section 4. A retaining wall along the driveway to subject property was constructed with the original house in 1966. The original driveway and a portion of the wall were partially located in the easement of the property to the south at 16 Bowie Road. During the recent improvements to subject property, the property owner removed the dilapidated wall and commenced to widen the driveway by few feet by cutting into the adjacent hillside. A new wall is necessary to protect the driveway and the hillside above. The adjacent property owner at 16 Bowie Road, in whose easement a portion of the wall is proposed to be located, is in favor of this project. Section 5. The driveway and the retaining wall are located in the front setback. The Site Plan Review and Variance were triggered as a result of the applicant removing the wall and widening the driveway. The original driveway varied in width between 8 feet to 9 feet and the retaining wall varied in height from 1.5 feet to 4 feet. The proposed driveway will vary in width from 9 feet to 11 feet and the proposed wall will vary in height from 1'8" to 5'6". The portion of the wall, which is to be located in the neighbors' easement will be between 2 feet and 4 feet in height. Racn �nns_r7 1 Section 6. The Planning Commission finds that the project is exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act. Section 7. Section 17.16.110 requires that the front yard setback be fifty (50) feet from the roadway easement line, and be unobstructed from the ground upwards. In order to continue the use of the driveway it is necessary to reconstruct the wall. Such retaining wall, having a maximum height of 5 feet 6 inches is proposed to be constructed in the front setback. 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 that do not apply generally to the other property or class of use in the same zone because the lot is irregular in shape and is developed with a substantial slope from the front property line to the 50-foot front yard setback line. The proposed retaining wall will assist in preventing an existing slope from potential collapse, and will protect the hillside from damage due to erosion. 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 due to the existing grade and irregular shape of the property, the developable portion of this lot is about 20 feet lower than the street above (cul-de-sac), and therefore the access must be sloped towards the building pad, which requires a wall. 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 wall is necessary to prevent land movement and erosion of the land above it. There was a similar wall constructed with the original house, which became dilapidated and is in need of reconstruction. Construction of said wall would eliminate the necessity for any grading of the hillside. Section 8. Section 17.46.020 requires a development plan to be submitted for site plan review and approval before any development requiring a grading permit or 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 at least 1,000 square feet and has the effect of increasing the size of the building by more than twenty-five percent (25%) in any thirty-six (36) month period. With respect to the Site Plan Review application requesting permission for grading for the construction of the retaining wall 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 structures comply with the General Plan requirement for providing safety amenities. Grading in this case constitutes the cutting of the hillside of more than 3 feet in height. The proposed project is located below along a driveway so as to reduce the visual impact from the street. RPan 'nn5_77 B. The project substantially preserves the natural and undeveloped state of the lot. The topography and the configuration of the lot has been considered, and it was determined that the proposed development will not adversely affect or be materially detrimental to adjacent uses, buildings, or structures because the proposed construction will be constructed in an area, which already contained a similar structure, and this is a replacement of an old retaining wall, though in a slightly different location. The retaining wall will be least intrusive to surrounding properties, as it will be visible only from subject property, is of sufficient distance from nearby residences so that it will not impact the view or privacy of surrounding neighbors, and will permit the owners to enjoy their property without deleterious infringement on the rights of surrounding property owners. C. The proposed development, as conditioned, is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, and is consistent with the scale of the neighborhood when compared to properties in the vicinity. The proposed structures will follow the pattern of a previous wall. D. The development plan substantially preserves the natural and undeveloped state of the lot by minimizing building coverage because the new structures will not cause the lot to look overdeveloped. Significant portions of the lot will be left undeveloped. E. The proposed development is sensitive and not detrimental to the convenience and safety of circulation for pedestrians and vehicles because the proposed project will not change the existing circulation pattern in the vicinity and will utilize a driveway from an existing street. F. The project is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. Section 9. Based upon the foregoing findings and the evidence in the record, the Planning Commission hereby approves the Variance and Site Plan Review to permit widening of the driveway and the construction of a retaining wall that will be located in the front setback, subject to the following conditions: A. The Variance and Site Plan Review approvals shall expire within two years from the effective date of approval as defined in Sections 17.38.070 and 17.47.080 of the Zoning Ordinance unless otherwise extended pursuant to the requirements of these sections. B. If any conditions of approval are violated, this approval shall be suspended and the privileges granted hereunder shall lapse; provided that the applicants have been given written notice to cease such violation, the opportunity for a hearing has been provided, and if requested, has been held, and thereafter the applicant fails to correct the violation within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of the City's determination. 12aen 7nn5_77 C. All requirements of the Building Code, the Zoning Ordinance, and of the zone in which the subject property is located must be complied with, unless otherwise set forth in this approval. D. The lot shall be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the site plan, dated July 12, 2005, except as otherwise provided in these conditions. E. Grading for this project consists of cutting into the hillside more than 3 feet. F. The maximum height of the retaining wall from the finished grade shall not exceed 5 feet 6 inches. G. Drainage for the wall and driveway shall be developed and constructed per County District Engineer's requirements. H. The retaining wall shall be engineered and construted per County District Engineer's requirements. I. During construction, the property owners shall be required to schedule and regulate construction and related traffic noise throughout the day between the hours of 7 AM and 6 PM, Monday through Saturday only, when construction and mechanical equipment noise is permitted, so as not to interfere with the quiet residential environment of the City of Rolling Hills. J. The property owners shall be required to conform to the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Public Works Department Best Management Practices (BMP's) related to solid waste, erosion control and storm water pollution prevention. K. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the project must be reviewed and approved by the Rolling Hills Community Association. L. Prior to issuance of a building permit the applicants shall execute an Affidavit of Acceptance of all conditions of the Variance and the Site Plan approval, or the approval shall not be effective. M. All conditions, when applicable, of the Variance and Site Plan approvals must be complied with prior to the issuance of a building permit from the County of Los Angeles. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2005. ATTEST: MARILYN KERN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK ', VICE CHAIRMAN RPan ,nns_•77 a STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§ CITY OF ROLLING HILLS) I certify that the foregoing Resolution 2005-27 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL FOR A SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR GRADING AND A VARIANCE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A RETAINING WALL ALONG A DRIVEWAY IN THE FRONT SETBACK AT AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IN ZONING CASE NO. 709, AT 18 BOWIE ROAD (LOT 9-CRA), (CURTO). was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on September 20, 2005 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Hankins, Henke, Sommer and Vice Chairman Witte. NOES: None. ABSENT: Chairwoman DeRoy. ABSTAIN: None. and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following: Administrative Offices. ,,,k9) ,--) DEPUTY &TY CLERK Reso. 2005-27 5