497, Construct a 1770 sq ft barn wi, Resolutions & Approval Conditions•
RESOLUTION NO. 725
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COI/CIL OF THE CITY OF
ROLLING HILLS DENYING A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO
CONSTRUCT AN ATTACHED GARAGE IN THE SIDE YARD
SETBACK TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IN
ZONING CASE NO. 497.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES HEREBY FIND,
RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1, An application was duly filed by Mr. and Mrs. Bernard Howroyd with respect to
real property located at 7 Maverick Lane, Rolling Hills (Lot 28-SK) requesting Site Plan Review
for a stable with loft, and corral area that requires grading. During the public hearing process
another application was duly filed requesting a Variance to permit the construction of an attached
garage in the side yard setback to an existing single family residence and convert an existing
attached garage to residential living space on an upper pad separate from the lower stable pad.
Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider
the application for Site Plan Review on May 18, 1993 and June 15, 1993. The Planning
Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the applications for Site Plan
Review and Variance on July 20, 1993 and August 17, 1993, and at a field trip visit on August 10,
1993. The Planning Commission approved the Site Plan Review for a stable and corral on a lower
pad pursuant to Resolution No. 93-27 and denied the Variance to permit the construction of an
attached garage in the side yard setback to an existing single family residence and convert an
existing attached garage to residential living space pursuant to Resolution No. 93-28 on September
7, 1993.
Section 3. The City Council received and filed Planning Commission Resolutions No. 93-27
and 93-28 on September 13, 1993.
Section 4. Subsequently, the applicants appealed the denial of the Variance to permit the
construction of an attached garage in the side yard setback to an existing single family residence
and convert an existing attached garage to residential living space.
Section 5. The City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the appeal
of the Variance on October 25, 1993, November 22, 1993, and January 10, 1994, and at a field trip
visit on December 11, 1993.
Section 6. Evidence was heard from all persons interested in affecting said proposal, and
from members of the City staff and the City Council having reviewed, analyzed and studied said
proposal regarding the Variance to permit the construction of an attached garage in the side yard
setback to an existing single family residence and convert an existing attached garage to residential
living space.
Section 7. The City Council finds that the project is categorically exempt from
environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to a Class 3
exemption provided by Section 15303 of the State CEQA Guidelines.
Section 8. Section 17.38.010(A) permits 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. A
Variance to Section 17.16.120(B)(1) is required to construct a garage addition to the residence in
the thirty-five (35) foot side yard setback. The applicant is requesting a garage addition that will
encroach up to a maximum of fourteen (14) feet into the side yard setback. The City Council finds:
A. There are no exceptional and extraordinary circumstances and conditions applicable
to the property and the intended use that apply generally to the other property in the same vicinity
and zone. The Variance is not necessary because the existing house includes a garage which has
been illegally converted to residential living space and the building pad coverage for this project
on the upper residential pad would be 84.2% which the Council finds excessive and exceeds the
building pad coverage of most properties in the vicinity so that the proposed expansion is not
appropriate for the property.
B. This Variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial
properaight possessed by other property in the same uty and zone, but which is denied to the
proper, .n question because approximately two-thir the present house encroaches into the
front and side 'yard setbacks and additional encroachments would exacerbate the amount of
residential structure within setback areas.
C. The granting of this Variance will be materially detrimental to the public welfare or
injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity or zone in which the property is located
because the proposed project does not minimize structural coverage on the pad, leaves little open
space between property lines and would result in further overdevelopment of the building pad.
This would make the proposed garage structure more visually prominent on the building pad than
appropriate for the existing development pattern of the City.
Section 9. Based upon the foregoing findings, the City Council hereby denies the request
for a Variance approval for the construction of a new garage in Zoning Case No. 497.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 24TH DAY OF JANUARY, 1994.
!ICJ
JORDOCK, MAYOR
A I'LEST:
MARILYN L. KERN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK
The foregoing Resolution No. 725 entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ROLLING HILLS DENYING A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO
CONSTRUCT AN ATTACHED GARAGE IN THE SIDE YARD
SETBACK TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IN
ZONING CASE NO. 497.
was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council on January 24, 1994 by the
following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Swanson, Pernell, Mayor Pro Tem Leeuwenburgh
and Mayor Murdock
NOES: None
ABSENT: Councilmember Heinsheimer
ABSTAIN: None
and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following:
Administrative Offices
I
DEPUTY CM CLERK
Resolution No. 725 -2-
RESOLUTION NO. 94-20
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS APPROVING A
MODIFICATION TO RESOLUTION NO. 93-27 AND
APPROVING AN EXTENSION TO A PREVIOUSLY
APPROVED SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A STABLE WITH LOFT AND
CORRAL AREA IN ZONING CASE NO. 497.
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. and Mrs. Bernard Howroyd with
respect to real property located at 7 Maverick Lane (Lot 28-SK), Rolling Hills,
requesting an extension to a previously approved Site Plan Review for the
construction of a stable with loft and corral area.
Section 2. The Commission considered this item at a meeting on September
20, 1994 at which time information was presented indicating that the extension of
time is necessary due to the plan check process that requires Grading and Geology
approvals and that are expected within the month.
Section 3. Based upon information and evidence submitted, the Planning
Commission does hereby amend Paragraph A, Section 6 of Resolution No. 93-27,
dated September 7, 1993, to read as follows:
"A. The Site Plan Review approval shall expire within two years of the
approval of this Resolution."
Section 4. Except as herein amended, the provisions of Resolution No. 93-27
shall continue to be in full force arid effect.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 20T DAY OF SE R, 1994.
ALLAN ROBERTS, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
MARILYN KER , DEPUTY CITY CLERK
• .
RESOLUTION NO. 94-20
PAGE 2
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
) SS
I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 94-20 entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS APPROVING A
MODIFICATION TO RESOLUTION NO. 93-27 AND
APPROVING AN EXTENSION TO A PREVIOUSLY
APPROVED SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A STABLE WITH LOFT AND
CORRAL AREA IN ZONING CASE NO. 497.
was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on
September 20, 1994 by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Frost, Hankins, Raine, Witte 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 C ERK
RESOLUTION NO. 93-28
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING
HILLS DENYING A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT AN
ATTACHED GARAGE IN THE SIDE YARD SETBACK TO AN EXISTING SINGLE
FAMILY RESIDENCE IN ZONING CASE NO. 497.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES
HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. An application was duly filed by Mr. and Mrs.
Bernard Howroyd with respect to real property located at 7 Maverick
Lane, Rolling Hills (Lot 28-SK) requesting Site Plan Review for a
stable with loft, and corral area that requires grading. During
the public hearing process another application was duly filed
requesting a Variance to permit the construction of an attached
garage in the side yard setback to an existing single family
residence and convert an existing attached garage to residential
living space on an upper pad separate from the lower stable pad.
Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed
public hearing to consider the application for Site Plan Review on
May 18, 1993, and June 15, 1993. The Planning Commission conducted
a duly noticed public hearing to consider the applications for Site
Plan Review and Variance on July 20, 1993 and August 17, 1993, and
at a field trip visit on August 10, 1993. The Planning Commission
approved the Site Plan Review for a stable and corral on a lower
pad pursuant to Resolution No. 93-27.
Section 3. The Planning Commission finds that the project is
categorically exempt from environmental review under the California
Environmental Quality Act pursuant to a Class 3 exemption provided
by Section 15303 of the State CEQA Guidelines.
Section 4. Section 17.38.010(A) permits 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. A Variance to Section 17.16.120(B)(1) is required to
construct a garage addition to the residence in the thirty-five
(35) foot side yard setback. The applicant is requesting a garage
addition that will encroach up to a maximum of fourteen (14) feet
into the side yard setback. The Planning Commission finds:
A. There are no exceptional and extraordinary circumstances
and conditions applicable to the property and the intended use that
apply generally to the other property in the same vicinity and
zone. The Variance is not necessary because the existing house
includes a garage which has been illegally converted to residential
living space and the building,pad coverage for this project on the
upper residential pad would be 84.2% which the Commission finds
excessive and exceeds the building pad coverage of most properties
RESOLUTION NO. 93-28
PAGE 2
in the vicinity so that the proposed expansion is not appropriate
for the property.
B. This Variance is not 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 approximately two-thirds of the
present house encroaches into the front and side yard setbacks and
additional encroachments would exacerbate the amount of residential
structure within setback areas.
C. The granting of this Variance will be materially
detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or
improvements in the vicinity or zone in which the property is
located because the proposed project does not minimize structural
coverage on the pad, leaves little open space between property
lines and would result in further overdevelopment of the building
pad. This would make the proposed garage structure more visually
prominent on the building pad than appropriate for the existing
development pattern of the City.
Section 4. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning
Commission hereby denies the request for a Variance approval for
the construction of a new garage in Zoning Case No. 497.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 7TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 1993.
EVIE HANKIgS, ACTING
ATTEST:
MARILYN KEEN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK
HAIR
The foregoing Resolution No. 93-28 entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING
HILLS DENYING A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT AN
ATTACHED GARAGE IN THE SIDE YARD SETBACK TO AN EXISTING SINGLE
FAMILY RESIDENCE IN ZONING CASE NO. 497.
RESOLUTION NO. 93-28
PAGE 3
was approved and adopted at an adjourned regular meeting of the
Planning Commission on September 7, 1993 by the following roll call
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Commissioners Frost, Raine and Acting Chairman Hankins
None
Commissioner Lay
Commissioner Roberts
irt7/74/6/7-
RESOLUTION NO. 93-27
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING
HILLS GRANTING SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL FOR THE CONSTRUCTION
OF A STABLE WITH LOFT AND CORRAL AREA THAT REQUIRES GRADING IN
ZONING CASE NO. 497.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF, ROLLING HILLS DOES
HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. An application was duly filed by Mr. and Mrs.
Bernard Howroyd with respect to real property located at 7 Maverick
Lane, Rolling Hills (Lot 28-SK) requesting Site Plan Review for a
stable with loft and corral area that requires grading. During the
public hearing process another application was duly filed
requesting a Variance to permit the construction of an attached
garage in the side yard setback to an existing single family
residence and convert an existing attached garage to residential
living space on an upper pad separate from the lower stable pad.
Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed
public hearing to consider the application for Site Plan Review on
May 18, 1993, and June 15, 1993. The Planning Commission conducted
a duly noticed public hearing to consider the applications for Site
Plan Review and Variance on July 20, 1993 and August 17, 1993, and
at a field trip visit on August 10, 1993. The Planning Commission
denied the Variance for an attached garage pursuant to Resolution
No. 93-28.
Section 3. Section 17.46.030 requires a development plan to
be submitted for site plan review and approval before any building
or structure may be constructed or any expansion, addition,
alteration or repair to existing buildings may be made which
involve changes to grading or an increase to the size of the
building or structure by at least 1,000 square feet and has the
effect of increasing the size of the building or structure by more
than 25% in any 36-month period.
Section 4. With respect to the Site Plan Review application,
the Planning Commission makes the following findings of fact:
A. The proposed development is compatible with the General
Plan, the Zoning Ordinance and surrounding uses because the
proposed structure complies with the General Plan requirement of
low profile, low density residential development with sufficient
open space between surrounding structures. The project conforms to
Zoning Code setback and lot coverage requirements. The lot has a
net square foot area of 109,197 square feet. The proposed stable
(1,294 sq.ft.), existing residence (3,970 sq.ft.), existing garage
(440 sq.ft.), existing swimming pool (623 sq.ft.), and existing
service yard (96 sq.ft.) will have 6,423 square feet which
constitutes 5.9% of the lot which is within the maximum 20%
structural lot coverage requirement. The total lot coverage
including paved areas and driveway will be 10,511 square feet which
RESOLUTION NO. 93-27
PAGE 2
equals 9.6% of the lot, which is within the 35% maximum overall lot
coverage requirement. Coverage on the lower stable pad will be 28%
which is similar in size to several neighboring developments.
B. The proposed development on the lower pad 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) because a minimum amount
of grading is proposed and will only be done to provide approved
drainage that will flow away from the proposed stable and corral,
existingresidence and existing neighboring residences.
C. The proposed development preserves and integrates into
the site design, to the maximum extent feasible, existing natural
topographic features of the lot including surrounding native
vegetation, mature trees, drainage courses, and land forms (such as
hillsides and knolls) because grading will only be done to provide
approved drainage that will flow away from the proposed stable and
corral, existing residence and existing neighboring residences.
D. The proposed development preserves and integrates into
the site design, to the maximum extent feasible, existing natural
topographic features of the lot including surrounding native
vegetation, mature trees, drainage courses, and land forms (such as
hillsides and knolls). The area proposed for development of the
stable and corral is partially graded and without significant
vegetation. Thus, this project will not have a significant effect
on natural topographic features and native vegetation.
E. The development plan follows the natural contours of the
site to minimize grading and the natural drainage courses will
continue to the canyon which exists along the east side of this
lot.
F. The development plan incorporates existing large trees
and native vegetation to the maximum extent feasible and, with the
conditions attached to this approval, supplements it with
landscaping that is compatible with and enhances the rural
character of the community.
G. The development plan substantially preserves the natural
and undeveloped state of the lot by minimizing building coverage
because the new structure will not cause the structural and total
lot coverage to be exceeded. Further, the proposed project on a
lower pad will have a buildable pad coverage of 28%. Significant
portions of the lot will be left undeveloped so as to maintain
trail access near the northern property line and scenic vistas
across the northeasterly portions of the property.
RESOLUTION NO. 93-27
PAGE 3
H. The proposed stable and corral is harmonious in scale
and mass with the site, the natural terrain and surrounding
residences. As indicated in Paragraph A, the lot coverage maximum
will not be exceeded and the proposed project is consistent with
the scale of other structures in the neighborhood. Grading shall be
permitted only to restore the natural slope of the property. The
ratio of the proposed structure to lot coverage is similar to the
ratio found on several properties in the vicinity.
I. The proposed development is sensitive and not
detrimental to the convenience and safety of circulation for
pedestrians and vehicles because the proposed project will utilize
Maverick Lane for access. Also, the existing driveway is located
at the end of a cul-de-sac street which will therefore create
little interference with traffic.
J. The project conforms with the requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act and is categorically exempt
from environmental review.
Section 5. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning
Commission hereby approves the Site Plan Review application for
Zoning Case No. 497 for a proposed stable with loft, and corral
development as indicated on the development plan incorporated
herein as Exhibit A and subject to the conditions contained in
Section 6.
Section 6. The Site Plan Review for a stable with loft, and
corral that requires grading approved in Section 5 is subject to
the following conditions:
A. The Site Plan Review approval shall expire within one
year from the effective date of approval as defined in Section
17.46.080(A).
B. It is declared and made a condition of the Site Plan
Review approval, that if any conditions thereof are violated, the
Permit shall be suspended and the privileges granted thereunder
shall lapse; provided that the applicant has been given written
notice to cease such violation and has failed to do so for a period
of thirty (30) days.
C. All requirements of the Building and Construction
Ordinance, the Zoning ordinance, and of the zone in which the
subject property is located must be complied with unless otherwise
approved by Variance.
D. The lot shall be developed and maintained in substantial
conformance with the site plan on file marked Exhibit A except. as
otherwise provided in these conditions.
RESOLUTION NO. 93-27
PAGE 4
E. Grading shall not exceed 250 cubic yards of cut soil and
250 cubic yards of fill soil.
F. The stable with loft shall have no glazed openings and
the loft area shall be limited in use to the storage of feed, tack,
and stable equipment.
G. All free-standing retaining walls incorporated into the
project shall not be greater than 5 feet in height at any one
point.
H. The existing garage which has been converted to
residential living space shall be reconverted to a garage to the
satisfaction of the Building Official and the Planning Department
prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit from the
County of Los Angeles for the proposed stable.
I. The building pad coverage for the stable and corral
shall not exceed 28%.
J. Prior to the submittal of an applicable final grading
plan to the County of Los Angeles for plan check, a detailed
grading and drainage plan with related geology, soils and hydrology
reports that conform to the development plan as approved by the
Planning Commission must be submitted to the Rolling Hills Planning
Department staff for their review. Cut and fill slopes must
conform to the City of Rolling Hills standard of 2 to 1 slope
ratio.
K. 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.
L. The working drawings submitted to the County Department
of Building and Safety for plan check review and must conform to
the development plan approved with this application.
M. The applicant shall execute an Affidavit of Acceptance
of all conditions of this Site Plan Review, or the approval shall
not be effective.
N. All conditions of this Site Plan Review approval must be
complied with prior to the issuance of a building or grading permit
from the County of Los Angeles.
RESOLUTION NO. 93-27
PAGE 5
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 7TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 1993.
ice- Ce
EVIE HA KINS, `ACTING CHAIR
ATTEST:
MARILYN KERN, DEPUTY CITY. CLERK
The foregoing Resolution No. 93-27 entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING
HILLS GRANTING SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL FOR THE CONSTRUCTION
OF A STABLE WITH LOFT AND CORRAL AREA THAT REQUIRES GRADING IN
ZONING CASE NO. 497.
was approved and adopted at an adjourned regular meeting of the
Planning Commission on September 7, 1993 by the following roll call
vote:
AYES: Commissioners Frost, Raine and Acting Chairman Hankins
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Lay
ABSTAIN: Chairman Roberts
• •
i.....
.....c.4.,
State of
County of
i
a
i
i
S
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
ZONING CASE NO.
ss
497 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:
7 Maverick Lane (Lot 28-SK)
Rolling Hills, CA
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.
497 SITE PLAN REVIEW
VARIANCE
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
I (We) certify (or declare) under the penalty of perjury that the
foregoing is true and correct.
Print
Owner
Name
Signature
Address
City/State
Print
Owner
Name
Signature
Address
City/State
Signatures must be acknowledged by a notary public.
SS.
On this the day of
the undersigned Notary Public, personally appeared
19_, before me,
t
5
❑ personally known to me
❑ proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence
to be the person(s) whose name(s) subscribed to the
within instrument, and acknowledged that +executed it. ti
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Notary's Signature
See Exhibit "A" attached
hereto and made a part hereof