396, Construct a new SFR, Resolutions & Approval ConditionsRESOLUTION NO. 599
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING SITE PLAN REVIEW
APPROVAL IN ZONING CASE NO. 396
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 Ms.
Marion Ruth with respect to real property located at 5 Outrider
Road, Rolling Hills (Lot 48-EF) requesting a variance to
construct a stable in the front yard and site plan review
approval for a proposed residential reconstruction on the site.
Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted a duly
noticed public hearing to consider applications for the variance
and site plan review on June Za, 1989 and July 18, 1989, and
conducted a field site review on July 8, 1989.
Section 3. The City Council voted to hear the
applications at their meeting of August 14, 1989, and conducted
a duly noticed public hearing tq consider the applications on
August 28, 1989, September 11, 1989, September 25, 1989, and
October 10, 1989. A field site review was conducted on September
11, 1989. During the continued public hearings on this matter,
the applicant withdrew her request for a variance for
construction of a stable in the front yard.
Section 4. Section 17.34.010 requires a development
plan to be submitted for site plan review and approval before any
building or structure may be constructed or any expansion,
addition, alteration or repair to existing buildings may be made
which involve changes to grading or an increase to the size of
the building or structure by more than twenty-five (25%) percent
in any thirty-six (36) month period.
of fact:
Section 5. The Council makes the following findings
A. The proposed residential structure is compatible
with the low density, rural character requirements of the
General Plan. This project is compatible with the Zoning
Ordinance because the project complies with the Zoning
Ordinance lot coverage requirements. The net square footage
of the lot is approximately 48,896 square feet. The
proposed residential structures including garage, swimming
pool, and future stable equals 6,975 square feet which
represents 14.27% structural lot coverage, which is within
the 20% maximum coverage that is permitted. The total lot
coverage is approximately 12,625 square feet which
represents a proposed total lot coverage of 27.87%, which is
within the 35% maximum coverage that is permitted. The
proposed project is compatible with surrounding residential
structures. The proposed project includes a residence,
swimming pool, and proposed future stable, which structures
are similar to surrounding residential land use patterns.
B. The proposed development preserves the natural
topographic features of the lot to the maximum extent
possible because all construction will occur on the existing
building pad area, leaving a large portion of the lot
undeveloped.
C. The proposed project follows the natural contours
of the site to minimize grading to the maximum extent
possible, in that all construction will occur on the
existing building pad area of the lot. Existing drainage
patterns will be preserved so that drainage will be
channeled into existing drainage courses and engineered and
constructed within the requirements of the building codes.
D. The project preserves surrounding native
vegetation to the maximum extent possible, by limiting
building to the existing building pad area.
E. The project substantially preserves the natural
and undeveloped state of the lot by minimizing building
coverage in that the residential structure will cover only
14.27% of the lot, which is•less than the 20% of coverage
that is permitted. The total structural lot coverage
including driveways, and hard surfaces will equal
approximately 27.87% of the lot, which is less than the 35%
of coverage that is permitted.
F. The project is harmonious in scale and mass with
the site as indicated in paragraph E above because the
proposed development will be substantially similar to the
existing site development.
G. The project is sensitive and not detrimental to
the convenience and safety of pedestrians and circulation of
vehicles in that the driveway will remain in the same
location as it presently exists.
H. The project conforms to the requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act and is categorically
exempt from environmental review.
Section 6. Based as to foregoing findings, the
Council hereby approves the site plan review application for a
proposed residential reconstruction on the property located at 5
-2-
891211 lj A454.KGE (0)
• (T •
Outrider Road as indicated on the development plan attached
hereto as Exhibit A and subject to the following conditions:
A. The detached future stable shall be separated
from the main residence by a minimum 35 feet as shown on the
approved development plan.
B. The garage shall be detached by separation of wall
and roof structures from the main residence.
C. The maximum elevation of the ridge line for the
residence shall not exceed 13.7 feet above the elevation of
the fire hydrant located immediately to the west of the west
property line.
D. The proposed building plan must be approved by the
Rolling Hills Community Association Architectural Committee
before the applicant receives a grading permit from the
County of Los Angeles.
E. Prior to the submittal of a final grading plan to
the County of Los Angeles, the grading plan shall be
submitted to the Rolling Hills Planning Department Staff for
their review, along with related geology, soils and
hydrology reports. This grading plan must conform to the
development plan as approved by the Planning Commission.
F. A landscape plan must be submitted to the City of
Rolling Hills Planning Department staff for approval. The
landscaping plan submitted must comply with the purpose and
intent of the Site Plan Review Ordinance. The landscaping
plan shall incorporate existing mature trees and native
vegetation. A bond in the amount of the cost estimate for
the landscaping plus 15% shall be posted and retained with
the City for not less than two years after landscape
installation. The retained bond will be released by the
City 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.
G. The working drawings submitted to the County
Department of Building and Safety for plan check must
conform to the Development Plan approved with this site plan
review.
H. Any modifications to the development plan as
approved by the City Council shall require the filing of an
application for modification of the development plan and
must be reviewed and approved by the City Council pursuant
to Section 17.34.070 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code.
-3-
891211 lj A454.KGE (0)
• •
Section 7. The action of the City Council specified in
this Resolution shall supercede that of the Planning Commission
on Zoning Case Number 396 and the Planning Commission's approval
of a variance to allow for the construction of a stable in the
front yard is hereby rescinded.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this llth day of
December , 1989.
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Mayor
The foregoing Resolution No. 599 entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ROLLING HILLS GRANTING SITE PLAN REVIEU APPROVAL
IN ZONING CASE NO. 396
was adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council
on December 11, 1989 by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Heinsheimer, Iurdock, Pernell,
Swanson, Mayor Leeuwenburgh
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
-4-
891211 lj A454.KGE (0)
4
• •
RESOLUTION NO. 89-18
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A
VARIANCE TO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK AND SITE
PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL IN ZONING CASE NO. 396
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Applications were duly filed by Ms. Marion
Ruth with respect to real property located at 5 Outrider Road,
Rolling Hills (Lot 48-EF) requesting a variance to construct a
stable in the front yard and site plan review approval for a
proposed residential reconstruction on the site.
Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted a duly
noticed public hearing to consider the application on June 20,
1989 and July 18, 1989, and conducted a field site review on
July 8, 1989.
Section 3. Sections 17.32.010 through 17.32.030
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 property to the same extent enjoyed by similar
properties. Pursuant to these Sections, the Planning Commission
finds that:
A. The existing development pattern and unusual
shape of the property make it impractical and
unfeasible to place a horse stable in the back yard.
B. In view of the topographical situation and
shape of the property, there exists unique
circumstances not generally applicable to other
properties in the same zone that justify the continued
encroachment.
C. The grant of a variance under these
circumstances will not be detrimental to the public
health, safety and welfare and will be compatible with
surrounding properties and will be consistent with the
goals of the Zoning Ordinance.
Section 4. Based on the foregoing findings, the
Planning Commission hereby approves the Variance for Case No. 396
to permit the construction of a horse stable in the front yard
as indicated in the Development Plan submitted with this
application and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit A.
• •
Section 5. Section 17.34.010 requires a development
plan to be submitted for site plan review and approval before any
building or structure may be constructed or any expansion,
addition, alteration or repair to existing buildings may be made
which involve changes to grading or an increase to the size of
the building or structure by more than twenty-five (25%) percent
in any thirty-six (36) month period.
Section 6. The Commission makes the following findings
of fact:
A. The proposed residential structure is compatible
with the low density, rural character requirements of the
General Plan. This project is compatible with the Zoning
Ordinance because the project complies with the Zoning
Ordinance lot coverage requirements. The net square footage
of the lot is approximately 48,896 square feet. The
proposed residential structures including garage equals
6,129 square feet which represents 14.16% structural lot
coverage, which is within the 20% maximum coverage that is
permitted. The total lot coverage is approximately 14,039
square feet which represents a proposed total lot coverage
of 28.71%, which is within the 35% maximum coverage that is
permitted. The proposed project is compatible with
surrounding residential structures. The proposedproject
includes a residence, swimming pool, and proposed future
stable, which structures are similar to surrounding
residential land use patterns.
B. The proposed development preserves the natural
topographic features of the lot to the maximum extent
possible because all construction will occur on the existing
building pad area, leaving a large portion of the lot
undeveloped.
C. The proposed project follows the natural contours
of the site to minimize grading to the maximum extent
possible, in that all construction will occur on the
existing building pad area of the lot. Existing drainage
patterns will be preserved so that drainage will be
channeled into existing drainage courses and engineered and
constructed within the requirements of the building codes.
D. The project preserves surrounding native
vegetation to the maximum extent possible, by limiting
building to the existing building pad area.
E. The project substantially preserves the natural
and undeveloped state of the lot by minimizing building
coverage in that the residential structure will cover only
14.16% of the lot, which is less than the 20% of coverage
-2-
890804 sas A431.KGE (1)
• •
that is permitted. The total structural lot coverage
including driveways, and hard surfaces will equal
approximately 28.71% of the lot, which is less than the 35%
of coverage that is permitted.
F. The project is harmonious in scale and mass with
the site as indicated in paragraph E above because the
proposed development will be substantially similar to the
existing site development.
G. The project is sensitive and not detrimental to
the convenience and safety of pedestrians and circulation of
vehicles in that the driveway will remain in the same
location as it presently exists.
H. The project conforms to the requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act and is categorically
exempt from environmental review.
Section 7. Based as to foregoing findings, the
Commission hereby approves the site plan review application for a
proposed residential reconstruction on the property located at 5
Outrider Road as indicated on the development plan attached
hereto as Exhibit A and subject to the following conditions:
A. The maximum elevation of the ridge line for the
residence shall not exceed 13.7 feet above the
elevation of the fire hydrant located immediately
to the west of the west property line.
B. The proposed building plan must be approved by the
Rolling Hills Community Association Architectural
Committee before the applicant receives a grading
permit from the County of Los Angeles.
C. Prior to the submittal of a final grading
plan to the County of Los Angeles, the
grading plan shall be submitted to the
Rolling Hills Planning Department Staff for
their review, along with related geology,
soils and hydrology reports. This grading
plan must conform to the development plan as
approved by the Planning Commission.
D. A landscape plan must be submitted to the City of
Rolling Hills Planning Department staff for
approval. The landscaping plan submitted must
comply with the purpose and intent of the Site
Plan Review Ordinance. The landscaping plan shall
incorporate existing mature trees and native
vegetation. A bond in the amount of the cost
-3-
890804 sas A431.KGE (1)
• •
estimate for the landscaping plus 15% shall be
posted and retained with the City for not less
than two years after landscape installation. The
retained bond will be released by the City 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.
E. The working drawings submitted to the County
Department of Building and Safety for plan check
must conform to the Development Plan approved with
this site plan review.
F. Any modifications to the development plan as
approved by the Planning Commission shall require
the filing of an application for modification of
the development plan and must be reviewed and
approved by the Planning Commission pursuant to
Section 17.34.070 of the Rolling Hills Municipal
Code.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 5th day of
August , 1989.
ATTEST:
City Clerk
-4-
890804 sas A431.KGE (1)
Chairman
BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
In the Matter of the Application
of
Mr. Floyd J. Prince
Lot 80-EF
ZONING CASE NO. 136
FINDINGS AND REPORT
The application of Mr. Floyd J. Prince, Lot 80-EF, Eastfield
Tract, for a conditional use permit under Article III, Section 3.06,
Front Yard. Requirements, Ordinance No. 33 came on for hearing on
the 17;th day of December, 1974 in the Council Chambers of the
Administration Building, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills,
California, and the applicant, having submitted evidence in support
of the application, the Planning Commission, being advised, now
makes its Findings and Report as required by the Ordinances of the
City of Rolling Hills, California.
I.
The Commission finds that the applicant, Mr. Floyd J. Prince,
is the owner of that certain real property described as Lot 80-EF,
Eastfield Tract, located in the City of Rolling Hills, California,
and that notice of the public hearing in connection with said
application was given as required by Sections 8.06 and 8.07 of
Ordinance No. 33 of .the City of Rolling Hills, California.
II.
The Commission further finds that no person appeared atisaid
public hearing in opposition to the application, and that Mr. Gordon
Potter, 7 Outrider Road, called the office to say that he had no
objection to a swimming pool in the Princes' front yard, but would
have a strong objection to a pool in their rear yard, as it would
infringe on his privacy because of the unusual shape of the two
properties.
III.
The Commission further finds that the applicant requests the
conditional use permit for construction of a swimming pool in the
front yard adjacent to a proposed residence addition that would
contain bath and dressing facilities. The applicant has stated that
another location on the property would be inconvenient, because of
lack of bath and dressing facilities in the area of the pool, and
further, an existing paddle tennis court would have to be removed
from the rear yard to permit construction of a pool in the rear of
the residence, and a horse trail along the side of the property
would deprive the residents of privacy if the pool were located in
the rear yard. The Commission finds that a conditional use permit
should be granted in order to preserve substantial property rights
possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone.
IV.
From the foregoing it is concluded that.a conditional use
permit should be granted under Article III, Section 3.06, Front
Yard Requirements, Ordinance No. 33 to Mr. Floyd J. Prince, Lot 80-EF,
subject to a list of conditions of approval made a part of the file,
including a requirement for a bond to insure the faithful performance
of the proposed landscape.pro*ram in an amount to be determined by
the City Staff, and further, that approval of the request for a
conditionaluse permit for construction of a swimming pool in the
front yard does not imply approval of the esthetics of a wrought
iron fence on top of the concrete retaining wall or relocation of
a three rail fence in the easement, since such matters are under
the jurisdiction and control of the Rolling Hills Community Associ-
ation, and it is, therefore, so ordered.
Al
RETARY, PLANNING CO SSION
/u/ Godfrey Pernell
CHAIRMAN, PLANNING COMMISSION