423, Requirering side yard setback , ApplicationState of California )
County of Los C(ici.€, )
on JanU LJ} -i lgga- before me, ShP'j'tr.nid nay }1:!-
personally appeared Gibe(.
personally known to me ( pr-ovea tome —an—*' =s—af—sa--istac-tar-y -
ovidene4 to be - the person(4 whose name(.14 is/a e-subscribed to the within
instrument and acknowledged to me that—he/she/they executed the same in
.b-/her/r authorized capacity(ies), and that by -his/her/their
signature( on the instrument the person (), or the entity upon behalf of
which the person(t) acted, executed the instrument.
WITNESS my and and official seal.
Signatur
OFFICIAL SEAL
LINDA B CASTLE
NOTARY PUBLIC - CALIFORNIA
LOS ANGELES'COUNTY
My comm. expires MAY 15, 1992
92 386489
A a
RECORDE 0110
OFFICIAL RECORDS
RECORDER'S OFFICE
LOS ANGELES COUNTY
{ CALIFORNIA
4 Wilk 8 A M. MAR 9 1992
State of
County of
j
•
.-,.nary.rrn.....C;'•v,R'�:tir,..,c.� ., ... ,.»
RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND MAIL TO: Recorder's Use
,9 86489
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274
LFEE$3MPOI
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. 42.E SITE PLAN REVIEW
VARIANCE >(
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
I (We) the undersigned state:
I am (We are) the owner(s) of the real property described
follows: 3,r c4 f
"(Le C2-4,--r e/c)
This property is the subject of the
above numbered cases.
I am (We are) aware of, and accept, all the stated conditions
said
ZONING CASE NO. 4Z3 SITE PLAN REVIEW -�
VARIANCE �S
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
as
in
I (We) certify (or declare) under the penalty of perjury that the
foregoing is true and correct.
Print
Owner Ste,
Name
Signatur
AddresAucieu � 71
City/State�i /4/6
9'o 7 5
Print
Owner
Name
ignature
Address
City/State
Signatures must be acknowledged by a notary public.
0 4)1 0‘.
Los 0.42(gfcs
SEAL
INDA E CASTLE
;,;L.i : - CALIFORNIA
LOS ANGELES 'COUNTY
My comm. expires MAY 15, 1992 .
On this the Ll day of j Maul.
S-frehc t, `Gnro,kf-
the undersigned Notary Public,_ personally appeased
lid, personally known to me
❑ •,plc.ved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence
to be the person(s) whose name(s) fS
,within instrument, and acknowledged that
WIT SS my hand and official seal.
Axtda_, 6. eCtikk-
Notary's Signature
�, r."P'P"
She.
is
192, before me,
subscribed to the
executed it.
See Exhibit "A" attached
hereto and made' a part hereof
•
'E;(7,4d-,4 '
RESOLUTION NO. 91-32
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING
HILLS APPROVING A MODIFICATION TO RESOLUTION NO. 90-9-A
GRANTING A VARIANCE TO THE SIDE YARD SETBACK AND SITE PLAN
REVIEW APPROVAL AND APPROVING A MODIFICATION TO RESOLUTION NO.
91-10 GRANTING A TIME EXTENSION IN ZONING CASE NO. 423.
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 Mrs. Stephanie Enright
with respect to real property located at 35 Chuckwagon Road,
Rolling Hills (Lot 18-CF) requesting a modification to the
condition of approval for a Variance to the side yard setback
requirements to construct additions to the nonconforming residence,
and Site Plan Review. The modification requested is to extend the
allowable time period for further design study for permanent repair
of the residential structure that has been severely affected by
land movement.
Section 2. The Commission considered this item at its meeting
on December 17, 1991 at which time information was presented
indicating that the extension of time is necessary due to the need
for final approval by the Los Angeles County Soils & Geology
Division.
Section 3. Based upon information and evidence submitted, the
Planning Commission does hereby amend Paragraph B, Section 7 of
Resolution No. 90-9-A and Paragraph 2, Section 3 of Resolution No.
91-10 to read as follows:
"B. The Variance approvals shall expire within two years
of the approval of this Resolution."
Section 4. Except as herein amended, the provisions of
Resolution No. 90-9-A shall continue to be in full force and
effect.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THISI7TH DP,
ATTEST:
DIANE SAWYER, DEPUTY/CITY CLERK
0%44A-4..d 64_,L-AL/74)1-;-„._
DECEI4ER, 1991./
ALLAN ROBERTS, CHAIRMAN
92 386489
t(
RESOLUTION NO. 91-32
PAGE 2
The foregoing Resolution No. 91-32 entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING
HILLS APPROVING A MODIFICATION TO RESOLUTION NO. 90-9-A
GRANTING A VARIANCE TO THE SIDE YARD SETBACK AND SITE PLAN
REVIEW APPROVAL AND APPROVING A MODIFICATION TO RESOLUTION NO.
91-10 GRANTING A TIME EXTENSION IN ZONING CASE NO. 423.
wasoapproved and adopted at a regular adjourned meeting of the
Planning Commission on December17, 1991 by the following roll call
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COMMISSIONERS FROST, HANKINS, LAY, RAINE, AND CHAIRMAN
ROBERTS
NONE
NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE
DEPUTY CITY CLERK
92 386489
• •
RESOLUTION NO. 90-9-A
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A VARIANCE
TO THE SIDE YARD SETBACK AND SITE PLAN REVIEW
APPROVAL IN ZONING CASE NO. 423
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 Mrs. Stephanie
Enright with respect to real property located at 35 Chuckwagon Road,
Rolling Hills (Lot 18-CF) requesting a variance to the side yard
setback requirements to construct additions to the nonconforming
residence, and site plan review approval to construct additions to
the existing structure.
Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted,a duly
noticed public hearing to consider the application on March 20, 1990
and April 18, 1990; and conducted a field site review on April 7,
1990.
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 other similar properties in the same zone prevent
the owner from making use of the property to the same extent enjoyed
by similar properties. Section 17.16.070 (A) requires a side yard
setback in the RAS-2 to be 35 feet. Pursuant to these Sections, the
Planning Commission finds that:
A. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or
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 vicinity and zone because there
exists topographical and geological constraints that
justify the continued encroachment since the residential
structure cannot be significantly expanded into the front
and rear yard due to the current developmental pattern of
the site.
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 other
nonconforming residences with reduced side yard setbacks
exist in the area.
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
attempt to stabilize the geological condition of the site,
and will be compatible with surrounding properties, since
92 386489
• •
the proposed expansion of the residence would result in no
greater incursion into the side yard setback than the
existing incursion.
Section 4. Based on the foregoing findings, the Planning
Commission hereby approves the Variance for Zoning Case No. 423 to
permit encroachment of residential additions into the side yard
setbacks, as indicated on the development plan submitted with this
application and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit A,
subject to the conditions set forth in Section 7 of this Resolution.
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 orany 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.
fact:
Section 6. The Commission makes following findings of
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 lot
coverage requirements. The lot has a net square foot area
of 38,242 square feet. The residential structure, garage,
wood deck and swimming pool will have 7,018 square feet
which constitutes 18.35% of the lot, which is within the
maximum 20% structural lot coverage requirement. The total
lot coverage including paved areas and driveway will be
10,731 square feet which equals 28.06% of the lot, which is
within the 35% maximum overall lot coverage requirement.
The proposed project is similar and compatible with
neighboring development patterns\.
B. 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 no further grading for the project is required,
thereby preserving the existing slope and mature trees.
C. The development plan follows natural contours of the site
to minimize grading because the existing drainage courses
will not be affected by the project.
D. The development plan preserves surrounding native
vegetation and supplements it with landscaping that is
compatible with and enhances the rural character of the
community.
92 386489
E. The development plan substantially preserves the natural
and undeveloped state of the lot by minimizing building
coverage because the proposed additions will generally
occur on the existing building pad and total structural lot
coverage will not be exceeded.
F. The proposed development is harmonious in scale and mass
with the site, the natural terrain and surrounding
residences because the proposed project is minimal scale
thereby not requiring further grading or impairing views
from surrounding residences.
G. The proposed development is sensitive and not detrimental
to convenience and safety of circulation for pedestrians
and vehicles because the proposed project will not impact
the roadway.
H. The project conforms with the requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act and is categorically
exempt from environmental review.
Section 7. Based upon the foregoing findings the Planning
Commission hereby approves the site plan review application for a
proposed residential project to the property located at 35 Chuckwagon
Road as indicated on the development plan attached hereto as "Exhibit
A" and subject to the following conditions:
A. The variance to the side yard setbacks as indicated on the
Development plan shall not be effective if the existing
residential structure as demolished.
B. The variance approvals shall expire if not used in one year
from the effective date of approval as defined as specified
in Section 17.32.110 of the Municipal Code.
C. The proposed building plan must be approved by the Rolling
Hills Community Association Architectural Committee before
the applicant receives a grading permit form the County of
Los Angeles.
D. 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.
E. 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 to of the cost estimate
of the landscaping plus 15% may be required to be posted
92 386489
and retained with the City for not less than two yearsafter
landscape installation. The retained bond will be released
by the City after the City Manager determines that the
landscaping was installed pursuant the landscaping plan as
approved, and that such landscaping is property established
and in good condition.
F. 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.
G. Any modifications to the development plans 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.
H. The applicant shall execute an affidavit of acceptance of
all conditions pursuant to Section 17.32.087 or this
variance and site plan review approval shall not be
effective.
ATTEST:
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 5th day May, 1990.
Depuity Clerk
/s/ Allan Roberts
Chariman
92 386489
RESOLUTION NO. 91-10
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING
HILLS APPROVING A MODIFICATION TO RESOLUTION NO. 90-9-A
GRANTING A VARIANCE TO THE SIDE YARD SETBACK AND SITE PLAN
REVIEW APPROVAL IN ZONING CASE NO. 423.
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 Mrs. Stephanie Enright
with respect to real property located at 35 Chuckwagon Road,
Rolling Hills (Lot 18-CF) requesting a modification to the
condition of approval for a Variance to the side yard setback
requirements to construct additions to. the nonconforming residence,
and Site Plan Review. The modification requested is to extend the
allowable time period for further design study for permanent repair
of the residential structure that has been severely affected by
land movement.
Section 2. The Commission considered this item at its meeting
on April 16, 1991 at which time information was presented
indicating that the extension of time is necessary due to landslide
movement on the site that has so effected the existing structure as
to require further design study for permanent repair of the damage
as part of the addition and alteration to the structure.
Section 3. Based upon information and evidence submitted, the
Planning Commission does hereby amend Paragraph B, Section 7 of
Resolution No. 90-9-A to read as follows:
"B. The Variance approvals shall expire within eighteen (18)
months of the approval of this Resolution."
Section 4. Except as herein amended, the provisions of
Resolution No. 90-9-A shall continue to be in full force and
effect.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 16TH DA F APRIL, 1991.
ATTEST:
DIANE'SAWYER, DEPUTY CITY CLERK
ALLAN ROBERTS, CHAIRMAN
92 386489
�•
RESOLUTION NO. 91-10
Page 2
The foregoing Resolution No. 91-10 entited:
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF:':
ROLLING HILLS APPROVING A MODIFICATION TO RESOLUTION NO.
90-9-A GRANTING A VARIANCE TO THE SIDE YARD SETBACK AND
SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL IN ZONING CASE NO. 423.
was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission on April 16, 1991 by the following roll'%ail vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS FROST, HANKINS, LAY, RAINE AND CHAIRMAN
ROBERTS
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE
d/
DEP�TTY CITY CL RK
92 386489
•
•
!WIEST FOR HEARING
FOR ZONE VARIANCE
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
The undersigned : Tr p(\‘i ENp ,j'4Y
Name
3 5 C(4U 4LV/AC O►`] R-).
Street Address Telephone Number
611) is/are the owner(s) or is/are in lawful possession of
(2) has permission of the owner
Legal description of property situated at
Lot
3'S CHOCA4Nr/,o1.1. D.
Street Address
Tract
Describe in detail the nature of the proposed use, including what aspects of the
project require a Variance.
fiZore6Q2 &DD1 ail 1"o AN KK-r-w(-iI-
1 S(cFNCE \/it_L EX) oNA-7 A Nay!-coNFor 106r
S» YAZD SETT c..K of f o" on( oIE SIDE *
ON THE o1'Fosr st
Criteria to be satisfied for grant of Variance
Such change is based upon the following described exceptional or extraordinary
circumstances or conditions that do not apply generally to other property in the
'same vicinity and zone.
TOO- Ex15'f1N51M Y T 5 ARE NoN-CoMFoMMtt ier.
Nr 6„ /i ?i oY, 5 C.y9p4PL.Y WiT14 Cori Fo (t St~T 5
\/ma L.D C 40AM wel,R.D 4 I T `CellZ.
Such change will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare nor injurious to
the property or improvements in such vicinity and z�rQ where property.is.1ncated because.
Wages
No PART of `'C'f-I Rsi (- TNT TZ4 31-1 C
Y1s1 F r 4 ¶}1 $r- 'gale
EKi P 4510 t er) . i3u -7I N 6i 1.-1Gi F+T ('1 o" aN oN e i t '
AND SR- o'/ AO_ LL Y/, W< 15 Lo CT 01N
`174- ]`i"i NA, , 'PAT, W17-14 t c' q f 16i gc�1�ED.
FILING FEE
A filing fee
4.-4040
must accompany the application. Make check payable to:
' S DECIMATION
I, (tote), declare under penalty of perjury that. the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed at . gUL 1 NIk 141 I 1 S
this 92.N day of r=
Mdrss
21.E J r ir+(LeL3
California,
1910
MOTE: The Owner's Declaration can only be used if this application is signed in
California. If this application is signed outside of California, the applicant
should -acknowledge before a Not_ry Public of, the State where the signature is
ffixed, or before another officer of that State authorised by its laws to take .
acknowledgments, that he (it) owns the property described herein, and that the
information in the accompanying this application is true to the best of his (its)
knowledge and belief. Attach appropriate acknowledgment here.
FORKS ISSUED TO:
DEANE
ORGANIZATION
joa BPS$
is
DATE
DECISION OF PLANNING COMMISSION
PILED
FEE $
R$CEIPT RO.•
The action of the Planning Commission will be final unless within twenty (20) days
following the notice to the applicant of the decision, an appeal in writing is filed
with the City Clerk by:
A. The applicants
S. Any person who protested, either orally or in writing, as a matter of record
prior to the final vote of the Planni,y Commission on the matter and who, in
addition, received or was entitled to receive the written notice specified
in subdivision 2 of subsection A of Section 17.40.060; or
C. The City Council, upoe the affirmative. vote of three members of the Council.
In order to obtain: a building permit, it will be necessary for the applicant to sign
a copy of the findings that they understand and accept the conditons of approval.
•
•
REQUEST FOR HEARING
FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
The
undersigned ST�PI44 1(E ill r I4i
Name
�5 c�v� o1J 1 -b. ODN6 H-r►-..,�5
Street Address
Telephone No.
(1) is/are the owner(s) or is/are lawful possession of
(2) has permission of the owner
Legal description of property situated at 10 0310 3_
Lot Tract
3 S e v/A ekt
Street Address
NATURE OF PROPOSED PROJECT
Describe in detail the nature of the proposed project, including what
aspects of the project require a Site Plan Review.
AO iaDttliON TO iN (ISTtri6! iktcu.ini) :
LI k/I 0CT S - - 6 o -z-
nEek - 2-O • FT
SITE PLAN REVIEW CRITERIA
Site Plan Review criteria upon which the Planning Commission must
make an affirmative finding. Describe in detail the project's
conformance to the below criteria:
A. Is the project compatible with the General Plan, the zoning
ordinance and surrounding uses? Explain how it compares to sizes,
set -backs and other characteristics of neighboring houses.
}plzotricr ce,1,-(pur 4/ rfl-E- ALL FJcc, r Fob 51 nE
._ Srvrf OF
X:15y1N6i NON (.ON rzM►146/ 6 S CK3 of 1'-'c 4 r $'-a' : TN>=
NE1644-66Z4NG PR Pe(Zfl 3 ACE F `:SIf/rLes._ c 1D 1-1iafi1
B. Does the project preserve and integrate 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)?
Explain how the project preserves and integrates existing natural
features.
`ri-E P0a 1 frax,iims No G-rl Dl rack c ,6._TT T1014 S r r4
exl S`1 i MG--7 M,,Tor 'T. S . 21=M41 >�
--p4 E / Ili F 1' o f TNT POSE , ran nzoT' 1=xc. 1)
-roe EXIST? Nici B , i4E14147.
5
•
•
C. Does the site development plan follow natural contours of the
site to minimize grading; extensive grading and recontouring of
existing terrain to maximize buildable area shall not be approved?
Graded slopes shall be rounded and contoured so as to blend with
existing terrain. Grading shall not modify existing drainage or
re -direct drainage flow unless into an existing drainage courses.
Explain the nature and extent of the impact of grading and proposed
minimization measures.
1 oPc)S1> 4 , A17D 1T10145 DD NO r
D. Does the site development plan preserve surrounding native
vegetation and supplement it with landscaping that is compatible with
and enhances the rural character of the community? Landscaping
should provide a buffer and transition zone between private and
public areas. Explain how the project preserves native vegetation,
integrates landscaping and creates buffers.
C(6D o 1 AT-0 -- t N/T) . i t-1C? EcIFFEVS 12F... AAJNl
LIN ptsTu124%.
E. Does the site development plan substantially preserve the
natural and undeveloped state of the lot by minimizing building
coverage? Lot coverage requirements shall be regarded as maximums
and the actual amount of lot coverage permitted should depend upon
the existing buildable area of the lot. Explain how the lot coverage
proposed compares with lot coverage square footage and percentages on
neighboring
l�o7t�s. �p t �{
�-opt)-5Eb t�- /y0 4 f`-( M l lI-D (N6I PAP,
Y4E 7e,r4L RJI LT71 7`14 /' rS \/ELL w ! TH 1 N THE s1
t�PE of Ni6r -t i(M67
Is the site development plan harmonious in scale and mass with
.he site, the natural terrain and surrounding residences? Setbacks
;hall be regarded as minimums and more restrictive setbacks shall be
_mposed where necessary to assure proportionality and openness.
:xplain how the proposed project setbacks compare with the existing
etbacks of neighboring properties.
TN-F. . Pe)5 `( s a&j `r1-V ; / r1 mr Steil c.KS
o1 V &1,g(We P i-"c'"p (. E 1 1 t,oT S
7M1#-,4� Ctn�fh17'1DNl3,.` 1
6
• •
G. Is the site development plan sensitive and not detrimental to
convenience and safety of circulation for pedestrians and vehicles?
Explain how the number and types of vehicles relate to the driveway
location, design, trip data and landscaping and other on -site parking
or storage areas.
E ' f"� n ,it;T7o H s! - No 1 M.Tci" Si'f2G4t1
O_ \/041 CU LA)Z 0.4 graJ LAIne4J, (`i O CAW C-{ rS NO U 571 hk i
C-f ZCL1LAi-T1 C7N ,47-- FRORb5:>
H. Does the site development plan conform with the requirements of
the California Environmental Quality Act? Explain how the project
impacts the environment, e.g., significant impact, proposed
mitigation measures.
t 5 `Pry P-Cr 46.5 NO �-�7.11 F/ M1 11A P? c oN 7F4E
lv� j21M L4' c F M5 \i i `(14 TH E r-e,izNj 1,a MigN 11/1IE(TAL
Or JAL,TY ACT:
I hereby certify that the statements furnished above, and in attached
exhibits, present the data and information required for the site plan
review criteria eevaluation to be the best of my ability; and, that
the facts, statements and other information presented are true and
correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
DATE : g - 10
(2-;a952-41/4/}teez.
SIGNATURE
FOR
7
•
•
CHECKLIST FOR PLAN SUBMITTAL (con't)
17. Show the existing buildable area which is that portion of a lot
that constitutes the existing building pad and any contiguous
portion of the lot within the area defined by the required
minimum setbacks that has an average slope of ten (10%) percent
or less. If there is not existing building pad, the buildable
area shall mean that portion of a lot within allowable setbacks
that has an average slope of ten (10%) of less.
COMPUTATION OF LOT COVERAGE
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
LOT COVERAGE (Title 171
Main buildings, accessory buildings, structures, tennis courts,
swimming pools, service yards (enclosed or unenclosed), stables, or an
area of not less than 200 square feet for the construction of a stable
(with vehicle access thereto) shall not cover more than twenty (20%)
percent of the net lot area; provided further that in addition to the
above described improvements, the areas included within driveways,
parking space, walks, patios, decks and asphalt or concrete paving of
any kind excepting roads maintained by the Rolling Hills Community
Association, shall not cover more than thirty-five (35%) percentof the
net lot area.
For the purposes of this Section "net area" shall exclude all
perimeter easements for a maximum of ten feet and that portion of the
lot or parcel of land which is used for roadway purposes, and shall also
exclude any private drive or driveway which provides ingress and egress
to any other lot or parcel of land, and access strip portion of any flag
lot.
BUILDING AREA
CALCULATIONS
NET LOT AREA
RESIDENCE
GARAGE
SWIMMING POOL
STABLE
TENNIS COURT
SERVICE YARD
OTHER
EXISTING
PROPOSED TOTAL
'%681?1-kZ sq. ft. o sq. ft. 30,z4 Z sq. ft.
3/G j- sq. ft. ( 02-sq. ft. 4,366 sq. ft.
67 7_ sq. ft. p sq. ft.
6 sq. ft.
0 sq. ft. 7,04 sq. ft.
0 sq. ft.
5c1- sq. ft.
sq. ft.
sq. ft.
5 7 sq. ft.
TOTAL SQUARE FEET 11 l4
% STRUCTURE COVERAGE 17.E
DRIVEWAY
PAVED WALKS AND PATIO AREA sq. ft.
+ POOL DECKING i �osq. ft.
TOTAL SQUARE FEET 3713
%FLATWORK COVERAGE
(,7Z sq. ft.
5Q4-
SOLO
p sq.
sq. ft.
sq.
ft.
ft.
ft. O sq. ft.
ft. 56 sq. ft.
6.z. 57` 0
Z.31 % 1 S. I
7Z5 sq. ft. 0 sq. ft. 775 sq. ft.
(72z, sq. ft. -70 & sq. ft.
p sq. ft. )500sq. ft.
1 z.zo 4'? 33
$71 % 3.11% (Z.tic:4
%TOTAL COVERAGE 72. % %
o sq•
p sq.
4
OWNER'S ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Property development in Rolling Hills is governed by
ordinances of the City of Rolling Hills ("City") and by private deed
restrictions enforced by the Rolling Hills Community Association
("RHCA").
The land development permit process of the City and the RHCA
are completely independent and separate. Both must be satisfied and
approval given by both the City and the RHCA to develop property in
Rolling Hills. An approval by either the City or the RHCA does not
mean or imply or ensure approval by the other.
The suggested sequence for property development is to obtain
City approvals first.
I, (We), the undersigned, acknowledge that the above statement
has been fully read and its admonition is completely understood.
Executed at Fa I /NIG& 14I�--i-5
_
this day of c' Y , 19 0.
1
California
By: ‹ yC /�' /; � 6//77
By:
35 oftir V /AAA RI
Address
2 i 67 1-01-1-5. CA -
City
9
• •
CERTIFIED PROPERTY OWNERS' LIST
AFFIDAVIT
STATE OF CALIFONIA)
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES)SS
I,.ELIZABETH SROUR, declare under penalty of perjury, that the
attached list contains the names and addresses of all persons who are
shown on the latest available assessment roll of the County of Los Angeles
as owners of the subject property and as owners of property within a
distance of 1000 feet from the exterior boundaries of property legally
described as:
Date:
35 CHUCKWAGON
LOT 18 ,REC.
2-28-90
ROAD, ROLLING HILLS, CA.
OF SURVEY AS PER BOOK 73 PAGE_12-14 _of_ R . S .
Subscribed and sworn to. before me this
19 90.
Z/ e J-LP
Notarl'Public
(Signed)
28th day of February
OFEICIALSEAL
FRANCENE 1J. RAKER
NOTARY PUBLIC-CALIFORNIN
LOS ANGELES COUNTY.
MY, COMM. EXP. JAM,�.16,1199:r ;w,