Loading...
423, Requirering side yard setback , Resolutions & Approval ConditionsRESOLUTION 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 m:od_fication rec.uested 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 A"lam nDOP __ THIErTH DEFY—C DECEMEER 1991. ALLAN ROBERTS, CHAIRMAN ATTEST: /�. �c SeLc7e..e4_, DIANE SAWYER,('DEPUTYICITY CLERK 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. was approved 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 o,(? DEPUTY CITY CLERK 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 _Q,F A RIL, 1991. r 01 ALLAN ROBERTS, CHAIRMAN ATTEST: Ouw' D*PUTY D PUTY CITY CLERK RESOLUTION NO. 91-10 Page 2 The foregoing Resolution. No. 91-10 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 IN ZONING CASE NO. 423. was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the Pianninc Commission on April 16, 1991 by the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS FROST, HANKINS, LAY, RAINE AND CHAIRMAN ROBERTS NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE DEP(ITY CITY CLERK RESOLUTION NO. qn-q-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 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 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. 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. 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 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 determ'�.-•:.:..w hat the landscaping was installed pursuant the 1.nd'ca-''g plan as approved, and that such landscaping is p operty .tablished and in good condition. F. The working drawings submitted to the County .°-,N. went of Building and Safety for plan check must conformto 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 notbe effective. ATTEST: PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 5th day May,, 1990. f Depu , ity Clerk' /s/ Allan Roberts Chariman 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 additionsto 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 DAj _4 APRIL, 1991. ALLAN ROBERTS, CHAIRMAN ATTEST: DIANE'SAWYER, D$PUTY CITY CLERK RESOLUTION NO. 91-10 Page 2 The foregoing Resolution No. 91-10 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 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 call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS FROST, HANKINS, LAY, RAINE AND CHAIRMAN ROBERTS NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE DEPUTY CITY CLERK 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 partof 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 withinleighteen (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 DAF APRIL, 1991. ALLAN ROBERTS, CHAIRMAN ATTEST: DIANE1SAWYER, D PUTY CITY CLERK RESOLUTION NO. 91-10 Page 2 The foregoing Resolution No. 91-10 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 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 call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS FROST, HANKINS, LAY, RAINE AND CHAIRMAN ROBERTS NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE DEPUTY CITY CL RK • RESOLUTION NO. 9n-q-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 • • 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 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. 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. • • 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 • • 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. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 5th day May, 1990. /s/ Allan Roberts Chariman ATTEST: Depu4f4/Q42b y Clerk' RESOLUTION NO. q0-9-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 110 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 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. 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 enhancesthe rural character of the community. • 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 Hilts 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 and retained with the City for not less than two yearsafter landscape installation. The retained bondwill 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 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. 4066A. Deput, sty Clerk /s/ Allan Roberts Chariman of 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. ksTA ire ALLAN ROBERTS, CHAIRMAN ATTEST: DIANE#'SAWYER, D$PUTY CITY CLERK 0- RESOLUTION NO. 91-10 Page 2 .The foregoing Resolution No. 91-10 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 IN ZONING CASE NO. 423. was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the Piannino Commission on April 16, 1991 by the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS FROST, HANKINS, LAY, RAINE AND CHAIRMAN ROBERTS NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE DEP TY CITY CLERK