490, An addition to SFR 925 SF to e, Resolutions & Approval ConditionsRESOLUTION NO. 93-17
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A VARIANCE TO PERMIT PORTIONS OF
A RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE TO ENCROACH INTO THE FRONT YARD
SETBACK, GRANTING A VARIANCE TO PERMIT PORTIONS OF A
RESIDENTIAL- STRUCTURE TO ENCROACH .INTO THE REAR YARD
SETBACK, AND APPROVING SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR CONSTRUCTION
OF SUBSTANTIAL ADDITIONS IN ZONING CASE NO. 490.
THE PLANNING COMMISSIONOF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES
HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Applications were duly filed by Mr. and Mrs.
Harlan Bittner with respect to real property located at 1 Bowie
Road, Rolling Hills (Lot 15-CRA) requesting Variances to permit the
encroachment of portions of a residential structure into the front
and rear yard setbacks, and requesting Site Plan Review for the
construction of substantial additions to the existing single family
structure.
Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed
public hearing to consider the applications for the Variances and
Site Plan Review on February 16, 1993 and March 16, 1993 and at a
field trip visit on March 13, 1993.
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. 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 a
parcel, of property to the same extent enjoyed by similar
properties. A Variance to Section 17.16.060 is required to
construct portions of a residential structure in the fifty (50)
foot front yard setback. The applicant is requesting construction
that will encroach a maximum of eleven (11) feet into the front
yard setback. The Planning Commission finds:
A. There are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances
and conditions applicable to the property and the intended use that
do not apply generally to the other property in the same vicinity
and zone. The Variance is necessary because the existing legal
nonconforming residence was built within the front yard setback
and the building pad is located on a corner lot close to the street
and adjacent residences.
RESOLUTION NO. 93-17
PAGE 2
B. This 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. The Variance is necessary because the
building pad and topography of the rest of the lot preclude the
requested residential structure from being built into the
northwestern portion of the lot or side yard. The project will
allow replacement and infill development and will not enlarge, but
diminish, the outer dimensions of the residence and existing
storage shed.
C. The granting of this Variance will not 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. Development on the pad will allow a substantial portion
of the lot to remain undeveloped.
Section 5. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning
Commission hereby approves the Variance to encroach into the front
yard setback to construct portions of a residential structure to a
maximum of 11 feet as indicated on the Development Plan attached
hereto as Exhibit A subject to the conditions contained in Section
11.
Section 6. A Variance to Section 17.16.080 is required to
construct portions of a residential structure in the fifty (50)
foot rear yard setback. The applicant is requesting construction
that will encroach a maximum of ten (10) feet into the rear yard
setback. The Planning Commission finds:
A. There are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances
and conditions applicable to the property and the intended use that
do not apply generally to the other property in the same vicinity
and zone. The Variance is necessary because the existing legal
nonconforming residence was built within the rear yard setback
and the building pad is located on a corner lot close to the street
and adjacent residences.
B. This 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. The Variance is necessary because the
building pad and topography of the rest of the lot preclude the
requested residential structure from being built into the
northwestern portion of the lot or side yard. The project will
allow infill development and will not enlarge, but diminish, the
outer dimensions of the residence and existing storage shed.
RESOLUTION 93-17
PAGE 3
C. The granting of this Variance will not 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. Development on the pad will allow a substantial portion
of the lot to remain undeveloped.
Section 7. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning
Commission hereby approves the Variance to encroach into the rear
yard setback to construct portions of a residential structure to a
maximum of 10 feet as indicated on the Development Plan attached
hereto as Exhibit A subject to the conditions contained in Section
11.
Section 8. 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 percent (25%) in any
thirty-six month period. The applicant has proposed to construct
substantial additions to the existing single family residence.
Section 9. 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 structural and lot coverage requirements. The lot has
a net square foot area of 34,064 square feet. The proposed
residence of 2,925 square feet, garage of 462 square feet, a 450
square foot future stable, and a 100 square foot service yard will
have 3,937 square feet which constitutes 11.6% of the lot which is
within the maximum 20o structural lot coverage requirement. The
total lot coverage including paved areas and driveway will be 6.544
square feet which equals 19.1% of the lot, which is within the 35%
maximum overall lot coverage requirement. .The proposed project
replaces a large detached storage shed at the western portion of
the house and will infill development which will not extend the
outer reaches of the house on a relatively large lot which provides
adequate open space.
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 because
no grading will take place and, subject to conditions attached to
this approval, mature trees will not be removed, thereby retaining
the current drainage pattern and landscape screening for the site.
RESOLUTION NO. 93-17
PAGE 4
The proposed structure conforms with the natural topographic
features of the lot. The area will not be graded and provides a
pad that conforms with the existing pad located on the site.
C. The development plan follows natural contours of the
site and drainage courses will continue naturally away from the
building pad.
D. The development plan, subject to conditions attached to
this approval, incorporates existing large trees and native
vegetation to the maximum extent feasible 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 new structures will not cause the structural and total
lot coverage to be exceeded. Significant portions of the lot will
be left undeveloped.
F. The proposed development is harmonious in scale and mass
with the site, the natural terrain and surrounding residences
because as indicated in Paragraph A, lot coverage maximum will not
be exceeded and the proposed project is of consistent scale with
the neighborhood. The ratio of the proposed structure to lot
coverage is similar to the ratio found on several properties in the
vicinity. The project is similar and compatible with the scale of
several neighboring developments.
G. The proposed development is sensitive and not
detrimental to convenience and safety of circulation for
pedestrians and vehicles because the proposed project will utilize
the existing vehicular access, thereby having no further impact on
the roadway.
H. The project conforms with the requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act and is categorically exempt
from environmental review.
Section 10. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning
Commission hereby approves the Site Plan Review for proposed
additions at 1 Bowie Road in accordance with the Development Plan
attached hereto as Exhibit A subject to the conditions contained in
Section 11.
Section 11. The Variance to the front yard setback approved
in Section 5, the Variance to the rear yard setback in Section 7,
and the Site Plan Review approved for a proposed new residence as
indicated on the Development Plan attached hereto and incorporated
herein as Exhibit A as approved in Section 10 is subject to the
following conditions:
RESOLUTION NO. 93-17
PAGE 5
A. The Variances shall expire unless used within one year
from the effective date of approval as defined in Section 17.32.110
of the Municipal Code and the Site Plan Review approval shall
expire within one year from the effective date of approval as
defined in Section 17.34.080.A.
B. It is declared and made a condition of the Variance and
Site Plan Review approvals, that if any conditions thereof are
violated, these approvals 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 Zoning Ordinance and of the zone
in which the subject property is located must be complied with
unless otherwise set forth in the approvals, or shown otherwise on
an approved plan.
D. The lot shall be developed and maintained in substantial
conformance with the Development Plan on file marked Exhibit A
except as otherwise provided in these conditions.
E. The structures on the residential building pad shall not
exceed 102.8%.
F. 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.
G. The working drawings submitted to the County Department
of Building and Safety for plan check review must conform to the
development plan approved with this application.
H. The applicant shall execute an Affidavit of Acceptance
of all conditions of this Variance and Site Plan Review, pursuant
to Section 17.32.087, or the approval shall not be effective.
I. Notwithstanding Section 17.34.070 of the Rolling Hills
Municipal Code, any modifications to the project which would
constitute additional development shall require the filing of a new
application for approval by the Planning Commission.
J. Conditions A, C, D, E, F, G, and H must be complied with
prior to the issuance of a building or grading permit from the
County of Los Angeles.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTAY OF APRIL, 1993.
ALLAN ROBERTS, CHAIRMAN
RESOLUTION NO. 93-17
PAGE 6
ATTEST:
k
MARILYN KERN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
ss
I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 93-17 entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A VARIANCE TO PERMIT PORTIONS OF
A RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE TO ENCROACH INTO THE FRONT YARD
SETBACK, GRANTING A VARIANCE TO PERMIT PORTIONS OF A
RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE TO ENCROACH INTO THE REAR YARD
SETBACK, AND APPROVING SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR CONSTRUCTION
OF SUBSTANTIAL ADDITIONS IN ZONING CASE NO. 490.
was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission on April 27, 1993 by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Frost, Hankins, Raine and Chairman Roberts
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: Commissioner Lay
and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the
following:
Administrative Offices
A , _„ _ 1< AA.--j
DEPUTY CI'Y CLERK
RESOLUTION NO. 703
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING
HILLS GRANTING A VARIANCE TO PERMIT PORTIONS OF A
RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE TO ENCROACH INTO THE FRONT YARD
SETBACK, GRANTING A VARIANCE TO PERMIT PORTIONS OF A
RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE TO ENCROACH INTO THE REAR YARD
SETBACK, APPROVING SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR CONSTRUCTION OF
SUBSTANTIAL ADDITIONS, AND SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OF
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 93-17 IN ZONING CASE
NO. 490.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES HEREBY
FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Applications were duly filed by Mr. and Mrs.
Harlan Bittner with respect to real property located at 1 Bowie
Road, Rolling Hills (Lot 15-CRA) requesting Variances to permit the
encroachment of portions of a residential structure into the front
and rear yard setbacks, and requesting Site Plan Review for the
construction of substantial additions to the existing single family
structure.
Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed
public hearing to consider the applications for the Variances and
Site Plan Review on February 16, 1993 and March 16, 1993 and at a
field trip visit on March 13, 1993.
Section 3. The Commission approved Resolution No. 93-17 in
Zoning Case No. 490 on April 27, 1993.
Section 4. Subsequently, the City Council took the subject
case under jurisdiction on May 10, 1993. The City Council
conducted a duly noticed public hearing on May 24, 1993. At the
hearing, the City Council considered the applications along with
the location of the proposed future stable and corral.
Section 5. 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 replacement of a large detached storage shed with an
attached residential addition, the suitability of the terrain for
the future stable and corral, and the proximity of the proposed
stable site to a stable on the adjacent property. The evidence was
taken into account by the City Council, related to the applications
for a Variance into the front yard setback, a Variance into the
rear yard setback and Site Plan Review for the construction of
substantial additions.
Section 6. The Planning Commission found that the project
conforms with the requirements of the California Environmental
Quality Act and is categorically exempt from environmental review.
•
RESOLUTION NO. 703
PAGE 2
Section 7. In regards to the applications for a Variance for
construction that will encroach a maximum of eleven (11) feet into
the front yard setback, a Variance for construction that will
encroach a maximum of ten (10) feet into the rear yard setback, and
Site Plan Review for the construction of substantial additions, the
City Council finds that they concur with all of the findings of the
Planning Commission in Resolution No. 93-17, dated April 27, 1993.
Section 8. Based upon the findings made by the Planning
Commission in Resolution No. 93-17, the City Council hereby
approves the Variance to encroach into the front yard setback to
construct portions of a residential structure, approves a Variance
into the rear yard setback to construct portions of a residential
structure and grants Site Plan Review approval for the construction
of proposed additions at 1 Bowie Road.
Section 9. The conditions contained in Section 11 of Planning
Commission Resolution No. 93-17, dated April 27, 1993, shall
continue to be in full force and effect in accordance with the
Development Plan approved by the Commission as Exhibit A.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 14TH DAY OF JUNE, 1993.
ATTEST:
MARILYN K'LRN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
) ss
MUK80CK
I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 703 entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING
HILLS GRANTING A VARIANCE TO PERMIT PORTIONS OF A
RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE TO ENCROACH INTO THE FRONT YARD
SETBACK, GRANTING A VARIANCE TO PERMIT PORTIONS OF A
RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE TO ENCROACH INTO THE REAR YARD
SETBACK, APPROVING SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR CONSTRUCTION OF
SUBSTANTIAL ADDITIONS, AND SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OF
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 93-17 IN ZONING CASE
NO. 490.
•
"'SOLUTION NO. 703
PAGE 3
•
was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council
on June 14, 1993 by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Reinsheimer, Swanson and Mayor Murdock
NOES: None
ABSENT: Councilmenber Pernell and Mayor Pro Tem Leeuwenburah
ABSTAIN: None
and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the
following:
Administrative Offices
1114n .t'.
DEPUTY CITY CLERK