388, Addition to existing SFR with , Resolutions & Approval ConditionsSTATE OF CALIFORNIA
,COUNTYOF Los Angeles
On August 2, 1989
1-
N
U
q)
E
3
co
co
0
o.
)ss.
89-1271006
before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for
said State, personally appeared .TA('K H _ ATKTNSON—and VIRGIN -IA G.
phisk{a/ 11J10/i/i J'o/ri'($r proved to me on the basis of satis-
factory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are sub-
scribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that
he/she/they executed the same.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
ATKINSON
OFFICIAL SEAL
CATHERINE ANN THOMAS
NOTARY PUBLIC • CALIFORNIA
PRINCIPAL OFFICE IN
LOS ANGELES COUNTY
ah. atnininn Exp. M. 25, 1991
(This area for official notarial seal)
t E
* 89-12'406
RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND MAIL TO:
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274
Please record this form with the
return to:
City of Rolling Hills
2 Portuguese Bend Road
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
(The Registrar -Recorder's Office
before recordation.)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )
ss
RECORDED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS
RECORDER'S OFFICE
LOS ANGELES COUNTY
CALIFORNIA
31 a11N. 12 P.M.AUG 8 1989
PAST
-Registrar-Recorder's Office and
FEE$1.3
requires that the form be notarized
Acceptance Form
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE N0:
VARIANCE CASE NO.
SITE PLAN REVIEW NO.
I (We) the undersigned state:
388
I am (We are) the owner(s). of the real property described
This property is the subject of the above numbered
cases.
as follows:
I am (We are) aware of, and accept, all the stated conditions in said
Conditional Use Permit Case No.
Variance Case No.
SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 388
I (We) certify (or declare) under the penalty, of perjury that the
foregoing is true' and correct
(Where the owner%and applicant. are not the same, both must sign.)
Type or print
Applicant NameJl]2G/41; 6-il=Ticrrfs-o'y-JACK if. a
Address a-?i5o to, /-fl i?. elsr
City, State Olga, 907.73,'
Signature/,
F
This signature must
be acknowledged by a
notary public. Attach
appropriate acknowledgement.
Owner Name Uigry, 6.11-7-Kfrrio.V-
Address otlfrio i?•i/ P 11. e'i9,ST
City, State Ri+--'c / l/ CV-949,7v
Signature
s
i
• •
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING SITE PLAN
REVIEW APPROVAL IN ZONING CASE NO. 388
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. An application was duly filed by Mr. and
Mrs. Jack Atkinson with respect to real property located at 74
Saddleback Road, Rolling Hills (Lot 4-RH) requesting site plan
review approval for a proposed residential development on the
site.
Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted a duly
noticed public hearing to consider the application on April 18,
1989 and May 16, 1989, and conducted a field site review on
May 13, 1989.
Section 3. 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 4. The Commission makes the following findings
A. 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 con-
forms to the Zoning Code setback and lot coverage
requirements. The lot has a net square foot area
of 165,493 square feet. The proposed residential
structure and garage will have 7,422 square feet
which constitutes 4.5% of the lot, which is within
the maximum 20% lot coverage requirement. The
total lot coverage including paved areas, swimming
pool and stables will be 15,020 square feet which
equals 9.7% of the lot, which is within the 35%
maximum structural lot coverage requirement. The
proposed project is similar and compatible with
surrounding land use patterns. Although the pro-
posed residential structure is larger than an
adjacent house, its percentage of the total lot
coverage is less than one-third what is permitted.
89-1271006
• •
•
B. The proposed development preserves and integrates
into the site design, to the maximum extent
feasible, the natural topographic features of the
lot by being constructed on the existing building
pad.
C. The project follows the natural contours of the
site described in paragraph B, above. Grading is
limited to two small areas on the easterly and
westerly sides of the proposed residential
structure. All drainage flow will be channeled
into existing drainage courses.
D. To the maximum extent possible, native vegetation
will be preserved and the landscape buffer within
the street easement will be maintained and
preserved in its current state.
E. The project substantially preserves the natural
and undeveloped state of the lot in that the
proposed structure is less than one-fourth of the
size that is allowable on that lot and slightly
more than one-fourth of what is allowable for
total lot coverage. The project also
substantially exceeds the required setbacks.
F. Although the Development Plan specifies a
relatively large residential structure, the
project is harmonious in scale and mass for the
site in that the project is located on a 3.8 acre
parcel of land. Building setbacks on the front
property are substantially greater than the
minimum setback of 50 feet. The proposed
structure is 150 feet from the nearest residence.
G. The project is sensitive and not detrimental to
the convenience and safety of circulation for
pedestrians and vehicles in that the driveway
remains in its existing location.
H. The project conforms to the requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act and is
categorically exempt from environmental review.
Section 5. Based on the foregoing findings, the
Commission hereby approves the site plan review application for a
proposed residential project to the property located at
74 Saddleback Road subject to following conditions:
A. Any modifications to the project which would
constitute a modification to the Development Plan
as approved by the Planning Commission, shall
890606 sas 1680007 (2)
-2-
89-1.2' 7100 6
• •
require the filing of an application for
modification of the Development Plan pursuant to
Section 17.34.070 of the Rolling Hills Municipal
Code.
B. A landscaping plan must be submitted to the City
of Rolling Hills Planning Department staff for
approval. The 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 deter-
mines that the landscaping was installed pursuant
to the landscaping plan as approved, and that such
landscaping is properly established and in good
condition.
C. Prior to the submittal of a final grading plan to
the County of Los Angeles for plan check, a
detailed grading plan with related geology, soils
and hydrology reports that conform to the
Development Plan as approved by the Planning
Commission must be submitted to the Rolling Hills
Planning Department staff for their review.
D. The proposed building plan must be approved by the
Rolling Hills Community Association Architectural
Review Committee before any grading permit is
issued.
E. The working drawing submitted to the County
Department of Building and Safety for plan check
review must conform to the Development Plan
approved with the site plan review.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 6th day of
JnnP , 1989.
ATTEST:
-3-
890606 sas 1680007 (2)
/s/ Allan Roberts
Chairman
89--1271006