Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission reapproves reduced gazebo and outdoor kitchen at 1 Chestnut Lane
Summary
The Rolling Hills Estates Planning Commission reapproved a 135 sq ft covered gazebo with an outdoor kitchen at 1 Chestnut Lane (Zoning Case 26-38), finding the project meets code despite a neighbor’s objections about size, front-yard placement and potential short-term rental use.
The Rolling Hills Estates Planning Commission voted to reapprove zoning case 26-38, allowing a 135-square-foot covered gazebo and outdoor kitchen at 1 Chestnut Lane, after staff said the revised design meets applicable code requirements.
Benjamin Johnson, the city’s assistant planner, told the commission that the project had previously been approved in January 2024 but the two-year entitlement period had expired; the new request is a denovo review of the same proposal reduced from an earlier 264-square-foot structure to the current 135-square-foot gazebo. Johnson said neighbors within 1,000 feet were notified and staff received one written public comment.
The applicant requested site-plan approval, a conditional use permit for the structure’s use and variances to place the structure in the front yard and waive the municipal code’s stable/corral set-aside requirement. Johnson recommended opening the public hearing, taking testimony and providing direction; a draft resolution with conditions was included for the commission’s consideration.
During public comment, Mon’nique Hansen, speaking for her father Gary Hansen (a neighbor at 6 Chestnut Lane), urged the commission to deny the variances and conditional use permit. She cited Rolling Hills municipal code provisions and said the project “goes against the intent” of the codes, warned the structure could be used for short-term rentals or commercial events, and quoted the code’s language that “No sleeping quarters or renting of a structure shall be permitted.”
Commissioners discussed the project’s history and the steep, irregular lot topography. Several commissioners noted the significant size reduction from the earlier approval and said concerns about potential future private rental use were not typically enforceable by the planning commission. The commission concluded that the facts before them had not materially changed since the prior approval.
By motion, the commission adopted Resolution 2026-04 to reapprove the site-plan review, conditional use permit and associated variances with the conditions included in staff’s resolution. The motion passed on roll call with the commissioners present voting in favor.
The approval is subject to the usual building and permit requirements and to any conditions of approval listed in the adopted resolution; permits will not be issued until all required ministerial reviews and clearances are completed.
