Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council receives Planning Commission approval for reduced gazebo at 1 Chestnut Lane
Summary
The city council received and filed the Planning Commission’s approval of zoning case 26‑38 for a reduced 135‑square‑foot gazebo at 1 Chestnut Lane after staff noted the structure had been built without permits and was later reduced in size. Neighbors asked about fire-code setbacks and permitted uses.
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Rolling Hills City Council on Monday received and filed the Planning Commission’s approval of zoning case 26‑38, a site plan, conditional‑use permit and front‑yard variance for a newly proposed 135‑square‑foot gazebo at 1 Chestnut Lane.
Planning staff told the council the project was initially approved in January 2024 as a larger 264‑square‑foot gazebo after the structure had been constructed without approvals. Benjamin Johnson, the planning technician introduced in the staff presentation, said the applicant reduced the structure’s footprint and re‑submitted plans; he noted neighbors within 1,000 feet were notified and the Planning Commission approved the revised plan. “This project originated as a code case in July 2021 as the gazebo had originally been constructed without proper approvals,” Johnson said during his presentation.
During council questions, members asked about the gazebo’s elevations and whether the design included a door; a resident raised fire‑safety questions. Judith Haynell, who spoke during public comment, asked whether proximity to the house could create issues if new fire rules require removal of trellises or attachments. The mayor and staff clarified that the structure as shown on the plans is free‑standing and that building and safety will enforce fire‑code requirements at permit review.
The council voted by voice to receive and file the Planning Commission approval. Staff confirmed corrected, redlined resolutions and the unredlined final resolution were posted to the city website and provided to council members earlier the same day.
The city did not take separate action to change the project; any building‑permit review and technical conditions remain under the county’s building and safety jurisdiction for code compliance and inspections.
