Loading...
none, Addition to SFR, CorrespondenceNovember 9, 2001 Mr. and Mrs. James Hansen 22480 Village Way Drive Canyon Lake, CA 92587 0/ A/tiny�1G16� ."' INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 E-mail: cityofrh@aol.com SUBJECT: VIEW PRESERVATION REQUIREMENTS 41 EASTFIELD DRIVE (LOT 37-B-EF), ROLLING HILLS Dear Mr. and Mrs. Hansen: Thank you for speaking with me on Friday, November 9, 2001 regarding the view preservation requirements for the property you own at 41 Eastfield Drive. This letter is a reminder to you that the elimination of view obstruction and the preservation of views for uphill neighbors is a requirement of a Variance that was approved in May 1987 for a pool and spa in the front yard in Zoning Case No. 340. Again, we received a report from your uphill neighbor, Dr. Dave Basque, 49 Eastfield Drive, about the pepper tree and the myoporum opposite the pepper tree that are obstructing his view. In addition, Dr. Basque reported that trees located on the right hand side, (northwest), of the upper driveway of your property also need trimming, as they too obstruct his view. You assured me that you will remove the pepper tree and will trim the myopoium in the very near future. In addition, you are working with your neighbor to the northwest to share the cost of trimming additional trees in that area of their property. Because land use decisions run with the land, it is necessary for you, the property owner, to continue to fulfill this requirement. Feel free to call me at (310) 377-1521 if you have any questions. Thank you very much for your cooperation. Sin Yolfity,ta Schwartz Priiipal Planner cc: Mr. Craig Nealis, City Manager Dr. Dave Basque Printed on Recycled Paper. Ci1y o/ reo efins Jh/h, March 31, 2000 Mr. and Mrs. James Hansen 22480 Village Way Drive Canyon Lake, CA 92587 INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 E-mail: cityofrh@aol.com SUBJECT: VIEW PRESERVATION REQUIREMENTS 41 EASTFIELD DRIVE (LOT 37-B-EF), ROLLING HILLS Dear Mr. and Mrs. Hansen: Recently, I called and spoke with Mrs. Hansen regarding the view preservation requirements for the property you own at 41 Eastfield Drive. This letter is a reminder to you that the elimination of view obstruction and the preservation of views for uphill neighbors is a requirement of a Variance that was approved in May, 1987 for a pool and spa in the front yard in Zoning Case No. 340. Again, we received a complaint from your uphill neighbor, Dr. Dave Basque, 49 Eastfield Drive, about the pepper tree and the myoporum opposite that are obstructing his views. Because land use decisions run with the land, it is necessary for you, the property owner, to continue to fulfill this requirement. Feel free to call me at (310) 377-1521 if you have any questions. Your cooperation is appreciated. Sincerely, Lola Ungar Planning Director cc: Mr. Craig Nealis, City Manager Dr. Dave Basque c Printed on Recycled Paper dy o/ koflLy May 18,1998 Mr. James Hansen 22480 Village Way Drive Canyon Lake, CA 92587 • INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377.1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 E-mail: cityofrh@aol.com SUBJECT: VIEW PRESERVATION REQUIREMENTS 41 EASTFIELD DRIVE (LOT 37-B-EF), ROLLING HILLS Dear Mr. Hansen: Thank you again for responding to my letter regarding the trimming of the pepper tree and myoporum at your property and stopping by our office recently. Dr. Dave Basque who resides at 49 Eastfield Drive reports that the myoporum opposite the pepper tree still needs some trimming to preserve his view. Again, the Variance that was approved in May, 1987 for a pool and spa in the front yard in Zoning Case No. 340 required the elimination of view obstruction and the preservation of views for uphill neighbors. Therefore, it is necessary for you as the property owner to continue to fulfill this requirement because land use decisions run with the land. Feel free to call me at (310) 377-1521 if you have any questions. Your cooperation is appreciated. Sincerely, ) ( .J LOLA UNG PLANNING DIRECTOR cc: Mr. Craig Nealis, City Manager Dr. Dave Basque Printed on Recycled Paper. Ci1y a`ie0m Jhff REVISED March 23, 1998 Mr. James Hansen 22480 Village Way Drive Canyon Lake, CA 92587 4 INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 E-mail: cityofrh@aol.com SUBJECT: VIEW PRESERVATION REQUIREMENTS 41 EASTFIELD DRIVE (LOT 37-B-EF), ROLLING HILLS Dear Mr. Hansen: Thank you for responding to my recent letter by trimming the pepper tree at the property you own at 41 Eastfield Drive. Dr. Dave Basque who resides at 49 Eastfield Drive reports that the myoporum opposite the pepper tree still needs some trimming to preserve his view. As we stated on January 29, 1998, the Variance that was approved in May, 1987 for a pool and spa in the front yard in Zoning Case No. 340 required the elimination of view obstruction and the preservation of views for uphill neighbors. Therefore, it is necessary for you as the property owner to continue to fulfill this requirement because land use decisions run with the land. Feel free to call me at (310) 377-1521 if you have any questions. Your cooperation is appreciated. Sincerely, LOLA UNGAR PLANNING DIRECTOR cc: Mr. Craig Nealis, City Manager Dr. Dave Basque ii Printed on Recycled Paper eig y o/ /edfin .hti/l�e March 17,1998 Mr. James Hansen 22480 Village Way Drive Canyon Lake, CA 92587 INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377.1521 FAX: (310) 377.7288 E-mail: cityofrheaol.com SUBJECT: VIEW PRESERVATION REQUIREMENTS 41 EASTFIELD DRIVE (LOT 37-B-EF), ROLLING HILLS Dear Mr. Hansen: Thank you for responding to my recent letter by trimming the pepper tree at the property you own at 41 Eastfield Drive. Dr. Dave Basque who resides at 38 Eastfield Drive reports that the myoporum opposite the pepper tree still needs some trimming to preserve his view. As we stated on January 29, 1998, the Variance that was approved in May, 1987 for a pool and spa in the front yard in Zoning Case No. 340 required the elimination of view obstruction and the preservation of views for uphill neighbors. Therefore, it is necessary for you as the property owner to continue to fulfill this requirement because land use decisions run with the land. Feel free to call me at (310) 377-1521 if you have any questions. Your cooperation is appreciated. Sincerely, OLA UNGAR PLANNING DIRECTOR cc: Printed on Recycled Paper • City op R0//t JI1//1 January 29, 1998 Mr. James Hansen 22480 Village Way Drive Canyon Lake, CA 92587 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377.1521 FAX: (310) 377.7288 E mall: cltyofrh@aol,com SUBJECT: VIEW PRESERVATION REQUIREMENTS 41 EASTFIELD DRIVE (LOT 37-B-EF), ROLLING HILLS Dear Mr. Hansen: As you may recall, there are certain view preservation requirements for the property you own at 41 Eastfield Drive. The elimination of view obstruction and the preservation of views for uphill neighbors is a requirement of a Variance that was approved in May, 1987 for a pool and spa in the front yard in Zoning Case No. 340. Recently, we received a complaint from your uphill neighbor, Dr. Dave Basque, 38 Eastfield Drive, about the pepper tree and the myoporum opposite that are obstructing his views. Because land use decisions run with the land, it is necessary for you, the property owner, to continue to fulfill this requirement. Feel free to call me at (310) 377-1521 if you have any questions. Your cooperation is appreciated. Sincerely, LOLA UNGAR PLANNING DIRECTOR cc: Mr. Craig Nealis, City Manager Dr. Dave Basque • C1iy opeo fP,.y JdFf August 3, 1993 Mr. Kevin Moen Remax Palos Verdes 63 Malaga Cove Plaza Palos Verdes Estates, CA 90274 SUBJECT: 41 EASTFIELD DRIVE VIEW PRESERVATION REQUIREMENTS Dear Mr. Moen: I INCORPORATED JANUARY. 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 It has come to the attention of the Planning Department that the subject property has been listed "for sale" by your firm. It is important for you to note and inform prospective clients of the following: A Variance for a pool and spa in the front yard in Zoning Case No. 340 that was approved in May, 1987 for the subject property required the elimination of view obstruction and the preservation of views for uphill neighbors. And, because land use decisions run with the land, it is necessary for future owners to continue to fulfill this requirement. You may call me at (310) 377-1521 if you have any questions and I will be happy to meet with you. Yours truly, LOLA UNGA PRINCIPAL ' 'LANNER cc: Mr. Craig Nealis, City Manager Printed on Recycled Paper. • C1i, ol leo lli..g June 18, 1993 Mr. James Hansen 41 Eastfield Drive Rolling Hills, CA 90274 SUBJECT: VIEW OBSTRUCTION Dear Mr. Hansen: I INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 Thank you for responding to our request to remove the overgrown portion of the myoporum bushes that cover much of the rear of your property. This was an important step in complying with the elimination of view obstruction requirement of the Planning Commission Resolution, April 21, 1987, in Zoning Case No. 340 and modified on May 26, 1987 as noted in the attached documents. The view for your neighbors to the south, Dr. and Mrs. David Basque, is still impaired by a large pepper tree. And, because land use decisions run with the land, it is still necessary for you to eliminate the view obstruction. You are formally requested to prune the large pepper tree in your yard. Your pruning of the large pepper tree will help to eliminate your neighbors' view obstruction concerns. Please contact this office within the next twenty days to inform us of any planned action. You may call me at (310) 377-1521 if you have any questions and I will be happy to meet with you to observe the overgrown tree and the need for its pruning. Your cooperation is appreciated. Yours truly, LOLA UNGAR PRINCIPAL PLANNER cc: Craig Nealis, City Manager Peggy Minor, Rolling Hills Community Association Manager Printed on Recycled Paper. 430 y G ,.. , ^ /If,ty z < / 9.477 CITY COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS Mayor Swanson stated that everyone's input was sought regarding City Council appointments; but since not all input was received, and with Councilmembers Leeuwenburgh and Parnell absent, asked if this subject should be retained on the agenda for one additional term. It was decided to retain subject of council appointments on the agenda. PUBLIC HEARINGS Zonina Case No. 340, James Hansen, 41 Eastfield Drive Prior to discussion of the first zoning case, Councilman Heinsheimer questioned whether Zoning Case 340 and Case 341 were public hearings, but rather actions that were taken by the Planning Commission which are routinely before the Council. It was stated that the Council had taken jurisdiction on these two cases. They are so listed without any constraints on freedom of action for the Council. The City Manager stated that Zoning Case No. 340 is an application for a zoning variance to the established front yard. The Hansens have asked that they be able to encroach into the front yard at this location at 41 Eastfield for the purpose of building a pool, spa and deck. The encroachment is approximately 26 feet from the corner of the house into the front yard, which would leave a remaining front yard setback from the roadway easement of 68 feet. The Findings and Report lists the conditions that were placed on this particular variance. The City Council called this matter up to discuss the issue of easement clearance. Mayor Swanson explained that the concern of the Council was that there is a possible easement obstruction around the Hansen property and view obstruction caused by some of the trees in the area where the swimming pool is proposed to be put in. The Council asked Mr. Hansen whether he would have any objection to working with his neighbors regarding view obstruction. Mr. Hansen did not feel that his easements needed clearing. The Mayor answered that that could only be determined upon viewing the property. Councilman Heinsheimer indicated the Council was concerned with just the view obstruction; leaving the issue of the condition of the easements to the Association. Councilwoman Murdock said that the conditions of approval established by the Planning Commission includes Condition No. 5 which says that "the improvements as set forth in Exhibit A shall respect, preserve and reinstate if necessary the existing topography, natural landscaping and Rolling Hills Community Association easements." The matter of the clearing of the easements has already been addressed by the Planning Commission. Mayor Swanson asked whether any member of the Council had any problems with the manner in which the Planning Commission stated their findings. Councilman Heinsheimer stated that the Council should consider putting broader conditions on the view obstruction part of the findings because view obstruction has to do with the entire property. Councilwoman Murdock said that this subject had been discussed in general and not in detail. Her inclination would be to address view obstruction throughout the City and with a general examination of the problem; rather than, specifically addressing it now. Councilwoman Murdock indicated that view obstruction is a problem that is very commonplace in the City and it should be addressed, but not through this method. Councilman Heinsheimer said that one of the advantages of doing it this way was that when residents apply for variances or conditional use permits, they are requesting something of the City and their neighbors, therefore the City is in a stronger position to request something back. -3- • _Arty 431 Councilman Heinsheimer suggested that the Council modify the condition of No. 2, Paragraph 3 where it refers to the landscaping plan to include appropriate wording on the elimination of view obstructions on the property. Staff would be requested to give Council exact wording. Councilwoman Murdock asked the City Attorney's opinion as to the propriety of proceeding this way. The City Attorney stated that his opinion has not changed regarding a certain element of ambiguity in the process due to the fact that there is not anything in the Zoning Ordinance that deals with that issue. Mr. Jenkins stated that, he did not feel that this was an unreasonable condition to add to a discretionary permit issued by the City for this type of improvement. Hence, with respect to the proprietary of the issue, he did not have a problem. As regards the clarity of the condition, he agreed that something more comprehensive and more definite should be looked at for future use. Councilman Heinsheimer stated that the current condition was that a landscaping plan be approved, but that the landscaping plan did not have any criteria with it of what should be in the plan. He suggested that standards for landscaping could include view (D obstruction. CDTo clarify the issue, Mayor Swanson said that when a variance case such as this is before the Council, it is a time when the Council is being asked to do something unusual and that m if view obstruction is creating a problem for some of the Q neighbors, that it only stands to reason that is when the problem be taken care of. Mayor Swanson invited testimony from Mr. Hansen. Mr. Hansen asked who complained of the problem with the view. Dr. Basque attended the last Council meeting, stating the problem with the view. Councilman Heinsheimer responded that his reaction is not in response to any particular complaint, but rather to deal in general with the problem of view obstruction. Mr. Hansen stated that one of the trees causing the complaint was going to have to be removed for the pool installation and that he would trim the other tree down to whatever height is deemed appropriate. Mayor Swanson said that the City Manager would be instructed to make a determination of the obstruction. Councilman Heinsheimer clarified that view obstruction pertained to all of the property and not just the variance area. Landscape planning usually deals with the landscaping of the improvement itself. The attempt here is to eliminate any view obstruction that any of the overall property may have. Mr. Hansen mentioned that he had some view obstruction from his neighbors, to which the Council responded that they are trying to handle this situation. Reference was made to Councilman Heinsheimer to the ordinance that Rolling Hills Estates is considering on view obstruction. Records were noted that Councilman Pernell joined the meeting at 8:00 p.m. Mayor Swanson expressed appreciation of Mr. Hansen's cooperation and stated that his variance would be processed as expeditiously as possible. Councilman Heinsheimer moved for approval of the variance with the modification of Paragraph 2 to read: "Landscaping Plan, including the elimination of view obstruction, if any, on the property, be approved . by the Planning Commission." . as written, be approved by the Planning Commission. . . for the cost of "insert" installation and maintenance of such landscapina . . . (remainder of the paragraph as is)." Motion was seconded by Councilwoman Murdock and carried by the following roll -call vote: -4- 432 I /` C itet:a AYES: Councilmembers Heinsheimer, Murdock, Mayor Swanson NOES: None ABSTAIN: Councilman Pernell ABSENT: Councilwoman Leeuwenburgh Zoninc Case No. 341. Alan Johnson. 7 Crest Road East The City Manager stated that Zoning Case No. 341 would allow for a guest house to be constructed at 7 Crest Road East. Reference was made to a list of conditions relating to this proposal. Conditions had been set forth in a report finding approved by the City Planning Commission. Case No. 341 was brought into Council jurisdiction to consider the placement of an additional condition on this application regarding viewscape. Mr. Richard Linde, the project architect, of 200 Alma Porto Court, Torrance, California represented the subject property for Mr. Johnson. Mr. Linde felt that Mr. Johnson would be very cooperative regarding the viewscape problems. The trees on the property were brought up at the Planning Commission and Mr. Johnson expressed his desire to cooperate. Councilman Pernell inquired if compliance would be needed regarding a draining system. Mr. Linde stated that there would be no problem, as discussed with the Planning Commission. Condition No. 11 regarding the drainage of water from the pool was discussed since the conditions listed require that all drainage of water from the pool would be accomplished by pumping the water into a tank truck and disposed of outside the City of Rolling Hills. Concern was expressed over where the water would be deposited. Staff commented that an extension of this condition would be the development of a plan of disposal along with a precise method of disposal. Mr. Johnson would need to agree with subject arrangement. Councilman Pernell posed the question of the City's liability due to inability to enforce this condition of proper drainage. The City Attorney said that under this theory the City was not liable. If this is warranted as a water problem, then an ordinance should be adopted that would essentially supersede a condition such as this; one that would deal with pool drainage under similar circumstances. It was suggested that the Council may want to direct Staff to consider a proposal for pool drainage in general in sensitive areas. Councilman Heinsheimer moved for approval of the modification of condition 8, Landscaping, to add the words including the elimination of view obstruction, if any, on the property, all the . cost of and include installation and maintenance of the landscauina. o lus 15% for a period not less than two years. . Motion was seconded by Councilwoman Murdock. The City Attorney suggested that the sentence at the. end of Paragraph 11 should read "water disposal plan should be submitted by the City with any application submitted for a building permit for a swimming pool." Councilmembers Heinsheimer and Murdock moved and seconded this plan, and motion was carried unanimously. Staff was directed to have at the next meeting a recommendation on how to handle inclusion of conditions regarding pool drainage in fragile areas on pending applications before the Planning Commission. -5- 424 i May 11, 1987 UNSAFE CONDITION, CLAYTON PROPERTY, 53 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD The City Manager reported that when the residence was removed from property in the Flying Triangle at 53 Portuguese Bend Road the foundation was not removed. The Manager said the slab has moved to the edge of the hill, and is visible above the hairpin curve on Portuguese Bend Road South. Mr. Belanger said the County Engineer has inspected the property at his request and has agreed that unless it is removed, the foundation will break into pieces, which will then fall into the roadway. Mr. Belanger said William Clayton, the owner of the property, will be advised of the situation, and will be asked to have the foundation removed within a specified period of time. Failure to comply will result in removal of the debris by the City, with the cost of the removal charged to Mr. Clayton. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTIONS APRIL 21, 1987 Zoning Case No. 340, James Hansen, 41 Eastfield Drive, Variance In a staff report to the Council the City Manager advised that at a regular meeting on April 21, 1987 the Planning Commission approved a request by Mr. James Hansen for a Variance for encroachment into the established front yard for construction of a swimming pool,and spa on Lot 37B-EF, located at 41 Eastfield Drive. The Manager reported that the existing front yard is 94 feet deep. The proposed construction will encroach 26 feet into the established front yard, leaving a 68 foot front yard. Conditions of approval were contained in the Findings and Report of the Planning Commission, which were presented to the Council. Dr. David Basque, 49 Eastfield Drive, said that his property is adjacent to the Hansen property. Dr. Basque said that the trees on the Hansen property obstruct his view, and he discussed the view obstruction with a member of the Planning Commission, and on behalf of Caballeros he asked that the Planning Commission require that the easements on the property be cleared and made accessible for trail purposes. Dr. Basque said his concerns were addressed by the Commission, but no specific requirements for removing the view obstruction or clearing the easements were established or included in the conditions of approval. In discussing the matter members of the Council agreed that there was no objection to the Planning Commission's findings or decision; however, it was agreed that concerns expressed by neighbors who have been notified of the request should be considered. In response to questions from the Council, the City Attorney explained that the Council could take jurisdiction of the matter and remand it to the Planning Commission with instructions about what matters they wished to have addressed. Councilman Pernell moved that the City Council take jurisdiction of Zoning Case No. 340 and recommend that the Mayor refer the matter to the Planning Commission for consideration of objections to view obstruction. Mayor Swanson seconded the motion. Zoning Case No. 344, Alan Johnson, 7 Crest Road East, C.U.P. In a staff report to the Council the City Manager advised that at a regular meeting on April 21, 1987 the Planning Commission approved a request by Mr. and Mrs. Alan 'Johnson for a Conditional Use Permit for construction of a guest house on Lot 3-FT, located at 7 Crest Road East. The Manager advised the Council that in addition to the standard conditions of approval for guest houses which have been adopted by the Planning Commission and are attached to all such approvals, the Planning Commission attached several special conditions to approval of the Johnsons' request, specifically with respect to grading, drainage and clearing of easements. In addition, the Commission -2- Cr.,ucccalf.. May 11, 1987 425 required that if a• swimming pool is constructed on the site at some future date, all drainage from the pool must be accomplished by pumping the water into a tank truck for disposal outside of the City of Rolling Hills. Members of the Council asked how that condition could be monitored, especially in the event that ownership of the property changes. The City Manager explained that following approval of a request by the Planning Commission and ratification of the approval by the City Council, applicants are required to execute an affidavit provided by the City declaring that the applicant accepts the conditions that have been imposed upon the permit or variance, and the executed affidavit shall be recorded with the County Recorder. The City Attorney said that Section 17.32.087 of the Municipal Code addresses the concerns being expressed by the Council about compliance with the conditions of approval, and because it applies to the land all subquent owners of the property must comply with the conditions of approval, which are recorded by the County Recorder and become part of the title report for the property. Mrs. Betsy Raine said that title reports are voluminous, and she suggested that it be made part of the preliminary title (D report, which is more generally read and understood by the purchaser of a property. CD Councilman Pernell said that he considers draining pools LL a matter that should be controlled, especially in the Flying m Triangle area, and he suggested that a procedure be developed Q for monitoring draining of pools. Mayor Swanson directed that the matter be placed on the Council's agenda for consideration. With reference to the Planning Commission's Findings and Report on Zoning Case No. 341, Councilman Heinsheimer suggested that requirements pertaining to a view obstruction policy could be included in Section III, paragraph 8 on page 3, which addresses landscaping, irrigation plans and bonding for same. Councilwoman Murdock said it should be made clear that landscaping requirements addressed in the Findings and Report are only in connection with the particular request, and the Planning Commission does not intend to require that an entire property be landscaped or re -landscaped in accordance with any conditions attached to a specific approval. Following the discussion Councilman Heinsheimer offered a substitute motion to the motion on Zoning Case No. 340, and he moved that the City Council take jurisdiction of Zoning Case No. 340. The motion was seconded by Councilman Pernell and carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Heinsheimer, Leeuwenburgh, Murdock, Pernell, Mayor Swanson NOES: None ABSENT: None Councilman Heinsheimer moved that the City Council take jurisdiction of Zoning Case No. 341. The motion was seconded by Councilman Pernell and carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Heinsheimer, Leeuwenburgh, Murdock, Pernell, Mayor Swanson NOES: None ABSENT: None A public hearing on Zoning Case No. 340 and Zoning Case No. 341 was set for Tuesday, May 26, 1987 at 7:30 p.m. -3- BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA In the Matter of the Application of Mr. and Mrs. James Hansen ZONING CASE NO. 340 FINDINGS AND REPORT The application of Mr. and Mrs. James Hansen. Lot 37 B-EF, Rolling Hills Tract, for a Variance under Section 17.32.010 of the City of Rolling Hills Municipal Code, came for hearing on the 21st day of April, 1987 in the Council Chambers of the Administration Building, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California. The Planning Commission, after being appropriately advised by Staff and hearing public testimony, now makes its Findings and Report as required by the Municipal Code of the City of Rolling Hills, California. I. The Commission finds that the applicants, Mr.and Mrs. James Hansen, are the owners of that certain real property described as Lot 37 B-EF, located at 41 Eastfield Drive in the City of Rolling Hills, and that notice of the public hearing in connection with said application was given as required by Section 17.32.080 of the City of Rolling Hills, California. The Commission finds, further, at no comment, written or verbal, was received in opposition to the request. II. The Commission finds that the applicants have requested a Variance from Section 17.08.260 and 17.08.270 yard and front yard requirements. The applicants have requested a 26-foot encroachment into the established front yard setback, which is currently 94 feet from the roadway easement, which would leave a 68-foot front yard • • setback. The applicants indicate that the addition of a swimming pool and spa can only be accomplished by building into the front yard. To do otherwise would be detrimental to the environment. Therefore, the applicants request the granting of the Variance so that they may have the same property rights as others in the same vicinity and zone, which would otherwise be denied if they were not able to fully utilize the existing building area. The Commission finds that there are significant topographical and physical conditions which exist on the property which impinge upon the applicants' ability to fully utilize their property without damaging the environment. The Commission finds that a Variance should be granted in order to preserve substantial property rights in the same vicinity and zone, and that the granting of such Variance would not be materially detrimental to the public welfare, nor injurious to property in the same vicinity and zone. III. From the foregoing it is concluded that a Variance should be granted to Mr. and Mrs. James Hansen, Lot 37 B-F, 41 Eastfield Drive, under Section 17.32.010 of the City of Rolling Hills Municipal Code for a Variance from Section 17.32.010 of the City of Rolling Hills Municipal Code for a Variance from Section 17.08.260 and 17.08.270, yard and front yard requirements, subject to the following conditions: 1). The front yard encroachment shall not exceed 26 feet; 2) The landscaping plan be approved by the Planning Commission, and a bond in the amount of estimate for the cost of landscaping, plus 15%, be posted after landscape installation, for not less than two years. 3) The property shall be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the site plan on file marked Exhibit A. 4) It is declared to be the intent of the Planning Commission that if any provision of the Variance is held or declared to be invalid, the Variance shall be void and the privileges granted thereunder shall lapse. 5) The improvements, as set forth in Exhibit A shall respect, preserve and reinstate if necessary, the existing topography, natural features, landscaping and RHCA easements. /s/Allan Roberts Chairman, Planning Commission I f • Ci1f Rolling. INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 May 20, 1993 Mr. James Hansen 41 Eastfield Drive Rolling Hills, CA 90274 SUBJECT: OVERGROWN EASEMENT AND VIEW OBSTRUCTION Dear Mr. Hansen: It has come to the attention of the Planning Department that the easement to the rear of your property is overgrown with myoporum and is obstructing the easement and the view for your neighbors to the south, Dr. and Mrs. David Basque. This morning, staff observed the overgrown myoporum bushes that cover much of the rear easement area of your property and another area at the eastern portion of the same slope where the myoporum bushes are carefully trimmed to approximately 3 feet. Our records indicate that the Variance for a pool and spa in the front yard in Zoning Case No. 340 that was approved in May, 1987 required the elimination of view obstruction. And, because land use decisions run with the land, it is still necessary for you to fulfill this requirement. You are formally requested to lower the height of the overgrown myoporum by cutting back the bushes within the rear easement to the height of those on the eastern slope at once. Your pruning back the overgrown landscaping will allow use of the horse trail and help to eliminate your neighbors' view obstruction concerns. In addition, you should be aware of a dead tree that appears to be close to your residence and should be removed because it could be a potential fire hazard. Please contact this office within the next twenty days to inform us of any planned action. You may call me at (310) 377-1521 if you have any questions and I will be happy to meet with you. @Printed on Recvc'ed °goer. PAGE 2 Your cooperation is appreciated. Yours truly, LOLA U1V(GAR PRINCIPAL PLANNER cc: Craig Nealis, City Manager Peggy Minor, Rolling Hills Community Association Manager J