606, Addition to SFR and enlarge ga, CorrespondenceCRISS C GUNDERSON ARCHITECT
2024 Via Pacheco, Palos Verdes Estates, California 90274
TEL (310) 373-8077 FAX (310) 373-8277
Tuesday, October 23, 2001
Mr. Craig Nealis, City Manager
City of Rolling Hills
No. 2 Portuguese Bend Road
Rolling Hills, California 90274
Regarding: No. 1 Wideloop Road
Pingel Additions and driveway
Dear Mr. Nealis,
As we discussed at city hall on the 22nd and as observed at the property today, the Pingel walls
and curbs at the driveway and walks are replacing existing walls, which were in a state of
disrepair, or near failure in some cases. The curbs will be no higher than 8 inches above the
adjacent hardscape. The walls shall be no higher than the original walls, on average a maximum
height of 18 inches, and in two small areas up to 24 inches. Are goal is to minimize all walls,
both in height and length. Unfortunately, with the home and driveway as much as 8 feet below
Wideloop Road, we do have water runoff control issues to consider. For this reason, the original
walls where constructed when the property was originally improved.
As a record of the original conditions on the site before the commencement of construction, I am
attaching two photographs depicting the walls at the driveway's westerly opening and at the
parking area by the southwest facade of the home.
Thank you fo your time and consideration,
•
Criss Gunderson
Cc: Peggy Minor, Community Association Manager
Mr. And Mrs. Christopher Pingel, property owner
Rick Marshall, general contractor
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
VI
Rfr;;wc DEPARTMEN
^1-
•
•
/
.1
•
Ci4f o/ RO/AflL
CERTIFIED MAIL
April 25, 2000
Mr. and Mrs. Christopher Pingel
1 Wideloop Road
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
•
• INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
SUBJECT: APPEAL PERIOD AND AFFIDAVIT OF ACCEPTANCE FORM
ZONING CASE NO. 606
1 WIDELOOP ROAD (LOT 11-B-EF), ROLLING HILLS, CA
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-08
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274
(310) 377-1521
FAX: (310) 377-7288
E-mail: cityofrh@aol.com
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Pingel:
This letter shall serve to notify you that the Planning Commission adopted a resolution on April 18,
2000, granting Variances to encroach into the front yard setback to permit enlargements of kitchen,
nook, and garage areas; to exceed the maximum structural lot coverage permitted; to exceed the
maximum total lot coverage permitted; and to exceed the maximum disturbed area permitted at an
existing single family residence at 1 Wideloop Road (Lot 11-B-EF) Rolling Hills, CA in Zoning Case No.
606. That action, accompanied by the record of the proceedings before the Commission was reported
to the City Council on April 24, 2000.
The Planning Commission's decision in this matter shall become effective thirty days after the adoption
of the resolution by the Commission, unless an appeal has been filed or the City Council takes
jurisdiction of the case within that thirty (301 day appeal period. (Section 17.54.010(B) of the Rolling
Hills Municipal Code). Should there be an appeal, the Commission's decision will be stayed until the
Council completes its proceedings in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Code.
If no appeals are filed within the thirty (30) day period after adoption of the Planning Commission's
resolution, the Planning Commission's action will become final and you will be required to cause to be
recorded an Affidavit of Acceptance Form together with the subject resolution in the Office of the
County Recorder before the Commission's action takes effect.
We have enclosed a copy of RESOLUTION NO. 2000-08. specifying the conditions of approval set
forth by the Planning Commission and the approved Exhibit A Development Plan to keep for your files.
Once you have reviewed the Resolution, please complete the enclosed AFFIDAVIT OF ACCEPTANCE
FORM, have the signature(s) notarized, and forward the completed form and a copy of the Resolution
to:
Los Angeles County Registrar -Recorder
Real Estate Records Section
12400 East Imperial Highway
Norwalk, CA 90650
Include a check in the amount of $9.00 for the first page and $3.00 for each additional page.
The City will notify the Los Angeles County Building & Safety Division to issue permits only when the Affidavit
of Acceptance is received by us and any conditions of the Resolution required prior to issuance of building
permits are met.
Please feel free to call me at (310) 377-1521 if you have any questions.
s..
Printed on Recycled Pupgi
• •
Sincerely,
ift°4ei°°'E—
Lola Ungar
Planning Director
Enclosures: AFFIDAVIT OF ACCEPTANCE FORM
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-08
APPEAL SECTION OF THE ROLLING HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE
EXHIBIT A DEVELOPMENT PLAN
cc: Mr. Criss Gunderson, Architect
• •
RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND MAIL
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274
(310) 377-1521
(310) 377-7288 FAX
The Registrar -Recorder's Office requires that the form be notarized before recordation.
AFFIDAVIT OF ACCEPTANCE FORM
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS )
ZONING CASE NO.606
SITE PLAN REVIEW
VARIANCES
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
I (We) the undersigned state:
I am (We are) the owner(s) of the real property described as follows:
1 WIDELOOP ROAD (LOT 11-B-EF), ROLLING HILLS, CA.
This property is the subject of the above numbered case.
I am (We are) aware of, and accept, all the stated conditions in said
ZONING CASE NO.606
SITE PLAN REVIEW
VARIANCES
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
I (We) certify (or declare) under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
L
T Recorders Use Only
Signature Signature
Name typed or printed Name typed or printed
Address Address
City/State City/State
Signatures must be acknowledged by a notary public,
State of California
County of Los Angeles )
On before me,
personally
appeared
personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose
name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same
in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies) and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or
the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
Witness by hand and official seal.
Signature of Notary
SEE EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF
•
iX6fi6ir- $4
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-08
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ROLLING HILLS GRANTING VARIANCES TO ENCROACH INTO THE
FRONT YARD SETBACK TO PERMIT ENLARGEMENTS OF KITCHEN,
NOOK, AND GARAGE AREAS; TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM
STRUCTURAL LOT COVERAGE PERNn i i t;u; TO EXCEED THE
MAXIMUM TOTAL LOT COVERAGE PERMi t t tsu; AND TO EXCEED
THE MAXIMUM DISTURBED AREA PERMITTED AT AN EXISTING
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE LOCATED AT 1 WIDELOOP ROAD IN
ZONING CASE NO. 606.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Applications were duly filed by Mr. and Mrs. Christopher Pingel
with respect to real property located at 1 Wideloop Road (Lot 11-B-EF), Rolling Hills,
requesting the following: (1) a Variance to encroach into the front yard setback to
permit enlargements of kitchen, nook, and garage areas; (2) a Variance to exceed the
maximum structural lot coverage permitted; (3) a Variance .to exceed the maximum
total lot coverage permitted; and (4) a Variance to exceed the maximum disturbed
area permitted at an existing single family residence.
Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public
hearing to consider the applications on February 15, 2000 and March 21, 2000, and at a
field trip visit on March 11, 2000. The applicants were notified of the public hearing
in writing by first class mail and through the City's newsletter. Evidence was heard
and presented from all persons interested in affecting said proposal and from
members of the City staff and the Planning Commission having reviewed, analyzed
and studied said proposal. The applicants were in attendance at the hearing.
Section 3. The Planning Commission finds that the project qualifies as a
Class 1 Exemption [State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15301(e)] and is therefore
categorically exempt from environmental review under the California
Environmental Quality Act.
Section 4. Sections 17.38.010 through 17.38.050 of the Rolling Hills
Municipal Code 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 in the same vicinity.
Section 17.16.110 requires a front yard of fifty feet (50') from the front easement line.
The applicant is requesting to add 345 square feet for the expansion of a kitchen and
nook that includes the conversion of a portion of the existing garage at the north
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-08
PAGE 1 OF 8
• •
and the construction of 81 square feet for the expansion of the garage at the south
which will encroach a maximum of twenty-five feet (25') into the fifty foot (50')
front yard setback. With respect to this request for a Variance, the Planning
Commission finds as follows:
A. There are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances and conditions
applicable to the property that do not apply generally to the other property or class of
use in the same zone because the residence is located close to the street and adjacent
residences. The existing development pattern on the lot and the sloping rear portion
precludes continued expansion of the residence on the lot.
B. The 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 development and use of the subject property in a similar manner consistent
with the shape of the lot and development of other property on this street justifies
this additional small incursion into the front yard setback. There will not be any
greater incursion into the front yard setback than already exists.
C. The granting of the Variance would not be materially detrimental to
the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity
and 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 for Zoning Case No. 606 to permit the proposed
project to encroach a maximum of twenty-five feet (25') into the fifty foot (50') front
yard setback, subject to the conditions specified in Section 12.
Section 6. Section 17.16.070(A)(1) states that coverage by structures shall not
be more than 20 percent of the net lot area. The applicant is requesting a Variance
because coverage by structures will cover 24.4% of the net lot area. With respect to
this request for a Variance, the Planning Commission finds as follows:
A. There are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances and conditions
applicable to the property that do not apply generally to the other property or class of
use in the same zone. The Variance for the structural lot coverage is necessary
because the lot is 0.79 acres and two bordering roadways exist at the southwestern
and southeastern sides of the property that reduce the size of the net lot area. The
lot size and configuration, together with the existing development on the lot creates
a difficulty in meeting this Code requirement.
B. The 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 unusual size and configuration of the lot together with the City's development
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-08 •
PAGE 2 OF 8
• •
T
standards result in more severe restrictions on the development of the subject
property than occurring on other lots in the vicinity.
C. The granting of the Variance would not be materially detrimental to
the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity
and zone in which the property is located. All development will occur within
existing setbacks and will be adequately screened to prevent adverse visual impact to
surrounding properties. Development on the site will be 24.4% which 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 for Zoning Case No. 606 to permit lot coverage by
structures of 24.4%, subject to the conditions specified in Section 12.
Section 8. Section 17.16.070 (A)(2) states that coverage by structures and all
other impervious surfaces, known as total lot coverage, shall not be more than 35
percent of the net lot area. The applicant is requesting a Variance because total lot
coverage will be 53.4% of the net lot area. With respect to this request for a
- Variance, the Planning Commission finds as follows:
A. There are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances and conditions
applicable to the property that do not apply generally to the other property or class of
use in the same zone. The Variance for the total lot coverage is necessary because
the lot is 0.79 acres and there are two bordering roadways at the southwestern and
southeastern sides of the property that reduce the size of the net lot area. The lot
size and configuration, together with the existing development on the lot creates a
difficulty in meeting this Code requirement.
B. The 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 of
the unusual size and configuration of the lot together with the City's development
standards result in more severe restrictions on the development of the subject
property than occurring on other lots in the vicinity.
C. The granting of the Variance would not be materially detrimental to
the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity
and zone in which the property is located. All development will occur within
existing setbacks and will be adequately screened to prevent adverse visual impact to
surrounding properties. Total lot coverage on the site will be 53.4% which will
allow a substantial portion of the lot to remain undeveloped.
Section 9. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission
hereby approves the Variance for Zoning Case No. 606 to permit total lot coverage of
53.4%, subject to the conditions specified in Section 12.
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-08
PAGE 3 OF 8
• •
Section 10. Section 17.16.070 (B) states that disturbance shall be limited to
40% of the net lot area. The applicant is requesting a Variance because total
disturbance will be 53.4% of the net lot area. With respect to this request for a
Variance, the Planning Commission finds as follows:
A. There are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances and conditions
applicable to the property that do not apply generally to the other property or class of
use in the same zone. The Variance for the total disturbance is necessary because
the lot is 0.79 acres and there are two bordering roadways at the southwestern and
southeastern sides of the property that reduce the size of the net lot area. The lot
size and configuration, together with the existing development on the lot creates a
difficulty in meeting this Code requirement.
B. The 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 of
the unusual size and configuration of the lot together with the City's development
standards result in more severe restrictions on the development of the subject
property than occurring on other lots in the vicinity.
C. The granting of the Variance would not be materially detrimental to
the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity
and zone in which the property is located. All development will occur within
existing setbacks and will be adequately screened to prevent adverse visual impact to
surrounding properties. Disturbed area on the site will be 53.4% which will allow a
substantial portion of the lot to remain undeveloped.
Section 11. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission
hereby approves the Variance for Zoning Case No. 606 to permit a disturbed area of
53.4%, subject to the conditions specified in Section 12.
Section 12. The Variances regarding encroachments approved in Section 5
and the Variances regarding lot coverages approved in Sections 7, 9, and 11, of this
Resolution are subject to the following conditions:
A. The Variance approvals shall expire within one year from the effective
date of approval as defined in Sections 17.38.070(A) unless otherwise extended
pursuant to the requirements of that section.
B. It is declared and made a condition of the Variance approvals, that if
any conditions thereof are violated, this approval shall be suspended and the
privileges granted thereunder shall lapse; provided that the applicants have been
given written notice to cease such violation, the opportunity for a hearing has been
provided, and if requested, has been held, and thereafter the applicant fails to correct
the violation within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of the City's
determination.
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-08
PAGE 4 OF 8
C. All requirements of the Buildings and Construction Ordinance, the
Zoning Ordinance, and of the zone in which the subject property is located must be
complied with unless otherwise set forth in the Permit, or shown otherwise on an
approved plan.
D. The lot shall be developed and maintained in substantial conformance
with the site plan on file marked Exhibit A and dated February 9, 2000, except as
otherwise provided in these conditions.
E. The property on which the project is located shall contain an area of
sufficient size to also provide an area meeting all standards for a stable and corral
with vehicular access thereto in conformance with site plan review limitations.
F. Structural lot coverage shall not exceed 4,652 square feet or 24.4% in
conformance with lot coverage limitations approved in Section 7.
G. Total lot coverage of structures and paved areas shall not exceed 10,183
square feet or 53.4% in conformance with lot coverage limitations approved in
Section 9.
H. The disturbed area of the lot shall not exceed 10,183 square feet or 53.4%
in conformance with lot coverage limitations approved in Section 11.
I. Residential and total building pad coverage on the 8,133 square foot
building pad shall not exceed 4,652 square feet or 57.2%.
J. There shall be no grading for the project.
K. Landscaping shall be designed using mature trees and shrubs so as not
to obstruct views of neighboring properties but, to obscure the residence.
L. Landscaping shall include water efficient irrigation, to the maximum
extent feasible, that incorporates a low gallonage irrigation system, utilizes
automatic controllers, incorporates an irrigation design using "hydrozones,"
considers slope factors and climate conditions in design, and utilizes means to
reduce water waste resulting from runoff and overspray in accordance with Section
17.27.020 (Water efficient landscaping requirements) of the Rolling Hills Municipal
Code.
M. During construction, dust control measures shall be used to stabilize
the soil from wind erosion and reduce dust and objectionable odors generated by
construction activities in accordance with South Coast Air Quality Management
District, Los Angeles County and local ordinances and engineering practices.
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-08
PAGE 5 OF 8
N. During construction, conformance with local ordinances and
engineering practices so that people or property are not exposed to landslides,
mudflows, erosion, or land subsidence shall be required.
O. During construction, conformance with the air quality management
district requirements, stormwater pollution prevention practices, county and local
ordinances and engineering practices so that people or property are not exposed to
undue vehicle trips, noise, dust, objectionable odors, landslides, mudflows, erosion,
or land subsidence shall be required.
P. During and after construction, all soil preparation, drainage, and
landscape sprinklers shall protect the building pad from erosion and direct surface
water to the rear of the lot at the northeast.
Q. During construction, the Erosion Control Plan containing the elements
set forth in Section 7010 of the 1996 County of Los Angeles Uniform Building Code
shall be followed to minimize erosion and to protect slopes and channels to control
stormwater pollution as required by the County of Los Angeles.
R. During and after construction, all parking shall take place on the
project site and, if necessary, any overflow parking shall take place within nearby
roadway easements.
S. During construction, the property owners shall be required to schedule
and regulate construction and related traffic noise throughout the day between the
hours of 7 AM and 6 PM, Monday through Saturday only, when construction and
mechanical equipment noise is permitted, so as not to interfere with the quiet
residential environment of the City of Rolling Hills.
T. The drainage plan system shall be modified and approved by the
Planning Department and City Engineer, to include any water from any site
irrigation systems and that all drainage from the site shall be conveyed in an
approved manner to the rear or northeast of the lot.
U. An Erosion Control Plan containing the elements set forth in Section
7010 of the 1996 County of Los Angeles Uniform Building Code shall be prepared to
minimize erosion and to protect slopes and channels to control stormwater
pollution as required by the County of Los Angeles.
V. The property owners shall be required to conform with the Regional
Water Quality Control Board and County Health Department requirements for the
installation and maintenance of stormwater drainage facilities.
W . The property owners shall be required to conform with the Regional
Water Quality Control Board and County Public Works Department Best
Management Practices (BMP's) related to solid waste.
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-08
PAGE 6 OF 8
• •
X. A detailed drainage plan that conforms to the development plan as
approved by the Planning Commission must be submitted to the Rolling Hills
Planning Department staff for their review.
Y. The project must be reviewed and approved by the Rolling Hills
Community Association Architectural Review Committee prior to the issuance of
any drainage, building or grading permit.
Z. The working drawings submitted to the County Department of
Building and Safety for plan check review shall conform to the development plan
described in Condition D.
AA. Notwithstanding Sections 17.46.020 and 17.46.070 of the Rolling Hills
Municipal Code, any modifications to the project which would constitute additional
grading or structural development shall require the filing of a new application for
approval by the Planning Commission.
AB. Prior to the submittal of an applicable final building plan to the County
of Los Angeles for plan check, a detailed drainage 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.
AC. The applicants shall execute an Affidavit of Acceptance of all
conditions of these Variance approvals, pursuant to Section 17.38.060, or the
approval shall not be effective.
AD. All conditions of these Variance approvals must be complied with
prior to the issuance of a building or grading permit from the County of Los
Angeles.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 18TH D OF A' 2000.
ALLAN ROBERTS, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST: P 1
..l h,.,J
MARILYN K RN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-08
PAGE 7 OF 8
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS )
I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2000-08 entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ROLLING HILLS GRANTING VARIANCES TO ENCROACH INTO THE
FRONT YARD SETBACK TO PERMIT ENLARGEMENTS OF KITCHEN,
NOOK, AND GARAGE AREAS; TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM
STRUCTURAL LOT COVERAGE PERMri t EU; TO EXCEED THE
MAXIMUM TOTAL LOT COVERAGE PERMII"1'ED; AND TO EXCEED
THE MAXIMUM DISTURBED AREA PERM . rtu AT AN EXISTING
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE LOCATED AT 1 WIDELOOP ROAD IN
ZONING CASE NO. 606.
was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on
April 18, 2000 by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
Commissioners Hankins, Margeta, Sommer, Witte and
Chairman Roberts.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following:
Administrative Offices.
DEPUTY CITY CLERK
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-08
PAGE 8 OF 8
• •
17.54.010
17.54 APPEALS
17.54.010 Time for Filing Appeals
A. All actions of the Planning Commission authorized by this
Title may be appealed to the City Council. All appeals shall
be filed in writing with the City Clerk.
B. All appeals must be filed on or before the 30th calendar day
after adoption of the Planning Commission's resolution on
the project or application. Application fees shall be paid as
required by Section 17.30.030 of this Title.
C. Within 30 days after the Planning Commission adopts a
resolution which approves or denies a development
application, the City Clerk shall place the resolution as a
report item on the City Council's agenda. The City Council
may, by an affirmative vote of three members, take
jurisdiction over the application. In the event the City
Council takes jurisdiction over the application, the Planning
Commission's decision will be stayed until the City Council
completes its proceedings in accordance with the provisions
of this Chapter.
17.54.020 Persons Authorized to File an Appeal
Any person, including the City Manager, may appeal a decision of
the Planning Commission to the City Council, in accordance with
the terms of this Chapter.
17.54.030 Form, Content, and Deficiencies in an Appeal Application
A. All appeals shall be filed in writing with the City Clerk on a
form or forms provided by the City Clerk. No appeal shall
be considered filed until the required appeal fee has been
received by the City Clerk.
B. The appeal application shall state, at a minimum, the name
and address of the appellant, the project and action being
appealed, and the reasons why the appellant believes that
the Planning Commission erred or abused its discretion, or
why the Planning Commission's decision is not support by
evidence in the record.
76
ROLLING HILLS ZONING
MAY 24, 1993
•
17.54.030
C. If the appeal application is found to be deficient, the City
Clerk shall deliver or mail (by certified mail), to the
appellant a notice specifying the reasons why the appeal is
deficient. The appellant shall correct the deficiency with an
amendment to the appeal form within seven calendar days of
receiving the deficiency notice. Otherwise, the appeal
application will be deemed withdrawn, and the appeal fee
will be returned to the applicant.
17.54.040 Request for Information
Upon receipt of a written and complete appeal application and fee,
the City Clerk shall direct the Planning Commission Secretary to
transmit to the City Council the complete record of the entire
proceeding before the Planning Commission.
17.54.050 Scheduling of Appeal Hearing
Upon receiving an appeal, the City Clerk shall set the appeal for a
hearing before the City Council to occur within 20 days of the filing
of the appeal. In the event that more than one appeal is filed for
the same project, the Clerk shall schedule all appeals to be heard
at the same time.
17.54.060 Proceedings
A. Noticing
The hearing shall be noticed as required by Section 17.30.030 of
this Title. In addition, the following parties shall be noticed:
1. The applicant of the proposal being appealed;
2. The appellant; and
3. Any person who provided oral testimony or written
comments to the Planning Commission during or as part of
the public hearing on the project.
B. Hearing
The City Council shall conduct a public hearing pursuant to the
provisions of Chapter 17.34 of this Title. The Council shall
consider all information in the record, as well as additional
information presented at the appeal hearing, before taking action
on the appeal.
77
ROLLING HILLS ZONING
MAY 24, 1993
s •
17.54.060
C. Action
The Council may act to uphold, overturn, or otherwise modify the
Planning Commission's original action on the proposal, or the
Council may remand the application back to the Planning
Commission for further review and direction. The Council shall
make findings to support its decision.
D. Finality of Decision
The action of the City Council to approve, conditionally approve, or
deny an application shall be final and conclusive.
E. Record of Proceedings
The decision of the City Council shall be set forth in full in a
resolution or ordinance. A copy of the decision shall be sent to the
applicant or the appellant.
17.54.070 Statute of Limitations
Any action challenging a final administrative order or decision by
the City made as a result of a proceeding in which by law a hearing
is required to be given, evidence is required to be taken, and
discretion regarding a final and non -appealable determination of
facts is vested in the City of Rolling Hills, the City Council, or in
any of its Commissions, officers, or employees, must be filed within
the time limits set forth in the California Code of Civil Procedure,
Section 1094.6
78
ROLUNG HILLS ZONING
MAY 24, 1993
•
•
m
N
d
m
CCi
m
c
0
C)
a
E
0
0
to
co
W
CC
0
CC
CC
Z
w
0
w
P St t and ZIP }d
Postage
Certified Fee
Special Delivery Fee
Restricted Delivery Fee
Return Receipt showing
to whom and Date Delivered
to
rn Return Receipt showing to whom.
Date, and Address of Delivery
d
TOTAL Postage and Fees
ci
m Postmark or Date
r)
E
0
tL
V)
a
P 852 865 332
RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL
NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED
NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL
(See Reverse)
Sent to
'/mil C�7r%v�je�
Sheet and No.
9027y
/, Y3
�.vo
/. 25
SENDER:
■ Complete items 1 and/or 2 for additional services.
■ Complete items 3, 4a, and 4b.
• Print your name and address on the reverse of this form so that we can return this
card to you.
• Attach this form to the front of the mailpiece, or on the back if space does not
permit.
■ Write'Retum Receipt Requested' on the mailpiece below the article number.
• The Return Receipt will show to whom the article was delivered and the date
delivered.
3. Article Addressed to:
%lrChr;stpkf l fn, %
// //f Gq 90.27Y
2.C. 606
5. Received By: (Print Nam)
6. SignatlarieidAddres3ae or gen `
PS Forrn-3811, Decemberdi994 ✓
rt.i .0 E
APR 2 4 2000
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
I also wish to receive the
following services (for an
extra fee):
1. 0 Addressee's Address
2. 0 Restricted Delivery
Consult postmaster for fee.
4a. Article Number
p Spa 3
4b. Service Type
❑ Registered
❑ Express Mail
❑ Return Receipt
7. Date of Deli
*.r*of
6. A�(1dressee"dres�1Qr%equ�SJ
and fee is #04
\•�C , Domestic.Betum Receipt
X Certified
0 Insured
OD
Thank you for using Return Receipt Service.
Ca o/ /e0/A4 J/dh
FIELD TRIP NOTIFICATION
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
February 16, 2000
Mr. and Mrs. Christopher Pingel
1 Wideloop Road
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 606; Requests for the following: (1) Variance to encroach into
the front yard setback to permit enlargements of kitchen, nook, and garage areas; (2)
Variance to exceed the maximum structural lot coverage permitted; (3) Variance to
exceed the maximum total lot coverage permitted; and (4) Variance to exceedthe
maximum disturbed area permitted at an existing single family residence at 1
Wideloop Road (11-B-EF), Rolling Hills, CA.
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Pingel:
We have arranged for the Planning Commission to conduct a field inspection- of your property to
view a silhouette of the proposed additions on Saturday. March 11. 2000.
The Planning Commission will meet at 8:00 AM at your property.
The site must be prepared according to the enclosed Silhouette 'Construction Guidelines and the
following requirements:
• A full-size silhouette in conformance with the
attached guidelines must be prepared for ALL
STRUCTURES of the project showing the footprints,
roof ridges and bearing walls; and
• Flag the front setback line that is 50 feet from the
front easement line and stake the limits of the
building pad.
The owner and/or representative should be present to answer any questions regarding the
proposal.
Please call me at (310) 377-1521 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Lola M. Ungar
Planning Director
&rr-
Enclosure: Silhouette Construction Guidelines
cc: Mr. Criss Gunderson. Architect
®Printed on Recycled Paper.
• •
Ci4f aPie0m JLdt
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274
(310) 377.1621
FAX: (310) 377-7288
E-mail: cityo(rh@aol.com
SILHOUETTE CONSTRUCTION GUIDELINES
When required by the Planning Commission or City Council, a silhouette of
proposed construction should be erected for the week preceding the
designated Planning Commission or City Council meeting.
Silhouettes should be constructed with 2" x 4" lumber. Printed boards are not
acceptable.
Bracing should be provided where possible.
Wire, twine or other suitable material should be used to delineate roof ridges
and eaves.
Small pieces of cloth or flags should be attached to the wire or twineto aid in
the visualization of the proposed construction.
The application may be delayed if inaccurate or incomplete silhouettes are
constructed.
If you have any further questions contact the Planning Department Staff at
(310) 377-1521.
:1611
1v •'.
IV
•
, • .
•
• •
SECTION PLAN
- 01
41
Pru,tecl urt Recyl.led Pape,
•City 0/ Rollinl
•
INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
STATUS OF APPLICATION & NOTIFICATION OF MEETING
February 2, 2000
Mr. and Mrs. Christopher Pingel
1 Wideloop Road
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274
(310) 377-1521
FAX (310) 377-7288
E maiL cityofrh@aol.com
SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 606; Requests for the following: (1) Variance to encroach
into the front yard setback to permit enlargements of kitchen, nook, and garage
areas; (2) Variance to exceed the maximum structural lot coverage permitted; (3)
Variance to exceed the maximum total lot coverage permitted; and (4) Variance to
exceed the maximum disturbed area permitted at an existing single family
residence at 1 Wideloop Road (11-B-EF), Rolling Hills, CA.
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Pingel:
Pursuant to state law the City's staff has completed a preliminary review of the application noted
above and finds that the information submitted is:
X Sufficiently complete as of the date indicated above to allow the application to be
processed.
Please note that the City may require further information in order to clarify, amplify, correct, or
otherwise supplement the application. If the City requires such additional information, it is strongly
suggested that you supply that information promptly to avoid any delay in the processing of the
application.
Your application for Zoning Case No. 606 has been set for public hearing consideration by the
Planning Commission at their meeting on Tuesday. February 15.2000.
The meeting will begin at 7:30 PM in the Council Chambers, Rolling Hills City Hall Administration
Building, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills. You or your designated representative must
attend to present your project and to answer questions.
The staff report for this project will be available at the City Hall after 3:00 FM on Friday, February
11, 2000. Please arrange to pick up the staff report to preview it prior to the hearing.
Please call me at (310) 377-1521 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Lola M. Ungar
Planning Director
cc: Mr. Criss Gunderson, Architect
®Printed on Recycled Paper.
CRISS C GUNDERSON ARCHITECT
2024 Via Pacheco, Palos Verdes Estates, California 90274
TEL (310) 373-8077 FAX (310) 373-8277
January 27, 2000
Variance application attachment
Pingel Residence
No. 1 Wideloop, Rolling Hills
Criteria to be satisfied for grant of Variance
A. Exceptional conditions exist at No. 1 Wideloop Road in that the parcel is dramatically
smaller than other properties in the area, as well as in comparison to the city at large.
With a gross lot area of 34, 325 square feet (approximately 35% smaller than the
minimum lot size allowed per city zoning standards), and a net lot are of 19, 083 square
feet (56% smaller than minimum zoning codes permits) it is perhaps the smallest
property in Rolling Hills. In addition, comparing gross verses net lot areas we find that
only 55% of the property •can be used in coverage calculations. This fact alone
demonstrates an exceptional circumstance. This extremely small amount of net lot area
are the results of two hardships:
1) The usual shape of the property.
2) The large dedication of space for two road easements.
These extraordinary circumstances do not generally apply to other properties in the area.
They result in coverage calculations that are misleading and should not apply to this
property.
Also, the current house and garage are currently located in the front yard setback. Built
before the city changed the setbacks from 35 feet to 50 feet, the home and garage are
now a non -conforming structure. Given the layout of the current floor plan, and the
existing improvements to the site, the only option to enlarge the kitchen, nook and
garage are as indicated on the site plan. The only other alternative would be to
completely demolish the existing structures and rebuild. This approach is not financially
feasible for the Pingels, nor does this approach warrant consideration from a real estate
value standpoint for any property owner.
B. The existing home has an extremely small "galley" style kitchen with a breakfast nook
barely capable of seating 3 persons. The garage is currently substandard, not meeting
minimum size requirements (parking area of 18'-6" X 20"-0"). The proposed additions
will improve these conditions, but will leave the home short of current standards of the
neighborhood. The requested improvements are necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of the property as possessed by others.
• ti
C. The proposed additions do not encroach any further into the front yard setback than the
current nonconforming conditions; the open space around the home and garage is in the
spirit of the cities coverage ordinances; and mature landscaping on the property insure
that granting the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or
injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.
D. The granting of the variance allows the property's hardships to not to interfere with the
Pingels property rights, respecting and observing the spirit and intent of the city.
E. In so much that the above -mentioned hardships are unique to this property, the variance
will not grant any special privileges. In fact, the variance is necessary to allow this
property to remain similar in nature and size to the surrounding homes. The variance
request is consistent with the General Plan of the City of Rolling Hills.
• •
CRISS C GUNDERSON ARCHITECT
2024 Via Pacheco, Palos Verdes Estates, California 90274
TEL (310) 373-8077 FAX (310) 373-8277
February 2, 2000
Ms. Lola Ungar, Planning Director
City of Rolling Hills
No. 2 Portuguese Bend Road
Rolling Hills, California
Regarding: No. 1 Wideloop, Pingel variance application
Dear Ms. Ungar,
Research at the Community Association during my preparation of the vicinity map identified
quite a few properties with similar encroachments into front yard setbacks. All of the following
properties are within 350 feet of the Pingel's property. The list below is arranged from closet in
distance to furthest from the Pingels:
No. 3 Wideloop:
No. 76 Eastvale:
No. 18 Wideloop
Garage encroaches as much as 5 feet into front yard setback. Total
area of encroachment approximately 100 square feet. (Adjacent to
the Pingels, to the north).
100% of garage (approximately 500 sq. ft.) and approximately 20%
of main residence (approximately 1200 sq. ft.) in front yard setback.
Encroachments as large as 35 feet, averaging 15 to 20 feet.
(Directly across Eastfield , south of the Pingels)
15% of house, approximately 800 sq. ft., 5 to 10 feet into front yard
setback. Entire dressing room (detached enclosed structure)
approximately 400 square feet with an additional 400 square feet of
covered porch) and entire stable, approximately 600 square feet and
entire pool, approximately 500 sq. ft. are in the front yard setback.
(Located across Wideloop to the west).
No. 16 Wideloop Approximately 50% of house and garage in front yard setback.
Encroachments up to 22 feet averaging approximately 15 feet.
(Located across Wideloop to the west).
No. 11 Wideloop Main residence (approximately 200 sq. ft.) and garage
(approximately 250 sq. ft.) encroach up to 6 feet and 13 feet
respectively. (Up Wideloop to the north, westerly as the crow fly's).
No. 13 Wideloop Residential wings and garage encroach into front yard setbacks a
total lineal distance of 95 feet with encroachments ranging from 6
feet to 18 feet. (Up Wideloop to the north, adjacent to No. 11) .
• •
No. 1 Open Brand
Approximately 40% of house and garage (approximately 2000 sq.
ft.) of encroachments into front yard setback. Encroachments are a
maximum of 20 feet, averaging approximately 15 feet. (North of the
Pingel's, down Eastfield, on corner of Open Brand and Eastfield,
approximately 350 feet away).
I believe the above information justifies our position that:
1) In the same vicinity, other properties posses substantial property rights leading to the
preservation and enjoyment of said properties, which are similar in nature to the
Pingel's variance request.
2) Also, given the large number of front yard setback encroachments within close
proximity, the Pingel's variance request certainly is consistent with the neighborhood
and surrounding properties; therefore, is in the spirit and intent of, and consistent with,
the General Plan of the City of Rolling Hills.
3) And lastly, shows that granting the variance does not grant any special privilege.
The Pingel's and I look forward to the Planning Commission meeting on the 15th. Thank you
for all your help.
Sincerely,
Criss Gun.erson Architect