Loading...
462, Construct a pool in back yard , Correspondence• City 0/ leoffin9, ihito August 25, 1992 Dr. and Mrs. Ralph Black 36 Saddleback Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS. CALIF. 90274 f24-3) 377-1521 FAX: (2+91 377.7288 SUBJECT: EXPIRATION OF APPROVALS FOR ZONING CASE NO. 462 RESOLUTION NO. 92-13 36 Saddleback Road (Lot 12-1-RH) Request for a Variance to permit encroachment into the rear yard setback to construct a swimming pool and arbor. Dear Dr. and Mrs. Black: We would like to remind you that your approvals in the subject zoning case will expire on September 17, 1992. You can extend approvals for one year only if you apply to the Planning Commission in writing to request an extension prior to the expiration date. Feel free to call me at (310) 377-1521 if you have any questions. Sincerely, LOLA UNGAR PRINCIPAL PLANNER 411 A C144 0/RO//�4 JUL CERTIFIED MAIL September 24, 1991 INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAC ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (213) 377-1521 FAX: (213) 377.7288 Dr. and Mrs. Ralph Black 36 Saddleback Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 462, RESOLUTION NO. 91-23 APPEAL PERIOD AND AFFIDAVIT OF ACCEPTANCE FORM Dear Dr. and Mrs. Black: Thisletter is to inform you that the City Council, at their meeting on Monday, September 23, 1991, received and filed the Planning Commission's approval of your request for a Variance to permit encroachment into the rear yard setback to construct a swimming pool and arbor in Zoning Case No. 462. The approval will become effective: (1) Twenty days after the receipt of this letter if no appeals are filed within that time period (Section 17.42.140), AND (2) An Affidavit of Acceptance Form and the subject Resolution must be filed by you with the County Recorder (Section 17.32.087). We have enclosed a copy of RESOLUTION NO. 91-23, specifying the conditions of approval set forth by the Planning Commission and the approved Exhibit A 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 to: County Recorder. Room 15. 227 North Broadway, Los Angeles, CA 90012 with a check in the amount of $ 5.00 for the first pace and $ 2.00 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. • • PAGE 2 Please feel free to call me at (213) 377-1521 if you have any questions. SINCERELY, LOLA UNG PRINCIPAL PLANNER ENCLOSURES: RESOLUTION NO. 91-23, EXHIBIT A, AND AFFIDAVIT OF ACCEPTANCE FORM cc: KEITH PALMER, AIA • • RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND MAIL TO: Recorder's Use State of County of CITY OF ROLLING HILLS 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 Please record this form with the Registrar -Recorder's Office and return to: City of Rolling Hills, 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 (The Registrar -Recorder's Office requires that the form be notarized before recordation). ACCEPTANCE FORM STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss ZONING CASE NO. 46Z SITE PLAN REVIEW VARIANCE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT I (We) the undersigned state: I am (We are) the owner(s) of the real pjroope`rtyJ described as follows: ' (2.07,.. 1e/1 ) ia-d �iL� fm y//.;C,4gaz 701 This property is the subject of the above numbered cases. I am (We are) aware of, and accept, all the stated conditions in said ZONING CASE NO. .02 SITE PLAN REVIEW VARIANCE X CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT I (We) certify (or declare) under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Print Print Owner Owner Name Name Signature Signature Address Address City/State City/State Signatures must be acknowledged by a notary public. On this the day of SS. the undersigned Notary Public personally appeared 19l, before me, ❑ personally known to me ❑ proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) subscribed to the within instrument, and acknowledged that executed it. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Notary's Signature • • City 0/ leollinv September 19, 1991 Dr. and Mrs. Ralph Black 36 Saddleback Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 462 Dear Dr. and Mrs. Black: INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (213) 377-1521 FAX (213) 377-7288 This letter shall serve as official notification that Zoning Case No. 462, a request for a Variance to permit encroachment into the rear yard setback to construct a swimming pool and arbor was APPROVED by the Plannning Commission at their regular meeting on September 17, 1991. The final Resolution and conditions of APPROVAL will be forwarded to you after they are signed by the Planning Commission Chairman and City Clerk. The Planning Commission's decision will be reported to the City Council at their regular meeting on September 23, 1991. You should also be aware that the decision of the Planning Commission may be appealed within twenty days after you receive the final Resolution (Sections 17.32.140 and 17.32.150 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code). Feel free to call me at (213) 377-1521 if you have any questions regarding this matter. Sincerely, d9. LOLA M. UNGAR PRINCIPAL PLANNER cc: Keith Palmer, AIA • 36 Saddleback Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 September 11, 1991 To Members of the Planning Commission: We are asking for a variance from you to place a swimming pool in our back yard set back. This would be right outside my kitchen window with easy access for a disabled person. Unfortunately, I do have polymyocitis which is a chronic muscle infection. This weakens and swells all muscles of my body and, by so doing, there is no strength in my joints (example --on my good days I can only lift four plates at a time) . I am currently on 50 mg of prednisone (cortisone) every other day and methotrexate 20 mg once a week (this is a cancer chemotherapy drug) plus various other muscle -help drugs. I go to UCLA to Dr. Bevra Hahn who is professor and head of the Department of Rheuma- tology. Now my problem is this: someone asked why we, didn't put the. pool in the front yard (also requiring a variance). I have great difficulty now getting down the many steps to our front yard. I shutter to think what it will be like as I get older and more diseased. I was diagnosed in 1986 and a week ago my CPK (blood testing done at Torrance Memorial Hospital) was 739. Normal is under 170, so I am definitely not on the mend. I would very much like to have a pool ,o enjoy with my grandchildren (ages six months and 21/2 years). Also, with our last two children married this year, we hope to have some more. Unfortunately, if I cannot have it in the back yard, then we will not be putting one in. After five years of disease, I see little hope of freedom from it in the future. I am always fearful of falling. Also,. subconsciously, I was probably thinking of myself when I made such a fuss about everyone slipping and falling when you went next door to visit the Cummings' property. That area is very difficult for me to go down; coming up is much better. We will screen our pool from the house above, not only for them but for ourselves as well. Just to see our place you can see we love trees and bushes. We are not going to jeopardize what we have. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Gladys 0. Black z�/,(`/ r/ 1'c_n_ s City 0/!2 Rolling JdeP, August 22, 1991 Dr. and Mrs. Ralph Black 36 Saddleback Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (213) 377-1521 FAX: (213) 377-7288 SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 462 36 Saddleback Road (Lot 12-1-RH) Request for a Variance to permit encroachment into the rear yard setback to construct a swimming pool and arbor. Dear Dr. and Mrs. Black: We have arranged for the Planning Commission to conduct a field inspection of your property to view the proposed project site on Thursday, September 5, 1991 at 5:30 PM. The owner and/or representative should be present to answer any questions regarding the proposal. Feel free to call me at (213) 377-1521 if you have any questions. Sincerely, LOLA M. UNGAire"--- R PRINCIPAL PLANNER cc: Mr. Keith Palmer FLDTRP/LMU • • 8/16/91 TO: CITY OF ROLLING HILLS 1-1I-EMHUM uU AUG19 1991 City Of Rolling Hills RE: ZC 462 REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO PERMIT ENCROACHMENT INTO REAR YARD SETBACK, LOT 12-2—RH TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: THIS LETTER IS IN DIRECT RESPONSE TO OUR REVIEW OF THE PLANS PREPARED BY NEIL STANTON PALMER ON FILE WITH THE CITY FOR THE PROPOSED POOL AND ARBOR ADDITION TO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. AS OWNERS OF AND RESIDENTS OF 34 SADDLEBACK ROAD (THE PROPERTY DIRECTLY NORTH OF THE PROJECT) WE ARE THE MOST SERIOUSLY EFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED ADDITION AND STRONGLY OPPOSE THE APPROVAL OF THIS PLAN FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS. 1. PRIVACY THE PROPOSED RELOCATION OF THE DRIVEWAY AND ENTRY INTO GARAGE TO ACCOMMODATE THE POOL LOCATION POSES A SERIOUS THREAT TO OUR PRIVACY. THE CURRENT SITUATION IS BAD ENOUGH AND APPROVAL OF THIS VARIANCE WILL MAKE MATTERS EVEN WORSE. THE BLACK'S PROPERTY ACCORDING TO THE PARTIAL AND INCOMPLETE TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY IS APPROXIMATELY 6 FEET HIGHER THAN OURS. THEY CURRENTLY LOOK DOWN ONTO OUR HOUSE AND SPECIFICALLY OUR BEDROOMS. THIS ADDITION WILL MAGNIFY THE 'FISHBOWL' TYPE FEELING WE ALREADY HAVE TO PUT UP WITH. THE RELOCATION OF THE DRIVEWAY AND GARAGE ENTRY WILL REQUIRE THE REMOVAL OF A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF EXISTING TREES THAT OFFER A MINIMUM AMOUNT OF VISUAL PRIVACY. THE EFFECT THIS WILL HAVE ON OUR QUALITY OF LIFE WILL BE DEVASTATING. IN ADDITION THE LIGHTS FROM THE CARS GOING IN AND OUT OF THE DRIVEWAY AND GARAGE WILL SHINE DIRECTLY INTO OUR BEDROOMS. LANDSCAPING ALONE WILL NOT KEEP THE LIGHT OUT. AS IT IS NOW THEIR CAR LIGHTS SHINE THROUGH OUR WINDOWS AS THEY COME UP THEIR DRIVEWAY. WHY DO WE HAVE TO MAKE A BAD SITUATION EVEN WORSE? • • 2. NOISE AS YOU MAY OR MAY NOT KNOW THE BLACK'S HOUSE WAS BUILT WITH A REDUCED SIDEYARD SETBACK THAT PUT IT CLOSER TO OUR HOUSE THAN CURRENT CODES WOULD ALLOW. THEY HAVE LOCATED THEIR AIR CONDITIONING EQUIPMENT IN THAT SETBACK BETWEEN THEIR HOUSE AND OURS. THE NOISE FROM THEIR AIR CONDITIONING UNIT IS VERY DISTURBING AND NOW THEY ARE PROPOSING TO LOCATE THE POOL EQUIPMENT IN THE SAME SETBACK. THE SIZE OF THE EQUIPMENT IS 'TO BE DETERMINED'. THE NOISE GENERATED FROM THIS ADDITIONAL EQUIPMENT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE TO US. HOW WILL THIS BE SCREENED? IT CAN'T. CARS GOING IN AND OUT OF THE GARAGE AT ALL TIMES OF THE DAY AND NIGHT WILL ALSO CREATE UNDESIRABLE NOISE. THE SPECIFICATIONS OF THE PROPOSED FOUNTAIN ARE ALSO UNKNOWN AND SHOULD NOT BE APPROVED UNTIL MORE INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE. OUR PROPERTY USED TO BE A VERY PEACEFUL PLACE TO LIVE, BUT THIS ADDITION WILL CHANGE THAT FOR THE WORSE. 3. ATMOSPHERE WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO THE RURAL COUNTRY ATMOSPHERE THAT IS SO UNIQUE AND PRECIOUS TO ROLLING HILLS? IF THIS PROJECT IS APPROVED THE CITY IS SERVING NOTICE TO ALL RESIDENTS THAT ANY NEIGHBOR CAN BUILD RIGHT ON TOP OF ANOTHER OR PUT A GARAGE, DRIVEWAY, OR POOL NEXT TO A NEIGHBOR'S BEDROOM. JUST LOOK AT THE SITE PLAN PROVIDED BY THE BLACK'S. THE POOL IS LOCATED RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF THEIR HOUSE, OUR HOUSE AND THE GRAF'S HOUSE LOCATED TO THE EAST OF THE BLACK'S. WOULD IT NOT MAKE MORE SENSE FOR THE BLACK'S TO RELOCATE THE POOL AND ARBOR IN THEIR FRONT YARD? WE WERE TOLD BY THE CITY STAFF THAT THE GRADING REQUIRED WOULD NOT ALLOW THEM TO BUILD IN THE FRONT YARD. WHERE IS THE DATA THAT SUPPORTS THIS CONCLUSION? THE FACT THAT THE TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY IS NOT COMPLETE MAKES IT OBVIOUS THAT THE FRONT YARD WAS NOT SERIOUSLY CONSIDERED AS THE LOCATION OF THE POOL AND ARBOR. IT IS, HOWEVER, THE BEST LOCATION FOR THE BLACKS AND THEIR NEIGHBORS. WE HAVE LOOKED AT THIS OPTION AND IT SEEMS AS THOUGH THERE IS SUFFICIENT LEVEL AREA AVAILABLE TO BUILD A POOL WITHOUT EXCEEDING THE GRADING REQUIREMENTS. WHERE WILL THE BLACKS LOCATE THEIR STABLE? IS IT NOT A REQUIREMENT THAT EVERY HOME AT LEAST DESIGNATE A STABLE LOCATION? THE PLANS DO NOT ADDRESS THIS ISSUE. 4. GOOD NEIGHBORS THE BLACKS HAVE NEVER BEEN GOOD NEIGHBORS. THEY HAVE PERIODICALLY CUT BRANCHES OFF OUR TREES WITHOUT OUR KNOWLEDGE OR PERMISSION. THEIR PROPERTY FENCES ARE NOT MAINTAINED AND ARE UNSIGHTLY AT BEST. OVER THE YEARS THERE HAS BEEN AN ON -GOING PROBLEM WITH OUR TREES RESULTING IN THE REMOVAL OF SEVERAL OF OUR TREES. • S THE BLACKS HAVE NEVER ATTEMPTED TO NOTIFY US OF THIS PROPOSED ADDITION EVEN THOUGH IT EFFECTS US THE MOST. WE FEEL THE CITY SHOULD MAINTAIN THE CURRENT SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. WE HAVE NO DESIRE TO BE ANY CLOSER TO THE BLACKS THAN WE ALREADY ARE LET ALONE BE CONSTANTLY DISTURBED BY THEIR CAR LIGHTS AND NOISES GENERATED BY THIS ADDITION. 5. PROPERTY VALUES THERE IS LITTLE DOUBT IN OUR MINDS THAT THE APPROVAL OF THIS ADDITION WILL DEVALUE OUR PROPERTY. NOBODY WANTS THEIR BEDROOM ADJACENT TO A GARAGE, DRIVEWAY, POOL EQUIPMENT, OR POOL. WHY SHOULD OUR PROPERTY VALUE BE COMPROMISED FOR THE SAKE OF OTHERS? 6. CITY REVIEW WE WHERE ONLY INFORMED OF THE PROPOSED ADDITION BY THE CITY TWO WEEKS AGO AND WERE SHOCKED TO DISCOVER THAT THIS PROJECT HAD ALMOST BEEN APPROVED WITHOUT PROPER CITY PROCEDURES AND PROTOCOL. BEFORE ANY DECISION IS MADE ON THIS PROJECT WE FEEL IT APPROPRIATE FOR THE CITY TO VISIT THE SITE AND OUR PROPERTY TO SEE FIRST HAND WHAT OUR CONCERNS ARE. THIS PROJECT SHOULD BE REVIEWED AGAIN BY ALL THE APPROPRIATE AGENCIES. IT MUST ALSO BE POINTED OUT THAT IN THE DEED RESTRICTIONS IT IS 'BLACK AND WHITE' THAT THERE SHALL NOT BE ANY TREES PLANTED IN THE EASEMENT. THE BLACKS CURRENTLY HAVE PEPPER TREES IN THEIR FRONT EASEMENT THAT SERIOUSLY OBSTRUCT OUR VIEW OF DOWNHILL, ONCOMING TRAFFIC WHICH IS A SERIOUS HAZARD FOR MY FAMILY PULLING OUT OF OUR DRIVEWAY. THESE KIND OF VIOLATIONS MUST NOT BE OVERLOOKED, ESPECIALLY WHEN THE VIOLATORS ARE REQUESTING AMMENDMENTS TO ADDITIONAL CITY REQUIREMENTS. 6. CONCLUSIONS BASED ON THE REASONS WE HAVE OUTLINED, THIS PROJECT SHOULD BE DENIED. IF ANY TYPE OF ADDITION IS APPROVED FOR THE BLACKS IN THE FUTURE THERE SHOULD BE CONDITIONS PROTECTING THE PRIVACY, PROPERTY VALUES, AND QUALITY OF LIFE OF THEIR NEIGHBORS. RESPECTFULLY, r7 RUTH CUMMING 34 SADDLEBACK ROAD, ROLLING HILLS City of Rolling INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 w STATUS OF APPLICATION NOTIFICATION LETTER August 6, 1991 Dr. and Mrs. Ralph Black 36 Saddleback Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (213) 377-1521 FAX: (213) 377-7288 SUBJECT: Zoning Case No. 462, 36 Saddleback Road (Lot 12-2-RH) A request for a Variance to permit encroachment into the ,rear yard setback to construct a swimming pool and arbor. Dear Dr. and Mrs. Black: 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 informatin promptly to avoid any delay in the processing of the application. Your application for Zoning Case No. 462 has been set for public hearing consideration by the Planning Commission at their meeting on Tuesday. Auaust 20, 1991. 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 PM on Friday, August 16, 1991. Please arrange to pick up the staff report to preview it prior to the hearing. Feel free to call me at (213) 377-1521 if you have any questions. Sincerely, LOLA M. UNGAR PRINCIPAL PLANNER cc: Mr. Keith Palmer, A.I.A.