328, Remodel existing non-conformin, Correspondence411(
Cay ol Rotting JUL
GODFREY PERNELL
Mayor
GORDANA SWANSON
Mayor Pro Tom
THOMAS F. HEINSHEIMER
Councilman
GINNY LEEUWENBURGH
Councilwoman
JODY MURDOCK
Councilwoman
Mr. Harry Kondo, District Engineer
Department of County Engineer
24320 South Narbonne Avenue
Lomita, CA 90717
Dear Mr. Kondo:
INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274
(213) 377-1521
October 21, 1986
Zoning Case #328
Jankovich, Lot 49RH
A copy of the recorded Acceptance Form signed by Mr. Thomas
Jankovich, owner of Lot 49-Rh, located at 35 Saddleback Road,
is enclosed. The affidavit was required in connection with approval
of a Variance in Zoning Case No. 328. A permit may now be issued,
subject to conditions in Resolution No. 554, which is also enclosed.
Please call this office if you have any questions.
Very truly,
June Cunningham
Deputy City Clerk
Encl. (2)
copy: T. Jankovich
afieo llin S JUL
Mr. and Mrs. Tom Jankovich
35 Saddleback Road
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
Re: Zoning Case No. 328
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Jankovich:
INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS. CALIF. 90274
(213) 377-I521
September 18, 1986
This letter is to serve as official notice that at the
September 8, 1986 City Council meeting, the Council upheld the
decision of the Planning Commission of your request for a
Variance for a residential addition encroaching into the front
and side yard setbacks, as shown on a plan submitted for Zoning
Case No. 328.
An acceptance form, as required by Ordinance No. 207, is
enclosed. Please complete the form, have the signature(s)
notarized, and forward it to the County Recorder's office,
Room 15, 227 North Broadway, Los Angeles, CA 90012 with a check
in the amount of $7.00. When the Affidavit of Acceptance, duly
executed and recorded, has been returned to the City, the
Los Angeles County Department of Building and Safety will be
notified that a permit can be issued.
Please call this office if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Terrence L. Belanger
City Manager
TLB:mz
encl. For your information, enclosed there is a copy of the
Minutes of the September 8, 1986 City Council meeting,
a copy of Ordinance No. 207, an Affidavit of Acceptance,
and a duplicate of the Planning Commission findings and
decision.
ety
1
Mr. Thomas Jankovich
35 Saddleback Road
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
Re: Zoning Case No. 328
Dear Mr. Jankovich:
Raffia if i 6 INCORPORATED JR'NUI RY 24, 1957
NO. 2 PORTUGUFSE I!END ROAD
ROLLIN:: HILLS. CALIF. VMS
(213) 377.1321
August 26, 1986
The City Council, at its August 25, 1986 meeting,
determined that your application for a Variance to encroach
into the established front yard, at 35 Saddleback Road
(Zoning Case No. 328), be continued until September 8, 1986;
when, all the Council Members will be present.
Therefore, on Monday, September 8, 1986, the City
Council will be considering the matter of Zoning Case No. 328.
Sincerely,
Terrence L. ; anger
City Manager
TLB:mz
encl. For your information, there is a copy of the Minutes
of the August 11, 1986 and the August 12, 1986 City
Council meetings enclosed. Also, there is a copy of
the Planning Commission findings and decision.
•ity Coutei 11-.gcnda
August 25, 1986
#5b
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Terrence L. Belanger, City Tanager
SUBJECT: Zoning Case No. 328 - Variance Application (Jankovich)
BACKGROUND:
The City Counci continued the matter of Zoning Case, o..
328 to the meeting of August 25, 1986. The purpose for the continuation
was to have staff research the process by which the deck area
and the 8 foot screening fence, located upon it, were approved.
In December 1972, the then owner of the property, at 35
Saddleback Road, Mr. Keith Slingsby, had plans for the installation
of'decking around the swimming pool approved. Also approved at
that time, as a part of the overall plan, was an 8 foot screening
wall located on the easterly perimeter of the proposed new decking.
The plans for the decking and the screening wall were approved,
by the Rolling Hills Community association Architectural Committee.
Subsequent to approval, the applicant did build. the decking and
screenign wall, pursuant to the plans.
In December 1972, at the time the Architectural Committee
reviewed the decking and fence plans, as submitted by Mr. Slingsby,
the City of Rolling Hills Zoning Ordinance had a front yard setback
requirement of 30 feet. The decking plan, proposed by Mr. Slingsby
did not encroach into the minimum setback of 30 feet. Consequently,
the proposed fence did not encroach into the minimum front yard
setback of 30 feet. In that the proposed plans were in compliance
with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance at that time, the
review and approval of the plans did not fall within the jurisdiction
of the Planning Commission and/or the City Council.
In 1979, the City of Rolling Hills adopted new minimum front
yard setback requirements. Ordinance No. 169 changed the minimum
front -yard setback, from 30 feet, to 50 feet. With the adoption
of Ordinance No. 169, the decking and fence located at 35 Saddleback
Road became non -conforming structures,. ::..
SUMMARY:
:
It is found that the 'decking anc3"icrening fence ` ` acaEt d'
at 35 Saddleback Road, were constructed in compliance with the
then existing regulations of the City of Rolling Hills, and the
Rolling Hills Community association. Further, it is found that
the decking and screening fence became non -conforming structures
only after the adoption of new front yard setback requirements,
pursuant to Ordinance No. 169. ..
• •
Item 3
August 8, 1986
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: City tanager
SUBJECT: Zoning Case Number 328 - Front Yard Encroachment Variance
(Jankovich)
It is recommended that the City Council open the scheduled
public hearing for public comment after receiving complete public
comment to continue the public hearing to your August 25, 1986
meeting. Further, it is recommended that the City Council schedule
an on -site field trip to evaluate the property.
The Rolling Hills Planning Commission approved Variance
Application No. 328 of Tom Jankovich, 35 Saddleback Road. The
Variance requested an encroachment into the 50 foot front yard
setback, of 22 feet. The Variance would allow the applicant to
build a portion of a residential structure 22 feet into the front
yard setback.
The Variance Application approval was reviewed by the City
Council at its meeting of July 14, 1986. At that meeting the City
Council called up for review, and thereby took jurisdiction, of
Zoning Case No. 328. The City Council, at that time, set the natter
for public bearing for August 11, 1986. The purpose of the Variance
is to provide exceptions to the standards of the Zoning Ordinance,
when practical difficulties, unnecessary hardships, or results
inconsistent with the general purpose of the Zoning Ordinance
result, through the strict and literal interpretation and
enforcement of the Ordinance's provision. A Variance nay be
authorized when it is in harmony with the general purpose and intent
of the Zoning Ordinance, so that the spirit of the Ordinance may be
observed, public safety and welfare security and substantial justice
done.
Before a Variance may be granted, three conditions must be
shown: 1. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances
or conditions applicable to the property or to the intended use that
do not apply, generally, to other property or class of use in the
same vicinity and zone. 2. That such 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 owner in question. 3. That the grading of such
Variance will 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.
• •
Item 3, 8/8/86
Page 2
The Variance relates to the possible impairment of full
utilization of the applicant's property due to its configuration and
topography. Because full utilization of the property is at
question, vis a vis the encroachment into the front yard setback, it
would be advisable that the City Council schedule a field trip to
personally inspect this site as to the issues raised by the
applicant.
There is no fiscal impact.
•
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. Tom Jankovich )
Lot 49-RH )
ZONING CASE NO. 328
FINDINGS AND REPORT
The application of Mr. Tom Jankovich, Lot 49-RH, Rolling Hills
Tract, for a Conditional Use Permit under Section 17.32.010 of the
City of Rolling Hills Municipal Code, came on for hearing on the
20th day of May 1986 and the 17th day of June 1986 in the Council
Chambers of the Administration Building, 2 Portuguese Bend Road,
Rolling Hills, California, and the applicant, the Planning
Commission, being advised, now makes its Findings and Report as re-
quired by the Municipal Code of the City of Rolling Hills,
California.
I.
The Commission finds that the applicant, Mr. Tom Jankovich, is
the owner of that certain real property described as Lot 49-RH, lo-
cated at 35 Saddleback Road 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 Municipal Code of the
City of Rolling Hills, California. The Commission finds, further,
that no comment, written or verbal, was received in opposition to
the request.
II.
The Commission finds that the applicant has requested a
Variance from Section 17.16.060 minimum front yard setback require-
ments. The applicant has requested a 26 foot encroachment into the
minimum front yard setback of 50 feet which would leave a front yard
setback. The applicant indicates that the proposed structural en-
croachment shall be constructed within and upon an already existing
structural encroachment into the minimum front yard setback. The
applicant indicates that due to extreme topographical gradients on
his property, the excessive grading which would be required to
expand the building pad area, could be detrimental to the environ-
ment. Therefore, the applicant requests the granting of the
Variance so that he may have the same rights to property as others
in the same vicinity and zone, which would otherwise be denied if he
• •
were not able to fully utilize the existing graded building pad
area. The Commission finds that there are extraordinary topograph-
ical and physical conditions which exist on the property which do
not apply to other properties in the vicinity and zone, which im-
pinge upon the applicant's ability to fully utilize his 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,
not injurious to property in the same vicinity and zone.
III.
From the foregoing, it is concluded that a Variance should be
granted to Mr. Jankovich, Lot 49-RH, 35 Saddleback Road under
Section 17.32.010 of the City of Rolling Hills Municipal Code for a
Variance from Section 17.16.060 minimum front yard requirements sub-
ject to the following conditions: 1) The front yard encroachment
not exceed 26 feet; 2) The area along the entirety of the encroach-
ment be adequately screened with landscaping; 3) 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
for not less than two years, after landscape installation; 4) The
tennis court be screened with landscaping; and, 5) the bridle
trails, at the westerly boundary, be graded; and it is, therefore,
so ordered.
/S/ Allan Roberts
Chairman, Planning Commission
IS/ Terrence L. Belanger
Secretary, Planning Commission
• •
MINUTES OF A
REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA
August 25, 1986
A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Rolling
Hills was called to order at the Administration Building, 2
Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills, California by Mayor Pernell
at 7:30 p.m., Monday, August 25, 1986.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Councilmembers Leeuwenburgh, Swanson, Murdock
Mayor Pernell
ABSENT: Councilman Heinsheimer
PU$LIC HEARING, ZONING CASE NO. 328 280
Mayor Pernell opened a Lblic ii.earing on an application
by Mr. and Mrs. Jankovich, for a Variance for residence to encroach
into established front yard, at 35 Saddleback Road. It was also
noted that the-. City Council made a field trip to the residence
on August 12, 1986.
The City Manager reported that on August 12, 1986, Council
directed staff to research the process by which the deck area
and the 8 foot screening fence, located upon it, were approved
by the Architectural Committee and the Rolling Hills Community
Association. In December 1972, the plans for decking around the
pool were approved, along with the 8 foot screening wall. At
that time, the City of Rolling Hills Zoning Ordinance had a
front yard setback requirement of 30 feet, and the improvements
did not encroach into the minimum front yard setback. The review
and approval of the plans did not fall within the jurisdiction
of the Planning Commission and/or the City Council. In 1979,
the City of Rolling Hills adopted new minimum front yard setback
requirements, and changed the minimum- front yard setback from
30 feet to 50 feet.
The City Manager also reported that a letter addressed to
the City Council, and dated August 23, 1986, from resident Joan
Saffo, be accepted and entered into the record. The general
statement of Mrs. Saffo reflects her desire to see open space
and the rural atmosphere of Rolling Hills maintained and preserved
by the City Council.
Mayor Pernell asked for further testimony, and hearing none,
closed the Public Hearing. Councilwoman Swanson stated that after
viewing the property, it was felt that government be allowed to
use a certain amount of latitude in making judgements on unusual
circumstances, and therefore, the request should be granted. It
was also her opinion that the proposed work would be more pleasing
to the eye, and it would provide privacy for the applicant and
the community. Councilwoman Leeuwenburgh agreed with Councilwoman
Swanson, She also noted that the topography of the parcel limits
the kind of development because the house addition has to be built
on caissons, and the screening of the recreation areas and pool
from the street is a benefit to all the neighbors; this is an
exception that should be granted.
Councilwoman Murdock stated that she had a difficult time
with the proposal, since it is a further encroachment into the
proposed 50 foot setback. The screen that was maintained before
was through landscaping, and now the present owner has removed
that, and she does not see the necessary hardship that is required
for the granting of a Variance.
Mayor Pernell asked how much more encroachment there was?
The City Manager reported an encroachment of approximately 2 feet.
Mayor Pernell stated that he and Councilwoman Murdock came to
the Council with prior planning commission background, and hardship
is one of the conditions that is considered with
•
August 25, 1986
any applicant, and to go from a 3,500 square foot house to 8,000
square feet, does not seem to present a hardship.
Mayor Pernell asked the City Attorney for direction; if
the Council is acting on the application or acting on the
recommendation of the Planning Commission. The City Attorney
reported that the Council would be acting on an appeal from the
action of the Planning Commission, which in this instance, has
been taken by the Council, thus the action is to uphold the appeal
(to affirm) or reverse the action of the Planning Commission;
in the absence of action by this Body, the Planning Commission's
actions stand.
Councilwoman Swanson moved that the appeal be denied, and
in so doing, affirm the decision of the Planning Commission, which
would grant permission to the applicant for a Variance of front
yard setbacks, subject to the same condtions that were imposed
by the Planning Commission. The motion seconded by Councilwoman
Leeuwenburgh.
AYES: Councilmembers Swanson, Leeuwenburgh
NOES: Councilmember Murdock, Mayor Pernell
ABSENT: Councilmember Heinsheimer
Mayor Pernell stated that the motion that the appeal be
denied has failed.
Councilwoman Leeuwenburgh moved that the Zoning Case No.
328, Request for Variance, be continued until Monday, September
8, 1986, at 7:30 p.m., City Hall, #2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling
Hills, CA 90274, when all the Council Members will be present.
Motion seconded by Councilwoman Murdock, and carried on a 3-1
vote, with Councilwoman Swanson dissenting.
• •
MINUTES OF AN
ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
AND
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA
August 12,. 1986
An adjourned meeting of the City Council of the City of
Rolling Hills, and a special meeting of the Planning Commission
of the City of Rolling Hills, was called to order by Mayor Pernell
at the Administration Building, 2 Portuguese Bend Road,. Rolling
Hills, California at, 7:38 p.m., Tuesday, August .12,. 1986.
PRESENT:
Councilmembers Murdock, Swanson, Leeuwenburgh,
,Heinsheimer'(arrived'at .7:45.p.m.), Mayor Pernell
Commissioners Bundy,, Frost, Hankins, Lay,
Chairman Roberts.. .
ABSENT: , None
ALSO PRESENT:
Terrence L. Belanger
Ginger Blake
Douglas McHattie
Mr. Jankovich
Mrs. Dottie Lay
City Manager
Secretary
South Bay Engineering
Resident
Resident
PUBLIC HEARING, ZONING CASE NO. 328 - JANKOVICH 45
Mayor Pernell opened a.. public hearing on an application
by Mr. and Mrs. Jankovich, for'..a Variance for residence to encroach
into established front yard,., at 35 Saddleback Road. The City
Council has gathered field "testimony and Councilwoman Murdock
noted that there appeared. to be'structures on the property that
Council does not have murhhistory on. Policy has been to be certain
that there is .no violation on the property. . It is necessary to
know what the structures are; and, if they. should be grandfathered
into the application, or conditions needto be placed on those
structures. Mayor Pernell asked the City Manager, if.he had any
information on the above mentioned structures. Mr. Belanger
indicated that he had done a cursory search and was unable. to
find any data as to the, existing fence construction which was
viewed on the site. Mayor-Pernell requested that staff investigate
further, and .report at the next regular meeting- any information
that might be obtained as regards the .background of the development
of site structures. .
Mayor Pernell continued the public hearing to Monday, August
25, 1986 at 7:30 p.m., at the Council Chambers, 2 Portuguese Bend
Road, Rolling Hills, California. The Mayor directed that a report
from the City Manager be prepared for the next regular City Council
Meeting.
August 11, 1986 •
PUBLIC HEARING,' ZONING"'CASE NO'. 328 W'' :
.4
977
The City Manager reported that the Rolling Hills Planning
Commission approved Variance Application No. 328 for Mr. Tom
Jankovich, 35 Saddleback Road. The Variance requested an
encroachment into the 50 foot front yard setback; of 22 feet.
The Variance would allow the applicant to build a portion of a
residential structure 22 feet into the front yard setback.
The Variance Application approval was reviewed by the City
Council at its July 14, 1986 meeting. At that meeting, the City
Council called -up the Variance Application for review, and thereby
took jurisdiction of Zoning Case No. 328. The Public Hearing
for Zoning Case No. 328 was dulynoticed, as required by law,
for August 11, 1986.
The City Manager displayed the plot plan, and briefly
explained that the applicant's request was related to the possible
impairment of full utilization of the property due to its
configuration and topography. The current house is 3,500 square
feet, and the proposed house. is approximately 8,000 feet.
Mayor Pernell opened the public hearing, and invited the
applicant to make a presentation to the Council. Mr. Tom Jankovich,
35; Saddleback Road, stated that he had retained the services of
Kathryn Stone, Attorney with Stone, Burke, Williams and Sorenson;
Robert Earle, Architect with Robert Earle and Associates; and
Douglas McHattie, Engineer with South Bay Engineering; to assist
with any questions that the Council may have. Mr. Jankovich stated
that he purchased the property in May, and while it was in escrow,
he found that it would be necessary to do some extensive remodeling.
It was at this time that he spoke with Mr. McHattie and Mr. Belanger
and discovered he would need a Variance. Mr. Jankovich stated
that he has complied with all requests from the City and the Rolling
Hills Community Association. Mr. Jankovich also stated that he
wanted to clarify the demolition permit he received. It was
requested by the Edison Company in order for a temporary power
pole to be installed at the job site. Only.the garage and a portion
of the home will be removed. Robert Earle stated that the applicant
purchased the home with the swimming pool and tennis court with
the intention of doing some remodeling. Due to the unstable soil
condition of the lot, it is necessary for the proposed development
to remain as designed. Mr. Earle also pointed out that the front
portion of the house, the entrance doors, the front first walls,
right side of the house, leaving all the pools and deck area are
left -intact. The same alignment will be held for the front walls
of the house, the entry porch coming in the front door, and the
side of the house will be left intact. The existing fence that
is projecting into the existing setback .at the present time is
8 feet high, and is identical to the house wall construction. It
is the applicant's desire to keep this wall. Mr. Earle presented
pictures to Council showing the wall.:
• •
August 11, 1986
Kathryn Stone, attorney, stated that the applicant is keeping
the existing foundation, keeping an existing wall, and is keeping
the same front setback line. The building will be back further,
and the garage will be removed. There will be no more setback
intrusion than .there is now.. The hardship, for Mr. Jankovich,
is due to the fill pad and it would' be•' very ' difficult to move
the swimming pool; or the other recreational facilities. Therefore,
the architect had to design around the facilities,.. and the only.
place to put the facilities to serve'the pool area are in front
of the existing wall. The wall.•; is, also, necessary for privacy
and security. ,. • Mayor Pernell ..,asked :P'if °it ;was necessary . for the
wall to be 13 feet . high. Mr. c Earle.,.stated ''thati:the wall, is only
8 feet high; and. 13 feet high.: ,from�,'the top1, of', the ' roof line to
finished grade. ,
•
Mrs. Carol Hoffman, 3 Hillside'Lane, stated that after meeting
the Jankovich family, and visiting their present home, she feels
that the family would be an asset: to. the:. community,and, their
home would be physically appealing.
L
Mayor Pernell closed the public hearing. Councilman
Heinsheimer stated that the presentation and the review of the
area made him feel that the applicant had met the criteria for
the granding of a Variance.
Councilman Heinsheimer moved . that Zoning Case No. 328,
(Jankovich), a Variance Application for front yard encroachment
be approved, seconded by Councilwoman Leeuwenburgh.
Councilwoman Murdock stated that she felt the Council should
make a field trip to the site. Councilman Heinsheimer stated
that the public hearing had been noticed, and there had been no
negative comments received, and he felt comfortable with approving
the applicant for Variance, at this time.
Mayor Pernell asked how long the proposed construction would
take. Mr. Jankovich indicated- approximately .8 months, and that
they hoped to have the new construction covered before the rainy
season.
Councilwoman Swanson asked when the existing 8 foot wall
was approved. Mr. Belanger stated that he had 'researched this
item, and he was unable to find any records to indicate that it
had been approved. Mr. Belanger did note that the decking was
completed in 1972.
Councilwoman Leeuwenburgh stated that if a field trip is
in order, a possible delay of 2 weeks should not affect the project.
Mayor Pernell indicated that the Council would.like to see where
the fence is, how high, and its configuration, and also requested
the applicant to provide survey flagging or staking. Mr. Jankovich
stated that the staking is in place.
A
• •
August 11, 1986
Councilwoman Swanson made a substitute motion that the Council
make a field trip to the Jankovich property at the earliest
convenient date, and that the public hearing remain open to the
next regular meeting. The motion .was seconded by Councilwoman
Murdock.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSNET:
Councilmembers Leeuwenburgh, Murdock, Swanson
Mayor Pernell
Councilmember_Heinsheimer,
None
•+-r • • rt
On the motion of Councilwoman Swanson, seconded by
Councilwoman Murdock, it was moved, that the Council make a field
trip to the Jankofich property at the earliest convenient date,
and that the public hearing remain open to the next regular meeting.
AYRES:
NOES:
Councilmembers Leeuwenburgh, Murdock, Swanson
Heinsheimer, Mayor Pernell
None
ABSENT: None
The field trip will be held on Tuesday, August 12, 1986,.
at 6:00 p.m. Mr. Jankovich indicated that he would be there,
along with Mr. Earle to answer any questions. The public hearing
was continued to the adjourned City Council Meeting, to be held
on August 12, 1986, at 7:30 p.m.
• •
MINUTES OF
A REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
June 17, 1986
ZONING CASE NO. 328, TOM JANKOVICH, 35 SADDDLEBACK RD. FRONT VARIANCE
Chairman Roberts opened discussion of a request by Mr. Tom
Jankovich for a Variance of Front Yard Requirements for construction
of a residence addition encroaching into the established front
yard of Lot 49-RH, located at 35 Saddleback Road. The Chairman
noted that the hearing was continued from the prior month, and
that members of the Commission made a field trip to the site.
The City Manager displayed the plan showing the existing
residence, which encroaches eight feet into the required fifty
foot front yard setback. Mr. Belanger said the applicant is
requesting that a new building structure be permitted to encroach
26 feet into the front yard setback. An existing garage encroaches
eight feet into the front setback, and there is a fence seven to
eight feet high next to an existing deck which surrounds the swimming
pool, and mature vegetation along the easement line. Mr. Belanger
said that the applicant is requesting the variance because
application of the Zoning Ordinance would create undue hardship
in the utilization of the property because of topography of the
land to the west.
Commissioner Bundy said it is his understanding that the
existing garage will be removed. The Manager showed the proposed
location for the garage for the new structure, and he said the
detached garage and the entire residence will be taken down and
a new residence will be built. Commissioner Lay asked whether
front setback requirements have been changed since the existing
structure was built. The Manager said the structure complied with
requirements when it was built; the fifty foot front setback
requirement was adopted after many homes were built, and they were
"grandfathered", and are considered existing non -conforming
structures. Any change to the structure that does not comply with
existing regulations requires a variance, he said. Further, the
Manager said the pool and most of the decking will remain; the
remainder of the structure will be removed. Commissioner Bundy
asked the proposed use of the portion of the residence for which
a variance is being requested. A floor plan was provided, and
the Manager said it would include a guest room and a sitting room.
Mr. Belanger said the architectural intent is to provide with the
building a buffer similar to that provided by the existing wall,
which is built inside of the fence line.
Commissioner Bundy asked Mr. Jankovich whether he had tried
to find other locations on the property. Mr. Jankovich said he
is trying to take advantage of the best view area, and he wishes
to leave the pool in its present location and provide better access
to the garage and an enlarged area for turnaround and parking on
the property. The rooms in the portion of the building proposed
to be built within the front setback are oriented to take advantage
of the view, and to act as a buffer for the pool area, similar
to that provided by the existing fence. Mr. Douglas McHattie,
South Bay Engineering, explained that the building pad is located
close to Saddleback Road, and he said there is no other buildable
area on the property. Chairman Roberts asked Mr. Jankovich to
address the increase in size of the proposed new residence. Mr.
Jankovich said the existing residence is 3500 square feet, plus
detached garage; the proposed residence will be 8000 square feet,
including garage. Commissioner Bundy asked the height of the
existing fence next to the driveway. Mr. Jankovich said it is
eight feet high, the same height as the wall to which it joins.
Chairman Roberts thereafter closed the public hearing.
-2-
June 17, 1986
Mr. McHattie advised the Commission that items of concern
discussed by the Planning Commission at the site during the field
trip, including clearing the trail at the bottom and along the
back of the property, and the addition of landscaping around the
tennis court for screening were conveyed to Mr. Jankovich, and
he has agreed to take care of those items as a condition of approval
of the variance. Chairman Roberts said the Planning Commission
should consider the nature of the hardship and the intent of the
Zoning Ordinance, specifically in relation to the size of the
proposed residence.
Commissioner Frost moved that the request for a Variance of
Front Setback Requirements for construction on Lot 49-RH located
at 35 Saddleback Road be approved as shown on the plan, with findings
that the residence currently encroaches into the front setback
and the new construction would be an extension of a non -conforming
condition, and with a requirement that the tennis court be screened
and the bridle trails graded. The motion was seconded by
Commissioner Bundy. In discussing the matter Commissioner Lay
noted that the new residence will be built closer to the road than
the structure which it will replace, and he said it will impact
the view directly from the roadway and when the property is
approached uphill from the side, since it will be at least 8 -
10 feet beyond the current encroachment. Chairman Roberts suggested
that the portion of the structure which will be in the front setback
could be angled to lessen the encroachment. Mr. Jankovich said
existing pool equipment, stairs and a viewing area for the tennis
court would not make that practical, explaining that it is his
wish to retain as much of the original as possible. Mr. Jankovich
said the plan has been modified to eliminate about one foot of
the projection. The City Manager said the plan shows the proposed
residence encroaching 27 feet into the front setback, and he
explained the modifications which will result in an encroachment
of 26 feet. Chairman Roberts asked that the revised plan be
submitted for the file.
Commissioner Lay said he wished to offer an amendment to the
motion to approve the request for projection of a portion of the
residence no more than 26 feet into the front setback, and with
the requirement that adequate landscaping be done in the area of
the encroachment, in addition to conditions previously specified.
The amendment to the motion was seconded by Commissioner Frost.
The motion as amended was carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Bundy, Frost, Lay
NOES: Chairman Roberts
ABSENT: Commissioner Hankins
Chairman Roberts said for the record that he voted against
the motion because in his opinion there was not sufficient
demonstration of hardship, stating that it is his feeling that
new construction should conform to requirements of the Municipal
Code.
CONSIDERATION OF CHANGE OF MEETING DATE 1208
The City Manager advised the Planning Commission that the
City of Rolling Hills has been accepted by the Coachella Valley
Joint Powers Insurance Authority for coverage for municipal liability
insurance, and he is required to attend the monthly meeting of
the Authority which is held in Palm Springs on the third Tuesday
of each month. Because of the problems associated with making
the round trip to Palm Springs and returning in time for the Planning
Commission meeting, Mr. Belanger asked whether the Commissioners
would consider changing their meeting date. It was the consensus
of members present that the meeting could be changed to the fourth
Tuesday evening with minimum inconvenience. The Manager said he
would report to the City Council on the matter so the necessary
change could be made in the Municipal Code.
MINUTES OF A
REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS, CALIPORNIA
ZONING CASE NO. 328, TOM JANKOVICH, 35 SADDLEBACK ROAD
Chairman Roberts opened a public hearing on a request by Mr.
Tom Jankovich for a Variance of Front Yard requirements on Lot
49-RH for a residence addition. The Clerk reported that the hearing
was noticed as required by law, and that no comment, written or
verbal, was received in favor of or opposition to the request.
Mr. Jankovich advised the Commission that he has opened an
escrowfor purchase of the Slingsby property at 35 Saddleback Road,
and he plans an extensive remodel of the residence, including removal
of the existing detached garage, and conversion of an existing
deck area to living area. Mr. Jankovich explained that a portion
of the existing residence and deck area are within the required
50 foot front setback, although they were in compliance with zoning
requirements when the house was built. As part of the property
development house will be enlarged, and a portion of the residence
will encroach into the required front setback, but the encroachment
will be less than at present, since a portion of the existing deck
in the front setback will be removed.
Chairman Roberts said a field trip will be made to the site,
and he asked that the property be staked to show the extent of
the proposed encroachment into the required front setback. The
public hearing was continued to the next regular meeting of the
Planning Commission on June 17.
wry `RolfMy
GODFREY PERNELL
wpr
GORDANA SWANSON
Mayor Pm Tam
THOMAS F. HEINSHEIMER
Councilman
GINNY LEEUWENBURGH
Councilwoman
JODY MURDOCK
CouncUwoman
Mr. Tom Jankovich
3423 Starline Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90274
Dear Mr. Jankovich;
INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
NO. 2 PORTUGUGSG 96ND ROAD
ROLLING MILLS. CALIF. 10274
(213) 377.1521
June 26, 1986
This letter is to serve as official notice, pursuant to Section
17.32.090 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, that a Variance
of front setback requirements for construction of a residence
addition encroaching into the established front yard on your
property, Lot 49-RH, located at 35 Saddleback Road was approved
by the Planning Commission at a regular meeting on June 17, 1986,
subject to conditions set forth in the minutes. A full report
of the Commission's action, as required by the Municipal Code,
is contained in the minutes of the meeting, which are enclosed.
The Planning Commission's decision will be reported to the
City Council at their regular meeting on Monday, July 14, 1986
at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, pursuant to
Section 17.32.140 of the Municipal Code. Please call this office
if you have any questions.
Very truly,
June Cunningham
Deputy City Clerk
Encl.
• •
COMPUTATION OF LOT COVERAGE
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
LOT COVERAGE (Ordinance No. 188)
Main buildings, accessory buildings, structures, tennis courts, swimming pools,
service yards (enclosed or unenclosed), stables, or an area of not less than 200 square
feet for the construction of a stable (with vehicle access thereto) shall not cover
more than twenty (20%) percent of the net lot area; provided further that in addition
to the above described improvements, the areas included within driveways, parking
space, walks, patios, decks and asphalt or concrete paving of any kind excepting
roads maintained by the Rolling Hills Community Association, shall not cover more
than thirty-five (35%) percent of the net lot area. .
For the purposes of this Section 'net area' shall exclude all perimeter easements
to a maximum of ten feet and that portion of the lot or parcel of land which is used
for roadway purposes, and shall also exclude any private drive or driveway which pro-
vides ingress and egress to any other lot or parcel of land, and access strip portion
of any flag lot.
BUILDING AREA CALCULATIONS
NET LOT AREA sq. ft. 215,622
RESIDENCE 4256 sq. ft.
GARAGE - 660 sq. ft.
SWIMMING POOL 544 sq. ft.
STABLE 784 sq. ft.
TENNIS COURT 7240 sq. ft.
TOTAL SQUARE FEET 13,484
% COVERED (MAY NOT EXCEED 20% OF NET LOT AREA) 6
DRIVEWAY 2400 sq. ft.
PAVED WALKS AND PATIO AREA 1132 sq. ft.
POOL DECKING 3008 sq. ft.
TOTAL SQUARE FEET 6540
3
TOTAL COVERAGE (MAY NOT EXCEED 35% OF NET LOT AREA) 9 %
• •
REQUEST FOR HEARING
FOR ZONE VARIANCE
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
The undersigned 1p/`'- �4/1/4-01/7(y L Ply, /</c-/4 7 --/C
Name '-✓
-3e 2,3 ? /APL/,/, DP.. 4-2-gt; 5 4 7- 3306--
Street Address Telephone Number
(1) is/are the owner(s) or is/are in lawful possession of
has permission of the owner
Legal,description of property situated at
54
Street Address
4 9 . ,.&O L c i,-/ei /.-//GLg
Lot Tract
•
Describe in detail the nature of the proposed use, including what aspects of the
project require a Variance.
R C L G•/ S i / C-7 /V'0 C O AV, Qi� r-7 //"<h
_J.J / / i /= 5 0 /- f2 n A/ 7 A
Criteria to be satisfied for grant of Variance
Such change is based upon the following described exceptional or extraordinary
circumstances or conditions that do not apply generally to other property in the
same vicinity and zone.
A-5 7-/-/, S / S ,4 Plc &-zE"A"/$ / /Nr-7 CD/v/O/ i /0,0 1,1,), i/-{
%G/C /-/QU/ 7 5 aPCS- c-/t/ i eoCA 77 n , —
Such change will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare nor injurious to
the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone where property•is located because-
-/ , lr^ A/ S 7. , riC r/ D /) PJ T /:3 2v I /C /16-
/S/ 7.S
[A)// f iC- •Cc(-j/)7 hii ,/-7/ 77 t
/iv socr -7 /.2r0 OF / /-7/ . OL- Re.iic/7 i,'
5/// 7cJ -7 /I /1/K7G6c5 CovA/ Tc A/lam//,ic-c,�,
FILING FEE
A filing fee of $500.00 must accompany the application. Make check payable to:
THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
x.
OWNER'S DECLARATION
(We), declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed at `i o5 //C,� .(.:W e5 7A
this 2 C
, California,
day of A AO/ L , 19 ?G,
Address
gAC OS Vijg_I E3 �5 iL,l i -' �c? 902 7¢
NOTE: The Owner's Declaration can only be used if this application is signed in
California. If this application is signed outside of California, the applicant
should acknowledge before a Notary Public of the State where the signature is
affixed, or before another officer of that State authorized by its lawsto take
acknowledgments, that he (it) owns the property described herein, and that the
information in the accompanying this application is true to the best of his (its)
knowledge and belief. Attach appropriate acknowledgment here.
FORMS ISSUED TO:
NAME
ORGANIZATION
JO$. A,DDRE$S
U%NeMa
DATE,
DECISION OF PLANNING COMMISSION
FILED
FEE $
RF,CEIPT NO.
BY
, 19
The action of the Planning Commission will be final unless within twenty (20) days
following the notice to the applicant of the decision, an appeal in writing is filed
with the City Clerk by:
A. The applicant;
B. Any person who protested, either orally or in writing, as a matter of record,
prior to the final vote of the Planning Commission on the matter and who, in
addition, received or was entitled to receive the written notice specified
in subdivision 2 of subsection A of Section 17.40.060; or
C. The City Council, upon the affirmative vote of three members of the Council.
In order to obtain a building permit, it will be necessary for the applicant to sign
a copy of the findings that they understand and accept the conditons of approval.
•AL
s •
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
ZONING CASE
CERTIFIED PROPERTY OWNERS' LIST
AFFIDAVIT
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)ss.
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES)
.JA hi Ai /4 Ie,SEAJ
, declare under penalty of
perjury that the attached list contains the names and addresses of all persons to
whom all property is assessed as they appear on the latest available assessment roll
of the County within the area described and for a distance of one thousand (1,000)
feet from the exterior boundaries of property legally described as:
Executed at A- Q/ 574 % 5S ► California, this
2 �' day of /R,Q /Z-
•
DConditional Use Permit
ArVariance
0 Zone Change
19p;.
•
ONE CREST ROAD EAST
ROLLING HMS, CALIFORNIA 90274
August 23, 1986
To: City Council
Board of Directors, RHCA
From: Joan Saffo
By
Re: Open space and rural atmosphere of RH
FETVEll
AUG 2 51386
CITY OF, O ING HILLS
Recently, I took out of town house guests on a tour
of Palos Verdes Peninsula and of Rolling Hills..
It has been some time since I really looked at our area
especially the roads winding in and out from the main
roads. It is changing and in my opinion, not for better.
We seemed to have lost open space. Lots and parcels
seemed to be overbuilt...there is over planting...views
are disappearing.
What happened to our regulations re lot coverage percentage?
Side yards, back yard, front yards setbacks requirements?
easement reduction regulations? Front yard encroachments?
Regulations re lighted tennis courts?
I believe buyers into Rolling Hills were enticed because
of a rural atmosphere and open space. However, recently
new owners seem to think these regulations don't apply
to them. Yet, I am sure those applying for variances
and set back reductions or conditional uses of their property
want to keep the Hills as they are...but they don't seem
to realize what is happening.
I feel strongly no variances, conditional uses, reduction
of side,back or front yards and easement reductions should
be allowed unless there is a very strong hardship involved.
At the moment, I cannot think of any really severe hardship
that would warrant allowing reductions or variances.
I was happy to hear of the moratorium on building Tennis
Courts.
Certainly, it isn't easy to turn down requests from
neighbors and friends But "hang in",