602, A 380 sq. ft addition to SFR w, Staff ReportsMEMORANDUM
April 30, 2007
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
NAN HUANG, FINANCE DIRECTOR
YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR
RELEASE — CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT FOR LANDSCAPING
3 PACKSADDLE ROAD EAST
Please release the Certificate of Deposit No. 12156-01063 to Mrs. Kathy Halliday or Mr.
Joseph Cioffi. They have successfully completed the landscaping that was bonded for
with this Certificate of Deposit.
City l2 een9 JII//
April 7, 2005
Mrs. Kathy Halliday
Mr. Joseph Cioffi
3 Packsaddle Road East
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 602
Dear Mrs. Halliday and Mr. Cioffi:
INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274
(310) 377-1521
FAX: (310) 377-7288
E-mail: cityolrh@aol.com
Thank you for allowing me to inspect your property last week to confirm compliance
with the landscaping conditions in Zoning Case No. 602.
My inspection confirmed that you have met the requirements of approval in Zoning Case
No. 602 pertaining to landscaping, irrigation and fencing.
Should you have any questions, please call me at (310) 377-1521. We appreciate your
cooperation.
Spc rely
71/
f olanta Schwartz
Planning Director
cc: Craig Nealis, City Manager
•
City o/ ie0fA .WA
• 8 !3
INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274
(310) 377-1521
FAX: (310) 377-7288
E-mail: cityoirh@aol.com
DATE: FEBRUARY 20, 2001
TO: HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PRINCIPAL PLANNER
SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 602
Mr. Joseph Cioffi and Mrs. Kathy Halliday, 3 Packsaddle Road East
(Lot 25-SF)
Request for a one year extension of time
BACKGROUND
Attached is a letter from Mr. Joseph Cioffi and Mrs. Kathy Halliday requesting a
one year time extension for a previously approved Variance to permit
encroachment into the south side yard setback to enclose a breezeway to enlarge
a kitchen, and to construct a family room, and a request for a Variance to exceed
the maximum total lot coverage.
The Variance was approved by the Commission by Resolution No. 2000-04 on
March 21, 2000.
If granted, the new expiration date of the Variance will be March 21, 2002.
According to the applicant, the reason for the request is that due to unanticipated
and unexpected family obligations and illness, the preparation of final plans was
postponed.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Planning Commission review the request.
Resolution No. 2001-04 is enclosed for Commission's consideration for the time
extension.
®Printed on Recycled Paper.
•
•
January 31, 2001
Rolling Hills Planning Commission
City of Rolling Hills
No. 2 Portuguese Bend Road
Rolling Hills, Ca. 90274
•
rop
FEB 022001
CrY QF ROL LIB'N ! S
Re: Request for extension of approval for Zoning Case No. 602 by Mr. Joe Cioffi
and Mrs. Kathy Halliday
Dear Members of the Planning Commission:
Because of unexpected family obligations and illness, we have been unable
to devote the necessary time to remodeling our home that we had hoped to in the past
year. Therefore, we would appreciate it very much if the Planning Commission would
grant us an extension of the approval of Zoning Case No. 602. The original granting of
this approval meant alot to us and we look forward to proceeding with our project and
completing it as soon as possible in this next year.
Thank you very much for your understanding in this matter. Please contact us
if you require any further information at 541-6661.
Sincerely:
Mrs. Kathy Halliday
cc: Mr. Criss Gunderson, Architect
• •
RESOLUTION NO. 2001-04
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS APPROVING A
MODIFICATION TO PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-04, APPROVING AN EXTENSION
TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED VARIANCE TO PERMIT
ENCROACHMENTS INTO THE SOUTH SIDE YARD
SETBACK TO ENLARGE A KITCHEN, GRANTING A
VARIANCE TO PERMIT ENCROACHMENTS INTO THE
SOUTH SIDE YARD SETBACK TO CONSTRUCT A
FAMILY ROOM ADDITION, AND GRANTING A
VARIANCE TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM TOTAL LOT
COVERAGE AT A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IN
ZONING CASE NO. 602.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES
HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. A request has been filed by Mr. Joseph Cioffi and Mrs. Kathy
Halliday, with respect to real property located at 3 Packsaddle Road East, (Lot
25-SF) Rolling Hills, requesting a one year time extension for a previously
approved Variance to encroach into the side yard set back with a kitchen and
family room addition, and a Variance to exceed the maximum allowed lot
coverage in Zoning Case No. 602 that was approved by the Planning
Commission by Resolution No. 2000-04 on March 21, 2001
• Section 2. The • Commission considered this item at a meeting on
February 20, 2001, at which time information was presented indicating that the
extension of time is necessary because the applicant's family obligations and
illness in the past year made it necessary for the project to be delayed.
Section 3. Based on information and evidence submitted, the Planning
Commission does hereby amend Paragraph A, Section 10 of Resolution No. 2000-
04, dated March 21, 2000, to read as follows:
"This Variance approvals shall expire within two years from the effective
date of approval as defined in Section 17.38.070(A) of the Zoning Code."
Section 4. Except as herein amended, the remaining provisions of
Resolution No. 2000-04 shall continue to be in full force and effect.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2001.
ALLAN ROBERTS, CHAIRMAN
A I" 1'EST:
MARILYN KERN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK
{
• •
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS )
§§
I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2001-04 entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ROLLING HILLS APPROVING A MODIFICATION TO PLANNING
COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2000-04, APPROVING AN EXTENSION TO
A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED VARIANCE TO PERMIT ENCROACHMENTS
INTO THE SOUTH SIDE YARD SETBACK TO ENLARGE A KITCHEN,
GRANTING A VARIANCE TO PERMIT ENCROACHMENTS INTO THE
SOUTH SIDE YARD SETBACK TO CONSTRUCT A FAMILY ROOM
ADDITION, AND GRANTING A VARIANCE TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM
TOTAL LOT COVERAGE AT A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IN ZONING
CASE NO. 602.
was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on
February 20, 2001 by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following:
Administrative Offices.
DEPUTY CITY CLERK
S •
i1y O/ ROtiin 4 _L`L S 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
Agenda Item No.: 4.A.
Mtg. Date: 3/27/2000
DATE: MARCH 27, 2000
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
ATTN: CRAIG R. NEALIS, CITY MANAGER
FROM: LOLA M. UNGAR, PLANNING DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION NO. 2000-04: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A VARIANCE TO PERMIT
ENCROACHMENTS INTO THE SOUTH SIDE YARD SETBACK TO ENLARGE A
KITCHEN, GRANTING A VARIANCE TO PERMIT ENCROACHMENTS INTO
THE SOUTH SIDE YARD SETBACK TO CONSTRUCT A FAMILY ROOM
ADDITION, AND GRANTING A VARIANCE TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM
TOTAL LOT COVERAGE AT A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IN ZONING CASE
NO. 602.
MR. JOSEPH CIOFFI AND MRS. KATHY HALLIDAY, 3 PACKSADDLE ROAD
EAST (LOT 25-SF).
BACKGROUND
1. The Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2000-04 that is attached on March
21, 2000 at their regular meeting. The vote was 5-0.
2. The applicants are requesting a Variance to permit an encroachment of up to 6 feet into
the 20 foot south side yard setback to enclose a breezeway that will enlarge a kitchen by
234 square feet that will not encroach any further than existing structures. The plan also
includes a 50 square foot infill addition next to the garage that is not within the setback
area.
The applicants are requesting a Variance to permit an encroachment of up to 6 feet into
the 20 foot south side yard setback to permit the construction of a 160 square foot family
room that will not encroach any further than existing structures. All additions will total
444 square feet.
The applicants are also requesting a Variance to exceed the 35% maximum total lot
coverage permitted. The applicants propose to construct 1,677 square feet of additional
patio/deck areas at the rear of the house. The total lot coverage proposed is 18,038
square feet or 38.5%.
ZONING CASE NO. 602
PAGE 1
®Printed on Recycled Paper.
• The applicanstate that there are exceptional eextraordinary circumstances or
conditions that do not apply generally to other property in the same vicinity and zone
because "Additions are infills under existing roofs at conditions of current
encroachments. Also, the existing home and garage is located extremely deep on the
lot. This results in a very long driveway, (much longer than surrounding properties)
which elevates coverage areas."
• In describing how such change will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare
nor injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone where the
property is located, the applicants say that, "With regards to the side yard
encroachments; The existing envelope of the building at the southern side of the
property encroaches 6 feet. The proposed additions are: 1) Breezeway infill under
existing structure and 2) 50 square foot addition following lines of existing house with
minimal encroachments." And, "The proposed patio/decks in the rear of the property
will soften a tall facade of the home (which is 4 to 5 feet out of grade). The home will
visually relate to the existing topography in a more 'ranch home' manner."
3. Letters are attached from Mr. Cioffi and Mrs. Halliday and from Drs. Richard and
Joanne Rutgers, 5 Packsaddle East. During the hearing process, the Rutgers withdrew
their opposition to the project when the applicants agreed to remove a section of fence -
blocked easement at the southwest corner of the property and provide landscape
screening and fencing at the south side of the residence.
4. Plans were provided by the applicants for landscape and fence screening at the
southern side of the existing residence. The applicants also met with the Board of
Directors of the Rolling Hills Community Association where a request to use a 3 foot
portion of the 10-foot Association easement was approved as noted in the attached
letter sent to the applicants by Association Manager Peggy Minor.
Revised plans show the removal of the existing 3-rail fence across the easement at the
southwest, removal of the lawn area within the easement at the southwest, and the
relocation of the irrigation line that is on the southern property line to be 7 feet from the
property line. The plans also show landscaping 7 feet from the property line at the
south side of the residence, to be planted with a hedge of Texas Privet or Escallonia
Fradesii that will be maintained to a height of 8 feet and interspersed with 8 Oleander
trees that are fast growing to a height of 8 to 12 feet to be pruned up and above the
hedge.
5. The existing house with attached garage was built in 1960. A swimming pool was
constructed in 1961 and a 110 square foot addition with interior remodel was completed
in 1997.
6. The structural lot coverage proposed is 7,282 square feet or 15.3% (20% maximum
permitted). Again, the total lot coverage proposed is 18,038 square feet or 38.5% (35%
maximum permitted) which requires a Variance. (Following the December 4, 1999 field
trip, plans were revised to reduce the size of the deck area so that a portion of the
proposed new deck will not encroach into the south side yard setback. The proposed
new decking was reduced by 191 square feet, from 1,868 square feet to 1,677 square feet,
which resulted in a reduction of total lot coverage from 38.8% to 38.5%).
7. The residential building pad of 24,348 square feet will have structural coverage of 6,732
square feet or 27.6%. Coverage on the future stable building pad will be 450 square feet
ZONING CASE NO. 602
PAGE 2
or 30% of the 1,511quare foot pad. Total building p•overage will be 27.7% of the
24,348 square foot building pads.
8. A future stable of 450 square feet and a 550 square foot corral are proposed at the rear
portion of the lot. An accessway is proposed to the stable and corral within the
easement at the north side of the property where there is a maximum slope of 20% (25%
slope maximum permitted).
9. Disturbed area of the lot will be approximately 18,265 square feet or 38.9% of the net lot
area (40% maximum permitted).
10. Grading will not be required for the project.
11. There are two driveways for access to and from the residence from Packsaddle Road
that will remain the same.
12. The project has been determined to be categorically exempt pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council receive and file Resolution No. 2000-04.
A. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property
that do not apply generally to other properties in the same vicinity and zone; and
B. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights
possessed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone but which is denied the property in
question; and
C. That the granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or
injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; and
D. That in granting the variance, the spirit and intent of this title will be observed; and
E. That the variance does not grant special privilege;
F. That the variance is consistent with the portions of the County of Los Angeles Hazardous Waste
Management Plan relating to siting and siting criteria for hazardous waste facilities; and
G. That the variance request is consistent with the General Plan of the City of Rolling Hills.
ZONING CASE NO. 602
PAGE 3
CRITERIA &`MAJOR IMPACT
••
RA-S-1 Zone Setbacks:
Front: 50 ft. from front easement
line
Side: 20 ft. from property line
Rear: 50 ft. from property line
Structures
Structural Lot Coverage
(20% maximum)
Total Lot Coveraae
(35% maximum)
Residential Buildina Pad Coveraae
(Guideline maximum of 30%)
Stable Building Pad Coverage
Total Building Pad Coverage
Grading
Disturbed Area
(40% maximum; any graded
building pad area, any remedial
grading (temporary disturbance),
any graded slopes and building
pad areas, any nongraded area
where impervious surfaces exist)
Roadway Access
Stable & Corral
Stable Accesswav
Maximum slope of 25%
Preserve Views
Preserve Plants and Animals
ZONING CASE NO. 602
PAGE 4 •
Existing residence encroaches up
to 6 feet into the south side yard
setback and encroaches up to 7
feet into the north side yard
setback.
Residence 4,821 sq.ft.
Garage 539 sq.ft.
Swim Pool 928 sq.ft.
Service Yd. 100 sq.ft.
TOTAL
13.6%
33.2%
6,388 sq.ft.
19.8% of 24,348 sq.ft. pad
None
19.8% of 24,348 sq.ft. pad
N/A
33.2%
There are two driveways for
access to and from the residence
off Packsaddle Road.
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Proposed 394 square feet of
additions will encroach up to 6 feet
into the south side yard setback
that will not encroach any further
than existing structures.
Residence 5,265 sq.ft.
Garage 539 sq.ft.
Swim Pool 928 sq.ft.
Service Yd. 100 sq.ft.
Stable (Future) 450 sq.ft.
TOTAL 7,282sq.ft.
15.3%
38.5%
27.6% of 24,348 sq.ft. pad
30% of 1,500 sq.ft. pad
27.7% of 25,848 sq,ft, pads
None
38.9%
No change
450 sq.ft. stable
550 sq.ft. corral
Proposed an accessway with a
slope that will not exceed 20%
within easement at north side of
property.
Planning Commission Review
Planning Commission Review
(310) 544-6222
• I • I
c?otCin9 o�c( eomtrzunctt� Slawaatcon
of cRanadio Gatos Verdes
Na. 1 PDRTUDUESE BEND RD. • ROLLING HILLS. CALIF. 90274
ROLLING HILLS
Mr. Joseph V. Cioffi
Ms. Kathy Joan Halliday
3 Packsaddle Road East
Rolling Hills, California 90274
Re: Request for Easement Use
Dear Joe and Kathy:
CALIFORNIA
February 7, 2000
In regard to your submittal to the Board of Directors of RHCA to use a 3' portion of the
':10400t Assc ciation:easement, this is to advisethat. the' Board approved your request and
has directed -Legal Counsel Sidney Croft to prepare a License Agreement. The document:
:will;:set' forth conditions of approval in accordance , With notations on the plot imp
`presented by your architect, Criss Gunderson:
We have forwarded .a copy of your Deed to Mr. Croft is well as Deed Restriction data
showing'that your'property is 'covered by Deed Restriction Number 1,50 Aft; dated April
1, 1951, Recorded in Book'36229; Page 238 on May 7, 1951, Document 3495.. If the title
.of your property has been changed since it was purchased in 1996, please advise.
Legal fees to complete the License Agreement are the property owner's responsibility.
Costs will be approximately $350.00, due to the Association for reimbursement to Mr.
Croft when the document is prepared.
Let me know if you have any questions.
Very truly yours,
Peggy Minor
Association Manager
Cc: Sidney Croft, Esquire
Lola Unger
Criss Gunderson, Architect
Dr. Richard Rutgers
File Name: 25 SF - CIOFFI - Easement Use Approval - 2-3-00
• •
Richard and Joanne Rutgers
5 Packsaddle Road East
Rolling Hills, CA 90274.
JAN
January 12, 2000
Dear Members of the Planning Commission:
Re: Zoning Case # 602
We wish to call your attention to several disturbing aspects of Kathy Halliday and
Joe Cioffi's letter of December 27,1999.
At the'field trip on December 4`h, the Cioffi's clearly and publicly agreed to build
a fence to the end of their house and landscape the area so that our privacy would be . •
preserved. This was said by the Commission Chair to be:uSeful.` movement"-toward;a .
solution. We are afraid that by not mentioning a fence in their letter they are backing
away from their promise and seem to continue to want to use the easement as 'they are
doing now. .
• Since their house and concrete decking goes right up to the easement, they need to
be granted a "license agreement" by the Community Association to build a fence and
landscape appropriately. To date, however they have not made such application.
Again, we request the Planning Commission to table their application for a
variance until they have secured a license agreement from the Community Association.
rely,
Richard Rutgers
anne Rutgers
January 12, 2000
Dear Joe and Kathy,
We would like nothing more than to come to a mutually acceptable agreenient
• ,that would satisfy your desire to remodel your house and yet preserve the rural Chirac:ter
-.and spacious feel of our beautiful,toWn..
• •
..:Nou offered on NoveMber-18`and again on December 4 to build
...landscape it to the end Of your house.. The'committee and we felt that tniSiVitiosefiil
. • • `!movement" in the right direction. • . , : . • . •
• We are concerned however, because your letter of December 27th makes no •
• mention ofthe fence as discussed previously. As Mr.' Gunderson has surely tCild you, any
fence or landscaping in the easement must be granted a "license agreement" by the •
Community Association, and to our knowledge, no such application has been filed.
If there is anything we can do to help you obtain the license agreement, please let
us know.
Sincerely,
2e;_oc
Richard and Joanne Rutgers
cc: Planning Commission
•
Date: December 27, 1999
CITY OF ROLLING N!LLS
Fax to: Rolling Hills Planning Commission ky
From: Mr. and Mrs. Joe Cioffi and Kathy Halliday
3 Packsaddle Road East, Rolling Hills •
Re: For your information, a copy of letter to Richard and Joanne
Rutgers dated December 27,1999 concerning their
opposition to zoning case #602.
UEr a 1999
T6 39Vd
i33oio 3or
6LTEbtS6tE tb:b9 "066T/Zt/99
•
December 27,1999
Dear Rutgers:
After the meeting with the City on Dec. 4, it is obvious that your remodel
and removal of your large pine trees allowing you to see our home more is
driving your concerns about our variance. As stated by Kathy Halliday in the
first meeting which she initiated, we have no problem landscaping lavishly
along the side of our house as soon as constructipn is completed so that
our house is not visible to you. We do not believe; that thesmall additions
that we are proposing will make any difference in that respect'and, of
course, we can not imagine that they in any way could lower the value of
your lovely property. Also, as we have stated, we understand that the hedge
which we installed and have been maintaining as a "gift", to you was a •
misunderstanding. When you told us you wanted a hedge installed, we
thought that placingit closer to your side would Olve-ybu more:immediate
visual coverage, especially during construction, hgwever, it'will be removed
as soon as possible. " .�
We trust that this will satisfy you and you will allow us to proceed to work
with the City on our variance. = • .
Sincerely,
Kathy Halliday and Joe Cioffi
Faxed copy to: Rolling Hills City Planning Commis$1on
Criss Gunderson, Architect
• 7.Alt/rl
TAiOIO 3or
0LTEbb50TE Tb:00 b66T/TT/9R
• •
Richard and Joanne Rutgers
5 Packsaddle Road East
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
December 15, 1999
Re: Zoning Case #602
Dear Planning Commission Members:
2E.geligg
DEC 1 D 1999
CITY OF ROLLING '
Ftv
We are writing this second letter to again express our strong opposition to the
granting of variance #602.
As you saw on the field trip Dec. 4, the family room addition is not `.`under existing
roof(s)" as described in the application..I also hope you appreciated how close the building in
question. is .to our home due ,to its. non -conforming status and how further . non -conformity
would severely diminish our privacy.
I am sorry to report that all my attempts to reach a mutually acceptable solution to the
privacy problem have been unsuccessful. I spoke with Kathy Halliday Nov. 12, with Mr.
Criss Gunderson Dec. 4 and then called Mr. Gunderson. again Dec. 14. Unfortunately; the
petitioners have not made a good faith effort to seek permission from the Community
Association to build a fence 2 feet into the easement as was discussed at the field trip.
I therefore request that the Planning Commission table further consideration of
variance #602 pending the granting of a "license agreement" from the Board of Directors of
the Community Association to build the fence and landscape 2 feet in the easement as
described at the field trip.
I might add that when I express concerns about our privacy, I mean nothing personal
regarding our current neighbors. Rather, since they have told me that, unlike us, they do not
intend to live in Rolling Hills "forever", I need to be concerned about future occupants being
in such close proximity.
Richard Rutgers
• •
RICHARD AND JOANNE RUTGERS
5 PACKSADDLE ROAD EAST
ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274
November 30, 1999
lEgEliV9
NOV 3 0 1999
CITY OF.R.OLLING HILLS
Kv
Re: Zoning Case No. 602
Dear Planning Commission Member:
1.We are: writing you to express our strong opposition to' the variance, which would allow further. '•.
'encroaclimerit into the south, 20-foot side yard setback•by'the residence at 3.Packsaddle Road.ast.
There is no pre-existing variance for the current encroachments, Mr. Gunderson's statement atthe
planning commission meeting of November 16 .to .the contrary. Rather. the house is a non-
conforming structure. Researching the records shows that it received plan approval just "under the .
wire" in May 1960, before the current setback requirements were instituted in June 1960.
As you know, the Municipal Code of Rolling Hills (17.24.040) provides that: "A non -conforming
structure may not be expanded or altered in any way that would increase the non -conformity." The
proposed plans do just that:
The Rolling Hills General Plan (Policy 2.3) seeks to "maintain and provide regulations for sufficient
setbacks and easements to provide buffers between residential uses." The current non -conforming
structure decreases this buffer, and the proposal would only worsen this problem.
As we hope you will see on the field trip, in addition there is landscaping in the back, and shrubbery
and a watering system the entire length of the yard in our easement. These were installed without
permission, and we have requested that they be removed. To our distress, this landscaping indicates
an intention to incorporate both easements into the encroaching property's yard. The side yard
which exists in the easement has been used in the past for storage and is a source of clutter and trash.
As you will also see on the field trip, Mr. Gunderson's statement that the"Additions are infills under
existing roofs..." is only partially correct. The proposed family room addition is neither an "infill"
nor "under existing roof(s)". Also, Mr. Gunderson's statement regarding the requested variance,
"that the proposal will not encroach any further than existing structures" minimize, the true extent
.,
Planning Commission Member
November 30,1999
Page 2
of the proposed expansion. The depth of the existing encroachment into the easement is 6 feet. The
proposal would add approximately 35 linear feet of encroachment. Finally, we are also concerned
that the increased lot coverage in the back would increase erosion in our portion of the easement now
used as their backyard.
With regard to the Variance Required Findines:
A. "Exceptional or Extraordinary Circumstances" - There are no special circumstances
applicable to the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same vicinity. The
proposal; simply `elbows out' the neighbors, by pushing the encroachment further into the
Applicants' side yard. The proposed plan is merely a convenient way to expand the square footage
which could be achieved in other ways without a further encroachment into the setback.
B. "Denial of Property Rights" - There are no rights denied the property in question -
in fact they,. enjoy . the right to occupy the setback, ; which ris :denied . otherproperties in the
neighborhood.
C. "Materially Detrimental" - We feel that the proposed increase of non -conformity will
diminish our privacy and property rights. This addition would create a large expanse of structure
encroaching into our buffer zone which was intended to protect our privacy and property rights.
Furthermore, the proposed new structure would allow a direct view into our house.
D. "Intent of Municipal Title" - Granting a variance, we believe, would directly violate
.17.24.040 which provides that "A non -conforming structure may not be expanded or altered in any
way that would increase the non -conformity."
E. "No Special Privilege" - We feel that granting the variance would grant a special
privilege to the Applicants, denied to those with conforming structures, of being able to expand the
Applicants' house and yard into the setback.
F. "Consistent with General Plan" - The use of the side easement for the encroaching
structure rules out use of the easement as a horse trail, diminishes the "buffer zone" between houses
and limits our privacy. Granting a variance would be contrary to the General Plan Goal 1, to
"maintain Rolling Hills distinctive rural residential character."
Attempted Resolution:
On November 12, I (Richard Rutgers) met with Kathy Halliday and offered to withdraw my
objections if they would agree to extend and permanently maintain the 3-rail fence from the front
Planning Commission Member
November 30,1999
Page 3
to the rear of the property, creating a horse -trail, and further agree to plant shrubbery which would
grow to and be maintained at no less than 8 feet with sufficient density so it may not be able to be
seen through.
We feel that we have made a good faith effort to reach a mutually acceptable solution but to date
have received no reply. I therefore urge the commission not to grant variance No. 602, or to grant
the variance conditioned on the extension of the fence and planting and maintenance of shrubbery
as above outlined.
Sincerely,
RICHARD RUTGERS
• 1'
• •
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-04
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A VARIANCE TO PERMIT
ENCROACHMENTS INTO THE SOUTH SIDE YARD SETBACK TO
ENLARGE A KITCHEN, GRANTING A VARIANCE TO PERMIT
ENCROACHMENTS INTO THE SOUTH SIDE YARD SETBACK TO
CONSTRUCT A FAMILY ROOM ADDITION, AND GRANTING A
VARIANCE TO EXC:EED THE MAXIMUM TOTAL LOT COVERAGE
AT A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IN ZONING CASE NO. 602.
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. Joseph Cioffi and Mrs. Kathy
Halliday with respect to real property located at 3 Packsaddle Road East (Lot 25-SF),
Rolling Hills, requesting a Variance to permit encroachment into the south side
yard setback to enlarge a kitchen, requesting a Variance to permit encroachment into
the south side yard setback to construct a family room addition, and requesting a
Variance to exceed the maximum total lot coverage at a single family residence.
Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public
hearing to consider the applications on November 16, 1999, December 21, 1999,
January 18, 2000, and February 15, 2000, and at a field trip .visit on December 4, .1999.
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. During the hearing process, the
proposed new decking at the rear of the house was reduced by 191 square feet. Other
concerns expressed by the Commission and nearby property owners were the fence -
blocked easement at the southwest corner of the property, and landscape screening
and fencing at the south side of the residence.
Section 3. The Planning Commission finds that the project qualifies as a
Class 1 Exemption (State CA 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 17.16.120 requires the side yard setback for every residential parcel in the RA-
S-1 zone to be twenty (20) feet. The applicant is requesting to encroach up to a
maximum 6 feet into the 20 foot side yard setback to enclose a breezeway that will
enlarge a kitchen by 234 square feet. 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 of the irregular shape of the lot. The existing legal
nonconforming residence was built with the residence encroaching up to 6 feet into
the south side yard setback and up to 7 feet into the north side yard setback. This
addition will not encroach beyond existing encroachments and is limited in area so
as to leave nearly all of the existing open space near the front and rear of the
residence unaffected.
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 City's setback requirement was
increased after the home was already constructed and the encroachments permit the
use of the lot to the extent allowed for other properties in the vicinity. The Variance
will permit the development of the property in a manner similar to development
patterns on surrounding properties.
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. 602 to permit the enlargement of
a kitchen that will encroach a maximum of six (6) feet into the side yard setback, as
indicated on the development plan submitted with this application and
incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit A, dated February 9, 2000, subject to the
conditions specified in Section 10 of this Resolution.
Section 6. Section 17.16.120 requires the side yard setback for every
residential parcel in the RA-S-1 Zone to be twenty (20) feet. The applicant is
requesting to encroach up to a maximum 6 feet into the 20 foot side yard setback to
construct a 160 square foot family room addition. 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 of the irregular shape of the lot. The existing legal
nonconforming residence was built with the residence encroaching up to 6 feet into
the south side yard setback and up to 7 feet into the north side yard setback. This
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-04
PAGE 2 OF 8
addition will not encroach beyond existing encroachments and is limited in area so
as to leave nearly ,all of the existing open space near the front and rear of the
residence unaffected.
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 City's setback requirement was
increased after the home was already constructed and the encroachments permit the
use of the lot to the extent allowed for other properties in the vicinity. The Variance
will permit the development of the property in a manner similar to development
patterns on surrounding properties.
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 7. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission
hereby approves the Variance for Zoning Case No. 602 to permit the construction of
a family room addition that will encroach a maximum of six (6) feet into the side
yard setback, as indicated on the development plan submitted with this application
and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit A, dated February 9, 2000, subject to
the conditions specified in Section 10 of this Resolution.
Section 8. A Variance to Section 17.16.070 (A)(2) is required because it 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 38.5% 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 unusually long and narrow and the residence is deeply set on the lot
resulting in a long driveway that elevates coverage areas. 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.
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-04
PAGE 3 OF 8
• •
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
required setbacks and will be adequately screened to prevent adverse visual impact
to surrounding properties. Development on the site will be 38.5% 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. 602 to permit total lot coverage of
38.5%, as indicated on the development plan submitted with this application and
incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit A, dated February 9, 2000, subject to the
conditions specified in Section 10 of this Resolution.
Section 10. The Variances to the side yard setback approved in Sections 5
and 7 and the Variance to exceed the total lot coverage approved in Section 9 are
subject to the following conditions:
A. The Variance approvals shall expire within one year from the effective
date of approval as defined in Section 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 applicant has 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.
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 working drawings submitted to the County Department of
Building and Safety for plan check review must conform to the development plan
approved with this application.
F. The structural lot coverage shall not exceed 15.3% and the total lot
coverage shall not exceed 38.5%.
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-04
PAGE 4 OF 8
• •
G. The residential building pad coverage shall not exceed 27.6%, the stable
pad coverage shall not exceed 30.0%, and total building pad coverage shall not
exceed 27.7%.
H. Maximum disturbed area shall not exceed 38.9% of the net lot area.
I. Grading shall not be permitted for the project.
J. 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.
K. Two copies of a preliminary landscape plan must be submitted for
review by the Planning Department and include native drought -resistant
vegetation that will not 'disrupt the impact of the views of neighboring properties
prior to the issuance of any building or grading permit. The landscaping plan
submitted must comply with the purpose and intent of the Site Plan Review
Ordinance, shall incorporate existing mature trees and native vegetation, and shall
utilize to the maximum extent feasible, plants that are native to the area and/or
consistent with the rural character of the community.
A bond in the amount of the cost estimate of the implementation of the
landscaping plan plus 15% shall be required to be posted prior to issuance of a
drainage and building permit and shall be retained with the City for not less than
two years after landscape installation. The retained bond will be released by the City
Manager after the City Manager determines that the landscaping was installed
pursuant to the landscaping plan as approved, and that such landscaping is properly
established and in good condition.
L. Landscaping shall incorporate and preserve, to the maximum extent
feasible, the existing mature trees and shrubs and the natural landscape screening
surrounding the proposed building pad.
M. Landscaping shall be designed using mature trees and shrubs so as not
to obstruct views of neighboring properties but, to obscure the residence at the
southern portion of the lot.
N. Landscaping shall be planted at the south side of the residence 7 feet
north of the southern property line. The landscaping shall include a hedge of Texas
Privet, Escallonia Fradesii, or like landscape materials that shall be maintained to a
height of 8 feet. The hedge plantings shall be interspersed with 8 trees which at their
mature height shall not exceed the ridge height of the residence.
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-04
PAGE 5 OF 8
• •
DRAFT
O. The portion of the existing lawn area at the rear of the residence which
is 10 feet from the southern property line shall be removed.
P. The irrigation line that is on the southern property .line shall be
removed and relocated to be 10 feet from the southern property line at the rear of
the residence and 7 feet from the southern property line from the rear of the
residence to the front of the residence.
Q. The existing 3-rail fence located 10 feet from the southern property line
shall be continued in a westerly direction from a point that is located 34 feet east of
the residential garage to the rear of the residence for 145 feet and that is 7 feet from
the southern property line.
R. The existing 3-rail fence 10 feet north of the southwestern corner of the
lot shall be removed.
S. 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, and objectionable odors shall be required.
'T. 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.
U.. 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.
V. 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.
W . 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 west of the lot.
X. The project must be reviewed and approved by the Rolling Hills
Community Association Architectural Review Committee prior to the issuance of
any drainage or building permit.
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-04
PAGE 6 OF 8
• •
Y. 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.
Z. Within one month of the completion of the construction, the
landscaping, irrigation, and fencing shall be installed.
AA. Notwithstanding Sections 17.46.020 and 17.46.070 of the Rolling Hills
.Municipal Code, any modifications to the project which would constitute grading or
additional structural development shall require the filing of a new application for
Site Plan Review for approval by the Planning Commission.
AB. 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.
AC. All conditions of these Variance approvals must be complied with
prior to the issuance of a building permit from the County of Los Angeles.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 21ST DAY OF MARCH, 2000.
ALLAr YR •,;: RTS, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
MARILYN KERN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-04
PAGE 7 OF 8
• •
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS )
I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2000-04 entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A VARIANCE TO PERMIT
ENCROACHMENTS INTO THE SOUTH SIDE YARD SETBACK TO
ENLARGE A KITCHEN, GRANTING A VARIANCE TO PERMIT
ENCROACHMENTS INTO THE SOUTH SIDE YARD SETBACK TO
CONSTRUCT A FAMILY ROOM ADDITION, AND GRANTING A
VARIANCE TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM TOTAL LOT COVERAGE
AT A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IN ZONING CASE NO. 602.
was approved and adopted at an adjourned regular meeting of the Planning
Commission on March 21, 2000 by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following:
Administrative Offices.
DEPUTY CITY CLERK
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-04
PAGE 8 OF 8
•
Cuy o/ R0ffi _AA
HEARING DATE: FEBRUARY 15, 2000
TO:
•
IDA
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
HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: LOLA M. UNGAR, PLANNING DIRECTOR
APPLICATION NO.
SITE LOCATION:
ZONING AND SIZE:
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
PUBLISHED:
REOUEST
ZONING CASE NO. 602
3 PACKSADDLE ROAD EAST (LOT 25-SF)
RAS-1, 1.39 ACRES
MR. JOSEPH CIOFFI AND MRS. KATHY HALLIDAY
MR. CRISS GUNDERSON, ARCHITECT
NOVEMBER 6, 1999
Request for a Variance to encroach into the south side yard setback to permit the
enclosure of a breezeway to enlarge a kitchen, a request for a Variance to encroach
into the south side yard setback to permit the construction of a family room, and a
request for a Variance to exceed the maximum total lot coverage permitted at an
existing single family residence.
BACKGROUND
1. At the January 18, 2000 meeting, Planning Commissioners requested that the
applicants provide plans for landscape and/or fence screening at the eastern
side of the existing residence. The applicants also met with the Board of
Directors of the Rolling Hills Community Association where a request to use
a 3 foot portion of the 10-foot Association easement was approved as noted in
the attached letter sent to the applicants by Association Manager Peggy Minor.
Revised plans show the removal of the existing 3-rail fence across the
easement at the southwest, removal of the lawn area within the easement at
the southwest, and the relocation of the irrigation line that is on the southern
property line to be 7 feet from the property line. The plans also show
landscaping 7 feet from the property line at the south side of the residence, to
be planted with a hedge of Texas Privet or Escallonia Fradesii that will be
maintained to a height of 8 feet and interspersed with 8 Tristania Conferta
trees that are 20 feet in height to be pruned up and above the hedge that are
fast growing to a height of 30 to 60 feet.
ZONING CASE NO. 602
PAGE 1
®Printed on Recycled Paper.
i
2. Previous letters from Mr. Cioffi and Mrs. Halliday and letters from Drs.
Richard and Joanne Rutgers, 5 Packsaddle East, are attached.
3. The applicants are requesting a Variance to permit an encroachment of up to
6 feet into the 20 foot south side yard setback to enclose a breezeway that will
enlarge a kitchen by 234 square feet that will not encroach any further than
existing structures. The plan also includes a 50 square foot infill addition next
to the garage that is not within the setback area.
The applicants are requesting a Variance to permit an encroachment of up to
6 feet into the 20 foot south side yard setback to permit the construction of a
160 square foot family room that will not encroach any further than existing
structures. All additions will total 444 square feet.
The applicants are also requesting a Variance to exceed the 35% maximum
total lot coverage permitted. The applicants propose to construct 1,677 square
feet of additional patio/deck areas at the rear of the house. The total lot
coverage proposed is 18,038 square feet or 38.5%.
• The applicants state that there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances
or conditions that do not apply generally to other property in the same
vicinity and zone because "Additions are infills under existing roofs at
conditions of current encroachments. Also, the existing home and garage is
located extremely deep on the lot. This results in a very long driveway,
(much longer than surrounding properties) which elevates coverage areas."
• In describing how such change will not be materially detrimental to the
public welfare nor injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity
and zone where the property is located, the applicants say that, "With regards
to the side yard encroachments; The existing envelope of the building at the
southern side of the property encroaches 6 feet. The proposed additions are:
1) Breezeway infill under existing structure and 2) 50 square foot addition
following lines of existing house with minimal encroachments." And, "The
proposed patio/decks in the rear of the property will soften a tall facade of the
home (which is 4 to 5 feet out of grade). The home will visually relate to the
existing topography in a more 'ranch home' manner."
4. The existing house with attached garage was built in 1960. A swimming pool
was constructed in 1961 and a 110 square foot addition with interior remodel
was completed in 1997.
5. The structural lot coverage proposed is 7,282 square feet or 15.3% (20%
maximum permitted). Again, the total lot coverage proposed is 18,038 square
feet or 38.5% (35% maximum permitted) which requires a Variance.
(Following the December 4, 1999 field trip, plans were revised to reduce the
ZONING CASE NO. 602
PAGE 2
• •
size of the deck area so that a portion of the proposed new deck will not
encroach into the south side yard setback. The proposed new decking was
reduced by 191 square feet, from 1,868 square feet to 1,677 square feet, which
resulted in a reduction of total lot coverage from 38.8% to 38.5%).
6. The residential and total building pad of 24,348 square feet will have
structural coverage of 6,732 square feet or 27.6%. Coverage on the future
stable building pad will be 450 square feet or 30% of the 1,500 square foot pad.
Total building pad coverage will be 27.7% of the 24,348 square foot building
pads.
• 7. A future stable of 450 square feet and a 550 square foot corral are proposed at
the rear portion of the lot. An accessway is proposed to the stable and corral
within the easement at the north side of the property where there is a
maximum slope of 20% (25% slope maximum permitted).
8. Disturbed area of the lot will be approximately 18,265 square feet or 38.9% of
the net lot area (40% maximum permitted).
9. Grading will not be required for the project.
10. There are two driveways for access to and from the residence from Packsaddle
Road that will remain the same.
11. The project has been determined to be categorically exempt pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Planning Commission review the proposed plans and
take public testimony.
ZONING CASE NO. 602
PAGE 3
• •
VARIANCE REQUIRED FINDINGS
A. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the
property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same vicinity and zone; and
B. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property
rights possessed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone but which is denied the
property in question; and
C. That the granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or
iniurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; and
D. That in granting the variance, the spirit and intent of this title will be observed; and
E. That the variance does not grant special privilege;
F. That the variance is consistent with the portions of the County of Los Angeles Hazardous
Waste Management Plan relating to siting and siting criteria for hazardous waste facilities;
and
G. That the variance request is consistent with the General Plan of the City of Rolling Hills.
ZONING CASE NO. 602
PAGE 4
•
CRITERIA & MAJOR IMPACTS 11 EXISTING
RA-S-1 Zone Setbacks:
Front: 50 ft. from front easement
line
Side: 20 ft. from property line
Rear: 50 ft. from property line
Structures
Structural Lot Coveraae
(20% maximum)
Total Lot Coveraae
(35% maximum)
Residential Building Pad
Coveraae
(Guideline maximum of 30%)
Stable Buildina Pad Coveraae
Total Buildina Pad Coveraae
Grading
Disturbed Area
(40% maximum; any graded
building pad area, any remedial
grading (temporary disturbance),
any graded slopes and building
pad areas, any nongraded area
where impervious surfaces exist)
Roadway Access
Stable & Corral
Stable Accesswav
Maximum slope of 25%
Preserve Views
Preserve Plants and Animals
Existing residence encroaches
up to 6 feet into the south side
yard setback and encroaches up
to 7 feet into the north side yard
setback.
Residence
Garage
Swim Pool
Service Yd.
TOTAL
13.6%
33.2%
4,821 sq.ft.
539 sq.ft.
928 sq.ft.
100 sq.ft.
6,388 sq.ft.
19.8% of 24,348 sq.ft. pad
None
19.8% of 24,348 sq.ft. pad
N/A
33.2%
There are two driveways for
access to and from the
residence off Packsaddle Road.
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
U
PROPOSED
Proposed 330 square feet of
additions will encroach up to 6
feet into the south side yard
setback that will not encroach
any further than existing
structures.
Residence
Garage
Swim Pool
Service Yd.
Stable (Future)
TOTAL
15.3%
38.5%
5,265 sq.ft.
539 sq.ft.
928 sq.ft.
100 sq.ft.
450 sq.ft.
7,282sq.ft.
27.6% of 24,348 sq.ft. pad
30% of 1,500 sq.ft. pad
27.7% of 25,848 sq,ft, pads
None
38.9%
No change
450 sq.ft. stable
550 sq.ft. corral
Proposed an accessway with a
slope that will not exceed 20%
within easement at north side of
property.
Planning Commission Review
Planning Commission Review
ZONING CASE NO. 602
PAGE5
(310) 544-6222
•
c?oL'Cin9 o1/it't Community
•
ogiioeiation
of cRaneizo J a%s (Ve. tde
No. 1 PORTUGUESE BEND RD. • ROLLING HILLS. CALIF. 90274
ROLLING HILLS
Mr. Joseph V. Cioffi
Ms. Kathy Joan Halliday
3 Packsaddle Road East
Rolling Hills, California 90274
Re: Request for Easement Use
Dear Joe and Kathy:
CALIFORNIA
February 7, 2000
In regard to your submittal to the Board of Directors of RHCA to use a 3' portion of the
10-foot Association easement, this is to advise that the Board approved your request and
has directed Legal Counsel Sidney Croft to prepare a License Agreement. The document
will set forth conditions of approval in accordance with notations on the plot map
presented by your architect, Criss Gunderson.
We have forwarded a copy of your Deed to Mr. Croft as well as Deed Restriction data
showing that your property is covered by Deed Restriction Number 150 AR, dated April
1, 1951, Recorded in Book 36229, Page 238 on May 7, 1951, Document 3495. If the title
of your property has been changed since it was purchased in 1996, please advise.
Legal fees to complete the License Agreement are the property owner's responsibility.
Costs will be approximately $350.00, due to the Association for reimbursement to Mr.
Croft when the document is prepared.
Let me know if you have any questions.
Very truly yours,
Pegg} Minor
Association Manager
Cc: Sidney Croft, Esquire
Lola Unger
Criss Gunderson, Architect
Dr. Richard Rutgers
File Name: 25 SF — CIOFFI — Easement Use Approval — 2-3-00
•
Richard and Joanne Rutgers
5 Packsaddle Road East
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
January 12, 2000
•
JAN
Dear Members of the Planning Commission:
Re: Zoning Case # 602
We wish to call your attention to several disturbing aspects of Kathy Halliday and
Joe Cioffi's letter of December 27, 1999.
At the field trip on December 41, the Cioffi's clearly and publicly agreed to build
a fence to the end of their house and landscape the area so that our privacy would be
preserved. This was said by the Commission Chair to be useful "movement" toward a
solution. We are afraid that by not mentioning a fence in their letter they are backing
away from their promise and seem to continue to want to use the easement as they are
doing now.
Since their house and concrete decking goes right up to the easement, they need to
be granted a "license agreement" by the Community Association to build a fence and
landscape appropriately. To date, however they have not made such application.
Again, we request the Planning Commission to table their application for a
variance until they have secured a license agreement from the Community Association.
• rely,
Richard Rutgers
anne Rutgers
January 12, 2000
Dear Joe and Kathy,
We would like nothing more than to come to a mutually acceptable agreement
that would satisfy your desire to remodel your house and yet preserve the rural character
and spacious feel of our beautiful town.
You offered on November 18 and again on December 4 to build a fence, and to
landscape it to the end of your house. The committee and we felt that this was useful
"movement" in the right direction.
We are concerned however, because your letter of December 271 makes no
mention of the fence as discussed previously. As Mr. Gunderson has surely told you, any
fence or landscaping in the easement must be granted a "license agreement" by the
Community Association, and to our knowledge, no such application has been filed.
If there is anything we can do to help you obtain the license agreement, please let
us know.
Sincerely,
c—f7e;--q Yi""'
Richard and Joanne Rutgers
cc: Planning Commission
•
ni
Date: December 27, 1999
CITY OF ROLLING N'LLS
Fax to: Rolling Hills Planning Commission F-`v
From: Mr. and Mrs. Joe Cioffi and Kathy Halliday
3 Packsaddle Road East, Rolling Hills
Re: For your information, a copy of letter to Richard and Joanne
Rutgers dated December 27,1999 concerning their
opposition to zoning case #602.
r' 9 11 n
DEC
TO 39Vd
Idd0I0 3or OLTEVVSOTE TV:VO b661/Z1/90
December 27,1999
Dear Rutgers:
After the meeting with the City on Dec. 4, it is obvious that your remodel
and removal of your large pine trees allowing you to see our home more is
driving your concerns about our variance. As stalled by Kathy Halliday in the
first meeting which she initiated, we have no problem landscaping lavishly
along the side of our house as soon as constructipn is completed so that
our house is not visible to you. We do not believe; that the small additions
that we are proposing will make any difference in that respect and, of
course, we can not imagine that they in any way could lower the value of
your lovely property. Also, as we have stated, we understand that the hedge
which we installed and have been maintaining as a "gift" to you was a
misunderstanding. When you told us you wanted a hedge installed, we
thought that placing it closer to your side would give you more immediate
visual coverage, especially during construction, however, it will be removed
as soon as possible. 1
We trust that this will satisfy you and you will allow us to proceed to work
with the City on our variance.
Sincerely,
Kathy Halliday and Joe Cioffi
Faxed copy to: Rolling Hills City Planning Commission
Criss Gunderson, Architect
ZA MVd
I.LO1O Mr
RLTEbbgRTE Tb:bA bssT/7.T/9R
Richard and Joanne Rutgers
5 Packsaddle Road East
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
December 15, 1999
LE.ggilUE
DEC 1 C 1999
CITY OF ROLLING ' US
Hy
Re: Zoning Case #602
Dear Planning Commission Members:
We are writing this second letter to again express our strong opposition to the
granting of variance #602.
As you saw on the field trip Dec. 4, the family room addition is not "under existing
roof(s)" as described in the application. I also hope you appreciated how close the building in
question is to our home due to its non -conforming status and how further non -conformity
would severely diminish our privacy.
I am sorry to report that all my attempts to reach a mutually acceptable solution to the
privacy problem have been unsuccessful. I spoke with Kathy Halliday Nov. 12, with Mr.
Criss Gunderson Dec. 4 and then called Mr. Gunderson again Dec. 14. Unfortunately, the
petitioners have not made a good faith effort to seek permission from the Community
Association to build a fence 2 feet into the easement as was discussed at the field trip.
I therefore request that the Planning Commission table further consideration of
variance #602 pending the granting of a "license agreement" from the Board of Directors of
the Community Association to build the fence and landscape 2 feet in the easement as
described at the field trip.
I might add that when I express concerns about our privacy, I mean nothing personal
regarding our current neighbors. Rather, since they have told me that, unlike us, they do not
intend to live in Rolling Hills "forever", I need to be concerned about future occupants being
in such close proximity.
Richard Rutgers
e Rutgers
RICHARD AND JOANNE RUTGERS
5 PACKSADDLE ROAD EAST
ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274
November 30, 1999
lEgEM
NOV 3 0 1999
CITY OF.ROLLING HILLS
Hv
Re: Zoning Case No. 602
Dear Planning Commission Member:
We are writing you to express our strong opposition to the variance, which would allow further
encroachment into the south, 20-foot side yard setback by the residence at 3 Packsaddle Road East.
There is no pre-existing variance for the current encroachments, Mr. Gunderson's statement at the
planning commission meeting of November 16 to the contrary. Rather, the house is a non-
conforming structure. Researching the records shows that it received plan approval just "under the
wire" in May 1960, before the current setback requirements were instituted in June 1960.
As you know, the Municipal Code of Rolling Hills (17.24.040) provides that: "A non -conforming
structure may not be expanded or altered in any way that would increase the non -conformity." The
proposed plans do just that.
The Rolling Hills General Plan (Policy 2.3) seeks to "maintain and provide regulations for sufficient
setbacks and easements to provide buffers between residential uses." The current non -conforming
structure decreases this buffer, and the proposal would only worsen this nroblem.
As we hope you will see on the field trip, in addition there is landscaping in the back, and shrubbery
and a watering system the entire length of the yard in our easement. These were installed without
permission, and we have requested that they be removed. To our distress, this landscaping indicates
an intention to incorporate both easements into the encroaching property's yard. The side yard
which exists in the easement has been used in the past for storage and is a source of clutter and trash.
As you will also see on the field trip, Mr. Gunderson's statement that the"Additions are infills under
existing roofs..." is only partially correct. The proposed family room addition is neither an "infill"
nor "under existing roof(s)". Also, Mr. Gunderson's statement regarding the requested variance,
"that the proposal will not encroach any further than existing structures" minimize, the true extent
•
Planning Commission Member
November 30, 1999
Page 2
of the proposed expansion. The depth of the existing encroachment into the easement is 6 feet. The
proposal would add approximately 35 linear feet of encroachment. Finally, we are also concerned
that the increased lot coverage in the back would increase erosion in our portion of the easement now
used as their backyard.
With regard to the Variance Required Findines:
A. "Exceptional or Extraordinary Circumstances" - There are no special circumstances
applicable to the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same vicinity. The
proposal; simply `elbows out' the neighbors, by pushing the encroachment further into the
Applicants' side yard. The proposed plan is merely a convenient way to expand the square footage
which could be achieved in other ways without a further encroachment into the setback.
B. "Denial of Property Rights" - There are no rights denied the property in question -
in fact they enjoy the right to occupy the setback, which is denied other properties in the
neighborhood.
C. "Materially Detrimental" - We feel that the proposed increase ofnon-conformity will
diminish our privacy and property rights. This addition would create a large expanse of structure
encroaching into our buffer zone which was intended to protect our privacy and property rights.
Furthermore, the proposed new structure would allow a direct view into our house.
D. "Intent of Municipal Title" - Granting a variance, we believe, would directly violate
17.24.040 which provides that "A non -conforming structure may not be expanded or altered in any
way that would increase the non -conformity."
E. "No Special Privilege" - We feel that granting the variance would grant a special
privilege to the Applicants, denied to those with conforming structures, of being able to expand the
Applicants' house and yard into the setback.
F. "Consistent with General Plan" - The use of the side easement for the encroaching
structure rules out use of the easement as a horse trail, diminishes the "buffer zone" between houses
and limits our privacy. Granting a variance would be contrary to the General Plan Goal 1, to
"maintain Rolling Hills distinctive rural residential character."
Attempted Resolution:
On November 12, I (Richard Rutgers) met with Kathy Halliday and offered to withdraw my
objections if they would agree to extend and permanently maintain the 3-rail fence from the front
Planning Commission Member
November 30, 1999
Page 3
to the rear of the property, creating a horse -trail, and further agree to plant shrubbery which would
grow to and be maintained at no less than 8 feet with sufficient density so it may not be able to be
seen through.
We feel that we have made a good faith effort to reach a mutually acceptable solution but to date
have received no reply. I therefore urge the commission not to grant variance No. 602, or to grant
the variance conditioned on the extension of the fence and planting and maintenance of shrubbery
as above outlined.
Sincerely,
(
RICHARD RUTGERS
•
City e/ ie0m114 �✓�e�
HEARING DATE: JANUARY 18, 2000
TO:
FROM:
•
7A
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
HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
LOLA . M. UNGAR, PLANNING DIRECTOR
APPLICATION NO.
SITE LOCATION:
ZONING AND SIZE:
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
PUBLISHED:
REOUEST
ZONING CASE NO. 602
3 PACKSADDLE ROAD EAST (LOT 25-SF)
RAS-1, 1.39 ACRES
MR. JOSEPH CIOFFI AND MRS. KATHY HALLIDAY
MR. CRISS GUNDERSON, ARCHITECT
NOVEMBER 6, 1999
Request for a Variance to encroach into the south side yard setback to permit the
enclosure of a breezeway to enlarge a kitchen, a request for a Variance to encroach
into the south side yard setback to permit the construction of a family room, and a
request for a Variance to exceed the maximum total lot coverage permitted at an
existing single family residence.
BACKGROUND
1. On December 21, 1999, the subject case was continued to this evening at the
request of the applicants who had a holiday travel scheduling conflict. Since
the December 4, 1999 field trip, plans were revised to reduce the size of the
deck area so that a portion of the proposed new deck will not encroach into
the south side yard setback. The proposed new decking will be reduced by 191
square feet, from 1,868 square feet to 1,677 square feet, resulting in a reduction
of total lot coverage from 38.8% to 38.5%.
2. A fax letter forwarded to the Planning Commission from Mr. Cioffi and Mrs.
Halliday to the Rutgers and letters from Mr. and Mrs. Richard Rutgers, 5
Packsaddle East, are attached.
3. The applicants are requesting a Variance to permit an encroachment of up to
6 feet into the 20 foot south side yard setback to enclose a breezeway that will
enlarge a kitchen by 234 square feet that will not encroach any further than
ZONING CASE NO. 602
PAGE 1
®Printed on Recycled Paper.
existing structures. The plan also includes a 50 square foot infill addition next
to the garage that is not within the setback area.
The applicants are requesting a Variance to permit an encroachment of up to
6 feet into the 20 foot south side yard setback to permit the construction of a
160 square foot family room that will not encroach any further than existing
structures. All additions will total 444 square feet.
The applicants are also requesting a Variance to exceed the 35% maximum
total lot coverage permitted. The applicants propose to construct 1,677 square
feet of additional patio/deck areas at the rear of the house. The total lot
coverage proposed is 18,038 square feet or 38.5%.
• The applicants state that there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances
or conditions that do not apply generally to other property in the same
vicinity and zone because "Additions are infills under existing roofs at
conditions of current encroachments. Also, the existing home and garage is
located extremely deep on the lot. This results in a very long driveway,
(much longer than surrounding properties) which elevates coverage areas."
• In describing how such change will not be materially detrimental to the
public welfare nor injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity
and zone where the property is located, the applicants say that, "With regards
to the side yard encroachments; The existing envelope of the building at the
southern side of the property encroaches 6 feet. The proposed additions are:
1) Breezeway infill under existing structure and 2) 50 square foot addition
following lines of existing house with minimal encroachments." And, "The
proposed patio/decks in the rear of the property will soften a tall facade of the
home (which is 4 to 5 feet out of grade). The home will visually relate to the
existing topography in a more 'ranch home' manner."
4. The existing house with attached garage was built in 1960. A swimming pool
was constructed in 1961 and a 110 square foot addition with interior remodel
was completed in 1997.
5. The structural lot coverage proposed is 7,282 square feet or 15.3% (20%
maximum permitted). Again, the total lot coverage proposed is 18,038 square
feet or 38.5% (35% maximum permitted) which requires a Variance.
6. The residential and total building pad of 24,348 square feet will have
structural coverage of 6,732 square feet or 27.6%. Coverage on the future
stable building pad will be 450 square feet or 30% of the 1,500 square foot pad.
Total building pad coverage will be 27.7% of the 24,348 square foot building
pads.
ZONING CASE NO. 602
PAGE 2
7. A future stable of 450 square feet and a 550 square foot corral are proposed at
the rear portion of the lot. An accessway is proposed to the stable and corral
within the easement at the north side of the property where there is a
maximum slope of 20% (25(3/0 slope maximum permitted).
8. Disturbed area of the lot will be approximately 18,265 square feet or 38.9% of
the net lot area (40% maximum permitted).
9. Grading will not be required for the project.
10. There are two driveways for access to and from the residence from Packsaddle
Road that will remain the same.
11. The project has been determined to be categorically exempt pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Planning Commission review the proposed plans and
take public testimony.
VARIANCE REQUIRED FINDINGS
A. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the
property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same vicinity and zone; and
B. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property
rights possessed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone but which is denied the
property in question; and
C. That the granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or
injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; and
D. That in granting the variance, the spirit and intent of this title will be observed; and
E. That the variance does not grant special privilege;
F. That the variance is consistent with the portions of the County of Los Angeles Hazardous
Waste Management Plan relating to siting and siting criteria for hazardous waste facilities;
and
G. That the variance request is consistent with the General Plan of the City of Rolling Hills.
ZONING CASE NO. 602
PAGE 3
CRITERIA & MAJOR IMPACTS 11 EXISTING
RA-S-1 Zone Setbacks:
Front: 50 ft. from front easement
line
Side: 20 ft. from property line
Rear: 50 ft. from property line
Structures
Structural Lot Coveraae
(20% maximum)
Total Lot Coveraae
(35% maximum)
Residential Buildina Pad
Coveraae
(Guideline maximum of 30%)
Stable Buildina Pad Coveraae
Total Buildina Pad Coveraae
Gradina
Disturbed Area
(40% maximum; any graded
building pad area, any remedial
grading (temporary disturbance),
any graded slopes and building
pad areas, any nongraded area
where impervious surfaces exist)
Roadway Access
Stable & Corral
Stable Accesswav
Maximum slope of 25%
Preserve Views
Preserve Plants and Animals
Existing residence encroaches
up to 6 feet into the south side
yard setback and encroaches up
to 7 feet into the north side yard
setback.
Residence
Garage
Swim Pool
Service Yd.
TOTAL
13.6%
33.2%
4,821 sq.ft.
539 sq.ft.
928 sq.ft.
100 sq.ft.
6,388 sq.ft.
19.8% of 24,348 sq.ft. pad
None
19.8% of 24,348 sq.ft. pad
N/A
33.2%
There are
access to
residence
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
two driveways for
and from the
off Packsaddle Road.
W
PROPOSED
Proposed 330 square feet of
additions will encroach up to 6
feet into the south side yard
setback that will not encroach
any further than existing
structures.
Residence
Garage
Swim Pool
Service Yd.
Stable (Future)
TOTAL
15.3%
38.5%
5,265 sq.ft.
539 sq.ft.
928 sq.ft.
100 sq.ft.
450 sq.ft.
7,282sq.ft.
27.6% of 24,348 sq.ft. pad
30% of 1,500 sq.ft. pad
27.7% of 25,848 sq,ft, pads
None
38.9%
No change
450 sq.ft. stable
550 sq.ft. corral
Proposed an accessway with a
slope that will not exceed 20%
within easement at north side of
property.
Planning Commission Review
Planning Commission Review
ZONING CASE NO. 602
PAGE 4
•
Richard and Joanne Rutgers
5 Packsaddle Road East
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
January 12, 2000
2 E E '3
JAN I 3 2000
CITY OF ROLLING H:LLS
Hy
Dear Members of the Planning Commission:
Re: Zoning Case # 602
We wish to call your attention to several disturbing aspects of Kathy Halliday and
Joe Cioffi's letter of December 27, 1999.
At the field trip on December 4th, the Cioffi's clearly and publicly agreed to build
a fence to the end of their house and landscape the area so that our privacy would be
preserved. This was said by the Commission Chair to be useful "movement" toward a
solution. We are afraid that by not mentioning a fence in their letter they are backing
away from their promise and seem to continue to want to use the easement as they are
doing now.
Since their house and concrete decking goes right up to the easement, they need to
be granted a "license agreement" by the Community Association to build a fence and
landscape appropriately. To date, however they have not made such application.
Again, we request the Planning Commission to table their application for a
variance until they have secured a license agreement from the Community Association.
Richard Rutgers
January 1 1, _'(r0()
Dear Joe and Kathy,
JAN :t 3 2030
CITY OF ROLLING I-"LLS
We would like nothing more than to come. to a mutually acceptable agreement
that would satisfy your desire to remtxtel your house and yet preserve the rural character
and spacious feel of our beautiful town.
You offered on November IS and again on December 4 to build a fence, and to
landscape it to the end of your house. The comnrrttee and we felt that tin:: was useful
"movement" in the right direction.
We are concerned however, because ...our letter of December 27th makes no
mention of the fence as discussed previously As ?1r (lunderson has .surely told you anti
fence or landscaping in the easement must be granted a "license agreement" by the
Community Association. and to our knowledge, no such application has been tiled.
If there is an\ thing vvc; can do to help tau obtain the license agreement, please let
us know.
Sincerely,
i/
Richard and Joanne Rutgers
cc. Planning Commission
Date: December 27, 1999 ky
Fax to: Rolling Hills Planning Commission
OENE
D
DEC 201999
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
From: Mr. and Mrs. Joe Cioffi and Kathy Halliday
3 Packsaddle Road East, Rolling Hills
Re: For your information, a copy of letter to Richard and Joanne
Rutgers dated December 27,1999 concerning their
opposition to zoning case #602.
TO 39Vd
Idd0I0 30f OLIEVVSOIE tt'tO ti66T/ZT/90
• •
December 27,1999
Dear Rutgers:
After the meeting with the City on Dec. 4, it is obvious that your remodel
and removal of your large pine trees allowing you to see our home more is
driving your concerns about our variance. As stated by Kathy Halliday in the
first meeting which she initiated, we have no problem landscaping lavishly
along the side of our house as soon as construction is completed so that
our house is not visible to you. We do not believe; that the small additions
that we are proposing will make any difference in that respect and, of
course, we can not imagine that they in any way could lower the value of
your lovely property. Also, as we have stated, we understand that the hedge
which we installed and have been maintaining as a "gift" to you was a
misunderstanding. When you told us you wanted a hedge installed, we
thought that placing it closer to your side would give you more immediate
visual coverage, especially during construction, hctwever, it will be removed
as soon as possible.
We trust that this will satisfy you and you will allow us to proceed to work
with the City on our variance. •
Sincerely,
Kathy Halliday and Joe Cioffi
Faxed copy to: Rolling Hills City Planning Commis$ion
Criss Gunderson, Architect
Z0 39Vd
I�d0I0 3or
OLTEVVGOTE TV:VO 0661/ZT/90
Richard and Joanne Rutgers
5 Packsaddle Road East
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
December 15, 1999
rFJ \\S
DEC 1 'C 1999
CITY OF ROLLING F-:'.' LS
Ay
Re: Zoning Case #602
Dear Planning Commission Members:
We are writing this second letter to again express our strong opposition to the
granting of variance #602.
As you saw on the field trip Dec. 4, the family room addition is not "under existing
roof(s)" as described in the application. I also hope you appreciated how close the building in
question is to our home due to its non -conforming status and how further non -conformity
would severely diminish our privacy.
I am sorry to report that all my attempts to reach a mutually acceptable solution to the
privacy problem have been unsuccessful. I spoke with Kathy Halliday Nov. 12, with Mr.
Criss Gunderson Dec. 4 and then called Mr. Gunderson again Dec. 14. Unfortunately, the
petitioners have not made a good faith effort to seek permission from the Community
Association to build a fence 2 feet into the easement as was discussed at the field trip.
I therefore request that the Planning Commission table further consideration of
variance #602 pending the granting of a "license agreement" from the Board of Directors of
the Community Association to build the fence and landscape 2 feet in the easement as
described at the field trip.
I might add that when I express concerns about our privacy, I mean nothing personal
regarding our current neighbors. Rather, since they have told me that, unlike us, they do not
intend to live in Rolling Hills "forever", I need to be concerned about future occupants being
in such close proximity.
incerely,
Richard Rutgers
e Rutgers
• •
RICHARD AND JOANNE RUTGERS
5 PACKSADDLE ROAD EAST
ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274
November 30, 1999
lEg.-HWE'[]
NOV 3 0 1999
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
Hy
Re: Zoning Case No. 602
Dear Planning Commission Member:
We are writing you to express our strong opposition to the variance, which would allow further
encroachment into the south, 20-foot side yard setback by the residence at 3 Packsaddle Road East.
There is no pre-existing variance for the current encroachments, Mr. Gunderson's statement at the
planning commission meeting of November 16 to the contrary. Rather, the house is a non-
conforming structure. Researching the records shows that it received plan approval just "under the
wire" in May 1960, before the current setback requirements were instituted in June 1960.
As you know, the Municipal Code of Rolling Hills (17.24.040) provides that: "A non -conforming
structure may not be expanded or altered in any way that would increase the non -conformity." The
proposed plans do just that.
The Rolling Hills General Plan (Policy 2.3) seeks to "maintain and provide regulations for sufficient
setbacks and easements to provide buffers between residential uses." The current non -conforming
structure decreases this buffer, and the proposal would only worsen this problem.
As we hope you will see on the field trip, in addition there is landscaping in the back, and shrubbery
and a watering system the entire length of the yard in our easement. These were installed without
permission, and we have requested that they be removed. To our distress, this landscaping indicates
an intention to incorporate both easements into the encroaching property's yard. The side yard
which exists in the easement has been used in the past for storage and is a source of clutter and trash.
As you will also see on the field trip, Mr. Gunderson's statement that the"Additions are infills under
existing roofs..." is only partially correct. The proposed family room addition is neither an "infill"
nor "under existing roof(s)". Also, Mr. Gunderson's statement regarding the requested variance,
"that the proposal will not encroach any further than existing structures" minimize, the true extent
• •
Planning Commission Member
November 30, 1999
Page 2
of the proposed expansion. The depth of the existing encroachment into the easement is 6 feet. The
proposal would add approximately 35 linear feet of encroachment. Finally, we are also concerned
that the increased lot coverage in the back would increase erosion in our portion of the easement now
used as their backyard.
With regard to the Variance Required Findings:
A. "Exceptional or Extraordinary Circumstances" - There are no special circumstances
applicable to the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same vicinity. The
proposal; simply `elbows out' the neighbors, by pushing the encroachment further into the
Applicants' side yard. The proposed plan is merely a convenient way to expand the square footage
which could be achieved in other ways without a further encroachment into the setback.
B. "Denial of Property Rights" - There are no rights denied the property in question -
in fact they enjoy the right to occupy the setback, which is denied other properties in the
neighborhood.
C. "Materially Detrimental" - We feel that the proposed increase ofnon-conformity will
diminish our privacy and property rights. This addition would create a large expanse of structure
encroaching into our buffer zone which was intended to protect our privacy and property rights.
Furthermore, the proposed new structure would allow a direct view into our house.
D. "Intent of Municipal Title" - Granting a variance, we believe, would directly violate
17.24.040 which provides that "A non -conforming structure may not be expanded or altered in any
way that would increase the non -conformity."
E. "No Special Privilege" - We feel that granting the variance would grant a special
privilege to the Applicants, denied to those with conforming structures, of being able to expand the
Applicants' house and yard into the setback.
F. "Consistent with General Plan" - The use of the side easement for the encroaching
structure rules out use of the easement as a horse trail, diminishes the "buffer zone" between houses
and limits our privacy. Granting a variance would be contrary to the General Plan Goal 1, to
"maintain Rolling Hills distinctive rural residential character."
Attempted Resolution:
On November 12, I (Richard Rutgers) met with Kathy Halliday and offered to withdraw my
objections if they would agree to extend and permanently maintain the 3-rail fence from the front
Planning Commission Member
November 30, 1999
Page 3
to the rear of the property, creating a horse -trail, and further agree to plant shrubbery which would
grow to and be maintained at no less than 8 feet with sufficient density so it may not be able to be
seen through.
We feel that we have made a good faith effort to reach a mutually acceptable solution but to date
have received no reply. I therefore urge the commission not to grant variance No. 602, or to grant
the variance conditioned on the extension of the fence and planting and maintenance of shrubbery
as above outlined.
Sincerely,
RICHARD RUTGERS
JOANNE R 1 RS
•City leoffin9.
HEARING DATE: DECEMBER 21,1999
TO:
FROM:
•
INCORPORATED JANUARY 2 , 1957
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274
(310) 377-1521
FAX: (310) 377-7288
E-mail: cityofrh@aol.com
HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
LOLA M. UNGAR, PLANNING DIRECTOR
APPLICATION NO.
SITE LOCATION:
ZONING AND SIZE:
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
PUBLISHED:
ZONING CASE NO. 602
3 PACKSADDLE ROAD EAST (LOT 25-SF)
RAS-1, 1.39 ACRES
MR. JOSEPH CIOFFI AND MRS. KATHY HALLIDAY
MR. CRISS GUNDERSON, ARCHITECT
NOVEMBER 6, 1999
REOUEST
Request for a Variance to encroach into the south side yard setback to permit the
enclosure of a breezeway to enlarge a kitchen, a request for a Variance to encroach
into the south side yard setback to permit the construction of a family room, and a
request for a Variance to exceed the maximum total lot coverage permitted at an
existing single family residence.
BACKGROUND
1. The Planning Commission viewed a silhouette of the proposed project on
Saturday, December 4, 1999. Since that time, plans were revised to reduce the
size of the deck area so that a portion of the proposed new deck will not
encroach into the south side yard setback. The proposed new decking will be
reduced by 191 square feet, from 1,868 square feet to 1,677 square feet, resulting
in a reduction of total lot coverage from 38.8% to 38.5%.
2. Another letter dated December 15, 1999 regarding the project from Mr. and
Mrs. Richard Rutgers, 5 Packsaddle East, is attached as well as their November
30, 1999 letter.
3. The applicants are requesting a Variance to permit an encroachment of up to
6 feet into the 20 foot south side yard setback to enclose a breezeway that will
enlarge a kitchen by 234 square feet that will not encroach any further than
existing structures. The plan also includes a 50 square foot infill addition next
to the garage that is not within the setback area.
ZONING CASE NO. 602
PAGE 1
:I,
Pririted on Recycled Paper.
v
• •
The applicants are requesting a Variance to permit an encroachment of up to
6 feet into the 20 foot south side yard setback to permit the construction of a
160 square foot family room that will not encroach any further than existing
structures. All additions will total 444 square feet.
The applicants are also requesting a Variance to exceed the 35% maximum
total lot coverage permitted. The applicants propose to construct 1,677 square
feet of additional patio/deck areas at the rear of the house. The total lot
coverage proposed is 18,038 square feet or 38.5%.
• The applicants state that there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances
or conditions that do not apply generally to other property in the same
vicinity and zone because "Additions are infills under existing roofs at
conditions of current encroachments. Also, the existing home and garage is
located extremely deep on the lot. This results in a very long driveway,
(much longer than surrounding properties) which elevates coverage areas."
• In describing how such change will not be materially detrimental to the
public welfare nor injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity
and zone where the property is located, the applicants say that, "With regards
to the side yard encroachments; The existing envelope of the building at the
southern side of the property encroaches 6 feet. The proposed additions are:
1) Breezeway infill under existing structure and 2) 50 square foot addition
following lines of existing house with minimal encroachments." And, "The
proposed patio/decks in the rear of the property will soften a tall facade of the
home (which is 4 to 5 feet out of grade). The home will visually relate to the
existing topography in a more 'ranch home' manner."
4. The existing house with attached garage was built in 1960. A swimming pool
was constructed in 1961 and a 110 square foot addition with interior remodel
was completed in 1997.
5. The structural lot coverage proposed is 7,282 square feet or 15.3% (20%
maximum permitted). Again, the total lot coverage proposed is 18,038 square
feet or 38.5% (35% maximum permitted) which requires a Variance.
6. The residential and total building pad of 24,348 square feet will have
structural coverage of 6,732 square feet or 27.6%. Coverage on the future
stable building pad will be 450 square feet or 30% of the 1,500 square foot pad.
Total building pad coverage will be 27.7% of the 24,348 square foot building
pads.
7. A future stable of 450 square feet and a 550 square foot corral are proposed at
the rear portion of the lot. An accessway is proposed to the stable and corral
ZONING CASE NO. 602
PAGE 2
• •
within the easement at the north side of the property where there is a
maximum slope of 20% (25% slope maximum permitted).
8. Disturbed area of the lot will be approximately 18,265 square feet or 38.9% of
the net lot area (40% maximum permitted).
9. Grading will not be required for the project.
10. There are two driveways for access to and from the residence from Packsaddle
Road that will remain the same.
11. The project has been determined to be categorically exempt pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Planning Commission review the proposed plans and
take public testimony.
VARIANCE REQUIRED FINDINGS
A. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the
property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same vicinity and zone; and
B. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property
rights possessed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone but which is denied the
property in question; and
C. That the granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or
iniurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; and
D. That in granting the variance, the spirit and intent of this title will be observed; and
E. That the variance does not grant special privilege;
F. That the variance is consistent with the portions of the County of Los Angeles Hazardous
Waste Management Plan relating to siting and siting criteria for hazardous waste facilities;
and
G. That the variance request is consistent with the General Plan of the City of Rolling Hills.
ZONING CASE NO. 602
PAGE 3
CRITERIA & MAJOR IMPACTS
RA-S-1 Zone Setbacks:
Front: 50 ft. from front easement
line
Side: 20 ft. from property line
Rear: 50 ft. from property line
Structures
Structural Lot Coveraae
(20% maximum)
Total Lot Coverage
(35% maximum)
Residential Buildina Pad
Coverage
(Guideline maximum of 30%)
Stable Buildina Pad Coveraae
Total Buildina Pad Coveraae
Grading
Disturbed Area
(40% maximum; any graded
building pad area, any remedial
grading (temporary disturbance),
any graded slopes and building
pad areas, any nongraded area
where impervious surfaces exist)
Roadway Access
Stable & Corral
Stable Accesswav
Maximum slope of 25%
Preserve Views
Preserve Plants and Animals
EXISTING
Existing residence encroaches
up to 6 feet into the south side
yard setback and encroaches up
to 7 feet into the north side yard
setback.
Residence
Garage
Swim Pool
Service Yd.
TOTAL
13.6%
33.2%
4,821 sq.ft.
539 sq.ft.
928 sq.ft.
100 sq.ft.
6,388 sq.ft.
19.8% of 24,348 sq.ft. pad
None
19.8% of 24,348 sq.ft. pad
N/A
33.2%
There are
access to
residence
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
two driveways for
and from the
off Packsaddle Road.
PROPOSED
Proposed 330 square feet of
additions will encroach up to 6
feet into the south side yard
setback that will not encroach
any further than existing
structures.
Residence
Garage
Swim Pool
Service Yd.
Stable (Future)
TOTAL
15.3%
38.5%
5,265 sq.ft.
539 sq.ft.
928 sq.ft.
100 sq.ft.
450 sq.ft.
7,282sq.ft.
27.6% of 24,348 sq.ft. pad
30% of 1,500 sq.ft. pad
27.7% of 25,848 sq,ft, pads
None
38.9%
No change
450 sq.ft. stable
550 sq.ft. corral
Proposed an accessway with a
slope that will not exceed 20%
within easement at north side of
property.
Planning Commission Review
Planning Commission Review
ZONING CASE NO. 602
PAGE 4
Richard and Joanne Rutgers
5 Packsaddle Road East
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
December 15, 1999
]Il
DECK Ci 1999
CITY OF ROLLING I-!!LLS
Re: Zoning Case #602
Dear Planning Commission Members:
We are writing this second letter to again express our strong opposition to the
granting of variance #602.
As you saw on the field trip Dec. 4, the family room addition is not "under existing
roof(s)" as described in the application. I also hope you appreciated how close the building in
question is to our home due to its non -conforming status and how further non -conformity
would severely diminish our privacy.
I am sorry to report that all my attempts to reach a mutually acceptable solution to the
privacy problem have been unsuccessful. I spoke with Kathy Halliday Nov. 12, with Mr.
Criss Gunderson Dec. 4 and then called Mr. Gunderson again Dec. 14. Unfortunately, the
petitioners have not made a good faith effort to seek permission from the Community
Association to build a fence 2 feet into the easement as was discussed at the field trip.
I therefore request that the Planning Commission table further consideration of
variance #602 pending the granting of a "license agreement" from the Board of Directors of
the Community Association to build the fence and landscape 2 feet in the easement as
described at the field trip.
I might add that when I express concerns about our privacy, I mean nothing personal
regarding our current neighbors. Rather, since they have told me that, unlike us, they do not
intend to live in Rolling Hills "forever", I need to be concerned about future occupants being
in such close proximity.
< Sincere
Richard Rut ers
anne Rutgers
• •
RICHARD AND JOANNE RUTGERS
5 PACKSADDLE ROAD EAST
ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274
November 30, 1999
lEgEHED)
NOV 3 0 1999
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
Hv
Re: Zoning Case No. 602
Dear Planning Commission Member:
We are writing you to express our strong opposition to the variance, which would allow further
encroachment into the south, 20-foot side yard setback by the residence at 3 Packsaddle Road East.
There is no pre-existing variance for the current encroachments, Mr. Gunderson's statement at the
planning commission meeting of November 16 to the contrary. Rather. the house is a non-
conforming structure. Researching the records shows that it received plan approval just "under the
wire" in May 1960, before the current setback requirements were instituted in June 1960.
As you know, the Municipal Code of Rolling Hills (17.24.040) provides that: "A non -conforming
structure may not be expanded or altered in any way that would increase the non -conformity." The
proposed plans do just that.
The Rolling Hills General Plan (Policy 2.3) seeks to "maintain and provide regulations for sufficient
setbacks and easements to provide buffers between residential uses." The current non -conforming
structure decreases this buffer, and the proposal would only worsen this problem.
As we hope you will see on the field trip, in addition there is landscaping in the back, and shrubbery
and a watering system the entire length of the yard in our easement. These were installed without
permission, and we have requested that they be removed. To our distress, this landscaping indicates
an intention to incorporate both easements into the encroaching property's yard. The side yard
which exists in the easement has been used in the past for storage and is a source of clutter and trash.
As you will also see on the field trip, Mr. Gunderson's statement that the"Additions are infills under
existing roofs..." is only partially correct. The proposed family room addition is neither an "infill"
nor "under existing roof(s)". Also, Mr. Gunderson's statement regarding the requested variance,
"that the proposal will not encroach any further than existing structures" minimize, the true extent
• •
Planning Commission Member
November 30, 1999
Page 2
of the proposed expansion. The depth of the existing encroachment into the easement is 6 feet. The
proposal would add approximately 35 linear feet of encroachment. Finally, we are also concerned
that the increased lot coverage in the back would increase erosion in our portion of the easement now
used as their backyard.
With regard to the Variance Required Findings:
A. "Exceptional or Extraordinary Circumstances" - There are no special circumstances
applicable to the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same vicinity. The
proposal; simply `elbows out' the neighbors, by pushing the encroachment further into the
Applicants' side yard. The proposed plan is merely a convenient way to expand the square footage
which could be achieved in other ways without a further encroachment into the setback.
B. _ "Denial of Property Rights" - There are no rights denied the property in question -
in fact they enjoy the right to occupy the setback, which is ,denied other properties in the
neighborhood.
C. "Materially Detrimental" - We feel that the proposed increase of non -conformity will
diminish our privacy and property rights. This addition would create a.large expanse of structure
encroaching into our buffer zone which was intended to protect our privacy and property rights.
Furthermore, the proposed new structure would allow a direct view into our house.
D. "Intent of Municipal Title" - Granting a variance, we believe, would directly violate
17.24.040 which provides that "A non -conforming structure may not be expanded or altered in any
way that would increase the non -conformity."
E. "No Special Privilege" - We feel that granting the variance would grant a special
privilege to the Applicants, denied to those with conforming structures, of being able to expand the
Applicants' house and yard into the setback.
F. "Consistent with General Plan" - The use of the side easement for the encroaching
structure rules out use of the easement as a horse trail, diminishes the "buffer zone" between houses
and limits our privacy. Granting a variance would be contrary to the General Plan Goal 1, to
"maintain Rolling Hills distinctive rural residential character."
Attempted Resolution:
On November 12, I (Richard Rutgers) met with Kathy Halliday and offered to withdraw my
objections if they would agree to extend and permanently maintain the 3-rail fence from the front
Planning Commission Member
November 30, 1999
Page 3
.
to the rear of the property, creating a horse -trail, and further agree to plant shrubbery which would
grow to and be maintained at no less than 8 feet with sufficient density so it may not be able to be
seen through.
We feel that we have made a good faith effort to reach a mutually acceptable solution but to date
have received no reply. I therefore urge the commission not to grant variance No. 602, or to grant
the variance conditioned on the extension of the fence and planting and maintenance of shrubbery
as above outlined.
Sincerely,
c
RICHARD RUTGERS
•
C14 ,,/ RJf4 �aee
HEARING DATE: DECEMBER 4, 1999
TO:
FROM:
•
3
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
HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
LOLA M. UNGAR, PLANNING DIRECTOR
APPLICATION NO.
SITE LOCATION:
ZONING AND SIZE:
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
PUBLISHED:
REOUEST
ZONING CASE NO. 602
3 PACKSADDLE ROAD EAST (LOT 25-SF)
RAS-1, 1.39 ACRES
MR. JOSEPH CIOFFI AND MRS. KATHY HALLIDAY
MR. CRISS GUNDERSON, ARCHITECT
NOVEMBER 6, 1999
Request for a Variance to encroach into the south side yard setback to permit the
enclosure of a breezeway to enlarge a kitchen, a request for a Variance to encroach
into the south side yard setback to permit the construction of a family room, and a
request for a Variance to exceed the maximum total lot coverage permitted at an
existing single family residence.
BACKGROUND
1. The Planning Commission will view a silhouette of the proposed project on
Saturday, December 4, 1999 at 8:30 AM. Since the November 16, 1999
Planning Commission meeting, it was brought to our attention by Mr.
Gunderson, applicants' representative, that actual measurements of the
breezeway separation were wider apart from the previous calculations and
that the dimensions of that addition would be an additional 64 square feet in
size. Calculations within this staff report reflect that difference.
A letter opposing the project from Mr. and Mrs. Richard Rutgers, 5 Packsaddle
East, is attached.
2. The applicants are requesting a Variance to permit an encroachment of up to
6 feet into the 20 foot south side yard setback to enclose a breezeway that will
enlarge a kitchen by 234 square feet that will not encroach any further than
existing structures. The plan also includes a 50 square foot infill addition next
to the garage that is not within the setback area.
ZONING CASE NO. 602
PAGE 1
®Printed on Recycled Paper.
• •
The applicants are requesting a Variance to permit an encroachment of up to
6 feet into the 20 foot south side yard setback to permit the construction of a
160 square foot family room that will not encroach any further than existing
structures. All additions will total 444 square feet.
The applicants are also requesting a Variance to exceed the 35% maximum
total lot coverage permitted. The applicants propose to construct 1,868 square
feet of additional patio/deck areas at the rear of the house. The total lot
coverage proposed is 18,229 square feet or 38.8%.
• The applicants state that there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances
or conditions that do not apply generally to other property in the same
vicinity and zone because "Additions are infills under existing roofs at
conditions of current encroachments. Also, the existing home and garage is
located extremely deep on the lot. This results in a very long driveway,
(much longer than surrounding properties) which elevates coverage areas."
• In describing how such change will not be materially detrimental to the
public welfare nor injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity
and zone where the property is located, the applicants say that, "With regards
to the side yard encroachments; The existing envelope of the building at the
southern side of the property encroaches 6 feet. The proposed additions are:
1) Breezeway infill under existing structure and 2) 50 square foot addition
following lines of existing house with minimal encroachments." And, "The
proposed patio/decks in the rear of the property will soften a tall facade of the
home (which is 4 to 5 feet out of grade). The home will visually relate to the
existing topography in a more 'ranch home' manner."
3. The existing house with attached garage was built in 1960. A swimming pool
was constructed in 1961 and a 110 square foot addition with interior remodel
was completed in 1997.
4. The structural lot coverage proposed is 7,282 square feet or 15.3% (20%
maximum permitted). Again, the total lot coverage proposed is 18,229 square
feet or 38.8% (35% maximum permitted) which requires a Variance.
5. The residential and total building pad of 24,348 square feet will have
structural coverage of 6,732 square feet or 27.6%. Coverage on the future
stable building pad will be 450 square feet or 30% of the 1,500 square foot pad.
Total building pad coverage will be 27.7% of the 24,348 square foot building
pads.
6. A future stable of 450 square feet and a 550 square foot corral are proposed at
the rear portion of the lot. An accessway is proposed to the stable and corral
ZONING CASE NO. 602
PAGE 2
• •
within the easement at the north side of the property where there is a
maximum slope of 20% (25% slope maximum permitted).
7. Disturbed area of the lot will be approximately 18,265 square feet or 38.9% of
the net lot area (40% maximum permitted).
8. Grading will not be required for the project.
9. There are two driveways for access to and from the residence from Packsaddle
Road that will remain the same.
10. The project has been determined to be categorically exempt pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Planning Commission review the proposed plans and
take public testimony.
VARIANCE REQUIRED FINDINGS
A. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the
property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same vicinity and zone; and
B. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property
rights possessed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone but which is denied the
property in question; and
C. That the granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or
injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; and
D. That in granting the variance, the spirit and intent of this title will be observed; and
E. That the variance does not grant special privilege;
F. That the variance is consistent with the portions of the County of Los Angeles Hazardous
Waste Management Plan relating to siting and siting criteria for hazardous waste facilities;
and
G. That the variance request is consistent with the General Plan of the City of Rolling Hills.
ZONING CASE NO. 602
PAGE 3
CRITERIA & MAJOR IMPACTS 0 EXISTING
RA-S-1 Zone Setbacks:
Front: 50 ft. from front easement
line
Side: 20 ft. from property line
Rear: 50 ft. from property line
Structures
Structural Lot Coveraae
(20% maximum)
Total Lot Coveraae
(35% maximum)
Residential Buildina Pad
Coveraae
(Guideline maximum of 30%)
Stable Buildina Pad Coveraae
Total Buildina Pad Coveraae
Grad ma
Disturbed Area
(40% maximum; any graded
building pad area, any remedial
grading (temporary disturbance),
any graded slopes and building
pad areas, any nongraded area
where impervious surfaces exist)
Roadway Access
Stable & Corral
Stable Accesswav
Maximum slope of 25%
Preserve Views
Preserve Plants and Animals
Existing residence encroaches
up to 6 feet into the south side
yard setback and encroaches up
to 7 feet into the north side yard
setback.
Residence
Garage
Swim Pool
Service Yd.
TOTAL
13.6%
33.2%
4,821 sq.ft.
539 sq.ft.
928 sq.ft.
100 sq.ft.
6,388 sq.ft.
19.8% of 24,348 sq.ft. pad
None
19.8% of 24,348 sq.ft. pad
N/A
33.2%
There are
access to
residence
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
two driveways for
and from the
off Packsaddle Road.
II
PROPOSED
Proposed 330 square feet of
additions will encroach up to 6
feet into the south side yard
setback that will not encroach
any further than existing
structures.
Residence
Garage
Swim Pool
Service Yd.
Stable (Future)
TOTAL
15.3%
38.8%
5,265 sq.ft.
539 sq.ft.
928 sq.ft.
100 sq.ft.
450 sq.ft.
7,282sq.ft.
27.6% of 24,348 sq.ft. pad
30% of 1,500 sq.ft. pad
27.7% of 25,848 sq,ft, pads
None
38.9%
No change
450 sq.ft. stable
550 sq.ft. corral
Proposed an accessway with a
slope that will not exceed 20%
within easement at north side of
property.
Planning Commission Review
Planning Commission Review
ZONING CASE NO. 602
PAGE 4
• •
RICHARD AND JOANNE RUTGERS
5 PACKSADDLE ROAD EAST
ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274
November 30, 1999
l'AEgEHETI
NOV 3 0 1999
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
Fay
Re: Zoning Case No. 602
Dear Planning Commission Member:
We are writing you to express our strong opposition to the variance, which would allow further
encroachment into the south, 20-foot side yard setback by the residence at 3 Packsaddle Road East.
There is no pre-existing variance for the current* encroachments, Mr. Gunderson's statement at the
planning commission meeting of November 16 to . the contrary. Rather, the house is a non-
conforming structure. Researching the records shows that it received plan approval just "under the
wire" in May 1960, before the current setback requirements were instituted in June 1960.
As you know, the Municipal Code of Rolling Hills (17.24.040) provides that: "A non -conforming
structure may not be expanded or altered in any way that would increase the non -conformity ." The
proposed plans do just that:
The Rolling Hills General Plan (Policy 2.3) seeks to "maintain and provide regulations for sufficient
setbacks and easements to provide buffers between residential uses." The current non -conforming
structure decreases this buffer. and the proposal would only worsen this problem.
As we hope you will see on the field trip, in addition there is landscaping in the back, and shrubbery
and a watering system the entire length of the yard in our easement. These were installed without
permission, and we have requested that they be removed. To our distress, this landscaping indicates
an intention to incorporate both easements into the encroaching property's yard. The side yard
which exists in the easement has been used in the past for storage and is a source of clutter and trash.
As you will also see on the field trip, Mr. Gunderson's statement that the"Additions are infills under
existing roofs..." is only partially correct. The proposed family room addition is neither an "infill"
nor "under existing roof(s)". Also, Mr. Gunderson's statement regarding the requested variance,
"that the proposal will not encroach any further than existing structures" minimize, the true extent
• •
Planning Commission Member
November 30, 1999
Page 2
of the proposed expansion. The depth of the existing encroachment into the easement is 6 feet. The
proposal would add approximately 35 linear feet of encroachment. Finally, we are also concerned
that the increased lot coverage in the back would increase erosion in our portion of the easement now
used as their backyard.
With regard to the Variance Required Findings:
A. "Exceptional or Extraordinary Circumstances" - There are no special circumstances
applicable to the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same vicinity. The
proposal; simply `elbows out' the neighbors, by pushing the encroachment further into the
Applicants' side yard. The proposed plan is merely a convenient way to expand the square footage
which could be achieved in other ways without a further encroachment into the setback.
B. "Denial of Property Rights" - There are no rights denied the property in question -
in fact they enjoy the right to occupy the setback, which is denied other properties in the
neighborhood.
C. "Materially Detrimental" - We feel that the proposed increase of non -conformity will
diminish our privacy and property rights. This addition would create a large expanse of structure
encroaching into our buffer zone which was intended to protect our privacy and property rights.
Furthermore, the proposed new structure would allow a direct view into our house.
D. "Intent of Municipal Title" - Granting a variance, we believe, would directly violate
17.24.040 which provides that "A non -conforming structure may not be expanded or altered in any
way that would increase the non -conformity."
E. "No Special Privilege" - We feel that granting the variance would grant a special
privilege to the Applicants, denied to those with conforming structures, of being able to expand the
Applicants' house and yard into the setback.
F. "Consistent with General Plan" - The use of the side easement for the encroaching
structure rules out use of the easement as a horse trail, diminishes the "buffer zone" between houses
and limits our privacy. Granting a variance would be contrary to the General Plan Goal 1, to
"maintain Rolling Hills distinctive rural residential character."
Attempted Resolution:
On November 12, I (Richard Rutgers) met with Kathy Halliday and offered to withdraw my
objections if they would agree to extend and permanently maintain the 3-rail fence from the front
• •
Planning Commission Member
November 30, 1999
Page 3
to the rear of the property, creating a horse -trail, and further agree to plant shrubbery which would
grow to and be maintained at no less than 8 feet with sufficient density so it may not be able to be
seen through.
We feel that we have made a good faith effort to reach a mutually acceptable solution but to date
have received no reply. I therefore urge the commission not to grant variance No. 602, or to grant
the variance conditioned on the extension of the fence and planting and maintenance of shrubbery
as above outlined.
Sincerely,
\ rr'
• RICHARD RUTGERS
JOANNE R>i S
•
O� /eO/dZ L`L� INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
HEARING DATE: NOVEMBER 16, 1999
TO:
FROM:
7A
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274
(310) 377-1521
FAX: (310) 377-7288
E-mail: cltyofrh@aol.com
HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
LOLA M. UNGAR, PLANNING DIRECTOR
APPLICATION NO.
SITE LOCATION:
ZONING AND SIZE:
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
PUBLISHED:
REOUEST
ZONING CASE NO. 602
3 PACKSADDLE ROAD EAST (LOT 25-SF)
RAS-1, 1.39 ACRES
MR. JOSEPH CIOFFI AND MS. KATHY HALLIDAY
MR. CRISS GUNDERSON, ARCHITECT
NOVEMBER 6, 1999
Request for a Variance to encroach into the south side yard setback to permit the
enclosure of a breezeway to enlarge a kitchen, a request for a Variance to encroach
into the south side yard setback to permit the construction of a family room, and a
request for a Variance to exceed the maximum total lot coverage permitted at an
existing single family residence.
BACKGROUND
1. The applicants are requesting a Variance to permit an encroachment of up to
6 feet into the 20 foot south side yard setback to enclose a breezeway that will
enlarge a kitchen by 170 square feet that will not encroach any further than
existing structures. The plan also includes a 50 square foot infill addition next
to the garage that is not within the setback area.
The applicants are requesting a Variance to permit an encroachment of up to
6 feet into the 20 foot south side yard setback to permit the construction of a
160 square foot family room that will not encroach any further than existing
structures.
The applicants are also requesting a Variance to exceed the 35% maximum
total lot coverage permitted. The applicants propose to construct 1,868 square
feet of additional patio/deck areas at the rear of the house. The total lot
coverage proposed is 18,265 square feet or 38.9%.
ZONING CASE NO. 602
PAGE 1
®Printed on Recycled Paper.
• •
• The applicants state that there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances
or conditions that do not apply generally to other property in the same
vicinity and zone because "Additions are infills under existing roofs at
conditions of current encroachments. Also, the existing home and garage is
located extremely deep on the lot. This results in a very long driveway,
(much longer than surrounding properties) which elevates coverage areas."
• In describing how such change will not be materially detrimental to the
public welfare nor injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity
and zone where the property is located, the applicants say that, "With regards
to the side yard encroachments; The existing envelope of the building at the
southern side of the property encroaches 6 feet. The proposed additions are:
1) Breezeway infill under existing structure and 2) 50 square foot addition
following lines of existing house with minimal encroachments." And, "The
proposed patio/decks in the rear of the property will soften a tall facade of the
home (which is 4 to 5 feet out of grade). The home will visually relate to the
existing topography in a more 'ranch home' manner."
2. The existing house with attached garage was built in 1960. A swimming pool
was constructed in 1961 and a 110 square foot addition with interior remodel
was completed in 1997.
3. The structural lot coverage proposed is 7,218 square feet or 15.4% (20%
maximum permitted). Again, the total lot coverage proposed is 18,265 square
feet or 38.9% (35% maximum permitted) which requires a Variance.
4. The residential and total building pad of 24,348 square feet will have
structural coverage of 7,118 square feet or 29.2%. Coverage on the future
stable building pad will be 450 square feet or 30% of the 1,500 square foot pad.
Total building pad coverage will be 27.5% of the 25,848 square foot building
pads.
5. A future stable of 450 square feet and a 550 square foot corral are proposed at
the rear portion of the lot. An accessway is proposed to the stable and corral
within the easement at the north side of the property where there is a
maximum slope of 20% (25% slope maximum permitted).
6. Disturbed area of the lot will be approximately 18,265 square feet or 38.9% of
the net lot area (40% maximum permitted).
7. Grading will not be required for the project.
8. There are two driveways for access to and from the residence from Packsaddle
Road that will remain the same.
ZONING CASE NO. 602
PAGE 2
• •
9. The project has been determined to be categorically exempt pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Planning Commission review the proposed plans and
take public testimony.
VARIANCE REQUIRED FINDINGS
A. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the
property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same vicinity and zone; and
B. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property
rights possessed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone but which is denied the
property in question; and
C. That the granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or
injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; and
D. That in granting the variance, the spirit and intent of this title will be observed; and
E. That the variance does not grant special privilege;
F. That the variance is consistent with the portions of the County of Los Angeles Hazardous
Waste Management Plan relating to siting and siting criteria for hazardous waste facilities;
and
G. That the variance request is consistent with the General Plan of the City of Rolling Hills.
ZONING CASE NO. 602
PAGE 3
•
•
CRITERIA & MAJOR IMPACTS 11 EXISTING
RA-S-1 Zone Setbacks:
Front: 50 ft. from front easement
line
Side: 20 ft. from property line
Rear: 50 ft. from property line
Structures
Structural Lot Coveraae
(20% maximum)
Total Lot Coverage
(35% maximum)
Residential Buildina Pad
Coveraae
(Guideline maximum of 30%)
Stable Buildina Pad Coveraae
Total Buildina Pad Coveraae
Grad ma
Disturbed Area
(40% maximum; any graded
building pad area, any remedial
grading (temporary disturbance),
any graded slopes and building
pad areas, any nongraded area
where impervious surfaces exist)
Roadway Access
Stable & Corral
Stable Accesswav
Maximum slope of 25%
Preserve Views
Preserve Plants and Animals
Existing residence encroaches
up to 6 feet into the south side
yard setback and encroaches up
to 7 feet into the north side yard
setback.
Residence
Garage
Swim Pool
Service Yd.
TOTAL
13.6%
33.2%
4,821 sq.ft.
539 sq.ft.
928 sq.ft.
100 sq.ft.
6,388 sq.ft.
19.8% of 24,348 sq.ft. pad
None
19.8% of 24,348 sq.ft. pad
N/A
33.2%
There are two driveways for
access to and from the
residence from Packsaddle
Road.
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
11
PROPOSED
Proposed 330 square feet of
additions will encroach up to 6
feet into the south side yard
setback that will not encroach
any further than existing
structures.
Residence
Garage
Swim Pool
Service Yd.
Stable (Future)
TOTAL
15.4%
38.9%
5,201 sq.ft.
539 sq.ft.
928 sq.ft.
100 sq.ft.
450 sq.ft.
7,218 sq.ft.
27.4% of 24,348 sq.ft. pad
30% of 1,500 sq.ft. pad
27.5% of 25,848 sq,ft, pads
None
38.9%
No change
450 sq.ft. stable
550 sq.ft. corral
Proposed an accessway with a
slope that will not exceed 20%
within easement at north side of
property.
Planning Commission Review
Planning Commission Review
ZONING CASE NO. 602
PAGE 4