Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
671, Construct a block wall in side, Staff Reports
DATE: TO: ATTN: FROM: SUBJECT: • City 0/ leoffinv 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.: 7A Mtg. Date: 3/8/04 MARCH 8, 2004 HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL CRAIG R. NEALIS, CITY MANAGER YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR RESOLUTION NO. 949. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS TO DENY A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH INTO THE NORTH SIDE YARD SETBACK WITH A UNAUTHORIZED BLOCK WALL AT AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE, AT 6 PACKSADDLE ROAD EAST (LOT 31-SF), IN ZONING CASE NO. 671. (MURRELL). BACKGROUND The City Council at the February 23, 2004 meeting directed staff to prepare a Resolution of denial regarding an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to deny a Variance to retain an unauthorized wall in the side yard setback. The vote was 5-0. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 949, which is attached, denying Zoning Case No. 671. Included in the Resolution is a provision allowing the applicant six months to removed the "as built" wall, and requiring that the applicant work with staff to design alternate methods to provide for erosion and drainage control on the property. ®Printed on Ruryclnd I'a u n RESOLUTION NO. 949 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS TO DENY A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH INTO THE NORTH SIDE YARD SETBACK WITH A UNAUTHORIZED BLOCK WALL AT AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE, AT 6 PACKSADDLE ROAD EAST (LOT 31-SF), IN ZONING CASE NO. 671. (MURRELL). THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. An application was duly filed by Dr. and Mrs. George Murrell with respect to real property located at 6 Packsaddle Road East (Lot 31- SF), Rolling Hills, requesting a Variance to encroach into the north side yard setback to permit the completion and retention within the setback of an unauthorized partially constructed block wall on the property. Section 2. In October of 2002, staff was informed that a block wall in the north side yard setback was under construction on the subject property. Staff investigated the complaint and confirmed that a 5-foot high, 15 feet long, block wall was under construction within the side yard setback. Staff directed the property owners to cease the construction and demolish the wall or apply to the Planning Commission for a Variance. Section 3. As a result, the applicants filed for a Variance to retain the 5- foot high block wall in the north side yard setback and to construct a spa, which would also encroach into the side yard setback. Subsequently, the applicant withdrew the Variance request for the encroachment of the spa, but continued the request for the wall. Section 4. The Planning Commission conducted duly noticed public hearings to consider the application on June 17, 2003 and July 15, 2003 and at a field trip visit on July 1, 2003. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the revised Variance application at the August 19, 2003 public hearing. The applicants were notified of the public hearings in writing. Evidence was heard and presented from all persons interested in affecting said proposal and from members of the City staff. The applicants and their representative were in attendance at the hearings. Section 5. At the August 19, 2003 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission directed staff to prepare a resolution to deny the request to retain the unauthorized 5-foot high block wall. The Commission found that the wall is not necessary to prevent erosion of the sloped area immediately behind the wall or provide privacy. The Planning Commission unanimously adopted Resolution No. 2003-16 denying the request on September 16, 2003. Resolution No. 949 Murrell • • Section 6. The City Council received and filed the subject case on September 22,.2003. On October 10, 2003, the applicant submitted an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to deny the request. Section 7. The City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on the appeal on November 10, 2003 and visited the property on November 12, 2003. Following the field trip the applicant indicated to staff in writing that he might pursue further studies of slope stability and work with staff on alternative plan that would not require a discretionary permit. However, the applicant did not withdraw the request for an appeal and requested several continuances of this case, the last being to the February 23, 2004 City Council meeting, at which time the public hearing was reconvened and concluded. Evidence was presented from all persons interested in the appeal, and fully considered by the City Council. The applicant's representatives were in attendance at all of the referenced hearings. Section 8. 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 a side yard of twenty feet (20') from the side property line in the RAS-1 zone. The applicants request a Variance to encroach into the north side yard setback to permit the retention of a 5-foot high, circular, approximately 15-feet long block wall. With respect to this request for a Variance, the City Council finds as follows: A. The City Council finds that there are no special circumstances applicable to the property that deny the property owner of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity. The block wall is located in the side yard setback and violates the setback requirements. There are other structures on the property that already encroach into the side and front yard setback, and additional encroachment would make the north side yard setback crowded with structures. The property has no unusual features or characteristics (and the applicant has pointed to none) that justify deviation from a rule generally applicable to all properties, a rule designed to maintain a buffer area between properties that is free of structures. B. The Variance is not 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 applicant cited the loss of privacy from removal of vegetation as a justification for the Variance, but the Variance will not offerthe property owner privacy, as the wall is below grade of the adjacent property and does not obstruct views from the adjoining property. The applicant also cited the loss of vegetation as a ground for the Variance, arguing that resulting erosion would be abated by the proposed wall. However, the wall is not necessary to prevent erosion -- there are other less Resolution No. 949 Murrell 2 -CD • • intrusive and lawful means permitted by the Municipal Code available to the applicant to prevent potential erosion and control drainage. C. The granting of the Variance would 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, because it would set a precedent for constructing retaining walls in the required setbacks. The subject property is not atypical in any respect and cannot be distinguished from other similar properties in the City that adhere to the setback rules. The Variance is not required for the applicant to make beneficial use of the property (the property is developed with a single family home and has been occupied and used without the wall for 44 years) and the request would constitute a special privilege to the extent that so much development would be permitted in the side yard and setback areas intended to be free and clear of buildings, serving as a buffer from streets and neighboring properties. Section 9. Based upon the foregoing findings, the City Council hereby denies the Variance application for Zoning Case No. 671 for the construction of a block wall, which encroaches into the north side yard setback, as shown on a development plan dated August 7, 2003. Section 10. The applicant's un-permitted construction of the block wall constitutes a Code violation. Therefore, in view of the foregoing, the City will forego code enforcement for a period of six months from the adoption date of this Resolution in order to accord the applicant a reasonable time within which to remove the wall, work with staff on alternate design and take whatever steps are necessary to control soil erosion consistent with the requirements of the Municipal Code. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 8TH DAY OF MARCH 2004. A "1'EST: MARILYN KERN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK Resolution No. 949 Murrell FRANK HILL, MAYOR 3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ) I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 949 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS TO DENY A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH INTO THE NORTH SIDE YARD SETBACK WITH A UNAUTHORIZED BLOCK WALL AT AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE, AT 6 PACKSADDLE ROAD EAST (LOT 31-SF), IN ZONING CASE NO. 671. (MURRELL). was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council on March 8, 2004, 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. 949 Murrell 4 DATE: TO: ATTN: FROM: SUBJECT: • • Ci4 ROIL �Pe, INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS. CALIF. 90274 (310) 377.1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 E-mail: cityotrh@aol.com Agenda Item No.: 6A Mtg. Date: 2/23/04 FEBRUARY 23, 2004 HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL CRAIG R. NEALIS, CITY MANAGER YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR ZONING CASE NO. 671: CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL OF A PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO DENY A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH INTO THE NORTH SIDE YARD SETBACK WITH AN ALMOST COMPLETED BLOCK WALL AT AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IN ZONING CASE NO. 671 AT 6 PACKSADDLE ROAD EAST (LOT 31-SF) (MURRELL). BACKGROUND 1. City Councilmembers visited the property on November 12, 2003. Following the field trip the applicant indicated to staff in writing that he may pursue further studies of slope stability and work with staff on alternative plan that would not require a discretionary permit. However, the applicant did not withdraw the request for appeal and requested continuation of this case to this evening's meeting. Last week, the applicant reported that he wants to pursue the appeal as presented and has retained an attorney. Attached is information submitted by the applicant during the Planning Commission's proceedings and to the City Councilmembers for the appeal request. 2. The Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2003-16, which is attached, on September 16, 2003, at their regular meeting denying a request for a Variance to encroach approximately nine (9) feet into the side yard setback with an unauthorized block wall. The vote was 5-0. The City Council received and filed the subject case on September 22, 2003. On October 10, 2003, the applicant submitted an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to deny the request. 3. The applicant is requesting permission to complete and retain a 5-foot high, 15 feet long block wall, which encroaches into the side yard setback. Previously, the applicants requested a Variance to complete and retain this wall and to construct a spa, which would also encroach into the side yard setback. ZC No. 671 Appeal -CC ®Pnnmrl on rieev';lod r'al,co 4. During the proceedings before the Planning Commission, the applicant withdrew the Variance request for the spa and re -applied for a modification to the original Variance request to retain the wall only. The applicants will move the spa out of the setback. 5. Attached is correspondence from the applicant explaining the justification for the Variance and the reasons for the appeal. Also attached are letters from an engineer and from the property owners, explaining the need for the wall and letters of support that were presented to the Planning Commission. The applicant states, that the wall is necessary for privacy for the owners, as well as for prevention of erosion of adjacent slope. The applicant states that he was required by the RHCA View Committee to cut down some trees in the north easement, which provided some privacy of the property, and that the wall would do the same plus prevent erosion. The wall is a continuation of an existing block wall (approved in 1961), which is located along the easement line in the side yard setback. 6. The Planning Commission found that an extension of the existing wall is not necessary to provide privacy or for erosion control and soil retention. 7. The existing house with an attached garage and the 5' high retaining wall in the side yard setback were built in 1961. In 1967 the swimming pool, a 300 square foot terrace, and a 225 square foot storage area were constructed In 1996 a 1,005 square foot addition was approved, which has been completed. 8. The total net lot area of the lot is 83,212 square feet. The property is developed with a 4,520 square foot residence, (which includes the most recent addition), 506 square foot garage, 440 square foot pool, 80 square foot reflection pond, 600 square foot terrace/service yard and 1,185 square feet of trellises and covered porches for a total of 7,331 square feet of structures. The structural coverage of the net lot is proposed to be 7,831 square'feet or 9.4% of the net lot area, which includes the future stable, (20% permitted). 9. The total lot coverage of the net lot area, including the structures and all impervious areas is 13,946 square feet or 16.7%, (35% permitted). 10. The residential building pad is 14,316 square feet. The residential building pad coverage is 7,381 square feet or 51.5%. This includes all of the existing structures and the spa. The future stable will be located on a 1,781 square foot building pad for coverage of 25.0%. 11. The maximum disturbed area is 26,316 square feet or 31.6%, (40% maximum permitted). 12. The project has been determined to be categorically exempt pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). ZC No. 671 Appeal -CC RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council review the staff report, take public testimony and provide direction to staff. 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. ZC No. 671 Appeal -CC 3 ZONING CASE NO. 671 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 (Site Plan Review required if size of structure increases by at least 1,000 sq.ft. and has the effect of increasing the size of the structure by more than 25% in a 36-month period). Grading Disturbed Area (40% maximum; any graded building pad area, any remedial grading (temporary disturbance), any graded slopes and building pad areas, and any nongraded area where impervious surfaces exist. Structural Lot Coverage (20% maximum) Total Lot Coverage (35% maximum) Building Pad Coverage (30% maximum Planning Commission guideline) Roadway Access Access to Stable and Corral Preserve Views Preserve Plants and Animals ZC No. 671 Appeal -CC EXISTING Residence with accessory structures and uses Residence Garage Swim Pool Stable Covered porch/ trellises Service Yard Refl. Pond TOTAL N/A 4,520 sq.ft. 506 sq.ft. 440 sq.ft. 0 1,185 sq.ft. 600 sq.ft. 80 sq.ft. 7,331 sq.ft. PROPOSED Variance to encroach with a wall, into side yard setback Residence Garage Swim Pool Stable Future Service Yard Spa Covered porches/ Trellises Refl. pond TOTAL None 4,520 sq.ft. 506 sq.ft. 440 sq.ft. 450 sq.ft. 600 sq.ft. 50 sq.ft. 1,185 sq.ft. 80 sq.ft. 7,831 sq.ft. 30.4% 31.6% of 83,212 square feet net lot area 8.9% 16.8% 49.7% Existing off Packsaddle Proposed off Packsaddle N/A N/A 4 9.4% 17.7% 51.5% of 14,316 square feet building pad area No change No change Planning Commission reviewed Planning Commission reviewed • [`y O� IeO//1flg [�1L3 INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 REQUEST FOR APPEAL NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377.1521 FAX: 13101377.7288 E-mail. ctyolrh@aol.com APPLICATION FILE NO. Zov\t to 9 Case No • G 71 RGsoi U k,ovt t\1n. rz or PROPERTY ADDRESS: PeLc.iksaLeiot 12b0.4 E + ISZollAve 1-4il,l.s, CA ci0249 OWNER: vtivte- eov qrv`e ( I hereby request appeal of the decision of the Planning Commission on the above referenced application(s) for the following reasons: T' to o v"10 r. t"' A c CLAP' e.. (,1 t • vl lJ to O r P 5s Cl_ lit (1 J 1 t \. (O e. ‘).p re c1 -tom c-1 0 bu ±-1. coC- -•���nev • SIGNED: DATED: FEE: (Two-thirds of original application fee.) (Dr,•r,,,i • 1• .•t.•r •, • • RESOLUTION NO. 2003-16 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DENYING A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH INTO THE NORTH SIDE YARD SETBACK WITH A PARTIALLY CONSTRUCTED BLOCK WALL AT AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE LOCATED AT 6 PACKSADDLE ROAD EAST (LOT 31-SF), IN ZONING CASE NO. 671. (MURRELL). THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Application was duly filed by Dr. and Mrs. George Murrell with respect to real property located at 6 Packsaddle Road East (Lot 31-SF), Rolling Hills, requesting a Variance to encroach into the north side yard setback to permit the retention of partially constructed block wall at an existing residence. Section 2. In October of 2002, staff was informed that a block wall allegedly in the north side yard setback was under construction on subject property. Staff investigated the complaint and confirmed that the partially constructed wall was in the side yard setback. Staff directed the property owners to cease the construction and apply to the Planning Commission for a Variance or demolish the wall. Section 3. As a result, the applicants filed for a Variance to retain the partially constructed 5-foot high block wall in the north side yard setback and to construct as spa, which would encroach into the side yard setback. The Planning Commission at the July 15, 2003, meeting, directed staff to prepare a Resolution to deny the Variance request to complete the block wall and to construct a spa, which would encroach into the north side yard setback. Section 4. Subsequently, prior to the August 2003 Planning Commission meeting, the applicants withdrew the Variance request for the block wall and construction of the spa in the side yard setback, and re -filed a modified Variance request for the partially completed wall only. The applicants propose to move the spa out of the setback. Section 5. The Planning Commission conducted duly noticed public hearings to consider the original application on June 17, 2003 and July 15, 2003 and at a field trip visit on July 1, 2003. The Planning Commission conducted duly noticed public hearing to consider the revised Variance application at the August 19, 2003 public hearing. The applicants were notified of the public hearings in writing. 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 and their representative were in attendance at the hearings. Resolution 2003-16 1 Section 6. Tiklanning Commission finds that thproject qualifies as a Class 1 Exemption Estate CEQA Guidelines, Section 15301(e)] and is therefore categorically exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act. Section 7. 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 a side yard of twenty feet (20') from the side property line in the. RAS-1 zone. The applicants request a Variance to encroach into the north side yard setback to permit the retention of a 5-foot high, circular, approximately 15-feet long block wall. With respect to this request for a Variance, the Planning Commission finds as follows: A. There are no exceptional and extraordinary circumstances and conditions applicable to the property or to the intended use that do not apply generally to the other property or class of use in the same zone because the partially constructed wall is located in the side yard setback and violates the setback requirements. There are other structure on the property that already encroach into the side and front yard setback, and additional encroachment would make the north side yard setback crowded with structures. B. The Variance is not 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 not necessary to allow the property owner privacy, as the wall is below grade of the adjacent property owner and would have no impact on privacy. In addition, the wall is not necessary to prevent erosion, as there are other means available to the applicant to prevent erosion and control drainage. C. The granting of the Variance would 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, because it would set a precendece for constructing retaining walls in the required setbacks. Section 8. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby denies the Variance application for Zoning Case No. 671 for the construction of a block wall, which encroaches into the north side yard setback, as shown on a development plan dated August 7, 2003. Resolution 2003-16 PASSED, APPROVE•ND ADOPTED THIS 16TH DAY OSEPTEMBER 2003. 7, A{ VEL WITTE, CHAIRMAN ATTEST: M. u.c+,J zIZ .4-JL4 ) MARILYN FERN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK Resolution 2003•16 3 • • STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§ CITY OF ROLLING HILLS) I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2003-16 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DENYING A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH INTO THE NORTH SIDE YARD SETBACK 1VITH A PARTIALLY CONSTRUCTED BLOCK WALL AT AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE LOCATED AT 6 PACKSADDLE ROAD EAST (LOT 31-SF), IN ZONING CASE NO. 671. (MURRELL). was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on September 16, 2003 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners DeRoy, Hankins, Margeta, Sommer and Chairman Witte. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following: Administrative Offices. f jZ 1„,) k ..;%hc-, ) DEPUTY CITY CLERK. Resolution 2003-16 4 George A. Murrell # 6 Packsaddle Road East Rolling Hills, CA 90274 August 19, 2003 Ms. Yolanta Schwartz #1 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Ref: # 671 Encl: 1. George Murrell's letter 2. Engineer's letter 3. Neighbors' responses to mailings 4. Photographs Dear Ms. Schwartz: The Planning Committee might have already reviewed George Murrell's letter and the engineer's letter. If this is the case, Mr. John Juge, designer -builder, or Dr. George Murrell, owner will be happy to answer any questions they might have. When proposals for the wall came before the Planning Committee, descriptions and inquiries were mailed to the neighbors in the area, to determine if they had any objections to the proposal, there were no objections. Mr. Fuller did have a question about the height of the wall. When he was assured the wall would be 5 feet high, during the June 17`h Planning Committee Public Hearing, he too, said he had no objections. Mr. & Mrs. William Horn and Dr. Richard Rutgers stated they had no objections and signed a letters to that effect. The Murrells have never met Mr. Joseph Ciofii & Ms. Kathy Halliday or Dr. & Mrs. Todd Lanman, so they did not feel comfortable asking them to sign a letter. Respectfully submitted, _, _4 }J .tQQ Gorge A.1Vlurrell *Drs. Richard & Joanne Rutgers # 5 Packsaddle Road East Rolling Hills, CA 90274 August 15, 2003 Ms. Yolanta Schwartz #1 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling 'lilts, CA 90274 Re: A curved concrete and steel retainer wall 5 feet high, @ 15 feet long and is to be used to provide stability and prevent soil erosion of a side yard slope. This wall is 2 feet lower than our neighbor's lawn, it cannot be seen from his home and he has no objections as stated during our last Planing Committee Public Hearing. This wall is an extension of a retainer wall 5 feet high and 70 feet long the City of Rolling Hills instructed us to build 43 years ago during the original construction of our home. This is located at the Murrell residence, # 6 Packsaddle Road East. Dear Ms. Schwartz: Sincerely, Drs. Richard & Joanne Rutgers • August 15, 2003 Ms. Yolanta Schwartz #1 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Mr. & Mrs. William G. Horn # 16 Southfield Drive Rolling Hills, CA 90274 By D.r-r�• /tom ;`� 6 AUG 1 9 2003 ciTy OF ROLLING HILLS Re: A curved concrete and steel retainer wall 5 feet high, @ 15 feet long and is to be used to provide stability and prevent soil erosion of a side yard slope. This wall is 2 feet lower than our neighbor's lawn, it cannot be seen from his home and he has no objections as stated during our last Planing Committee Public Hearing. This wall is an extension of a retainer wall 5 feet high and 70 feet long the City of Rolling Hills instructed us to build 43 years ago during the original construction of our home. This is located at the Murrell residence, # 6 Packsaddle Road East. Dear Ms. Schwartz: Sincerely, �f ice :y.. i`. V4,ti1, Mr. & Mrs. William G. Horn • August 11, 2003 Ms. Yolanta Schwartz City of Rolling llills, # 1 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 George A. Murrell # 6 Packsaddle Road East Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Obl"1-MM.0 AUG 11 2003 CITY OF ROWNG HILLS RE: 1. The July 30, 2003 cancellation of Application for Variance 2. The August 4, 2003 Variance Request for Hearing This correspondence is in reference to the additional information and evidence mentioned in # 1. Above. Dear Yolanta: During the original construction of our Rolling Hills home 43 years ago, the city instructed us to build a retainer wall at the easement line, 5 feet high and 70 feet long to retain and stabilize the slope and to prevent soil erosion. About two years ago the RHCA View Preservation Committee cut two citrus trees to the ground and ordered the removal of the other plants, roots and foliage on our slope in order to create a view for our neighbor. Before their removal, these plants provided stability to our slope, controlled soil erosion and provided some privacy for our yard. Since our yard is approximately 7 feet lower than our neighbor's, removal of the plants on the slope, put stability and erosion control at risk and reduced the privacy in our yard to none. To protect our neighbor's new view, the View Committee significantly restricted our replanting the slope, however, even if there were no restrictions, the plants and the slope would still require interim support and erosion control for several years until the plants matured sufficiently to hold the slope unaided. This is particularly unfeasible for us because of our age and the time required to achieve stability of the slope. I respect the charge to the Planning Committee for its hesitancy to grant variances freely, and I also respect the fact that some requests having merit may have suitable alternatives that don't require a variance and finally, other variance requests with merit for which there are no suitable alternatives, yet, a variance may be granted under the proper circumstances. • Page 2 oil • Our recent Application for a Variance was for a spa and a wall. We were shocked to hear that both were denied and that the wall was to be torn down. When we asked for help, we received some helpful suggestions in a few days. 'We followed through with these suggestions and in a few more days, developed a suitable resolution by positioning the spa outside of the setback area for which no variance was required. The wall is a different story. We consulted with a building designer, a builder, some engineers and their answers were all the same, namely, the wall is the best way to resolve the stability and erosion problem, it is designed well, it's strong, it's already in place and there are no objections to it. The wall for which we are seeking a variance was built essentially as an extension of the original retainer wall of 43 years ago. It was to serve the same purpose of slope stability and erosion control, it is 5 feet high, about 15 feet long, it is curved for strength and esthetics and is intended to retain less than 3 vertical feet of slope. The are no objections from any of our neighbors, the height is 2 feet lower than our next door neighbor's lawn, he cannot see the wall from his place, it doesn't bother his view and he has no objections as he stated at the last Planning Committee Hearing. Certainly through no fault of yours, Anne-Merelie and I have been living in a small condominium in downtown Los Angeles for the last 7 years while trying to complete the restoration of our Rolling Hills home. We have tried very hard to understand the policies, procedures and what is required of us to make a proper presentation. I had no idea it would take this long to restore our home, for if I had, we would have never undertaken it. Happily, most of that time is now behind us, but regrettably, so is our future. I hope this time, the Planning Committee will be sufficiently satisfied with our application to grant us the variance so we can get on with finishing our home while there are a few more years to enjoy it. Thank you, most sincerely, tkt George A. Murrell l.L 11s21 PA L O \'ER[)ES na Engineering ;unISIFt,r Ittrill c'rnt,tthittc; August 8, 2003 Mr. John Juge Juge Design Group 4648 Marloma Dr. Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274 Subject: Wall at #6 Packsaddle Road East, Rolling Hills, CA John: ., • 60274 Paseo Deheuas PO. Box 2211 Rancho Santa Fe C;hlornia 92067 pvecrslw earthhnk net R58 759 243.1 858 759 8324 FAX I have inspected the added wall located on the North East end of the existing dwelling at #6 Packsaddle Road East, Rolling Hills, CA. It appears that the removal of trees and shrubs has threatened the stability of the slope and caused a problem with erosion. I would strongly advise you not to demolish the recently constructed masonry %vall as it appears to be the solution to these problems. I • Request For Variance Respectfully submitted by By Anne-Merelie & George Murrell November 10.2003 I (o George A. Murrell # 6 Packsaddle Road East Rolling Hills, CA 90274 October 30.2003 To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Attn: Craig R. Nealis, City Manager Yolanta Schwartz, Planning Director From: Anne-Merelie and George A. Murrell Ref: Resolution No. 2003-16 Subj. Request for Appeal Thank you for taking the time to review my Appeal. I realize your are serving the property owners of Rolling Hills according to the established guidelines. I'm sure some of your requests have merit and deserve a Variance, while others may be frivolous and do not. You have a hard job to do, with hard decisions to make. I appreciate the time you devote seeking resolutions to our problems. REQUEST I am requesting the approval of a Variance to retain a steel bar reinforced wall, 5' high, 8" thick and 15' long to retain, add stability and prevent erosion of a slope located in our setback. Construction of this wall was completed on October 9, 2002; it is in place and has served its purpose well during the 2002-2003 rainy season. Please Note: City of Rolling Hills' publications have erroneously referred to this wall as "Partially Constructed," when in reality, construction of the wall was completed on October 9, 2002. The error may have been due to metal tabs the contractor placed on the sides of the wall to retain whatever esthetic treatment will be decided, (ivy, vines, plaster, or natural stones.) This will occur as the final landscape plan is being developed. 0 2 • BACKGROUND In 1955, we bought a problem, hillside lot in Rolling Hills, comprised mostly of deep canyons and ravines which would require considerable grading and a retaining wall to develop the only building site available into a suitable building pad. In 1961, we graded the lot down 7' to develop a building pad and built a house requiring a long retaining wall. We planted numerous trees and shrubs to stabilize the hillside and prevent erosion of the loose slopes resulting from the grading. The plants also provided beautification of the property and privacy for our neighbors and ourselves. We finished our original home in 1961 and our planting program served us well by providing stabilized, non -eroding hillsides, beautification of the landscape and privacy for everyone for the next 35 years. In 1995, the major factor in the remodeling of our house was the assurance of our privacy and slope stabilization by the shrubs and trees we planted there 40 years ago. This would permit us to extend our house eastward, to build a spa in (Tab 1) the northeast side yard and install large picture windows in our bathroom, shower and bedroom to enhance our view of the canyon and ocean beyond. As requested, we constructed a wooden, 2x4 frame depicting the silhouette outline of the extent of our proposed construction for any objections. There were no objections, our plans were approved and we commenced construction in 1996. In 2001, several years after the major portion of our remodeling project had been completed, our neighbor of 8 years complained about his view, for the first time. We • 3 • answered his letters, removed 6 large trees at our expense (S6,000.00,) but he Iv as not satisfied. The View Preservation Committee became involved, made site visits and decided 14 more trees should be removed. When I asked one of the committee members about our privacy, he said you don't have any rights. An arborist, Richard Dykzuel, was consulted and he said only 3 trees should be removed, some of the others just needed trimming and others were not located in the view corridor. But, in addition, the View Committee ordered the removal of the trees, shrubs and other foliage that stabilized our slope on our north side yard. Finally, the View Committee conceded not to cut down our other trees if we kept the trees in the corridor trimmed. The committee concluded by restricting any replanting on the north side yard slope that might compromise our neighbor's view. Our neighbor now has a view down into our bathroom, our shower, our bathtub, dressing area and down into our side yard, the only location suitable for our spa. (Tab 1) Therein lies the cause and the perpetuation of the loss of our privacy and stability of our slope, a problem not of our doing but one created over our protest. Since planting was no longer an option, we searched for other remedies for our lost privacy and unstable slope problems. We decided our privacy, at best, would have to be left to our imagination as long as replanting remained restricted. However, the slope instability and erosion problem could be readily remedied by extending our original 1961 retaining wall with an additional wall that would stabilize and support the slope. The new wall ►vas designed to be a 5' high, 15' long, 8" thick • 4 • concrete block, steel bar reinforced wall, built in an arc in harmony ►with the future spa and covered ►with ivy, vines, plaster or natural stones for esthetics, a natural, rustic look compatible with our proposed landscape plan rather than the usual straight, flat, plain, ►white wall. (Tab 1) Our contractor submitted the plans to the LA County Building Department. The inspector thought the ►►all was an excellent solution to the problem of bank stabilization and erosion control and he affirmed that a permit ►was not necessary because the ►wall ►would be retaining less than 3' and ►was not over 5' high. On that basis and concern about the possibility of erosion damage incase of a hea►y rain, ►►'e proceeded with the construction of the ►wall making sure it ►was not over 5' high and did not encroach into the easement. The ►wall was completed and in place by October 9, 2002. The builder left steel bars protruding upward out of the top of the wall temporarily, indicating they would be shortened and bent over flat and used along with the metal tabs to retain ►whatever esthetic treatment that would used to be decided upon in the final landscape plan. Upon seeing the steel rods, our neighbor must have thought the wall ►was still under construction and ►was going to be higher than 5'. We received a notice from the City to stop all further construction of the ►wall. On their site visit, members of the Planning Commission must have also concluded the ►wall ►was still under construction because of their several incorrect references to the "partially constructed" wall in their publications and notices from the City. In reality, • 5 • construction on the wall had been completed and was in place stabilizing the slope several days before we received notice to stop all further construction. When our neighbor was assured the wall was not going to be over 5' high, he stated in the Planning Commission open hearing that he had no further objections to the wall. I was surprised when we were instructed to apply for a Variance for the spa and the wall because of the LA County Building Inspector saying we didn't need a permit. I was even more surprised when we were told we also needed a Variance on our 3' entry stair walls, the two trestles and the reflection pool. I remember in 1996 when our Architect/Building Contractor was building the stairs, trestles and pool, she was very precise not to go into the easement. She mentioned having approval started construction of the stair walls, trestles and pool and was completed in 1996. The present Planning Commission approved the Variance for the front stair walls, trestles and pool but denied the spa and wall in the northeast side yard. Lyman Merrill was our contractor for our original house in 1961. He was an excellent building contractor and managed all our building affairs with Rolling Hills. We never discussed Rolling Hills building affairs so we knew nothing about setbacks, easements, permits, or Variances. Some years later, we contracted with Vicky Barbieri, a licensed Architect and Building Contractor, to design and construct the remodeling of our home in 1996. She too managed all the building affairs with Rolling Hills, but only discussed easements with us, stressed the fact that we could not build into the easements. Unknowingly, we still had not been • 6 • educated about the existence of setbacks, the two separate Roiling Hills organizations, permits and Variances. Was it any wonder then, when the County Building Inspector affirmed the wall plan and said no permits were required, I was ready to proceed, not realizing there were other steps to be taken. When a Variance requirement for the wall and spa was explained to me by City Staff, I started to understand, but could not grasp why we needed a Variance for the entry stairs walls, trestles and reflection pool. These were approved by "Rolling Hills" and built 8 years ago in 1996. After additional patient tutoring by City Staff, I began to realize about the existence of and some of the differences between the two separate organizations, The City of Rolling Hills and The Rolling Hills Community Association, as well as Variances, permits, setbacks vs. easements, and the like. I absolutely did not commence construction of the wall intending to avoid any Rolling Hills regulations and I do apologize for my lack of knowledge about Rolling Hills affairs, which caused me to inadvertently, make an error. When the Variance for the wall and spa was denied, the spa was relocated (Tab 1) out of the setback where it would no longer require a Variance. To effectively serve its purpose of stabilization of the slope and erosion prevention, the wall would have to be in the same location as the slope which, regrettably, was in the setback area. Because of necessity, the wall was built in place next the slope with construction completed on October 9, 2002. Our request for a Variance for the wall was denied. • 7 • RESPONSE TO VARIANCE REQUIRED FINDINGS & SECTIION 7 (Tab 21 A. The exceptional and extraordinary circumstances are that the hillside lot we purchased in 1955 was a problem lot comprised of deep canyons and ravines on the cast, south and west sides leaving one, very small, limited building site located at the north boundary. Considerable grading was required up to the easement line in order to create an adequate building pad. The resulting slope required a'retaining wall 5' high, 8" thick and 70' long running the length of the house. It was not continued at that time to stabilize the remaining, unprotected eastern extension of the slope because of the additional cost. (Tab 1) Instead, we controlled this slope by planting trees and shrubs with a suitable root system potential. Once matured, these plantings stabilized the slope, minimized soil erosion and provided privacy very satisfactorily for 35 years. The Planning Commission recently suggested planting the slope with plants rather than having a wall. Planting that slope with substantial plants is an excellent suggestion that worked well for us for 35 years and would still work today if it were not for the View Committee's restrictions on planting with adequate plants. Possibly the Planning Commission was not aware of the planting restrictions placed in that area by the View Committee. I have not heard of any other satisfactory suggestions that could have resolved the slope stability and erosion problem nearly as well or reliably as the concrete wall did through last year's 2002-2003 rainy season. • 8 • 1. The wall was recommended as the solution to the problems by Paul Christenson, P.E., a registered professional engineer, who wrote in his letter of August 8, 2003, "I have inspected the added wall on the North East End of the existing dwelling a #6 Packsaddle Road East, Rolling Hills, CA. It appears that the removal of trees and shrubs has threatened the stability of the slope and caused a problem with erosion. I would strongly advise you not to demolish the recently constructed masonry wall as it appears to be the solution to these problems." (Please see Tab 2) 1. The wall was completed and in place on October 9, 2002. Since there were no incidents in compliance with your publication referred to below, the wall functioned well during the 2002-2003 rainy season in that: "...ncople or property are not exposed to landslides. mudslides. erosion. or land subsidence..." as these requirements appear in paragraphs K. and., L page 4, of the August 25, 2003, publication of RESOLUTION NO. 2003-15, FROM: YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL, ATTN: CRAIG R. NEALIS, CITY MANAG ER. 2. There are no objections to the wall from anyone including our neighbors in the vicinity. 3. The wall is below grade and is not visible to our neighbors and does not impact on anyone's view. 9 With rceard to setback requirements, I have described, on pages 4, 5, & 6 of this report; the circumstances of my not knowing about setbacks until recently when City office staff very graciously instructed me. Had I known, I certainly mould have applied for the variance in the prescribed manner. When I heard from the County that a permit was not required, I thought it was permissible to proceed as long as we stayed out of the easement. I sincerely apologize for my error. Crowdine on the north side with structures, is due to the nature of our problem lot. On page 2, I described having to grade our lot 7' down back to the easement line for sufficient room to develop a suitable building pad. The north side yard was the only building site because there were no other choices, we couldn't have built to the west because of a deep ravine and the proximity of the street and we couldn't have built to the south or east because of the canyons. In our original house, we had a decorative Iron Gate supported by 2 decorative stone walls on either side of an entry type sidewalk going straight to our front entry, but people still couldn't find the front entrance to our house. Instead, they used our back entrance that led directly into our back kitchen area, swimming pool and other personal areas. After years of this, I asked an architect `where we went wrong. He said you did not go wrong, your front door is in the only place it can be because of the configuration of our lot. He advised that we build inviting structures that lead directly to the front entrance. We followed his advice, our front entrance is still in the same place on the north side of the • 10 • House but now, people have no problem finding it because of the front entrance stairs, trestles and a wide entry stone walk. B. This Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of our privacy and security, as we once had for 35 years, was lost as a view was being created for a neighbor whose property has never had a view for the last 44 years since before 1960. We can never hope to have anything near the level of privacy and security we once had as long as we are denied the right to adequately replant the slope by having the planting restrictions remain in force. However, a little of feeling of privacy and security is better than no privacy at all and the wall does provide that. (Tab 3) Although the main purpose of the wall is to support and preserve the stability of the slope, prevent erosion, mudslides, landslides and subsidence, all of which helps protect the neighbor's part of the slope too. But even at a height of only 5"this wall does indeed have a positive impact on our privacy, especially for the proposed spa compared to a possible eroding slope 2' or 3' high inclining directly upward into the neighbors yard.(Tab 3) The wall also imparts a feeling of being more private, more secure, enhances esthetic surroundings, a boundary, a welcome barrier, a comfort zone, a pleasant interruption in one's line of sight, all important to those using the spa which in my case, is therapeutic as well as recreational (See Orthopedist's letter Tab 1) The wall is necessary to control erosion because the other means, such as planting, as suggested by the Planning Commission, are no longer an option because of the planting restrictions and possible view impairment on that slope 11 in that area. If there were no restrictions and time was not a concern, I would prefer planting shrubs and trees rather than the wall because we could regain some of privacy too. I know of no other suitable remedies other than the wall and no other suggestions have been made that I'm aware of. Construction of the wall was completed October 9, 2002, it is in place and it functioned well during the 2002-2003 rainy season. Paul Christenson, P.E., a Registered Professional Engineer, writes the following, "I have inspected the added wall located on the North East end of the existing dwelling at #6 Packsaddle Road East, Rolling Hills, CA. It appears that the removal of trees and shrubs has threatened the stability of the slope and caused a problem with erosion. I would strongly advise you not to demolish the recently constructed masonry wall as it appears to be the solution to these problems. C. Granting a Variance for this wall would set a Precedent for others to build walls in setback area which would be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements...When the incident of precedent was used in connection with our wall, I reviewed the 1991 plot plan of the property immediately north of us and made the following observations: In contrast with our problem lot, the neighboring lot is large and flat appears to have several other excellent building options rather than encroaching into the setbacks as has occurred over several years by several different owners. 12 The plot plan shows there is a 50' setback plus a 10' easement on the south property line. Those structures located in the in the setback area arc listed and shaded black. (Please see Plot Plan, Tab 4 ) 1. A full guest house complete with concrete porch and walks 2. 1/41h- 1/3rd of the main house is `located within the setback and surrounded by brick or concrete patios/walks 3. A portion of the main house crosses into the east setback 4. A swimming pool with a spa, planter and decks extending into the easement 5. Wood rail fence crossing over our property line, landscaped, RR Ties, Lawn I have tried to question the violation of our property line or the swimming pool deck built well into the easement, only to be rebuked by the View Committee and having my remarks brushed aside twice, by the Planning Commission. Now that precedent has been introduced as another reason for denying my request for a Variance, I wonder if you could take a closer look at the precedents next door. Whether these multiple incidents were approved or not, it is difficult for me to understand why my small request for an even smaller wall that is useful, functional, a registered engineer approved, property enhancing, with a no objections from anyone else little wall, to help us partially resolve a serious privacy, slope stability and erosion problem, caused by the View Committee but partially resolvable by the Planning Commission with an approval of the Variance for our wall. For your interest, the next page is a worksheet on the square footage of encroachment into the setback of the property next door. SETBACK COVERAGE: Our wall n 15 S.F., Property next door 5.016 S.F. J--t-� n lZ-ly - &rLJ T- 4-:-4-t 1..4 t F-•1. e-- 11-4 Az 12.--'' t • • Irt ,•••••—.w � . '1"t} =tu,rY.• ..._. w• _•• _ _,..._ ...._. 6,5 l h � ' ct=- t(t ; 4-r ,�L�tt,s�tr�s t ; •4- ( r1''" ) \tiA .41 Y. •• ('11,-F .,:;) ::::� . �,�...�.� . � ''�'i�- _ tom; -' t -4 r• moo` �:L, .i \\ Y T T w �7 1 %� {+ r` ,.�j '("1•�.� ��y�� t `�~(+f [ 1 r+1 l r1 .l'�+✓. f3�t./ J r\ ."� r it; '1'' 1; � -. '+� 1 �7 `�•:��: ` j^.' (,.,Fr•1.`-'•� Y v i•�'..�^.1 "C� pia �c-s �✓ �Yi�i�=-t'�. I (le, - 1 t-k- Tt; �.—t•t- ��� -t... P - --A- WI'a._ l 4 J t l4_4 r y P— LL vJ_ ' ::Gi>z:•C+�L. ,mac -Gja �:� • t•i•r{ =..' Cr!' se The enclosed worksheet «'as prepared by our contractor, Mr. John Juge and he will be happy to review it with you and answer any questions you may have. I believe I have answered all of the Planning Commission's objections unless there had been punitive reason for the denials. If this is the case, (See pgs 4, 5, & 6) then I've still answered to my best ability. Through my own fault, I did not know or understand about Rolling Hills Organizations, setbacks, permits and procedures, for which I again apologize. I realize that our slope stability and particularly, our privacy will probably never be regained as they once were but if we can have the wall for our restless slope and pretend we have some privacy we can all get on with our Iives. I appreciate your consideration. Thank you. Respectfully submitted, George A. Murrell *LIAM J. MEALER. M.D. • Dtplortlatr.. American Board of Orthopedic tirgcry 1 101 N SEPL'L\'ED.\ t3LVD . SPITE 104. \t.\NI0ATTAN t3FACI I. CA r026G I.1I111 S4ti•34G1 FAX 13101 3413•6..041 June 9, 2003 City of Rolling Hills No. 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, Ca 90274 RE: Public hearing before the Planning Commission Zoning Case No. 666 To Whom It May Concern: By [gsgEBTLR JUN102CO3 CITY OF HOUJNG HILLS Dr. Murrell has been a patient of mine since 1994. He has a history of left shoulder rotator cuff problems, arthritis in both thumbs with significant cartilage loss, weakened wrists and recently, a torn muscle and possible rotator cuff problem in his right arm. His arms, thumbs and hands continue to become quite sore. Movement and function is limited and he requires pain medication daily. A highly effective and recommended therapy used in orthopedics to lessen pain, reduce joint and muscle stiffness, increase movement and promote healing is frequent soaking of the affected areas in warm water combined with mild exercise. The Jacuzzi type spa is the preferred type of equipment for most therapy because of ease of use, duration and constancy of heat, gentle exercise and ease of appendage manipulation due to the floatation effect and high patient compliance because of convenience and relative improved comfort level. I believe frequent warm water soaking combined with mild exercise would significantly improve the condition of Dr. Murrell's shoulders, arms and hands and possibly, reduce his medication requirements. it seem the most sensible way to accomplish this is with a Jacuzzi type spa. Sincerely, ,l 1 i, '`v • William J. lvt alcr, M. WJM:vb may^ 11. .G�u _Corn Oeted---1 , ,....,... (s.) L ,,,,,,..„, a PA 17, ,, tI p $ �. P ....� BAT N(ROOM I P I E I I I 0 1 DFFL !`d iYOy • [11.:IzaPALOS 1=51 VVERDES Erigitteering c:iviI:1mI trut:IL:roICi1st11ti11,� August 8, 2003 Mr. John Juge Juge Design Group 4648 Marloma Dr. Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274 Subject: Wall at ##6 Packsaddle Road East, Rolling Hills, CA John: • 6027-I Paseo Deticias P.O. Box 2211 Rancho Santa Fe California 92067 pvecrsl @' earihlink.net 858 759 2434 858 759 8324 FAX I have inspected the added wall located on the North East end of the existing dwelling at n6 Packsaddle Road East, Rolling Hills, CA. It appears that the removal of trees and shrubs has threatened the stability of the slope and caused a problem with erosion. I would strongly advise you not to demolish the recently constructed masonry wall as it appears to be the solution to these problems. ,,',zFpcSSt+r�. �+:� G14". ,'•`may. 1 J< j' � u 7182 9 1 Paul Christenson, P.E. ; = f 1J31;0; OFcM-Y VARIANCE REQUIRED FINDINGS . s 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. Section 7. Sections 17.38.010 through 17.38.050 of the Rolling Hills A. There are no exceptional and extraordinary circumstances and conditions applicable to the property or to the intended use that do not apply generally to the other property or class of use in the same zone because the partially constructed wall is located in the side yard setback and violates the setback requirements. There are other structure on the property that already encroach into the side and front yard setback, and additional encroachment would make the north side yard setback crowded with st: uctures. B. The Variance is not 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 not necessary to allow the property owner privacy, as the wall is below grade of the' adjacent property owner and would have no impact on privacy. In addition, the wallris not necessary to prevent erosion, as there are other means available to the applicant to prevent erosion and control drainage. C. The granting of the Variance would 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, because it would set a precendece for constructing retaining walls in the required setbacks. Section 8. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby denies the Variance application for Zoning Case No. 671 for the construction of a block wall, which encroaches into the north side yard setback, as shown on a development plan dated August 7, 2003. • • George A. Murrell, DDS 6 Packsaddle Road East Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Sunday, November 16, 2003 City of Rolling Hills Attn: Craig Nealis, City Manager Yolanta Schwartz, Planning Director #1 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hill, CA 90274 Dear Craig and Yolanta: By NOV 1 7 2003 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS It has been suggested that we pursue further studies of the slope problem with our contractor and possibly some guidance from you, to develop alternatives that would not require the vote of the City Council. We must go out of town early tomorrow morning and will not return until Thursday, November 19, 2003. We've decided to follow this suggestion so would you be kind enough to cancel our meeting with the City Council scheduled for Tuesday, November 24, 2003, I'll call you when we return. In the meantime, thank you very much. Sincerely, George A. Murrell Sent By: GIROUX GLASS INC; 213/6593bu; Jan-o-u4 :)..4131 1•03 • . •1i 1$: hsev-x-/VT . .1 • _ • yre•movic_ - avrrt2.1t- v Cry. .J4) 1•0&0401 ard • tt Cg 4,„ t 4+3 vcru-4. „AL) iiP14 co S2 hvipzA z) tit .Art vr•s G44. ct.dits0 r ic-A21 vitn I 2.. "ON LieLt -z . aszt firi P 1 iiii il 4SVC2r014 .#!•Ald" I JAI wjr4tYj ! ......4 Qfp ait . ii-rtit Iniyo ----z. +0 'pm •yv..f.c. -19.-yril ‘910 • _--4 .rt.b ••• ' • 1A1 -pD G...il-cN --3,1 4nAA D (.., .. -14 -Ji V rQvirtrIA tr*-vvti •?Dr trilW1‘1" . 1)LLa (VD ii"..111`'g r-21 trtdJ. -'-se saei •fr vaL4122. • U .!! . ' • 11' • • iftt.L. ;,. 11! STUN ON . 40 A 1 I) I. tag? Pi1! nvr jyIJ 44. DATE: TO: ATTN: FROM: SUBJECT: • • C1iy o/ R0/f4 �eP 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.: 6A Mtg. Date: 1/12/04 JANUARY 12, 2004 HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL CRAIG R. NEALIS, CITY MANAGER YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR ZONING CASE NO. 671: CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL OF A PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO DENY A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH INTO THE NORTH SIDE YARD SETBACK WITH AN ALMOST COMPLETED BLOCK WALL AT AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IN ZONING CASE NO. 671 AT 6 PACKSADDLE ROAD EAST (LOT 31-SF) (MURRELL). BACKGROUND 1. Councilmembers visited the property on November 12, 2003. Mr. John Juge, the applicant's contractor gave a brief history of the project and explained the reasons for the wall. 2. On Monday, November 17, 2003 staff received a letter from Dr. Murrell, which is attached, requesting continuance of this case. On January 6, 2004, the applicants requested further continuance. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council continue Zoning Case No. 671 to the January 26, 2004 City Council meeting. ®Printed or; Recycled Paper • • 't George A. Murrell, DDS 6 Packsaddle Road East Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Sunday, November 16, 2003 City of Rolling Hills Attn: Craig Nealis, City Manager Yolanta Schwartz, Planning Director #1 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hill, CA 90274 Dear Craig and Yolanta: By NOVP{Einqi 1 7 2003 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS It has been suggested that we pursue further studies of the slope problem with our contractor and possibly some guidance from you, to develop alternatives that would not require the vote of the City Council. We must go out of town early tomorrow morning and will not return until Thursday, November 19, 2003. We've decided to follow this suggestion so would you be kind enough to cancel our meeting with the City Council scheduled for Tuesday, November 24, 2003, I'll call you when we return. In the meantime, thank you very much. Sincerely, George A. Murrell 3• <waevts vo.a.uef • 40C. e:t' c: o�� ciA.4. is la C14 cl Roiling Jh/'/, FRANK E. HILL Mayor THOMAS F. HEINSHEIMER Mayor Pro Tern DR. JAMES BLACK Councilmember B. ALLEN LAY Councilmember GODFREY PERNELL, D.D.S. Councilmember November 25, 2003 Mr. George A. Murrell, DDS 6 Packsaddle Road East Rolling Hills, CA 90274 INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377.1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 E-mail: cityofrh@aol.com SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL OF A PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION TO DENY A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH INTO THE NORTH SIDE YARD SETBACK WITH A PARTIALLY CONSTRUCTED BLOCK WALL AT AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IN ZONING CASE NO. 671 AT 6 PACKSADDLE ROAD EAST. (LOT 31-SF) (MURRELL). Dear Dr. Murrell: At the regular City Council meeting held Monday, November 24, 2003, the City Council approved your request for a continuance of your appeal of your Zoning Case. Although this case was technically continued to the next meeting of the City Council scheduled for December 8, 2003, the City Council will not conduct a meeting until Monday, January 12, 2004 due to the City Council Holiday Open House on December 8th and a tradition of not holding a City Council meeting on the 41h Monday in December. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me or Planning Director Yolanta Schwartz. Thank you for your cooperation and support. We look forward to working with you regarding your project. Sincerely, /4/ Craig R. Nealis City Manager CRN:mlk 11/25/03murrcll.ltr cc: City Council Yolanta Schwartz, Planning Director Mr. Joe Juge ®Printed on Il :yrI l I'nt'rr:r DATE: TO: ATTN: FROM: SUBJECT: • City apeo een9 • INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377.1521 FAX: (310) 377.7288 E-mail: cityotrh@aol.com Agenda Item No.: 6A Mtg. Date: 11/24/03 NOVEMBER 24, 2003 HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL CRAIG R. NEALIS, CITY MANAGER YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR ZONING CASE NO. 671: CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL OF A PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO DENY A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH INTO THE NORTH SIDE YARD SETBACK WITH AN ALMOST COMPLETED BLOCK WALL • AT AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IN ZONING CASE NO. 671 AT 6 PACKSADDLE ROAD EAST (LOT 31-SF) (MURRELL). BACKGROUND 1. Councilmembers visited the property on November 12, 2003. Mr. John Juge, the applicant's contractor gave a brief history of the project and explained the reasons for the wall. 2. On Monday, November 17, 2003 staff received a letter from Dr. Murrell, which is attached, requesting continuance of this case. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council continue Zoning Case No. 671 to the next City Council meeting. ®PrintLfl on Recyelod f'>gvs • George A. Murrell, DDS 6 Packsaddle Road East Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Sunday, November 16, 2003 City of Rolling Hills Attn: Craig Nealis, City Manager Yolanta Schwartz, Planning Director #1 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hill, CA 90274 Dear Craig and Yolanta: By NOV 1 7 2003 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS It has been suggested that we pursue further studies of the slope problem with our contractor and possibly some guidance from you, to develop alternatives that would not require the vote of the City Council. We must go out of town early tomorrow morning and will not return until Thursday, November 19, 2003. We've decided to follow this suggestion so would you be kind enough to cancel our meeting with the City Council scheduled for Tuesday, November 24, 2003, I'll call you when we return. In the meantime, thank you very much. Sincerely, George A. Murrell • M MEMORANDUM TO FILE: NOVEMBER 10, 2003 SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO.671, 6 PACKSADDLE ROAD — APPEAL OF A PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION, (MURRELL), AND ZONING CASE NO. 665 — TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 22333, ULLRICH, 5 PINE TREE LANE At the November 10, 2003 City Council meeting, the Council scheduled a field trip for the above cases for Wednesday, November 12, 2003, at 7:30 am. Since staff did not have time to prepare a separate staff report, (November 11, 2003 is a holiday -Veterans Day, and City Hall is closed on that day), the staff report from November 10, 2003 City Council meeting will be utilized in the field. An agenda was prepared and posted on Monday, November 10, 2003. • City c r • RO /ling crir Ei ppal Q-, 1:3n a'rat DATE: NOVEMBER2003 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS. CALIF. 90274 (310) 377.1521 FAX: (310) 377.7288 E-mail: cityotit*aol.com Agenda Item No.: 6A Mtg. Date: 11/10/03 ATTN: CRAIG R. NEALIS, CITY MANAGER FROM: YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 671: CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL OF A PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO DENY A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH INTO THE NORTH SIDE YARD SETBACK WITH A PARTIALLY CONSTRUCTED BLOCK WALL AT AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IN ZONING CASE NO. 671 AT 6 PACKSADDLE ROAD EAST (LOT 31- SF) (MURRELL). BACKGROUND 1. The Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2003-16, which is attached, on September 16, 2003, at their regular meeting denying a request for a Variance to encroach approximately nine (9) feet into the side yard setback with a partially constructed wall. The vote was 5-0. The City Council received and filed the subject case on September 22, 2003. 2. On October 10, 2003, the applicant submitted an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to deny the request. A public hearing was set for October 27, 2003, at which time the applicant requested continuation of this case to tonight's meeting. 3. The applicant is requesting permission to complete and retain a 5-foot high, 15 feet long block wall, which encroaches into the side yard setback. Previously, the applicants requested a Variance to complete and retain this wall and to construct a spa, which would also encroach into the side yard setback. 4. During the proceedings before the Planning Commission, the applicants withdrew the Variance request for the spa and re -applied for a modification to the original Variance request to retain the wall only. The applicants will move the spa out of the setback. ZC No.671 Appeal -CC • • 5. Attached is correspondence from the applicant explaining the justification for the Variance and the reasons for the appeal. Also attached are letters from an engineer and from the property owners, explaining the need for the wall and letters of support that were presented to the Planning Commission. The applicant states that the wall is necessary for privacy for the owners, as well as for prevention of erosion of adjacent slope. The applicant states that he was required by the RHCA View Committee to cut down some trees in the north easement, which provided some privacy of the property, and that the wall would do the same plus prevent erosion. The wall is a continuation of an existing block wall (approved in 1961), which is located along the easement line in the side yard setback. 6. The Planning Commission found that the extension of the wall is not necessary to provide privacy or for erosion control and soil retention. 7. The existing house with an attached garage and the 5' high retaining wall in the side yard setback were built in 1961. In 1967, the swimming pool, a 300 square foot terrace, and a 225 square foot storage area were constructed In 1996 a 1,005 square foot addition was approved. 8. The total net lot area of the lot is 83,212 square feet. The property is developed with a 4,520 square foot residence, (which includes the most recent addition), 506 square foot garage, 440 square foot pool, 80 square foot reflection pond, 600 square foot terrace/service yard and 1,185 square feet of trellises and covered porches for a total of 7,331 square feet of structures. The structural coverage of the net lot is proposed to be 7,831 square feet or 9.4% of the net lot area, which includes the future stable, (20% permitted). 9. The total lot coverage of the net lot area, including the structures and all impervious areas is 13,946 square feet or 16.7%, (35% permitted). 10. The residential building pad is 14,316 square feet. The residential building pad coverage is 7,381 square feet or 51.5%. This includes all of the existing structures and the spa. The future stable will be located on a 1,781 square foot building pad for coverage of 25.0%. 11. The maximum disturbed area is 26,316 square feet or 31.6%, (40% maximum permitted). 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 open the public hearing, take public testimony and provide direction to staff. ZC No. 67I Appeal•CC • 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. ZC No. 671 Appeal -CC • • r .. ZONING CASE NO. 671 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 (Site Plan Review required if size of structure increases by at least 1,000 sq.ft. and has the effect of increasing the size of the structure by more than 25% in a 36-month period). Grading Disturbed Area (40% maximum; any graded building pad area, any remedial grading (temporary disturbance), any graded slopes and building pad areas, and any nongraded area where impervious surfaces exist. Structural Lot Coverage (20% maximum) Total Lot Coverage (35% maximum) Building Pad Coverage (30% maximum Planning Commission guideline) Roadway Access Access to Stable and Corral Preserve Views Preserve Plants and Animals ZC No. 671 Appeal -CC EXISTING Residence with accessory structures and uses Residence Garage Swim Pool Stable Covered porch/ trellises Service Yard Refl. Pond TOTAL N/A 30.4% 8.9% 16.8% 4,520 sq.ft. 506 sq.ft. 440 sq.ft. 0 1,185 sq.ft. 600 sq.ft. 80 sq.ft. 7,331 sq.ft. 49.7% Existing off Packsaddle Proposed off Packsaddle N/A N/A PROPOSED Variance to encroach with a wall, into side yard setback Residence Garage Swim Pool Stable Future Service Yard Spa Covered porches/ Trellises Refl. pond TOTAL None 4,520 sq.ft. 506 sq.ft. 440 sq.ft. 450 sq.ft. 600 sq.ft. 50 sq.ft. 1,185 sq.ft. 80 sq.ft. 7,831 sq.ft. 31.6% of 83,212 square feet net lot area 9.4% 17.7% 51.5% of 14,316 square feet building pad area No change No change Planning Commission reviewed Planning Commission reviewed • City opeo eenS _ueP REQUEST FOR APPEAL • INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS. CALIF. 90274 (310) 377.1521 FAX: (3101 377-7288 E-mail. utyofrh@aol.com APPLICATION FILE NO. Zovv: to z) Case No. G 71 RGSoi u.knI vl tO. 2 oo1-1(0 PROPERTY ADDRESS: -. Packsazd d le 120a d E a5+ gol1.;v3 I411.1s, aA clD?-'7-f OWNER: 4vtvxe- Meoeiis olrge. Mort^e ( I hereby request appeal of the decision of the Planning Commission on the above referenced application(s) for the following reasons: Tlno V'Qr', .,rna CA" e t5 •t 1•✓1 19 toor• P.55 of d Lai 6e_ • r, p.1 L f r re cl y o tn h j -hk SIGNED: DATED: FEE: -P0d c'4 CC' •-obey• (Two-thirds of original application fee.) DATE: TO: ATTN: FROM: SUBJECT: • C14 oI R0ftL Jhf/3 INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS. CALIF. 90274 (310) 377.1521 FAX: (310) 377.7288 Email: cityoirh@aol.com Agenda Item No.: 6A Mtg. Date: 11/10/03 NOVEMBER 10, 2003 HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL CRAIG R. NEALIS, CITY MANAGER YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR ZONING CASE NO. 671: CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL OF A PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO DENY A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH INTO THE NORTH SIDE YARD SETBACK WITH A PARTIALLY CONSTRUCTED BLOCK WALL AT AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IN ZONING CASE NO. 671 AT 6 PACKSADDLE ROAD EAST (LOT 31- SF) (MURRELL). BACKGROUND 1. The Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2003-16, which is attached, on September 16, 2003, at their regular meeting denying a request for a Variance to encroach approximately nine (9) feet into the side yard setback with a partially constructed wall. The vote was 5-0. The City Council received and filed the subject case on September 22, 2003. 2. On October 10, 2003, the applicant submitted an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to deny the request. A public hearing was set for October 27, 2003, at which time the applicant requested continuation of this case to tonight's meeting. 3. The applicant is requesting permission to complete and retain a 5-foot high, 15 feet long block wall, which encroaches into the side yard setback. Previously, the applicants requested a Variance to complete and retain this wall and to construct a spa, which would also encroach into the side yard setback. 4. During the proceedings before the Planning Commission, the applicants withdrew the Variance request for the spa and re -applied for a modification to the original Variance request to retain the wall only. The applicants will move the spa out of the setback. ZC No. 671 Appeal -CC @ Printed or I c :', ::Icd I'aprnt • • 5. Attached is correspondence from the applicant explaining the justification for the Variance and the reasons for the appeal. Also attached are letters from an engineer and from the property owners, explaining the need for the wall and letters of support that were presented to the Planning Commission. The applicant states that the wall is necessary for privacy for the owners, as well as for prevention of erosion of adjacent slope. The applicant states that he was required by the RHCA View Committee to cut down some trees in the north easement, which provided some privacy of the property, and that the wall would do the same plus prevent erosion. The wall is a continuation of an existing block wall (approved in 1961), which is located along the easement line in the side yard setback. 6. The Planning Commission found that the extension of the wall is not necessary to provide privacy or for erosion control and soil retention. 7. The existing house with an attached garage and the 5' high retaining wall in the side yard setback were built in 1961. In 1967, the swimming pool, a 300 square foot terrace, and a 225 square foot storage area were constructed In 1996 a 1,005 square foot addition was approved. 8. The total net lot area of the lot is 83,212 square feet. The property is developed with a 4,520 square foot residence, (which includes the most recent addition), 506 square foot garage, 440 square foot pool, 80 square foot reflection pond, 600 square foot terrace/service yard and 1,185 square feet of trellises and covered porches for a total of 7,331 square feet of structures. The structural coverage of the net lot is proposed to be 7,831 square feet or 9.4% of the net lot area, which includes the future stable, (20% permitted). 9. The total lot coverage of the net lot area, including the structures and all impervious areas is 13,946 square feet or 16.7%, (35% permitted). 10. The residential building pad is 14,316 square feet. The residential building pad coverage is 7,381 square feet or 51.5%. This includes all of the existing structures and the spa. The future stable will be located on a 1,781 square foot building pad for coverage of 25.0%. 11. .The maximum disturbed area is 26,316 square feet or 31.6%, (40% maximum permitted). 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 open the public hearing, take public testimony and provide direction to staff. ZC No. 671 Appeal -CC 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. ZC No. 671 Appeal -CC ZONING CASE NO. 671 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 (Site Plan Review required if size of structure increases by at least 1,000 sq.ft. and has the effect of increasing the size of the structure by more than 25% in a 36-month period). Grading Disturbed Area (40% maximum; any graded building pad area, any remedial grading (temporary disturbance), any graded slopes and building pad areas, and any nongraded area where impervious surfaces exist. Structural Lot Coverage (20% maximum) Total Lot Coverage (35% maximum) Building Pad Coverage (30% maximum Planning Commission guideline) Roadway Access Access to Stable and Corral Preserve Views Preserve Plants and Animals ZC No. 671 Appeal -CC EXISTING Residence with accessory structures and uses Residence Garage Swim Pool Stable Covered porch/ trellises Service Yard Refl. Pond TOTAL N/A 30.4% 8.9% 16.8% 4,520 sq.ft. 506 sq.ft. 440 sq.ft. 0 1,185 sq.ft. 600 sq.ft. 80 sq.ft. 7.331 sa.ft. 49.7% Existing off Packsaddle Proposed off Packsaddle N/A N/A PROPOSED Variance to encroach with a wall, into side yard setback Residence Garage Swim Pool Stable Future Service Yard Spa Covered porches/ Trellises Refl. pond TOTAL None 4,520 sq.ft. 506 sq.ft. 440 sq.ft. 450 sq.ft. 600 sq.ft. 50 sq.ft. 1,185 sq.ft. 80 sq.ft. 7.831 sa.ft. 31.6% of 83,212 square feet net lot area 9.4% 17.7% 51.5% of 14,316 square feet building pad area No change No change Planning Commission reviewed Planning Commission reviewed APPLICATION FILE NO. PROPERTY ADDRESS: OWNER: • Gee 0/R0ff1 _MEd REQUEST FOR APPEAL • INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (3101377.1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 E-mail: cttyofrh@aol.com z©vk,v Case No. 671 Re<ol. -1‘11/4 too. oo1--1 co kt. Pae.kseu.id(e Road Easy' P.ot1.;v9 14i\,t,c a/4 goa-'79 4vlvte- Ieotr-cle Nefo rv`e f I hereby request appeal of the decision of the Planning Commission on the above referenced application(s) for the following reasons: cots e. 5+ 1(. ( 1'✓l e to o re P. 55 c tAd w (4 -40: Lf 4, rP c( y et tit b u -t iet -e v1.6 , c o to e %r • SIGNED: DATED: FEE: (Two-thirds of original application fee.) • • RESOLUTION NO. 2003-16 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DENYING A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH INTO THE NORTH SIDE YARD SETBACK WITH A PARTIALLY CONSTRUCTED BLOCK WALL AT AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE LOCATED AT 6 PACKSADDLE ROAD EAST (LOT 31-SF), IN ZONING CASE NO. 671. (MURRELL). THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Application was duly filed by Dr. and Mrs. George Murrell with respect to real property located at 6 Packsaddle Road East (Lot 31-SF), Rolling Hills, requesting a Variance to encroach into the north side yard setback to permit the retention of partially constructed block wall at an existing residence. Section 2. In October of 2002, staff was informed that a block wall allegedly in the north side yard setback was under construction on subject property. Staff investigated the complaint and confirmed that the partially constructed wall was in the side yard setback. Staff directed the property owners to cease the construction and apply to the Planning Commission for a Variance or demolish the wall. Section 3. As a result, the applicants filed for a Variance to retain the partially constructed 5-foot high block wall in the north side yard setback and to construct as spa, which would encroach into the side yard setback. The Planning Commission at the July 15, 2003, meeting, directed staff to prepare a Resolution to deny the Variance request to complete the block wall and to construct a spa, which would encroach into the north side yard setback. Section 4. Subsequently, prior to the August 2003 Planning Commission meeting, the applicants withdrew the Variance request for the block wall and construction of the spa in the side yard setback, and re -filed a modified Variance request for the partially completed wall only. The applicants propose to move the spa out of the setback. Section 5. The Planning Commission conducted duly noticed public hearings to consider the original application on June 17, 2003 and July 15, 2003 and at a field trip visit on July 1, 2003. The Planning Commission conducted duly noticed public hearing to consider the revised Variance application at the August 19, 2003 public hearing. The applicants were notified of the public hearings in writing. 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 and their representative were in attendance at the hearings. Resolution 2003-16 1 • • Section 6. The Planning Commission finds that the project qualifies as a Class 1 Exemption [State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15301(e)] and is therefore categorically exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act. Section 7. 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 a side yard of twenty feet (20') from the side property line in the RAS-1 zone. The applicants request a Variance to encroach into the north side yard setback to permit the retention of a 5-foot high, circular, approximately 15-feet long block wall. With respect to this request for a Variance, the Planning Commission finds as follows: A. There are no exceptional and extraordinary circumstances and conditions applicable to the property or to the intended use that do not apply generally to the other property or class of use in the same zone because the partially constructed wall is located in the side yard setback and violates the setback requirements. There are other structure on the property that already encroach into the side and front yard setback, and additional encroachment would make the north side yard setback crowded with structures. B. The Variance is not 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 not necessary to allow the property owner privacy, as the wall is below grade of the adjacent property owner and would have no impact on privacy. In addition, the wall is not necessary to prevent erosion, as there are other means available to the applicant to prevent erosion and control drainage. C. The granting of the Variance would 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, because it would set a precendece for constructing retaining walls in the required setbacks. Section 8. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby denies the Variance application for Zoning Case No. 671 for the construction of a block wall, which encroaches into the north side yard setback, as shown on a development plan dated August 7, 2003. Resolution 2003-16 • • PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2003. 7 r � ATTEST: MARILYN TERN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK Resolution 2003-16 3 AIZVE`L WITTE, CHAIRMAN • • STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§ CITY OF ROLLING HILLS) I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2003-16 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DENYING A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH INTO THE NORTH SIDE YARD SETBACK WITH A PARTIALLY CONSTRUCTED BLOCK WALL AT AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE LOCATED AT 6 PACKSADDLE ROAD EAST (LOT 31-SF), IN ZONING CASE NO. 671. (MURRELL). was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on September 16, 2003 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners DeRoy, Hankins, Margeta, Sommer and Chairman Witte. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following: Administrative Offices. Resolution 2003-16 )hn--\ DEPUTY CITY CLERK 4 • • George A. Murrell # 6 Packsaddle Road East Rolling Hills, CA 90274 August 19, 2003 Ms. Yolanta Schwartz #1 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Ref: # 671 Encl: 1. George Murrell's letter 2. Engineer's letter 3. Neighbors' responses to mailings 4. Photographs Dear Ms. Schwartz: The Planning Committee might have already reviewed George Murrell's letter and the engineer's letter. If this is the case, Mr. John Juge, designer -builder, or Dr. George Murrell, owner will be happy to answer any questions they might have. When proposals for the wall came before the Planning Committee, descriptions and inquiries were mailed to the neighbors in the area, to determine if they had any objections to the proposal, there were no objections. Mr. Fuller did have a question about the height of the wall. When he was assured the wall would be 5 feet high, during the June 171h Planning Committee Public Hearing, he too, said he had no objections. Mr. & Mrs. William Horn and Dr. Richard Rutgers stated they had no objections and signed a letters to that effect. The Murrells have never met Mr. Joseph Cioffi & Ms. Kathy Halliday or Dr. & Mrs. Todd Lanman, so they did not feel comfortable asking them to sign a letter. Respectfully submitted, eorge A 1V1urrell Drs. Richard & Joanne Rutgers # 5 Packsaddle Road East Rolling Hills, CA 90274 August 15, 2003 Ms. Yolanta Schwartz #1 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 AUG1 92Oo3 gy C/7-1' OF ROLLING H� «S Re: A curved concrete and steel retainer wall 5 feet high, @ 15 feet long and is to be used to provide stability and prevent soil erosion of a side yard slope. This wall is 2 feet lower than our neighbor's lawn, it cannot be seen from his home and he has no objections as stated during our last Planing Committee Public Hearing. This wall is an extension of a retainer wall 5 feet high and 70 feet long the City of Rolling Hills instructed us to build 43 years ago during the original construction of our home. This is located at the Murrell residence, # 6 Packsaddle Road East. Dear Ms. Schwartz: Sincerely, Drs. Richard & Joanne Rutgers • • Mr. & Mrs. William G. Horn # 16 Southfield Drive Rolling Hills, CA 90274 August 15, 2003 Ms. Yolanta Schwartz #1 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 8y 0 tif.17'7 17'1 MI 1,-4:-iii,Laillt7r-Q, 0 J ;, t 9 2003 AUG 1 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS Re: A curved concrete and steel retainer wall 5 feet high, @ 15 feet long and is to be used to provide stability and prevent soil erosion of a side yard slope. This wall is 2 feet lower than our neighbor's lawn, it cannot be seen from his home and he has no objections as stated during our last Planing Committee Public Hearing. This wall is an extension of a retainer wall 5 feet high and 70 feet long the City of Rolling Hills instructed us to build 43 years ago during the original construction of our home. This is located at the Murrell residence, # 6 Packsaddle Road East. Dear Ms. Schwartz: Sincerely, )2</- Mr. & Mrs. William G. Horn George A. Murrell # 6 Packsaddle Road East Rolling Hills, CA 90274 August 11, 2003 Ms. Yolanta Schwartz City of Rolling Hills, # 1 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 •vja AUG 11 2003 CITY OF ROWNG HILLS RE: 1. The July 30, 2003 cancellation of Application for Variance 2. The August 4, 2003 Variance Request for Hearing This correspondence is in reference to the additional information and evidence mentioned in # 1. Above. Dear Yolanta: During the original construction of our Rolling Hills home 43 years ago, the city instructed us to build a retainer wall at the easement line, 5 feet high and 70 feet long to retain and stabilize the slope and to prevent soil erosion. About two years ago the RHCA View Preservation Committee cut two citrus trees to the ground and ordered the removal of the other plants, roots and foliage on our slope in order to create a view for our neighbor. Before their removal, these plants provided stability to our slope, controlled soil erosion and provided some privacy for our yard. Since our yard is approximately 7 feet lower than our neighbor's, removal of the plants on the slope, put stability and erosion control at risk and reduced the privacy in our yard to none. To protect our neighbor's new view, the View Committee significantly restricted our replanting the slope, however, even if there were no restrictions, the plants and the slope would still require interim support and erosion control for several years until the plants matured sufficiently to hold the slope unaided. This is particularly unfeasible for us because of our age and the time required to achieve stability of the slope. I respect the charge to the Planning Committee for its hesitancy to grant variances freely, and I also respect the fact that some requests having merit may have suitable alternatives that don't require a variance and finally, other variance requests with merit for which there are no suitable alternatives, yet, a variance may be granted under the proper circumstances. Page 2 of 2 Our recent Application for a Variance was for a spa and a wall. We were shocked to hear that both were denied and that the wall was to be torn down. When we asked for help, we received some helpful suggestions in a few days. We followed through with these suggestions and in a few more days, developed a suitable resolution by positioning the spa outside of the setback area for which no variance was required. The wall is a different story. We consulted with a building designer, a builder, some engineers and their answers were all the same, namely, the wall is the best way to resolve the stability and erosion problem, it is designed well, it's strong, it's already in place and there are no objections to it. The wall for which we are seeking a variance was built essentially as an extension of the original retainer wall of 43 years ago. It was to serve the same purpose of slope stability and erosion control, it is 5 feet high, about 15 feet long, it is curved for strength and esthetics and is intended to retain less than 3 vertical feet of slope. The are no objections from any of our neighbors, the height is 2 feet lower than our next door neighbor's lawn, he cannot see the wall from his place, it doesn't bother his view and he has no objections as he stated at the last Planning Committee Hearing. Certainly through no fault of yours, Anne-Merelie and I have been living in a small condominium in downtown Los Angeles for the last 7 years while trying to complete the restoration of our Rolling Hills home. We have tried very hard to understand the policies, procedures and what is required of us to make a proper presentation. I had no idea it would take this long to restore our home, for if I had, we would have never undertaken it. Happily, most of that time is now behind us, but regrettably, so is our future. I hope this time, the Planning Committee will be sufficiently satisfied with our application to grant us the variance so we can get on with finishing our home while there are a few more years to enjoy it. Thank you, most sincerely, George A. Murrell • I 17:fil PALOS \'ERDES ® Engineering (:i\itant ltiu'tICI utrytIc'tlihtthin} August 8, 2003 Mr. John Juge Juge Design Group 4648 Marloma Dr. Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274 C;i'Y OF n :._. " ..a Subject: Wall at #6 Packsaddle Road East, Rolling Hills, CA John: 6027-1 Paseo Delicias P.O. Box 2211 Rancho Santa Fe California 92067 pvecrsf @earthlink.net 858 759 2434 858 759 8324 FAX I have inspected the added wall located on the North East end of the existing dwelling at #6 Packsaddle Road East, Rolling Hills, CA. It appears that the removal of trees and shrubs has threatened the stability of the slope and caused a problem with erosion. I would strongly advise you not to demolish the recently constructed masonry wall as it appears to be the solution to these problems. Paul Christenson, P.E. G2D • Request For Variance Respectfully submitted by By Anne-Merelie & George Murrell November 10.2003 • • George A. Murrell # 6 Packsaddle Road East Rolling Hills, CA 90274 October 30.2003 To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Attn: Craig R. Nealis, City Manager Yolanta Schwartz, Planning Director From: Anne-Merelie and George A. Murrell Ref: Resolution No. 2003-16 Subj. Request for Appeal Thank you for taking the time to review my Appeal. I realize your are serving the property owners of Rolling Hills according to the established guidelines. I'm sure some of your requests have merit and deserve a Variance, while others may be frivolous and do not. You have a hard job to do, with hard decisions to make. I appreciate the time you devote seeking resolutions to our problems. REOUEST I am requesting the approval of a Variance to retain a steel bar reinforced wall, 5' high, 8" thick and 15' long to retain, add stability and prevent erosion of a slope located in our setback. Construction of this wall was completed on October 9, 2002; it is in place and has served its purpose well during the 2002-2003 rainy season. Please Note: City of Rolling Hills' publications have erroneously referred to this wall as "Partially Constructed," when in reality, construction of the wall was completed on October 9, 2002. The error may have been due to metal tabs the contractor placed on the sides of the wall to retain whatever esthetic treatment will be decided, (ivy, vines, plaster, or natural stones.) This will occur as the final landscape plan is being developed. • • 2 BACKGROUND In 1955, we bought a problem, hillside lot in Rolling Hills, comprised mostly of deep canyons and ravines which would require considerable grading and a retaining wall to develop the only building site available into a suitable building pad. In 1961, we graded the lot down 7' to develop a building pad and built a house requiring a long retaining wall. We planted numerous trees and shrubs to stabilize the hillside and prevent erosion of the loose slopes resulting from the grading. The plants also provided beautification of the property and privacy for our neighbors and ourselves. We finished our original home in 1961 and our planting program served us well by providing stabilized, non -eroding hillsides, beautification of the landscape and privacy for everyone for the next 35 years. In 1995, the major factor in the remodeling of our house was the assurance of our privacy and slope stabilization by the shrubs and trees we planted there 40 years ago. This would permit us to extend our house eastward, to build a spa in (Tab 1) the northeast side yard and install large picture windows in our bathroom, shower and bedroom to enhance our view of the canyon and ocean beyond. As requested, we constructed a wooden, 2x4 frame depicting the silhouette outline of the extent of our proposed construction for any objections. There were no objections, our plans were approved and we commenced construction in 1996. In 2001, several years after the major portion of our remodeling project had been completed, our neighbor of 8 years complained about his view, for the first time. We 3 answered his letters, removed 6 large trees at our expense (S6,000.00,) but he was not satisfied. The View Preservation Committee became involved, made site visits and decided 14 more trees should be removed. When I asked one of the committee members about our privacy, he said you don't have any rights. An arborist, Richard Dykzuel, was consulted and he said only 3 trees should be removed, some of the others just needed trimming and others were not located in the view corridor. But, in addition, the View Committee ordered the removal of the trees, shrubs and other foliage that stabilized our slope on our north side yard. Finally, the View Committee conceded not to cut down our other trees if we kept the trees in the corridor trimmed. The committee concluded by restricting any replanting on the north side yard slope that might compromise our neighbor's view. Our neighbor now has a view down into our bathroom, our shower, our bathtub, dressing area and down into our side yard, the only location suitable for our spa. (Tab 1) Therein lies the cause and the perpetuation of the loss of our privacy and stability of our slope, a problem not of our doing but one created over our protest. Since planting was no longer an option, we searched for other remedies for our lost privacy and unstable slope problems. We decided our privacy, at best, would have to be left to our imagination as long as replanting remained restricted. However, the slope instability and erosion problem could be readily remedied by extending our original 1961 retaining wall with an additional wall that would stabilize and support the slope. The new wall was designed to be a 5' high, 15' long, 8" thick 3 4 concrete block, steel bar reinforced wall, built in an arc in harmony with the future spa and covered with ivy, vines, plaster or natural stones for esthetics, a natural, rustic look compatible with our proposed landscape plan rather than the usual straight, flat, plain, white wall. (Tab 1) Our contractor submitted the plans to the LA County Building Department. The inspector thought the wall was an excellent solution to the problem of bank stabilization and erosion control and he affirmed that a permit was not necessary because the wall would be retaining less than 3' and was not over 5' high. On that basis and concern about the possibility of erosion damage incase of a heavy rain, we proceeded with the construction of the wall making sure it was not over 5' high and did not encroach into the easement. The wall was completed and in place by October 9, 2002. The builder left steel bars protruding upward out of the top of the wall temporarily, indicating they would be shortened and bent over flat and used along with the metal tabs to retain whatever esthetic treatment that would used to be decided upon in the final landscape plan. Upon seeing the steel rods, our neighbor must have thought the wall was still under construction and was going to be higher than 5'. We received a notice from the City to stop all further construction of the wall. On their site visit, members of the Planning Commission must have also concluded the wall was still under construction because of their several incorrect references to the "partially constructed" wall in their publications and notices from the City. In reality, • • 5 construction on the wall had been completed and was in place stabilizing the slope several days before we received notice to stop all further construction. When our neighbor was assured the wall was not going to be over 5' high, he stated in the Planning Commission open hearing that he had no further objections to the wall. I was surprised when we were instructed to apply for a Variance for the spa and the wall because of the LA County Building Inspector saying we didn't need a permit. I was even more surprised when we were told we also needed a Variance on our 3' entry stair walls, the two trestles and the reflection pool. I remember in 1996 when our ArchitectBuilding Contractor was building the stairs, trestles and pool, she was very precise not to go into the easement. She mentioned having approval started construction of the stair walls, trestles and pool and was completed in 1996. The present Planning Commission approved the Variance for the front stair walls, trestles and pool but denied the spa and wall in the northeast side yard. Lyman Merrill was our contractor for our original house in 1961. He was an excellent building contractor and managed all our building affairs with Rolling Hills. We never discussed Rolling Hills building affairs so we knew nothing about setbacks, easements, permits, or Variances. Some years later, we contracted with Vicky Barbieri, a licensed Architect and Building Contractor, to design and construct the remodeling of our home in 1996. She too managed all the building affairs with Rolling Hills, but only discussed easements with us, stressed the fact that we could not build into the easements. Unknowingly, we still had not been • • 6 educated about the existence of setbacks, the two separate Rolling Hills organizations, permits and Variances. Was it any wonder then, when the County Building Inspector affirmed the wall plan and said no permits were required, I was ready to proceed, not realizing there were other steps to be taken. When a Variance requirement for the wall and spa was explained to me by City Staff, I started to understand, but could not grasp why we needed a Variance for the entry stairs walls, trestles and reflection pool. These were approved by "Rolling Hills" and built 8 years ago in 1996. After additional patient tutoring by City Staff, I began to realize about the existence of and some of the differences between the two separate organizations, The City of Rolling Hills and The Rolling Hills Community Association, as well as Variances, permits, setbacks vs. easements, and the like. I absolutely did not commence construction of the wall intending to avoid any Rolling Hills regulations and I do apologize for my lack of knowledge about Rolling Hills affairs, which caused me to inadvertently, make an error. When the Variance for the wall and spa was denied, the spa was relocated (Tab 1) out of the setback where it would no longer require a Variance. To effectively serve its purpose of stabilization of the slope and erosion prevention, the wall would have to be in the same location as the slope which, regrettably, was in the setback area. Because of necessity, the wall was built in place next the slope with construction completed on October 9, 2002. Our request for a Variance for the wall was denied. • • 7 RESPONSE TO VARIANCE REOUIRED FINDINGS & SECTIION 7 (Tab 21 A. The exceptional and extraordinary circumstances are that the hillside lot we purchased in 1955 was a problem lot comprised of deep canyons and ravines on the east, south and west sides leaving one, very small, limited building site located at the north boundary. Considerable grading was required up to the easement line in order to create an adequate building pad. The resulting slope required a retaining wall 5' high, 8" thick and 70' long running the length of the house. It was not continued at that time to stabilize the remaining, unprotected eastern extension of the slope because of the additional cost. (Tab 1) Instead, we controlled this slope by planting trees and shrubs with a suitable root system potential. Once matured, these plantings stabilized the slope, minimized soil erosion and provided privacy very satisfactorily for 35 years. The Planning Commission recently suggested planting the slope with plants rather than having a wall. Planting that slope with substantial plants is an excellent suggestion that worked well for us for 35 years and would still work today if it were not for the View Committee's restrictions on planting with adequate plants. Possibly the Planning Commission was not aware of the planting restrictions placed in that area by the View Committee. I have not heard of any other satisfactory suggestions that could have resolved the slope stability and erosion problem nearly as well or reliably as the concrete wall did through last year's 2002-2003 rainy season. • • 8 1. The wall was recommended as the solution to the problems by Paul Christenson, P.E., a registered professional engineer, who wrote in his letter of August 8, 2003, "I have inspected the added wall on the North East End of the existing dwelling a #6 Packsaddle Road East, Rolling Hills, CA. It appears that the removal of trees and shrubs has threatened the stability of the slope and caused a problem with erosion. I would strongly advise you not to demolish the recently constructed masonry wall as it appears to be the solution to these problems." (Please see Tab 2) 1. The wall was completed and in place on October 9, 2002. Since there were no incidents in compliance with your publication referred to below, the wall functioned well during the 2002-2003 rainy season in that: "...neonle or nronertv are not exnosed to landslides, mudslides, erosion, or land subsidence..." as these requirements appear in paragraphs K. and., L page 4, of the August 25, 2003, publication of RESOLUTION NO. 2003-15, FROM: YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL, ATTN: CRAIG R. NEALIS, CITY MANAGER. 2. There are no objections to the wall from anyone including our neighbors in the vicinity. 3. The wall is below grade and is not visible to our neighbors and does not impact on anyone's view. • • 9 With regard to setback requirements, I have described, on pages 4, 5, & 6 of this report; the circumstances of my not knowing about setbacks until recently when City office staff very graciously instructed me. Had I known, I certainly would have applied for the variance in the prescribed manner. When I heard from the County that a permit was not required, I thought it was permissible to proceed as long as we stayed out of the easement. I sincerely apologize for my error. Crowding on the north side with structures is due to the nature of our problem lot. On page 2, I described having to grade our lot 7' down back to the easement line for sufficient room to develop a suitable building pad. The north side yard was the only building site because there were no other choices, we couldn't have built to the west because of a deep ravine and the proximity of the street and we couldn't have built to the south or east because of the canyons. In our original house, we had a decorative Iron Gate supported by 2 decorative stone walls on either side of an entry type sidewalk going straight to our front entry, but people still couldn't find the front entrance to our house. Instead, they used our back entrance that led directly into our back kitchen area, swimming pool and other personal areas. After years of this, I asked an architect where we went wrong. He said you did not go wrong, your front door is in the only place it can be because of the configuration of our lot. He advised that we build inviting structures that lead directly to the front entrance. We followed his advice, our front entrance is still in the same place on the north side of the • • 10 House but now, people have no problem finding it because of the front entrance stairs, trestles and a wide entry stone walk. B. This Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of our privacy and security, as we once had for 35 years, was lost as a view was being created for a neighbor whose property has never had a view for the last 44 years since before 1960. We can never hope to have anything near the level of privacy and security we once had as long as we are denied the right to adequately replant the slope by having the planting restrictions remain in force. However, a little of feeling of privacy and security is better than no privacy at all and the wall does provide that. (Tab 3) Although the main purpose of the wall is to support and preserve the stability of the slope, prevent erosion, mudslides, landslides and subsidence, all of which helps protect the neighbor's part of the slope too. But even at a height of only 5"this wall does indeed have a positive impact on our privacy, especially for the proposed spa compared to a possible eroding slope 2' or 3' high inclining directly upward into the neighbors yard.(Tab 3) The wall also imparts a feeling of being more private, more secure, enhances esthetic surroundings, a boundary, a welcome barrier, a comfort zone, a pleasant interruption in one's line of sight, all important to those using the spa which in my case, is therapeutic as well as recreational (See Orthopedist's letter Tab 1) The wall is necessary to control erosion because the other means, such as planting, as suggested by the Planning Commission, are no longer an option because of the planting restrictions and possible view impairment on that slope • • 11 in that area. If there were no restrictions and time was not a concern, I would prefer planting shrubs and trees rather than the wall because we could regain some of privacy too. I know of no other suitable remedies other than the wall and no other suggestions have been made that I'm aware of. Construction of the wall was completed October 9, 2002, it is in place and it functioned well during the 2002-2003 rainy season. Paul Christenson, P.E., a Registered Professional Engineer, writes the following, "I have inspected the added wall located on the North East end of the existing dwelling at #6 Packsaddle Road East, Rolling Hills, CA. It appears that the removal of trees and shrubs has threatened the stability of the slope and caused a problem with erosion. I would strongly advise you not to demolish the recently constructed masonry wall as it appears to be the solution to these problems. C. Granting a Variance for this wall would set a Precedent for others to build walls in setback area which would be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements...When the incident of precedent was used in connection with our wall, I reviewed the 1991 plot plan of the property immediately north of us and made the following observations: In contrast with our problem lot, the neighboring lot is large and flat appears to have several other excellent building options rather than encroaching into the setbacks as has occurred over several years by several different owners. • • 12 The plot plan shows there is a 50' setback plus a 10' easement on the south property line. Those structures located in the in the setback area arc listed and shaded black. (Please see Plot Plan, Tab 4 ) 1. A full guest house complete with concrete porch and walks 2. 1/4th - 1/3rd of the main house is `located within the setback and surrounded by brick or concrete patios/walks 3. A portion of the main house crosses into the east setback 4. A swimming pool with a spa, planter and decks extending into the easement 5. Wood rail fence crossing over our property line, landscaped, RR Ties, Lawn I have tried to question the violation of our property line or the swimming pool deck built well into the easement, only to be rebuked by the View Committee and having my remarks brushed aside twice, by the Planning Commission. Now that precedent has been introduced as another reason for denying my request for a Variance, I wonder if you could take a closer look at the precedents next door. Whether these multiple incidents were approved or not, it is difficult for me to understand why my small request for an even smaller wall that is useful, functional, a registered engineer approved, property enhancing, with a no objections from anyone else little wall, to help us partially resolve a serious privacy, slope stability and erosion problem, caused by the View Committee but partially resolvable by the Planning Commission with an approval of the Variance for our wall. For your interest, the next page is a worksheet on the square footage of encroachment into the -setback of the property next door. SETBACK COVERAGE: Our wall (a, 15 S.F.. Property next door 5,016 S.F. ,10 .)t...3 ( I4-Cr.:I :i • • c4Z-'i t a,t4 01= [AAA 4 r_4-aa. l U c=t itrt - I . *4- 4, is . tg e;, ..; : - 2 = 45.5. ga--1--> < -- Pc::,c7%— 1t- Yklas. . _ 6:z•3 �• 4�v:2:2,'L r .p r %-.1 2 • k'r 5---- 0 =.-1 A: J--E.- c 1 Cum c..-�''c�,.�<...._ �.• I Dom. ‘( r: A') Ej✓ l Lp ,,, r a) Pew- 1:-<.t 4 4-, :.� 4d.-31Y. = ‘‘'r WM-i- '?1 Kac'r:";, r �4c....a �. '('4�- + 1�s�.�• r a.t -- �� t I; .::- iP t> r ..1.G, 'C"' -� Acp J r .t (T-- 17t2-e, .-r`•f v✓Pe. 1...1. %/VC::J P i ie . 11 - Tt ; 4-11-1-e /`-L -r "PC-4 W 14 -5 13= (Dr prL.L._c, 8t✓ —v 4-rya. r p; A ��J 14 The enclosed worksheet was prepared by our contractor, Mr. John Juge and he will be happy to review it with you and answer any questions you may have. I believe I have answered all of the Planning Commission's objections unless there had been punitive reason for the denials. If this is the case, (See pgs 4, 5, & 6) then I've still answered to my best ability. Through my own fault, I did not know or understand about Rolling Hills Organizations, setbacks, permits and procedures, for which I again apologize. I realize that our slope stability and particularly, our privacy will probably never be regained as they once were but if we can have the wall for our restless slope and pretend we have some privacy we can all get on with our lives. I appreciate your consideration. Thank you. Respectfully submitted, George A. Murrell CO • • WILLIAM J. MEALER, M.D. DipInmate. American Board of Orthopedic Surgery I I O U N SEPL LVEDA BLVD . SPITE 104. M1ANHATTAN BEACH. CA 9026G 13101 546.346 I FAX 13101 546•6481 June 9, 2003 City of Rolling Hills No. 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, Ca 90274 RE: Public hearing before the Planning Commission Zoning Case No. 666 To Whom It May Concern: Ea[111V1r JUN 1 0 2CO3 CITY OF ROLLING H:LLS By . Dr. Murrell has been a patient of mine since 1994. He has a history of left shoulder rotator cuff problems, arthritis in both thumbs with significant cartilage loss, weakened wrists and recently, a torn muscle and possible rotator cuff problem in his right arm. His arms, thumbs and hands continue to become quite sore. Movement and function is limited and he requires pain medication daily. A highly effective and recommended therapy used in orthopedics to lessen pain, reduce joint and muscle stiffness, increase movement and promote healing is frequent soaking of the affected areas in warm water combined with mild exercise. The Jacuzzi type spa is the preferred type of equipment for most therapy because of ease of use, duration and constancy of heat, gentle exercise and ease of appendage manipulation due to the floatation effect and high patient compliance because of convenience and relative improved comfort level. I believe frequent warm water soaking combined with mild exercise would significantly improve the condition of Dr. Murrell's shoulders, arms and hands and possibly, reduce his medication requirements. It seem the most sensible way to accomplish this is with a Jacuzzi type spa. Sincerely, ' • William Y Rfiealcr, M. WJM:vb • • ,� PALOS . V E R D E S Engineering C:ivil:uu1 Sin tctur.itc:in1st dtin August 8, 2003 Mr. John Juge Juge Design Group 4648 Marloma Dr. Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274 6027-I Paseo Delicias P.O. Box 2211 Rancho Santa Fe California 92067 pvecrsf @earthlink.net 858 759 2434 858 759 8324 FAX Subject: Wall at #6 Packsaddle Road East, Rolling Hills, CA John: I have inspected the added wall located on the North East end of the existing dwelling at #6 Packsaddle Road East, Rolling Hills, CA It appears that the removal of trees and shrubs has threatened the stability of the slope and caused a problem with erosion. I would strongly advise you not to demolish the recently constructed masonry wall as it appears to be the solution to these problems. Paul Christenson, P.E. �uT9lFOF1CAt\' 111" VARIANCE REQUIRED FINDING 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 I 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. Section 7_ Sections 17.38.010 through 17.38.050 of the Rolling Hills A. There are no exceptional and extraordinary circumstances and conditions applicable to the property or to the intended use that do not apply generally to the other property or class of use in the same zone because the partially constructed wall is located in the side yard setback and violates the setback requirements. There are other structure on the property that already encroach into the side and front yard setback, and additional encroachment would make the north side yard setback crowded with structures. B. The Variance is not 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 not necessary to allow the property owner privacy, as the wall is below grade of the adjacent property owner and would have no impact on privacy. In addition, the wall•is not necessary to prevent erosion, as there are other means available to the applicant to prevent erosion and control drainage. C. The granting of the Variance would 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, because it would set a precendece for constructing retaining walls in the required setbacks. Section 8. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby denies the Variance application for Zoning Case No. 671 for the construction of a block wall, which encroaches into the north side yard setback, as shown on a development plan dated August 7, 2003. 1 / 5.515Aot • ._ ._. _. ._...._... ....... ___..__.._.., _.._ ....._....._. Os 4 • • ••` e , • A ti v DATE: TO: ATTN: FROM: SUBJECT: • • C'iy o/ ie0t4 �uee 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 Agenda Item No.: 7A Mtg. Date: 10/27/03 OCTOBER 27, 2003 HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL CRAIG R. NEALIS, CITY MANAGER YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR ZONING CASE NO. 671: CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL OF A PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO DENY A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH INTO THE NORTH SIDE YARD SETBACK WITH A PARTIALLY CONSTRUCTED BLOCK WALL AT AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE LOCATED AT 6 PACKSADDLE ROAD EAST (LOT 31-SF), IN ZONING CASE NO. 671. (MURRELL). BACKGROUND 1. The Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2003-16 denying a request for a Variance for a partially constructed wall which encroaches into the side yard setback. The vote was 5-0. The City Council received and filed the subject case on September 22, 2003. The. staff report considered by the City Council on September 22, 2003 is attached. 2. On October 10, 2003, the applicant submitted an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to deny the request. A public hearing was set for tonight's meeting, in keeping with the Zoning Code timing requirements of considering an appeal However, the applicant requested that due to his business travel schedule, the hearing be continued to the November 10, 2003 City Council meeting. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council open the public hearing and continue consideration of this appeal in Zoning Case No. 671 to the regular City Council meeting on November 10, 2003. ®Prnr tirrl tin H&Cyrar:d f'smnr REQUEST FOR APPEAL INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377.1521 FAX: (310) 377.7288 Email: cityofrh@aol.com APPLICATION FILE NO. 2 v\, %A i Case No . G 71 RGsok k-►otA Nio. .2 COI -I PROPERTY ADDRESS: -lam (�, Pekck 4 Ie. Roc; d Ec0+ ISZ.oll 1 11,14d CA 02-'7 OWNER: vw.e-vie ov'ge Mt,rve. ( ( I hereby request appeal of the decision of the Planning Commission on the above referenced application(s) for the following reasons: Tkp V'4,c3,,,,1 o r 4-1 I t .14 lr p. ss atAc.1 w t ll be_ P1-P.1 t v r r l -tr o t,.., h..v +.14 oC 0An e � • SIGNED: DATED: FEE: �33 (io/io/o5) (Two-thirds of original application fee.) ®Pr . I•., r • • • October 23, 2003 George A. Murrell # 6 Packsaddle Road East Rolling Hills, CA 90274 To: The Rolling Hills City Council I respectfully request that the appeal in Zoning Case 671 be continued to the November 10, 2003 City Council meeting. Thank you. Sincerely, a George A. Murrell 1•d 8E26-LLE O I E T T aJJnw a2Joa j e'c:It CO E2 130 • • at, ./Rottin, NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377.1521 FAX: (3101377.7288 E mad: cityolrh[ aol.com Agenda Item No.: 4A Mtg. Date: 9/22/03 DATE: SEPTEMBER 22, 2003 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL ATTN: CRAIG R. NEALIS, CITY MANAGER FROM: YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR SUBJECT: RESOLUTION NO. 2003-16. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DENYING A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH INTO THE NORTH SIDE YARD SETBACK WITH A PARTIALLY CONSTRUCTED BLOCK WALL AT AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE LOCATED AT 6 PACKSADDLE ROAD EAST (LOT 31-SF), IN ZONING CASE NO. 671. (MURRELL). BACKGROUND 1. The Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2003-16, which is attached, on September 16, 2003, at their regular meeting denying a request for a Variance to encroach into the side yard setback with a partially constructed wall. The vote was 5-0. 2. The applicants requested a Variance to complete and retain a 5-foot high, 15 feet long block wall, which encroaches into the side yard setback. Previously, the applicants requested a Variance to complete and retain this wall and to construct a spa, which also encroached into the side yard setback. 3. During the proceedings before the Planning Commission, the applicants withdrew the Variance request for the spa and the wall and re -applied for a modification to the original Variance request to retain the wall only. The applicants will move the spa out of the setback. 4. Attached are letters from an engineer and from the property owners, explaining the need for the wall. The applicants' representative also states that the wall is necessary for privacy for the owners, as well as for prevention of erosion of adjacent slope. The applicants stated that they were required by the RHCA View Committee to cut down some trees in the north easement, which provided them some privacy, and that the wall would do the same plus prevent ZC No. 671 CC 9/22/03 • • erosion. The wall is a continuation of an existing block wall (approved in 1961), which is located along the easement line in the side yard setback. 5. The existing house with an attached garage and the 5' high retaining wall in the side yard setback were built in 1961. In 1967, the swimming pool, a 300 square foot terrace, and a 225 square foot storage area were constructed In 1996 a 1,005 square foot addition was approved, which is almost completed. 6. The total net lot area of the lot is 83,212 square feet. The property is developed with a 4,520 square foot residence, 506 square foot garage, 440 square foot pool, 80 square foot reflection pond, 600 square foot terrace/service yard and 1,185 square feet of trellises and covered porches for a total of 7,331 square feet of structures. The structural coverage of the net lot is proposed to be 7,831 square feet or 9.4% of the net lot area, which includes the future stable, (20% permitted). 7. The total lot coverage of the net lot area, including the structures and all impervious areas is 13,946 square feet or 16.7%, (35% permitted). 8. The residential building pad is 14,316 square feet. The residential building pad coverage is 7,381 square feet or 51.5%. This includes all of the existing structures and the proposed spa. The future stable will be located on a 1,781 square foot building pad for coverage of 25.0%. 9. The maximum disturbed area is 26,316 square feet or 31.6%, (40% maximum permitted). 10. 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 this report or provide direction to staff. ZC No. 671 CC 9/22/03 • • 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. ZC No. 671 CC 9/22/03 ZONING CASE NO. 671 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 (Site Plan Review required if size of structure increases by at least 1,000 sq.ft. and has the effect of increasing the size of the structure by more than 25% in a 36-month period). Grading Disturbed Area (40% maximum; any graded building pad area, any remedial grading (temporary disturbance), any graded slopes and building pad areas, and any nongraded area where impervious surfaces exist. Structural Lot Coverage (20% maximum) Total Lot Coverage (35% maximum) Building Pad Coverage (30% maximum Planning Commission guideline) Roadway Access Access to Stable and Corral Preserve Views Preserve Plants and Animals ZC No. 671 CC 9/22/03 EXISTING Residence with accessory structures and uses Residence Garage Swim Pool Stable Covered porch/ trellises Service Yard Refl. Pond TOTAL N/A 4,520 sq.ft. 506 sq.ft. 440 sq.ft. 0 1,185 sq.ft. 600 sq.ft. 80 sq.ft. 7.331 sq.ft. PROPOSED Variance to encroach with a wall, into side yard setback Residence Garage Swim Pool Stable Future Service Yard Spa Covered porches! I Trellises Refl. pond TOTAL None 4,520 sq.ft. 506 sq.ft. 440 sq.ft. 450 sq.ft. 600 sq.ft. 50 sq.ft. 1,185 sq.ft. 80 sq.ft. 7,831 soft. 30.4% ' 31.6% of 83,212 square feet net I lot area 8.9% 16.8% 49.7% Existing off Packsaddle Proposed off Packsaddle N/A N/A 9.4% 17.7% 51.5% of 14,316 square feet building pad area No change No change Planning Commission review Planning Commission review • • RESOLUTION NO. 2003-16 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DENYING A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH INTO THE NORTH SIDE YARD SETBACK WITH A PARTIALLY CONSTRUCTED BLOCK WALL AT AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE LOCATED AT 6 PACKSADDLE ROAD EAST (LOT 31-SF), IN ZONING CASE NO. 671. (MURRELL). THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Application was duly filed by Dr. and Mrs. George Murrell with respect to real property located at 6 Packsaddle Road East (Lot 31-SF), Rolling Hills, requesting a Variance to encroach into the north side yard setback to permit the retention of partially constructed block wall at an existing residence. Section 2. In October of 2002, staff was informed that a block wall allegedly in the north side yard setback was under construction on subject property. Staff investigated the complaint and confirmed that the partially constructed wall was in the side yard setback. Staff directed the property owners to cease the construction and apply to the Planning Commission for a Variance or demolish the wall. Section 3. As a result, the applicants filed for a Variance to retain the partially constructed 5-foot high block wall in the north side yard setback and to construct as spa, which would encroach into the side yard setback. The Planning Commission at the July 15, 2003, meeting, directed staff to prepare a Resolution to deny the Variance request to complete the block wall and to construct a spa, which would encroach into the north side yard setback. Section 4. Subsequently, prior to the August 2003 Planning Commission meeting, the applicants withdrew the Variance request for the block wall and construction of the spa. in the side yard setback, and re -filed a modified Variance request for the partially completed wall only. The applicants propose to move the spa out of the setback. Section 5. The Planning Commission conducted duly noticed public hearings to consider the original application on June 17, 2003 and July 15, 2003 and at a field trip visit on July 1, 2003. The Planning Commission conducted duly noticed public hearing to consider the revised Variance application at the August 19, 2003 public hearing. The applicants were notified of the public hearings in " writing. 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 and their representative were in attendance at the hearings. Resolution 2003-16 • • Section 6. The Planning Commission finds that the project qualifies as a Class 1 Exemption [State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15301(e)1 and is therefore categorically exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act. Section 7. 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 a side yard of twenty feet (20') from the side property line in the RAS-1 zone. The applicants request a Variance to encroach into the north side yard setback to permit the retention of a 5-foot high, circular, approximately 15-feet long block wall. With respect to this request for a Variance, the Planning Commission finds as follows: A. There are no exceptional and extraordinary circumstances and conditions applicable to the property or to the intended use that do not apply generally to the other property or class of use in the same zone because the partially constructed wall is located in the side yard setback and violates the setback requirements. There are other structure on the property that already encroach into the side and front yard setback, and additional encroachment would make the north side yard setback crowded with structures. B. The Variance is not 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 not necessary to allow the property owner privacy, as the wall is below grade of the adjacent property owner and would have no impact on privacy. In addition, the wall is not necessary to prevent erosion, as there are other means available to the applicant to prevent erosion and control drainage. C. The granting of the Variance would 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, because it would set a precendece for constructing retaining walls in the required setbacks. Section 8. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby denies the Variance application for Zoning Case No. 671 for the construction of a block wall, which encroaches into the north side yard setback, as shown on a development plan dated August 7, 2003. Resolution 2003-16 • • PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2003. 1 A'IZVEL WITTE, CHAIRMAN ATTEST: _1214)1,klii,J k 4)1/1) MARILYN KERN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK Rcsolution 2003-16 • • STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§ CITY OF ROLLING HILLS) I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2003-16 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DENYING A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH INTO THE NORTH SIDE YARD SETBACK WITH A PARTIALLY CONSTRUCTED BLOCK WALL AT AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE LOCATED AT 6 PACKSADDLE ROAD EAST (LOT 31-SF), IN ZONING CASE NO. 671. (MURRELL). was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on September 16, 2003 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners DeRoy, Hankins, Margeta, Sommer and Chairman Witte. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following: Administrative Offices. DEPUTY CITY CLERK Resolution 2003-16 • • George A. Murrell # 6 Packsaddle Road East Rolling Ilills, CA 90274 August 19, 2003 Ms. Yolanta Schwartz #1 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Ref: # 671 End: 1. George Murrell's letter 2. Engineer's letter 3. Neighbors' responses to mailings 4. Photographs Dear Ms. Schwartz: The Planning Committee might have already reviewed George Murrell's letter and the engineer's letter. If this is the case, Mr. John Juge, designer -builder, or Dr. George Murrell, owner will be happy to answer any questions they might have. When proposals for the wall came before the Planning Committee, descriptions and inquiries were mailed to the neighbors in the area, to determine if they had any objections to the proposal, there were no objections. Mr. Fuller did have a question about the height of the wall. When he was assured the wall would be 5 feet high, during the June 17111 Planning Committee Public Hearing, he too, said he had no objections. Mr. & Mrs. William Horn and Dr. Richard Rutgers stated they had no objections and signed a letters to that effect. The Murrells have never met Mr. Joseph Ciofli & Ms. Kathy Halliday or Dr. & Mrs. Todd Lanman, so they did not feel comfortable asking them to sign a letter. Respectfully submitted, Gorge A. Murrell • Drs. Richard & Joanne Rutgers If 5 Packsaddle Road East Rolling Hills, CA 90274 August 15, 2003 Ms. Yolanta Schwartz #1 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 t,. . i A(!G � 9 LCrb3 • f-i By CITY pF OLC�h�,, �_ LS Re: A curved concrete and steel retainer wall 5 feet high, @ 15 feet long and is to be used to provide stability and prevent soil erosion of a side yard slope. This wall is 2 feet lower than our neighbor's lawn, it cannot be seen from his home and he has no objections as stated during our last Planing Committee Public Hearing. This wall is an extension of a retainer wall 5 feet high and 70 feet long the City of Rolling Hills instructed us to build 43 years ago during the original construction of our home.. This is located at the Murrell residence, # 6 Packsaddle Road East. Dear Ms. Schwartz: Sincerely, Drs. Richard & Joanne Rutgers • August 15, 2003 Mr. & Mrs. William G. Horn # 16 Southfield Drive Rolling Hills, CA 90274 [firirplmtf„ Ifflr71.,. By AUG 1 9 2003 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS Ms. Yolanta Schwartz #1 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Re: A curved concrete and steel retainer wall 5 feet high, @ 15 feet long and is to be used to provide stability and prevent soil erosion of a side yard slope. This wall is 2 feet lower than our neighbor's lawn, it cannot be seen from his home and he has no objections as stated during our last Planing Committee Public Hearing. This wall is an extension of a retainer wall 5 feet high and 70 feet long the City of Rolling Hills instructed us to build 43 years ago during the original construction of our home. This is located at the Murrell residence, # 6 Packsaddle Road East. Dear Ms. Schwartz: v —1 • Sincerely, �/. {/ [�• 7 Mr. & Mrs. William G. Horn George A. Murrell # 6 Packsaddle Road East Rolling Hills, CA 90274 August 11, 2003 Ms. Yolanta Schwartz City of Rolling Hills, # 1 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 AUG 112003 CITY OF ADCUNG NUS BY_ RE: 1. The July 30, 2003 cancellation of Application for Variance 2. The August 4, 2003 Variance Request for Hearing This correspondence is in reference to the additional information and evidence mentioned in # 1. Above. Dear Yolanta: During the original construction of our Rolling Hills home 43 years ago, the city instructed us to build a retainer wall at the easement line, 5 feet high and 70 feet long to retain and stabilize the slope and to prevent soil erosion. About two years ago the RHCA View Preservation Committee cut two citrus trees to the ground and ordered the removal of the other plants, roots and foliage on our slope in order to create a view for our neighbor. Before their removal, these plants provided stability to our slope, controlled soil erosion and provided some privacy for our yard. Since our yard is approximately 7 feet lower than our neighbor's, removal of the plants on the slope, put stability and erosion control at risk and reduced the privacy in our yard to none. To protect our neighbor's new view, the View Committee significantly restricted our replanting the slope, however, even if there were no restrictions, the plants and the slope would still require interim support and erosion control for several years until the plants matured sufficiently to hold the slope unaided. This is particularly unfeasible for us because of our age and the time required to achieve stability of the slope. I respect the charge to the Planning Committee for its hesitancy to grant variances freely, and I also respect the fact that some requests having merit may have suitable alternatives that don't require a variance and finally, other variance requests with merit for which there are no suitable alternatives, yet, a variance may be granted under the proper circumstances. • Page 2 of 2 Our recent Application for a Variance was for a spa and a wall. We were shocked to hear that both were denied and that the wall was to be torn down. When we asked for help, we received some helpful suggestions in a few days. We followed through with these suggestions and in a few more days, developed a suitable resolution by positioning the spa outside of the setback area for which no variance was required. The wall is a different story. We consulted with a building designer, a builder, some engineers and their answers were all the same, namely, the wall is the best way to resolve the stability and erosion problem, it is designed well, it's strong, it's already in place and there are no objections to it. The wall for which we are seeking a variance was built essentially as an extension of the original retainer wall of 43 years ago. It was to serve the same purpose of slope stability and erosion control, it is 5 feet high, about 15 feet long, it is curved for strength and esthetics and is intended to retain less than 3 vertical feet of slope. The are no objections from any of our neighbors, the height is 2 feet lower than our next door neighbor's lawn, he cannot see the wall from his place, it doesn't bother his view and he has no objections as he stated at the last Planning Committee Hearing. Certainly through no fault of yours, Anne-Nlerelie and I have been living in a small condominium in downtown Los Angeles for the last 7 years while trying to complete the restoration of our Rolling Hills home. We have tried very hard to understand the policies, procedures and what is required of us to make a proper presentation. I had no idea it would take this long to restore our home, for if I had, we would have never undertaken it. Happily, most of that time is now behind us, but regrettably, so is our future. I hope this time, the Planning Committee will be sufficiently satisfied with our application to grant us the variance so we can get on with finishing our borne while there are a few more years to enjoy it. Thank you, most sincerely, George A. Murrell • VA PALOS \'ERl)ES kRT1�Engineering ('i\ it .111r I sir( .114:1 do! lg August 8, 2003 Mr. John Juge Juge Design Group 4648 Marloma Dr. Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274 C:1 Y OF Subject: Wall at #6 Packsaddle Road East, Rolling Hills, CA John: • 6027•I Paseo Delictas P.O. Box 2211 Rancho Santa Fe Cahtornia 92067 • pvecrsf eaehlink net 858 759 2434 858 759 8324 FAX I have inspected the added wall located on the North East end of the existing dwelling at #6 Packsaddle Road East, Rolling Hills, CA. It appears that the removal of trees and shrubs has threatened the stability of the slope and caused a problem with erosion. 1 would strongly advise you not to demolish the recently constructed masonry wall as it appears to be the solution to these problems. ��i r.1 c.:i jr Paul Christenson, P.E. 1- ' `FAA..�%'/ • City o/ R0m JUL • INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377.1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 E-mail: cityotrh@aol.com DATE: SEPTEMBER 16, 2003 TO: HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR APPLICATION NO. SITE LOCATION: ZONING AND SIZE: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE : PUBLISHED: REOUEST ZONING CASE NO. 671 6 PACKSADDLE ROAD EAST (LOT 31-SF) RAS-1, 2.06 ACRES DR. AND MRS. GEORGE MURRELL JOHN JUGE, JUGE DESIGN GROUP AUGUST 9, 2003 Request for a Variance to permit the completion and retention of a 5-foot high block wall, which encroaches into the north side yard setback. BACKGROUND 1. The Planning Commission at the August 19, 2003, meeting, directed staff to prepare a Resolution of denial, regarding the Variance requestto retain the previously constructed block wall, which encroaches into the north side yard setback in Zoning Case No. 671. The vote was 3-0-1-1. Commissioner Margeta abstained and Commissioner DeRoy was absent. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2003-16 denying the Variance request. ®Prinivd on A.c.yC ' d 1'nt1.1 b I • • RESOLUTION NO. 2003-16 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DENYING A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH INTO THE NORTH SIDE YARD SETBACK WITH A PARTIALLY CONSTRUCTED BLOCK WALL AT AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE LOCATED AT 6 PACKSADDLE ROAD EAST (LOT 31-SF), IN ZONING CASE NO. 671. (MURRELL). THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Application was duly filed by Dr. and Mrs. George Murrell with respect to real property located at 6 Packsaddle Road East (Lot 31-SF), Rolling Hills, requesting a Variance to encroach into the north side yard setback to permit the retention of partially constructed block wall at an existing residence. Section 2. In October of 2002, staff was informed that a block wall allegedly in the north side yard setback was under construction on subject property. Staff investigated the complaint and confirmed that the partially constructed wall was in the side yard setback. Staff directed the property owners to cease the construction and apply to the Planning Commission for a Variance or demolish the wall. Section 3. As a result, the applicants filed for a Variance to retain the partially constructed 5-foot high block wall in the north side yard setback and to construct as spa, which would encroach into the side yard setback. The Planning Commission at the July 15, 2003, meeting, directed staff to prepare a Resolution to deny the Variance request to complete the block wall and to construct a spa, which would encroach into the north side yard setback Section 4. Subsequently, prior to the August 2003 Planning Commission meeting, the applicants withdrew the Variance request for the block wall and construction of the spa in the side yard setback, and re -filed a modified Variance request for the partially completed wall only. The applicants propose to move the spa out of the setback. Section 5. The Planning Commission conducted duly noticed public hearings to consider the original application on June 17, 2003 and July 15, 2003 and at a field trip visit on July 1, 2003. The Planning Commission conducted duly noticed public hearing to consider the revised Variance application at the August 19, 2003 public hearing. The applicants were notified of the public hearings in writing. 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 and their representative were in attendance at the hearings. Resolution 2003-16 • • Section 6. The Planning Commission finds that the project qualifies as a Class 1 Exemption [State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15301(e)] and is therefore categorically exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act. Section 7. 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 a side yard of twenty feet (20') from the side property line in the RAS-1 zone. The applicants request a Variance to encroach into the north side yard setback to permit the retention of a 5-foot high, circular, approximately 15-feet long block wall. With respect to this request for a Variance, the Planning Commission finds as follows: A. There are no exceptional and extraordinary circumstances and conditions applicable to the property or to the intended use that do not apply generally to the other property or class of use in the same zone because the partially constructed wall is located in the side yard setback and violates the setback requirements. There are other structure on the property that already encroach into the side and front yard setback, and additional encroachment would make the north side yard setback crowded with structures. B. The Variance is not 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 not necessary to allow the property owner privacy, as the wall is below grade of the adjacent property owner and would have no impact on privacy. In addition, the wall is not necessary to prevent erosion, as there are other means available to the applicant to prevent erosion and control drainage. C. The granting of the Variance would 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, because it would set a precendece for constructing retaining walls in the required setbacks. Section 8. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby denies the Variance application for Zoning Case No. 671 for the construction of a block wall, which encroaches into the north side yard setback, as shown on a development plan dated August 7, 2003. Resolution 2003-16 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2003. ARVEL WITTE, CHAIRMAN ATTEST: MARILYN KERN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK Resolution 2003-16 • • STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§ CITY OF ROLLING HILLS) I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2003-16 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DENYING A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH INTO THE NORTH SIDE YARD SETBACK WITH A PARTIALLY CONSTRUCTED BLOCK WALL AT AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE LOCATED AT 6 PACKSADDLE ROAD EAST (LOT 31-SF), IN ZONING CASE NO. 671. (MURRELL). was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on September 16, 2003 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 2003-16 DATE: TO: FROM: • • City o/ Rolling 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 AUGUST 19, 2003 • HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR APPLICATION NO. SITE LOCATION: ZONING AND SIZE: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE : PUBLISHED: REQUEST ZONING CASE NO. 671 6 PACKSADDLE ROAD EAST (LOT 31-SF) RAS-1, 2.06 ACRES DR. AND MRS. GEORGE MURRELL JOHN JUGE, JUGE DESIGN GROUP AUGUST 9, 2003 Request for a Variance to permit the completion and retention of a 5-foot high block wall, which encroaches into the north side yard setback. BACKGROUND 1. The applicants request a Variance to complete and retain a block wall, which encroaches in to the side yard setback. Previously the applicants requested a Variance to complete and retain this wall and to construct a spa in the side yard setback. 2. The applicants withdrew the Variance request for the spa and the wall and re -applied for a modification to the original Variance request to retain the wall only. The wall is 15 feet in length and 5 feet high. 3. The Planning Commission, on August 19, 2003, in Zoning Case No. 666 considered adoption of a Resolution granting a Variance request to retain the previously constructed trellis, reflection pond and wall along the stairs, which encroach into the side and front yard setbacks. 4. Attached is a letter from an engineer, clarifying the reason for the wall, as well as a letter from the property owner. The applicants' representative also states that the wall is necessary for privacy for the owners, as well as for prevention of erosion of adjacent slope. The applicants were required to cut down some vegetation in the north easement, which necessitated the wall for privacy and erosion control. The wall is a continuation of an existing block wall ZC No. 671 VR -wall ®Printed on Recycled Paper. • • (approved in 1961), which is located along the easement line in the side yard setback. 5. The existing house with an attached garage and the 5' high retaining wall in the side yard setback were built in 1961. In 1967, the swimming pool, a 300 square foot terrace, and a 225 square foot storage area were constructed In 1996 a 1,005 square foot addition was approved, which is currently under construction. 6. The total net lot area of the lot is 83,212 square feet. The property is developed with a 4,520 square foot residence, 506 square foot garage, 440 square foot pool, 80 square foot reflection pond, 600 square foot terrace/service yard and 1,185 square feet of trellises and covered porches for a total of 7,331 square feet of structures. The total structural coverage of the net lot is proposed to be 7,831 square feet or 9.4% of the net lot area, (20% permitted). 7. The total structural lot coverage of the net lot area, including the structures and all impervious areas is 13,946 square feet or 16.7%, (35% permitted). 8. The residential building pad is 14,316 square feet. The residential building pad coverage is 7,381 square feet or 51.5%. This includes all of the existing structures and the proposed spa. The future stable will be located on a 1,781 square foot building pad for coverage of 25.0%. 9. The maximum disturbed area will be 26,316 square feet or 31.6%, (40% maximum permitted). 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 staff report, take public testimony and give direction to staff. ZC No. 671 VR -wall 2 • • 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. ZC No. 671 VR -wall 3 ZONING CASE NO. 671 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 (Site Plan Review required if size of structure increases by at least 1,000 sq.ft. and has the effect of increasing the size of the structure by more than 25% in a 36-month period). Grading Disturbed Area (40% maximum; any graded building pad area, any remedial grading (temporary disturbance), any graded slopes and building pad areas, and any nongraded area where impervious surfaces exist. Structural Lot Coverage (20% maximum) Total Lot Coverage (35% maximum) Building Pad Coverage (30% maximum Planning Commission guideline) Roadway Access Access to Stable and Corral Preserve Views Preserve Plants and Animals ZC No. 671 VR -wall EXISTING Residence with accessory structures and uses Residence Garage Swim Pool Stable Covered porch/ trellises Service Yard Refl. Pond TOTAL None 4,520 sq.ft. 506 sq.ft. 440 sq.ft. 0 1,185 sq.ft. 600 sq.ft. 80 sq.ft. 7.331 sa.ft. PROPOSED Variances to encroach with wall, reflection pond and trellis into setbacks Residence Garage Swim Pool Stable Future Service Yard Spa Covered porches/ Trellises Refl. pond TOTAL None 4,520 sq.ft. 506 sq.ft. 440 sq.ft. 450 sq.ft. 600 sq.ft. 50 sq.ft. 1,185 sq.ft. 80 sq.ft. 7.831 sa.ft. 30.4% 31.6% of 83,212 square feet net lot area 8.9% 16.8% 49.7% Existing off Packsaddle Proposed off Packsaddle N/A N/A 4 9.4% 17.7% 51.5% of 14,316 square feet building pad area No change No change Planning Commission will review Planning Commission will review • • I!PALOS i = VERDES Engineering Civil and Structural Consulting Ety August 8, 2003 Mr. John Juge Juge Design Group 4648 Marloma Dr. Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274 AUG 112003 CITY OF IROUJNG HILL.;, 6027-I Paseo Delicias P.O. Box 2211 Rancho Santa Fe California 92067 pvecrsf@earthlink.net 858 759 2434 858 759 8324 FAX Subject: Wall at #6 Packsaddle Road East, Rolling Hills, CA John: I have inspected the added wall located on the North East end of the existing dwelling at #6 Packsaddle Road East, Rolling Hills, CA. It appears that the removal of trees and shrubs has threatened the stability of the slope and caused a problem with erosion. I would strongly advise you not to demolish the recently constructed masonry wall as it appears to be the solution to these problems. Paul Christenson, P.E. George A. Murrell # 6 Packsaddle Road East Rolling Hills, CA 90274 August 11, 2003 AUG 11 2003 CITY OF ROCLING HILLS a Ms. Yolanta Schwartz City of Rolling Hills, # 1 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 RE: 1. The July 30, 2003 cancellation of Application for Variance 2. The August 4, 2003 Variance Request for Hearing This correspondence is in reference to the additional information and evidence mentioned in # 1. Above. Dear Yolanta: During the original construction of our Rolling Hills home 43 years ago, the city instructed us to build a retainer wall at the easement line, 5 feet high and 70 feet long to retain and stabilize the slope and to prevent soil erosion. About two years ago the RHCA View Preservation Committee cut two citrus trees to the ground and ordered the removal of the other plants, roots and foliage on our slope in order to create a view for our neighbor. Before their removal, these plants provided stability to our slope, controlled soil erosion and provided some privacy for our yard. Since our yard is approximately 7 feet lower than our neighbor's, removal of the plants on the slope, put stability and erosion control at risk and reduced the privacy in our yard to none. To protect our neighbor's new view, the View Committee significantly restricted our replanting the slope, however, even if there were no restrictions, the plants and the slope would still require interim support and erosion control for several years until the plants matured sufficiently to hold the slope unaided. This is particularly unfeasible for us because of our age and the time required to achieve stability of the slope. I respect the charge to the Planning Committee for its hesitancy to grant variances freely, and I also respect the fact that some requests having merit may have suitable alternatives that don't require a variance and finally, other variance requests with merit for which there are no suitable alternatives, yet, a variance may be granted under the proper circumstances. • • Page 2 of 2 Our recent Application for a Variance was for a spa and a wall. We were shocked to hear that both were denied and that the wall was to be torn down. When we asked for help, we received some helpful suggestions in a few days. We followed through with these suggestions and in a few more days, developed a suitable resolution by positioning the spa outside of the setback area for which no variance was required. The wall is a different story. We consulted with a building designer, a builder, some engineers and their answers were all the same, namely, the wall is the best way to resolve the stability and erosion problem, it is designed well, it's strong, it's already in place and there are no objections to it. The wall for which we are seeking a variance was built essentially as an extension of the original retainer wall of 43 years ago. It was to serve the same purpose of slope stability and erosion control, it is 5 feet high, about 15 feet long, it is curved for strength and esthetics and is intended to retain less than 3 vertical feet of slope. The are no objections from any of our neighbors, the height is 2 feet lower than our next door neighbor's lawn, he cannot see the wall from his place, it doesn't bother his view and he has no objections as he stated at the last Planning Committee Hearing. Certainly through no fault of yours, Anne-Merelie and I have been living in a small condominium in downtown Los Angeles for the last 7 years while trying to complete the restoration of our Rolling Hills home. We have tried very hard to understand the policies, procedures and what is required of us to make a proper presentation. I had no idea it would take this long to restore our home, for if I had, we would have never undertaken it. Happily, most of that time is now behind us, but regrettably, so is our future. I hope this time, the Planning Committee will be sufficiently satisfied with our application to grant us the variance so we can get on with finishing our home while there are a few more years to enjoy it. Thank you, most sincerely, George A. Murrell