622, Extension to previously approv, CorrespondencewCity oi leolling fiiied
October 18, 2001
Mr. Edmund Talbot
7 Packsaddle Road West
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
SUBJECT: Zoning Case No. 622
Request for one-year extension.
Dear Mr. Talbot:
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
Please find enclosed a signed copy of Resolution No. 2001-21granting an
additional one-year extension for your project.
Please be advised that the permission to implement your project will expire on
November 17, 2002, unless construction commences prior to that date.
Should you wish to speak to me regarding this matter, please call me at (310)
377-1521.
Sincere
Yola Ea Schwartz
Principal Planner
Printed on Recycled Paper.
•
eity opeollin9, _WA
NOTIFICATION OF MEETING
October 5, 2001
Mr. Edmund Talbot
7 Packsaddle Road West
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
SUBJECT: Zoning Case No. 622
Request for one-year extension.
Dear Mr. Talbot:
•
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
Your request for a one year extension in Zoning Case No. 622, has been set for
consideration by the Planning Commission at their meeting on Tuesday, October
16, 2001.
The meeting will begin at 7:30 PM in the Council Chambers, Rolling Hills City
Hall Administration Building, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills. The
property owner or a representative must attend to answer any questions.
Please call me at (310) 377-1521 if you have any questions.
nta Schwartz
incipal Planner
Pririted on Recycled Paper.
•
Gibs 0/ IO//tt& 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 24, 2001
Mr. Edmund Talbot
7 Packsaddle Road West
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
SUBJECT: EXPIRATION OF APPROVALS FOR ZONING CASE NO. 622
7 PACKSADDLE ROAD WEST
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-24
Dear Mr. Talbot:
This letter is to inform you that it has been almost one year since the approval of
Zoning Case No. 622. Approvals will expire on November 17, 2001.
According to the Los Angeles County Building and Safety Department you have
initiated grading plans and your plans are in plan check, however no permits have been
obtained for either grading or construction.
You can extend the approvals for one year only if you apply to the Planning
Commission in writing to request an extension prior to the expiration date. The filing
fee for the time extension is $200 to be paid to the City of Rolling Hills.
Feel free to call me at (310) 377-1521 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
4)4-
olanta Schwartz
Principal Planner
Cc: R.J. Tavasci, AIA
@Printed on Recycled Pam
Ci4, o/Roiling J/i/i
CERTIFIED MAIL
• November 20, 2000
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
Mr. Edmund Talbot
7 Packsaddle Road West
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
SUBJECT: APPEAL PERIOD AND AFFIDAVIT OF ACCEPTANCE FORM
ZONING CASE NO. 622, 7 PACKSADDLE ROAD WEST (LOT 19-SF)
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-24
Dear Mr. Talbot:
This letter shall serve to notify you that the Planning Commission adopted a
resolution on October 17, 2000 granting a Variance to permit encroachments into the
south side yard setback to construct retaining walls and granting Site Plan Review
approval for the construction of additions to a single family residence that will require
retaining walls and grading in zoning case no. 622 at 7 Packsaddle. Road West (Lot
19-SF), Rolling Hills, CA.
That action,/accompanied by the record of the proceedings before the Commission
was reported to the City Council on October 23, 2000 and November 13, 2000. At that
time, retaining wall plans were revised to be a maximum of 2 feet 8 inches in height
as shown on the attached plans.
The Planning Commission's decision in this matter shall become effective thirty days
after the adoption of the resolution by the Commission, unless an appeal has been
filed or the City Council takes jurisdiction of the case within that thirty (30) day appeal
period. (Section 17.54.010(B) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code). Should there be an
appeal, the Commission's decision will be stayed until the Council completes its
proceedings in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Code.
If no appeals are filed within the thirty (30) day period after adoption of the Planning
Commission's resolution, the Planning Commission's action will become final and
you will be required to cause to be recorded an Affidavit of Acceptance Form together
with the subject resolution in the Office of the County Recorder before the
Commission's action takes effect.
We have enclosed a copy of RESOLUTION NO. 2000-24, specifying the conditions of
approval set forth by the Planning Commission and the approved Exhibit A
Development Plan to keep for your files. Once you have reviewed the Resolution,
please complete the enclosed AFFIDAVIT OF ACCEPTANCE FORM, have the
signature(s) notarized, and forward the completed form and a copy of the Resolution
to:
Printed on Recycled Paper.
• •
Los Angeles County Registrar -Recorder
Real Estate Records Section
. 12400 East Imperial Highway
Norwalk, CA 90650
Include a check in the amount of $9.00 for the first page and $3.00 for each additional
page.
The City will notify the Los Angeles County Building & Safety Division to issue permits
only when the Affidavit of Acceptance is received by us and any conditions of the
Resolution required prior to issuance of building permits are met.
Please feel free to call me at (310) 377-1521 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Lola Ung
Planning Director
ENC: RESOLUTION NO. 2000-24
AFFIDAVIT OF ACCEPTANCE FORM
APPEAL SECTION OF THE ROLLING HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE
EXHIBIT A DEVELOPMENT PLAN
cc: Mr. R.J. Tavasci, R.J. Tavasci Design. Construction Co.
RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND
MAIL TO
4 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274
(310) 377-1521
(310) 377-7288 FAX
The Registrar -Recorder's Office requires that the form be notarized before recordation.
AFFIDAVID 0 F ACCEPTANCE FORM
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS )
ZONING CASE NO.622
SITE PLAN REVIEW
VARIANCE
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT
I (We) the undersigned state:
I am (We are) the owner(s) of the real property described as follows:
7 PACKSADDLE ROAD WEST, (LOT 19-SF), ROLLING HILLS, CA.
This property is the subject of the above numbered case.
I am (We are) aware of, and accept, all the stated conditions in said
ZONING CASE NO. 622
SITE PLAN REVIEW
VARIANCE
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT
I (We) certify (or declare) under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Z.
Z.
T Recorder's Use Only
Signature Signature
Name typed or printed Name typed or printed
Address Address
City/State City/State
Signatures must be acknowledged by a notary public.
State of Califomia )
County of Los Angeles )
On before me,
personally appeared
personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are
subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized
capacity(ies) and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the
person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
Witness by hand and official seal.
Signature of Notary
SEE EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF
�)(1///5/T`'
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-24
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A VARIANCE TO PERMIT
ENCROACHMENTS INTO THE SOUTH SIDE YARD SETBACK TO
CONSTRUCT RETAINING WALLS AND GRANTING SITE PLAN
REVIEW APPROVAL FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF ADDITIONS TO
A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE THAT WILL REQUIRE RETAINING
WALLS AND GRADING IN ZONING CASE NO. 622.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Applications were duly filed by Mr Edmund Talbot with respect
to real property located at 7 Packsaddle Road West (Lot 19-SF), Rolling Hills,
requesting a Variance to permit encroachment into the south side yard setback to
construct retaining walls and requesting Site Plan Review to permit the
construction of room additions, a basement, and retaining walls that will require
grading at an existing single family residence.
• Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public
hearing to consider the applications on August 15, 2000, September 19, 2000, and
October 17, 2000, and at a field trip visit on September 9, 2000. The applicants were
notified of the public hearing in writing by first class mail and through the City's
newsletter. Evidence was heard and presented from all persons interested in affecting
said proposal and from members of the City staff and the Planning Commission
having reviewed, analyzed and studied said proposal. The applicant was in
attendance at the hearings. During the hearing process, the Commission was
informed of the history of the site. The existing residence was constructed in 1952. In
1975, a request for a Conditional Use Permit by Mr. Thomas J. Roba for construction of
a retaining wall projecting into the side yard on each side of the property was denied
by the Planning . Commission. In 1976, the case was rejected by the Deputy District
Attorney after retaining walls were constructed without permits because there was an
attempt by the owner to correct the matter. In 1981, a grading permit was issued to
Mr. Talbot to return the slope to its natural state.
Section 3. The Planning Commission finds that the project qualifies as a
Class 1 Exemption (The State CA Guidelines, Section 15301(e)) and is therefore
categorically exempt from environmental review under the California
Environmental Quality Act.
Section 4. Sections 17.38.010 through 17.38.050 of the Rolling Hills
Municipal Code permit approval of a Variance from the standards and
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance when exceptional or extraordinary
circumstances applicable to the property and not applicable to other similar.
properties in the same zone prevent the owner from making use of a parcel of
• •
property to the same extent enjoyed by similar properties in the same vicinity.
Section 17.16.110 requires the side yard setback for every residential parcel in the RA-
S-1 Zone to be twenty (20) feet. The applicant is requesting to encroach up to a
maximum 19 feet into the 20 foot south side yard setback to construct 153-foot long,
4.5 foot high retaining walls at the rear or west of the residence. With respect to this
request for a Variance, the Planning Commission finds as follows:
A. There are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances and conditions
applicable to the property or to the intended use that do not apply generally to the
other property or class of use in the same zone because of the irregular shape of' the
lot. The existing legal nonconforming residence was built within the front yard and
side yard setbacks atop a steep slope. The retaining walls will encroach beyond
existing encroachments but are limited in area so as to preserve the safety and
integrity of the slope and leave nearly all of the existing open space near the . south
side of the residence unaffected.
B. The Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone,
but which is denied to the property in question. The Variance will permit the
development of the property in a manner similar to development patterns ,on
surrounding properties. The location of the building pad dictates that the proposed
retaining walls be set in the south side yard setback because the existing structure
was not constructed under current setback standards and the building pad is situated
close to the edge of a steep slope,
C. The granting of the Variance will not be materially detrimental to the
public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in . such vicinity and
zone in which the property is located. Development on the pad will allow a
substantial portion of the lot to remain undeveloped and is consistent in scale and
mass with adjacent development.
Section 5. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission
hereby approves the Variance for Zoning Case No. 622 to permit the construction of
retaining walls that will encroach a maximum of nineteen (19) feet into the south
side yard setback, as indicated on the development plan dated August 9, 2000,
submitted with this application and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit A,
subject to the conditions specified in Section 8 of this Resolution.
Section 6. Section 17.46.030 requires a development plan to be submitted
for site plan review and approval before any grading requiring a grading permit or
any building or structure may be constructed or any expansion, addition, alteration
or repair to existing buildings may be made which involve changes to grading or an
increase to the size of the building or structure by at least 1,000 square feet and has
the effect of increasing the size of the building by more than twenty-five percent
(25%) in any thirty-six (36) month period. With respect to the Site Plan Review
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-24
PAGE2OF7
• •
application to add 963 square feet to the proposed residence with a 963 square foot
basement, the Planning Commission makes the following findings of fact:
A. The proposed development is compatible with the General Plan, the
Zoning Ordinance and surrounding uses. The proposed structure complies with the
General Plan requirement of low profile, low density residential development and
maintain sufficient open space between surrounding structures. The project
conforms to Zoning Code setback and lot coverage requirements with the Variance
approved in Sections 5 of this Resolution. The lot has a net square foot area of
176,629 square feet. The proposed residence (2,778 sq.ft.), garage (400 sq.ft.), and future
stable (450 sq.ft.) will have 3,178 square feet which constitutes 1.8% of the lot which
is within the maximum 20% structural lot coverage requirement. The total lot
coverage including paved areas and driveway will be 6,160 square feet which equals
3.5% of the lot, which is within the 35% maximum overall lot coverage
requirement. The proposed project is screened from the road so as to reduce the
visual impact of the development on adjacent uses.
B. The proposed development preserves and integrates into the site
design, 'to the maximum extent feasible, existing natural topographic features of the
lot including surrounding native vegetation, mature trees, drainage courses, and
land forms (such as hillsides and knolls). The lot slopes downward at the rear and
most of the mature trees will not be removed. Grading will be done to provide
approved drainage that will flow away from the proposed residence and existing
neighboring residences.
C. The proposed development, as* conditioned, is harmonious in scale
and mass with the site, the natural terrain and surrounding residences. As indicated
in Paragraph A, the lot coverage maximum will not be exceeded and the proposed
project is consistent with the scale of the neighborhood when compared to this
irregular -shaped lot. The ratio of the proposed structure to lot coverage is similar to
the ratio found on several properties in the vicinity.
D. The development plan incorporates existing large trees and native
vegetation to the maximum extent feasible. Specifically, the development plan
preserves several mature trees and shrubs and supplements it with landscaping that
is compatible with and enhances the rural character of the community.
E. The development plan Substantially preserves the natural and
undeveloped state of the lot by minimizing building coverage because the new
structures will riot cause the structural and total lot coverage to be exceeded.
Although the building structure is located within the front and side yard setbacks,
the additions will not effect a major change to the existing residence. The
development plans as proposed will minimize impact on Packsaddle Road West.
Most of the additions proposed will not be visible from Packsaddle Road West.
Significant portions of the lot will be left undeveloped so as to maintain scenic
vistas across portions of the property.
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-24
PAGE 3 OF 7
F. The development plan follows natural contours of the site to
minimize grading and the natural drainage courses will continue to the canyons at
the west side (rear) of this lot.
G. The development plan preserves surrounding native vegetation and
mature trees and supplements these elements with drought -tolerant landscaping
which is compatible with and enhances the rural character of the community, and
landscaping provides a buffer or transition area between private and public areas.
H. The proposed development is sensitive and not detrimental to the
convenience and safety of circulation for pedestrians and vehicles because the
proposed project will utilize an existing driveway at the eastern portion of the
property off Packsaddle Road West for access.
•
I. The project conforms with the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act and is . categorically exempt from environmental
review.
Section 7. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission
hereby approves the Site Plan Review application for Zoning Case No. 622 for
proposed residential additions as indicated on the development plan incorporated
herein as Exhibit A and subject to the conditions contained in Section 8.
Section 8. The Variance to the side yard setback approved in Section 5 and
the Site Plan Review approved in Section 7 of this resolution are subject to the
following conditions:
A. The Variance and Site Plan Review approvals shall expire within one
year from the effective date of approval as defined in Sections 17.38.070(A) and
17.46.080(A) unless the applicant has acquired building permits or otherwise
extended the Variance pursuant to the requirements of those sections.
B. It is declared and made a condition of the Variance and Site Plan
Review approvals, that if any conditions thereof are violated, this approval shall be
suspended and the privileges granted thereunder shall lapse; provided ' that the
applicant has been given written notice to cease such violation, the opportunity for
a hearing has been provided, and if requested, has been held, and. thereafter the
applicant fails to correct the violation within a period of thirty (30) days from the
date of the City's determination.
C. All requirements of the Buildings and Construction Ordinance, the
Zoning Ordinance, and of the. zone in which the subject property is located must be
complied with unless otherwise set forth in the Permit, or shown otherwise on an
approved plan.
• RESOLUTION NO. 2000-24
PAGE 4 OF 7
•
D. The lot shall be developed and maintained in substantial conformance
with the site plan on file marked Exhibit A and dated August 9, 2000, except as
otherwise provided in these conditions.
E. The working drawings submitted to the County Department of
• Building and Safety for plan check review must conform to the development plan
approved with this application.
F. Any retaining walls incorporated into the project shall not exceed 4.5
feet in height, averaging no more than 2-1/2 feet.
G. The residential building pad coverage shall not exceed 77.4%, the stable
pad shall not exceed 45.0%, and total building pad coverage shall not exceed 71.1%.
H. Maximum disturbed area shall not exceed 6.4% of the net lot area.
I. Grading shall not exceed 285 cubic yards of cut soil and 285 cubic yards
of fill soil and shall be balanced on site.
J. Any grading shall preserve the existing topography, flora, and natural
features to the greatest extent possible.
K. An Erosion Control Plan containing the elements set forth in Section
7010 of the 1996 County of Los Angeles Uniform Building Code shall be prepared to
minimize erosion and to protect slopes and channels to control stormwater
pollution as required by the County of Los Angeles.
L. Landscaping shall incorporate and preserve, to the maximum extent
feasible, the existing mature trees and shrubs and the natural landscape screening
surrounding the proposed building pad.
M. Landscaping shall include water efficient irrigation, to the maximum
extent feasible, that incorporates a low gallonage irrigation system, utilizes
automatic controllers, incorporates an irrigation design using "hydrozones,"
considers slope factors and climate conditions in design, and utilizes means to
reduce water waste resulting from runoff and overspray in accordance with Section
17.27.020 (Water efficient landscaping requirements) of the Rolling Hills'Municipal
Code.
N. Prior to the submittal of an applicable final grading plan to the County
of Los Angeles for plan check, a detailed grading and drainage plan with related
geology, soils and hydrology reports that conform to the development plan as
approved by the Planning Commission must be submitted to the Rolling Hills
Planning Department staff for their review. Cut and fill slopes must conform to the
City of Rolling Hills standard of 2 to 1 slope ratio.
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-24
PAGE5OF7
• •
O. The project must be reviewed and approved by the Rolling Hills
Community Association Architectural Review Committee prior to the issuance of
any building or grading permit.
P. Notwithstanding Sections 17.46.020 and 17.46.070 of the Rolling Hills
Municipal Code, any modifications to the project which would constitute additional
structural development shall require the filing of a new application for approval by
the Planning Commission.
Q. The applicants shall execute an Affidavit of Acceptance of all
conditions of this Variance and Site Plan Review, pursuant to Section 17.38.060, or
the approval shall not be effective.
S. All conditions of these Variance and Site Plan Review approvals must
be complied with prior to the issuance of a building or grading permit from the
County of Los Angeles.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 17TH DAGF C 9BER, 2000.
ALEIN ROBERTS, CHAIRMAN •
ATTEST:
• MARILYN I RN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-24
PAGE 6OF7
• •
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS )
I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2000-24 entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A VARIANCE TO PERMIT
ENCROACHMENTS INTO THE SOUTH SIDE YARD SETBACK TO
CONSTRUCT RETAINING WALLS AND GRANTING SITE PLAN
REVIEW APPROVAL FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF ADDITIONS TO
A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE THAT WILL REQUIRE RETAINING
WALLS AND GRADING IN ZONING CASE NO. 622.
was approved and adopted at an adjourned regular meeting of the Planning
Commission on October 17, 2000 by the following roll call vote:
Commissioners Hankins, Margeta, Sommer, Witte
and Chairman Roberts.
None.
None.
None.
and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following:
Administrative Offices.
DEPUTY CI CLERK
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-24
PAGE 7 OF 7
•
17.54.010
.6
17.54 APPEALS
17.54.010 Time for Filing Appeals
A. All actions of the Planning Commission authorized by this
Title may be appealed to the City Council. All appeals shall
be filed in writing with the City Clerk.
B. All appeals must be filed on or before the 30th calendar day
after adoption of the Planning Commission's resolution on
the project or application. Application fees shall be paid .as
required by Section 17.30.030 of this Title.
C. Within 30 days after the Planning Commission adopts a
resolution which approves or denies a development .
application, the City Clerk shall place the resolution as. a
report item on the City Council's agenda. The City Council
may, by an affirmative vote of three members, take
jurisdiction over the application. In the event the City
Council takes jurisdiction over the application, the Planning
Commission's decision will be stayed until the City Council
completes its proceedings in accordance with the provisions
of this Chapter.
17.54.020 Persons Authorized to File an Appeal
Any person, including the' City Manager, may appeal a decision of
the Planning Commission to the City Council, in accordance with
the terms of this Chapter..
17.54.030 Form, Content, and Deficiencies in. an Appeal Application
A. All appeals shall be filed in writing with the City Clerk on a
form or forms provided by the City Clerk. Noappeal shall
be considered filed until the required appeal fee has been
received by the City Clerk.
B. The appeal application shall state, at a minimum, the name
and address of the appellant, the project and action being
appealed, and the reasons why the appellant believes that.
the Planning Commission erred or abused its discretion, or
why the Planning Commission's decision is not support by
evidence in the record.
76
ROLLING HILLS ZONING
MAY 24, 1593
•
17.54.030
C. If the appeal application is found to be deficient, the City
Clerk shall deliver or mail (by certified mail), to the
appellant a notice specifying the reasons why the appeal is
deficient. The appellant shall correct the deficiency with an
amendment to the appeal form within seven calendar days of
receiving the deficiency notice. Otherwise, the appeal
application will be deemed withdrawn, and the appeal fee
will be returned to the applicant.
17.54.040 Request for Information
Upon receipt of a written and complete appeal application and fee,
the City Clerk shall direct the Planning Commission Secretary to
transmit to the City Council the complete record of the entire
proceeding before the Planning Commission.
17.54.050 Scheduling of Appeal Hearing
•
Upon receiving an appeal, the City Clerk shall set the appeal for a
hearing before the City Council to occur within 20 days of the filing
of the appeal. In the event that more than one appeal is filed for
the same project, the Clerk shall schedule all appeals to be heard
at the same time.
17.54.060 Proceedings
A. Noticing
The hearing shall be noticed as required by Section 17.30.030 of
this Title. In addition, the following parties shall be noticed;
1. The applicant of the proposal being appealed;
2. The appellant; and
3. Any person who provided oral testimony or written
comments to the Planning Commission during or as part of
the public hearing on the project.
B. Hearing
The City Council shall conduct a public hearing pursuant to the
provisions of Chapter 17.34 of this Title. The Council shall
consider all information in the record, as well as additional
information presented at the appeal hearing, before taking action
on the appeal.
ROLLING HILLS ZONING
77 MAY 24.1993
•
17.54.060
C. Action
The Council may act to uphold, overturn, or otherwise modify the
Planning Commission's original action on the proposal, or the
Council may remand the application back to the Planning
Commission for further review and direction. The Council shall
make findings to support its decision.
D. Finality of Decision
The action of the City Council to approve, conditionally approve, or
deny an application shall be final and conclusive.
E. Record of Proceedings
The decision of the City Council shall be set forth in full in a
resolution or ordinance. A copy of the decision shall be sent to the
applicant or the appellant.
17.54.070 Statute of Limitations
Any action challenging a final administrative order or decision by
the City made as a result of a proceeding in which by law a hearing
is required to be given, evidence is required to be taken, and
discretion regarding a final and non -appealable determination of
facts is vested in the City of Rolling Hills, the City Council, or in
any of its Commissions, officers, or employees, must be filed within
the time limits set forth in the California Code of Civil Procedure,
Section 1094.6
ROLLING HILLS ZONING
78 MAY 24,1993
.F
P 096 199 909
US Postal Service
Receipt for Certified Mail
No Insurance Coverage Provided.
Do not use for International Mail (See reverse)
Sent to
Ali-. L�cx��z4 /ia0-174-
Street 4' umber
Postage
Certified Fee
Spedal Delivery Fee
Restricted Delivery Fee
10
Retum Receipt Showing to
" Whom b Date Delivered
• . Return Receipt Stowing to Whom,
< Date, & Addressee's Address
to
0 TOTAL Postage & Fees I
Postmark or Date
u.
0
4
SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SECTION
• Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete
item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired.
■ Print your name and address on the reverse
so that we can return the card to you.
IN Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece,
or on the front if space permits.
1. Article Addressed to: • • '�
�c as
C. Signature
X,. 4
D. Is detivery add¢ess different f
If YES, enter delivery addres
yjjr. 7Lhot
7 &frckSa esz.�--
41/.1) 17' /4, d%
z'c, ,Uo• , .
2. Article Number (Copy from service label_
PS Form 3811, July 1999
3. Service Type
Certified Mail
Registered
0 Insured Mail
COMPLETE'THIS SECTION ON DELIVERY
A. Received by (Please Print Clearly) B. Date of Delivery
HOV 7nnrj
❑ Agent
❑ Addressee
m item 1? 0 Yes
below: 0 No
❑ Express Mat
❑ Return Receipt for Merchandise
❑ C.O.D.
4. Restricted Delivery? (Extra Fee) ❑ Yes
Domestic Return Receipt 102595-99-M-1789
City .1) ihito
GODFREY PERNELL, D.D.S.
Mayor
JODY MURDOCK.
Mayor Pro Tem
THOMAS F. HEINSHEIMER
Councilmember
FRANK E. HILL
Councilmember
B. ALLEN LAY
Councilmember
November 14, 2000
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
Ms. Peggy Minor
Manager
Rolling Hills Community Association
1 Portuguese Bend Road
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION .NO. 2000-24: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A
VARIANCE TO PERMIT ENCROACHMENTS INTO THE SOUTH SIDE
• YARD SETBACK TO CONSTRUCT RETAINING WALLS AND
GRANTING SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF ADDITIONS TO A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
THAT WILL REQUIRE RETAINING WALLS AND GRADING IN
ZONING CASE NO. 622. Mr. Edmund Talbot, 7 Packsaddle Road West
(Lot 19-SF)
Dear Ms. Minor:
At the regular City' Council meeting held Monday, November 13, 2000, the City Council
received and filed the attached staff report and Resolution relating to the above
referenced Zoning Case.
During deliberations, the City Council noted that the applicant had reduced the height
of a retaining wall from 4 feet 6 inches to 2 feet 8 inches. When this case contained a
wall measuring 4 feet 6 inches, the City Council did not wish to approve this case by
receiving and filing a report which would have been inconsistent with regulations of
the Rolling Hills Community Association. The City Council would support the decision
of the Community Association in this regard.
,Should you wish to discuss this further, please do not hesitate to call. Thank you for
your cooperation.
Sincerely ,
raig R. Nealis
City Manager
CRN:mlk
11/14/0Ominor.ltr
cc: City Council
Lola Ungar, Planning Director
Printed on Recycled Paper.
F
•
Ciii O/ /0in hfi INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274
(310) 377-1521
FAX: (310) 377.7288
E-mail: cltyofrh@aol.com
October 24, 2000
Mr. Edmund Talbot
7 Packsaddle Road West
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION NO. 2000-24: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A VARIANCE
TO PERMIT ENCROACHMENTS INTO THE SOUTH SIDE YARD SETBACK
TO CONSTRUCT RETAINING WALLS AND GRANTING SITE PLAN
REVIEW APPROVAL FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF ADDITIONS TO A
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE THAT WILL REQUIRE RETAINING WALLS
AND GRADING IN ZONING CASE NO. 622.
Mr Edmund Talbot, 7 Packsaddle Road West (Lot 19-SF)
Dear Mr. Talbot:
This letter is to advise you that the City Council continued review of Resolution No.
2000-24 to Monday, November 13, 2000. Prior to acceptance of the Planning
Commission's action, the Council requested the review and approval of the Rolling
Hills Community Association regarding the proposed average retaining wall height.
The meeting will begin at 7:30 PM in the Council Chambers, Rolling Hills City Hall
Administration Building, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills. You or your
designated representative must attend to present your project and to answer
questions.
Please call me at (310) 377-1521 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
44V
Lola M. Ungar Y17—
Planning Director
cc: Mr. R.J. Tavasci, R.J. Tavasci Design. Construction Co.
@Printed on Recycled Paper.
City opeolling JUL
September 20, 2000
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
Mr. Edmund Talbot
7 Packsaddle Road West
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 622, Request for a Variance to permit the construction of
retaining walls that will encroach into the south side yard setback and a request for
Site Plan Review to construct residential additions that require retaining walls and
grading at an existing single family residence at 7 Packsaddle Road West (Lot 19-
SF) Rolling Hills, CA.
Dear Mr. Talbot:
This letter shall serve to notify you that the Planning Commission voted at their regular meeting on
September 19, 2000 to direct staff to prepare a resolution to approve your request for a Variance to
permit the construction of retaining walls that will encroach into the south side yard setback and a
request for. Site Plan Review to construct residential additions that require retaining walls and
grading at an existing single family residence at 7 Packsaddle Road West (Lot 19-SF) Rolling Hills,
CA in Zoning Case No. 622 and shall be confirmed in the draft resolution that is being prepared.
The Planning Commission will review and consider the draft resolution, together with conditions of
approval, at an upcoming meeting and make its final decision on your application at that
subsequent meeting.
The findings and conditions of approval of the draft resolution will be forwarded to you before
being signed by the Planning Commission Chairman and City Clerk.
The decision shall become effective thirty days after the adoption of the Planning Commission's
resolution unless an appeal has been filed or the City Council takes jurisdiction of the case within
that thirty (30) day appeal period. (Section 17.54.010(B) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code).
Should there be an appeal, the Commission's decision will be stayed until the Council completes
its proceedings in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Code.
The Planning Commission's action taken by resolution approving the development application is
tentatively scheduled for Tuesday, October 17, 2000. That action, accompanied by the record of
the proceedings before the Commission, is tentatively scheduled to be placed as a report item on
the City Council's agenda at the Council's regular meeting on Monday, October 23, 2000.
Feel free to call me at (310) 377-1521 if you have any questions regarding this matter.
Sincerely,
LOLA M. UNGAR
PLANNING DIRECTOR
cc: Mr. R.J. Tavasci, R.J. Tavasci Design. Construction Co.
®Printed on Recycled Paper
0/Rottin,
FIELD TRIP NOTIFICATION
August 16, 2000
Mr. Edmund Talbot
7 Packsaddle Road West
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: ZONING CASE NO. 622, Request for Site Plan Review to construct retaining walls
and residential additions that require grading at an existing single family residence
at 7 Packsaddle Road West (Lot 19-SF) Rolling Hills, CA.
Dear Mr. Talbot:
We have arranged for the Planning Commission to conduct a field inspection of your property to
view a silhouette of the proposed project on September 9; 2000.
The Planning Commission's timetable is to meet at .8:00 AM at 12 Upper,Blackwater Canyon Road
and then proceed to 3 Packsaddle Road West. Do' not expect the Commission at 8:00 AM but, be
assured that the Commission will be there before 10:00 AM. •, .
The site must be prepared according to the enclosed Silhouette 'Construction Guidelines and the
following requirements:
• A full-size silhouette -in conformance with the attachedguidelines must be prepared for ALL
STRUCTURES of the project showing the footprints, ,i'oof ridges and bearing walls;
• Stake the limits of the building pad;
• Show the height of the finished floor of the proposed building pad;
• Stake the retaining wall areas; and
• Stake the side property lines and front and side yard setback lines.
After the field trip, the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission will take place on
Tuesday, September 19, 2000 at 7:30 PM at City Hall.
The owner and/or representative should be present to answer any questions regarding the proposal.
Please call me at (310) 377-1521 if you have any questions.
Sincer ly,
ola M. Ungar
Planning Director
Enclosure: Silhouette Construction Guidelines
cc:
Mr. R.J. Tavasci, R.J. Tavasci Design. Construction Co.
Printed on Recycled Paper.
C °Mo!! S Jdi/i
INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
NO.2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274
(310) 377-1521
FAX (310) 377-7288
E-mall cityorrh@aol.com
SILHOUETTE CONSTRUCTION GUIDELINES
When required by the Planning Commission or City Council, a silhouette of
proposed construction should be erected for the week preceding the
designated Planning Commission or City Council meeting.
Silhouettes should be constructed with 2" x 4" lumber. Printed boards are not
acceptable.
Bracing should be provided where possible.
Wire, twine orother suitable material should be.used' .to delineate roof ridges:
and eaves.
Small pieces of cloth, or flags should• be attached to the wireortwine to aid in
the visualization of the proposed construction. .
The application may be delayed if inaccurate or incomplete silhouettes are
constructed.
If you have . any further questions contact the Planning . Department Staff at
(310) 377-1521.
PI 114
• .•• s�
••
••
op
rf
•1
••
•1
'•
••
SECTION
•
•
•
.r
at at
PLAN
:3
Printed on Recycled Paper.
110
City O/ /eoItni L/i! INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
STATUS OF APPLICATION
& NOTIFICATION OF MEETING
August 3, 2000
Mr. Edmund Talbot
7 Packsaddle Road West
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274
(310) 377-1521
FAX: (310) 377-7288
E-mail: cityofrh@aol.com
SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 622, Request for Site Plan Review to construct the retaining
walls and residential additions that require grading at an existing single family
residence at 7 Packsaddle Road West (Lot 19-SF) Rolling Hills, CA.
Dear Mr. Talbot:
Pursuant to state law the City's staff has completed a preliminary review of the application noted
above and finds that the information submitted is:
X Sufficiently complete as of the date indicated above to allow the application to be
processed.
Please note that the City may require further. information • in order to clarify, amplify, correct, or
otherwise supplement the application. If the City requires such additional information, it is strongly
. suggested that you supply that information promptly to avoid any delay in the processing of the
application.
Your application for Zoning Case No. 622 has been set for public hearing consideration by the
Planning Commission at their meeting on Tuesday. August 15. 2000.
The meeting will begin at 7:30 PM in the Council Chambers, Rolling Hills City Hall Administration
Building, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills. You or your designated representative must
attend to present your project and to answer questions.
The staff report for this project will be available at the City Hall after 3:00 PM on Friday, August 11,
2000. We will forward the report to you.
Please call me at (310) 377-1521 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
06 A
Lola M. Ungar
Planning Director
cc: Mr. R.J. Tavasci, R.J. Tavasci Design. Construction Co.
®Printed on Recycled Paper