Loading...
746, Construct a SFR with basement,, CorrespondenceTo whom it may concern We are looking to receive the gas release from the county at # 3 packsaddle east in Rolling Hills. As of September 11th 2012 we have received all our inspections and are in the process of receiving final sign off. The final sign off will be contingent upon the city of rolling hills and the county receiving the as - built map and reviewing It. As of today September 11th 2012 they have agreed to sign off the gas meter so we can test appliances and plumbing. The sign off of the gas does not constitute a final inspection and the Final will be signed off once the last items have been reviewed and are completed. y of rolling hills County • Bolton Engineering Corporation 25834 Narbonne Avenue, Suite 210 Lomita, Ca. 90717 (310) 325-5580 June 16, 2011 #3 Packsaddle, Rolling Hills, California Lin Residence This letter is in response to concerns considering the minimal rearyard grading and pool relocation. Below is a list of the changes being proposed. 1. Eliminate the approved pool, relocate pool closer to the residence by 17.5 linear feet. 2. Relocation of pool moves edge of pool 26 feet away from proposed top of slope. Approved pool location was 13 feet away from top of slope. 3. Raise grade 2 feet at the approved pool location. 4. Reduction of hardscape in the rearyard. 5. Reduce size of pad in the rearyard. • • 6/14/2011 Dear Rolling Hills Planning Commission: Regarding Zoning Case No. 746 Modification- We are the neighbors Bob and Hillary Watts residing at #2 Packsaddle Road West and our backyard shares a common property line with #3 Packsaddle Road East. It is unclear after inspecting the plans at City Hall how this proposed change will affect us. Our ambience has already been seriously impacted by the residence structure which now looms above our yard and peers down into our once private pool area and master bedroom. We are very concerned that raising the pool higher will further detract from our privacy and the aesthetic above our yard which from our perspective appears contrived due to the grading that's occurred already. Therefore we are respectfully requesting that the proposed grade change be staked and clearly marked and that we be allowed to visit so we can see with our own eyes what the plan is. We will be out of town from June 20th to July 10th and so are unable to attend the June 21sL Public Hearing but seriously hope that our absence for that short time will not preclude our ability to inspect the proposed change. Sincerely, Bob and Hillary Watts Oa,— okr ,Z1).n \ 7 TM 1itt 9 JUN 16 2011 City of Rolling Hills By • • Cry off?fP,>9JdP� 50TH ANNIVERSARY 1957 — 2007 January 30, 2008 Mr. and Mrs. Ivy Wang 1300 Via Zumaya Palos Verdes Estates, CA 90274 .' i%I'( RATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377.1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 746, Request for a Site Plan Review and Variances at 3 Packsaddle Road East. Dear Mr. and Mrs. Lin: This is to inform you that the City Council at their January 28, 2008 meeting received and filed the approved resolution by the Planning Commission. Please note however, that the City Council directed staff to carefully review the landscaping plans, that are required to be submitted prior to issuance of any permits, and to assure that the hedges along the front of the property, as shown on the plan, are not approved and that no new hedge like screening in the front or anywhere on your property be approved as part of the landscaping plan. Therefore, when you prepare the landscaping plan for this project, please eliminate the hedge in the front and substitute plants and shrubs that are not as high as 10 feet at maturity and that are planted in such a way as to not to totally block the property from the street. The approval is valid for two years, with the opportunity to request a two-year extension. The request must be made in writing prior to the expiration of the approval. The approval becomes null and void if work has not commenced within the specified period of time. Enclosed is a copy of RESOLUTION NO. 2008-01, specifying the conditions of approval set forth by the Planning Commission. You may want to make copies of the Resolution 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: Los Angeles County Registrar -Recorder Real Estate Records Section 12400 East Imperial Highway Norwalk, CA 90650 OR LAX Courthouse 11701 S. La Cienega Blvd. 6th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90045 310-727-6142 Mon -Fri 8:30 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. ® Printed 077 Recycled Paper r • Include a check in the amount of $9.00 for the first page and $3.00 for each additional page. If you need to expedite this process, you may want to walk the recordation process through, rather than send the form and resolution in. The City will notify the Los Angeles County Building & Safety Division to issue permits only after the Affidavit of Acceptance and the Resolution are recorded and received by the City and any conditions of the Resolution required prior to issuance of building permits are met. As you go through the development process, please be aware of the conditions of the Resolution, as there are conditions that have to be met at different stages of the process. Also assure that your architect, engineer and contractor have copies of the conditions. Please feel free to call me at (310) 377-1521 if you have any questions. Sincerely, �Y 8 lanta Schwartz anning Director Enclosures: AFFIDAVIT OF ACCEPTANCE FORM (to be recorded) RESOLUTION NO. 2008-01 (to be recorded) DEVELOPMENT PLAN cc: Criss Gunderson, Architect (cover letter only) • ( ot-s"--7 RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND MAIL TO CITY OF ROLLING HILLS 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310) 377-1521 (310) 377-7288 FAX • T RECORDER'S USE ONLY THE REGISTRAR -RECORDER'S OFFICE REQUIRES THAT TIIE FORM BE NOTARIZED BEFORE RECORDATION. AFFIDAVIT OF ACCEPTANCE FORM STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§ CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ) ZONING CASE NO. 746 SITE PLAN REVIEW XX VARIANCES XX I (We) the undersigned state: I am (We are) the owner(s) of the real property described as follows: 3 PACKSADDLE ROAD EAST, ROLLING HILLS, (LOT 25-SF) CA 90274 This property is the subject of the above numbered case and conditions of approval I am (We are) aware of, and accept, all the stated conditions in said ZONING CASE NO. 746 SITE PLAN REVIEW CLX VARIANCES L( I (We) certify (or declare) under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. 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 California ) 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 • • RESOLUTION NO. 2008-01 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL FOR A SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE TO REPLACE AN EXISTING RESIDENCE AND REQUEST FOR VARIANCES TO ENCROACH INTO THE SIDE YARD SETBACKS WITH BASEMENT LIGHT WELLS, TO PERMIT EXPORT OF SOIL AND TO SET ASIDE AN AREA FOR A FUTURE STABLE AND CORRAL IN THE FRONT YARD IN ZONING CASE NO. 746, AT 3 PACKSADDLE ROAD WEST, (LOT 25-SF), (LIN). THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. An application was duly filed by Mr. and Mrs. Lin with respect to real property located at 3 Packsaddle Road West (Lot 25-SF), Rolling Hills, CA requesting a Site Plan Review and Variances to permit grading and construction of a new 6,230 square foot single family residence and 781 square foot garage, 559 square foot swimming pool, 20 square foot pool equipment area, 96 square foot service yard, 900 square feet of covered porches, 800 square feet of detached trellises and a barbecue area and 4,940 square foot basement; minor Variance to encroach with two of the basement light wells 4-feet into side yard setbacks, a Variance to set aside an area for a future stable and corral in the front yard area and a Variance to export 450 cubic yards of the 1,787 cubic yards of dirt, which will be generated from excavation for the basement. Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted duly noticed public hearings to consider the application on October 16, 2007, at a field trip and at a regular Planning Commission meeting on November 20, 2007, December 18, 2007, and at a second field trip visit on December 18, 2007. The applicants were notified of the public hearings in writing by first class mail. 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' representative was in attendance at the hearings. Section 3. The applicants propose to demolish the existing residence and close off the existing second driveway. Section 4. Originally, the applicants submitted a request for a CUP for a garden room and a Variance to locate it in the front yard. At the public hearings, the Planning Commission and neighbors expressed concerns about the use and location of the garden room, location of the stable, the expansion of the building pad and height of the raised pad. Several neighbors submitted letters conveying their objections. Section 5. As a result of the concerns expressed by the neighbors and the Planning Commission, the applicants revised their project. The applicants eliminated the proposal for the garden room in the front yard area relocated the Reso. 2008-01 1 3 Packsaddle E. /OL(x— Co12- • !74 • 0 T 0 THE COMMENCEMENT OF ANY WORK. TI IESE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE TI lE PROPERTY OF CRISS C GUNDERSON ARCI IITECTAND SHALL NOT BE USED ON ANY OTI IER PROJECT. CRISS C GLNDERSON ARCHITECT 2024 VIA PACIIECO, PALOS VERDES ESTATES, CALIFORNIA 90274 TEL (310) 373-8077 FAX (310) 373-8277 • • m 13ti - rAh . -=i 20.0' J SYSb8RY8888Y8✓ VO WRITTEN DIMENSIONS TAKE PREFERNCE OVER SCALED DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED ON THE JOB SITE. DETAILS TAKE PREFERENCE OVER PLAN n Site & Roof Plans, Sections JAN 0 3 2008 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS By O p NSAND SNS.ANY DISC - ANCYSIIALLB BROUG (TO1 —.— ` r Lin Residence • 3 Packsaddle Road East, Rolling Hills, CA 90 • Citv 50TH ANNIVERSARY 1957 - 2007 January 22, 2008 Mr. and Mrs. Jia Shu 969 Afton Road San Marino, CA 91108 • tpeottin9 LLL ;f1C ";i'' 1''ILI) JANUARY 24, 1957 Subject: 3 Packsaddle East Dear Mr. and Mrs. Shu: NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS. CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 On Tuesday, January 22, 2008, I received your letter requesting the minutes of the January 15, 2008 Planning Commission meeting. As per our conversation, I am writing this letter to let you know that the minutes will not be ready until the end of January. However, the Planning Commission approved the case with several modifications to the original conditions. I am including the Resolution as approved by the Commission. The conditions of approval start on page 6. Staff will report this case and the Planning Commission action to the City Council r, on Mondav„ Tanuary 28, 2008 beginning at 7:30 PM. This is not a public hearing and therefore no testimony will be heard from the applicant or the public. The Planning Commission's decision in this matter becomes effective thirty days after the adoption of the resolution by the Commission (February 15, 2008), 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. Should the City Council take the case under appeal (jurisdiction) the case review will start "de novo" before the City Council, and you and everyone else will have another opportunity to comment. Or you, or anyone else, may appeal the Planning Commission decision by February 15, 2008 to the City Council, at which time the case will also be reviewed "de novo" before the City Council. The appeal fee would be 2/3 of the application fee, which in this case would be $3,466. Should you wish to appeal this case, please submit a letter with the fee, no later than February 14, 2008. We will then schedule a public hearing before the City Council for March 10, 2008. If you make the appeal earlier, by February 11, 2008, then the first hearing before the City Council could he held on February 25, 2008. Should you require additional information, please do not hesitate to call me at (310 377-1521). S. cerely 1 .4„A anta Schwartz, Plan g Director ® Printed on Recycled Paper 1 • • Ctt oPP llias hh// 50TH ANNIVERSARY 1957 - 2007 January 16, 2008 Mr. and Mrs. Lin 3 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 SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 746, Request for a Site Plan Review and Variances Dear Mr. and Mrs. Lin: This letter shall serve to notify you that the Planning Commission adopted a resolution, with amendments, on January 15, 2008, granting a request in Zoning Case No. 746. That action accompanied by the record of the proceedings before the Commission will be reported to the City Council on Monday, February 11, 2008 beginning at 7:30 PM. You or your representative must be present to answer any questions the Council may have. 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. A copy of the amended resolution is included for your review. Please familiarize yourself with the conditions of approval. 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. Instructions for recordation will be forwarded to you after the Council's proceedings. Feel free to call me at (310) 377-1521 if you have any questions regarding this matter. Sincerely, ctilf Yojlnta Schwartz P1 rining Director cc: Criss Gunderson, Architect ® Printed on Recycled Paper 4 • • RESOLUTION NO. 2008-01 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL FOR A SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE TO REPLACE AN EXISTING RESIDENCE AND REQUEST FOR VARIANCES TO ENCROACH INTO THE SIDE YARD SETBACKS WITH BASEMENT LIGHT WELLS, TO PERMIT EXPORT OF SOIL AND TO SET ASIDE AN AREA FOR A FUTURE STABLE AND CORRAL IN THE FRONT YARD IN ZONING CASE NO. 746, AT 3 PACKSADDLE ROAD WEST, (LOT 25-SF), (LIN). THE PLANNING COMNIISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. An application was duly filed by Mr. and Mrs. Lin with respect to real property located at 3 Packsaddle Road West (Lot 25-SF), Rolling Hills, CA requesting a Site Plan Review and Variances to permit grading and construction of a new 6,230 square foot single family residence and 781 square foot garage, 559 square foot swimming pool, 20 square foot pool equipment area, 96 square foot service yard, 900 square feet of covered porches, 800 square feet of detached trellises and a barbecue area and 4,940 square foot basement; minor Variance to encroach with two of the basement light wells 4-feet into side yard setbacks, a Variance to set aside an area for a future stable and corral in the front yard area and a Variance to export 450 cubic yards of the 1,787 cubic yards of dirt, which will be generated from excavation for the basement. Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted duly noticed public hearings to consider the application on October 16, 2007, at a field trip and at a regular Planning Commission meeting on November 20, 2007, December 18, 2007, and at a second field trip visit on December 18, 2007. The applicants were notified of the public hearings in writing by first class mail. 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' representative was in attendance at the hearings. Section 3. The applicants propose to demolish the existing residence and close off the existing second driveway. Section 4. Originally, the applicants submitted a request for a CUP for a garden room and a Variance to locate it in the front yard. At the public hearings, the Planning Commission and neighbors expressed concerns about the use and location of the garden room, location of the stable, the expansion of the building pad and height of the raised pad. Several neighbors submitted letters conveying their objections. Section 5. As a result of the concerns expressed by the neighbors and the Planning Commission, the applicants revised their project. The applicants eliminated the proposal for the garden room in the front yard area relocated the Reso. 2008-01 1 3 Packsaddle E. • • set aside area for a future stable and corral from the rear to the front, requested to export 450 c.y. of soil from the basement, to fill the rear of the lot to enlarge the building pad by no more than 4 feet and to fill the front yard by no more than 1 foot -on the average for better drainage. The applicants also proposed to move the residence further to the east (47 feet from the north eastern corner of the existing house, whereas previously it was proposed to be moved 36 feet); they redesigned the pool and enlarged the porches in the front. Section 6. The Planning Commission finds that the project qualifies as a Class 3 Exemption (The State of CA Guidelines, Section 15303) and is therefore categorically exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act. Section 7. 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 application requesting construction of a new residence, 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 because the proposed structures comply with the General Plan requirement of low profile, low -density residential development with sufficient open space between surrounding structures. The project conforms to Zoning Code lot coverage requirements. The net lot area of the lot is 45,981 square feet, (1.4 acres). The proposed residence (6,230 sq.ft.), garage (781 sq.ft.), covered porches/entryway (900 sq.ft.), service yard (96 sq.ft.), swimming pool (559 sq.ft.), detached trellises and barbecue area (800 sq.ft.), the future stable and 4,940 square foot basement which constitutes 20.0% (excluding the permitted exceptions) of the net lot which is within the maximum 20% structural lot coverage requirement. The total lot coverage induding all structures, paved areas and driveway will be 15,814 square feet, which constitutes 35.0% of the net lot which is within the 35% maximum overall net lot coverage requirement. The proposed project is screened from the road so as to reduce the visual impact of the development. The disturbed area of the lot currently exceeds the maximum permitted and the lot will be re -disturbed, rather than graded for the first time. B. The development plan substantially preserves the natural and undeveloped state of the lot by minimizing building coverage because the new structure will not cause the lot to look overdeveloped. Significant portions of the lot will be left undeveloped so as to maintain open space on the property. The existing shrubs and trees on the southern portion on the parcel will remain and will screen the house from the neighbor, and additional screening will be added Reso. 2008-01 2 3 Packsaddle E. • • as a condition of this approval. The nature, condition, and development of adjacent uses, buildings, and structures, the topography of the lot and neighbors' concerns have been considered, and the construction of the new house will not adversely affect or be materially detrimental to the adjacent uses, buildings, or structures because the proposed structure will be constructed on a portion of the lot which is least intrusive to surrounding properties, will be screened and landscaped with trees and shrubs, is a sufficient distance from nearby residences so' that the proposed structures will not impact the view or privacy of surrounding neighbors, and will substantially utilize the existing building pad for the new construction. 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 set forth in the Zoning Code will not be exceeded. A residence directly north to subject site is over 20% larger than the proposed residence and is located on a smaller lot. D. The development plan incorporates existing trees and is screened from other properties and the road by existing mature vegetation, which will be preserved. E. The development plan follows natural contours of the site to minimize grading and retain the natural drainage courses. Grading for this project will involve 1,787 cubic yards of cut from the basement. 1,337 cubic yards will be balanced on site and 450 will be exported. Since all of the soil will be generated from the excavation of the basement, the existing building pad will be minimally disturbed. F. The proposed development is sensitive and not detrimental to the convenience and safety of circulation for pedestrians and vehicles because the existing driveway will remain. G. The project conforms to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and is exempt. 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 17.16.110 requires that the front yard setback be fifty (50) feet from the roadway easement line, and be unobstructed from the ground upwards. In order to set aside a 1000 square foot area for a future stable and corral in the front yard, the applicants are seeking a Variance. With respect to this request for a Variance, the Planning Commission finds as follows: A. There are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances and conditions applicable to the property that do not apply generally to the other Reso. 2008-01 3 3 Packsaddle E. property or dass of use in the same zone. The existing residence has been developed towards the rear of the lot to garner the extraordinary views from the rear of the lot. The proposed residence will be located in a similar position. There is not an adequate area in the rear to construct a future stable and corral without impairing the view. The lot was graded at that time to create a pad for construction in a manner that the structure was placed towards the rear of the property. The topography of the lot together with the fact that the existing pad and residence are located in the rear create difficulty in setting aside the area for a future stable and corral elsewhere on the property. 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 because due to the existing grade, narrow lot configuration it would be a hardship to located the stable in the rear yard. In addition, the extraordinary view from the rear yard would be blocked from the house. The expansive open space in the front yard comfortably supports future stable. The narrow nature of the property places a hardship on locating the stable in the side or rear areas. Further, due to the narrow configuration of the lot, the neighbors expressed desire to not to place an area for a future stable in the rear, as it would negatively affect their views and privacy. C. The granting of the Variance would not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the property is located because a stable, if ever built in the front yard, would not be seen by any neighbors, would not affect their views and therefore property value and would be screened from the street. D. In granting of the Variance the spirit and intent of the Zoning Ordinance will be observed in that the proposed construction will be orderly, attractive and shall protect the rural character of the community. As it is required by the Zoning Ordinance to set aside an area for a stable and corral, in this case the front yard set aside area is suitable area for a future stable and corral. E. The Variance request is consistent with the General Plan of the City of Rolling Hills because the proposed structures comply with the General Plan requirement of low profile, low -density residential development with sufficient open space between surrounding structures and a set aside area for a future stable and corral. Section 9. 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 that the side yard setback be twenty (20) feet from the side property line, and be unobstructed from the ground upwards. The applicants seek a minor variance to encroach four feet into the north and south Reso. 2008-01 4 3 Packsaddle E. • • side yard setback with the basement light wells. With respect to this request the Planning Commission finds as follows: A. There are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances and conditions applicable to the property that do not apply generally to the other property or dass of use in the same zone. The existing residence has been developed with substantial encroachment into the side setbacks; up to 10 feet along 104 feet of the length of the residence on the south side and 25 feet along the north side. The proposed residence will eliminate this encroachment, and the two wells would encroach 4-feet for no more than 22-feet along the length of the structure (stairwell) on the north side and 14 feet along the south side. The subject property is extremely narrow in comparison to its length and to the neighboring properties. The building department requires the light wells and stairs. The encroachment of the proposed light wells is substantially less in width and mass than the existing encroachment of the residence. It should be noted that these existing encroachments of the residence were expanded to current condition, when the Planning Commission granted a variance in 2000. The encroachments are in the side and will not affect the surrounding properties. The proposed light wells are four feet in width, rather than the maximum permitted by the RHCA of 8 feet. B. The Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone, but which is denied to the property in question. The Variance is necessary because the existing terrain and development on the lot creates a difficulty in placing the new construction elsewhere on the property. The subject property is extremely narrow in comparison to its length and to the neighboring properties. The building department requires the light wells and stairs. The encroachment of the proposed light wells is substantially less in width and mass than the existing encroachment of the residence. In addition, he neighbor to the south, who objected to the original encroachment of up to 10 feet, did not object to the proposed insignificant encroachment. C. The granting of the Variance would not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the property is located. The proposed construction will be constructed on an existing building pad, will be the least intrusive to surrounding properties, will be screened and landscaped with trees and shrubs, is of sufficient distance from nearby residences and is less intrusive than the existing development, so that it will not impact the view or privacy of surrounding neighbors, and will permit the owners to enjoy their property without deleterious infringement on the rights of surrounding property owners. Section 10. 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 Reso. 2008-01 5 3 Packsaddle E. • • property to the same extent enjoyed by similar properties in the same vicinity. A Variance to Section 15.04.150 is required because it states that no import or export of soil is allowed in the City. The applicants request a Variance because they propose to export 450 cubic yards of soil from excavation of the basement. 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. The Variance for the export of soil is necessary because in order to balance the soil on the property, the property would have to be substantially raised. The entire property has been previously graded and is level, with very few undulating features. The applicants originally proposed balanced cut and fill, which would result in raising the rear of the lot up to 7 feet, which both the Planning Commission and the neighbors objected to. In order to minimize the amount of soil to be exported, and still provide for a larger building pad area for outdoor uses, the rear of the lot would be raised at a maximum by 4 feet. In order to correct current inadequate drainage in the front of the lot, the applicants propose to add a slight slant to the front yard and fill it between 6" to one foot. With these corrections to the lot the amount of soil to be exported is substantially less than originally proposed. B. The Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone, but which is denied to the property in question. The Variance is necessary because of the unusually flat topography of the lot, which makes it difficult to balance the soil on the lot without substantially elevating the lot. C. The granting of the Variance would not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the property is located. The project as conditioned by this Resolution will be adequately screened to prevent adverse visual impact to surrounding properties. The export of soil will not in any way affect the properties in the vicinity. The proposed development will improve drainage through the use of approved drainage plan, and will permit the owners to enjoy their property without deleterious infringement on the rights of surrounding property owners. Section 11. Based upon the foregoing findings in Sections 8, 9 and 10, the Planning Commission hereby approves the Site Plan Review application and Variances in Zoning Case No. 746 for excavation and for construction of a new residence, garage, accessory structures and encroachment of the residence into the side setback and export of soil, as shown on the Development Plan dated January 8, 2008, and marked Exhibit A, subject to the following conditions: A. The Site Plan Review and Variances approvals shall expire within two years from the effective date of approval if construction pursuant to this approval has not commenced within that time period, as required by Sections Reso. 2008-01 6 3 Packsaddle E. • • 17.46.080(A) and 17.38.070(A) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, or the approval granted is otherwise extended pursuant to the requirements of those sections. B. It is declared and made a condition of the approval, that if any conditions thereof are violated, this approval shall be suspended and the privileges granted hereunder shall lapse; provided that the applicants have 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 Building 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 this approval, or shown otherwise on an approved plan. D. The lot shall be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the revised site plan on file marked Exhibit A and dated January 8, 2008. 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. In addition, prior to submittal of final plans to the Building Department for issuance of building permits, the plans for the project shall be submitted to staff for verification that the final plans are in compliance with the plans approved by the Planning Commission. F. Grading shall not exceed 1,787 cubic yards of excavation from the basement, and 450 cubic yards may be exported. Any additional grading quantities, including from the excavation of footings, basement, drainage devices and any other activity on site, required by the Los Angeles County Building Department or due to conditions in the field, shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission. G. Structural lot coverage shall not exceed 9,036 square feet or 20.0%. H. Total lot coverage of structures and paved areas shall not exceed 15,814 square feet or 35.0% in conformance with lot coverage limitations. I. The lot has been previously disturbed at 100%.. J. Residential building pad coverage on the 28,631 square foot residential building pad shall not exceed 29.4% (not including portion of the covered porches and 800 sq.ft. of ancillary uses). K. One light well and one set of stairs may encroach no more than 4 feet into the north and south side yard setbacks. Reso. 2008-01 7 3 Packsaddle E. • • L. The basement shall not exceed 4,940 square feet and all requirements for the basements shall be met pursuant to City of Rolling Hills Zoning Code, the Los Angeles County Building Code and the RHCA architectural guidelines. M. Prior to issuance of an excavation or building permits, two sets of landscaping plans shall be submitted to staff for review. The property shall be landscaped and screened from adjacent properties. Shrubs shall be planted in an offset manner as not to create a hedge, but a see through screen. Shrubs shall be provided along the west and north easement lines to screen the project but not to obstruct views of neighboring properties. The shrubs, at maturity, shall be no less than 9' in height and no more than 10' high and shall be maintained at this height at all times. The existing or like landscaping along the south easement line shall be maintained. The applicants are encouraged to obtain input from adjacent property owners as to the type and location of proposed shrubs for screening. Landscaping shall include water efficient irrigation that incorporates low gallonage irrigation system, utilizes automatic controllers, incorporates an irrigation design using "hydrozones," considers slope factors and climate conditions, and utilizes means to reduce water waste resulting from runoff and overspray. N. Any walls required for this project shall not exceed 30 inches in height, shall not be in setbacks and shall be screened with landscaping to maximum extend practicable. O. The property owners shall be required to conform with the City of Rolling Hills and RHCA roofing material standards. P. The property owners shall be required to conform with the City of Rolling Hills Outdoor Lighting Standards and undergrounding of utility lines standards. Q. A minimum of four -foot level path and/or walkway, which does not have to be paved, shall be provided around the entire perimeter of the residence, garage and basement. R. The property on which the project is located contains a set aside area for a future stable and corral in the front yard. However, the Planning Commission shall review any proposed development in the future for a stable and corral. The Variance granted in this application for front yard set aside area for equestrian uses does not guarantee future approval in that location. S. Notwithstanding Sections 17.46.020 and 17.46.070 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, any modification to this project and to the property, which would constitute additional structural development, grading or additional excavation of dirt, shall require the filing of a new application for approval by the Planning Commission. Reso. 2008-01 8 3 Packsaddle E. • • T. During and after construction, all soil preparation, drainage, and landscape sprinklers shall protect the building pad from erosion and direct surface water in an approved manner. U. The side and rear property lines and the side and rear easement lines shall be delineated during the entire duration of the construction and no grading or construction shall take place in the easement, unless approved by the RHCA. V. During and after construction perimeter easements and trails shall remain free and clear of encroachments including, but not be limited to, site development, fences -including construction fences, grading, landscaping, irrigation, drainage devices, play equipment, parked vehicles, building materials, debris and other equipment, unless otherwise approved by the Rolling Hills Community Association. W. No drainage device may be located in such a manner as to contribute to erosion or in any way affect an easement, trail or adjacent properties. The energy dissipaters shall be designed in such a manner as to not cross over any equestrian trails or easements. The drainage system(s) shall not discharge water onto a trail, shall incorporate earth tone colors, including in the design of the dissipater and shall be screened from any trail and neighbors views to the maximum extent practicable, without impairing the function of the drainage system. X. During construction, conformance with the air quality management district requirements, stormwater pollution prevention practices, County and local ordinances and engineering practices so that people or property are not exposed to undue vehicle trips, noise, dust, and objectionable odors shall be required. Y. During construction, an Erosion Control Plan containing the elements set forth in Section 7010 of the 2007 County of Los Angeles Building Code shall be followed to minimize erosion and to protect slopes and channels to control stormwater pollution as required by the County of Los Angeles. Z. During construction, the property owners shall be required to schedule and regulate construction and related traffic noise throughout the day between the hours of 7 AM and 6 PM, Monday through Saturday only, when construction and mechanical equipment noise is permitted, so as not to interfere with the quiet residential environment of the City of Rolling Hills. AA. The property owners shall be required to conform to the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Health Department requirements for the installation and maintenance of a septic tank. AB. The property owners shall be required to conform to the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Health Department requirements for Reso. 2008-01 9 3 Packsaddle E. • • the installation and post construction maintenance of stormwater drainage facilities. AC. The property owners shall be required to conform to the Regional Water Quality Control Board and County Public Works Department Best Management Practices (BMPs) related to solid waste. AD. Prior to the submittal of a final building plan to the County of Los Angeles for plan check, a detailed drainage plan that conforms to the development plan as approved by the Planning Commission shall be submitted to the Rolling Hills Planning Department staff for review and approval. AE. The project must be reviewed and approved by the Rolling Hills Community Association Architectural Review Committee prior to the issuance of any grading or building permit. AF. The applicant shall pay all of the applicable Los Angeles County Building and Safety and Public Works Department fees, including Parks and Recreation fees and school fees for new residence. AG. Until the applicants execute and record an Affidavit of Acceptance of all conditions of this Site Plan Review and Variances approvals, as required by the Municipal Code, the approvals shall not be effective. AH. All conditions of the Site Plan and Variances approvals, that apply, shall be complied with prior to the issuance of grading or building permit from the County of Los Angeles. AI. Any action challenging the final decision of the City made as a result of the public hearing on this application must be filed within the time limits set forth in Section 17.54.070 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code and Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6 Reso. 2008-01 10 3 Packsaddle E. • • PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 15th DAY OF JANUARY 2008. ROGER SOMMER, CHAIRMAN ATTEST: MARILYN KERN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK Reso. 2008-01 11 3 Packsaddle E. • • STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§ CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ) I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2008-01 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING APPROVAL FOR A SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE TO REPLACE AN EXISTING RESIDENCE AND REQUEST FOR VARIANCES TO ENCROACH INTO THE SIDE YARD SETBACKS WITH BASEMENT LIGHT WELLS, TO PERMIT EXPORT OF SOIL AND TO SET ASIDE AN AREA FOR A FUTURE STABLE AND CORRAL IN THE FRONT YARD IN ZONING CASE NO. 746, AT 3 PACKSADDLE ROAD WEST, (LOT 25-SF), (LIN). was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on January 15, 2008 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 Reso. 2008-01 12 3 Packsaddle E. 6 Packsaddle Road West Rolling Hills, CA 90274 November 28, 2007 • Yolanta Schwartz, 310 377 1521 Planning Director 2 Portugese Bend Road City of Rolling Hills, California 90274 Dear Yolanta: • bwERLI wtq DEC 1 1 2007 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS sv I have several concerns regarding the proposed new single family residence to replace the existing residence at 3 Packsaddle Road East, Lot 25-SF. This is proposed by Mr. and Mrs. Lin as part of Zoning Case No. 746. 1. The proposed location of the stable and corral (as indicated by the 2x4s and rope with flags during the field visit) raises significant concerns. They should be moved to a different location for the following reasons: a. The stable will be quite tall and visible from various locations on our property, including from our driveway as one comes up to the house, as one approaches our front courtyard, from the courtyard itself, and from two bathrooms. b. Although the existing house is visible from our driveway, the proposed location for the stable is considerably closer to the property line, and will be looking down on most of our property. c. It will create a "closed in" feeling, and a feeling of a mass looking down on us, in contrast to the current feeling of openness and space. d. There is also have a concern with privacy. Although the stable is not normally inhabited by a person, it does present the opportunity for "peeping" into two of our bathrooms. 2. It's not clear if the Lin's proposal includes resurveying the lot lines, but their fence along our property line is actually on our property and should be moved back, so that it is on their property and there is a proper easement (5 feet?). 3. Also, we believe that the "rural/ranch" nature of Rolling Hills is a treasure and should be preserved. Therefore we have concerns about the size/bulk of the overall project, as well as the all -glass garden room. We have seen other affluent areas in Los Angeles undergo "mansionization" over the past 35 years, the result has been residential neighborhoods with very large houses, numerous "out" buildings and an overall feeling of being very crowded and hemmed in. Rolling Hills is very different and its "rural/ranch" nature should be preserved. The garden room is another "out" building, and the proposed all -glass design does not fit in Rolling Hills. Sincerely, ,l/r)arl - Nan Shu P.S. My son and his wife, Jia Shu and Sally Newman, and my daughter, Jarvia Shu, may be assisting me in this matter. • C1t o//QJtt Jh//• 50TH ANNIVERSARY 1957 - 2007 November 26, 2007 Mr. and Mrs.Kuang Lin 1300 Via Zumaya Palos Verdes Estates, CA 90274 INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 746. Request for a Site Plan Review, Variances and Conditional Use Permit. Dear Mr. and Mrs. Lin: The Planning Commission reviewed your project at the November 20 field trip and at the regular meeting and scheduled another field trip to your property for December 18. 2007 at 8:00 AM. It was mentioned that they might go onto the property individually to view the site and the view. Your neighbors will be notified of the meetings. The Commission expressed concerns with the following aspects of your project: • Garden Room in front yard is not compatible with the rural character of the City. • Stable and corral location is not feasible or conducive for future construction of a stable. • Excessive size of residence and basement. • Location of structures towards the rear of the lot. • Orientation of the pool on the building pad. • The building up/raising of up to 6-7 feet of the rear pad and the proximity of the top of slope of the new pad area to the rear property line, as well as the effect of the raised and extended pad on the privacy of residents below. Should you wish to export some of the dirt from the basement excavation, you would have to apply for a variance from the Zoning Regulations, which do not allow export of dirt. Please let me know by December 4, if you wish to apply for a variance to export dirt, so that proper notification could be provided to the newspaper and your neighbors. Thereafter, an application and a $1250 fee together with 8 sets of revised plans and calculations, must be submitted to the Planning Department by December 10, 2007 and the property re -staked for the December 18 field trip meeting. Should you not be ready for the December 18, 2007 meeting, please let me know, so that we may re -schedule the meetings to a later date. Please call me at (310) 377-1521 if you have any questions. Sincfely, S- Yol /ita Schwartz PI r ning Director cc: Criss Gunderson, Architect Printed on Recycled Paper • Planning Commission City of Rolling Hills 2 Portt8guese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Re: Zoning Case #746 Dear Commisioners: Drs. Richard and Joanne Rutgers 5 Packsaddle Road East Rolling Hills, CA 90274 8y • 1.1W4 NOV 2 0 2007 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS We oppose granting a variance in zoning case # 746 to construct a "garden room" in the front yard for the following reasons. Firstly, such accessory structures are specifically not permitted in the front yard as is clearly stated in the "Residential Development Highlights" of the City of Rolling Hills. Secondly, there is no hardship that would necessitate such a structure — there is ample space in the rear yard, for example in the area where the "future barn" is indicated on the plans. Lastly, this would set a dangerous precedent that would allow all manner of accessory structures in front yards, such as barbeques, gazebos, and Jacuzzis. We believe this could profoundly alter the rural character of Rolling Hills. Please deny the variance to build a "garden room" in the front yard in zoning case 746. Sincerely, i Richard and Joanne Rutgers 1 Ctt o/ leeen9 JId/ 50TH ANNIVERSARY 1957 - 2007 FIELD TRIP NOTIFICATION October 22, 2007 Mr. and Mrs. Lin 3 Packsaddle Road East Rolling Hills, CA 90274 INCOPl• i1tATL-l) .1. 1l!JAR`e 24. 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 746. Request for a Site Plan Review, Variances and Conditional Use Permit. Dear Mr. and Mrs. Lin: The Planning Commission scheduled a field inspection of your property to view a silhouette of the proposed project on Tuesday, November 20, 2007. at 7:30 AM. The site must be prepared according to the enclosed Silhouette Construction Guidelines and the following requirements. Please note that the Commission is reauirina much more information than they have in the past and due to inadequate staking have continued several field trips to the subsequent month. • A full-size silhouette in conformance with the attached guidelines must be prepared for ALL STRUCTURES of the project showing the footprints and roof ridges; • Stake the limits/footprints of -all of the structures; • Show the height of the finished floor of the proposed structure and the difference between the existing finished grade and the proposed finished grade in the areas where the pad is planned to be raised; • Stake (delineate) the area of the proposed future stable and corral and access thereto; Show ridge height of the future stable; • Delineate the basement wells in a different color ribbon; • Delineate/stake the location of the required setbacks; front, rear and side and the side easement and property lines in the vicinity of the project; • Show at least a 4-foot wide walkway around the perimeter of the entire structure, including behind the basement wells; • Show/stake the limits of the residential building pad and the existing and proposed finished grade of the building pad. Mark the height on the stakes. ® Printed on Recycled Paper • • l The silhouette shall be constructed a minimum of 5 days prior to the field trip. so that neighbors who may be away during the field trip visit would be able to view the silhouette and comment to the City prior to the meeting. The silhouette must remain on the property during the entire review process of this case, including City Council's review. It is, therefore, imperative that the construction of the silhouette be of a sturdy nature, including the stakes for the property. setback and easement lines. After the field trip, the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission will take place on Tuesday, November 20, 2007 at 6:30 PM at City Hall. The owner and/or representative must be present to answer any questions regarding the proposal. Please call me at (310) 377-1521 if you have any questions. Sincerely, . SI4 nta Schwartz PIannning Director cc: Criss Gunderson, Architect 1 50TH ANNIVERSARY 1957 - 2007 f • Cit amo mtts ��ee INC( 'i F (?I.:;,if_f) .1f.111JARY 24. 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS. CALIF. 90274 (310)377-1521 FAX: (310) 377.7288 SILHOUETTE CONSTRUCTION GUIDELINES A silhouette of proposed construction must be erected the week preceding the designated Planning Commission or City Council meeting/field trip. Silhouettes should be constructed with 2" x 4" lumber. Printed boards are not acceptable. Bracing should be provided. Lumber, wire or other suitable material should be used to delineate roof ridges and eaves. Flags in close proximity to each other must be attached to the wire or twine to aid in the visualization of the proposed construction. Property lines, setback lines and easement lines must be staked along the areas of construction. 2 1/2 - 3' high wooden stakes must be used to delineate the lines. Such stakes must be flagged and marked on their sides: • Property line ( red or pink flag) • Setback line (green flag) • Easement line (yellow flag) and remain in the ground throughout the entire review and approval process as well as during the entire construction process, when required by the Commission. 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. SECTION PLAN Nit ilt 41 ® Printed on Recycled Paper