Loading...
671, Construct a block wall in side, CorrespondenceC14. opR.elina Jh// 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, 2004 Dr. and Mrs. George Murrell 6 Packsaddle Road East Rolling Hills, CA 90274 SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 671, wall in the side yard setback. Dear Dr. and Mrs. Murrell: This letter shall serve to notify you that you are in compliance with Resolution No. 949, requiring that you remove the previously constructed 5 foot wall or work with staff on alternate design. My inspection revealed that you have lowered the wall to 3 feet, which is an acceptable alternative. Please do not hesitate to call me should you have any questions. Sin • - rely, cif-4 olanta Schwartz lanning Director ® F'nr r!c r l c'n Rr rc Ir • £'4. O/ /.E'0/fLfll _WA INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 FRANK E. HILL Mayor THOMAS F. HEINSHEIMER Mayor Pro Tem DR. JAMES BLACK Councilmember B. ALLEN LAY Councilmember GODFREY PERNELL, D.D.S. Councilmember March 9, 2004 Dr. and Mrs. George Murrell 6 Packsaddle Road East Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Dear Dr. and Mrs. Murrell: NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 E-mail: cityofrh@aol.com At the regular City Council meeting held Monday, March 8, 2004, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 949 entitled: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS TO DENY A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH INTO THE NORTH SIDE YARD SETBACK WITH A UNAUTHORIZED BLOCK WALL AT AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE, AT 6 PACKSADDLE ROAD EAST (LOT 31-SF), IN ZONING CASE NO. 671." We have enclosed a copy of the signed Resolution for your records. Section 10 of the Resolution requires that the wall shall be removed or an alternate design proposed that is consistent with the requirements of the Municipal Code within six months of the date of this Resolution. We look forward to working with you and your representatives in this regard. Please feel free to contact either Planning Director Yolanta Schwartz or me to discuss ideas to resolve this situation. We stand ready to assist you as necessary. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, /410 Craig R. Nealis City Manager CRN:mlk 03-09-04murrell.tr cc: City Council Yolanta Schwartz, Planning Director Rafael Bernal, District Engineering Associate, LA County Peggy Minor, RHCA Manager Mr. Joe Juge ®f'r;, terl or! F1r;cyclr,d f'.ifrr;r .31 • RESOLUTION NO. 949 • A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS TO DENY A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH INTO THE NORTH SIDE YARD SETBACK WITH A UNAUTHORIZED BLOCK WALL AT AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE, AT 6 PACKSADDLE ROAD EAST (LOT 31-SF), IN ZONING CASE NO. 671. (MURRELL). THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. An application was duly filed by Dr. and Mrs. George Murrell with respect to real property located at 6 Packsaddle Road East (Lot 31-SF), Rolling Hills, requesting a Variance to encroach into the north side yard setback to permit the completion and retention within the setback of an unauthorized partially constructed block wall on the property. Section 2. In October of 2002, staff was informed that a block wall in the north side yard setback was under construction on the subject property. Staff investigated the complaint and confirmed that a 5-foot high, 15 feet long, block wall was under construction within the side yard setback. Staff directed the property owners to cease the construction and demolish the wall or apply to the Planning Commission for a Variance. Section 3. As a result, the applicants filed for a Variance to retain the 5-foot high block wall in the north side yard setback and to construct a spa, which would also encroach into the side yard setback. Subsequently, the applicant withdrew the Variance request for the encroachment of the spa, but continued the request for the wall. Section 4. The Planning Commission conducted duly noticed public hearings to consider the application on June 17, 2003 and July 15, 2003 and at a field trip visit on July 1, 2003. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the revised Variance application at the August 19, 2003 public hearing. The applicants were notified of the public hearings in writing. Evidence was heard and presented from all persons interested in affecting said proposal and from members of the City staff. The applicants and their representative were in attendance at the hearings. Section 5. At the August 19, 2003 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission directed staff to prepare a resolution to deny the request to retain the unauthorized 5-foot high block wall. The Commission found that the wall is not necessary to prevent erosion of the sloped area immediately behind the wall or provide privacy. The Planning Commission unanimously adopted Resolution No. 2003-16 denying the request on September 16, 2003. Section 6. The City Council received and filed the subject case on September 22, 2003. On October 10, 2003, the applicant submitted an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to deny the request. Section 7. The City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on the appeal on November 10, 2003 and visited the property on November 12, 2003. Following the field trip the applicant indicated to staff in writing that he might pursue further studies of slope stability and work with staff on alternative plan that would not require a discretionary permit. However, the applicant did not withdraw the request for an appeal and requested several continuances of this case, the last being to the February 23, 2004 City Council meeting, at which time the public hearing was reconvened and concluded. Evidence was presented from all persons interested in the appeal, and fully considered by the City Council. The applicant's representatives were in attendance at all of the referenced hearings. Section 8. Sections 17.38.010 through 17.38.050 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code permit approval of a Variance from the standards and requirements of the Zoning Ordinance when exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applicable to the property and not applicable to other similar properties in the same zone prevent the owner from making use of a parcel of property to the same extent enjoyed by similar properties in the same vicinity. Section 17.16.120 requires a side yard of twenty feet (20') from the side property line in the RAS-1 zone. The applicants request a Variance to encroach into the north side yard setback to permit the retention of a 5-foot high, circular, approximately 15-feet long block wall. With respect to this request for a Variance, the City Council finds as follows: A. The City Council finds that there are no special circumstances applicable to the property that deny the property owner of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity. The block wall is located in the side yard setback and violates the setback requirements. There Resolution No. 949 1 k. are other structures on t operty that already encroach into the side ront yard setback, and additional encroac ment would make the north side yard se ack crowded with structures. The property has no unusual features or characteristics (and the applicant has pointed to none) that justify deviation from a rule generally applicable to all properties, a rule designed to maintain a buffer area between properties that is free of structures. B. The Variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone, but which is denied to the property in question. The applicant cited the loss of privacy from removal of vegetation as a justification for the Variance, but the Variance will not offerthe property owner privacy, as the wall is below grade of the adjacent property and does not obstruct views from the adjoining property. The applicant also cited the loss of vegetation as a ground for the Variance, arguing that resulting erosion would be abated by the proposed wall. However, the wall is not necessary to prevent erosion -- there are other less intrusive and lawful means permitted by the Municipal Code available to the applicant to prevent potential erosion and control drainage. C. The granting of the Variance would be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the property is located, because it would set a precedent for constructing retaining walls in the required setbacks. The subject property is not atypical in any respect and cannot be distinguished from other similar properties in the City that adhere to the setback rules. The Variance is not required for the applicant to make beneficial use of the property (the property is developed with a single family home and has been occupied and used without the wall for 44 years) and the request would constitute a special privilege to the extent that so much development would be permitted in the side yard and setback areas intended to be free and dear of buildings, serving as a buffer from streets and neighboring properties. Section 9. Based upon the foregoing findings, the City Council hereby denies the Variance application for Zoning Case No. 671 for the construction of a block wall, which encroaches into the north side yard setback, as shown on a development plan dated August 7, 2003. Section 10. The applicant's un-permitted construction of the block wall constitutes a Code violation. Therefore, in view of the foregoing, the City will forego code enforcement for a period of six months from the adoption date of this Resolution in order to accord the applicant a reasonable time within which to remove the wall, work with staff on alternate design and take whatever steps are necessary to control soil erosion consistent with the requirements of the Municipal Code. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 8TH DA OF MARCH 2004. FRANK HILL, MAYOR ATTEST: I 01,7 MARILYN KERN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK Resolution No. 949 2 • • • STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CITY OF ROLLING HILLS SS I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 949 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS TO DENY A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH INTO THE NORTH SIDE YARD SETBACK WITH A UNAUTHORIZED BLOCK WALL AT AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE, AT 6 PACKSADDLE ROAD EAST (LOT 31-SF), IN ZONING CASE NO. 671. (MURRELL). was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council on March 8, 2004, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Black, Lay, Pernell, Mayor Pro Tem Heinsheimer and Mayor Hill. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following: Administrative Offices. DEPUTY CITY CLERK Resolution No. 949 3 • • C14 opeo ffing JUL February 24, 2004 Dr. and Mrs. George Murrell 6 Packsaddle Road East Rolling Hills, CA 90274 SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 671, Variance request constructed block wall in the side yard setback. Dear Dr. and Mrs. Murrell: INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377.1521 FAX: (310) 377.7288 E-mail: cityolrh@aol.com to retain previously This letter shall serve to notify you that the City Council voted at their regular meeting on February 23, 2004 to direct staff to prepare a resolution to deny, your appeal of the Planning Commission's decision for the unauthorized wall in the side yard setback. The City Council will review and consider the draft resolution at an upcoming meeting on March 8, 2004 at 7:30 PM. The Councilmembers directed staff to include a condition in the resolution to allow you six months to remove the unauthorized condition, and to work with staff to rectify the soil erosion problem in a way that a discretionary permit would not be required, and where a short wall would be allowed for drainage and soil erosion control purposes only. The findings of denial of the draft resolution will be forwarded to you before the City Council meeting. The decision of the City Council will become effective immediately after adoption of the Resolution. Feel free to call me at (310) 377-1521 if you have any questions regarding this matter. Sincgrely, 44- s--dk„i7 olanta Schwartz Planning Director cc: Richards D. Barger, Attorney At Law John Juge, Juge Design Group ®Printed on RecVclnd P.mrn Feb 20 04 11:08a George Murrell 310 377-9238 p.1 • • F A X Friday, February 20, 2004 TO: CRAIG R. NEALIS. CITY MANAGER FAX: 377-7288 FROM: GEORGE A. MURRELL. FAX: 544-8204. Pqs 1, Message: With reference to our telephone conversation this morning, l respectfully request that the position of my case on the agenda be moved forward to before the presentations of the Planning Commission Resolutions. Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully submitted, 41i..4..kAAqj George A. Murrell • City o/ /E'0ff54 JUL INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 E-mail: cityolrh@aol.com January 13, 2004 Dr. and Mrs. George Murrell 6 Packsaddle Road East Rolling Hills, CA 90274 SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 671, Appeal of a Variance request to retain and complete construction of a block wall in the side yard setback. Dear Dr. and Mrs. Murrell: This letter is to inform you that, as per your request, the City Council at their regular meeting on Monday, January 12, 2004, continued the appeal of the Planning Commission's decision in the above case to the February 23. 2004 City Council meeting, (second meeting in February). The meeting will be held at 7:30 PM in the Council Chambers at City Hall. You and/or your representative should be present. Please feel free to call me at (310) 377-1521 if you have any questions. Sincefely, SA-742) ,,Yolanta Schwartz tPlanning Director ®Printed on Necvcicd Pano:r •City 0/ leoffinv FRANK E. HILL Mayor THOMAS F. HEINSHEIMER Mayor Pro Tem DR. JAMES BLACK Councilmember B. ALLEN LAY Councilmember GODFREY PERNELL, D.D.S. Councilmember November 25, 2003 Mr. George A. Murrell, DDS 6 Packsaddle Road East Rolling Hills, CA 90274 • INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377.7288 E-mail: cityofrh@aol.com SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL OF A PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION TO DENY A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH INTO THE NORTH SIDE YARD SETBACK WITH A PARTIALLY CONSTRUCTED BLOCK WALL AT AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IN ZONING CASE NO. 671 AT 6 PACKSADDLE ROAD EAST. (LOT 31-SF) (MURRELL). Dear Dr. Murrell: At the regular City Council meeting held Monday, November 24, 2003, the City Council approved your request for a continuance of your appeal of your Zoning Case. Although this case was technically continued to the next meeting of the City Council scheduled for December 8, 2003, the City Council will not conduct a meeting until Monday, January 12, 2004 due to the City Council Holiday Open House on December 8th and a tradition of not holding a City Council meeting on the 4th Monday in December. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me or Planning Director Yolanta Schwartz. Thank you for your cooperation and support. We look forward to working with you regarding your project. Sincerely, 21/" Craig R. Nealis City Manager CRN:mlk 11/25/03murrc11.ltr cc: City Council Yolanta Schwartz, Planning Director Mr. Joe Juge ®Prinicrl on Hvcvrar•d {'ap•:r • • George A. Murrell, DDS 6 Packsaddle Road East Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Sunday, November 16, 2003 City of Rolling Hills Attn: Craig Nealis, City Manager Yolanta Schwartz, Planning Director #1 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hill, CA 90274 Dear Craig and Yolanta: By fIIWqJ NOV 1 7 2003 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS It has been suggested that we pursue further studies of the slope problem with our contractor and possibly some guidance from you, to develop alternatives that would not require the vote of the City Council. We must go out of town early tomorrow morning and will not return until Thursday, November 19, 2003. We've decided to follow this suggestion so would you be kind enough to cancel our meeting with the City Council scheduled for Tuesday, November 24, 2003, I'll call you when we return. In the meantime, thank you very much. Sincerely, George A. Murrell • City ie0m4 Jh/I'. OCTOBER 28, 2003 Dr. and Mrs. George Murrell 6 Packsaddle Road East Rolling Hills, CA 90274 • INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310)377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 E-mail: cityofrh@aol.com SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 671, Appeal of a Variance request to retain and complete construction of a block wall in the side yard setback. Dear Dr. and Mrs. Murrell: This letter is to inform you that the City Council at their regular meeting on Monday, October 27, 2003, continued your request for an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision in the above case to the November 10, 2003 City Council meeting. The meeting will be held at 7:30 PM in the Council Chambers at City Hall. You and/or your representative should be present. Please feel free to call me at (310) 377-1521 if you have any questions. Sincerftly, Y9fanta Schwartz tanning Director ®Printed on Fteevrind • • George A. Murrell # 6 Packsaddle Road East Rolling Hills, CA 90274 October 23, 2003 To: The Rolling Hills City Council I respectfully request that the appeal in Zoning Case 671 be continued to the November 10, 2003 City Council meeting. Thank you. Sincerely, George A. Murrell I'd BE26-LLE OTC ttaJJnw a2joa9 e,c:TT CO 62 400 • Ci1 0/ ie0m4 �'QP September 23, 2003 Dr. and Mrs. George Murrell 6 Packsaddle Road East Rolling Hills, CA 90274 INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 E-mail: cityofrh@aol.com SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 671, Variance request to retain and complete construction of a block wall in the side yard setback. RESOLUTION NO. 2003-16 Dear Dr. and Mrs. Murrell: This letter shall serve to notify you that the City Council reviewed the Planning Commission's action on the above -mentioned case and received and filed the report. The Planning Commission or the City Council will take no further action, unless you or someone else appeals the Planning Commission's decision. 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. 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 appeal is filed within the thirty (30) day period after adoption of the Planning Commission's resolution, (by October 16, 2003), the Planning Commission's action will become final, and you shall be required to remove the wall within sixty (60) days of the ending of the appeal period, but no later than December 16, 2003. I have enclosed the information for an appeal. Please feel free to call me at (310) 377-1521 if you have any questions. Sinc ely, Yganta Schwartz anning Director cc: Mr. John Juge, Juge Design Group ®Pnnlort can Flcr yt Irr1 P:q,at • Ciiy .1) R0f1L �u.ee REQUEST FOR APPEAL APPLICATION FILE NO. PROPERTY ADDRESS: OWNER: • 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 I hereby request appeal of the decision of the Planning Commission on the above referenced application(s) for the following reasons: SIGNED: DATED: FEE: (Two-thirds of original application fee.) ® Nit ,htli ,)r H._A ‘,r kd • • 17.54.010 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. No appeal 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 ROILING HIUS ZONING MAY 24, 1993 • • 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. 77 ROLLING HILLS ZONING 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 • C1iy ofieo een9 �uee September 17, 2003 Dr. and Mrs. George Murrell 6 Packsaddle Road East Rolling Hills, CA 90274 • INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 E-mail: cityotrh@aol.com SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 671, Variance request to retain and complete construction of a block wall in the side yard setback. RESOLUTION NO. 2003-16 Dear Dr. and Mrs. Murrell: This letter shall serve to notify you that the Planning Commission adopted a resolution on September 16, 2003 denying a Variance to complete and retain a block wall. That action, accompanied by the record of the proceedings before the Commission will be reported to the City Council on September 22, 2003. 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 shall be required to remove the wall within thirty (30) days of the ending of the appeal period. Please feel free to call me at (310) 377-1521 if you have any questions. Siryce ly, � <4 SLLLJ ' Yb nta Schwartz anning Director cc: Mr. John Juge, Juge Design Group ®lyr or. fi.•c ,r.lnrl 1'nl�gi • • George A. Murrell # 6 Packsaddle Road East Rolling Hills, CA 90274 August 19, 2003 Ms. Yolanta Schwartz #1 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Ref: # 671 Encl: 1. George Murrell's letter 2. Engineer's letter 3. Neighbors' responses to mailings 4. Photographs Dear Ms. Schwartz: The Planning Committee might have already reviewed George Murrell's letter and the engineer's letter. If this is the case, Mr. John Juge, designer -builder, or Dr. George Murrell, owner will be happy to answer any questions they might have. When proposals for the wall came before the Planning Committee, descriptions and inquiries were mailed to the neighbors in the area, to determine if they had any objections to the proposal, there were no obiections. Mr. Fuller did have a question about the height of the wall. When he was assured the wall would be 5 feet high, during the June 17th Planning Committee Public Hearing, he too, said he had no objections. Mr. & Mrs. William Horn and Dr. Richard Rutgers stated they had no objections and signed a letters to that effect. The Murrells have never met Mr. Joseph Cioffi & Ms. Kathy Halliday or Dr. & Mrs. Todd Lanman, so they did not feel comfortable asking them to sign a letter. Respectfully submitted, y2_ eorge A.1'Iurrell • • Drs. Richard & Joanne Rutgers # 5 Packsaddle Road East Rolling Hills, CA 90274 August 15, 2003 Ms. Yolanta Schwartz #1 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 AUG 1 9 2053 ay CITY OFROLLING Nt �-� U.S Re: A curved concrete and steel retainer wall 5 feet high, @ 15 feet long and is to be used to provide stability and prevent soil erosion of a side yard slope. This wall is 2 feet lower than our neighbor's lawn, it cannot be seen from his home and he has no objections as stated during our last Planing Committee Public Hearing. This wall is an extension of a retainer wall 5 feet high and 70 feet long the City of Rolling Hills instructed us to build 43 years ago during the original construction of our home. This is located at the Murrell residence, # 6 Packsaddle Road East. Dear Ms. Schwartz: Sincerely, ( Drs. Richard & Joanne Rutgers George A. Murrell # 6 Packsaddle Road East Rolling Hills, CA 90274 August 11, 2003 Ms. Yolanta Schwartz City of Rolling Hills, # 1 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 • Wangni0 AUG 112003 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS BY RE: 1. The July 30, 2003 cancellation of Application for Variance 2. The August 4, 2003 Variance Request for Hearing This correspondence is in reference to the additional information and evidence mentioned in # 1. Above. Dear Yolanta: During the original construction of our Rolling Hills home 43 years ago, the city instructed us to build a retainer wall at the easement line, 5 feet high and 70 feet long to retain and stabilize the slope and to prevent soil erosion. About two years ago the RHCA View Preservation Committee cut two citrus trees to the ground and ordered the removal of the other plants, roots and foliage on our slope in order to create a view for our neighbor. Before their removal, these plants provided stability to our slope, controlled soil erosion and provided some privacy for our yard. Since our yard is approximately 7 feet lower than our neighbor's, removal of the plants on the slope, put stability and erosion control at risk and reduced the privacy in our yard to none. To protect our neighbor's new view, the View Committee significantly restricted our replanting the slope, however, even if there were no restrictions, the plants and the slope would still require interim support and erosion control for several years until the plants matured sufficiently to hold the slope unaided. This is particularly unfeasible for us because of our age and the time required to achieve stability of the slope. I respect the charge to the Planning Committee for its hesitancy to grant variances freely, and I also respect the fact that some requests having merit may have suitable alternatives that don't require a variance and finally, other variance requests with merit for which there are no suitable alternatives, yet, a variance may be granted under the proper circumstances. • • Page 2 of 2 Our recent Application for a Variance was for a spa and a wall. We were shocked to hear that both were denied and that the wall was to be torn down. When we asked for help, we received some helpful suggestions in a few days. We followed through with these suggestions and in a few more days, developed a suitable resolution by positioning the spa outside of the setback area for which no variance was required. The wall is a different story. We consulted with a building designer, a builder, some engineers and their answers were all the same, namely, the wall is the best way to resolve the stability and erosion problem, it is designed well, it's strong, it's already in place and there are no objections to it. The wall for which we are seeking a variance was built essentially as an extension of the original retainer wall of 43 years ago. It was to serve the same purpose of slope stability and erosion control, it is 5 feet high, about 15 feet long, it is curved for strength and esthetics and is intended to retain less than 3 vertical feet of slope. The are no objections from any of our neighbors, the height is 2 feet lower than our next door neighbor's lawn, he cannot see the wall from his place, it doesn't bother his view and he has no objections as he stated at the last Planning Committee Hearing. Certainly through no fault of yours, Anne-Merelie and I have been living in a small condominium in downtown Los Angeles for the last 7 years while trying to complete the restoration of our Rolling Hills home. We have tried very hard to understand the policies, procedures and what is required of us to make a proper presentation. I had no idea it would take this long to restore our home, for if I had, we would have never undertaken it. Happily, most of that time is now behind us, but regrettably, so is our future. I hope this time, the Planning Committee will be sufficiently satisfied with our application to grant us the variance so we can get on with finishing our home while there are a few more years to enjoy it. Thank you, most sincerely, George A. Murrell • Cuy 0/ if/L. • 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 Agenda Item No.: 4A Mtg. Date: 9/22/03 DATE: SEPTEMBER 22, 2003 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL ATTN: CRAIG R. NEALIS, CITY MANAGER FROM: YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR SUBJECT: RESOLUTION NO. 2003-16. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DENYING A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH INTO THE NORTH SIDE YARD SETBACK WITH A PARTIALLY CONSTRUCTED BLOCK WALL AT AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE LOCATED AT 6 PACKSADDLE ROAD EAST (LOT 31-SF), IN ZONING CASE NO. 671. (MURRELL). BACKGROUND 1. The Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2003-16, which is attached, on September 16, 2003, at their regular meeting denying a request for a Variance to encroach into the side yard setback with a partially constructed wall. The vote was 5-0. 2. The applicants requested a Variance to complete and retain a 5-foot high, 15 feet long block wall, which encroaches into the side yard setback. Previously, the applicants requested a Variance to complete and retain this wall and to construct a spa, which also encroached into the side yard setback. 3. During the proceedings before the Planning Commission, the applicants withdrew the Variance request for the spa and the wall and re -applied for a modification to the original Variance request to retain the wall only. The applicants will move the spa out of the setback. • 4. Attached are letters from an engineer and from the property owners, explaining the need for the wall. The applicants' representative also states that the wall is necessary for privacy for the owners, as well as for prevention of erosion of adjacent slope. The applicants stated that they were required by the RHCA View Committee to cut down some trees in the north easement, which provided them some privacy, and that the wall would do the same plus prevent ZC No. 671 CC 9/22/03 ®{rnrge[I cin pnt,Vr,{.,•r1 (';4ufr • • erosion. The wall is a continuation of an existing block wall (approved in 1961), which is located along the easement line in the side yard setback. 5. The existing house with an attached garage and the 5' high retaining wall in the side yard setback were built in 1961. In 1967, the swimming pool, a 300 square foot terrace, and a 225 square foot storage area were constructed In 1996 a 1,005 square foot addition was approved, which is almost completed. 6. The total net lot area of the lot is 83,212 square feet. The property is developed with a 4,520 square foot residence, 506 square foot garage, 440 square foot pool, 80 square foot reflection pond, 600 square foot terrace/service yard and 1,185 square feet of trellises and covered porches for a total of 7,331 square feet of structures. The structural coverage of the net lot is proposed to be 7,831 square feet or 9.4% of the net lot area, which includes the future stable, (20% permitted). 7. The total lot coverage of the net lot area, including the structures and all impervious areas is 13,946 square feet or 16.7%, (35% permitted). 8. The residential building pad is 14,316 square feet. The residential building pad coverage is 7,381 square feet or 51.5%. This includes all of the existing structures and the proposed spa. The future stable will be located on a 1,781 square foot building pad for coverage of 25.0%. 9. The maximum disturbed area is 26,316 square feet or 31.6%, (40% maximum permitted). 10. The project has been determined to be categorically exempt pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council receive and file this report or provide direction to staff. ZC No. 671 CC 9/22/03 2 • • VARIANCE REQUIRED FINDINGS A. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same vicinity and zone; and B. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights possessed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone but which is denied the property in question; and C. That the granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; and D. That in granting the variance, the spirit and intent of this title will be observed; and E. That the variance does not grant special privilege; F. That the variance is consistent with the portions of the County of Los Angeles Hazardous Waste Management Plan relating to siting and siting criteria for hazardous waste facilities; and G. That the variance request is consistent with the General Plan of the City of Rolling Hills. ZC No. 671 CC 9/22/03 3 ZONING CASE NO. 671 CRITERIA & MAJOR IMPACTS RA -S-1 Zone Setbacks: Front: 50 ft. from front easement line Side: 20 ft. from property line Rear: 50 ft. from property line • Structures (Site Plan Review required if size of structure increases by at least 1,000 sq.ft. and has the effect of increasing the size of the structure by more than 25% in a 36-month period). Grading Disturbed Area (40% maximum; any graded building pad area, any remedial grading (temporary disturbance), any graded slopes and building pad areas, and any nongraded area where impervious surfaces exist. Structural Lot Coverage (20% maximum) Total Lot Coverage (35% maximum) Building Pad Coverage (30% maximum Planning Commission guideline) Roadway Access Access to Stable and Corral Preserve Views Preserve Plants and Animals ZC No. 671 CC 9/22/03 EXISTING Residence with accessory structures and uses Residence Garage Swim Pool Stable Covered porch/ trellises Service Yard Refl. Pond TOTAL N/A PROPOSED Variance to encroach with a wall, into side yard setback 4,520 sq.ft. Residence 506 sq.ft. Garage 440 sq.ft. Swim Pool 0 Stable Future 1,185 sq.ft. Service Yard Spa 600 sq.ft. Covered porches/ 80 sq.ft. Trellises Refl. pond 7.331 sa.ft. TOTAL None 4,520 sq.ft. 506 sq.ft. 440 sq.ft. 450 sq.ft. 600 sq.ft. 50 sq.ft. 1,185 sq.ft. 80 sq.ft. 7.831 sa.ft. 30.4% 31.6% of 83,212 square feet net lot area 8.9% 16.8% 49.7% Existing off Packsaddle Proposed off Packsaddle N/A N/A 4 9.4% 17.7% 51.5% of 14,316 square feet building pad area No change No change Planning Commission review Planning Commission review • • RESOLUTION NO. 2003-16 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DENYING A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH INTO THE NORTH SIDE YARD SETBACK WITH A PARTIALLY CONSTRUCTED BLOCK WALL AT AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE LOCATED AT 6 PACKSADDLE ROAD EAST (LOT 31-SF), IN ZONING CASE NO. 671. (MURRELL). THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Application was duly filed by Dr. and Mrs. George Murrell with respect to real property located at 6 Packsaddle Road East (Lot 31-SF), Rolling Hills, requesting a Variance to encroach into the north side yard setback to permit the retention of partially constructed block wall at an existing residence. Section 2. In October of 2002, staff was informed that a block wall allegedly in the north side yard setback was under construction on subject property. Staff investigated the complaint and confirmed that the partially constructed wall was in the side yard setback. Staff directed the property owners to cease the construction and apply to the Planning Commission for a Variance or demolish the wall. Section 3. As a result, the applicants filed for a Variance to retain the partially constructed 5-foot high block wall in the north side yard setback and to construct as spa, which would encroach into the side yard setback. The Planning Commission at the July 15, 2003, meeting, directed staff to prepare a Resolution to deny the Variance request to complete the block wall and to construct a spa, which would encroach into the north side yard setback. Section 4. Subsequently, prior to the August 2003 Planning Commission meeting, the applicants withdrew the Variance request for the block wall and construction of the spa in the side yard setback, and re -filed a modified Variance request for the partially completed wall only. The applicants propose to move the spa out of the setback. Section 5. The Planning Commission conducted duly noticed public hearings to consider the original application on June 17, 2003 and July 15, 2003 and at a field trip visit on July 1, 2003. The Planning Commission conducted duly noticed public hearing to consider the revised Variance application at the August 19, 2003 public hearing. The applicants were notified of the public hearings in writing. Evidence was heard and presented from all persons interested in affecting said proposal and from members of the City staff and the .Planning Commission having reviewed, analyzed and studied said proposal. The applicants and their representative were in attendance at the hearings. Resolution 2003-16 • • Section 6. The Planning Commission finds that the project qualifies as a Class 1 Exemption [State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15301(e)] and is therefore categoricallyexempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act. Section 7. Sections 17.38.010 through 17.38.050 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code permit approval of a Variance from the standards and requirements of the Zoning Ordinance when exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applicable to the property and not applicable to other similar properties in the same zone prevent the owner from making use of a parcel of property to the same extent enjoyed by similar properties in the same vicinity. Section 17.16.120 requires a side yard of twenty feet (20') from the side property line in the RAS-1 zone. The applicants request a Variance to encroach into the north side yard setback to permit the retention of a 5-foot high, circular, approximately 15-feet long block wall. With respect to this request for a Variance, the Planning Commission finds as follows: A. There are no exceptional and extraordinary circumstances and conditions applicable to the property or to the intended use that do not apply generally to the other property or class of use in the same zone because the partially constructed wall is located in the side yard setback and violates the setback requirements. There are other structure on the property that already encroach into the side and front yard setback, and additional encroachment would make the north side yard setback crowded with structures. B. The Variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone, but which is denied to the property in question. The Variance is not necessary to allow the property owner privacy, as the wall is below grade of the adjacent property owner and would have no impact on privacy. In addition, the wall is not necessary to prevent erosion, as there are other means available to the applicant to prevent erosion and control drainage. C. The granting of the Variance would be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the property is located, because it would set a precendece for constructing retaining walls in the required setbacks. Section 8. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby denies the Variance application for Zoning Case No. 671 for the construction of a block wall, which encroaches into the north side yard setback, as shown on a development plan dated August 7, 2003. Resolution 2003-16 2 • • PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2003. ARVEL WITTE, CHAIRMAN ATTEST: _aeina,11,J 411Ak.) MARILYN ERN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK Resolution 2003-16 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§ CITY OF ROLLING HILLS) I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2003-16 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DENYING A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH INTO THE NORTH SIDE YARD SETBACK WITH A PARTIALLY CONSTRUCTED BLOCK WALL AT AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE LOCATED AT 6 PACKSADDLE ROAD EAST (LOT 31-SF), IN ZONING CASE NO. 671. (MURRELL). was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on September 16, 2003 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners DeRoy, Hankins, Margeta, Sommer and Chairman Witte. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following: Administrative Offices. ir) 4, 1 u .43h n1 % DEPUTY CITY CLERK Resolution 2003-16 4 lJ • • • George A. Murrell # 6 Packsaddle Road East Rolling Hills, CA 90274 August 19, 2003 Ms. Yolanta Schwartz #1 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Ref: # 671 Encl: 1. George Murrell's letter 2. Engineer's letter 3. Neighbors' responses to mailings 4. Photographs Dear Ms. Schwartz: The Planning Committee might have already reviewed George Murrell's letter and the engineer's letter. If this is the case, Mr. John Juge, designer -builder, or Dr. George Murrell, owner will be happy to answer any questions they might have. When proposals for the wall came before the Planning Committee, descriptions and inquiries were mailed to the neighbors in the area, to determine if they had any objections to the proposal, there were no objections. Mr. Fuller did have a question about the height of the wall. When he was assured the wall would be 5 feet high, during the June 17th Planning Committee Public Hearing, he too, said he had no objections. Mr. & Mrs. William Horn and Dr. Richard Rutgers stated they had no objections and signed a letters to that effect. The Murrells have never met Mr. Joseph Ciotti & Ms. Kathy Halliday or Dr. & Mrs. Todd Lanman, so they did not feel comfortable asking them to sign a letter. Respectfully submitted, Qua-Ly..?_ eorge A.``Murrell • • Drs. Richard & Joanne Rutgers # 5 Packsaddle Road East Rolling Hills, CA 90274 August 15, 2003 Ms. Yolanta Schwartz #1 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 AUG 19 2O 63 ay ClTY OF ROLING HIL LS Re: A curved concrete and steel retainer wall 5 feet high, @ 15 feet long and is to be used to provide stability and prevent soil erosion of a side yard slope. This wall is 2 feet lower than our neighbor's lawn, it cannot be seen from his home and he has no objections as stated during our last Planing Committee Public Hearing. This wall is an extension of a retainer wall 5 feet high and 70 feet long the City of Rolling Hills instructed us to build 43 years ago during the original construction of our home. This is located at the Murrell residence, # 6 Packsaddle Road East. Dear Ms. Schwartz: Sincerely, Drs. Richard & Joanne Rutgers • • Mr. & Mrs. William G. Horn # 16 Southfield Drive Rolling Hills, CA 90274 August 15, 2003 Ms. Yolanta Schwartz #1 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 8y Re: A curved concrete and steel retainer wall 5 feet high, @ 15 feet long and is to be used to provide stability and prevent soil erosion of a side yard slope. This wall is 2 feet lower than our neighbor's lawn, it cannot be seen from his home and he has no objections as stated during our last Planing Committee Public Hearing. This wall is an extension of a retainer wall 5 feet high and 70 feet long the City of Rolling Hills instructed us to build 43 years ago during the original construction of our home. This is located at the Murrell residence, # 6 Packsaddle Road East. Dear Ms. Schwartz: 1/—.7"?..-tri_./.)--1.-6 Sincerely, / L(L- / Mr. & Mrs. William G. Horn 771/4A. l,. • • George A. Murrell # 6 Packsaddle Road East Rolling Hills, CA 90274 August 11, 2003 Ms. Yolanta Schwartz City of Rolling Hills, # 1 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 AUG 11 2003 CITY OF AOWNG NIU.S BY RE: 1. The July 30, 2003 cancellation of Application for Variance 2. The August 4, 2003 Variance Request for Hearing This correspondence is in reference to the additional information and evidence mentioned in # 1. Above. Dear Yolanta: During the original construction of our Rolling Hills home 43 years ago, the city instructed us to build a retainer wall at the easement line, 5 feet high and 70 feet long to retain and stabilize the slope and to prevent soil erosion. About two years ago the RHCA View Preservation Committee cut two citrus trees to the ground and ordered the removal of the other plants, roots and foliage on our slope in order to create a view for our neighbor. Before their removal, these plants provided stability to our slope, controlled soil erosion and provided some privacy for our yard. Since our yard is approximately 7 feet lower than our neighbor's, removal of the plants on the slope, put stability and erosion control at risk and reduced the privacy in our yard to none. To protect our neighbor's new view, the View Committee significantly restricted our replanting the slope, however, even if there were no restrictions, the plants and the slope would still require interim support and erosion control for several years until the plants matured sufficiently to hold the slope unaided. This is particularly unfeasible for us because of our age and the time required to achieve stability of the slope. I respect the charge to the Planning Committee for its hesitancy to grant variances freely, and I also respect the fact that some requests having merit may have suitable alternatives that don't require a variance and finally, other variance requests with merit for which there are no suitable alternatives, yet, a variance may be granted under the proper circumstances. 0-32. • • Page 2 of 2 Our recent Application for a Variance was for a spa and a wall. We were shocked to hear that both were denied and that the wall was to be torn down. When we asked for help, we received some helpful suggestions in a few days. We followed through with these suggestions and in a few more days, developed a suitable resolution by positioning the spa outside of the setback area for which no variance was required. The wall is a different story. We consulted with a building designer, a builder, some engineers and their answers were all the same, namely, the wall is the best way to resolve the stability and erosion problem, it is designed well, it's strong, it's already in place and there are no objections to it. The wall for which we are seeking a variance was built essentially as an extension of the original retainer wall of 43 years ago. It was to serve the same purpose of slope stability and erosion control, it is 5 feet high, about 15 feet long, it is curved for strength and esthetics and is intended to retain less than 3 vertical feet of slope. The are no objections from any of our neighbors, the height is 2 feet lower than our next door neighbor's lawn, he cannot see the wall from his place, it doesn't bother his view and he has no objections as he stated at the last Planning Committee Hearing. Certainly through no fault of yours, Anne-Merelie and I have been living in a small condominium in downtown Los Angeles for the last 7 years while trying to complete the restoration of our Rolling Hills home. We have tried very hard to understand the policies, procedures and what is required of us to make a proper presentation. I had no idea it would take this long to restore our home, for if I had, we would have never undertaken it. Happily, most of that time is now behind us, but regrettably, so is our future. I hope this time, the Planning Committee will be sufficiently satisfied with our application to grant us the variance so we can get on with finishing our home while there are a few more years to enjoy it. Thank you, most sincerely, M.1,( / (laW George A. Murrell g • UFA PALOS \'FIDES keAlm, Engineering (:ivii I sinwilrrid c'r inst thing August 8, 2003 Mr. John Juge Juge Design Group 4648 Marloma Dr. Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274 CftY OF i'. ;... . 3',_. Subject: Wall at #6 Packsaddle Road East, Rolling Hills, CA John: 6027•I Paseo Delicias P.O. Box 2211 Rancho Santa Fe California 920G7 pvecrsf 0, earthlink.net 858 759 2434 858 759 8324 FAX I have inspected the added wall located on the North East end of the existing dwelling at #6 Packsaddle Road East, Rolling Hills, CA. It appears that the removal of trees and shrubs has threatened the stability of the slope and caused a problem with erosion. I would strongly advise you not to demolish the recently constructed masonry wall as it appears to be the solution to these problems. Paul Christenson, P.E. LJ a I+ ;,51 .E2 z _xp 12,3:'05 \\�': C; V 1 k— �i • George A. Murrell # 6 Packsaddle Road East Rolling Hills, CA 90274 July 30, 2003 Ms. Yolanta Schwartz City of Rolling Hills No 1 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Ref: Cancellation of application for variance Dear Yolanda: 1�1! Ton AUG 0 12003 CITY OF ROWNG HILLS BY As the property owner of # 6 Packsaddle Road East, would you please cancel that portion of my recent application for a variance that applies to the spa and the adjacent curved wall? I will be reapplying for the wall due to additional information and evidence. Thank you. Sincerely, 26. George A. Murrell City o/ ROffi Jhi?6 August 20, 2003 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 Dr. and Mrs. George Murrell 6 Packsaddle Road East Rolling Hills, CA 90274 SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 671, Variance request to retain previously constructed block wall in the side yard setback. Dear Dr. and Mrs. Murrell: This letter shall serve to notify you that the Planning Commission voted at their regular meeting on August 19, 2003 to direct staff to prepare a resolution to deny your request for the almost completed wall in the side yard setback. The Planning Commission will review and consider the draft resolution at an upcoming meeting and make its final decision on your application at that meeting. The findings of denial of the draft resolutions will be forwarded to you before the next Planning Commission meeting. 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. Anyone can appeal Planning Commission's decision. I will forward to you instructions for appeal after the Planning Commission meeting. The Planning Commission's action to consider the denial of the request is scheduled for Tuesday. September 16. 2003. 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, September 22, 2003. Feel free to call me at (310) 377-1521 if you have any questions regarding this matter. Si cerely, olanta Schwartz Planning Director cc: Mr. John Juge, Juge Design Group ®Printed Uri Recyolt_.d Piper By City of Rolling Hills Planning Committee Public Hearing Tuesday August 19, 2003 Dear Chairwoman Hankins: ff ii�tr� AUG 1 9 2003 CITY OF ROLLING r:• i S I respectfully request that our Case #671 be moved forward on the agenda to closely follow our zoning Resolution #666. This will permit our early morning departure for a business meeting out of the State. This meeting was originally scheduled for August 19-20, but we were able to change it to August 20-21 in order to attend the Planning Committee meeting. Thank you for your consideration. Most sincerely, i • George A. Murrell # 6 Packsaddle Road East Rolling Hills, CA 90274 July 26, 2003 Ms. Yolanta Schwartz City of Rolling Hills # 1 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Dear Yolanta: Mk) ;‘ (A AUG 012003 CITY OF ROWNG KH1S I don't know if John Juge has been able to contact you yet but he did bring me a copy of your suggestions regarding our spa and wall variance. I just wanted to write you a personal note to thank you for your interest, your impressive instructions and the speed with which you got them accomplished. John, Anne-Merelie and I all agree that your suggested approach is the best and will follow it to the letter. Most sincerely, George A. Murrell Cc: John.Juge