Loading...
103, Construct a residential planne, Resolutions & Approval ConditionsBEFORE..THE PLANNING • COMMISSION- OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA In the Matter of the Application of Mr. Gordon Shultz Lot 170A-MS ZONING CASE NO. 103 FINDINGS AND REPORT The application of Mr. Gordon Shultz, Lot 170A-MS, Miscellaneous Tract, for a Change of Zone to RPD-2 under ARTICLE VII, Section 7.02, Initiation of Amendment of Ordinance No. 33 came on for hearing on the 21st day of September, 1971 at the hour of 7:30 P.M. at La Cresta School in the City of Rolling Hills, California, and the applicant, having sub- mitted evidence in support of his application to construct a Residential - Planned Development with a maximum density of two residences to the acre, and to include sixteeft dwelling units, swimming pool and cabana, tennis court, garage and perking facilities, restricted to occupancy by adults and children over 16 years of age; the Planning Commission, being advised, now makes its Findings and Report as required by the Ordinances of the City of Rolling Hills, California. I. The Commission finds that the applicant, Mr. Gordon Shultz, is the owner of that certain real property described as Lot 170A-MS, Miscel- laneous Tract, located in the City of Rolling Hills, California and that notice of the public hearing in connection with said application was given as required by Sections 8.06 and 8.07 of Ordinance No. 33 of the City of Rolling Hills, California. II. The Commission further finds that correspondence opposing the application was received from the following residents: Pearl H. Willburn and Helen J. Platisha, 62 Eastfield Drive; Murray Beebe jr. and Marion H. Beebe, 1 Spur Lane; Mrs. Wayne Bemis and Wayne G. Bemis, 11 Crest Road West; and Ruth Farrow and John R. Farrow, 12 Blackwater Canyon Road. The Commission finds further that the following residents appeared at the Public Hearing and expressed approval of the request: Mr. Lawrence Weitzel, 35 Saddleback Road; Mr. Jerry Sass, 46 Saddleback Road; Mr. Carl Ghormley, 2 Johns Canyon Road; Mr. Walter Storm, 9 Portuguese Bend Road; Mr. Bob Dunn, developer of Chestnut Lane, and Mr. Richard Colyear, 35 Crest Road West. The following residents appeared and expressed disapproval of the request: Mr. William MacCabe, 24 Georgeff Road; Mrs. Phyllis Walker Hughes., 29 Eastfield Drive; Mr. Chester Noble, owner of property at 6 Ringbit Road East; Mr. -David Turner, 76 Eastfield Drive; Judge George Perkovich, 1 Open Brand Road; Mrs. Alice 011a, 41 Crest Road West; Mr. William Corette, 35 Eastfield Drive; Mrs. Alice Boyer, 18 Bowie Road; Mr. Lloyd Mokler, 2 Ranchero Road; Dr. Paul Saffo, 1 Crest Road East; Mr. France Raine, 71 Portuguese Bend Road; Mr. Robert Gray, 2958 Palos Verdes Drive North; Mr. David McLaughlin, 6 Caballeros Road; Dr. Sam Arnold, 4 Spur Lane; Dr. Randolph Tyndall, 65 Eastfield Drive; Dr. Norton Donner, 1 Meadowlark Lane; Mr. Robert Fortney, 26 Cab- alleros Road; Mr. John Trethaway, 15 Caballeros Road, and Mrs. Phyllis Nadal, 4 Possum Ridge Road. The Commission further finds that in order to construct a resi- dential planned development consisting of sixteen two -unit condominium buildings, swimming pool and cabana and a tennis court., the applicant requested that Zoning Ordinance No. 33 be amended to include an RPD-2 Zone for 8+ acres of his property contiguous to Crenshaw Boulevard, said property to be closed off from the rest of the City of Rolling Hills, with egress and ingress from Crenshaw Boulevard only. The Commission finds, however, that zoning in the City of Rolling Hills is presently limited to R-A-S-1 and R-A-S-2 for residence, and C-L for the Adminis- tration Building and Gate Houses, and that testimony presented at the Public Hearing, both by letter and by personal appearance established that the residents of the City of Rolling Hills are overwhelmingly opposed to amendment of the zoning ordinance to permit construction of said resi- dential planned development. The Commission finds, therefore, that the request for an Amendment of Ordinance No. 33 should not be granted to the applicant for the reason that the evidence presented to the Commission did not establish that public necessity, convenience, health, safety or welfare required that said ordinance be amended, and that the granting of such request would be materially detrimental to the public welfare and injurious to other property within the City. IV. The Commission further finds that the summary of said Public Hearing attached hereto is accurate and correct. V. CONCLUSION From the foregoing the Commission recommends to the City Council that the request to amend Ordinance No. 33 to provide an RPD-2 zone on the real property described in the application of Gordon Shultz should be denied. Chairman, Planning Commission Secretary, Planning Commission • September 21, 1971 PUBLIC HEARING, ZONING CASE NO. 103. GORDON SHULTZ, CHANGE OF ZONE TO RPD-2 The Chairman opened the meeting of a public hearing on the appli- cation of Mr. Gordon Shultz, Lot 170A-MS, 10 Johns Canyon Road, for a Change of Zone to RPD-2 under ARTICLE VII, Section 7.02, Initiation of Amendment of Ordinance No. 33. Chairman Pernell explained that the proceedings of the meeting would be recorded, and invited members of the audience to make any state- ments they wished on record into one of two recording microphones installed for the purpose. The Chairman asked Mr. William Kinley, City Attorney, to explain the nature of the request for a change of zone; Mr. Kinley explained the procedure. The Deputy City Clerk reported that the hearing had been duly noticed, and produced proof of publication in the local newspaper. The Chairman asked the secretary to read into the record any correspondence that had been received pertaining to the request for change of zone. Letters from Mrs. Pearl H. Willburn and Mrs. Helen. J. Platisha, 62 East - field Drive; Murray C. Beebe jr. and Marion H. Beebe, 1 Spur Lane; Mrs. Wayne Bemis and Wayne G. Bemis, 11 Crest Road West and Ruth Farrow and John R. Farrow, 12 Blackwater Canyon Road, all expressing opposition to the request for change of zone were read into the record. The Chairman thereafter asked Mr. Gordon Shultz, the applicant, to address the hear- ing on his request. Mr. Shultz stated that it is his wish to develop his land in a manner that would be in the best interest of all concerned. He commented on the growth of the city during the 25 years of his residence, and re- ferred to pictures in the -September 15, 1971 issue of a local newspaper. Taken in 1956 and 1971 from the Shultz property, the pictures showed the growth in the Peninsula Center area. Because of commercial development, Mr. Shultz said he wished to develop a buffer to protect the rural at- mosphere of Rolling Hills from Peninsula Center.. Mr. Shultz advised that a private access to his property from Crenshaw Boulevard was constructed as a working road when his ranch was a working ranch, and it has a gate installed to keep people from using it as an entry to the city. He explained that the road would provide access to the planned development he wishes to build, and stated and emphasized that there would be no access between the RPD and other areas in Rolling Hills, thereby eliminating additional traffic through the city from the area, and also eliminating the need for residents of that area to drive approximately five miles through Rolling Hills to the nearest gate at Crest Road. He explained that the portion for which the request was made was an 8+ acre parcel bounded on the north by half -acre single family residences in Westfield, on the east by a deep canyon, on the south by the rest of the Shultz property and on the west by Crenshaw Boulevard. The desireability of -a planned development in Rolling Hills has been demonstrated by the fact that so many long-time residents of Rolling Hills have moved to condominiums in other areas, Mr. Shultz said, and it was his opinion that residents who no longer wish to maintain a large home in Rolling Hills would welcome a planned development within the city. Mr. Shultz said he had retained Mr. Clark Leonard, Civil Engineer, and Mr. Lowell Lusk, Architect, both Rolling Hills residents, to provide a plan for dividing anddeveloping his property, and said he wished to enter as an exhibit a model of the proposed development pre- pared by the architect. Mr. Chultz asked Mr. Clark Leonard of Lando Land Consultants to speak on the engineering of the property. Mr. Leonard said he had worked for three years on a plan to divide and develop 26 acres of land owned by Mr. Shultz. He said most of the property could be developed in conformance with the subdivision and zoning ordinances of the city, but the 8+ acre parcel contiguous to Crenshaw Boulevard was difficult because of topography and location. The parcel is presently zoned one and two acres, Mr.. Leonard explained, but consult- -2- September 21, 1971 ation with brokers convinced him that the property would be unsaleable as one or two acre homesites, andhe was unable to obtain financial commitments from banks or other lending agencies. The land is adjacent to an undeveloped parcel owned by Mr.. Walter Storm, but is separated from it by a deep canyon, he said. Other plans were considered, but the one submitted was the best use of the land, Mr. Leonard said, and he asked Mr. Lowell Lusk, architect, to speak on the proposed residences. Mr. Lusk said he had been asked to develop a concept in keeping with the character of Rolling Hills. He agreed with Mr. Shultz that many people, including his parents, had moved because of maintenance of large homes and extensive properties, and said a planned development of a confluent nature with existing residences would be desireable for the city. Mr. Lusk then showed colored slides of the property for which the development is planned., the Peninsula Center and several commercial properties which Mr. Shultz's property overlooks, and severalviews of homes and landscaping in the City of Rolling Hills. Mr.. Lusk advised. that the plan for theproperty consists of a private, planned adult com- munity consisting of sixteen dwelling units in eight buildings, swimming pool, cabana, tennis court, garage and parking facilities. Because of age restrictions, he said, there would notbe any additional burden on local schools. Mr. Lusk said the project had been designed to minimize cut and fill, and the typical stair -step appearance typical of subdivi- sions would be avoided. There would be random placement of dwellings: to prevent residents looking at one another, and because there is no view, internal beauty would be controlled by landscaping. Homes would be designed so garages would not be visible from the road, and homes wouldbe a minimum of 40 feet apart, greater than insome of the older parts of the City. Private recreational facilities would not burden the already overcrowded facilities now in Rolling Hills. The units would be built for double occupancy, 4200 to 4800 square feet, and would give the appearance of single family dwellings to maintain the character and continuity of Rolling Hills. There would be a strictly controlled maintenance: program, Mr. Lusk said. Chairman Pernell then opened the meeting to questions from members of the Planning Commission. Commissioner Battaglia asked the architect andengineer to describe the alternatives considered during the three years they worked on the project. Mr. Leonard said there were attempts to develop the property into two acre sites, one acre sites, sale of the eight acre parcel to one party, development as a commercial property, R-3 zoning. The plan submitted is the last one developed, and it was Mr. Leonard s opinion that it is the best plan. Commissioner Schaefer asked Mr. Leonard whether there had been any consideration of extending Johns Canyon Road to meet the existing road to Crenshaw Boulevard and developing a fifth gate; Mr. Schaefer suggested it should be studied. f(: referred to Mr. Leonard's statement that the property is unique because it is on a boundary of the City, and exits to a public road. Mr. Schaefer reminded Mr. Leonard that there are thirteen properties totaling 26 acres on the city boundary along Palos Verdes Drive North that also take access to a public road rather than into the City of Rolling Hills. Commissioner Saffd asked Mr. Shultz what guarantee the City would have that certain promises and statements contained in the owner's application would be carried through. "Specifically) she asked about the restriction to occupancy by adults and -children over 16 years of age, and asked what would happen if one of the, occupants had a baby. Mr. George Chacksfield, the contractor, advised that one of the requirements of a planned development is that all conditions and restrictions be sub- mitted, and it is a requirement for recordation of the map and issuing -3- September 21, 1971 o:f building permits, and approval and acceptance of the planned develop- ment is dependent upon the promises and restrictions being fulfilled. Chairman Pernell asked Mr. Leonard to describe the adjacent pro- perty within the City, and the potential for future development. Mr. Leonard said the property is bounded on the east by 75 acres of undevel- oped land, and on the south by 20 acres of undeveloped land presently under cultivation. Commissioner. Heinsheimer asked the City Attorney whether he an- ticipated any conflict between the Rolling Hills Community Association and an association of owners within a planned development. Mr. Kinley said if a planned development were approved the restrictions would be in favor of the Rolling Hills Community Association or the City of Roll- ing Hills, and would be enforced by the Association or City. Assessment for maintenance of the gate and roads would be administered by the Roll- ing Hills Community Association. Commissioner Battaglia said he wished to know why it was not feasible to develop eight single family residences on the parcel, but a plan was submitted with eight structures, each containing two dwell- ing units. Mr. Lusk said it was possible to develop eight single fam- ily residences, but it was not considered desireable; the concept was to create a community of smaller dwelling units for owners who do not want a large home on acreage. Chairman Pernell asked if the Commission had further questions. There were none, and the Chairman asked members of the audience who were in faiTor of the residential planned development to identify them- selves and address the meeting. The following residents spoke in favor of the request: Mr. Lawrence Weitzel, 35 Saddleback Road; Mr. Jerry Sass, 46 Saddleback Road; Mr. Carl Ghormley, 2 Johns Canyon Road; Mr. Walter Storm, 9 Portuguese Bend Road; Mr. Bob Dunn, developer of Chestnut Lane and Mr. Richard Colyear, 35 Crest Road West. The Chairman asked if there were any additional proponents who wished to speak. There being none, he then asked for comments from the opponents, and invited any group spokesman to identify himself and advise whom he represented before speaking. The following residents spoke in opposition to the request: Mr. William MacCabe, 24 Georgeff Road; Mrs. Phyllis Walker Hughes, 29 East - field Drive; Mr. Chester. Noble, owner of property at 6 Ringbit Road East; Mr. David Turner, 76 Eastfield Drive; Judge George Perkovich, 1 Open Brand Road; Mrs. Alice 011a, 41 Crest Road West; Mr. William Corette, 35 Eastfield Drive; Mrs. Alice Boyer, 18 Bowie Road; Mr. Lloyd Mokler, 2 Ranchero Road; Dr. Paul Saffo, 1 Crest Road East; Mr. France Raine, 71 Portuguese Bend Road; Mr. Robert Gray, 2958 Palos Verdes Drive North; Mr. David McLaughlin, 6 Caballeros Road; Dr. Sam Arnold, 4 Spur Lane; Dr. Randolpy Tyndall, 65 Eastfield Drive; Dr. Norton Donner, 1 Meadow- lark Lane; Mr. Robert Fortney, 26 Caballeros Road; Mr. John Trethaway, 15 Caballeros Road and Mrs. Phyllis Nadal, 4 Possum Ridge Road. ChaAr- man Pernell asked if anyone wise wished to comment on the matter. There being none, he closed the Public Hearing. Commissioner Battaglia moved that the request to amend the Zoning Ordinance to include RPD-2 Zone be denied. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Heinsheimer and carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Battaglia, Heinsheimer, Saffo, Schaefer Chairman Pernell NOES: None ABSENT: None -4- September 21, 1971 Chairman Pernell advised Mr. Shultz that it was the recommend- ation and wish of the Planning Commission that his application for an amendment to Zoning Ordinance No. 33 be denied. He explained that the Commission's recommendation is advisory to the City Council, and may be appealed. The chairman thanked all who participated in the presentation, the proponents and opponents, and those who attended the meeting, Chairman Pernell adjourned the meeting at 10:30 P.M. City Clerk APPROVED: Chairman