Loading...
420, Construct a new SFR, Correspondence-10 City O/ IE'O//Lfl „ill& INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (213) 377.1521 FAX: (213) 377-7288 July 9, 1991 Mr. Criss Gunderson, Architect 253 5th Street Seal Beach, CA 90740 SUBJECT: STATUS OF ZONING CASE NO. 420 5 HILLSIDE LANE Dear Mr . Gunder.86n Thank you for your letter of June 22, 1991, requesting an extension of a Planning Commission approval for a Site Plan Review in Zoning Case No. 420 at the subject site, Resolution No. 90-10-A approved on May 5, 1990. Unfortunately, Section 17.34.080 (2)(B) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code states that application for a maximum one year extension of a Site Plan Review by the property owner must be filed on or before the date of expiration of the approval. Feel free to call me at (213) 377-1521 if you have any further questions. Sincerely, LOLA M. UNGAR CRISS C GUNDERSON: ARCHITECT 253 5TH STREET SEAL BEACH, CA 90740 TEL (213) 594-9157 FAX (213) 594-5553 June 22, 1991 Chairman Allen Roberts Rolling Hills Planning Commission No. 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, California Regarding: Greenberg residence No. 5 Hillside Lane Rolling Hills, CA Zoning Case Number: 420 \F tc] nil 5 1991 By City Of Rolling Hills Dear Mr. Chairman, Please grant the Greenbergs a one year extension of their planning approval. Thank you, Criss Gun•-rson • • �•�►G Hllh, 4e c11v.o/R0ff n r � r = INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (213) 377-1521 FAX: (213) 377-7288 June 11, 1990 Dr. and Mrs. Stephen Greenberg 5 Hillside Lane Rolling Hills, CA 90274 RE: Zoning Case No. 420; Request for Site.. Plan Review for proposed redevelopment of property, located at 5 Hillside Lane, Rolling Hills, Lot 126-C-RH Dear Dr. and Mrs. Greenberg: This is to inform you that the City Council, at their meeting on May 14, 1990, voted to ratify the Planning Commission's approval of the above referenced planning/zoning case application. Pursuant to Section 17.32.087, Ordinance No. 207, an Affidavit of Acceptance form must be executed before the above approval becomes effective. A copy of the Resolution of Approval, specifying conditions of approval set forth by the Planning Commission, is enclosed for your information. Once you have reviewed the Resolution of Approval, please complete the enclosed Affidavit of Acceptance form, have the signature(s) notarized, and forward the Affidavit to the Office of the County Recorder, Room 15, 227 North Broadway, Los Angeles, CA 90012, with a check in the amount of $7.00. When the Affidavit of Acceptance has been returned to the City, duly executed and recorded, the Los Angeles County Department of Building and Safety will be notified that a permit can be issued. Please feel free to call Mr. Ray Hamada, Principal Planner, at 377-1521, if you have any questions. Very truly, Betty VKlkert Deputy City Clerk /bv Encls. For Recordr's Use RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND MAIL TO: CITY OF ROLLING HILLS 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 Pleaserecord this form with the -Registrar -Recorder's Office and return to: City of Rolling Hills 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 (The Registrar -Recorder's Office requires that the form be notarized before recordation.) Acceptance Form STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ss COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. VARIANCE CASE NO. Site Plan Review No. #420 I (We) the undersigned state: I am.(We are) the owner(s), of the real property described as follows: 5 Hillside Lane, Rolling Hills, CA 9027.4 (LOT.126-C-R,H) This property is the subject of the above numbered cases. I am (We are) aware of, and accept, all the stated conditions in said Conditional Use Permit .Case No.' . Variance Case No. Site Plan Review No. #420. I (We) certify (or declare) under the penalty. of 'perjury that the foregoing is true' and correct. - (Where the owner•.and applicant. are not the same, both must sign.) Type or print Applicant Name Address City, State Signature Owner Name Address City, State Signature This signature must be acknowledged by a notary public. Attach appropriate acknowledgement. • O/ /eO//fl „Ails INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (213) 377-1521 FAX (213) 377-7288 April 19, 1990 Mr. and Mrs. Steve Greenberg 5 Hillside Lane Rolling Hills, CA 90274 RE: ZONING CASE NO. 420; Request for Site Plan Review to determine compatibility of a proposed new residence and detached stable with the property located at 5 Hillside Lane, Rolling Hills, Lot 126-C-RH Dear Mr. and Mrs. Greenberg: Pursuant to Section 17.32.090 (enclosed) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, this letter shall serve as official notification that the above -stated Zoning Case application was reviewed by the Planning Commission at their regular meeting of April 18, .1990. At that meeting, the Planning Commission voted to approve the request for Site Plan Review. The Planning Commission's decision will be reported to the City Council at their regular meeting on May 14, 1990. The decision of the Planning Commission may be appealed, pursuant to Sections 17.32.140 and 17.32.150 (copies enclosed) of the Municipal Code. A copy of Resolution No. 598, establishing the fee for filing an appeal, is also enclosed for your information. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact Mr. Ray Hamada, Principal Planner, at 377-1521. Sincerely, Betty V lkert Deputy City Clerk Encls. (3) DOROTHY DELPIT 45 Saddleback Road Rolling Hills, California 90274 (213) 544-2211 March 6, 1990 Mr. Allan Roberts Chairman, Planning Commission Rolling Hills City Hall 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, California 90274 Dear Sir: ANgin MAR 0 7 1990 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS By1..... ...,....,.. This is in reference to the City of Rolling Hills Planning Commission's Zoning Case No. 420, Proposed New Residence at 5 Hillside Lane. My home is at 45 Saddleback Road located directly below and north of the proposed new homesite. As stated in my oral "presentation at the public hearing held before the Planning Commission on the night of February 20, 1990, I have grave concerns regarding the water drainage from the proposed new homesite. During construction of my home, every effort was made to install proper drainage facilities to ensure that excess water from the hillside would be carried off with its natural flow of the land. This was accomplished at great personal expense to me by installing a series of swales that were engineered and designed to accomplish the above. It has been brought to my attention that when the homeowners at 5 Hillside Lane recently improved their horse corral, their water drainage was piped directly into our swales. Again, our swales were installed to receive the natural flow of water and to remove such excess water to the bottom of the hill and certainly not to receive concentrated quantities of water from other homesites. I am hereby requesting that on your next field trip to 5 Hillside Lane, you reviewtheir drainage and determine if there is an illegal diversion of concentrated water entering our swales. If that is determined, and I am sure it will be, I am requesting that you initiate steps to correct this matter immediately. Certainly, my primary concern regardingthe proposed new homesite is water drainage. This concern arises principally from the homesite owners' seemingly total disregard or lack of knowledge of drainage hydraulics as reflected by their prior actions regarding drainage matters. • • Mr. Allan Roberts Chairman, Planning Commission March 6, 1990 Page Two In light of the above, prior to the approval of the homesite, I am hereby requesting the following: 1) A complete review of their corral plans. 2) A careful review of their drainage and grading plan for their new homesite. It is imperative that the drainage and grading plan be carefully reviewed since the homesite will cover a large portion of the property and will certainly affect the ability of the land to absorb water naturally. 3) A hydrology report reviewed and approved by the City. I am also requesting that a copy of these reports be sent to me for my review. Of course, I am willing to reimburse any costs regarding copies sent to me for my review. Your attention to this extremely important matter is greatly appreciated. Very truly yours, I (9fikr-A Dorothy I 1pi DD:b Dr. and Mrs. Stephen Greenberg 5 Hillside Lane, Rolling Hills, California 90274, July 16, 1986 Nick Hornberger, President Rolling Hilis Community Association Rolling Hills City Hall 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, California 90274 Dear Mr. Hornberger and Association Members: Since our letter to you of June 11, 1986, in which we feel we clearly and succinctly stated our concern about our neighbors' misappropriation of recorded easements, the Hoffmans have responded with a personal, public attack on us. .We, therefore, feel compelled to write this letter to clarify and elaborate on the easement situation adjacent to our property at 5 Hillside Lane by providing additional factual and pertinent background information, as we feel this matter is vital to the future of all recorded easements in the city and requires your utmost attention. The Hoffmans made some ridiculous accusations that we can easily prove are false with appropriate documentation which shows that our property is clearly designed for horse keeping and was approved as such. Please note that the Rolling Hilis Community Association approved the building of •a barn on our third pad in 1958... The topographic map at that time clearly shows the existence of all three pads as they have existed all these years and should clarify that the accusations made about our property are false. There was no illegal or weekend grading but merely removal of thick, overgrown brush, trees and old fencing and we have receipts which show all work to clear the pads was done during normal business hours. This work was done with prior city approval. We feel the personal attack by the Hoffmans was a smoke screen to obscure the real issue, which is the closure of these recorded easements. This issue also includes the Hoffmans' insinuation that some easements are more important than others and that privacy is more important than safety. In the easement between Hoffman's property (3 Hillside), ICasco's property (6 Hillside), and our property (5 Hillside), there are oleander bushes and a fence, both of which could be removed to open up the easement. The Hoffmans, who are now building an extension to their house which encroaches into this easement, claim that the opening up of the easement would affect their privacy. If they are so concerned about privacy, • • Nick Hornberger., Pres. of Rolling Hills Community Assoc. July 16, 1986 Page Two why did they decide to build such an extension to their house so close to the adjacent Kasco house? In another portion of this same easement the..iloffmans have illegally graded a dirt road which leads to their. barn... 11 p 6.1 across the easement and use the_area_ih the easement as„, a dumoing,tor, sand, gravel, railroad ties, old bath- tubs an&j anur-e. ___They also use this area , of acne as a parking lot. This area of the easement`Iies`next ur swimmina pool ancc,,,,, c roor g . _ The.ir barn man and----- his familxlive just on the other side of --the easement,_,__ and they oboar%iiorses in the same close proximity to„, our .sw?jnrn1 n,1 po area. -,We feel this a more serwummo . ' ; nvaston of pr c y than the- fidt'atcEcnial passage of a horse. There are other easements in rolling hills where bridle trails pass between houses that are'very close to each other. As an example, we invite you to visit the easement that passes between the houses located at 26 and 28 Caballeros. This easement between the Ioffmans' property, Kasco property and our property should be open and cleared, with appropriate planting on either side of the easement to provide privacy. Six feet remain where easement passes laundry room and maid's quarters, not a bed- room. There is another usable easement adjacent to our property which lies between the Hoffmans' property and Delpit's property (45 Saddleback). During the past year this easement has been planted with bougenvillea and oleander and sprinklers have been installed. Where are the permits for this? According to the tract map, these easements are "for road, bridle trail and utility purposes" and were recorded on June 18, 1976. If these easements are allowed to be closed, then what prevents any other resident from doing the same to easement, adjacent to his or her property? Carol Hoffman has taken a very strong stand against "a property owner's appropriation of what should be a trail easement for their own use." Please refer to the letter from her to the president of Caballeros dated March 2, 1986. When asked about her stand on trail easements, she replied that she is only concerned about the major trail easements, but we asked how does an individual horse owner get to a major trail without proper, safe access via legally recorded easements? In closing, we feel that allowing our neighbors to close off two recorded easements sets a dangerous precedent for our community. Not enforcing the easement policy is in direct violation of the community concept and the general plan. 01. • • Nick Hornberger, Pres. of Rolling Hills Community Assoc. July 16, 1986 Page Three Your decision concerning this matter will weigh heavily on the future direction of our lovely rural city. Sincerely, Steve and Tina Greenberg