Loading...
285, Construct a fence around the p, Correspondence• City 0/ Rollinv. JODY MURDOCK Mayor GINNY LEEUWENBURGH Mayor pro tem THOMAS F. HEINSHEIMER Councilman GODFREY PERNELL Councilman GORDANA SWANSON Councilwoman Mr. and Mrs. Kenneth Vroom 26 Middleridge Lane South Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Vroom: INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (213) 377-1521 September 15, 1983 Re: Zoning Case No. 285 This letter is to serve as official notice pursuant to Section 17.32.090 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code that a Variance for side yard setback requirements for a swimming pool and equipment has been approved .by the City Planning Commission on August 23, 1983 :for your property at 25 Middleridge Lane South. A formal report of the Planning Commission as required by Section 17.32.086 of the :Municipal Code is contained within the minutes of the proceedings ibefore the Commission, a copy of which is attached. The City Council of the City of Rolling Hills reviewed the :action of the Planning Commission on Monday, September 12, 1983, :pursuant to Section 17.32.140 of the Municipal Code. Since no .:action was taken regarding the Variance, the decision of the P1an- -:ning Coiuiiiission has been ratified by the City Council. The project as outlined on Exhibit "A" of Zoning Case No. 285 is approved. Should you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact this office. Sincerely,- �� Ronald L. Smith City Manager :Attachment - copy: D. McHattie, South Bay Engineering Cor, . J. Rockwell, 32 Middleridge Lane South ''RLS/jc • • August 23, 1983 denial caused a hardship for his family in caring for their horses, especially in bad weather, over the years he has realized that it was a good decision. In researching the records with staff, Mr. Weiman said it was determined that no approval for construction in the front yard on any property on Crest Road has been approved subsequent to the decision pertaining to his property, and he said he agrees with the consistency shown by the Planning Coiiuuission when considering such requests. Chairman Roberts said the matter would be held on the agenda to' give members of the Planning Commission an opportunity to visit the property, and he asked that the engineer stake the property to define the corners of the proposed tennis court, the corners of the proposed residence addition, the 50' front setback and the height of the fence proposed for the tennis court at the most southerly point. .The appli- cant was advised that a date for a field trip would be set later in the meeting, and with the consent of the applicant the matter was held. SUBDIVISION NO. 77, KENNETH VROOM, 26 MIDDLERIDGE LANE SOUTH 2247 Chairman Roberts opened discussion of a request for a lot line adjustment between two properties on Middleridge Lane South submitted by Mr. Kenneth Vroom, 26 Middleridge Lane South, in connection with a request before the Planning Commission for a Variance for encroachment of a swimming pool into the side yard setback. The City Manager ex- plained that an exchange of land between Mr. Vroom and Mr. Jack Rock- well, owner of property located at 32 Middleridge Lane South had been agreed to by the two property owners as a solution when it was deter- mined that construction on the Vroom property. encroached on the Rock- well property because of a misinterpretation of the location of the property line. Commissioner Hankins asked whether Mr. Rockwell had indicated that he was agreeable to the adjustment. Mr. Vroom said Mr. Rockwell had agreed and was planning to attend the meeting, but was unable to do so because of personal circumstances. Chairman Roberts thereafter closed the public hearing. Commissioner Hankins moved that Subdivision No. 77, a lot line adjustment between Lots 248A-2-UR and 248A-3-UR be approved. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Field and carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Bundy, Field, Frost, Hankins Chairman Roberts NOES: None ABSENT: None ZONING CASE NO. 285, KENNETH VROOM; 26 MIDDLERIDGE LANE SOUTH 2272 Chairman Roberts opened discussion of Zoning Case No. 285, a request by Mr. Vroom_for a Variance for encroachment of a swimming pool into the side yard, held on the agenda from -the previous meeting to give members of the Commission an opportunity to'.make a field trip. The Manager explained that the special circumstances required for approval of a variance are, in this case, the shape of the lot and the deep canyon behind it, which limit the location of improve- ments. Mr. Smith said that the pool will remain, but a portion of the decking adjacent to the Rockwell property will be removed and the pool equipment will be relocated. Chairman Roberts thereafter closed the public hearing. Commissioner Bundy moved that a request for a variance of side yard setback requirements be approved for Lot No. 248A-2-UR, located at 2 Middleridge Lane South, for encroachment of a swimming pool. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Hankins. In discussing the matter Commissioner Frost asked how such situations can be avoided, since Mr. Vroom had represented to the Planning Commission that the pool location was believed to be in a legal location as determined by using the plot plan supplied by the developer of the property. Mr. McHattie said that as a result of the error on this property, it -2- August 23, 1983 is now required that all properties be surveyed before a building permit can be issued. The motion was carried on the following roll .call vote: AYES Commissioners Bundy, Field, Frost, Hankins Chairman Roberts NOES: None ABSENT: None ZONING CASE NO. 286, D. LUGLIANI, 3 QUAIL RIDGE ROAD NORTH, VARIANCE 2318 Chairman Roberts opened discussion of Zoning Case No. 286, a re- quest for Variance of front setback requirements to permit a 15 foot encroachment into the required 50 foot setback for a garage addition, which was held on the agenda from the previous meeting to give members of the Commission an opportunity to visit the property. Commissioner Field said that when he looked at the property and the plan for a new driveway to serve the garage addition, it was his impression that an additional entrance to. Quail Ridge Road at that location would not be desireable, since a sharp right turn would be required to access the driveway. Commissioner Field said the plan shows the garage doors located on the northwesterly side of the garage, and he suggested that they be relocated to the southeasterly side so the existing driveway can be used to serve the new garage, as well as provide access to the front door of the residence. Mr. Lowell Lusk, architect, represented the owner at the meeting, and he said an attempt is being made to arrive at a convenient solution, and it was considered more aesthetically pleasing to have the garage doors in a location which would not be visible to approaching traffic; however, he agreed that one drivewayis always less'dangerous than multiple driveways, stating that one property on Quail Ridge Road actually has three driveways exiting on Quail Ridge Road. Chairman Roberts said he shares Commissioner Field's concern, and agreed that the owners should be requested to change the location of the garage doors and., eliminate the additional driveway. Mr. Lusk said he would accept that condition on belialf•of the applicant. Chairman Roberts there- after closed the public hearing. Commissioner Field moved that the request for a Variance for a 15 foot encroachment into the required.50 foot front setback for a garage addition be approved, subject to submittal of a new plan to be marked Exhibit "A", said plan to show garage doors relocated from the northwesterly to the southeasterly face, and the existing drive- way enlarged and widened to accommodate the garage opening. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Hankins and carried by the fol- lowing roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Bundy, Field, Frost, Hankins Chairman Roberts NOES: None ABSENT: None Mr. Lusk said the rear of the property will be restored to the original contours following removal of a partly constructed wing which included a garage in a location which was inconveniently remote from the rest of the house. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA The Manager said '.the requests approved by the Planning Commission at the current meeting will be submitted to the City Council on the agenda of the September.12, 1983 meeting,. and he asked that Mr. Lusk submit the revised map prior to that date. -3- • Cieg 0/<2 ePng iiti JODY MURDOCK Mayor GINNY LEEUWENBURGH Mayor pro tom THOMAS F. HEINSHEIMER Councilman GODFREY PERNEL.L Councilman GORDANA SWANSON Councilwoman Mr. Kenneth Vroom 26 Middleridge Lane South Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Dear Mr. Vroom: • INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS. CALIF. 90274 013) 377-1521 August 25, 1983 Re: Zoning Case No. 285 This letter is to serve as official notice, pursuant to Section 17.32.090 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, that a Variance for side yard setback requirements has been approved by the City Planning Commission for your property at 26 Middleridge Lane South. On Aug- ust 22, 1983 the Planning Commission approved the side yard setback deviation for a swimming pool and pool equipment at 26 Middleridge Lane South. The specific setbacks approved are shown on Exhibit "A" attached to the file of Zoning Case No. .285. This notice shall serve as a copy of.the decision of the Plan- ning Commission. A formal report of the Planning Commission's action as required by Section17.32.086 is contained in the minutes of the proceedings before the Commission. The City Council of the City of Rolling Hills will be reviewing the action of the Planning Commission on Monday, September 12, 1983 at 7:30 P.M. in the Council Chambers, pursuant to Section 17.32.140 of the Municipal Code of the City of Rolling Hills to determine whether the action of the Planning Commission should be appealed by the City Council. Should you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact this office. Sincerely, Ronald L. Smith City Manager copy: D. McHattie, South Bay Engineering J. Rockwell, 32 Middleridge Lane S. RLS/jc a �D £i1City 01 /eof/n _Wad INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD . ROLLING HILLS. CALIF. 90274 (213) 377-1521 January 8, 1982 TO: City Council FROM: City Manager,AWeii/ti%L SUBJECT: Kenneth Vroom, 26 Mi dleridge Lane South. Mr. Vroom has constructeda swimming_ pool , ;•deck and: pool equipment in what has been determined to be the side yard set- back of his property located at 26 Middleridge Lane South. In the fall of 1981 I discussed the matter with Mr. Vroom and suggested that since his problem also involved the easement on his property and the matter was being worked through the Board of Directors, he could wait to file a request with the Planning Commission for a variance of side yard requirements until the process through the Association was completed. As you may know from the minutes of the meetings of the Board, he has been direc- ted to remove the construction from the easement. The minutes of the Board now indicate that Bill Kinkey has been directed to take action to quiet title. In view of this Mr. Vroom has some reluctance.to proceed to apply for a variance to the City while he is in litigation. with the Community Association. In this matter we need advice from the City Attorney as to whether Mr. Vroom should be required to file his application and complete his requirement of administrative remedies with. the City. Also, Mr. Vroom has now advised me that all correspondence refer- ring to his property must now be sent to his attorney. As I reported to you last fall, after this occurred and we found that the Rolling Hills Community Association was not re- quiring surveys of properties, the Council initiated a procedure_ which requires that the County require a survey before issuing a City building permit, and we thereby closed that gap. TC/ j c • . • • • stsr • , 4N) 98. 62" Woo, ,RocrevEi4 i.e. NF.dnri '7t • SE r /X2 .1 F4. UPN r1. 4 • C o Ai/ A.? UN i Ti ,e3 /O L E 7"A STEPHEN J. KOONCE COUNTY ENGINEER RAYMOND W. LOOMIS CHIEF DEPUTY • • COUfTY OF LOS Af1GELES DEPARTMEf1T OF COUf1TY Ef1GIf1EER-FACILITIES 550 SOUTH VEAMO(1T, LOS AAGELES, CA 90020 (213) 738-2011 LOS CERRITOS-CENTINELA VALLEY REGIONAL OFFICE 24320 SOUTH NARBONNE AVENUE LOMITA, CA 90717 325-9500 June 30, 1981 Mrs. Teena Clifton City Manager 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, California 90274 Dear Mrs. Clifton: BUILDING PERMIT PROCESSING AND INSPECTION FUNCTIONS .PLAN CHECKING BOARD OF SUPERVISORS PETER F. SCHABARUM KENNETH HAHN EDMUND D. EDELMAN DEANE DANA MICHAEL D. ANTONOVICH Upon receiving plans for checking, they are reviewed by the County geologist, the site drainage engineer and the structural (building code) plan review engineer., The plans are then returned to the applicant withcomments, and are subsequently rechecked and approved. The City building permit is issued after the Community Association's Architectural. Committee has stamped their approval on the plans and the Association's building permit has been issued, as evidenced by our review of the job record card. BUILDING INSPECTION The City building inspectors first structural inspection is for footings and foundations. Prior to his approval to pour concrete, he first requires that the Architectural Committee's inspector's signature appears Mrs. Teena Clifton June 30, 1981 Page 2 on the job record card showing approval for structure location and setbacks. Other structural, electrical, mechanical, etc. inspections follow in normal sequence. The City Building Department does not perform any zoning administration function in either the plan checking or field inspection phase. Very truly yours, STEPHEN J. KOONCE City Engineer Ivan M. Bulium District Engineer IMB-dm R-5 • ti June 24, 1981 Mr. and Mrs. Jack Rockwell 32 Middleridge Ln. S. Rolling Hills, Calif. 90274 RE;26 and 32 Middleridge Ln. s. property lines Dear Jack and. Karen; . We have taken your advice to seek legal counsel due to the fact that this is the method you have chosen to take instead of working out the problem as neighbors and friends. The following statements establish the facts as we know them to be true. 1),We have relied upon Bob Shrank, the builder and seller; the listing and selling realtors; Budget Nursery; South Bay Engineering; and, the City of Rolling Hills for establishing the property lines. .. 2) Landscaping indicated property line to be in a different location than it has now been established through the survey by South Bay Engineering. 3) There were approximately 8 sprinklers on the property in question which were connected to our water lines which we have been watering for the past two years. 4) We have been paying gardening bill for the past two years on property in question. Gardener has been directed by you. that your property went to the middle of the "assumed existing easement", and he was shown points where he was to garden to by. you. 5) Fence has been up for over 12 years and was only moved 2 months ago another 3 feet farther as we were told by Roger that we had another 3 or 4 feet to move the fence. We were given the permission to install the fence through the city. The fence has been of service to you for tying your horses to. 6) For the past two years up until a couple weeks ago, neither you nor us have questioned where the easement was located as shown by..the fact that you have paid for the excavation of a trail to be put in from the"assumed easement" down to your.horse corrals. 7). Trees in question have been planted for approximately one year and Shrubs for four months. -1- 8) We have invested approximately $40,000.00 in improvements involving subject property which we secured as a 2nd trust deed against our home. 9). The esthetic value of both of our homes is best under current "assumed" conditions. 10) All encroachments were totally unintentional. 11) If the true property lines had been established at the time we were purchasing the home, we would not have made the. purchase, as one of the major selling points to us was the way in which the yard in question was laid out and the amount of room included in it. 12) We have been good neighborsto you and we are sure you will not deny the fact that we have been of assistance to you on numerous emergency occasions, supplied numerous items to you that you needed to borrow from time to time, and transported your children home from school several times a week, and became personally involved in your time of crisis with Kim to the point of having her live in our home and having our home available to her for as long as you needed. I am sure you realize from all of these situations that we have never done anything to try and hurt you or your family, but quite the contrary, have always tried to be of service to you. 13) We have been good citizens in the City of Rolling Hills as established by the fact that all improvements we have done to our property have been done with permits andtheir approval. We have always tried to maintain our property in good condition and are constantly striving to upgrade it. Due to the foregoing, the following is our legal advice; A) We are requesting permissive use of the property in question,' and for such use . we offer to pay a reasonable rent, which will in- clude property taxes on a Prorated basis for the total square footage of the property in question. B) We are not claiming any ownership in the property in question as has been established by the survey of June 17, 1981. ':) At such time as structural damage should occur to pool and surrotnding decks and equipment which would necessitate replacement, we would be willing to move them at that time. As a matter of compromive and settlement, the foregoing is what we are agreeable to do at this time. If this is not agreeable, our offer is withdrawn. • • Any attempt on your part or someone contracted by you to remove existing decks, equipment, drain lines, fences, trees, shrubs, etc., while this matter is being settled will be deemed as trespass and will result in litigation. We are sorry that this has all come about and is having to be handled through formal procedures such as this. Sincerely, Ken and Denise Vr. m i • QUINN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY To Whom It May Concern: 8-17-81 In an effort to clearify my position and actions relative to the swim pool and spa construction on the Vroom property lo- ated at #26 Middleridge South in the city of Rolling Hills, California I respectfully submit the following information. In the normal course of construction of a pool in the above mentioned city it is customary to trace the plot plan of the property in question from the the approved house plans which are on file with the Community Association. In so doing this I felt that the plan on file did not totally agree with I had seen visually upon my first visit to the property when in- vited to by the Vrooms to do so. I revisited the Community Association office to recheck the plan on file and at that. time indicated to Mrs Minor that I wasn't confident with what I saw on the plan. The owner told me that he was under the impressi:on'.that'4the builder had to make a slight adjustment in postioning the house when he started the construction in order to accomodate the drive way. We then made on site meas- urments of the house in order to design the pool and spa. Those dimensions were, then used in the resultant plans which were submitted to the community Association for approval. At no time were any "survey stakes" encountered or used in the measuring aspect or layout of the pool prior to the actual excavation. The owner informed me that the City was going to send a represent- ative from their office to the site to verify the dimensions shown on the proposed pool plan. These were the plans that were ultimately used in the construction of the pool, spa and equipment enclosure. I would like also to say at this time that in the event that a wall or screen fence is located in a close proximity to the pool that it could have an adverse effect on any warranty on the structure of the pool or piping. Modifications of the pool structure are not recommended. Respe5, ly, uinn; 'P es. . 2931 OAKWOOD LANE • TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA 90505• • (213) 530-6302 • LICENSE #364833 QUINN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY Mr & Mrs K Vroom 7-30-81 Per your request the following is a estimate of the costs involved in relocating your swimming pool and related con- crete decking in its entirety: Demolition of existing pool and deck, removal of of piping and conduits, hauling of all debris to dump, 5 importing of suitable soil to fill the cav-- ity created by the pool with necessary compaction and inspections by a qualified soils engineering firm. This would cost approximately $18,000.00. To recmnstruct a like structure in another part of of your property would cost approximately $40,000.00. The cost of relandscaping the area is not offered. Also included is an estimate of removing approximately 175 s/f of concrete decking and relocating the existing pool equipment and enclosure including plumbing, gas & electrical lines to a point within twenty feet of where they presentley are located. This would cost approximately $2700.00. Respectfully submitted, Quinn ' • pres Quinn Construction c.c file 2931 OAKWOOD LANE • TORRANCE. CALIFORNIA 90505 • (213) 530-6302 • LICENSE #364833