Loading...
590, Enlarge the entry to SFR 42 SF, Correspondence111 City 0/ leoffinf JUL January 26, 2000 Mr. and Mrs. Ray Perrault 3845 Crest Road Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 E mall: cityofrh@aol.com Mr. and Mrs. Gerald Butler 10 Eastfield Drive Rolling Hills, CA 90274 SUBJECT: EXPIRATION OF APPROVALS FOR ZONING CASE NO. 590 ADDITIONS & GRADING 10 EASTFIELD DRIVE (LOT 64-A-EF) Dear Mr. and Mrs. Perrault and Mr. and Mrs. Butler: This letter is to inform you that it has been almost one year since the approval of Zoning Case No. 590. Approvals will expire on March 16. 2000. You can extend approvals for one year only if you apply to the Planning Commission in writing to request an extension prior to the expiration date. The filing fee for the time extension is $200 to be paid to the City of Rolling Hills. Feel free to call me at (310) 377-1521 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Lola Ungar Planning Director cc: Mr. Frank Politeo, Architect Printed on Recycled Paprr. • City 0/ INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 CERTIFIED MAIL March 23, 1999 Mr. and Mrs. Ray Perrault 3845 Crest Road Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 E-mail: cityofrh@aol.com SUBJECT: APPEAL PERIOD AND AFFIDAVIT OF ACCEPTANCE FORM ZONING CASE NO. 590, 10 EASTFIELD DRIVE (LOT 64-A-EF) RESOLUTION NO. 99-7 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Perrault: This letter shall serve to notify you that the Planning Commission adopted a resolution on March 16, 1999 to grant a Variance to permit encroachments into the front yard setback to construct an entryway addition, grant a Variance to permit encroachments into the front yard setback to construct a dining room addition and grant Site Plan Review approval for the construction of additions to a single family residence that will require grading at 10 Eastfield Drive, Lot 64-A-EF), Rolling Hills, CA in Zoning Case No. 590. That action, accompanied by the record of the proceedings before the Commission was reported to the City Council on March 22, 1999. 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 (301 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 will be required to cause to be recorded an Affidavit of Acceptance Form together with the subject resolution in the Office of the County Recorder before the Commission's action takes effect. We have enclosed a copy of RESOLUTION NO. 99-7, specifying the conditions of approval set forth by the Planning Commission and the approved Exhibit A Development Plan to keep for your files. Once you have reviewed the Resolution, please complete the enclosed AFFIDAVIT OF ACCEPTANCE FORM, have the signature(s) notarized, and forward the completed form and a copy of the Resolution to: Los Angeles County Registrar -Recorder Real Estate Records Section 12400 East Imperial Highway Norwalk, CA 90650 Include a check in the amount of $9.00 for the first page and $3.00 for each additional page. Printed on Recycled Paper. • • The City will notify the Los Angeles County Building & Safety Division to issue permits only when the Affidavit of Acceptance is received by us and any conditions of the Resolution required prior to issuance of building permits are met. Please feel free to call me at (310) 377-1521 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Lola Ungar Planning Director cc: Mr. Frank Politeo, AIA Enclosures: AFFIDAVIT OF ACCEPTANCE FORM RESOLUTION NO. 99-7 EXHIBIT A DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPEAL SECTION OF THE ROLLING HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE. • • RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND MAIL TO: CITY OF ROLLING HILLS 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 (310) 377-1521 (310) 377-7288 FAX The Registrar -Recorder's Office requires that the form be notarized before recordation. AFFIDAVIT OF ACCEPTANCE FORM STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§ CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ) ZONING CASE NO. 590 SITE PLAN REVIEW ,[ VARIANCE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT I (We) the undersigned state: 1 am (We are) the owner(s) of the real property described as follows: 10 Eastfield Drive (Lot 64-A-EF), Rolling Hills, CA. This property is the subject of the above numbered case. I am (We are) aware of, and accept, all the stated conditions in said ZONING CASE NO. 590 SITE PLAN REVIEW VARIANCE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (We) certify (or declare) under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. T Recorder's Use Only Signature Signature Name typed or printed Name typed or printed Address Address City/State City/State Signatures must be acknowledged by a notary oublic. State of California ) County of Los Angeles ) On before me, personally appeared personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies) and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. Witness by hand and official seal. Signature of Notary SEE EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF • • E)(H/13 /T ' RESOLUTION NO. 99-7 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A VARIANCE TO PERMIT ENCROACHMENTS INTO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK TO CONSTRUCT AN ENTRYWAY ADDITION, GRANTING A VARIANCE TO PERMIT ENCROACHMENTS INTO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK TO CONSTRUCT A DINING ROOM ADDITION AND GRANTING SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF ADDITIONS TO A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE THAT WILL REQUIRE GRADING IN ZONING CASE NO. 590. THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Applications were duly filed by Mr. and Mrs. Ray Perrault with respect to real property located at 10 Eastfield Drive, Rolling Hills (Lot 64-A-EF) requesting a Variance to permit encroachment into the front yard setback to construct additions that will not exceed existing encroachments and request for Site Plan Review to permit the construction of room additions, a basement, an expanded driveway turnaround area and retaining walls that will require grading at an existing single family residence. Section 2. The Planning ,Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the applications on January 19, 1999 and February 16, 1999, and at a field trip visit on February 6, 1999. The applicants were notified of the public hearing in writing by first class mail and through the City's newsletter. 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 were in attendance at the hearing. Section 3. The Planning Commission finds that the project qualifies as a Class 1 Exemption (State CA Guidelines, Section 15301(e)) and is therefore categorically exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act. Section 4. Sections 17.38.010 through 17.38.050 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code permit approval of a Variance from the standards and requirements of the Zoning Ordinance when exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applicable to the property and not applicable to other similar properties in the same zone prevent the owner from making use of a parcel of property to the same extent enjoyed by similar properties in the same vicinity. Section 17.16.110 requires the front yard setback for every residential parcel to be fifty (50) feet. The applicant is requesting to encroach up to a maximum 15 feet into the • • 50 foot front yard setback to construct a 42 square foot addition at the entryway beneath the existing eaves. With respect to this request for a Variance, the Planning Commission finds as follows: A. There are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances and conditions applicable to the property or to the intended use that do not apply generally to the other property or class of use in the same zone because of the irregular shape of the lot. The existing legal nonconforming residence was built with the front yard setback and the existing building pad located close to the street. The addition will not encroach beyond existing encroachments and is limited in area so as to leave nearly all of the existing open space near the front of the residence unaffected. B. The Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone, but which is denied to the property in question. The setback was increased after the home was already constructed and the encroachments permit the use of the lot to the extent allowed for other properties in the vicinity. The Variance will permit the development of the property in a manner similar to development patterns on surrounding properties. C. The granting of the Variance would not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the property is located. Development on the pad will allow a substantial portion of the lot to remain undeveloped. Section 5. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves the Variance for Zoning Case No. 590 to permit the construction of an addition that will encroach a maximum of fifteen (15) feet into the front yard setback, as indicated on the development plan submitted with this application and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit A, subject to the conditions specified in Section 10 of this Resolution. Section 6. Section 17.16.110 requires the front yard setback for every residential parcel to be fifty (50) feet. The applicant is requesting to encroach up to a maximum 11 feet into the 50 foot front yard setback to construct a 126 square foot addition to the dining room under a new roof area. With respect to this request for a Variance, the Planning Commission finds as follows: A. There are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances and conditions applicable to the property or to the intended use that do not apply generally to the other property or class of use in the same zone because of the irregular shape of the lot. The existing legal nonconforming residence was built with the front yard setback and the existing building pad located close to the street. The addition will not encroach beyond existing encroachments and is limited in area so as to leave nearly all of the existing open space near the front of the residence unaffected. RESOLUTION NO. 99-7 PAGE 2 OF 7 • • B. The Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone, but which is denied to the property in question. The setback was increased after the home was already constructed and the encroachments permit the use of the lot to the extent allowed for other properties in the vicinity. The Variance will permit the development of the property in a manner similar to development patterns on surrounding properties. C. The granting of the Variance would not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the property is located. Development on the pad will allow a substantial portion of the lot to remain undeveloped. Section 7. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves the Variance for Zoning Case No. 590 to permit the construction of an addition that will encroach a maximum of eleven (11) feet into the front yard setback, as indicated on the development plan submitted with this application and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit A, subject to the conditions specified in Section 10 of this Resolution. Section 8. Section 17.46.030 requires a development plan to be submitted for site plan review and approval before any grading requiring a grading permit or any building or structure may be constructed or any expansion, addition, alteration or repair to existing buildings may be made which involve changes to grading or an increase to the size of the building or structure by at least 1,000 square feet and has the effect of increasing the size of the building by more than twenty-five percent (25%) in any thirty-six (36) month period. With respect to the Site Plan Review application to add 824 square feet to the proposed residence, the Planning Commission makes the following findings of fact: A. The proposed development is compatible with the General Plan, the Zoning Ordinance and surrounding uses because the proposed structure complies with the General Plan requirement of low profile, low density residential development with sufficient open space between surrounding structures. The project conforms to Zoning Code setback and lot coverage requirements with the Variances approved in Sections 5 and 7 of this Resolution. The lot has a net square foot area of 39,630 square feet. The proposed residence (2,906 sq.ft.), garage (686 sq.ft.), swimming pool (580 sq.ft.), future stable (450 sq.ft.), service yard (70 sq.ft.) and porch (84 sq.ft.) will have 4,776 square feet which constitutes 12.05% of the lot which is within the maximum 20% structural lot coverage requirement. The total lot coverage including paved areas and driveway will be 10,618 square feet which equals 26.79% of the lot, which is within the 35% maximum overall lot coverage requirement. The proposed project is screened from the road so as to reduce the visual impact of the development. RESOLUTION NO. 99-7 PAGE 3 OF 7 • • B. The proposed development preserves and integrates into the site design, to the maximum extent feasible, existing natural topographic features of the lot including surrounding native vegetation, mature trees, drainage courses, and land forms (such as hillsides and knolls). The lot slopes downward at the rear and most of the mature trees will not be removed. Grading will be done to provide approved drainage that will flow away from the proposed residence and existing neighboring residences. C. The proposed development, as conditioned, is harmonious in scale and mass with the site, the natural terrain and surrounding residences. As indicated in Paragraph A, the lot coverage maximum will not be exceeded and the proposed project is consistent with the scale of the neighborhood when compared to this irregular -shaped lot. The ratio of the proposed structure to lot coverage is similar to the ratio found on several properties in the vicinity. D. The development plan incorporates existing large trees and native vegetation to the maximum extent feasible. Specifically, the development plan preserves several mature trees and shrubs and supplements it with landscaping that is compatible with and enhances the rural character of the community. E. The development plan substantially preserves the natural and undeveloped state of the lot by minimizing building coverage because the new structures will not cause the structural and total lot coverage to be exceeded. Although the building structure is located within thefront yard setback, the additions will not effect a major change to the existing residence. The development plans as proposed will minimize impact on Eastfield Drive. Most of the additions proposed will not be visible from Eastfield Drive.. Significant portions of the lot will be left undeveloped so as to maintain scenic vistas across portions of the property. F. The development plan follows natural contours of the site to minimize grading and the natural drainage courses will continue to the canyons at the east side (rear) of this lot. G. The development plan preserves surrounding native vegetation and mature trees and supplements these elements with drought -tolerant landscaping which is compatible with and enhances the rural character of the community, and landscaping provides a buffer or transition area between private and public areas. H. The proposed development is sensitive and not detrimental to the convenience and safety of circulation for pedestrians and vehicles because the proposed project will utilize an existing driveway at the southwestern portion of the property off Eastfield Drive for access. I. The project conforms with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and is categorically exempt from environmental review. RESOLUTION NO. 99-7 PAGE 4 OF 7 • • Section 9. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves the Site Plan Review application for Zoning Case No. 590 for proposed residential additions as indicated on the development plan incorporated herein as Exhibit A and subject to the conditions contained in Section 10. Section 10. The Variances to the front yard setback approved in Sections 5 and 7 and the Site Plan Review approved in Section 9 of this resolution are subject to the following conditions: A. The Variance and Site Plan Review approvals shall expire within one year from the effective date of approval as defined in Sections 17.38.070(A) and 17.46.080(A) unless otherwise extended pursuant to the requirements of those sections. B. It is declared and made a condition of the Variance and Site Plan Review approvals, that if any conditions thereof are violated, this approval shall be suspended and the privileges granted thereunder shall lapse; provided that the applicant has been given written notice to cease such violation, the opportunity for a hearing has been provided, and if requested, has been held, and thereafter the applicant fails to correct the violation within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of the City's determination. C. All requirements of the Buildings and Construction Ordinance, the Zoning Ordinance, and of the zone in which the subject property is located must be complied with unless otherwise set forth in the Permit, or shown otherwise on an approved plan. D. The lot shall be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the site plan on file marked Exhibit A and dated February 10, 1999, except as otherwise provided in these conditions. E. The working drawings submitted to the County Department of Building and Safety for plan check review must conform to the development plan approved with this application. F. Any retaining walls incorporated into the project shall not exceed 5 feet in height, averaging no more than 2-1/2 feet. G. The residential building pad coverage shall not exceed 86.99%, the pool and stable pad shall not exceed 15.07%, and total building pad coverage shall not exceed 42.25%. H. Maximum disturbed area shall not exceed 40.0% of the net lot area. RESOLUTION NO. 99-7 PAGE 5 OF 7 • • I. Grading shall not exceed 362.93 cubic yards of cut soil and 362.93 cubic yards of fill soil and shall be balanced on site. J. Any grading shall preserve the existing topography, flora, and natural features to the greatest extent possible. K. An Erosion Control Plan containing the elements set forth in Section 7010 of the 1996 County of Los Angeles Uniform Building Code shall be prepared to minimize erosion and to protect slopes and channels to control stormwater pollution as required by the County of Los Angeles. L. Landscaping shall incorporate and preserve, to the maximum extent feasible, the existing mature trees and shrubs and the natural landscape screening surrounding the proposed building pad. M. Landscaping shall include water efficient irrigation, to the maximum extent feasible, that incorporates a low gallonage irrigation system, utilizes automatic controllers, incorporates an irrigation design using "hydrozones," considers slope factors and climate conditions in design, and utilizes means to reduce water waste resulting from runoff and overspray in accordance with Section 17.27.020 (Water efficient landscaping requirements) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code. N. An Erosion Control Plan containing the elements set forth in Section 7010 of the 1996 County of Los Angeles Uniform Building Code shall be prepared to minimize erosion and to protect slopes andchannels to control stormwater.. pollution as required by the County of Los Angeles. O. Prior to the submittal of an applicable final grading plan to the County of Los Angeles for plan check, a detailed grading and drainage plan with related geology, soils and hydrology reports that conform to the development plan as approved by the Planning Commission must be submitted to the Rolling Hills Planning Department staff for their review. Cut and fill slopes must conform to the City of Rolling Hills standard of 2 to 1 slope ratio. P. The project must be reviewed and approved by the Rolling Hills Community Association Architectural Review Committee prior to the issuance of any building or grading permit. Q. Notwithstanding Sections 17.46.020 and 17.46.070 of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code, any modifications to the project which would constitute additional structural development shall require the filing of a new application for approval by the Planning Commission. RESOLUTION NO. 99-7 PAGE 6 OF 7 • • R. The applicants shall execute an Affidavit of Acceptance of all conditions of this Variance and Site Plan Review, pursuant to Section 17.38.060, or the approval shall not be effective. S. All conditions of these Variance and Site Plan Review approvals must be complied with prior to the issuance of a building or grading permit from the County of Los Angeles. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 16TH DA , 1999. ALLAN ROBERTS, CHAIRMAN ATTEST: MARILYN RN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §§ CITY OF ROLLING HILLS ) I certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 99-7 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF . THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS GRANTING A VARIANCE TO PERMIT ENCROACHMENTS INTO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK TO CONSTRUCT AN ENTRYWAY ADDITION, GRANTING A VARIANCE TO PERMIT ENCROACHMENTS INTO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK TO CONSTRUCT A DINING ROOM ADDITION AND GRANTING SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF ADDITIONS TO A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE THAT WILL REQUIRE GRADING IN ZONING CASE NO. 590. was approved and adopted at an adjourned regular meeting of the Planning Commission on March 16, 1999 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Hankins, Margeta, Sommer, Witte and Chairman Roberts. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None . and in compliance with the laws of California was posted at the following: Administrative Offices. RESOLUTION NO. 99-7 PAGE 7 OF 7 OP-i��, � DEPUTY CITY CLERK • • 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 1730.030 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. ROLLING HILLS ZONING 76 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. ROLLING HILLS ZONING 77 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 • 8) 0 a1 at L. ar aa) L. 0 0 8) ar d 0. E 0 0 do W cc 0 0 a cc 5 0 1999 a rn m Postage Certified Fee • Special Delivery Fee Restricted Delivery Fee Return Receipt showing to whom and Date Delivered Return Recei t showing to whom, Date. ° r� f Delivery AL Post e and Fe �'";7'_ _ I S j" 87 w ?Postmark .1ra1)6ie r> pit rt P 852865 285 RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL (See Reverse) Sent to Street and No.n �D lrt jer S/i oC f 1,110 .2 . SENDER: ■ Complete items 1 and/or 2 for additional services. ■ Complete items 3, 4a, and 4b. ■ Print your name and address on the reverse of this form so that we can retum this card to you. •Attach this form to the front of the mailpiece, or on the back if space does not permit. ■ Write'Retum Receipt Requested' on the mallpiece below the article number. ■ The Retum Receipt will show to whom the article was delivered and the date delivered. 3. Article Addressed to: Mr. and Mrs. Ray Perrault 3845 Crest Road Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Z.C. No. 590 X ) PS Form 3811; C6cem6er 1994 I also wish to receive the following services (for an extra fee): 1. ❑ Addressee's Address 2. ❑ Restricted Delivery Consult postmaster for fee. 4a. Article Number P852 865 4b. Service Type ❑ Registered ❑ Express Malic�(1 ❑ Return Recent fo�r„Mchen 7. Date of De iverji 8. Addressee VAddress`b(©tily if guested and fee is pa d);;�4, ����t�a8� 285 $1 Certified Insured OD 102595-97-B-o179 Domestic Return Receipt Thank you for using Return Receipt Service r' • City opeoffiny FIELD TRIP NOTIFICATION January 21, 1999 Mr. and Mrs. Ray Perrault 3845 Crest Road Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 • 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. 590, a request for a Variance to encroach into the front yard setback to construct additions that will not exceed existing encroachments and request for Site Plan Review to permit the construction of room additions, a basement, an expanded driveway turnaround area and retaining walls that will require grading at an existing single family residence for property 10 Eastfield Drive (Lot 64-A-EF), Rolling Hills, CA. Dear Mr. and Mrs. Perrault: We have arranged for the Planning Commission to conduct a field inspection of your property to view a silhouette of the proposed project on Saturday. February 6. 1999. The Planning Commission's timetable is to meet at 7:30 AM at 28 Portuguese Bend Road and then proceed to your property at10 Eastfield Drive. Do not expect the Commission at 7:30 AM but, be assured that the field trip will take place before 9 AM. The site must be prepared according to the enclosed Silhouette Construction Guidelines and the following requirements: • A full-size silhouette must be prepared for ALL STRUCTURES of the project showing the footprints, roof ridges, bearing walls and any retaining walls; • Stake or flag the limits of the building pad at the rear, the limits of the basement, the limits of the terrace, and the limits of grading. • Delineate areas to be graded showing finished floor or grade elevations. The owner and/or representative should be present to answer any questions regarding the proposal. Please call me at (310) 377-1521 if you have any questions. LOLA M. UNGAR PLANNING DIRECTOR cc: Mr. Frank Politeo, AIA &rv. Pnnted on Recycled Paper. • Cu y aMollny J4&G INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO.2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (213) 377.1521 FAX (213) 377.7288 SILHOUETTE CONSTRUCTION GUIDELINES 1. .When required by the Planning Commission or City Council, a silhouette of proposed construction should be erected for the week preceding the designated Planning Commission. or City Council meeting. 2. Silhouettes should be constructed with 2" x 4" lumber. Printed boards are not acceptable. 3. Bracing should be provided where possible. 4. Wire, twine or other suitable material should be used to delineate roof ridges and eaves. 5. Small pieces of cloth or flags should be attached to the wire or twine to aid in the visualization of the proposed construction. 6. The application may be delayed if inaccurate silhouettes are constructed. 7. If you have any futher questions contact Department Staff at (213) 377-1521. • • • /N SECTION 1 1 II NI PLAN or incomplete the Planning • 4 • • City o/ re. een9. 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 STATUS OF APPLICATION & NOTIFICATION OF MEETING January 7, 1999 Mr. and Mrs. Ray Perrault 3845 Crest Road Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 SUBJECT: Zoning Case No. 590, a request for a Variance to encroach into the front yard setback to construct additions that will not exceed existing encroachments and request for Site Plan Review to permit the construction of room additions, a basement, an expanded driveway turnaround area and retaining walls that will require grading at an existing single family residence for property 10 Eastfield Drive (Lot 64-A-EF), Rolling Hills, CA. Dear Mr. and Mrs. Perrault: Pursuant to state law the City's staff has completed a preliminary review of the application noted above and finds that the information submitted is: X Sufficiently complete as of the date indicated above to allow the application to be processed. Please note that the City may require further information in order to clarify, amplify, correct, or otherwise supplement the application. If the City requires such additional information, it is strongly suggested that you supply that information promptly to avoid any delay in the processing of the application. Your application for Zoning Case No. 590 has been set for public hearing consideration by the Planning Commission at their meeting on Tuesday, Tanuary 19,1999. The meeting will begin at 7:30 PM in the Council Chambers, Rolling Hills City Hall Administration Building, 2 Portuguese Bend Road, Rolling Hills. You or your designated representative must attend to present your project and to answer questions. The staff report for this project will be available at the City Hall after 3:00 PM on Friday, January 15,1999. We will forward a copy to you. Please call me at (310) 377-1521 if you have any questions. Sincerel LOLA UNGAR PLANNING DIRECTOR cc: Mr. Frank Politeo, AIA Printed on Recycled Parer.