Loading...
640B, Variance for encroachment in , Correspondencei James N. Scharffenberger, M.D., Inc. Obstetrics, Gynecology and Infertility Catherine M. Couture, RN, C.N.P. June 19, 1997 JUN 3 0 j997 Mrs. Lola Unger CITY Ft�GI3iLL City of Rolling Hills By 2 Portuguese Bend Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Dear Lola: Pursuant to our conversation yesterday, I would like to inform you that the landscaping for our new residence at 5 Appaloosa Lane, has been completed. The information you conveyed to me was that there would be a waiting period of two years before the landscaping bond could be returned to me. Since the landscaping is complete at this point, and the irrigation is intact, it would be appreciated if you would speak with the Rolling Hills City Manager, and see if any exceptions are made in regard to return of landscaping bonds, as I feel the reason a bond is required is to ensure that a new horse has landscaping placed. We have put our landscaping in, and plan to maintain it. I do not think there will be any chance that we will fail to comply with the landscaping plan, or to maintain this valuable asset of my home. Please let me know if there is any way we can apply and/or request an exception to this rule, as the return of my grading bond would be financially most appreciated. Sincerely, James N. JNS.rrw d: June t: June 20911 Earl Street Suite 480 Torrance, CA 90503 (310) 370.7277 Scharffenberger, M.D., Inc. 19, 1997 23, 1997 THos C. MoNTncuE ciAuuqu.• l S,1 ° Q/LAI(o tLi s CiN UAL)AC2E& Ctr`f OF AoL/./bJC, 6f1CL5 2 1p00.rU Lt E ssE e&cuc0 l/e0f10 4LL14(o WILLS, CA. boa £EA+2 £tU. lueALts Builder • License #505714 CITY OF ROLLING HILLS Approved PLANNING DEP/�RTMEN U • 400 -c Lcrh T 6- Date `T tf?c 6K CokAtiwe, OF /d uME✓Z /3LAcvw.ATE✓2. Oak "/oiL) WAS APE 3 E?b sr'i ri A U ( Coo a( TALE 7:g 0 To cou Foce“ To R AO,!2ov.E4O 6OM/0-3c, ` LAU C. I0.EJ2/4 tT Fo12 Cow g Tau CT/otO (K,S tiJ (.067-711L) E4 Aloo 44)02Vs_ cur c_ L. S. c27- Aecue /wC, coLoG Y ae0/Ea) Li TOE iPt/oCE. of 0/ty fot4- u���r2 Fob Al, (-UP TO <too C - K , C yyta.kos. OF (O 11 7 Cu / L ( IJ.fiE 1 7o f3 E 12,E Poo E O A w O 14A u L E r0 Ft2olu 7 ME U 06 57 77,E . £1 S.6. o f T/f !D (t2T Co u b /3 t. /v F / ,v .Ec.E.s-s or A /i42o c»,o "40 s', W ,411/ P/Qo/Dos//v6 7-o 7`AKE ?K£ 1d//27- 70 S 'r9,0,4460sel 414 W I-1.E1/4E 7-/oco4L d ill 7' IS EE et.- 7o Cdw/0G.7-.E_ Co to Tt2t,{ C7-/oa0 OF T/{._ , i c'- sycit-ts ('95T Y c2 w s 7 / 3 ,} w,1 77- e0 O /6 /cJ-4 LL y E. s 7` / A-t/9 Tf O. pLfA.c.E_ L E T uS Yogiv fEC(S/o4.) ,9S .Sc oN 4 s "SS/ eiZ, /aewstiz ci )2/ 4219 Charlemagne Ave. • Long Beach; Calif. 90808 • (310) 420-7205 • ", Ci4, 0/ RJ/L4-Wre October 18,1994 Dr. James N. Scharffenberger 20911 Earl Street Suite 480 Torrance, CA 90503 SUBJECT: GREY WATER SYSTEMS Dear Dr. Scharffenberger: INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 We really appreciate your interest in Grey Water Uses. At the regular City Council Meeting on October 10, 1994, City Councilmembers directed staff to carefully review Los Angeles County Chapter 14 Uniform Plumbing Code related to grey water systems. Meanwhile, the matching California Plumbing Code Grey Water Standards will take effect on November 1, 1994. It is our understanding that the City of Rolling Hills will fall under these guidelines, since we have not adopted the County Plumbing Code with grey water provisions. Based upon input from our City Attorney, we will be proposing a modified Ordinance some time after November 1, 1994. Feel free to call me at (310) 377-1521 or the County's Lomita Office at (310) 534-3760 if you or your representative wish any further information regarding the design of grey water systems. Sincerely, PRINCIPAL PLANNER Printed on Recycled Paper. • Ii1t 0/ /EOI/L .Jd`iILd INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 October 4,1994 Mr. Thomas C. Montague 4219 Charlemagne Ave. Long Beach, CA 90808 SUBJECT: 5 APPALOOSA LANE REMOVAL OF EXCESS SOIL FROM PROPERTY Dear Tom: This letter is to verify approval of your request to remove up to 450 cubic yards of excess soil generated from the excavation of footings for the residence and retaining walls at 5 Appaloosa Lane that will be used for road construction by the Rolling Hills Community Association. Feel free to call us at (310) 377-1521 if you have any further questions. Sincerely, .iett LOLA M. UNGAR PRINCIPAL PLANNER cc: Mr. Craig Nealis, City Manager Dr. James N. Scharffenberger ®Printed on Recycled Paper. 110 Gpzilirl047640_ COTY��.' OLLlw�ji %7/GGS. 40441-As(c, Q:6-27 &EM. Loci}. • ONTAGUE Builder e Licenae #505714 .SE P CIT#Lt lG +DULLS f Z� i,&O% Ge9 6 i ij 6 OF S^ ppo4 Ccas-4 LA4w¢ e9-iji A(ioi c)0. , 6y A4.4. 6 „)0/ G(J. sT,yt/2-774) tQie_ 7z/E. 0006 L 6 - 74 /iz) /it , ;0)4 L LS 70 Ld04TE0 A C OA) f? T/{ (Sno(--/Tff o� 7 /' /ye) `t-oo cbcia s /940o r /i/E./v.1-y, 4 ev/T A 4S ,- /a/? /lz`/S Gc-t�i2v 1,6,6cc/`4"..6/4 l , erA, Cdeu IGTrott) Dim Try < it P400455 6(- C(DkJ,S'.7-kq 77i-)6; 7/6e / %71/N/A.)6 &'4 ,Ls• ,9 c4 7h1� s etiL4-7X bJ C/,29 To 4,. o ct ,c l%w-6� r Ga r/) To 0 7 4_) 77,ei.G.L. y . % 9 'L -7gco y 7/7/is x s$ Frr2 e,, " ??y ., • Jo j S' 9' £ZE 2E YC ce d1Ec - l`SS/Gev j0 00 • SO , CG D� ' C.a ei /7y "4 sbCY/�9Ti o /49S �3 � i 7--0/E� �9T` /era wow ) /0/12T- G(jocp�� P E 4 �� r��-���E �.=. �� � 1`® �SSrcy p,./L c /c)c2 C � S /A 00 /'aJCo �q�IGG s ©)J C&YV-nl`c ..61 loaf_ G6T GfS GZeo& 4s. Y4C J L'Y: os-5/41-E you /2 c1 S /ouJ 4219 Charlemagne "Ave, ;ong Beach..'Calif. 90808 (310) 420-7205 Cuy o/ R0f/4 JUL THOMAS F. HEINSHEIMER Mayor GODFREY PERNELL Mayor Pro Tem FRANK E. HILL Councilmember B. ALLEN LAY Councilmember JODY MURDOCK Councilmember September 27, 1994 Dr. James N. Scharffenberger 20911 Earl Street, Suite 480 Torrance, CA 90503 Dear Dr. Scharffenberger: INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 Thank you for your correspondence dated September 21, 1994, relating to establishment of a gray water system in your new home on Appaloosa Lane. Coincidentally, Councilmember Jody Murdock had requested staff to prepare an agenda item relating to this specific topic approximately one week before your correspondence was received by the City. We anticipate to have a report prepared and presented to the City Council on Monday, October 10, 1994. Please let us know if you would like a copy of that staff report for your information. Thank you for your thoughts on this matter. We appreciate the input. Sincerely, 9/4J(I� Craig R. Nealis City Manager CRN:mlk scharffenberg.ltr cc: City Council Lola Ungar, Principal Planner Printed on Recycled Papnr. City Rolling JUL June 21, 1994 Mr. Robert F. Sollima 8 Quail Ridge Road North Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Dear Mr. Sollima: INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 Thank you for your letter of June 6, 1994 regarding the construction of another residence on Appaloosa Lane and your concerns of imminent fire danger in the canyon area and the possibility of double standards related to fire protection. Let us assure you that for any new construction the Water Company will review plans for fire flow availability using certain criteria and the Fire Department will review the plans using their guidelines. In some instances, the Water Company and Fire Department may require additional fire hydrants and/or that the new residence be entirely sprinklered. Complete plans for the project at 5 Appaloosa Lane have not yet been reviewed by the Water Company or the Fire Department. In addition, wood shake roofs are no longer permitted for any new construction or replacement of a roof in the City of Rolling Hills. All new construction or replacement roofs are required to be of Class A materials. We hope that these explanations assuage your concerns about fire safety in your canyon and throughout the City of Rolling Hills. Let us assure you that we do not apply double standards in the administration of fire protection rules and regulations. SO to Printed an Recycled Paper. PAGE 2 Feel free to call us at (310) 377-1521 if you have any further questions. Sincerely, LOLA M. UNGAR PRINCIPAL PLANNER cc: Members of the City Council Mr. Craig Nealis, City Manager Captain Thomas R. Hanson, Fire Prevention, Los Angeles County Fire Department Ms. Lata Thakar, District Engineer, Los Angeles County Department of Public Works, Building & Safety Division • .cr = CII11 o/}'0 RO/A g/ Jhff. June 20, 1994 Dr. James Scharffenberger 940 2nd Street Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 SUBJECT: EXPIRATION OF APPROVALS RESOLUTION NO. 93-26 ZONING CASE NO. 460B, 5 APPALOOSA LANE (LOT 106-D-RH) Dear Dr. Scharffenberger: We would like to remind you that your approvals in the subject zoning case will expire on August 17, 1994. 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 UNGA PRINCIPAL PLANNER cc: Mr. Criss Gunderson DAVID C. BREIHOLZ ANDOPANY, INC. Engineering Design Construction 1852 Lomita Boulevard Lomita, California 90717 213 530 3050 FAX: 213 530 0184 March 21, 1994 Ms. Lola Unger, Principle Planner City of Rolling Hills #2 Portuguese Bend Rolling Hills, California 90274 MAR 2 3 1994 CITY OF ROLLING 1 d RE: Status of grading operations at #5 Appaloosa Lane, Rolling Hills Property Owner: Dr. and Mrs. James Scharffenberger Job # 92-038EC Dear Lola: This letter is to follow up your telephone call of last Friday, March 4, 1994 concerning the grading operation currently under way at the above referenced property. A grading permit was secured for the project in early January 1994 and grading commenced on January 14th. Prior to starting the grading operation, a pregrading meeting was conducted by myself at the site with the general contractor, grading contractor, geotechnical engineer and engineering geologist in which we discussed the critical issues for the project and the approved plan. As you know, in order to create the building pad, the earth materials from the upper portion of the lot are excavated or cut, and placed on the lower portion of the lot as filled. An engineered fill cannot be placed over soft native soils. In order to place fill on a hillside lot, a keyway must be overexcavated at the toe of the fill slope and then the excavated materials are replaced and compacted under the supervision of the geotechnical engineer. Usually, it is necessary to excavate to the bedrock in order to reach competent materials on which the fill can be recompacted. While excavating this keyway, a localized, potentially hazardous slide plane was observed by our supervising geologist, Arthur Keene. If this feature were not overexcavated and recompacted, a landslide could occur. This geologic issue is discussed in greater detail in the attached letter from Mr. Keene. Civil Engineering Structural Design Seismic Hazard Reduction Construction Supervision Plan Check Service Inspection Service • • Page Two March 21, 1994 As of the writing of this letter, it is my understanding that the slide plane has now been excavated out, and the recompaction of the soil will soon commence. This required overexcavating is the reason for the large stockpile seen recently on the site. I trust this letter addresses your concern. Please feel free to contact me directly should you have additional questions. Respectfully Submitted, Gary Wynn, P.E. Project Manager Iit",;) a, , fL, R. br, No. C 0432c:2 Exp. 3-39 6 • • pre -escrow disclosure residential development A . G. KEENE ASSOCIATES Engineering Geologist, CEG # 16 26001 E. Victoria St.., # 308 Rancho Dominguez, California 90220 (310) 537-6615 March 8, 1994 David C. Breiholz & Company, Inc. Attn: Gary Wynn Supervising Grading Engineer Subject : GRADING OPERATIONS AT NO. 5 APPALOOSA During the month of January, 1994, grading operations at No. 5 Appaloosa were started and are continuing to this day. Grading is in compliance with the Los Angeles County Department of Public Work's approval of the grading plan that Department received. Approval was initiated by the Materials Division, Geology Section and Soils Section Review Sheets, dated 12-23-93 and 12-22-93. The above approvals were based on an extensive geologic/soils exploration by Converse -Davis, summarized in their early report dated March 22, 1982 and by geologic reports by A.G. Keene, dated August 22, 1992 and August 30, 1993. Keith Tucker, Soils Engineer, also submitted soil reports regarding the proposed grading plan, dated July 24, 1992, August 31, 1993 and October 28, 1993. environmental geohydrology Grading exposures did reveal a very thin slide plane in the key -way trench on February 2, 1994. The slide plane consists of a smeared orange -brown non-bentonitic clay surface, 1/32"to 1/16" thick, between hydrothermally altered volcanic tuffs and silts and a highly indurated siltstone bedrock below. Even with daylight exposure, the slide plane was difficult to observe and map, since it undulated in short distances and merged with diverse earth materials. This slide plane was finally fully. eyEposed near to but a few feet below the proposed and anticipated depth of the proposed key -way as shown on the approved grading plan. The geologic data uncovered by both Converse and A.G. Keene did not reveal a slide plane in any one of the four ( 4 )borings, nor in the numerous trenches. However, it is County policy to require in -grading inspections by the geologist and the soils engineer in order to observe earth materials during grading and thus verify anticipated geologic and soils conditions. The best exposure of these conditions is understandably much better revealed when completely exposed to daylight, where keen observations can most readily be made, as opposed to those limited observations made in a dark 24" dia. hole in the ground--- not the best of working conditions under which a thin hazardous seam of clay, such as a slide plane, can be seen. Some slide planes are very obvious; others are not. It was my opinion that the slide plane had to be fully excavated to show that no further slide planes were existent below that observed. This is only common sense ( geologic logic). The soils engineer must then determine the absolute depth needed for a key -way, based on the strength of compacted soil to be used and the driving force moving the slide mass along the precise slide plane. The earth mass must then be graded to an approved revised grading plan; specifications of which should be submitted to the Department of Public Works. The above procedure is 100% in compliance with County Building Code requirements , and policies imposed by the Geology Section of the Materials Division. It is unfortunate that some over -excavation of earth material will be required to render the site safe for the future. However, this is not uncommon during grading operations. The science of geology and soils engineering is not a precise science. Some refer to these professions as an art. It is common parlance to refer to engineering as an art. The tools for subsurface observation , such as trenching and deep borings, are the best available, short of using x-ray vision. Remote geophysical techniques are even less reliable. The absolute best tool is the actual grading of the site. Observations made during and after grading is completed are summarized in the Final As -Graded Geologic Report, as required by the Building Code. The as -graded geologic /soils reports must be submitted to the County for their review and approval before a building permit is ever to be approved in order to assure everyone , including the City Planning Commission, that the building site will be safe and offsite properties will not be adversely affected. This procedure is dictated by Section 309 of the Building Code. Further, the finished product will not only be aesthetically superior, but will be physically SAFER than the pre -graded topography. Three is no other course that can be taken. A. G. Keene cc: James Scharffenberger, M.D. (1) Gary Wynn, Grading Eng. (1) • City 0/ Roiling 3a December 13, 1993 Ms. Julie Heinsheimer 7 Johns Canyon Road Rolling Hills, CA 90274 • SUBJECT: LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR 5 APPALOOSA LANE Dear Julie: INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 Please review the landscape plan, the estimate, and the resolution attached. If there are any additions, corrections or the plan does not meet with your approval, please let me know. Sincerely with thanks, Printed on Recycled Paper. •City 0/ Rolling _AIL CERTIFIED MAIL August 24, 1993 Dr. James Scharffenberger 940 2nd Street Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 • INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 SUBJECT: APPEAL PERIOD AND AFFIDAVIT OF ACCEPTANCE FORM ZONING CASE NO. 460B, 5 APPALOOSA LANE (LOT 106-D-RH) RESOLUTION NO. 93-26 Dear Dr. Scharffenberger: This letter shall serve as official notification that Zoning Case No. 460B was APPROVED by the Planning Commission and the enclosed resolution was approved on August 17, 1993 at a regular meeting. The Planning Commission's decision was reported to the City Council at their regular meeting on August 23, 1993. The approval will become effective: (1) Thirty (30) days after adoption of the Planning Commission's resolution if no appeals are filed within that time period (Section 17.54.010(B) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code attached), AND (2) An Affidavit of Acceptance Form and the subject resolution must be filed by you with the County Recorder. We have enclosed a copy of RESOLUTION NO. 93-26, 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 to:. Los Angeles County Registrar -Recorder Real Estate Records Section 12400 East Imperial Highway Norwalk, CA 90650 Include a check in the amount of $5.00 for the first page and $3.00 for each additional page. The City will notify the Los Angeles County Building & Safety Division to issue permits only when the Affidavit of Acceptance is received byus and any conditions of the Resolution required prior to issuance of building permits are met. fir Printed on Recycled �ap5r. • • PAGE 2 Please feel free to call me at (310) 377-1521 if you have any questions. S I NCERELY , LOLA UNG PRINCIPAL PLANNER ENCLOSURES: RESOLUTION NO.93-26, EXHIBIT A DEVELOPMENT PLAN, AFFIDAVIT OF ACCEPTANCE FORM, AND APPEAL SECTION OF THE ROLLING HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE. cc: Mr. David Breiholz Mr. Gary Wynn Mr. Criss Gunderson • • 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 ROLLING HILLS ZONING MAY ?A, 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 78 ROLLING HILLS ZONING MAY 24, 1993 RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND MAIL"TO: Recorder's Use CITY OF ROLLING HILLS 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 Please record 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 ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss ZONING CASE NO. 460B SITE PLAN REVIEW X VARIANCE X CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT I (We) the undersigned state: I am (We are) the owner(s) of the real property described as follows: 5 Appaloosa Lane (Lot 106-D-RH) Rolling Hills, CA This property is the subject of the above numbered cases. I am (We are) aware of, and accept, all the stated conditions in said ZONING CASE NO. 460B SITE PLAN REVIEW X VARIANCE X CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT I (We) certify (or declare) under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Print Owner Name Signature Address City/State Print Owner Name Signature Address City/State Signatures must be acknowledged by a notary public. State of County of On this the day of the undersigned Notary Public, personally appeared ❑ personally known to me ❑ proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) subscribed to the within instrument, and acknowledged that executed it. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Notary's Signature See Exhibit °A" attached hereto and made a part hereof s ! . kaW/B/r` 4 RESOLUTION NO. 93-26 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS APPROVING A VARIANCE TO PERMIT AN ENCROACHMENT INTO THE FRONT YARD TO CONSTRUCT A STABLE AND CORRAL, APPROVING A SITE PLAN REVIEW APPLICATION, AND REPEALING RESOLUTION NO. 92-27 IN ZONING CASE NO. 460B. THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Applications were duly filed by Dr. James Scharffenberger with respect to real property located at 5 Appaloosa Lane, Rolling Hills (Lot 106-D-RH) requesting: (1) A Variance to permit encroachment into the front yard to construct a stable and corral, and (2) Site Plan Review of a proposed new residence. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the applications on December 17, 1991 and January 21, 1992, and at a field trip visit•on January 11, 1992. Section 2. The Commission approved Resolution No. 92-10 in Zoning Case No. 460 on February 1, 1992. The City Council took the subject zoning case under jurisdiction on February 10, 1992 and conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the appeal of the applications on February 24, 1992. The City Council remanded the subject case back to the Planning Commission to address the two issues of: (1) The necessity to provide a title report for 3 Appaloosa Lane (Lot 106-D-RH) which shows that there is an easement for roadway purposes across property known as 2 Appaloosa Lane (Lot 106-C-RH) and across Lot 246-MS, and (2) The approval by the Traffic Commission of the proposed accessway to the subject site. Section 3. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the applications on March 17, 1992, April 28, 1992, May 19, 1992, June 16, 1992, and July 21, 1992 while awaiting the title report. Under Section 65957 of the Government Code the applicant requested a 90 day extension of time on August 17, 1992 and the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the applications on August 18, 1992, September 15, 1992, and October 20, 1992. Section 4. Following the resolution of these matters, the Commission approved Resolution No. 92-27 in Zoning Case No. 460A on November 21, 1992. The City Council took the subject zoning case under jurisdiction on November 23, 1992 and conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the appeal of the applications on January 11, 1993. On that date, the applicant withdrew the proposed plans and requested review of new plans. The City Council remanded the subject case back to the Planning Commission to review the new proposal and the large area of grading. • • RESOLUTION NO. 93-26 PAGE 2 Section 5. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the applications on February 16, 1993, March 16, 1993, April 27, 1993, May 18, 1993, June 15, 1993, and July 20, 1993, and at field trip visits on April 17, 1993 and July 15, 1993. Section 6. The Planning Commission finds that the project is categorically exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to a Class 3 exemption provided by Section 15303 of the State CEQA Guidelines. Section 7. Section 17.38.050(A) through (G) permits 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. A Variance to Sections 17.16.200(A)(3) is required because this section states that corrals or pens may not be located in the front yard. The applicant is requesting a Variance to encroach up to 28 feet into the 122 foot irregular front yard setback to construct a 450 square foot stable and a 550 square foot corral. With respect to this request, the Planning Commission finds as follows: A. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances and conditions applicable to the property and the intended use that do not apply generally to the other property in the same vicinity and zone. The Variance for the stable and corral is necessary because the topography of the site prevents the construction of a stable. corral, and retaining walls in the rear yard. The proper and logical location for the stable and corral is below the proposed building pad because of the topographical nature of the lot. The proposed building pad for the residence will be located at the southwest portion of the lot where the ground is mostly level. The northwest side yard slopes down to the canyon which precludes the creation of a flat area for a stable and corral in the rear yard. The area proposed for the stable and corral is the only place available on this property for this use. 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 the property in question. The Variance is necessary because the General Plan encourages and the Zoning Ordinance requires the delineation of stables and corrals, on properties in the City of Rolling Hills and a stable and corral could not be feasibly located in the rear yard. • • RESOLUTION NO. 93-26 PAGE 3 C. The granting of the Variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which the property is 1,ocated. The Variance will permit the construction of a stable and corral which will not impact the street or neighboring properties because they will be nestled into the hillside. Also, the building pad for the stable is located along a long driveway so that it will not be visible from the street. Section 8. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves the Variance to permit the construction of a 450 square foot •stable and a 550 square foot corral in the front yard as shown on the Development Plan attached hereto as Exhibit A, subject to the conditions specified in Section 12. Section 9. Section 17.46.030 requires a development plan to be submitted for site plan review and approval before 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 or structure by more than 25% in any 36-month period. Section 10. With respect to the Site Plan Review application, 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. The lot has a net square foot area of 87,152 square feet. The proposed residence (5,615 sq.ft.), garage (875 sq.ft.), swimming pool (308 sq.ft.), service yard (72 sq.ft.), and future stable (45.0 sq.ft.) will have 7,320 square feet which constitutes 8.4% of the lot which is within the maximum 20% structural lot coverage requirement. The total lot coverage including paved areas and driveway will be 17,210 square feet which equals 19.8% of the lot, which is within the 35% maximum overall lot coverage requirement. The proposed project is on a relatively large lot with most of the proposed structures located away from the road so as to reduce the visual impact of the development. The pad is similar in sizeto several neighboring developments. • 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) because a minimum amount of grading is • • RESOLUTION NO. 93-26 PAGE 4 proposed and will only be done to provide approved drainage that will flow away from the proposed residence and existing neighboring residences. C. 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) because grading will only be done to provide approved drainage that will flow away from the proposed residence and existing neighboring residences. D. 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) because grading will conform with the existing land contours which are varied. E. The development plan follows the natural contours of the site ,to minimize grading and the natural drainage courses will continue to the canyons at the north side of this lot. F. The development plan incorporates existing large trees and native vegetation to the maximum extent feasible and, with the conditions attached to this approval, supplements it with landscaping that is compatible with and enhances the rural character of the community. G. 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. Further, the proposed project will have a buildable pad coverage of 35%. Significant portions of the lot will be left undeveloped so as to maintain trail access near the western property line and scenic vistas across the northerly portions of the property. H. The proposed development 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. Grading shall be permitted only to restore the natural slope of the property. The ratio of the proposed structure to lot coverage is similar to the ratio found on several properties in the vicinity. I. 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 Appaloosa Lane for access. Also, the proposed driveway is near the RESOLUTION NO. 93-26 PAGE 5 end of a cul-de-sac street which will therefore create little interference with traffic. J. The project conforms with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and is categorically exempt from environmental review. Section 11. Based upon the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves the Site Plan Review application for Zoning Case No.. 460B for a proposed residential development as indicated on the development plan incorporated herein as Exhibit A and subject to the conditions contained in Section 12. Section 12. The Variance to permit the construction of a stable, corral, and retaining walls that will encroach into the front yard approved in Section 8, and the Site Plan Review for residential development approved in Section 11 are subject to the following conditions: A. The Variance shall expire unless used within one year from the effective date of approval as defined in Section 17.38.070 of the Municipal Code. The Site Plan Review approval shall expire within one year from the effective date of approval as defined in Section 17.46.080(A). B. It is declared and made a condition of the Variance and the Site Plan Review approval, that if any conditions thereof are violated, the Permit shall be suspended and the privileges granted thereunder shall lapse; provided that the applicant has been given written notice to cease such violation and has failed to do so for a period of thirty (30) days. C. All requirements of the Building and Construction Ordinance, the Zoning Ordinance, and of the zone in which the subject property is located must be complied with unless otherwise approved by Variance. D. The lot shall be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the site plan on file marked Exhibit A except as otherwise provided in these conditions. E. Grading shall not exceed 1,590 cubic yards of cut soil and 1,590 cubic yards of fill soil. F. Graded slopes shall be contoured to 2:1, 2-1/2:1, and 3:1 slopes. G. All retaining walls incorporated into the project shall not be greater than 5 feet in height at any one point. RESOLUTION NO..93-26 PAGE 6 . The driveway access apron shall be twenty-four (24) feet wide. I. The driveway access apron shall be roughened to assist equestrian crossing. J. To minimize the visibility of buildings on the pad, the structures, driveway, graded slopes and retaining walls shall be screened and shielded from view with native drought -resistant vegetation and other vegetation that is compatible with the surrounding vegetation of the community. Special emphasis shall be incorporated into the landscaping plan to obscure the house from riders on the Glory Trail at the western property line by way of large native plants or plants that are compatible with the surrounding vegetation of the community. K. A landscape plan must be submitted to and approved by the City of Rolling Hills Planning Department staff prior to the issuance of any grading and building permit. The landscaping plan submitted must comply with the purpose and intent of the Site Plan Review Ordinance, shall incorporate existing mature trees and native vegetation, and shall utilize to the maximum extent feasible, plants that are native to the area and/or consistent with the rural character of the community. A bond in the amount of the cost estimate of the implementation of the landscaping plan plus 15% shall be required to be posted prior to issuance of a grading and building permit and shall be retained with the City for not less than two years after landscape installation. The retained bond will be released by the City Manager after the City Manager determines that the landscaping was installed pursuant to the landscaping plan as approved, and that such landscaping is properly established and in good condition. L. 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. M. 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. N. The working drawings submitted to the County Department of Building and Safety for plan check review and must conform to the development plan approved with this application. RESOLUTION NO. 93-26 PAGE 7 O. The building pad coverage shall not exceed 35%. P. The applicant shall execute an Affidavit of Acceptance of all conditions of this Variance and Site Plan Review, or the approval shall not be effective. Q. All conditions, of this Variance and Site Plan Review approval 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 17TH DAY OF AUGUST, 1993. A EV`i't iiANKIS, iCING CHAIR ATTEST: zzfxk•> MARILYN K RN, DEPUTY CITY CLERK The foregoing Resolution No. 93-26 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROLLING HILLS APPROVING A VARIANCE TO PERMIT AN ENCROACHMENT INTO THE FRONT YARD TO CONSTRUCT A STABLE AND CORRAL, APPROVING A SITE. PLAN REVIEW APPLICATION, AND REPEALING RESOLUTION NO. 92-27 IN ZONING CASE NO. 460B. was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on August 17, 1993, 1992 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioner Raine and Acting Chairman Hankins NOES: Commissioner Frost ABSENT: Commissioner Lay and Chairman Roberts ABSTAIN: None DEPUTY CITY CLERK (See Reverse) ar. S ya,�s Scha P 115 975 448 Receipt for Certified Mail No Insurance Coverage Provided UNITED STATES Do not use for International Mail POSTAL SERVICE Sent to Street and No. y©— r�& Stveo P.O,., State and ZIP Code Postage Certified Fecf.", /. ©O Special C7bli?idry Fed Restricttd,S)r very • Return AleceipS'`S owing''; cn to Whon pdteiivered,r r-` /,r a 0 $ j• .ti 1 i 7 - TOTAL Postag$ ::,!:. • C& Fees I CO Postmack.o a 1 .M E \ Return RecefpFiowing,to C!yhgm, Date, and Addressee's Addreys '5er • • City ol Roiling JUL July 22, 1993 Dr. James Scharffenberger 940 2nd Street Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377.1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 460B, Request for a modification to a request for a Variance to permit the encroachment of a stable and corral in the front yard and a request for Site Plan Review for a proposed new single family residence for property at 5 Appaloosa Lane, Rolling Hills, CA; more precisely, Lot 106-D-RH. Dear Dr. Scharffenberger: This letter shall serve as official notification that Zoning Case No. 460B was APPROVED by the Planning Commission at their regular meeting on July 20, 1993. The final Resolution and conditions of APPROVAL will be forwarded to you after they are signed by the Planning Commission Chairman and City Clerk. The Planning Commission's decision will be reported to the City Council at their regular meeting on August 23, 1993. You should also be aware that the decision of the Planning Commission may be appealed within thirty days after you receive the final Resolution (Sections 17.54.010(B) of the Rolling Hills Municipal Code). Feel free to call me at (310) 377-1521 if you have any questions regarding this matter. Sincerely, LOLA M. UNGAR PRINCIPAL PLANNER cc: Mr. David Breiholz Mr. Gary Wynn Mr. Criss Gunderson Printed on Recycled Paper. • • DAVID C. BREIHOLZ AND COMPANY, INC. Engineering Design Construction 1852 Lomita Boulevard Lomita, California 90717 TEL : 310-530-3050 FAX: 310-530-0184 June 28, 1993 Mr. Robert F. Sollima #8 Quail Ridge Road North Rolling. Hills, California 90274 RE: Geotechnical investigation for #5 Appaloosa Lane, Rolling Hills Owner: Dr. and Mrs. James Scharffenberger Dear Robert: This letter is to follow up our meeting of this morning in which discussed the additional information requested by Los Angeles County in order to secure the geotechnical and grading approval for the above referenced property. We appreciate you taking time to meet with Dr. Scharffenberger and myself to expedite this process. As we discussed, we will need to excavate 5-6 test pits (approximately ten feet deep and ten feet in length) in the undeveloped portion of your property as depicted on the attached map. Due to some of the adverse features originally mapped by the USGS on yours and Dr. Scharffenberger's properties, the County Engineers are requiring that we extend our geologic and slope stability cross - sections up through your adjacent site to verify that there will be no adverse impacts on your property as a result of future grading on the Scharffenberger lot below yours. Our geotechnical team has met recently with the County Geologist on site to confirm the limits of his request. I have spoken with our soils engineer this morning since we met, and he has indicated that they will mobilize equipment and man power to the site to restore and recompact the test pits after our geologist maps the bedrock information he needs to extend the cross sections up the hill. We anticipate that the entire operation will take two to three days. We would like to mobilize in mid -July. We will advise you in advance as to when we will be working on your property. The proper workman's compensation insurance is carried by our backhoe operator. Please accept this letter as our commitment to see that your property is left as we found it. All test pits will be recompacted to the standard 90% compaction. Any unforeseen damages to storm drains or other subsurface obstacles will be restored to your satisfaction. Civil Engineering Structural Design Seismic Hazard Reduction Construction Supervision Plan Check Service Inspection Service • • Page Two June 28, 1993 We will be glad to provide you with a copy of the data gathered on your property for your future use. We would appreciate you returning the attached extra copy of this letter with your signature indicating agreement with the conditions. Please feel free to call should you have any further conditions, questions or comments. Respectfully Submitted, Gary Wynn, P.E. Project Manager GW/gw:92-038E1 Map attached cc: Dr James Scharffenberger ACCEPTANCE OF CONDITIONS: Robert Sollima, #8 Quail Ridge Road North, Rolling Hills date • • "�i�'.ti lrI i-- • • • •;.._�.,::J• i_�; � "'^; -.%.jam a ref emerge X n of test Pit osgd ,ocatio p� oP .�_ • • City olallin9 Jh// June 17, 1993 Dr. James Scharffenberger 940 2nd Street Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377.7288 SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 460B, Request for a modification to a request for a Variance to permit the encroachment of a stable and corral in the front yard and a request for Site Plan Review for a proposed new single family residence for property at 5 Appaloosa Lane, Rolling Hills, CA; more precisely, Lot 106-D-RH. Dear Dr. Scharffenberger: We have arranged for the Planning Commission to conduct a field inspection of your property to view a silhouette of the proposed project on Thursday, July 15, 1993. The Planning Commission will meet at 5:30 PM at 6 Williamsburg Lane for a time and then proceed to the other scheduled project sites. Do not expect the Commission at 5:30 PM, but be assured that the field trip will take place before 8 PM. The site must be prepared with a full-size silhouette of the Proposed project showina the roof ridae and bearina walls. We have enclosed Silhouette Construction Guidelines. The owner and/or representative should be present to answer any questions regarding the proposal. Feel free to call me at (310) 377-1521 if you have any questions. Sincerely, LOLA M. UNGAR PRINCIPAL PLANNER cc: Mr. David Breiholz Mr. Gary Wynn • • 5. G•ey ofi2?fey Jl,•PP, 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. The Silhouette shall not remain erected for a period longer than one week unless directed by the Planning Commission or City Council. 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. 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 or incomplete silhouettes are constructed. 7. If you have any futher questions contact the Planning Department Staff at (213) 377-1521. r .04 SECTION kit 14 40 PLAN • • City� O ailngp ill INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 May 19, 1993 Mr. David Breiholz Mr. Gary Wynn David C. Breiholz & Company, Inc. 1852 Lomita Boulevard Lomita, CA 90717 SUBJECT: CORRECTED COMPARISON Dear Mr. Breiholz and Mr. Wynn: Sorry that the numbers in the comparison weren't quite right last evening. Here is a copy of the corrected version for your records. For next month's meeting, please provide any new drawings by June 4, 1993. Your cooperation is appreciated. LOLA UNGAR PRINCIPAL PLANNER J • • C1iy .1) RO/IL S INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 MEETING DATE: MAY 18, 1993 TO: HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: LOLA UNGAR, PRINCIPAL PLANNER SUBJECT: COMPARISON BETWEEN PREVIOUS AND PROPOSED REQUEST ZONING CASE NO. 460B 5 APPALOOSA LANE (LOT 106-D-RH) DR. JAMES SCHARFFENBERGER NOV.1992 APRIL 1993 MAY 1993 Residence 4,550 sq.ft. 5,615 sq.ft. 5,615 sq.ft. Garage 600 sq.ft. 875 sq.ft. 875 sq.ft. Pool/Spa 450 sq.ft. 364 sq.ft. 364 sq.ft. Stable 450 sq.ft. 450 sq.ft. 45.0 sq.ft. Service Yard -- 55 sq.ft. 72 sq.ft. Total Bldg. Pad Size 20,573 sq.ft. 24,498 sq.ft. 24,220 sq.ft. Res. Bldg. Pad Size 19,573 sq.ft. 22,498 sq.ft. 23,220 sq.ft. Residential Bldg. Coverage 28.6% 29.4% 29.8% Total Structures 6,050 sq.ft. 7,359 sq.ft. 7,376 sq.ft. Percent Total Structures 6.9% 8.4% 8.5% Total Lot Coverage 16,010 sq.ft. 19,344 sq.ft. 17,461 sq.ft. Percent Total Lot Coverage 18.3% 22.2% 20.0% Grading CUT 1591.66 cu.yds. 2590 cu.yds. 2480 cu.yds. FILL 1591.66 cu.yds. 2590 cu.yds. 2480 cu.yds. Printed on Recycled Paper. • • ol JUL February 23, 1993 Dr. & Mrs. James Scharffenberger 940 - 2nd Street Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 460B. 5 Appaloosa Lane (Lot 106-D-RH) Request for a Modification to a request for a Variance to permit the encroachment of a stable and corral in the front yard and a request for Site Plan Review for a proposed new single family residence. Dear Dr. & Mrs. Scharffenberger: 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. March 13. 1993. The Planning Commission will meet at 7:30 A.M. at the project site. The site must be prepared with a full-size silhouette of the proposed project showing the roof ridge and hearing walls. We have enclosed Silhouette Construction Guidelines. The owner and/or representative should be present to answer any questions regarding the proposal. Feel free to call me at (310) 377-1521 if you have any questions. Sincerely, left a74 LOLA M. UNG PRINCIPAL PLANNER LMU.mjs Fieldtr.sch Attachment: Silhouette Construction Guidelines cc: Mr. David C. Breiholz Printed on Recycled Paper. Cu• y ofieoQfinp 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. The Silhouette shall not remain erected for a period longer than one week unless directed by the Planning Commission or City Council. 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 or incomplete silhouettes are constructed. 7. 'If you have any futher questions contact the Planning Department Staff at (213) 377-1521. rs :. 'tom •-- SECTION fir -41 it gi PLAN • • City ol Rolling ek February 4, 1993 Dr. James Scharffenberger 940 2nd Street Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 460B, Request for a modification to a request for a Variance to permit the encroachment of a stable and corral in the front yard and a request for Site Plan Review for a proposed new single family residence•for property at 5 Appaloosa Lane, Rolling Hills, CA; more precisely, Lot 106-D-RH. Dear Dr. Scharffenberger: Your application for Zoning Case No. 460B has been set for public hearing consideration by the Planning Commission at their meeting on Tuesday, February 16, 1993. 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, February 12, 1993. Please arrange to pick up the staff report to preview it prior to the hearing. Please call me at (310) 377-1521 if you have any questions. Sincerely, 41 LOLA M. UNGAR PRINCIPAL PLANNER cc: Mr. David C. Breiholz Printed on Recycled Paper.